The City on Fire

Quote: Gandler

...Most of the list you will pull from do have benefits (except maybe some fisherman and loggers who are private contractors, but they get paid well in actual payment, so they can easily afford their own).

Haven't logged or fished have you.

Quote:

The others on those lists like garbage men and utility workers usually work for a city or county or large corporation and are unionized with good pension and benefits.

Although many labor negotiations wages settle somewhere around union pay, many city's aren't unionized. I have also seen where unions cannot get city workers to sign NLRB voters cards, because to go union many city workers would need to take a severe cut in pay and benefits.

Our local paper this week had an article, they are negotiating a package for city workers, but first are doing a 600k dollar study to determine what is fair. You can bet that that study takes a lot from municipal union contracts, then adds or subtracts very little and hands it back to our city planners. This is where many workers don't realize that unions have a lot of influence in their pay, regardless of whether or not they are dues paying workers.

In one article also, they mentioned starting pay for local police is around 23.00 per hr., which personally I think is pretty low. And you are saying these cops could join the NG and collect an extra 1.6k per month, for basically messing around and doing some training, they ought to think of joining.

ps; I have a friend who's dad stayed in the guard long enough to retire as a one star general. He was also one of the most successful real estate brokers in the county. He did well. He also had a memorable arsenal in his house.

Quote: petroglyph

Haven't logged or fished have you.

Although many labor negotiations wages settle somewhere around union pay, many city's aren't unionized. I have also seen where unions cannot get city workers to sign NLRB voters cards, because to go union many city workers would need to take a severe cut in pay and benefits.

Our local paper this week had an article, they are negotiating a package for city workers, but first are doing a 600k dollar study to determine what is fair. You can bet that that study takes a lot from municipal union contracts, then adds or subtracts very little and hands it back to our city planners. This is where many workers don't realize that unions have a lot of influence in their pay, regardless of whether or not they are dues paying workers.

In one article also, they mentioned starting pay for local police is around 23.00 per hr., which personally I think is pretty low. And you are saying these cops could join the NG and collect an extra 1.6k per month, for basically messing around and doing some training, they ought to think of joining.

ps; I have a friend who's dad stayed in the guard long enough to retire as a one star general. He was also one of the most successful real estate brokers in the county. He did well. He also had a memorable arsenal in his house.

No sir 1.6k a month is active duty (full time). And you will be working very full time.....
You don't make 1.6k for working two days a month (Maybe if you are like a 2 star general in the Reserves....)

In the Reserves you would probably take home 150-200 a month to start.

But, I agree that it is great training, that expands upon your civilian career. And, a great experience.
But, despite what Mission seems to think, its not about the money (because you won't make any lol)…..

Quote: AZDuffman

Private student loans basically do not exist anymore, banned under Obama. Sallie needs the interest for herself.

In any case, too many people are still going to college, not too few. Though it is getting better.

I think we agree here. Many training programs can be streamlined.

4 Year degrees lead to a lot of waste. A lot of classes that teach you nothing about your major (I think over 50% of mine were not even in my direct field).
There is no reason somebody studying Chemical Engineering (I did not, but wish I did) needs 4 hours of PE, 8 hours of Arts, 8 hours of History, 8 hours of creative writing, and 32 hours of non-related electives, etc....

Most 4 year degree programs could probably be boiled down to 1-2 years of just fulltime focus on the actual training (easily 1 year with no breaks)....

There are obvious exceptions to this like Professional Programs like Medical School where you need four years of intense education (though I don't know maybe the Doctors here can chime in on if it could be streamlined or not)….

Quote: Gandler

It was not Federally mandated, but through the 70s, maybe 80s in some states community colleges were largely free, you literally just signed up and brought books from what I have been told by older people. And State Universities were sometimes free, but always cheap (maybe with the exception of housing for on campus students, which I don't think should be free anyway). I think this was a better system and I wish some states would work towards going back to it.

But, the problem is States are fighting to get more Federal grant dollars so there is a race to raise tuition so that they can give you free education to those that qualify. Its almost a regressive system, instead of just being free or cheap for everyone.

Exactly, but it being free for everyone won't do anything to alleviate their ability to charge essentially whatever they want to the Government. Anytime any institution is more or less directly run by the Government, the answer always seems to be, "We need more money!"

Even then, if you made it only for the public schools, then that sets an unfair standard for the private schools to have to compete with. Even if the private institutions were better, which itself is highly debatable, there's nothing inherently there that's going to cause them to get the best students because they would cost a non-zero amount compared to zero for the state places.

But, again, if it's all handled in-state and you get the Federal Government out of education, at every single level and in every single conceivable way, then I don't have a problem with anything that you're saying. Let the taxpayers of individual states and the market decide what education looks like and should cost.

Quote:

Sorry then I misunderstood. That does not sound like a good workplace unless you loved your job.

Terrible workplace, hated the job. Didn't matter, I was married (at the time) and had first one then two kids in what is not the most economically privileged area. It paid enough that I would have had to have two jobs just to match it anyway. Also, I made the place a lot of money, so my job was extremely safe.

Quote:

I want people to be able to have access to healthcare, and we have a system where people without access are generally young middle class (poor people get free healthcare through medicade, old people through medicare, rich people can buy any plan they want, so the only people who have to worry about insurance are young middle class workers without an employer paid plan, and many are healthy and don't care about it until something terrible happens and then they go into absurd levels of debt) .

Yeah, and to what degree a system does exist it's essentially a Ponzi scheme, which is basically what health insurance is in the first place. The healthy pay a LOT more than they could have, on direct, in a free market while the insurance companies inevitably lose money on the infirm. That's why I think something along the lines of a specialty insurance for long-term care would be a good idea. If you want the insurance, you get the insurance. If you don't get the insurance and can't afford long-term treatments on your own, then you die. Everyone is going to die anyway, so I really don't see any reason to delay it unless people are willing to do what it takes to do so.

The fact that poor people get any level of healthcare for free artificially creates demand, and due to that, the medical profession can charge whatever the hell it wants to because it has a captive market in place. If they go into debt, then they can just file bankruptcy.

Also, I would think that people who aren't paying for it would tend to use it a lot more---which further drives up the costs by creating an artificial base market.

Medicare is similarly a Ponzi scheme, given how long people are living these days. Not to mention the fact that saving them (in long-term care terms) is nothing more than a totally sunk cost because they are beyond the point of creating wealth or value. Every resource expended on them, unless they are paying or have paid for it themselves (and are not net negative on Medicare) is a loss for which there will never be positive returns. IOW, waste of money.

The clear answer is to get the Federal Government completely out of healthcare and let the states handle it individually.

Quote:

My specific position? I don't know, I know my unit needed somebody to fill the slot, it probably looks good on paper to be 100% real with you, they can talk about enlisted members in various medical capacities. I was pretty much asked to take this class out of nowhere and said sure.

The textbook answer would be to provide backfill for the active Army when they are in need.

Which the Army probably never will need, thereby making it a complete waste of money. Again, I don't blame you at all for taking advantage of it and doing it. It seems you're getting good training, experience, education reimbursement, a little extra money and that you enjoy it.

Quote:

Totally disagree, but your opinion on the military is clear. Another topic I don't think we will agree upon here.

I don't have a problem with the military, conceptually speaking.

Quote:

Exactly people will see how wasteful having massive campuses for liberal arts degrees are. When you can literally access the same material online, probably in a more efficient manner.

Campuses are very much like military bases. People live there, use a lot of land and resources, and occasionally go to class, but most of the time is BS, people could easily take 90% of the classes at home.

I mean paper libraries alone and paper textbooks so wasteful. I can read my textbooks on an Ereader and not pay 400 dollars for a book which will be thrown out in a few weeks (that is one thing I like about APU 100% digital textbooks unless you request physical copies for extreme circumstances like if you are at sea or no regular internet access). Book stores and libraries are so wasteful to both personal finances and the environment. Every time a new edition comes out, throw out millions of old books and reprint, super wasteful....

Definitely more efficient, but even more importantly, less costly for all involved. Even the students save money not having to worry about transportation, and what have you.

I agree completely on libraries. If I was running for any level to actually do something about it, the first thing I would do is defund and close any non self-sustaining libraries immediately and sell the building/land for whatever I could get. Hell, maybe the community itself would just come together (in a way having nothing to do with tax) and buy it---continue to run it as is. Awesome if that happens.

I don't care about the environment at all.

Quote:

I partially agree that would be the only way to encourage states to make it happen. But, I don't know if I trust states to follow through which is why I am hesitant to agree with removing Pell Grants.

I think low income adults should have a right to attempt an education (many would not be able to get private student loans or afford to pay cash).

I don't care if the states follow through or not, that's the entire point. Let California enact all of the policies that they clamor for on the state-level, without using the Federal Government to force every single state to do it---and watch what happens. Do you have any idea what the tax structure would have to be to support every one of these initiatives simultaneously? That's why they want the Federal Government to do everything, because if they really pushed that envelope as a state, anyone with money is getting the hell out of Dodge. Hollywood (the industry) is located in Georgia---tomorrow.

California will socialize itself straight into oblivion without the Federal Government making it all the same thing for everyone. In that event, the only way to escape the tax structure would be to escape the country----which is precisely why they want to use the Federal Government to do it.

They do have the right to attempt an education; they just have to find a way to do it. Also, there could be charitable organizations created for the purpose, individual schools could take the initiative---which they essentially do with scholarships---but I mean having scholarships specifically for less advantaged people.

Quote: Gandler

No sir 1.6k a month is active duty (full time). And you will be working very full time.....
You don't make 1.6k for working two days a month (Maybe if you are like a 2 star general in the Reserves....)

In the Reserves you would probably take home 150-200 a month to start.

But, I agree that it is great training, that expands upon your civilian career. And, a great experience.
But, despite what Mission seems to think, its not about the money (because you won't make any lol)…..

$4500/year for school. Take that $200/month and almost triple it.

Quote: Gandler

I think we agree here. Many training programs can be streamlined.

4 Year degrees lead to a lot of waste. A lot of classes that teach you nothing about your major (I think over 50% of mine were not even in my direct field).
There is no reason somebody studying Chemical Engineering (I did not, but wish I did) needs 4 hours of PE, 8 hours of Arts, 8 hours of History, 8 hours of creative writing, and 32 hours of non-related electives, etc....

Most 4 year degree programs could probably be boiled down to 1-2 years of just fulltime focus on the actual training (easily 1 year with no breaks)....

There are obvious exceptions to this like Professional Programs like Medical School where you need four years of intense education (though I don't know maybe the Doctors here can chime in on if it could be streamlined or not)….

Combination of streamlining and too many people majoring in too much stupid stuff. Here I hand it to Asian parents. Asian kids are not taking useless liberal arts degrees. They are not getting masters in social work.

I can binge on the YouTube videos of kids who majored in stupid stuff and are now dead broke stuck with sometimes 6 figure loans. One of my favorites was a Karen who majored in PolySci. I think she had a masters. Said her "dream job" was registering people to vote. Smart enough to get into college but too stupid to learn that is not a career it is volunteer work.

Her mother was probably also a Karen and her dad had to be a Volvo-driving, latte-sipping, white-bread kind of guy. Where were they when she was telling them about her goals? Where were her guidance counselors?

Too many people go to college thinking they can work at something that is not revenue generating.

Quote: Gandler

I think we agree here. Many training programs can be streamlined.

4 Year degrees lead to a lot of waste. A lot of classes that teach you nothing about your major (I think over 50% of mine were not even in my direct field).
There is no reason somebody studying Chemical Engineering (I did not, but wish I did) needs 4 hours of PE, 8 hours of Arts, 8 hours of History, 8 hours of creative writing, and 32 hours of non-related electives, etc....

Most 4 year degree programs could probably be boiled down to 1-2 years of just fulltime focus on the actual training (easily 1 year with no breaks)....

There are obvious exceptions to this like Professional Programs like Medical School where you need four years of intense education (though I don't know maybe the Doctors here can chime in on if it could be streamlined or not)….

All other things being equal, I'd sill hire the guy with the broader curriculum before the pure job related training person.

Quote: rxwine

All other things being equal, I'd sill hire the guy with the broader curriculum before the pure job related training person.

And that is why you are not a person that hires people for a business.

Quote: rxwine

All other things being equal, I'd sill hire the guy with the broader curriculum before the pure job related training person.

I would disagree when it comes to science and mathematical positions. When i hire computer programmers I want the most nerdy guys that I can find. I want the guy that spends all of his fun time writing code.

Quote: kenarman

And that is why you are not a person that hires people for a business.

You would lose that bet. I was barely out of high school when I hired two people who worked at my friend's cabinet shop. It wasn't much of a hiring job. Construction was booming in S. Florida and he needed two painters pronto. I was quitting as I was off to FSU.