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.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. That is per capita, in straight dollars. Mass. is one of the higher income states so the taxes relative to people's income or wealth are not as high. Even on your table Mass. is barely in the top fifth.
Tax-oming, anyone? Tax-esota?
I'd hardly want to live in any of the states in the bottom half of that list anyway.
And Boston teachers make 90K in 9 years? Only if they have a Doctorate or a Master's plus 60 post-degree credits. Anyway, what's wrong with well-educated teachers in a tough district making 90K after NINE YEARS? Their income barely moves once they hit that level. 25-year-old corporate lawyers in Boston make twice that in their first year.
OK, well a teacher with just a bachelors makes about 85K after 9 years, here is a link to the 2010 teachers union contract.
I guess the tax burden makes sense, over "per capita", in terms of how much the burden is for the taxpayer.
But the other point is that the per capita number should be the same between states. We are paying MORE in taxes because we are paying MORE for the services. Like the 120K cops and 85-90K teachers.
I would rather pay high teacher salaries, I think its a good investment, better then putting down 200 Million on a high school like Newton did.
Also why do you keep comparing and justifying high public salaries by comparing them to corporate lawyers. I know a lawyer and she only makes 50K. WHere are these lawyers making 180K in their first year, I don't think these exist. And these people do have a Masters that costs them like 100K.
The point is, economically you don't have to pay teachers 90K and cops 120K, its because of the corruption in the gov't and voters like you that put up with it. Its all coming out of our paychecks.
Last edited by hartford_renter; 10-19-2010 at 12:33 PM..
To be fair, it says $77,913 for a teacher with a Bachelor's and 9 years experience. As you said, paying teachers a decent wage is a good investment and working from $46K to $79K in 9 years seems fair to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Also why do you keep comparing and justifying high public salaries by comparing them to corporate lawyers. I know a lawyer and she only makes 50K. WHere are these lawyers making 180K in their first year, I don't think these exist. And these people do have a Masters that costs them like 100K.
There are plenty of lawyers who earn far less, but the lawyers who make $180K in the first year certainly exist. I was one, I've also been one of the lawyers making $50K, and I've got the degree that cost $100K.
At the largest law firms in Boston, starting salaries -- four months after graduating -- were $160K plus bonus, and some now have fallen back to $145K plus bonus.
Many (most) new lawyers don't work at those firms, but every year hundreds start work at those jobs in Boston alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
The point is, economically you don't have to pay teachers 90K and cops 120K, its because of the corruption in the gov't and voters like you that put up with it. Its all coming out of our paychecks.
One of the sadder aspects of the past 40 years in the American economy is that private sector wages have stagnated or declined for three-quarters of the workforce (while the big law firms are paying $160K to start), and their only response is to resent public sector employees. Maybe people wouldn't mind public sector employees getting a decent salary "out of our paychecks" if our paychecks had grown at anywhere near the rate of productivity growth.
One of the sadder aspects of the past 40 years in the American economy is that private sector wages have stagnated or declined for three-quarters of the workforce (while the big law firms are paying $160K to start), and their only response is to resent public sector employees. Maybe people wouldn't mind public sector employees getting a decent salary "out of our paychecks" if our paychecks had grown at anywhere near the rate of productivity growth.
This is a great point, if you look at real wages over the past 40 years, there has been an increase in the sector of the economy for those with a college degree or an advanced degree, like a lawyer.
I think this is because those workers production has increased, they are in high demand and command a higher salary like lawyers. It makes sense to pay them the "market price". My parents were both teachers in CT, my dad had a PHd worked for a university, making about 85K, after 35 years of teaching. My mom maxed out at around 70K.
Teachers in Boston are paid, EXORBITANT salaries far and away above the "MARKET" price. That is why it doesn't make sense to pay teachers 90K or cops 120K, or give firefighters a 20% raise. They are paid such high prices, not because of supply and demand, like a lawyer, but because Boston has such HIGH tax revenues, they did a good job playing politics and sucking up all the leftover money.
I disagree with your "rationalization" for people who question the salaries of the public employees.
I think I used to be a lot like you are now. When I was in college I used to be a democrat, thinking that if you could just take all the money from the rich people and spread it around, you could solve so many problems.
Its not that my salary hasn't increased over the past 40 years, I think its pretty good because I got a college degree. But now that I'm paying all these taxes, I begin to question what we are spending all our money on.
I recently became an accredited actuary, and one of the most concerning issues is the pension liability of MA, which is 1/3 underfunded. And when I hear about teachers making over 100K in boston after 20 years, and Police making 160K after 15 years of working, with potential pensions of 70K and 130K, all I can say is how reckless and uninformed the voters in MA are.
Its not just politicians trying to scare people, every other actuary or person with a financial background I have ever talked to agrees it is unsustainable, we are on the path to bankruptcy.
Please for the love of god THINK, about the massive debt and chaos you create when you make these unsustainable promises.
That is why it doesn't make sense to ... give firefighters a 20% raise.
How long have you lived in Boston HR? It seems like you're missing some background. The Mayor was deadlocked with the Fire Dept for years where they didn't get a pay raise. I don't know if that's actually the issue, but perhaps they are getting such a big raise because they haven't gotten anything for a long time and are getting it all in one lump sum.
Anyways, my opin on firefighters in particular is those guys deserve all they can get. After all, they may earn their entire lifetime's pay all in one day. Just ask the FDNY.
This is a great point, if you look at real wages over the past 40 years, there has been an increase in the sector of the economy for those with a college degree or an advanced degree, like a lawyer.
I think this is because those workers production has increased, they are in high demand and command a higher salary like lawyers. It makes sense to pay them the "market price". My parents were both teachers in CT, my dad had a PHd worked for a university, making about 85K, after 35 years of teaching. My mom maxed out at around 70K.
All workers' production has increased tremendously in the past 40 years, but only the workers at the top of the scale have seen meaningful income gains to match. Even within the legal profession there has been a tremendous divergence of the "top" lawyers' incomes compared to most lawyers. As you pointed out, many lawyers make relatively modest incomes. But both the associates (younger lawyers who are, in effect, employees) and the senior partners in those top law firms make much more than they would have 40 years ago.
It's often been suggested that today's economy prizes skill and education more highly than in the past, but that cannot account for the whole trend toward divergent incomes. For instance, it has not really happened in other countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
Teachers in Boston are paid, EXORBITANT salaries far and away above the "MARKET" price. That is why it doesn't make sense to pay teachers 90K or cops 120K, or give firefighters a 20% raise. They are paid such high prices, not because of supply and demand, like a lawyer, but because Boston has such HIGH tax revenues, they did a good job playing politics and sucking up all the leftover money.
I don't think I can agree with this. Boston teachers are the highest-paid in the state, but they aren't paid that much more than anywhere in the Northeast and Boston's tax revenues are not particularly out of line regionally or nationally. Except perhaps compared to that no-frills campground called New Hampshire. Even there, districts that want to excel impose high property taxes and pay teachers reasonable salaries.
As for the Boston FD, I'd only add to Bostonian08's post that the proposed raise - set to take place over a four-year period -- was ordered by an arbitration panel after being bitterly contested by the mayor and other elected officials. This contradicts the argument that the fire department played politics for that raise. The raise also was deferred for a year, by agreement of the union, after the arbitration award was announced in deference to the mayor's claim the city can't afford it.
The history of this country is that when the "market" alone sets compensation, compensation skews very heavily to the top. When the political structure is there to correct that skew, it does not. The biggest problem in America today is not that teachers' benefits are too generous, it's that everyone else's are too skimpy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hartford_renter
I disagree with your "rationalization" for people who question the salaries of the public employees.
I think I used to be a lot like you are now. When I was in college I used to be a democrat, thinking that if you could just take all the money from the rich people and spread it around, you could solve so many problems.
Its not that my salary hasn't increased over the past 40 years, I think its pretty good because I got a college degree. But now that I'm paying all these taxes, I begin to question what we are spending all our money on.
I recently became an accredited actuary, and one of the most concerning issues is the pension liability of MA, which is 1/3 underfunded. And when I hear about teachers making over 100K in boston after 20 years, and Police making 160K after 15 years of working, with potential pensions of 70K and 130K, all I can say is how reckless and uninformed the voters in MA are.
Its not just politicians trying to scare people, every other actuary or person with a financial background I have ever talked to agrees it is unsustainable, we are on the path to bankruptcy.
Please for the love of god THINK, about the massive debt and chaos you create when you make these unsustainable promises.
It makes no sense
We may not ever agree on this, but I can't for the life of me understand what's wrong with college grads with masters degrees, charged with educating our youth, making over 100Kafter 20 years. Or even 10 years.
As for the pensions, it should not be forgotten that they are in lieu of Social Security in many cases. Mass. public employees also pay into the pension system, but did not always do so at the same rate. Much of the underfunding problem is historical in nature, some is due to the recent downturn in the stock market.
There are issues to be addressed but it's an exaggeration to say we're careening toward bankruptcy. There is a target to get Mass. public pensions fully funded in the next 15-20 years and Gov. Patrick has signed a law capping maximum pension earnings. The same law calculates pensions differently to avoid particularly egregious abuses. I believe they're now going to base an employee's pension on some index of the past several years' salary, preventing someone from significantly growing their pension with tons of OT in their last year.
[/quote]
The history of this country is that when the "market" alone sets compensation, compensation skews very heavily to the top. When the political structure is there to correct that skew, it does not. The biggest problem in America today is not that teachers' benefits are too generous, it's that everyone else's are too skimpy.
[/quote]
I read this and did a double take. You are saying that the problem is not paying teachers 100K or cops 200K, the problem is that we are not paying everyone else enough?
OK, how about you just cut their pay and then that will take care of the ratio? I guess we will never be able to agree on the pay scale. But I have talked to LOTS of other teachers about the compensation and ALL of them say it is out of line.
The median income in Boston is about 50K per year.
Regarding the firefighters you failed to mention that the raise of 19% was after 2 firefighters were found to have alcohol and cocaine in their blood after they died in a fire. That sparked a call for mandatory drug tests and the 19% raise.
The second thing you failed to mention was the rampant pension abuse by firefighters claiming disability in their last years to pad their pension. They found one "disabled" firefighter in a weightlifting competition. I think something like 70% of firefighters in the city were retiring with "disability".
The history of this country is that when the "market" alone sets compensation, compensation skews very heavily to the top. When the political structure is there to correct that skew, it does not. The biggest problem in America today is not that teachers' benefits are too generous, it's that everyone else's are too skimpy.
I read this and did a double take. You are saying that the problem is not paying teachers 100K or cops 200K, the problem is that we are not paying everyone else enough?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I am saying that, since 1970, productivity in this country is up more than 35 percent, but the median real (inflation-adjusted) wage is up less than 15 percent. Just between 2000 and 2007 (before the recession), productivity went up right around 20 percent, but the median real hourly wage went up only 3 percent. During multiple quarters since the end of 2007, productivity has been up but real wages have been down.
If the "pie" were being divided in the same proportions as in 1970, the median real wage would be up 35 percent instead of under 15. Instead, since 1970 the economy's gains have been directed to a very small number of people at the top. This is the opposite of the trend from 1935 to 1970, when incomes for the bottom 80 percent of Americans rose more quickly than those at the very top.
OK, how about you just cut their pay and then that will take care of the ratio? I guess we will never be able to agree on the pay scale. But I have talked to LOTS of other teachers about the compensation and ALL of them say it is out of line.
The median income in Boston is about 50K per year.
This misses the point entirely. Obviously I don't advocate cutting their pay to "take care" of the ratio. The whole point is that this economy, for 40 years, has distributed its gains inequitably. Had that trend not occured the median income in Bston would be much higher now.
The answer is NOT to make sure that the few people who have been able to escape that trend be dragged down too. The answer is to start reversing the inequitable trend so that, over time, private sector pay for the majority of Americans gets to a higher level.
I have no idea which teachers you're talking to who say teacher compensation is out of line. I know plenty of teachers who don't feel that way, and plenty of other people who would have liked to become teachers, but didn't see how they could afford a nice home in the Boston area on a teacher's salary.
Regarding the firefighters you failed to mention that the raise of 19% was after 2 firefighters were found to have alcohol and cocaine in their blood after they died in a fire. That sparked a call for mandatory drug tests and the 19% raise.
This strikes me as largely an effort at distraction. There are almost 1500 firefighters in the BFD, so whatever 2 might have done is not particularly material . It's true that a portion of the raise in the arbitration award was intended as compensation for the mandatory drug testing. But if anything, that goes against your argument because it shows that part of the raise was in exchange for giving something (freedom from drug testing) up.
In any event, firefighters are hardly the only people who sometimes drink or abuse cocaine. The fact that the firefighters in question died becasue they tried to fight a fire with alcohol and cocaine in their system will probably lead plenty of other firefighters to realize that fighting fires doesn't mix well with alcohol or cocaine. Your argument appears designed to discredit the BFD's uniformed members, and to suggest by innuendo that the whole force doesn't deserve a raise because of what was found in these two firefighters' bloodstreams. That I don't agree with.
The second thing you failed to mention was the rampant pension abuse by firefighters claiming disability in their last years to pad their pension. They found one "disabled" firefighter in a weightlifting competition. I think something like 70% of firefighters in the city were retiring with "disability".
I agree with you 100% that this falls in the category of "abuses" that should be stopped. There are two different issues: (1) the basic pension structure; (2) whether certain employees are playing the system in an abusive way. I'm for leaving the basic structure intact while putting an end to abusive practices.
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.
