Aldon Smith Agrees to Plea Deal

[whysies]

Billy- someone thinking shit connery is stupid doesn't say anything about their political beliefs. At all. I can point out the retardation that is shit libbery as well but there are only shit cons ITT so what would be the point? Stop being silly.

Anyway, got a link to your project? I've been a lurker on this board and the ESPN board for probably at least 8 years and don't remember reading that at all. I remember your general gripes against pension plans but not anything that extensive. I'm legitimately interested in reading what you found out.

 

[BoBlake]

Bump

Still legit interested in where you got your facts and "figurers" from

100k seems about right for teachers in a large city.

In Chicago public schools, the average is $76,000 WITHOUT benefits. I wouldn't be even a little surprised if benefits pushed that up to over 100k.

How Much Do Chicago Public School Teachers Make? « CBS Chicago


Hell, in Illinois you can see exactly what every single teacher in the state makes. Teachers with 30 years experience can get paid over 140k/year (before benefits).

Database: Search for Illinois teacher and administrator salaries - Chicago Sun-Times

 

[NinerSickness]

100k seems about right for teachers in a large city.

Over 100K was median for the entire state of California. The pension benefit ended up adding the equivalent of somewhere around $34K or so a year if given during a career instead of after.

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm legitimately interested in reading what you found out.

I found my numbers from 2011. I subtracted the small percentage of the benefit teachers actually contribute out of their own paychecks:

6/5/2013:
Average teacher salary 2011: $67,871
Average age of member death: 86.1 <--- And this is trending upwards
Current 10 year bond rate: 2.09%
Average teacher pension in California: $51,072 annually
Average amount of money contributed to retirement over 30 years at 8% of salary with a 2.09% rate of return compounding monthly: $223,422
Median retirement age of CALSTRS member: 61.2
Average length of retirement: 24.9 years

24.9 years times $51.072 is $1,271,693
$1.271,693 minus $223,422 is $1,048,270. That amount divided by 30 years (fully vested) is $34,942 per year.

$34,942 + $67,871 = $102,813

Teachers are underpaid.

 

[whysies]

I found my numbers from 2011. I subtracted the small percentage of the benefit teachers actually contribute out of their own paychecks:

6/5/2013:
Average teacher salary 2011: $67,871
Average age of member death: 86.1 <--- And this is trending upwards
Current 10 year bond rate: 2.09%
Average teacher pension in California: $51,072 annually
Average amount of money contributed to retirement over 30 years at 8% of salary with a 2.09% rate of return compounding monthly: $223,422
Median retirement age of CALSTRS member: 61.2
Average length of retirement: 24.9 years

24.9 years times $51.072 is $1,271,693
$1.271,693 minus $223,422 is $1,048,270. That amount divided by 30 years (fully vested) is $34,942 per year.

$34,942 + $67,871 = $102,813

Teachers are underpaid.

I wonder about the suckling that goes on at the top vs the suckling that goes on at the middle (let alone the bottom)

Why do you think average teacher salary is the number to look at as opposed to median?

 

[NinerSickness]

I wonder about the suckling that goes on at the top vs the suckling that goes on at the middle (let alone the bottom)

Why do you think average teacher salary is the number to look at as opposed to median?

The median salary is impossible to find. But raises are done entirely by how long one's been employed, and they're all the same. So eventually the lower-paid, newer teachers will be the higher-paid ones anyway.

Median VS Average: The most recent study I've seen on this was done by Dr. Joe Nation of Stanford University (former Democrat in the state assembly), and he didn’t include median benefits; he used averages. There are over 300,000 teachers in California. There are so many that the median and the average are going to be almost identical. At most it’d be a difference of $1,000 one way or the other, but it's probably a difference of a coupe of hundred.

Same thing with the retired teachers. There were 200,000 retired teachers (enjoy paying them for the next 25 years Californians), and just over 5,300 of ‘em making over 100K as retirees (which is obscene in and of itself); with that many retirees the median and the average are going to be almost identical.

The only people on earth who think government employees are underpaid are the ignorant and government employees.

 

[SeattleNinersFan]

I found my numbers from 2011. I subtracted the small percentage of the benefit teachers actually contribute out of their own paychecks:

6/5/2013:
Average teacher salary 2011: $67,871
Average age of member death: 86.1 <--- And this is trending upwards
Current 10 year bond rate: 2.09%
Average teacher pension in California: $51,072 annually
Average amount of money contributed to retirement over 30 years at 8% of salary with a 2.09% rate of return compounding monthly: $223,422
Median retirement age of CALSTRS member: 61.2
Average length of retirement: 24.9 years

24.9 years times $51.072 is $1,271,693
$1.271,693 minus $223,422 is $1,048,270. That amount divided by 30 years (fully vested) is $34,942 per year.

$34,942 + $67,871 = $102,813

Teachers are underpaid.

Sick, do you include your retirement funds in your current annual pay when you are asked or do you say what your annual pay really is which would be the $67,871 from above?

 

[NinerSickness]

Sick, do you include your retirement funds in your current annual pay when you are asked or do you say what your annual pay really is which would be the $67,871 from above?

Well, since I'm going to be a teacher myself I'll include the retirement fund when I tell people how much I make, and then I'll laugh at them for thinking I'm underpaid. I'm currently getting some single-subject authorization done, so I'm living off of savings.

But people in the private sector don't get retirement funds. Private sector pensions have gone the way of the Dodo Bird because companies figured out they're unsustainably expensive. Some get matching contributions for their 401Ks, but that usually maxes out at like 3 to 5 percent of the salary (which is essentially a 3 to 5 percent raise if people take advantage of it).

But I brought it up to show how dishonest schools are. They could EASILY afford smaller class sizes & armed security guards in every school (which would help deter school crime & shootings), but they're much more interested in their own benefits & their union dues. 70% of the budget goes to non-teachers! California spends $15K per student per year, but it's actually $21,493 per year per student (as of 2010) if you factor in the pension budget. That's $687,776 per classroom every year. And those liars blame class size on "budget cuts." There has NEVER, IN THE HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA, been a reduction in the education budget. Never once. They just reallocate funds & call it a "cut." Lying bunch of me-first parasitses.

 

[BoBlake]

Sick, do you include your retirement funds in your current annual pay when you are asked or do you say what your annual pay really is which would be the $67,871 from above?

I work for one of the top 5 major banks, and they've started to report our salaries to us as a "total compensation package" which includes our salary, our benefits, their 401k match, even their 6.2% they contribute to social security on our behalf. Most larger private companies are going this route, as it is the true reflection of what my compensation is.

Regardless of what a person "says they make", the company (or the government, in the case of teachers), NEEDS to understand the TOTAL COMPENSATION when planning/forecasting expenditures.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Can we just re-name this thread, "Sickness rants about the failings of government"? By my count, we've now covered the Second Amendment, immigration, and public education, the latter two apparently contributing to the ridiculous amount of gun violence in this country.

Allow me to anticipate the next avenue of argument: Obamacare leads to more shootings because criminals know they can get insurance and thus take greater risks than they would if uninsured.

 

[Pattersonca65]

Can we just re-name this thread, "Sickness rants about the failings of government"? By my count, we've now covered the Second Amendment, immigration, and public education, the latter two apparently contributing to the ridiculous amount of gun violence in this country.

Allow me to anticipate the next avenue of argument: Obamacare leads to more shootings because criminals know they can get insurance and thus take greater risks than they would if uninsured.

LOL, this is hilarious. Too funny

 

[NinerSickness]

By my count, we've now covered the Second Amendment, immigration, and public education, the latter two apparently contributing to the ridiculous amount of gun violence in this country.

Correction: illegal immigration. And yes, that heavily contributes to all kinds of things having to do with gun violence like the drug trade, gangs & the sheer number of illegal immigrants who are incarcerated in CA, AZ, TX & NM.

But public education doesn't contribute to gun violence. I never said that. I just pointed out that their claim to not be able to afford armed security at schools is bull shit.

So now that I've demolished the actual arguments people have made here, you can commence with making the argument about me personally, which is the default setting of liberals who have lost a debate.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Correction: illegal immigration. And yes, that heavily contributes to all kinds of things having to do with gun violence like the drug trade, gangs & the sheer number of illegal immigrants who are incarcerated in CA, AZ, TX & NM.

But public education doesn't contribute to gun violence. I never said that. I just pointed out that their claim to not be able to afford armed security at schools is bull shit.

So now that I've demolished the actual arguments people have made here, you can commence with making the argument about me personally, which is the default setting of liberals who have lost a debate.

Ease up, Sick. I was (mostly) kidding. You just managed to wedge a few of your pet projects into this thread and I found it amusing. Though ad hominem attacks are hardly the sole province of liberals.

I've kind of run out of steam on this one, though I would hardly agree that you've won the debate re: firearms in this country. Just for the record, as I bow out of this one (aspirationally; I'm fairly confident something will drag me back in at some point), I was largely playing devil's advocate here. Although I would like to see some serious firearm reform in this country, the realist in me recognizes it's all but impossible to do that, practically and politically. As said, though, that seems like a fatalistic and defeatist position. I'd like to think we, as a nation, are still capable of devising practical and reasonable solutions to address serious problems. Wishful thinking, I realize.

 

[whysies]

Sick- just so we are clear, you're saying a rise in gun crimes (BTW a woman who worked at one of the organizations whose statistics you cited said that was bunk) in Australia and England was caused by gun bans? That's it, that was the only cause? A straight line can be drawn between the cause (ban) and effect (more crime)? For something as complicated as gun crimes? That's the story you're going to stick with?

As for the conceal-carry thing- I asked you to back your statement up and you didn't so I assumed it was baseless. Thanks for taking a stab at backing it up. Now, 2 things:

1. "Crime rates involving gun owners with carry permits have consistently been about 0.02% of all carry permit holders since Florida’s right-to-carry law started in 1988."- I really and truly don't know what this sentence is trying to say. It doesn't make logical sense to me. Can you interpret it for me?

2. Can you post something from reputable websites? One (the Blaze) caused my phone to crash when I tried to open the link. I'm also concerned that both are just shitty shitcon gunnut hurr durr propaganda just based on their names. Got anything that at least tries to hide its bias? Or am I misinterpreting what those sites are? What are they exactly? If they are legit I will happily wade through them.

Bigidy Bump

(for Sick-style demolishment, obvi)

 

[whysies]

Correction: illegal immigration. And yes, that heavily contributes to all kinds of things having to do with gun violence like the drug trade, gangs & the sheer number of illegal immigrants who are incarcerated in CA, AZ, TX & NM.

But public education doesn't contribute to gun violence. I never said that. I just pointed out that their claim to not be able to afford armed security at schools is bull shit.

So now that I've demolished the actual arguments people have made here, you can commence with making the argument about me personally, which is the default setting of liberals who have lost a debate.

You never proved gun ownership for individuals is a right written into the Constitution, which is pretty key to most of the arguments ITT.

Take a stab at it.

 

[NinerSickness]

You never proved gun ownership for individuals is a right written into the Constitution, which is pretty key to most of the arguments ITT.

Take a stab at it.

I never made a claim one way or the other. I think this thread had become broad enough that I don't feel the need to expand it with a debate about constitutional jurisprudence.

 

[whysies]

I never made a claim one way or the other. I think this thread had become broad enough that I don't feel the need to expand it with a debate about constitutional jurisprudence.

You can't declare yourself the winner while simultaneously conceding (via the I'm above it defense) such a key point broham. It's fundamental to all the shitcon gunnut hurr durrery.

 

[NinerSickness]

You can't declare yourself the winner while simultaneously conceding (via the I'm above it defense) such a key point broham. It's fundamental to all the shitcon gunnut hurr durrery.

Try to follow along.

1. I didn't concede any point
2. I was addressing the tie between gun control and increased crime
3. I'm not interested in branching the debate out at this point
4. You're a dick, and you're not interested in an honest debate anyway

 

[whysies]

Try to follow along.

1. I didn't concede any point
2. I was addressing the tie between gun control and increased crime
3. I'm not interested in branching the debate out at this point
4. You're a dick, and you're not interested in an honest debate anyway

1. You most certainly did
2. See my bigidy bump above. Lets talk it out brother.
3. Ok, but this isn't branching out anything. It's at the very core of everything. See RV's "MA GUNZ! VARMINTS!!!" posts
4. Just because I pointed out that you are not interested in a genuine debate doesn't mean you should project that on me, Mr. Connery. You're the only who makes overly-simplistic herp derps on topics that are very complex. It's the true essence of shit connery and shit libbery. You approach everything with your narrow, simplistic worldview and everything is driven by pure animus to what your perceive as your enemies on the other side. There's no logic or even a nod to intelligent thought, just a recitation of shitty chain emails you get from other neckbeards with the same political/worldview.

 

[whysies]

Only should have been one in that post

Also Sick, I really don't understand your butthurt here. Is it because I called you a kook? You know your ideas are weird and out there and people think you're strange. That applies to football and politics and everything in between. Remember when you used to raise your hand in class to argue with the teacher/professor and people audibly groaned? It shouldn't come as any surprise that someone would call you a strange cat. But I'm sorry if that offended you.

Also, sorry if calling you a shitcon hurt but to me it's weird that that would bother you given your proclivities. Also, keep in mind that you tried to use "liberal" and "anti-gun people" as an ansult toward me (which is pretty lulzy because neither are true and neither are anything close to being an insult, unless you're a shitcon and someone calls you that I guess).

Anyway, sorry if those words hurt you. But considering you also tried to hurt my little feelings by calling me mean names like "you liberals" maybe man up a bit and try not to get your panties in such a wad next time when someone gets all titty tatty with you, ok?

Cheers Sick, you really are one of my favs and I enjoy reading your posts on football and anything else, regardless of how nutty they might be