Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Wallstreet pay vs Teacher pay « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#30 : March 05, 2011, 04:45:47 PM

Well, it's kind of hard to dispute - do you think that they did not kill enough people, or did they not break enough things?

Incomparable sig by Incognito

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46194
Offline
#31 : March 05, 2011, 04:49:06 PM

Yes, but you see, the military kills people and breaks the things of the bad guys....and they're incredibly efficient.


Ya, that Iraq mess has really been efficient.
When the military is left to its' own devices and decision making it is extraordinarily efficient - when the politicians are running the show - well it looks a lot like the unions working with politicians that are mucking up the educational efforts and results.  Geez - WT - I think it is uncovered itself - it is the politicians and unions... or the politicians and the military - geez Jdog - I can't isolate the common denominator - can you help me?

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#32 : March 05, 2011, 04:49:18 PM

I do have to say, "efficient" and "military" are two words that just don't go together. The military may be effective, but it is hardly efficient. Sort of like using a 40 lb Sledgehammer to put in a thumbtack.


Col. Klink

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1248
Offline
#33 : March 05, 2011, 05:23:43 PM

You need to knock that off JG?  There are those on this board who will believe that
Exactly ... see how quickly nonsense gets picked up and passed along:

$89k/year average income for public workers, while freemarket jobs in private sector average a lttle more than half that


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46194
Offline
#34 : March 05, 2011, 05:26:44 PM

I do have to say, "efficient" and "military" are two words that just don't go together. The military may be effective, but it is hardly efficient. Sort of like using a 40 lb Sledgehammer to put in a thumbtack.
That my friend is the concept.  Get in, do you business, and get out.  But for politicians that would be how the American forces would be known.  Goes back to the statement the American soldier helps the other side die for their country.  The longer they are in country the higher the casualties mount.
: March 05, 2011, 05:28:27 PM dbucfan

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Col. Klink

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1248
Offline
#35 : March 05, 2011, 05:33:35 PM

Yes, but you see, the military kills people and breaks the things of the bad guys....and they're incredibly efficient.


Ya, that Iraq mess has really been efficient.
When the military is left to its' own devices and decision making it is extraordinarily efficient - when the politicians are running the show - well it looks a lot like the unions working with politicians that are mucking up the educational efforts and results.  Geez - WT - I think it is uncovered itself - it is the politicians and unions... or the politicians and the military - geez Jdog - I can't isolate the common denominator - can you help me?

oooh ... oooh ... I know ...  I know!


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46194
Offline
#36 : March 05, 2011, 05:39:42 PM

Now CK - that is just funny, and if I am borrow a phrase - and I don't care who you are, that's funny

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#37 : March 05, 2011, 06:03:14 PM

Yes, when viewing it from that perspective, I understand your point.

You could say that the reorganization of the military into todays modern fighting force is nothing short of efficient.

We no longer waste trillions defending against an attack that won't come - and all those tanks meant to counter the Soviet juggernaut, certainly couldn't be adapted to fight a prolonged guerilla war.

Fighting an ideologically driven foe, using small arms, developing tactical and geographical expertise to fit into a new strategic plan, with too few soldiers who started-out not speaking the indigenous langauge - the military re-invented itself and is a more professional fighting force capable of going anywhwere to confront either a large scale threat - or to assist in small-scale regional conflicts that have the capacity to go global.

All in all, I'd say the Pentagon has better spent our tax dollars than the department of re-education.

Incomparable sig by Incognito

kevabuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2241
Offline
#38 : March 05, 2011, 09:35:00 PM

It's not that we don't love teachers - it's that we can't afford so many of them.

We have more military than we do teachers...

Yet the United States, at the Fed, state and local level spends 6.9% of GDP on education while total expenditure for the military is only 4.8% of GDP, based on the 2006 Statistical Abstract of the United States published by the Census Bureau. Even including the supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Dept of Homeland Security and Veterns Affairs, the total expenditure is roughly between 5 and 6% of GDP.


\"The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled.\" -Cicero. 106-43 B.C.

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#39 : March 05, 2011, 11:53:42 PM

You need to knock that off JG?  There are those on this board who will believe that
Exactly ... see how quickly nonsense gets picked up and passed along:

$89k/year average income for public workers, while freemarket jobs in private sector average a lttle more than half that

Even though you could be considered an expert on nonsense, I didn't actually see a challenge to the data?

It's not that we don't love teachers - it's that we can't afford so many of them.

We have more military than we do teachers...

Yet the United States, at the Fed, state and local level spends 6.9% of GDP on education while total expenditure for the military is only 4.8% of GDP, based on the 2006 Statistical Abstract of the United States published by the Census Bureau. Even including the supplemental appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Dept of Homeland Security and Veterns Affairs, the total expenditure is roughly between 5 and 6% of GDP.

Hmm...more of that math stuff...I hate it when these guys show up and totally trash your position...wait, no I don't!

Data kinda sucks - doesn't it?

Incomparable sig by Incognito

Col. Klink

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1248
Offline
#40 : March 06, 2011, 01:10:25 AM

You need to knock that off JG?  There are those on this board who will believe that
Exactly ... see how quickly nonsense gets picked up and passed along:

$89k/year average income for public workers, while freemarket jobs in private sector average a lttle more than half that

Even though you could be considered an expert on nonsense, I didn't actually see a challenge to the data?

Then you didn't read the article ....

On his show the following night (Feb. 22) Bolling said in the numbers he had posted the night before, "our math was off a bit." A new graphic, he said, showed the unweighted average for Wisconsin teachers for the 2010 school year: a $51,000 salary, plus $30,000 worth of benefits (for a total of $81,000 worth of compensation). For an average private sector worker, he said, the salary in 2010 was $46,000 with $20,000 worth of benefits (total compensation $66,000).

So, it's $81K compared to $66K, nowhere near half .... Plus, as usual for those with an agenda, they weren't comparing apples to apples. The $81K figure was for teachers with a minimum 4 years college, more than half with a Masters, while the lower figure was for ALL public workers. I suspect that $66K figures goes up using the same criteria.

And please don't sell yourself short ... I pale in comparison to your expertise on nonsense.

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#41 : March 06, 2011, 03:03:12 AM

Once again, you're quick with the half-truth Klink.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/06/federal-pay-surpasses-private-sector/

"Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis."

Government employee:
Salary = $67,691
health, pension, & other benefits = $40,750

That's a cool $108, 441.00

Private Sector employee:
Salary = $60,046
health, pension, & benefits = $9,882.00

That's $69,928.00

Difference between Federal, public sector jobs vs private sector jobs = More than double 64%

Look at Keva's post again, which I referenced. These "jobs" cost us more than we can afford, we pay them more salary than we make, and we give them up to 4 times more in benefits.

Oh, and one more thing - these are 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistic numbers - want me to mark them up for you - real time?

Incomparable sig by Incognito

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46194
Offline
#42 : March 06, 2011, 08:34:45 AM

The links I put up were only about Wisconsin - and were private vs state/public teachers. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Col. Klink

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1248
Offline
#43 : March 06, 2011, 01:07:25 PM

The links I put up were only about Wisconsin - and were private vs state/public teachers.

Actually, db, the Bolling link, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/23/eric-bolling/fox-business-news-eric-bolling-says-wisconsin-teac/ , had him comparing the Wisconsin teachers' salaries with the "rest of us, all workers in the United States, union, non-union, etc.". It was the only link I saw with the $89K figure WT threw out there .... Of course, now he's off on another of his usual, wild tangent ramblings ... God love him.  :D

dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46194
Offline
#44 : March 06, 2011, 01:36:30 PM

The Bolling link does that - I purposely supplied this one http://www.payscale.com/research/US/State=Wisconsin/Salary to provide a more apples to apples comparison.  It does appear to me that teachers compensation packages, inclusive of salaries and benefits, fall darned close to a gracious plenty label to me.  It seems likely to me the proverbial worm will turn as folks look at costs and the security of such positions - well perhaps up until recently.  To me - seems the union members were due to not be perfectly happy

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Wallstreet pay vs Teacher pay « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools