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 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.
If I was to quit and find a job now... there is no way in Hell that I would find a higher starting salary for my "experience and deserve it". On top of that, the BENEFITS that these teachers get is akin to the GOLDEN PARACHUTES of the CEOs... way, WAY out of the norm that people would get.... Pension plans? Excuse me? We don't live in a world of make-believe anymore, pension plans went the way of the dinosaurs cause they are ENTIRELY unrealistic or are you supporting CEOs with their unrealistic salaries and benefits... you can't pick and choose which unrealistic policy that you want... there is NO WAY anyone can promise tomorrow because nobody has a crystal ball... hypocrite...
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..
Once again, you're not reading and analyzing the table correctly. Line 7A is for 7 years experience in a prior district with a masters +30 additional credits. NO ONE IN THERE RIGHT MIND leaves a teaching job elsewhere to teach in NYC when they have already have 7 years experience and 30 credits over a masters. It's always been the reverse -- teachers start out working in NYC, then either stay or go to the suburbs with their experience.
The line that starts "5 years long" are for longevity. If you teach in NYC for 5 years, tack on $1000 to your salary. And once again, you have to work 22 years with 30+ credits over a masters to get over $100K. I certainly think a teacher deserves that.
If I was to quit and find a job now... there is no way in Hell that I would find a higher starting salary for my "experience and deserve it". ...
And teacher's aren't in the same position? If I was to quit and find a job now, I wouldn't be able to find an available position, much less a higher paying one. What you're saying is true for everyone today. The data that was discussed is from 2000 - 2006, at the end of the economic boom. Companies, schools, etc were all hiring.
If I was to quit and find a job now... there is no way in Hell that I would find a higher starting salary for my "experience and deserve it". On top of that, the BENEFITS that these teachers get is akin to the GOLDEN PARACHUTES of the CEOs... way, WAY out of the norm that people would get.... Pension plans? Excuse me? We don't live in a world of make-believe anymore, pension plans went the way of the dinosaurs cause they are ENTIRELY unrealistic or are you supporting CEOs with their unrealistic salaries and benefits... you can't pick and choose which unrealistic policy that you want... there is NO WAY anyone can promise tomorrow because nobody has a crystal ball... hypocrite...
You must be smoking some of the good stuff...
A teacher's benefits: salary that is often not commensurate with that of other professionals with the same credentials; and health insurance, which is a standard benefit for almost all professions.
My pension, after 37 years of teaching, was $27k/yr. I retired before being Medicare eligible and I paid my own health insurance premium of $495/mo. I am now covered by Medicare and I still pay for my own supplemental coverage.
So, tell me, in what way are my "BENEFITS AKIN TO THE GOLDEN PARACHUTES OF THE CEOs"?
If I was to quit and find a job now... there is no way in Hell that I would find a higher starting salary for my "experience and deserve it". On top of that, the BENEFITS that these teachers get is akin to the GOLDEN PARACHUTES of the CEOs... way, WAY out of the norm that people would get.... Pension plans? Excuse me? We don't live in a world of make-believe anymore, pension plans went the way of the dinosaurs cause they are ENTIRELY unrealistic or are you supporting CEOs with their unrealistic salaries and benefits... you can't pick and choose which unrealistic policy that you want... there is NO WAY anyone can promise tomorrow because nobody has a crystal ball... hypocrite...
I smell astroturf, or a die hard Fox News watcher. This is hyper right wing hyperbole at its best.
Jon again makes an excellent point with his ingenious use of satire. After watching this video, it becomes more than obvious how people, who watch Fox News, are hoodwinked time and time again-even to the point of fighting against their own self interest!
If by "excellent point" you mean "factually wrong", I agree.
The under the new rules, public sector unions could still negotiate wages, bonuses and merit pay but not health care and retirement benefits since, unlike private sector defined contributions, these are defined benefits with no real method of cost containment going forward.
That $50K/7mo teachers in WI earn by working those grueling seven-hour workdays will still be negotiable, but unlimited and uncontrollable benefit costs - the part that gets dumped on the next generation who are still too young to vote - will not.
To me it only seems right that the people who will actually pay these benefits (now children) should be the ones to cut the deal. Any reason that shouldn't be the case?
And even your link verifies that what I said is true.. The Treasury has been earning a return on most of the money invested or loaned. So far, it has earned $56 billion
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
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.
And your link also verifies other statements I've made to be accurate. Others here have argued that companies dont borrow overnight, clearly they do.. and it was a limiting of overnight borrowing which caused the crash..
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
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.
gouging americans on high interest? Have you tried to get a mortgage lately and asked them what the interest rate would be? Clearly you havent because anyone that has couldnt possibly use the word gouging in the same sentence and expect to be taken seriously..
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
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
We were ALWAYS dishing out money to the world bank, but we werent discussing that.. We were clearly discussing TARP. (heck, I even said TARP).. Will we EVER get most of the money back loaned to the world bank? Do you have any indication that the world bank will default? If they do, dont you think we'd have more pressing problems then being concerned about getting a return?
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.
You are just pretending things to be true to try to make an argument.. No where does it say your scenario is correct.. Again, in fact it says just the opposite, that they are PAYING more to gain and retain teachers.. It says NOTHING about more experienced teachers..
That $50K/7mo teachers in WI earn by working those grueling seven-hour workdays will still be negotiable, but unlimited and uncontrollable benefit costs - the part that gets dumped on the next generation who are still too young to vote - will not.
To me it only seems right that the people who will actually pay these benefits (now children) should be the ones to cut the deal. Any reason that shouldn't be the case?
Wow! They're down to only 7 months now??? I thought they worked nine months (not factoring in the time they spent before and after the school years starts, since that obviously isn't real work)? And only working 35 hours per week total, including prep time, after school work, meetings, etc? Where do I sign up???
Based on what you've told me, I must hypothesize that pretty soon all public school teachers will only be working three months out of the year and making $75K/year (obviously all take home with the huge tax write offs they get), plus another $75K a year in health care and pension benefits (again, all factored as take home pay).
This is such a great deal!!!
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.
What color is the sky in your world?
