|
Used to call me fatso, now they call me Castro (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
So they get over 60k in benefits per year? Lets see that data.
I also had benefits, a 401k, full health + eye + dental. I do not think that amounted to 60k a year more. Explain these other magical benefits that teachers get. |
Last response to your stupid ass:
| quote: | The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.
The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools. When I showed these figures to a friend, she asked me a simple question: "How can fringe benefits be nearly as much as salary?" The answers can be found by unpacking the numbers in the district's budget for this fiscal year: |
rest of article breaking it down further if you actually want to read facts:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...0717724956.html
In Milwaukee the average private sector worker makes only $53,724 annually in compensation. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
:stongue: i knew when i saw the explosion of posts that kev & nou were at it again.
you two are the reason the US can't have nice things. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Most of their benefits come from the systems pay-as-you-go pension system. That is hardly fair to label those as tangible benefits since they personally retain none of that money, and they (them and the district) are helping to fund the pensioners currently on it right now.
I would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't have an agenda like the author of that article clearly does, who would count pensions in a calculation of income, income that is used as part of their living expenses, especially when that pension is partly funded by the teachers themselves.
The truth of the matter is that teachers are very poorly funded. It is almost impossible for a teacher who does not come from a wealthy family or who has a wealthy partner to teach in a public school and make a living wage that will support an average family in this country. The cost of education for a good teacher is so incredibly high that it is prohibitive to go into the profession in the public sector, even if that teacher only attended state university. Many districts have had to lower there acceptance standards for teachers.
Teachers, along with public safety personnel are the most important assets of a society. They should not be marginalized like they are now. They should be hoisted up on the shoulders of the wealthy and society as a whole because their task is extremely essential. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
:stongue: i knew when i saw the explosion of posts that kev & nou were at it again.
you two are the reason the US can't have nice things. |
Exactly!
I am not saying I am any better, but at least I know I am part of the problem (and being an American, unwilling to do anything to fix it). |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Most of their benefits come from the systems pay-as-you-go pension system. That is hardly fair to label those as tangible benefits since they personally retain none of that money, and they (them and the district) are helping to fund the pensioners currently on it right now. |
Why is that unfair? They are tangible benefits because the school district pays the entire premium for them.
| quote: | | I would be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't have an agenda like the author of that article clearly does, who would count pensions in a calculation of income, income that is used as part of their living expenses, especially when that pension is partly funded by the teachers themselves. |
Agenda? He was reporting factual data on salary + benefit packages. Uh, sorry but pensions are income. And you're right, it is partly funded by the teachers... a whopping 6% of their healthcare costs compared to 20% for the private sector. But it gets better. If you read the article, which I can tell you didn't, you wouldn't be yapping because of this fact:
| quote: | •State Pension. Teachers belong to the Wisconsin state pension plan. That plan requires a 6.8% employer contribution and 6.2% from the employee. However, according to the collective-bargaining agreement in place since 1996, the district pays the employees' share as well, for a total of 13%.
•Teachers' Supplemental Pension. In addition to the state pension, Milwaukee public-school teachers receive an additional pension under a 1982 collective-bargaining agreement. The district contributes an additional 4.2% of teacher salaries to cover this second pension. Teachers contribute nothing.
•Classified Pension. Most other school employees belong to the city's pension system instead of the state plan. The city plan is less expensive but here, too, according to the collective-bargaining agreement, the district pays the employees' 5.5% share.
Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents. |
Facts are facts.
| quote: | | The truth of the matter is that teachers are very poorly funded. It is almost impossible for a teacher who does not come from a wealthy family or who has a wealthy partner to teach in a public school and make a living wage that will support an average family in this country. The cost of education for a good teacher is so incredibly high that it is prohibitive to go into the profession in the public sector, even if that teacher only attended state university. Many districts have had to lower there acceptance standards for teachers. |
What the are you talking about? Using the Wisconsin example, where they have a salary + benefit package of $100,005 for 2011, for working 180 days out of the year with summers and every holiday off, the "truth of the matter" is they are poorly funded? You are delirious man, you're not making sense.
Are you aware that teachers in California can retire and make $4256.00 per month for the rest of their lives (not including benefits)? That $51,000 salary is more than active working teachers in 28 states. And you're telling me teachers can barely eek by? What's wrong with you.
| quote: | | Teachers, along with public safety personnel are the most important assets of a society. They should not be marginalized like they are now. They should be hoisted up on the shoulders of the wealthy and society as a whole because their task is extremely essential. |
Wrong. Teachers used to be extremely important. Now the majority are nothing more than a marginally intelligent collective who are more likely to go into teaching because it's an easy way to get an overly high paying job for their talent/abilities where it's virtually impossible to get fired. Could these people who are making what they're making earn that money in the private sector on their own? No. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Last response to your stupid ass:
|
Just sayin'. :p |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Duck season!
Rabbit season! |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
How do the rich get rich in this country? The weak consume their products. How will they have any consumers when they bankrupt this society? |
1. Get a load of poor people
2. Poor people spend more money than rich people
3. More products get bought
4. Everyone makes more money
5. Forfeit all profit so more poor people can stop working
6. Repeat
Infinite economic growth!
Problem, Kevin? |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Usually people with nice(r) lifestyles from more wealthy countries are the ones making those statements about the beauty of simplicity of the (insert country) people. And not a 1 would actually change places with those Cuban peoples' situations... because they could if they wanted to, unlike those in the crappy conditions who can't escape their predicament. |
true, i wouldn't move to america either. I tried, hated it, wanted to come back to a good country.
:p |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| You moved to Florida though. ing Apopka. If The US' armpit had an armpit, you moved there. :p |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
I also spent a few months in Delaware training people for a huge warehouse they were building there. All they had to learn was how to scan a bar code and to enter a sku number. Needless to say most of the people who showed up quit when they realized that they had to actually do something and went back on food stamps.
I'd give a cuban the same scanner, not only would he do the job of 10 americans with a big eating grin and happy demeanor...but instead of complaining how he can't afford to go to Monte Carlo on government assistance (therefore negating the desire to work), he would probably float on the thing all the way to europe.
Macguyver was Cuban. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I blame the melanin. |
|
|
|
|
