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.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, but wouldn't something being done less expensively and at a larger scale equate to lower taxes?
Less expensively yes (in theory) but there would be more things in total being done that are covered by the taxes city residents pay.
A former teacher/coach on here once said, when you factor in the benefits, especially the pension, teaching is one of the most lucrative professions in the region.
Perhaps a bit of an aside (I don't know if you're making this point) but I never understand people who simultaneously argue that teachers are overpaid and that they do a crappy job. The basic laws of economics mean that if you erode the living standards for an occupation, less people will apply for that job. And if less people apply, the pool of applicants gets worse, which means that output worsens. I have read that this dynamic is happening now in Wisconsin - since seniority and union protections have been thown out the window, teachers with experience are leaving to neighboring states like Minnesota, and rural districts are having a big issue filling positions at all.
Perhaps a bit of an aside (I don't know if you're making this point) but I never understand people who simultaneously argue that teachers are overpaid and that they do a crappy job. The basic laws of economics mean that if you erode the living standards for an occupation, less people will apply for that job. And if less people apply, the pool of applicants gets worse, which means that output worsens. I have read that this dynamic is happening now in Wisconsin - since seniority and union protections have been thown out the window, teachers with experience are leaving to neighboring states like Minnesota, and rural districts are having a big issue filling positions at all.
The problem is that the public sector unions are not subject to the basic laws of economics.
The unions are removed, and protected from the market.
I get it, you are in a union, and enjoy not being subject to the market, but there is a problem with people making wages, and benefits well above what they ever would if they were subject to the labor market.
These people in the public sector unions make well above the median income, and get benefits, including lucrative pensions at the expense of people making much less then they do.
We are now seeing teachers collecting pensions for as long, or longer than the numbers of years that they worked. That is not sustainable.
The problem is that the public sector unions are not subject to the basic laws of economics.
The unions are removed, and protected from the market.
I get it, you are in a union, and enjoy not being subject to the market, but there is a problem with people making wages, and benefits well above what they ever would if they were subject to the labor market.
These people in the public sector unions make well above the median income, and get benefits, including lucrative pensions at the expense of people making much less then they do.
We are now seeing teachers collecting pensions for as long, or longer than the numbers of years that they worked. That is not sustainable.
keep in mind teachers now pay 10% of their salary into the pension so it isn't as lucrative as it was.
i agree somewhat with your thoughts on unions but i am not comfortable with letting the education of my children rely on the lowest common denominator of employee.
Location: The Flagship City and Vacation in the Paris of Appalachia
2,773 posts, read 3,855,823 times
Reputation: 2067
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
The problem is that the public sector unions are not subject to the basic laws of economics.
The unions are removed, and protected from the market.
I get it, you are in a union, and enjoy not being subject to the market, but there is a problem with people making wages, and benefits well above what they ever would if they were subject to the labor market.
These people in the public sector unions make well above the median income, and get benefits, including lucrative pensions at the expense of people making much less then they do.
We are now seeing teachers collecting pensions for as long, or longer than the numbers of years that they worked. That is not sustainable.
Good point, I think we should pay teachers like professional athletes and actors. We could open up the labor market for teachers and pay the best ones millions of dollars per year and since they are the "talent" we could also allow them to be perpetual free agents who could go from school to school looking for a better paycheck. Certain school districts could be like the New York Yankees and they could maintain their high test scores, college placement rates, and graduation rates by hiring the best free agent teachers at the highest salaries. The real question is though will we have a salary cap or luxury tax for the new Professional Teaching League (PTL)?
In all seriousness, if teacher's unions were abolished in every state across the US and wages decreased so would the quality of education. The US is already tumbling down the world education rankings and lowering teacher pay is not going to solve that issue. Additionally, while teacher pay would drop suddenly without teacher's unions, it would rise exponentially over time as the demand for good teachers increased and the labor market adjusted to the supply and demand issues related to quality teachers. I have included a link to the most recent PISA Worldwide Education Rankings and the U.S. is falling further behind as illustrated by the graph in the article.
The problem is that the public sector unions are not subject to the basic laws of economics.
The unions are removed, and protected from the market.
I get it, you are in a union, and enjoy not being subject to the market, but there is a problem with people making wages, and benefits well above what they ever would if they were subject to the labor market.
These people in the public sector unions make well above the median income, and get benefits, including lucrative pensions at the expense of people making much less then they do.
If you want to argue that reforming tenure to allow the worst teachers to be fired would improve outcomes, I think it's a defensible position. I personally believe the implementation of tenure in K-12 schools was misapplied. It was developed as a concept in higher education to ensure that professors would not have their jobs threatened due to stating opinions (or publishing studies) which were politically unpopular. Professors have stringent requirements to achieve tenure, however, and their protections have been reduced to the point that over 2/3rds are no longer protected by it. Tenure was applied to K-12 public schools in an effort to stop historic practices (like administrators firing teachers when they got pregnant) but I believe that a just cause policy would have been more effective. Unions are generally in a bind now that the laws are in place (tenure protections are generally governed under state law, not contract) as there's a duty of fair representation which requires the union to represent a member without prejudice presuming they stand a fair shot legally of winning.
But beyond that, if you're arguing for an erosion not only of job security, but of of wages and benefits of teachers, you're making it a less attractive job. And if it's a less attractive job, you will get worse applicants. Now, it's true in manufacturing you can get away with this. Automation and modern work processes have deskilled a lot of jobs, to the point where you can get away with cutting wages in half (or more if sent overseas) and use productivity which is gained by capital investment to counteract the lower skill level of the workforce. But teaching kids is not making widgets. Even if you don't have much respect for the current crop of teachers, I'm guessing you know it's not a job that anyone can walk off the street and do - you need to be knowledgeable with the subject matter and have some ability to impart information and control the classroom. Lots of studies have suggested that teachers only really hit their productive plateau 5-7 years into the job, so you're really not going to have high-quality teaching if you have a high turnover school where new young teachers are constantly replacing old ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91
We are now seeing teachers collecting pensions for as long, or longer than the numbers of years that they worked. That is not sustainable.
According to PSERS policy, you can retire at:
1. Age 60 with 30 years of experience
2. Any age with 35 years of experience (though few people will qualify before age 57, since you presumably have to have a college degree to at least start teaching everywhere).
3. Age 62 if you don't meet the above, but have at least one creditable year of service (of course, you don't qualify for a full pension then.
Of course people can live to age 90, but I'm not sure what exactly that's supposed to show. Life expectancy at age 65 has only risen for about 3.8 years for men, and 1.6 years for women, since 1980. The issue with pensions is employers are not willing to put into them what should be contributed - not that they are financially unsustainable. And Pennsylvania's state pension isn't particularly generous.
A PA teacher with 35 years of experience, who has retired in his/her late fifties in year 2017, will receive all of his/her full retirement contributions (with interest) in a lump sum. This teacher will receive approximately $60000-$70000 annually for the rest of his/her life (guaranteed by the PA state constitution). He/she will also receive a monthly stipend ($100) to offset insurance premiums ad infinitum. No state income tax, nor local taxes on any part of this pension. Realistically, most beneficiaries will be looking to collect a minimum of 25 years. Not saying that this is fair, or unfair, just saying that this is a significant cost being transferred to property owners at the local levels. If our legislators are going to pass such legislation for themselves, teachers, and other state employees, at least have the decency to pay for it through the state coffers , not force local school districts/municipalities to pay these legacy costs by the only taxing means that they are allowed- local property taxes.
"Blue" counties pay their own road maintenance, police and fire companies, and environmental services. "Red" counties, on top of bing filled with properties whose values are too low to bring in comparative revenue as the blue counties, are the benefactors of blue county revenue by way of state contracts for all of those services that I listed. There isn't as much of a need to for red counties to raise taxes when they are being fed by the blue counties.
Good point, I think we should pay teachers like professional athletes and actors. We could open up the labor market for teachers and pay the best ones millions of dollars per year and since they are the "talent" we could also allow them to be perpetual free agents who could go from school to school looking for a better paycheck. Certain school districts could be like the New York Yankees and they could maintain their high test scores, college placement rates, and graduation rates by hiring the best free agent teachers at the highest salaries. The real question is though will we have a salary cap or luxury tax for the new Professional Teaching League (PTL)?
In all seriousness, if teacher's unions were abolished in every state across the US and wages decreased so would the quality of education. The US is already tumbling down the world education rankings and lowering teacher pay is not going to solve that issue. Additionally, while teacher pay would drop suddenly without teacher's unions, it would rise exponentially over time as the demand for good teachers increased and the labor market adjusted to the supply and demand issues related to quality teachers. I have included a link to the most recent PISA Worldwide Education Rankings and the U.S. is falling further behind as illustrated by the graph in the article.
I'm not sure we are getting teachers that are particular good now, even with the high pay (at least here is PA).
Didn't someone on here post data from a study that showed teachers on average took a 40% pay cut when they entered the private sector, and that they consistently ranked in the bottom half in aptitude testing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retiredcoach
A PA teacher with 35 years of experience, who has retired in his/her late fifties in year 2017, will receive all of his/her full retirement contributions (with interest) in a lump sum. This teacher will receive approximately $60000-$70000 annually for the rest of his/her life (guaranteed by the PA state constitution). He/she will also receive a monthly stipend ($100) to offset insurance premiums ad infinitum. No state income tax, nor local taxes on any part of this pension. Realistically, most beneficiaries will be looking to collect a minimum of 25 years. Not saying that this is fair, or unfair, just saying that this is a significant cost being transferred to property owners at the local levels. If our legislators are going to pass such legislation for themselves, teachers, and other state employees, at least have the decency to pay for it through the state coffers , not force local school districts/municipalities to pay these legacy costs by the only taxing means that they are allowed- local property taxes.
Dear God, I thought it was about half of that.
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.
