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 never said 2nd year teachers in Colorado make 75K, the link was to validate that some teachers have received decent payraises over the past 8 years.. The link right to the governmental website validated this to be true.. Unless of course you think 29% pay raise over an 8 year period not a good increase.. Tell me, did you get that much of a pay increase? Never gereralized it across the nation..
Again, you're reading the data wrong. No one is getting an $11,500 raise (which you've deduced for the chart). Here's an explanation of what the chart means: Compass Measure - Teachers - Salary
In a nutshell, in 2005 Park School District (out in Colorado) decided to retain its current teachers and recruit more experienced teachers. When teachers stay in a school district rather than leave for other jobs, the AVERAGE salary of all the teachers in the district goes up (especially if there are no retirees to lower the average when they are replaced by younger teachers). If you have a young staff of 30 teachers with little experience, they'll have a lower average salary then 25 of those teachers that stayed on to get a 2% raise and 5 new teachers with more experience hired at a higher "step". That's where the $11,500 increase is.
Where on the chart do you see $75K for only 2 years of service?
There is either no friend, your friend doesn't work for NYC (and may not be a teacher at all), or your friend is lying to you about how much he/she makes.
Yet we do bail out CEO's when they fail and cause everyone's 401k to be cut in half.
I didnt support the bailouts either..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
The 250K being near poverty was just about income, not career, it was about the 250K tax cuts. Everyone making 250K was near poverty, not just executives.
Lets review the quote shall we? Stewart showed plenty of pundits saying that when it comes to taxing those who make $250,000 a year, you're taxing people who are "not rich" and even "close to poverty" if they have a family of four with kids in college.
A) They are NOT rich
B) They indeed are close to poverty for CEO"s.. yes, you are talking about CEO salaries.. lets quote the link again, shall we? bailed-out bank CEOs' salaries.
They very much were talking about CEO's and their salaries and comparing their salaries directly with.. wait, lets quote the link AGAIN.. But when it comes to teachers in Wisconsin, the same pundits say they, as government employees, should expect to see cuts in their ample $50,000 a year salary plus benefits
You keep telling me they werent comparing a teachers salary with statements made about a CEO and clearly they were.. I said this before I looked at the link and you guys said I was wrong.. Now I"m QUOTING the link, and you still say I'm wrong.. Sorry but the quotes dont lie.. you are wrong..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
Their point was clear, bringing the dictionary into this is ridiculous. I could ask for more money if someone next to me made more, but I couldn't complain I was living in poverty, because it would be BS and a lame argument.
Yes you could.. NBA players earnign $250,000 can indeed claim "poverty" if their counter parts were earning $2,500,000.. I'm not poverty by any definition, but you put me in a room with some of the people I know, and I'll scream poverty everytime.. Some of the names you would recognize, Heinz, Hillmans, Frick
Am I "poor"? No.. but dam it I'm poor compared to the people who do the same thing I do I'm beyond poverty strickened . yes, it is very relative and to pretend its not is complete garbage..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
You don't get paid an amount just because of job title. I've never said different jobs don't call for different incomes, that has nothing to do with this. This is about simple hypocrisy.
No, this is about your imaginary hypocracy and liberals who take information out of context in order to try to play "gotcha".. If you want to support the left wing stupidity for doing these types of things, go ahead.. but dont be suprised that you get laughed at for not understanding the differences between a teacher, and a CEO..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I'm not comparing a CEO and a teacher,
The link in the OP very CLEARLY did.. You want to now pretend they didnt in order to try to defend the stupidity..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I'm comparing the salaries in basic monetary terms, it's not that complicated, the job title doesn't matter.
The job title very much does matter.. You can pretend it doesnt, but if it didnt matter, explain why the link made such an emphasis out of it? Not only did Jon Stewart mention it, but so did the Huffington POS.. Even they recognized the need to associate job titles..
Shall I review another quote from the story? Clips showed the same people on the network who agreed with the government limiting teachers' benefits also said that limiting the salaries of government bailed-out CEOs would be detrimental to the industry and "isn't a good way of attracting talent in the future."
This is a FACT.. you can laugh about people saying it, but that doesnt change the fact that its true..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
terms, it's not that complicated, the job title doesn't matter. I don't care of you switch it to teacher and waitress. If someone says a teacher making 50K is near poverty, but a waitress making 30K is cushy, I'm going to call them on being hypocritical.
No hypocracy would be involved if they are comparing it to other individuals earning what they earn in the same field.. Again, yes, the quotes were comparing people in the same field.. to review the quote again.. bailed-out bank CEOs' salaries.
Yep.. thats a pretty specific field would you not agree? But you keep pretending that they werent talking about industries and only talking about pay.. clearly thats not true..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
Everything else is just judgements and excuses for the hypocrisy. No, I'm not saying the waitress should be making 50K like the teacher, that's not the point here. Stop giving me some agenda you made up, Im not arguing for decreases in CEO salary or increases in teacher salary.
And I'm not arguing for an increase in CEO salaries or a decrease in teachers salary.. I'm arguing that stupidity would allow something like this to stand.. They CLEARLY compared a teachers salary to a CEO's salary and ridiculed people of Fox for saying that $250,000 is not rich, and "close to poverty" and that limiting salaries of a CEO would be detrimental to the industry and "isn't a good way of attracting talent in the future".. All of these statments are TRUE..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I'm not going to waste all night on this, so please keep any replies if you have them succint.
I'm not either.. I think I very clearly pointed out by quoting the sections of the link to validate that they indeed were comparing the two.. they even NAMED the fields, and even more importantly, named the individuals in question.. (i.e. only the "bailed-out CEOs")..
They were not discussing if people who earn $250,000 were poverty strickened, they said CEO's who earn $250,000 would be "close to poverty".. again, this is true and the only way to determine if its accurate is to compare the salaries to other CEO's.. to compare them to someone in a completely different field is again..ridiculous..
Quote:
Originally Posted by triplet383
Again, you're reading the data wrong. No one is getting an $11,500 raise (which you've deduced for the chart). Here's an explanation of what the chart means: Compass Measure - Teachers - Salary
In a nutshell, in 2005 Park School District (out in Colorado) decided to retain its current teachers and recruit more experienced teachers. When teachers stay in a school district rather than leave for other jobs, the AVERAGE salary of all the teachers in the district goes up (especially if there are no retirees to lower the average when they are replaced by younger teachers). If you have a young staff of 30 teachers with little experience, they'll have a lower average salary then 25 of those teachers that stayed on to get a 2% raise and 5 new teachers with more experience hired at a higher "step". That's where the $11,500 increase is.
What the link says exactly is The large increase in salaries seen in Park School District between 2005-06 and 2006-07 was due to an effort by the Park superintendent to recruit and retain educators in that district.
It does not say anything about getting more experienced teachers.. it says they are paying them more to recruit and retain educators.. In order to retain them, they would need to PAY THEM MORE.. The babble you mentioned about younger staff is just made up.. Nothing in the link indicates this to be true.. In fact their statements dispute your scenario and supports what I said.. Their pays went UP 29%.. Should it have gone up, quite possibly, but thats not the discussion, the discussion is DID it go up.. YES IT DID.. and you saying it didnt is disputed right in the link..
Where on the chart do you see $75K for only 2 years of service?
There is either no friend, your friend doesn't work for NYC (and may not be a teacher at all), or your friend is lying to you about how much he/she makes.
Lines 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B would all put starting wages for teachers in the $70K range..
You start at one line, and every SIX months you move up.. this is true until you hit the 5 year range and then you jump to the 5 year line..
You're confused. PM said she heard that Wisconsin students were not doing to well? That's the post I responded to.
They have the 3rd highest ACT scores in the Nation with a 69% participation rate. Are ACT test scores not "student outcomes"????????
Your link doesn't say a damn thing about Wisconsin students not doing well?
It also didn't say they were 3rd in ACT scores, from the link I posted earlier:
As a result, it’s fairer to look at Wisconsin’s ranking on the ACT, which was taken by 67 percent of graduates in 2009. And that ranking was 13th in the nation -- not bad, but well short of the 2nd place finish cited in the Facebook post.
This may be what pm was referring to:
2/3 of Wisconsin 8th Graders Can't Read Proficiently Despite Highest Per Pupil Spending in Midwest
Lets review the quote shall we? Stewart showed plenty of pundits saying that when it comes to taxing those who make $250,000 a year, you're taxing people who are "not rich" and even "close to poverty" if they have a family of four with kids in college.
A) They are NOT rich
B) They indeed are close to poverty for CEO"s.. yes, you are talking about CEO salaries.. lets quote the link again, shall we? bailed-out bank CEOs' salaries.
They very much were talking about CEO's and their salaries and comparing their salaries directly with.. wait, lets quote the link AGAIN.. But when it comes to teachers in Wisconsin, the same pundits say they, as government employees, should expect to see cuts in their ample $50,000 a year salary plus benefits
You keep telling me they werent comparing a teachers salary with statements made about a CEO and clearly they were.. I said this before I looked at the link and you guys said I was wrong.. Now I"m QUOTING the link, and you still say I'm wrong.. Sorry but the quotes dont lie.. you are wrong..
Yes you could.. NBA players earnign $250,000 can indeed claim "poverty" if their counter parts were earning $2,500,000.. I'm not poverty by any definition, but you put me in a room with some of the people I know, and I'll scream poverty everytime.. Some of the names you would recognize, Heinz, Hillmans, Frick
Am I "poor"? No.. but dam it I'm poor compared to the people who do the same thing I do I'm beyond poverty strickened . yes, it is very relative and to pretend its not is complete garbage..
No, this is about your imaginary hypocracy and liberals who take information out of context in order to try to play "gotcha".. If you want to support the left wing stupidity for doing these types of things, go ahead.. but dont be suprised that you get laughed at for not understanding the differences between a teacher, and a CEO..
The link in the OP very CLEARLY did.. You want to now pretend they didnt in order to try to defend the stupidity..
The job title very much does matter.. You can pretend it doesnt, but if it didnt matter, explain why the link made such an emphasis out of it? Not only did Jon Stewart mention it, but so did the Huffington POS.. Even they recognized the need to associate job titles..
Shall I review another quote from the story? Clips showed the same people on the network who agreed with the government limiting teachers' benefits also said that limiting the salaries of government bailed-out CEOs would be detrimental to the industry and "isn't a good way of attracting talent in the future."
This is a FACT.. you can laugh about people saying it, but that doesnt change the fact that its true..
No hypocracy would be involved if they are comparing it to other individuals earning what they earn in the same field.. Again, yes, the quotes were comparing people in the same field.. to review the quote again.. bailed-out bank CEOs' salaries.
Yep.. thats a pretty specific field would you not agree? But you keep pretending that they werent talking about industries and only talking about pay.. clearly thats not true..
And I'm not arguing for an increase in CEO salaries or a decrease in teachers salary.. I'm arguing that stupidity would allow something like this to stand.. They CLEARLY compared a teachers salary to a CEO's salary and ridiculed people of Fox for saying that $250,000 is not rich, and "close to poverty" and that limiting salaries of a CEO would be detrimental to the industry and "isn't a good way of attracting talent in the future".. All of these statments are TRUE..
I'm not either.. I think I very clearly pointed out by quoting the sections of the link to validate that they indeed were comparing the two.. they even NAMED the fields, and even more importantly, named the individuals in question.. (i.e. only the "bailed-out CEOs")..
They were not discussing if people who earn $250,000 were poverty strickened, they said CEO's who earn $250,000 would be "close to poverty".. again, this is true and the only way to determine if its accurate is to compare the salaries to other CEO's.. to compare them to someone in a completely different field is again..ridiculous..
What the link says exactly is The large increase in salaries seen in Park School District between 2005-06 and 2006-07 was due to an effort by the Park superintendent to recruit and retain educators in that district.
It does not say anything about getting more experienced teachers.. it says they are paying them more to recruit and retain educators.. In order to retain them, they would need to PAY THEM MORE.. The babble you mentioned about younger staff is just made up.. Nothing in the link indicates this to be true.. In fact their statements dispute your scenario and supports what I said.. Their pays went UP 29%.. Should it have gone up, quite possibly, but thats not the discussion, the discussion is DID it go up.. YES IT DID.. and you saying it didnt is disputed right in the link..
Lines 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B would all put starting wages for teachers in the $70K range..
You start at one line, and every SIX months you move up.. this is true until you hit the 5 year range and then you jump to the 5 year line..
Succinct is clearly not in your dictionary. You clearly can't understand a simple point, all you do is make excuses for the hypocrisy. Unless everyone agrees with all you do is throw out insults and arguments.
Succinct is clearly not in your dictionary. You clearly can't understand a simple point, all you do is make excuses for the hypocrisy. Unless everyone agrees with all you do is throw out insults and arguments.
There is no hypocracy there unless you try to make one up.. I QUOTED the part which says they were discussing CEO's and you still tell me they werent.. You can continue to pretend there was hypocracy there but thats not reality. You can take things out of context, pretend they are on even playingfield and pretend they were ONLY talking about pay, but that doesnt make you correct. The quotes I put on the previous posting verified that they were talking about not only pay, but WHO was receiving that pay.. yes, there is a HUGE difference between CEO's and teachers.. and yes, to compare them is ridiculous.. You can sit here and make excuses for stupidity liberal rants but that doesnt make it less stupid...
That owe what currently to the taxpayers? Hint.. ZERO..
That cost the taxpayers what? Hint.. ZERO..
In fact, those salaries, bonuses to the CEO's, PROFITED the taxpayers..
Again, to compare the two is laughable.. Thats like comparing the salaries of a Janitor who cleans up an arena, and the basketball player who played the game..
Liberals show their inability to understand reality, and fall for this typical left wing bs over and over again..
Funds paid back ($118.5 billion) ($118.5 billion)
New initiatives $172.9 billion n/a
TARP total $700 billion $356.2 billion
Not to mention the trillions they continue to throw at the financial markets even now to keep their rotten corpse afloat while screwing every American.
FEDERAL RESERVE RESCUE EFFORTS
Financial rescue plan aimed at restoring liquidity to the financial markets.
Funds paid back ($118.5 billion) ($118.5 billion)
New initiatives $172.9 billion n/a
TARP total $700 billion $356.2 billion
Not to mention the trillions they continue to throw at the financial markets even now to keep their rotten corpse afloat while screwing every American.
FEDERAL RESERVE RESCUE EFFORTS
Financial rescue plan aimed at restoring liquidity to the financial markets.
Fed total $6.4 trillion $1.5 trillion
Date on your link Sources: Federal Reserve, Treasury, FDIC, CBO, White House
Note: Figures as of November 16, 2009
Our frequently updated database tracks every dollar and every bailout recipient. Below is a summary generated from the latest numbers. (Here's a rundown of the bailout info our site offers.)
The Treasury Department is authorized to spend a maximum of $475 billion on the TARP (In July 2010, the financial regulation overhaul reduced TARP’s spending cap to $475 billion from the original $700 billion.)
Altogether, accounting for both bailouts, $564 billion has gone out the door—invested, loaned, or paid out—while $237 billion has been returned.
The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $56 billion. When those revenues are taken into account, $271 billion is the net still outstanding as of Feb. 28, 2011.
Still, tarp is peanuts compared to the corporate and wall street welfare that the fed pumped into the financial institutions with almost no cost to them.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve made $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks and Wall Street firms during the financial crisis, according to newly revealed data released Wednesday.
The loans were made through a special loan program set up by the Fed in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse in March 2008 to keep the nation's bond markets trading normally.
Quote:
The amount of cash being pumped out to the financial giants was not previously disclosed. All the loans were backed by collateral and all were paid back with a very low interest rate to the Fed -- an annual rate of between 0.5% to 3.5%.
They were basically getting free money while turning around and gouging Americans on high interest rates. Must be nice to live in Oligarch when your at the top benefiting from it.
Quote:
The $700 billion Wall Street bailout turned out to be pocket change compared to trillions and trillions of dollars in near zero interest loans and other financial arrangements that the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution," Sanders said.
And how about all the money dished out to World Banks? Will we get any of that back?
Federal Reserve reveals trillions dished out to world banks to aid financial crisis... including $1.5trillion to British banks
Quote:
The Federal Reserve has revealed details of the trillions of dollars it gave in emergency aid to U.S. and foreign banks during the financial crisis.
New documents show it paid out a staggering $1.5trillion (almost £1trillion) to British banks - over a third of the total money lent - in an effort to prop up the financial sector.
The Fed dished out $2.2trillion to banking giant Citigroup, $2.1trillion to Merrill Lynch and $2trillion to Morgan Stanley.
In addition, payments have also be made to Bear Stearns ($960billion), Bank of America ($887billion), Goldman Sachs ($615billion), JPMorgan Chase ($178billion) and Wells Fargo ($154billion).
..What the link says exactly is The large increase in salaries seen in Park School District between 2005-06 and 2006-07 was due to an effort by the Park superintendent to recruit and retain educators in that district.
It does not say anything about getting more experienced teachers.. it says they are paying them more to recruit and retain educators.. In order to retain them, they would need to PAY THEM MORE.. The babble you mentioned about younger staff is just made up.. Nothing in the link indicates this to be true.. In fact their statements dispute your scenario and supports what I said.. Their pays went UP 29%.. Should it have gone up, quite possibly, but thats not the discussion, the discussion is DID it go up.. YES IT DID.. and you saying it didnt is disputed right in the link..
Lines 7A, 7B, 8A, 8B would all put starting wages for teachers in the $70K range..
You start at one line, and every SIX months you move up.. this is true until you hit the 5 year range and then you jump to the 5 year line..
It says NO WHERE that "they are paying them more". Here's an example:
4 teachers with 1 year experience each, making salaries of $35K each, you have an average salary of $35K (as was in year 2000). Now, the district lets go of three of those teachers, hires 3 more experienced teachers at $60K, $45K, and $45K, and the average goes up to $46500 (as was in year 2006). Individual teachers are not getting $11K raises. New hires are coming in and getting higher salaries because they have more experience and deserve it.
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.
