do you seriously think teachers make 100k a year?

 

are you insane?

 

A significant number do in Illinois. Almost 15,000 in 2010. That number includes 760 PE teachers. Seriously paying a PE teacher over $100k? This is one of the biggest problems I have with the way teachers aren't compensated in this country. I honestly thing the average salary is fine. But why do we pay based on years served instead of what they teach? Why do we pay a PE teacher the same as an advanced math teacher? Maybe if we paid them based on their worth, instead of years of service, we would get better candidates.

Statistics about JOLIET WEST HIGH SCHOOL in JOLIET, IL

 

Average teacher salary: $54,652

Average administration staff salary: $107,383

Dollars spent per student: $11,566

 

You can fix the admin number, I have no problems with that. I have seen what some of the district supers make and it is astronomical. Reform that as well.

 

Admin staffs are always the last to get cut too. It is pretty ridiculous.

Why are you getting pissy with him when you mentioned the raise standard?

i didn't. i said their pay has increased 3% in the last 20 years. which is A SLOWER INCREASE than the rate of inflation. Salaries SHOULD directly correlate to inflation. This wasn't a "look how much their pay has increased" it was a "look how LITTLE their pay has increased in regard to inflation"

I like this job. And is has decreased only because this job pays less than the one I previously had before the business closed. You need to pick a point and stay with it. First they are underpaid, then they are underpaid compared to athletes, and even the average numbers you posted to supposedly support your facts show that on average they are in the top tier in the state for income. And those numbers didnt' include generous benefits.

 

it's all the same point brother. sorry you can't comprehend that.

 

and top tier compared to what? plumbers and firemen and the type of people who flunked out or didn't even go to college? yeah, they SHOULD be making more than those people. They got a degree in something.

 

EDIT: before y'all flame, that was my nuclear hyperbole talking. yes, firefighters and plumbers are very important. and frankly i don't even know. they could make more than teachers... didn't do the research. But if you let that stand in the way of the point i was making you're an idiot.

Edited September 4, 201213 yr by Reddy

it's all the same point brother. sorry you can't comprehend that.

 

and top tier compared to what? plumbers and firemen and the type of people who flunked out or didn't even go to college? yeah, they SHOULD be making more than those people. They got a degree in something.

 

EDIT: before y'all flame, that was my nuclear hyperbole talking. yes, firefighters and plumbers are very important. and frankly i don't even know. they could make more than teachers... didn't do the research. But if you let that stand in the way of the point i was making you're an idiot.

 

Is that really necessary?

It won't fix the real problem. If you ignore the root cause, you aren't fixing anything.

 

 

Problem? What problem? We don't got no stinking problem?

it's all the same point brother. sorry you can't comprehend that.

 

and top tier compared to what? plumbers and firemen and the type of people who flunked out or didn't even go to college? yeah, they SHOULD be making more than those people. They got a degree in something.

 

EDIT: before y'all flame, that was my nuclear hyperbole talking. yes, firefighters and plumbers are very important. and frankly i don't even know. they could make more than teachers... didn't do the research. But if you let that stand in the way of the point i was making you're an idiot.

 

Who cares about the bolded, a degree is a piece of paper, it really doesnt mean jack in a lot of professions. For the most part its nothing more than a barrier of entry.

 

Fireman can die on the job saving someone else. If that isnt deserving of high pay, then I dont even know what the point is anymore.

 

The reason people arent championing more pay for teachers is many people dont necessarily think that 1) teachers are doing a good job or 2) that teachers make a huge impact.

 

 

what does that have to do with anything? that's just selfish sour grapes.

 

how bout YOU get a new job and stop b****ing.

 

 

Yeah Alpha, you selfish son of a b****. LOL. Why would you include health,pension sick days they can bank, etc....That doesn't count.

Who cares about the bolded, a degree is a piece of paper, it really doesnt mean jack in a lot of professions. For the most part its nothing more than a barrier of entry.

 

Fireman can die on the job saving someone else. If that isnt deserving of high pay, then I dont even know what the point is anymore.

 

The reason people arent championing more pay for teachers is many people dont necessarily think that 1) teachers are doing a good job or 2) that teachers make a huge impact.

Or they see many teachers making more than them and get mad when they strike for raises, when they themselves haven't had a raise in years, or are unemployed. At some point the bank runs dry. And many people DO pay more for teachers. As I posted above there are some teachers paid damn well. With all the hoopla in Wisconsin last year, the teachers forgot that on average they made more than most of the other residents of the state. And got good benefits. Is it jealousy? Sure, on some part that plays in. On the other, you have those that want to know why everyone just 'won't pitch in and happily accept higher taxes', but then want certain groups of public employees exempt from the pains and cuts everyone else endures.

Yeah Alpha, you selfish son of a b****. LOL. Why would you include health,pension sick days they can bank, etc....That doesn't count.

Hey, my mother worked in a school district for 25 years. And while her benefits were no where near as good as the ones the teachers got, she was able to carry over sick and personal days unlimited, until the last contract. She had enough days that she took off a whole year. I don't like the rules, she also thought they were bad, but hey, she played by the rules, you would be stupid to give it back. Or would you be patriotic?

Im not going to get involved in a race to the bottom, I congratulate teachers on unionizing so that they can get better deals through leverage. That is called good negotiating, even if I cant or dont do it.

 

As for other professions making more, I dont really care about that either.

 

As for taxes and where the money is going, I agree entirely that it needs to be reassessed. I would just say that even I, someone who isnt a very big teacher union supporter, would argue that there are places with a lot more fat that could be cut to start.

Im not going to get involved in a race to the bottom, I congratulate teachers on unionizing so that they can get better deals through leverage. That is called good negotiating, even if I cant or dont do it.

 

As for other professions making more, I dont really care about that either.

 

As for taxes and where the money is going, I agree entirely that it needs to be reassessed. I would just say that even I, someone who isnt a very big teacher union supporter, would argue that there are places with a lot more fat that could be cut to start.

I agree that there are other places to cut. But every time you bring them up, you always get "but that is just a drop in the bucket'. Well, the drops will add up eventually.

 

 

Or they see many teachers making more than them and get mad when they strike for raises, when they themselves haven't had a raise in years, or are unemployed. At some point the bank runs dry. And many people DO pay more for teachers. As I posted above there are some teachers paid damn well. With all the hoopla in Wisconsin last year, the teachers forgot that on average they made more than most of the other residents of the state. And got good benefits. Is it jealousy? Sure, on some part that plays in. On the other, you have those that want to know why everyone just 'won't pitch in and happily accept higher taxes', but then want certain groups of public employees exempt from the pains and cuts everyone else endures.

 

this is just incredibly hypocritical. you don't have a problem with certain professions doing exactly what you described, but when teachers do it - uproar.

 

and if you want to make as much as teachers do, why didn't you become a teacher? if money is so important to you. Or do something else besides what you're doing? That's what I don't get. You rail against teachers for taking it upon themselves to protect their own self-interest, but you won't do it for yourself. You just want the big bad government to step in and do it for you.

I agree that there are other places to cut. But every time you bring them up, you always get "but that is just a drop in the bucket'. Well, the drops will add up eventually.

tell that to SS, who said that taxing the rich wouldn't solve the problem.

tell that to SS, who said that taxing the rich wouldn't solve the problem.

It won't, even if you tax them at 100% You still need more. But yet with the class warfare practiced by the liberals, they make it seem as if taxing the rich will cure all, if they just pay 'their fair share'. And everone elses share as well.

this is just incredibly hypocritical. you don't have a problem with certain professions doing exactly what you described, but when teachers do it - uproar.

 

and if you want to make as much as teachers do, why didn't you become a teacher? if money is so important to you. Or do something else besides what you're doing? That's what I don't get. You rail against teachers for taking it upon themselves to protect their own self-interest, but you won't do it for yourself. You just want the big bad government to step in and do it for you.

As for this post, I have no clue what the hell you are rambling on about. Teachers should do what they can to protect themselves, and so should the taxpayers that foot the f-ing bill.

It won't, even if you tax them at 100% You still need more. But yet with the class warfare practiced by the liberals, they make it seem as if taxing the rich will cure all, if they just pay 'their fair share'. And everone elses share as well.

 

I dont think that is the case at all.

 

I think what most liberals are correctly saying is that GWB cut taxes too much and before we start taking away defense or social services, lets just put taxes back to where they were when the country was doing well.

 

It cant be fixed overnight, it has to be steps. And the first step is to re-establish at least a 39.6% rate on the highest tax bracket. http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-f...dividual-1.html

 

When you look at that chart its interesting to note that pre-1980 the highest tax rate was 70%. In 1982 it was lowered to 50% while at the same time lowering the top tier down to $100k.

 

The reality is that the US thrived with tax rates in excess of 70% at the highest level. Raising them back to around 40% is not too problematic. Furthermore they should definitely consider creating a higher top tier (in 1980 there were over 15 levels of taxes, today there are 5), that is taxed at 50%.

 

Once tax revenues are corrected, the next step is going to be cuts and thats when both sides are going to have to give in.

Edited September 4, 201213 yr by Soxbadger

A significant number do in Illinois. Almost 15,000 in 2010. That number includes 760 PE teachers. Seriously paying a PE teacher over $100k? This is one of the biggest problems I have with the way teachers aren't compensated in this country. I honestly thing the average salary is fine. But why do we pay based on years served instead of what they teach? Why do we pay a PE teacher the same as an advanced math teacher? Maybe if we paid them based on their worth, instead of years of service, we would get better candidates.

Can anyone think of anything those PE teachers might also do after school that could result in those salaries?

They were equating money with respect, so it has everything to do with money. What do they want, statues? Parades? If the district is THAT good as you say, they already get respect from the local parents, and people seek out districts like that to move into (if they can afford it).

 

First of all...two different places of where I grew up and where I currently live. In Oak Park, no strike. No need. In Skokie...strike, I didn't think they needed, but gladly took the days off. My point is...teachers are thought to either have too much responsibility or not enough, when really, it's neither. It's turned into a rock and a hard place situation. I also think administrators make too much and would help cut the fat. But teachers need to be compensated for their service to the community. And if they aren't good at what they do, which is teach, not raise, kids...they need to be let go. Pretty simple.

My previous post also applies to you.

Any year now....

Mine has DECREASED 15%. I don't care about athletes, and quit moving the goalposts. Oh, and I bet that $56k didn't factor in generous benefits either, which I don't get.

That is unfortunate.

 

Let's work together to get better benefits for all labor instead of joining the race to the bottom.

Rockdale, Joliet's poor next door neighbor has nice teacher salaries as well.

 

Average Teacher Salary in Rockdale School District 84

 

The average teacher salary in Rockdale School District 84 is $56,092.

Grade Level Average 10th percentile 25th percentile Median 75th percentile 90th percentile

Pre-school $29,350 $19,930 $22,900 $27,970 $34,110 $40,410

Kindergarten $47,800 $27,360 $34,670 $42,890 $59,050 $76,870

Elementary $63,860 $36,450 $45,290 $60,420 $81,490 $99,340

Middle school $64,920 $38,540 $46,660 $62,320 $81,590 $98,810

High school $74,530 $42,210 $54,700 $72,360 $93,200 $113,870

 

Seems like the pre-school teachers bringing the average down.

These are college educated professionals, and those in the top quintile have decades of experience and likely advanced degrees.compared to other field with similar education and experience, they are underpaid.

Now where is spending as it relates to GDP?

I'm actually surprised by this one, I figured the sluggish growth would have pushed the share of government spending to GDP to be going up since 2009. Government spending shot up versus GDP in 2008/2009 thanks to Wall Street destroying the economy, but it literally hasn't changed since 2009.

 

Man, the state and local austerity has hit harder than I thought.

I'm actually surprised by this one, I figured the sluggish growth would have pushed the share of government spending to GDP to be going up since 2009. Government spending shot up versus GDP in 2008/2009 thanks to Wall Street destroying the economy, but it literally hasn't changed since 2009.

 

Man, the state and local austerity has hit harder than I thought.

 

And historically?

And historically?

If you count state and local spending as well, it was climbing steadily through the 50's, 60's, and 70's, shot up during the 80's, declined from 1992-2000, then shot up again from 2001-2008 and has basically held steady since 2009.

 

If you just count the federal spending, it shoots up during recessions, then declines during expansions. In 2000 it was at the same level as it was in 1968.