Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#52 May 10 2011 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Under A Thumb...
*****
10,012 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
*****
10,246 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
******
20,020 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
******
49,896 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
******
20,020 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
******
49,896 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
******
20,020 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
******
49,896 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
******
49,896 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
******
20,020 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
******
49,896 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
******
20,020 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
******
35,010 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
******
49,896 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
******
35,010 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
******
35,010 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
******
49,896 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
*****
10,246 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
******
35,010 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
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (35)