3 ms·

These things need to be less politicized and erratic if they are going to work. Why are elementary schools closed across most of the US, while bars and restaur

These things need to be less politicized and erratic if they are going to work. Why are elementary schools closed across most of the US, while bars and restaurants are mostly open for reduced in-person service? Because the teacher unions and dining industries both have enough political power to get their way. There's no rhyme or reason besides "might makes right", and the rules for businesses seem to change every week, so the growing public frustration is very understandable. I'm proud of these students. It's unconscionable that their institution did not inform them of these installations ahead of time. I've been a student who had to walk a couple miles for groceries, and I held my walking routes to be sacred during that time. If someone put a wall between me and fresh fruits during an exam week with no warning, I would have rioted too. And I bet my grandmother who lived through the Blitz would be rooting for them despite her zeal for giving things up for the public good. The British Bulldog spirit recognizes a difference between austerity and autocracy.

sparkie 6y ago
Teachers (public sector) have a guaranteed wage and job security, because they don't have to provide a quality service which people are going to pay for of their own volition. Their is no personal risk to them under lockdown, so they are more than happy to sacrifice the education of children for their own sense of safety. Bars and restaurants are private businesses which must provide service which people are willing to pay for. If they don't provide the service, they don't get paid. The owners and the employees are naturally more inclined to continue working and not be gaslighted by coronahysteria. Remember, public sector workers contribute zero to the public purse, and if they are not working, they are contributing zero value whatsoever, yet expect the people who are contributing to continue paying their wages.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- amcoastal 6y ago
  Public sector workers contribute zero to the public purse? I guarantee you we all pay taxes the same way you do. Our net pay is also probably lower for a very similar job.
  - Kephael 6y ago
    With remote learning the majority of teachers could be replaced with high quality content similar to how Coursera / edX works and students could learn from the best material available. Instead, basic material is duplicated as a jobs program. We should be having Salman Khan teach millions instead of paying so many teachers.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      There is a limit to how many students a teacher can effectively teach at once. It's far below a million.
  - sparkie 6y ago
    I didn't say they don't pay taxes. I said they don't contribute to the public purse. Your taxes are not a contribution to the public purse because your entire wage comes from the public purse. A public sector worker is not adding to the national gain. Their work may provide value to the nation, in that it can be considered an investment - in the case of teaching, the students who graduate and go into the private sector may create wealth that goes into the national gain. The fact that public sector workers even pay taxes on their income from the State is a bizarre process which merely ties up financial resources into a system where they're taken from a pot, only to be put back into the same pot later on, in a repeated cycle. It has become apparent that many of the students who graduate from publicly subsidized academies go back into the academies themselves. They are not necessarily providing value to a nation, but its impossible to really measure whether or not that could be the case. The expansion of the public sector has obvious consequences though: less income into the public purse whilst public expenditure grows. There's only one conclusion to this trend if it were to continue: the salaries of all public sector workers will eventually exceed the income tax from private sector workers. Insane. If more workers were placed into the private sector, then not only does national expenditure decrease, the total income tax increases - those same jobs could add to the national gain rather than take from the pot, freeing up resources for other purposes. There must necessarily be a cap on the size of the public sector, and it is my opinion that the smaller the better.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- meekrohprocess 6y ago
  Teachers don't go into teaching for the money or fame, and you'll know they provide a quality service when your bridges stay up and your cars don't explode. Their unions might be overly cautious right now, but we should treat them like essential workers if we want them to act like it.
  - sparkie 6y ago
    The problem with the assumption that a quality service is provided, is that when there is a violence enforced monopoly on the service, it is impossible to tell whether or not the service is efficient or where it might be improved because there is no metric to compare it against. The lack of any market signal means you can never really know if your service is providing a meaningful return on investment, and potential ventures which may improve upon it are prevented from doing so by threat of violence. I find the claim that without the State, cars would explode and bridges would fall very bizarre. There is no basis for this assumption but clouded thinking. Bridges build well before modern governments and regulations are still standing, and vehicles from the 70s function just fine. It has always been in the best interest of product providers to have their products certified by reputable organizations, and they'll pay to have it done. The Underwriters Laboratory has been privately certifying products for 126 years. Many of the government regulatory bodies are much younger. There may even be an argument that private certification would improve health and safety because businesses would be in competition to provide the absolute best, rather than merely meeting a minimum requirement set by the State. I wouldn't argue against the fact that teachers are essential workers, but the almost state monopoly on provision of this service can't possibly face the scrutiny of individual's choices and expectations - there is no market. I would take a school voucher system like Sweden has over the public school system in the UK any day. My point about teachers being overly supportive of lockdown is that they have no personal consequence for themselves for doing so. Lets assume for a moment that you are a teacher, but in the private sector. The government enforces a lockdown which prevents you from working, and since you aren't working, the parents of the children you would normally teach are not paying you. You have no income. Do you still support government lockdowns, or do you want to get back to work ASAP and earn money? (You have bills to pay). Public sector workers have no skin in the game - they still have income and they'll have a job to go back to when the government lets them. This drastically affects their ability to THINK, and why they are almost unanimous on their support of lockdowns.
chrisco255 6y ago
Are schools closed in most of the country? Many states I've been to in the last few months and that hasn't been the case in any of them.
andykx 6y ago
Are schools closed across much of the US? Maybe I live under a rock but I don’t think that’s the case. It certainly is not in my area (NY Metro).

sparkie 6y ago

Teachers (public sector) have a guaranteed wage and job security, because they don't have to provide a quality service which people are going to pay for of their own volition. Their is no personal risk to them under lockdown, so they are more than happy to sacrifice the education of children for their own sense of safety. Bars and restaurants are private businesses which must provide service which people are willing to pay for. If they don't provide the service, they don't get paid. The owners and the employees are naturally more inclined to continue working and not be gaslighted by coronahysteria. Remember, public sector workers contribute zero to the public purse, and if they are not working, they are contributing zero value whatsoever, yet expect the people who are contributing to continue paying their wages.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
amcoastal 6y ago
Public sector workers contribute zero to the public purse? I guarantee you we all pay taxes the same way you do. Our net pay is also probably lower for a very similar job.
- Kephael 6y ago
  With remote learning the majority of teachers could be replaced with high quality content similar to how Coursera / edX works and students could learn from the best material available. Instead, basic material is duplicated as a jobs program. We should be having Salman Khan teach millions instead of paying so many teachers.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    There is a limit to how many students a teacher can effectively teach at once. It's far below a million.
- sparkie 6y ago
  I didn't say they don't pay taxes. I said they don't contribute to the public purse. Your taxes are not a contribution to the public purse because your entire wage comes from the public purse. A public sector worker is not adding to the national gain. Their work may provide value to the nation, in that it can be considered an investment - in the case of teaching, the students who graduate and go into the private sector may create wealth that goes into the national gain. The fact that public sector workers even pay taxes on their income from the State is a bizarre process which merely ties up financial resources into a system where they're taken from a pot, only to be put back into the same pot later on, in a repeated cycle. It has become apparent that many of the students who graduate from publicly subsidized academies go back into the academies themselves. They are not necessarily providing value to a nation, but its impossible to really measure whether or not that could be the case. The expansion of the public sector has obvious consequences though: less income into the public purse whilst public expenditure grows. There's only one conclusion to this trend if it were to continue: the salaries of all public sector workers will eventually exceed the income tax from private sector workers. Insane. If more workers were placed into the private sector, then not only does national expenditure decrease, the total income tax increases - those same jobs could add to the national gain rather than take from the pot, freeing up resources for other purposes. There must necessarily be a cap on the size of the public sector, and it is my opinion that the smaller the better.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
meekrohprocess 6y ago
Teachers don't go into teaching for the money or fame, and you'll know they provide a quality service when your bridges stay up and your cars don't explode. Their unions might be overly cautious right now, but we should treat them like essential workers if we want them to act like it.
- sparkie 6y ago
  The problem with the assumption that a quality service is provided, is that when there is a violence enforced monopoly on the service, it is impossible to tell whether or not the service is efficient or where it might be improved because there is no metric to compare it against. The lack of any market signal means you can never really know if your service is providing a meaningful return on investment, and potential ventures which may improve upon it are prevented from doing so by threat of violence. I find the claim that without the State, cars would explode and bridges would fall very bizarre. There is no basis for this assumption but clouded thinking. Bridges build well before modern governments and regulations are still standing, and vehicles from the 70s function just fine. It has always been in the best interest of product providers to have their products certified by reputable organizations, and they'll pay to have it done. The Underwriters Laboratory has been privately certifying products for 126 years. Many of the government regulatory bodies are much younger. There may even be an argument that private certification would improve health and safety because businesses would be in competition to provide the absolute best, rather than merely meeting a minimum requirement set by the State. I wouldn't argue against the fact that teachers are essential workers, but the almost state monopoly on provision of this service can't possibly face the scrutiny of individual's choices and expectations - there is no market. I would take a school voucher system like Sweden has over the public school system in the UK any day. My point about teachers being overly supportive of lockdown is that they have no personal consequence for themselves for doing so. Lets assume for a moment that you are a teacher, but in the private sector. The government enforces a lockdown which prevents you from working, and since you aren't working, the parents of the children you would normally teach are not paying you. You have no income. Do you still support government lockdowns, or do you want to get back to work ASAP and earn money? (You have bills to pay). Public sector workers have no skin in the game - they still have income and they'll have a job to go back to when the government lets them. This drastically affects their ability to THINK, and why they are almost unanimous on their support of lockdowns.

chrisco255 6y ago

Are schools closed in most of the country? Many states I've been to in the last few months and that hasn't been the case in any of them.

andykx 6y ago

Are schools closed across much of the US? Maybe I live under a rock but I don’t think that’s the case. It certainly is not in my area (NY Metro).