Parents of school age children should have a class action suit. It is the governmental duty to provide adequate funding for schools. It is the law for children to be in school up to a certain age. So if the funding is not there, then the government has failed in its duty to provide adequate school resources.

They should also cut ALL funding for all schools of special interest like the Catholic schools. They want to be outside the regular curriculum, they can provide their own funding.

Special needs schools need more funding.

There is a difference between special interest and special needs. Special interest are Cultural, ethnic, or religious.

"We put students health and safety at the top of our priority list...�

The government says it has the health and safetly of students at the top of its priorities. This is the same government that introduced rate increases to provinical medical last week. With the highest unemployment rates being reported in province coming from a town that once thrived on a forestry industry, I am curious to know how low income families are expected to pay for this new increase. We already see a number of children coming to school with empty bellies, now we are going to see them to coming to school with medical issues on top of that. We all know that HINI is a real health concern and expected to hit schools this fall. Does the government really think that H1N1 will disappear once the new medical rates are introduced? Or does closing schools and overcrowding others make it easier for some students to fall between the already wide cracks?

It is about time that Boards of Education (Trustees) step up to the plate and make this governmnet accountable - Shirley and now Margaret. The Board has been giving mandates of various items to do but with no $$.

Declining enrollment + a government that's broke = unpopular decisions and a bunch of unhappy people.

I'm entitled to my entitlements. If I don't get them, I will sue. Being an overtaxed taxpayer who can I sue? The trustees? The principal? The teachers? The Teachers Federation? Where's my lawyer?

Nothing to do with entitlements-has to do with making promises and keeping them. If the government won't do it on their own, maybe they have to be forced. This is no little thing to say "We are giving you grants of over $4 million, base your budget on it", and then after its been spent take that money away.

I hate it when politicians of any party (Libs, NDP, Conservatives) make promises they have no intention of keeping-maybe this is one way of getting them to keep their word.

Have a great and safe long weekend

"Declining enrollment + a government that's broke = unpopular decisions and a bunch of unhappy people"

That's sort of how I see this one. I'm not sure how one could justify suing the government over their spending decisions. That is precisely the role OF government, to collect tax dollars and spend them on the programs and services in the manner that they determine.

I can see being upset that the funding is not going where you may want it, but that's why you have an opposition and elections.

Loki wrote:

"So if the funding is not there, then the government has failed in its duty to provide adequate school resources".

Fair enough, but what is "adequate"? Is it what some interest groups think the funding levels should be or is it something else?

If there is no money to fund the items that are being cut, what should the government do:

- Cut other areas to make up the shotfall (and face lawsuits from those areas because their funding was cut)?
- Increase taxes?
- Just take more money off of a line of credit to fund the shortfall?

Here's a couple of dirty words:

Global
Recession

I think something should be done about a government that had years of surplusses and did not put anything away for a rainy day. Too many corporate gifts have left the average citizen without services for their tax dollars. Couldn't this gross missmanagement of public funds be seen as treasonous?

"I think something should be done about a government that had years of surplusses and did not put anything away for a rainy day."

Finally someone is BANG ON!!!!!!!!

I have been looking at provincial budget information available for view on the internet in the last few days.

Many provinces speak about "rainy day" funds. Those that have them, have had to access them at this time because this is a bit of a rainy day. Most businesses and organizations, including school ditricts, should and do have them.

I thought that SD57 just spent some of that money they had salted away on the construction of a CH HS addition that was not "sanctioned" by the province for whatever reason. Maybe I don't have that quite right. But there weas something of that sort there.

So that is their problem then.

The same with this province. If they put everything away to pay off debt instead of having a rainy day fund, that is great. But don't get pissy about having to run a deficit and then run a lower one per person than any of the large provinces in Canada when you must run a deficit.

Any province that says they will not run a deficit any longer has to be prudent and build a "rainy day" fund or be prepared to raise taxes at the very time when people have to pinch pennies as well. To do otherwise is to believe in the tooth fairy.





ab

Great post,REALIST!

I bet Mr Campbell pays the minimum payment on his credit card, cause he sure runs the province that way.

If we're going to compare 'government' finances to private 'business' finances, as many are wont to do when they say that "a government cannot spend more than it takes in", then why don't we have a complete set of 'government' accounts the same as any private 'business' has? Businesses certainly do "budget", but no business uses ONLY a "budget" to determine the course of its operations.

Where is the Balance Sheet for the Province of B.C.? Where ALL the 'Assets' and ALL the 'Liabilities' and the 'Shareholder's (Citizen's, in this case) Equity' is clearly shown?

Such a document might reveal some things that would surprise those who most stridently call for a "balanced budget".

Three things that would readily become apparent are:- A balanced budget of the 'government' and ALL those it governs(under the existing financial system) is a mathematical impossibility. It means that (1) the economy is static, (2) we consume all "capital" concurrently, in the same fiscal period, as we produce it, and (3) the issuer of credit, i.e., the banking system, owns all "capital" simply because it issues the 'money' tickets that are supposed to represent it.

No. 1 is untenable, unacceptable and intolerable. No. 2 is patently false and absurd because the life of physical capital extends years into the future, which phenomenon is observable to all, and No 3 is inequitable and unacceptable inasmuch as the community, and not the banking system, creates actual physical capital.

If the Government had announced these cuts earlier, then the School District would have cancelled all the maintenance contracts, to save money. They then would not have to look at closing schools, or getting rid of surplus teachers.

As it now stands the money for captial projects is spent, and the only way they can reduce their costs will be to close schools and lay off staff. I dont have any problem closing schools or laying of Teachers, Vice Principals, Teaching Assistants, if it can be done prudently.

We all know that enrolments have been falling for the past 10 years, and will continue to do so. We also know that teachers,etc; are extremely well paid. (in other words expensive to have around)

When most of your budget money goes to wages and benefits then you have a problem.

If you go into the malls you will see barrels set up asking for donations of pencils, pens, calculators, etc; that can be given to students in schools because some are short of the basic equipment they need for an education.

In the meantime we are paying teachers etc; in excess of $60,000.00 per year to teach grades one to five, when we all know that we could get the same job done by teachers without 5 years University, for $40,000.00 per year, or less.

Its time to cut the fat from all Government entities, ie: Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal, School Districts, Hospital Districts, Police, Firemen, etc; etc; etc;. The cost of Government in BC and Canada for that matter is out of control

People who make $30,000.00 per year more or less are being taxed to the limit to pay these Goverment employees $60,000.00 per year plus benefits.

I say cut the jobs, cut the wages, reduce the benefits, and if they dont like it they can go to work in the real world with the rest of us.

Gus wrote:-"Many provinces speak about "rainy day" funds. Those that have them, have had to access them at this time because this is a bit of a rainy day. Most businesses and organizations, including school districts, should and do have them."
------------------------------------------

There is a natural assumption that various things that apply with seemingly perfect truth to situations in regards to individual entities, what we might say in the 'micro-economy', also extend to ALL entities together the same way in the overall, or 'macro-economy'. Unfortunately, this is just not so.

A "rainy day fund", in the larger sense, means, and can only mean under the current financial system, that "costs" that have been created somewhere in the overall economy cannot be fully liquidated because the Bank 'credit issue' that originally formed those "costs" has been interrupted on its journey from the Bank that created that 'credit' as a loan, through the production and distribution systems, and back to that Bank as a repayment of that loan when the price of the product or service it enabled has been met as that good or service passes from production through into final consumption.

This interruption through feeding a "rainy day fund" means we are inadvertantly setting the stage for a "rainy day".

And while a "rainy day" fund may well seem to be a good idea on an 'individual' entity by entity basis, overall it is only adding to the problems the whole economy faces.

If the 'money' placed into a "rainy day fund" is invested, ANOTHER set of "costs" will be created, while the first set its original creation as a loan enabled still remain unliquidated.

To overcome this, and allow what we have made to be able to sell in its totality, we currently have to have an exponential growth of "debt". And this is what causes those "rainy days".

Since Bank "debt" always ultimately is issued in respect of financing "production", (even the currently so-called "consumer credit" ~ if you don't have a "job", some function in the "productive" system, you won't get a loan for that new house or car or whatever), we quickly get ourselves in the position that requires us to increasingly 'mortgage' our future 'incomes' to have enough 'money' to be able to live today. For failure to 'consume' quickly means a failure to further 'produce'what might have been consumed, and with that a failure of the main means of currently distributing incomes.

When all the 'product' that we become ever more able to produce as a result of this process is thrown on the market, its price declines below the costs involved in producing ALL of it.

And since it is the TOTAL COSTS of ALL OF IT that have to be liquidated if businesses are to repay their borrowings and continue, any benefit from 'lower prices' as a result of this is transitory to consumers, while ruinous to the producer (particularly the 'independent' producer ~ generally the most genuinely efficient).

The ONLY answer to it is to look beyond such things as "rainy day funds" as they are currently incarnated, (under a revised financial system made totally "self-liquidating" they would largely be superfluous), and begin to recognize that we cannot ever solve the financial problems that beset us with alarming regularity, leaving so much needless distress and genuine wasted potentional in their wake, unless we closely examine the "Big Picture" as EVERYTHING is inter-related in the whole financial scheme of things. Anything less, we're just going to be wasting our time. The 'corrections' necessary have to be made "macro-economically". To the economy as a WHOLE.

Papolu, maybe the only reason you make $30,000 a year is because your wage is waterbedded up by these higher paid jobs.

If we waterbed it down to your measly wage, you might find yourself working for what your worth at $15000 a year.

Those corrections WON'T come by cutting teacher salaries. That'll only make the overall situation worse.

We might feel they are 'overpaid'. Some undoubtedly ARE 'overpaid' in relation to their actual ability to "teach".

But their salaries are what goes to make up "effective demand" for goods and services other people produce.

It's just like the argument made by the 'socialists" that the "poor are poor because the rich are rich". And that by making the "rich" poorer, we could then make the poor "richer".

It only holds true if there were a genuine shortage of actual goods and services. There isn't. We have more "goods and services" of virtually every description than we can ever sell, and a production system standing by to make even more of them, if only it could get orders at a "price" sufficient to cover its "costs".

Now how's it going to do that if you reduce salaries across the board? Remember now, industry has to recover its CAPITAL COSTS, the money its ALREADY SPENT on "property,
plant and equipment".

And it can only do that if the public, including school teachers, have enough incomes to meet its prices. (They, WE,
NEVER do ~ and that's what REALLY needs correction.)

Cutting teacher salaries this way, or anyone else's, is really cutting the throat of the whole economy. You'll only initiate a downward spiral that is only matched in its ultimate stupidity by the inane belief we can be "number one" in any meaningful sense through being "globally competitive".

Palopu. If you'd like the wages made by teachers, go put yourself through a few years of university and then go find yourself a school district that will hire you.

The (debt-fueled) party was sure lots of fun (these past few decades) while it lasted.

It surprised me a significant portion of the general population is totally oblivious to the seriousness of our current and historic financial crisis, as I still see a lot of borrowing and spending happening on homes, home renovations, new vehicles, campers, boats, and "toys" in general. I guess old habits die hard.

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881 -1973) said:

The wavelike movement affecting the economic system, the recurrence of periods of boom which are followed by periods of depression, is the unavoidable outcome of the attempts, repeated again and again, to lower the gross market rate of interest by means of credit expansion. There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of a voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved

In early 2009, economist Michael Hudson said:

The (US) economy has reached its debt limit and is entering its insolvency phase. We are not in a cycle but (at) the end of an era. The old world of debt pyramiding to a fraudulent degree cannot be restored," only delayed to postpone a painful day of reckoning.

(I think the word "Canada" would fit quite well in the above paragraph)

Lost it all. Your (so called) argument would make some sense if you worked in the real world, however it sounds like you are a Government worker and therefore the higher wages you get are paid for by my tax dollar.

Governments, School Boards, Municipalities, etc; have no money, they operate on tax dollars, and they get the tax dollars from private business, and people who work for business, industry etc;

These people are the **real** tax payers, and are credited with finiancing the Country.

You my freind are a **Civil Servant** and therefore a direct cost to the system. You might pay taxes on paper, which is merely a shell game, because the tax you pay comes from the tax dollars I pay.

It might be a little hard for you to grasp this concept.

In any event the argument that people should be paid more money so they can buy the goods being produced is flawed. If it wasnt then we should all get paid $100,000.00 per year regardless of what we do and the economy should take off. This is not likely to happen.

my3centsworth. It may take a few years of University to get a teachers job in this Province. (It certainly didnt a few years ago) In fact you could teach the lower grades ( one to five) with a grade 13 education., Now that people have turned the teachers jobs into **professionals** you need more education to teach, however at the same time you can home school your children, and you dont require any University Education. (why is that??)

Across the board cuts to high paid Governments workers and politicians would put the money back into the pockets of the taxpayers, and it would still get spent, only now I would be spending my money instead of some Government worker who didnt earn it.

Families borrow, corporations borrow, Municipalities borrow, Provinces borrow and the Feds borrow.

Guess where they get their money? They borrow it, they tax you for it, and or they print it.

Guess who gets to pay the interest on all of this debt? You and me.

Guess who receives all of the interest on this debt? Bankers. Rivers of money flowing to the banks. From money they just created with the stroke of a pen. (Federal Reserve)

Billions for the bankers, debts for the people. We must get out of debt if we have any hope of things changing.

Let's all start at home first. Then lobby our governments to quit borrowing and pay off our debts. Get real, there has never been a surplus since we have had debt. Anyone remember when that was?

Government over spending eg. 2010 olympics
which will benefit very few but sure as done wonders for Whistler.

Charles, I wouldn't pay too much attention to what either von Mises or Hudson have to say.

In the former case, von Mises sees 'money' only as a 'commodity'itself (gold), which, in reality, it never has been and never could be.

We've had enough previous experiences with countries going on or off the so-called "gold standard" last century for us to be sure of that.

It was NEVER the gold that gave any money supposedly made of it or backed by it its value, it was the BELIEF (the 'credit')that you would be able to get something for the gold.

What really backs any country's 'money' is the actual and potential PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY of that country. It's actual ability to produce and deliver "goods and services" as, when, and where required and desired. This is its "real credit".

'Money', or "financial credit", is simply a man made device to allow this "real credit" to be drawn upon and added to. Without an "industrial system" behind any "money system", money, no matter what it is made out of, or said to be backed by, is essentially worthless.
And the United States and Canada still do both have substantial "industrial systems".

Though both seem to be currently bent on policies aimed to destroy them by exalting "financial credit" to a position essentially superior and divorced from "real credit".

ALL 'money' is 'credit'. It always has been, and could not, in the final analysis be anything else. And that holds true whether that 'credit' is represented by gold or anything else that's tangible, including electronic entries to modern bank accounts.

Any 'money system' is primarilly an "accounting demand" system. The cash and coin you might carry in your wallet is simply a use of 'tokens' to make it a highly portable "bookkeeping" system.

Most money only exists as debit or credit entries to bank account balances. Every new "loan" adds to the money supply, every repayment of a "loan" subtracts from it. It's all accounting, and unfortunately for us in our modern day industrialised world, there is a "flaw" in that accounting "macro-economically" that relates to the element of TIME in the flow of funds from the Banks and back to them IN THE ECONOMY AS A WHOLE. This "flaw" is easily correctable, though its correction would remove the power of the Banking system over "financial", and currently therefore, "real credit", and vest it where it properly belongs ~ in the hands of each of us as Consumers of goods and services industry is increasingly able to provide us 'physically', but which we are also increasingly denied access to "financially", except on terms we collectively can never meet.

School Boards can cut the Wages by the amount funding is cut, lets see how that would go over, are they then going all on Strike ?

It isn't the "interest", Chester. Though it's easy to see why many focus on that as being the "cause" of the problem.

It's really a problem in the "flow" of funds from the Banks as loans(what will be the "costs" of the industrial system), and the reflux of that "flow" back to the Banks through the liquidation of those "costs" in the final "price" of goods and services.

Interest is simply another "cost" (of the provision of banking services by the Banks to the community), and really has no bearing directly on the larger problem.

Though it certainly does when debts that have been incurred cannot be repaid, (which in their OVERALL totality they can not), and the interest begins to compound. In any case, "interest" is an EFFECT of something much larger, and not really the basic CAUSE of anything.

You want to rent my lawnmower instead of buying one? That'll be $10.

You want to buy a lawnmower but will not have the money for two months? I'll lend you the money, if you pay it back within 2 months for $10.

So, what exactly is the difference between giving money for "renting" a lawnmower and giving money for the "renting" of money?

In both cases someone gets paid for the use of something the person paying does not have at the time they want it.

Not much in this world is free.

Of course in a communal society, lawnmowers are bought by the group and only one is required as long as everyone can take turns. The standard of living does not change substantially just because you have a lawnmower sitting in the shed for a full week and 6 months of the year.

If someone wants to talk about where the "waste" is or the "excess" is, then start thinking in those terms.

We are an extremely wasteful society. That is why things are so "expensive". We have to have mroe and more and more. Having more and more and more, of course, means we produce more and more and more, which means people have more and more and more money or credit in their wallets to buy all this junk.

Since those who turn those dollars over and over the most are also taxed the most, those who are not participating with that system to the fullest extent benefit the most from all those things that are paid for by tax dollars.

Palopu says; "It may take a few years of University to get a teachers job in this Province. (It certainly didnt a few years ago) In fact you could teach the lower grades ( one to five) with a grade 13 education., Now that people have turned the teachers jobs into **professionals** you need more education to teach, however at the same time you can home school your children, and you dont require any University Education. (why is that??)"

As far as I know, teachers in B.C. have required a 4 or 5 year certificate or degree for the past couple of decades. I know my grandfather and great aunt taught with one year of "teacher's college" back in the "old days." As for homeschooling, I don't know much about that. I'm sure that those parents are expected to follow the same provincial curriculum as schools are expected to follow. Any parent that can educate their children through to a diploma gets my respect. I wonder if those same parents could teach 30 little people at the same time.

I think this article is supposed to be about how school boards are being put into financial troubles by a government that makes promises about funding and then changes rules/plans knowing full well that those boards have already started spending that money.

Interesting article out of the United States.

Hard times? Not for government bureaucracies.

The ability of government to insulate itself from the economic hardships that families and businesses across the nation have been forced to grapple with over the last twenty months is both astounding and frightening.

It�s astounding when you consider the fact that any entity � public or private � could possibly keep its workforce intact during such a steep, sustained economic downturn. But it�s also frightening when you consider the lengths to which these taxpayer-funded bureaucracies have gone in order to protect their fiefdoms from harm while the rest of the nation � which has to pay for all of those government salaries � continues to hemorrhage jobs.

Since the beginning of the current recession in December of 2007, the private sector has lost nearly 7 million jobs. Also, the vast majority of these layoffs came after politicians in Washington spent hundreds of billions of dollars on �stimulus� efforts, which were nothing more than bureaucratic bailouts in disguise.

How many jobs has the government sector lost over that same time period, you may ask?

That�s easy: None.

Amazingly, state and local governments haven�t lost a single job during the recession. In fact, they�ve actually added jobs - 155,000 of them, to be precise, according to a study released last week by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.

Let that statistic sink in for a moment: During the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, state and local governments have actually added employees.

More than just a chilling reminder of the degree to which government will cannibalize the free market in order to protect its own interests (remember, several generations of American workers are going to have to pay back all of that bailout cash), this expansion of the public sector workforce at the expense of private sector jobs also underscores the danger of turning over our nation�s health care system to a government-run market.

Isn�t it obvious at this point that government �gamed the system� in order to insulate itself from cuts at a time when the rest of the nation was taking it squarely on the chin? What, then, is to prevent it from doing the same thing with respect to the health care industry? Or any other industry, for that matter?

�I am a little surprised at the fact that state and local government has remained as stable as it has in the nation as a whole, given the depth of the current recession,� Rockefeller researcher Donald J. Boyd told The New York Times last week.

Boyd may be �a little surprised,� but the taxpayers who are being forced to pick up the skyrocketing tab that�s coming out of Washington are outraged.

After all, they saw this coming a long time ago.

Long before a single vote was cast in favor of America�s recent debt-exploding government bailouts, free market advocates warned the leaders of both political parties in Washington D.C. against trying to �spend their way� out of a recession. They were also told in no uncertain terms that pouring money into inefficient government bureaucracies, new agenda driven spending and unsustainable entitlement programs did not constitute a �stimulus.�

Sadly, Washington refused to listen.

Meanwhile, the worst is still yet to come for taxpayers, who after being placed on the hook for the cost of an unprecedented government intervention are still awaiting relief from astronomical unemployment rates and frozen credit markets.

In addition to record deficits and the mountain of debt that�s accumulated at the federal level, thirty state governments raised taxes this year in an effort to deal with budget �shortfalls,� and more states are expected to follow suit next year. That may stem government job losses in the short term, but it will place an even greater strain on the private sector to pay for more with less in the years to come.

Government has always had a problem living within its means during any budget climate, but its refusal to do so during this recession is creating a much greater hole for America�s depleted workforce to overcome.

http://www.reviewmessenger.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2557:hard-times-not-for-government-bureaucracies&catid=18:syndicated-column

In the meantime we are paying teachers etc; in excess of $60,000.00 per year to teach grades one to five, when we all know that we could get the same job done by teachers without 5 years University, for $40,000.00 per year, or less. ~ Posted by: Palopu on September 4 2009 9:52 PM

I'm curious Palopu, what you do for a living, and how much you make. Do you have any idea how much it costs people for FIVE years of University? (You sound a little resentful that they make good coin!) My mother was an Elementary School teacher - I watched her work her 8 hours at school, then bring home work... marking, planners, etc. Did you know Palopu - that when you walk into an elementary classroom and you see all the wonderful pictures, posters, etc. these are all paid for by the teacher and they are not deductible on their income tax. They do this to stimulate our children and are in no way obligated to do so. ALL the school supplies is text books, everything else in the classrooms are supplied by the teacher! When my mom retired she had six bookcases full of "stuff" she donated to new teachers.

I have nothing against people making good coin in return for good service. What I feel in this scenario is that the government needs to be more accountable to "we the people" rather than the other way round!

Teachers and nurses have been crapped on enough by the last two governments in BC. It's time to start crapping on the politicians who get the 20% raises regardless of global economy.

Polapu: do you feel OK about 250,000 a year for a judge who can't make a decision about the sentencing for an attempted murder charge? I think his wages should be pulled down to his level of service to us. He has no more education than a lot of teachers.

Palopu,are you the poster boy for home schooling?
As far as my profession, I work two completly different occupations per year and are both paid on a production basis only.
Blameing a government worker for the shell game as far taxes is concerned means absolutly nothing.
He gets a paycheck just like you do (only his is bigger cause he is worth more than you, Palopu), having his employer play a shell game is of no control of the worker, so your argument is directed to the wrong area.

Palopu wrote:- "In any event the argument that people should be paid more money so they can buy the goods being produced is flawed. If it wasnt then we should all get paid $100,000.00 per year regardless of what we do and the economy should take off. This is not likely to happen."

-------------------------------------------

You are quite right, Palopu ~ "This is not likely to happen." However, something along those lines is what is going to have to happen, at some point in time, and probably fairly soon, if we want to have any kind of a viable free-enterprise industrial system left in this country at all.

It's always appealing to try to solve apparent financial problems, like a School Board not being able to balance its budget through a chop off in revenues promised from the Province, through believing we could do so by just paying the School District's employees, teachers in particular, lower wages.

Considered in isolation, as a means to re-balance the books of that particular government entity, it all seems so logical.

Unfortunately, what might be a solution to the School District's individual budgetary problems can not be done in isolation, and will only end up having more negative repercussions throughout the whole of the economy than positive ones.

Already there is a systemic overall shortage of consumer "purchasing power" relative to overall prices unless there is a continual period of "capital expansion" underway.

And even when there is such a "boom", as we've witnessed many times in the past, a great deal of consumer purchasing power is immediately filched away by a rise in consumer products' prices. And, ultimately, all prices. Inflation in the guise of prosperity.

When we cut wages, even in a slowdown, we only succeed in making this situation worse. It's really a solution that's no solution at all.

Of course the Judge should be paid less, thats the whole point. All Government employees, Judges, Regional Health CEO's, Government Employees, Politicians, etc; etc; etc; are all overpaid. These people are all a drag on the taxpayers.

Read the post above by Charles and you will get my drift.

Iceburger. My point exactly. Why are we paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year for education, and then have teachers paying for and bringing supplies to school????. One of the reasons this happens is because all the money is spent on administration, and benefits, and there is little left for pupils. It is the School Boards that sign the contracts and agree to pay these high wages to teachers, however all Government employees have lucrative jobs and benefits.

Insofar as going to University for 5 years, that is a decision that is made between the student and his/her family. The cost has to be taken into account when the decision is made. Tuition fees cover a very small cost of educating a university student, and the rest is picked up by taxpayers. So while it may cost you some money, it costs tax payers a hell of a lot more. You should consider yourself fortunate that University is available for you at the present cost.

I know a number of University Students that work as waitresses or in other low paid positions so that they can earn money to attend University. I also know a lot of people who have absolutely no interest in going to University, however they work for 40 years and pay their taxes so that others can do so at a resonable cost if they so with.

To put it somewhat in perspective it costs approx $100 Million dollars a year to run UNBC. This works out to approx $28,471.00 per student. Compare that to your tution fees and you start to get some sense in what is being paid out for education.

My point is, is that to teach grades 1 to 5 it is not necessary to have a University Education. However because of the BC Teachers Federation, etc; you have to go to University for 5 years.

"Of course the Judge should be paid less, thats the whole point. All Government employees, Judges, Regional Health CEO's, Government Employees, Politicians, etc; etc; etc; are all overpaid. These people are all a drag on the taxpayers"

Palopu, given that there are literally thousands of different jobs in the public service, how do you think the wage levels for civil servants should be set? Should they be benchmarked to the average salary in industry for the same type of job? Is it in the best interest of the public to set the wages at a level that would not attract competent people to the jobs?

I think we've all heard of and seen examples of the overpaid public servant, but it's a bit of a stretch, IMHO, to leap to the conclusion that they are all overpaid. In many cases I think the unskilled workers are overpaid at the expense of some of the professional workers who are probably underpaid in comparison to their counterparts in industry.

I know a lot of truck drivers, mill workers, mine workers, etc. that are paid a pretty decent salary. Many of them make a lot more than the average civil servant.

Gus wrote:-"Of course in a communal society, lawnmowers are bought by the group and only one is required as long as everyone can take turns. The standard of living does not change substantially just because you have a lawnmower sitting in the shed for a full week and 6 months of the year."

-----------------------------------------
I disagree, Gus. The standard of living DOES change, possibly even substantially.

Having everyone take turns using the "communal" lawnmower would mean that lawnmower would wear out far faster than if it was only used once a week by a single owner. And it would have to be replaced far more often. So there may not be any less lawnmowers produced than there would be if everyone owned their own.

You might take very good care of your "own" lawnmower. Would it receive the same degree of care if it was owned "communally"? Are you always going to fix it before using it when one, or more, of the other communal owners continually abuses it?

If you are, then your standard of living is definitely affected. The time you spend fixing it before you can use it is time you can't spend on something else.

And if you say, "To Hell with it, if they're not going to maintain it, I'm not either", your commune might be spending quite regularly on new lawnmowers.

If there is a conflict between your allotted time to use the mower and your need to do something else at that same time, perhaps going to work to earn an income, again your standard of living is affected.

Do you forgo your income to have a nicely cut lawn? If so, your material standard of living is affected by your loss of income.
-------------------------------------------


Gus continues:-"If someone wants to talk about where the "waste" is or the "excess" is, then start thinking in those terms.
We are an extremely wasteful society. That is why things are so "expensive". We have to have more and more and more. Having more and more and more, of course, means we produce more and more and more, which means people have more and more and more money or credit in their wallets to buy all this junk."
-----------------------------------------

That's one way of looking at it. But is the need to produce "more" really driven by our desire to continually "have" more individually, as if our wants are never going to be satiated, or by the fact that we currently can't collectively completely PAY "for" what we've done "from" what we've done, only from what we're doing, or are going to have to do?

It's quite possible "physically" for us to make a light bulb that would never burn out in a man's lifetime. But we couldn't do it "financially". We're convinced that we have to provide "jobs" to distribute "incomes". And a long lasting light-bulb of such duration, and all other products of a similar nature, would be disatrous to the whole concept of continual "full-employment". So we make "junk" instead, to "make work".

Our technological prowess is definitely 21st century, but our financial system is hopelessly "morally" mired in the 1st century AD.

It runs on St. Paul's dictum, entirely appropriate for the times prior to the advent of an industrial society, "Let no man eat who has not first worked."

In those days, and for centuries afterwards, every shoulder was needed at the wheel. Everyone had to "pick up their shovel". Their "production" was NEEDED, if there was to be continued "consumption". But nowadays?

We've gone in less than 100 years from needing 50% of the population directly engaged in agriculture to be able to feed themselves and the other 50% who weren't, to less than 3% directly engaged that way today. Who can MORE than do exactly the same thing. And it's the same in virtually every industry. But we have to "waste" to make the "figures" work, and it's more important, apparently, that those "figures" seem as if they're working than any other consideration of actual reality.
----------------------------------------

Gus continues:-"Since those who turn those dollars over and over the most are also taxed the most, those who are not participating with that system to the fullest extent benefit the most from all those things that are paid for by tax dollars."
_----------------------------------------
Every dollar collected in "tax" is a dollar that has already been "costed" into some production somewhere in the whole economy. Removing that dollar in "tax" means that there is a "price value" on some good or service somewhere which now can not be liquidated by that dollar, and those goods and services can only be sold at a price sufficient to cover the cost of their provision if ANOTHER dollar is created by the banking system. So in reality, the whole idea of a "Balanced Budget", that we are financing government through taxation alone is a complete farce. We are financing it through the expansion of "debt". And the more that is removed in "taxation" the more this overall debt will grow.

I have a good pal who drives truck for a living. He makes about 9 G's a month before taxes and he works his butt off for it and he's rarely home. I don't think he's overpaid for his work. He makes far more than I did as a teacher. I also heard that teachers will need 6 years soon in BC to get a degree. Might as well go into law for one more year. I can testify that teaching (high school)is the most thankless job on the planet. The students are the only ones who thank you. The government never thanks you, nor does the board and rarely the parents. Everyone bitches about you and you put in up to 12 hours a day. You're always the teacher: weekends at the beach,ski hill, restuarant--you never get away from it - -even in later years in the bar. You get a degree in math and they force you to teach english or art. It's not a cushy job and at 65,000 a year it's less pay and less pension than pounding out lumber at Lakeland Mills with a grade 6.

The obvious lack of qualifications aside, I'd be willing to bet that many of the people who complain most about the civil servants that often get the bad rap (teachers, nurses, etc.), would run away screaming from those "cushy" jobs once they spent a month in their shoes.

1- Your most skilled teachers need to be located in your elementary schools where the basic skills of reading and writing are taught.
2-in a profession that suffers a 25% attrition in the first 5 years of teaching and you think a wage cut will help? Seems like a stronger reason to leave teaching to me.

Being teachers I thought you would get the point more quickly.

The point is, is that it is not neccessary for teachers teaching grades 1 to 5 to have 5 years University. This is a requirement that was probably pushed by the BC Teachers Fed, along with the designation of **Professional** I agree that from grade 5 upward that a University Degree would be appropriate. If people have to take 5 years of University that is not required just to obtain the job, then they have lost 5 years of teaching, and earning power for no reason. This is a total waste of time and money.

Teaching is a thankless job??? I can think of some jobs that would be a hell of a lot worse, and you would work the same or more hours. Since when do we hire employees, give them a good salary, and then are required to thank them for doing the job we pay them for???

Teachers,nurses, doctors, lawyers, police, etc; etc; etc; take these jobs by choice, the same as anyone else. If they cant stand the heat then they should get out of the kitchen. We all have to work for a living (most of us) and if we dont like our job,,then we can move on to something else.

We cannot continue to pay high wages to all these different Government employees, because if we continue to increase their salaries, before long a school teacher will be getting paid $100,000.00 per year.

Private industry solved the increased cost of labour by going to computers in a huge way. CN Rail as an example went from somewhere in the area of 150,000 employees in the 1960's to 20,000 employees in 2009.

Once employees become to expensive, then people start to find ways to replace them with computers or machines.

The BCTF has absolutely nothing to do with cetifying teachers-that's the College of Teachers which is a separate entity and is not controlled by the BCTF except in the minds of the people who hate unions. And machines can help in teaching but they can't replace teachers (do some research-I'm not just making this up to support teachers)

I don't need to be thanked by the public for the work I do. I enjoy what I do, and I get lots of thanks for students and parents. And I deserve to be paid as I do-I earned it.

And if you think that you don't need training to teach grade one, then by all means give it a try. I look forward to seeing someone with no training keep 22 six year olds under control and actually teach them something.

Of course, there was a story that prompted these posts (and by the way thank you to those who actually said nice things about teachers-its a rare thing on this site.) The government told school districts to balance their books, and all the districts did. The government then said they would give X amount of money to the districts to fix and upgrade schools, and the district used this promised money to fix and upgrade schools. Then the government says that the schools aren't getting the grants, and that they better balance their books. The districts are frustrated and are considering taking legal action. Taking shots at teachers, banks, and the nature of capitalism doesn't address the issue at all.

The problem simply is that the government knew it was having economic problems and hid them from the public to get re-elected. Now students are going to pay for someone else's lack of ethics. I was choked when the NDP did this in the '90s and I just as choked now. The rest you you should be outraged as well. There is no defence for this kind of dishonesty.

This is a blatant practice of 'legal plunder' The only real defense is non-compliance which makes you a criminal. The government practices plunder and its normal procedure but if we as citizens do it,we break the law. Frederic Bastiat said:
" No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it."
That is exactly how we lose the grants to the school districts. Plunder by our elected officials. And we keep electing the same old, same old. Why not break this trend and DUMP both of our most popular parties?? What consequence could it possibly be to us?

More stuff by Frederic:

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole � with their common aim of legal plunder � constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.

Wlliam Wordsworth wrote: "The child is the father of the man."
Palopu wrote:
"My point is, is that to teach grades 1 to 5 it is not necessary to have a University Education."

I think that I'll put more faith in Wordsworth

"We cannot continue to pay high wages to all these different Government employees, because if we continue to increase their salaries, before long a school teacher will be getting paid $100,000.00 per year"

So for arguments sake, what do you think we should pay the people who will educate your children or grandchildren, prosecute criminals and administer chemo drugs to one of your sick relatives? 30K per year? 40K? 50K? What is the number you propose Palopu?

Let's get down to the details. Instead of just spouting off generalities about people being overpaid, lets hear your specific suggestions as to WHY they are overpaid, what they SHOULD be paid and how you think the services they provide would be IMPACTED by your suggestions. Do you think it is in the best interest of the public to try and attract the "low cost" option when dealing with professional positions in the public service?

Labor Day Picnic

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5vkPiCEjjdg/SqEcMWmpczI/AAAAAAAAEdc/wFoalAd4uGY/s1600-h/.1.jpg

I think the majority of people have missed the point - it has NOTHING to do with salaries of anyone.
The point is this:SD#57 sent a budget for a Annual Facilities Grant - to repair buildings , to upkeep etc. - the Government approved it - the District went ahead and started doing repairs and then the BOMB dropped (last week)- Gordo and his croonies stated " too bad so sad" no $$ - figured it out yourself how your district is going to paid for these items already in place and or about to happen.
Contact any School Board Trustees and you will get the same answer - nothing to do with salaries.
Now, a special meeting will be taking place to see how to pay out $2.7 million to fix a government flip-flop.
Let us hope it is NOT done on the backs of students/teachers/ support staff (clerical/teaching assistants /custodial) as these individuals do not have "play time " on their hands at work. WALK in their shoes.

The argument for paying Teachers, Civil Servants, etc; etc; less, is the same argument that some people use to pay Union Members less. One hears all the time that Union members especially at pulp mills are way overpaid and produce little in return for the money paid to them.

There is some truth to this. In fact a number of years ago in order to get a specific job done, it required 5 different employees. Ie; An electrician, a plumber, a carpenter, a pipefiter, and a welder. Because these trades would not cross trade lines. After a long period of negotiation this was reduced to 3 people to do one job. Ie; say an Electrician, a pipefitter, and a welder. In other words, if there was a little bit of woodwork to be done it was not necessary to have a carpender do it. This was the result of cross training, and resulted in more efficiencies, and of course less people.

One would expect that wages for jobs would be paid in direct relation to what the job entails, and the responsibilities thereof. The jobs with teachers have been distorted over the years, mainly because of the BC Teachers Federation. (Which for all intents and purposes is an arm of the New Democratic Party) Teachers have smaller class sizes, teachers assistants, higher wages, good benefits, and for most the same or less hours of work. In addition they get two months off every year. It is pretty hard to make a case that would show them to be **hard done by**

The problem with people to-day is that they have a perverted sense of self worth, and over time begin to beleive their own BS.

A good example is someone who works in a slaughterhouse killing animals, walking around in blood and guts, all day, for a mediocre wage, so that some fat ass member of upper society can sit down to a steak dinner with their non producing, high paid buddies, and wax philosophically about the state of the world, of which they know little.

Salaries to-day are based on nothing more than the organizations who have the power to sit down and negotiate. As a result when you have strong unions, or strong professional groups, you end up with high paid jobs, benefits, etc; Those who cannot negotiate from a position of power get **diddly squat**

Teachers have been teaching school without a University Education for hundreds of years, and the world grew and prospered. To suggest than now for some strange reason that is beyond the ability of the normal person to comprehend, we now need 5 or 6 years University is BS.

It's the old tactic of "divide and conquer", woodwoman. People who should be questioning the whole nature of "government" finance in a broader sense will instead be diverted into questioning the narrow specifics of where the money will now come from to pay for the upgrades the Province is not now going to fund through "grants" to the School Districts. (More than just this District is affected ~ most others have been hit the same way.)

Obviously, the School Boards will either have to ask for an increase in Property Taxes, or find ways to reduce their operating costs. They can't reduce their "capital" costs, what's been put out for the upgrades, because that money has already been spent.

So each one is faced with the choice of who will give it the most trouble. Angry homeowners and affected businesses when their next year's Property Taxes take another big hike? Or angry teachers and school support staff, when they're asked to take a pay cut in some manner or another?

Likely they'll try to placate both camps, and end up pleasing neither.

While the larger problem remains unexamined and untouched, grows, and repeats itself, over and over again, into the future.

Wonder where the money goes?
http://bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publications/Research_reports/2009TD01.pdf

Palopu:-"Teachers have smaller class sizes, teachers assistants, higher wages, good benefits, and for most the same or less hours of work. In addition they get two months off every year. It is pretty hard to make a case that would show them to be **hard done by**"
------------------------------------------

In my schooldays it was not uncommon to have up to, and sometimes over, 40 kids in a class. But a teacher then could resort to "corporal punishment" to retain order. And regularly did. Such would not be tolerated now.

In addition to the proverbial "strap", I can remember kids being whacked with a pointer, receiving a direct hit in the forehead from a well aimed piece of chalk or chalk brush, having their heads banged into a wall, dumped on the floor with their desk on top of them, and one kid, in High School, who was literally "thrown", by a 6'5" teacher built like Hulk Hogan, right throught the door (it was open, fortunately!), into a crumpled, whimpering heap in the hallway. He, and we, all survived, and learned. That was normal then. Today, though, any one of those actions would be the "kiss of death" for a teacher's career.

They have "teacher's assistants" because we now insist on 'mainstreaming' kids who have what we might broadly describe as "special needs". These "specials needs" vary broadly, from kids who used to be described as 'slow learners' to those who are afflicted with disabilities like cerebral palsy, severe autism, blindness, or hearing impairment, and a multitude of others. How are you going to teach all the "regular" kids, and these kids, too, and keep order under current, absolute 'non-violence' by any teacher on the little hellions, conditions, without some assistance?

They do have "higher wages and good benefits" than many other occupations do. But isn't that what EVERYONE would like to have, too? Why do we always assume that we have to pull one person down to bring anyone else up? This is the very argument made by the "socialists" in the NDP against the so-called "rich". They'd remove the money anyone has over some arbitrary "norm", whether it was 'earned' by them or not, and try to level everyone "down". It never works. EVERYONE might end up "equal", but they're all equally "poor" when it comes to accessing the actual goods and services that are, or could be, made or provided.

Why, instead, don't we try to bring EVERYONE "up"? What are we afraid of? That some one person will have "more money" than some other one? Who cares? So long as ALL have SUFFICIENT to allow the possibilities of PRODUCTION already extent to be fully drawn on.

Money isn't wealth, it's only a 'ticket' to it. Does Bill Gates, or Jimmy Pattison, or even the average salaried BC teacher, go on an unending orgy of conspicuous 'consumption' just because they make more bucks than you or I do? There's no evidence of that that I'm aware. In fact just the opposite. As people's incomes rise and they buy the various things they first need, and then want, their "propensity to consume" actually declines.

As for 'two months off every year', well, who amongst us wouldn't like that, provided we were paid for it? I don't know whether teachers are, or not, since I'm not, never have been, nor ever will be a school-teacher. I think I'd need more that two months off (with pay) every year, and far, far, more than whatever their regular salary and benefits currently are to ever want a job like their's nowadays.