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.
Very nice wording, but if they started doing 403bs, it wouldn't be funded. Call it what you want. Because your money is going towards other people's pensions in hopes someone elses money will go to yours some day, I call it a Ponzie scheme. Now, if what each individual teacher paid am account which gained interest and then paid out at retirement each year what was that account earned, this would not be a ponzie scheme.
Well, I can't stop you from using whatever term you wish, but as I noted that isn't the definition of a Ponzi scheme. And I would again note that running a pension in this way can be a lot more efficient than requiring each employee to individually fund their own pension.
Edit: By the way, I just looked it up and PSERS is now about 86% funded (up from about 50% in 1982). So, if you wanted to phase out PSERS and replace it with individual accounts, that is the gap you would have to make up to complete the transition.
Well, I can't stop you from using whatever term you wish, but as I noted that isn't the definition of a Ponzi scheme. And I would again note that running a pension in this way can be a lot more efficient than requiring each employee to individually fund their own pension.
Edit: By the way, I just looked it up and PSERS is now about 86% funded (up from about 50% in 1982). So, if you wanted to phase out PSERS and replace it with individual accounts, that is the gap you would have to make up to complete the transition.
I thought it was higher than 86%. Wow, not too good considering they should immediately switch to a 403b. My ex-employer (Where I will potentialy get only $250 per month in 30 years), is 95% funded. If they switched to a 403b, pensions would be slashed considerably. But then again, if they go out of business, I will probably get $50 a month. If there is a big drop in the stock market, I get less...In fact, I thought the Government recommended companies to to keep their pensions 90% funded. I remember my last company fighting hard to keep it at that level. I guess that is only for the free market.
So are you saying if they moved to person accounts immediately and there was a drop in the stock market, all the teachers who have paid into pensions would be 86% funded? I definitely beg to differ.
But kudos to you for trying to debate a definition of a word when you are losing an argument on trying to fix the schools. Very good lawyer tactic.
Again reality vs lawyer tactics. I have my 401k at 10% and make more than all of these teachers. My retirement is not guaranteed. Even if I worked another 20+ years, I wouldn't be able to purchase the same plan as them for the money I have. I will probably be at 3-4 different companies in those 20 years, becaues I am not a precious Government employee. So call it what you want, pick words to debate instead of reality. I'm out of here. I'd rather debate ideas instead of definitions. You keep paying your taxes and promoting how everything is OK. I'd rather not continue to debate definitions and try to statistically say everything is fine. For every statistic you have, I will have another. I'm over it.
Last edited by right-here-i-say; 04-11-2008 at 04:20 AM..
I thought it was higher than 86%. Wow, not too good considering they should immediately switch to a 403b. My ex-employer (Where I will potentialy get only $250 per month in 30 years), is 95% funded. If they switched to a 403b, pensions would be slashed considerably.
Again, if you transition away from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program, you would have to increase the amount the employer contributed to these individual accounts because of the loss of the economies of scale and risk-pooling. This would end up costing the taxpayers more money, although it would give the teachers more flexibility. In light of the other things you have said, I am somewhat surprised you are supporting such an idea.
Quote:
In fact, I thought the Government recommended companies to to keep their pensions 90% funded. I remember my last company fighting hard to keep it at that level. I guess that is only for the free market.
They are probably targeting higher than 86% (again, this is up from 50% in 1982), but generally states can afford to be a bit lower than most companies. That has nothing to do with "free markets" per se: it is a borrowing cost issue, and most states have lower borrowing costs than most companies.
Quote:
So are you saying if they moved to person accounts immediately and there was a drop in the stock market, all the teachers who have paid into pensions would be 86% funded? I definitely beg to differ.
Again, this is what pension actuaries do for a living. I would also note once again you are making a mistake by treating the pension fund as equivalent to a bunch of private accounts. For example, I have noted the pension fund allows risk-pooling. One of the biggest risks in question is market risk, and the ability to pool this risk is one of the chief reasons that pensions can provide a higher payout ratio than individual accounts (the other big risk being pooled is longevity risk).
Quote:
But kudos to you for trying to debate a definition of a word when you are losing an argument on trying to fix the schools. Very good lawyer tactic.
I would note you are the one insisting on misapplying a legal term, not me. I am trying to stick to the actual facts and relevant financial analysis.
Incidentally, I also can't stop you from declaring yourself the winner of whatever argument you think we are having. But I would note again that there are plenty of school reforms I would support. I just don't think some of your proposals are realistic.
Again, if you transition away from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program, you would have to increase the amount the employer contributed to these individual accounts because of the loss of the economies of scale and risk-pooling. This would end up costing the taxpayers more money, although it would give the teachers more flexibility. In light of the other things you have said, I am somewhat surprised you are supporting such an idea.
They are probably targeting higher than 86% (again, this is up from 50% in 1982), but generally states can afford to be a bit lower than most companies. That has nothing to do with "free markets" per se: it is a borrowing cost issue, and most states have lower borrowing costs than most companies.
Again, this is what pension actuaries do for a living. I would also note once again you are making a mistake by treating the pension fund as equivalent to a bunch of private accounts. For example, I have noted the pension fund allows risk-pooling. One of the biggest risks in question is market risk, and the ability to pool this risk is one of the chief reasons that pensions can provide a higher payout ratio than individual accounts (the other big risk being pooled is longevity risk).
I would note you are the one insisting on misapplying a legal term, not me. I am trying to stick to the actual facts and relevant financial analysis.
Incidentally, I also can't stop you from declaring yourself the winner of whatever argument you think we are having. But I would note again that there are plenty of school reforms I would support. I just don't think some of your proposals are realistic.
Anybody who thinks that Kindergarten teachers making $90K is OK, when we don't have enough money to have full day kindergarten, like other states, can state as much "facts" as they want.
The reality is, you have been fighting reforms and and saying teachers salaries/pensions are OK throughout this whole link. People can decide who is wrong. Those are the people leaving the state in record numbers based on overall taxes, not statistics that are factual.
And 2nd, you have replied to my writings within minutes a few times, no matter what time of day it is. I'm wondering if you are on this thing all day or something.
Make your last writing worth it. Because I will not be replying.
I really can't believe the jealous over teachers on this forum
I am sorry, but I have endured 11 pages of this topic and can say that I am really disappointed with those who feel that a 50 year old professional in an educational system shouldn't be allowed to make 78K, 88K, or over 90K a year.
These teachers have gone to school and are EDUCATED!! That's a reward of sacrificing time and money to earn a degree whether it's a medical, engineering, law, business or teaching degree.
Sorry if I believe that there is nothing wrong for a 50 year old professional to make 80K. I am only 30 years old and make over six figures. So I can appreciate that someone has educated me in order for me to have the ability to earn a business degree and a MBA degree. I am not bragging, but just saying that if a professional has waited 30 years to get a very, very good salary, what is all of the uproar for.
I understand if some people are bitter about how teachers are hired. I know that and I totally agree that it's bullsh*t for anyone to get hired in a teaching role because my mommy or daddy or my daddy's friend is on the school board.
But people, many of these teachers do work hard and I know that I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for a few teachers that cared. I can only sum up the posts on this board as pure jealousy. Yes I work 12 months but do have 4 weeks paid vacation and work out of the comfort of my home most
Fridays and sometimes during the week.
It's all about what you put into it and what you want out of your career and life. That's why some of the best and brightest high school teachers come to Western Pa for teaching. Believe me, it's not for the Pirates... Talking about overpaid professionals that suck!
To be fair, I think several legitimate concerns are mixed into this conversation (aside from people thinking teachers don't deserve professional salaries).
For example, as you noted, uncompetitive hiring is a legitimate problem. Similarly, I think it is a legitimate concern that there is so little merit-based pay.
A second point we haven't talked much about is the problem of local communities who are struggling to pay the taxes necessary for their local schools. Personally, I don't think the solution to that problem is slashing teacher pay in those districts. Indeed, I think that is extremely short-sighted: basically every day here we can see people with good jobs moving to the area and looking for a neighborhood, and often the quality of the local schools is a major concern for them. Studies have shown that teacher quality is correlated with every notable measure of school quality, and although there is not a perfect correlation between teacher pay and teacher quality, in the end a school district with uncompetitive teacher salaries will end up with lower quality teachers, and therefore lower quality schools. So, in the end slashing teacher pay is just going to contribute to the long-term economic problems of those communities, because they will struggle to bring in people with good jobs, and indeed will likely lose people with good jobs to other local communities with better schools.
So what is the alternative? The only real alternative is to take much more of the burden of financing public schools off the local communities and spread the burden more evenly through the region, and indeed preferably the whole state. Indeed, the days when a student educated in a community might reasonably be expected to stay in that community are long since past, so such heavy dependence on local funding lacks any basic rationale.
Anyway, in that sense I think noting that some communities are struggling to pay their school taxes is a legitimate concern. I just don't think slashing teacher pay is the right answer to that problem, and would ultimately hurt the local communities.
I totally agree with where you are coming from. This is one of the very few posts in this forum for which I agree. I currently live in Philly but just bought a home with my new wife right outside of Pittsburgh and boarding Allegheny county. I moved to Westmoreland county. Why someone might ask, property taxes are lower and I moved into a very good school district. In matter of fact, I moved 1 mile outside of the school district where I was educated.
That school district is not that good and has gotten worse since I graduated only 13 years ago. Also, that district has some of the lowest starting salaries in Allegheny county. There may be a correlation there or does the responsibility also lie with the parents.
That is one issue that I really haven't seen in this discussion or could have overlooked it. It's that in depressed areas, children are not being taught the value of education, therefore test scores and other measurements which rank schools will be lower than your higher income school districts. It's not necessarily bad teachers.
It's a very tough problem to solve, but I enjoyed reading your insight. I just don't think teacher salary bashing is the right way to go about solving some of the issues that our educational system has.
I grew up in Pittsburgh adn had a great education at Colfax and Allderdice. I believe Pittsburgh has it right as far as the pay. I moved to Florida and the education for lack of a better word stinks . Do you know how much they made? 29,990. I now live in North Carolina where the education is better but the salary is still the same as Florida. I think teachers should be making more then the average person They are the ones that teach the Doctors to be Doctors etc. Something is wrong when football players make more then teachers.
To be fair, I think several legitimate concerns are mixed into this conversation (aside from people thinking teachers don't deserve professional salaries).
For example, as you noted, uncompetitive hiring is a legitimate problem. Similarly, I think it is a legitimate concern that there is so little merit-based pay.
A second point we haven't talked much about is the problem of local communities who are struggling to pay the taxes necessary for their local schools. Personally, I don't think the solution to that problem is slashing teacher pay in those districts. Indeed, I think that is extremely short-sighted: basically every day here we can see people with good jobs moving to the area and looking for a neighborhood, and often the quality of the local schools is a major concern for them. Studies have shown that teacher quality is correlated with every notable measure of school quality, and although there is not a perfect correlation between teacher pay and teacher quality, in the end a school district with uncompetitive teacher salaries will end up with lower quality teachers, and therefore lower quality schools. So, in the end slashing teacher pay is just going to contribute to the long-term economic problems of those communities, because they will struggle to bring in people with good jobs, and indeed will likely lose people with good jobs to other local communities with better schools.
So what is the alternative? The only real alternative is to take much more of the burden of financing public schools off the local communities and spread the burden more evenly through the region, and indeed preferably the whole state. Indeed, the days when a student educated in a community might reasonably be expected to stay in that community are long since past, so such heavy dependence on local funding lacks any basic rationale.
Anyway, in that sense I think noting that some communities are struggling to pay their school taxes is a legitimate concern. I just don't think slashing teacher pay is the right answer to that problem, and would ultimately hurt the local communities.
Actually, studies have shown that standardized test scores are directly correlated to parental socio-economic status. In other words, the more money the parents have, the higher the test scores. The test scores are not at all a measure of teacher quality. For the most part, these kids would learn and do well no matter who was teaching. Anecdotally, it is my experience that some kids will learn regardless of teaching methods, and sometimes even in spite of the teaching methods, and some will not learn no matter what the teaching method. I am thinking of my kids when learning to read. One took to it like a duck to water, with the "whole language" instruction of the day. The other had great difficulty learning to read with the same method. We tried phonics, and some other stuff we read about, but really, it was the one on one pull-out help she got that finally got her reading. She did become a very good writer, OTOH.
The above does not mean that I think teachers don't matter; I do. It's just hard to measure teacher quality. And it really is hard for me to accept that some teachers are making twice as much as others, who are doing the same thing. Experience is helpful to a point, but not forever. Salary structures are built around years of teaching experience, and additional college credits beyond the BA/BS.
Re: school finance-In 1989, Colorado passed the school finance equalization act, which, in simple terms, leveled off per pupil financing from district to district. The state contributes more to the poorer (financially) districts. There is a cap on how much local districts can over-ride the state per-pupil allottment, thus eliminating super wealthy districts with huge per pupil spending. The effect has been to not completely equalize school funding, but to at least make it a little more equitable. CO doesn't have many districts that are considered "bad". This is not to say that CO is the gold standard, just to show how one state has equalized funding to a certain extent. Other states are doing this as well, I believe.
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.
I really can't believe the jealous over teachers on this forum
