Again Proving why certain jobs should NOT be Privatized

[rambro]

Originally Posted by LockedBreech

Having a mom who was a teacher (though not in a super-union state, made maybe half the 88k you quoted after 25 years, with a Master's degree) maybe they don't want to be graded based on student grades because kids are horrible rotten *expletive* these days and the parents get mad at the teachers and not the kids when there's a discipline issue.

what town? I want o look into this. Please share the school district.

Also i did not say graded based on kids grade, you did. State and federal tests scores would be fair. Grades, hell the teacher can just inflate the grades if thats all it takes to stay paid. Whats the alternative?

Don't think these same scumbag kids and their scumbag parents are not shopping. They are. People in private sector have to put up with lowest common denominators every day. These bottom dwellers cost us tons of money, they suck up time, break stuff, steal stuff, sue, switch tags, vandalize and more. And they can "grade you" on yelp, angies list and more. And call stand and federal agencies and file fake claims, and it goes on and on.

Does your mom have to contend with any of that?

I would liken dope kids with crap grades as the comparable to loud dopey people that dont pay their bills, or who steal. So those cancel each other out, and business still has no guarantee of even being around in a few months, and yet has to contend with a dozen other aspects your mom does not.

By the way, my mom is teacher, sis is a teacher, bro in law is teacher (he is a white male, he cant seem to get hired in, how do you like that for "diversity" male teachers are the equivalent of female black firefighters, they should have jobs thrown at them), my little brother was class room aide for years also. I have about a dozen close friends that are teachers.

I do not see why they should not be held accountable. You can compare the kids to other classrooms in the same school, across the state as a whole, and the nation. It makes perfect sense. Crap people having crap hair brained kids is not unique to your moms class. Every teacher has that, so it makes sense to grade them all, and compare them all.

I could have said it more briefly, please tell me how your mom is so special, that would have been more brief. If she was a great educator she could start her own school, have a youtube channel with 100 million hits. I just saw this guy on stossel, he is the most popular educator on youtube. He is not even a degreed teacher. He is just a good teacher, he is smart, communicates, and kids who think they are dumb, watch this guy, and they get it. People beg him to do a lecture on a subject they are doing in school, so they can watch him not their teacher.

A couple thousand of the best teachers could teach the entire country, on video, they should make half million or a million bucks. The rest of the teachers could be fired. Or they could be hired in as aides, or assistants. That is problem solving, that is competition.

That is the competition many many many business's and trades have had to go throw since the computer age.

Yet teachers, because of the unions are firmly in the 18th century, reading books to kids and putting them to sleep in lecture halls. Which you may or may not know, are a remnant from times when labor was cheap, and books were expensive, and a person was hired to read the pricey book to a large room of people. Thats how they still do it, even though labor is now expensive, and books are cheap.

The union is 200 years behind the times.

I wish i could make money as a black smith who just knows how to smith, but no one really uses. Or i could be the ice man, but not deliver ice since the world changed, but i got to keep my job. I wish i was special.

[gsh341]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

Yes, Gov can be idiots too, but they tend to also be job creators and have two lifeguards per station.

You make a point there. Let's follow that example in everything, OK? Double the number of cops, IRS agents, military, etc. Sure, most of the time, the jobs would be redundant, but who cares? After all, jobs were created, right?

What you completely fail to understand is that when the government "creates" a job, they are either taking tax money or borrowing money to do it. This hurts the economy and reduces the number of jobs in the private sector. And the givernment is 100% funded by taxes paid by companies and people in the private sector.

They also waste a TON of it on bureaucratic BS that has nothing to do with the actual work that supposedly needs doing. Otherwise they wouldn't have spent $278,000 to "create" a single job.

Obama

When the Obama administration releases a report on the Friday before a long weekend, it’s clearly not trying to draw attention to the report’s contents. Sure enough, the “Seventh Quarterly Report” on the economic impact of the “stimulus,” released on Friday, July 1, provides further evidence that President Obama’s economic “stimulus” did very little, if anything, to stimulate the economy, and a whole lot to stimulate the debt.

The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job.

In other words, the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the “stimulus,” and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead.

Furthermore, the council reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now. In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.

Again, this is the verdict of Obama’s own Council of Economic Advisors, which is about as much of a home-field ruling as anyone could ever ask for. In truth, it’s quite possible that by borrowing an amount greater than the regular defense budget or the annual cost of Medicare, and then spending it mostly on Democratic constituencies rather than in a manner genuinely designed to stimulate the economy, Obama’s “stimulus” has actually undermined the economy’s recovery — while leaving us (thus far) $666 billion deeper in debt.

The actual employment numbers from the administration’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent when the “stimulus” was being debated. It has since risen to 9.1 percent. Meanwhile, the national debt at the end of 2008, when Obama was poised to take office, was $9.986 trillion (see Table S-9). It’s now $14.467 trillion — and counting.

All sides agree on these incriminating numbers — and now they also appear to agree on this important point: The economy would now be generating job growth at a faster rate if the Democrats hadn’t passed the “stimulus.”

How many times have corps been caught playing the it's cheaper to insure than prevent game?

If I can pay $12,000/yr to insure my business against the possibility of something bad happening or pay $30,000/yr (plus taxes and insurance) to hire someone (actually 2 or even 3 people at a cost of $60,000/yr to $90,000/yr plus taxes and insurance due to multiple shifts) to stand there and wait for an opportunity to prevent that thing from happening, which is the wiser course of action?

[Rustynuts]

Originally Posted by gsh341

You make a point there. Let's follow that example in everything, OK? Double the number of cops, IRS agents, military, etc. Sure, most of the time, the jobs would be redundant, but who cares? After all, jobs were created, right?

What you completely fail to understand is that when the government "creates" a job, they are either taking tax money or borrowing money to do it. This hurts the economy and reduces the number of jobs in the private sector. And the givernment is 100% funded by taxes paid by companies and people in the private sector.

They also waste a TON of it on bureaucratic BS that has nothing to do with the actual work that supposedly needs doing. Otherwise they wouldn't have spent $278,000 to "create" a single job.
Obama





If I can pay $12,000/yr to insure my business against the possibility of something bad happening or pay $30,000/yr (plus taxes and insurance) to hire someone (actually 2 or even 3 people at a cost of $60,000/yr to $90,000/yr plus taxes and insurance due to multiple shifts) to stand there and wait for an opportunity to prevent that thing from happening, which is the wiser course of action?

So private industry helped fix the great depression and get people back to work? No it was gov. jobs. You obviously haven't worked with/for any public agencies. Many times they DO pride themselves on creating jobs for their community for both moral and political reasons. Privates pride themselves on ELIMINATING jobs in the name of efficiency. Where does that get you at the extreme? Rich companies and no one with jobs. Oh, like now with rampant unemployment and polarization of wealth.

As for insurance, OF COURSE IT MAKES SENSE. Financially, but not morally when it comes to lives. That was MY POINT!! And the point was that big companies many times use insurance as an excuse to not do the "right" thing.


As for the stimulus failing. Why do we NEED the stimulus in your vaunted free market private entity world only? Oh, because they failed and CAUSED the whole mess!! Why aren't THEY creating the jobs THEY THEMSELVES squashed???

Getting back to the case at hand. What if this drowning victim happened to be just this side of the imaginary border? ouila! The beach is ALSO UNPROTECTED for other swimmers!! So how did this really affect anything? Other than the short time running to/fro. If someone dies in the second scenario, the company STILL would have been sued for understaffing anyway. They are d-bags for firing. A little training or a day or so of unpaid leave maybe. Immediate firing, no.

[gsh341]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

So private industry helped fix the great depression and get people back to work? No it was gov. jobs.

Wrong. The New Deal actually lengthened the Great Depression.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

"High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns," Ohanian said. "As we've seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market's self-correcting forces."

~snip~

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Here's another one.

How Government Prolonged the Depression - WSJ.com

You obviously haven't worked with/for any public agencies. Many times they DO pride themselves on creating jobs for their community for both moral and political reasons.

I worked for a city hospital in the 90's while I was in college and I was in the Army. Both are worthy organizations, but both wasted money on frivolous crap that I never would have seen in the private sector jobs I had.

Privates pride themselves on ELIMINATING jobs in the name of efficiency. Where does that get you at the extreme? Rich companies and no one with jobs. Oh, like now with rampant unemployment and polarization of wealth.

No, the private sector prides itself on creating jobs, just not financially useless jobs. If the job of digging a ditch is better and more economically done with machinery than with 50 guys with shovels, then those 50 guys need to find new work.

As for insurance, OF COURSE IT MAKES SENSE. Financially, but not morally when it comes to lives. That was MY POINT!! And the point was that big companies many times use insurance as an excuse to not do the "right" thing.

So, you're going to use a moral issue to defend an economic issue? OK, I'll play.

A water park can buy insurance for $12K/yr and figures it doesn't need to hire any lifeguards because insurance is cheaper. So then some kid drowns and the family sues the water park for negligence. They lose the lawsuit and the insurance pays off, then drops the water park. Unfortunately, the insurance only covers half of the award to the victims family. The water park cannot get new insurance, so it cannot re-open to make more money to pay the difference. The owners must sell the water park to try and cover the rest.

The new owners get another insurance policy, but they understand the legal implications of not covering their butts by hiring lifeguards, so they hire certified lifeguards to protect their investment.

There you go, the right thing is done for purely economic reasons.

This sort of thing happens every day all across the nation, so you can stop with the "Government is morally superior." kick you're on.

As for the stimulus failing. Why do we NEED the stimulus in your vaunted free market private entity world only? Oh, because they failed and CAUSED the whole mess!! Why aren't THEY creating the jobs THEY THEMSELVES squashed???

The stimulus failed because it wasn't needed. The government has falsely accused the private sector of causing the mess when it was government policies and regulations that created the entire mess.Then the morons that had really gone 100% gonzo stupid and had invested virtually everything in sub-prime mortgage securities got caught when the bubble popped. Letting them fail was the best option because it would have allowed smaller banks to buy their assets at a steep discount and make mone off their failure. It also would have made companies think twice (if not prevented them entirely) before doing something so stupid in the future.

The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to people regardless of creditworthiness. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act allowed banks to sell those junk mortgages and allowed investment banks to bundle them and sell them as securities.

Without those laws, the banks never would have been forced to make bad loans or had a way to get them off their books, so the sub-prime mess never could have happened.

Getting back to the case at hand. What if this drowning victim happened to be just this side of the imaginary border? ouila! The beach is ALSO UNPROTECTED for other swimmers!! So how did this really affect anything? Other than the short time running to/fro. If someone dies in the second scenario, the company STILL would have been sued for understaffing anyway. They are d-bags for firing. A little training or a day or so of unpaid leave maybe. Immediate firing, no.

Sure, other swimmers might have been at increased risk during the time it took to rescue that one person. But what if there had been two people drowning and government regulations required two lifeguards? Now that both lifeguards are busy, the beach is once again unprotected, isn't it? However, what are the odds that three people would be drowning at the same time? Its less than the odds of two people drowning at the same time, but the odds of two people drowning at the same time are also very remote.

Even government plays the odds when it comes to safety, so your argument is a failure at it's core.

As for the firing, in my opinion the company was overly harsh. But what issue is that of mine? If a person goes skiing outside the boundaries of a ski resort, should the ski resort be responsible for patrolling the areas outside their resort to protect those people? If so, how far? 100 feet? 100 yards? A mile?

How about city police? How far outside the city limits should they be required to respond? 1 mile? 5 miles? 10 miles?

The line must be drawn somewhere and this company had set that line.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by rambro

what town? I want o look into this. Please share the school district.

Also i did not say graded based on kids grade, you did. State and federal tests scores would be fair. Grades, hell the teacher can just inflate the grades if thats all it takes to stay paid. Whats the alternative?

Don't think these same scumbag kids and their scumbag parents are not shopping. They are. People in private sector have to put up with lowest common denominators every day. These bottom dwellers cost us tons of money, they suck up time, break stuff, steal stuff, sue, switch tags, vandalize and more. And they can "grade you" on yelp, angies list and more. And call stand and federal agencies and file fake claims, and it goes on and on.

Does your mom have to contend with any of that?

I would liken dope kids with crap grades as the comparable to loud dopey people that dont pay their bills, or who steal. So those cancel each other out, and business still has no guarantee of even being around in a few months, and yet has to contend with a dozen other aspects your mom does not.

By the way, my mom is teacher, sis is a teacher, bro in law is teacher (he is a white male, he cant seem to get hired in, how do you like that for "diversity" male teachers are the equivalent of female black firefighters, they should have jobs thrown at them), my little brother was class room aide for years also. I have about a dozen close friends that are teachers.

I do not see why they should not be held accountable. You can compare the kids to other classrooms in the same school, across the state as a whole, and the nation. It makes perfect sense. Crap people having crap hair brained kids is not unique to your moms class. Every teacher has that, so it makes sense to grade them all, and compare them all.

I could have said it more briefly, please tell me how your mom is so special, that would have been more brief. If she was a great educator she could start her own school, have a youtube channel with 100 million hits. I just saw this guy on stossel, he is the most popular educator on youtube. He is not even a degreed teacher. He is just a good teacher, he is smart, communicates, and kids who think they are dumb, watch this guy, and they get it. People beg him to do a lecture on a subject they are doing in school, so they can watch him not their teacher.

A couple thousand of the best teachers could teach the entire country, on video, they should make half million or a million bucks. The rest of the teachers could be fired. Or they could be hired in as aides, or assistants. That is problem solving, that is competition.

That is the competition many many many business's and trades have had to go throw since the computer age.

Yet teachers, because of the unions are firmly in the 18th century, reading books to kids and putting them to sleep in lecture halls. Which you may or may not know, are a remnant from times when labor was cheap, and books were expensive, and a person was hired to read the pricey book to a large room of people. Thats how they still do it, even though labor is now expensive, and books are cheap.

The union is 200 years behind the times.

I wish i could make money as a black smith who just knows how to smith, but no one really uses. Or i could be the ice man, but not deliver ice since the world changed, but i got to keep my job. I wish i was special.

My desire to argue a point on the Internet does not extend to telling a complete stranger where my mom lives, all due respect.

[Brickboy240]

The private sector is hardly to blame in a case like this but more so the legal sector that sues everyone for everything. Our litigious society has gotten private companies scared to do damned near anything for fear of having their pants sued off.

Sorry...nice try and I know that the big media brainwashing on having everyone believe that the private sector is evil is compelling but the fault for this type of action falls squarely on the legal sector....not the private sector.

- brickboy240

[EMN83]

Almost forgot about this incident so, yup, it's only evil corporations, right?

[Rustynuts]

Originally Posted by EMN83

Almost forgot about this incident so, yup, it's only evil corporations, right?

So 75 beachgoers ALSO failed to act? That's kinda like saying trickle down will work too with rich people funding charities for the poor and really needy. What happens when they DON'T? Metaphorically speaking.

[EMN83]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

So 75 beachgoers ALSO failed to act? That's kinda like saying trickle down will work too with rich people funding charities for the poor and really needy. What happens when they DON'T? Metaphorically speaking.

uh, that's not the point, the point is that even public run things..i.e. the FD/PD use the liability excuse....the fire chief even said that if he had been off duty, he would have gone in, your reply didn't really address that....individual choice is individual choice, but blaming things on privatization when public employees pull the same thing doesn't make sense

[drs1321]

Originally Posted by Brickboy240

The private sector is hardly to blame in a case like this but more so the legal sector that sues everyone for everything. Our litigious society has gotten private companies scared to do damned near anything for fear of having their pants sued off.

Sorry...nice try and I know that the big media brainwashing on having everyone believe that the private sector is evil is compelling but the fault for this type of action falls squarely on the legal sector....not the private sector.

- brickboy240

Big +1!