This is truly scary.

[justin]

Regarding teachers, I have a lot of friends that are teachers and my mom is a teacher. Definitely the occasional week with more than 40 hours - especially at crunch times - end of year exams, progress report times, etc.

Not really very different from other salaried professions. There is also comp time for that work in general. And there's plenty of teachers that go shoe shopping during their periods off.

My impression is that once you get your lesson plans worked out in the first year or two, it becomes much easier after that.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan Also, the same study notes that most teachers end up spending their own money buying things for their classrooms. OK this is lower than I thought. And does that account for the summer hiatus? Wow a 90% pension! I got 42% after 25 years in the private sector. And they are still leaving? What are they going?

Again, that "summer hiatus" is a myth. Most teachers end up either working summer jobs to make ends meet, or taking courses to update certification or earn advanced degrees.

The pension is definitely a nice offset for what they don't get when they're working. But 90% of 60% of the non-teacher's salary is not as much as you might think.

[lets-retire]

Youbet--The most recent data states the top 1% control 33% of the wealth. I'm sure it doesn't diminish your concerns, but just for accuracy's sake.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin Well, Gates, Buffett, the Walton's and their ilk also have families and raise (or have raised) kids with good values and are probably kind to most they meet. They also provide millions of jobs and have shaped our economy and society. I don't mean to demean the societal contributions of the bottom 25% of folks, because my family has a lot people that fit in that category (some good, some not so good). But when comparing the contributions to society of someone flipping burgers at McD's versus someone creating jobs for a million folks, I think it is obvious who has contributed more.

If you're thinking exclusively about finance, sure. I think there are things of greater value. One wonders, too, what the world might gain if some of the poorer folks out there were in a position to contribute what Trump's fame and fortune would allow him to contribute. We might lose "the Apprentice" and musical trophy wives and bad combovers and petty, ill-tempered bickering and gain some things of real value from someone who's had to do without money awhile, who's had a chance to learn some things about character that money can't buy.

[youbet]

I hestitate to get into the teacher discussion since it is so overworked...... But.......

Teachers unions are very powerful. But they are also responsible, in part, for current teacher pay levels. When school boards have proposed increasing the pay for teacher categories where shortages exist (math, science, special ed and ESL), the union balks insisting that teachers of all subjects be paid equally, regardless of supply. If the union would allow pay to rise in shortage areas while pay remained as-is in non-shortage areas, the average would rise, recruitment problems would vanish and retention levels would improve.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH Again, that "summer hiatus" is a myth. Most teachers end up either working summer jobs to make ends meet, or taking courses to update certification or earn advanced degrees.

There is no sympathy from me on this. They are making a decent wage. I know because I make a little less than they do and I do fine. They get a couple months off to go to school. I wish I did, but instead I must fit it into my already busy schedule. As far as having to work a summer job. I already said I make less than they do and do alright, they are either living above thier means or are not adequately preparing themsleves for the summer by saving.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin Regarding teachers, I have a lot of friends that are teachers and my mom is a teacher. Definitely the occasional week with more than 40 hours - especially at crunch times - end of year exams, progress report times, etc. Not really very different from other salaried professions. There is also comp time for that work in general. And there's plenty of teachers that go shoe shopping during their periods off. My impression is that once you get your lesson plans worked out in the first year or two, it becomes much easier after that.

It does become easier once they have developed a system. But the AVERAGES cited above would argue that your friends' experience is the exception.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Youbet--The most recent data states the top 1% control 33% of the wealth. I'm sure it doesn't diminish your concerns, but just for accuracy's sake.

I believe, and I don't feel like digging into the report again, that it's 33% of financial + real wealth or 38% of financial wealth only.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire There is no sympathy from me on this. They are making a decent wage. I know because I make a little less than they do and I do fine. They get a couple months off to go to school. I wish I did, but instead I must fit it into my already busy schedule. As far as having to work a summer job. I already said I make less than they do and do alright, they are either living above thier means or are not adequately preparing themsleves for the summer by saving.

Statistically, they are NOT making a "decent wage," if by decent you mean a competitive wage for people with their level of skill and education.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I believe, and I don't feel like digging into the report again, that it's 33% of financial + real wealth or 38% of financial wealth only.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html

The first chart shows they have 33.4% of the wealth in net worth values.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I hestitate to get into the teacher discussion since it is so overworked...... But....... Teachers unions are very powerful. But they are also responsible, in part, for current teacher pay levels. When school boards have proposed increasing the pay for teacher categories where shortages exist (math, science, special ed and ESL), the union balks insisting that teachers of all subjects be paid equally, regardless of supply. If the union would allow pay to rise in shortage areas while pay remained as-is in non-shortage areas, the average would rise, recruitment problems would vanish and retention levels would improve.

Great point. There's also a heck of a lot of wasteful spending in education that could be better used by bumping the pay of educators.

[dumpster56]

Teaching in an american inner city was a real challenge over the 30 years I did it.

Being a health and PE teacher made it better than say an english or math teacher. The hours were great. The pension. Hummm My deal is about 50% of my last three years average salary. Medical bennies are included. I pay for dental and prescription coverage in retirement.

Hey we all would like a bigger paycheck. The unions, They get a bad rap. I retired to North Carolina and there are NO TEACHER unions here. No collective contract negotiations are allowed . So the bad schools in NC are not caused by the evil teacher unions. New Jersey unions, yes we have them and pretty darn good schools out of the cities.

I had a career and I would not do it again. Nope, I would talk anyone out of becoming a teacher. If you are smart enough be a vet, a physician or better yet a great salesman!


Oh after 30 years I was making under 80K a year with a masters degree.

[LKH]

Inner city teachers have it worse than most. One of my aunts taught in East LA. She quit after the 3rd time one of her students pulled a weapon and threatened her.

Anyway, I think we've argued education to death. I'd still like to know what others would do to improve things in general. People have picked my suggestions to death, but I haven't seen anyone else make any.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html The first chart shows they have 33.4% of the wealth in net worth values.

Yep.....and thanks for validating I'm correct. It's 33.4% of net worth and, from the next chart, 39.7% of financial worth.

I know these percentages are much, much lower than you'd like the top 1% to control, but let's not understate them.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH Great point. There's also a heck of a lot of wasteful spending in education that could be better used by bumping the pay of educators.

Yes, especially if you could focus those dollars on the teacher shortage areas and not offer pay raises in areas where there are already over-supplies.

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet So Justin, if I'm interpreting this correctly, you're not only pleased that the top 1% control 38% of our country's wealth, but you'd like to see them control a bigger percentage? You have a good point. As gods in our society, they are truly responsible for all we have. There must be some way we can increase their reward level for all they have contributed! Well......OK. But which segment of society do you think should be the losers in this redistribution scheme?

You are very quick to assume that someone has to lose when someone else wins. These world-shaking entrepreneurs are increasing productivity and reducing costs. I'm talking about making the pie bigger, not taking other's pieces of pie to make your own piece bigger.

Redistribution scheme? I'm not talking about taking anything from anyone. If an entrepreneur can convince you that their products or services are worth your money and you voluntarily consume these goods or services, that isn't taking anything from anyone.

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet I know these percentages are much, much lower than you'd like the top 1% to control, but let's not understate them.

No one here is arguing that we want to redistribute more wealth to the already wealthy by force. It isn't a binary function that you are either for impoverishing the wealthy or for enriching the wealthy. I say give 'em a fair shake ('em being everyone) at making their own money, and see what happens. If the rich get complacent, there's gonna be 100 people in line behind them to eat their lunch.

As long as the incentives are right, that is (ie - you get to keep most of what you earn).

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin You are very quick to assume that someone has to lose when someone else wins. These world-shaking entrepreneurs are increasing productivity and reducing costs. I'm talking about making the pie bigger, not taking other's pieces of pie to make your own piece bigger. Redistribution scheme? I'm not talking about taking anything from anyone. If an entrepreneur can convince you that their products or services are worth your money and you voluntarily consume these goods or services, that isn't taking anything from anyone.

Hmmmmmm....guess we need to define terms Justin. I'm talking about the percentage of the total wealth pie (regardless of wealth pie size) that the top 1% controls. If one group is going to control more of the pie, someone else is going to control less.

I'm all for innovation, competition and rewarding the winners. And I love to see the size of the pie grow. But we're talking about percentage of the pie controlled by the top 1%. As the top 1% has almost 40% of the pie now, how much more should they get?

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet Hmmmmmm....guess we need to define terms Justin. I'm talking about the percentage of the total wealth pie (regardless of wealth pie size) that the top 1% controls. If one group is going to control more of the pie, someone else is going to control less. I'm all for innovation, competition and rewarding the winners. And I love to see the size of the pie grow. But we're talking about percentage of the pie controlled by the top 1%. As the top 1% has almost 40% of the pie now, how much more should they get?

Let's say the pie doubles from $100 trillion to $200 trillion over the next ten years (in real terms). Today the "rich" (top 1%) control 40% or $40 trillion, and in the next ten years, they gain some ground and hold 50% of the wealth, or $100 trillion. I don't really care if the top 1% hold 50% of the wealth. The other 99% would still hold $100 trillion in wealth. Although the bottom 99% would have their share of the pie reduced from 60% to 50%, their wealth still grew 67% over that 10 year period from $60 trillion to $100 trillion.

What did we decide got you into the 1% club? 8 million? That seems like how much a successful small business owner who worked hard and grew her business might be able to acquire over the course of a lifetime. It really isn't that elite with literally millions of members. I could keep working hard, DCA'ing into investments, and saving till I'm 65, and I probably would exceed the 8 million mark by a bit (in real terms). Little ole me from my humble beginnings with parents from working class families.

The 1% knows that the 99% will change things if conditions warrant action.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin I don't really care if the top 1% hold 50% of the wealth.

At least you know your comfort level on this. For myself, at today's level just under 40%, I'm a little concerned as to whether the tax structure, patent laws, fair trade laws, anti-trust laws and the ability of the wealthy/influential to control these things are all working properly. Other posters have implied they'd be comfortable with even higher levels than the 50% you suggest as being OK. Maybe 60%? 70%? Who knows.

BTW, you keep talking as though I'm against our free enterprise systems allowing folks to succeed and become wealthy. I'm not! Please stop implying that. It's exactly the opposite. If a decade from now I can look and see that there really aren't fewer and fewer people controlling greater and greater amounts of our wealth, I'll be very pleased. I'm all for new people making it into the elite club as defined by the example you gave in your second paragraph.

What I don't want to see is that years from now we look and see that top 0.1% control 40%? 50%? whatever of our wealth and have established barriers to entry that are impossible for the middle class entrepreneur to overcome.

I'd rather see 100's of middle class entrepreneurs establish businesses worth a few million each than say, the Waltons, become worth yet another one billion. The Waltons are great folks, love them Arkansans, and don't begrudge them their success. Still, it's hard to not cheer for a newbie! At least for me......