Where's the hate bruh?
Weird that you can read so much into factual statements and analysis.
A. the speech was total disaster.
B. if he was thought to be the saviour, you have to pity the fool. He presented like a hot mess.
C. he should always carry a bottle of water, or better yet, have a glass and a carafe handy...because talking points that seem to ignore the entire last five years would parch any throat.
D. if he thinks that he is going to win the non-white vote by being able to speak Spanish....he isn't giving much credit to the potential latino voters out there who are listening for ideas and not the same old rubbish and alienating ideas fed to them in a different language.
E. He doesn't even project a personality as strong as Dole, McCain or Romney
F. So yeah...more boring than watching paint drying.
I don't see the hate. Or loathing. Just a pretty good description of what everyone saw the other night.
2010-11 Teacher Salaries Report
Mind you the top two towns are Dover and Sherborn. The only reason you can find a home in either town below $750k, is due to state-mandated low-income housing in each town.
This is coupled with the expenditures per student which is basically the "child tax" in each town...
2010-11 Per Pupil Expenditures Report
According to your data, the average teacher salary in Dover in 2011 was $92,765. But, the average income there in 2005 was $361,394. Teachers there are making 25% of the average income for their community.
The average teacher in Sherborn in 2011 made $92,381. The median (not average) income for males in Sherborn in 2007 was $88,677. Teachers are making close to the median income for the community.
And please note that teachers in Florida, MA are making only $37,580.
I get that Massachusetts is an expensive place to live. I don't get why you think teachers should be paid so much less than everyone else.
Last edited by T-Rexx; February 17th, 2013 at 06:02 PM.
I never said that teachers should be paid less. I stressed in my first "rant" that teacher's pay should be tied to merit and not seniority. Fuck, even at my college, I helped found the coalition that abolished a tenured status for professors and instead implemented a fellowship that mandated a professor produces acknowledged research or secures grant money, they would be given a 5-year tenured status.
This goes back to my horrible real estate finance professor that was tenured and talked about his fucking sailboat for the first three classes and I dropped the class because he was not teaching and clearly showing up for a paycheck.
I heard from some of my local friends that attended public school that a teacher, clearly "over-the-hill", took a 3-month break to eat up her vacation time before she retired.
I personally feel teaching is a vocation and not a job, and those called to be pedagogues should be rewarded.
I would feel completely safe in saying that hacking the tenure system in CA was entirely about lowering the wages paid to professors overall, and COST US the good professors, rather than anything materializing in the form of "now we can get rid of the bad profs who've just been there for ages with job security, and get really good ones." It was just a way to cut the education budget, made necessary under Arnold's governorship.
The sad fact of the last 40 years in America is that the wages of average workers have not even come close to keeping up with the value of the goods they produce. The federal minimum wage today is $7.25. If the federal minimum wage since 1968 had kept up with productivity, it would today be $21.72/hr. Instead, almost all of that value has gone to the top 1% of wage earners.
We keep rewarding people for being rich. How about we start rewarding people for working? Can you imagine what that would do for the economy? We like to believe in America that our economy works better when poor people are kept poor. Precisely the opposite is true.
Last edited by T-Rexx; February 17th, 2013 at 07:06 PM.
This whole private versus public thing wasn't an issue before the recession when public workers routinely got paid less (both in salary and benefits) than their private sector counterparts. The sole thing they had going for them was the job security. Now when the private sector started sliding downhill, all of a sudden the public sector is now overpaid and should lose the benefit they assumed when they took the lower paying public sector job. How about instead of trying to fight to bring the public sector down, the people in the private sector start fighting to bring themselves (back) up?
The minimum wage conversation has already been discussed here and if it kept up with inflation, it would be around $11.75. Again, it is using the benchmark of productivity instead of inflation. This is what happens when liberals trust their rags which distort statistics. No [trusted] economic statistics are based on productivity. They are always benchmarked to inflation. Don't even try to say you deserve a raise based on how good you are at your job because your boss will just laugh at you. If you bring up COLA, they are more susceptible of giving you a wage increase.
Even nitpicking over the number, it still should be much higher than where it is (11.75 is more than 150% of where minimum wage is today), and the claim about how wealth and increase in income has been completely monopolized by the top minority of households since 1970 is completely valid, and is mentioned openly in the CIA World Factbook on the U.S. economic structure.
Last edited by xbuzzerx; February 17th, 2013 at 08:23 PM.
The discussion is about keeping up with productivity, not inflation. Your opinion that productivity can't be measured is not shared by many.
Last edited by T-Rexx; February 17th, 2013 at 08:38 PM.
Fuck I could go back to the 40s and bring up the arcane Cobb-Douglass function.
Again, when you understand economics, don't try to add to the discussion without embarrassing yourself.
Last edited by maxpowr9; February 17th, 2013 at 08:54 PM.
Maxpowr9, you are grossly misrepresenting an entire profession of educators based on your own personal experiences. You have no idea the challenges and fights teachers face every day across this country. In a public education system, teachers teach students from all backgrounds of life. Unlike private or charter schools, which are magnets to high socio-economic student households, public schools must take all students, particularly students who are English Language Learners (ELL), and Special Education. Most teachers are wonderful figures of inspiration and learning. I look back at my schooling and smile at the selfless individuals who believed in me to pursue my dreams.
Teachers stand between the budget cutters and ignoramuses who devalue what a student's education means to the individual child. Often times, it is a teacher who gives back hundreds to thousands of dollars of their own income to their classroom and students every year. Have you been back to a high school? You would notice half the faculty also coaches and serves as an advisor to a sport or extra curricular activity that pays only in a small stipend for the many hours extra they put into it beyond their job. All, so that students can find extra stimulation and learning in a sport, debate team, science bowl, or leadership on the student council.
A teacher is only paid for the work day they are in the classroom with students. Their main contract does not cover the hours they spend at home grading papers and lesson planning at night.
So no, teachers are not paid enough for being expected to have multiple college degrees, continuing education to renew their certification in the states they teach in, and the many hours they put in beyond their scheduled work day. The pay scale you pointed out in a highly affluent state shows an income level below the cost of living associated with those districts. Nevertheless, I think it's damn fair what they're being paid even if those areas had a low cost-of-living. After all, we should we paying highly to attract educated professionals to go back into the classroom with their degrees to teach the future generations of this country.
#439th oldest member on JUB.
I'm not clear on why you object to analyzing productivity data. Comparing income to inflation tells you nothing about how the benefits of increased productivity are being distributed.
Why do you insist that income may only be compared to inflation and not productivity?
Center for Economic and Policy Research, not some "liberal rag."
It would be far more helpful for you to tell us why you object to the conclusions of these economists, rather than tell us that they're not allowed to study what they did. What was it that they "distorted" in pursuit of their awful "liberal" agenda?
But if you believe that pay cannot reasonably be based on merit, why do you say:
And yet, you then say:
So why do you say "no trusted economic statistic can be based on productivity?" If productivity is "easily measured," why can no trusted economic statistic be based upon it? And, again, why do you object to the economists at CEPR doing exactly that?
Last edited by T-Rexx; February 17th, 2013 at 11:26 PM.
SOTU speech has been forgotten.
Once again, reading comprehension skills are important. The statement was that laughing at someone isn't the same as loathing.
And laughing at someone isn't the same thing as humour. So you see, it is possible to laugh at Rubio's unintentionally disastrous performance and not loathe him at all.
And if u read
U have a chance (love that) to comprehend
And if u read GC's original post that provoked my response
And if u read GC in general
U Would comprehend
No funny stuff
Keep jumping in and showcasing that either or both of these things you're missing
This is too easy
Another case of ..... U know
I not only read it, I parsed it for you and pointed out that your presumption of loathing is ridiculous and that you're confusing 'laughing at' with humour. You seem to be unwilling or incapable of comprehending the difference and are only jumping down GC's throat because of other posts that have nothing to do with the topic of Rubio's unintentionally hilarious antics this past week.
You may note that I am also responding using a device called 'sentences'.
The Republicans just don't get it and never will. While a good amount of the electorate are a bunch of idiots who will fall for these tactics and vote for appearance rather than substance, they already vote Republican and shouldn't be the ones they try to target. Then again, would we expect them to realize this?
^ There's only one other man I know who has ever reached that same shade of Garfield.
#439th oldest member on JUB.
That's the real problem with the republican party, none of their politicans seem to have real values or beliefs. They change their beliefs depending on how much money they want or how many votes they need to win an election. In some ways, so do democrats but not in such a completely obvious way.
Mitt Romney, well Mitt Romney was silly putty. He was whatever his campaign team wanted him to be that week,
Last edited by Apollo; February 18th, 2013 at 03:04 PM.
What his Presidential campaign showed, to me, moreso than flaws in his judgment (and there were assuredly some, such as the Palin pick) was that the GOP requirement of groupthink and lockstep is too powerful, that any chance of success in rising in the ranks of the GOP depends far too greatly on it, and that for someone to run as a candidate for today's GOP they need to embrace the mentality of "admitting a mistake is far worse than making the mistake", "compromise is weakness", "changing your mind regardless of new evidence is flip-flopping", and every other petulant and style-over-substance trait that explains the inability of the GOP in the present to come to the table as adults and participate in governance of the country.
That's definitely what needs to change, far more than the GOP simply making "better picks" or whatever else for their candidates, since any candidate currently goes through this same uniformity process as they try to campaign under the massive litmus test requirements of "being a Republican" today will turn into exactly the same standardized GOP amalgam that McCain became during his campaign. There isn't room for anyone to do any better than McCain or Romney did. There's a line they are absolutely required to tow and it's one that resonates with dissonance with a majority of the American public today, because it's out of touch and it alienates moderates.
Last edited by xbuzzerx; February 18th, 2013 at 03:19 PM.
and isn't it just bandwagon-esque that the SOTU thread has evolved into another lame-ass "republicans suck" jerk off (with no cum)
it's the running narrative that finds it's way into every thread
the parallel narrative is gay marriage into every thread - but at least that's taken a wee break
so at least that's something of a + development
as for the SOTU - i heard today that the sister of a chicago woman who attended the SOTU address was killed - more gun violence in the gun capital of the US - Chicago
Last edited by chance1; February 18th, 2013 at 04:40 PM.
"a few people"
so get over it - it's "a few people"
thanks for admitting what the elephant in the room is here
a handful of people who don't sniff obama's undies are "a few people"
so try to deal ok ?
cause a few people shouldn't rock your world now right ?
OH MY GOD I CAN'T BELIEVE that YOU PEOPLE are SO CLUELESS about ESOTERICA!!!!
JESUS what an indictment of your educations.
ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE
Erudite? That's the Greek Goddess of love right? Yeah, not her.
ATTACK OF THE LIBERAL ELITE
^ u need a leash
All I really see you do is use big words and talk a lot about your education and how it's better than other people's, but rarely making coherent points.
If you feel your level of educational achievement is so high then apply it in a way that people will see it on their own and you won't have to be constantly convincing them it was purportedly so great.
What these people don't realize is a large portion of our economy is based upon government spending, whether it be directly to government contractors, directly through employing millions of people (the vast majority of which are middle class) who spend their money just like anyone else locally, or indirectly through the suppliers and small businesses the contractors use to get what they need to fulfill their contracts. What's going to be bittersweet to see is all of these people start suffering once the government greatly reduces spending and starts furloughing their employees. The idea that the private sector will just pick up all of the slack in regards to spending and employment is laughable to the point it makes me want to cry.