Libertarian Paradise in the making?

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

CEO's Oh, i'm sorry, I just ran this company into the ground. I'll use the bailout money to give myself an enormous bonus. And a raise!

Any job where you're paid by the hour. (computer analyst)

Any job where you're paid by salary. (management, researcher, lab assistant)

Set pay is the norm, not an exception.

[Gary Teter]

I have decided that I am no longer impressed unless they are building an underwater volcanic lair.

[Cosmo's Slightly More Evil Twin]

Gary Teter wrote:

I have decided that I am no longer impressed unless they are building an underwater volcanic lair.

That's hawt

[LilithsThrall]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

CEO's Oh, i'm sorry, I just ran this company into the ground. I'll use the bailout money to give myself an enormous bonus. And a raise!

Any job where you're paid by the hour. (computer analyst)

Any job where you're paid by salary. (management, researcher, lab assistant)

Set pay is the norm, not an exception.

What point are you trying to make? Managers, researchers, etc. all have to deal with variation and irregularity like teachers. Managers, researchers, etc. are, also, paid on performance. My brother, for example, is a manger who has no control over who is on his team, has various people of various skill levels on his team who have been given the same job title, etc. and my brother is paid on performance.

Either you're not understanding the challenge I made or you have zero professional career experience.

[Sebastian]

Gary Teter wrote:

I have decided that I am no longer impressed unless they are building an underwater volcanic lair.

You're way too picky. What if the islands have mechanical legs and heavy artillery? That's worth some points.

[LilithsThrall]

Sebastian wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

I have decided that I am no longer impressed unless they are building an underwater volcanic lair.

You're way too picky. What if the islands have mechanical legs and heavy artillery? That's worth some points.

I'd accept hover abilities with a built in, automated genetics engineering lab. But I admit, I'm easy.

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

Either you're not understanding the challenge I made or you have zero professional career experience.

There's NO need for that, at all. Especially given your data set of 1 person.

[Aberzombie]

Sebastian wrote:

Gary Teter wrote:

I have decided that I am no longer impressed unless they are building an underwater volcanic lair.

You're way too picky. What if the islands have mechanical legs and heavy artillery? That's worth some points.

Hmmmm.....I'm beginning to think I may not be putting my engineering skills to the best possible use.

[A Man In Black]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

Because the methodology for evaluating teachers is inefficient and gives results of questionable value, because the consequences of giving teachers incentives to avoid troubled students are dire, and because teachers are paid very poorly for their level of training as it is.

In the case of a manager, a manager can fire underperforming employees. I don't think that's something you want teachers doing.

As for the supervillainy discussion, I'd be willing to bet at least one of these enclaves ends up a haven for pirates. It's hardly unprecedented.

[Jeremiziah]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

Anecdote:

In the school district in which I live (and in which, to be fair, my wife teaches), the school's performance on the state assessment test has been #1 or #2 in the entire state when measured by results compared to local economic climate. Yes, those studies exist - because it's not difficult to understand that poor students from broken homes are rightly expected to do worse than upper class students who come to school with their hearts bursting with love and their stomachs bursting from breakfast.

What's been the reward for these teachers, who are overcoming all odds and leading their profession? Nothing.

My wife, who has a master's degree that enables her to perform the duties of a Reading Specialist, has over $60,000 in school loans. Everyone who understands the concept of marriage will comprehend that I, therefore, share that debt. On the other had, I lived the life of a party animal in college, did not graduate, and had just over $25,000 in school loans.

Currently (10 years after she graduated and 8 after I didn't), I make more than my wife. She has been employed the whole time, while I merely lucked into a job at a cell phone company and didn't completely suck at life once I got there.

Can someone explain? Because this makes no sense to me.

Teachers provide day care for children. Most parents will tell you that the cost of day care, before preschool, is astounding. Watching your cute little tots (and, to be fair, mine) is not a particularly enjoyable job for anyone but you, believe it or not. Yet they do this, watching 20 kids at a time pretty much at a minimum. That alone should qualify them for insane amounts of money, but wait! They actually EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN. Parents, put a value on that, or try to. It's priceless.

When famous people of all walks of life achieve the pinnacle of their profession, teachers are often among the first people they thank. But really, that's all they get - that's it. "Thanks!" Pretty freaking lousy.

Not all teachers are good ones. But they are all teachers.

[TriOmegaZero]

Reminded of this.

[LilithsThrall]

A Man In Black wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

Because the methodology for evaluating teachers is inefficient and gives results of questionable value, because the consequences of giving teachers incentives to avoid troubled students are dire, and because teachers are paid very poorly for their level of training as it is.

In the case of a manager, a manager can fire underperforming employees. I don't think that's something you want teachers doing.

As for the supervillainy discussion, I'd be willing to bet at least one of these enclaves ends up a haven for pirates. It's hardly unprecedented.

Actually, managers can't always fire underperforming employees. So, the comparison remains accurate and the question remains, if managers (and other professionals) have to deal with this sort of stuff, then why not teachers? As for teachers being underpaid, I don't think that's necessarily true. Some teachers are paid very well.

And as for current teacher evaluations giving results of questionable value, maybe, but that only means that better performance-based evaluation is needed.

[LilithsThrall]

Jeremiziah wrote:

very good comments

We're discussing two different things here. One of them is "teaching is hard and sometimes unpleasant work". The other is, "teachers don't have absolute control over their environment, so should they be performance tested?" Regarding the first one, yes, there are things about teaching that make it hard and sometimes unpleasant work. We should work to fix that and I recommend starting by watching a movie called "Waiting for Superman". As for the second, the fact that teaching is hard and sometimes unpleasant work has no relevance to whether teachers should be performance tested.

[Zombieneighbours]

LilithsThrall wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

Because the methodology for evaluating teachers is inefficient and gives results of questionable value, because the consequences of giving teachers incentives to avoid troubled students are dire, and because teachers are paid very poorly for their level of training as it is.

In the case of a manager, a manager can fire underperforming employees. I don't think that's something you want teachers doing.

As for the supervillainy discussion, I'd be willing to bet at least one of these enclaves ends up a haven for pirates. It's hardly unprecedented.

Actually, managers can't always fire underperforming employees. So, the comparison remains accurate and the question remains, if managers (and other professionals) have to deal with this sort of stuff, then why not teachers? As for teachers being underpaid, I don't think that's necessarily true. Some teachers are paid very well.

And as for current teacher evaluations giving results of questionable value, maybe, but that only means that better performance-based evaluation is needed.

What is you success metric? Can you define it? What is it that teachers have to achieve to be successful?

How do you make the success metric benifit children with a wide range of needs. For instance, teaching a child with Severe SEN to read and right, is a far greater success on the part of a teacher, than watching an exceptionally bright child from a good family breezing through their education.

How does your success metric get teachers to work at helping those who need the help most?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Reminded of this.

Not big into the poetry slams, but that was amusing.

[Gary Teter]

No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to pay taxes!

[Heymitch]

Gary Teter wrote:

People, people. I think we're straying from the topic at hand, which is: Will they have an adequate supply of fluffy white cats and minions?

I'm a little offended that you seem to be implying that fluffy white cats can't be minions.

"Don't toy with the miscreant, Miss Pokey Paws. Slay him."

[Gark the Goblin]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Reminded of this.

I've heard this before. Somewhere. +1

[Abraham spalding]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

Show me someone that has to have 8 years of college to do their job and then still continue to take classes (on their own dime) and I'll show you a teacher.

Being a teacher (at least in Kentucky and Indiana) requires the same amount of education that is required of a doctor or lawyer -- but of the three the teacher is the only one making well under $100k a year.

And for that they have to listen to some idiot parent that barely made it through high school themselves tell them what to do on the PTA/PTO.

I like to see a doctor or lawyer put up with that for so much less money.

[Abraham spalding]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Jeremiziah wrote:

very good comments

We're discussing two different things here. One of them is "teaching is hard and sometimes unpleasant work". The other is, "teachers don't have absolute control over their environment, so should they be performance tested?" Regarding the first one, yes, there are things about teaching that make it hard and sometimes unpleasant work. We should work to fix that and I recommend starting by watching a movie called "Waiting for Superman". As for the second, the fact that teaching is hard and sometimes unpleasant work has no relevance to whether teachers should be performance tested.

Show me a method that actually tests teachers and not the students and then we can talk.

A revolving data set that is random each year with varying starting values while being subjected to different tests, patterns and methods (in addition to different teachers) is no way to form a concise opinion on a teacher or school.

[A Man In Black]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Actually, managers can't always fire underperforming employees. So, the comparison remains accurate and the question remains, if managers (and other professionals) have to deal with this sort of stuff, then why not teachers?

Every employer will weed out employees who are simply incompetent or incapable of doing the work, while teachers cannot abandon such students. No workplace accepts everyone who applies for the job. Managers, in most cases, are at least partially responsible for doing this weeding, either at the hiring or firing level.

Also, unlike a manager's employees, the students are both the subordinate workers and the end product. It's not possible to break the task up and assign it to workers based on their specialties, experience, abilities, etc.; every student must do the whole of the job of learning for themselves.

The largest dictators of a teacher's performance are beyond the teacher's control. It's well-known (and well documented) that the best predictor of a student's performance is the wealth of the parents, simply because wealth means better socialization, nutrition, reduced/lack of home stress, access to reading material from a young age, etc. This tends to skew standardized testing.

Lastly, there's a general lack of clear articulation of what good performance from a teacher is. Identifying a systemic failure is easy (such-and-such school has a high dropout rate, low literacy rate, etc.), but when you're trying to break down individual performance, that gets a lot stickier. A student who graduates a US public school may have had as many as a dozen reading teachers in his or her lifetime: which teacher put that student a year behind on reading, leading to a cascade failure in all subjects? Now, how can you efficiently isolate that particular teacher in a way that's more efficient than systemic improvements in school infrastructure?

Finally, what are you going to do to underperforming teachers? Not grossly incompetent ones, just teachers who are giving you 75% performance. You can't fire them, mostly because few districts have such a surplus of prospective applications to any open teaching job that they can pick and choose. School districts are chronically underemployed for a variety of reasons. You can't cut their pay, because they're underpaid to begin with. What do you do with the C- teachers?

Quote:

As for teachers being underpaid, I don't think that's necessarily true. Some teachers are paid very well.

Generally, no, they're not. In 2005, the average annual salary of a full-time teacher in a US public school was $47.5K, in a year where the average annual salary of a full-time worker with a bachelor's degree was $56.0K.

Quote:

And as for current teacher evaluations giving results of questionable value, maybe, but that only means that better performance-based evaluation is needed.

It's a matter of resources. Would development of better performance-based evaluation give you better results than expending the same resources on paying teachers better, hiring more teachers, and improving the education infrastructure?

[LilithsThrall]

Abraham spalding wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

Show me a professional field where this doesn't happen. Yet, those other professional fields pay on performance. Why should teachers be an exception?

Show me someone that has to have 8 years of college to do their job and then still continue to take classes (on their own dime) and I'll show you a teacher.

Being a teacher (at least in Kentucky and Indiana) requires the same amount of education that is required of a doctor or lawyer -- but of the three the teacher is the only one making well under $100k a year.

And for that they have to listen to some idiot parent that barely made it through high school themselves tell them what to do on the PTA/PTO.

I like to see a doctor or lawyer put up with that for so much less money.

To become a teacher in Kentucky, you need a BS. As for continuing education, you're out of touch if you think that education is the only professional field that requires a lot of it (though teaching is the only professional field which gives a lot of time off to get it). Computer security, for example, requires a lot of continuing education (without as much time off to get it).

As for dealing with idiot clients (parents in the case of teachers), teachers are hardly unique.
And, unlike doctors, teachers don't have high malpractice insurance.

Now, if you want teachers to be able to be sued for failing to provide an education (such that teachers need to carry high malpractice insurance like doctors), we can discuss that.
If you want to discuss taking away teacher time off to pursue continuing education (so that they are more like other professional careers like computer security), we can discuss that, too.

A Man In Black, the salary you're looking at is for the average school year - which is about three months shorter than the work year of other professions. Take the 47.5 and multiply it by 4/3. 63.3K is well above the average you listed for other BS reequired professions. Like I said above, if you want to discuss taking away teacher time off to pursue continuing education, we can do that.

[A Man In Black]

LilithsThrall wrote:

A Man In Black, the salary you're looking at is for the average school year - which is about three months shorter than the work year of other professions. Take the 47.5 and multiply it by 4/3. 63.3K is well above the average you listed for other BS reequired professions. Like I said above, if you want to discuss taking away teacher time off to pursue continuing education, we can do that.

These totals include teachers who spend the summer months working, be it as teachers or in other jobs. These totals are the reported annual salary of people who reported "teacher, full-time" as their employment in the census. Additionally, your "3/4 of the year" number doesn't include (often mandatory) continuing education, planning, etc., much of which is handled in the summer months. (Also, more than 50% of these teachers have higher education than just a bachelor's.)

Also, teachers need to pay the bills year-round, despite being furloughed three months of the year. You can argue, perhaps, that teachers don't deserve to be paid as much as other professions because they don't work the summer months, but the difficulty and stress of finding another, likely-low-paying job to cover the bills the rest of the year only makes being a teacher a less desirable career. Those three months (less workshops, planning, etc.) do not magically turn into increased income with a wave of the arithmetic wand.

You're still missing a good system for evaluating teachers, a productive way of incentivizing good performance once you identify it, and any sort of analysis on how implementing this system of evaluation is more effective than just spending more money on school infrastructure. Paying teachers based on performance is a solution in search of a matching problem.

[Zombieneighbours]

A Man In Black wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

A Man In Black, the salary you're looking at is for the average school year - which is about three months shorter than the work year of other professions. Take the 47.5 and multiply it by 4/3. 63.3K is well above the average you listed for other BS reequired professions. Like I said above, if you want to discuss taking away teacher time off to pursue continuing education, we can do that.

These totals include teachers who spend the summer months working, be it as teachers or in other jobs. These totals are the reported annual salary of people who reported "teacher, full-time" as their employment in the census. Additionally, your "3/4 of the year" number doesn't include (often mandatory) continuing education, planning, etc., much of which is handled in the summer months. (Also, more than 50% of these teachers have higher education than just a bachelor's.)

Also, teachers need to pay the bills year-round, despite being furloughed three months of the year. You can argue, perhaps, that teachers don't deserve to be paid as much as other professions because they don't work the summer months, but the difficulty and stress of finding another, likely-low-paying job to cover the bills the rest of the year only makes being a teacher a less desirable career. Those three months (less workshops, planning, etc.) do not magically turn into increased income with a wave of the arithmetic wand.

You're still missing a good system for evaluating teachers, a productive way of incentivizing good performance once you identify it, and any sort of analysis on how implementing this system of evaluation is more effective than just spending more money on school infrastructure. Paying teachers based on performance is a solution in search of a matching problem.

I don't know if it is the same in the states as the UK, but end of term, does not mean end of work here in the UK(unless your a temp).

Most teachers I know are working for most of the holiday, not teaching but doing the prepritory work for the new term, or doing admin stuff. They also have major contractual restrictions on when they can take their holiday(i.e. only in the school holidays.)

[LilithsThrall]

A Man In Black wrote:

These totals include teachers who spend the summer months working, be it as teachers or in other jobs. These totals are the reported annual salary of people who reported "teacher, full-time" as their employment in the census. Additionally, your "3/4 of the year" number doesn't include (often mandatory) continuing education, planning, etc., much of which is handled in the summer months. (Also, more than 50% of these teachers have higher education than just a bachelor's.)

Then let's use this data.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009320_d1s_02.asp
57.3K isn't bad for someone with a Bachelor's and 10 years of experience

A Man In Black wrote:

Also, teachers need to pay the bills year-round, despite being furloughed three months of the year. You can argue, perhaps, that teachers don't deserve to be paid as much as other professions because they don't work the summer months, but the difficulty and stress of finding another, likely-low-paying job to cover the bills the rest of the year only makes being a teacher a less desirable career. Those three months (less workshops, planning, etc.) do not magically turn into increased income with a wave of the arithmetic wand.

We can talk about making school year-round or giving teachers the same amount of time off for continuing education as other professions have, but it's skewing data to compare two professions' salaries when their work year isn't the same.

A Man In Black wrote:

Paying teachers based on performance is a solution in search of a matching problem.

Tell me that when our education system doesn't suck

[A Man In Black]

LilithsThrall wrote:

Then let's use this data.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009320_d1s_02.asp
57.3K isn't bad for someone with a Bachelor's and 10 years of experience

Don't you mean $43K? And for crying out loud, look at some of those salaries. There are states where the average pay at the top of the pay scale is less than $50K. That's not even entry-level pay in many fields.

It's also not "skewing data" to compare the average yearly income of different careers. The fact remains that teachers can't easily turn the time they have off into income because of their ongoing commitments to teaching, so at best they can try to pick up poorly-paying off-season jobs. Again, you're arguing that teachers deserve to be paid less because of their furlough, while also arguing that there should be a system for making sure only the best and brightest are teachers. Isn't this working at cross purposes?

In any case, it's not that great, either. That's not the best source of data, but not all careers have the salaries of the employees as a matter of public record.

Quote:

Tell me that when our education system doesn't suck

Okay, the education system sucks. The problem is that your plan is:

1. Evaluate teacher performance
2. ???
3. Profit!

How will you evaluate teacher performance? What will you do with this information? How will your plan to use this information improve the education system? Where will the money to evaluate teachers (and anything else you plan, like hiring replacements) come from? How is your plan more effective than spending the money on hiring more teachers, revamping schools, or otherwise improving the school infrastructure?

How is evaluating teachers going to make the education system suck less?

[thejeff]

There are some schools and districts where various forms of performance pay have been implemented. Is there any evidence that those schools actually perform any better than traditional schools? Even by the horribly flawed standardized testing?

Perhaps that's worth examining before we restructure the entire public school system based on theoretical arguments?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

A Man In Black wrote:

Every employer will weed out employees who are simply incompetent or incapable of doing the work...

Hee hee!

Sorry, I was thinking about my job.

[thejeff]

Also basic economic theory:
We have a field where we're having trouble getting sufficiently skilled workers to do the job to our standards. Let's cut their pay, reduce their benefits, reduce job security and micromanage them. That'll be sure to bring us better workers.

[LilithsThrall]

A Man In Black wrote:

Don't you mean $43K?

No, 43K * 4/3 = 57.3K

A Man In Black wrote:

There are states where the average pay at the top of the pay scale is less than $50K. That's not even entry-level pay in many fields.

Do these states have a teacher shortage?

A Man In Black wrote:

It's also not "skewing data" to compare the average yearly income of different careers. The fact remains that teachers can't easily turn the time they have off into income because of their ongoing commitments to teaching, so at best they can try to pick up poorly-paying off-season jobs. Again, you're arguing that teachers deserve to be paid less because of their furlough, while also arguing that there should be a system for making sure only the best and brightest are teachers. Isn't this working at cross purposes?

I'm arguing that teacher should get their continuing education while they maintain full-time work around the year - just like other professions do. And, again, I'm for school becoming year round.

A Man In Black wrote:

In any case, it's not that great, either. That's not the best source of data, but not all careers have the salaries of the employees as a matter of public record.

If you want teachers to make as much as financial controllers, then make their degree program as rigorous and make them subject to the same sort of performance reviews.

A Man In Black wrote:

How is evaluating teachers going to make the education system suck less?

It won't, by itself. Now, add it to getting rid of underperforming teachers and you're getting somewhere.

[Sanakht Inaros]

Lillith, are you having problems comprehending what he's saying? Teaching is a year round occupation. Just because SCHOOL isn't in session for three months, doesn't mean that teacher's aren't working. I have several friends that are teachers and have been doing it for quite some time and in order for them to make ends meet they have to work two jobs. Year round.

The only people I know of who have to pay for their continueing education are teachers. All my non-teacher friends get reimbursed by their respective employers. My wife works in the healthcare field and one of her employers paid for her to take classes.

How about going and talking to teachers? You'll learn a lot.

[LilithsThrall]

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

Lillith, are you having problems comprehending what he's saying? Teaching is a year round occupation. Just because SCHOOL isn't in session for three months, doesn't mean that teacher's aren't working. I have several friends that are teachers and have been doing it for quite some time and in order for them to make ends meet they have to work two jobs. Year round.

The only people I know of who have to pay for their continueing education are teachers. All my non-teacher friends get reimbursed by their respective employers. My wife works in the healthcare field and one of her employers paid for her to take classes.

How about going and talking to teachers? You'll learn a lot.

The salaries I posted are for the shorter work year and do not include the additional income teachers gain for work done during vacation.

I have to pay for my continuing education. Sure, I've gotten a small tuition reimbursement at some former employers, but it didn't come close to matching the cost of required continuing education. My continuing education expenses are several thousand dollars a year (as much as 10K) and my continuing education is done while I am maintaining a full-time job (it can come out of my vacation time or out of comp time if I'm going to classes).

[Gary Teter]

I think the discussion about teachers is getting way off-topic. The frequently asked questions for the libertarian paradise project does not mention the words: baby, babies, child, infant, children, education*, tuition, healthcare**, or teachers. Though it does mention the word "vacation" eight times. This is an adults-only fun time for the whole family!***

*I miscounted: "education" is in fact mentioned once, as a main factor in world population. Apparently education leads to babies, or something.

**It does include six references to "medical tourism".

***As long as your family consists entirely of adults.

In fairness, I should also mention that the FAQ also does not include the words minion, volcano, lair, Mr. Bond, lasers, death, death rays, monocles or cats. I am disappointed. However, it does include six mentions of pirates and five mentions of piracy, so at least there's that.

[TriOmegaZero]

My family consists entirely of adults!

Also, an off-topic discussion? In MY Off-Topic Forum? *tear*

[A Man In Black]

LilithsThrall wrote:

The salaries I posted are for the shorter work year and do not include the additional income teachers gain for work done during vacation.

It's not vacation, it's furlough. You're also digging your heels in over teacher pay, when the point was that teacher evaluation was a pancaea to...something. I don't think you have any sort of useful point, here.

[LilithsThrall]

A Man In Black wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

The salaries I posted are for the shorter work year and do not include the additional income teachers gain for work done during vacation.

It's not vacation, it's furlough. You're also digging your heels in over teacher pay, when the point was that teacher evaluation was a pancaea to...something. I don't think you have any sort of useful point, here.

It's vacation. "furlough" is something that's not part of your contract.

And the only way that any changes intelligently designed to improve the current system can occur is with measurement of the current system to a sufficient level of granularity and measurement of the results of the imposed changes.

You can't just blindly change things and hope for the better.

[Zombieneighbours]

Gary Teter wrote:

I think the discussion about teachers is getting way off-topic. The frequently asked questions for the libertarian paradise project does not mention the words: baby, babies, child, infant, children, education*, tuition, healthcare**, or teachers. Though it does mention the word "vacation" eight times. This is an adults-only fun time for the whole family!***

*I miscounted: "education" is in fact mentioned once, as a main factor in world population. Apparently education leads to babies, or something.

**It does include six references to "medical tourism".

***As long as your family consists entirely of adults.

In fairness, I should also mention that the FAQ also does not include the words minion, volcano, lair, Mr. Bond, lasers, death, death rays, monocles or cats. I am disappointed. However, it does include six mentions of pirates and five mentions of piracy, so at least there's that.

The discussion has evolved. There is a logical pathway from one to the other. While the discussion of teachers is directly linked to why some parties think that a Libertarian paradise would thrive and prosper, and why most of us start humming rise rapture rise. We are still on topic, just one rather arcane and specialised part of it, which has something to say about the wider topic.

I could understand complaining about off-topic shift if some one had come in and got every one talking about black holes instead, Greek myth or small blue creatures with white hats.

It is a little bit like saying "this converstation is meant to be about dinosaurs; why are you talking about birds?"

[BigNorseWolf]

Quote:

The point still stands however that when 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal taxes

-The point does not stand. This is flat out incorrect. They still pay medicare and social security (which ARE taxes) and the number is NOT the same as when you only consider those not paying income taxes. Its a right wing soundbite designed to convince the middle class that they're on the same side as the rich against those minorities taking THEIR money for welfare (meanwhile said rich take their money for a massive military that can secure their interests overseas)

[ciretose]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Quote:

The point still stands however that when 50% of the population doesn't pay any federal taxes

-The point does not stand. This is flat out incorrect. They still pay medicare and social security (which ARE taxes) and the number is NOT the same as when you only consider those not paying income taxes. Its a right wing soundbite designed to convince the middle class that they're on the same side as the rich against those minorities taking THEIR money for welfare (meanwhile said rich take their money for a massive military that can secure their interests overseas)

Well and this.

20.1 % are under 14 (not working age, no taxes)
13.1 % are over 65 (retired)

So 33.1% of the people aren't in the taxpaying age range, to start with

http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/age_structure.html

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Kirth Gersen]

LilithsThrall wrote:

We can talk about making school year-round or giving teachers the same amount of time off for continuing education as other professions have, but it's skewing data to compare two professions' salaries when their work year isn't the same.

I agree! As a high-school teacher I worked year-round (the summer got chewed up with "administrative duties" -- it wasn't vacation), about 60 hours a week, for about $20K (1990s dollars); I had a bachelor's degree + professional licensure + 15 hours towards master's degree. Please tell me how easy I had it and how overpaid I was. I later started a job in industry for half the work and double the pay, and that was at the bottom rung.

[ciretose]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

We can talk about making school year-round or giving teachers the same amount of time off for continuing education as other professions have, but it's skewing data to compare two professions' salaries when their work year isn't the same.

I agree! As a high-school teacher I worked year-round (the summer got chewed up with "administrative duties" -- it wasn't vacation), about 60 hours a week, for about $20K (1990s dollars); I had a bachelor's degree + professional licensure + 15 hours towards master's degree. Please tell me how easy I had it and how overpaid I was. I later started a job in industry for half the work and double the pay, and that was at the bottom rung.

My wife is a teacher. Kirth is correct.

If the free market was perfect Alex Rodriguez wouldn't make 25 million a year.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

ciretose wrote:

If the free market was perfect Alex Rodriguez wouldn't make 25 million a year.

I think a better example would have been George Steinbrenner.

[Crimson Jester]

Gary Teter wrote:

In fairness, I should also mention that the FAQ also does not include the words minion, volcano, lair, Mr. Bond, lasers, death, death rays, monocles or cats. I am disappointed. However, it does include six mentions of pirates and five mentions of piracy, so at least there's that.

Then how could it be paradise?

[Sanakht Inaros]

LilithsThrall wrote:

The salaries I posted are for the shorter work year and do not include the additional income teachers gain for work done during vacation.

Thing is, your math is off. That $43k number is figured on a 12 month year. Not just 9 months. If you want to figure on a 9 month year, then do so.

[ciretose]

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

The salaries I posted are for the shorter work year and do not include the additional income teachers gain for work done during vacation.

Thing is, your math is off. That $43k number is figured on a 12 month year. Not just 9 months. If you want to figure on a 9 month year, then do so.

And based on that, we should judge everyone based not on a 12 salary, but a 12 month salary minus days off. That 4 week vacation and week of sick leave makes you an 11 month worker now.

[Sanakht Inaros]

ciretose wrote:

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

The salaries I posted are for the shorter work year and do not include the additional income teachers gain for work done during vacation.

Thing is, your math is off. That $43k number is figured on a 12 month year. Not just 9 months. If you want to figure on a 9 month year, then do so.

And based on that, we should judge everyone based not on a 12 salary, but a 12 month salary minus days off. That 4 week vacation and week of sick leave makes you an 11 month worker now.

My friend out West would like that. He had to do some dancing with his summer time schedule in order to present his doctoral thesis. He almost lost his job over it.

[ciretose]

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

LilithsThrall wrote:

The salaries I posted are for the shorter work year and do not include the additional income teachers gain for work done during vacation.

Thing is, your math is off. That $43k number is figured on a 12 month year. Not just 9 months. If you want to figure on a 9 month year, then do so.

And based on that, we should judge everyone based not on a 12 salary, but a 12 month salary minus days off. That 4 week vacation and week of sick leave makes you an 11 month worker now.

My friend out West would like that. He had to do some dancing with his summer time schedule in order to present his doctoral thesis. He almost lost his job over it.

Which brings in all the required courses to keep certifications...not part of the school day I assure you.

And no one gets 3 months off anymore. My wife's last day to report was in mid June and she was back the 2nd week of August for prep. If not for our little one being born the first day of school (August 22nd) she would be working with about a 2 month gap.