Reply With Quote
I see you found your new avatar.
definition; avatar: "An incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of a person"
Oddly enough we do have median income figures.
27,000. year.
http://www.all4ed.org/files/HighCost.pdfIf the nation’s secondary schools improved sufficiently to graduate all of their students, rather than the 72 percent of students who currently graduate annually,3 the payoff would be significant. For instance, if the students who dropped out of the Class of 2011 had graduated, the nation’s economy would likely benefit from nearly $154 billion in additional income over the course of their lifetimes.
High school drop out income: 19K/year
High school graduate income: 27k/year
Bachelors degree: 46k/year
We might quibble about specifics but that holds.
Multiply the net present value of the lost income over a life time for drop outs. 9k per year for 50+ years. $231,000 or so at 3% inflation.
Losing those last few years of education is VERY expensive. This would imply that we could spend and extra $25,000 PER STUDENT PER YEAR for the last four years of high school and still come out ahead.
Lost human capital is expensive, and a far more inefficient use of our resources than giving some modest retirement fund to public servants.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-24-2013 at 03:52 PM. Reason: link-a-roni
I see you found your new avatar.
definition; avatar: "An incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of a person"
Dumbass. I've forgotten more about education than you'll ever know. .
You won't waste the effort because you can't ing make the case. Admit it coward and stop obfuscating. RG called you on it pages ago. You've yet to even state a premise other than "supply and demand". Idiot. It's not about what the market (this is public education, dumb ) will bear.
Make the case for overcompensation.
You fail to accept my viewpoint. Right or wrong, it is my viewpoint that teachers are not underpaid when they don't have a shortage of teachers.
See Supply and Demand.
Again, teachers are stupid if they complain about the wages they get, but don't find a better job or somehow get better wages. maybe the union contracts are holding them down because of the least common denominator worker? How many times have unions rejected merit based salaries for teachers?
Too stupid for more income... Collectively...
people like you are real idiots, when they need a link on the internet, to prove something. Especially when it is blatantly obvious.
please, you can't even back up your bull about teachers being overpaid.
, I'm gonna do a paste a thon later to show how you have dodged that about half a dozen times.
It will make you look just like ol' Cosmored.
Is that what you are shooting for?
Or are you gonna walk it back a bit, and maybe admit you might have been wrong?
lol @ the "Union" teddy bear.
How many teachers collectively bargain for salary? You don't know do you?
Hint: We sure as didn't in Texas.
But, since you only seem able to ask questions rather than provide a case for overcompensation, I'll accept that as proof that you have no ing idea what you are talking about. Again.
Did I say overpaid? I meant over compensated, but pay is part of that. Supply and demand.
Paste away... Supply and demand...
You guys simply will not accept my answer, so YOU!
WC is pathalogically unable to admit if he's wrong. It's the true mark of a sycophant.
That's not an answer, . Might as well say the price of parachute pants. It makes as much sense.
You didn't collectively bargain in Texas?
Wouldn't the ATPE disagree with you?
I didn't claim 30% for anything, and you most certainly didn't dispute anything either, except in your own head.
Sorry.
No, not really.
ATPE is a toothless en y by any reasonable analysis.
More fail.
ATPE does not bargain for salary, dumb .
Over paid, over compensated.
Play the semantics game if you want.
You haven't supported any claim you have made so far, and that speaks volumes.
Good God..the stupid never ceases from you, WC. Just ing quit already.
facepalm yoursef dip .
I did not say that!
You must really think you are a genius to always answer a question not asked!
My God.
Just how far does your stupidity run?
you are thinking of the word "sophist".
Learned that one little tidbit from Cosmored, or what it pop tech... the crazy blends after a while.
Either applies. lol
But you're right, sophist it is.
Paste away.
I'm tired of you wondering why an employer doesn't need to raise benefits and salary when they can get the help they need at the current rates.
Or is it that I disagree with the "en lement mentality?"
I was wrong. You can actually make a stupider statement. There may be no bounds to your lunacy.
The employer (The ing State) can't just jump in and raise salary and bennies because the employer (The ing State) is bound by tax receipts and a budget. Which is why, your idiotic "supply and demand" talking point fails immediately.
Holy .
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"You didn't collectively bargain in Texas?
Wouldn't the ATPE disagree with you?"
ing .
It doesn't stop my state from compensating teachers well...
If there was a need for more teachers, and it took paying more to get them, Texas would find a way.
But they are not getting the help they need at the current rates. I've already shown you the turnover rates. What your feeble mind cannot provide are the additional costs outside of retraining, to the student population. There are studies that show the act of turnover itself is detrimental to students. Notice I said "The act itself".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
