tosberg34 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) You really don't get it, do you? Please unpack this a little bit. What don't I get? Edited December 21, 2011 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Yep. Pensions and benefits are largely the result of taxpayers and their representatives kicking the can down the road because they didn't want to pay full price for what they were receiving, so it was easier to promise more later (when somebody else will likely be paying). Now the bills are coming due, the taxpayers are squealing. Sadly, it's not the same set of taxpayers - many of the ones caught in this trap weren't even out of grade school when the deals were done. accurate except for the bold part, which is very disputable. teacher compensation has risen faster than inflation, and results have not. the real phenomenon is that unions have done what unions will do, that is consistently advocate and agitate toward higher wages, better benefits, easier working conditions. that part is fine. the problem is that they are "negotiating" with "bosses" they themselves helped elect, who have no incentive whatsoever to push back on union demands. the voters might not like it if they just kept giving them 10% raises every year, so instead they grant other, less obvious "concessions". spelled out at length here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 accurate except for the bold part, which is very disputable. teacher compensation has risen faster than inflation, and results have not. the real phenomenon is that unions have done what unions will do, that is consistently advocate and agitate toward higher wages, better benefits, easier working conditions. that part is fine. the problem is that they are "negotiating" with "bosses" they themselves helped elect, who have no incentive whatsoever to push back on union demands. the voters might not like it if they just kept giving them 10% raises every year, so instead they grant other, less obvious "concessions". spelled out at length here not in Wisconsin . i have not had a raise in 10 years let alone a 10%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 not in Wisconsin . i have not had a raise in 10 years let alone a 10%. Still waiting for the link to 600K+ recall signatures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 not in Wisconsin . i have not had a raise in 10 years let alone a 10%. well, according to this site, here is the average teacher compensation in your district: 2000: $39146 salary, $13263 fringe benes -- $52409 total compensation 2010: $47285 salary, $26305 fringe benes -- $73590 total compensation that appears to be roughly a 40% increase in total compensation over the last 10 years. compensation in fringe benefits has doubled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 well, according to this site, here is the average teacher compensation in your district:2000: $39146 salary, $13263 fringe benes -- $52409 total compensation 2010: $47285 salary, $26305 fringe benes -- $73590 total compensation that appears to be roughly a 40% increase in total compensation over the last 10 years. compensation in fringe benefits has doubled. So even if i cant spend the money it is a raise? what exactly is a raise? you are semantics boy you tell me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 So even if i cant spend the money it is a raise? what exactly is a raise? you are semantics boy you tell me! a raise is an increase in salary. for example, from $39146 to $47285. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 (edited) a raise is an increase in salary. for example, from $39146 to $47285. And Yukon's a teacher? Maybe today is just an off day for him? Edited December 21, 2011 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Good info here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Good info here I guess if anyone would be an expert on sucking koch, it would be you. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 well, according to this site, here is the average teacher compensation in your district:2000: $39146 salary, $13263 fringe benes -- $52409 total compensation 2010: $47285 salary, $26305 fringe benes -- $73590 total compensation that appears to be roughly a 40% increase in total compensation over the last 10 years. compensation in fringe benefits has doubled. So they have had a 40.41% increase in total compensation (but only a 20.79% increase in salary). According to this site, the inflation from 2000 to 2010 is 31.4%. So the teachers have averaged less than 1% over inflation for the last decade? We should hang those f-ing crooks in the public square. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 So they have had a 40.41% increase in total compensation (but only a 20.79% increase in salary). According to this site, the inflation from 2000 to 2010 is 31.4%. So the teachers have averaged less than 1% over inflation for the last decade? We should hang those f-ing crooks in the public square. salary may have increased but take home pay has not. thank you tommy thompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 So they have had a 40.41% increase in total compensation (but only a 20.79% increase in salary). According to this site, the inflation from 2000 to 2010 is 31.4%. So the teachers have averaged less than 1% over inflation for the last decade? We should hang those f-ing crooks in the public square. 26.6% actually. so their total compensation increased faster than inflation, and it mostly took the form of increased fringe benes. gee, that is exactly what I said. teacher compensation has risen faster than inflation, and results have not. the real phenomenon is that unions have done what unions will do, that is consistently advocate and agitate toward higher wages, better benefits, easier working conditions. that part is fine. the problem is that they are "negotiating" with "bosses" they themselves helped elect, who have no incentive whatsoever to push back on union demands. the voters might not like it if they just kept giving them 10% raises every year, so instead they grant other, less obvious "concessions". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 26.6% actually. so their total compensation increased faster than inflation, and it mostly took the form of increased fringe benes. gee, that is exactly what I said. Well, according to this website the percentage difference between $39146 and $47285 equals 20.79% so I don't know where you get 26.6. And my post didn't disagree that it was technically "more" than inflation but it looks to be something like .9% per year so I guess I don't find it to be some hugh deal. On the whole I think the current system is fooked for a number of reasons, and I would probably have a different system if I ran the world. I'd still pay teachers a better salary than what most of them make currently though (although they could be fired easier as well). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Well, according to this website the percentage difference between $39146 and $47285 equals 20.79% so I don't know where you get 26.6. I got 26.6 from the inflation calculator you posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.