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.
you're asking me now, you didn't ask me that before.
to answer your question. I'm neutral. However, I loathe the old "I don't get a raise so you shouldn't" argument. It's juvenile. If I were to say "I haven't gotten a raise in 3 years, don't have health insurance, don't have paid holidays or a retirement plan, so WTF should anyone else?", I'd be justifiably laughed out of the room.
(btw - that theoretical statement above IS my situation, and I've never use it as a barometer of what others are worth, which is exactly what we're doing here. Any always do when it comes to the teaching profession.)
I don't think people begrudge teachers their salaries. I really don't. My issue is with the automatic raises and absolute zero sense of reality the NJEA and local union organizations have for the plight of the taxpayer. People are having to sell their homes and leave the state because taxes are so high, but this one group of people will whine, moan and strike if they don't get their raise even as everyone else is cutting back during a bad economy. It's the arrogance that gets people more upset than the actual numbers.
Quite frankly, if it wasn't for Abbott, nobody would care about teachers' salaries because state aid would be fairly distributed and tax rates wouldn't be so crushing.
The administrators' salaries, on the other hand, are mind-blowing. Why do we need eight assistant superintendents at six-figure salaries for all of the 10 million school districts in this state? Go to a school board meeting and see how much money is spent on psychologists and all kinds of other "extras" that the individual parents of students needing extra services should personally chip in for. See how much your school district pays for psychologists who can speak Spanish to deal with all of the illegals' kids taking up space in our classrooms. It will blow your mind to see people paid $300/hour for this stuff, but it's commonplace.
The regular classroom teachers are hardly what is driving up the cost of education in this state.
Hmmm. I don't know. The way I look at special education costs we all pay more but on the other hand, the services are there for your children if you ever need them. An insurance of sorts.
As for the administrators, that's only going to be solved by getting rid of all these districts, and we all know that is never going to happen.
Abbott is a problem, but I won't get into that. So's the union, but I won't get into that either.
you're asking me now, you didn't ask me that before.
to answer your question. I'm neutral. However, I loathe the old "I don't get a raise so you shouldn't" argument. It's juvenile. If I were to say "I haven't gotten a raise in 3 years, don't have health insurance, don't have paid holidays or a retirement plan, so WTF should anyone else?", I'd be justifiably laughed out of the room.
(btw - that theoretical statement above IS my situation, and I've never use it as a barometer of what others are worth, which is exactly what we're doing here. Any always do when it comes to the teaching profession.)
yes i am asking you, for good reason. the argument holds water because we're not cherry picking certain industries - the economy as a whole is contracting, and tax receipts are shrinkings. budgets should be decreasing, not increasing. if we can't think of a great reason to increase salaries, they shouldn't be increased. it's as simple as that.
yes i am asking you, for good reason. the argument holds water because we're not cherry picking certain industries - the economy as a whole is contracting, and tax receipts are shrinkings. budgets should be decreasing, not increasing. if we can't think of a great reason to increase salaries, they shouldn't be increased. it's as simple as that.
dude, whatever. you missed the point of my post. your reasons are valid...."i didn't get a raise so you shouldn't" is not. chill out.
I do think that some things have to change regarding teacher compensation and all gov't employee compensations (like getting rid of these pensions and putting them into the same systems we all have to use like 401K and Social Security). .
Wherever did you get the idea that government employees don't pay into Social Security? I worked for Bayonne for nearly 32 years -- and I paid into SS from day one. I also paid into my pension (it's not a free ride by any means), contributed to the government form of a 401K from its inception , and wasn't covered by state disability -- we had to pay into AFLAC if we wanted short-term disability protection.
One thing you don't realize is that government salaries (I'm not talking teachers, police, or fire) are lower than the same job would be in the private sector.
Wherever did you get the idea that government employees don't pay into Social Security? I worked for Bayonne for nearly 32 years -- and I paid into SS from day one. I also paid into my pension (it's not a free ride by any means), contributed to the government form of a 401K from its inception , and wasn't covered by state disability -- we had to pay into AFLAC if we wanted short-term disability protection.
One thing you don't realize is that government salaries (I'm not talking teachers, police, or fire) are lower than the same job would be in the private sector.
For many years, employees of some federal agencies did not pay into Social Security. My father, for example, retired last year from DoD and will never collect SS. Also, by the way, as someone who lost his job last year, I have to tell you most government jobs actually pay MORE than similar private sector jobs these days. Before I wound up starting my own business, I did a lot of research and found government jobs to be very well-paying, especially on the federal and state levels.
Fortunately, the business I started has been doing pretty well and has been growing, but if it ever doesn't work, government would be the first place I'd look for employment.
Wherever did you get the idea that government employees don't pay into Social Security? I worked for Bayonne for nearly 32 years -- and I paid into SS from day one. I also paid into my pension (it's not a free ride by any means), contributed to the government form of a 401K from its inception , and wasn't covered by state disability -- we had to pay into AFLAC if we wanted short-term disability protection.
One thing you don't realize is that government salaries (I'm not talking teachers, police, or fire) are lower than the same job would be in the private sector.
So teachers get Soc Sec AND those fat pensions? Wonderful! That makes me even more mad.
Wherever did you get the idea that government employees don't pay into Social Security?
I think the point was that everyone else just receives SS and 401k type plans. I don't think anyone is arguing that govt employees should not get social security.
Quote:
I worked for Bayonne for nearly 32 years -- and I paid into SS from day one. I also paid into my pension (it's not a free ride by any means), contributed to the government form of a 401K from its inception , and
I understand that not all government employees receive defined benefit plans. Some of them do have a similar retirement plan to a 401k, and no-one here has a problem with this. You put a certain amount into your account, and you take whatever is left plus social security when you retire. If you want a high rate of return, you go for risky investments and take responsibility for that risk. If you don't want to take responsibility for risk, you put everything into fixed income and accept a lower rate of return.
What we're griping is completely different -- we're talking about the defined benefit plan, which is nothing like a 401k. The big difference between a defined benefit plan and a 401k is that the defined benefit plan promises a certain amount regardless of the growth of the fund or of the employees investments. Implicit in this promise is also the promise of a certain rate of return. And that's where the problem lies -- the promised risk free rate of return (about 8% at the moment) always greatly exceeds the risk free rate of return available in the market. So to achieve those promised returns, the pension needs to invest in risky investments. Hence the question is, who takes on that risk if not the beneficiary ? Inevitably, it's the tax payer.
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.
