[neetle]

Honestly sounds like the pot calling the kettle black here. You're asking hundreds of people to put their health at risk so that ~2c of every tax dollar you pay isn't wasted. Assuming $100k in tax, you're only paying them $2k, or ~$40 a week. If you really value your daily coffee that much, just buy a coffee machine.

[anamax]

> Assuming $100k in tax, you're only paying them $2k

Where are you getting your numbers?

In California, public education is guaranteed >50% of state spending. That's on top of federal and local spending. (Schools in "rich" areas don't get state funding, so they must locally fund. Some of that locally-raised money is taken by the state.)

Grocery store people work and have contact with far more people....

[neetle]

> Where are you getting your numbers?

I suspect I had mixed up federal and total tax revenue %. We're still only talking an avg of $4k per working person for the entire system though, if you take the total funding sans property tax and divvy it up by the working population (90bn, ~30% prop tax, 16.9mil working pop).

I realise the avg isn't going to be representative of the general population, but the marginal utility of money should roughly scale with the amount of that paid per-person.

> Grocery store people work and have contact with far more people.

Honestly not entirely sure of your source on this. I'd suspect that having several hundred students in the same building for an entire day with central AC would be more of a petrie dish than your typical grocery store most of the week.

[anamax]

> you take the total funding sans property tax

Since property tax is a huge source of school funding, "sans property tax" is like saying that we're going to ignore taxes paid by folks who live in detached houses.

> > Grocery store people work and have contact with far more people.

> Honestly not entirely sure of your source on this.

Several hundred is a fairly large school, such schools don't have a single HVAC system, AND Covid doesn't work that way.

Moreover, you significantly underestimate store traffic. (Far more people go to grocery stores than go to schools.)

Costcos have 750 parking spaces and they turn-over 10-12x times a day. Even with only one person per car, that's 750 different people/day, >5k/week, or >15k/month. (Schools are the same people every day.) Walmarts are comparable.

Yes, Costco is 2-3x bigger than the typical grocery store but there's still no comparison. Grocery store workers have far more exposure than teachers.

[civilized]

Completely made-up tax numbers aside, such strong opinions about the disposable income of strangers and what they should do with it! Sorry, I'm passing on this offer. Don't call back. Thanks.

[profile53]

Please be kind. The topic is worth debate but your comments are crossing a line and come across rather hostile. I’m not a mod, but as a friendly reminder regarding site rules:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

[civilized]

I have no respect for selective scolding based on subjective definitions of kindness.

And I have no hostility towards anyone in this conversation. But I'm not above a sharp retort when I'm being condescendingly lectured to based on flawed premises.

They're dishing it out and they can take it too.

[neetle]

The premise of your argument seems to be that the public school system is flawed, and that you shouldn't have to pay into it, especially if the teachers aren't working.

This implies a lack of care for social responsibility and a lack of respect for the people that are actually having to take the risk.

While I appreciate the point of view that it isn't quite fair, I'd point out that a) teachers should have a right to health and safety in the workplace, b) social mobility would be obliterated if you could opt out of funding public schools, and c) you're likely arguing this from an office where you're at much lower risk.

It's not a great position to be in, sure. But arguing that we're not being kind in our position when yours seems to be "but they're wasting my money" seems to be borderline misanthropic.

[civilized]

I think blindly trusting powerful teacher's unions to define "safe working conditions" when they get paid either way is textbook social irresponsibility. It's "ruinous empathy", the sort of thing that makes you feel kind and good while actually doing harm. It hurts kids, especially the most vulnerable and disadvantaged inner-city students where these unions are most dominant.

COVID is no more dangerous than the flu for vaccinated people, and has been for many months now. But some teacher's unions are still demanding closures, as documented in the article.

I phrased it in terms of my own checkbook because IMO that makes the principle involved most transparent (moral hazard against payors), but personally my schools are fine. The biggest impacts of no choice are on the most disadvantaged.

[willcipriano]

Do we pay everyone who would prefer to work from home or just teachers? If just teachers why are they special?

[neetle]

The fact that you took "teachers should have a right to health and safety in the workplace" as "WFH only or not" is either naive or disingenuous. This isn't a binary, and I'm surprised that someone would assume as such.