Ridiculous

[EaseUrStorm]

The trick to inflate how big the salary looks is to include potential retirement benefits - which is more dishonest, but if you're obsessed with making them look overpaid then you want to include that like its part of their salary.

So they add in these retirement benefits (or health care), but on the flip side they won't deduct the payments the employees make into their retirement fund (or health care plan, or union dues). They take the gross of current earnings + the net of future earnings, which is nothing close to what the teachers actually get but hey, we've got an agenda to push here.

It's very hard to make a broad evaluation of teachers being overpaid or underpaid because the actual teacher pension retirement benefits per teacher will vary a lot (in California at least). It depends how many years that person will teach in the same district. And there's other complications to factor in like the double dipping rule which reduces or eliminates the amount of social security benefits that would have been received from a previous job or from a survivor spouse (had researched this for a family member).

I found a lot of conflicting info out there on the double dipping rule. Some have claimed to have lost substantial SS benefits replaced only by a minimal teacher pension. In theory the overall retirement was designed to approximately balance out with the adjustment, but it's definitely something to look into for anyone who was thinking about becoming a teacher for a few years.

 

[Rathman44]

I'm just talking about California, but I think California was ranked like 5th or 6th in that department lats time I checked. It differs from state to state and from district to district. I remember when the Wisconson teahcers were protesting, they showed a school district where the average salary + benefits was like $127K in 2010.

And the per student cost varies as well. The cost per student in CA if you include CALSTRS was like $23K per student per year a few years ago. Without CALSTRS (retired teachers) it was like $13K per student. But LA unified school district was spending $30K (without CALSTRS) per student back in 2010 (class sizes around Sacramento are 32 per class; I don't know what they are in so-cal, but a class of 32 would be $960,000). The superintendent was interviewed & asked about that figure, and he said, “You’re using a methodology that only you are using. No, that’s not accurate. That’s not what we’re doing. I’m going to have to let you go. This is an issue to take up with the state, or your local district, to see what they are doing.” You bring up the actual number of dollars and cents being spent, and they're still in denial about it.

As far as Hawaii goes: in 2010 the average salary before benefits was $49292, which is only about $7K less than California is now. So if they have the same pension plan as CA does, I would imagine the slary + benefits is close to 100K per year.

As I previously posted and you have yet to address, I have to seriously question this 100K figure due to your deficient accounting calculations. Once you can show us some remotely credible calculations there is no way any of us should buy your 100K/year claim.

 

[Rathman44]

It's very hard to make a broad evaluation of teachers being overpaid or underpaid because the actual teacher pension retirement benefits per teacher will vary a lot (in California at least). It depends how many years that person will teach in the same district. And there's other complications to factor in like the double dipping rule which reduces or eliminates the amount of social security benefits that would have been received from a previous job or from a survivor spouse (had researched this for a family member).

I found a lot of conflicting info out there on the double dipping rule. Some have claimed to have lost substantial SS benefits replaced only by a minimal teacher pension. In theory the overall retirement was designed to approximately balance out with the adjustment, but it's definitely something to look into for anyone who was thinking about becoming a teacher for a few years.

another great point to consider

 

[deep9er]

I'm just talking about California, but I think California was ranked like 5th or 6th in that department lats time I checked. It differs from state to state and from district to district. I remember when the Wisconson teahcers were protesting, they showed a school district where the average salary + benefits was like $127K in 2010.

And the per student cost varies as well. The cost per student in CA if you include CALSTRS was like $23K per student per year a few years ago. Without CALSTRS (retired teachers) it was like $13K per student. But LA unified school district was spending $30K (without CALSTRS) per student back in 2010 (class sizes around Sacramento are 32 per class; I don't know what they are in so-cal, but a class of 32 would be $960,000). The superintendent was interviewed & asked about that figure, and he said, “You’re using a methodology that only you are using. No, that’s not accurate. That’s not what we’re doing. I’m going to have to let you go. This is an issue to take up with the state, or your local district, to see what they are doing.” You bring up the actual number of dollars and cents being spent, and they're still in denial about it.

As far as Hawaii goes: in 2010 the average salary before benefits was $49292, which is only about $7K less than California is now. So if they have the same pension plan as CA does, I would imagine the slary + benefits is close to 100K per year.

just adding 2 cents.........factor into this discussion $50k in CA doesn't go the same distance as $50k in Hawaii. "only about $7K less" is also a wider gap than it appears. not a big factor, but a factor.

from what I can recall from my school years, and now via media, teachers here work LONG hours too.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

As I previously posted and you have yet to address, I have to seriously question this 100K figure due to your deficient accounting calculations. Once you can show us some remotely credible calculations there is no way any of us should buy your 100K/year claim.

I did previously see a breakdown of the Chicago school district salaries and overall there are issues with the teacher salaries/pensions, but a bigger problem was all of the mid-level administrative jobs that were getting paid higher than their non-government counterparts and also benefiting with the crazy pensions. I think those pensions are actually 80% instead of 67% that teachers get. And I suspect those employees don't miss out on improving their salaries whenever the teachers strike. I'm sure you can dig up some really ugly waste in the admin salary breakdown in California. That's where the real cuts should be targeted, but once a government employee is hired its almost impossible to get them out.

 

[NinerSickness]

The trick to inflate how big the salary looks is to include potential retirement benefits - which is more dishonest, but if you're obsessed with making them look overpaid then you want to include that like its part of their salary.

IT IS PART OF THEIR SALARY! That's like saying if you win 100 million dollars in the lottery but you get equal payments over 20 years you didn't actually win 20 million dollars. The money for pensions doesn't just magically appear. It's not "potential" retirement benefits; it's what the state is contractually obligated to pay.

When I did the calculation for pensions, I deducted the amount actually contrubuted by employees; and it still averaged over 100K per year. You're trying to make it sound like their retirement plan is a 401K. It's not. That's what it SHOULD be.

I'm citing actual financial data, and you're calling that an "agenda." Who's the one with the agenda when you call math an agenda?

 

[NinerSickness]

It's very hard to make a broad evaluation of teachers being overpaid or underpaid because the actual teacher pension retirement benefits per teacher will vary a lot (in California at least). It depends how many years that person will teach in the same district. And there's other complications to factor in like the double dipping rule which reduces or eliminates the amount of social security benefits that would have been received from a previous job or from a survivor spouse (had researched this for a family member).

That's why I represented the value of what they receive as an average. Some will make more than the average, and some will make less than the average. But the data I cited only included teachers. It did not include any other faculty like principals, custodians, etc.

 

[NinerSickness]

EITD: I meat to type 100 million dollard in my lottery comparision not 20 million.

Claiming retirement payments isn't part of a salary is an insult to people in the private sector who have to put their own money into a retirement acc0unt. If it isn't part of a salary then why doesn't everyone in the state have a pension?

 

[NinerSickness]

Doodoo, here's why your remark about teachers paying into their retirement accounts is bogus:

CALSTRS ASSUMED a return in their investments every year in the 7.5% range. Their actual return on their investments in most years over the last 15 years or so has been closer to 2 or 3% (I had a run down of return of investments over the years on the ESPN forum). The difference is made up by tax payers. So the amount of money being paid in retirement is set, and whatever CALSTRS doens't fund is funded anyway. TEACHERS DON'T FUND THEIR OWN RETIREMENT.

CALSTRS & CALPRS currently has unfunded liabilities of 146.2 billion dollars even if they meet the 7.5% investment goal. That's $12,000 per household in CA. If they only get 6.2% return on their onvestments (which is much higher than what they've been getting) the unfunded liability debt would double. $24,000 per household.

You can call this an "agenda," but these are just the numbers.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

IT IS PART OF THEIR SALARY!

No, its not, I'm not sure you understand what salary means.

When I did the calculation for pensions, I deducted the amount actually contrubuted by employees

Wait, so you did these calculations? LOL. Nevermind about any of this. How could you possibly have anything resembling enough info to understand what you're talking about?

This is all kind of a joke, you are so determined to make teachers look overpaid you're exaggerating everything. Same story as every other time this comes up, unions suck, union members are lazy and overpaid, blah blah fucking blah.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Claiming retirement payments isn't part of a salary is an insult to people in the private sector who have to put their own money into a retirement acc0unt.

Its not salary, its a benefit.

BTW, do you rage at the generous pensions that police and fire employees get? Those are the numbers that are killing municipalities in California, as was proven by the listed wages of all public employees in our local paper last year. Teachers made up most of the bottom half of the list, while the top half was comprised of City Hall employees and the entire police/fire department. In fact, you don't even have to use the trick of including potential retirement payments to make their salaries top 100K/year - the LOWEST paid fireman in my parents' hometown was 80K and well over 100 when including current benefits.

Just insane and blockheaded to spend so much time complaining about teacher salaries when they are the smallest part of the problem.

 

[NinerSickness]

No, its not, I'm not sure you understand what salary means.

Fine. "Salary" is the wrong word. It's part of the FINACIAL VALUE of what they receive for their work. Is that hair sufficiently split for you?

Wait, so you did these calculations? LOL. Nevermind about any of this. How could you possibly have anything resembling enough info to understand what you're talking about?

This is all kind of a joke, you are so determined to make teachers look overpaid you're exaggerating everything. Same story as every other time this comes up, unions suck, union members are lazy and overpaid, blah blah fucking blah.

You're totally in denial. I show actual financial data at you, and your arguement is "you're exaggerating."

And I've never said unions suck. I said public unions suck. I tried to start a union in the private sector. Stop putting words in my mouth & try to stick to the facts.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

My dad was a policeman for 30 years, and has been retired for about 25 years at 80% of his final salary plus half of all raises the current police get. He's making much more than he ever did while he worked. That's what you call a ridiculous drain on the treasury. If you mentioned police and fire (or military) as much as you mentioned teachers you'd be easier to take seriously

But acting like this stuff is exclusive to unions is silly. And acting like unions can give benefits that don't compete with the private sector and still get quality employees is fantasyland. Pensions are becoming less common, and I'm sure that will happen with public employees just as its happened with private employees. Its just unsustainable as people live longer.

 

[NinerSickness]

BTW, do you rage at the generous pensions that police and fire employees get?... Just insane and blockheaded to spend so much time complaining about teacher salaries when they are the smallest part of the problem.

Yes. I rage against all public pensions because they're irresponsible. Anyone who writes a line item into a budget 50 years down the road is completely irresponsible. Nobody knows what that budget is going to look like. Pensions ASSUME a return on an investment, and if they don't get it they send the bill to tax payers. Like I said, there's currently 146.2 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities in this state alone, and that number is rising. It's gotten out of control. I would make pensions illegal if I could.

 

[EaseUrStorm]

EITD: I meat to type 100 million dollard in my lottery comparision not 20 million.

Claiming retirement payments isn't part of a salary is an insult to people in the private sector who have to put their own money into a retirement acc0unt. If it isn't part of a salary then why doesn't everyone in the state have a pension?

The typo seems to have a subliminal implication that I wanted to ask you about. I know you went into a lot of detail when you originally did this. But did you do a TVM adjustment to get the equivalent teacher's compensation in what that money is worth today's $ (and not the total averaged) vs. the equivalent of higher compensation in the private sector?

 

[NinerSickness]

My dad was a policeman for 30 years, and has been retired for about 25 years at 80% of his final salary plus half of all raises the current police get. He's making much more than he ever did while he worked. That's what you call a ridiculous drain on the treasury. If you mentioned police and fire (or military) as much as you mentioned teachers you'd be easier to take seriously

Prepare to be shocked, but I am 100% in agreement with what you just said. I never said CALSTRS was the only problem.

By the way, I was unaware that the military even had a pension program, so I don't know that one works. I also don't know all the ins & outs of other states; I've only ever lived in California, so everything I've been saying only applies here.

But acting like this stuff is exclusive to unions is silly. And acting like unions can give benefits that don't compete with the private sector and still get quality employees is fantasyland. Pensions are becoming less common, and I'm sure that will happen with public employees just as its happened with private employees. Its just unsustainable as people live longer.

This stuff is becoming exclusive to public employee unions. Pensions were more common in the private sector 30 years ago, but I don't know of a single priavte sector company in the united states (except maybe the NFL) who currently signs people up to pension plans. They have people under contract from years past who get a pension, but I don't know of any company who still does it.

 

[NinerSickness]

The typo seems to have a subliminal implication that I wanted to ask you about. I know you went into a lot of detail when you originally did this. But did you do a TVM adjustment to get the equivalent teacher's compensation in what that money is worth today's $ (and not the total averaged) vs. the equivalent of higher compensation in the private sector?

I think I went by the 10 year bond rate at the time, which was more than what CALSTRS was making when I did the calculation. It sounds like I'm going to have to do it all over again on this forum just so people can't accuse me of "exaggerating" any more...

 

[EaseUrStorm]

Here's an article on this very subject:

Biggs and Richwine: Public School Teachers Aren't Underpaid - WSJ.com

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

BTW, here you go:

Understanding Military Retirement Pay

The military retirement pay system used to be easy to understand: You put in 20 years, and you got 50 percent of your base pay immediately upon retirement. You put in more than 20 years and you got 2.5 percent more for each year of active duty after 20 years (up to 75 percent).

Same as the dreaded public unions.

 

[NinerSickness]

BTW, here you go:

Understanding Military Retirement Pay



Same as the dreaded public unions.

Then I'm against those too. Nobody deserves special treatment.