Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
I am Anomaly
14740 Followers
Naveed Javaid
8062 Followers
Siraj Ahmed
1034 Followers
mysticdave
4415 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
Steven Humour
3103 Followers
margueriterowes
71 Followers
Russ Smith
18392 Followers
janinewallaceMar 4, 2011
Brilliant commentary
lp1236951Mar 4, 2011
Well done. Well done. Jon
u2canfailMar 4, 2011
Those wealthy school teachers! I quit teaching, because I could not pay my bills. I remember the life style well. I ate beans or lentils 4 days a week.
rethreadMar 5, 2011
I didn't start teaching for similar reasons. That and the inflexible day by day forcefeed curriculum. I found another way to do what needed to be done. Education in GA is, well, lemme check -
http://tinyurl.com/6b8xpmc
Sorry, found this more interesting in the engine. (PDF)
Regardless, GA has been bottom feeding at the highest dollar in education usually, front newspaper page stuff.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
I did teach a few years. But knew it would not work for me, for long. When in MS teaching, I quit, goodness what a mess it was, there. The one thing I really got out of the experience, is the amazing grace of those who taught and were good at it. I really think a good teacher ought to be worth something. I learned a lot about working in adverse conditions too.
letsgetreal50Dec 10, 2011
As in most cases, "we get what we pay for."
realityvoidMar 5, 2011
Oh shut the f**k up! You people piss me off because you exaggerate. You could be very well off making even only 30 grand a year!
Yeah, sure, you couldn't get the biggest cars, the coolest vacations or life in the most expensive neighborhood. But saying that you're forced to eat lentils because you have little money is a crass exaggeration!
Just to clear something up, I don't live in the US, but I've been there and worked for about 3 months. I liked living there, the money was nice, good living conditions and the people were cool. But you have impossibly high living standards and act like the f**king world owes you something. Well, it doesn't!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Mar 5, 2011
"But you have impossibly high living standards and act like the f**king world owes you something. Well, it doesn't!"
You're owed a living wage when you do work a little more challenging than flipping burgers or noble than investment banking. You act like teaches aren't working at all. Are you that stupid?
realityvoidMar 5, 2011
My mother is a teacher you dimwit! I am not saying that teacher's work isn't valuable. But I've flipped burgers too, and can attest that it is a soul-sucking experience. Every job has its ups and downs.
But that isn't the issue I was raising. The problem is u2canfail said he didn't have money to eat right. You have to be pretty damn stupid or have a crippling crack addiction to not be able to feed yourself even when you get ONLY 30 grand a year.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Mar 5, 2011
How do you know u2canfail isn't in the hole on school loans or upside down on his mortgage? Interestingly enough, my girlfriend is a teacher, has never smoked crack and owes close to100k in student loans, even after the educators' student loan forgiveness in Obama's healthcare bill. If not for my income, my girlfriend would be eating lentil soup 4 times a week. 30k is nothing in an area with a high cost of living or to someone who's income couldn't possibly offset their education & personal investment.
Should be worth mentioning too that my girlfriend who teaches is in the oh-so-awesome private sector, no longer has even sick days for benefits because privatized education puts profit over quality of pay & service to the kids. I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing that being an educator is seen as the position of respect it should be seen as, anywhere in this country.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
Thank you, your reply to him was kind for what he said. My story is in a reply to dustbunny below. Old here, taught many years ago.
sennex72Mar 11, 2011
Intelligent people seem often to be committed to public service. But they don't have to be, they can join the banking crooks, mortgage land-deal swindlers, "free marketeers who rely on a tax-take subsidy when they fail" etc and leave the dumb to teach the dumb. Afer all the smart can teach themselves to read, you know.
When the blind lead th blind they both fall into the ditch. In a tax-cutting world why not leave them to it, colleagues?
u2canfailDec 10, 2011
No, loans at all, you see I am old. Teachers salary when I taught was $3000, a year, and I spent a fortune buying every item needed for school work, then clothed and fed some homeless students too. I was one of those like Boehner, fortunate enough to work my way through a college degree with a minimum wage job. Now, you know the rest of the story, realityvoid, being really ugly, did not bother to ask.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
Total salary when I taught was $2650.00. I am a bit older than you.
u2canfailMar 7, 2011
You could have asked me questions. But then "ugly" is far better.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
$30 grand, and a living, is relative to one's location, in the USA.
realityvoidMar 5, 2011
Ok, that is true, I'll give you that. But, please do tell, where did you live during those troubling times when you've had to eat beans and lentils?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailMar 7, 2011
see reply to dustbunny below.
miklkitMar 5, 2011
True. There are cities around here that have to pay their teachers more than the contract because otherwise they could not afford to live in those cities and would go elsewhere where the contract money looks pretty good.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
San Francisco offers housing assistance. Just can't find anyone that can afford to live there.
dustbunny52Mar 5, 2011
Reality, you have a lot of nerve telling U2 what he did or did not do. I assume you have candid photos of him eating steak and sipping champagne on his lavish teacher's salary? Living in the US for a few months is not the same thing as trying to live here permanently. You avoid so many issues, like trying to buy a house, that add heavily to your expenses.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
Thank you. No one even asked. I am old. When I taught salary was $2650. a year. I shared an apartment, and did eat beans and lentils. I guess, some here never did that, and can't imagine it.
I spent a fortune on supplies. ( Not student loans, in those days you could work for minimum wage and pay for college. It took 30 hours of work for every class. I worked my way through, I don't cry about it though, like Boehner. ) No student in my room had pencils or paper. I taught in the last all black ghetto school in my area. I had students who lived under bridges. I bought clothing for them. Jackets, underwear, shirts, jeans and shoes. The first student I brought in clothing for cried. I kept him after class to give him the items. He thought he was in trouble. I was there, to cover his genitals. I had heard the other children teasing him. No underwear, and 1 pair of holy jeans. I actually cared. It was important to me that he be able to do his work. I worked every day to make their lives better, each student. That first, before I taught one thing every morning.
Rough school it was. I had a closet in my room for the weapons I collected from students. I checked everyone when they came in. ( Body search, would not be allowed today.) All home made weapons, no guns. Only 2 times did I have a student come at me. And both of those were not the childs doing. Both were circumstances they could not get passed. I was not injured, just in the way.
I only taught a few years. I had to move on. I can tell you teaching was the most rewarding job, and the hardest job, I ever had. I volunteer today, when I can, because I saw the need for help. Not everyone has opportunity, even in America.
I consider the experience great, and do not understand this animosity toward teachers, or those less fortunate. I want to ask them to spend a few days "locked up" with that many children, and try to teach.
realityvoidMar 5, 2011
I think that you're a really good human being and I do respect what you did for those kids. I really appreciate you for sharing all of this. I enjoy being on Digg and debating because I believe that mental confrontation is one of the best ways to find out new things. Just so you know it's nothing personal, it's just a battle of ideas.
But, as I said, my problem isn't with teachers or how much they get paid. The point I was raising is that 30 000$ will provide a decent living. And I'm quite angry about this, not because of you in particular, but because I've seen some Americans that really didn't know how to manage their money and even though I earned the same cash that they did and lived in almost identical conditions, they were constantly broke. I actually managed saving some money. They constantly complained the didn't have money, ate my food and borrowed cash from me. I unwillingly started hating those people. I looked at them and despite all my tolerance, all I could think was how can they be like that, living with all those opportunities and not being able to raise themselves above their condition. All they could do was bitch and complain about not having this and that or this when everything they needed was right there.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
I certainly appreciate this post. THXs I know people who make hundred of thousands and can't manage money. In debt up to ___. You can ask some questions before blasting away.
I really did eat lentils and beans. It was a few years back. $30k today is not a lot. I was lucky, I paid for school by working for minimum wage. No one can do that today. They may have huge debt to repay. Teaching is the lowest pay that has a degree requirement.
A baby sitter would make more # of children x hours worked. Include benefits and they are even. (No high school required for a sitter.)
graphictruthMar 6, 2011
"Home Economics" used to be a required course. Now we could debate who did what to whom under what delusions to get rid of it - but the point is, budgeting is not something people are born knowing. And if the parents don't know how, or cannot teach (another presumed universal skill that just is NOT).. it's really difficult to learn well the hard way, under field conditions.
...and there are entire industries devoted to *exploiting* that lack of general understanding. Sub-prim mortgages, for example. Or "rewards points" credit cards...
dustbunny52Mar 7, 2011
Thank you for sharing. I tend to forget that there are people like you out there in the world. Thank you.
I attempted to go into teaching after I retired from the semiconductor industry. I was to be treated like a criminal. I was to go in and be mug shot and fingerprinted. They were going to run an investigation on me to make sure that I was not a child molester of some kind. BTW this was an investigation that I was supposed to pay for. After paying hundreds of dollars, in the end, I would be getting job as a replacement teacher for $5/hr, minus the withholding. My wife makes more selling dresses at a local dress shop.
I talked to retiring teachers who told me that they were glad to be out. They all agreed that 70% of their time was spent on disciplinary issues, 20% was paperwork required by the No Child Left Behind Act and 10% was actually teaching. They all enjoyed the teaching part.
In the end, I decided to forgo the honor.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
I taught a few years back, sonny. I am old. Salary was $2650.00 per year. I was on lentils and beans. Rented a room from a friend.
And $30 grand is not much for anyone with a degree. You can't pay your student loans on that, and still live, in most of the USA. If a teacher were just a babysitter, for the number of hours worked and number of kids in the room, they would make $100k.
You sure expect a lot don't you? Want a babysitter "that teaches" for 1/3 pay?
letsgetreal50Dec 10, 2011
Living up to your name, I see.
u2canfailDec 10, 2011
I am old, I made a whopping $3000 per year. Beans and lentils were what I could afford. I taught in a school, pre segregation, in the middle of a housing project. I paid for all school supplies out of my pocket, yes even pencils. I bought clothing, yes coats and underwear too, for students. For my homeless students, I bought bread, and peanut butter, and blankets. Now, when you call me a liar, you should know, I really object to name calling without even a question.
Then I want to ask you a question. I want to ask who, at your job, do you have to financially support, to do your job, sir?
realityvoidDec 10, 2011
Are you talking to me? Because I never made you a liar. Also, this thread is 6 months old.
u2canfailDec 10, 2011
Some one just posted on it again, sorry. I didn't scroll down far enough to see all posts
yurmutha412Mar 5, 2011
I live in rural Wisconsin and teachers get some of the highest salaries in the area. The benefits are also way better than anyone who is actually paying for their salary. Studies show that government workers are on par for salary, but benefits are much better than private industry. I don't know what it means in the city, but in the country, they are taking property taxes from people who make 1/3 the salary of teachers. People who can barely afford to eat. It's not just teachers, but city workers, etc, and the government buildings cost millions of dollars to build when people are living in shacks.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
That was such a rant. Borrow the money, go get a degree, and go teach. Goodness, you too can be "on the take", I guess? A baby sitter would make more, if you count the number of hours x the number of students. *without benefits With benefits they are even.
good luck with that?
yurmutha412Mar 5, 2011
"The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
A babysitter would not make 100,000 dollars. They also get 3 months off and more paid holidays than anyone else. It's not going to kill them to pay for their health care and pension like everyone else.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailMar 5, 2011
Sitter here makes $7 hour
25 children x $7 hour = $175 per hour
7 am - 5 pm = 10 hours day $1750 per day (school day + grading, + planning
22 days per month = $38,500 per month
9.5 months work, school + service days $365,750.00
I would say sitters make more money! Try $3 per hour, it is still more money.
yurmutha412Mar 5, 2011
It would have to be a business to take that many children and they wouldn't make that much profit after expenses. I don't think there are any that charge those rates because no one could afford a sitter. Preschool teachers get 10 to 13 dollars per hour, not per student, and they don't get any benefits close to that. We can afford a short time to pay 7 dollars per hour, but we can't do for a good percentage of the school year. At the end of the day, taxpayers have to be able to afford the expense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailMar 6, 2011
Baby sitter making $3 per hour, just for you yurmutha
$3 x 25 children = $75
$75 x 10 hours = $750
$750 x 22 days = $16,500
$16,500 x 9.5 months = $156,750
That is a baby sitter @ $3 per hour per child. Tell me your sad, sad, story again, please! Moan out loud while you are at it. Cry for us please. We teach your children, we do no babysit, and you should be very happy with our pay.
I am saying a babysitter could make more at $3 per hour. That is cheap labor with a degree at $ 56,000 and what is the average number of years of teaching?
I can see you are mad. I just wonder if you can afford a sitter? Why do you have children?
yurmutha412Mar 6, 2011
I don't have children. I pay taxes for people that do have children. I've paid them all my life. I live out in the country on poverty wages, which I don't even have any more since my factory closed down. I live on some investments I made when I was working, and I still have to pay property taxes for my house which 2/3 goes to the school. Teachers can pay for their health care and pension like EVERY other non-government worker.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailMar 8, 2011
Boy do you have faith. I do not. I have worked for too many companies. I've been in, examined and made recommendations. We do not get real follow up, but I keep in touch with people. People like to talk to me.
The Corporate interest is really irrational. It has little to do with sustaining business for the future. Stock prices have nothing to do with value. The guy at the top can decide on direction. That directions can depend on his personal compensation package. They really, no matter what work for their own interests. The board works for the stock price, nothing else. So, people are never even mentioned. It is as if, robots work for them.
I have contact with totally Union and nonunion workers. You get all kinds. Toyota is rational in dealing with staff, they train them and work at keeping all employed in a They work with staff. In Texas, they had workers at full Pay during the downturn, cleaning the parks and repairing park equipment during the time others were being laid off. They are not union and probably won't be. Most American companies would layoff all. zzzzzz At Subaru, non union, problems on the line are dealt with as quickly as possible. But before any ENGR. MGR, or worker leaves the meeting, a solution is found. A solution that will probably work, as reps are on the task together. Even the President of the company in the USA sits at a grey metal desk, no trappings, no office. It is very much cultural, I agree. Americans are greedy. If successful, greedier. Must have office, plane, and perks. Look the part?
The success of the company continuing is never a priority. Even Boeing has said, all that outsourcing they have done, has not saved money. It simply cost American jobs. Quality a huge issue. In some foreign countries too many die, to have quality. Cheaper is just not always better.
The CEO now makes 434% of the average worker. He, if fired will be compensated. I find that absurd. In the old days 200% and under, was the norm. This new breed is not worth the price.
During the golden years, post WW2. Things were different. It was important to be American, and buy American. Part of the problem with that was, the company took it for granted. Quality was not an issue anymore. Americans will buy junk, because it is American. Really?
Today, it is important to be wealthy or to have lots of things. That is not the goal. And it is how banks sold Americans on debt. While salaries tumbled for all, but the elite, owning things on credit raged.
All US Corporations paid taxes then, wealth was spread pretty evenly, not just in the hands of a few. Taxes were not as high, because all paid. Most plants were Union. But with few exceptions the "company staying in business" was a priority.
I will grant that Unions overstepped. Oh, they did. Shut the plant down was common. A Union worker can no longer even clean up, sweep up his own mess. It is insane, they must call janitors to come. It stops work for others. I think both sides have lots of room for rethinking.
But what I would like to see, is, the company in business for the long term, as the main goal. That would benefit all. Stock prices should be based on that too, not speculation, or large buyers, purchasing in blocks.
I did enjoy talking with you. Thanks.
u2canfailMar 6, 2011
What kind of factory job did you have? And why did your factory close? I am sure glad you made enough while working to save and invest.
yurmutha412Mar 6, 2011
We made tape recording heads and our jobs went overseas. It's kind of dated technology anyway, but they are still used for credit card reading and apartment locks, etc. I'm glad I saved and invested also. I rolled over my 401k and take care of that plus a private account. My 401k has gone up 300 percent without putting any money in it and my private account has doubled even with me taking out money for living. I have to live frugally, but I get by all right. I built my own small house also, which is entirely paid for otherwise it would be impossible.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
u2canfailMar 6, 2011
Good for you. You must have made good money while working and evidently had great benefits. You did not say how long ago, but tape recording heads are not ancient technology. So, I will guess not too far back.
Why do you think teachers should not be able to do the same?
yurmutha412Mar 6, 2011
I didn't get anywhere near the pay or benefits that teachers get. I'm not asking teachers to get the same as me because that would be too big a step down for them. The amounts that Walker is asking are quite reasonable and better than most private industry workers get. I had to pay 20 percent of my health care and only got 2 percent matching for 401k. That's far less than the adjustments. Assuming the average 50k, that means the government would only pay 1000 towards your pension per year. What I did, I did by my own good investments after roll over to an IRA.
u2canfailMar 7, 2011
What was the average pay for all, non management then? How many years of service and what training was required for your job? You did have money to save and invest, so you did make enough for the time it was, vs the cost of living. You were investing during a pretty good growth period too, and you did well. Good for you! Did you lose much with the Wall Street debacle? I sure did. Then I did not go back soon enough for the rise. But at my age, I was too scared. I still am. I see stock ratings as worthless these days.
The teachers have agreed to everything, but the right to bargain. Walker has refused. I think they have a good offer on the table. Walker was able to come up with additional tax decreases for industry. I wonder how many of them actually pay any taxes now?
I own a small side business. I have owned several. Small business is the main economic engine for growth. They create the most jobs. They get few tax breaks and still manage. If the large corporations actually paid any taxes, the result would be amazing. Each of us, could pay less. The problem for me, is, who actually pays for everyone else. The shrinking middle class and small companies. It is no wonder the USA is falling behind.
I am not suggesting here you are not worthy, you did it. I am simply saying many factors are relevant. Those benefit packages, for teachers were negotiated in lieu of raises, we can give them back pay for wages lost in the deal. That average pay for teachers, includes Principals, supervisors, and many who have taught for years with advanced degrees. All are teaching staff.
I taught with a Masters. I was fresh out of school though. I loved the students. I can tell you that leaving the field was for my family, over other peoples children. I knew, I was always, no matter how frugal, going to be in trouble. It is not a profession, where riches await you.
yurmutha412Mar 7, 2011
I think Walker needs to drop the collective bargaining part and get on with the budget cuts. He's being bullheaded on that and pretty much everyone knows it. We've got problems to solve and it's time to get on with it.
The large corporations pay taxes. That's kind of left wing promotion. America has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/22917.html
Someone posted a link a while back that 2/3 of corporations don't pay taxes, but when I read closer they said they didn't pay taxes in one year out of five and one of the reasons was they didn't make a profit, which of course, they aren't supposed to pay when they don't make a profit. Our corporate taxes are actually too high, not too low, and it's keeping business out of the US.
I invested my money, and that's one problem with Americans, we aren't investors. We tend to spend every dollar we get our hands on and that needs to change. The 401K system has helped quite a bit. It's a good start. Those are the kinds of things America needs to do our future. Not take over our money, but promote savings and investment. The same with health care, we need to go to HSA's and catastrophic and get people shopping for their health care.
It's very difficult to run a small business and I don't envy you. They have an extremely high failure rate. We need to do what we can to make it easier by lowering taxes on small businesses.
u2canfailMar 7, 2011
I absolutely agree, Americans do not save or invest. I also think politicians have taught us, we can have things without paying for them, both parties. Then they turn around and pay the lobby back too.
I am troubled over the corporate tax agenda. I call it creative accounting. I can show you plenty of tricks to end a profit, just on the books. I can easily not pay taxes, even more so with a business. Large corporate interests seldom pay taxes at all. Just purchase a new airplane, have an "overseas office" to route income through. Even EXXON with $43 billion in profit, paid tons of taxes, $0 however, to the USA. Other countries just do not offer as many "tax credits and tax incentives". The list of credits and incentives is insane for companies. This is the "lobby's" best work.
It is all in creative accounting. I can write off every lunch easily. I can travel at will for fun, stop in to see 1 client and write the entire trip off. I choose not to do those things. But I am not most. I report real expense only. And I visit no client while on vacation.
And I do not have a full staff of lawyers and accountants to forecast, and tell me where I need "tax breaks". Most do not show a profit, but look at their investment brochure, it will have the other side of the companies story. I am old, way too tired of it all.
As for workers being the highest cost. It is an easy target. Most of the time, companies waste tons of money. A group of consultants I work with, go in to look. What we find is amazing. COST SAVING is almost always the goal. And they gave us this one, touting how well they had done! We looked, not very well.
example: bonus paid to purchasing for lowering costs
1. purchasing found a supplier for $.05 less
2. calculated savings of $55,640 per year
Now for the facts:
1. Cost of shipping up $107,365
2. Cost of extra pkg up $52,109
3. Shut down line, bad parts $16,595
4. Cost to expedite replacements $4,565
5. Warehouse space to hold extras to keep another shut down from happening $18,600
Now, did they save any money, by changing suppliers for a mere: $55,640 NOPE They spent $143,594 more money. *****Purchasing does not have anything to do with shipping. The old supplier was 2 blocks away and made quality parts. The new supplier was overseas, but purchasing got a bonus!
This, with many other problems caused layoffs. Management used the easy fix. The company was sold as being: unprofitable. By the way an Italian firm bought it. They hired our group to look, at the company.
NOPE mismanaged, not necessarily unprofitable.
I am not pro labor or pro management. ENGR What I can tell you is management makes huge mistakes. The larger the company, the more mistakes. And in the USA, we never look at "management" as the problem. Or "the system" as the problems. Sometimes even the "info for stock price" is the problem. ** I worked for a company that quit doing all replacement and/or maintenance for a dividend payout to the CEO, if he met some goals. He met them. Fired tons of people later, to cover his ass when he had to start fixing, the problem he caused, for a bonus offered by the board of directors. By the way, for having to spend to replace all of the equipment he was fired, and given one hell of a golden parachute!
Labor always pays for those mistakes. That to me is just awful.
I have really enjoyed our chat, back and forth. Thank you.
yurmutha412Mar 7, 2011
My only comment on the corporate taxes is this:
"But it's the tax benefit of overseas operations that is the biggest reason why multinationals end up with lower tax rates than the rest of us. It only makes sense that multinationals "put costs in high-tax countries and profits in low-tax countries," says Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation. Those low-tax countries are almost anywhere but the U.S. "When you add in state taxes, the U.S. has the highest tax burden among industrialized countries," says Hodge. In contrast, China's rate is just 25%; Ireland's is 12.5%."
What's happening is our high taxes are causing corporations to shift profits overseas. If the taxes were lower, they would pay them here. This is exactly what happens when people get the idea that the rich should be taxed higher and that will solve our problems. It doesn't. It makes our problems worse. If the government gets stronger on it, the corporations will simply move headquarters to another country. The only solution is to reduce taxes on corporations.
pinkpackratMar 4, 2011
OMG Jon Stewart is a genius-- made me laugh till I cried, on more levels than one!
morginoMar 5, 2011
It made me laugh so hard knowing that i am a college graduate, been in sales for 15 years and I am currently making 10 an hour like some of my other friends with similiar credentials, all of who used to be making over 100k. No health insurance, no pension and I am paying taxes for these teachers to not have to worry about income or retirement because the pussy politicians have given into the unions every whim on the taxpayers backs so they can get re-elected. Oh wait did I say laughing? I meant cryingComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
How do you feel about tax breaks for the rich? And how about bailouts of huge corporations?
morginoMar 5, 2011
Bailouts are an absolute joke, I wont even get into how much that pisses me off. However tax breaks for the rich I am split on, in essence they aren't "breaks," no one should be paying as much as they are in taxes. The top 1% pay for 70% of all taxes or somewhere in that range. I think that we should kill the tax "breaks" for the time being though until we get our s**t back together then we can talk about lowering them for everyone. What alot of people don't understand is that these public unions are different than private. In essence they elect people who need their votes, it is a total symbiotic relationship and they get whatever they want because the politicians know they will get their vote if the placate them. In a private sector union it is actually a debate on what is deserved and based on company profit vs worker compensation, etc. With public unions they know that they have no profit to gain other than themselves, therefore everything gets paid by the taxpayer without any thought. I live in San Diego and we had a public pension system that may bankrupt us. That was quite a rant..still here? ;-)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ryokuchaaMar 5, 2011
The top 1% owns 35% of all privately held wealth in America. The top 2%-19% own 50% of privately held wealth. The bottom 80% owns 15% of all privately held wealth.
The top 1% pays anywhere between 28-40% depending on the year of all income taxes paid. The average % of their income that goes to taxes is about 18% of their earnings, max tax bracket is 35% but the top 1% enjoys many deductibles that are easy for these high earners to take advantage of.
So while it is true they pay the largest share of total federal tax, they pay much less % of total income than your average wage worker which pays anywhere from 25-33% of their earnings, not being able to take advantage of many if any deductibles as the top 1% can easily do.
The top 1% does not need any new tax breaks, they already have plenty of loop-holes and deductibles at their disposal.
The whole mess started in Wisconsin by the Governor giving a tax break in the tune of $140 million, then crying that something needed to be done about the $130 million dollar deficit he created by that action, and blamed the public workers unions.
So here we have a perfect case of steal from the poor to give to the rich, you know because they so desperately need it.
yurmutha412Mar 5, 2011
The governor gave 17 million in tax breaks that don't kick in for two years. These tax breaks went to companies that start up in Wisconsin, companies that hire workers in Wisconsin, and HSA health insurance tax breaks. Those are for people that actually have to pay for their own health care, not the government workers that get platinum health care for free.
The concessions for public workers to pay a little more of their pension and health care will save the state 150 million dollars per year.
Half of America pays no income tax whatsoever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ryokuchaaMar 5, 2011
How do you know they pay for their own health care? Everything I have read has said $140 million in tax cuts and breaks, can you point out where it says just $17 million?
The Governor himself says it is time for everyone to tighten their belts in these hard economical times. Yet these mega corps and wealthy business owners do not need to tighten their belts, they are off the hook because they hire people?
The public workers union already agreed they are willing to pay more of their pension and health care, so thats point you and the Governor make is already been settled on one end. But the Governor wants to strip their collective bargaining power, thats the power for their rights as workers. There is no cost saving in removing that right of the workers.
So here on one hand you have the unions already agreeing to the cuts that need to be made. On the other hand you have a Governor who just wants to bust up the unions by any means necessary. While with his other hand giving out freebies to the wealthiest of corporations in the state, not to all businesses. Not a cost saving initiative in these hard economical times at all.
This just proves it is not about balancing a budget or making cuts that are needed. It is about breaking up unions, and giving more money and power to already too powerful mega corps, because they made campaign contributions.
This doesn't even begin to talk about the little provision hidden deep in the bill that gives the governor the right to sell the public utilities to any company he wishes in a no bid process. In other words he can sell public utilities in Wisconsin to whoever he wants for how ever much he wants with no public oversight. Some how I feel that will not be any benefit to the public of Wisconsin at all.
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
Are you aware that 2/3rds of corporations pay *zero* taxes in the US?
That's not small businesses, but mega-corporations, and it includes companies that have had huge profits.
yurmutha412Mar 5, 2011
Where did you get your information? The US has the second highest corporate tax rates in the world, Japan is first:
http://holykaw.alltop.com/corporate-taxes-around-the-world-infographic
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
See, the "rate" could be high, but if companies find loopholes and pay no taxes because of that, how does that matter?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/08/12/us-usa-taxes-corporations-idUSN1249465620080812
yurmutha412Mar 5, 2011
The wording in that article is a little odd, for instance, they included losing money for the year as an excuse for not paying taxes, which obviously, they aren't supposed to pay taxes when they lose money. The only questionable activity was shifting money to other countries, but this is actually a fault of high corporate taxes. A lot of people complain about tax credits for oil companies, but those are for American drilling. Without them, we become completely dependent on foreign oil. It's congress that has set those credits and they generally have a pretty good reason for doing it. Not every company makes a profit every year and that article was cleverly worded.
user500Mar 5, 2011
i'm making 12 haha!!! By the way, I support the teachers. If Nobama wishes to run he should run as a Republican as he is clearly in there pocket.
gazthrakMar 5, 2011
you make 10 an hour after 15 years in "sales"? You must be a horrible salesman.
bseffroodMar 5, 2011
And a complete moron for staying with the same low paying job for fifteen years
elipabstMar 5, 2011
"It made me laugh so hard knowing that i am a college graduate, been in sales for 15 years and I am currently making 10 an hour like some of my other friends with similiar credentials"
You're doing it wrong then.
Average pay for those with a college degree is about 10k more than teachers make (and they get paid lousy). s**t, the gas station down the road from me is paying $11 bucks an hour. You should work there, I bet you don't get free Slurpees at your current gig.
morginoMar 5, 2011
Oh children, I do not wish this upon you but one day you too may be in my situation where your entire field collapses. I made 36k in on month as a loan officer at one point and i didn't make that all of last year. Glad you feel better about yourself pissing on my situation but I know it's only temporary. Prince to pig and vice versa. I guarantee that most of you are under 25 and have no real historical experience to draw on, I wish you luck out there
kuzotzMar 5, 2011
look gen y has seen many fields collapse. Even while going through Uni. I think we know to be pragmatic. Also I myself am very much an entrepreneur in this respect/. had to move overseas for it btw.
thynbelleMar 11, 2011
So basically what you're saying, is since YOU picked an unstable job field and don't get paid what you should (but only in a recession), everyone who works for the government should get paid less than you're making right now, even if they spent 6+ yrs of school to get into a relatively low paying field that is stable and has benefits??? BTW teachers don't exit college and receive those 50k a yr jobs with benefits, they have to spend years in the field, while not ticking off anyone too badly to make that.
It would seem to me that you made your bed and shouldn't hate on those who have it slightly better than you SOMETIMES. It's like a bartender getting mad at a taco bell worker because ONE day that fast food worker made more, because the bartender had a slow night. I have yet to meet a teacher who has ever made 36k in one month, regardless of the extra hours spent on their education, being an especially dedicated teacher, or the number of students they taught. No overtime there, they take the highs with the lows same as you choose.
It seems to me you have a bad case of (hopefully) temporary jealousy. I have faith that you're a good enough person inside to not try to ruin everyone else's stable income and benefits (that they clearly work for) just because you're having a bad year or in need of a career change.
mlw4428Mar 5, 2011
I've never seen a sales job without some sort of bonus or other "reward" for being a really good sales person. What do you sell? Can you name a few companies you've worked for?
You said some of your friends made $100K+, what happened? Were they bankers?
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
Regardless your political bent, you gotta love Stewart.
kaegroMar 4, 2011
Something we can all agree on.
bikes2workMar 4, 2011
Not if you're DiggFerkel or LoCol
phphreakMar 5, 2011
He's an idiot and not even approaching funny in my opinion.
upnorthgirlMar 4, 2011
Way to rip, Jon
Schweppesale2Mar 4, 2011
The guy's like a surgeon sometimes.
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
Normally i like Stewart. This wasn't one of his best. The basic argument of the liberal, that everyone who breathes has a "right" to some "Pot - o Gold" that rich people are keeping from them, is the stuff that fuels deranged minds.
Sad to think Stewart is sinking to this kind of hogwash. Guess his best writers must be on strike or something.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
chilidogsMar 4, 2011
Don't tell other people what they think, especially when you are so deeply f**king wrong.
delphium226Mar 4, 2011
<- Reality is that way
mastercosbyMar 4, 2011
So by not wanting to cut teachers paycheck, that is somehow saying that everyone has a right to rich peoples money?
tomorrowthesunMar 4, 2011
they already agreed to the cuts, this thing is about collective bargaining and the power to sell state power facilities with no bids(but no one i s talking about that part).
bookantMar 4, 2011
" . . . and the power to sell state power facilities with no bids(but no one i s talking about that part)."
Which, I fear, is exactly how they want it. I'm finding it hard to swallow that Walker and the Republican senators would keep fighting *this hard* for the union busting, even after all the concessions the unions made, knowing full well this s**t will be repealed within the first ten minutes the next time the Ds have control of the state.
Selling off the state's power plants in sweet no-bid deals to the Koch's, on the other hand, can't be undone. Even if a future Dem. government overturns the law that grants governors that power, the plants that have already been sold by that point are already sold and gone and can't be "unsold."
I'm guessing Walker doesn't give a s**t about the probably recall he's facing at the end of year one because he only has to hang on long enough to sell the state's assets off to the Koch's then retire to a big, fat, cushy "job" "working" for them as a "consultant."
tomorrowthesunMar 4, 2011
I wouldn't be surprised if the collective bargaining thing wasn't just "political cover" knowing it would get the media's attention much easier than this if it were to get attention.
pilsnerp1cMar 5, 2011
This.
Nothing polarizes like a union debate.
ren1999Mar 5, 2011
Then we've got to recall Walker before he gives the Koch's that no-bid contract. It is going to cost the state of Wisconsin a lot of money if they can't bargain for the lowest energy prices.
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
The question is not whether we have a right to rich people's money. The question is whether *they* do.
For that matter, do the rich have a right to poor people's money (i.e. bailouts)?
paranor01Mar 4, 2011
Your opinion on the opinion is too opinionated in my opinion.
user500Mar 5, 2011
...in your opinion
JustSayNoPartyMar 4, 2011
"Normally i like Stewart. This wasn't one of his best. The basic argument of the liberal, that everyone who breathes has a "right" to some "Pot - o Gold" that rich people are keeping from them, is the stuff that fuels deranged minds."
Ok, for those who consider themselves liberal, do you believe everyone has a 'right to some pot o gold'? Now, you are correct in stating that the rich people keep wealth from the masses. Perhaps you didn't know that much wealth is created on the backs of the citizens. Shocking, I know, but rich folks do try to amass more wealth and power. And, this often happens at the expense of others. It's called the real world. Unchecked power can always be expected to corrupt. Look up the defense mechanism of Justification. We are great at justifying why we are so damn wealthy regardless of the means that the wealth was obtained.
graphictruthMar 4, 2011
And if that was what he'd actually *said*...
What he was saying that the media coverage was hypocritical to the point of incontinence. He didn't even GET to the whether or not anyone had the "right" to more, much less the "right" to demand that others get less. He simply pointed out that the same people at fox were saying the complete opposite, depending on who they were talking about.
Teachers making 50K - GREEDY!
Brokers making 250K plus - you can't AFFORD to pay them less!!
SAME people. How can their brains not explode?
ozekiiMar 4, 2011
average nfl salary $770,000
average mlb salary $3,000,000
average nba salary $5,000,000
average working actor $150,000-$300,000
average recording artist ???
Now do some math. I think there are more mlb players than wall street bankers. Throw in all the others and lets see who the fat cats really are. Instead of going after big oil they need to go after big entertainment.
Closed AccountMar 5, 2011
oh stop it! everyone who makes over $250,000 per year creates tons of jobs. we cant let the bush tax cuts expire and go back to the original rate.
what we need to do is go after those greedy teachers and their "education". if we are to win this country back, we need much lower teacher salaries to produce dumber kids who wont question motives.
/s
docterrorMar 5, 2011
There are only 1696 nfl players, 750 mlb players and 450 nba players. Goldman Sachs alone has 35k. employees.
ozekiiMar 5, 2011
and if more than 50% made over 200k that would be a record.
docterrorMar 6, 2011
Actually they all make over 200k.
http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-pay-2010-7
Closed AccountMar 5, 2011
Although they don't receive a great salary, they do get massive pensions. An absurdly high percentage of the money that goes towards "children's education" actually goes right into the pensions of school teachers. (pensions that don't balance out based on economic trends. they have guaranteed output, not guaranteed input) Also, their jobs are nearly guaranteed for life. Outside of committing a felony, there isn't much a teacher can do to get fired. So, when you have guaranteed job security, and guaranteed retirement, people aren't encouraged to work very hard. Often, you are paying a decent wage (plus benefits) to somebody who is not producing enough to deserve that wage. Finally, in a economy like this employees in every industry are going to have lay-offs or pay cuts. Contrary to logic, teachers in some areas have not experiences either of these.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
adambomb5060Mar 5, 2011
Right, helping secure the futures of millions of American children who will very likely grow up to be even more productive than any generation prior isn't worth $50k a year and a comfortable retirement.
f**k you.
jhourcleMar 5, 2011
Unfortunately, many of them won't get to do that, as they're too busy trying to babysit the disruptive kids while they try to get the kids who aren't acting up to pass some standardized test so their school will continue to get funding.
Getting to actually teach kids who might be productive? Hell, I know a few teachers who'd be willing to take pay cuts if that's what they got to do.
Closed AccountMar 6, 2011
I am just saying it is a broken system and needs to change, there are a lot of GREAT teachers out there that deserve to be rewarded but there are also some slobs who are bringing the system down by not teaching effectively. Those students fall a year behind and never catch up. The pension systems are also way out of whack. we are paying out much more that we are putting in. (something that can't be sustained) Instead of giving a guaranteed output pension, we should give teachers 401(k)s or something. I have no problem with giving a teacher a retirement plan, but we need to have a retirement plan that won't drive budgets into the ground. It would not be difficult to invest a large sum of money every year into a retirement plan that would provide for one teacher once they retire. I agree that teachers are creating the future of America, I am in college now working to become a math teacher. Your "color commentary" is entirely unproductive and isn't helping anybody come to any conclusion. If you are going to be intentionally offensive, please at least bring something logically useful to the table.
Closed AccountMar 6, 2011
If you would read through what I have to say, you would find that there was nothing in there that suggested that the teachers producing the next generation of americans don't deserve a decent paycheck or a comfortable retirement, I am just saying that 1) There are a few slobs who don't do their jobs and should be fired. (not a lot, just a very small percentage) If your kid was in a class with some slob of a teacher that wasn't doing their job wouldn't you want them gone? As a future math teacher, I want to recieve students into my class that have gotten proper training in math in previous years so that when they reach my classroom I can cover new material, not review things they should have already learned. 2) the pension systems in many states (including mine) have become un-balanced, we need to PAY UP FRONT into these retirement plans instead of trying to play financial catch up when teachers retire. When states are forced to play catch up, the children are the ones who end up paying the worst, because funds get diverted from classrooms to pensions that the schools are legally obligated to pay.
adambomb5060Mar 6, 2011
Maybe I misinterpreted the line "paying a decent wage (plus benefits) to somebody who is not producing enough to deserve that wage"...
You made it sound more like a generalization, but now that you've explained it a little more thoroughly, I agree. Most things in this country are screwed up beyond belief, I don't think the way Walker's going about fixing public employment compensation is honest or even legitimate. The unions agreed to have people pay more into pensions (it's probably still not enough), but he could probably get more out of them if he wasn't threatening their collective bargaining rights.
Closed AccountMar 6, 2011
Workers paying more into their pensions will help, but the problem won't be solved until we move to a system where put in all of the money up front. I have learned a good bit about finance over the years, and It seems like the most efficient way to create a dependable retirement for an employee is to have a portion of salary put into a retirement fund. (am a really big fan of employers matching their employees savings, it promotes a team effort sort of atmosphere.) what leads a lot of state pension programs into debt is that they set a high standard in a good economic year, then when there is a downturn (like now) they fall way behind. (not their fault, they are just optimists)
I love these situations when people from differing backgrounds and political views can work constructively toward a happy medium. I'll admit I am pretty strongly right on the political spectrum, but I think it is necessary to have people on the left, and true progress is made when both sides meet in the middle.
enantiodromiaMar 5, 2011
which idiot troll was this? i like to cross them off my list as they get banned.
paranor01Mar 5, 2011
sadly.. it'll be back
mrteflonMar 5, 2011
Agreed
novenatorMar 5, 2011Submitter
That was mollydog's latest incarnation: BurntToast or something like that. He has been deliberately trying to get banned for the last week, but already moved into his latest sock puppet. Just check out the latest DP submits, you'll recognize him.
kjeffvMar 4, 2011
http://rightwingnews.com/author/john-hawkins/
diggpopoMar 4, 2011
I like how you cut to the chase sir. No comment, just straight to the spam. Nicely executed.
kaegroMar 4, 2011
Ok. I had to bite. I clicked on the link. Then the first thing that caught my eye was this. "The Problem With Teachers" Thinking to my self " ya, I bet he has a valid point to make" so I clicked to read more and this little gem is the first paragraph:
"The jabs Erin Parker has heard about her job have stunned her. Oh you pathetic teachers, read the online comments and placards of counterdemonstrators. You are glorified baby sitters who leave work at 3 p.m. You deserve minimum wage."
john hawkins Is whats wrong with your country. How can anybody be this f**kING stupid.
diggpopoMar 4, 2011
dugg for encouraging every spammer on digg.
kaegroMar 4, 2011
Dugg for digging me up.
Honestly, I don't think he's a spammer per say, he's just too stupid to put his thoughts into words so he uses the words of other stupid people.
youareretardedMar 4, 2011
"You are glorified baby sitters who leave work at 3 p.m. You deserve minimum wage."
That's really a problem with the parents if they think teachers are baby sitters.
Teachers aren't the problem, parents or bad parenting is the problem.
tomorrowthesunMar 4, 2011
the truth never mattered its just what fits the narrative this time... same people who want to take a bite outta teachers were defending the bankers that crashed the economy how they sleep i'll never know.
tomorrowthesunMar 4, 2011
the truth never mattered its just what fits the narrative this time... same people who want to take a bite outta teachers were defending the bankers that crashed the economy how they sleep i'll never know.
enantiodromiaMar 5, 2011
http://theproblem.with.digg.com
roofviewMar 4, 2011
Stewart told it like it really is . A nations future rests with its youth and who helps those youth develop their full potential well its teachers. Until we understand that we had better get use to falling behind the rest of the world.
larssonk22Mar 4, 2011
This one made laugh so much.
imfreeofdebtMar 4, 2011
the irony of the daily show
kalvinbMar 4, 2011
I'm glad that Jon Stewart is focusing on the teachers who are having a hard time living while their union bosses are taking in hundreds of thousands per year plus benefits and expenses.
Oh, he forgot to talk about that part?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jhw539Mar 4, 2011
"their union bosses are taking in hundreds of thousands per year plus benefits and expenses."
Citation please.
kalvinbMar 4, 2011
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117290533.html
glbernsMar 4, 2011
"For a family making $200,000 with kids in college, they're on the brink of poverty" - See video
novenatorMar 4, 2011Submitter
Again with the attempts to divide and conquer. First it's union workers vs non-union workers, then it's public sector unions vs private sector unions, now it's public sector unionized teachers vs union admins. What's next, trying to pit the teachers in Racine against the teachers in Superior who make 12 cents an hour more?
murxMar 4, 2011
How about the bottom 90% who own less then 30% against the top 10% who own more then 70%?
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
Sound to me like the bottom 90% needs to be a little more industrious. Or are they just going to demand as another "right" that it be handed over to them?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tomorrowthesunMar 4, 2011
lol chances are you are part of that 90% quit being lazy and demanding handouts from your trickle down economics. We have napkins for that thank you!
monkeywithgunMar 4, 2011
Let's just say for arguments sake that the bottom 90% became "more industrious" as you say, in fact let's say they became supper industrious. Please explain the math that would allow the bottom 90% to become as rich as the top 10% is now. Or even 45%. Will there be a magical expansion of resources on the planet? Is the top 10% just going to keel over and surrender their 70% ownership?
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
Actually, it was a smart a** answer to what I viewed as a smart a** statement.
A better response would be to point out the disparity in the amount of taxes paid by the two groups.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
monkeywithgunMar 4, 2011
Fair enough
mlw4428Mar 4, 2011
You're absolutely right. I suppose that top 10% shouldn't WANT that government hand out of a tax break, right?
Oh waiiittt, it's OK for the government to help THEM out. It's not a handout then, oh no, it's acceptable to make upper class not have to pay as much taxes (based on a percentage of income) as the rest of us do.
I LOVE Republican thinking.
linuxpersonMar 4, 2011
Letting them keep more of the money they earned is not a handout, that much you should understand.
If you're going to advocate for higher tax rates, you should advocate for higher tax rates on yourself first.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Mar 4, 2011
It's a handout when they a lesser % of taxes than I do.
For example: I pay say 15% of my income in taxes and prior to the tax break the upper class also paid 15%. That is fair.
Now assume after the tax break I pay 15%, but the upper class...they pay 10%.
Why are THEY allowed to keep more of the money? Why am I shouldering MORE of the debt than they are? How is that not a handout? Are you saying the individuals on unemployment aren't receiving handouts, as you have to earn that benefit?
kalvinbMar 4, 2011
Teachers should be skilled enough that they can demand a higher salary without government or union intervention.
They're fighting over the base pay which is "minimum wage" for teachers. Any teacher worth anything is already making more than that.
People know how much being a teacher pays going in. If you're unwilling to accept that then find something else to do.
I'm about a year and a half from being a high school math teacher. I know what my salary will approximately be. I could have just focused on making the big bucks as a web-developer. Instead I'll do that on the side because I want to teach. Teachers like to claim how they're not in it for the money.
Apparently some of them are.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
tomorrowthesunMar 4, 2011
"They're fighting over the base pay" Ok, I will resate what the unions care about since they have already agreed to ALL monetary cuts asked of them and has been this way since about day 2 of all this ruckus. Its Collective bargaining that they care about and don't want to give. (also there is the small tiny insignificant matter of this bill allowing no bid sale of state power facilities, but hey gotta pay back contributors some how right?)
kalvinbMar 4, 2011
The union is forcing teachers to pay for health insurance from union approved companies. This has resulted in teachers having to pay $200+ more per month than they need to for equal coverage.
Guess who's pocketing the mark-up?
I talked to some teachers locally who are shelling out $10K per year for health insurance and they can't opt out. You can't buy individual insurance that expensive from private companies. I know, I looked when a small company I worked for tried to get health "benefits" and the jerk company selling it to them wanted $700 a month out of my pocket.
Fortunately I could just tell them to shove it and did. I won't be able to do that as a teacher. $10K down the toilet every year for insurance coverage I don't need or what.
Just because it's called a "benefit" doesn't mean it is. I'd rather get paid instead and worry about finding affordable health insurance on my own. Not hard.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kuzotzMar 5, 2011
this guy is like telling teachers to do what they currently already do while condemning it. It is quite a dichotomy with these conservatives.
dsmxMar 4, 2011
What the f**k does that have to do with teachers getting their pay cut? But more to the point stweart was also trying to point out the hypocracy that's going on with wall street and teacher pay. But even more to the point if you don't invest in education you'll end up with a bunch of morons who believe whatever fox news tells them in that second and completely forget what fox news told them only a month ago.
Wait a minute NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO were to late.
kalvinbMar 4, 2011
They're not getting their pay cut. I'm going into teaching. High school to be specific. The unions are not helping the teachers. Locally, there is a school that is trying to recruit teachers from another school with the promise of higher pay.
Schools are free to pay teachers whatever they can afford. What unions are fighting about is the "base" pay. That's the publicly available number you can find on Dept of Ed sites for states. That means a higher starting wage for teachers who have not demonstrated any merit.
This is like people whining about minimum wage. Most people don't make minimum wage. And if you make minimum wage for more than a year you suck and you need to find something to do that you don't suck at.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117290533.html
The unions purely exist for the purpose of manufacturing rage so they can make piles of money for the top members so they don't have to have a real job.
Schools are perfectly capable of giving raises to teachers. Those teachers that rely on government intervention to get a raise need to find a new line of work or a new district that isn't run by greedy administrators.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boonhogganbeckMar 4, 2011
Fox News Heads - "$250,000 a year for a family of 4 sending kids to college is not rich...In fact it's close to poverty"
Damn i wish my family was that poor.
davey914Mar 4, 2011
If that family lived in California or NYC then sure they'd be considered poor. Everywhere else.... not so much.
novenatorMar 4, 2011Submitter
Not sure what you mean by that. Even in Manhattan, I don't think $250,000 per year could be considered "poor" by any means, and that is one of the most expensive places to live in the US. I'll certainly agree that there are variations in costs that depend on geography though.
bookantMar 4, 2011
I covered this territory with a FOX viewer back when FOX was making those claims. Even in Manhatten, the median income is just over $47,000. In the richest single zip code within Manhatten it still doesn't get anywhere near $250K.
"Manhattan is one of the highest-income places in the United States with a population over 1,000,000. In particular the Upper East Side, ZIP Code 10021, with over 100,000 inhabitants and a per capita income of over $90,000, is one of the largest concentrations of extreme wealth in the entire United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Manhattan
novenatorMar 5, 2011Submitter
Thx for the excellent post bookant. I have to keep ideas like this on a text file backed up with hundreds of bookmarks for constant debunking. It's amazing how often we have to correct the exact same disinformation.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davey914Mar 4, 2011
I didn't mean they'd be waiting in line at the local soup kitchen. I was thinking about how the cost of living is so drastically skewed in Southern California and NYC compared to other areas in the US.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kuzotzMar 5, 2011
if you are living in Moscow making that much. you are pretty much poor if you are relying solely on job income.
harleyman77Mar 4, 2011
250k in California (full disclosure, I live in SF, you know the most expensive city in CA) is far, far, far away from poor.
enantiodromiaMar 5, 2011
Sure, but I believe the quote had to do with also sending a few kids to college.
An average house in SF for a family of four is going to push a $1,000,000, and two kids going to Stanford is ~$70-90k/year.
$250k/y isn't going to send you to the soup kitchens, but it's not like you're living "rich" either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountMar 5, 2011
And you have 18+ years to save and invest for their college education. And just like I had to, they can take out some loans and earn scholarships to pay for their college. They can go to a more affordable college. My family made a lot less than $250,000 /year and yet my parents still sent 3 of 6 of us kids to college (the others are still under 16 years old).
Again, teachers making $50,000 /year are draining the economy and hurting America. They must be stopped!
Ordinary, average folk making $250,000+ /year aren't rich. They're barely surviving.
Don't buy into that s**t.
kuzotzMar 5, 2011
you are right. they should be considering going to University in Europe/ I am quite serious because the schools rival the US, and often times they are much more affordable for Americans to attend. Same with Canadian schools.But of course you know it is heavily subsidized. Lets not question our fundamental system it is okay right?
johnomazzMar 4, 2011
Ya, I live in CA. You are no where near correct.
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
I've lived in California and it's not like you say. Maybe if you were paying mortgage on a home right in the middle San Francisco, then yes, you could use $250,000.
ajajadudeMar 6, 2011
I make 40ish grand a year in Southern California. If I were to get the crappiest apparent in my area, I would barely be able to afford it.
I shed no tears for people making $250k a year.
tysmillerMar 4, 2011
This is actually pretty accurate. In that bracket, you probably pay about 1/2 to taxes. The average cost of a private college is $40,000. Two kids at such a place and you are left with $45,000. A mortgage on an above-average suburban house is something like $3,000 a month. This brings you down to $9,000. Of course you have to pay for food for four, a car, the kids in college need rent, etc. I'm not sure exactly what the poverty line is, but this is probably below it. And if you live in NYC like I do, you are probably not only "poor," but you or the kids might be taking out substantial loans for those four years.
Long story short, this statement is not as ridiculous as it sounds, even though fox news said it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
shauncorleoneMar 4, 2011
Get your math outta here.
ender1984Mar 4, 2011
See, when I hear the word poverty, I think of a family that struggles to keep the lights on and put food on the table. Not a family that is well able to live within their means, but chooses not to because they feel they need extravagant things like fancy private college education, and a big fancy house/car/boat, etc. Saying 250k+ a year is poverty is ridiculous.
tysmillerMar 4, 2011
I never said anything about a "fancy" house or car (even after the bubble burst, take a look at what even modest houses cost in major metro areas), and certainly nothing about a boat. Reasonable minds can differ, but I don't define a good education as extravagant. Here in NY you're paying out the ass for anything but CUNY, so if you want a future it might as well be Columbia.
You're missing my point that if you want your kids to have the opportunity to give other people 1/2 of their money away down the line, you have to give all of your money away now. And during that time, a lot of the people who make "less" money have more in their pocket. In some ways, the $250,000 level is the worst place to be. You work 70+ hours a week, keep little of what you make, and never have enough to really obtain luxuries. There's no time or money, and most people have at least one or the other.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ender1984Mar 4, 2011
Ok. But, what I'm saying is that there is a difference between making x amount of money and being able to have a particular lifestyle and actually being poor.
rjoplingMar 5, 2011
Must be nice to "obtain luxuries", $250,000 is enough to live on and then some. just because you don't have much left after paying your bills doesn't put you into the poverty bracket. if your able to SAVE MONEY at all then you cant even be considered to be in poverty. if you make that much and you still cant afford that new driver or designer handbag then get over it and be grateful you HAVE A BED TO SLEEP IN.
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
The poverty line is around $14,000, and that's *not* after you've spent the rest of your income on mortgage, education, a vehicle, etc.
Seriously, why do some people need to have us believe that the poor have it great, while the affluent are barely making ends meet?
adambomb5060Mar 5, 2011
Try this, retard.
Let's take a family making $250k in Wisconsin for example. State income tax (married filing jointly) is roughly 13%, federal is 33%.
Net: $135k
Now let's say they live like an average American, they wouldn't at that income, but it's a useful assumption for my example. This assumption means they spend about $50k a year on various living expenses.
Net: $85k
Now let's say they're responsible enough to save for their children's futures starting when they're born. Just for fun, let's bring them down to $51k - apparently average Wisconsin teacher's salary. That's $34k saved a year, or after 18 years of preparing their child for college, $612k.
Well, with that much money, they could have twins and send them both to the nearby University of Chicago and have enough money left over at the end of four years to send a third child there for 3 years, assuming they stopped saving when the first two started college.
And this entire time, they've had $51k tax-free per year to do with what they please. Maybe a BMW one year, a trip to Europe for the family, a boat, monogrammed bathrobes, who knows.
That same $51k for a Wisconsin teacher gets reduced to a bit under $39k after taxes, which means they fall $11k short of the AVERAGE American lifestyle.
I know this is an idealistic model, but it makes its point.
Citations:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/04/americas-most-expensive-colleges-business-most-expensive-colleges.html
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/
http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/pcs/taxrates.html#tx1b
sdonisthorpe54Mar 4, 2011
Amen to that.
enantiodromiaMar 5, 2011
I make more than half that, with a couple of dependents, and I can tell you I am no where close to living rich, but I'm also not impoverished.
SaysWhoNewsMar 4, 2011
No Questions Jon Stewart is funny, and even educational. But it's unfortunate that some people don't understand that comedy is often only funny because it oversimplifies complex situations. If it weren't oversimplified, you'd be forced to actually analyze complex situations. Do yourself a favor, and don't base your political ideologies on the Daily Show.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darthmeatloafMar 4, 2011
You know full well that basing your political ideology on what you learn on the Daily Show is no worse than basing your political ideology on the words of Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.
Except for the fact that the Daily Show researches their video footage better than O'Reilly does...
SaysWhoNewsMar 4, 2011
It is unfortunate that my comment seemed to suggest I was an O'Reilly loving Fox News fan. The Daily Show is a great place to begin to become informed on a subject. But, it is a comedy show first, and a news show second. I'm certain Jon Stewart would agree. It is as unfortunate that so many are so quick to believe they are getting some sort of unbiased news coverage from the Daily Show as it is from Fox News, or MSNBC for that matter. This is why news needs to be covered by a wider audience, and requires more participation. This is why SaysWho.Org exists...
darthmeatloafMar 4, 2011
I took no such understanding from your statement. I was simply trying to make sure that what I saw as the balanced version of your statement was put out there.
Jon Stewart has openly stated on numerous occasions that his 'news' show is comedy first.
The FOX News pundits present what they are saying as truth and defend themselves when they get called out on a lie by saying that their program is not a news program.
There is a difference there, whether some people want to admit it or not.
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
No worse? I'd say a Daily Show viewer is considerably more informed than a MSM viewer.
sdonisthorpe54Mar 4, 2011
Says the fan of Fox "News"
windadctMar 4, 2011
OK - where else do you find masters degreed individuals with say 10 years experience ONLY making 50-60K?
I will agree and many good teachers will agree that some of the contract items do not help their cause ( it is too difficult to remove under-performing teachers - but usually in the "real " world under-performing does not get you fired - moved, re-assigned, re-trained - maybe, but to get fire you really have to screw up - but layoffs during downsizing is when this is done )
But also - think about this, once you have more than 10 years or so - you often have about ZERO job portability. If you have 15 years experience and try to find a job in a new district, you can not get hired because they have to pay you what you are worth.
School boards and administrators are also being measured on "how many" teachers - ( Student to teacher ratios ) - so by hiring entry level before experienced they make their numbers.
theghoulMar 4, 2011
Starbucks
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
You're absolutely correct. Teachers do not make more money than the average working person -- once you take into account level of education. That's a key point that you won't hear on FOX.
rosoft2001Mar 4, 2011
He it's wrong:
If I don't like my banker I go to another one, if I don't like my hair stylist I go to another one, if I don't like the store I go to another one.
If my kid teacher is bad I'm stuck.
I suspect that if I can choose my kid teacher some of them would earn much more than now.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
raggapantsMar 4, 2011
I kinda prefer adult teachers over kid teachers...
nycjapMar 4, 2011
"If my kid teacher is bad I'm stuck."
Bullcrap. Move.
Don't like your neighbor? Move.
Don't like your house? Move.
Don't like your school district? Move.
enantiodromiaMar 5, 2011
No see, personal responsibility is for other people. I'm too much of a big deal to have to make changes in my own life.
Closed AccountMar 5, 2011
I like you. Personal attacks are to a minimum. You comments are comprehendible. Every now and then I disagree with you. Every now and then I couldn't agree more. Dugg and considering following.
sajorojasMar 5, 2011
The idea of bad teachers must be a particularly sore spot for you, if your grammar is any indication.
dmm219Mar 4, 2011
exposing blatant hypocrisy of the rich against the middle class...brilliant...
incu311Mar 4, 2011
this is great!! having both parents as public school teachers, we were by no means wealthy fat cats...haha
isbhodMar 4, 2011
Has anyone fact checked what FOX News says is the average annual salary for a teacher in WI? The ~50K they are saying seems a little high (otherwise some friends of mine have some 'splaining to do). I'm not saying that FOX News is lying, but considering their past track record, I think it might be a good idea to check how they have arrived at that number.
Also the claim that is being made over and over again is "... Compared to their private sector counter part ...", but they never say what the private sector counter part is, and what he/she makes. The only private sector counter part to a public school teacher I can think of is a private school teacher. And with the cost of private schools in WI one would think the teachers there would be making a lot more than 50K/year + bennies, or the admins at private schools are making a mint while their employees wallow in poverty. But I digress
Call me old fashion, call me a free thinker if you must, but I'd like to see a list of sources they are using for all their "facts" (both pro and con to their argument) before I'm ready to believe what anyone has to say, except for Jim Lehrer, cuz Jim is one bad ass mother f. . . I'm just talk'n 'bout Jim. Jim would cut you in front of your kids and not even break a sweat while delivering the news straight enough to calibrate NASA instruments. I'm not say he ever would, but if he wanted to he could.
I Dunno, maybe asking FOX News and the others to have the same level of integrity as Jim Lehrer is like asking water to stop being wet, the sky to stop being blue, women to stop having secrets, or Gov. Walker to value an education.
just my $0.02
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
"The average Wisconsin teacher salary in 2009-2010 was $52,644"
http://bit.ly/hwGLAw
Add on to that roughly +30K per year in benefits.
isbhodMar 4, 2011
Thank you, that's one half. Now what is the average salary of their private sector counterparts?
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
"The analysis of government data found that public employee compensation has grown faster than the earnings of private workers since 2000. Primary cause: the rising value of benefits.
Wisconsin is typical. State, city and school workers earned an average of $50,774 in wages and benefits in 2009, about $1,800 more than in the private sector."
http://bit.ly/dJ2WCY
(I think that may be a misprint on "wages and benefits".)
isbhodMar 4, 2011
"New research by a University of Illinois expert in employment relations and labor economics shows that, for more than a decade, Wisconsin teacher salaries have fallen behind changes in the cost of living as well as wage growth in the private sector."
Interesting: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-year-span-wisconsin-teacher-salaries.html seems to be in opposition to the link you provided.
Perhaps it is in the verbs used: "has grown faster" while may be true, may not necessarily mean "is larger than". Meaning that while teacher's income has grown more than their private sector counter parts, they start off at such a deficit that the large growth still has not caught up to the their counter parts.
I'm not sure, I'll have to spend some time tonight and find out why.
isbhodMar 4, 2011
"New research by a University of Illinois expert in employment relations and labor economics shows that, for more than a decade, Wisconsin teacher salaries have fallen behind changes in the cost of living as well as wage growth in the private sector."
Interesting: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-year-span-wisconsin-teacher-salaries.html seems to be in opposition to the link you provided.
Perhaps it is in the verbs used: "has grown faster" while may be true, may not necessarily mean "is larger than". Meaning that while teacher's income has grown more than their private sector counter parts, they start off at such a deficit that the large growth still has not caught up to the their counter parts.
I'm not sure, I'll have to spend some time tonight and find out why.
nycjapMar 4, 2011
Nice try but FTA:
"Economist Jeffrey Keefe of the liberal Economic Policy Institute said the analysis is misleading because it doesn't reflect factors such as education that result in higher pay for public employees."
Here is the link to their original paper:
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/debunking_the_myth_of_the_overcompensated_public_employee
Making these broad and imprecise comparisons is like comparing the earnings of an engineer or an accountant against someone who works in McDonald's, then criticizing the better educated and higher-skilled workers for being appropriately compensated.
When making more appropriate comparisons, between people with similar titles/responsibilities and education/skills backgrounds, state and local public workers *are not* better compensated than their private counterparts.
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
I'm not going to play dueling sources.
I think it is common knowledge that Public Sector Jobs are enviable from many aspects.
joe7845Mar 5, 2011
That's a key point and it's not about "dueling sources" as hrearden51 states.
You can't compare what a teacher makes to what a janitor makes, for example.
nycjapMar 5, 2011
"I'm not going to play dueling sources."
You don't have to because your own "source" admits that it's flawed. All I had to do was to drive through the gaping hole in your faulty argument. I'd hardly call that a "duel".
"I think it is common knowledge that Public Sector Jobs are enviable from many aspects."
"Common knowledge". Is that like "Obama is a muslim" or "Obama is not a US citizen"?
So if public sector jobs are "enviable", I guess that makes you envious? It certainly would explain a lot. Thanks for clarifying.
nycjapMar 5, 2011
"You can't compare what a teacher makes to what a janitor makes, for example."
Thanks for agreeing with me that his entire argument is predicated on a faulty comparison.
novenatorMar 5, 2011Submitter
On an annual basis, full-time state and local government employees in Wisconsin are undercompensated by 8.2% compared with otherwise similar private sector workers. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/6759/
youareretardedMar 4, 2011
So what's the equivalent of a teacher for the private sector and what is their pay and how much are their benefits?
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
I'm tired of playing. Good luck.
bseffroodMar 5, 2011
A relative of mine, who teaches in a town of 10,000 in WI was making around $40,000 15 years ago, not including benefits.
owen87Mar 4, 2011
As a Special Education teacher at a public school in Washington, DC, I can tell you that I earn every penny of my salary. Most teachers that I know work about 80 hours per week, and we are never able to "get away" from our work, even on weekends.
We spend 8 hours a day in front of students in a challenging environment, and then spend all of our "free time" lesson planning and grading papers.
While the job is incredibly rewarding, it is definitely not for the monetary reasons.
shauncorleoneMar 4, 2011
And while I applaud your work and have absolutely no desire to become a teacher myself, did you not know full well what you were signing up for when majoring in special education? I also work nights and weekends and am constantly keeping abreast of developments in my field. Successful professionals do this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaMar 5, 2011
All you did was prove that teachers are willfully self sacrificing for the sake of strangers and their children.
Bravo.
shauncorleoneMar 5, 2011
Please spare me the rhetoric that teachers are somehow selfless patron saints of education. That's like saying coal miners are self sacrificing to provide power to strangers and their children. It's a chosen profession, not a religious calling. A lot of people become teachers because it's one of the easiest college tracks to take. "Relearn middle school English? I can do that!" Sure aspects of the job suck, but that is the case with EVERY job.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
owen87Mar 5, 2011
I agree with both of your comments to some degree. I actually didn't major in Special Education, instead I majored in Economics, but decided to become a teacher because I am passionate about giving others the opportunities that I was lucky enough to have myself.
All professions are difficult, I am not saying that they aren't. What I am saying is that there is a difference between working in an office and having a class of 32 students, the majority of which have learning disabilities, under your care for 8 hours a day. It is far more physically and emotionally draining than any other serious job that I have had. This is not counting the hours spent after school and on saturdays giving them the extra tutoring that they are unable to get outside of school.
I never said that teachers are selfless patrons. I am very thankful for the money that I make and the benefits that I have. At the same time, it is not a profession that has historically attracted the best and brightest (as you alluded to). This is a serious issue because it means our future generations are not getting the education that they need to stay competitive in this rapidly expanding global market. Cutting teacher pay is a fiscally and socially shortsighted solution to a long term problem.
shauncorleoneMar 5, 2011
Once again, I agree. But I don't think eliminating union collective bargaining is being touted as a solution to an education problem but rather an economic one.
There are so many complex problems with our education system, including (this ought to bunch some panties) the gradual dissolving of the classic family unit. Single parents have less time to spend focusing on their kids, as do homes where both parents work full-time.
What we do have immediate control over, however, is how the billions pumped into public education is being spent. The Federal Dept of Education was made cabinet-level in 1979 and currently has an annual budget of $70 billion, money that in my view would be much more efficiently used when administered at the state and local level. There is so little innovation in education because 1) Top-down management plus uniform performance measurement, and B) Those in power would s**t themselves if they had to answer to an educated population (see: George Carlin "owners").
Personally, I think teachers should make a boatload, and administrators should have to be former teachers with a reasonable salary and much less control over fund allocation.
owen87Mar 5, 2011
I agree that teacher's unions have become overly constricting to the educational reform movement. In an ideal world, there is no real need for unions and their collective bargaining agreements because teachers would receive competitive pay, sufficient resources for their classrooms (I have 28 desks for 32 students), and most importantly, legal representation through the school district as part of their contract.
The last part is the most important because as a Special Education teacher, I have had to go to court several times as part of due process hearings for my students thanks to the educational "ambulance chasers" that feed off of urban school districts. Beyond that, there are any number of scenarios, including breaking up fights, that can lend up with a teacher becoming the recipient of a lawsuit from parents looking to take advantage of a situation. Once teachers have those protections I am all for the dismantling of teacher's unions.
In Washington, DC, however, the union has played an active role in the reform process. Despite their vocal "opposition" to the reforms under Michelle Rhee, the leaders and the majority of the rank and file of the union worked with the school district to create one of the first fully realized "pay-for-performance" programs that incentivizes teachers to push for higher student achievement in the classroom. While this system is by no means perfect, it is definitely a step in the right direction to improving and streamlining the public education system.
In the end though, like all movements, education reform will never be successful without the support of the middle class. Right now they have no incentive to push for education reform because the current plight in urban education doesn't affect them. The problem is that it will in the long run, both in the sense of America's place in the world as the economic superpower, and with the person who steals their car in ten years.
Closed AccountMar 5, 2011
But Fox News told me you had a part time job! They said you work 6 hour days for 8 months!
Sorry. Just trying to point out the absurdity of Fox News' argument.
owen87Mar 5, 2011
Sorry, that just makes me laugh. I don't know any other part-time jobs where getting a chair thrown at you is a regular occurrence, except perhaps, running a backyard wrestling ring.
Closed AccountMar 5, 2011
I love Jon Stewart's passion on this subject. Not as high as it was for the 9/11 healthcare bill, but still very strong and very positive.
I think you'll enjoy this. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/01/951283/-Jon-Stewart-defends-teachers
m0nkeysenseiMar 4, 2011
<3
db8fanMar 4, 2011
Stewart does it again!
sdonisthorpe54Mar 4, 2011
That is so true.
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
I wonder why the real issue of educational waste is not brought up in these conversations. In California, our total budget is something like 122 billion, and that 52 - 55% of the budget is on education. With 37 million people in California, that's equal to $1,815 paid by every person in the state... per year. For the 307 thousand teachers in the state, that's 218.5 thousand a year per teacher.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=state%3A06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=california+population
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/articles
/article.asp?title=teachers%20in%20california
mikelistMar 4, 2011
are you saying that the entire education budget goes to the teachers?
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
Not necessarily. It seems as though the average salary in my state is 59,825. (http://teacherportal.com/salary/California-teacher-salary) That equals 18,366,275,000 for salaries alone. Where is the other 45,073,725,000 going?
mlw4428Mar 4, 2011
Grants, I'm not entirely sure but possibly subsidized school lunches for low-income families, upkeep at the schools, gas/diesel for the school buses, security, administrative costs, IT, among many other things.
Running a public school isn't cheap. It's a lot of work and upkeep (especially elementary schools).
Closed AccountMar 4, 2011
I'm pretty sure that's my point.
son0fhobsMar 4, 2011
Let's start protests and overthrow the WI governor! Common guys, Tunisia & Egypt did it!
Share, tweet, and let the world know much we love our wealthy class!
arbiterlordMar 5, 2011
It's just sad that the Republicans are going after teachers, like they're the fat-cats ruining our economy. This is like a pedophile claiming that a child molested them.
raddaMar 5, 2011
Right: "We have no money to pay teachers, so they need a salary cut."
Left: "But didn't you stop us from raising taxes? That extra money could have gone towards that."
Right: "Raising taxes is unfair! You're taking money from me!"
Left: "But aren't you trying to take money from the teachers?"
Right: "THEY NEED TO MAKE CONCESSIONS EVERYBODY ELSE HAS!"
Left: *facepalm.jpg*
mmadude13Mar 5, 2011
Jon speaks the truth!
lilcheese71Mar 5, 2011
Jon Stewart did a great job.
hannahmontana19Mar 5, 2011
dugg for jon stewart
thefinalsqlMar 5, 2011
Why did Stewart make this only about the teachers? This effects all state employees except Fire and Police.
phphreakMar 5, 2011
Three words: "Waiting for Superman".
tuananhprogramerMar 5, 2011
Good !
ChanceyMMar 5, 2011
What would America be without Jon and The Daily Show?
ChanceyMMar 5, 2011
What would America be without Jon and The Daily Show?
anub1sMar 5, 2011
I would like to pose some questions:
What do we do if more states follow suit and our childrens education is essentially put to the way side because people simply can't afford to be teachers anymore? Are we going to expect teachers to come out of no where, take s**t pay, all for the sake of serving country?
There is something abhorently wrong with a country that puts more emphasis on wages of the people who do absolutely nothing good for the country but provide meaningless trivial s**t for consumers to eat up, than they do for a teacher who is essential to the development of the nations children. Unbelievable that we have so much admiration and respect for the people heading up big corporations than we do for those who have been charged with educating the future people of this country.
lamontsandersMar 5, 2011
"There is something abhorently wrong with a country that puts more emphasis on wages of the people who do absolutely nothing good for the country but provide meaningless trivial s**t for consumers to eat up, than they do for a teacher who is essential to the development of the nations children."
I believe that is also known as "capitalism"
anub1sMar 5, 2011
Indeed it is, sir. Glad you caught that.
itsjustjenMar 5, 2011
This isn't really about teachers. It is more-so about taking the unions out at the knees, and selling operations of state owned power plants without the need for bidding.
Wisconsin Senate Bill 11
Section 44.16.896
(1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).
alecsputnikMar 5, 2011
one of the best daily show pieces this year.
lamontsandersMar 5, 2011
I would be more sympathetic with their situation if they didn't get 4 months off every year...or if the job was more technically demanding...or if they were higher achievers themselves (most teachers were bottom third of their graduating class in college)...
Teachers are a vital part of our community but I would hate to see us rewarding them for doing nothing. Create incentives for meeting goals and utilizing more effective teaching methods (a la Bill Gates ideas regarding teaching). If they can utilize better methods and meet benchmarks then by all means pay them.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sefnerrMar 5, 2011
My wife has taught in CA for the last 16 years. She had her BA and a credential before she could even start. In her "spare" time she continued her education by getting her required CLAD certification and her Masters all while working full-time. She teaches junior high (7th/8th) Algebra, Social Studies, and History to 30-35 kids and regularly works from 7:45am to 11pm EVERY DAY! She might get a few hours on the weekend to herself for all her hard work and she might get a month off in the summer if her curriculum doesn't change too much or she doesn't have to keep her credential up by taking required further education. Yeah, let's cut her pay.
yomon_etherMar 5, 2011
nice
hipshawMar 5, 2011
Sad only. Good teachers are societal heros.
hipshawMar 5, 2011
Sad only. Good teachers are societal heros.
ruchi12345Mar 5, 2011
-1
testganeshMar 5, 2011
Those wealthy school teachers! I quit teaching, because I could not pay my bills. I remember the life style well. I ate beans or lentils 4 days a week
u2canfailMar 6, 2011
YES I did, eat beans and lentils. You see while teaching on $2640 per year, a few years back. I spent my huge salary money putting clothing on children in my class. Poor school, children without homes, living under bridges. I thought, as a teacher, if my students were warmer overnight, they could concentrate on their studies. I bought every piece of paper, every pencil used in my class.
OneNationUnderMomMar 5, 2011
I should know, I remember living it up like a rockstar on my teacher's pay in New York City...I was once even able to afford to live in a 280 sq foot apartment on that excessive teacher pay...
knorthup4Mar 5, 2011
I saw this last night. Stewart is awesome!
waqarhassan1988Mar 5, 2011
http://www.wallpapers.yougeo.com/
neondistractionMar 5, 2011
Man, you people are like c**kroaches.
fmiyarMar 5, 2011
http://fmiyar.com/world/fun-weird/the-longest-moustache-in-the-world/
cottonijoeMar 5, 2011
watched this here on tele in australia, thought at the time, someone from digg will upload this, and they did,