It's morning in Wisconsin

[Admiral Yi]

I agree with Joan to a certain extent.  The real fault lies with the Democratic electorate, who have no objection to public employee unions bribing their state representatives to continuously hand over more and more of the state's revenues.  Or worse, applaud is as virtuous.

And of course there's Beeb's very good point about the lack of the voluntary aspect.

[The Minsky Moment]

The real fault lies with the Democratic electorate, who have no objection to public employee unions bribing their state representatives to continuously hand over more and more of the state's revenues.  Or worse, applaud is as virtuous.

Right, but by the same token the fact that portions of the GOP electorate are fine with corporations bribing legislators to steer contracts, earmarks and subsidies is not reasong for scrapping the corporate form.

[Admiral Yi]

Right, but by the same token the fact that portions of the GOP electorate are fine with corporations bribing legislators to steer contracts, earmarks and subsidies is not reasong for scrapping the corporate form.

I imagine the portions of the GOP electorate that are fine with corporations bribing legislators to do those things is not particularly large.  I have personally not met a single registered GOP voter who has expressed approval of any of those things.  Whereas a Democratic voter who is unhappy with public sector unions buying their own raises is a bit of a rarity.

[MadImmortalMan]

Right, but by the same token the fact that portions of the GOP electorate are fine with corporations bribing legislators to steer contracts, earmarks and subsidies is not reasong for scrapping the corporate form.

Yes it is. To the barricades, comrades!

[The Minsky Moment]

Since both Minsky's post, and my response, have been overtaken by talk about school vouchers, here's my response:

Of course no one would object to employees voluntarily coming together to collectively bargain.

But you skim right over the objectionable part of unions.  Once a union is certified all employees must belong (or if allowed to opt out is still forced to pay the same union dues, and still forced to be bound to the collective agreement).  And once a union is certified the employer can only negotiate with that union.  What kind of freedom to contract is there when you can only contract with one single party, and when it's an item that is essential to your business?

IIRC the closed shop is not permitted in the US.  It's true that in some situations a worker may face a take it or leave it choice with respect to the collective agreement, but that hardly worse than facing a take it or leave it choice of a non-union employer's unilaterally set work rules and conditions.  The obligation to pay dues in those jurisdictions that permit such rules raises more concerns, but the alternative is a big free rider problem.  And in the US at least there are plenty of non-union employers out there.

[Razgovory]

the only employment in Jefferson City is state work.

Kinda makes you wonder why the city exists. Has everyone left yet?

A lot of people do leave, many don't know that they are the worst paid in the country.  You'd be surprised how much desperate people are willing to take for a paycheck.

[The Minsky Moment]

I imagine the portions of the GOP electorate that are fine with corporations bribing legislators to do those things is not particularly large.  I have personally not met a single registered GOP voter who has expressed approval of any of those things.  Whereas a Democratic voter who is unhappy with public sector unions buying their own raises is a bit of a rarity.

I could think of 5 supreme court justices that seemed OK with it.  Not sure of all of their political affiliations or sympathies but I could hazard a guess  . . .

[Razgovory]

Well, given what Alfred, derSpiess and Berkut have said about the demographics of suburban schools versus troubled urban schools, it seems to me that the urban schools are on the front lines of dealing with a number of the biggest social issues facing the US today. If a large part of the student body comes from difficult family situations, don't speak English, are from environments that devalue education, and/or are facing significant issues coming from poverty/ drug abuse/ nutrition etc, it seems that threatening to take away resources from schools with the most challenged student bodies would be counter productive; and isn't that what standards competition is about?

You know what, you're right.  We should definitely throw good money after bad.  It can only help, right?  Like in Kansas City, for example...

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html

edit: Some more recent info from what you'll probably consider a more agreeable source:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/18/147067123/kansas-citys-failed-schools-leave-students-behind

Yeah, good example.  They didn't close those schools because of poor grades, they closed them because the state was running low on money and wanted to cut in places where Republicans don't vote.

They just closed half the schools in the district http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/us/11kansascity.html  To make up for loses.

[dps]

I'm not super familiar with the US education systems (there are more than one, right?)

Yes, each state has its own system, and some of the states have pretty decentralized systems.

[Admiral Yi]

I could think of 5 supreme court justices that seemed OK with it.  Not sure of all of their political affiliations or sympathies but I could hazard a guess  . . .

5 SC justices who have expressed approval of quid pro quos?  I'd love to hear their names Joan.

[Razgovory]

I could think of 5 supreme court justices that seemed OK with it.  Not sure of all of their political affiliations or sympathies but I could hazard a guess  . . .

5 SC justices who have expressed approval of quid pro quos?  I'd love to hear their names Joan.

Take a guess.  You have a 1 in 9 chance of getting one right.

[Admiral Yi]

Take a guess.  You have a 1 in 9 chance of getting one right.

False premise.

[Razgovory]

Take a guess.  You have a 1 in 9 chance of getting one right.

False premise.

We don't have 9 justices? 

[Razgovory]

I genuinely and honestly hope that Berkut loses his job and can't get another one.  I wished that on others of you, but many of you have wealthy families to help.

[Ed Anger]

*sigh*