Beginning of the End for Public Unions?

Catawba: I realize you are trying to be difficult, but I can go around that.

Lets talk about sectors instead. How does it benefit the poor to make rich teachers richer? I can easily document that teachers earn significantly more than the average in the US. And especially in some states.

Camlon said:

In reality, you know public sector unions earn substantially more than US average.

Click to expand...

You have not made that case. On the other hand, I have referenced a large body of evidence above in post $697 that shows "that public school teachers and other government workers have total compensation that is lower—or at least no higher—than that of comparable private-sector workers."

Catawba said:

"This finding, and previous research by the same authors (Biggs and Richwine 2011), are at odds with a large body of research showing that public school teachers and other government workers have total compensation that is lower—or at least no higher—than that of comparable private-sector workers (see, for example, Allegretto, Corcoran, and Mishel 2004, 2008, 2011; Bender and Heywood 2010; Keefe 2010; Munnell et al. 2011; Schmitt 2010). Furthermore, the “teaching penalty” has grown, as teachers’ and other public-sector workers’ pay has declined relative to that of comparable private-sector workers (Allegretto, Corcoran, and Mishel 2008, 2011; Bender and Heywood 2010).

Do public school teachers really receive lavish benefits?: Richwine and Biggs

Click to expand...

WOW. Babble about trends. I included that FACT along with my TEACHER PAY data, and noted that the gap was, in fact, closing but that escaped you, some how, too. One HUGE factor NOT taken into account in these "wonder studies" is stability; the personnel turnover rate in public jobs is WAY under that of private, requiring less moves. Over 90% of public employees retire at an average age of 54, where for private employees that is virtually unheard of. Clever cherry picking of "good" vs. "bad" points of different things can "prove" almost anything, please do not try to change the subject like this. Stick to teachers, as you started out with; compare public and private teachers' pay/benefits. These other professions have almost NO union involvement either, the topic of discussion at hand, remember?

Camlon said:

Catawba: I realize you are trying to be difficult, but I can go around that.

Lets talk about sectors instead. How does it benefit the poor to make rich teachers richer? I can easily document that teachers earn significantly more than the average in the US. And especially in some states.

Click to expand...

Changing goalposts? OK, but you still have to prove your new premise that teachers are rich compared to other private sector jobs with comparable education levels.

Camlon said:

Seriously? You are now the emperor with no clothes.

In reality, you know public sector unions earn substantially more than US average. I have given very specific evidence for that. There is only one reason you are denying it. You are desperate. You are completely unable to respond to my arguments, and instead you deny facts that everyone knows is true.

You are a believer in trickle down economics. However, you believe in a liberal version of it. That increase union wages for the rich, will increase wages for everyone.

Click to expand...

Sure they can, just include CEOs and compare them to congressional/SES pay and poof, it is "proved"! LOL

ttwtt78640 said:

WOW. Babble about trends. I included that FACT along with my TEACHER PAY data, and noted that the gap was, in fact, closing but that escaped you, some how, too. One HUGE factor NOT taken into account in these "wonder studies" is stability; the personnel turnover rate in public jobs is WAY under that of private, requiring less moves. Over 90% of public employees retire at an average age of 54, where for private employees that is virtually unheard of. Clever cherry picking of "good" vs. "bad" points of different things can "prove" almost anything, please do not try to change the subject like this. Stick to teachers, as you started out with; compare public and private teachers' pay/benefits. These other professions have almost NO union involvement either, the topic of discussion at hand, remember?

Click to expand...

When you make substandard pay with little benefits compared with the rest of the private sector with comparable education, you can't afford to retire. That makes a good case for why we need public unions however.

Camlon said:

Lets talk about sectors instead. How does it benefit the poor to make rich teachers richer?

Click to expand...

Well teachers are a significant slice of the middle class. So increasing their income directly increases the income of the middle class. It's also a sort of job that educated people can try for everywhere in the country. Lots of times it is one of the few decent jobs in small towns for example. But, indirectly, and probably more importantly, the higher teacher pay is, the higher quality candidates will go into it, the better our education is, which raises everybody up.

Camlon said:

I can easily document that teachers earn significantly more than the average in the US. And especially in some states.

Click to expand...

Most teachers, or at least most new teachers, have master's degrees. They make way, way, less than the average person with a master's degree.

Catawba said:

Changing goalposts? OK, but you still have to prove your new premise that teachers are rich compared to other private sector jobs with comparable education levels.

Click to expand...

OK, let's explore that path. First of all, teachers work about 500 hours per year less than other "comparable" full time postitions, so to start with, lets take 3/4 of that "comparable" other annual salary as being "even". Why do you suppose that teachers choose to teach? Are they not "smart" enough to see that SAME education would earn them far more money in another job? Just what makes them choose the "least possible return" on their educational investment? Perhaps job stability and earlier retirement, coupled with working less hours per year, IS a factor. Hmm...

teamosil said:

What you're doing is just what is called "begging the question". You're assuming your premise in order to prove it. If we had a different sort of a system, say companies with profit sharing programs, then you would feel that the employees had earned those profits too. You just are assuming that whoever is collecting the money is the one earning it. That isn't an argument against a system where the earnings go to the people who work for them rather than the owners.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with the idea of profit sharing and would never support forcing employers to take part in such.

And I'm not assuming anything. It is there money and as such its their property. No matter what excuse you make on some sort of labor effort standard that you believe is needed it makes no difference to that fact. Sorry, but fairness bull**** falls on deaf ears here.

Oh course. Why?

Click to expand...

Why would a man like Buffet want his taxes raised. Liberals assume its because he simply thinks he is paying to little, but that is stupid talk and Buffet is not stupid. What advantages does he gain if the people around him are taxed more? Want to take a guess?

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, let's explore that path. First of all, teachers work about 500 hours per year less than other "comparable" full time postitions, so to start with, lets take 3/4 of that "comparable" other annual salary as being "even". Why do you suppose that teachers choose to teach? Are they not "smart" enough to see that SAME education would earn them far more money in another job? Just what makes them choose the "least possible return" on their educational investment? Perhaps job stability and earlier retirement, coupled with working less hours per year, IS a factor. Hmm...

Click to expand...

I am married to a retired school teacher and know that a teacher works far beyond their contract, not to mention the continuing education requirements that most other jobs do not require. So sorry, that doesn't hold water.

Henrin said:

I don't agree with the idea of profit sharing and would never support forcing employers to take part in such.

And I'm not assuming anything. It is there money and as such its their property. No matter what excuse you make on some sort of labor effort standard that you believe is needed it makes no difference to that fact. Sorry, but fairness bull**** falls on deaf ears here.

Click to expand...

You aren't following. You say "It is there money and as such its their property", but if we had a different system where somebody else got the money instead of them, then it would be that other person's property... All you're saying is that you think the owner should get it because he does get it. That justification would work for any possible system equally well.

Henrin said:

Why would a man like Buffet want his taxes raised. Liberals assume its because he simply thinks he is paying to little, but that is stupid talk and Buffet is not stupid. What advantages does he gain if the people around him are taxed more? Want to take a guess?

Click to expand...

There really is no way I could guess what conspiracy theory you've cooked up...

teamosil said:

Well teachers are a significant slice of the middle class. So increasing their income directly increases the income of the middle class. It's also a sort of job that educated people can try for everywhere in the country. Lots of times it is one of the few decent jobs in small towns for example. But, indirectly, and probably more importantly, the higher teacher pay is, the higher quality candidates will go into it, the better our education is, which raises everybody up.



Most teachers, or at least most new teachers, have master's degrees. They make way, way, less than the average person with a master's degree.

Click to expand...

While a teacher may have a masters degree, what FIELD is that master degree in? Is that "comparable" job even available in Podunk, where they live at 1/2 (or less) the cost of a major city? Using only NATIONAL numbers makes that a silly comparison. Every town, county and city has a school, not every place ALSO has that "comparable" job, that OTHER job may require moving to an area with 2x or 3x the cost of living, so it IS a big factor, to be considered. That "comparable" job also requires working about 500 hours/year more than the teaching job does too. The nonsense, that you started with, that the "best and brightest" go into teaching, to justify their much higher pay for many less work hours, is also BS.

Catawba said:

You have not made that case. On the other hand, I have referenced a large body of evidence above in post $697 that shows "that public school teachers and other government workers have total compensation that is lower—or at least no higher—than that of comparable private-sector workers."

Click to expand...

I looked at the research, and it does not say that. It says the benefits covered by private workers is the same as public workers. There is some discussion on how much return you get from their pensions. I would like to see some numbers in that research. How did they calculate the compensation, and then we can evaluate if it is valid.

That still doesn't change the fact that Using 2007-2008 data, the average "total school-year and summer earned income" for public school teachers was $53,230 . The equivalent for private-school teachers was $39,690. (These are the numbers without compensation, and includes part time) Median US wage is 26K. Still, liberals have no problems with teachers having excellent job security, long vacations and earning 120K with compensation, and still demanding higher salaries.

Are Public School Teachers Overpaid or Are Private School Teachers Underpaid? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Catawba said:

Changing goalposts? OK, but you still have to prove your new premise that teachers are rich compared to other private sector jobs with comparable education levels.

Click to expand...

Just proved it. But we don't have to adjust for wage level, or the same profession. In terms on income inequality, it doesn't matter. I'm asking you again. How do we decrease income inequality by increasing the wage of the ones who earn significantly more than average?

Are you a believer in trickle down economics?

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, let's explore that path. First of all, teachers work about 500 hours per year less than other "comparable" full time postitions, so to start with, lets take 3/4 of that "comparable" other annual salary as being "even".

Click to expand...

My mom was an elementary school teacher. She worked 10 to 12 hour days M-F and maybe 5 hours on each weekend day during the school year and then she volunteered for various projects over the summer. Usually she'd take a couple weeks off at each end of the summer, but other than that she'd be working all summer. And four weeks is about the same vacation most jobs get. During the summer she'd probably work more like 30 hours a week, but when you average in the 60+ hour weeks during the school year, she was still well ahead of the norm for most jobs.

She won a teacher of the year award for the state, but she turned it down because she didn't want to be the center of attention and she thought she didn't deserve it more than any other teachers. She developed a reading curriculum that has been written about in education magazines maybe 10 times and which 2 people have done their Phd. dissertations on since it was so successful. A number of school districts around the country adopted it. She had a master's degree plus 45 credits and by the time she retired, she had 33 years of teaching experience. She always chose to work at the toughest school. The school never had enough money for much supplies, so she typically spent between $3,000 and $5,000 a year out of pocket buying jackets for kids that didn't have them, books for the classroom, software, math puzzle games, etc.

When she retired maybe 8 years ago now she was making $41k/year.

ttwtt78640 said:

Why do you suppose that teachers choose to teach? Are they not "smart" enough to see that SAME education would earn them far more money in another job? Just what makes them choose the "least possible return" on their educational investment? Perhaps job stability and earlier retirement, coupled with working less hours per year, IS a factor. Hmm...

Click to expand...

Of course they're smart enough to realize they could make more money elsewhere. In my experience most teachers are teachers instead of doing something that makes more money because they want to help kids and help their communities.

teamosil said:

You aren't following. You say "It is there money and as such its their property", but if we had a different system where somebody else got the money instead of them, then it would be that other person's property... All you're saying is that you think the owner should get it because he does get it. That justification would work for any possible system equally well.

Click to expand...

And if someone owns a business the only way they wouldn't get the money is if the government forced it to someone else. The legitimate source of the money hasn't changed so the point is nothing but invalid.

There really is no way I could guess what conspiracy theory you've cooked up...

Click to expand...

Conspiracy theory? Answer the question. What is the gains an extremely rich man gets when the people right below him are taxed along with him? I'm using a liberal talking point here so answer it your normal way.

Camlon said:

I looked at the research, and it does not say that. It says the benefits covered by private workers is the same as public workers. There is some discussion on how much return you get from their pensions. I would like to see some numbers in that research. How did they calculate the compensation, and then we can evaluate if it is valid.

That still doesn't change the fact that Using 2007-2008 data, the average "total school-year and summer earned income" for public school teachers was $53,230 . The equivalent for private-school teachers was $39,690. (These are the numbers without compensation, and includes part time) Median US wage is 26K. Still, liberals have no problems with teachers earning 120K with compensation and still demanding higher salaries.

Are Public School Teachers Overpaid or Are Private School Teachers Underpaid? - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Click to expand...

All you have proven is that non-unionized private school teachers make substandard pay and benefits, far below the average private sector job with comparable education requirements. So you have demonstrated only why we need public unions. Is that the point you were going for?

ttwtt78640 said:

While a teacher may have a masters degree, what FIELD is that master degree in?

Click to expand...

That just begs the question. Education degrees lead to lower salaries because teachers get paid less.

ttwtt78640 said:

Is that "comparable" job even available in Podunk, where they live at 1/2 (or less) the cost of a major city? Using only NATIONAL numbers makes that a silly comparison. Every town, county and city has a school, not every place ALSO has that "comparable" job, that OTHER job may require moving to an area with 2x or 3x the cost of living, so it IS a big factor, to be considered.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true. I made that same point. But, that's a positive. We want some decent jobs in small towns, right? Teaching salaries vary dramatically based on the cost of living, but in general keeping at least some opportunities in small towns is certainly a positive thing for the country, right?

Catawba said:

All you have proven is that non-unionized private school teachers make substandard pay and benefits, far below the average private sector job with comparable education requirements. So you have demonstrated only why we need public unions. Is that the point you were going for?

Click to expand...

I'm interested to know why you think education level = a certain acceptable wage and when it doesn't there is some reason to be outraged.

Any answers?

Catawba said:

I am married to a retired school teacher and know that a teacher works far beyond their contract, not to mention the continuing education requirements that most other jobs do not require. So sorry, that doesn't hold water.

Click to expand...

Since you mentioned retired, at what age did that retirement occur? I know many gov't employees that "retire" at age 50 to 55, yet NONE that retire that young in those "comparable" jobs. In fact, IRS does not even allow a private 401K to be used (without a tax penalty) until at least age 59 1/2. Hmm...

Henrin said:

And if someone owns a business the only way they wouldn't get the money is if the government forced it to someone else. The legitimate source of the money hasn't changed so the point is nothing but invalid.

Click to expand...

Well the government is "forcing" the money to go to him currently. Same difference. The law says that the owner gets the money. No different from the law saying that the owner and the employees share the profits. For example, in the US, the law says that in a public corporation the owners have to be the ones that elect the board of directors. It could just as easily say that the board should be elected by a combination of the owners and the employees. That is no more or less force.

Henrin said:

Conspiracy theory? Answer the question. What is the gains an extremely rich man gets when the people right below him are taxed along with him? I'm using a liberal talking point here so answer it your normal way.

Click to expand...

If you have a conspiracy theory, just lay it out. I think that he believes that the rich should pay more taxes because it is obvious that the rich should pay more taxes.

Catawba said:

All you have proven is that non-unionized private school teachers make substandard pay and benefits, far below the average private sector job with comparable education requirements. So you have demonstrated only why we need public unions. Is that the point you were going for?

Click to expand...

What you are pretty much saying is that we need public unions, so public workers can stay overpaid at the expense of the poor.

Again, how does it benefit a poor person with a salary of 25K with compensation, if we increase the salary of a teacher from 120K with compensation to 150K? If the teacher unions remain strong, then that is going to happen.

teamosil said:

Well the government is "forcing" the money to go to him currently. Same difference. The law says that the owner gets the money. No different from the law saying that the owner and the employees share the profits. For example, in the US, the law says that in a public corporation the owners have to be the ones that elect the board of directors. It could just as easily say that the board should be elected by a combination of the owners and the employees. That is no more or less force.

Click to expand...

What? He is the owner of the goods that created the produce and all the produce is owned by him as it was produced with his property. There is no doubt if someone else took the earnings as their own along the supply chain they would be stealing from him. It is not forcing the property elsewhere like your example but keeping it where it was from the start. You are still failing to be honest.

If you have a conspiracy theory, just lay it out. I think that he believes that the rich should pay more taxes because it is obvious that the rich should pay more taxes.

Click to expand...

Lol, follow along the talking point that liberals point out about taxes. It should be obvious since you are a liberal. When liberals bring up the fair tax what do they say is the problem?

Camlon said:

What you are pretty much saying is that we need public unions, so public workers can stay overpaid at the expense of the poor.

Click to expand...

No, that is a bizzaro world interpretation of what I said. What I actually said was, "All you have proven is that non-unionized private school teachers make substandard pay and benefits, far below the average private sector job with comparable education requirements."

Again, how does it benefit a poor person with a salary of 25K with compensation, if we increase the salary of a teacher from 120K with compensation to 150K? If the teacher unions remain strong, then that is going to happen.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

Henrin said:

I'm interested to know why you think education level = a certain acceptable wage and when it doesn't there is some reason to be outraged.

Any answers?

Click to expand...

I have no interest in discussions with you.

Catawba said:

All you have proven is that non-unionized private school teachers make substandard pay and benefits, far below the average private sector job with comparable education requirements. So you have demonstrated only why we need public unions. Is that the point you were going for?

Click to expand...

Yet another brilliant debate strategy. First you assert that public teacher salaries are low, for the "same" education level, then assert that they are the correct "standard", but that private schools are somehow "sweat shops" and pay "slave wages" compared to public schools. Now we must examine WHY any teacher would work for a private school for those "substandard" wages, even stranger, why anyone would pay to put their precious children in them. You just keep going in circles.

If a private school can get a qualified teacher for $11K/year less than a public school can, then which institution is OVERPAYING the teachers? Well gosh, it must be those stupid taxpayers AGAIN, forking out $1K/month more for their public school teachers than the private competition is paying. Maybe that is why vouchers are so feared by the teacher's union, they would be out of work, or forced to work for the lower private wages, like most taxpayers are. Those rich people are so dumb too, PAYING to send their kids to private schools, with those lousy underpaid teachers, not getting that better quality FREE public education that uses the "best and brightest", and higher paid, public school teachers. Hmm...