Reply With Quote
Pay too much already. The Oregon cost is in excess of $13,000 per student per year.
(facepalm)
That whole speil you posted is pretty much what I said.
I acknowledged that they moved around.
I don't blame you for getting a bit testy with everybody picking on you and calling you names though. If you think you need to take it out on someone, I can take it.
Not sure how much of the tone is genuine and how much is some trolling attempt, but assuming it is genuine, take a breath and consider the consequences of that moving around on the costs for the school in terms of hiring and training.
Then consider the statistics on teachers leaving the profession.
People may swtich careers (careers mind you, not jobs) three times or so in their lifetimes. Switching within 5 years would suggest that many are leaving. Again, more money spent on education by the teachers themselves that they give up to change.
As for agreeing with you about the 8% "guaranteed" part, if you had bothereed to take a mintute or two and give me a link as tlong did, I would have been happy to acknowledge it.
I take it you missed the part where the 8% turns out to be two percentage points lower than the fund's average rate of return for the last 42 years?
Pay too much already. The Oregon cost is in excess of $13,000 per student per year.
so it isn't about supply and demand..
What would be reasonable to you?
What are the components of that cost?
What are the benefits of that to the Oregon economy?
How much is that per capita?
People like WC tend to just see costs, and never realize that there are very solid economic benefits to educating children. It is bizzarre.
I guess investing in our children is not a priority for the likes of WC
The bigger thing to realize is that he is forming his opinoin with the emotional part of his brain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-amygdala.htmlSelf-proclaimed right-wingers had a more pronounced amygdala - a primitive part of the brain associated with emotion.
It is an almond-shape set of neurons located deep in the brain's medial temporal lobe.
However, those aligned to the left had thicker anterior cingulates - which is an area associated with anticipation and decision-making.
The research was carried out by Geraint Rees director of the UCL Ins ute of Cognitive Neuroscience who said he was 'very surprised' by the finding, which is being peer reviewed before publication next year.
http://critical-thinker.net/?p=1074The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing [11]. Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear [12], which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system. Similarly, it is striking that conservatives are more sensitive to disgust [13, 14], and the insula is involved in the feeling of disgust [15]. On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political at udes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty [16, 17] and conflicts [18]. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-amygdala.html
Keep that in mind when you start reading about how outraged conservatives are about one thing or another.
Ironic given that many of them think liberals are the overly emotional ones.
Still, the material you quoted included those moving, and you said leaving the profession.
No, I didn't miss it, but the fund has changed. It never used to be 8% guaranteed, and if those 8%'s were losses like in real life in some years, I doubt the annual average would be over 8%. Look at how many times in the last 20 years it was only an 8% growth... This means the real growth was less, or at a loss, and supplemented by tax payers!
Consider a year with say a real market loss of 12% in the held funds. This means tax payers would be subsidizing 20% of the fund value that year!
That particular viewpoint doesn't see it as investing at all, that is the problem.
It is the goverment picking peoples pockets, as if the money disappears into a black hole and never reappears, totally wasted.
It isn't, and it doesn't.
They seem to think that most of that $13,000 somehow goes into the fat-cat pockets of the teachers, and the teacher unions are what drives the emotional narrative for conservatives.
The inconvenient fact that most of that actually doesn't end up in teachers pockets is sort of unacknolwedged.
Here is what a school budget looks like:
http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/budge...ved_Budget.pdf
Total outlays for all salaries is 53% of the budget. (first few pages)
Of that salary total, 61% goes to teachers. ("subtotal instruction", page 27)
A little bit of math and you end up with 31% of the overall budget. The rest goes to administration, bus drivers, accountants, construction, etc.
I guess if the NRA gets it way, we can add campus police to that overhead too.
Alll of that money, all $852M or so, goes right back into the economy.
The BEST argument he could possibily make is that it was inefficiently spent, somehow. Given that he has run away from trying to prove anything other than how wrong I am about any given topic, I'm not holding my breath.
Pity. It is one of the most important conversations that we should be having, and all we get are "teachers are overpaid" ad nauseum.
LOL...
Reaching, aren't we?
You seem to assume something each line. Trust me, what you assume of my viewpoint is not true.
Part of the problem with you liberals here is that you don't try to understand the points people like me make. You assume it to be something else, then you end up arguing against straw.
Yeah. I'm sure you've spent plenty of time in the education profession.
ing moron.
And then I said "MANY". I didn't quote any particular figures, but you were too busy being mad to note that.
Which is why they have a moving collar to constrain growth of additional requirements in those years to smooth over any additional taxes and let the market itself make up the extra.No, I didn't miss it, but the fund has changed. It never used to be 8% guaranteed, and if those 8%'s were losses like in real life in some years, I doubt the annual average would be over 8%. Look at how many times in the last 20 years it was only an 8% growth... This means the real growth was less, or at a loss, and supplemented by tax payers!
Consider a year with say a real market loss of 12% in the held funds. This means tax payers would be subsidizing 20% of the fund value that year!
You do know about the collar right?
It's right there in the actuarial report from Milliman.
People like WC tend to just see what they think are costs. They don't ever see the true cost because they are unable to even form the question to summon the answer.
There are 20+ source links in that blog, moron.
Do you have a number from a more reputable source, like the NEA to support the numbers you pulled out of a bloggers ass?
You guys get on me for my personal experience on things and call it anecdotal. Why is it OK for you to be so ing hypocritical in this regard?
Some bad links, and the ones I followed did not support your contention.
add---
I'm sorry, it was the Forbes article, or another with the broken link.
I went back and looked, one of the links is the same one I found earlier to dispute Ransom's 30% claim.
Which one supports your claim?
Make the case, idiot. 3 words don't quite cut it.
That's my perception of your viewpoint, and notice I very carefully said "that viewpoint" not "his".
I allow for you to speak your own mind, although I do lump you into the group of people who seem to spend their time screaming about the costs, but never utter a word about what we get for that in a larger ecnomic sense.
How much of that $13,000 per year do we get back into the economy over the lifetime of that kid?
I bet you can see WC's amygdala from space
lol NEA. As if they were the sole source of compelling data.
Maybe you can find a NEA white paper that underpins your idiotic notion that teachers are overcompensated, and stupid.
Yes, I know. You are too stupid to understand supply and demand, so I would have to write an informative paper on the topic.
Sorry, not going to waste the effort on a jackass like you.
I wonder though. Are you suggesting that all jobs are en lements to a good salary?
What then is a good salary? $65k, $80k? Why stop there? Why not demand $200k+ if you think what the market will bear, has no bearing, and you are a lib with that en lement mentality?
As for something said earlier. The level of education in children cannot be fixed by throwing more money at it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
