unions killing jobs...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Two teacher friends use that number, just sharing their thoughts. They are both good teachers, cannot stand the union. The combined quote from these two would be surmised as, "the young kids come in here and all they want is tenure and summers off, they think 45K/yr is all the money in the world. The old teachers know they cannot be fired and no longer care, just plodding along toward retirement." This was not everyone but the 80% came from two individuals from separate school systems. I like teachers.

It seems quite inappropriate to demonize 80% of the hundreds of thousands of teachers in this country as incompetent hanger's-on based upon the opinion of two people about their own personal situations.

And it is completely pathetic that we consider $45K a good salary for one of the most important and respected jobs in the (rest of) the world. No wonder all school districts are getting are people that would be better suited to working behind the counter of the local convenience store. People can't raise a family on $45K.

Smart, educated people are going to get the best careers they can, both mentally and financially rewarding. And teachers have always been rather terribly paid for what they do, and now being actively demonized as evil. Who will go into teaching now in the US?

Meanwhile, in some other countries, teachers are considered important, smart, are revered, the profession is very respected - the smartest and most dedicated are recuited - and are paid very, very well for it.

You get what you pay for, and the United States is cheap and lazy.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

It seems quite inappropriate to demonize 80% of the hundreds of thousands of teachers in this country as incompetent hanger's-on based upon the opinion of two people about their own personal situations.

Since there are no mathematical or scientific methods for measuring a teachers success or ability, the word of co-workers is really all we have. Perhaps the lack of this method is the reason the union proliferation is so grand in that profession.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Since there are no mathematical or scientific methods for measuring a teachers success or ability, the word of co-workers is really all we have. Perhaps the lack of this method is the reason the union proliferation is so grand in that profession.

In other words, you're going to keep making assertions as factual that you have simply pulled out of thin air about hundreds of thousands of teachers in the US.

Well, okay: then I say 80% of the teachers in this country are terribly dedicated and yet grossly abused and underpaid.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

In other words, you're going to keep making assertions as factual that you have simply pulled out of thin air about hundreds of thousands of teachers in the US.

Well, okay: then I say 80% of the teachers in this country are terribly dedicated and yet grossly abused and underpaid.

You are entitled to believe that if you choose.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

You are entitled to believe that if you choose.

No, sorry. I prefer reality-based opinions.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

It seems quite inappropriate to demonize 80% of the hundreds of thousands of teachers in this country as incompetent hanger's-on based upon the opinion of two people about their own personal situations.

And it is completely pathetic that we consider $45K a good salary for one of the most important and respected jobs in the (rest of) the world. No wonder all school districts are getting are people that would be better suited to working behind the counter of the local convenience store. People can't raise a family on $45K.

Smart, educated people are going to get the best careers they can, both mentally and financially rewarding. And teachers have always been rather terribly paid for what they do, and now being actively demonized as evil. Who will go into teaching now in the US?

Meanwhile, in some other countries, teachers are considered important, smart, are revered, the profession is very respected - the smartest and most dedicated are recuited - and are paid very, very well for it.

You get what you pay for, and the United States is cheap and lazy.

I did forget to mention that 45K is starting and the reason they think it is all the money in the world is because "they are fresh out of college and live with their parents." It is an excellent starting salary and if that is what you make perhaps starting a family is not the best idea.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I did forget to mention that 45K is starting and the reason they think it is all the money in the world is because "they are fresh out of college and live with their parents." It is an excellent starting salary and if that is what you make perhaps starting a family is not the best idea.

If you think, in 2011, that $50-60K is a decent salary for a lifetime of raising a family of 4, when real wage value in this country has done nothing but fall precipitously over time, you don't have a good grip on what has happened in this country over the past 40 years.

Yes, $45K is a tremendous amount of money in my mind.

Except when it costs $2000 a month for housing, food, car, utilities, and student loan payback is another $500 a month, and retirement savings is 10% of take home. Then add in those that think evil teachers unions are destroying this country, so don't give them healthcare at work, take that away! Or make them pay $250 a month for it!

Yes, raise a family on what's left out of that $45K after the above.

Nobody deserves free money. They of course have to earn it through their competence no matter their profession or job.

But this country is in very, very deep trouble, we are no longer an elite first world country, and that problem was not caused by teachers unions.

We have " ... A republic - if you can keep it". I have serious doubts about the future of the next 50 years of this country.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you think, in 2011, that $50-60K is a decent salary for a lifetime of raising a family of 4, when real wage value in this country has done nothing but fall precipitously over time, you don't have a good grip on what has happened in this country over the past 40 years.

Yes, $45K is a tremendous amount of money in my mind.

Except when it costs $2000 a month for housing, food, car, utilities, and student loan payback is another $500 a month, and retirement savings is 10% of take home. Then add in those that think evil teachers unions are destroying this country, so don't give them healthcare at work, take that away! Or make them pay $250 a month for it!

Yes, raise a family on what's left out of that $45K after the above.

Nobody deserves free money. They of course have to earn it through their competence no matter their profession or job.

But this country is in very, very deep trouble, we are no longer an elite first world country, and that problem was not caused by teachers unions.

We have " ... A republic - if you can keep it". I have serious doubts about the future of the next 50 years of this country.

Perhaps (again) raising a family is not the best thing for you if that is your salary.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Perhaps (again) raising a family is not the best thing for you if that is your salary.

If you are unable to talk about the subject matter you brought up in an intelligent and objective fashion, don't degenerate to silly ad hominem attacks.

Tell us - what annual income do you think is sufficient to raise a family of 4 nowadays?

And I wanted to ask you, as you said:

Since there are no mathematical or scientific methods for measuring a teachers success or ability,

What do you call measuring percentage of students that advance to the next grade, the results of standardized testing on state, national and internation levels, percentage of students graduating and gaining admittance to which colleges, etc?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you are unable to talk about the subject matter you brought up in an intelligent and objective fashion, don't degenerate to silly ad hominem attacks.

Tell us - what annual income do you think is sufficient to raise a family of 4 nowadays?

That is completely based on where you live. In Denver, my current home, 60-80K should be plenty, you will not be in high cotton but will be comfortable. In the area of NJ I grew up in 45K puts at the top of the earnings list for sure. In the next town over in NJ you would need 100-140K to be OK. In Kentucky or West Virginia or most rural areas in the mid-west I would think 50-60K should be fine.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

That is completely based on where you live. In Denver, my current home, 60-80K should be plenty, you will not be in high cotton but will be comfortable.

What percentage of teachers within the city limits of Denver, Colorado, earn $80K a year?

In the area of NJ I grew up in 45K puts at the top of the earnings list for sure. In the next town over in NJ you would need 100-140K to be OK. In Kentucky or West Virginia or most rural areas in the mid-west I would think 50-60K should be fine.

As incomes for families of four?

It's easy when you guess, isn't it What you said previously is that $45K for a teacher was a good enough salary to raise a family of four. But even you say it is not, above.

Then you said that is just a starting salary. So how many teachers in that town in NJ earn 100-140K? or 60K in West Virginia?

Look: you think 80% of teachers are freeloading incompetents, with great salaries and benefits, and teachers unions enable it. You said teachers unions have destroyed the majority of schools in this country. I say that's wrong. We should just leave it at that.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

What do you call measuring percentage of students that advance to the next grade, the results of standardized testing on state, national and internation levels, percentage of students graduating and gaining admittance to which colleges, etc?

Those are methods for measure a schools performance. These results are very skewed based on location, income of the district, working parents (both, one or neither) etc. And I think they are the standards of the No Child Act.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Mike2456

Yes, but those individual tests measure a child's performance. And a teacher's performance can be measured upon the success of their students that they teach. And yes, such results can be skewed.

You said such measures don't exist. I am simply pointing out they do.

The particulars of the measurement as stated above allow for far too many variables to transfer the success or failure onto the teacher, this makes it very hard to consider it either mathematical or scientific.
I was a A-B student for the most part (I was an extra-ordinary test taker though) , I learned more from the better teachers but I was going to test the same either way. One example but there are plenty of really smart kids who cannot test at all.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you think, in 2011, that $50-60K is a decent salary for a lifetime of raising a family of 4, when real wage value in this country has done nothing but fall precipitously over time, you don't have a good grip on what has happened in this country over the past 40 years.

.

so only one person is working in your definition of a family? with two incomes and one teacher being 50-60k the house hold income would be more like 90-120k

[Danzig]

since the median u.s. income is right at 45-46k, i'd have to think that plenty of families are being raised on that amount of money.
can you live in a mcmansion and drive a benz? probably not.
teachers have kids in front of them 178 days out of the year-which is less than half the year. the two week break at christmas is more vacation than most people get per year. that doesn't count spring break, t'giving, etc, etc.
i can think of worse jobs.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

since the median u.s. income is right at 45-46k, i'd have to think that plenty of families are being raised on that amount of money.
can you live in a mcmansion and drive a benz? probably not.
teachers have kids in front of them 178 days out of the year-which is less than half the year. the two week break at christmas is more vacation than most people get per year. that doesn't count spring break, t'giving, etc, etc.
i can think of worse jobs.

In defense of teachers.. handling 30-35 kids is a pretty tough deal. Not all of the teachers are models of comportment(picture your favourite teacher) My daughter in law was teacher of the year in her school district and shes burned out after just 15 yrs...retirement is a long ways away.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

In defense of teachers.. handling 30-35 kids is a pretty tough deal. Not all of the teachers are models of comportment(picture your favourite teacher) My daughter in law was teacher of the year in her school district and shes burned out after just 15 yrs...retirement is a long ways away.

No teacher should be expected to deal with 30-35, even with an aid. It's pretty clear that 26-28 works far better, at max. It's sad she's burned out and an excellent teacher lost.

That's the whole point - teaching is one of the most important professions, and they are currently thoroughly demonized here is the good old United States.

It's pathetic what this country has become.

[Danzig]

hey, i worked in the schools for five years. i love history, and have been told a million times i would be a great teacher-no thanks. i know how it is there. but, cops and firemen don't get rich doing what they do, and neither do teachers. is it right? probably not. could it be worse? sure. are teachers and their kids on food stamps? i doubt it.

i don't think teachers get demonized..but when people start saying that 45k isn't enough...yeah, that's not going to evoke a lot of sympathy right now.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so only one person is working in your definition of a family? with two incomes and one teacher being 50-60k the house hold income would be more like 90-120k

You make my point. Real middle class wages have completely stagnated in this country over the past 50-60 years. They have not risen, they have fallen.

In the 1950's-1960's, yes, the father worked, the mother stayed home and raised the kids.

In the 1960's-1970's, that changed, and the mother had to go to work to afford the same lifestyle.

In the 1970's-1980's, Americans put that lifestyle on a charge card, if they wanted it, with two incomes.

In the 1990's, Americans mortgaged their homes to maintain that 1950's middle class lifestyle.

2011- the economy crashed. There is hardly any middle class left. They have no more money or credit to spend. The wealth disparity in this country is the greatest it's ever been.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...ca-chart-graph

(A great page of data explaining this nation's current troubles)

A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.

Get that last sentence: the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans is $31,244.

That's ... not first world country income.

Originally Posted by Riot

You make my point. Real middle class wages have completely stagnated in this country over the past 50-60 years. They have not risen, they have fallen.

In the 1950's-1960's, yes, the father worked, the mother stayed home and raised the kids.

In the 1960's-1970's, that changed, and the mother had to go to work to afford the same lifestyle.

In the 1970's-1980's, Americans put that lifestyle on a charge card, if they wanted it, with two incomes.

In the 1990's, Americans mortgaged their homes to maintain that 1950's middle class lifestyle.

2011- the economy crashed. There is hardly any middle class left. They have no more money or credit to spend. The wealth disparity in this country is the greatest it's ever been.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011...ca-chart-graph

(A great page of data explaining this nation's current troubles)


Get that last sentence: the average income of the bottom 90% of Americans is $31,244.

That's ... not first world country income.

Where are the income charts for 2010? KEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKKEEKEKEKKEKKKE