StrangeSox

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 18, 2013 -> 08:25 AM) We judge education systems by the student's outcome on standardized tests which sometimes unfairly characterizes the schools. In Texas we have a very large recent immigrant population which severly impacts our test scores. The schools are much better than most people outside of Texas realize. We also have a very strong state funded university system. Comparing U of I with UT - Austin, which I believe are very comparatable instututions, the in state tuition is about 33% less for Austin. I'm not certain what you mean about infrastructure. I've read before that Texas has underfunded infrastructure: http://www.texastribune.org/2012/12/04/ins...frastructure-1/ That's not unique to Texas, though. We've underfunded infrastructure nation-wide, despite being able to borrow money for free and a bunch of people particularly in construction that need jobs. Texas made billions in cuts to their education funding last year as well. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/us/budge...?pagewanted=all

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 07:52 PM) It has some continuity to it but its not really necessary to watch the previous seasons to enjoy it. The episodes can be watched individually just fine. there's a ton of self-referential jokes you'll miss probably

I criticized duke for drawing a conclusion on what work the public sector does based on what he sees on the sidewalk walking to work. I linked to a post by a friend who expressed the same idea that ptact was getting at and with which I agree because I thought it was well-written. lol@u if you think these are comparable things.

There's some "ND puts more effort into investigating fake dead girl than real dead girl" righteousness but mostly it seems to be amusement.

Your second paragraph is spot-on what I believe too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 02:52 PM) BTW apparently it was Sean Jensen who reported that 13 month schedule thing. Azumah just decided to throw out SOURCES when it was already out by an established media. the detailed plan was leaked

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 12:17 PM) The Bears didnt even look for a new OC when martz resigned. Tice was hired 3 days later. How can you even suggest the bears were stuck with Tice when they didnt even take a week to try and find a new OC? nobody wanted the job two years earlier when they hired tice. maybe they knew better than to waste their time.

So...nobody qualified wanted the bears job, like I said. Which is why we were stuck with Martz and then Tice. Pay would be a factor, but so would the complete lack of job security working under a coach who may be gone in a year.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 11:58 AM) Thats just not true. There are plenty of coaches that want an opportunity. Im sure there were plenty of people that wanted to work for the Bears when Martz was brought in. The bears just thought Martz would do well. http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/news/story?id=4877772 The Bears had plenty of choices, they just took the wrong guy, per usual. The Bears had a hard time getting anyone to come in for an interview. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...bears-list-too/ http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...rviewing-martz/ http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/post...tti-staying-put Yes, I'm sure there's tons of people that would love that job. There's few if any qualified people. We don't know if those two would have ultimately accepted the job, anyway.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 11:52 AM) I'm OK with no more Marinelli. Things had to change, if we had to lose some of what worked before to make other parts of this team work better then were going to have to accept it. It would have been nice to have that continuity, but the status quo on the whole wasn't working.

Nobody would want to come work for a lame-duck coach on the last year of his contract. Nobody wanted to come work for Lovie when they brought in Martz.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 11:43 AM) This is why I was not a fan from the beginning. I just think it will be difficult to replicate the Bears defensive success and the offense wont improve enough next year to offset it. Since the Bears defense is getting old, I felt you should take another shot next year because there is a chance in 2 years guys like Tillman, Urlacher, Peppers are not the same, or not around. Another year with Tice as OC wouldn't have been a productive year.

QUOTE (SOXOBAMA @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 11:29 AM) If they don't make it, will still have a great time just being there. could always resell them still, that's a lot of money

I can safely say that management is vastly overpaid and that they do not add value in the same proportion that they are paid over the workers who actually produce and provide the products. This explosion of c-level compensation is a relatively recent phenomenon. My standard is high because my point is that there's a lot of people in poverty and relying on aid because there's no damn jobs out there right now. Pointing to jobs that require substantial education, as ss2k5 did, doesn't really address that.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:52 AM) Not counting benefits, they'd make less...counting benefits, they make more. Pure and simple. And taking out the top 1% of earners from both categories will completely skew it in favor of the public sector making more. Most people in the private sector aren't paid what CEO's are paid, so stop pretending they should be included in this just so your point holds up, that's absurd. First, don't just take salary as compensation, you have take the entire package, including benefits. Keep in mind that this is a comparison of similarly skilled/educated white-collar workers, not to the entirety of the private sector. I know most people in the private sector aren't paid what CEO's are paid. Most people in the public sector aren't paid what public administrators are paid. But I see no reason that they shouldn't be included (without similarly discounting their public counterparts) nor do I know that it's essential to the research. Benefits packages are definitely part of the trade-off. Public employees get lower wages, aren't part of bonus pools, etc. but they historically enjoy higher job security and good retirement plans (private sector used to, too, but those are mostly gone).

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/notre_dames_double_standard/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:40 AM) As for the study that showed governmental employees make less than the private sectors... It was conducted by the Federal Salary Council. This group is governmental agency out of the executive branch. Who makes up this group you ask? According to its Wiki... So basically a labor union wrote a report saying its employees were underpaid. So yeah... In other news Scott Boras put out a report that baseball players are underpaid. So basically a panel that was partially composed of labor representatives issued a report based on BLS data.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) Not to mention the key part to this - a lot of these people are now working at jobs instead of on the streets causing trouble. Which is why I'm totally onboard with voluntary jobs, education and community programs. Picking up trash for 40 hours a week isn't going to land you the types of jobs that are actually open right now. The city isn't going to be massively expanding payrolls--state and local governments have cut huge amounts of jobs over the past several years, something that's really hampered the recovery. Here's an example of the type of s***ty jobs available and why it's so hard to climb out of poverty: http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/12/13/mc...od-retail-ceos/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:30 AM) When you take out top level CEO's that skew the numbers, I don't think this is true at all, especially when you consider employment benefits. I don't see why you should take out top-level CEO salary. Do we take out top-level administration (vastly lower than their private sector counterparts) in the public sector, too?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:15 AM) Limiting opportunities and programs does. Food assistance and unemployment don't limit opportunities. Being forced to take the first job you can find, no matter how terrible or low-paying or ill-fitting it is because you'll starve otherwise sure as hell does.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:14 AM) It's only a temp job, if you don't work to do anything else. As I stated earlier. Make a college prep part of it or something else.It's not like the current system is preparing them for anything else. Many people go into a depression and lose self-worth when they aren't a contributer to society. I really believe you will help the self image of many people by giving them employment along with monetary aid, instead of just monetary aid with no contribution. I have no objection to outreach and educational programs being offered. I don't object to voluntary work programs being available, and completely agree about the self-image part. I spent the last 15 minutes digging through the CTU strike thread to find this from a friend of mine: http://liveandknot.wordpress.com/2012/09/1...hers-narrative/ what I don't agree with is making these things mandatory. I don't believe that the people who truly are lazy, irresponsible and don't give a f*** deserve to starve to death.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:08 AM) Make-work, and judging by what I've seen living in and around Chicago all but a small portion of my life that's primarily what the public sector does. Not 100% of what it does, but much closer to that extreme than the other. Maybe it's different in other parts of the country, one day I plan on finding out. Evaluating the work done by the public sector based on what you literally see. Brilliant.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:05 AM) And by keeping them on welfare or unemployment you ensure that as well. Plus you keep them dependent on the system. They are not being "kept" on welfare or unemployment. Soup kitchens didn't cause the Great Depression. Working some menial temp job isn't going to get you an engineering or IT education.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:03 AM) Because outside a few government jobs, which I understand need to be filled because the state does have some functions it has to attend to, they could never cut it in the private world. lol google is your friend

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 17, 2013 -> 10:04 AM) I wouldn't go that far. Gernally, yes. However, there are some (politicians) that I may disagree with. Compared to where they're usually coming from and where they go afterwards, politicians really don't make that much. That's more about power and access than the wages paid.