drxdrg08

drxdrg08 t1_j9q1osr wrote

> Nah like 60k a year direct, then add 20k for ira, healthcare, training, etc.

Nah. Not even close.

For regular programs, $93,753,240 for salaries, $57,724,761 for benefits.

Benefits are 62% of the salary.

https://www.cbsd.org/cms/lib/PA01916442/Centricity/Domain/64/Central%20Bucks%20School%20District%202020-21%20Comprehensive%20Budget.pdf

>Highest salary at Central Bucks School District in year 2022 was $225,000. Number of employees at Central Bucks School District in year 2022 was 1,432. Average annual salary was $89,910 and median salary was $94,472.

https://govsalaries.com/salaries/PA/central-bucks-school-district?year=2022&page=2

The median salary is $94,472 and $58,573 in benefits = $153,044 total compensation.

3

drxdrg08 t1_j9hxsj0 wrote

> and they still can’t read or do simple math

Who's they? You need to be more specific.

US is very unlike most countries. The population is not homogeneous.

We have an obesity problem. But if you look at people of German ancestry in the US, their rates of obesity are similar to Germans living in Germany.

Education is no different. Some groups have problems. Some do not. Even when they go to the same school.

−2

drxdrg08 t1_j9he4k8 wrote

> Nope, not bullshit logic at all. Test/performance anxiety is a very real thing and is very well documented. People shouldn't be punished for their inability to perform under pressure, especially not kids.

We've been doing it wrong for hundreds of years. Tests have been a thing for a very long time.

It's dishonest to even say that it's about "anxiety". It's a recent movement linked to "equity".

−23

drxdrg08 t1_j9g4b8k wrote

> 5. Operates entirely free from private profit motive

This criteria is impossible to achieve.

Every single employee that is working at a non-profit and draws a salary (it doesn't have to be a high salary) has a presumed profit motive.

They want their employers to remain solvent, which would mean they continue to receive a paycheck, and/or they want their employer to grow so they can be better compensated or giving them a chance to move up in the hierarchy.

0

drxdrg08 t1_j9fgbet wrote

> Pennsylvania requires charities to be "institutions of purely public charity" to qualify for exemption. HUP test, which has 5 criteria ...... 5. Operates entirely free from private profit motive.

What is the definition of private profit motive?

> "The “eye popping” compensation paid to executives at four hospitals owned by Tower Health LLC disqualifies the nonprofits from charitable tax-exempt status, a Pennsylvania appeals court ruled in four related cases.

So highly compensated employees is the bar? Then let's remove non-profit status from all universities and colleges then.

Every single non-profit of note requires highly talented professionals to run it. Everyone knows how difficult it is for non profits to hire competent people as it is. So let's attack that aspect of non profits even more?

−1

drxdrg08 t1_j8sbes0 wrote

Before you go start revolutions I'll remind you that the Federal Railroad Administration, which sets safety regulations for trains, is under Democratic control. And has been for 10 out of the last 14 years.

So is the governorship in Pennsylvania, which can also regulate rail inside the state to an extent, has been Democratic for the last 8 years.

−8

drxdrg08 t1_j7x9ttr wrote

There is no source you can provide because you can't "deactivate" health insurance.

The students that are striking are no longer employees, since they are not coming to work anymore. They have been notified twice in writing that not coming into work means they will be fired. Now they have been fired.

Were their paychecks also "deactivated"? They can continue under COBRA, that's the law, just like every other terminated employee.

−72

drxdrg08 t1_j7s0kka wrote

> I want them to build as many warehouses as they can in the old industrial parts of Philadelphia near the highways.

Honestly, I don't think they can get enough people hired from the surrounding neighborhoods that would reliably show up for work real early in the morning and not high.

And that's in addition to all the other usual "problems", like the cost to put up a warehouse using city union labor is significantly more expensive.

0

drxdrg08 t1_j6ytevx wrote

> Rotting in the ground releases the CO2.

Some. And it takes a very long time. All cars will be electric by the time a tree that dies today will be converted back to co2 from rotting. So burning now is a bad idea.

> I was reading a study however, saying that, if properly done, a single acre of land could provide enough wood to heat a home indefinitely, I don't recall the details past that though.

How big is the house, how insulated, what temperature inside, what temperature outside. This is probably a bad idea too since it takes a lot of energy to go from a tree outside to it heating up your house. And that energy has a carbon footprint too. I would not be so fast to say that burning fossil fuels in a very efficient and clean way is worse than burning wood even in theory. In practice virtually nobody wants to do that.

1