ok, i'll bite...i have not seen hte new report, and i can't open it on my phone.
are these wonderful new and improved numbers based on the spending default deal they passed along with the debt ceiling increase? i am figuring it is, because it is the only new funding change that is going to happen unless the supercommittee comes up with other ideas.
and if it is, how do you feel about those numbers if it is based on a deal you derided?

No. It is just the usually regular readjustment prediction of the health of the Social Security funds, based upon most recent information. Just the regular, usual calculation on it's health and longevity.

i will have to read that when i get home in ten days.

i read that article yesterday evening when i got to the hotel....thought it was interesting.

The Stimulus. It worked. It raised employment
 

That was an interesting opinion article in the WSJ.

But so are these, compiled this week (and being completely ignored by right-wing media, including the Rupert-Murdoch-owned editorial board of the WSJ)

"The Stimulus worked"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

More detail, original study links, more studies (including two that say effects were marginal) and analysis at website above.

the reason i asked if those teachers worked similar days/hours is how else can you assure a valid comparison? you can't just say they make more and say that is that. if it is not apples to apples, it is not valid

It's for a year of work. None of them were broken down into payroll periods.

How can that not be valid? Teachers are not paid hourly, they are paid a salary for a "school year", whatever that might be locally. It's clear that in the US we don't value our teachers, financially, as highly as many other countries. That's a shame. If you want the best and brightest in the profession, you treat them well and make the profession respected and admired in society.

In the United States, we blame teachers for causing financial hardships on our local taxing districts (yeah, like they physically go in and steal the money? That it doesn't take the town to tax and decide what to spend on?) and we call them freeloaders and insult them. And bust their unions.

of course it matters. whenever it is suggested that school go all year, raher than half, the first things teachers say is they would have to be paid more for working more.
also, what are class sizes elsewhere? benefits, pensions, etc? days off, hours per day worked, planning periods, etc. its all part of the total compensation package.
hamburg jr high and hs teachers have students in their classes for a sum total of four and a half hours a day for 178 days a year~which is less than half of a year. how does that schedule and pay compare to the countries you listed?

LOL - It looks like you have some detailed investigation to do to find answers to all your questions.

Try searching on each country, and determining their school year, benefits, pension, class size, etc. if you would like to know it.

It's apparent that for a school year, for teachers with 15 years experience, many other countries pay more than the US, whether compared by GDP or even by straight salary.

If you suspect that's not true for some reason, or want to break that information down into hourly salary, etc, do the research and post that for us.

no ma'am, i do not have a job ahead of me. it is your assertion that other countries offer higher compensation; the burden of proof falls on you to back up your assertion. its why i asked the question.

LOL. My "assertion" was posting that other countries pay more for a teacher with 15 years experience, both by GDP and quite a few by straight salary.

You want to rip that data apart, YOU do it.

Edit: and here is the link for the data http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...und-the-world/

when i post something, i make sure its verified first.
besides, im in chattanooga tn enjoying the bourbon, on my phone, and certainly unable to do your dirty work for you.
time to eat some ribs. when you have complete info, post it.

LOL I did. If you don't like it, YOU post something different:D

Enjoy your bourbon and ribs:)

oh, i see you edited your post above and added a link. read the link, not the wealth of info needed to make an adequate comparison.
guess it'll have to wait til i get home, since you don't seem interested in proving your point.

THAT'S a FIRST!

Excuse me, it's not my point, it's YOUR point you want "me" to prove :D

And you accusation of "make sure it's verified" is complete nonsense you make up out of thin air.

I posted information about teacher salaries compared to the world and provided the link. Yes, I gave you the data source - if YOU don't like what it says, YOU are the one that has to bring different data to the table.

And BTW, the information you want on teacher hours is right there on the page - if you had really bothered to look.

I am not responsible for proving your arguments against a link. :D

I guess when I provide all those tables and charts and graphs and stuff - that seem to irritate plenty of other posters around here :) - you can't seem them and they become imaginary to you.

Doesnt bother me when you put up graphs and the like.

Apparently you just don't bother to read them? You just said, "that's a first" - now you say, no, it's not.

Yeah, way to go, Timmi :tro:

And Danzig: Somebody asked what American teachers made compared to other countries. I posted a whole bunch of countries.

You said - clearly without even looking at it - that what I posted was invalid in your opinion (you wanted the data presented another way), and that being invalid according to your standards is somehow magically my fault. Baloney.

I gave the link. If YOU don't like the way data was posted compared to GDP and straight salary comparison, if YOU don't think the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development doesn't put out good data, I suggest YOU bring other data the way "you want it" to the table.

And, btw, the "way you want it" is listed on the page I posted.