When I was CEO of my company I made about $50k.

Why, you made $20k more than the average worker. Clearly you were overpaid.

Roseanne Barr is running for president: The actress and comedian has submitted paperwork in hopes of becoming the Green Party's candidate.

Link.

Except for the tax cuts, which had to be passed.

Having this data is going to come in real handy.

Taxes paid as share of Income

bottom 20% top 1%%

Wisconsin: 9.2% 6.7%

That doesn't include the universities, and it was more list $45k, and was almost $10k MORE than the average resident of the state. Not a lot for say New York, but apparently in WI, it is. Just face the facts. The state saved jobs, and budgets. Everyone paid the price, INCLUDING TEACHERS. They can't be immune to the same realities that everyone else has to face. Keep twisting and changing the goalposts, you are good at that. First they are boned. Then I show that they are not. Then they are poor. Then I show they are not. Then they are poor compared to teachers elsewhere. Just keep on moving the posts, you never lose that way.

 

When they allow the average person in the state to teach, it will be a fair comparison. If the state is going to require college degrees plus teaching certificates, then a better stat would be comparing teacher's salaries with other professions that require college degrees.

It's pretty sad that the right-wing response to teachers earning a decent living isn't to fight for everyone to raise up, but to drag teachers down.

 

But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the election!

It's pretty sad that the right-wing response to teachers earning a decent living isn't to fight for everyone to raise up, but to drag teachers down.

 

But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the election!

Its petty sad that the left wing response to a state that is broke is to just bend certain citizens over even more so that the unionized folk don't have to take a paycut or contribute to their own health care. How is laying off one third the teachers going to lift up anyone? It isn't. Keeping almost all of them working albeit at 5% less pay is better than having a third now living off unemployment. Although I suppose with teachers it is just going from one government teat to another, but at least with the first one we get something for the monies paid out. Whether it is worth it or now is another story. So many other places do better with less.

Why, you made $20k more than the average worker. Clearly you were overpaid.

Perhaps more than the average WIsconsis worker, yes. I also employed 6 others, 3 of whom made more than I did. But I guess that makes me eeeevil.

Perhaps more than the average WIsconsis worker, yes. I also employed 6 others, 3 of whom made more than I did. But I guess that makes me eeeevil.

They were clearly overpaid as well, they made more than the average worker.

They were clearly overpaid as well, they made more than the average worker.

Except that I was the one paying them, not the taxpayers. Big difference. Huge. I wasn't running a deficit, and asking taxpayers to give me more money.

Except that I was the one paying them, not the taxpayers. Big difference. Huge. I wasn't running a deficit, and asking taxpayers to give me more money.

But you presumably were asking customers to give you money to pay for whatever good or service you were providing. Why didn't you drop the price of your product and demand your employees take a pay cut?

But you presumably were asking customers to give you money to pay for whatever good or service you were providing. Why didn't you drop the price of your product and demand your employees take a pay cut?

 

Seriously???

 

Are you asking him why he wasn't a terrible business man who lowered his profits for no reason when the market wasn't demanding it??

 

You're comparing apples and oranges in the WORST way I've ever seen right here...a private company living in the black versus a tax payer run system running in the red, and you're questioning why he didn't give them pay cuts and lower his prices?

 

BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE NO f***ING SENSE TO DO SO. That's why.

 

Whatever point you were attempting to make with this one fell flat.

 

I have to believe you did this just to troll, because I know you are too smart to pose this question otherwise...and in that case, it worked... Troll.

Edited February 4, 201214 yr by Y2HH

It's pretty sad that the right-wing response to teachers earning a decent living isn't to fight for everyone to raise up, but to drag teachers down.

 

But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the election!

It seems like teaching is a massively popular major in college with colleges creating a large number of new teachers every year. Supply and demand right? I know it's kind of cruel but you're worth what someone is willing to pay you.

It seems like teaching is a massively popular major in college with colleges creating a large number of new teachers every year. Supply and demand right? I know it's kind of cruel but you're worth what someone is willing to pay you.

And yet, how many states have spent years trying to find cheap ways to "improve teacher quality" through testing or standardization or whatever. And how many states have shortages of well qualified teachers (not just the lower level ones)

 

Supply and demand. We want to pay teachers on the cheap, we spend years trying to figure out why we can't attract high quality educators. But hey tax cuts!

Seriously???

 

Are you asking him why he wasn't a terrible business man who lowered his profits for no reason when the market wasn't demanding it??

 

You're comparing apples and oranges in the WORST way I've ever seen right here...a private company living in the black versus a tax payer run system running in the red, and you're questioning why he didn't give them pay cuts and lower his prices?

 

BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE NO f***ING SENSE TO DO SO. That's why.

 

Whatever point you were attempting to make with this one fell flat.

 

I have to believe you did this just to troll, because I know you are too smart to pose this question otherwise...and in that case, it worked... Troll.

So say, if an executive were to try to slash the benefits of his workers while reducing revenue in other ways, you'd say that makes no sense and would make him a terrible executive.

So say, if an executive were to try to slash the benefits of his workers while reducing revenue in other ways, you'd say that makes no sense and would make him a terrible executive.

 

No. But the way you posed the hypothetical Y2HH quoted was pretty dumb. Alpha Dog (presumably) wasn't running a non-profit, and he could charge whatever the market paid...a different set up than appropriating tax dollars.

I love this thread already

Seriously???

 

Are you asking him why he wasn't a terrible business man who lowered his profits for no reason when the market wasn't demanding it??

 

You're comparing apples and oranges in the WORST way I've ever seen right here...a private company living in the black versus a tax payer run system running in the red, and you're questioning why he didn't give them pay cuts and lower his prices?

 

BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE NO f***ING SENSE TO DO SO. That's why.

 

Whatever point you were attempting to make with this one fell flat.

 

I have to believe you did this just to troll, because I know you are too smart to pose this question otherwise...and in that case, it worked... Troll.

 

Because obviously the solution is to charge double and provide less.

Because obviously the solution is to charge double and provide less.

And for teachers, the solution is to demand double and pay less.

No. But the way you posed the hypothetical Y2HH quoted was pretty dumb. Alpha Dog (presumably) wasn't running a non-profit, and he could charge whatever the market paid...a different set up than appropriating tax dollars.

Oh, I see, so now you are acknowledging market forces do impact things. So if I then come back to the original claim that dramatically curtailing benefits and increasing workloads for teachers will wind up with worse quality teachers, where we have to play games like teaching standardized tests in order to deal with the fact that the well-qualified people don't go into that profession because it pays below market rates, everyone will agree with me.

 

And, if an executive is doing that to cut taxes for people who won't spend the money anyway, then that would mean that executive is effectively sabotaging his state/organization's future.

Oh, I see, so now you are acknowledging market forces do impact things. So if I then come back to the original claim that dramatically curtailing benefits and increasing workloads for teachers will wind up with worse quality teachers, where we have to play games like teaching standardized tests in order to deal with the fact that the well-qualified people don't go into that profession because it pays below market rates, everyone will agree with me.

 

i don't know, the US pays more for education than anyone and still 'bad results'. plus, what other job will these teachers get? teaching pays big time, compared to most professions, in the Obama economy.

I love this thread already

 

you're welcome.

i don't know, the US pays more for education than anyone and still 'bad results'. plus, what other job will these teachers get? teaching pays big time, compared to most professions, in the Obama economy.

People with Bachelor's degrees in this country have unemployment rates below 5% right now. Masters degree is below 4%.

People with Bachelor's degrees in this country have unemployment rates below 5% right now. Masters degree is below 4%.

 

They sure aren't taking their fair share of the unemployment.

i don't know, the US pays more for education than anyone and still 'bad results'. plus, what other job will these teachers get? teaching pays big time, compared to most professions, in the Obama economy.

Also worth noting other data. The US spends a lot on education, but that doesn't make it to the teacher level. The US is in the middle of the pack in average teacher salary, and has to do more work (more student contact hours per year) than anywhere else in the OECD.

 

The money that gets spent on education doesn't make it to the teacher level.

The money that gets spent on education doesn't make it to the teacher level.

 

The US pays the second most of all countries on education. Money is not the problem.