You also don't concede your points about your initial salary being median


because you are an idiot and it wasn't.............

(05-29-2014 09:47 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  You also don't concede your points about your initial salary being median


because you are an idiot and it wasn't.............

I posted straight out of ACS records, and that's being generous b/c you weren't even a chemistry major.

You honestly are a fuken idiot. In 1994 the starting salary of a person with less than a 9th grade education started out with my salary.

read and weep moron.........

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883617.html

(05-29-2014 09:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 09:33 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those people are college educated and continue to go back to school to maintain their teaching license.

That is totally irrelevant.

And the "back to school to maintain teaching license" is their own deal w/ the higher ed devil.

Nothing irrelevant about it. Saying that a public employee doesn't deserve any more pay or benefits than a tax payer is a ridiculous premise. They deserve the deal for which they are contracted.

Quote:What about the part where they now have higher salaries than when they signed on?

I saw an article the other day (can't find it off hand) that showed the average pay for a teacher from 1991 to 2013 essentially was 1% higher based on inflation. Not exactly a big booming industry when it comes to pay.

Quote:Aren't they part of society? Didn't they sign on the social contract? And what role did they have in the condition of the current economy?

You can't ignore those questions w/ the simple-minded platitudes that mach spouts off.

Explain to me what a teacher has to do with the current economy tanking. Did they cause the housing bubble? Did they make bad investments into junk insurance policies against mortgages? Did they overspend on military, welfare, and Medicaid?

I know you and I are never going to agree on the whole public teacher debate, but I think you do agree that whatever the contract states, should be followed. If the local districts want to switch to 401K, do it. New hires can begin working with a matching 401K. I'd be okay with that.

median with a Bachelor's

43,663 in 1994

(05-29-2014 09:33 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 09:20 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  Last time I checked property taxes were paid by more than the "ultra wealthy". Again what entitles you to a better pension than the taxpayers who fund yours?

That is a terrible point of view.

That is like saying that because a teacher works for the taxpayers that they should not make more than minimum wage... because what entitles them to making more money than any taxpayer?

Those people are college educated and continue to go back to school to maintain their teaching license. They deserve the deal that they were offered when they signed on.

Want to move the pensions to 401K? Sure, fine by me. Don't screw over the people whom have been working their entire professional career under a deal that said they'd get a pension.

No it's not like saying they should make minimum wage. It's like saying it is not right to increase my property tax and take money out of my pocket to fund a pension program that was negotiated with no regard to how it would be funded in the future.
A 401K for public employees would be great. Think unions would go for it?

So the answer to Cousin IT is to just cut them. We can't get the Union to agree to the cuts so let's just ban them and cut them anyways!!!!! WIN WIN!!!!!!

(05-29-2014 09:51 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  No it's not like saying they should make minimum wage. It's like saying it is not right to increase my property tax and take money out of my pocket to fund a pension program that was negotiated with no regard to how it would be funded in the future.
A 401K for public employees would be great. Think unions would go for it?

If it was the right deal and implemented for new hires, yes.

As far as the pension program goes, the teaching pension is actually very sound financially in Ohio. It is the police and firefighters that is a mess, but Kasich didn't do anything to those funds because he didn't want to lose their votes. Teachers are fully funded for 40+ years at this point and they are increasing their contribution anyway (due to the new law).

Texas is recruiting NC teachers. BTW, NC ranks like 46th in teacher pay.

(05-29-2014 07:12 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Can you imagine that today with this crop of GOPers? They would have lynched MacArthur.

i swear we have regressed as a society because of this batch of GOPers. their stances on so many issues is quite troubling and some of their attitudes are 50-75 years out of date.

We exported Unions because it was good for Japan's economy. Think about that. Now thye Koch brothers have flipped that script entirely on it's head. You would think we would learn from our history...............

(05-29-2014 09:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  median with a Bachelor's

43,663 in 1994

Oh my, did you just post a 12-month, median salary in inflation adjusted dollars...and expect no one to notice?

Is this your approach to honest research?

Here you go, starting salaries

http://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/ca...s-1994.pdf

For inexperienced chemists (those with less than 12 months of experience) 1994 mean starting salaries were
$24,603 for the BS, down .1%

$24603/12 months * 9 months= $18,452

And your degree was?

(05-29-2014 09:49 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 09:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 09:33 AM)mlb Wrote:  Those people are college educated and continue to go back to school to maintain their teaching license.

That is totally irrelevant.

And the "back to school to maintain teaching license" is their own deal w/ the higher ed devil.

Nothing irrelevant about it. Saying that a public employee doesn't deserve any more pay or benefits than a tax payer is a ridiculous premise. They deserve the deal for which they are contracted.

Quote:What about the part where they now have higher salaries than when they signed on?

I saw an article the other day (can't find it off hand) that showed the average pay for a teacher from 1991 to 2013 essentially was 1% higher based on inflation. Not exactly a big booming industry when it comes to pay.

How many straw man arguments are you going to post?

Quote:

Quote:Aren't they part of society? Didn't they sign on the social contract? And what role did they have in the condition of the current economy?

You can't ignore those questions w/ the simple-minded platitudes that mach spouts off.

Explain to me what a teacher has to do with the current economy tanking. Did they cause the housing bubble? Did they make bad investments into junk insurance policies against mortgages? Did they overspend on military, welfare, and Medicaid?

Yes, they did! That's the point. They overspent on themselves, and supported overspending on various other projects.

But you also forget that public education has an explicit mission: train up citizens for the good of the region. That means they aren't training students to think critically, to evaluate budgets, to vote well, to make logical decisions based on the reality around them. They aren't living up to their agreement.

Quote:I know you and I are never going to agree on the whole public teacher debate, but I think you do agree that whatever the contract states, should be followed.

We do agree there. But you can't slough off a long history of contract violations and then start concern about this one item.

No,

The chart was not adjusted for inflation and a yearly salary is a yearly salary. You don't get to cut it by 25% and still hold the high road moron. You also didn't say anything median starting salary. I showed you the median salaries for people who didn't complete high school in 1994. That's what I signed on for. Knowing I had a great retirement and great insurance. Well until the Neo Nazi's showed up...............

Nice mod work,.......

(This post was last modified: Today 11:03 AM by DrTorch.)

Moron

and they are not adjusted for inflation so you can edit that out too.

Oh my, did you just post a 12-month, median salary in inflation adjusted dollars...and expect no one to notice?

(05-29-2014 10:07 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  Yes, they did! That's the point. They overspent on themselves, and supported overspending on various other projects.

But you also forget that public education has an explicit mission: train up citizens for the good of the region. That means they aren't training students to think critically, to evaluate budgets, to vote well, to make logical decisions based on the reality around them. They aren't living up to their agreement.

I learned all of those things... unfortunately the idiot politicians in Washington and in the state capitals have set new curriculum that doesn't match all of those ideals any longer. The teachers unions are completely against the current curriculum but can't get any traction.

Quote:But you can't slough off a long history of contract violations and then start concern about this one item.

Please enlighten me on the contract violations. I'm not talking about an individual teacher breaking the contract (hence, they can be fired), I'm talking about the entire union breaking the contract.

He's a moron who picks things out of thin air.

(05-29-2014 10:09 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  No,

The chart was not adjusted for inflation

I found a chart w/ that same number and it was adjusted.

Quote: and a yearly salary is a yearly salary.You don't get to cut it by 25% and still hold the high road moron.

Uh, teachers don't work 12 mo years.

Quote: You also didn't say anything median starting salary.

That's when you started. I don't see how that's anything but obvious.

Quote: I showed you the median salaries for people who didn't complete high school in 1994. That's what I signed on for. Knowing I had a great retirement and great insurance. Well until the Neo Nazi's showed up...............

So what exactly is your problem w/ the ACS reference that I supplied to you?

You signed on for $18K/9 months, just when even fresh out BS chemistry majors were signing up for $24.6K/12 months...yet you complain.

You argument is dubious and the 9 months of work is especially dishonest.