Recent comments in /f/Pennsylvania

thenewtbaron t1_j6izwty wrote

I don't know.

There is a bottom level of folks that apply for jobs and get hired. I can say that I really haven't seen much of an actual lack of people applying for jobs because they don't meet the qualifications. Most folks I see talking about it say that even fully completely qualified folks don't get calls back. Most of the time I could see this only really working in IT work kinda fields but even then, most people I know won't work for the state for IT because they can make so much money in the private sector. like, they could easily get 50-100% more money by going private.

The intern program is one where someone in the last two years of their degree ,10 ish weeks of parttime paid work. so a couple years of experience with a degree and some training

To be a trainee, you can get a bach degree with 12 credits, four years of experience bookkeeping and 12 credits, or any combo already.

this has made it so you have six classes... and a couple of years experience. That already exists. in the above.

I guess I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with auditors having six classes and like a summer doing their uncle's books.

4

Jotakave t1_j6ixjzu wrote

Right. So even that year of preK is not available to all due to lack of funds or whatever. I can’t imagine what it takes to expand that service to earlier stages. I’m glad you were able to utilize the program. The campaign I was referring to is on prekforpa.org I’m not sure if your program was related to this organization.

1

PorkrollEggnCheeze t1_j6iwht7 wrote

There's the PA Pre-K Counts program, which provides free pre-k to families making up to 300% of the federal poverty level. That's how my son went to pre-k last year. From what our family advocate told me when we signed up, the demand is greater than the amount of kids they're able to serve though.

3

FiveNations54 t1_j6iwh7i wrote

The way in which they frame the narrative - shift of tax burden from variable a to variable b, under the hypothetical that it'll push people to utilize their land in such a way that it is implied, will yield profit to either offset or net positive, is both an exaggeration and nonsensical.

Municipalities across the country are providing certain tax abatements, forgiveness, or sliding scale agreements in order to forgo that lump sum of revenue up front for the revenue that comes as a result of reinvestment, for the long term. This also includes changes to Zoning, and possibly codes/ordinances in order to allow for more flexibility with what can be built, in order to be more accessible to more people.

Their hypothetical only works if the buyer actually wants to invest in the community, not a single residential or commercial building, which may sit unaltered as structure or land, thus a loop hole is evident. It also won't work if, again, changes to the area's zoning don't happen because otherwise, if a company views it as an unnecessary hurdle, they won't invest. Plenty of other places, and States, for a business can set up shop. It's also dumb to think they don't have an army of lawyers reviewing these laws to find a way out of it.

It's another bullshit feel good policy they didn't fully flush out because they chose to lick boots rather than make simple changes to their ordinances, which would have allowed for the same thing, but with little to no freebees

1