3 ms·
1) I don't think anyone was ready to give teachers a raise/bonus—I expect they'd especially have been concerned that teachers might get used to being paid almos
by bamfly 3y ago
1) I don't think anyone was ready to give teachers a raise/bonus—I expect they'd especially have been concerned that teachers might get used to being paid almost as much as they'd be worth in private industry, and resist letting wages fall again after the crisis was over. No idea where the money would have come from. Around here, at least, no way voters would have gone for that.
2) I think the amount necessary would have been pretty high. 20+% raises. It doesn't take a lot of teachers lost in an environment in which replacements and even substitutes are hard to come by, before your in-person teaching falls apart due to insufficient staffing (the first year back, here, was about as bad as remote—too many sick teachers, not enough subs, lots of days in which no teaching happened at all for many of the kids, kids missing many days per month, et c, it was basically like they only got half a year of school) so you need to keep nearly all of them if you want this scheme to be at all valuable. If you're one district "defecting" and paying higher wages, sure, that might work out for you, using a smaller raise to attract teachers from neighboring districts (however, see above re: teachers maybe not wanting to see their paychecks shrink again later) but it wouldn't work as an across-the-board solution where every district's doing it. It'd have been way too much money.
- hellojesus 3y agoI agree it would have been a fortune, but at the same time the US has consistently proven it has no problem spending an unlimited amount of money and then never actually paying for it. It seems like a weird line to draw to me, especially when they could have adjusted the pay via a hazard pay line item to keep it from being sticky. Compared to how much the US has spent on Ukraine over the past couple years, how much more would've it cost to fund teachers at that time?* *I've read the Budapest Memorandum is not legally binding; plus the US didn't do much when Chrimea happened anyway.
- lisasays 3y agoI've read the Budapest Memorandum is not legally binding Unfortunately what you were reading were statements from Vladimir Putin to that effect. The view of international law scholars is that it is in fact legally binding in that it is essentially an extension of the Helsinki Accords. At any rate, the main case for the illegality of both the 2014 and 2022 invasions rests with the UN Charter, not the Budapest Memorandum.
- hellojesus 3y agoIllegality of the invasion is not akin to a commitment of defense from the US. I am more concerned with what the US' legal obligation is to Ukraine. There is no reason to dump money into the country if we don't have a legal obligation. It's more akin to insanity. If the US is legally obligated to provided funding only due to the Budapest Memorandum, I understand. Short of that it makes little sense considering how the US already refuses to pay its debt. It's selling out its position in the world for almost no gain.
- lisasays 3y agoIf what's going on in Ukraine is simply a matter of money and legal obligation to you -- then it's clear there's nothing to discuss here.