Why I LOVE Republicans

Teachers are different. They enter the profession for life-style. Good hours ,generous vacations great retirement benefits. And during the 1970's they got to avoid the draft. Did I leave out tenure?

Right, because we all know that teachers make way more than i-bankers, doctors, and BigLaw associates.

Teachers would not have been drafted anyway. Most of them are women. And many of them got laid off during the 1970s. My father trained the first ever female sway conductor, who was a laid off school teacher.

"Right, because we all know that teachers make way more than i-bankers"

The largest brokerage houses voted DEMOCRAT you dolt.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS508A_WALLP_NS_20080915192816.gif

Wall Street is D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T and they threw you and your teacher buddies under the bus...

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS508A_WALLP_NS_20080915192816.gif

oh and DEMOCRAT Wall Street and Democrat unions not only have teachers and taxpayers on a chokehold, they have the Big O in their pockets as well...

Remember that Finance Bill of a joke??

Goldman ‘Should Win Big’ Under New Regulations
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/goldman-should-win-big-under-new-reform-law/

Democrat WS and unions bought your tax dollars for 33 cents to the dollar, and spent the difference on advertising to make you think the Repubs did it..

They love guys like you.

Wall St. supported Republicans in 2010.

not to mention that a union plumber, electrician, elevator mechanic, etc. with just a HS diploma will make mroe than a teacher ever will. So will a suburban police officer. If teachers are solely after money, they chose the wrong profession. Virtually all city and state employees reach top pay after 5 years. MTA workers don't reach it until 3 years. Teacher don't reach it until 21 years.

heheh, you've been bamboozled..

Democrats decry Wall Street excesses but take lots of Goldman Sachs money -- a credibility problem?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/democrats-cozy-wall-street-goldman-sachs-campaign-contributions.html

"In 2010, the securities folks on Wall Street gave $32 million to political candidates..More than 60% went to Democrats."

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS508A_WALLP_NS_20080915192816.gif

why are you changing the topic? Are you even a real person or one of those automated accounts corporations use to spread propaganda on message boards?

Why do you think Wall Street is Republican despite evidence showing otherwise above?

Maybe teachers should ask more money from their Democrat cohorts on West Street?

and the nuclear industry gives money to Republicans. There. How about that?

strawman, yawwnnn.. now all you're doing is trying to change the subject.. I responded directly to you verbatim..

"Right, because we all know that teachers make way more than i-bankers"

Do you see now that your typical i-banker is actually a Democrat?

Socialist, if Republicans are anti-immigration reform, are you pro Republican?

Republicans are not anti immigration reform. McCain was a co-sponsor of the last amnesty, I mean immigration reofmr bill. And Bush supported it 100%. They want amnesty, I mean immigration reform, so that the Chamber of Commerce can have a bigger supply of cheap labor.

"not to mention that a union plumber, electrician, elevator mechanic, etc. with just a HS diploma will make mroe than a teacher ever will. So will a suburban police officer."

They will also work longer hours at harder jobs in considerably more dangerous workplaces.

Did I mention they'll be working through the summers too?

I don't know about that. I would feel safer as a cop in Rochelle Park, NJ (average salary: $135,000) than some ghetto high school full of kids who carry guns and knives.

Idiot.

Huge rash of teacher shootings, of course.

I'm thankful that the Republicans will make it easier to get rid of the horrible teachers... and smart kids did NOT want to go into teaching before... they'll be more likely when they know its about merit.

In the old system, the smart young ones get forced out! Thanks Democrats!

"they'll be more likely when they know its about merit."

No idiot. They will be LESS likely to when they see that the Republicans are cutting salaries of teachers by stripping them of collective bargaining, limiting pay raises to the CPI, and making them pay much more for pension and health insurance.

"In the old system, the smart young ones get forced out!"

Why do you think that young teachers are so smart? If they were so smart, then young teachers would not have a 50% turnover rate. Currently, the vast majority of poor performing schools are full of young teachers, while the higher ranked schools are full of senior teachers. Coinicidence??

Don't Target Our Mentors, Say Young Teachers

What damage is done to schools if teaching becomes a revolving door job?

Already struggling with a low retention rate in a difficult profession, young teachers say they’d prefer not to find out.

A group of young teachers in New York schools called on state leaders this week to preserve “last in, first out” seniority rules.

Young teachers say there are good reasons to have seniority: Veteran teachers save new ones in their first years, and experienced workers provide grounding and perspective. And if seniority disappeared, they fear senior teachers would be unduly targeted for layoffs because they earn more.

“As newer teachers, we rely on our more senior colleagues for guidance and support,” reads an open letter the young teachers released. “Without more senior teachers, we would lose our bridge to lessons learned through years of dedicated work in the school system.”

The letter has been signed by 121 teachers with less than five years’ experience. (A copy of the letter is below).

http://www.labornotes.org/blogs/2011/03/dont-target-our-mentors-say-young-teachers

"A number of CALDER studies confirm findings from existing research that, on average, brand new
teachers are less effective than those with some experience under their belts"

http://capistranoinsider.typepad.com/files/1001455-impact-teacher-experience.pdf

In education, this policy also has some research backing: Even by the narrow measure of student test score growth, experience is among the few proven signals of teaching quality (see here, here, here, here, or our summary here), to say nothing of the possibility that experience matters more when it comes to other student learning outcomes (including, by the way, reducing attrition; experienced teachers are less likely to leave the profession).

In short, seniority is definitely imperfect, but it is hardly outrageous to use it as a proxy for quality. There is a reason why districts have long agreed to use it in layoffs and other decisions, and why virtually every nation in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development uses it in determining teacher pay. Let’s cool it with the “seniority hurts kids” rhetoric.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/eliminating-seniority-based-la.html

In South Daokota, teachers are raking in the dough with an average salary of $34,000. In neighboring North Dakota, teachers are doing even still better with a whopping salary of $37,000! I'm sure plenty of smart people will be attracted to teaching with such generous salaries like these...

http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state

>They have ensured that the smart college students of today and tomorrow will avoid the education profession like the plague.

What is the threshold (lower AND upper) on smart for purposes of your argument?

>Right, because we all know that teachers make way more than i-bankers, doctors, and BigLaw associates.

Imagine you own a business and you want to sell it and your high school math teacher held responsibility for it. Imagine you have a heart attack and your high school PE teacher were there to operate. Imagine you sold your business but got a crappy value for it, and then you got a heart attack arguing with the high school math teacher who sold it and then the operation perfomed by your high school PE teacher didn't go well, and you had to hire your high school english teacher to sue for damages.

>Young teachers say there are good reasons to have seniority: Veteran teachers save new ones in their first years, and experienced workers provide grounding and perspective. And if seniority disappeared, they fear senior teachers would be unduly targeted for layoffs because they earn more.

Socialist, would you agree on pay based solely on the quality of the teacher? So if a younger teacher were as good as an older teacher, the younger teacher and the older teacher would be paid the same. In which case, the older teacher wouldn't be targeted based on wage.

If you got rid of older teachers, then you would have no teachers because 50% of the young ones leave the profession. So I see nothing wrong with laying them off since half of them will be gone ANYWAY.

Socialist, seriously? That's your REAL argumement?

Socialist is a glutton for making foolish comments.

"Right, because we all know that teachers make way more than i-bankers, doctors, and BigLaw associates"

Get real- teachers don't work nearly as hard or put in as many hours as i-bankers, doctors or law firm associates.

I don't think anyone has a problem with teachers getting good salaries and decent benefits. The problems are with the excessive lavish benefits and a system that is not based on merit.

So, LICcomm, you think teachers' salaries and benefits should be scaled to those of i-bankers, doctors and law firm associates, thus proving that you don't simply undervalue the work of schoolmarms?

Or are you just completely full of shit and don't have a leg to stand on in your automatic support of this year's key GOP sound bites & bumper stickers?

The only way I love Republicans is lightly braised in a buttery sauce . . .

With a few vegans on the side. . .

Mmmmm. . . .

needsadvice, I try to avoid eating carrion.

LICcomm, you haven't answered: should teachers' salaries be scaled by hours worked to those of investment bankers, etc.?

"Get real- teachers don't work nearly as hard or put in as many hours as i-bankers, doctors or law firm associates."

Working hard and putting in long hours are two completely different things. The construction worker who works 8 hours a day works much harder than an i-banker who works 10 hours a day. Just because teachers don't work insane hours does not mean they don't work hard when they do work. Anyone who is teaching a classroom full of special ed or bilingual kids is working their butt off.

"and a system that is not based on merit."

And I am sure that the private secotr is completely based on merit. Nobody in the priavate sector has ever gotten a job or promotion by having a classmate as a boss, a relative as an HR director, or by kissing a$$. When that 2L applies for a job at White & Case and his father is a partner there, I am sure that will give him no advantage whatsoever.

Why do you think a construction worker works much harder than an IBanker? That is nonsense. You just don't know what you are talking about.

alan- so are are fine with teachers getting 30% of the salaries of Wall Street workers? Wall Street comp averaged just over $300k in 2010. I'm fine with teachers averaging $100k with the same health benefits and 401(k)s that Wall Street workers get.

So i-bankers work in dangeorus conditions and do hours of physical labor? Have you ever done a single hour of physical labor in your entire life LICC?

"I'm fine with teachers averaging $100k with the same health benefits and 401(k)s that Wall Street workers get."

In other words, you want to cut teacher pay.

Pay teachers i-banker salaries and then you can give them the same health benefits and 401k that i-bankers have.

Would you also be ok with no tenure for the teachers, similar to the investment bankers?

I'm actually against tenure for K-12 teachers. Tenure was originally meant for college professors this way they can teach controversial issues without fear of being fired. A K-12 teacher generally does not go into controversial areas, so tenure is less justified.

Socialist, you are not following. Teachers work probably one third of the hours that IBankers and Wall Street lawyers work, so pro rata they do make the same salaries.

You live in a fantasy world that departs from reality. You think that physical labor is harder work than work that is mentally draining. Construction workers I know say that the hardest days they have is when they have to think the most.

Have you ever done manual labor in your entire life? And I don't mean helping your friend move ro soemthign lie that.. I mean manual labor at an actual job.

Of course. Have you ever worked a high-level professional job requiring intellect and creativity?

What do i-bankers contribute to society? DO they save peoples' lives? Do they build things? If all i-bankers disappeared, would anyone notice?

you keep dodging the question with vomit rhetoric...

Do you see now that your typical i-banker is actually a Democrat?

Democrats decry Wall Street excesses but take lots of Goldman Sachs money -- a credibility problem?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/democrats-cozy-wall-street-goldman-sachs-campaign-contributions.html

"In 2010, the securities folks on Wall Street gave $32 million to political candidates..More than 60% went to Democrats."

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS508A_WALLP_NS_20080915192816.gif

stop changing the subject

Quoting you verbatim is changing the subject?

Numbers scare ya? Hehe

LICcomm, you're very happy with the compensation status-quo for teachers:

"Teachers and other school officials earned an average of $112,852" ... other school officials meaning higher-paid principals and superintendents and top Chancellor's office executives. And that's TOTAL compensation, not just salary, per this whiney management rag: http://www.workforce.com/section/news/article/nyc-civil-employees-total-compensation-averages-six-figures.php

So if you're okeh with teachers earning an average of $100K to reflect your assumption that they work 1/3 the hours of a $300K-average investment banker [does that figure include support staff at i-banks, by the way?], you're A-Okeh with the higher-paid among them earning well over $100K plus bennies ... averages being what they are.

Time for you to start demanding the restoration of dependable benefits for private sector employees. Sign the petition, LICcomm, sign the petition.

alanhart, you are being ridiculous. Considering that you are the one paying through your taxes for teachers, you should want more for less $. This is not a Republican or Democrat proposition. Even the Commies want more for less. Chinese, Venezuelan, Singaporean, Cuban ... they wall want more for less. The only peole who logically want to pay teachers more is ... teachers ... who are as capitalist and selfish as they come.

Most countries with better education systems than the U.S. pay their teachers more. In South Korea, teachers make MORE than engineers and lawyers.

And FYI: Only 5% of NYC teachers make $100,000 or more. LICC & Co. like to think that peopel become teachers to become rich, but if someone wanted to become rich, there are far beeter jobs out there that don't require a master's degree (ie: Long Island Rail Road mechanic, suburban police officer, etc.)

Any other countries besides South Korea?

quit dodging the question socialiiiee...

"Right, because we all know that teachers make way more than i-bankers"

Do you see now that your typical i-banker is actually a Democrat?

Democrats decry Wall Street excesses but take lots of Goldman Sachs money -- a credibility problem?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/democrats-cozy-wall-street-goldman-sachs-campaign-contributions.html

"In 2010, the securities folks on Wall Street gave $32 million to political candidates..More than 60% went to Democrats."

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-AS508A_WALLP_NS_20080915192816.gif

hol4, you know perfectly well that Democrats are forced to play the Republican game to win elections. Democrats are the ones that want to limit campaign funding, direct advertising, and lobbying by industry, while the right-wing supports the ridiculous notion of greenbacked corporate free speech. And Goldman et al. places bets on whichever campaigning party seems more likely to win -- red or black, odd or even.

In brief, Democrats support broad-based public education, and Republicans are opposed to it and seek to destroy it through privatization.

I don't give a sh*t about the political eanings of i-bankers. That was not the purpose of the thread dimwit.

alan, health costs change over time, and pensions have risk. Why should teachers, or anyone for that matter, not have to pay anything for a benefit they receive, regardless of its cost or risk? This is just another creative way for you to beg for handouts.

Yes, LICcomm, and the whole point to employer-provided healthcare, and to pensions, is that the pooled risk is shifted to the employer, so individual employees can have a stable and productive life. Nothing has changed there. Any shift towards employee-held risk needs to be compensated at every uptick by an increase in salary -- otherwise it's simply a cut in compensation. Any sort of lipstick-on-pig does nothing to hide what is plainly the GOP at the trough, LICcomm.

I concur with Alan.

The pensions and health care plans for teachers and other public service workers must be viewed along with salary as a total compensation package.

One of the trade-offs of working for significantly lower pay in the public sector than in the private sector is an enhanced pension and health package.

This has always been the case.

Take away the enhanced pension and health, and you'd better boost salaries.

It's not just public sector -- all jobs are an exchange of one's time (and dignity) for a compensation package, some current, sometimes deferred until the end of the year or beyond one's working years, some pooled risk that might be overutilized or underutilized by the individual.

When individuals go freelance and don't have employer-provided benefits, they expect (and generally receive) higher pay to compensate.

Indeed.

Could you imagine the massive CEO exodus if ALL they got paid were their measly low-seven figure salaries, and not figured into their total compensation packages were those eight-figure stock incentives and bonus money??

Ridiculous. Pooling doesn't magically make costs and risks go away. If you receive a benefit, you should have to pay toward it. Liberals are never able to grasp that concept.

Teachers already are getting private market level salaries. They should also have to pay toward the benefits they receive, and if the costs of those benefits go up, the one receiving the benefit has to pay higher costs instead of demanding that other taxpayers pay it for them.

"Ridiculous. Pooling doesn't magically make costs and risks go away. If you receive a benefit, you should have to pay toward it. Liberals are never able to grasp that concept."

I'm a conservative and I can't believe that YOU aren't "grasping" the concept of a benefit being part of a total compensation package. They're "paying" for it in the form of reduced wages.

*****

"Teachers already are getting private market level salaries."

Based on WHAT?

In what part of the private sector could a worker with a graduate degree and professional certification expect an average pay of $50K/year?

JUST IN: WIsconsin GOP State Senator gets mistress a govt. job and a 35% pay raise over the last person to hold the job. Republicans want to cut the pay of govt. workers, UNLESS they are slpeeing with them.

http://addins.wkow.com/blogs/scoop/2011/03/hopper-denies-role-in-state-employees-hire

"In what part of the private sector could a worker with a graduate degree and professional certification expect an average pay of $50K/year?"

Well, I'm sure there are plenty of private sector workers with graduate degrees making $50k working as, ummmm, ummmmmmmm, uhhhhh, ummmm, DON'T TREAD ON ME!

Matt, try to keep up.

Do you even know what health insurance costs? Let's say annual premiums cost $12k last year and $15k this year and $20k next year. Why should taxpayers have to pay all of it regardless of how much the costs increase? Should we reduce the salaries to make up for the increased benefit costs?

And teachers average more than $50k in salary. And you have to adjust that by time off.

I know many professionals in the private sector (architects, publishing, public lawyers, engineers- all with masters degrees as well- and all working 50-60 hour weeks - gasp- year round!) who are paid less than NY teachers. And they avg way more than $50k in NYC.

5thGenNYer, are those people you know stupid? Don't they understand basic principles of capitalism?

Yes- they arent getting a free $150k+ benefits ride off of taxpayers

four people i know who are teachers are making more then they were in the private sector. one is making close to $80k now as a teacher and was making $8/hour at his previous job in the science field.

the others were all making $30-45k in the private sector and are now making $75-100k as teachers (NYC, and LI)

"and was making $8/hour at his previous job in the science field."

What exactly was his job? Working as an $8 an hour cashier at the Discovery Store is not considered the "science field."

"Should we reduce the salaries to make up for the increased benefit costs?"

No, we should institute single payer health insuranace like every modernized country already has and bring down those costs by half.

"I know many professionals in the private sector (architects, publishing, public lawyers, engineers- all with masters degrees as well- and all working 50-60 hour weeks - gasp- year round!) who are paid less than NY teachers."

Well then they are idiots, especially your lawyer friend. If you can't get into a top law school, you have no business becoming a lawyer. Anyone who goes to a toilet law school, as your friend likely did, is an idiot.

It no longer pays to go to college anymore for the most part. You can blame corporations that outsource jobs for that, not teachers.

Socialist responds to a logical, rational question with his ridiculous fantasyland answer. No wonder socialism is a failed system.

"Well then they are idiots, especially your lawyer friend. If you can't get into a top law school, you have no business becoming a lawyer. Anyone who goes to a toilet law school, as your friend likely did, is an idiot."

Right they should instead be overpaid moochers of taxpayers. Well the lawyer WORKS for the govt- he went to Cardoza I believe- my point was that the NYC govt pays teachers better than they do their lawyers..

"Right, because we all know that teachers make way more than i-bankers"

"not to mention that a union plumber, electrician, elevator mechanic, etc. with just a HS diploma will make mroe than a teacher ever will. So will a suburban police officer."

"Virtually all city and state employees reach top pay after 5 years. MTA workers don't reach it until 3 years."

maybe you should change your thread to ...

I LOVE Democrats??

Considering all those groups you listed above are...

...gasp! D-E-M-O-C-R-A-TS..

pulled a Madoff, threw their own kind under the bus, l'chaim!

Police officers are not Democrats dimwit. In Wisconsin, they endorsed Soctt Walker.

"he went to Cardoza I believe"

A toilet school. How does any toilet grad in NYC expect to compete for BigLaw jobs when Columbia, NYU, and Yale are right next door?

A private sector union electricial makes $46 an hour. An MTA electrician makes $31 an hour.

And since govt. workers make so much money, I have no doubt that BigLaw associates are leaving their jobs by the masses to become assistant DAs.

If you want to see how out of control Republicans are, just look at New Hamshire. Just LAST WEEK, the Republican controlled state legislature voted to eliminarte mandatory school attendnance for children AND voted to cut the cigarette tax. One Republican Seantor actually said that cutting the tax was "pro-business, pro-jobs." Right... assuming your in the funeral or healthcare business.

So come on LICC and somewherelese, defend cutting the cigarette tax. I dare you.

A toilet school. How does any toilet grad in NYC expect to compete for BigLaw jobs when Columbia, NYU, and Yale are right next door?

I know several people who gradated from Cardoza who are working at big law firms too. She chose to work in Queens as public lawyer.

Cardozo is a good law school. It doesn't surprise me that Socialist holds to elitist myths that grads of Ivy League schools are superior to grads of other schools. That is total nonsense. But it fits with someone who thinks that an elitist few with government power should be centrally planning and controlling everyone else's lives.

"She chose to work in Queens as public lawyer."

Then if she CHOSE to work in a low paying job, you can't whine about how she makes less than a teacher.

"Cardozo is a good law school."

Well, unfortunately, some obsecure Socialist publication calling itself "US News & Word Report" lists Cardozo at #50,,. well outsude the coveted T14.

Cardozo has not even hired a single one of their graduates to work on their "Innocence Project." NOT ONE!

"I know several people who gradated from Cardoza who are working at big law firms too."

Was that before or after the legal job market completely imploded in 2008?

Then if she CHOSE to work in a low paying job, you can't whine about how she makes less than a teacher

The city should pay their lawyers more than their teachers.

"I know several people who gradated from Cardoza who are working at big law firms too."

Was that before or after the legal job market completely imploded in 2008?

Yes- they graduated law school way before 2008. But they are still gainfully employed.

"The city should pay their lawyers more than their teachers."

Why?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/the-real-reason-young-people-don-t-like-republicans.html