What's new
By:
Filters

The next step: Don't educate children at all

One Brow

One Brow

Well-Known Member
Contributor
One Brow said:
news.yahoo.com

Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids

The comments came after a leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court revealed that a majority of justices were considering overturning Roe v. Wade.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

Here's a thought: track down all the employers hiring undocumented workers, fine them out the wazoo, and use that money to educate the undocumented children.
Click to expand...
But a majority of employers are most likely white…

In all seriousness, this has ALWAYS been the solution for illegal immigration. You could deport all undocumented workers today, build a Berlin Wall across the border, and they’d still be back tomorrow because of the demand for cheap labor. Target employers and explain to American consumers why they’ve seen significant costs in products and services and you’ve solved the issue. Of course, American consumers probably won’t like the higher costs but that’s another story… I mean we’re seeing right now in real time labor shortages due to years of low levels of immigration. Where’s that manly American worker willing to work for low wages and zero benefits?

It’s been my experience that the Americans that hate immigration and globalization the most are also the ones who enjoy cheap good and services the most. They’re just too dumb or stubborn to connect the dots in their heads. And seeing where our demographics are headed? If we want to be able to compete economically with the right’s new favorite enemy, China in this century we better embrace immigration. If nothing else for the economic net benefits (I also care about giving people better lives so I believe immigration should be made easier).
 
Last edited:
It’s honestly wouldn’t be surprising to me to see this ruling overturned. The right has been pushing to privatize public education for years. Red states will be aided by the Republican SCOTUS to help educate some students while dumping others into the trash heap.
 
Whether public or private, education costs money. Someone is footing the bill somewhere whether it's states, feds, taxpayers, etc.
 
Avery said:
Whether public or private, education costs money. Someone is footing the bill somewhere whether it's states, feds, taxpayers, etc.
Click to expand...
Or prisons.

We can either pay to educate people now or pay for lost economic, social, and political opportunities later.

Want a stable democracy? Want to maintain a thriving economy? Want a equitable society? It all starts with education. Like most things we're seeing from the right today, it's all reactionary politics. It's all about maintaining a sense of grievance. It's about backlash against the cultural progress that has been made since WWII. They'll happily pay more for prisons rather than schools if it means maintaining the racial hierarchy.
 
Last edited:
Avery said:
Whether public or private, education costs money. Someone is footing the bill somewhere whether it's states, feds, taxpayers, etc.
Click to expand...

Governments can't pay for anything without first taxing citizens, or borrowing (to be re-paid in the future by taxpayers). So, taxpayers are paying for all of it.

Let a lot more people in legally, simplify the process, and don't criminalize low-skilled workers from accepting employment that they agree to of their own free will, even if a bureaucrat in Washington thinks the pay is too low.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
Governments can't pay for anything without first taxing citizens, or borrowing (to be re-paid in the future by taxpayers). So, taxpayers are paying for all of it.

Let a lot more people in legally, simplify the process, and
Click to expand...
Agreed.

AlaskanAssassin said:
don't criminalize low-skilled workers from accepting employment that they agree to of their own free will, even if a bureaucrat in Washington thinks the pay is too low.
Click to expand...
Agreed, with the proviso the workers should be able to organize and bargain as a group, to maintain equity with employers.
 
Avery said:
Whether public or private, education costs money. Someone is footing the bill somewhere whether it's states, feds, taxpayers, etc.
Click to expand...
The Thriller and I agree, which is why my proposed solution rests on billing the people who are hiring the parents of these children.
 
One Brow said:
The Thriller and I agree, which is why my proposed solution rests on billing the people who are hiring the parents of these children.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this.
 
One Brow said:
Agreed, with the proviso the workers should be able to organize and bargain as a group, to maintain equity with employers.
Click to expand...
Totally agree on that, provided they only need to join the organization (union) of their own free will, and the government doesn't grant any special priviliges to either the employer or organized group of employees.
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
Totally agree on that, provided they only need to join the organization (union) of their own free will, and the government doesn't grant any special priviliges to either the employer or organized group of employees.
Click to expand...
Are the workers going to be ALLOWED to join the unions of their own free will, free of undue pressure or coercion from either side? (Google Pinkerton's unions)
 
AlaskanAssassin said:
Totally agree on that, provided they only need to join the organization (union) of their own free will, and the government doesn't grant any special priviliges to either the employer or organized group of employees.
Click to expand...
With optional union membership, you get into the free rider problem, unless you think the union should be able to negotiate a limit on the wages of non-members as well, so that the cost of union membership is compensated.

I'm not sure what you mean by "special privileges". I'm in favor of practicality.
 
gandalfe said:
Are the workers going to be ALLOWED to join the unions of their own free will, free of undue pressure or coercion from either side? (Google Pinkerton's unions)
Click to expand...
Depends on if they are in an open (or Right to Work) state or a closed shop state. The laws governing unions are state-specific.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Depends on if they are in an open (or Right to Work) state or a closed shop state. The laws governing unions are state-specific.
Click to expand...
I meant in reference to @AlaskanAssassin's comment about them being free to join or not join - which I took as a reference to the closed shop states, which is a fair enough concern, although as mentioned then you have the free riders. I have actually seen contracts where it says explicitly, "If you're in the union, you get this, if not, well, good luck." So the wages, benefits, etc, are literally dependent on union membership.
 
Last edited:
gandalfe said:
Are the workers going to be ALLOWED to join the unions of their own free will, free of undue pressure or coercion from either side? (Google Pinkerton's unions)
Click to expand...

Undue pressure is subjective, but generally yes. Businesses should not be able to stop or limit employees from unionizing. That being said, the government shouldn't intervene in the relationship between the employer and the union. There is a lot of power in joining a collective to negotiate the terms of employment, and that can potentially be a great thing for workers. Government shouldn't be able to tip the scales to one side or the other. With that means that employees can end the employment agreement (strike, boycott, change jobs), and so can the employer (shut down a business, hire different people, etc.). Everyone is on an equal playing field.
 
One Brow said:
With optional union membership, you get into the free rider problem, unless you think the union should be able to negotiate a limit on the wages of non-members as well, so that the cost of union membership is compensated.

I'm not sure what you mean by "special privileges". I'm in favor of practicality.
Click to expand...
I understand the concept of the "free rider problem", but I'm not sure it would manifest itself as much if everyone was left to their own devices to negotiate the terms of employment. If a company had half their workforce under a union, and half not, the half not a part of the union get zero of the potential benefits of those negotiations (growing wages, more time off, etc - whatever terms the unionized members wanted to negotiate). There are very few topics of negotiation between unions and employers that would be almost impossible to segregate between the unionized and not-unionized (safety conditions is the only one I can think of off the top of my head).

There may be employees that want different terms of employment than the union is looking for. Maybe they only want to work 25 hours a week, or they want to work 60. Maybe they would prefer to buy their own health insurance. Maybe they want more pay than the union is able to negotiate on their behalf.

Just my "free-will" individualist perspective.

I'm no union law expert, but the special privileges I'm referring to is just any government intervention on how those union negotiations must happen, or how the relationship is arranged. If the union wants to take their labor elsewhere (to a competitor), they can, if the employer wants to end the relationship, they can.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this from the original topic)
 
Man, I really wish it were easier to immigrate here. I don’t, however, think that solves all the problems. Or even comes close to it. Honestly, I’m not sure it changes the problem with people come from Central America all that much. So many people are coming across. Even if it were as simple as “fill out this form and pay $100 and we’ll let you in” I don’t think it changes all that much. These people don’t have $100 to afford that. Most of these people are only eating if they work that day.
I think it’s fairly obvious that a lot of these immigrants are going into the construction industry. What’s happening is that the big companies are hiring a subcontractor (1099 pay) that has all the licenses who then hires a “company” (1099 pay) that pays his illegal immigrants under the table. The people with the money are in the clear. It’s the little guy making peanuts that’s actually doing the hiring. I know a guy that is a general contractor. He does nothing but frame houses for Ivory Homes. Ivory pays his company and sends a 1099 at the end of the year. My friend hires three or four individual framing “companies” to actually do the work. He sends them a 1099 at the end of the year. They hire 5 or 6 (illegal) guys and actually do the framing. The price of doing the job has been cut twice already before it gets to the guys actually doing the work. They’re not getting paid hardly anything. If the government comes and investigates, the two biggest guys are in the free and clear. It’s the guy making pennies that gets dinged. Guess what they do? Fold up shop and start over.
 
I said it before, if the current SCOTUS is just going to overturn previous decisions willy nilly, Brown v Board of Education is definitely high on the list of decisions to be worried about.
 
gandalfe said:
I said it before, if the current SCOTUS is just going to overturn previous decisions willy nilly, Brown v Board of Education is definitely high on the list of decisions to be worried about.
Click to expand...
Yeah but I just cannot see any kind of segregation happening again. I think there would be substantial public outcry at that level. Maybe in some pockets, but by and large I think we are past at least that blatant level of racism and racial abuse.

Then again, this is 'MERICA we are talking about. Who knows what the hell will happen in some states.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top