This is truly scary.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH B) You don't know much about teachers and the hours they work. Most of the teachers I know put in more hours during the school year than the average worker puts in in a full year. And then they're expected to use their off time getting more education - or working another job so they can afford insurance and tuition for their kids.

It is inefficiency... my mother was a teacher of kindergarten... two classes of 40... she worked about 8 hours a day...

My sister was a teacher for 40 years... she said the young ones don't know how to teach properly and do a lot of stuff that is a waste of time and effort... and they play the politics just like many in 'corporate america' which takes up a lot of time...

ANY TEACHER THAT WORKS 15 HOURS A DAY IS NOT WORKING SMART.. well, I will put a football or some other coach as an exception as they have after school and nights to work.. but that is extra pay..

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin ... and the ability to chase after as big of a piece of pie as I want.

Agreed. People seem to forget that our Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, .... Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Not 'happiness' , but the pursuit of happiness'.

-ERD50

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Maybe '% income to charity' is not the best measure. One Silicon Valley CEO argued that he was *not* going to donate money to charity - he said that reinvesting in his company was the best use of his money. It was what he knew, and his investment created jobs and wealth. Not everyone needs to agree with that, but I think it is a defensible position. The statement you made was that you were concerned that these 1% with wealth had so much control and would use the money to the detriment of the general public. I'm just saying that, independent of what they give to charity, I just don't see any strong evidence of that. I just don't see any reason to get fearful when I look at that list. I see a list of hardworking, innovative people that will probably do reasonably good things with their accumulated wealth.

Anyone that creates a company is creating jobs. Not only for their own employees but for all their suppliers, and, sometimes for their customers by making them more effective. Estimates of the spinoff effect vary but it is significant in its multiple. And the retained earnings are tiny when compared to the total economic impacts.

OTOH I think both Gates and Buffet have it right. Control how your charitable contributions are put to work because existing charities do not have a great record for productivity. Also try to keep as much of your earnings because no government has a great record on redistribution.

(Teachers are special case and deserve some kind of medal in heaven. I guess their pension is part of the reward and also the flexibility to travel some years during the summers. DIL is a teacher.)

[lets-retire]

LKH--
A) My mistake I misread your post when I went to posting. I read it correctly the first time though.

B) I know several teachers, party with some, bowl with others, I'm even related to one or two. So yes I do have a little bit of information.

C) If you know the job pays very little, maybe even below what you think is fair go someplace else to work, don't sit around complaining the the pay is low. As far as parent support my son has had a total of six teachers. In that time three teachers and one guidance counselor has suggested we put him on drug for ADHD. I find it rather interesting that one of the teachers, who did not make this recommendation had a history working with difficult kids, and I could see her squirm every time the counselor suggested the drugs. The other two teachers have had no problems with him and have not even suggested medicating him. On the teachers suggestion my son was taken to our doctor. Even after completing the ADHD surveys, the doc's recommendation was the teachers need to quit attempting to prescribe drugs and concentrate on teaching. The results of the survey showed he was active, but not in the abnormal range. I can't speak for other people but the teachers receive my support, when it is warranted.

D) Here we go again. You work for the bottom of the barrel, as far as state benefits go. You can NOT base an opinion on the bottom or the top of the spectrum, it must be the norm. It would be similar to saying a female bodybuilder can lift 400lbs in a certain lift, but because the average male can't do it females overall are stronger than males. The logic does not follow. Generally speaking government benefits are not too bad, but the pay is a little low.

E) I never said the minimum wage would hurt the economy. I said raising the minimum wage would not help those it is supposed to help. The resulting inflation due to the the cost of the rise in minimum wage would erode any benefit received. If you receive a raise of 30%, but the cost of goods goes up 30.5%, because of taxes, where do you win? It is very simple. If Joe makes $10/hr it costs the business, I'll guess 10.10, due to taxes and such. After the raise Joe now makes $12/hr, but it costs the business $12.12 to pay Joe. So Joe makes an extra $2.00, but the business has to cover $2.02. It can only do that in three ways, become more efficient, increase prices, or increase sales. many times businesses are already cutting their costs to the bone, so being more efficient might not work. Many time a business is already trying to sell as much as possible, so that probably won't work. That leaves the third option increasing prices. As long as the business is not in a highly competitive market this is possible.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin The unemployment rate in the European Union is pretty bad - almost 9%. The US rate is around half that. The EU unemployment rate among some subsets of the population (namely, minimum wage earners) is much higher than the average due to government interference with the labor market and artificial price setting on wages and employment terms.

If being "employed" means having a backbreaking job that pays $14k a year, I suspect the folks we count as employed might rather be unemployed in a country where they have universal healthcare and good social services (and no, I'm not saying that I'd like to live with their tax rates- I'm saying that maybe we need to suck up and make it easier for the least of us to reap the harvest of this free market economy).

Quote:

I personally like bigger pies, and the ability to chase after as big of a piece of pie as I want.

Maybe it's because I work with charities, and I see how tough it can be for some people. It seems to me that most folks who have it better want to just put on their blinders and say, "I got mine, and if you don't have yours, too bad for you." They don't want to consider what factors might keep others from making it. They don't want to think that it could happen to them. They reckon that they must deserve to do better than others, or that if others had hard luck, they must have done something to bring it on themselves, so too bloody bad for them.

Maybe these folks need to get a little more compassionate, spend a little more time learning about what brings others to these difficult straits. Maybe that will sober them, because they'll realize it could happen to them too, and maybe they will want to do more to help others.

I'm not arguing for the social programs we've seen come out of the political left, either. I don't think giving things to people truly helps them. But making it more possible for them to EARN things - I'm all for that.

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH If being "employed" means having a backbreaking job that pays $14k a year, I suspect the folks we count as employed might rather be unemployed in a country where they have universal healthcare and good social services.

Gee, ya think so? Paying people to do nothing entices folks to do nothing? That is mind-boggling. Sounds like a great system. How can we foment that system in the US?

What kind of a world have we developed where hard work is generally no longer expected to succeed in life?

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud It is inefficiency... my mother was a teacher of kindergarten... two classes of 40... she worked about 8 hours a day... My sister was a teacher for 40 years... she said the young ones don't know how to teach properly and do a lot of stuff that is a waste of time and effort... and they play the politics just like many in 'corporate america' which takes up a lot of time... ANY TEACHER THAT WORKS 15 HOURS A DAY IS NOT WORKING SMART.. well, I will put a football or some other coach as an exception as they have after school and nights to work.. but that is extra pay..

I can only say that either your relatives must have been truly superwomen, or you may not know how much time they actually spend. My mom, a kindergarten teacher for more than 20 years, tells me that she spent about an hour prepping for every hour she spent in the classroom - plus several hours each week keeping up her records on her students and working with parents. My stepmother, a second-grade teacher who retired two years ago, tells me that she USED to spend about that same amount of time - and then the "no child left behind" program dumped even more on her workload. My dad, a high school psych teacher and coach of two sports, tells me that by the time he finished grading papers and counseling students, he barely had the energy to eat and go to bed. His own kids missed a lot of his life - I can tell you that from personal experience.

The kid I mentored from middle school through high school is now a kindergarten teacher too. She gets to work at 7 am, spends a couple hours setting up her classroom and prepping, then two sessions, with cleanup in between, then she stays to work on the next day's preparation, and gets home most nights at 7 pm. Admittedly, she's a first-year, and she may be able to pare off some of that time as she gets more experience. But I have another friend who tells me she puts in 16 hour days most days as an ESL teacher in a public grade school.

I think the key word in your examples may be "was." From all I hear, much has changed in recent years, in terms of the burdens placed on teachers. There's a lot more paperwork, and a lot more testing and reporting to do.

When I was young, most teachers went to school for that profession and entered it and taught their whole professional lives until retirement. Today, people still go to school for it, and enter it thinking they'll make it their career. And 50% turn around and quit within 5 years. Something is VERY different.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire C) If you know the job pays very little, maybe even below what you think is fair go someplace else to work, don't sit around complaining the the pay is low.

Again, though, that's not the point. The point is, SHOULD this be a low-paying job. Do you really think we should lowball our kids' education? Do you really think we should stake our futures on the education our kids get on that? There are still devoted teachers out there who make the sacrifice because they know the job is important. But teacher burnout is becoming such an issue that if you Google it you'll find hundreds of recent articles about it. It's getting where the best and the brightest, even the people who are truly called to this profession, have so little support, are so poorly compensated, and are so disregarded by a public that doesn't understand what they're up against, these superior teachers are walking away, and leaving the job to kids who don't know better, and burnouts who just feel so hopeless and stuck that they can't move.

Quote:

As far as parent support my son has had a total of six teachers. In that time three teachers and one guidance counselor has suggested we put him on drug for ADHD. I find it rather interesting that one of the teachers, who did not make this recommendation had a history working with difficult kids, and I could see her squirm every time the counselor suggested the drugs. The other two teachers have had no problems with him and have not even suggested medicating him. On the teachers suggestion my son was taken to our doctor. Even after completing the ADHD surveys, the doc's recommendation was the teachers need to quit attempting to prescribe drugs and concentrate on teaching. The results of the survey showed he was active, but not in the abnormal range. I can't speak for other people but the teachers receive my support, when it is warranted.

I agree, it's too bad this kind of thing is happening. But it's happening because teachers are being shoved into classrooms with too many kids to control, avalanched with paperwork and ridiculous reports and tests that they have to get done to get paid dismal salaries, and they're left hanging by administrators who are too politically minded to stand up for them when things get tough. And, sadly, too many parents don't like the idea of disciplining their kids, so the kids these days are a lot harder to control in the classroom.

If you want better quality teachers, you have to be willing to pay for them. And you have to be willing to set up a system that lets them do the job right. We're not doing that right now.

Quote:

Here we go again. You work for the bottom of the barrel, as far as state benefits go. You can NOT base an opinion on the bottom or the top of the spectrum, it must be the norm. It would be similar to saying a female bodybuilder can lift 400lbs in a certain lift, but because the average male can't do it females overall are stronger than males. The logic does not follow. Generally speaking government benefits are not too bad, but the pay is a little low.

From what I've read on the issue (and I might be more motivated to learn about this than most, since I'm affected), the TOP paying state and local governments are not compensating as well as they used to, and benefits for MOST government employees have slipped quite a bit in recent years as the price of insurance has soared so high. Yes, I'm stuck in the bottom of the barrel, but the "average" you keep talking about isn't up to market rate either.

Quote:

E) I never said the minimum wage would hurt the economy. I said raising the minimum wage would not help those it is supposed to help. The resulting inflation due to the the cost of the rise in minimum wage would erode any benefit received. If you receive a raise of 30%, but the cost of goods goes up 30.5%, because of taxes, where do you win? It is very simple. If Joe makes $10/hr it costs the business, I'll guess 10.10, due to taxes and such. After the raise Joe now makes $12/hr, but it costs the business $12.12 to pay Joe. So Joe makes an extra $2.00, but the business has to cover $2.02. It can only do that in three ways, become more efficient, increase prices, or increase sales. many times businesses are already cutting their costs to the bone, so being more efficient might not work. Many time a business is already trying to sell as much as possible, so that probably won't work. That leaves the third option increasing prices. As long as the business is not in a highly competitive market this is possible.

I've heard that again and again from the fiscal ultra-conservatives. But there are sound models in other countries that prove that, if you give more people more earning power, sales increase because more people have more buying power. The middle class folks, after all, still only need one house and one car per working adult. Make it so those poor schmucks at $14k can afford a condo and a scooter, and you might get one or two more people working.

L

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin Gee, ya think so? Paying people to do nothing entices folks to do nothing? That is mind-boggling. Sounds like a great system. How can we foment that system in the US? What kind of a world have we developed where hard work is generally no longer expected to succeed in life?

Did you somehow get the impression that I was advocating that? If so, you might want to reread my posts. 8)

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 In fact, I think one could make the argument for the opposite. How much do the *bottom* 25% contribute to the common good, compared to this top 1%?

I don't know where you live, but 30% of area median income in my area is $15k for 1 person - $21k for a family of four. Market rent for a one bedroom apartment was $718, or $8,616 a year. Two bedroom was $909 a month - $10,908 a year. How could we compare their charitable giving to the giving of someone who makes BILLIONS a year, who, even living in obscene extravagance, couldn't possibly use all the money they make?

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH How could we compare their charitable giving to the giving of someone who makes BILLIONS a year, who, even living in obscene extravagance, couldn't possibly use all the money they make?

Why do you keep focusing on charitable contributions? You do recognize that entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the founders of Apple, Intel, Dell, Amazon, Yahoo, Walmart etc. contribute so much to society just by virtue of running their businesses, creating or selling high-demand products or services and providing plentiful jobs, sometimes high paying jobs. While obviously making a ton of money for themselves, these entrepreneurial guys are giving back to society in many ways even if they never give a dime to charity.

The point about "what do the bottom 25% contribute to the common good" is that while they all may be compassionate folks and give what they can give, they aren't the ones creating millions of jobs and making the economy roll forward. They provide their labor inputs, but they are also paid market wages for their labor.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH I think the key word in your examples may be "was." From all I hear, much has changed in recent years, in terms of the burdens placed on teachers. There's a lot more paperwork, and a lot more testing and reporting to do. When I was young, most teachers went to school for that profession and entered it and taught their whole professional lives until retirement. Today, people still go to school for it, and enter it thinking they'll make it their career. And 50% turn around and quit within 5 years. Something is VERY different.

I asked a guy up at work about his wife who is a 3rd grade teacher today.. he said she gets into work at 7 am but leaves at 3 PM... which is why he comes in early so he can get home by 4.... I asked 'does she do a lot of work at night?'... he said she sometimes will grade papers, but not all the time... and that she is in bed by 8 or 9....

Sorry to hear that it took your relatives so much time to prepare.. yes, my mom taught many decades ago, but my sister has been retired only 2 years.. she taught 40 years and said that the teachers today are not doing a good job... are not efficient. And teaching is one of the professions that efficiency has not improved much over the many decades... and there is very little supervision teaching teachers HOW to teach..

Do I think that they should be paid more Yes. Are they as bad as you make them out to be?? No. Yes, my sister worked 40 years, but her pension is 96% of her salary... do a PV of that annuity and it is over $1 million.. and she also has good health insurance even though she is in Medicare.. they pay 80% of what medicare does not pay...

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by justin The point about "what do the bottom 25% contribute to the common good" is that while they all may be compassionate folks and give what they can give, they aren't the ones creating millions of jobs and making the economy roll forward. They provide their labor inputs, but they are also paid market wages for their labor.

They provide the only resource they have - a huge slice of their life, a huge chunk of the one thing none of us can ever get back once we lose it - time. There's something wrong with a society that says that one person's time is worth billions of dollars, while another person's time isn't even worth a living wage.

And while I recognize the contribution that people like Gates makes to the world, I think that it's kind of degrading to suggest that poorer people, because they lack financial resources, are not also contributing something of value, if only by raising children with good character, if only by being kind to people they meet. If only by doing those awful, low-paying jobs so that the bosses can make real money.

[lets-retire]

Your argument about teacher compensation has been hashed out on this board many times. My personal opinion is teachers fall into the same category as law enforcement and the fire department, and many of the government services actually. If you want to pay these people what they are worth to a society, you will break the bank. Before effective professional fire departments were the norm whole cities would burn down. They need a large pay raise. If you think law enforcement is of low importance look at New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina. The reason for all of the crimes was the lack of an organized law enforcement element. If you think the building inspector is unimportant think about what would happen if at least the plans of a building were not checked. Building's would fall, killing and maiming many people.

The point is government normally does not pay well for any position. Singling out teachers as needing a raise has the sound of a teacher's lobby at work.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud I asked a guy up at work about his wife who is a 3rd grade teacher today.. he said she gets into work at 7 am but leaves at 3 PM... which is why he comes in early so he can get home by 4.... I asked 'does she do a lot of work at night?'... he said she sometimes will grade papers, but not all the time... and that she is in bed by 8 or 9.... Sorry to hear that it took your relatives so much time to prepare.. yes, my mom taught many decades ago, but my sister has been retired only 2 years.. she taught 40 years and said that the teachers today are not doing a good job... are not efficient. And teaching is one of the professions that efficiency has not improved much over the many decades... and there is very little supervision teaching teachers HOW to teach.. Do I think that they should be paid more Yes. Are they as bad as you make them out to be?? No. Yes, my sister worked 40 years, but her pension is 96% of her salary... do a PV of that annuity and it is over $1 million.. and she also has good health insurance even though she is in Medicare.. they pay 80% of what medicare does not pay...

Not as bad as that? Again, why, then, are 50% of kids who enter the profession leaving for greener pastures in 5 years? This used to be a lifetime career, and while admittedly "lifetime careers" are more and more a thing of the past for almost everyone, every major education group I've checked on states concerns about this.

And yes, the pensions are generally awesome. That's one of the great things about my job as well. I wish SSI could be managed by an organization like the one that manages my pension, rather than by the hacks who get elected to public office.

Just in case you think my friends and family are "below average," (despite their getting awards as superior educators) here is a stat from the NEA:

Quote:

Teachers spend an average of 50 hours per week on instructional duties, including an average of 12 hours each week on non-compensated school-related activities such as grading papers, bus duty, and club advising.

Also, the same study notes that most teachers end up spending their own money buying things for their classrooms.

I'm just saying that we need to rethink the way they're treated; compensation needs to be commensurate with skill and education, just like any other professional. And teachers need to have more of a voice in how the system works. They're the ones who actually deal with the children. But, as is true with a lot of things, it's gasbags in political office pulling ideas out of their backsides who are making the important calls.

[LKH]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire Your argument about teacher compensation has been hashed out on this board many times. My personal opinion is teachers fall into the same category as law enforcement and the fire department, and many of the government services actually. If you want to pay these people what they are worth to a society, you will break the bank. Before effective professional fire departments were the norm whole cities would burn down. They need a large pay raise. If you think law enforcement is of low importance look at New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina. The reason for all of the crimes was the lack of an organized law enforcement element. If you think the building inspector is unimportant think about what would happen if at least the plans of a building were not checked. Building's would fall, killing and maiming many people. The point is government normally does not pay well for any position. Singling out teachers as needing a raise has the sound of a teacher's lobby at work.

It's true that government paychecks tend to lag a bit behind the private sector in many professions. But I "single teachers out" because this is much more true for them.

According to a NY Times article:

Quote:

At a time when the nation is embarking on a decade-long quest to hire two million teachers, teachers' pay continues to lag far behind that of other college-educated professionals -- by an average of nearly $8,000 a year at the start of their careers, and by almost $24,000 a year by the time they reach 50, a report released yesterday by the journal Education Week said. The report found the salary gap to be greatest when teachers with master's degrees, ages 44 to 50, were compared with other professionals of the same age and with the same level of education. The difference in pay in that category was $32,511 annually, with teachers earning $43,313 a year, compared with $75,824 for other professionals.

While the salaries we pay cops and building inspectors also lag, we're not talking this kind of gap.

The fact is, teaching has always been a fairly low-paying profession. For generations up to this, nobody complained. Teaching was among the best-paying professions FOR WOMEN, and was mostly a women's job. The world has changed; women's salaries are closing the gap with men's in most professions, but teachers aren't reaping the benefit yet.

Here's an interesting set of charts:
Chart A: Male College-Educated Non-Teacher Pay Compared to Male Teacher Pay
Year % Non-Teachers Earn More (or Less) than Teachers
1940 -3.6%
1950 2.1%
1960 19.7%
1970 33.1%
1980 36.1%
1990 37.5%
2000 60.4%

Chart B: Female College-Educated Non-Teacher Pay Compared to Female Teacher Pay
Year % Non-Teachers Earn More (or Less) than Teachers
1940 -15.8%
1950 -11.2%
1960 -12.7%
1970 -3.1%
1980 -3.7%
1990 4.5%
2000 16.4%

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH Just in case you think my friends and family are "below average," (despite their getting awards as superior educators) here is a stat from the NEA: Quote: Originally Posted by NEA Teachers spend an average of 50 hours per week on instructional duties, including an average of 12 hours each week on non-compensated school-related activities such as grading papers, bus duty, and club advising. 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?

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH While the salaries we pay cops ... also lag, we're not talking this kind of gap.

I would respectfully disagree. It sounds like you have a vested interest and as such you have done your homework in regards to teacher pay. However what you are not taking into consideration is that many if not most police agencies are now requiring at least 60 semester hours. Many agencies are going to a bachelor's is required. Police officer's are paid less in most places, in bottom line dollars, than a teacher, and they have to work the full year not the 10 months a teacher works. Many agencies are having a hard time finding recruits because of the college requirement. The college grads find that they can make much more money working in the private sector, many times the pay gap is on the order of 10-15k to start. The reason the college requirement is there is because administrators feel if the applicant has not done anything to advance themselves in the two or three years they were waiting to become an officer they are not really interested in the job. Many administrators also feel that the college experience tends to make an officer less likely to use excessive force and be more understanding to those with differing backgrounds and educations. An agency is also graded by how many college graduates are employed.

The burn out/quit rate for police officers is also about 5 years. Many times a person will use the police officer gig as a stepping stone to corporate investigations. The payoff is huge. There was a job announcement recently in my area for an investigator at a bank. The pay is over 55k per year. The requirements are a college degree preferred or four years investigative experience. The difference in pay from the local police agencies is over 25k per year. Did I mention this is one of the lowest paying banks in the area? The reasons you don't hear about the problems is officers are taught from day one in the academy to shut up and suck it up, so they don't complain outside of the agency. People also have a tendency to dislike the police and they are treated as a necessary evil, receiving low compensation as a result.

As a veteran of many contract negotiations between a city and agencies the typical tone is if it is a fire department the population complains to the city that they need to be more reasonable. If it is the police department the people complain to the agency that they need to shut up and take what the city is offering.

[justin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKH And while I recognize the contribution that people like Gates makes to the world, I think that it's kind of degrading to suggest that poorer people, because they lack financial resources, are not also contributing something of value, if only by raising children with good character, if only by being kind to people they meet. If only by doing those awful, low-paying jobs so that the bosses can make real money.

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.

[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?