|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Tenure = Unions which is what I suggested the problem was. ... This is a
very eye opening post Ira .. it is all true and the fact that parents think
they are doing their children a favor with these liberal/tolerant methods
is out and out frightening.
Bob
At 07:36 PM 9/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>Tenure killed the teaching profession. If you could get hired it was nearly
>impossible to get fired unless you were a child molester and then there was
>a court battle. There is no requirement to be good at what you do if you
>are hired as a teacher. The other problem is the parents. Don't discipline
>my child. Don't make him do all of that home work, it interferes with his
>selling drugs. 45% of all drug traffic happens in the city. Where do you
>think the other 55% is?
>
>There is no work ethic, there is no responsibility for ones actions, the is
>no respect for another persons property or rights. A couple of kids stole
>my XKE roadster and it was my fault for having an attractive nuisance. They
>were involved in a hit and run and I had to prove that the car was stolen.
>The were chased up a country road at about 140 MPH and I had to explain
>where I was at the time. They caught them and I was being questioned. They
>were laughing because they would be on the street in a 1/2 hour. What is
>the system telling these kids. The schools, the parents, and the penal
>system.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Kent Rollins" <kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 4:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
>
>
> > Teachers are paid less than they ideally should be but only at GOVERNMENT
> > schools. When you work for the govnerment, you have a practically
> > guaranteed job and this tends to attract certain types. I'm not trying to
> > indict all teachers. Many of them are very dedicated and genuinely
> > interested in teaching. This of course is another reason why they take
>less
> > pay. I would program for less money than I do, but fortunately, I don't
> > have to. :) And fortunately I don't need a union thug to negotiate my
> > salary.
> >
> > Teachers at private schools are paid better in general because the private
> > schools have their choice of the cream of the crop and because private
> > schools have to perform or the parents won't pay for it the services.
> >
> > Kent
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "tradewynne" <tradewynne@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2002 5:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> >
> >
> > > about money--PAC money mainly. the largest contributors to
> > Democrats are unions, teachers associations and trial lawyers....
> >
> > I largely agree, but teachers are paid crap....you can't have it both
> > ways. Starting pay at the local grocery store is higher
> > than teachers with a masters degree....
> >
> >
> > --- In realtraders@xxxx, Jim Johnson <jejohn@xxxx> wrote:
> > > Hello BobsKC,
> > >
> > > you can't hold teachers accountable--they're unionized AND they have
> > > tenure. what's that all about?
> > >
> > > about money--PAC money mainly. the largest contributors to
> > Democrats
> > > are unions, teachers associations and trial lawyers.
> > >
> > > the liberal philosophy continues to eat away at our way of life.
> > even
> > > last night on the WSJ editorial board roundtable--when asked about
> > > Welsh's retirements perks, not one of those presumably free market
> > > conservative writers observed that what he got was given to him
> > > freely. Even they seemed to be tacitly buying into the implication
> > > that somebody (government I assume) should get involved in this.
> > the
> > > title of van Hayek's book is chilling--The Road to Serfdom.
> > >
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Jim Johnson mailto:jejohn@x...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Saturday, September 21, 2002, 10:29:59 PM, you wrote:
> > >
> > > B> Unions. I watched the UAW refuse to give back a dime to Cat
> > when things
> > > B> got tough in the early 80's even in the face of warnings they
> > would move
> > > B> their Iowa plants. Well, they moved them. To France! My
> > company provided
> > > B> two way radio and closed circuit tv services to those plants and
> > it was a
> > > B> tough loss for us.
> > >
> > > B> There was a time for labor unions. That time was 80 years ago.
> > Most of
> > > B> the money they pull in goes to organized crime and they have
> > caused
> > > B> manufacturing to depart wholesale. Besides, I am suspicious of
> > anyone who
> > > B> wants to work at a job where they tell you how much you can make.
> > >
> > > B> So, greed has driven out the manufacturing jobs. Our education
> > system has
> > > B> lowered the bar for the few until the majority are getting a
> > second rate
> > > B> education and can not compete in the world market place.
> > Education is not
> > > B> the same as corporate earnings. You can't just lower the
> > estimates. I
> > > B> worry a lot about our youth .. kids coming out of high school
> > today are
> > > B> less informed that kids coming out of 8th grade 30 years ago.
> > The damn
> > > B> bar better get put back up where it belongs and teachers held
> > accountable
> > > B> and tested.
> > >
> > > B> Bob
> > >
> > >
> > > B> At 05:57 PM 9/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> > > >>Did the US have a choice in its conversion? It was convert or
> > die. The
> > > >>manufacturing went elsewhere because they could do it just as
> > good and a lot
> > > >>cheaper. The only other alternative we had was to become
> > isolationists again
> > > >>and ban imports. Our agriculture is going the same way right
> > now. Garlic
> > > >>is coming in from China at 1/2 the price it can be produced for
> > in the US.
> > > >>The same with oranges, grapefruit and other citrus from Australia
> > and South
> > > >>America. Are the grain markets in the same shape? Brazil,
> > Australia, and
> > > >>other countries are producing product for less. How long can a
> > subsidy
> > > >>last? Where is our vaunted fishing fleet. Are there any
> > American flag
> > > >>vessels left afloat, outside of the Navy and coast guard. Do we
> > produce
> > > >>shoes or clothing any more? We still have a thriving wine
> > industry.
> > > >>
> > > >>I have a question. Who does the service industry service? We
> > have banks
> > > >>that lend money to foreign countries that don't repay the loans.
> > We have
> > > >>computer companies that import all of the parts they assemble
> > here. So we
> > > >>did save those high paying assembly line jobs. The fast food
> > restaurants
> > > >>are expanding overseas instead of in the US so those high paying
> > service
> > > >>jobs at Wendy's and McD aren't going to shrink the unemployment
> > rolls. The
> > > >>banks can now lose money in insurance, brokerage and other non
> > banking
> > > >>endeavors. Even the federal government is sending our armaments
> > for
> > > >>production overseas.
> > > >>
> > > >>Were is the talent coming from to operate the high tech
> > companies? That
> > > >>talent is coming from oversees. We can't even produce an
> > intelligent work
> > > >>force. There is one ever expanding area of the economy. Tattoo
> > parlors and
> > > >>body piercing salons are popping up all over. Now there is a
> > real future
> > > >>for your kids. Am I missing something here? Ira
> > > >>
> > > >>----- Original Message -----
> > > >>From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxx>
> > > >>To: <realtraders@xxxx>
> > > >>Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 4:54 PM
> > > >>Subject: Re: [RT] Service vs Manufacturing economy
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> > Gary, do you have a URL for that article, sure would like to
> > read the
> > > >>whole
> > > >> > thing?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I have long believed that true economic strength is built upon
> > a strong
> > > >>and
> > > >> > resilient manufacturing base. I have also been saying for many
> > years that
> > > >> > the US would suffer deeply in the next recession/depression
> > for having
> > > >> > converted to a service based economy.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Earl
> > > >> >
> > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > >> > From: "Gary Funck" <gary@xxxx>
> > > >> > To: <realtraders@xxxx>
> > > >> > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:23 PM
> > > >> > Subject: RE: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > > From: Daniel Goncharoff [mailto:thegonch@x...]
> > > >> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 9:37 AM
> > > >> > > > To: realtraders@xxxx
> > > >> > > > Subject: Re: [RT] 10 year note near 40 year highs ?
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I think there are two sides to this point. Isn't a service-
> > based
> > > >>economy
> > > >> > > > more flexible than one based on large factories? It may
> > mean that
> > > >> > > > changes come more easily, and that new industries can
> > develop using
> > > >>the
> > > >> > > > excess information-based labor from weaker sectors.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > In this respect, telecoms will be a good real-life
> > example. It will be
> > > >> > > > interesting to see what happens to all the people getting
> > laid off by
> > > >> > > > the telecoms firms that won't be growing for several
> > years. If they
> > > >>end
> > > >> > > > up having no place to go, that would indicate your believe
> > is
> > > >>validated.
> > > >> > > > If they find new jobs in a similar field, I think the
> > economic hit
> > > >>will
> > > >> > > > not be very big at all.
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > In this week's Business Week, there's a rather disturbing
> > article that
> > > >> > refutes
> > > >> > > the theory that a service based economy should be more
> > resilient.
> > > >>Excerpts
> > > >> > > below:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > NEWS: ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The Educated Unemployed
> > > >> > > The jobless rate for managers and professionals is likely to
> > rise
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > [...]
> > > >> > > Here's why joblessness is likely to rise: Across the board,
> > companies
> > > >>are
> > > >> > > facing an unholy trio of low profits, weak demand, and
> > falling
> > > >> > prices--with no
> > > >> > > relief in sight. Revenues for the companies in the Standard
> > & Poor's
> > > >> > 500-stock
> > > >> > > index are down 2% over the past year, adding to the pressure
> > on
> > > >>businesses
> > > >> > to
> > > >> > > cut costs by cutting workforces. At the same time,
> > productivity is
> > > >>soaring
> > > >> > at a
> > > >> > > rapid clip--a 6% gain over last year at nonfinancial
> > corporations.
> > > >>That's
> > > >> > > allowing businesses to meet flat demand with fewer workers.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Even more distressing, some of the sectors where the job
> > market has
> > > >>stayed
> > > >> > > relatively strong--including health, education, finance, and
> > retailing,
> > > >> > which
> > > >> > > together make up about 40% of the total workforce--are
> > showing signs of
> > > >> > > cracking. And the already grim labor picture in the airline,
> > energy,
> > > >> > > technology, telecom, and media sectors--some 7% of the
> > workforce--keeps
> > > >> > > deteriorating.
> > > >> > > [...]
> > > >> > > This is the dark side of the productivity boom. During the
> > second half
> > > >>of
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > > 1990s, output per worker rose, but soaring demand and
> > revenues, driven
> > > >>in
> > > >> > part
> > > >> > > by the technology and telecom boom, helped boost hiring and
> > push down
> > > >>the
> > > >> > > unemployment rate below 4%. Wages and bonuses soared, and it
> > seemed like
> > > >>a
> > > >> > > golden age for workers.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > But rising productivity without rising demand is a recipe for
> > > >>disappearing
> > > >> > > jobs. If companies can't raise prices, the only way they can
> > boost
> > > >>profits
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > > to cut workers--and higher productivity makes that possible.
> > > >> > > [...]
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >> > > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > >>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > >>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > B> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > B> realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > B> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Plan to Sell a Home?
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/ySSFAA/zMEolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|