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.
Did you read your source? The avaerage salary was 68k not the average pension.
Why yes, I did. I did not claim "the average pension was 68k", rather my claim was:
Quote:
Of all California teachers retiring in 2012-2013, 34% have pensions of 68.4k or higher. Note that these are the teachers who worked for 30 years or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Average pension was $47k. The mode was 68k, but not the mean, and mode is not meaningful statistically without standard deviation.
Everything needed to calculate standard deviation is given in the distribution chart.
Why yes, I did. I did not claim "the average pension was 68k", rather my claim was:
Everything needed to calculate standard deviation is given in the distribution chart.
That isn't true, he may have given sample size, but he grouped them into distributions he chose, so we don't know what each persons individual retirement was. You need each individual score to get standar deviation.
So no, you cannot get standard deviation from that.
Additionally Chad Aldeman, and teacher pensions.org have been shown to be guilty of using deliberately misleading statistics because as part of the Bellwether group, their mission is to privatize education and destroy teacher unions. For example, most analyses of teacher pensions only include those who end their careers as teachers. His includes those who ended heir careers as superintendents, principals and other administrators whose much higher salaries skew the pension earnings as is the case in the data from California. And let's be clear, California is an outlier anyway. It like picking New York City as representive for the cost of living everywhere.
And if the issue is to move teachers out of tradition al pensions, 403b are just ridiculous to do so. Hey have almost no regulation, be the fees would severely hurt those who use them. If you want teachers off normal pensions why not offer them 401ks which are much more fair unless the goal is to punish them? And if you take teachers off pensions you should do the same for all public workers including, fireman, police, city workers, postal workers etc right?
That isn't true, he may have given sample size, but he grouped them into distributions he chose, so we don't know what each persons individual retirement was. You need each individual score to get standar deviation.
So no, you cannot get standard deviation from that.
Additionally Chad Aldeman, and teacher pensions.org have been shown to be guilty of using deliberately misleading statistics because as part of the Bellwether group, their mission is to privatize education and destroy teacher unions. For example, most analyses of teacher pensions only include those who end their careers as teachers. His includes those who ended heir careers as superintendents, principals and other administrators whose much higher salaries skew the pension earnings as is the case in the data from California. And let's be clear, California is an outlier anyway. It like picking New York City as representive for the cost of living everywhere.
And if the issue is to move teachers out of tradition al pensions, 403b are just ridiculous to do so. Hey have almost no regulation, be the fees would severely hurt those who use them. If you want teachers off normal pensions why not offer them 401ks which are much more fair unless the goal is to punish them? And if you take teachers off pensions you should do the same for all public workers including, fireman, police, city workers, postal workers etc right?
Salaries are usually a local district decision with some state floor setting in some states. Benefits like health are in some case state and in other cases local. Benefits like pensions for teachers are almost state decisions with some cases where districts add an additional pension benefit on top of. Quite often the electorate at the state or local are satisfied offering higher salary, pensions and benefits than the norm might suggest.
What is so ironic in these discussions is when folks elsewhere get upset about what folks where they don't live or voter are doing. States and communities value education differently and in many cases are willing to pay to get what they want. Whether anyone else cares or not. The majority are not in angst over salaries, pensions or benefits.
So often higher housing value is tied into the REPUTATION of the school system and thus the property taxes they pay are higher not because of the tax rate but because the valuation of the house is high. That translates into equity and if they have been in the house for a considerable amount of time their ROI is higher than the norm.
There are states that have serious funding issues most notably Illinois, California etc.
Northern VA has been mentioned a couple of times in this thread as a "high paying" area for teachers, but it seems to me that people overlook and don't take into consideration the COL. Only the salary is taken into consideration.
The median HHI for my zip code was $113,351 in 2013 according to City-Data.
Estimated median house/condo value in 2013: $413,700
Not every wealthy county is that expensive. My ZIP in Carmel, IN has an HHI of $145,937 and a median house price for the town of $269,000. No idea what teachers make in that city but there are plenty of other nearby towns that are considerably cheaper than Carmel.
Yeah, a place that is uber expensive like that is hard to make it on <$50,000/yr.
Yes, but pensions are a retirement benefit not tied to where you actually lived or worked. Part of the angst about public pensions is when folks retire and transplant to lower cost of living areas. There pensions combined with SS and possibly investments gives them a higher retirement income then many others in their new area who go to work everyday. That can make our pensions and SS combined seem excessive to many in our new location. This is the same as Ultrarunners point above
People have a right to move where they want, but transplant pensioners from wealthy areas to poorer ones also need to be cognizant of the fact that their pension may be more than many of the local residents make working full time, and that this is a cause of legitimate stress.
Is it "fair" that two interchangeable teachers, one being in a rich Massachusetts school system and one in a poor Tennessee school system, could end up with massive differences in pensions at retirement? Is the MA teacher more valuable than the TN teacher? The TN teacher is likely to barely scrimp by in retirement locally, while the MA teacher can come to TN, sell their home with tons of equity in MA, and come to TN and live like a king.
Furthermore, there's also frequently an attitude when transplants from wealthy areas come to poor ones - they often look down on the locals and seem to always be going "but this isn't the way it's done in <X>!"
People have a right to move where they want, but transplant pensioners from wealthy areas to poorer ones also need to be cognizant of the fact that their pension may be more than many of the local residents make working full time, and that this is a cause of legitimate stress.
Is it "fair" that two interchangeable teachers, one being in a rich Massachusetts school system and one in a poor Tennessee school system, could end up with massive differences in pensions at retirement? Is the MA teacher more valuable than the TN teacher? The TN teacher is likely to barely scrimp by in retirement locally, while the MA teacher can come to TN, sell their home with tons of equity in MA, and come to TN and live like a king.
Furthermore, there's also frequently an attitude when transplants from wealthy areas come to poor ones - they often look down on the locals and seem to always be going "but this isn't the way it's done in <X>!"
Is : Life isn't fair. You need to do what is best for you and your family. The people in Massachusetts paid more tax to pay their teachers more than those in Tennessee--so yes it is fair that their pension is higher.
Transplants to lower cost of living areas, spend money, volunteer, and otherwise contribute to the local economies. That is why so many towns advertise themselves as retirement towns. They are more of a help than a detriment.
Is : Life isn't fair. You need to do what is best for you and your family. The people in Massachusetts paid more tax to pay their teachers more than those in Tennessee--so yes it is fair that their pension is higher.
Transplants to lower cost of living areas, spend money, volunteer, and otherwise contribute to the local economies. That is why so many towns advertise themselves as retirement towns. They are more of a help than a detriment.
The people in MA do pay more tax and there may not be much difference in terms of day to day life during working years, but come retirement, the people in the rich areas have far more options.
Like I said, there is some tension over this because many public sector workers in rich, liberal states can have a pension that many private sector workers in more senior positions in poor states will never get, and ultimately can bring considerably more retired than people in more sophisticated positions can working.
That isn't true, he may have given sample size, but he grouped them into distributions he chose so we don't know what each persons individual retirement was. You need each individual score to get standar deviation.
So no, you cannot get standard deviation from that.
It is entirely possible as the statistical average for each group is given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
Additionally Chad Aldeman, and teacher pensions.org have been shown to be guilty of using deliberately misleading statistics because as part of the Bellwether group, their mission is to privatize education and destroy teacher unions. For example, most analyses of teacher pensions only include those who end their careers as teachers. His includes those who ended heir careers as superintendents, principals and other administrators whose much higher salaries skew the pension earnings as is the case in the data from California. And let's be clear, California is an outlier anyway. It like picking New York City as representive for the cost of living everywhere.
The source for the article is the 2013 CalSTRS Annual Financial Report, not this Chad Aldeman person.
California is the second largest employer of teachers in this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714
And if the issue is to move teachers out of tradition al pensions, 403b are just ridiculous to do so. Hey have almost no regulation, be the fees would severely hurt those who use them. If you want teachers off normal pensions why not offer them 401ks which are much more fair unless the goal is to punish them? And if you take teachers off pensions you should do the same for all public workers including, fireman, police, city workers, postal workers etc right?
I have not suggested that teachers should not have traditional pensions. I have disagreed with the statement that a pair of retired teachers drawing two pensions totaling 120k - 200k are imaginary. I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that they are not imaginary.
The people in MA do pay more tax and there may not be much difference in terms of day to day life during working years, but come retirement, the people in the rich areas have far more options.
Like I said, there is some tension over this because many public sector workers in rich, liberal states can have a pension that many private sector workers in more senior positions in poor states will never get, and ultimately can bring considerably more retired than people in more sophisticated positions can working.
Town, after returning from a higher cost of living area?? As I understand it your salary is higher because you left and came back. Are there hard feelings from your friends?? Do you look down on the locals and tell them how it was done in Indiana?? Not all transplants look down on locals or tell them how it was done up north.
Cost of living and pay varies by area. It is not unfair. It is marketplace economics. It should not stress those still working because their cost of living is lower. And it is their choice to stay in the area- instead of moving to a higher paying area. It is all about making good choices for your family.
Are you at work now?? Why are you posting? I'm retired and resting after a busy morning in the yard-that is why I'm posting.
People have a right to move where they want, but transplant pensioners from wealthy areas to poorer ones also need to be cognizant of the fact that their pension may be more than many of the local residents make working full time, and that this is a cause of legitimate stress.
Is it "fair" that two interchangeable teachers, one being in a rich Massachusetts school system and one in a poor Tennessee school system, could end up with massive differences in pensions at retirement? Is the MA teacher more valuable than the TN teacher? The TN teacher is likely to barely scrimp by in retirement locally, while the MA teacher can come to TN, sell their home with tons of equity in MA, and come to TN and live like a king.
Furthermore, there's also frequently an attitude when transplants from wealthy areas come to poor ones - they often look down on the locals and seem to always be going "but this isn't the way it's done in <X>!"
First, most teachers pay into their pensions. So if the Massachusetts teacher paid 10% at a higher salary than the Tennessee teacher who paid 10% but a lower salary, than why should they get the same pension?
Likewise, should social security or other pensions be based on where you live or on how much you paid into 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.
A good lesson
