GOP Senator bravely suggests communism

El_Machinae

Colour vision since 2018
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 24, 2005
Messages
48,283
Location
Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
"Teachers need to make the money that they need to make," [Alabama state Sen. Shadrack] McGill said, according to the Times-Journal. "If you double a teacher's pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach ... and these teachers that are called to teach, regardless of the pay scale, they would teach. It's just in them to do. It's the ability that God give 'em."'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/shadrack-mcgill-alabama-teacher-pay-bible_n_1247765.html

Is he suggesting that we perform jobs to our ability, and get paid what we need?

That we each perform to our ability, and to each of us what we need?



Now, I do what I do out of love for my work. It's no longer the money that motivates me, but I can only do this work because I am wealthy enough to do so.

Is it a good idea to intentionally restrict wages, so we only get people who want to do that work, instead of getting people who would work for money? We seem to already do that with pastors. And a charity that has a highly paid CEO sometimes gets mocked. But, if we want to get Goldman Sachs run by people who just want to sell money services, does that principle work too?
 
It's only socialism/Communism when a democrat promote such beliefs.
 
Oh, I thought this was about how Newt Gingrich wants to overhrow the Tsar...
 
It obviously isn't going to be a marvellous idea to restrict the wages of acute care nurses so that only those with a calling to coaxing sputum out of the lungs of the elderly are employed in the field. There won't be many of 'em. The massive assumption underpinning the idea that you can just get those who are really wanting to do the job to do it is that there is enough of them willing to take below-market wages. If there isn't, then you're just looking at lower quality workers.
 
Ha, I read this story yesterday. This idea seems to only gain traction with non-profity jobs, or jobs pertaining to children.

It's rather hilarious that this guy voted for a substantial pay increase for part time legislators in Alabama.

I think his actual idea is crazypants. Clearly, we need to keep teaching salaries low so the profession will be restricted to nice married white ladies who can depend on their husband's income. Allowing actual career-minded professionals to teach would be...unbiblical.
 
It's always amazing how common it is for conservatives to have no concept of how market economics works. There seems to be something in the conservative makeup that is just fundamentally morally opposed to understanding it.
 
Is it a good idea to intentionally restrict wages, so we only get people who want to do that work, instead of getting people who would work for money? We seem to already do that with pastors. And a charity that has a highly paid CEO sometimes gets mocked. But, if we want to get Goldman Sachs run by people who just want to sell money services, does that principle work too?

I wouldn't say it's a principle even in education. This is just one guy's opinion - out of many thousands of opinions that the Huffington Post selectively screen in order to manipulate their readers and make them angry.
 
Why rely on wages to attract or repulse the right people ?
Wouldn't it be more efficient to just let every child take an aptitude test at the age of twelve and designate the appropriate education and job ?
 
It's always amazing how common it is for conservatives to have no concept of how market economics works. There seems to be something in the conservative makeup that is just fundamentally morally opposed to understanding it.

Some people are just so driven by ideology that they forget that "the facts on the ground" aren't driven by ideology but rather reality.
 
You should change the title to "GOP Alabama State Senator"... it's significant.
 
Back
Top Bottom