Pensions or Teachers? (Palmdale: sales, insurance, house)

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

NEST is still a defined contribution sceheme as opposed to a defined benefit scheme. That means the unions would fight it tooth and nail because it isn't as good as what they currently have. It also means you and yeahthatguy agree more than you disagree.

Actually, I was pointing out NEST as an example of a pension option between the current plans and "nothing" where only employees save. Likewise, I could point out the Federal Government's FERS plan as yet another example, with a reduced level of defined benefits and a supplemental defined contribution plan.

The point is there are multiple approaches to pensions, but overall I do believe that the trade off as mentioned in the OP isn't a direct trade off.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by yeahthatguy

Oh, you mean this UK :
The United Kingdom has reached the point of budgetary desperation. As it stands now, the United Kingdom is considered by many economists to be the most indebted nation in the world. Their national debt stands at nearly £924 billion. Their public sector net debt (as shown in the chart below) is projected to reach 70.3% of GDP by 2013 - 2014



The UK is nothing more than a fake wallstreet - glorified hedge fund living off of old money .... with a public sector that has consumed the whole country.

Actually, Japan & Italy are two large countries that have much larger debt loads as a share of GDP than the UK. Japan's debt to GDP is now at 200% and with the earthquake, that is sure to go much higher.

This is not to say the UK is in ok shape. They're not. This all points to the precariousness of developed country government finances in general. Scandinavia, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand generally vary from ok to excellent shape. The rest of the developed world varies from crappy (Germany) to horrible (Japan & Italy).

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Actually, I was pointing out NEST as an example of a pension option between the current plans and "nothing" where only employees save. Likewise, I could point out the Federal Government's FERS plan as yet another example, with a reduced level of defined benefits and a supplemental defined contribution plan.

The point is there are multiple approaches to pensions, but overall I do believe that the trade off as mentioned in the OP isn't a direct trade off.

Yes, in general, I agree with your approach. If I could make the rules, there would be mandatory 401ks and all employers & employees would contribute. It would go into a "target date" set of super low cost index funds and the investment mix would get more conservative with age. The payout would be annuitized at retirement age. Social Security would be gradually phased out in favor of these privatized index funds. If people wanted to save in deferred accounts with their own funds beyond the basic amount, that would be fine....but everyone would have a basic automated investment process based on age. It's really not that hard to figure out and it should have been done long ago. As usual, the government is 30 years behind where it should be.

I think Australia and Chile are countries that already have plans similar to what I've described. Interestingly, both countries have very low levels of government debt. Hmmmm.

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

No. Pay is not and should not be related to education levels. Pay should be related to demand for that skill and the supply of that skill.

That's a sorrowfully narrow level of subservience to market dogma. How does supply and demand winnow out superior performance from that which is mediocre? Should caliber of achievement have anything to do with compensation? Whom do you want to have monitoring your vital signs during your next surgery, an anaesthesiologist with a distinguished academic record in medical science, or merely a fumbling drone who holds a high-demand job in a low-supply profession?

We say that we want the best and the brightest to go into the teaching profession. We've also made the entrance requirements for colleges of education high enough that only about half of all applicants can get in. But if we say that you have to go through the same educational preparation that a civil engineer or a registered nurse goes through, we make the certification and licensure requirements more rigorous than they are for either of those professions, yet peg the compensation, on average, at only 70-80% of what comparably-trained professionals earn, why would persons of superior intellect be drawn to become educators given all the other professions they could qualify for?

[Reason42]

The MacIver Institute says average annual salary and benefits for Milwaukee Public Schools teachers tops $100,000

Share this story:





Tea party Republican Rand Paul raised some eyebrows in February 2011 when he said in two national TV interviews that the average public school teacher in Wisconsin "is making $89,000 per year."

But the claim by the U.S. senator from Kentucky, which we ruled to be False, was not as surprising as one made nearly a year earlier by the conservative MacIver Institute.

Speaking about Milwaukee public school teachers, the Madison think tank declared in a March 3, 2010, news release:

"For the first time in history, the average annual compensation for a teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools system will exceed $100,000" in 2011



http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/...-salary-and-b/

[Reason42]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

But if we say that you have to go through the same educational preparation that a civil engineer or a registered nurse goes through, we make the certification and licensure requirements more rigorous than they are for either of those professions, yet peg the compensation, on average, at only 70-80% ofwhat comparably-trained professionals earn, why would persons of superior intellect be drawn to become educators given all the other professions they could qualify for?

...EVERY holiday off, MONTHS of vacation yearly, SHORT work hours, guaranteed retirement and health benefits (SECURITY).... (not exactly the same for an engineer or a nurse...)

...or maybe, teachers should do it because they seek fulfillment in this endeavor, regardless of compensation?


...maybe, they should exist as an extension of how much "fat" a society has (as they are employed by US, well "us" if you actually pay taxes...), and when times are lean, "deal" with being put on a diet. If it becomes a problem, society will either increase taxation or seek alternate forms of education for their progeny.



? "subservience to market dogma"?

Ow, you show your colors too easily... "'Huffington Post"?

Rick Ayers: Market-Based Dogmas Undermine Strong Education

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Originally Posted by Reason42

...EVERY holiday off, MONTHS of vacation yearly, SHORT work hours, guaranteed retirement and health benefits (SECURITY).... (not exactly the same for an engineer or a nurse...)

The rest of the story is that when that engineer or nurse leaves the work place at 5:00 p.m. or whenever, their workday is over. They don't have another three or four hours of work they have to finish after dinner before they can relax or go to bed. A survey of actual teacher work hours in the late 90's found that the average teacher works about 2,200 hours a year. If you worked 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, never missed a day and never took a vacation you'd work 2080 hours a year. You'd still have to find a way to get in an extra solid three weeks of work to equal a teacher's work load in hours. Yes, they live very compressed lives with 55-60 hour work weeks for 40 weeks of the year and then 12 weeks of "vacation" (during which they'll have to go back to college to maintain their continuing education requirements), but their total annual hours exceed those who work the 8-5 schedule. Many nurses work 3-day workweeks because they do 12-hour shifts. Do you think they also getting some kind of cushy deal because they get four days a week off?

...or maybe, teachers should do it because they seek fulfillment in this endeavor, regardless of compensation?

Sure. That's true for everyone. Doctors, lawyers, bricklayers, veterinarians, city managers...we should all do it for the professional fulfillment, not the money. But the Missionary Hypothesis -- that your work should be a personal sacrifice that eschews worldly gain -- is something that people always apply to other people's jobs, never their own. I'd wager that if I asked you if you find your job fulfilling you'd say "yes." But if I asked you if that personal fulfillment should serve as part of your compensation package and thereby justify a substandard salary you'd say "no" (probably with some colorful modifiers attached). Everyone believes they are overworked and underpaid. But only the naive think that the grass is greener on the other side of another occupation's fence.

[hoffdano]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

That's a sorrowfully narrow level of subservience to market dogma. How does supply and demand winnow out superior performance from that which is mediocre? Should caliber of achievement have anything to do with compensation? Whom do you want to have monitoring your vital signs during your next surgery, an anaesthesiologist with a distinguished academic record in medical science, or merely a fumbling drone who holds a high-demand job in a low-supply profession?

We say that we want the best and the brightest to go into the teaching profession. We've also made the entrance requirements for colleges of education high enough that only about half of all applicants can get in. But if we say that you have to go through the same educational preparation that a civil engineer or a registered nurse goes through, we make the certification and licensure requirements more rigorous than they are for either of those professions, yet peg the compensation, on average, at only 70-80% of what comparably-trained professionals earn, why would persons of superior intellect be drawn to become educators given all the other professions they could qualify for?

Good teachers would be paid more if they were willing to discriminate more in their own profession. I mean if they were less protective of weak teachers and more willing to allow outstanding ones to be recognized and rewarded as they wish to be.

But in most parts of the US, teacher organizations including unions are ridiculously protective of their members. They fight every attempt to implement teacher performance measures. They even resist bonus programs because they usually come with a standard of assessement.

I refuse to accept that education preparation is a reason to determine pay. Society (which includes the economy) over time establishes the value of professions. It isn't perfect of course. Saying that college is sufficiently hard to get into is silly. The software developer that graduates from Stanford is likely a very different individual from the education major from a non-selective state university. In my own experience, the "typical" education major was not a driven individual at all. They didn't have a 1300 SAT. The classes they take are not as difficult as the differential equations math class engineers take.

As a parent of three kids, I value good teachers greatly. I would happily pay the good ones more (even lots more). But I do not accept that merely graduating from college with a bachelors degree means they deserve the same pay as others. I want weak teachers worked out of the system. I want to see a rational method developed to assess the quality of teachers fairly. Teachers need to get out of this group-hug mentality of protecting each other no matter what.

I also think the "best and brightest" are often not good teachers at all.

[NewToCA]

So, the thread has now become negative on both pensions and teacher compensation...

[OC Investor2]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

That's an apples and oranges comparison. Police, firefighters and prison guards are not in the occupational class of college-educated professionals. Compensation packages for teachers need to be competitive with their educational peers: engineers, mid-level executives, health-care providers, software developers, etc.

Many cops are college educated. Then there's that whole getting shot/ shanked/ burned to a crisp thing they have to worry about.

What does an employee's education have to do with anything? Do you pay more for a cup of coffee if a the Barrista has a PHD or a BA? Bill Gates never graduated college - should he be paid more if he finishes up his Harvard BA?