thegreekdog wrote:I hope you're kidding Woodruff. All I hear about is how teachers are underpaid. Don't get me started on that whole thing.
Most GOOD high school teachers ARE underpaid (never mind the exceptional ones). Which is why I wasn't kidding. I really don't believe most folks give a crap about teachers nor do I believe any longer that most people even consider "teacher" to be an important occupation.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are PLENTY of exceptions to that last statement...those people who actually do think about things. But I'm NOT convinced that the majority of folks rest in that grouping.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
My brother and sister in law are teachers. You get more days off per year than any other profession. I have a ridiculously generous vacation package of five weeks, but it is not even close to theirs, granted you don't get to choose your days off, but you sure can plan around them. When you say you are underpaid, you might be, but surely this vacation is worth something.
thegreekdog wrote:I hope you're kidding Woodruff. All I hear about is how teachers are underpaid. Don't get me started on that whole thing.
Most high school teachers ARE underpaid. Which is why I wasn't kidding. I really don't believe most folks give a crap about teachers nor do I believe any longer that most people even consider "teacher" to be an important occupation.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are PLENTY of exceptions to that last statement...those people who actually do think about things. But I'm NOT convinced that the majority of folks rest in that grouping.
I know a whole lot of teachers. I know a whole lot of people who care about teachers. What I don't like, and what I will continue to rail against until something is done, are bad teachers that are rewarded for length of service rather than for performance. Further, I don't like the constant complaining by teachers about their salaries. I respect teachers; they can have a profound positive effect on their students. I think they should be compensated well; I think they need to relax with the constant barrage of complaints about salary. Complain about books, lack of facilities, and evilness of children, fine; but stop with the salary stuff. I don't want to get into an argument about this because I don't want to make it a personal thing (my experience with teachers complaining involves my friends and the local communities here in PA and NJ, so I don't know every teacher's situation).
People deserve to be paid what they are worth on the market. Nothing more, nothing less. A doctor is worth more than a bagger at a supermarket. It may suck, but it is what it is. If there were no taxes, companies would still pay less for certain employees than for others. That being typed, I do agree with what you've said before - that some people are overcompensated.
That being typed, I do not think anyone deserves to be paid to have a decent house. The other stuff (food, clothing, transportation, medical care) I do agree with. While there are many people who do not make enough to afford these things, charities do help with this (as does free college educations, job training, etc.). To the extent people cannot afford these things, the government does help... and we all know that companies and individuals pay taxes.
How would you determine what someone is "worth on the market"? According to a recent study I took a look at (I might be able to find it again) any teacher or nurse creates more GDP than a CEO of a bank or investment company.
I would define "worth on the market," as how much a company is willing to pay for that person's services. Apparently, some banks are willing to pay a salary to a CEO that is completely out of whack to his or her potential value to the bank.
So essentially the system you propose is fundamentally flawed since someone's "worth" is, for practical purposes, determined arbitrarily. Saying that people deserve to be paid what they're worth on the market, and then defining their worth on the market as what pay they can get is tautological. You say that A is B in the premise and then define B by referring to A. Following this reasoning the boss's kid could be worth more than someone with identical tasks who does a better job. Of course, you could introduce criteria that measure how productive someone is and adjust pay according to those critera (and then we're back to kindergarten teachers being more productive than CEOs). However, while it might still be fairly easy to determine the productivity (and thereby the "worth") of someone in manufacturing, things quickly get complicated. How do you determine the productivity of a professor of literature? The productivity of a philosopher? A social critic? A judge? A musician? Is Britney Spears really worth that much more than Pornophonique?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
rockfist wrote:My brother and sister in law are teachers. You get more days off per year than any other profession. I have a ridiculously generous vacation package of five weeks, but it is not even close to theirs, granted you don't get to choose your days off, but you sure can plan around them. When you say you are underpaid, you might be, but surely this vacation is worth something.
are you seriously this dumb
summer break is not a vacation for teachers, it's a lay-off period, one during which nearly all of them need to find a new job
Knock it off admin-type person. I don't know what tautological means! Is this another British word?
The boss's son may be paid more than a more productive employee. However, the boss is being a complete jackass if he pays the son more; especially considering that the more productive employee, seeing that the boss is stupid, will leave the company and be more productive elsewhere. Second, the boss's son will have no market value outside of his parent's company, which shows that, again, the boss is an idiot.
Third, while this may not be an ideal system, I believe it is the system in which we currently operate.
With respect to productivity, I don't believe we (and by we I mean humans) have valued productivity in the last 5000 years or so as an indicator of salary, generally speaking. Many things go into the whys of someone's salary other than productivity, which, in my humble opinion, can be best referenced by referring to the "market." For example, one of the reasons attorneys make a high salary is because, while I would argue most attorneys are counter-productive for an effective society, they go to extensive schooling and have to be adaptable to changing situations (among other things). As another example, one of the reasons that a assembly line worker at a car plant makes what he or she makes is because of representation by the union, which has nothing to do with productivity. So, I say "market" is the best indicator of what a person's labor is worth as it takes into account things other than productivity.
rockfist wrote:My brother and sister in law are teachers. You get more days off per year than any other profession. I have a ridiculously generous vacation package of five weeks, but it is not even close to theirs, granted you don't get to choose your days off, but you sure can plan around them. When you say you are underpaid, you might be, but surely this vacation is worth something.
You say "vacation", but the reality is that WHEN a teacher gets that time off, it is really UNPAID vacation. A teacher's 9-month salary is spread out over 12 months typically, so that they can have a consistent income (rather than being thoroughly without income over the summer). What isn't taken into account is that the good teachers work through the summer, as well, preparing lesson plans and taking courses (that they typically pay for out of pocket) that will make them better teachers, among other things.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
thegreekdog wrote:Knock it off admin-type person. I don't know what tautological means! Is this another British word?
I've mainly heard the term used in arguments about God. It basically is a way of saying that you said the same thing twice in a different way while trying to justify said thing.
thegreekdog wrote:Knock it off admin-type person. I don't know what tautological means! Is this another British word?
I've mainly heard the term used in arguments about God. It basically is a way of saying that you said the same thing twice in a different way while trying to justify said thing.
thegreekdog wrote:
I know a whole lot of teachers. I know a whole lot of people who care about teachers. What I don't like, and what I will continue to rail against until something is done, are bad teachers that are rewarded for length of service rather than for performance.
You will get no argument from me at all on that point. I'm right there with you on that.
thegreekdog wrote:
Further, I don't like the constant complaining by teachers about their salaries. I respect teachers; they can have a profound positive effect on their students. I think they should be compensated well; I think they need to relax with the constant barrage of complaints about salary. Complain about books, lack of facilities, and evilness of children, fine; but stop with the salary stuff.
So then in your view a good teacher has three choices:
1) Go on strike. (That'll get folks on their side)
2) Suck it up because nobody gives a shit (which I may have covered earlier, if I recall).
3) Quit a job they love because they can't afford to keep it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
thegreekdog wrote:I hope you're kidding Woodruff. All I hear about is how teachers are underpaid. Don't get me started on that whole thing.
Most high school teachers ARE underpaid. Which is why I wasn't kidding. I really don't believe most folks give a crap about teachers nor do I believe any longer that most people even consider "teacher" to be an important occupation.
Don't get me wrong, I know there are PLENTY of exceptions to that last statement...those people who actually do think about things. But I'm NOT convinced that the majority of folks rest in that grouping.
I know a whole lot of teachers. I know a whole lot of people who care about teachers. What I don't like, and what I will continue to rail against until something is done, are bad teachers that are rewarded for length of service rather than for performance. Further, I don't like the constant complaining by teachers about their salaries. I respect teachers; they can have a profound positive effect on their students. I think they should be compensated well; I think they need to relax with the constant barrage of complaints about salary. Complain about books, lack of facilities, and evilness of children, fine; but stop with the salary stuff. I don't want to get into an argument about this because I don't want to make it a personal thing (my experience with teachers complaining involves my friends and the local communities here in PA and NJ, so I don't know every teacher's situation).
Much like with social security, I don't believe that the fact there are people undeserving of an increase in pay means there should be no increase in pay. I'm happy with taking the bad with the good. There may be some people who abuse the welfare system but there are more than enough people for whom it really helps. There may be really bad teachers getting more money, but there are also good teachers who finally get the salary they deserve.
It would draw more people who don't want to teach into the profession.
I am a very much in favour of making sure the education is good though. Try to ensure that teachers can't get away with being bad teachers. Make the system better and stuff like that. I'm just saying that giving them low salaries also decreases the overall level of teaching because everyone tries to keep as much teachers as they can possibly get. (Shortage of personnel is what bad employees thrive on.)
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Woodruff wrote:So then in your view a good teacher has three choices:
1) Go on strike. (That'll get folks on their side)
2) Suck it up because nobody gives a shit (which I may have covered earlier, if I recall).
3) Quit a job they love because they can't afford to keep it.
You know what, honestly, you did cover it before and maybe I'm one of those people that doesn't give a shit.
As I said before, I know a great many teachers, all but a handful of whom teach in either Catholic school or public school (I understand from my friends that Catholic schools pay a crapload less money). All of whom make a damn good living, some better than me. Which is why, maybe, I don't give a shit (at least with respect to teacher salaries).
rockfist wrote:My brother and sister in law are teachers. You get more days off per year than any other profession. I have a ridiculously generous vacation package of five weeks, but it is not even close to theirs, granted you don't get to choose your days off, but you sure can plan around them. When you say you are underpaid, you might be, but surely this vacation is worth something.
You say "vacation", but the reality is that WHEN a teacher gets that time off, it is really UNPAID vacation. A teacher's 9-month salary is spread out over 12 months typically, so that they can have a consistent income (rather than being thoroughly without income over the summer). What isn't taken into account is that the good teachers work through the summer, as well, preparing lesson plans and taking courses (that they typically pay for out of pocket) that will make them better teachers, among other things.
I don't disagree with what you've wrote here. I am just saying that if I only worked nine months of the year at my job I would not get paid as much as someone who worked 12 months...but I don't even really have that option in my profession you either work 12 months or you are unemployed.
Woodruff wrote:So then in your view a good teacher has three choices:
1) Go on strike. (That'll get folks on their side)
2) Suck it up because nobody gives a shit (which I may have covered earlier, if I recall).
3) Quit a job they love because they can't afford to keep it.
You know what, honestly, you did cover it before and maybe I'm one of those people that doesn't give a shit.
As I said before, I know a great many teachers, all but a handful of whom teach in either Catholic school or public school (I understand from my friends that Catholic schools pay a crapload less money). All of whom make a damn good living, some better than me. Which is why, maybe, I don't give a shit (at least with respect to teacher salaries).
You have stated that you are between middle class and "working on getting to the point where you don't have to care about taxes"...I don't know a lot of teachers in that range.
I have a huge advantage in that I have my military retirement income to subsidize my teaching income, so this definitely isn't about me. However, that's the ONLY reason I'm able to teach, rather than falling back on my computer programming/network system administration background. Most teachers aren't fortunate enough to have that military retirement income.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
rockfist wrote:My brother and sister in law are teachers. You get more days off per year than any other profession. I have a ridiculously generous vacation package of five weeks, but it is not even close to theirs, granted you don't get to choose your days off, but you sure can plan around them. When you say you are underpaid, you might be, but surely this vacation is worth something.
You say "vacation", but the reality is that WHEN a teacher gets that time off, it is really UNPAID vacation. A teacher's 9-month salary is spread out over 12 months typically, so that they can have a consistent income (rather than being thoroughly without income over the summer). What isn't taken into account is that the good teachers work through the summer, as well, preparing lesson plans and taking courses (that they typically pay for out of pocket) that will make them better teachers, among other things.
I don't disagree with what you've wrote here. I am just saying that if I only worked nine months of the year at my job I would not get paid as much as someone who worked 12 months...but I don't even really have that option in my profession you either work 12 months or you are unemployed.
So what you're saying is that it's better to keep the sort of teacher who is willing to accept 9 months of pay per year than it is to actually attract high-quality teachers? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
thegreekdog wrote:Knock it off admin-type person. I don't know what tautological means! Is this another British word?
And I even went to the trouble of explaining it for you, you said that a person should get paid what they're worth, and then went on to define their worth as what they can receive in pay. That is tautological.
The boss's son may be paid more than a more productive employee. However, the boss is being a complete jackass if he pays the son more; especially considering that the more productive employee, seeing that the boss is stupid, will leave the company and be more productive elsewhere. Second, the boss's son will have no market value outside of his parent's company, which shows that, again, the boss is an idiot.
Third, while this may not be an ideal system, I believe it is the system in which we currently operate.
With respect to productivity, I don't believe we (and by we I mean humans) have valued productivity in the last 5000 years or so as an indicator of salary, generally speaking. Many things go into the whys of someone's salary other than productivity, which, in my humble opinion, can be best referenced by referring to the "market." For example, one of the reasons attorneys make a high salary is because, while I would argue most attorneys are counter-productive for an effective society, they go to extensive schooling and have to be adaptable to changing situations (among other things). As another example, one of the reasons that a assembly line worker at a car plant makes what he or she makes is because of representation by the union, which has nothing to do with productivity. So, I say "market" is the best indicator of what a person's labor is worth as it takes into account things other than productivity.
So you basically say that the system sucks, fails to accurately determine what someone should get paid, and in some cases rewards people who lower the overall value of the system. And yet you defend it as the one that should be in use. You are weird.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Woodruff wrote:So then in your view a good teacher has three choices:
1) Go on strike. (That'll get folks on their side)
2) Suck it up because nobody gives a shit (which I may have covered earlier, if I recall).
3) Quit a job they love because they can't afford to keep it.
You know what, honestly, you did cover it before and maybe I'm one of those people that doesn't give a shit.
As I said before, I know a great many teachers, all but a handful of whom teach in either Catholic school or public school (I understand from my friends that Catholic schools pay a crapload less money). All of whom make a damn good living, some better than me. Which is why, maybe, I don't give a shit (at least with respect to teacher salaries).
You have stated that you are between middle class and "working on getting to the point where you don't have to care about taxes"...I don't know a lot of teachers in that range.
I have a huge advantage in that I have my military retirement income to subsidize my teaching income, so this definitely isn't about me. However, that's the ONLY reason I'm able to teach, rather than falling back on my computer programming/network system administration background. Most teachers aren't fortunate enough to have that military retirement income.
Yes, I will eventually make more money than most, if not all, teachers.
However, I also work longer hours and have received more extensive education. Am I more valuable than a teacher? Certainly not (if we're measuring value to society). However, those teachers that make comfortable livings will continue to make comfortable livings in 10 or 20 years.
I'm not sure where you teach, but you should come out to PA or NJ. You'd be set.
MeDeFe wrote:So you basically say that the system sucks, fails to accurately determine what someone should get paid, and in some cases rewards people who lower the overall value of the system. And yet you defend it as the one that should be in use. You are weird.
Hmm... I have to think about that because you may be right. Although, in my defense, without government involvement, those CEOs who made a whole boatload of money and whose companies failed would be currently unemployed... which, we both would say would be the optimal situation.
In any event, even if we agree that productivity should be the measure of a salary, productivity will never alone measure salaries. It hasn't since the cavemen days and it won't in the future (unless Star Trek comes to pass).
Woodruff wrote:So then in your view a good teacher has three choices:
1) Go on strike. (That'll get folks on their side)
2) Suck it up because nobody gives a shit (which I may have covered earlier, if I recall).
3) Quit a job they love because they can't afford to keep it.
You know what, honestly, you did cover it before and maybe I'm one of those people that doesn't give a shit.
As I said before, I know a great many teachers, all but a handful of whom teach in either Catholic school or public school (I understand from my friends that Catholic schools pay a crapload less money). All of whom make a damn good living, some better than me. Which is why, maybe, I don't give a shit (at least with respect to teacher salaries).
You have stated that you are between middle class and "working on getting to the point where you don't have to care about taxes"...I don't know a lot of teachers in that range.
I have a huge advantage in that I have my military retirement income to subsidize my teaching income, so this definitely isn't about me. However, that's the ONLY reason I'm able to teach, rather than falling back on my computer programming/network system administration background. Most teachers aren't fortunate enough to have that military retirement income.
Yes, I will eventually make more money than most, if not all, teachers.
However, I also work longer hours and have received more extensive education.
Hmm...Masters Degrees are not unusual at ALL, with the exception of the just-starting-out teacher. As for the hours...I don't know your hours, but I remain unconvinced that it's drastically different.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Honestly, maybe it's just my friends who are teachers that give the bad examples.
One of my friends has a masters degree. It was paid for by his school.
I work approximately 60 to 70 hours a week. My teacher friends (and listen, maybe it's them), get to work around 8 AM, have multiple breaks (where they do actually work) and leave by 4 PM. One of my friends coaches football, so he has that going on (but he gets paid extra). About half of my teacher friends work during the summer (two are caterers, one cooks at a restaurant, one teaches summer school), the rest go get a house at the Jersey shore for the summer.
Erego, you can see where I get angry when a teacher complains about his or her salary. Maybe I'm using personal experience too much here.
thegreekdog wrote:Honestly, maybe it's just my friends who are teachers that give the bad examples.
One of my friends has a masters degree. It was paid for by his school.
I work approximately 60 to 70 hours a week. My teacher friends (and listen, maybe it's them), get to work around 8 AM, have multiple breaks (where they do actually work) and leave by 4 PM. One of my friends coaches football, so he has that going on (but he gets paid extra). About half of my teacher friends work during the summer (two are caterers, one cooks at a restaurant, one teaches summer school), the rest go get a house at the Jersey shore for the summer.
Erego, you can see where I get angry when a teacher complains about his or her salary. Maybe I'm using personal experience too much here.
Eight to four? I don't know ANY teacher (even the bad ones) that work those kind of hours.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
thegreekdog wrote: I work approximately 60 to 70 hours a week...
I think you mean you are at work 60 to 70 hours a week. Of that 60 to 70, you spend at least 40+ hours a week posting here. There is a difference.
Anyway, the shitty education issue can be solved by eliminating the teachers unions so worthless tools like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO3NBqT3LBc
...can be axed on the spot and someone that actually cares about educating kids can jump in. The unions aren't doing anything for teachers pay anyway, right?
thegreekdog wrote:Honestly, maybe it's just my friends who are teachers that give the bad examples.
One of my friends has a masters degree. It was paid for by his school.
I work approximately 60 to 70 hours a week. My teacher friends (and listen, maybe it's them), get to work around 8 AM, have multiple breaks (where they do actually work) and leave by 4 PM. One of my friends coaches football, so he has that going on (but he gets paid extra). About half of my teacher friends work during the summer (two are caterers, one cooks at a restaurant, one teaches summer school), the rest go get a house at the Jersey shore for the summer.
Erego, you can see where I get angry when a teacher complains about his or her salary. Maybe I'm using personal experience too much here.
Eight to four? I don't know ANY teacher (even the bad ones) that work those kind of hours.
Yeah that sounds kinda low. Depends on what they're teaching though.
Actually, I don't know how it's over there but here they have quite a lot of flexibility. Long days and short days. Grading papers or the days after having graded papers and such.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Snorri1234 wrote:What absurd reality are you living in where there are too many teachers?
Well, how many do you think there'll be waiting in the wings when unions keep total shitbags locked into to their jobs with nearly no way to lose them?
There are boatloads of people in this country who are qualified to teach but few openings.
Make it a competitive occupation and there'd be no shortage of teachers.
