almost there
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,023
+1
I don't understand why people attack the teachers who get paid below average salaries to nurture of the minds of our children. I'd want the best and the brightest to do that job, and the way you get those folks is to offer good pay and benefits. We have our priorities reversed when teacher pay and benefits is the issue rather than company tax evasion and CEO pay.
Sort of, but I'd add that whether a company is publicly traded or privately held is also a factor. When you look at Fortune magazine's annual "best 100 companies to work for" list, private companies are disproportionately represented by a fairly wide margin. It's the Wall Street addiction to the quarterly earnings report and "hitting their numbers" THIS QUARTER without much regard for the longer term that adds to much of the absence of loyalty....and loyalty in the private sector means nothing.
Not in my area. I know quite a few teachers in our development who live a "lifestyle" much better than DW/me.I don't understand why people attack the teachers who get paid below average salaries to nurture of the minds of our children.
See, here's the thing. When some people invoke the 80s and 90s and say "the private sector was a much better deal," it misses one thing: Even when it was (and that wasn't always true), the ability of the public sector to retire (often as early as 55 and sometimes even 50) was never in question. Today, ANY retirement for the pensionless is in question, especially if they weren't prodigious savers since their 20s. Sure, the govvies weren't going to "get rich quick" but they sure as hell never worried that they could never retire.Not in my area. I know quite a few teachers in our development who live a "lifestyle" much better than DW/me.
Also, by the time they are in their mid-50's, they are retired (due to my taxes). Something that still grates me the wrong way.
You need emoticons Ha. A fair number of readers don't understand A Modest Proposal when they see one.Absolutely not sarcasm. My modest proposal is to shut down all those grasping private businesses, and have everyone work for a much more beneficent employer, the government.
Ha
So far that hasn't worked very well.I'd want the best and the brightest to do that job, and the way you get those folks is to offer good pay and benefits.
I work for state government and have a choice of a BD or a DC plan. The pay in terms are exactly the same ie mandated 11% of salary with 5% state match. However, there's a 10 year vesting on the BD plan and it only becomes a good benefit after 15 or 20 years of service. As I began my job at age 42 with the plan to retire in my early 50s I went with the DC plan because of it's flexibility. I've run the numbers and the value of my DC plan could buy a lifetime annuity thats a bit more than the value of the BD plan I'd get if I retired now.
That's what I was thinking. Assuming that the DC plan contribution and DB funding is equal, isn't the DB just a forced annuity?
See, here's the thing. When some people invoke the 80s and 90s and say "the private sector was a much better deal," it misses one thing: Even when it was (and that wasn't always true), the ability of the public sector to retire (often as early as 55 and sometimes even 50) was never in question. Today, ANY retirement for the pensionless is in question, especially if they weren't prodigious savers since their 20s. Sure, the govvies weren't going to "get rich quick" but they sure as hell never worried that they could never retire.
Also, I don't think a lot of taxpayers would complain about paying for an employment deal (like retiree health insurance and a generous pension even for early retirement) if they were getting the same -- and weren't having theirs taken away. I think one of the best thing the public sector compensation advocates can do is stop bashing the private sector, but advocate for it. If we were still getting anything close to what you were getting, I suspect much of the backlash would go away. Most of us can't protest at corporate HQ when we get screwed, not if we want to keep putting food on the table. (And yes, it *is* a two-way street. Bashing in either direction is not useful or productive.)
This has become a wedge issue to divide and conquer the middle class, I think, by the folks who have a vested interest in keeping us fighting amongst ourselves. There IS a real problem with the increasing disconnect between the public and private sector employment deal, but I'd like to think the middle class turning on itself isn't the best way to debate it. I'd also like to think we won't try to "balance" the two by simply letting them race to the bottom in tandem.
In some sense, yes -- except that the annuitized monthly payout is fixed and carved in stone, whereas someone putting the same amount into a DC plan is dependent on financial markets while working, *and* dependent on current interest rates when it's time to annuitize.That's what I was thinking. Assuming that the DC plan contribution and DB funding is equal, isn't the DB just a forced annuity?
To attract and keep the best, good pay and benefits are necessary but not sufficient. Employers also have to have a rigorous selection process to hire the right folks, and be ready to "un-hire" them efficiently so another applicant can move in. Throwing more money at a present batch of mediocre employees (regardless of the job) will not make them better, and if they've got effective lifetime employment guarantees and advancement based on seniority rather than performance, then higher pay is just wasted.
It's not that people *want* to reduce pay and benefits. I for one don't want to see anyone screwed the way I got screwed with frozen pensions , retiree health insurance taken away, and total cumulative raises of 4% over the last 6 years.I'm all for dedicated skilled employees and that means continual assessment, and seniority as a basis for employment being abandoned. I don't get the drive to reduce pay and benefits though.
I work for the federal gov't and read any article I see on public vs private salary levels. I still say that there are a lot of public positions that are under paid.
Allow me to interject with the Leonidas exception to all of that.See, here's the thing. When some people invoke the 80s and 90s and say "the private sector was a much better deal," it misses one thing: Even when it was (and that wasn't always true), the ability of the public sector to retire (often as early as 55 and sometimes even 50) was never in question.
You guys in the private sector got screwed - no doubt about it. Your employers saw the opportunity to make/save some money by screwing you over, and they relied on the fact that there wasn't much that you could do about it.Also, I don't think a lot of taxpayers would complain about paying for an employment deal (like retiree health insurance and a generous pension even for early retirement) if they were getting the same -- and weren't having theirs taken away. I think one of the best thing the public sector compensation advocates can do is stop bashing the private sector, but advocate for it. If we were still getting anything close to what you were getting, I suspect much of the backlash would go away. Most of us can't protest at corporate HQ when we get screwed, not if we want to keep putting food on the table. (And yes, it *is* a two-way street. Bashing in either direction is not useful or productive.)
That has been my observation FWIW, for comparison of my/DW income in the private sector vs. her relatives working in similar federal positions in DC.However statistical analysis shows that many (most) public employees are paid better than they could do in the private sector.
This is confused. Could you explain how making it easier to get rid of bad teachers will make it easier to attract more of the best and brightest to become teachers?And yet, many (if not most) of the people making this argument in "defense" of teachers and their compensation vehemently oppose the ability to get rid of bad teachers more easily, eliminate K-12 tenure or offer merit pay for top performers. Cognitive dissonance, methinks, if the goal is to have the best and brightest become teachers.