Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with unionizing in the private sector is that companies have the ability to offshore their work. Unlike the government, they don't have to put up with insane demands from organized workers because American citizens aren't the only ones that can do the work. Even for brick and mortar store operations, the tough job market would virtually guarantee that a company could find an endless supply of cheap scab-labor should its workers unionize. Add to this the fact that companies have no obligation - nor should they - to altruistically share the wealth, and you have a situation where the vast majority of private sector salaries stagnate. There is no way that such stagnated salaries can fund the annually growing salaries + bennies of LI teachers (and probably not even their current salaries). Something has got to give and you can bet it's not gonna be an increase in private sector pay anytime soon (especially given the current economy).
You can argue that companies "should" pay their employees more until you are blue in the face, but we all realize this is not happening anytime soon. So why don't we deal with reality then? The economic pressures placed upon LI taxpayers have become unbearable (many people have or will soon be moving away), and since their salaries aren't growing we must trim their tax burden. Teacher compensation is an oversized target for such cuts.
Unions: Companies can only offshore their work because the govt allows it. Other countries want to import their goods to the US cheaply and cry when we want to place restrictions but they themselves have restrictions coming into their own countries or production there (japan the perfect example). This doesn't matter anyhow, because the work that was to be moved offshore already has, the unionization would occur in places where the companies would not be able to offshore their work and forced to comply.
Taxes, you are changing the focus of the discussion and shifting your argument. So you agree that companies are not paying their employees what they should, that is also a reality and that is a reality that can be changed as well. Make a minimum wage that is not below poverty, find ways to divert more corporate wealth to the private employees so their wages come up to more reasonable levels. Why cut more salaries (teachers) so we can say, well we all suck but at least we all suck together now lets rob and kill each other so we can eat, while 2% of the population has all the money. Of course I am exaggerating, just to drive home the idea
Unions: Companies can only offshore their work because the govt allows it. Other countries want to import their goods to the US cheaply and cry when we want to place restrictions but they themselves have restrictions coming into their own countries or production there (japan the perfect example). This doesn't matter anyhow, because the work that was to be moved offshore already has, the unionization would occur in places where the companies would not be able to offshore their work and forced to comply.
Taxes, you are changing the focus of the discussion and shifting your argument. So you agree that companies are not paying their employees what they should, that is also a reality and that is a reality that can be changed as well. Make a minimum wage that is not below poverty, find ways to divert more corporate wealth to the private employees so their wages come up to more reasonable levels. Why cut more salaries (teachers) so we can say, well we all suck but at least we all suck together now lets rob and kill each other so we can eat, while 2% of the population has all the money. Of course I am exaggerating, just to drive home the idea
Unions: Here's the point, companies in the US would not have to comply with unions. Unless the unions are relatively benign (ex. grocery stores), companies would not put up with unions, especially if they went on strike to demand someting unreasonable. It's called SCAB labor - look it up.
Taxes: Never once did I insinuate that people in the private sector are underpaid. Hence the quotation marks around "should."
So let me get this straight. You would like to enact sweeping legislation (very liberal) that targets companies and makes them pay more to their peon workers even though these companies are the driving force behind our GDP-growth, employ the majority of Americans, and can offshore many jobs in a second? All this instead of reducing the comparatively enormous compensation of a few thousand overpaid teachers who are funded by the public? That's right, let's anger a sleeping giant instead of stepping on a few mice to solve our tax problems. When you are ready to offer feasible solutions come back and let me know because right now your pulling absurd arguments out of your butt to justify your wife's insane salary.
And to those that have noticed my attention shift, unfortunately the teacher's union doesn't fund studies looking at whether teachers are paid too much for the job they do. I wonder why. It's far easier to argue for the same end by different means.
Unions: Here's the point, companies in the US would not have to comply with unions. Unless the unions are relatively benign (ex. grocery stores), companies would not put up with unions, especially if they went on strike to demand someting unreasonable. It's called SCAB labor - look it up.
Taxes: Never once did I insinuate that people in the private sector are underpaid. Hence the quotation marks around "should."
So let me get this straight. You would like to enact sweeping legislation (very liberal) that targets companies and makes them pay more to their peon workers even though these companies are the driving force behind our GDP-growth, employ the majority of Americans, and can offshore many jobs in a second? All this instead of reducing the comparatively enormous compensation of a few thousand overpaid teachers who are funded by the public? That's right, let's anger a sleeping giant instead of stepping on a few mice to solve our tax problems. When you are ready to offer feasible solutions come back and let me know because right now your pulling absurd arguments out of your butt to justify your wife's insane salary.
And to those that have noticed my attention shift, unfortunately the teacher's union doesn't fund studies looking at whether teachers are paid too much for the job they do. I wonder why. It's far easier to argue for the same end by different means.
Yes it is liberal. The US is a socialist state and has been for many many years despite what some people think, they misunderstand Capitalism vs Socialism vs Communism.
Scab labor, everyone knows what it is, but would be moot if the liberal agenda of keeping wages and minimum wage were set higher, the scabs would have to be paid higher also. How do you offshore waiters, cashiers, bank tellers, construction ... you cant. You know those mexican workers that you see on the side of the road that used to get hired and paid $10 a day essentially taken advantage of. They don't exist anymore, they basically unionized themselves and actually make a decent wage now, I know since my uncle is a GC.
Your contention that the cost of living in long island is mostly due to high taxes, its simply not true, there are many other factors and its not a catch 22 like you assume. Reducing teachers salaries would cut that some, but not by enough to make a real difference without real median salaries increasing and would mostly have the effect of driving future teachers away, why live somewhere with a high cost of living if you can teach elsewhere and make a similar salary that goes much further.
This is a tangent anyhow, and I am tired of this thread. My main point of this argument is to say teachers are not overpaid which I presented numerous points to, but you continue to say salaries are "insane". You are in college, you haven't really worked in the real world, or if you have, not much yet, nor have probably lived real life for that matter and are analyzing from a fish bowl, you will soon find out that 80k a year is not anywhere near insane in long island and will be even needing more and wondering how people get by on 40k a year. Maybe taxes are high for some, but have been like that way before you were born, people deal with it or move away. It is expensive to live near a city, on an island, in an excellent school system. Where is one of the highest cost of living places in the US, Hawaii. Super expensive to live there, but the teachers make garbage money and they have a poor education system.
My last point and then I think I am done with this, is lets say you cut teacher salaries by 25% across the board so the median is now 60,000. So this will cut about $2000 a year (probably less) from a total households property tax on average (considering there are still other school costs that need to stay and other govt service that make up a significant portion of property tax as well), which over 12 months and also considering property tax is tax deductible will save each household about $100-150 a month. Considering most households are dual income wage earners, that's about 75 bucks a person. Woo-Hoo, what relief ... you have compromised the whole future of the education system and possibly drive new teachers away so everyone's monthly cell phone bill is now covered.
My last point and then I think I am done with this, is lets say you cut teacher salaries by 25% across the board so the median is now 60,000. So this will cut about $2000 a year (probably less) from a total households property tax on average (considering there are still other school costs that need to stay and other govt service that make up a significant portion of property tax as well), which over 12 months and also considering property tax is tax deductible will save each household about $100-150 a month. Considering most households are dual income wage earners, that's about 75 bucks a person. Woo-Hoo, what relief ... you have compromised the whole future of the education system and possibly drive new teachers away so everyone's monthly cell phone bill is now covered.
Sign me up, thanks for offering! Cut teacher comp 25% (Not all from wages, most can be from trimming the overstuffed bennies) and let me keep 2K of my pre-tax earning. Where do I sign?
My last point and then I think I am done with this, is lets say you cut teacher salaries by 25% across the board so the median is now 60,000. So this will cut about $2000 a year (probably less) from a total households property tax on average (considering there are still other school costs that need to stay and other govt service that make up a significant portion of property tax as well), which over 12 months and also considering property tax is tax deductible will save each household about $100-150 a month. Considering most households are dual income wage earners, that's about 75 bucks a person. Woo-Hoo, what relief ... you have compromised the whole future of the education system and possibly drive new teachers away so everyone's monthly cell phone bill is now covered.
EDIT >>> Come to think of it, my analysis is actually a little off considering school tax is only 50-60% of the tax burden I believe, you would have to cut salaries more like 50% to 40,000 median for it to have this nominal effect, its simply not worth it. And check your facts on the benefits, the pension is only 5% of salary unlike most people think and healthcare costs are inline with private sectors with teachers paying their fair percentage like everyone else.
Not 50-60% But 66% with 70% of that Being Payroll and Benefits
Quote:
Originally Posted by djdairyp
EDIT >>> Come to think of it, my analysis is actually a little off considering school tax is only 50-60% of the tax burden I believe, you would have to cut salaries more like 50% to 40,000 median for it to have this nominal effect, its simply not worth it. And check your facts on the benefits, the pension is only 5% of salary unlike most people think and healthcare costs are inline with private sectors with teachers paying their fair percentage like everyone else.
Here is a fact recently published by Newsday:
School spending accounts for 66 percent of the Island's property taxes, with 70 percent of that spending on school payrolls and fringe benefits.
So that means out of every $1000 we pay in property taxes, $462 goes directly to payroll and benefits of school district employees (we are not even talking all the other costs of keeping a school district running like buildings, supplies, computers, maintenance, etc.)
Here is a recent thread discussing the article where I found that:
So that means out of every $1000 we pay in property taxes, $462 goes directly to payroll and benefits of school district employees
Exactly my point. What is the avg prop tax on long island, less than 10,000 probably, lets use 10,000. Multiply your figure by 10 then and you get 4620 for salary. Now cut that in half, 2310, and that new amount of saving was tax deductible prior to the cut so its less than 2000k saving per household per year since they will have to pay tax on this extra new income. / 12 mths = $170. So by cutting teachers salaries from 80,000 to 40,000 you save $170 per household per month, or about 85 bucks a person for dual income households, and in the process the best teachers now look elsewhere, whats the sense.
Exactly my point. What is the avg prop tax on long island, less than 10,000 probably, lets use 10,000. Multiply your figure by 10 then and you get 4620 for salary. Now cut that in half, 2310, and that new amount of saving was tax deductible prior to the cut so its less than 2000k saving per household per year since they will have to pay tax on this extra new income. / 12 mths = $170. So by cutting teachers salaries from 80,000 to 40,000 you save $170 per household per month, or about 85 bucks a person for dual income households, and in the process the best teachers now look elsewhere, whats the sense.
Where else will the best teachers look? They NYC is paying all that well and the children are significantly more difficult to deal with. I don't know about you but $170 is almost my LIRR ticket each month... that would be wonderful to pay $170 per month less.
Leaving Long Island: For many, high cost is issue -- Newsday.com (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-lipops2012656097apr25,0,1542866.story - broken link)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. It's far easier to argue for the same end by different means.
Not 50-60% But 66% with 70% of that Being Payroll and Benefits
