6 ms·

That is a question that should be asked directly to those that will be providing the money to be spent. But luckily we live in a democracy and those who don't

That is a question that should be asked directly to those that will be providing the money to be spent. But luckily we live in a democracy and those who don't contribute a dime get to choose how much I should contribute to this. Less work for me. Less money too. But at least government employees get a nice pension so it's all worth it. Plus if we didn't do it this way then there's no other way at all - it's the government's way or the highway. God bless democracy.

67726e 12y ago
We live in a democratic republic, you elect the folks who make those decisions. If you lived in a pure democracy, you'd get a say in every decision.
- innguest 12y ago
  Thanks, I was not aware. So yes, as you put it so eloquently, this system is set in stone and it's pointless to think of better ways to manage these problems. So indeed, we should spend not only billions, but trillions. And if it doesn't work then we should up the ante and go to quadrillions. Then I think it will work.
  - mhurron 12y ago
    > Thanks, I was not aware. Probably because you needed a smaller class size in civics/history/social studies class so the teacher could spend more time making sure everyone actually learned the material.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    Stop poisoning the well with your snark. It's one thing to disagree with how things are run and propose an alternative, but just satirizing the positions of your imaginary opponents while being rude towards the people who do comment impedes everyone's ability to have a constructive discussion.
    - innguest 12y ago
      When I propose alternatives I get downvoted. Just look at my past comments. This forum is not for constructive discussion (which would imply accepting any valid argument, not simply censoring them by downvoting). This forum is for patting on each others back for being statists. So I'm just fitting in. When I get good enough with my snark it will be indistinguishable from the actual arguments I used to argue against and be downvoted for. So be patient, I'll get there.
- xrange 12y ago
  Actually, I-1351 was a Washington State citizen's initiative, not a bill passed by the legislature. http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_578.pdf http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_57... ...whether these citizen's initiatives have been captured by special-interest groups is another question.
Jtsummers 12y ago
> But at least government employees get a nice pension so it's all worth it. Educators get poor pay, somewhat decent benefits, and an ok pension. Their working conditions (especially for new teachers, and this is largely the problem with retaining them) are pretty crappy. They put in 7-8 hours of instruction time a day. After 3rd or 4th grade (in many states) they're teaching a specific subject area, so they have 100+ students they see each day. That's 100+ papers to grade, exams to grade, parents to contact for various reasons. And they have to do all that in their planning period and after school hours. That's effectively two full-time jobs that they get paid (depending on the state, for a new teacher with just a bachelor's degree) between $25k and $40k to do. They can get extra money by sponsoring clubs or coaching sports teams. But then that eats into the time they have to spend on the academics they're hired to teach, and puts them up to 2 full-time jobs and one half-time job (depending on the number of clubs or particular sport). God bless democracy for fucking over yet another generation of students by cutting corners on education. Something we decided a few hundred years ago was one of the government's primary responsibilities.
- abfan1127 12y ago
  perhaps that was a poor decision to make it the government's responsibility.
  - innguest 12y ago
    But you see, that it is the government's job to provide education is a decision that has been made way in the past and it's way over our heads the reasons for it. We should just accept that it's better. You don't want kids to go without education, right? And if the government is not providing it then no one can provide it. For instance, the private industry can't provide accessible education for the poor because everyone that works in the private industry only does it for money and profit, which are bad things. But people that work for the government do it out of the good in their hearts (they don't care about the cushy job and the benefits at all). So because it's impossible to gather round a bunch of kids in front of a $20 blackboard on some public space and teach them some skills, we need to spend $5 Billion (I actually think that's not enough, it should be at least $6.2 Billion) to hire more librarians. How can you not see that this is the true way?

67726e 12y ago

We live in a democratic republic, you elect the folks who make those decisions. If you lived in a pure democracy, you'd get a say in every decision.

innguest 12y ago
Thanks, I was not aware. So yes, as you put it so eloquently, this system is set in stone and it's pointless to think of better ways to manage these problems. So indeed, we should spend not only billions, but trillions. And if it doesn't work then we should up the ante and go to quadrillions. Then I think it will work.
- mhurron 12y ago
  > Thanks, I was not aware. Probably because you needed a smaller class size in civics/history/social studies class so the teacher could spend more time making sure everyone actually learned the material.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Stop poisoning the well with your snark. It's one thing to disagree with how things are run and propose an alternative, but just satirizing the positions of your imaginary opponents while being rude towards the people who do comment impedes everyone's ability to have a constructive discussion.
  - innguest 12y ago
    When I propose alternatives I get downvoted. Just look at my past comments. This forum is not for constructive discussion (which would imply accepting any valid argument, not simply censoring them by downvoting). This forum is for patting on each others back for being statists. So I'm just fitting in. When I get good enough with my snark it will be indistinguishable from the actual arguments I used to argue against and be downvoted for. So be patient, I'll get there.
xrange 12y ago
Actually, I-1351 was a Washington State citizen's initiative, not a bill passed by the legislature. http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_578.pdf http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_57... ...whether these citizen's initiatives have been captured by special-interest groups is another question.

Jtsummers 12y ago

> But at least government employees get a nice pension so it's all worth it. Educators get poor pay, somewhat decent benefits, and an ok pension. Their working conditions (especially for new teachers, and this is largely the problem with retaining them) are pretty crappy. They put in 7-8 hours of instruction time a day. After 3rd or 4th grade (in many states) they're teaching a specific subject area, so they have 100+ students they see each day. That's 100+ papers to grade, exams to grade, parents to contact for various reasons. And they have to do all that in their planning period and after school hours. That's effectively two full-time jobs that they get paid (depending on the state, for a new teacher with just a bachelor's degree) between $25k and $40k to do. They can get extra money by sponsoring clubs or coaching sports teams. But then that eats into the time they have to spend on the academics they're hired to teach, and puts them up to 2 full-time jobs and one half-time job (depending on the number of clubs or particular sport). God bless democracy for fucking over yet another generation of students by cutting corners on education. Something we decided a few hundred years ago was one of the government's primary responsibilities.

abfan1127 12y ago
perhaps that was a poor decision to make it the government's responsibility.
- innguest 12y ago
  But you see, that it is the government's job to provide education is a decision that has been made way in the past and it's way over our heads the reasons for it. We should just accept that it's better. You don't want kids to go without education, right? And if the government is not providing it then no one can provide it. For instance, the private industry can't provide accessible education for the poor because everyone that works in the private industry only does it for money and profit, which are bad things. But people that work for the government do it out of the good in their hearts (they don't care about the cushy job and the benefits at all). So because it's impossible to gather round a bunch of kids in front of a $20 blackboard on some public space and teach them some skills, we need to spend $5 Billion (I actually think that's not enough, it should be at least $6.2 Billion) to hire more librarians. How can you not see that this is the true way?