Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

This is what happens........Follow

#52 May 10 2011 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Under A Thumb...
*****
10,011 posts
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's a ballpark because most waitresses don't report but a percentage of their tips.
____________________________
Quote:
I would imagine that if you could understand Morse code, a tap dancer would drive you crazy.
Lebowski Fest | Church of the Latter-Day Dude | Nick And Dooie!
#53 May 10 2011 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
How can you blame racism when your fun fact clearly demonstrates it to be not true?


I blamed racism, I didn't blame racism specifically in the gov't. Try to keep up.

Whoosh!
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#54 May 10 2011 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
And the fact is that it's HEAVILY state-dependent.

NJ has a massive cost of living. 40-50k really doesn't really leave you much money to play with. Not when you need to pay back loans, rent, bills, cost of food, gas (which is still pretty cheap--just over $4 a gallon in his area last time I checked). Not to mention it costs him 2 or 3 dollars in tolls just to get to work everyday, because he needs to take the parkway to the Atlantic City Expressway.

Plus, you need to pay pension costs out of those wages too. That's another 1-2k a year.

And to be a homeowner in my parents town is to pay 4-7k in property taxes a year. So if he settled down, he'd actually see his monthly costs stay about the same, but have accrued more debt. I actually don't even know what his state income tax is, but it's probably a pretty penny. Then there's the federal taxes...

So no, it's not really a lot of money. At all. Frankly, if they paid less, I wouldn't even bother going to grad school for education--it would be better to try and find a private sector job. The additional 40-50k in loans just wouldn't be worth the pay increase. At all.

I mean, I could be going to law school instead. The only reason I'm not is because I think I'd vastly prefer being a teacher. But the actual costs to get the degrees necessary are pretty much equal. Law school would be maybe 30k more, tops.

[EDIT]

Quote:
How can you blame racism when your fun fact clearly demonstrates it to be not true?


Oh I see, I assumed you weren't just trolling. My mistake.

Edited, May 10th 2011 12:16pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#55 May 10 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Top ten nations ranked by reading scores:
 
1 	Korea 	        556  Public system with private schools available, all students often take extensive tutoring 
2 	Finland 	547  Public, state funded system; few private schools 
3 	Canada 	 	527  Public system, some 8% of students in private schools 
4 	New Zealand 	521  Public system, 4% in private schools 
5 	Ireland 	517  Largely state financed Catholic schools administered by local dioceses & governments  
6 	Australia 	513  Public system, 33% in private schools (20% Catholic, 13% Secular/Other) 
7 	Poland  	508  Public system with private schools 
8 	Sweden 	        507  Public system with few private schools 
9 	Netherlands 	507  Public system with few private schools 
10 	Belgium 	501  Public system with Catholic Church involvement


Public education in Detroit apparently sucks. Public education as a general system delivers some of the best educated people in the world.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 May 10 2011 at 10:48 AM Rating: Good
******
44,522 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
Brigadier General: $97,476
I think you're reading the chart wrong.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#57 May 10 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
According to these folks, the starting salary for an O-7 grade is $82,476 and the high end is $97,476. Still over $30k above the median teacher salary on the lowest O-7 end.

Edited, May 10th 2011 11:55am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 May 10 2011 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Army wages.

Brigadier Generals with less than 2 years of active duty (is that even possible?) receive $6873 a month for a total of $82476 a year.

Because I'm assuming you don't make BG with only 2 years of active service...

Over 2 = 7192 for 86304
Over 3 = 7340 for 88080
Over 4 = 7457 for 89484
Over 6 = 7670 for 92040

I'd hold that the last one is the best for comparison with a teaching job, since it is the starting salary for someone who has had the same number of years in the army as those in schooling.

Of course, there's better and worse factors. On the one hand, you are more likely to die or face serious debilitating injuries (kinda a much worse factor). On the other hand, you also make money while working your way up where the teacher has to pay. Granted, the lower ranks have terrible pay...

[EDIT]

DAMMIT JOPH, POST SLOWER!

Edited, May 10th 2011 12:58pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#59 May 10 2011 at 11:08 AM Rating: Good
******
44,522 posts
Yeah ... you guys are reading the chart wrong. You can't be an O7 with 2 years or less. Don't think you can with 10 years or less, either.

Don't blame you, the chart is stupidly formated.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#60 May 10 2011 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'll happily accept that you can't be an O-7 with under two years. Which would only push the wages higher so I'm not seeing a whole lot of conflict with the main point (teachers don't earn an average comparable to that of BGs).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 May 10 2011 at 11:36 AM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
I don't know if they still do it, but they have those TiS pay scales for civilian military appointments. Like if they needed to bring in someone with a specific expertise into the military for whatever reason. Most likely for high level federal employees. So it is possible, but rare.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#62 May 10 2011 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Lolgaxe, what can a skilled officer expect to be in 6 years?

I know doing ROTC will make you a second lt. in 4 years, which would mean you enter the army after 4 years for a yearly wage of 28k a year (so, assuming no promotions, you'd be at 30k a year).

What would a normal recruit expect to be after 4 years?

How about after 6 for both?

And I'm somewhat confused. Isn't Warrant Officer a lesser rank than 2nd lt? If so... why do they have a higher salary?

The army is confusing. >.<
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#63 May 10 2011 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'll happily accept that you can't be an O-7 with under two years. Which would only push the wages higher so I'm not seeing a whole lot of conflict with the main point (teachers don't earn an average comparable to that of BGs).
Oh, no I certainly agree on that topic. I was laughing my nuts off last night when the claim was being made. I was wondering if the same mistake was being made (reading the 2 year or less section) the other night, as I really don't know what an average teacher makes. I was pretty sure it wasn't a hundred grand a year.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#64 May 10 2011 at 11:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
idiggory wrote:
Lolgaxe, what can a skilled officer expect to be in 6 years?
Skill has nothing little to do with it. If you're fast tracked through it and are really high speed, the highest you'll be is an O4. That's with the minimum time in grade, and assumes the position is available to you, and how much your command likes you/doesn't care. So really, depending on your higher command and your ability, you can be anything between O2 and 03 in 4 years, O4 in six years. I'll be honest, rank is a lot more political than ability.
idiggory wrote:
Isn't Warrant Officer a lesser rank than 2nd lt? If so... why do they have a higher salary?
I'm not sure how the ranking works there, truth be told, but the salary is higher because (again, as far as I understand it) is because Warrant Officers are specialized experts in fields, where as regular officers are kind of generic.
idiggory wrote:
The army is confusing. >.<
Ten years and I barely understand this crap.

Edited, May 10th 2011 1:56pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#65 May 10 2011 at 12:03 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
I'll be honest, rank is a lot more political than ability.


/sigh. Go figure--it's one of the places where a meritocracy would be so incredibly beneficial.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#66gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I knew folks would make hay out of the whole brigadier general bit. I was stretching to make a point. I added in the "starting pay" bit because I did just take the first column (didn't notice it was just 2 years though, which makes their chart kinda silly).
#67 May 10 2011 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
gbaji wrote:
I was stretching to make a point.
Your remark was not intended to be a factual statement.

Edited, May 10th 2011 3:04pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 May 10 2011 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
I knew folks would make hay out of the whole brigadier general bit. I was stretching to make a point. I added in the "starting pay" bit because I did just take the first column


...so you looked at the first column, saw that the wage for teachers (and not the starting wage) was 30k less and then claimed that they had starting wages that were only slightly less?

Glad to see you admit how your arguments work.

Quote:
The reality is that public school teachers are paid very well even before considering their benefits and pension. When you add those in, they are paid ridiculously well.


They are paid well, not ridiculously well. Which, considering the importance of the job and the amount of schooling required (which will grant them a degree that is only useful for one, specific job), is appropriate. Yes, they get pensions, but they get them by paying for them their whole careers. And their benefits are no different than any other gov't job, and plenty of private sector employees have equal ones. And if we ever manage to work out health care, teachers won't have any additional benefits.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#69 May 10 2011 at 1:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I was stretching to make a point.
Your remark was not intended to be a factual statement.


It was intended to be at the top end of what I was talking about. Kinda depends on how much "slightly less" is. I'm operating on an assumption of median pay for teachers that's more in the 65-70k range (which I actually believe is more accurate than the 45-50k "estimated salary" median figure quoted). It's not too much of a stretch to say that $70k is "slightly less" than $80k, is it?

The more relevant point is that teachers make far far more on average than cocktail waitresses.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 May 10 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Good
******
44,522 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not too much of a stretch to say that $70k is "slightly less" than $80k, is it?
Not when you say it that way, but when you consider the drastic inaccuracy of the original $80k figure, then it becomes a much wider stretch.

Just to note, because it bothered me a bit and I didn't say anything, the charts Joph and idig linked are, for some reason, wrong. Here is the current pay scale chart. So really, what you said was $70k is "slightly less" than $110k. And note, that's me being slightly wrong. It takes a minimum of 9 years just to get O6, I'm just not sure if its another 3 years minimum TIG before O7 is available or not.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#71 May 10 2011 at 1:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
I knew folks would make hay out of the whole brigadier general bit. I was stretching to make a point. I added in the "starting pay" bit because I did just take the first column


...so you looked at the first column, saw that the wage for teachers (and not the starting wage) was 30k less and then claimed that they had starting wages that were only slightly less?


No. I said (quite clearly) that the median wage for public school teachers was slightly less than the starting pay of senior engineers, middle managers, and brigadier generals. Which is more or less correct. Actually, it's about equal to the starting pay for the first two groups, and a 10-15k less than the BG starting pay (I honestly didn't see that the chart started at 2 years, so whatever).

The point was to show that teacher pay is more comparable to those professions than to that of a cocktail waitress. Surely you agree that this is true?


Quote:
Quote:
The reality is that public school teachers are paid very well even before considering their benefits and pension. When you add those in, they are paid ridiculously well.


They are paid well, not ridiculously well.


When you add in the benefits and pension? Yes, they are. I don't think you comprehend just how ridiculously good those pensions are. To put this in perspective, I put 20% of my income into investments. I've also been very very lucky and they've done very well (up until recently, but that'll correct). When I retire I will still be lucky to match the retirement income that a public school teacher will make just for having worked there. Pensions for teachers with 20+ years in are pegged at 98% of the income they were making when they retired (and they actually go up from there IIRC). This is based on STIRs here in California. Other states may vary of course.

The point is that a teacher doesn't have to put nearly as much into their retirement as other professions do to earn what amounts to a gold plated retirement. And they also don't pay nearly as much for their benefits compared to other professions. It's pretty unfair to even start a discussion about teacher pay without including those factors.


Quote:
Which, considering the importance of the job and the amount of schooling required (which will grant them a degree that is only useful for one, specific job), is appropriate. Yes, they get pensions, but they get them by paying for them their whole careers. And their benefits are no different than any other gov't job, and plenty of private sector employees have equal ones. And if we ever manage to work out health care, teachers won't have any additional benefits.


Except that since private sector employees are paid out of the profits of their employers, their benefits packages are calculated into the equation. Yes, they don't count when we compare pay scales, but they are factored in when considering the value someone's labor provides compared to what you can afford to pay them. Teachers, since they are paid by the government, don't really have this consideration. Another way to look at it is that the board of directors for a corporation absolutely looks at total cost of compensation (including benefits and matching 401k programs) when making labor decisions (hiring, firing, pay scales, etc). So it's kinda stupid for the public not to also be aware of the cost of those things when paying for public employees (like teachers). Businesses calculate the value of the labor compared to the total cost, and we should do the same for those paid by the taxpayer.


It's just strange to me that so many people willingly choose to be deceptive about this. I know a **** of a lot of teachers. I'm aware of how much they earn. It's not the pittance that most people think.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#72 May 10 2011 at 1:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's not too much of a stretch to say that $70k is "slightly less" than $80k, is it?
Not when you say it that way, but when you consider the drastic inaccuracy of the original $80k figure, then it becomes a much wider stretch.

Just to note, because it bothered me a bit and I didn't say anything, the charts Joph and idig linked are, for some reason, wrong. Here is the current pay scale chart. So really, what you said was $70k is "slightly less" than $110k. And note, that's me being slightly wrong. It takes a minimum of 9 years just to get O6, I'm just not sure if its another 3 years minimum TIG before O7 is available or not.


Yes. Great. I've admitted that I didn't notice how many years the chart started at. Congratulations. Take BG off the list and replace it with some other officer level if you want. The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to compare teachers pay to a cocktail waitress as though somehow that makes our children unsafe because we're putting them in the hand of some low paid unskilled person.


Don't you agree? Stop missing the forest for the trees here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#73 May 10 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
gbaji wrote:
The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to compare teachers pay to a cocktail waitress as though somehow that makes our children unsafe because we're putting them in the hand of some low paid unskilled person.
I agree its ridiculous to compare a teacher's salary to a cocktail waitress, but your comparison was at least equally ridiculous. Really can't argue something is ridiculous by using a ridiculous counter point. At least not if you want to be taken seriously.

To note, I'd say closer to maybe somewhere between First Lieutenant and Major. There's a lot of variables when it comes to military rank and pay. Lucky we're only taking base pay into account. Head would explode if we added things like BAH.

Edited, May 10th 2011 3:35pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 May 10 2011 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
How can you blame racism when your fun fact clearly demonstrates it to be not true?


Oh I see, I assumed you weren't just trolling. My mistake.

It's not trolling, you f'ucking dolt. The very next line was "there are only 3 white families in Detroit". It was satire.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#75 May 10 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm operating on an assumption
You should really preface every argument you have with this, Mr. Expert.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#76 May 10 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to compare teachers pay to a cocktail waitress as though somehow that makes our children unsafe because we're putting them in the hand of some low paid unskilled person.
I agree its ridiculous to compare a teacher's salary to a cocktail waitress, but your comparison was at least equally ridiculous. Really can't argue something is ridiculous by using a ridiculous counter point. At least not if you want to be taken seriously.


I provided three professions. One of them is out of the range because I misread a chart. Don't get too caught up on the details.

Quote:
To note, I'd say closer to maybe somewhere between First Lieutenant and Major. There's a lot of variables when it comes to military rank and pay. Lucky we're only taking base pay into account. Head would explode if we added things like BAH.


And you'd presumably trust folks in that rank range more than a random cocktail waitress, right? Isn't that the point here? Replace "brigadier general" with "an experienced officer in the military" if that makes you happier. Don't miss the forest for the treed. My point wasn't about any specific rank. It was about the comparison to other careers.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 May 10 2011 at 1:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm operating on an assumption
You should really preface every argument you have with this, Mr. Expert.


Sure. But my assumption is far more correct than the one I was responding to, isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 May 10 2011 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Don't get too caught up on the details.

"Not intended to be a factual statement."

Maybe you should get caught up on details when you write your crap and then perhaps you wouldn't make so many completely stupid "mistakes".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 May 10 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Maybe you should get caught up on details when you write your crap and then perhaps you wouldn't make so many completely stupid "mistakes".

That level of attention to detail would decrease the amount of content on the internet by an order of magnitude, if not more.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#80 May 10 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
gbaji wrote:
And you'd presumably trust folks in that rank range more than a random cocktail waitress, right?
Not really, no.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 May 10 2011 at 2:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,382 posts
Kaelesh wrote:

That so? Double the median eh? In Iowa (9th in the nation in education), which is where both Guenny and I reside, the starting salary is $27,284.00 which isn't enough to cover a 1 bedroom apartment and their student loans. After ten years, it's $41,083. The average median income from 2008 in this county? $52,029 A far @#%^ing cry from double the salary you claim.

Senior Engineer: $73,741

Brigadier General: $97,476

The median salary of waitresses in 2009? $20,380, without tips. So roughly around 25-27.



Thank you. And did the waitress have to invest 80k+ of their own money (not including the interest on those loans, either) to get that job? No.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#82 May 10 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Don't get too caught up on the details.

"Not intended to be a factual statement."

Maybe you should get caught up on details when you write your crap and then perhaps you wouldn't make so many completely stupid "mistakes".


The level of detail you're demanding doesn't change the validity of my argument at all though. Teacher pay is more in line with what we associate with skilled professionals regularly placed in a position of trust than with that of a cocktail waitress. Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#83 May 10 2011 at 2:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Kaelesh wrote:

That so? Double the median eh? In Iowa (9th in the nation in education), which is where both Guenny and I reside, the starting salary is $27,284.00 which isn't enough to cover a 1 bedroom apartment and their student loans. After ten years, it's $41,083. The average median income from 2008 in this county? $52,029 A far @#%^ing cry from double the salary you claim.

Senior Engineer: $73,741

Brigadier General: $97,476

The median salary of waitresses in 2009? $20,380, without tips. So roughly around 25-27.



Thank you. And did the waitress have to invest 80k+ of their own money (not including the interest on those loans, either) to get that job? No.


So the teacher has more in common with an engineer, business manager, or military officer than with a waitress? Congratulations! You've arrived at the point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#84 May 10 2011 at 2:29 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
It was intended to be at the top end of what I was talking about. Kinda depends on how much "slightly less" is. I'm operating on an assumption of median pay for teachers that's more in the 65-70k range (which I actually believe is more accurate than the 45-50k "estimated salary" median figure quoted). It's not too much of a stretch to say that $70k is "slightly less" than $80k, is it?

The more relevant point is that teachers make far far more on average than cocktail waitresses.


Okay, let's start with the fact that your argument sucks by default. If you use a median figure that's vastly above the actual median figure, you've already destabilized the entire following argument that's based on it. Yeah, you might have managed to have a point in a possible world where the median teacher earned 70k a year. Unfortunately, in the actual world, you were 20k too high. According to the bureau of labor, the median teacher salaries in the US range from 43-51k. And that means half of teachers make less than that.

Here's a good note for the future. If you want to do yourself a favor when making an argument, formulate any assumptions so that they work to your disadvantage. That way, if they prove too extreme, it only works in your favor. Of course, if it just proves flat out wrong (as many of yours often are), your argument will crumble anyway.

And you still haven't proven that teachers make more than cocktail waitresses. You've proven that at least half of teachers do. Those are different things. And if we are considering starting wages, you need to consider the lower boundaries of wages.

That said, I agree they don't make the wages of cocktail waitresses. That was the POINT of the original statement made--that teachers shouldn't be making that wage, so it is good that they aren't.

Quote:
When you add in the benefits and pension? Yes, they are. I don't think you comprehend just how ridiculously good those pensions are. To put this in perspective, I put 20% of my income into investments. I've also been very very lucky and they've done very well (up until recently, but that'll correct). When I retire I will still be lucky to match the retirement income that a public school teacher will make just for having worked there. Pensions for teachers with 20+ years in are pegged at 98% of the income they were making when they retired (and they actually go up from there IIRC). This is based on STIRs here in California. Other states may vary of course.

The point is that a teacher doesn't have to put nearly as much into their retirement as other professions do to earn what amounts to a gold plated retirement. And they also don't pay nearly as much for their benefits compared to other professions. It's pretty unfair to even start a discussion about teacher pay without including those factors.


The point you just made says NOTHING about how much they have to put into pensions.

And no, teachers aren't poor. But they make a solid lower-mid middle class wage. And that seems appropriate to me--why would anyone with a good brain decide to become a teacher if it guaranteed they'd be lower class?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#85 May 10 2011 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
So the teacher has more in common with an engineer, business manager, or military officer than with a waitress? Congratulations! You've arrived at the point.


That's possibly the worst argument/point I've seen in months.

[EDIT]

Quote:
Sure. But my assumption is far more correct than the one I was responding to, isn't it?


And again, the comment was "Who would want to leave their kids with someone who makes less than a cocktail waitress." It was a hypothetical wondering why people always want to lower teacher wages down to lower-class levels. IT WASN'T MAKING THE CLAIM THAT THEY ARE LOWER CLASS LEVELS.

Edited, May 10th 2011 4:34pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#86 May 10 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
idiggory wrote:
Quote:
So the teacher has more in common with an engineer, business manager, or military officer than with a waitress? Congratulations! You've arrived at the point.


That's possibly the worst argument/point I've seen in months.
Only if you're arguing against raising teachers wages. Its a good starting point as to why they should be higher though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#87 May 10 2011 at 2:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Teacher pay is more in line with what we associate with skilled professionals regularly placed in a position of trust than with that of a cocktail waitress. Right?

Teacher pay is a little below the national median. I already noted earlier that comparing it to ~$25k jobs wasn't an accurate starting point. That said, your claims that they make twice the national median were equally absurd. The jobs you inaccurately cited as comparable to teacher salaries were just icing on the silly-cake.

If your point was that you could make as poor a comparison as "cocktail waitress", mission accomplished.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 May 10 2011 at 3:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
idiggory wrote:
Okay, let's start with the fact that your argument sucks by default. If you use a median figure that's vastly above the actual median figure, you've already destabilized the entire following argument that's based on it. Yeah, you might have managed to have a point in a possible world where the median teacher earned 70k a year. Unfortunately, in the actual world, you were 20k too high. According to the bureau of labor, the median teacher salaries in the US range from 43-51k. And that means half of teachers make less than that.


I already addressed that statistic and showed why that's misleading. Even the source you cited contains the same information I provided:

Quote:
Teachers can boost their earnings in a number of ways. In some schools, teachers receive extra pay for coaching sports and working with students in extracurricular activities. Getting a master's degree or national certification often results in a raise in pay, as does acting as a mentor. Some teachers earn extra income during the summer by teaching summer school or performing other jobs in the school system.


The point I made earlier, but which you've chosen to ignore is that the median salary figure of 43-51k you're quoting is "base expected salary". What that means is that they are calculating based on what the pay scale ladders indicate is the median and not what they are actually paid. If that was what they were actually paid over the year, there would be no need to mention that their pay can be increased if they get a higher degree or teach summer school, or do extracurricular activities. Those things are in addition to the base pay calculation used to establish the median pay scale.

Get it? That median is based on what a teacher with a bachelors degree working the standard 4-units-out-of-6 schedule, with no extracurricular work or summer work. But most teachers go on to get a masters, and most teacher work at least one extra unit, and most teachers involve themselves in at least one extracurricular activity. So the base median calculation is not an accurate assessment of what teachers are actually paid. A friend of mine this year will be working 6 units (which is an admittedly hellish schedule), advises the robotics team, teaches an adult class in the summer and does the district ROP catalog, and he's got a masters degree. He makes far far more than 51k. He makes more than 70k. He makes somewhere just over 100k. As a public high school teacher.

And while this year is a bit more work than usual, he normally just has one fewer units on his schedule. So he's usually making something in the 90k range. His sister works at a middle school, and makes somewhere in the 80k range. His mother and father are both retired teachers. His father in law is a district manager and lives in a million dollar home. Both my sisters in law are teachers (grade and middle school). I've spoken to all of them. Every single one will say that the claims that public teachers are underpaid are inflated. Sure. They like getting the pay, and the benefits, and to be fair the hours can be tough. But none of them think they are actually underpaid.


Talk to teachers and the big things they really are ****** off at (when they're not supporting their unions by holding signs saying they're underpaid) is the bureaucracy which doesn't allow them to teach freely, parents who don't involve themselves in their kids education and push it all on them, and a school system that often backs up the parents instead of the teachers. None of them are that upset about pay. It's just that pay is what makes the unions work, so pay is what they march over. The other stuff can't be fixed by marching in a rally, so the public doesn't see them as often.

Quote:
Here's a good note for the future. If you want to do yourself a favor when making an argument, formulate any assumptions so that they work to your disadvantage. That way, if they prove too extreme, it only works in your favor. Of course, if it just proves flat out wrong (as many of yours often are), your argument will crumble anyway.


I'm basing my assumption on how I know teacher pay actually works. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Quote:
And you still haven't proven that teachers make more than cocktail waitresses.


Of course I have. Your own source says that teacher pay starts at $33,227. I don't think it's a stretch to say that very very few cocktail waitresses make that much. You can't be serious about this. Teachers *do* make pay in the range I mentioned. They *don't* make pay equivalent to that which cocktail waitresses make.

Quote:
You've proven that at least half of teachers do. Those are different things. And if we are considering starting wages, you need to consider the lower boundaries of wages.


And you should actually read the sources you cite before making a fool out of yourself. While I'm sure some very highly paid waitresses might make the kind of pay the entry level teacher makes, is that really the argument you want to support here?

Quote:
That said, I agree they don't make the wages of cocktail waitresses. That was the POINT of the original statement made--that teachers shouldn't be making that wage, so it is good that they aren't.


Sure. So no problem, right? Except that my point is that teacher make wages similar to that made by other people in similarly demanding professions. So why do we constantly hear that teachers are underpaid?

Quote:
The point you just made says NOTHING about how much they have to put into pensions.


They don't put 20% of their earnings in. I don't happen to know the exact figure, but I think it's more like 5%.

Quote:
And no, teachers aren't poor. But they make a solid lower-mid middle class wage. And that seems appropriate to me--why would anyone with a good brain decide to become a teacher if it guaranteed they'd be lower class?


They make solid middle class wages if they don't expend anything more than the minimum effort. If they put in the kinds of hours most professionals in the middle class make, they earn more. It really isn't hard at all for a teacher to earn 70-80k. Once they've been in the field for 8-10 years, and take on any extra work, their pay will be in that range. There aren't a whole lot of professions where you're pretty much guaranteed to be earning that much pay that quickly after graduating from college. And that's the next point. It's guaranteed. Work X years, you get Y base pay. The only variables are how much extra work you can pull in.




I'll do you a favor though (and since you asked for assumptions which weaken my argument). So here's a bone for you: The better argument against teacher pensions isn't how much they pay into them, or how much they earn. You lose on that one. The winning argument is that the average lifespan for a teacher after retirement is something like 7 years. Teachers have a habit of working until they can't work anymore, then tend to die shortly after that. So while the pension is great, they don't get to take advantage of it for that long. Their spouses, on the other hand...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 May 10 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
A friend of mine this year will be working 6 units (which is an admittedly hellish schedule), advises the robotics team, teaches an adult class in the summer and does the district ROP catalog, and he's got a masters degree. He makes far far more than 51k. He makes more than 70k. He makes somewhere just over 100k. As a public high school teacher.

So he's effectively working 1.5 jobs and making more money? Wow! Hey, I heard that if I work 1.5 jobs, I'll make more money than if I work one job, too!

The $100k figure is meaningless since we're talking national averages. Presumably the San Diego school district pays more than that of Pimpledip, Ohio.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 May 10 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,522 posts
If that cocktail waitress works more, they makes more money too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#91 May 10 2011 at 3:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The jobs you inaccurately cited as comparable to teacher salaries were just icing on the silly-cake.


Really? According to the BLS site the bottom 10% of teachers earned 30-34k and the top earned 75-80k. The same site lists the bottom 10% of engineers earning 43-59k, with the top (excluding a couple outliers) earning 110-130k. Again though, that's using base pay calculations for teachers, which is not a completely accurate account of their actual earnings.

It's certainly within a pretty similar range. We could compare to other professional careers if you'd like, but I think we'll find that teachers stack up pretty darn well.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#92 May 10 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Really? According to the BLS site the bottom 10% of teachers earned 30-34k and the top earned 75-80k. The same site lists the bottom 10% of engineers earning 43-59k

So we're assuming that "senior engineers" are the bottom 10% of wage earners under the "engineers" heading?

Huh. Interesting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 May 10 2011 at 3:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A friend of mine this year will be working 6 units (which is an admittedly hellish schedule), advises the robotics team, teaches an adult class in the summer and does the district ROP catalog, and he's got a masters degree. He makes far far more than 51k. He makes more than 70k. He makes somewhere just over 100k. As a public high school teacher.

So he's effectively working 1.5 jobs and making more money? Wow! Hey, I heard that if I work 1.5 jobs, I'll make more money than if I work one job, too!


Except that the engineer's pay assumes he's working full time all year round. There's no time for a second job (even half a second job). As I've illustrated in several threads in the past, the base pay for teachers essentially assumes they're working about half the amount of time a normal full time salaried worker would work. They have time to teach a summer course, and to take on an extra unit or two during the normal school year, and to do an extracurricular activity. And most teachers do at least some of that all the time.

Quote:
The $100k figure is meaningless since we're talking national averages. Presumably the San Diego school district pays more than that of Pimpledip, Ohio.


And the cost of living in Pimpledip is probably significantly lower as well. What's your point? I'm comparing my salary as a staff engineer to a public high school teacher, both working and living in the same county. And guess what? He makes about the same amount as I do, even though my "base pay" is about 30% higher than his. And he doesn't have to pay 20% off that base pay in order to ensure a secure retirement.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 May 10 2011 at 3:41 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Really? According to the BLS site the bottom 10% of teachers earned 30-34k and the top earned 75-80k. The same site lists the bottom 10% of engineers earning 43-59k

So we're assuming that "senior engineers" are the bottom 10% of wage earners under the "engineers" heading?


Are we assuming that the median teacher pay is equal to that made by the lowest 10%?

Quote:
Huh. Interesting.


No. Not really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 May 10 2011 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
I was stretching to make a point.
Hey, weren't you the one crying about liberals exaggerating teacher salaries?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#96 May 10 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Except that the engineer's pay assumes he's working full time all year round. There's no time for a second job (even half a second job). As I've illustrated in several threads in the past, the base pay for teachers essentially assumes they're working about half the amount of time a normal full time salaried worker would work. They have time to teach a summer course, and to take on an extra unit or two during the normal school year, and to do an extracurricular activity. And most teachers do at least some of that all the time.


About half a normal salaried worker? You REALLY live in your own ******* world, don't you?

Teachers will be at work at least 7 hours a day for about 44 weeks a year. Fine. That's not even remotely "half," but it is less time spent at work. Assume a difference of 8 weeks, factoring in the vacation time of a normal salaried job. That's 1540 hours a year for a teacher and 2080 a year for an engineer. This assumes the teacher isn't picking up any extra duties at the school (and will, as a result, be making less money).

But the engineer isn't expected to do any of his work at home. Or, at least, he is expected to complete all of his tasks during the work day--it's his fault if he doesn't (and he has legal recourse if they are expecting him to work from home without pay).

The teacher, on the other hand, is expected to work outside school. Quite a bit actually. The average class is probably 30+ students now, and most teachers in the most traditional school types (7 or 8 class blocks) have a prep period, lunch or hall duty, and 6 class periods. That's 180 students a day. If the teacher assigns homework every day, and actually checks it for content, they are looking at a good hour of additional work every school day, at least (and it depends on how demanding the homework is).

They're also, realistically, going to need to be available after school at least 1 day a week (and will not be paid for it) in order to aid student performance.

They are also expected to have 2 or 3 lessons planned for every school day, and those take a while to structure. They need to prepare their visual materials, organize lectures, and design student activities. That's probably at least another hour a day.

So, really, we are looking at 9 hour work days (at least) for a teacher who doesn't do extra curriculars, for 44 weeks a year. That's 1980. And I'd be willing to bet the additional, less regular work (like reading/grading papers, tests, projects, etc. on top of the additional need to stay after school to help students or proctor make up exams) easily matches (or out-paces) a normal 9-5 job's work day.

Yes, they have the option of working a seasonal job on top of that. But there's absolutely nothing stopping an engineer from having a part-time job as well. The fact that one works 10 months out of the year is an irrelevant fact when you consider the fact they are actually expected to work 9-10 hour shifts every day (even if only 7 of those hours is on the clock).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#97 May 10 2011 at 4:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And the cost of living in Pimpledip is probably significantly lower as well. What's your point?

That your friend's 100k is in no way indicative of a national average or of anything at all besides what your friend supposedly makes. I thought that was obvious.

gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So we're assuming that "senior engineers" are the bottom 10% of wage earners under the "engineers" heading?

Are we assuming that the median teacher pay is equal to that made by the lowest 10%?

Given that median teacher pay is ~50k, it would seem so, huh?

Quote:
No. Not really.

True. You getting basic facts wrong and making up additional shit to cover for your errors isn't exactly anything new. I'll give you that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 May 10 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
So we're assuming that "senior engineers" are the bottom 10% of wage earners under the "engineers" heading?
Are we assuming that the median teacher pay is equal to that made by the lowest 10%?
Given that median teacher pay is ~50k, it would seem so, huh?
Apparently, math is hard for those who dislike teachers. I'm shocked.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#99gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 5:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's hugely relevant because they can fit another course in the consecutive time they are not working their normal hours. And that extra job pays them 12.5% of their base salary. You can't be serious about that claim.
#100gbaji, Posted: May 10 2011 at 5:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Er? Equal to the lowest 10% earned by teachers Joph. The bottom 10% earn 30-34k. Which is not the same as the median. Try to follow the comparison. Senior engineers are not in the bottom 10% of engineers, and the median pay for teachers is not in the bottom 10% of pay for teachers. I'm comparing apples to apples. You're not. Get it?
#101 May 10 2011 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The upshot is that the true median salary for teachers doesn't fit Gbaji's narrative and so he has to create subjective measures by which teachers really are making a lot more. This relies on a whole lot of anecdotal "evidence" about this guy who only works X hours or this other guy who works X hours +Y unpaid hours or whatever. It's ultimately subject to whatever bias you're trying to add to it dependent on your stance.

The fact of the matter is that, if you're working as a teacher, your base median salary is in the neighborhood of $50k, a few thousand under the national average. It is not the same as that of a "senior engineer" or "brigadier general" or "starship captain" or whatever else. It's is also higher than that of "cocktail waitress" or "fry cook" or "hobo". What it absolutely is not is double that of the national average.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 63 All times are in CST
Demea, Kuwoobie, Samira, Timelordwho, Yodabunny, Anonymous Guests (58)