What's going to be worse, RE bubble burst or medicare burst?

I find it sad that teachers in fla average 36k to 50k before taxes, yet the schoolboard officials make on average 100k a yr before taxes. :mellow:

Police depts. average 27k - 40k a year for (officers), (command staff) make 80k - 150k depending on the agency. This includes command staff collecting hazardous duty pay even though they no longer work the streets.. :mellow:

The new Govenor just signed a new tax bill that will cut approx 9.4 million or MORE , out of school, fire depts, police depts & county services bugets in Fla.

They may tack on up to a 13% sales tax on goods to make back the loss...

I guess we wait and see.... :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sassy Pamela @ Jun 23 2007, 11:58 AM) [snapback]466925[/snapback]</div>

Oh to be 25 again and living in Newport Beach <_<

And to have a Prius (been looking for a 2007 with color and options I want, but supply is drying up, I fear). Looks like I'll be waiting for 2008 models.

Phil

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tyrin @ Jun 25 2007, 08:14 AM) [snapback]467550[/snapback]</div>

No, I'm not saying that teachers don't get paid enough. I'm saying that teachers "feel" they don't get paid enough. Basically the story was saying that I was eager to become a teacher and my aunt who was one was trying to dissuade me from doing it. A lot of teachers I know feel the system is "broken" because the pay is not typically attached to performance like with a normal job.

If I work hard I can earn a raise in a normal job. Not as a teacher. You can earn more education credits or you can work there for a long time and gradually see increases due to time spent with the school system.

One of my best friends is bitter because her husband's job transferred them and she spent $100k+ on an education to be dropped down to making barely $40k. She now works in an entirely different industry to make ends meet. $40k in the bay area is basically poverty.

In response to your "blink" comment, I don't have one because you didn't even comment. You left a emoticon. Strong case. If you have a better suggestion than LET'S HEAR IT.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Phil Wheeler @ Jun 25 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]467599[/snapback]</div>

Yes, Phil, I've got it made as my Father tells me everytime we talk. He also tells me to be nicer to my husband. Go figure.

Anyway, what color and options are you looking for? I can see what they got at my local place when I go later on to pick out some goodies I was promised. Let me know!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sassy Pamela @ Jun 25 2007, 12:49 PM) [snapback]467653[/snapback]</div>

Teachers are the only professionals that are penalized for moving jobs. Once you leave your district you start on the bottom again. And if you have a masters or PhD you might not even be hired because you'll cost more money up front.

As for merit pay, the ability to abuse this is so obvious to those of us in education there is no way I'll work in a system with merit pay. It has nothing to do with job performance. Alan Bersin and his cronies managed to get rid of plenty of excellent teachers because these teachers opposed the political system and leadership style of Mr. Bersin. It had NOTHING to do with their effectiveness on the job. Merit Pay and other 'business' models are only good for one thing from a school district point of view. Saving money. If you can get rid of a teacher with a masters degree and 25 years of experience and replace them with two fresh out of college teachers, that saves money. So the district would basically use the system to constantly get rid of experienced teachers and replace them with cheap new graduates. There is already a system in place to get rid of teachers who truly aren't effective. It's called the STULL bill in California and it involves being observed and evaluated every two years. If administrators did their jobs effectively those teachers would be gone. Most are too lazy or too cowardly. I actually confronted our principal at my last school about one. Everyone on campus wanted her gone. He told me he wouldn't do anything because it would impact her ability to transfer out if she wanted to and then we'd be stuck with her.

Oh, and one more thing about merit pay. It would have nothing to do with job performance or effective teaching methods. It would be based solely on test scores. Probably Bush's No Child Left Behind. Test scores have nothing to do with how effective a teacher teaches or what a student has learned. That's the "big lie". Test scores are nothing a teacher can control. You can't control who is put in your classroom. You can't control the education they've had before they got there. You can't control what happens after they leave your room, especially at home. Why should a teacher be penalized for a kid who doesn't get enough sleep, enough to eat, who's parents (or parent) has done nothing to foster any discipline or education, who has undiagnosed learning disabilities or psychological problems, etc. etc. etc. I spent an entire school year trying to get a kid tested I knew had learning disabilities. At the end of the year, he was still officially undiagnosed and wasn't getting the help he needed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 25 2007, 01:56 PM) [snapback]467698[/snapback]</div>

I agree that the whole system is flawed. I hope my comment didn't make you think I agree with merit pay. Because I don't. I also don't agree with the stupid testing crap. No child left behind, all kids shoved through.

What is your suggestion to making it better? I'd honestly like to hear a teacher's perspective.

 

Are all teachers in the field because they love teaching or they love kids?

How many because they couldn't hack a medical degree or a degree in the sciences and punted for the elementary ed degree?

Are the cream of the crop from our high schools choosing elementary and secondary education as a profession, or is it the more mediocre of society that go into this field?

I'm not accessing answers to these questions, only wondering why someone who thinks they should be paid a whole lot more than they are getting from their current job would have picked a job that has historically paid what you are currently getting (scaled for historic inflation)?

If you entered the profession hoping to get paid a lot, I wonder how bright you were when you made that decision...

If you entered the profession knowing you won't get paid a lot, but for other reasons such as love for the kids, then what's the discussion about, you knew it coming in, it's not going to change, so why are we talking about it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 25 2007, 02:17 PM) [snapback]467712[/snapback]</div>

Those that don't love teaching and kids usually quit within the first few years. Unfortunately more and more that do love teaching and kids are eventually quitting as well because they can't afford a family on their salary.

I knew my pay would suck. And I endured the occasional jabs from my family. But status isn't that important to me. I own a home. It's in a lousy neighborhood and I was 35 before I could afford to buy it. And even then my parents had to finance me the first few years. But it's mine. I never expected to get rich. But I do expect to make a salary based on the educational requirements of my profession and I expect to be treated professionally. The public seems to think teachers should be like priests and nuns; the fact they are teachers means they should give up all worldly possessions and sacrifice themselves for other people's children and the sake of society. Excuse me, but most teachers hold masters degrees. Compare them to like professionals with the same educational requirements and responsibilities and you'll see teachers are significantly on the bottom of that list when it comes to compensation. And despite that, there are those that begrudge them a pension or healthcare. For most teachers it isn't even an issue of lousy pay. It's the fact that they are not respected as professionals. Unfortunately in this country respect is too often tied to salary. If you don't make a certain amount of money, you are not respected for what you do. This is most often seen in the social service industry. How often do you hear these people are paid too much, don't deserve healthcare, don't deserve a pension, are laxy, incompetent, etc. (firemen, policemen, nurses...and teachers)

Maybe you want to entrust the education of the children that are going to be making the money to support our society in the future to the high school drop out that's checking groceries at the local supermarket. Some of them make the same pay as teachers. Some make more.

The cream of the crop aren't choosing teaching as a profession because it gets no respect and the compensation cannot compete with business. You graduate from college and have your choice of teaching for $30,000 or working for a company in the private sector that pays $45,000. After 10 years of teaching you can earn up to $45,000. Meanwhile the company would be paying you $75,000. After a masters degree and 26 years of teaching you can make maybe $75,000. Meanwhile in the private sector you're making $120,000 or more. For those that don't love teaching and kids, this is a no-brainer.

That "those that can do, those that can't teach" is so much cr@p. Volunteer for a week at your local middle school (after you've produced proof of a TB test and undergone a background check). Let's see how long you last.

What I can't stand is blowhards that stayed at a Holiday Inn and because they went to school 30 years ago think they know everything about schools and teachers. First clue: schools today aren't the same as when you attended. Even if you just graduated from college, they're not the same.

Are Teachers Overpaid?

What Teachers deserve

Hard work or hardly working?

Why teachers make less than lawyers

 

Compensation is, like it or not, a direct way of indicating how much an organization or society values a certain profession.

We all have to pay our bills and eek out an existence for ourselves. I don't see why the "are teachers overpaid??" thing comes up so much...while other folks who also are on a government payroll (and who, dare I say, don't provide nearly as important a service) rarely have their compensation called into question.

It's increasingly difficult to stick to one's principles in a consumer oriented and materialistic society; especially one like ours, which rewards compensation over the nature of the work and the motivation behind it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jun 25 2007, 04:15 PM) [snapback]467800[/snapback]</div>

Um... yes it does.

I think CEOs pretty much set their own salaries, bonuses and perk packages.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 25 2007, 05:44 PM) [snapback]467819[/snapback]</div>

First, thank you for the kind words last week when I joined prius chat. The prius isn't a amall car, it's a great car.

Next, I agree with you about the CEOs.

And last, I do not have any children, but never have I minded the taxes for educating children. I was a teachers aide for 3rd - 5th grade kids in the late 70s, and it broke my heart when I was asked by a young boy why I was quitting them. This from a somewhat troublesome person just beginning to settle down. I could only say that I wasn't leaving because I didn't like the job. I loved it! However, even in a small town in the late 70's, $600.00 a month couldn't be streched far enough and I had to get a better paying job. I believe we should pay enough to attract good and talented people, and retain good and talented people.

Glennsferryprius

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jun 25 2007, 12:52 AM) [snapback]467519[/snapback]</div>

I'm not sure I believe those numbers. I had a stats professor that said you could prove anything with statistics. For example, the more fire engines responding to a fire, the greater the damage. Obviously we should get rid of the fire engines.

What is wrong with that chart? For example, it doesn't seem to take the child tax credit into account. It has been increased from $500 to $1,000. That should help the numbers. Lowering marginal tax brackets would also help. I really think that data is skewed.

 

Both wrong...

Unless the CEO is sole proprietor, it's unlikely the CEO is involved in setting the salary other than to accept or decline the position based on the offered compensation package. If the company can't get the level of CEO they are asking for, they have to up the offers.

CEO's usually end up with these 100 million packages because they are offered a piece of the increase.

If a CEO can take a company from losses to billions in profits, then I can see the CEO getting 2% of billions which is tens and hundreds of millions.

I agree that so many CEO's come in, spend 9 months doing nothing or doing crappy but get 54 million in severance... seems excessive...

That wasn't his/her doing, but a bad gamble by the board who hired him with goals and a known early exit package. They had good intentions and goals when they hired, but now 9 months later, it's seemingly a better decision for them to pay the 54 mil and dump this guy. The only way they could get that guy in the first place to dump his old job and come 'save their company' was to offer him so much in good times and so much in a parachute in case of bad times. In either case, looks like a lot to us.

The CEO where I work only makes about $3500 an hour, so the poor lady has to settle for under $30k a day.

The board of directors sets these CEO's salaries. As it turns out the board is usually made up of very rich people who own big pieces of the company. Being it's their company... I guess they can pay as much as they want to get the person they want.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 25 2007, 02:44 PM) [snapback]467819[/snapback]</div>

In most publicly traded companies, it is the board of directors that set the compensation packages for the CEO. So when you ask why does Steve Jobs make so much money, you need to talk with the Apple board of directors.

 

At least Apple is solvent.

I was thinking more along the lines of Enron.

And more recently....GM.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jun 25 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]467929[/snapback]</div>

I hear ya. I don't mind the CEO making $100M if there is verifiable results. There are many CEOs who seem to be adding no value to companies who should just get the boot.

 

i simply cannot read thru this thread simply because the title implies that housing and health care are equally important....


sure keeping dry is nice, but there is no shortage of rental options. so if you cannot afford your house you bought, im sure you can find a viable options,


i dont think health care is so easily solved