Guys in all seriousness. 50% of the kids I teach are great kids. I used to say 80%. It's an ever demanding job that gets tougher every year. I don't know if it's the economy or what, but the pillars of our societal institutions are under attack from BOTH sides. The kids I taught 17 years ago are not the same kids I teach today.

Should teachers get paid 100 grand a year. Probably at the end of their careers. You have to remember that they didn't get paid that when they first started. My 1st contract was 17,700. I coached three sports to start a family. I don't know. I would like to see the old crew get a victory lap contract up there.

Again Mach:

Quote:They start out in Columbia County, Ga with a Master's at about 36K. My buddy is up to about 50K as a SS teacher, AD, head football and baseball coach. He's only been a teacher for about 4 years.

His last day to work this year was last Friday, won't have to go back until after the 1st. He has Master's week off (spring break), as well as about 3 months during the summer off.

....and you don't think that's enough?

(12-20-2010 12:56 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Holy Shnitke's

An adult baby sitter should expect 8-12 dollars an hour.

http://childcare.about.com/od/occasional...rrates.htm

http://www.investorwords.com/1653/economy_of_scale.html

(12-20-2010 01:01 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guy's in all seriousness. 50% of the kids I teach are great kids. I used to say 80%. It's an ever demanding job that gets tougher every year. I don't know if it's the economy or what, but the pillars of our societal institutions are under attack from BOTH sides. The kids I taught 17 years ago are not the same kids I teach today.

I'd like to think they graduated by now.

But seriously, the kids you have now are the children of your earlier students. If they aren't raising their kids well, then look in the mirror. What did you teach them?

Quote:Should teachers get paid 100 grand a year. Probably at the end of their careers.

Why? Sentimentality? What does the market bear?

I think you have to factor cost of living in too.

I went on a golf trip somewhere in Tennesee a couple of years back. We took a right turn at Knoxville and went about 5 hours. One of the courses was a Jack Nicklaus design. I think it was called Black Bear. Well the point of my story is this. I ate one hell of a dinner for 3.50 at a local restaurant. Two pieces of chicken. Two vegetables. Dinner roll. It was a meal that would of cost me 8-10 dollars in Ohio. You have to factor that stuff in too.

Torch,

The kids of the kids I have now were in that other 20%. Unfortunately................. the truth.

These extremely high salaries are in the wealthier suburbs of Chicago.. Neaqua Valley type high schools (where every kid was given a laptop I believe when it opened 10 years back) or the North shore, I wouldn't really pay much attention to these numbers. They are so out of whack with the average school in Illinois they really have no basis in reality. As Machiavelli said, an independent source couldn't find these same numbers.

If the parents in a wealthy suburb are willing to raise their property taxes high enough to pay for the best schools, that's their choice. You can just easily go 20 minutes West or South and go a public school where the teachers are making half this amount.

(12-20-2010 04:16 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  These extremely high salaries are in the wealthier suburbs of Chicago.. Neaqua Valley type high schools (where every kid was given a laptop I believe when it opened 10 years back) or the North shore, I wouldn't really pay much attention to these numbers. They are so out of whack with the average school in Illinois they really have no basis in reality. As Machiavelli said, an independent source couldn't find these same numbers.

No, I said that.

And 14K salaries are not to be ignored.

And so what if it's a few schools in Chicago northern suburbs? It's still a travesty if you don't want to pay for it.

Quote:If the parents in a wealthy suburb are willing to raise their property taxes high enough to pay for the best schools, that's their choice.

That they force upon others. You left that part out.

(12-20-2010 10:45 AM)Rebel Wrote:  They start out in Columbia County, Ga with a Master's at about 36K. My buddy is up to about 50K as a SS teacher, AD, head football and baseball coach. He's only been a teacher for about 4 years.

I think that's a pretty fair salary, maybe a little high seeing as he's only 4 years in, but why should he be paid less just because he's young in the profession. Get paid for the job you do.

I imagine that his FB and BB commitments are actually longer than the school year and when school is in he has 0 free time.

Thing is, he doesn't ***** about his pay and really loves his job. Then again, he's a conservative.

(12-20-2010 12:27 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-20-2010 11:49 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 01:27 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(12-18-2010 01:02 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-17-2010 01:54 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I understand this point. Good teachers work hard. But 14K making over $100K?

Personally, I don't care what their credentials are. We've become a nation of credentialled aristocracy (not my term) people w/ pieces of paper who feel they have the right to control the rest. And teachers are at the forefront of that.

And it's a protectionist racket.

I care what supply/demand is. That's what determines salary.

This.

Licencing and credentials are mostly created by those seeking to limit competition. Nothing says that I cant fix a toilet, cut someones hair or manicure their nails, wire a electrical wall receptacle or even stitch sutures of a bleeding cut as well as someone that has a licence to do these things. I have no problem with voluntary certification of trades. I do however reject governmental intervention into the marketplace in this regard.

just curious but do you have a problem with driver's licenses? I know its not exactly the same as a professional license. However, your logic would apply to DL's as well. Just because I dont have a DL doesnt mean I dont know how to drive a car. Once again, I'm just curious. Not attacking anything you said in the previous post.

Yes...but...I have no problem with insurance carriers demanding that their clients show competence in operation of a vehicle and I have no problem with banks demanding insurance coverage when financing a vehicle purchase. Both of these organizations have a vested interest in seeing that they are doing business with competent drivers.

The obvious next question is...What about someone that owns their vehicle and refuses to insure it? What type of market force could be used get them to voluntarily comply? Well...One would think that the risk of litigation in the case of an accident would be sufficient. Of course, that might not be the case. In cases where someone injured another party and did not have insurance, I have no problem with the court system making them personally pay restitution to the injured party almost to the point of slavery and prohibiting them from operation of a vehicle again.

No matter what system we choose...there will always be drivers that are incompetent behind wheels of cars. I just would rather see highway safety be driven by the marketplace than by government.

For me personally, I don't have a problem w/ DL in general. My given is that the primary job of gov't is to protect its citizens from harm by others. Obviously the main thing is from foreign attack.

But that can include regulations and licensing. Drivers Ed and licensing requires people to know something about motor vehicle operations and regulations. It improves the driving of nearly every 16 year old, and likely everyone older than that. Exceptions are anecdotal (Dale Earnhardt Jr, who grew up around cars). Taking a risk that someone will behave irrationally, and drive w/o insurance and experience, is not a good risk. MPAI, so you will have plenty of people driving like that. And the harm often cannot be undone, even w/ near-slavery consequences.

Similarly, I expcet my MD to be licensed. I expect regulations in place to mean food is manufactured safely.

Any of these can grow to become burdensome, w/ no real protection for citizens. I'm against that. And while gov't bureaucrats are usually smart enough to offer some lip -service for their new "and improved" rules, they are usually easy to see through. Really, some very obvious, basic rules take care of the vast majority of problems.

Do I expect my barber to be licensed? I think a license is a good thing, but my barber is not likely to harm me w/ a bad haircut. Thus, the real answer here is, let unlicensed barbers exist, but insist that people know whether they are licensed or unlicensed, and let the market sort it out.

I totally agree with your last comment...and I would apply it to ALL trades..allowing the consumer to choose to do business "in" or "outside" the purview of licencing. In the case of MD's...I would guess that that the insurance industry would have much to say about their clients doing business with unlicensed health care providers..but...Nothing however should prevent parties from freely doing business as long as full disclosure is part of that transaction. Failure to disclose one's training and qualifications should be considered fraudulent. As a Freemarketeer.....I must constantly keep in mind what constitutes "harm"....theft,fraud or violence.

I seek an gradual shift to a more voluntary society...I am not under any delusion or would advocate a drastic change. We got here under all this massive regulation over time. I would like to see us gradually turn that around and let the marketplace and the wonders of competition turn our society toward a more voluntary and "non violent" state. We now are totally under the threat of force in almost all aspects of our lives. I believe force is not necessary to control us. I think the free market in conjunction with contracts and a just system of dispute mediation is capable of handling that duty.

(12-20-2010 12:47 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Interesting article to throw for Fo's POV.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40592329/?gt1=43001

Good find...I have not thought of Kosher foods before as an example.

I would bet that the inspection process of that certification is most likely more stringent than that of the USDA.

(12-21-2010 09:59 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Thing is, he doesn't ***** about his pay and really loves his job. Then again, he's a conservative.

He has no reason to complain about his pay. I also think that he's doing what he wants to do. That's just fortunate, not conservative.

(12-22-2010 03:54 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-21-2010 09:59 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Thing is, he doesn't ***** about his pay and really loves his job. Then again, he's a conservative.

He has no reason to complain about his pay. I also think that he's doing what he wants to do. That's just fortunate, not conservative.

On the contrary, that's a huge point. Conservatives believe that you have control over your life, that you make choices to pursue happiness. It's the left that believes you're a helpless victim of fate.

Just this week I saw a headline comparing this attitude in the US to Germany. Germans were far less likely to believe they could control their lives.

And in the bigger picture, a few weeks back I read a great essay discussing three ancient classics discussing the role of "fate." This is no trivial matter. If you believe that fate controls your life, you're much more likely to abandon morals and pursue your own wanton desires, ignoring all others and their rights, blaming all consequences on good or bad fortune. (I can probably find that essay again, but it will take some work.)

Your short comment touched on a HUGE issue, one that comes out even in informal, common vernacular.