Yes, bojangles, that is what I was getting at, but the percentages were amusing as well.

My Chinese and Taiwanese friends have parents that really drove home the importance of education. It really seems to have helped them, as they all went to Ivy League schools and command hefty 6-figure salaries.

NamBud: Now, that is a worthwhile question. No, I don't believe that. Though, I am not a fool that would attribute it solely to the teachers either. It is the system. The teaching profession quite simply does not pay enough money to get intelligent people in the classroom. If our brightest from industry taught our children, we would be much better off, but no, people like you just want to punish teachers instead of getting to the root cause.

I have already given my $.02 so I am not going to repeat my response to this. I am not saying I am right just that it would be redundant. I will say I am not out to punish anyone, I just don't think rewarding incompetence (by keeping them employed when they are not performing) is going to fix anything.

jst3p: NamBud: jst3p
No, my solution is to make it easier to fire teachers for poor performance. This will result in the poor performing teachers stepping up or not teaching kids. Both of which are preferable to staying in the system and milking it.


So, let me get this straight, if your kid is a retard fark-stick (like his parents) that does nothing in class (like his parents, apparently), and his parents are simply too busy shooting guns and drinking Busch to help him (no surprise), then a teacher should be fired for his/her incompetence and inability to perform? Are you really that stupid?

Maybe, just maybe, parents should help their son/daughter learn and stop blaming schools, and they should take an active role in their offspring's education. Seems to be working very well with the Chinese...

Adult literacy rate in China ~ 91%
Adult literacy rate in the US ~ 99%

Yeah, lets follow their lead.


[citation needed]

Corporations make money, products, economy. Unions make Democrat politicians.

The Dog Ate The Constitution: jst3p: NamBud: jst3p
No, my solution is to make it easier to fire teachers for poor performance. This will result in the poor performing teachers stepping up or not teaching kids. Both of which are preferable to staying in the system and milking it.


So, let me get this straight, if your kid is a retard fark-stick (like his parents) that does nothing in class (like his parents, apparently), and his parents are simply too busy shooting guns and drinking Busch to help him (no surprise), then a teacher should be fired for his/her incompetence and inability to perform? Are you really that stupid?

Maybe, just maybe, parents should help their son/daughter learn and stop blaming schools, and they should take an active role in their offspring's education. Seems to be working very well with the Chinese...

Adult literacy rate in China ~ 91%
Adult literacy rate in the US ~ 99%

Yeah, lets follow their lead.


[citation needed]

Link (new window)

jst3p
I just don't think rewarding incompetence (by keeping them employed when they are not performing) is going to fix anything.

Understood. Though, you have to be VERY careful there, as that could really be an area that could be abused. My mother has taught all of her life until recently when she became an administrator. I have seen and heard all of the "my Baby, blah, blah, blah.."

And, unlike GoldSpider would like to think, you can't just tell a parent to fark off. It would be nice, but he lives in the WoW world and not reality. Spider, log-off your game and log-in to real life.

rcain: Unions are to Democrats what Big Oil is to Republicans... a drug sickness of the most repugnant kind, they get so caught up in it, they don't see anything wrong with having to service the big corporate cocks as long as they get their cash, their voting endorsements, and they can carry on about towing the party line. The best interests of the nation and the people be damned.

Unions were needed once, that was over fifty years ago, now like any other useless entity that subsists within another, they have become nothing more than a parasite, sucking out the lifeblood of the host body that supports them.

THIS!!!

yesthatmcgurk - Corporations make money, products, economy. Unions make Democrat politicians consumers.


You don't get the money and economy without people who can buy your products.

amquelbettamin Quote 2009-04-27 08:20:40 PM

More like Meet the New Fail:

in posts like yours.

realmolo
"Unions are an *absolutely necessary* evil. Without a union, the corporation has ALL the power."


...Which sorta makes sense, since the corporation pays ALL the wages.

Let me walk you through the effect that unions have on the US economy and job market today:

Contract negotiations break down; union goes on strike. An employee that would be more than happy to continue working for a fair-market salary of, say, $50k/year is instead forced to not get paid anything at all because his union obligation won't allow him to show up for work...all because his union is out blackmailing the evil corporation to pay him $60k/year -- thus artificially inflating the consumer price of goods produced or handled by the employee, leading to an even further consumer tendency to purchase imported goods, leading to higher import tariffs to restore balance, leading to a retaliatory rise in import tariffs on American goods brought into other nations, stifling worldwide demand for American goods, which bounces right back to our original employee and drives him out of a job altogether because nobody wants to buy his products at an artificially elevated price.

Are we happy?

I also find people's "unions help the little guy in his struggle against big business" arguments (at best) comical, since instead of being subordinate to an employer with whom he can negotiate a higher salary and better conditions in a fair and evenly competitive setting, the worker is now at the mercy of the union boss with whom he cannot even negotiate for the right to come to work and earn a living.

spmkk - realmolo "Unions are an *absolutely necessary* evil. Without a union, the corporation has ALL the power."


...Which sorta makes sense, since the corporation pays ALL the wages.


to the workers... in exchange for providing ALL the labor, without which the profits from which all the wages, bonuses, and dividends are taken could not be made.


Yet another numbnuts who worships corporate masters and believes the salaries they pay to be a great benevolence bestowed on their lowly workers out of the goodness of their great big magnanimous corporate hearts.

BojanglesPaladin: sparkeyjames: Yes Yes let's outlaw the unions so the corporations can again abuse their workers.

Unions are no longer the only safeguard against labor abuse. In fact, they are largely obsolete now with labor laws and every State having a labor board of some kind.

Yes until all the politicians are bribed into voting a new bill through limiting your rights and giving the Wall Street controlled Corporations the advantage once again. You don't think it could happen? guess again. Greed knows no bounds nor does it have any morality. The last Congress and Administration was so wholly owned by big oil they all went out of office with black noses and pockets stuffed with cash. If you don't think that bribery with that amount of cash could get them to vote against workers rights then your an idiot.

sunlion: Unions are what made America a great country, period. Love it or leave it.

You do know that "love it or leave it" is the single most unamerican thing you can say, right?

It's pretty much pissing on the grave of the founding fathers.

nothing constructive to add but...


that is all

//hot like a geisha

Well, if he's going to help anyone, it should be the $85 an hour mop jockeys who are driving their companies into bankruptcy.

From the article:

The Labor Department also is rescinding another key labor financial disclosure regulation. The expansion of the so-called LM-2 rule, approved during the last days of the Bush administration, requires unions to report more information about finances and labor leaders' compensation on annual reports.


Let's see Hmmmmmmm....Last minute regulations by a outgoing president of a party that hurt a group, unions, his party sees as political adversaries? This regulation couldn't have possibly been politically motivated could it? And Obama is going back to the old regulations that existed before Bush changed them at the last minute. Looks like political BS. Smells like political BS. Yeah this story is probably political BS.

Apik0r0s: Mr. Right: Apik0r0s:
Capitalism is the collectivization of Capital.

Communism is the collectivization of Labor.


Capitalism is not collective. Capitalism is individual. When capital becomes collectivized it is corporatism. Don't confuse the two. Individual capitalists who succeed do so because of what Smith referred to as Enlightened Self Interest. Corporatism fails because it tends to short term greed. Capitalism needs no controls - the market and competition serving an enlightened consumerate provide all the constraint needed. Corporatism requires regulation precisely because of the absolute economic power it could wield.

Unions are monopolies as well as being collective. Can't get much more dangerous and corruption-prone than those conditions.


I'm using the godsdamned term as we all know it now - of course it's corporatism dipshiat, but this isn't 1840 so I'll use the farking words we all use today. Take the pedantic stick out of your arse and try to see the farking point.

Whoa, calm down, captain apeshiat.

Hooray for hope and change!!!

tortilla burger: The problem is that those two forces are not equal and opposite.

Corporation = only looking out for itself
Unions = only looking out for the workers

Who's looking out for the consumer?

Haven't belonged to a union before, have you?


Unions!=looking out for the workers
Unions=Looking out for unions (unions being the infrastructure of the unions)

Having been a part of a large union I can tell you that it is really all about the union leadership. It really ends up being another company within the company almost. How can I get myself elected to a commiteeman spot, or counsel spot, or whatever so I can get in on the gravy train? Once there, how can I keep the workers down so I can keep my gravy train coming in?

Emrick:

This is a good decision. The Bush D.O.L. was hostile toward Unions. The Obama Admin is just swinging the pendulum back the other way.


I haven't read through all the posts but this bonehead is the only one I've seen who "thinks" less detailed COI reporting is a good idea. Of course, he/she/it doesn't explain themselves but rather swallows the anti-Bush pill whole. Being Fark, I expect the personal attacks on any given forum, but who out there can offer a legitimate explanation of how this is a good idea? If this were concerning "Big Oil" and Dick Cheney had been a lawyer fighting for it prior to his White House appointment, what would your response be?

Mr. Right:
Management pumps out gashogs because the public loves to drive them.

They love to drive them because management has paid billions of dollars for advertising campaigns to CONVINCE the public that they love to drive them.

ttintagel: Mr. Right:
Management pumps out gashogs because the public loves to drive them.

They love to drive them because management has paid billions of dollars for advertising campaigns to CONVINCE the public that they love to drive them.

Billions of dollars is spent convincing me of the benefits of using feminine hygiene products, but you don't see me running out buying Massengill and feminine deodorant spray.

The public likes to drive big cars because they actually like to drive big cars. The purpose of the advertising is to convince the consumer that their product best satisfies that desire.

Rodddxl: Billions of dollars is spent convincing me of the benefits of using feminine hygiene products, but you don't see me running out buying Massengill and feminine deodorant spray.

You mean because they do nothing for your jock itch? Makes sense.

Can'tLetYouDoThatStarFox: If you got rid of unions, this recession would be over within 6 months easily. This country's economy would grow faster than the Genesis planet. Union plant workers spend 2 hours sleeping or reading the newspaper for every 1 hour of actual work they perform. And a union worker would have to burn the place to the ground to get fired, regardless of their merit.

So every union is exactly alike?

Huh. Seems like there are a lot of different unions, with different goals and different ideas about how they should work. And seems like they apply differently in different circumstances -- and have almost never just been about getting huge pay raises.

(aside: Why is it the union who's evil for requesting 5 million in pay increases for an entire workforce, when the CEO takes home ten times that much in the clear?)

I guess I'm biased now, because my dad's in a union -- after working most of his life in non-union jobs. He's nearing retirement age. He's been a HVAC road service tech for most of his career.

Because he's in a union now, he has reasonable health insurance -- which kept my parents from going bankrupt when my mother got diagnosed with cancer and dad developed health issues.

Rodddxl - ttintagel: Mr. Right:
Management pumps out gashogs because the public loves to drive them.

They love to drive them because management has paid billions of dollars for advertising campaigns to CONVINCE the public that they love to drive them.

Billions of dollars is spent convincing me of the benefits of using feminine hygiene products, but you don't see me running out buying Massengill and feminine deodorant spray.

The public likes to drive big cars because they actually like to drive big cars. The purpose of the advertising is to convince the consumer that their product best satisfies that desire.


One of the main reasons advertising is so effective is because no one thinks it is. As someone in the industry, I thank you... and would like to reassure you... you are correct, you are completely immune to advertising. Everyone is.

Why advertisers pay millions for mere seconds of airtime during the superbowl is utterly baffling.

technicolor-misfit: Rodddxl - ttintagel: Mr. Right:
Management pumps out gashogs because the public loves to drive them.

They love to drive them because management has paid billions of dollars for advertising campaigns to CONVINCE the public that they love to drive them.

Billions of dollars is spent convincing me of the benefits of using feminine hygiene products, but you don't see me running out buying Massengill and feminine deodorant spray.

The public likes to drive big cars because they actually like to drive big cars. The purpose of the advertising is to convince the consumer that their product best satisfies that desire.


One of the main reasons advertising is so effective is because no one thinks it is. As someone in the industry, I thank you... and would like to reassure you... you are correct, you are completely immune to advertising. Everyone is.

Why advertisers pay millions for mere seconds of airtime during the superbowl is utterly baffling.

See that tiny spec 1000 feet above you? That was the point.

It's pretty much pissing on the grave of the founding fathers.

They had good intentions, largely, but still FAILed to build a system capable of establishing justice, and the slave state that they built endured for generations.

While trade unionism was not the only movement pushing to make this a free republic, it was the first movement with enough power to overcome the interests of the ultra-wealthy.

No one's likely to see this, but the truth remains regardless.