State Budget Problems In The Us

[Jeepster80125 0]

Teachers usually start around there, but ELG specifically mentioned the wage when they retire. My brother-in-law's mom was making 75k in Ohio when she retired and she worked an extra 2 years so that she could be at like 90% for her pension. Also: Teachers work 9 months.

Do they still get paid over summer, or do they make that annual salary only during those 9 months? An ex of mine had to stop being the head athletic trainer at a local high school because she couldn't afford taking summers off. She most definitely wasn't getting paid over the summer, I'm not sure how it is with teachers.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I think teachers have the option of having their salary spread out over 9 or 12 months.Edit: I suppose that answer depends on the district, public/private, etc., etc.

[brvheart 1,752]

I'll 2nd Joey on this. I know some teachers here in Iowa that are paid over the summer.Also:http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Cost_S...ps_vs_Costs.pdf

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Teaching is fun!I'm essentially a teacher for part of the year, and I make almost no money, so I guess that makes sense. Though, I teach people who are very close to my same age, and sometimes older. But yeah, teaching salary sucks. If it were better, there would be much better teachers because again, teaching is fun. I think the salary is the thing that holds a lot of well qualified people back.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I think teachers have the option of having their salary spread out over 9 or 12 months.Edit: I suppose that answer depends on the district, public/private, etc., etc.

Sometimes it's embarrassing for me to realize how easy something would be to find an answer to on teh google, like this. Then I realize that I still don't care enough to do. Apathy is fun!

[hblask 1]

The states with the biggest looming problems right now are the states with the strongest public employees unions -- and teachers are part of that. In one of C Christie's famous speeches, a teacher challenged him about salaries, and he said, well, don't do it then. She made around 86K for 9 months of work.Underfunded pensions is the big problem, not their salaries though. Many states let public employees (including teachers) retire after 25 years or so with a 90% salary. So by age 46 they never have to work again. No business could offer such a thing, and the states that are doing it are in trouble. Looking at you, CA.

[El Guapo 8]

The states with the biggest looming problems right now are the states with the strongest public employees unions -- and teachers are part of that. In one of C Christie's famous speeches, a teacher challenged him about salaries, and he said, well, don't do it then. She made around 86K for 9 months of work.Underfunded pensions is the big problem, not their salaries though. Many states let public employees (including teachers) retire after 25 years or so with a 90% salary. So by age 46 they never have to work again. No business could offer such a thing, and the states that are doing it are in trouble. Looking at you, CA.

That actually isn't the issue out here. CalPers and CalStrs are actually some of the best run pensions in the country. They also don't allow people to retire that early. I am pretty sure they have to at least reach 55. And at 25 years it's not a full pension. I think for full pension they need to be 60+ with 30+ years in.Also, PERS and STRS and drawing more from the state employee paychecks to fund the pensions starting this year.The issue is, you have superintendents making 300K a year. 100 Million dollar new schools. Programs on top of programs that don't do anything.I have a client who is a retired executive, she got bored staying home so took a part time job at a local school district. In 20 hours a week she balanced their budget and cut unnecessary spending and it didn't affect the way anything was being run. They said it was the first time in 4 years anyone had done that, and she was just there for part time secretarial help.

[Jeepster80125 0]

There are a couple active threads for pot debate, but this is pertinent to this thread.Strapped Police Run on Fumes, and Federal Pot-Fighting Cash IGO, Calif.—Shasta County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, his budget under pressure in a weak economy, has laid off staff, reduced patrols and even released jail inmates. But there's one mission on which he's spending more than in recent years: pot busts.The reason is simple: If he steps up his pursuit of marijuana growers, his department is eligible for roughly half a million dollars a year in federal anti-drug funding, helping save some jobs. The majority of the funding would have to be used to fight pot. Marijuana may not be the county's most pressing crime problem, the sheriff says, but "it's where the money is."BG, it seems like enforcing marijuana laws seems dependent on federal funding, not the criminal act itself. It seems like in this case the authorities are acting because they get more money, not because pot crimes are a problem?

[Jeepster80125 0]

The states with the biggest looming problems right now are the states with the strongest public employees unions -- and teachers are part of that. In one of C Christie's famous speeches, a teacher challenged him about salaries, and he said, well, don't do it then. She made around 86K for 9 months of work.Underfunded pensions is the big problem, not their salaries though. Many states let public employees (including teachers) retire after 25 years or so with a 90% salary. So by age 46 they never have to work again. No business could offer such a thing, and the states that are doing it are in trouble. Looking at you, CA.

That actually isn't the issue out here. CalPers and CalStrs are actually some of the best run pensions in the country. They also don't allow people to retire that early. I am pretty sure they have to at least reach 55. And at 25 years it's not a full pension. I think for full pension they need to be 60+ with 30+ years in.Also, PERS and STRS and drawing more from the state employee paychecks to fund the pensions starting this year.The issue is, you have superintendents making 300K a year. 100 Million dollar new schools. Programs on top of programs that don't do anything.I have a client who is a retired executive, she got bored staying home so took a part time job at a local school district. In 20 hours a week she balanced their budget and cut unnecessary spending and it didn't affect the way anything was being run. They said it was the first time in 4 years anyone had done that, and she was just there for part time secretarial help.

CalPERS is a defined benefit program, not a defined contribution program, so when the economy tanks they're screwed. That's the unfunded liability, right?I just found this but I don't have time to read it.http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/member/...-brief-1007.pdfedit: from wiki.criticismsTraditional defined benefit plan designs (because of their typically flat accrual rate and the decreasing time for interest discounting as people get closer to retirement age) tend to exhibit a J-shaped accrual pattern of benefits, where the present value of benefits grows quite slowly early in an employee's career and accelerates significantly in mid-career: in other words it costs more to fund the pension for older employees than for younger ones (an "age bias"). Defined benefit pensions tend to be less portable than defined contribution plans, even if the plan allows a lump sum cash benefit at termination. Most plans, however, pay their benefits as an annuity, so retirees do not bear the risk of low investment returns on contributions or of outliving their retirement income. The open-ended nature of these risks to the employer is the reason given by many employers for switching from defined benefit to defined contribution plans over recent years. The risks to the employer can sometimes be mitigated by discretionary elements in the benefit structure, for instance in the rate of increase granted on accrued pensions, both before and after retirement.The age bias, reduced portability and open ended risk make defined benefit plans better suited to large employers with less mobile workforces, such as the public sector (which has open-ended support from taxpayers).Defined benefit plans are sometimes criticized as being paternalistic as they enable employers or plan trustees to make decisions about the type of benefits and family structures and lifestyles of their employees. However they are typically more valuable than defined contribution plans in most circumstances and for most employees (mainly because the employer tends to pay higher contributions than under defined contribution plans), so such criticism is rarely harsh.The "cost" of a defined benefit plan is not easily calculated, and requires an actuary or actuarial software. However, even with the best of tools, the cost of a defined benefit plan will always be an estimate based on economic and financial assumptions. These assumptions include the average retirement age and lifespan of the employees, the returns to be earned by the pension plan's investments and any additional taxes or levies, such as those required by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in the U.S. So, for this arrangement, the benefit is relatively secure but the contribution is uncertain even when estimated by a professional.[edit] ExamplesMany countries offer state-sponsored retirement benefits, beyond those provided by employers, which are funded by payroll or other taxes. The United States Social Security system is similar to a defined benefit pension arrangement, albeit one that is constructed differently than a pension offered by a private employer.Individuals that have worked in the UK and have paid certain levels of national insurance deductions can expect an income from the state pension scheme after their normal retirement. The state pension is currently divided into two parts: the basic state pension, State Second [tier] Pension scheme called S2P. Individuals will qualify for the basic state pension if they have completed sufficient years contribution to their national insurance record. The S2P pension scheme is earnings related and depends on earnings in each year as to how much an individual can expect to receive. It is possible for an individual to forgo the S2P payment from the state, in lieu of a payment made to an appropriate pension scheme of their choice, during their working life. For more details see UK pension provision.

[hblask 1]

Reason.tv has had a number of videos on the CA budget crisis. Both cities and states are out of money and are on an unsustainable course.Here's a couple of the videos:http://reason.tv/video/show/jon-fleischmanhttp://reason.tv/video/show/adrian-moore-on-varney-co-dischttp://reason.tv/video/show/adrian-moore-on-fox-business-dThey've had a lot of great discussions lately, I'm not sure that these three are among their best, just the first ones I found.One of the big problems in CA is double-dipping, where people will take an extra job with the state during their final year, or finagle lots of overtime, so that their pension is way bigger than their typical salary for all except their last year.

[brvheart 1,752]

IL Governor gives his staff 20% raises.

[nutzbuster 7]

don't be dissin' public pensionsI just started sucking that teet

[akoff 0]

That actually isn't the issue out here. CalPers and CalStrs are actually some of the best run pensions in the country. They also don't allow people to retire that early. I am pretty sure they have to at least reach 55. And at 25 years it's not a full pension. I think for full pension they need to be 60+ with 30+ years in.Also, PERS and STRS and drawing more from the state employee paychecks to fund the pensions starting this year.The issue is, you have superintendents making 300K a year. 100 Million dollar new schools. Programs on top of programs that don't do anything.I have a client who is a retired executive, she got bored staying home so took a part time job at a local school district. In 20 hours a week she balanced their budget and cut unnecessary spending and it didn't affect the way anything was being run. They said it was the first time in 4 years anyone had done that, and she was just there for part time secretarial help.

if a super has a district staff of 150 or 200 why wouldn't he make 300k per year? the super in one of the few jobs in the public area where they can actually be held accountable? it seems to me a good super would be worth every penny.the key here is the person being a GOOD super.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Having gone through both public and private schooling, I'd had teachers that are very good and teachers that are very bad. I think the best teachers at a private and public school are essentially on the same foot. I've had excellent teachers at both. I think the worse teachers are a public school are much worse than the worse teachers at a private school. The main difference is the fact that it's easy to fire bad teachers at a private school. From what I've heard, the pay isn't much different between public and private schools, but private school teachers get the added benefit of teaching better students (meaning less problem students) and having nicer resources (better, newer text books, whiteboards, more field trips, etc).I'm grateful for both experiences. Private school was nice but VERY insulated. It was a bit of a wake-up call (and a necessary one) when I went to a school with 42 people in a class to one with 500. I'm not sure what my point is. I think it's the fact that I dislike teacher's unions because it makes it difficult to fire clearly incompetent people. It is extremely obvious to students which teachers are great and which ones are terrible. Most teachers I've had are good to great with only a handful of clearly incompetent ones. This doesn't really address expenses, though. It costs just as much to have a bad teacher as a good one. But the quality of education per dollar should go up.

[AmScray 355]

The problem with primary education in the US isn't the money spent (or lack thereof). It's the culture.Just like homosexuals took over theater and Jews own the media, (and Homosexual Jews own Hollywood) "teaching" in the United States has been populated by slightly-below-mediocre losers who are quite fierce in protecting their brood. This is one of the fundamental flaws of any intensely capitalist system (such as ours) Things like teaching, the arts, etc draw from the bottom of the barrel since they're monetarily disincentivized, while the efficacious intelligentsia are apt to be in the sciences or out chasing 'da Benjaminz.This results in the 'top' of the educator ladder- professors- being a bunch of do-nothing inexperienced theorists, while the bottom of that same ladder- primary educators- are barely literate, at best.

[akoff 0]

The problem with primary education in the US isn't the money spent (or lack thereof). It's the culture.Just like homosexuals took over theater and Jews own the media, (and Homosexual Jews own Hollywood) "teaching" in the United States has been populated by slightly-below-mediocre losers who are quite fierce in protecting their brood. This is one of the fundamental flaws of any intensely capitalist system (such as ours) Things like teaching, the arts, etc draw from the bottom of the barrel since they're monetarily disincentivized, while the efficacious intelligentsia are apt to be in the sciences or out chasing 'da Benjaminz.This results in the 'top' of the educator ladder- professors- being a bunch of do-nothing inexperienced theorists, while the bottom of that same ladder- primary educators- are barely literate, at best.

Wow...funny though.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Having gone through both public and private schooling, I'd had teachers that are very good and teachers that are very bad. I think the best teachers at a private and public school are essentially on the same foot. I've had excellent teachers at both. I think the worse teachers are a public school are much worse than the worse teachers at a private school. The main difference is the fact that it's easy to fire bad teachers at a private school. From what I've heard, the pay isn't much different between public and private schools, but private school teachers get the added benefit of teaching better students (meaning less problem students) and having nicer resources (better, newer text books, whiteboards, more field trips, etc).I'm grateful for both experiences. Private school was nice but VERY insulated. It was a bit of a wake-up call (and a necessary one) when I went to a school with 42 people in a class to one with 500. I'm not sure what my point is. I think it's the fact that I dislike teacher's unions because it makes it difficult to fire clearly incompetent people. It is extremely obvious to students which teachers are great and which ones are terrible. Most teachers I've had are good to great with only a handful of clearly incompetent ones. This doesn't really address expenses, though. It costs just as much to have a bad teacher as a good one. But the quality of education per dollar should go up.

I hope you don't feel like I'm picking on you, but you haven't addressed my questions here, and the bolded seems to go along the same line of thinking. What's the difference between teachers unions and other unions in general? I think job security/difficulty culling are a union problem, not a teacher's union problem. The only union that I deal with on a daily basis is Kaiser Permanente, and they are a staff model HMO, union, insurance company. I can't begin to tell you the problems with that company, and it's all union related.For example. Let's say a mid level manager position opens up. Instead of considering who is the most competent person to fill the opening, instead of holding interviews and letting people come forward from outside to interview etc, Kaiser instead picks the person with the most seniority to fill job openings. In other words, you are rewarded for sticking around, not for working hard or doing a good job. This results in an unparalleled level of apathy amongst staff. The people who work hard and actually provide value to the company aren't compensated, so they move on to positions with other insurance carriers who reward hard work and value. Therefore, the attitude amongst employees there is to only do the bare minimum until it's your time to get picked. There is literally no incentive to work any harder than the minimum. It's frustrating. That's a problem with unions, one that I feel is mostly universal. You say that 'quality of education per dollar should go up' and 'I said that high health care costs were a major long term problem. '. Yet, you haven't provided any solutions at all to anything you talk about. Is there a reason you don't elaborate? You're a really smart guy, and I would really like to hear you give a convincing argument defending or clarifying some of this stuff you post. I know you're busy creating black holes and shit though.edit: I'd be happy to hear a response from anyone, not just you. I just remember seeing several of your posts along this thought line, so I thought I'd ask you why you think that way.

[hblask 1]

don't be dissin' public pensionsI just started sucking that teet

Exactly, and you are basically my age. I won't be retiring any time soon.

[hblask 1]

The battle about teachers is not about individual teachers. It is about the teachers' union and their grip on politicians. I think a good teacher should make whatever the market bears, whether that's $50K or $150K. But instead, many states (NY especially) make it basically impossible to fire a teacher, no matter how incompetent or dishonest, and their salaries are the same as the salaries of the competent teachers.In the real world, people compete for jobs and salary. In the protected environment of teachers unions, the only goal is to get hired the first time. After that, firing them is not worth it.And the unions pension demands have gotten out of control in many areas, so that teaching is more lucrative than almost any other career.

[85suited 0]

IL Governor gives his staff 20% raises.

this just made me sick to my stomach

[Balloon guy 158]

Exactly, and you are basically my age. I won't be retiring any time soon.

To be fair though he did accept mind numbing boredom and an inefficient work environment for decades to qualify for this.I mean he earned this retirement

[LongLiveYorke 38]

this just made me sick to my stomach

Really? It must be tough being so physically effect by such trivial, superficial things. Or do you think that his staff's budget is a significant fraction of the state's deficit?(I mean, yeah, the guy's an idiot for doing this, clearly. But not because it will actually effect the state.)

[brvheart 1,752]

Really? It must be tough being so physically effect by such trivial, superficial things. Or do you think that his staff's budget is a significant fraction of the state's deficit?(I mean, yeah, the guy's an idiot for doing this, clearly. But not because it will actually effect the state.)

This post should be on a poster in the Democratic Headquarters. "MILLIONS OF TINY FINANCIAL DECISIONS DON'T HAVE AN EFFECT ON ANYTHING! (because they're tiny)"

[strategy 4]

This post should be on a poster in the Democratic Headquarters. "MILLIONS OF TINY FINANCIAL DECISIONS DON'T HAVE AN EFFECT ON ANYTHING! (because they're tiny)"

or tattooed on the forehead of anyone who believes this to be newsworthy at a national level: "I DON'T HAVE ANY SENSE OF SCALE"alt: "FINDING FAULT WITH THE OPPOSING PARTY MAKES ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS FALSE DICHOTOMY"that one might only fit on a five or sixhead

[brvheart 1,752]

or tattooed on the forehead of anyone who believes this to be newsworthy at a national level: "I DON'T HAVE ANY SENSE OF SCALE"alt: "FINDING FAULT WITH THE OPPOSING PARTY MAKES ME FEEL BETTER ABOUT MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS FALSE DICHOTOMY"that one might only fit on a five or sixhead

Overspending isn't a party issue... or so I've heard.You make an excellent point though. If everyone's doing it, we should ignore it.