Forum Post: 15 Steps the 99% Can Take Toward Ensuring a Fairer America and a Better World
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 18, 2011, 4:27 p.m. EST by edawg467
(19)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Public Forum
0 comments 1 day ago by agkaiser
1 comments 5 days ago by agkaiser
0 comments 6 days ago by agkaiser
1 comments 1 week ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 weeks ago by agkaiser
1 comments 3 weeks ago by agkaiser
0 comments 1 month ago by agkaiser
1 comments 2 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
7 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 months ago by factsrfun
4 comments 3 months ago by gsw
7 comments 3 months ago by factsrfun
3 comments 3 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
1 comments 4 months ago by grapes
2 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
0 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
4 comments 4 months ago by agkaiser
2 comments 5 months ago by rachelodell
2 comments 8 months ago by gsw
2 comments 12 months ago by factsrfun
5 comments 2 years ago by agkaiser
beautiful! agreed, including the additions below. This is a wonderfully thought out selection, and I am given strength by the strong communication displayed in this thread, showing that as a group, we are more powerful than the individual.
Thanks! It takes a lot of individuals with a common goal to build a movement that will affect change. We have generations of leaders who have proved this. Any help spreading the word would be wonderful. Thanks again.
word is travelling on my lips, ill spread it like herpes in a dirty brothel :)
YES! I agree whole heartedly,
Thanks for the support, and show of solidarity. Let's see who else we can bring to the cause.
I agree 100% with all of what was listed. And to be true, what you have listed have been repeatedly listed on this site and I have also seen repeated signs with these proposals at OWS protests. So the messages are getting out there.
That's great to hear! It's important that we then present a unified front, as the message can get lost amongst a lot of noise. A lot of people who are not on those streets still have no idea what these people are fighting for as they stage themselves on Wall Street and around the world. It's why people like MLK, Gandhi, and FDR were so important...a voice to represent the people so others can hear. We need a leader who can clearly articulate and defend these ideas, to get them out there at every street corner and computer around this country, and to fight for them at every opportunity we get to do so.
How goes the protest everyone?
Lot's of good stuff in there for sure.
How about just the step one: Ban all corporate donations to the government.
Keep it simple to get a consensus of the 99% general public.
Right now, the congress is filled with the influence of the Corporation. Once your step one is achieved, then can the other steps be heard without interuption
I've had thoughts along similar lines. However, I believe all of these are important, and in any negotiation, you want to present what you want, and hopefully you achieve as many of your goals as you can. If we achieve number one, then we would lay a nice foundation. Let's try to build something even better.
Strict regulation of corporations and removal of personhood are equally important to the first one as well.
Agreed.
"8) Double teacher pay. Encourage people to work within the educational system. Invest in science and science education. Our leaders of tomorrow need to be educated today."
I study education policy and would like to know what has led you to this conclusion. Are you supported by findings of teacher salaries correlating to school performance?
I would be curious to hear your research. From my perspective, incentivizing people into a sector with the promise of higher salaries has worked in other markets, and should work here too with the proper direction and resources dedicated to hiring the top candidates to teach. Ideally there would be hiring practices in place that ensure these teachers are actually good at teaching, so students have the best shot at learning. I am however skeptical of many standards for testing school performance, but I do know from experience that a good teacher made all the difference in my enjoyment (and consequently my learning) of a subject. These great teachers should be rewarded. Perhaps that would require a feedback mechanism from students and faculty so the biggest raises go to the best teachers. Would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
"with the proper direction and resources dedicated to hiring the top candidates to teach"
However, it has been found that this practice leads to greater teacher mobility. In other words, the best teachers tend to go to the best schools, leaving the worse teachers in the lesser schools, and consequently, furthering the education gap. Many believe making teaching a profession, much like lawyers and doctors, would contribute to fixing this. However, I do not have any information on this belief.
Regarding standards for testing school performance, school funding and teacher salaries should NOT be influenced by student performance. There have been arguments that student individual disparities, such as SES and parental education attainment, affect student performance more profoundly than any in-school related factors such as funding, resources, teacher quality.
What would you suggest?
I think the plan should include added incentives for teachers who teach in schools of greater need. Of course, the specifics of this tenet also should be discussed in public forum and in Congress.
I agree that testing school performance should not influence school funding and teacher salaries--funding should be provided across the board and especially in schools of need.
Thanks for your contributions.
Programs such as Teach for America focus on placing top teachers and top newly graduated teachers in high need schools. However, these placements usually only range for 2 - 3 years on average. It is unclear to me how much creating incentives for long - term teacher placement in high need schools would cost though. One of the major repetitive downfalls of educational policies is sustainability. 'How long could we feasibly sustain higher costs for placement incentives?'
Anyway, I am a proponent of the decentralization of schooling simply because centralization, or to me, applying market and industrial structures into a system which depends heavily on cognitive and social class factors would become inherently ineffective. This I attribute to the inability to address these factors when we consider applying market and industrial structures on a large scale.
"the plan should include added incentives for teachers who teach in schools of greater need."
I would also point out that you may then need to prove this to be a compelling state interest in fulfillment of the strict scrutiny standard used in 14th Amendment racial discrimination claims. Specifically placing money into higher need schools generally, although not always, means urban schools. Since these schools consist predominately of minority groups, white or other low need groups may view this as discrimination. At this point the judicial system is now involved. Since the government (or schools) almost never win with the strict scrutiny standard, better hope one could get them to apply rational basis.
I'm glad you're pointing out some of the potential dangers as we navigate these waters. We'll need people like you with firsthand knowledge of the intricacies of the system in order to find our way. But keep in mind that social research should not be treated as dogma, as society always has the capacity to change. It is us who have to do the changing, to be those leaders to guide us through the storm and find our way to shore.
I'd agree with all of these points, although some should be implemented before others.
Do you propose a specific order? What takes priority for you?
1 and 5 first, simply because those will mean much less grief getting the rest through. After that, I'd say 4, 5, and 6. I'd accomplish 7 and 10 at once through the revitalization of government-run think tanks and labs such as NASA-JPL on the one hand, and on the other use government involvement and sponsorship of university research to create a pipeline from colleges to these labs. 12 is not as necessary as it was when it was first proposed but still belongs on the higher-priority end of the list.
13 is apparently already starting to happen (that's what this and places like theMultitude are turning into), and 14 is more of an implementation mechanism for 1-13 than a goal in and of itself (but still very important). 8 and 9 need to happen, although there is the possibility that 8 will start to happen organically with restoration of local education budgets from more progressive corporate and income taxes. If not, then do it legislatively. Same goes for 9. I wouldn't do 3, but I'd tax the shit out of and very heavily regulate any such market (so that the government can make money and the market can stay fairly small and safe), and defer 15 until we have 1-14 implemented here.
I think George Carlin said it best (for sure he said it FIRST!)
Every Occupy Protestor should see this:
George Carlin was the FIRST protestor! He is with you in spirit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF1Ixo_faas&feature=related
That man was a genius. Few comedians could compare. In fact, the media shut him up for years because of his "controversial" comments during his stand-up routines. He knew the real truths behind the lies. Not sure if you're old enough to have followed his career (I've been a devout fan since the late '60's). Buddy Hackett was another one. They shut him down, too.
Agreed. George Carlin was a very smart man. Thanks for the share.
Truly, you lost me on #2.
That's just foolish. The rest could be brilliant but once you start letting the government dictate earning potential -- you cease to live in a free society.
I think it was just a metaphor. If from that old saying, "Give a man a fish he can eat for a day, teach a man to fish he can eat for a lifetime." Or something like that.
It was an old saying. The part that I had issue with was capping earnings. I think that's a dangerous proposition.
The rest I pretty much agreed with.
Sorry 'bout that.
That's a fair assessment. What would you propose?
But to be fair to the original proposal, the people control the government, and can change said salary cap. But since it's such an uphill battle, I think the alternative I proposed might be a more direct way to go.
In honor of you, I offer an alternative #2:
2) Provide tax breaks when a company hires American employees, as well as funding their education to effectively do these jobs. Teach a person to fish.
I can get behind this.
Maybe not so much the funding of education. Maybe a contract for hire?
So the new reading would be: 2) Provide tax breaks when a company hires American employees 2a) Provide year end tax breaks on eduction funding contracts. These contracts would be 4-year employment contracts where the company retains the employee in response to training. The contracts would have base salary and % raises built in - much like a sports contract.
Or maybe I'll raise your number 2: 2) Complete removal of payroll tax
Why do we tax corporations for hiring employees?
Interesting ideas. I think the specifics for this step, as all of these tenets, will need to be addressed and hashed out in public debate and in Congress, where they will ultimately be decided. The reasoning behind educating these employees is so they are qualified for the jobs they are employed to do. A lot of people could use an education in web encoding and other highly technical skills that are currently being outsourced to other countries.
I agree - and I think it's a brilliant idea.
But I think that it opens the door to "thanks for the education", I'm out the door. Or worse, investing resources in an employee that ultimately doesn't pay back the funds through loyalty.
So, I think some sort of employment contract should be worked out. We'll pay your education - but in return the company expects: x, y and z.
I think that's a fair system. It's like the military. You get your education assistance, but you have to give your years as well.
Yes, that makes sense.
Interesting that I see companies that offer continued education but don't require a term length to the employee's contract, as the employee will only receive said education while they are employed at the company. So there are no set term lengths.
Sold to this guy. :)