State of the Union

[tigerfan482]

@T-Rexx.

At least in MA, it is not simple conjecture. It is FACT. One of mom's neighbors was a middle school math teacher in the town I grew up in [she tutored me when I was young because I was an "advanced" student]. She retired at 50 because she get a full-salary pension due to her years of "service". You tell me what other "middle-class" job would let you comfortably retire at 50? I do personally feel she was a great teacher no doubt but again, you find me that job with that kind of benefits.

Marco Rubio is till a douchenozzle though.

What is wrong with that? Do you have the same problem with NFL players who get paid millions and can retire at 35 or 40? What about these young CEOs that start a business then sell it off at 35 to net billions? If you're good at your job, why should you not get properly compensated for it and why should you not be able to retire early and enjoy life instead of working until you're dead?

I get really ticked off when people feel that just because someone works for some form of government means that they should be miserable, get paid little, and have to wait until they're 65 to retire. Your money pays the CEO of a huge corporation or the star NFL quarterback the same as it pays that teacher, so why is it personal achievement and hard work for two of those cases and a cushy job with outrageous benefits for the other?

[maxpowr9]

What is wrong with that? Do you have the same problem with NFL players who get paid millions and can retire at 35 or 40? What about these young CEOs that start a business then sell it off at 35 to net billions? If you're good at your job, why should you not get properly compensated for it and why should you not be able to retire early and enjoy life instead of working until you're dead?

I get really ticked off when people feel that just because someone works for some form of government means that they should be miserable, get paid little, and have to wait until they're 65 to retire. Your money pays the CEO of a huge corporation or the star NFL quarterback the same as it pays that teacher, so why is it personal achievement and hard work for two of those cases and a cushy job with outrageous benefits for the other?

Those are private institutions which I choose to support and/or work for. I don't get that say in public institutions. I remember my mom bitching over the fact that regardless if your child attended public school, you got whacked $10k PER CHILD under 18 if you had a deeded property in the town. My mom looked at it as $20k/year she threw away for services she would never use which is where I get my libertarian streak from.

[xbuzzerx]

Those are private institutions which I choose to support and/or work for. I don't get that say in public institutions. I remember my mom bitching over the fact that regardless if your child attended public school, you got whacked $10k PER CHILD under 18 if you had a deeded property in the town. My mom looked at it as $20k/year she threw away for services she would never use which is where I get my libertarian streak from.

This still doesn't really answer Tiger's point as to why you seem to be operating from a baseline belief that public workers should be poorly or more poorly compensated just because they're public workers..

[tigerfan482]

Those are private institutions which I choose to support and/or work for. I don't get that say in public institutions. I remember my mom bitching over the fact that regardless if your child attended public school, you got whacked $10k PER CHILD under 18 if you had a deeded property in the town. My mom looked at it as $20k/year she threw away for services she would never use which is where I get my libertarian streak from.

You do have a choice in public institutions. If you don't like the taxes you pay, then you can move to a place that doesn't tax you for public institutions such as education. I will wish you luck with finding any place that does this.

And you can go tell your mom that even though she may not have a child in public school, the existence of public schools still benefits her indirectly, thus she is expected to pay for it. Would should rather have the neighbor child in school during the day or breaking into her house because they have nothing else to do with themselves since they can't afford private school? Yes, I realize that's not the only possibility, but it is meant to illustrate one of the many benefits public schools provide to the public.

My mom has been a teacher for over 35 years now. She is 62 years old and hasn't retired yet. She doesn't bring in these gobs of money and benefits that you seem to think they do and she has done a shit load more to help society than any NFL player has. However, you believe she shouldn't get paid any significant amount of money simply because you believe that your taxes shouldn't support paying these teachers a decent living wage? I'm assuming you'd rather keep that extra money so you can go out and buy a new TV or have a few extra nights out right because you don't directly benefit from public schools since you don't have kids enrolled in them. Get a fucking clue and learn that as a society, we're all obligated to make sure that everyone has a chance to succeed and is rewarded for good work and not just those that work in the private sector.

[T-Rexx]

@T-Rexx.

At least in MA, it is not simple conjecture. It is FACT. One of mom's neighbors was a middle school math teacher in the town I grew up in [she tutored me when I was young because I was an "advanced" student]. She retired at 50 because she get a full-salary pension due to her years of "service".

No, it's not "FACT." It is complete conjecture on your part.

You object to teachers' unions because when you were a kid you believe one of your neighbors retired inappropriately early as a teacher?



Sorry, but a single anecdotal experience is not sufficient for establishment of policy. You have no idea what family resources the teacher in question enjoyed, nor what income her husband contributed to her ability to retire early. And you were a kid - you are basing your opinions on your mother's gossip! Good grief!

Sorry, but that's mindless union bashing.

You tell me what other "middle-class" job would let you comfortably retire at 50? I do personally feel she was a great teacher no doubt but again, you find me that job with that kind of benefits.

Retirements in the 50s are actually a fairly common practice at Proctor & Gamble here in Cincinnati. I used to have a client who worked there as a janitor for many years, retired at 55, and today lives in an expensive home with several classic cars. He told me his sole income was his employment at P & G. He worked there for decades as a janitor, and became very well compensated for his seniority and loyalty to the company.

I think a teacher in the public sector deserves just as much compensation as a janitor in the private.

[T-Rexx]

I remember my mom bitching over the fact that regardless if your child attended public school, you got whacked $10k PER CHILD under 18 if you had a deeded property in the town. My mom looked at it as $20k/year she threw away for services she would never use which is where I get my libertarian streak from.

Most of the property owners I know don't even make $20K/year! Your mom could only be paying that if she is quite wealthy, and owns much valuable property.

You have told us that you and your brother were educated in private schools, due to your family's disdain for public school teachers.

I suspect your "libertarian streak" comes from the fact that you have been raised in a wealthy household which does not care to give back to society anything reflective of the extent to which your family has benefited.

Please excuse me while I vomit.

[opinterph]

My mom looked at it as $20k/year she threw away for services she would never use …

Though property taxes generally do support local education – that is often a large part of what gives value to the property itself.

Please excuse me while I vomit.

Do you perceive an advantage to students who receive their education in private institutions?

[Just_Believe18]

Those are private institutions which I choose to support and/or work for. I don't get that say in public institutions. I remember my mom bitching over the fact that regardless if your child attended public school, you got whacked $10k PER CHILD under 18 if you had a deeded property in the town. My mom looked at it as $20k/year she threw away for services she would never use which is where I get my libertarian streak from.

Misinformed opinion. You should PM me sometime. Would be happy to talk to you about it, max.

[T-Rexx]

Do you perceive an advantage to students who receive their education in private institutions?

Yes, I do.

I was educated in both public and private schools, growing up - mostly private. The quality of education in the private schools I attended was unbelievable. The quality of education in the public schools I attended was rather poor.

When I was in third grade, I attended a public school where it was common for children to suddenly stand up beside their desks, drop their pants, and pee on the floor. I was too young at the time to really appreciate how staggeringly inappropriate was this behavior. But, my parents were not. They pulled me out of that school and placed me in the only available option - a local parochial school.

At the time of my transfer to the private school, I had not yet learned to multiply numbers. However, in the private school, they were doing (in third grade!) elementary algebraic functions! I went home crying every day, because I was so completely lost in all of my classes. I had been transported to an alternate universe vastly beyond the capability of my young mind to grasp.

My experience is not an indictment of the public school teachers. I attended public school in a district where fully one-third of the students were on welfare. They did not have books at home. They did not have transportation to the local public library. My fellow students did not have parents who were well-educated, as were mine. They did not come from homes which understood the importance of education, nor which had the resources to demand it.

I am the beneficiary of an extraordinarily exclusive education, available to only a handful of people on earth. While I am grateful for this opportunity, I am saddened by the fact that such opportunity is afforded to so few people. If I have benefited disproportionately from life, it is not because I am exceptional or gifted or talented in some way. It is simply for the stupid reason that my family had wealth.

The private schools I attended were populated by students from wealthy families with vast resources at home. They were kids who had heath care and dental care and parents who could drive them about town to football games and extracurricular activities. Their parents were educated and could help them with their homework. The kids in the public school from which I came had none of these advantages.

Yes, of course, my parochial school absolutely destroyed my public school on standardized tests of academic performance. But, that was not because the private teachers were more committed to their jobs by virtue of higher pay for our superior test performance. In fact, quite the opposite - they were priests and nuns who made almost nothing for their service. Our superior test performance was based on one fact and one fact only - we were rich.

[rareboy]

So remind me again what the current discussion has to do with the State of the Union address?

I lost track there.

[rareboy]

What Blind loathing? I am laughing at the guy. His speech was so incredibly boring... and the glass of water shows that even his throat went dry after spewing out all the rubbish he did. I wonder if he really believes what he said lol. Rubio's response was inadequate and pathetic to say in the least.

And I thought I was being ignored?

Yeah...laughing at Rubio isn't the same as loathing.

I watched the speech again after watching his performance being parodied by so many other TV personalities this week. This is all this guy's speech is going to be remembered for, because otherwise it was a lame and listless attack, lacking vision or even an iota of original thinking.

I'm sure the RNC and all the team Owners were just cringing when they saw what a clusterfuck Rubio made of things.

Certainly, it was an aspirational presidential career ender for their Great Latino Hope.

[Jack Springer]

Was she married...? Was she wealthy...?

This is 1 friggin anecdote about 1 person presented as supporting evidence for a wide scale comment about how to fix national education.

Teachers retiring early with full salary is a normal thing.

[CowboyBob]

Teachers retiring early with full salary is a normal thing.

Wrong.

Do you have links to back up your claim?

[chrisrobin]

Yeah...laughing at Rubio isn't the same as loathing.

I watched the speech again after watching his performance being parodied by so many other TV personalities this week. This is all this guy's speech is going to be remembered for, because otherwise it was a lame and listless attack, lacking vision or even an iota of original thinking.

I'm sure the RNC and all the team Owners were just cringing when they saw what a clusterfuck Rubio made of things.

Certainly, it was an aspirational presidential career ender for their Great Latino Hope.

Do not despair. Rubio could become the next spokesman for:

http://www.polandspring.com/#/home

[HenryReardon]

Our superior test performance was based on one fact and one fact only - we were rich.

What an absurd statement. Back that up with some actual demographic data, why don't you?

[CowboyBob]

Do not despair. Rubio could become the next spokesman for:

http://www.polandspring.com/#/home

Yeah...what was that all about? Rubio gave a really bad rebuttal "speech". Nervous and unprepared. No way this guy can be groomed to be a "leader".

[rareboy]

Hey Chance....

His speech was a total disaster... if he is the savior of the republican party... I kinda feel pity for them. He's a mess. And he should remember... always carry a bottle of water around. When one is spewing out steaming bullshit your throat could get dry. Marco Rubio... a rich white guy who convinces nobody. Yea, he won't be a Millard Fillmore... probably more like Bob Dole instead of McCain or Romney. He's dry and boring... rather would watch paint dry.

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.

[GiancarloC]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

Are we still posting this same old rubbish? I was attacking the content in Rubio's terrible speech. Any political analyst can tell you it was a disaster. Rubio's speech ignores the realities and he still grabbing onto the straws. Like some of the right wingers on here do. I am not loathing or hating the man personally... I feel pity for him. He's a total complete mess. I know some don't want their future republican hero to be attacked... but come, he's hollow and has absolutely no personality.

Every single time he tries to attack Obama he looks pathetic and his attacks are just the same old crap the republican party has been shoveling out for years. News flash, Obama won election in 2008 and won re-election in 2012... two candidates (McCain and Romney) failed to beat Obama. And both candidates have more substance and personality than Marco Rubio. I would even argue Paul Ryan has more substance than Marco Rubio... and that says it all.

Oh and as far as swaying Latinos fat chance... even the republicans are losing Cuban-Americans who went 50/50 to Obama. Rubio won't help.

[xbuzzerx]

Teachers retiring early with full salary is a normal thing.

Wrong.

Do you have links to back up your claim?

Seriously. Where is this parallel reality the Libertarians and Republicans live in where teachers are overpaid, have too good benefits and get to retire earlier than everyone else and live well?

That's not the reality I live in.

[chance1]

Hey Chance....


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.

sure thing

it's a laugh riot

def. designed as a humor thing - facetious perhaps

oh that's right - no humor involved

and the mods keep deleting stuff randomly

life on JUB

it's like MSNBC - only one POV required

bandwagon and such

[GiancarloC]

The mods look like they remove personal attacks. Just that simple. Perhaps one should avoid using personal attacks and start using logical arguments in their posts?

[maxpowr9]

Most of the property owners I know don't even make $20K/year! Your mom could only be paying that if she is quite wealthy, and owns much valuable property.

You have told us that you and your brother were educated in private schools, due to your family's disdain for public school teachers.

I suspect your "libertarian streak" comes from the fact that you have been raised in a wealthy household which does not care to give back to society anything reflective of the extent to which your family has benefited.

Please excuse me while I vomit.

Hun, take a look at what teachers make in MA by town...

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

[T-Rexx]

Hun, take a look at what teachers make in MA by town...

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.


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/re...me_by_zipcode/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherborn,_Massachusetts

[xbuzzerx]

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.

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.


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/re...me_by_zipcode/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherborn,_Massachusetts

Exactly. You're only going to find very very well paid teachers in very very wealthy areas. Presenting that as a case in point about how the field of teaching across the board needs benefit cuts and lower salaries is ridiculous. I don't even know how public schoolteachers in California survive unless they're married to someone with, as people would say, "a real job." That's how little teaching gets paid generally.

[maxpowr9]

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.

[xbuzzerx]

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 can tell you flat out that when tenure was massively cut in the UC system in California, despite all the arguments about how it will encourage better teachers and less sloth from people who have job security, the end result of it only was that many, many more professors regardless of merit lost all job security and operate permanently on a term by term lecturer contract, which also earns far less money than a tenured position, and they're essentially hire-a-profs who can be cut or replaced at any time. It also means we lost a lot of good professors who didn't want to leave the UC system but were actually offered decent packages either in private universities or out of state universities as opposed to the prospect of a likely lifetime of lower paid lecturer contracts from semester to semester.

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.

[T-Rexx]

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.

I agree. But, I would extend this thinking to ALL workers, not just teachers.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2680639.html

[tigerfan482]

I can tell you flat out that when tenure was massively cut in the UC system in California, despite all the arguments about how it will encourage better teachers and less sloth from people who have job security, the end result of it only was that many, many more professors regardless of merit lost all job security and operate permanently on a term by term lecturer contract, which also earns far less money than a tenured position, and they're essentially hire-a-profs who can be cut or replaced at any time. It also means we lost a lot of good professors who didn't want to leave the UC system but were actually offered decent packages either in private universities or out of state universities as opposed to the prospect of a likely lifetime of lower paid lecturer contracts from semester to semester.

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.

Agreed. You either have professors that leave for private industry or those that focus solely on grant money and research and ultimately suck at being professors.

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?

I agree. But, I would extend this thinking to ALL workers, not just teachers.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2680639.html

It is the job of the rich to ensure both that they stay rich as well as keep the poorer masses believing that keeping them rich is part of the American Dream. There are a good number of stupid people in this country that would rather vote to keep their neighborhood billionaire rich while voting against raising the minimum wage that the poorest of us makes.

[maxpowr9]

I agree. But, I would extend this thinking to ALL workers, not just teachers.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2680639.html

Wrong again!

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.

[xbuzzerx]

Wrong again!

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.

$11.75 would still be substantially higher than even what Obama proposed (which people almost nationwide are already pooh-poohing as "too high" and "never going to happen") and would put us on par with Canada.

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.

[T-Rexx]

Wrong again!

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.

No. You didn't read the post.

The discussion is about keeping up with productivity, not inflation. Your opinion that productivity can't be measured is not shared by many.

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.

And I thought you were advocating paying teachers based on how good they are!

[maxpowr9]

No. You didn't read the post.

The discussion is about keeping up with productivity, not inflation. Your opinion that productivity can't be measured is not shared by many.



And I thought you were advocating paying teachers based on how good they are!

You are delusional and are twisting my words. I didn't say productivity can't be measured. In fact it is quite easily measured. The Solow model is a neoclassical economics function for productivity and extremely laughable and has been debunked several times over. So you are saying you are a neoclassical economist like GWB?

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.

[xbuzzerx]

You are delusional and are twisting my words. I didn't say productivity can't be measured. In fact it is quite easily measured. The Solow model is a neoclassical economics function for productivity and extremely laughable and has been debunked several times over. So you are saying you are a neoclassical economist like GWB?

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.

Of course the pissing contest aspect is off the point that minimum wage IS too low, that wealth has been rerouted to a small minority at the top of the economy for 40 years, and that devising ways to cut the benefits of either private or public workers right now out of some belief that some portion of them "may not merit it" despite decades of service isn't a great paradigm for changing any of that.

[Just_Believe18]

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.

[T-Rexx]

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.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2680639.html

Wrong again!

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.

The whole point of the study is to compare worker income to productivity, not inflation.

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?

This is what happens when liberals trust their rags which distort statistics.

Actually, the study was done by the 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?

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.

I agree entirely. This is a point I have been making throughout this thread.

But if you believe that pay cannot reasonably be based on merit, why do you say:

@Apollo, the problem with the education system is the unions which rewards seniority [see: full-salary pensions after 20-years of teaching] instead of merit. It's why my parents wouldn't let my brother or me set foot in a public school. You would have to seriously overhaul the unions which are strangling the school system to get a better bang for your buck.

This sounds to me that you are advocating paying public school teachers on the basis of merit. But you just said above that that is not a reasonable thing to try to do. What is your position?

You are delusional and are twisting my words. I didn't say productivity can't be measured.

No [trusted] economic statistics are based on productivity.

Productivity itself is an economic "statistic." If you say that "no trusted economic statistic can be based on productivity," I have to believe you do not accept the productivity statistics, either. I assume that's why you object so strenuously to people trying to study where the wealth being generated by increased productivity is going - you don't trust the productivity statistics.

And yet, you then say:

I didn't say productivity can't be measured. In fact it is quite easily measured.

Again, I agree. It is easily estimated.

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?

Again, when you understand economics, don't try to add to the discussion without embarrassing yourself.

Indeed!

[Jack Springer]

SOTU speech has been forgotten.

[rareboy]

sure thing

it's a laugh riot

def. designed as a humor thing - facetious perhaps

oh that's right - no humor involved

and the mods keep deleting stuff randomly

life on JUB

it's like MSNBC - only one POV required

bandwagon and such

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.

[chance1]

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.

]

Yep reading comprehension is grand

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

[rareboy]

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'.

[chance1]

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'.

I think u overrate style

And eschew substance

How u like dem apples ? *



* name the character and the movie

[GiancarloC]

Yep reading comprehension is grand

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

I've been begging people to read my posts more clearly... and I haven't seen that from certain right wingers. My criticism of Rubio was directed at his inability to convey his thoughts well and his serious lack of substance. Rubio is hollow and farcical. His entire speech was a rambling mess and it represented the ineptness of the GOP in the last 4 or 5 years. Watching it go down like the Hindenburg is ironic, as it represents the GOP's own descent into chaos and insanity.

Keep misstating what I said. I know criticism of one of the "future saviors" of the GOP is hard to take... considering that "future savior" looks more like a future disaster in the making, of whom has even less substance than Mitt Romney or John McCain.

[White Eagle]

I've been begging people to read my posts more clearly... and I haven't seen that from certain right wingers. My criticism of Rubio was directed at his inability to convey his thoughts well and his serious lack of substance. Rubio is hollow and farcical. His entire speech was a rambling mess and it represented the ineptness of the GOP in the last 4 or 5 years. Watching it go down like the Hindenburg is ironic, as it represents the GOP's own descent into chaos and insanity.

Keep misstating what I said. I know criticism of one of the "future saviors" of the GOP is hard to take... considering that "future savior" looks more like a future disaster in the making, of whom has even less substance than Mitt Romney or John McCain.

I think you nailed it. Thanks.

[tigerfan482]

I've been begging people to read my posts more clearly... and I haven't seen that from certain right wingers. My criticism of Rubio was directed at his inability to convey his thoughts well and his serious lack of substance. Rubio is hollow and farcical. His entire speech was a rambling mess and it represented the ineptness of the GOP in the last 4 or 5 years. Watching it go down like the Hindenburg is ironic, as it represents the GOP's own descent into chaos and insanity.

Keep misstating what I said. I know criticism of one of the "future saviors" of the GOP is hard to take... considering that "future savior" looks more like a future disaster in the making, of whom has even less substance than Mitt Romney or John McCain.

But, but he is Latino and he'll save the Republicans by getting them the Latino vote because Latinos are just a bunch of dumb animals who vote for the one who speaks Spanish the best and has the darkest skin.

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?

[xbuzzerx]

But, but he is Latino and he'll save the Republicans by getting them the Latino vote because Latinos are just a bunch of dumb animals who vote for the one who speaks Spanish the best and has the darkest skin.

Is that why Romney painted himself brown when he went to speak to Latino voters?

[Just_Believe18]

^ There's only one other man I know who has ever reached that same shade of Garfield.

[tigerfan482]

Is that why Romney painted himself brown when he went to speak to Latino voters?

Yeah. They decided it would be better to try for the real thing this time around. Although they are still considering darkening Rubio a bit to hopefully have some cross-appeal to the African-American voting bloc.

[Apollo]

I've been begging people to read my posts more clearly... and I haven't seen that from certain right wingers. My criticism of Rubio was directed at his inability to convey his thoughts well and his serious lack of substance. Rubio is hollow and farcical. His entire speech was a rambling mess and it represented the ineptness of the GOP in the last 4 or 5 years. Watching it go down like the Hindenburg is ironic, as it represents the GOP's own descent into chaos and insanity.

Keep misstating what I said. I know criticism of one of the "future saviors" of the GOP is hard to take... considering that "future savior" looks more like a future disaster in the making, of whom has even less substance than Mitt Romney or John McCain.

John McCain used to be a decent politician. He believed in working with the other side to get laws passed. He pretty much lost his mind when he decided to run for president. All of a sudden he was afraid to be seen as a moderate republican which he used to never have a problem with and went complete darkside. Sad really, he probably would have been the only republican I would have ever voted for.

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,

[JockBoy87]

John McCain used to be a decent politician. He believed in working with the other side to get laws passed. He pretty much lost his mind when he decided to run for president. All of a sudden he was afraid to be seen as a moderate republican which he used to never have a problem with and went complete darkside. Sad really, he probably would have been the only republican I would have ever voted for.

I am minded to say he had to just for the primaries, and probably disliked the task. When McCain reverted back to his moderate mode for the general election, many Republicans did not want to part with the old guard, and so stayed home when the rest of the country wanted fresh new ideas and leadership. Then the Tea Party sprung up and changed everything, making McCain a permanent right wing radical.

[xbuzzerx]

John McCain used to be a decent politician. He believed in working with the other side to get laws passed. He pretty much lost his mind when he decided to run for president. All of a sudden he was afraid to be seen as a moderate republican which he used to never have a problem with and went complete darkside. Sad really, he probably would have been the only republican I would have ever voted for.

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,

McCain was a basically decent Senator and in that capacity he was known to engage in both bipartisan efforts and frequently criticize the crazy extremities of his own party-- including Bush's torture policy.

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.

[Apollo]

McCain was a basically decent Senator and in that capacity he was known to engage in both bipartisan efforts and frequently criticize the crazy extremities of his own party-- including Bush's torture policy.

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.

I couldn't agree more. After he chose Palin as his running mate. I immediately thought it was a brilliant move to make up for his running to the far right cliff, but after she started talking...well I knew he had lost. So did Obama, you could almost see Obama putting his hands behind his head and riding Palin's stupid wave right into the White House. The more she talked, the more McCain lost.