Free market principles demand that the way to impr. education is to pay teachers more

[WillowTree]

Not on the taxpayers dime they shouldn't.

Unions operate on the "dime" of their members. Who are you to tell government employees how to spend their money?

Also, if you would limit the market to only SOME consumers, based on where those consumers work, how is that NOT an imposition on the free market?

I am the government. They work for me. Without me they have no reason to exist. Thanks for asking.

 

[WillowTree]

In the case of teacher's unions, the "shareholder" is the taxpayer, who never gets a seat at the negotiating table.

In any union the shareholder is the person paying into the union. The fact that the person paying into the union is a government employee does not justify any kind of special consideration. Government employees are entitled to spend their money as they see fit, just like the rest of us.

Then give the American Taxpayer a seat at the bargaining table.

 

[Avorysuds]

free market demand equals getting the UNIONS out of education. let the teachers compete for pay on a merit based resullts orientated system.. Kids will start to learn..

Inasmuch as unions are businesses themselves, shouldn't a free market allow unions to exist and to operate in the best interests of their share holders (members)?

It's amazing how little you understand the idea of free markets... You actually got what you wanted many times now and the education system got worse as predicted. Now instead of you going "Hmm, they even told me Education would get worse with all this money." You try and blame the free market for all the problem OR claim the free markets would be doing what Government fucked with markets are failing at doing...

A free market answer (with correct and fair regulations) would require change on almost every level. The answer is not as simply as “pay teachers more.” School on the level of kindergarten through high school is not about educating your children anymore, it’s about daycare until that child can enter the work force.


My girlfriend recently graduated from Pharmacy school, she can tell you about half or more of the stuff being taught has no barring or positive affect on a Pharmacists education... Yet year after year more is crammed in there and the student is charged for it. Well over 100k for her schooling btw.

 

[Oddball]

In the case of teacher's unions, the "shareholder" is the taxpayer, who never gets a seat at the negotiating table.

In any union the shareholder is the person paying into the union. The fact that the person paying into the union is a government employee does not justify any kind of special consideration. Government employees are entitled to spend their money as they see fit, just like the rest of us.

Bullshit.

The people ultimately doing the paying in are the taxpayers, who have no seat at the negotiating table.

Now, how about you address the fact that there is no free market, at either the teaching or parental choice ends, in gubmint schooling.

 

[Avorysuds]

In the case of teacher's unions, the "shareholder" is the taxpayer, who never gets a seat at the negotiating table.

In any union the shareholder is the person paying into the union. The fact that the person paying into the union is a government employee does not justify any kind of special consideration. Government employees are entitled to spend their money as they see fit, just like the rest of us.

You do realize that hundreds of millions of dollars is lost every year in Public Unions taking “their fair share” off the top from the teachers? It’s a company with a monopoly (in the case of the WI teachers Union.) It’s not kinda sorta maybe ish free market stuff, it’s 100% corrupted BS and you would be full force against it if the Unions were dropping 100+ million a year on the Reps when they run for president.

 

[WillowTree]

In the case of teacher's unions, the "shareholder" is the taxpayer, who never gets a seat at the negotiating table.

In any union the shareholder is the person paying into the union. The fact that the person paying into the union is a government employee does not justify any kind of special consideration. Government employees are entitled to spend their money as they see fit, just like the rest of us.

Bullshit.

The people ultimately doing the paying in are the taxpayers, who have no seat at the negotiating table.

Now, how about you address the fact that there is no free market, at either the teaching or parental choice ends, in gubmint schooling.

That's what I say. If he wants the uNIONS to run EDUCATION as a business then they need to privatize education. Cause we the people are fed up.

 

[gekaap]

Without me they have no reason to exist.

That's rather fascist.

 

[WillowTree]

Without me they have no reason to exist.

That's rather fascist.

Well who in the sam hill do you think "the government" is pray tell.

 

[gekaap]

Bullshit.

The people ultimately doing the paying in are the taxpayers, who have no seat at the negotiating table.

Now, how about you address the fact that there is no free market, at either the teaching or parental choice ends, in gubmint schooling.

Your line of reasoning would mean that Corporation X is "doing the paying" to the union of their employees, and that as a consequence Corporation X is the "share holder" of the union.

 

[WillowTree]

Bullshit.

The people ultimately doing the paying in are the taxpayers, who have no seat at the negotiating table.

Now, how about you address the fact that there is no free market, at either the teaching or parental choice ends, in gubmint schooling.

Your line of reasoning would mean that Corporation X is "doing the paying" to the union of their employees, and that as a consequence Corporation X is the "share holder" of the union.

Corporation X gets a seat at the bargaining table.. fail..... next?

 

[gekaap]

Then give the American Taxpayer a seat at the bargaining table.

This requirement is both flawed, and already met. Government officials who sit at the negotiating table opposite unions of federal employees represent the American taxpayer at the negotiating table. That is all the representation needed, as it equals that which any other employer would have at any other union negotiation table.

 

[WillowTree]

Then give the American Taxpayer a seat at the bargaining table.

This requirement is both flawed, and already met. Government officials who sit at the negotiating table opposite unions of federal employees represent the American taxpayer at the negotiating table. That is all the representation needed, as it equals that which any other employer would have at any other union negotiation table.

Guess what?? I don't think Federal Employees are allowed to Unionize.. I think Jimmy Carter signed a law prohibiting FEDERAL employees from collective bargaining.. methinks.



now back to teachers unionss,, not on the taxpayers time or dime should they exist.. the taxpayer has no seat at the table and the unions buy them a pocketful of democrats so the system is rife with corruption.

 

[Oddball]

Then give the American Taxpayer a seat at the bargaining table.

This requirement is both flawed, and already met. Government officials who sit at the negotiating table opposite unions of federal employees represent the American taxpayer at the negotiating table. That is all the representation needed, as it equals that which any other employer would have at any other union negotiation table.

If anything is flawed, it's your notion that free market principles should apply to an institution where virtually all such precepts have been suspended and subverted.

Get a grip.

 

[Flopper]

Improving education in America is about improving the classroom environmental. Hire more teachers, a lot more teachers to get the pupil teacher ratio down to less than 20. Make pay raises truly merit based. Provide more supervision. Raising teacher pay is not a solution to our education problems.

The only way to really apply free market principals is to abolish public education and put no requirements on private schools.

 

[gekaap]

It's amazing how little you understand the idea of free markets... You actually got what you wanted many times now and the education system got worse as predicted.

First of all, citation needed. Though I admit that it would be difficult to impossible empirically verify such a claim because it largely relies on value judgment.

Now instead of you going "Hmm, they even told me Education would get worse with all this money." You try and blame the free market for all the problem OR claim the free markets would be doing what Government fucked with markets are failing at doing...

I think you're misunderstanding my real purpose in bringing up this discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there are inconsistencies in ideology on every side. The inconsistencies of the liberal side are shown in the clash between the image of the supremely altruistic teacher who is now demanding more money and is willing to sacrifice the education of their current students to get it. The inconsistencies of the conservative side are seen in the rejection of certain free market practices that would be readily embraced, if not demanded, in any other setting. I'm not really trying to take a side so much.

A free market answer (with correct and fair regulations)

Ceases to be a free market, and becomes a regulated market.

would require change on almost every level. The answer is not as simply as “pay teachers more.” School on the level of kindergarten through high school is not about educating your children anymore, it’s about daycare until that child can enter the work force.

Here I completely agree with you. The real problems in our education system are far too institutionalized to allow for any simple answer of any kind.

My girlfriend recently graduated from Pharmacy school, she can tell you about half or more of the stuff being taught has no barring or positive affect on a Pharmacists education... Yet year after year more is crammed in there and the student is charged for it. Well over 100k for her schooling btw.

Sounds like the free market to me. Schools force you to buy as much as they can manage to force upon you (in another thread I recently discussed how industries prop up demand through methods of bundling goods and/or services together to force the consumer to buy more than would otherwise be necessary; this is another example of the same phenomenon). The education is necessary because the job market demands it. Perhaps what we need is reform in the job market that will stop placing so much demand on current 4 year college educational models, and start valuing more technical schools and specialty schools that can/will cut out the fat.

 

[gekaap]

Guess what?? I don't think Federal Employees are allowed to Unionize.. I think Jimmy Carter signed a law prohibiting FEDERAL employees from collective bargaining.. methinks.

Then I guess it's a good thing that we're not talking about federal employees.

now back to teachers unionss,, not on the taxpayers time or dime should they exist.. the taxpayer has no seat at the table and the unions buy them a pocketful of democrats so the system is rife with corruption.

Like I said, the taxpayer DOES have a seat at the table. The government official who does the government's side of the negotiating represents the government, i.e. the taxpayer. Expecting/demanding anything more than that is flawed. It is the same representation as the share holders of Corporation X receive when their company negotiates with the union of their employees.

If you think that the laws of your state need to be amended, then maybe you should write your state legislators.

 

[Oddball]

I think you're misunderstanding my real purpose in bringing up this discussion. I'm just trying to point out that there are inconsistencies in ideology on every side. The inconsistencies of the liberal side are shown in the clash between the image of the supremely altruistic teacher who is now demanding more money and is willing to sacrifice the education of their current students to get it. The inconsistencies of the conservative side are seen in the rejection of certain free market practices that would be readily embraced, if not demanded, in any other setting. I'm not really trying to take a side so much.

Go back to #2 in the thread and go from there.

 

[rdean]

According to a 2006 study done by the National Education Association, 50% of teachers leave the profession within five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries.

Teacher Salary - Research and Compare each State.

Imagine being put into a room all day with class after class of the children of Republicans. Kids who have no respect for education. Whose parents call the President a Muslim among other things. Children who will never believe in science.

Why would these children respect their teachers? The parents of those children think teachers make too much anyway so why should they listen to anything those teachers have to say?

Think about it.

 

[Oddball]

No need to think about it....You're still an imbecile.

 

[rdean]

No need to think about it....You're still an imbecile.

According to you, no need to think about anything. Pathetic.