|
|
On October 09 2012 12:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote: And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times. Teacher's UNIONS, not teachers. No one loves war, no one wants starvation, no one hates teachers, "war on women,"... But all this hyperbole is about money, right?
Yup. It is all about money.
|
On October 09 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:27 Darknat wrote: I was reading Mitt Romney's foreign policy speech and it reaffirmed my belief that Mitt Romney has all the ingredients needed to be the greatest president the United States has ever had. We found him. We found the man in the US who is actually excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. Someone get Fox News on the phone immediately. On a serious note, are you just a troll poster, or you really believe this? i'm excited and enthusiastic about Mitt Romney. i don't think he will be the greatest President we've ever had... lol, but i do think he'll be a good one.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2012 12:02 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote: And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times. Teacher's UNIONS, not teachers. No one loves war, no one wants starvation, no one hates teachers, "war on women,"... But all this hyperbole is about money, right?
What the hell do you think teachers' unions represent? Shoe makers?
|
On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote: And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times.
Surely you do not think that giving teachers (or anyone for that matter) everything they ask for is always good government policy?
|
On October 09 2012 11:21 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 Bigtony wrote: You're delusional if you think that teachers wouldn't make more money in the private sector, not less. then why do they make less money in the private sector? Because some of the money has to be paid to the shareholders of edu-corp or what have you, thereby taking some money out of the system that could otherwise be paid to teachers or used for other things? edit: Still, I was under the impression private schools pay teachers better anyways, am I wrong? Averages are skewed because of the religious nature of many private schools along with cost of living variables. Good teachers would make more in a full private national system.
|
On October 09 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote: And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times. Surely you do not think that giving teachers (or anyone for that matter) everything they ask for is always good government policy?
Oh, come off it with the leading questions. Always helping blind grandmas cross the street can be bad.
What I do know is that this guy is making everyone on the right look bad.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote: And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times. Surely you do not think that giving teachers (or anyone for that matter) everything they ask for is always good government policy?
Surely no one has said that. Though I will always trust teachers over corporations aka Prop 32.
|
On October 09 2012 11:25 Defacer wrote:
I can't imagine where we would be without socialized medicine. The debt that his treatment and death would have cost us would have been enormous. The cost is enormous BECAUSE it is socialized. But feel free to continue believing the laws of economics don't apply to health care because health care is like really important.
|
On October 09 2012 12:20 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:25 Defacer wrote:
I can't imagine where we would be without socialized medicine. The debt that his treatment and death would have cost us would have been enormous. The cost is enormous BECAUSE it is socialized. But feel free to continue believing the laws of economics don't apply to health care because health care is like really important.
So in the free market health crises are magically resolved very cheaply? It would be catastrophically expensive even if it were much cheaper...
|
On October 09 2012 11:29 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:18 ziggurat wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote:On October 09 2012 11:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2012 10:56 Souma wrote:On October 09 2012 10:51 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 10:46 Souma wrote:On October 09 2012 10:42 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 10:18 Bigtony wrote:On October 09 2012 09:48 dvorakftw wrote:[quote] [quote] Romney is against throwing money at the problem. He is not for firing people randomly but for improving the structure so you end up with more teachers. But again, people like you two are why politics is in such bad shape. You don't care about any actual policy. You simply want to take two sentences from two speeches and attack. It's as enlightening as me getting a soundbyte of Artosis calling MVP "MKP" and saying he clearly knows nothing about the game and can't tell the two players apart. I just want to reply to the article you linked and point out how absofuckinglutely insane it is for the author to make the claim that 'it's getting better already' as if in 1 year problems will manifest: Then there are work rules. "In the collective bargaining agreement, high school teachers only had to teach five periods a day, out of seven," says Arnoldussen. "Now, they're going to teach six." In addition, the collective bargaining agreement specified that teachers had to be in the school 37 1/2 hours a week. Now, it will be 40 hours.
5/7 -> 6/7 is a 20% increase in workload. Teachers' salaries will stay "relatively the same," Arnoldussen says, except for higher pension and health care payments. So actually what happened was that their work load increased approximately 20% and they also are paying ~10% of their salary for their benefits. They are doing more work for less pay. (The top salary is around $80,000 per year, with about $35,000 in additional benefits, for 184 days of work per year -- summers off.) Finally, the money saved will be used to hire a few more teachers and institute merit pay.
The TOP salary is 80k/year; in most school districts it takes 15 YEARS to hit the top of the salary scale. Even if you give full value to their benefits, 100k/year is a fair salary for someone with 15 years experience in most fields. Merit pay, for which there exists no objective metric on which to evaluate teachers and is ultimately a gigantic scam to cut salaries. tl;dr - I'm all for unions and school districts bargaining on fair footing, but if the school had better funding or was managed better, they'd be better off. I'm glad that they were able to negotiate a fair deal for health insurance, but whose fault was it that they made that deal in the first place? Unions are not to blame when school boards are corrupt and stupid, the school boards and the parents in the community they represent are. The California Teachers Association spends hundreds of millions of dollars influencing the politics of the state. This election on Prop 32 alone they have spent over $18,000,000. And from wiki, "The CTA alone has spent more money in California politics than Chevron, AT&T, Philip Morris and Western States Petroleum Association combined." Sorry if I don't have much respect for the unions hardships and their fight for a "fair" salary. If the same exact people were in the private sector they would see a massive across the board cut in pay, despite your claim that they deserve 100k+ a year. They spend millions corrupting the politics and contributing to the bankrupting of the state, and then tell parents they don't have money for supplies due to "budget cuts." They cut sports and music and whatever else they can to manipulate parents into fighting on their behalf. You call this bargaining on a "fair" footing. lol. OF COURSE they spend money on politics. Do you expect them to just roll over and die? Labor unions are outmatched by businesses 15:1 in terms of political spending. The sad part is that teachers even have to allocate their money to politics. It blows my mind how people can trust corporations more than they do teachers. Prop 32 is a good example of that and a great cause to fight against. 15:1? That's bullshit. I just told you they are the biggest spender in ALL of California politics. If they are outnumbered so terribly, then why does Prop 32 have $9 million in support funding and $45.6 million in opposition? If they are outnumbered how did they manage to defeat 100% of Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions trying to save this state from bankruptcy? Their spending must REALLY be paying off if people manage to see them as a victim instead of the single largest and most powerful special interest in the state... I was talking on a national level. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.phpThe broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.
Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1. As for Prop 32, EVERYONE on the left is devoting many of their resources to fighting against it because it's a giant shotgun pointed at unions. If it passes unions pretty much die. How do you not understand that? Corporations are riding this shit and teachers have no choice to fight back. Do you honestly think teachers just want to throw money at campaigns for the sake of doing so? Hell no. Wake the hell up. Unions are pretty much dead already in the private sector. I don't think there's many corporations out there that would care one way or another about new union laws. Which brings up an important point - business interests are not monolithic. The 'businesses outspend unions 15:1' is meaningless since businesses may be on both sides of a particular law. It's actually not meaningless when you can just take a look at the likes of the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson. And yeah, unions have been getting crushed. And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. Absolutely pathetic. This whole premise that teachers are evil and corporations are God's greatest gift to Earth is absolutely cringe-worthy. I've never heard anyone ever in my whole life say that teachers are evil. Everyone loves teachers. My wife is a teacher! Now teachers' unions on the other hand a lot of people have a problem with ... But I strongly believe that teachers should be evaluated and promoted based on performance. So should principals and so should schools overall. If teachers are not effective they should get training and help and eventually, if they can't improve, they should be fired. If schools for whatever reason can't teach kids, they should eventually be closed. The idea that teachers can never be fired is extremely harmful to any education system. I agree with that actually. Teachers should be evaluated in some kind of way. The way they should be evaluated is largely up for debate though. Tenure is iffy but teachers with tenure can still be fired if there's sufficient reason. Anyway, in case you're wondering why the California Teacher's union is spending so much money on politics, California is: 46th in the country for K-12 spending per student. 47th for K-12 spending relative to personal income. 50th in numbers of teachers per student. 49th for guidance counselors per student. 50th for librarians per student. 46th for administrators per student. Couple that with the mere fact that California obviously has the most teachers overall in the country (highest population by far), thus the unions have more money overall, and you get the picture. The Governator SCREWED our education system. The more affluent neighborhoods are doing fine because they get tons of private donations, but everywhere else is a bungling wastehole. It's going to take us a lot of time to get out of this mess, and trying to destroy unions and blaming teachers gets us nowhere. Wow I wonder what people did before Google.
|
On October 09 2012 12:20 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:25 Defacer wrote:
I can't imagine where we would be without socialized medicine. The debt that his treatment and death would have cost us would have been enormous. The cost is enormous BECAUSE it is socialized. But feel free to continue believing the laws of economics don't apply to health care because health care is like really important.
The cost of healthcare in a free market is much more expensive and artificially inflated by unnecessary administrative costs and private care providers gouging insurers at different rates. I've had this argument too many times. I'm pretty sure I've provided you a long list of reference before you where banned.
I'm tired of doing other people's research for them.
|
On October 09 2012 12:16 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote: And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times. Surely you do not think that giving teachers (or anyone for that matter) everything they ask for is always good government policy? Oh, come off it with the leading questions. Always helping blind grandmas cross the street can be bad. What I do know is that this guy is making everyone on the right look bad.
Sorry if I'm off base - I haven't read the entire discussion between you guys. But he just posted an article about teachers wanting a 30% pay raise - that seems unreasonable. I don't see how being critical of such a pay raise constitutes an attack on teachers.
|
On October 09 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:16 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 12:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:On October 09 2012 11:58 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:06 Souma wrote: And you wonder why these teachers are trying to fight for survival. And by fight for survival, we mean things like a 30-percent pay-raise. Dvorak, making his case for the right by attacking teachers. Classy. EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times. Surely you do not think that giving teachers (or anyone for that matter) everything they ask for is always good government policy? Oh, come off it with the leading questions. Always helping blind grandmas cross the street can be bad. What I do know is that this guy is making everyone on the right look bad. Sorry if I'm off base - I haven't read the entire discussion between you guys. But he just posted an article about teachers wanting a 30% pay raise - that seems unreasonable. I don't see how being critical of such a pay raise constitutes an attack on teachers.
Honestly, I stopped reading anything he posted a ways back. I have no idea what it even said.
|
On October 09 2012 12:00 rogzardo wrote:
EDIT: and re-posting the same graph 3 times. And yet people continue to clamor for increased education spending.
|
dvorak, why do you think the only point of education is SAT scores?
that graph means nothing because teaching to raise SAT scores is a waste of time in the first place, so no way to tell whether that money is well spent
this fetishization of the test score is what is destroying our educational system, not any of this nonsense over teacher budgets
edit: the SAT is NOT a diagnostic of the worthwhileness of schools.
edit: it's not even INTENDED to be a diagnostic of teaching. In fact, IT'S A FUCKING NORMALIZED TEST!
LOL
|
Canada11264 Posts
There's also a lot of other things to look at as well. As in are we keeping more students in the system from the 60's until now? Because we are certainly fronting a lot of money for integrated, special education. It's definitely not going to raise the SAT scores anytime soon, but theoretically more students will be getting an education that meets their needs. It seems to me that we have a lot more programs to help out those students now than in the past- rather than having them simply drop out of the system.
In any event teachers wages always make up the lion's share of the education budget and that's bound to go up from the 60's till now unless people propose to cap salaries at 1960's levels.
|
On October 09 2012 12:22 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 12:20 dvorakftw wrote:On October 09 2012 11:25 Defacer wrote:
I can't imagine where we would be without socialized medicine. The debt that his treatment and death would have cost us would have been enormous. The cost is enormous BECAUSE it is socialized. But feel free to continue believing the laws of economics don't apply to health care because health care is like really important. So in the free market health crises are magically resolved very cheaply? Not magically. Scientifically. That is if you consider econo9mics a science. There's no reason for health insurance to be so different from home and car insurance except when you get to the few liberals honest enough to admit it's all about taking as much money as possible from healthy young people.
|
On October 09 2012 11:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:12 Bigtony wrote: You're delusional if you think that teachers wouldn't make more money in the private sector, not less. then why do they make less money in the private sector?
teachers make less in the private sector because they usually are not as qualified.... also you have a smaller work load
to work at a private institution you do not need a degree, my gf went to a private HS and 3 of her teachers her jr year did not have a degree in what they were teaching.
at a college level (atleast in california) you make more teaching at a JC because you have a larger work load than a university teacher does
|
On October 09 2012 12:56 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 Bigtony wrote: You're delusional if you think that teachers wouldn't make more money in the private sector, not less. then why do they make less money in the private sector? to work at a private institution you do not need a degree, my gf went to a private HS and 3 of her teachers her jr year did not have a degree in what they were teaching.
It's high school. Why would you need a degree in that field to teach it? What were the subjects and the backgrounds of each of those teachers, and how long had they been teaching that subject?
For example, no way you need a degree in mathematics to teach math. I have a degree in English and I could teach a high school history curriculum, for example, with a little prep time. AP government? I could teach that (lol, imagine me teaching american government)
Maybe also they were bad teachers. There are certainly some of those. But just saying that it's bad they don't have a degree in that subject is silly. High school is just high school, teaching skill matters more than the subject (although of course expertise in a subject doesn't hurt, that's not my point)
|
Canada11264 Posts
On October 09 2012 12:56 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 11:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 09 2012 11:12 Bigtony wrote: You're delusional if you think that teachers wouldn't make more money in the private sector, not less. then why do they make less money in the private sector? teachers make less in the private sector because they usually are not as qualified.... also you have a smaller work load to work at a private institution you do not need a degree, my gf went to a private HS and 3 of her teachers her jr year did not have a degree in what they were teaching. at a college level (atleast in california) you make more teaching at a JC because you have a larger work load than a university teacher does Not necessarily. You can get independent teacher's licences, but most private schools will prefer a proper teacher's certificate. Usually it's just budgetary concerns. Not all private schools cater to the posh crowd and so want to keep tuition relatively low. A consequence of that is teachers simply can't get paid as much as their union counterparts even with 50-60% funding coming from the government (in BC anyways). In my school, even cost of living is usually on the table as it's an easy thing to cut to make ends meet.
|
|
|
|