Some States Seek to Cap Property Taxes
Woohoo! Top 10, baby!
Another living in tax hell story!!
How about matching this up with the way other states not listed in this graph pay for the services residents use and require. That always is a missing part to these types of stories/graphs.
As for me I do not feel I live in tax hell. I understand why I pay taxes, and am fine with that. I might add that my property taxes actually fell by $46 this year. They could have went up and I still would feel the same way.
I value our roads, schools, colleges, and way of life, and am more than willing to pay for it.
I own a home in a rather high property tax area, and know that this is home in more ways than just the house.
Might the naysayers who complain endlessly need to find another state with lower services to live?
Posted by Gregory on January 05, 2009 at 1928 hrs
Tell me… have you ever lived in another state?
Posted by Owen on January 05, 2009 at 1936 hrs
There’s just no rage here, no fire to stoke. You saw it in the grand failure of TABOR, which was then followed by two cycles in which voters have dumped Republicans from the Legislature like yesterday’s garbage.
Nobody likes taxes (well, maybe Susan Sarandon). But like Gregory points out, most voters value schools, roads, libraries, etc. What these largely suburban, largely middle to upper-middle class voters want to know is that the money they turn over to the government to spend on those priorities is spent wisely and efficiently.
Sometimes it is. Lots of times it’s not. The failure of Republicans lately is that they generally lack sound arguments for how to spend the money better (which, in effect, leads to spending less money in the first place). Too many Republicans have fallen into the trap of pushing cuts with no idea of how to implement those cuts in a way that is satisfactory to voters.
Building a winning message that is fiscally conservative isn’t hard. Start by figuring out better ways to do things that people actually want government to do. Don’t come out and say “I want to cut X by 10%.” Tell voters that you’re going to change X by doing A, B, and C, so that we can save 10% of the cost and give that back to them.
It’s the same message, except one works with voters in the middle and the other scares them into the arms of the other team.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 1942 hrs
Where’s the chart for income tax? Sales tax? Gas tax? Let’s be complete, shall we?
Posted by folkbum on January 05, 2009 at 2008 hrs
My first impression is that wages are too low in this state. It’s time to get those money-grubbing CEO’s to start paying people their worth.
Jay,
The tax haters (read those that want life handed to them) don’t want the inconvenient facts to get out. You know that by now.
Posted by capper on January 05, 2009 at 2021 hrs
Another way to look at it, Gregory, is whether or not you think the current taxation is enough. There are plenty (of Democrats) who are shooting for Wisconsin to be #1 on that list - and not by a small margin either. They’re shooting for the moon when it comes to property taxes. Just take a look at the massive school and spending referenda that pop up every few months.
We live in California and pay 1% property tax. We never get reassessed. The tax is calculated on the purchase price of the home and stays there… for life (or until you sell it to the next guy). And that is only because of a homeowners property tax revolt in the 70’s that amended the state constitution. Had those wonderful people not done that back then I’m sure CA would be right up there with NY and NJ on the list.
My wife and I were looking around downtown/East side of MKE to buy a condo to use when we visit, and possibly to sell for a profit in 5-10 years. We couldn’t find one worthy - and the reason is due to the property tax problem. The value of the properties would have had to go up unrealistically fast to simply break even.
Property (at least in Milwaukee) is a depreciating asset - like a car - and that’s after this downturn. Crazy. People are better off renting in that area until property taxes go down, or until the next housing bubble. Just be sure to get in and sell early in the bubble before the reassessments catch up.
Posted by David on January 05, 2009 at 2036 hrs
Wages are low because of the shortage of high paying jobs. The Wisconsin business climate has chased out most of the entrepreneurs long time ago.
When you listen to the rhetoric of people like Russ Decker and those on this blog you know why.
Only 7% of the people in this state could be considered wealthy.
We have fine Universities that educate fine people and many stay here but we do not havem any outsiders, to speak of, that want to come here and establish businesses.
Think of the people that come here for education then leave.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2044 hrs
Dohnal,
Don’t you think that if employers offered decent paying jobs, that would attract people. I don’t know where you got that 7% number, or if I even want to know, but I hope you wore gloves when you picked it.
Posted by capper on January 05, 2009 at 2056 hrs
How did people in Wisconsin become convinced they receive better services than the rest of the country?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2103 hrs
How did people in Wisconsin become convinced they receive better services than the rest of the country?
Because the Union told them so.
Posted by dad29 on January 05, 2009 at 2114 hrs
If you do not have companies that have decent paying jobs available cause of the poor business climate in Wisconsin who is going to offer the jobs?
Only Waukesha county has an entrepreneurial spirit in this state and attract great companies that pay good jobs.
In Madison you attract some good paying jobs cause of the state and the University but through out the state, in the sticks, there are very few and none on the way.
Doyle and Decker are far more proud of all of the welfare that they have created and do nothing to attract good businesses.
They brag about all of the people that have joined Badger Plus but say nothing about finding jobs to get those people off of welfare.Dumb!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2122 hrs
There’s just no rage here, no fire to stoke.
That is the simple truth. The people (unlike business) in the state of WI do not care very much about taxes. That is unfortunate because being frugal is a virtue. RecessS is correct (quite a lot recently) about a plan to curb spending instead of just talking about cutting. I think it may be couragous to talk about cutting X, Y, or so and so, by 10% but that person would not get 20% of the vote.
You are dealing with voters who cannot manage their credit card debt so they can’t make the logical step to see that the same thing can happen to their government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2153 hrs
I am a WI native, lived there for almost 40 years. I accepted a transfer to NC in mid-2008. My experience right now is that, the overall cost of living down here is less than WI. Services really aren’t that different. We have roads and sewer/water and such. Basically, the school-funding formula is different. While still complicated, schools are funded more from the sales tax and the lottery than from property taxes.
Our old house was on 1/3 acre and was 1222 sq ft. We paid about $3200 in property taxes in Sussex. Our new house is new construction, 1850 sq ft on 1/3 acre. We paid $2000 more for it than our old house sold for and our taxes were $1300 for the year. Our insurance went from $450 per year to $1200 per year (we need a separate wind/hail policy for the hurricanes). Utilities (water/electric/gas) went from about $300 per month to $200 per month. Sales tax went from 5.1 or 5.6% to 6.75%, but they give us a couple of “tax holiday” weekends for school supplies (including computers) and clothes.
The politics down here are just as FUBAR as WI, but the climate completely kicks ass. btw - it was sunny and 69 here today
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2228 hrs
See, I’ve lived in other states. In Texas, I didn’t pay any income tax and my property taxes were less than 50% of what I pay now. My sales tax was higher (8%, I think). Overall, my tax burden was easily 30% lower than it is now. Yet my trash got picked up. The roads were great. Crooks were in jail. Schools were great (yes, the averages are lower but that’s because of the large immigrant community and the large cities that Wisconsin doesn’t have). Parks were nice. Lakes were well kept. Beaches were nice. Etc. Every state has its problems but those in Wisconsin who claim that the tax burden is necessary to maintain their “quality of life” are fools.
Posted by Owen on January 05, 2009 at 2240 hrs
How often does it snow in Texas?
Posted by capper on January 05, 2009 at 2243 hrs
Not often, but the asphalt roads require more frequent resurfacing due to the heat. Are you saying that snow removal constitutes 30% of government spending?
Posted by Owen on January 05, 2009 at 2245 hrs
First off, the state of Wisconsin comes in dead middle when it comes to spending, so it’s not the taxes but the way we tax.
So how about a couple of constructive suggestions.
1) We have a very low rate of corporate taxation versus most other states.
2) We spend twice as much on our prison system than Minnesota. Working towards parity could have a big impact on our budget.
And hey Dohnal, you probably haven’t been to the west side of Madison. Thanks to tech transfer from the U (which you guys lust to cut and the research park run by Tommy’s former chief of staff) they are doing darn nicely and actually better than Waukesha. Those are private sector jobs by the way.
And JJ, bet you pay that sales tax on every thing you buy, including the big one food.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2248 hrs
Our corporate income taxes are about in the middle but the property taxes are high. In Ireland companies pay about 12% combined but in the US it is about 43%, big difference. Wisconsin’s is high when you take all the combined taxes forced upon us by the idiot liberals and not reduced by the GOP.
The fact is that there is not a big aristocratic ,high income group in Wisconsin, they head to Arizona, Florida and Texas.
My folks moved to Texas in 1983 and their spendable income se by 25%, a lot of money when you live on about $35,000 yearly plus the nice weather.
How many wealthy Wisconsinites have their residency in those states and come back her for the summer and fall?
Eventually they establish their homes down there and never come back to give to our treasury.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2259 hrs
The problem hinted at in this thread is not where we are today, but where we might be in a couple years. Business is leaving in droves for a variety of reasons. Some because of an anti-business environment. Others because it went to China. Others because of the poor climate.
We’re headed for a brick wall here where the tax base won’t support the level of public pay and services provided. I won’t just bag on the teachers union, as it is now possible to drive the most crazy beautiful super roads everywhere in the State north of Fond Du Lac thanks to our road builders lobby and Tommy Thompson.
Let’s make a deal. We’ll keep the tax rate high and all these services, but do what Patrick McIlhernan advocated in the Journal yesterday and make Wisconsin a right to work State to try and attract business.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/37022529.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2348 hrs
There is a tax on some food, but it is 2%, not the full 6.75%. Our gas tax is lower as well. Overall, the cost of living is less here.
I looked at the overall tax burden compared to other states when we moved. Wi was in the 30s overall, NC was in the high teens. Not great, but better. WI isn’t the worst, but still isn’t great.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0004 hrs
Owen,
I am merely pointing out that there are some needs in Wisconsin that aren’t applicable in Texas. As for the resurfacing, might I point out that Texas has a lot of refineries, and asphalt is a petroleum product, so they don’t have to worry about the shipping costs nearly as much. And they don’t have to pay for salt, plowing, repairing the multiple and recurring potholes both with cold patch and then a more permanent patch in the warmer months.
We also don’t have the air quality issues that Texas has.
We also don’t have the refineries, the oil companies, etc. that pay their people a lot better. Remember, one of the main reasons Palin was so popular in Texas was the big checks (read bribes) she was able to give the citizens with money from the oil companies.
If cow dung became a hot commodity, WI would be doing much better.
Posted by capper on January 06, 2009 at 0013 hrs
I moved to Las Vegas and taxes are one of the main reasons. No income tax, much, much lower property taxes, sales a little higher but no tax on food items so i believe Wisconsin is a tax hell. Yes, we rely on casinos and they are hurting so our state budget is getting slashed. But to claim that Wisconsin taxes are ok is just plain crazy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0152 hrs
Here are the incomes based on the figures of the chart provided. What has happened to the incomes in some Eastern states that where always high income states. Who is going to pay for all these bailouts?
New Jersey 65,468.25New Hampshire 43,702.13
Vermont 33,699.79
Connecticut 45,696.20
New York 36,617.64
Illinois 33,644.96
Wisconsin 30,388.25
Rhode Island 35,204.19
Massachusetts 34,702.81
Nebraska 22,064.31
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0727 hrs
Greoory:
A good friend lives in Shawnee Mission. His house is twice as large as ours, his taxes less than 1/2 of ours. Shawnee Mission has schools, garbage pick-up, police protection, fire protection, paved roads, libraries, etc. And by the way, their gasoline is .29 to .35 cents less per gallon. Now tell me again why Wisconsin is not a tax hell?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0859 hrs
I don’t know capper, I was in WI for Christmas. It didn’t look like the government was terribly concerned with plowing and salting for the couple of snow-falls that hit during my stay.
I think the bigger problems with the roads in WI is that Doyle keeps stealing from the fund to pay for other goodies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0909 hrs
But to claim that Wisconsin taxes are ok is just plain crazy.
Absolutely. The level of services are comparable to just about anywhere else.
The litmis test for Wisonsin’s business environment it: Why would any business want to locate or remain here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0931 hrs
The tax haters (read those that want life handed to them)
Capper - think about that for a minute. The tax haters - i.e. conservatives want everything handed to them? Is that your impression?
Lets see. We are not the welfare rats that refuse to work. We are not the socialist that expect big government to fix all of our problems. We are not those that want the government to provide health care? We are not the union thugs that extort others to pay us 25% more because of the sole reason that we belong to a union. We are not WEAC who believes that we can only succeed 30% of the time and get big raises every year.
Yeah it is the conservatives waiting for life to be handed to them
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0937 hrs
Clint:
Outstanding! Conservatism in a nutshell. No comeback for that. Wish I wrote it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0943 hrs
Also not mentioned (recently) is how quick communities are to reassess when property values go up, yet fail to reassess when property values go down. Should we not be refunded the difference plus interest?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1009 hrs
Assessments have nothing to do with property taxes, it is the relationship of your property to the other properties that makes your tax. If assessments double and spending stays the same your taxes will stay the same unless your property goes up faster than the others in the area.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1016 hrs
The tax haters (read those that want life handed to them) don’t want the inconvenient facts to get out. You know that by now.
What a warped perverted world of politics we are coming to when someone can, with a straight face, claim that people who want to keep money THEY earned are “wanting life handed to them”.
You’ve got to be kidding capper? We’ve got people demanding free healthcare. We’ve got people who don’t pay taxes demanding money and politicians like Obama promising it to them. We’ve got schools that spend money pay/bribe kids to come get a free breakfast.
You can emotion up the issue all you want calling people “tax haters” but you aren’t just painting with a broad brush, you’re just sprayin it all over the place my friend.
How about matching this up with the way other states not listed in this graph pay for the services residents use and require. That always is a missing part to these types of stories/graphs.
Is it? What services do residents pay for, or not get in other states that we as the state with the highest property tax as a percent of home value enjoy courtesy of our government?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1033 hrs
Paid my taxes last week. I live in a first ring Milwaukee sidewalk suburb. Make less than the median income for my community. Live in a house smaller than many in my community. The private sector could not provide the services that public sector does for the money I paid in taxes. School for my kids alone would eat up the bill. Then I’d need private security and fire protection, road repair and plowing, parks, libraries, water, airport fees, man, I know I’d be paying a whole lot more.
John Galt is right when he says the voters don’t want this change. Not when I see my parks falling apart around me, public transportation being eviscerated, school districts in the red across the state, and fewer firefighters in the firehouses.
I’d also support Recess Supervisor’s position that if you’re going to cut (or make government work more efficiently), then you’d best produce a plan. Those are the cuts that are going to have a more positive impact. Otherwise, I’ll vote against you.
I actually think there are good aspects of the recent conservative rule in Wisconsin. I just think the negative ones outweigh the positive ones. I would love to see Owen and Recess (or Dohnal and JGalt) discuss what a reasonable level of taxation must be. Hell I’d even support mandating my legislators be there for the discussion. I’m sure we could talk Northwest Mutual or Harley into funding the forum. You know set up a banquet table and have pitchers of water around, it’d be great.
Posted by Mike on January 06, 2009 at 1053 hrs
Mike:
Per 24 & 31:
What services do residents pay for, or not get in other states that we as the state with the highest property tax as a percent of home value enjoy courtesy of our government?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1105 hrs
It is very simple, just what the state of Washington did a few years back.
They determined what they could spend, last years budget plus an inflationary increase,
then they drew up a list of what state government has to do and went down the list till they ran out of money. Everything underneath got cut.
If all of our governmental bodies did that, then got salaries and benefits under control we would be in great shape.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1115 hrs
Mike: Thank you for the compliment but my point was the people don’t fight tax hikes out of ignorance and apathy.
My point on this blog has always been, unless conservatives educate the masses in order to change their voting habits, there is really no resistance, restraint, or accountability in raising the tax rate or cutting programs that don’t work in order to pay for those that do. Also, unless they start running articulate and pragmatic people for office, the mountain will be twice as hard to climb.
“The tax haters (read those that want life handed to them) don’t want the inconvenient facts to get out. You know that by now.” ...Of course some people cannot be educated but the good news is you only need one more vote than the other guy. Just ask Al Franken.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1125 hrs
bajaskier- I don’t know. I also don’t really care, because I am a Wisconsin native and will likely always stay here. I’ll always be interested in how we can do what we do better and even more affordably.
Galt- The compliment stands. I know exactly the point you are trying to make on this board, and its one that, while you and I advocate different policies, we agree on. Voters should be involved and know what the hell they are voting for. Blind (read stupid) votes are just as bad or worse than no vote. Hence the importance of public dialogue along the lines that I proposed in #32. That’s how dumb voters get smart, by having their veiws challenged. If I sat myself in a room with capper and Kieth Schmitz and Gregory, I wouldn’t leave with views any stronger, just reinforced. However, if I had to justify my views to you, Dohnal and, say, bajaskier, I’d have a much more informed and probably more intelligent view of my opponents and, thus, my own view.
for what its worth…
Posted by Mike on January 06, 2009 at 1138 hrs
Mike - I’ll answer the question in #33 for you - the answer is nothing.
We pay higher taxes here because the voters like to flush money down a rathole, and because we have a very weak Republican state party that is full of Rhinos.
All you need to do is look next door to Michigan to see what will happen to us if the Dems raise all the taxes they want to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1248 hrs
Well, nobody likes an underachiever! With a little hard work from Doyle and Co., maybe we can move up a few notches. (snark).
My brother recently purchased property in a warmer climate in a quiet community south of mason/dixon.
stats:
marketvalue: $225,000
property tax: $629/year
sales tax: 5%
income tax: noneThey pick up his trash weekly, they send cops and firefighters when needed, and the roads are pothole free. The local gov’t employees are non-unionized, and they can’t cash in their sick days for a million bucks when they retire at age 50. Anyone detect a pattern here?
Posted by joeythelovesponge on January 06, 2009 at 1336 hrs
But Joey -
it is the snow… it is all about the snow… I bet that community doesn’t have to plow the roads. And that is why their taxes are half….
[/sarcasm]
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 1338 hrs
I wonder how many of you responding to this thread have run for an elected position? It is easy to criticize the elected officials until you are one of them. These people generally make little or nothing to try to help there community and it is no wonder that very few people want to do it when they have raging assholes in their face at every turn.
We as a whole society are wasteful and our government is no different. When confronted with cutting programs the public outcry is greater than the middle to upper class crying for tax relief. These people that get tagged as welfare rats by some on this thread are not often the lazy bastards you want to believe they are. I am not saying they are not there, just that they are not as numerous as you would tell yourselves. Many people are legitimately disabled or mentally challenged therefore they are not able to work. When you label them all as freeloaders you should place yourself in their position for a moment. Have a little compassion.
As for the solution to fair taxation, you have given some reasonable solutions in this thread but they won’t happen because it would require raising one tax(sales) to offset the other(property). With all the talk of never raising any taxes and promises made by the GOP Assembly being their calling card as taxes continued to rise, it is no wonder that they are out of power. At least the Dems don’t promise to cut taxes when they know that is not possible. I hope that they will spend responsibly but still pay the bills so the deficit can get whittled down during the next session even if that requires an increase in taxes of some sort. We need responsible spending to do that, not whining and finger pointing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2212 hrs
Clint, xxpilot-
All you have to do is read McIlheran or listen to Sykes or read almost any right wing blog. The right wants their highways going to everywhere, but don’t want to pay for it. They want their roads plowed and salted, but don’t want to pay for it. They want their police protection, their fire departments, their paramedics. They want the criminals locked up. They want the mentally ill locked up. They want TIF’s for their big box stores.
But they don’t want to pay for any of it.
JJ-
Let me guess…When you were in WI, it was Dodge or Washington County. They are terrible at road maintenance.
Posted by capper on January 06, 2009 at 2227 hrs
Some people are so full of crap. Conservatives are happy to pay for all of those things, that is the state’s job. It’s all of the expenditures, salaries and bennies that come after that is what we are against.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2255 hrs
Dohnal, take a laxative and you won’t be. Do you expect the workers to be grateful to do the work for you? Maybe you expect them to pay you for the privilege of plowing your street?
The really ironic part is that Dohnal and people like him have no beef with the CEOs taking lavish benefits and perks, just don’t let the workers in on it.
What a joke!
Posted by capper on January 06, 2009 at 2258 hrs
I am amazed at how conservatives feel about government, and the need to pay taxes. Regardless of whether it is federal or state taxes,,,,gripe….gripe…..gripe!
So for those who hate government funded programs I have a few thoughts.
I suggest you haul your butt to the curb and gather up your trash and find someplace to put it rather than have a city service pick it up for you. When your spouse has a heart attack don’t think of calling a tax funded rescue squad as you can just throw him/her where you put the trash. Sorry we have no rescue squad for those who feel govt. services are too many! When you need skin cancer removed form your face haul a frickin knife out and start chopping since you will not want a doctor who used federal grants for his medical license to use his skills on you. With no meat inspectors paid for with tax dollars why not just put yourself up on the garbage mound too as sooner or later you will die from tainted food. And since you are opposed to govt services you will also not need Medicare or SS so we hope you can live on a prayer and song.
ENOUGH WITH THE GRIPING OVER DOING YOUR DUTY AS CITIZENS!
And have a nice day.
Posted by Gregory on January 06, 2009 at 2347 hrs
OK, this is strange. I am going to stick up for those on the “tax hating right” for a moment. I, as one who decries the cuts in services that have come as a result of our state’s latest round of tax freezes, am uncomfortable with the way Gregory and capper are portraying some on the right (although capper does have some humor in his approach).
While Charlie and McIl. can take a hike as far as I am concerned, I’ve never seen anything out of either one of them to indicate they are griping about doing their duty. It’s just that they see their duty differently. I don’t think the right is unwilling to pay for the services, they just don’t want to pay as much as we have to pay.
So where is an acceptable level of taxation? The chart at the top of the page indicates that the “tax hell” we are in currently takes property taxes at the rate of about 4.7 percent of our income. That’s less than the sales tax. Where is a better level? Then let’s build a plan to get the same job done for that cost. There are certainly plenty of variables that make the simple 4.7% calculations apples to another state’s oranges (fee structures, climate, revenue streams, etc.). But if we start to talk about actual programs and real funds, then we begin to see how difficult it is to legislate tax policy. This is just why those in the debate should stay informed and share priorities as much as possible, not call names and impugn the reputations and motivations of their opponents.
Oh shit now I feel like I’m gonna ask for a group hug next…I quit…
Posted by Mike on January 07, 2009 at 0019 hrs
So let me see, Gregory, the naysayers should move to other states, but when they do you then send your governer to the feds to coerce the money out of them anyways?
My duty to the state now involves stealing from future generations?
My duty to the state is simply to pay whatever the state wishes, no questions asked?
When Wisconsinites speak of their great governmental services they broadcast their ignorance to those who have lived elsewhere.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 0021 hrs
Gregory - from #44 -
Nobody is complaining about getting their trash picked up… they are complaining about the fact that we are forced to pay premium wages for a job that if it were not a union protected job and paid ‘market’ wage - it could be done as well for half…
Moveforward - from #40
These people generally make little or nothing ... and it is no wonder that very few people want to do it when they have raging assholes in their face at every turn.
You obviously have no idea how much the elected officials in milwaukee city/county make…. I couldn’t read anything else that you wrote after that…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 0849 hrs
I close with this simple point: Why should public employees have better salaries, better sick days, better pensions(we have none), better vacations, better medical benefits and they can’t get fired than we, their employers do?
Check school expenditures, over 70% is in those items>
I rest my case.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 0906 hrs
Why should public employees have better salaries, better sick days, better pensions(we have none), better vacations, better medical benefits and they can’t get fired than we, their employers do?
So your answer is to bring them down, not work to lift everybody else up? Nice, Dohnal.
You may then want to ask yourself why public employees and their unions tend to be liberal and Democratic and believe in better salaries, sick days, health care, etc. for all Americans, and why conservatives and Republicans are the ones who want to take those away from people.
Posted by folkbum on January 07, 2009 at 0914 hrs
One more word about the wage thing esp. regarding teachers (full disclosure—I am a public high school teacher). Be careful what you ask for in this regard. I know my benefit package is generous, and like folkblum, wonder why we can’t find a system that allows for more, not fewer, people to get these kinds of benefits.
The whole better job description than the public, my boss, issue? I am better educated, have more marketable skills and do a more valuable service than most members of the population. I earn my pay. Bring on merit pay, but again, be careful what you ask for. I am not alone in standing to gain mightily from a merit pay system. You wanna pay me more? Cuz I’ll earn it.
Posted by Mike on January 07, 2009 at 1058 hrs
You obviously have no idea how much the elected officials in milwaukee city/county make…. I couldn’t read anything else that you wrote after that…
The larger cities officials are the exception to local officials income from serving the public. When you get away from the cities you have people who are basically volunteering ther time, collecting meeting pay and some mileage.
It would seem that if officials are paid that much in the bigger cities that more people would like to run for those positions. Have you ever run for any of those high paid lucrative positions? I think you should so you can see what it is like on the other side.
If they are not doing their job then they should be recalled or voted out but it seems that the effort for many is not worth it. That is why you have the representation you do. you can change it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1119 hrs
Mike, here’s what you can do to get that big fat raise you talked about. Quit your job as a teacher, take your valuable skill set with you, and compete in the free market for a higher paying job with better benefits…btw, you will no longer have the entire summer off.
Good luck with that!
Posted by joeythelovesponge on January 07, 2009 at 1122 hrs
I am better educated, have more marketable skills and do a more valuable service than most members of the population.
Lets deconstruct this for a bit then…
I am better educated
By this I assume that the only “education” you count is degrees from universities? Thats a touch short sighted my friend (but not a-typical from someone in academia to have such a plebian definition of “educaiton”.
have more marketable skills
Really? You know, my wish for you my friend is that you step into the business world. (and by business world I mean any profession outside of government/academia). I think you’ll find that what you think are marketable skills on paper and what are marketable skills on the free market REALLY are 2 very different things.
I’ll tell you what, the biggest misconception I see now from applicants we recruit out of college is that they think a degree is an ‘entitlement’. I’m only 34, so this “a degree is automatically wealth/success misconception must have really festered in the “me” generation, cause gen-x’ers like myself, I didn’t see it.
Of course I suppose after years and years of shoe-horning everyone and anyone into college with all the financial aid one could think of and the constant brainwashing that “education is the key” without looking at what “education” really is. Its not suprising that we have way to many degrees and not enough intelligent individuals with truly capable skills.
and do a more valuable service than most members of the population.
Ok, now you’ve moved to just plain arrogant. Who are you to say your service is ‘more valuable’ than other peoples’. What a egotistical and ignorant comment. You know… my first ‘real’ job was at McDonalds, and I SPECIFICALLY recall the lifers who flipped burgers commenting on how “this place couldn’t run without them”. EVERYONE seems to think their job is the one that makes the world go round.
I mean I’ll be honest, I see the output of the education system we have and say that by and large you REALLY ought to measure your ‘value’ by results, not by your ‘paper diplomas’ or other artificial measures of acheivement.
So lets see… We’ve got arrogant teachers who think their job is ‘more valuable’ than anyone elses… We’ve got police, fire, and other “first responders” who think their jobs are more valuable than anyone elses…
I’m sure the nurses and doctors will be jumping in here for “MVP” designations soon eough…
Anyone who isn’t a burden on other people has a valuable position. Anyone who gets up in the morning drops one leg at a time in their pants, zips up and goes off to support themselves is just as valuable as the next. In the grand scheme of things. you have NO value to the world. Everyone is replaceable. Your only value is to yourself. In that regard, you are a peer to those around you. No better, no worse. To suggest your job is more valuabel than the rest of the population is perhaps one of the most arrogant things I’ve heard on this board before.
have more marketable skills and do a more valuable service than most members of the population.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1125 hrs
So your answer is to bring them down, not work to lift everybody else up?
Jay - it isn’t about lowering/bringing them down. It is about what their efforts/skills would be worth in an open and free market.
We have had the discussion before - but why do good teachers need a union?? Unions only protect the weak & bad teachers.
Sorry - trash collection is an unskilled job - why do they have compensation packages that they do? Why do they need a union? Why does any public employee need a union?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1132 hrs
xxpilot-
I meant both kinds of education, the formal kind and the life lessons kind. I’ve been well-educated both ways.I completely know what you mean regarding marketable skills and the difference between “on paper” skills, and those valued by the marketplace.
And the arrogance charge was accurate enough. I will say this, though. 1) I almost didn’t send it because it was a little arrogant. 2) Arrogance in the public sector is cockiness and a can do attitude in the private sector. Sadly there’s a gender element to it as well. Arrogance, cockiness, can-do attitude, whatever it is called, is a male attribute that roughly translates to bitchiness in women. Those different conceptions (double standards) are wrong. I wouldn’t quibble with a word of your response to my arrogance.
Capper might ask, if the burger flipper and the teacher have the same worth to society, shouldn’t we treat them the same. Which way should all those folks be treated? Would the ideal be to bring everybody up to the standard of good pay good benefits, or down to the standard of sketchy pay with little to no benefits? To that question, I don’t presume to have an answer.
Posted by Mike on January 07, 2009 at 1356 hrs
Re: 41
You are so full of it!!! Did you boither to read any of the other comments? Other states have roads, plowing, ploice, fire, libraries, etc. with 1/2 to 1/3 the rate of taxation! What is it about that fact you cannot comprehend?!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1404 hrs
Would the ideal be to bring everybody up to the standard of good pay good benefits, or down to the standard of sketchy pay with little to no benefits?
The ideal should be to pay people what the job is worth. For example, I work in a field that is highly specialized. There are probably less than 5,000 people in the nation who know how to do it and only a few hundred that are really good at it. As such, those folks make a very good salary. On the flip side, a burger flipper is a low-skill job that you can train almost anybody to do. There isn’t a need to pay them as much because they are easily replaceable. If the labor market tightens up and you can’t find anybody to flip burgers at the wage you are paying, then it’s time to increase wages.
As to teachers specifically, most districts have no problem at all filling teaching spots except for a few specific fields (math, physics, etc.) Districts like MPS struggle a bit because many of the schools are dangerous (and the stupid residency rules). But teaching offers a lot of benefits that attract people beyond the compensation. They get a lot of time off. They are on the same schedule as their kids. It’s very rewarding to shape young minds. Etc.
What I’m getting to is that most districts pay too much for teachers. As evidence of this, I’d point you to all of the private schools in those districts that have great teachers and pay them a lot less. If we allowed the labor market to function properly, you, Mike, might very well make a lot more money if you deserve it, and that would be fantastic. But your salary would be offset by being able to pay the crappy teachers or the teachers in fields in which there is an ample supply of labor much less.
This is why I think that whenever I hear a teacher oppose merit pay, I assume that they suck at their job. If you are good at what you do, then you should have no problem reaping the rewards of your excellence.
Posted by Owen on January 07, 2009 at 1426 hrs
if the burger flipper and the teacher have the same worth to society, shouldn’t we treat them the same
I didn’t say they do have the same worth. I merely stated that I know for a FACT that the burger flipper THINKS the job he does “makes the place run”.
What people think and what really is are often 2 different things.
As far as “treat”, I’m not sure what you mean by that. by “treat” the same if you mean pay the same… no… its not for me or you to decide who gets payed what. its for the market to decide.
If by “treat the same” you mean treat each with the same respect, sure. I can’t stand people who think they are better or more important than other people. I hate when I take girls to restaurants and they are condescending to the wait staff. I can’t stand people who are condescending to the people bagging your groceries, or the clerk waiting on you at a retail store.
Would the ideal be to bring everybody up to the standard of good pay good benefits, or down to the standard of sketchy pay with little to no benefits? To that question, I don’t presume to have an answer.
We don’t have to decide. We have this little thing called a free market that has to this point (in the absence of angels to glide over us and decide who deserves what) been the best regulator of who deserves what. What things are worth more and what things are worth less. People are free to purchase, free to choose, and the details work themselves out as they ought to based upon these market forces.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1432 hrs
capper - I was in Milwaukee, Waukesha, Washington, Dodge, Columbia, Green Lake and Marquette. They all kind of sucked - the worst was Green Lake. When talking to my friends and family, they indicated that counties and municipalities didn’t plan for snow again this year and were already running out.. Bad decisions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1832 hrs
Owen, xxpilot-
I am asking this question honestly. Hasn’t the free market allowed teachers, through the union, to get an unfair advantage?
just a thought… Myabe I’m not seeing it right…
mchPosted by Mike on January 07, 2009 at 1944 hrs
Coupla points:
why do good teachers need a union?? Unions only protect the weak & bad teachers.
Clint, it’s because bad administrators are a dime a dozen. I am a good teacher (so says many a student and colleague and supervisor). Yet I have sat across from a principal as he threatened to end my career because I had—as part of my duty on a district-mandated committee—publicly disagreed with him. I luckily didn’t have to call the union that time—or any of the other times I’ve gone head-to-head with some of the cock-ups I’ve worked under—but I am glad to know it was there if I needed it.
I have had principals bring a horde of friends with them from their previous schools, squeezing out talented teachers to make way for the cronies. If those so squozen hadn’t had contractual protection, they’d have been pounding the pavement. Your wife teaches in MPS, no? I’m sure she has stories.
And if you think this is limited to MPS, I was run out of a suburban post my first year of teaching by a principal who had no clue what she was doing—so said her APs.
Hasn’t the free market allowed teachers, through the union, to get an unfair advantage?
One thing I do not understand is how conservatives like to pretend or believe that unions exist somehow outside of the market or are otherwise unconnected to the market. The most basic transaction Capital must consider is how it interacts with Labor, and Labor in turn faces the same decision. When Capital wants to collude and depress the costs of Labor, it is—according to our conservative friends—the Market at work. When Labor chooses to collude, it is somehow akin to blowing up the Market.
The fact is that unionized labor is among the most productive labor available (see, for example, studies of auto workers and the construction trades), unions have led the advance of worker safety rules and regulations, and wage decline and stagnation in this country in the last 30 years directly parallels the decline of union labor—the average American earns less today in constant dollars because the unions have been busted.
What I’m getting to is that most districts pay too much for teachers. As evidence of this, I’d point you to all of the private schools in those districts that have great teachers and pay them a lot less.
Two things, Owen. 1) Many private school teachers accept the trade-off of pay for the benefits that a private school offers: smaller classes, more parent help, self-selected and self-motivated students, fewer discipline problems, fewer special needs kids, etc. I would be willing to do my job for less if it were made easier, sure. 2) You get what you pay for. We already have a severe problem attracting smart, dedicated young people to teaching as a profession. If you cut the pay and benefits (and took away union job protections), how much smaller do you make the pool? You’re right that a lot of districts don’t have trouble getting applicants; what happens, though, some day when all those applicants are the dregs?
This is why I think that whenever I hear a teacher oppose merit pay, I assume that they suck at their job.
My opposition to merit pay is in its feasibility. Denver doesn’t have a bad system, but other places that have tried it have not seen it work well. Mostly, I consider how every year the students I teach test miserably. Of course, that they tested miserably the year before and will test miserably the year after helps me not throw myself off a bridge for being a horrible person, but I would hate to have my pay lie at the whim of some of the students I have taught. My schedule full of freshmen classes this year, in which I bust my ass daily, probably means I “merit” a helluvalot less than the senior “teacher” who hands out the books and then reads the newspaper.
Sorry - trash collection is an unskilled job - why do they have compensation packages that they do?
To me, those guys don’t get nearly enough. I wouldn’t do that job for near any amount of pay.
Oh, and anyone who wishes they had my sweet, easy gig, I renew my occasional offer to let you come teach my classes for a day and then tell me what you think I’m worth. Or my offer to get you into a program so you, too, can enjoy the luxurious and prestigious career of an MPS teacher.
Posted by folkbum on January 07, 2009 at 2116 hrs
The free market is anything but. I’ve already written on this, but no one is going to tell me that a professional athlete is worth millions of dollars to play a game, but cops, soldiers, farmers, teachers, and yes, social workers, are compared to burger flippers.
Owen, you may very well be among the best of the best of your highly specialized filed, but will it produce food for my family, keep my family safe, teach our children, or do anything that really matters? Or will it just help someone else get richer? I’m not knocking what you do, whatever that is, but do people’s lives hinge on it? It is our values on what jobs should be paid more that is screwy.
But it is people like Dohnal, Clint and Owen that make unions necessary. Otherwise, we’d be going back to pennies to the hour, no over time pay, 60+ hour work weeks and child labor.
All the unions really do is give the everyday person a chance against the monied special-self-interests.
Posted by capper on January 07, 2009 at 2142 hrs
Actually, I work in telecommunications. So if you like to actually call the police, hospital, etc. and have them answer, than yes…. it’s pretty important. And as for unions… I make a family supporting wage and have never been a member of a union. All unions do is protect the incompetent.
Posted by Owen on January 07, 2009 at 2202 hrs
The free market is anything but. I’ve already written on this, but no one is going to tell me that a professional athlete is worth millions of dollars to play a game, but cops, soldiers, farmers, teachers, and yes, social workers, are compared to burger flippers.
You’re warped…
I mean I agree that what athletes get paid is outrageous in my mind. But thats because I’m not a sports fan. I haven’t spent a penny of my money in the past 10 years attending a sporting event… But to others… Its different.
People enjoy being entertained and pay big dollars to see a game. Good athletes bring in big dollars. There are thousands and thousands of teachers that graduate from colleges every year. How many people can hit CC Sabathia’s fastball over a wall a few hundred feet away? Supply and demand my friend.
Otherwise, we’d be going back to pennies to the hour, no over time pay, 60+ hour work weeks and child labor.
Baseless conjecture… Millions and millions of workers make WELL above union wages without the aid of a union… You’re just making up emotional arguements that have no basis in fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 2209 hrs
If it weren’t for unions, your employer wouldn’t be even considering offering the family-supporting wage. You are actually riding the coattails of the unions, without ever paying the dues.
Posted by capper on January 07, 2009 at 2210 hrs
xxpilot-
Is it? Then why is WalMart always losing lawsuits for trying to deny OT pay or other benefits that they should be providing?
Posted by capper on January 07, 2009 at 2212 hrs
If you believe that, then you are truly ignorant of how business works. If that was true, then nobody would have ever made a decent wage before unions, but somehow they did.
Again, if you feel it necessary to band with your fellow employees to threaten management for more compensation/perks/etc., then it tells me that you are too crappy at your job to stand on your own two feet and negotiate an equitable comp plan.
Posted by Owen on January 07, 2009 at 2218 hrs
Otherwise, we’d be going back to pennies to the hour, no over time pay, 60+ hour work weeks and child labor.
Corporations are currently farming that out to our trading partners, we will get another crack at it after the depression
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 2222 hrs
If that was true, then nobody would have ever made a decent wage before unions, but somehow they did.
Yep, everybody was just happy as a clam and then one day they woke up and they were all union members?And you consider yourself a historian.
Try novelist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 2226 hrs
Owen-
You read a lot of warfare history. Try reading other histories and see what it was like for the non-union vs. union shops. The state had to pass a special law to make the Bureau of Child Welfare contract agencies pay more to their workers because the turnover rate was so high. Those workers are now making more as starting pay than I made after seven years, yet their turnover rates are still through the roof.
I got out of the child welfare system because I had to much self-respect and too much ethics to work in such a flawed system.
Furthermore, if unions were around to set the pace, do you really think that non-union shops would be offering comparable, if not higher salaries? Do you think that they would offer the big pay to talented people, or to their relatives, like they did in the olden days, regardless of their competencies, or lack thereof?
Posted by capper on January 07, 2009 at 2229 hrs
Actually, I read a lot of history, period. But let’s look at this a bit…
The state had to pass a special law to make the Bureau of Child Welfare contract agencies pay more to their workers because the turnover rate was so high. Those workers are now making more as starting pay than I made after seven years, yet their turnover rates are still through the roof.
Government agencies are hardly a model for a free labor market. Bad example.
Furthermore, if unions were around to set the pace, do you really think that non-union shops would be offering comparable, if not higher salaries?
Yes. There are entire industries with hardly a union among them that pay quite well. Look, I manage people for a living. I negotiate comp packages to obtain the talent that my company needs. The amount of comp necessary fluctuates with changes in the labor market and with the individual circumstances. A union short-circuits that and puts compensation into a place where it is unrelated to the actual value of the job. When that happens and the cost of the employee is more than the value of the job, people get fired.
Do you think that they would offer the big pay to talented people, or to their relatives, like they did in the olden days, regardless of their competencies, or lack thereof?
Yes, they would offer big pay (in relation to the value of the labor), but not regardless of their competencies. That’s the whole point. Employers should not be forced to pay the competent and the incompetent the same wage.
Posted by Owen on January 07, 2009 at 2238 hrs
Is that supposed to be the historical perspective?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 2244 hrs
The BMCW agencies are not government. They are private and non-union.
A union short-circuits that and puts compensation into a place where it is unrelated to the actual value of the job. When that happens and the cost of the employee is more than the value of the job, people get fired.
We’re seeing that in non-union shops a lot more. Unions prevent (usually) favoritism that gives incompetents more pay than they deserve. It also eliminates bullying tactics by the employer.
I’ve worked in union and non-union jobs in the same field and in different fields. While the pay is not always as good in the public sector (we never get a bonus, whether it is deserved or not), the equality is worth it.
Posted by capper on January 07, 2009 at 2245 hrs
On union’s doing nothing but protecting lousy employees: I have served as a union rep for ten years or more at building, district, and regional levels. I have never spent my time in that capacity protecting a bad teacher. Capper talks about unions protecting against bad admin’s. There is plenty of evidence there to support his claim, I’l let him tell those stories.
But there is another angle to this. It is fallacy that teachers can’t be fired. It is hard to fire teachers. It should be hard to fire people. But I have sat, as a union rep, in a meeting with another employee and an administrator. The first one was not doing his job well and the second one was. My job was to listen and document as the administrator who had done his homework basically fired the incompetent teacher. Admin had all his ducks in a row, and he did his job. An ineffective teacher dismissed. The union was just there to see to the employee’s rights. The good admin was too. It was hard, unpleasant, necessary work. And it got done.
So, ten plus years as a union guy and not an hour spent helping bad teachers keep their job. So excuse me if I don’t recognize the unions that you, who have never belonged to one, seem so sure about.
Posted by Mike on January 07, 2009 at 2246 hrs
sorry it was folkblum with the bad administrator stories, not capper. hope i didn’t ruffle any feathers confusing you two.
Posted by Mike on January 07, 2009 at 2253 hrs
The unions are largely irrelevant now.
That’s not to say they weren’t needed before - they absolutely were. All of us benefit from what they did. My dad is convinced that people will get shot again and all the other bad stuff from the early 1900s.
However, the difference is that now we have the EEOC, OSHA, Child Labor Laws, etc. etc. etc.
Regarding giving higher wages to family and cronies and such. In a global economy, if those family and cronies don’t perform, the company will fail. Except now, when the Feds decide which companies should fail and which will get taxpayer money.
I’ve never held a union job, but I earned my lowest wages working for a company with union labor. The dirty secret is that the salaried ranks get paid proportionally less and have different bennies, like higher co-pays, so that the company can pay for the union wages and bennies.
My spouse was in the union. They protect the inept, the unproductive, and the criminals. They breed mediocrity. Everyone makes the same wage, nobody gets fired, nobody has any incentive to go above and beyond. They actually had to backfill him when he left with someone completely, physically unable to do the job because he had seniority. So they pay someone to not do anything useful, including offered overtime. What a system!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 2254 hrs
Not at all. Jay and I are friends.
As for bad administrators - mine is always getting sued for failure to follow the contracts and the law.
Posted by capper on January 07, 2009 at 2255 hrs
sorry it was folkblum with the bad administrator stories, not capper. hope i didn’t ruffle any feathers confusing you two.
What rankles is the extra l you stick in my name.
Like you, Mike, I was a union rep for a number of years. However, I never protected any bad teachers, either. Never had to, despite the presence of some bad ones. You might find this story familiar.
Posted by folkbum on January 07, 2009 at 2317 hrs
Dang, I’m battin’ 1.000 on the screw-ups tonight. Thanks for the link.
Posted by Mike on January 07, 2009 at 2337 hrs
But it is people like Dohnal, Clint and Owen that make unions necessary. Otherwise, we’d be going back to pennies to the hour, no over time pay, 60+ hour work weeks and child labor.
...
All the unions really do is give the everyday person a chance against the monied special-self-interests.
...
If it weren’t for unions, your employer wouldn’t be even considering offering the family-supporting wage.
Capper - You are an ignorant person. You mean like the $33M self interest golf resort owned by the UAW. Get your head out of the DU. There are no unions in my field, yet we have some of the highest pay/compensation in Wisconsin. I would love to see the union pay structure for an employee who is skilled in C#, SQL, and .net.
Jay -
I wouldn’t do that job for near any amount of pay.
Neither would I, BUT there are plenty of people who would gladly do that job for $15/hour plus some form of insurance and a 401k. Yet the unions believe that it is a job worth 25%+ more and a pension.
bad administrators are a dime a dozen
I know the answer to this question - but will ask it anyway so that it is documented….
I have zero doubt that there are horrid admins that shouldn’t be much more than burger flippers managers. Strike that. They shouldn’t even manage burger flippers.
Where did the bad admins come from??
Oh yeah that is right - they were teachers. Were they bad teachers?? Ummm Yes (stereotypically) they were bad teachers as well.
Because of DPI rules to keep their teacher certs all teachers must continue their education. Bad teachers - who hate their jobs/lives/whatever - and don’t want to be in a classroom anymore but love the pay & benefits and are unable to get that pay in the private sector get their DPI required credits in school administration.
I have seen it in the wife’s school - in 8 years she has had 5 different Assistant Principals. Four of them were so incompetent that they couldn’t even properly budget/manage the paraprofessionals. 3 of the 4 became principals. The fourth is an assistant principal at a bigger school.
It is fallacy that teachers can’t be fired. It is hard to fire teachers. It should be hard to fire people. But I have sat, as a union rep, in a meeting with another employee and an administrator. The first one was not doing his job well and the second one was. My job was to listen and document as the administrator who had done his homework basically fired the incompetent teacher.
Mike - It should be easy to fire bad employees. Three strikes and you are out or 1 strike and you are out. As a business owner and the one taking all of the risk of running that business and the one paying into the Unemployment fund - I should have the right to hire and fire at will - without fear of repercussion.
In your story above - would you have defended the bad teacher if the admin had not dotted all of the i’s and crossed the t’s?
Do you play the lottery? If not - why not? Do you know why most people don’t play the lottery? It is because they don’t believe that they will win. It is possible to win the lottery - it is just that their odds are 196M:1. Same thing with firing bad teachers which is why it is easier to pass them off to another school or push them into administration. It is possible to fire them - just not very good odds. Especially when the union is more concerned with procedure and not justification.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 0911 hrs
Clint: You are correct but you also must consider the time, effort and yes money (Legal fees) to get rid of a very bad teacher. Think about how those three resources could be better spent actually educating somone rather than properly canning a horrible teacher.
If unions were really about the workers and the profession they would be the proactive one and get rid of the bad teacher themselves. They don’t and some school districts would rather not play the odds you described and pay the money to play. Sometimes you can’t win no matter what.
As an employeer I should have the right to hire and fire anyone I please for any reason I choose.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 0934 hrs
They don’t and some school districts would rather not play the odds you described and pay the money to play. Sometimes you can’t win no matter what.
Pardon: that quote should read “not pay the money to play:
Carry on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 0936 hrs
John - as I read you last statement (and one of mine) - I would like to caution those on the left side of the left… That doesn’t not mean firing/hiring because of what is between their legs or the pigment of their skin.
I am sure there are a few leftists that will bring that up and tell us that we would never hire a woman or a pigmented american
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 0937 hrs
STILL no answer to:
What services do residents pay for, or not get in other states that we as the state with the highest property tax as a percent of home value enjoy courtesy of our government?
Perhaps Diamond Jim has an asnwer. I see he made the national news as one of the, and I quote, “whiners” looking for more federal money because they can’t do their job. And for you libs, doing the job does not entail rasing taxes yet again. See 1st paragraph.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 0958 hrs
Gregory… In post 1, you implied that our taxes are higher because we have superior/more services than other states with lower taxes.
I’m sure you could agree that people making stuff up to suit their arguements is a disservice to the debate on this blog. So I asked you in #31 to please tell us what services people of other states either don’t get, don’t get as good quality, or have to pay for on their own which justifies our higher tax burden than other states.
You respond with this in #44
I suggest you haul your butt to the curb and gather up your trash and find someplace to put it rather than have a city service pick it up for you. When your spouse has a heart attack don’t think of calling a tax funded rescue squad as you can just throw him/her where you put the trash. Sorry we have no rescue squad for those who feel govt. services are too many! When you need skin cancer removed form your face haul a frickin knife out and start chopping since you will not want a doctor who used federal grants for his medical license to use his skills on you. With no meat inspectors paid for with tax dollars why not just put yourself up on the garbage mound too as sooner or later you will die from tainted food. And since you are opposed to govt services you will also not need Medicare or SS so we hope you can live on a prayer and song.
Gregory, you’re arguements are just flapping in the breeze here.
We are talking about property taxes. You mention garbage. Well first off… I live in New Berlin, and garbage collection is paid for by the residents. As is the case in many many cities around wisconsin. Care to try again?
You state rescue squads… What are you saying? That states with lower taxes don’t have rescue squads? Thats not true either.
States with lower property taxes enjoy emergency services just the same as we do. But they have lower taxes.Then the rest of your arguement you muck up by throwing in social security, medicare, and a few other FEDERAL programs that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with property taxes.
Again… your arguements are flapping in the breeze.
What you have demonstrated here is that you have no basis for your position. You have demonstrated that you are all emotional about the issue of your love for government services without applying any logic to the issue at hand.
You based your self-righteous condescending tripe on nothing more than your own personal emotions and feelings. Please exercise enough critical analysis Gregory to realize that despite your attempts at tossing all these absolutes and disconnected generalizations out there, intelligent thought would say that there are legitimate questions to be asked here. WHY are our property taxes SO high in wisconsin compared to other states that enjoy the same services from there local governments at significantly lower levels of property taxation. You have yet to offer anything up Gregory.
So put your outrage aside. Wipe your emotions that you have splattered across your windshield away so you can see logically and make a legitimate point. Because by your logic and statements it seems that all taxes are just and if the government asks, it should receive no matter what. And I’m sorry pal… We’ve all seen the results of carte blanche.
People like you Gregory who claim that people ought not complain about taxes are the ones that enable the waste and inefficiency of our government. Guys like me who aren’t even saying “none” but rather saying “how much is enough” are the ones being pragmatic here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1024 hrs
lol… baja skier, it appears we both had the same thought at the same time.. (though it took me longer to write mine out)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1025 hrs
Where is the data showing that Wisconsin has vastly superior services to those below us on the lists?
What we do have is vastly over reimbursed public employes, Milwaukee being the worst.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1030 hrs
Where is the data showing that Wisconsin has vastly superior services to those below us on the lists?
Well aparently all that data is in post #1, cause “Gregory said so”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1035 hrs
With the exceptions of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama, the 47 states I have been to fair no better, no worse. Some excel in one aspect, some in another. The biggest discapency is taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1044 hrs
That’s “discrepancy”, folks. egad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1045 hrs
Clint-
In your story above - would you have defended the bad teacher if the admin had not dotted all of the i’s and crossed the t’s?
If the admin had simply not clerically put together the right forms or something, I would have left the office and closely couselled my co-worker to get on the ball and do everything he could to eliminate his bad habits and suggested a very close mentoring arrangement as a last ditch attempt to improve his performance and maybe save his job, although I’d have told him I thought his job was a foregone conclusion (which is to say it was lost).
But if the admin had never set foot in the teacher’s classroom, never communicated to the teacher that his conduct was unprofessional, and never documented unprofessional behavior, I would fight for the right of an employee not to loose their job when there was nobody telling them what was expected of them.
Incidentally, then I would informally but forcefully tell that teacher to get off his ass and save his job and quit making the rest of us look like shit. Peer pressure works within the association. And it works for the right reasons. I am not saying it doesn’t also work for the wrong reasons (reinforcing lazy self righteous behavior), but that’s the case in all places of employment.
We’ll have to disagree on whether it should be easy or hard to fire employees. I vote for hard. Its hard to do a job well. That’s a good thing.
John Galt-
If unions were really about the workers and the profession they would be the proactive one and get rid of the bad teacher themselves.
Unions can not get rid of a lousy co-worker any more than the dishwasher can fire the burger flipper. We’re just employees, not management.
All that said I support bajaskier and xxpilot in their attempts to answer the “how much is enough” question. The real topic of this post. And the hard job, I should note.
Posted by Mike on January 08, 2009 at 1107 hrs
If unions were really about the workers and the profession they would be the proactive one and get rid of the bad teacher themselves.
Mike already noted that it is never a union’s job to fire bad workers, but rather management’s.
But on another note: NEA/AFT and the state/locals do more professional development and promotion of excellent teaching and best practices than any other union in the country. My local offers me free seminars and collaborative opportunities. The state org is less hands-on, but promotes the latest and most innovative ideas in its publications and convention. The national also offers advice and celebrates good teachers, and encourages personal growth through awards, grants, and support of things like national board certification. And just a few years ago, NEA awarded a ton of money to MPS for a pilot program (successful, by the way) to improve reading scores.
Fact is, my dues money gets spent, at least in part, on programs to improve teaching in this city, state, and country. That is proactive.
Posted by folkbum on January 08, 2009 at 1148 hrs
Just to qualify so that this isn’t a teacher bashing as there are so many good teachers, nuns that are very dedicated to doing a good job.
What most conservatives oppose are the left wing politics of the joint, the failures to teach kids to read, especially in the inner city, their opposition to anyone that wants to improve the plight of those kids, their use of the union to extract huge sums of money from the taxpayers for salaries and benefits without any perceptible improvement in education from the 60’s.
It is a noble profession defaced by organized labor.
And now that their failures in SATs and ACTs are obvious since more kids started taking them what do they have to fall back upon?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1153 hrs
Mike already noted that it is never a union’s job to fire bad workers, but rather management’s.
So unions prevent management from doing their job, just as I thought. It would be my opinion that any organization would want to police itself and expell riff-raff, not come to their defense.
This pertains to the subject matter: So why should an organization that protects inept or dishonest workers tell me what a decent wage should be? Unions lost my cedibility by defending a costodian who took money out of a teacher’s purse. True story.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1240 hrs
Money out of a teachers purse. That’s nothing compared to what can be found at any of the unionized manufacturing facilities in the MKE area. My favorite, from one that I was at, had the union defending someone that claimed to be on disability for 6 months, but was found to be defrauding that and was actually photographed doing construction on the roof of his home. He not only won his job back, but got all back-pay and estimated overtime. Another had off-shift employees that got duplicate ID cards and then they would trade-off having their buddies swipe them in and out while they went to the bar for their shift.
It goes on and on and on and on…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1255 hrs
But on another note: NEA/AFT and the state/locals do more professional development and promotion of excellent teaching and best practices than any other union in the country.
But yet they will not allow merit pay to properly pay those excellent teachers…. Because it is unfair to the bad teachers.
Yes Mike peer pressure can work - unless you have more bad teachers in a school than good teachers.
Are you saying that you would have prevented the firing based on a clerical issue?
Jay - not comment on the bad teachers becoming bad admins??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1315 hrs
JJ - When I was a union president, I had to defend an union member who refused to work because of a hang nail. Yes he went to the clinic and filed a work comp claim on his hang nail - then took 4 weeks off of work… I quit that union position shortly afterwords. And no that company is no longer in business. Work Comp insurance was 15% of payroll when they shuttered the foundry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1319 hrs
Dohnal -
the failures to teach kids to read, especially in the inner city,
I don’t even blame the teachers for that one. It isn’t the teachers job to get the kids to school. It isn’t their job to feed them breakfast (and now dinner). It isn’t their job to read to them before bed. In short, it isn’t their job to be their parents.
It is those cancers in those classrooms that make teaching in the ghetto so difficult.
Those schools have the same qualified teachers. I have no doubt that the ratio of good/bad teachers is close to equal. And the money spent is going to be higher per pupil in those schools.
The problem is that the liberal/socialist gov’ts believe that they can do that job better than the parents and removed that responsibility from them.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1324 hrs
To #88
There is a whole list of issues that could be linked with taxes and quality of life. (There really has not been consideration in these comments above of fees in some of those states vs. taxes.)
Look at how the schools rank here in Madison, and with those in some low tax states. Take the reading scores here in my city, and match them up with those in the low tax states. At a school board meeting in the past year a chart was passed around, and I can assure you that there are many states down south and even out west that I would not want my kids to attend.
Look at how the UW-Madison ranks with other colleges in those same states. The money that we are putting into the medical aspect of stem cell research is paying off, and will generate lots of dollars for the state. And let us not forget the medical benefits that it will produce for all. But without a strong tax supported effort those gains may never have been made. (I know in your heart, though you cannot say it, that you too are glad that Rep. Nass is no longer in charge of the committee to oversee this state treasure, better known as the UW. And I know you too are glad that Frank Lasee was defeated for these same reasons.)
Look at the number of cases of syphilis and gonorrhea, hepatitis B, and the like in states like Wisconsin with better schools and educational standards, and then look at those states with much higher numbers of STD’s. Note what states those are in, and then start piecing the puzzle together. Why do you think that is the case? Might it have to do with the amount of money spent on educational programs, preventive measures, and the like? Programs paid for by….taxes.
Look at the way some states like Wisconsin handle HIV cases, and then look at the same medical matter and the way it is handled in those wonderfully low tax states. Would you want your family member to be treated in Alabama for HIV, or Wisconsin?
For the record I have worked at two non-profits over the years. In one I set up a program using federal dollars that helped place a ‘mentor’ with a client to better insure that medical adherance issues were not a problem for the client. In this case the tax dollars were well spent. Without taking the medications correctly the client would use more Medicaid services, and that route would have been far more expensive to the public,.
In the other job I used federal money to help teenage kids in a group home to discover that violence and crime were not the paths to a constructive life. Again, tax dollars well spent as prison costs taxpayers more than then what they spent to run the group home project.
A friend of mine who is bi-polar (and a former Procter and Gamble executive) recently moved to Idaho. She is working to start a program to assist those with this affliction. The stories I have heard concerning the lack of social service programs to help in Idaho is really quite maddening. And it all links back to this conservative baloney about thinking that everyone is not our brother’s keeper. Which is at the core of not wanting to pay our fair share of taxes.
In fact we are brother’s keeper. I know the Darwinian line of thinking runs rampant among conservatives, but the vast majority of the electorate has become accustomed to social service programs, and feel that the government is the most able to make the changes to society that benefit us all. And those efforts take taxes to both implement and administer.
And like it or not, that is the way this nation operates.Posted by Gregory on January 08, 2009 at 1335 hrs
thinking that everyone is not our brother’s keeper. Which is at the core of not wanting to pay our fair share of taxes.
No gregory - it is about it not being the gov’ts job to be our keeper.
I know the Darwinian line of thinking runs rampant among conservatives, but the vast majority of the electorate has become accustomed to social service programs, and feel that the government is the most able to make the changes to society that benefit us all.
Really - vast majority is now 51%?
Changes that benefit us all?? Yes - I love having pedophiles running rampant. I love criminal justice facilities that believe probation and parole are good…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1345 hrs
Paid for by borrowing, Gregory, borrowing. If the electorate has “become accustomed” to social service programs perhaps they can become accustomed to the lower standard of living that borrowing for economically unproductive activities eventually produces.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1414 hrs
In fact we are brother’s keeper.
You’re right… You ARE your brother’s keeper. So stop asking government to do the job YOU ought be doing.
Cause you know what? I’ll help my brother out because I KNOW if he asks for help, he must REALLY need it.
My brother would never steal from me. My brother would never ask for something unless he REALLY REALLY needed it. My brother would work his fingers to the bone before he went and took another mans money. My brother would work 2 jobs before he ever sat on the couch and collected a paycheck for doing nothing.
My brother has never said “you just can’t make it”
My brother has never considered the rich “lucky” and the not-as-rich “used”.
My brother believes that having a cell phone and a minivan with DVD players in it is a LUXURY and is grateful for the high standard of living afforded to people in this country even though he lives in a modular home in California.
My brother doesn’t complain that he doesn’t have money for food while talking on a cell phone watching Dish Network.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1452 hrs
Look at how the schools rank here in Madison, and with those in some low tax states. Take the reading scores here in my city, and match them up with those in the low tax states. At a school board meeting in the past year a chart was passed around, and I can assure you that there are many states down south and even out west that I would not want my kids to attend.
You can’t cherry-pick anecdotes and make your case around them Gregory. You’ve got nothing concrete here. Just some conjecture. Lets compare Milwaukee Schools with other school districts. Money spent per-student does not in and of itself equal better schools.
Milwuakee ranks 76th out of 788 counties in the country with pop > 65,000 for the HIGHEST property taxes.
SURELY high property taxes in milwaukee county are not because they enjoy better schools? Care to try any different logic?
Now it may be that we have high property taxes because of schools. But if that is the reason our taxes are higher surely that doesn’t fit your claim that our higher taxes are resulting in better services like schools. You’re claims aren’t holding water.
In the other job I used federal money to help teenage kids in a group home to discover that violence and crime were not the paths to a constructive life. Again, tax dollars well spent as prison costs taxpayers more than then what they spent to run the group home project.
PROPERTY TAXES Gregory… FOCUS my friend FOCUS… We are talking about property taxes here and you are off on a tangent talking about 2 non-profits you worked for that relied on federal money. This does not address the issue of why wisconsins property taxes are higher than other states.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1540 hrs
Come on xxp,
You can’t cherry-pick anecdotes and make your case around them Gregory.
Yet you then go ahead and cherry pick Milwaukee County & MPS.
How is that any different if we are talking about property taxes statewide?
Every time we have this discussion that is what it comes down to.
You may not like it, I know I don’t, but that is the way it is.
I don’t have any answers for those underlying problems, do you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1557 hrs
Come on xxp,
You can’t cherry-pick anecdotes and make your case around them Gregory.
Yet you then go ahead and cherry pick Milwaukee County & MPS.
How is that any different if we are talking about property taxes statewide?
Scratch the last bit.
I started doing the same thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1600 hrs
These conversations always leave out the obvious demographic differences. NE states and the Midwest tend to score better in various metrics because they largely have a homogeneous, static population. Border and Western states tend to be much more heterogeneous. And in the case of the deep south, they took nearly 100 years to recover from the Civil War (yes, much of that due to their own doing, but also much because reconstruction was botched). They are growing like crazy now and seeing the predictable effects of rapid growth.
Yes, taxes have an effect on some of these various metrics, but they are one of many factors. BUT, they are a factor that we can control.
Posted by Owen on January 08, 2009 at 1606 hrs
Yet you then go ahead and cherry pick Milwaukee County & MPS.
Pricisely. To demonstrate that his assertion that we enjoy such better schools doesn’t hold water.
You may not like it, I know I don’t, but that is the way it is.
I don’t have any answers for those underlying problems, do you?
Here’s what I think pjr. I think maybe Gregory has convinced himself that the high taxes we pay mean we live better or get better services or something than other states. I don’t think thats true, and I haven’t gotten any evidence from him to support it. First he tried to test-fly the ‘rescue squad’ and ‘trash pickup’ suggestions. obviously those don’t hold water as I demosntrated above. Next he tries to test fire a few more shots of spaghetti on the wall and those didn’t stick either.
I’ve found that people “cope” with reality in a lot of different ways. And one way is to fool themselves.
And I think Gregory NEEDS to believe we have better services here in Wisconsin because if we don’t… that means we are getting shafted. And I don’t think he wants to face up to that realization. (ignorance is bliss after all)
So before we talk about answers, we need people to agree there is a problem no? I mean if not, then there will be no motivation to address a problem that they don’t think exists.
So isn’t that what this discussion is all about? Isn’t that the questions NONE of the supposed “taxes are the price of civilization” idealogues want to address. How much is enough?
We are paying more than other states for the same services.
The numbers show there is a discrepancy. But the “oh its the price of our great services” people need to prove that. Because I don’t think thats the case. I’m sorry to bring reality crashing down on them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1612 hrs
Pricisely. To demonstrate that his assertion that we enjoy such better schools doesn’t hold water.
Well in the aggregate we are ranked 8th in education.
http://www.statestats.com/edrank.htm
And 20th by income.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_by_income
Our rank in the chart Owen provided is based on taxes as a % of income.
I don’t have time right now to do the math, maybe Clint does.
Later.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1632 hrs
You may note, pjr that more than half of the criteria from your first link are not performance related, two are specific to spending and expenditures, and several others are expenditure related.
Saying we are smarter because we spend more is not a justification for spending more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1645 hrs
So unions prevent management from doing their job, just as I thought.
No, Galt, that’s not at all what I said. What I said was that it is the role of Capital to manage Labor, not for Labor to manage Labor. In other words, I’m not the boss of the teacher in the classroom next door, and I have no power to fire her. I can offer advice if I see specific ways I can help a struggling colleague—and I have been doing exactly that for years, especially when I was a department chair—but I can no more “expel” her from our “ranks” than you can fire the guy in the next cubicle over (or whatever the equivalent is for your job).
Or, to rephrase: You probably don’t expect the principal to teach my classes for me, so you shouldn’t expect me to do her job for her, either.
Jay - no comment on the bad teachers becoming bad admins??
What do you want me to say? Yes, many bad teachers get promoted upward (The Peter Principal was written by an educator largely about education, after all), but that does not absolve them from the responsibilities of being principal. Nor does it warrant removing the job protections on current teachers since, after all, we good teachers (often) need protection from those very same lousy administrators.
MPS has an awful bench when it comes to leadership. There are efforts afoot to change it (the work of New Leaders for New Schools, for example, has produced some positive results), but by and large the teachers who are good gag at the though of having to do an administrator’s job here. To do it well requires patience, time, and people skills that I, for one, do not have. Many of my most talented colleagues feel the same way. The problems of school-level leadership within MPS cannot be solved by changing or dissolving the teachers’ union. (Dissolving the admins’ union, though ....)
Posted by folkbum on January 08, 2009 at 1707 hrs
folkbum: I wouldn’t expect a teacher to fire another teacher but I also wouldn’t expect a teacher to mobilize and put pressure on management to protect the dishonest worker.
Unions do have some control over this. Example: When working while in college I worked at Master Lock. I was bored beyone belief so, like Cool Hand Luke, I worked at breakneck speed to dull the boredom.
I was cornered in the toilet by two goons who told me to cool it, “you are making us all look bad.” Peer pressure to motivate me to kick back. What was their motivation?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 1815 hrs
#103…xpilot
I fully know that this post is about property taxes…....however there is a continual bitch session about taxes of every kind from a certain segment of the electorate. And many of them seem to hang out here. And so I branched out in order to show the shortcoming concerning the bitching about taxes. My post proved that paying taxes has direct benefits that lower other costs. Those costs, such as prisons and Medicaid payments, are also items that taxpayers rightfully share in paying.
So try to put your smuggness aside and look outside the box. Perhaps hard to do….but still worth a glimpse.
Posted by Gregory on January 08, 2009 at 1912 hrs
Gregory said:
Look at the number of cases of syphilis and gonorrhea, hepatitis B, and the like in states like Wisconsin with better schools and educational standards, and then look at those states with much higher numbers of STD’s.
OK - let’s make a comparison, shall we? Lets take one of the poorest states in the country - in Appalachia - like West Virginia. I think we would all agree that their schools wouldn’t be even close to comparable to WI, right? Highly socially conservative, religious, and politically incorrect too. Probably has lots of abstinence-only sex ed.
Chlamydia - WI 7.2% WV 2.6%
Gonorrhea - WI 127.5 per 100K pop WV 32.2 per 100K pop
Syphilis - WI .7 per 100K pop (almost all in MKE county) WV .3 per 100K popThere are similar better rates for WI neighbors of IA and MN, even MI. Most would agree that these states also have good schools, are appropriately liberal like WI, but aren’t in the Top 10 in property taxes.
http://www.cdc.gov/std/Trends2000/Trends2000.pdfSo much for that enormous-property-taxes-paying-for-better-schools-and-sex-ed-programs-saves-money-in-public-health straw man.
Sorry sport - thanks for playing. Better luck next time…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 2003 hrs
I was cornered in the toilet by two goons who told me to cool it, “you are making us all look bad.” Peer pressure to motivate me to kick back. What was their motivation?
Your example doesn’t prove that was a union gesture. If it was, and I don’t have any reason to doubt you, then that was no union. A union that devalues a job and does not work to elevate the status/effectiveness of those doing the job sucks ass. There’s nothing else to say about it.
When I worked in the restaurant business (non-union environment) I saw guys treated that way. I was never good enough to have guys come up to me and say that stuff, but I saw it happen to others. Usually young guys busting their ass to do the job right. It sickened me. I guess I am saying that your treatment was at the hands of individuals, not a union, but I could be wrong. In any case, it does not jibe with how my union operates. It just doesn’t.
Posted by Mike on January 08, 2009 at 2004 hrs
BBB, perhaps you would like to suggest another data source?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 2004 hrs
Other than standardized tests, education measures tend to be crap manufactured for a purpose and standardized tests aren’t necessarily good measures either.
I’ve long looked for data on colleges so I could calculate the value of a college degree to see at what cost it ceased being worthwhile but I’ve never found any data that was adjusted for various factors. I don’t think it exists, pjr.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2009 at 2050 hrs
Owen calls me incompetent. Clint calls me ignorant. Well, fortunately for you, I’ve got two ass cheeks. You can decide who kisses the right one and who kisses the left.
Clint bitches about the UAW having a resort, but does not mention that this if for all the members, as opposed to the execs, who each have their own. Cry me a river, wouldja?
And as I’ve said before, the free markets aren’t free. Job compensations are rarely in line with what the job is worth. It is just who controls them. You would rather have it be the monied people so that they can still make more money.
Posted by capper on January 08, 2009 at 2111 hrs
Jay - I hope that you are still subscribed to this post.
From comment #49 way up on top
So your answer is to bring them down, not work to lift everybody else up? Nice, Dohnal.
You may then want to ask yourself why public employees and their unions tend to be liberal and Democratic and believe in better salaries, sick days, health care, etc. for all Americans, and why conservatives and Republicans are the ones who want to take those away from people.
I got to thinking about this as I sit here and reinstall a bunch of software here at home….
You claim is that conservatives are trying to ‘bring you down’ in level of compensation and benefits instead of raising up the other workers. You have used that line several times, and besides the standard free market argument that negates it, I have one other question…
Why is it ok for you to tell others to not bring your wages and benefits down, but it is ok for you to believe that the ‘rich’ should be brought down to your level to pay for the non-producers of this country?
You claim that conservatives want to take things away from you and that it is wrong, yet you want to take from others. Rather hypocritical isn’t it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2009 at 2114 hrs
When the government employees chip in for my 401k and sick days I will give that argument some credence in the mean time I pay their salaries etc so I have a legit opinion.
My company is cutting down on management and streamlining. when has the goverment done that lately, the University?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 09, 2009 at 2213 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 108
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 02:51 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).