ScienceWasLove

ScienceWasLove t1_ja3drx7 wrote

Where are you getting those numbers, and are you sure you are referring to the pension formula for new teachers?

That being said, I teach in Central PA and our max salary is $88k - after 15 years.

An 11 year schedule is abnormal and shorter than most. Probably because they have a problem retaining teachers.

I do agree that most PA starting salaries are reasonable for their areas (maybe low for a 4 year degree and a MS in 5 years) but there are some really low starting salaries in very rural parts of PA.

5

ScienceWasLove t1_j97s1dj wrote

I live on 10 acres of mountain land, but so does everyone around me, so we don’t have any problems and have exceptional privacy.

Living in rural PA for 30 years, if your land is adjacent to undeveloped woods, state game lands, state park, it is very unlikely you will have trespassing problems like you see on TikTok but is is possible.

Be prepared for dealing w/ well water, a septic system, clearing snow from a lengthy lane/driveway, clearing fallen trees from a length driveway/lane and the occasion rabid animal.

2

ScienceWasLove t1_j8uvwaz wrote

Middle Paxton Township has what you are looking for w/ the public schools busing you to Holy Name / Bishop McDevit.

15-30 mins from every major retail store w/ Blue Mountain in between. Appalachian Trail in your backyard, surrounded my PA Gamelands.

2 hours from Philly, 3 from New York.

I can’t recommend it enough, it’s where I grew up, and where I live now after 20 years in the Philly area.

2

ScienceWasLove t1_j7oyy8m wrote

No. It would freeze/reduce property taxes to a defined level.

Next. They have a developed a rather complicated mathematical formula that distributes a new Earned Income Tax. The formula is based on household income and some other factors and is distributed unequally to districts based on those factors.

This idea has been around for a long time.

The average property owner would not less in property taxes and more in earned income taxes - almost making it a “wash”.

This with high income would pay significantly more.

2

ScienceWasLove t1_j3hfkyg wrote

Right. And we cannot let the perfect get in the way of the good.

We should not go around celebrating 1-2% of mail-in ballots being discarded.

We also should acknowledge that voting is a messy process that will have errors when tabulating the results for over 5 million in-person/mail-in votes. A target of 0% errors is noble but impractical.

We should not proclaim that democrats were disenfranchised because of rule following democrats (democratic poll workers in democratic districts) throwing out democrat voter mail-in ballots enforced by republican legislature and the republican leaning supreme court.

=============

An even more cynical discussion would involve the discussion of district by district in-person and mail-in ballots numbers and how counting these ballots won't really change the district based election results and thus the overall election results for the state at large.

4

ScienceWasLove t1_j3hdtai wrote

What I said is EXACTLY what the articles states, because I read the entire article.

Almost 1.2 million mall in ballots were cast. This info is in the article.

1,000,000 dem and 187,0000 rep mail in ballots. (in the article)

1% of dem and 1.8% of rep mail in ballots were discarded. (in the artcile)

Republicans were 1.8 times more likely to have their mail-in ballot canceled vs. dems using the raw numbers of mail in votes.

Dems were 3 times more likely to have their mail-in ballot canceled vs. republicans using the raw numbers of discarded mail-in ballots.

My last two statements are clearly deceptive because we are not given context and are not given the raw numbers.

1

ScienceWasLove t1_j3hcwvb wrote

I also agree. The article does present most of the information. The problem is not even the title.

Most people understand that titles/headlines are attention grabbing, click bait.

The problem, as I see it, is that majority of Redditors take the implied meaning of the headline as the summary of the entire article.

As your proposed headlines show, the actual content in the article gives much better and nuanced understanding of the voting patterns.

I can easily say "duh, most democrats can't read anyways, no wonder a majority of their mail ballots were thrown out" using the headline. Using my 1.8x times stat, I could say "duh, most republicans, can't read anyways".

5

ScienceWasLove t1_j3hbgf5 wrote

They could have said "98+% of 1.2 million ballots processed error free in PA mid-term election".

That would have been a much more neutral statement that conveyed the raw number of votes and the percent of them that had issues.

The AP intentionally used the word "majority" - which can mean anything from 50.1% upto 100% of 16,000 number. They new exactly what they were doing. Based on the comments on here, most people read it EXACTLY how they intended....

Read it, get outraged, hopefully click on the article. Most people here stopped at step 2.

6

ScienceWasLove t1_j3h416g wrote

Republicans do not “attack” anything. In PA they disagreed with emergency election measure put in place with the COVID shutdown which were maintained but not followed w/ legislative action once the COVID shutdown was ended.

The next argument was over mail in voting procedures and what rules (from the legislature) should and should not be followed and how that should be resolved in each voting district.

It can be argued, as many did, the arguments for following the rules supported the republicans.

Although, we can see in these results that 1% of dems didn’t follow ten rules and 1.8% of republicans didn’t follow the rules.

0