Minneapolis teachers contract says white teachers get fired first

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Other than Alaska, what do the rest of those states have in common, in terms of politics?

]

The fed. government takes more from those states in taxes and gives back less on a per capital basis than it does from poor conservative states?

Interesting to see the states most dependent on fed aid:

https://commodity.com/blog/federal-aid-states/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The fed. government takes more from those states in taxes and gives back less on a per capital basis than it does from poor conservative states?

Interesting to see the states most dependent on fed aid:

https://commodity.com/blog/federal-aid-states/

What you always leave out, is that the fed (until Trump stopped it), gave residents of high-tax blue states a big federal tax deduction, not available to residents of low-tax red states. I'm referring to what used to be an un-capped deduction for state and local taxes, which is a big federal income tax break for residents of high tax blue states, paid for by people in low tax red states.

Paul, my brother retired after 37 years in education in June. For most of his career, he put 6% of his salary towards his pension, which will pay him 75% of the average of his 3 highest annual salaries, starting at age 59.

That math is a joke.

Compare to social security, where between me and my employer, I contribute 14% of my salary to the plan, and for my age, I'm not eligible until I'm 67, which would be 45 years of service, and I won't get ANYWHERE near 75% of the average of my 3 highest salaries.

I contribute twice as much to SS as he did to his pension, for 8 years longer, to get about one-third of the annual payment that he gets.

The math is stupid. And that's why we are where we are. When you spend more than there is, you get into serious trouble.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What you always leave outdon't know what that has to do with your posting a link to an article about state debt?, is that the fed (until Trump stopped it), gave residents of high-tax blue states a big federal tax deduction, not available to residents of low-tax red states. I'm referring to what used to be an un-capped deduction for state and local taxes, which is a big federal income tax break for residents of high tax blue states, paid for by people in low tax red states.
.

So maybe the states that lag behind in almost every health and welfare category need to start taxing their residents more so they have the funds to help the less fortunate in those states. The SALT deduction would have been available to any state that had an income tax. Instead those states choose not to have an income tax and as a result they don't have the funds to provide clean water and sewers for some of their residents. But the rich in those states do ok.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So maybe the states that lag behind in almost every health and welfare category need to start taxing their residents more so they have the funds to help the less fortunate in those states. The SALT deduction would have been available to any state that had an income tax. Instead those states choose not to have an income tax and as a result they don't have the funds to provide clean water and sewers for some of their residents. But the rich in those states do ok.

"don't know what that has to do with your posting a link to an article about state debt"

It has to do with YOUR statement that debt is driven by imbalance of federal spending. The fact that people in high-tax blue states have always had (and still do have, it's just capped) a huge federal tax break that people in low-tax red states don't get, that fact offsets some of the imbalance you always point to. Also, CT has way more rich people than MS, so wouldn't you expect the federal government to spend more on MS?

"But the rich in those states do ok"

Paul, If the rich states did OK in a broad sense, people would be moving there, instead of moving away. But they aren't, not in the numbers that they're moving to certain places within certain red states. People aren't moving to $600,000 houses in the Nashville suburbs in insane numbers because they expect to drink contaminated water.

Middle class people can move to certain places within certain red states, and not be without ANYTHING that they get in CT, but they pay a whole lot less. You can't make that wrong.

If you're in the top 5% or someone interested in living off welfare, CT is meaningfully better than the red states. For everyone else, the value proposition is better in the booming suburbs of certain red states.

I asked you what services I get in CT that I wouldn't get in a nice suburb in NH, and I believe you said nothing. That's the correct answer.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"don't know what that has to do with your posting a link to an article about state debt"

It has to do with YOUR statement that debt is driven by imbalance of federal spending. Did I say that? I don't think I did.The fact that people in high-tax blue states have always had (and still do have, it's just capped) a huge federal tax break that people in low-tax red states don't get, that fact offsets some of the imbalance you always point to. Also, CT has way more rich people than MS, so wouldn't you expect the federal government to spend more on MS?Prob. has more to do w/the average salary. The lower taxed states could always tax their people more and use that $ to help the poor out but they have chosen not to.


"But the rich in those states do ok"

Paul, If the rich states did OK in a broad sense, people would be moving there, instead of moving away. But they aren't, not in the numbers that they're moving to certain places within certain red states. People aren't moving to $600,000 houses in the Nashville suburbs in insane numbers because they expect to drink contaminated water.

Middle class people can move to certain places within certain red states, and not be without ANYTHING that they get in CT, but they pay a whole lot less. You can't make that wrong.

If you're in the top 5% or someone interested in living off welfare, CT is meaningfully better than the red states. For everyone else, the value proposition is better in the booming suburbs of certain red states.

I asked you what services I get in CT that I wouldn't get in a nice suburb in NH, and I believe you said nothing. That's the correct answer.

And I've replied. It has more to do w/the average/lower income people than you and I. I believe the states that tax their people less don't care about the poor people as much as the states that are willing to tax their people more and take that $ and attempt to make the poor a little better off. That is reflected in the stats which show the higher taxed states have higher rankings in almost all the social services type categories.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And I've replied. It has more to do w/the average/lower income people than you and I. I believe the states that tax their people less don't care about the poor people as much as the states that are willing to tax their people more and take that $ and attempt to make the poor a little better off. That is reflected in the stats which show the higher taxed states have higher rankings in almost all the social services type categories.

ok paul. we were talking about state debt, and then you posted about imbalance of federal spending. Sonic tiny dint being that up in regards to being a caiden of state debt, why did you bring it up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

ok paul. we were talking about state debt, and then you posted about imbalance of federal spending. Sonic tiny dint being that up in regards to being a caiden of state debt, why did you bring it up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

??

I brought it up bc you posted the link to show the blue states have more debt than the red states. The red states receive far more fed. $ than the blue states. If every state only received a 1 for 1 return, the blue states would have far less debt (bc of increased tax revenue) vs the red states which would have more either more debt, decreased services or have to increase taxes.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

And I've replied. It has more to do w/the average/lower income people than you and I. I believe the states that tax their people less don't care about the poor people as much as the states that are willing to tax their people more and take that $ and attempt to make the poor a little better off. .

Yet in uber wealthy CT, the state constantly cuts services to the poor, and instead gives more and more to public sector labor unions, who don’t represent poor people. they represent solidly middle class and upper-middle class people for the most part.

Talk to someone who works for DCF, ask them
if their state funding keeps getting cut.

Poor people in Ct should
unionize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yet in uber wealthy CT, the state constantly cuts services to the poor, and instead gives more and more to public sector labor unions, who don’t represent poor people. they represent solidly middle class and upper-middle class people for the most part.

Talk to someone who works for DCF, ask them
if their state funding keeps getting cut.

Poor people in Ct should
unionize.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't know about what services have been cut but even if true, CT still leads almost? all red states in services provided which is reflected in the numerous rankings which have already been provided.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The fed. government takes more from those states in taxes and gives back less on a per capital basis than it does from poor conservative states?

Interesting to see the states most dependent on fed aid:

https://commodity.com/blog/federal-aid-states/

I am curious to know your opinion on a teacher contract that mandates that skin color be the determining factor in deciding which teachers get fired.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I am curious to know your opinion on a teacher contract that mandates that skin color be the determining factor in deciding which teachers get fired.

did anybody answer this question yet?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

did anybody answer this question yet?

Are you shooting for Jim’s badge, or has he deputized you in his battle for his vision of the American way?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

did anybody answer this question yet?

No (unless calling me names counts as answering). And it's the key question on this issue, all that matters really. So I will re-ask.

Wayne, Pete, Paul, can any of you tell us why it's better for students if they keep non-white teachers, rather than keeping the most talented teachers?

Cue the chirping crickets...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No (unless calling me names counts as answering). And it's the key question on this issue, all that matters really. So I will re-ask.

Wayne, Pete, Paul, can any of you tell us why it's better for students if they keep non-white teachers, rather than keeping the most talented teachers?

Cue the chirping crickets...

Apparently, you don’t trust the courts to handle this one.
It’s better for your narrative of how hard it is to be a white man in America to whinge endlessly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

did anybody answer this question yet?

Yea the contract doesn’t mention race any where in it

And no where in the same contract does it address Jim’s imaginary scenario . See Below

why it's better for students if they keep non-white teachers, rather than keeping the most talented teachers?

it’s specific to lay offs only and seniority if they wanted a performance based system the could have voted on it . But they didn’t

Please who define most talented. The parents? once again you sound as if all teachers are equal.

So which teachers. Gym English or math or Special Ed k1 teachers or high school Male teachers or female Gay who’s better?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yea the contract doesn’t mention race any where in it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

IReally?

The contract says that teachers who are not members of "underrepresented groups" are fired before teachers from "underrepresented groups".

But it's not about race.

You can't just say "that's not fair", because liberals did it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

why it's better for students if they keep non-white teachers, rather than keeping the most talented teachers?

it’s specific to lay offs only
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. So if you need to lay off a teacher, why is skin color the determining factor in who gets laid off, rather than ability.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right. So if you need to lay off a teacher, why is skin color the determining factor in who gets laid off, rather than ability.

Race isn’t mentioned in the contract

underrepresented could be gay or Trans or veterans you and the white wing media is suggesting it’s a blk vs white issue

Veterans get special treatment on tests and hiring most don’t have An issue with that?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

Right. So if you need to lay off a teacher, why is skin color, sexual orientation, military service, disability the determining factor in who gets laid off, rather than ability.

US Equal Employment Commission

General Non-Discrimination Policy Tips

State that discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, disability, age (40 or older) or genetic information (including family medical history) is illegal and will not be tolerated.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Race isn’t mentioned in the contract

underrepresented could be gay or Trans or veterans you and the white wing media is suggesting it’s a blk vs white issue

Veterans get special treatment on tests and hiring most don’t have An issue with that?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On the news this morning, proponents for this contract literally defended it along racial lines. They were saying that they needed to have teachers that represented the racial makeup of the schools. So just because it doesn’t use the word race in its wording, that is the intention. This was just on GMA.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Race isn’t mentioned in the contract

underrepresented could be gay or Trans or veterans you and the white wing media is suggesting it’s a blk vs white issue

Veterans get special treatment on tests and hiring most don’t have An issue with that?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Federal law does not expressly prohibit using military service to distinguish people for employment. Federal law does expressly prohibit the use of race. So there’s that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The fed. government takes more from those states in taxes and gives back less on a per capital basis than it does from poor conservative states?

still beating that tired drum?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

still beating that tired drum?

Still snarky as ever

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The fed. government takes more from those states in taxes and gives back less on a per capital basis than it does from poor conservative states?

Interesting to see the states most dependent on fed aid:

https://commodity.com/blog/federal-aid-states/

Paul, can you tell me how much more the feds spend per capita in NH, compared to CT?

Because a couple making 150K a year in CT, will pay approximately $8,000 a year to the state in income tax, and if they spend $60k a year on taxable things that's another $3600 a year in sales tax, for a total of $11,600 to the state, which they wouldn't have to pay in NH. You telling me that discrepancies in federal spending per capita, are that large between CT and NH? If the difference isn't that large, then the federal spending gap doesn't explain the difference in debt.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, can you tell me how much more the feds spend per capita in NH, compared to CT?

Because a couple making 150K a year in CT, will pay approximately $8,000 a year to the state in income tax, and if they spend $60k a year on taxable things that's another $3600 a year in sales tax, for a total of $11,600 to the state, which they wouldn't have to pay in NH. You telling me that discrepancies in federal spending per capita, are that large between CT and NH? If the difference isn't that large, then the federal spending gap doesn't explain the difference in debt.

Look it up yourself. Use the google.

Over 1/3 of Kent. GDP is fed spending.

You're ignoring the higher sal. in blue states.

Fed. spending has a mulitplier effect. New sikorsky helicopters means more people working, more taxes, those people go to lunch so more deli workers, more taxes, that extra deli worker pays taxes and buy products, more taxes, those people drive to work so more gas taxes.

We're talking about dif. things (although someone related). You can't just look at 1 aspect and say it's this or it's that based on only 1 thing.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Look it up yourself. Use the google.

Over 1/3 of Kent. GDP is fed spending.

You're ignoring the higher sal. in blue states.

Fed. spending has a mulitplier effect. New sikorsky helicopters means more people working, more taxes, those people go to lunch so more deli workers, more taxes, that extra deli worker pays taxes and buy products, more taxes, those people drive to work so more gas taxes.

We're talking about dif. things (although someone related). You can't just look at 1 aspect and say it's this or it's that based on only 1 thing.

kentucky isn’t a place where people
are flocking. so little point in focusing on it.

you made the claim that federal spending is the cause of the state debt. so why not show me the data?

answer- the data doesn’t show what you want it to show.

you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. otherwise it’s just a claim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

kentucky isn’t a place where people
are flocking. so little point in focusing on it. It is indicative of a red state. A bad one but a red state. As valid as bringing NH into a discussion when I've always compared all the blue states to all the red states.

you made the claim that federal spending is the cause of the state debt. so why not show me the data? Did I ever make that claim? Can you show me where I said that? This is the 2nd time you've said I said something that I don't recall saying.

answer- the data doesn’t show what you want it to show.

you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. otherwise it’s just a claim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If NH works for you, you should go there. If another state matches your values, you should move there.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If NH works for you, you should go there. If another state matches your values, you should move there.

KY is not indicative of a thriving red state. but you picked it to distort things to for your narrative.

it’s not as valid as bringing NH into it. NH is booming. KY is a rough place. Are New Canaan and Bridgeport comparable? they’re both blue places.

do you have a brain tumor? yes, you did make that claim. you said they may disparities in federal spending is responsible
for huge debt in blue states.

it doesn’t matter if those states work for me. What matters is where people are fleeing, and where they’re moving to, in massive numbers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device