What are the COLA (typically) based on? Rate of inflation? Did they go down by 1% last year?

I dont really want to pick on teachers because next week we'll all be talking about those dam auto workers, or somebody else that we feel is somehow taking our money or getting a better shake than we are. But this is exactly what happens when a society built on hedging comes to the point of unsustainability...everybody is questioned or on display for public scrutiny or ridicule.

I'd say that's right about where it should be. I'm in my 13th year of teaching with a master's degree. I will make 59K this year in a district that's been excellent every year that I've been there. I feel we do a great job and I'm paid pretty much right what I should be. I don't believe I should make all that much more than I do but I shouldn't be making less than that either. I have above average private sector health care for which I pay 10% of the premiums. I would be more than willing to go to 20%. I have my district pay 14% of my insurance while I pay 10%. I would have no problem with my district going down to 10%.

I have an average three bedroom house, two baths, two cars, nothing extra that most other professionals wouldn't have. I'm nowhere close to a doctor or someone making six figures and I shouldn't be.

I'm willing to make sacrifices but I'm not willing to go bankrupt because of the mistakes of those who racked up debt and didn't pay it back, those who made the housing market crash, and those who were bailed out after all this happened.

Depends on the district I'd say but my net value definitely went down by at least 1% when you take into account I didn't get a step and my insurance costs went up. Not sure about others.

+1

Everybody has to sacrifice except the fuckers that wrecked the economy and wiped out 900 billion in state and local pension funds.

And I don't care how it turns out as I'm not part of that state, but it's a pussy move to run and hide. About as undemocratic as you can get.

That's good. And I have no problem with teachers or anyone making what they are worth. In fact, my issue with pensions isn't really around teacher but around other state workers that don't particularly have a skill set that is hard to find.

My biggest gripe though is the notion that "we owe it to people". The State is hiring people to provide a service we want. All we owe is to find people who can do that service at an affordable cost. As I said before, the state isn't an employment agency, it's there to provide services to the people. Sometimes I think we get that mixed up.

I see it more as what a filibuster should be. The Dems can't hold out forever and they'll likely take a hit for leaving, but it buys some time for the public to change their minds. If only the U.S. Senate made it a tough decision to grind things to a halt.

I'm not a big fan of filibusters either. The people voted in a group of people that they wanted. Let them govern. It's just spitting in the face of voters.

So is doing something you never mentioned any intention of doing during a campaign because you knew you would never be elected if you mentioned even a hint of it. While things change over time, to do what's happening in Ohio within two months of being elected screams of hiding your true intentions before getting elected. Not very trustworthy.

Ultimately, it's another reason it's a bad move in Ohio. It'll cost the Republicans the state in 2012.

I think there's a place for the minority to stall things if and only if that decision comes with consequences. They can't hold out for more than a week or so. AT that point either pressure will have forced a negotiated settlement or the GOP will win on a vote.

How is it a pussy move? It's more we're gonna do whatever it takes to stop this bill from going forward instead of letting it happen and whining about it as the Dems have done over and over again. Republicans do what it takes to get things done. It's time for the Dems to stop whining and do the same.

But they also voted in the people who put the quorom and filibuster rules in place. If the voters really wanted the GOP to do whatever they wanted in Wisconsin without any input from the minority, they would've given them a bigger advantage.

Of course, the voters in the districts that elected the Dem legislators probably did so with the expectation that they'd fight for unions, teachers, the middle class, etc. I'm sure they're pretty happy with the actions.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have made my 3rd grader sit down and write out his addition tables 0-9 every day. It is amazing how much better he has gotten at addition (he was counting on his hands constantly a month ago).

I really wish they would separate classes into advanced, mid-range, and remedial for each grade. Too often teachers have to teach at the level of the slowest students and it hurts everyone in the class. Plus, from talking to my kindergarten son's teacher, it sounds like there is not good coordination between the grades about what each student needs to advance.


I disagree here. When I was in California, we had 25-30 kids in each class. We learned because we were expected to. If you caused trouble it was nipped in the bud. I knew a fair number of kids who were hellians outside of school but were great at school because they knew they would be punished if they got out of line.


I would love to see sterilization of a good portion of the populace. It is scary to see some of the parents out there.

Filibusters have their place. I've said it before, you need to make it tough to do though. Bring in the cots and the beds and make them go 24 hours a day like they used to.

While we're at it, bring back the appointment of senators. Insulating the senators from the populace would allow them to act as the elders out the Congress rather than chasing votes, which they do now. I really think a lot of people do not realize how much the 17th amendment changed things. Heck, I can live with issues getting someone into Washington, its better to have issues getting someone there rather than them concerned with getting re-elected once there. I would even support a limited term limits law that only applied to senators.

Agreed. Fuck the social contract. Sink or swim.

It's astounding that we've devolved to a place where people making an honest living and whether we ought to honor our commitments to them is a matter of debate. This country is completely and utterly doomed.

I was watching a documentary last night on the building of the Panama Canal and save for the thousands of cheap laborers from the west indies they used, the fact that the entire thing was constructed at all given the odds against them at that time, during the time they did it was astounding. I look at the country today and realize that the lack of vision since fails because the only thing anyone gives a damn about is whether we're meeting the bottom line.

Citizens aren't shareholders in a fucking corporation. They are people and sometimes, the notions of what works and what doesn't isn't always going to make the balance sheet work out. But if it means I get a dollar less so some other person can have a bit more of what maybe I was born luckier to get, then so be it.

A lot of people work hard and don't make an honest living out of it. Does your outrage only extend toward those employed by the state or should we make sure every person in the country makes a middle class income?

It's cliche to knock this country as being lazy or not having vision. But it's wrong. Just over 10 years ago, none of us were walking around with our own personal computer device that let us make phone calls, look up anything we wanted to on the web, play games, and all sorts of other stuff. The Internet seems to have been a rather large technological advancement that sees new ways for us to acquire information or communicate instantly. Sure we don't have a big concrete project to point to and brag about, but all our lives are completely different right now than they were 15 years ago. Lets not act like we have no vision.

Actually, they sort of are. They invest in something, vote the people into power they want, and have those people do things for them. Shareholders get profits, voters get services.

What you're saying is that if we hire someone, we should overpay them. And when someone is being overpaid, it means someone else gets underpaid. That person ends up in the private sector. The guy who has to pay a little more on his taxes to overpay for those people you want to "do the right thing for".

This is what people don't factor into this. If you puff up one part of the economy, you have to deflate another. So you pretend that this is some altruistic stance, but all you are saying is that if you work for the State, you deserve to be paid more and that the worker in the private sector should be paid less to do so.

Not true. That argument would mean growth is impossible.

Growth of an economy is factored into market value of an employee. It is still overpaying one to underpay another. You can't overpay both sides.

Again, that's only always true if growth is static.

I guess I'm not getting that part. If someone is being overpaid, doesn't that mean someone has to compensate for that? Isn't the balance shifted?

One, it's nearly impossible to know what constitutes overpaying. Two, velocity of money matters. What happens to the supposed overpayment? If that money is immediately spent it's likely to multiply and lead to growth. Now it's possible that the same money given to someone else would be spent and multiply the same or even more.

When unions work, that's the strength of collective bargaining. Incomes rise for the middle class ad that money is spent and multiplies. That's even possibly true with healthcare costs. One person's overpayment is another person's salary.

The reason this would never be done today is because you'd have people protesting the conditions people were working in. Plus, you'd have to make sure that the ecological impact was low. I mean we're mixing the water from two oceans, what about animals being introduced where they weren't before, etc.

The problem with not meeting the bottom line is that it is not sustainable.

I would counter this with, where does it come up that the government is responsible to take care of people? I have no problem with the companies making contracts to provide for retirement. However, the government should not be in that role for anyone but possibly their workers. Additionally, there are other service providers that provide for the elderly better than the government. If the government got out of the equation, charities and families would step up. They would maintain the social contract, it doesn't have to be the government.

When you need to have a bunch of Senators run and hide to neighboring states to protect your salary, it might be a sign you're being overpaid.

We typically don't pay people based on how fast they'll use the money. While I understand the strategy behind it, paying people based on their worth seems a much fairer approach.

I understand the benefits of a strong middle class. It seems a tad unfair that you want to discriminate between public and private employees. That public employees deserve to be guaranteed a middle class income while ignoring the private sector. Just think if you are providing a psuedo-welfare for one, you should be for all. There are a lot of people who work hard in the private sector who are no able to reach the middle class level either.

The poverty rate amongst the elderly pre-SS and later pre-Medicare would seem to discredit your theory.

It amazes me how many Americans support legislation based around maximising profits for corporations instead of trying to ensure that the citizens within it can live out happy and productive lives?

In comparison to European countries the average American person has very few rights within the workforce, a dreadful lack of holiday entitlement, the work hours required and the lack of job security ... if anything the recent financial crisis appears to be an excuse for those in power to further reduce the average persons lot in life further.

Would you consider that in practice (and this is generally speaking and based more on my knowledge of such things in England than in America so let me know if its different here) people within a government sector generally trade lesser pay for better benefits and job security.

If you are a public employee then generally you're at the whim of the government which employs you and regardless of your performance often you might find your pay cut or capped because of some convenient crusade the government is on etc. ...

As such its a trade off between a more cut-throat/competitive field and job security for many people. Its also worth noting that MANY government workers are in positions which are crucial to societies future but aren't competitively paid - such as teachers, these professions while not glamourous are vital to the future of the country imho.

If you disadvantage the public sector in terms of benefits then pay will have to rise to take this into consideration as there is now no visible advantage at all to a government job over the private sector - meaning that they have to pay more in order to retain their staff.

This in the long term is actually bad for the government sector as it pays out higher money in the short-term and also risks its employees having a short-fall in the long term (in terms of retirement planning) and thus having to lean on the state for help with that in their later years.

I'm not arguing for public or private. I just don't think a wage increase must equal a wage decrease. And I'll freely admit I don't know the worth of any employee, but do you? These wages and benefits have been bargained and entered into with agreement by both parties. What makes you certain you know the real worth of these employees?

They are worth what the market is willing to pay for them and what they are willing to work for.

I agree with the first part. Corporations have huge control over our government and population. So much so that people will vote against their best interests time and time again.

I'd disagree heavily with the second part though. Americans have the ultimate right in the workforce, the right to tell their employer to go fuck themselves and leave at any time. This isn't indentured servitude and I think you're over exaggerating conditions here. There are plenty of laws in place to protect workers, and most companies do provide holidays off and ample vacation time. This does depend heavily on the type of job of course (better ones have better perks), but I don't have a problem with the most valuable people getting the most valuable perks.

That's not the case here though. Public employees if anything have a reputation for being well compensated and having the best benefits in the job market. They are also some of the safest jobs to have (which is why a common joke here is how rude most of them are because they can't be fired).

A lot of the data is publically available too. You can see toll booth workers making $60k a year (along with benefits including a pension!).

The market doesn't dictate price though...at least not for teaching. It's what taxpayers are willing to pay and if there is not a safeguard against that, it will end in disaster. Now you might argue there are crappy teachers who don't deserve it and I agree. The system needs revamped but it doesn't need destroyed.

And in France, an extreme example of workers' rights, the difficulty in firing folks means a large chunk of contract employees so you can just let their contracts run out. They also have fairly regular riots because the "people" don't think they're being handed ENOUGH. So let's please not pretend Europe is a shining light of an example for the US to follow.

And how is that determined? Maybe by a negotiated contract entered into by both parties?

The market should dictate prices though. The field is currently oversaturated and states like Wisconsin don't need to pay what they currently do to keep staffs fully stocked.

Not every job allows you to negotiate salary and benefits. Those numbers get determined based on who is willing to work for those numbers. If the terms are not fair, Wisconsin will have a tough time filling the jobs.

So your real complaint isn't so much the terms as the right of collective bargaining. You certainly seem to be saying that workers shouldn't have the right to band together to achieve higher salaries. In other words, you're major concern is a large supply of cheap labor.

Workers can band together if they want. But States can say we don't negotiate with workers who band together. Wisconsin doesn't need to go into collective bargaining with the union. The job market is oversaturated, there is nothing to negotiate.

I agree with that. The State obviously has to factor in quality when they determine what they are willing to pay.

And while we're talking about whether they were overpaid or not, the unions have accepted all the concessions put forth by the Governor. You don't do that if you are being underpaid or getting market value.

Umm ... who exactly is "the market" if not the taxpayers?

I think besides the individual teacher salaries is also the student/teacher ratio. I've seen a lot of variation on this number and its probably the biggest single factor to consider for a yearly budget.

There are districts that are 25-30 students/teacher and then there are districts that are 15. No matter what the avg salary is for either of those districts...the 15:1 ratio is always easiest to simply bump to 20:1. Rather than see other teachers let go (or play roulette), they end up agreeing on paycuts or pay freezes (as was the case in my area).

As a purely anecdotal & speculative thought...it seems to me that the areas that have the highest student/teacher ratio also seem to have the lowest average salary whereas the low ratio areas also seem to have the highest average salary. Maybe this is just a factor of where I've lived & seen but it seems to be a significant disconnect in determining proper & ample funding levels (which can then be used to determine proper salary).

Most people I know over here have between 10-15 days holiday a year in Florida, the average holiday entitlement in the US as a whole is 15 days - that compares to 20-25 in Europe* (UK legal minimum is 20 not including bank holidays).

In England its illegal to force people to work above a 38 hour week (you can sign a waiver if you want to but it can't be forced upon someone), over here most people I know work far longer hours than that.

In England if you are a permanent employee then you are required to be given a notice period before you are let go and if you are a long term servant you get redundancy pay - in Florida the 'At Will' employment allows you to be let go at any time with little come back**.

As such I think things are pretty heavily stacked in favour of corporations here and against the citizens tbh.

PS - Yes I realise if you're in the lucky position to have a skilled trade where you aren't easy to replace you can get better conditions here, but most people aren't and its society as a whole rather than just the lucky few which should be looked after imho.

*http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/1360620
**At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I know its trendy to knock the French (heck I'm English, its practically a requirement back home ;) ).

However while I think they might sometimes go too far in their actions, I actually admire the French for their willingness to stand up and fight for their fellow citizens - they're one of the few western countries which isn't selfish and apathetic in ensuring that they have a decent lifestyle ... which doesn't just mean material goods but also time off and suchlike.

In a similar way to the French defending their rights one of the most refreshing places I've ever worked was Switzerland, I was amazed during my first few days there that everything closes down for several hours around lunch time so that workers (and school children) can go home and have lunch with their families - that imho is a fantastic idea and helps ensure a strong bond within communities and families which is sadly lacking today in England - I wish it was adopted back home. I believe that some other European countries (Spain?) also do this kind of thing which to me seems great.

If citizens in other countries didn't allow themselves to be pushed around by self-serving politicians then the world would be a far better place imho.

I'm not saying that everything in Europe/England/France/Where-ever is perfect*** - but I do think that looking at other cultures and considering things other than simply financial aspects is vital when determining a direction for a country to head in ...

*Heck look at the prats in charge of the UK at the moment and the tax loop holes they're giving the financial sector so that they can avoid paying yet more tax and offshore even more workers ... that being said one thing I am kinda proud of is that the UK is increasingly getting activists (such as UK Uncut***) protesting against corporations who are playing clever games to dodge paying tax - hopefully these actions will hit the corporations profits enough that they might actually consider paying the tax they should be coughing up rather than funneling it out of the country ....
***interestingly one of the articles about UK Uncut indicates there might be a US copycat coming? - how do people feel about that concept? .. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/fe...-banks-america

The problem with leaving things purely to a 'free market' is that it makes incredibly poor long term decisions on the basis of short-term cost/profit.

If the 'free market' was allowed to act unrestricted you'd see a lot more disasters like the BP Oil Spill and the recent Finance crash because its worth the risk in the short-term to go for the big profit rather than the sensible safe option.

The argument with education is similar; not funding the education system in the country properly makes short-term economic sense - but the long term effects of that on the nation would be hugely detrimental.

I wouldn't say it's heavily stacked in favor of anyone. It's a free market. People can work for who they want to and companies can hire/fire who they want to. And while they can fire you on a whim, there is unemployment as a safety net for most people. I'd say Europe favors employees at the expense of employers. Which is fine, but I think it's wrong to say we give huge advantages to businesses here.

As for vacation days and hours a week, it's all relative. If you're getting 2 months of vacation, the company is making it up by paying you less. So those extra days and extra free time might be nice, but know that they are not making as much money as they could.

The word "lucky" is where I disagree with you most. People who put themselves in a position because they are skilled are not lucky. They are people who worked hard. People who made themselves valuable to society. Made themselves valuable to a company. That isn't luck. And we shouldn't punish those people to prop up those who did not choose to go that route.

There are a lot of issues in this country with companies and power they have over certain aspects of life. But I don't think working conditions are bad in this country. And if someone finds them bad, they have every right to quit.

The issue isn't about funding things. It's about overpaying people.

If it turns out that we can't run a good school system with cuts to benefits and salaries, then we have to re-think the approach and raise those incentives. But as it stands, public employees are not quitting when they are seeing cuts.

Just want to double check something to make sure you're consistent. You're for a free market when it comes to health care too, correct? No government intervention? Nothing...market dictates pricing, etc. because if the price is too high consumers won't buy it and that will bring prices down?

You do that as a way to save collective bargaining rights. The average pension in WI is 24000. I don't know if that's high or low, but it certainly doesn't come across as exorbitant. I don't think the unions want to agree, but they're in a pickle.

Luck plays a huge roll. The single greatest determinant of future income is the income of your parents. I'm not saying people don't work hard, but luck plays a huge roll in where you end up.

We're a country based on equal right...which is not the same as equal starting points.

While there are many problems to be addressed in this country... those who develop their skills & value to society have opportunity to greatly enhance their wealth. And those who cannot add better than average value to society do not acquire as much wealth.

Whether that is because of the parenting is completely irrelevant...unless we want to begin enforcing a "good parents tax" to punish those who have successful parents that want to mentor their own children to be successful as well (and vise versa for less successful).

I use 'lucky' to indicate people who are in professions which give a reasonable amount of both power to negotiate salary (because of scarcity of available trained staff and the industry they're in).

Teachers imho are a scarce commodity however because of their choice of profession they aren't paid on this scale because its accepted that they chose that profession because they wanted to help society rather than maximise their financial gain. Such professions while existing within what is seen as a 'free market' aren't truly part of it imho.

That is a strange argument to be honest - when there is no protection for an employee the choice not to work (and thus have no money) or to work for what little they are offered isn't much choice imho.

I have relatives on my wife's side who are late in life now but haven't had a chance to put aside money for their retirement, they have to work for next to nothing because they have no health coverage otherwise. The companies involved know this and abuse this hugely through the hours they insist on them working and the pittance they are paid.

These people have worked their entire lives and paid taxes during that period but are unable to do anything but be exploited because they are in what I would consider a 'standard' job (ie. retail) instead of having a career - this imho is wrong.

The attitude of some people in America dumbfounds me to be frank - everyone could be in their boat sooner or later, so look out for the less well off ... it might be you one day.

People aren't 'stupid' or 'lazy' because they don't have careers presently - the world is changing fast and some people guessed right and got careers in a stable profession, others had divorces or chose areas which petered out.

I had a colleague a decade ago who was a trained book binder, my father in law was a television repair man originally - both professions which were skilled but are now defunct .. should they be punished because of this?

In ten years time I expect many computer programming positions will be largely defunct because advances will have simplified development to the level where its far easier to make programs generally, I expect I'll be ok because my niche is specialized and involves a heady amount of design and artificial intelligence - both of which are hard to standardise upon.

Does this mean I think any people currently relying upon less specialised programming for their income today should be condemned to a life of mediocrity if that profession disappears when they're in their 50's, heck no.

But you're presuming people are entirely selfish and only in it for 'themselves' - while this might be true of some poor unfortunates I'd like to think that many people think of more than just money in life.

There are many professions where people are 'underpaid' if you look at things in terms of simply market forces and compare the risks or time, skill and effort involved in their jobs against their pay packets.

For instance teachers, it takes a huge amount of training and dedicate to be a teacher - its a hugely stressful job BUT despite this pay is fairly low.

This is because teachers are generally people who want to help people and see the importance of the role, they aren't driven by a pay packet or they wouldn't have entered that industry in the first place - what you're arguing is that you should keep reducing the pay to the least possible in order to fill a role regardless of its worth to society - that is something I see as wholly wrong.

Market Forces aren't the 'be all and end all' to a successful country imho, in fact in many instances they are detrimental to it by driving things to the lowest common denominator rather than forcing society to excel.

Of course there will never be equal outcomes, but those outcomes aren't equally achievable. You want to make it all about hard work and desire, but even with those the person born to low income parents is significantly less likely to achieve a high income than the person born to wealthy parents. There area number of reason's for that, education, networks, work ethic, ect., but it sure as hell has a lot to do with luck.

I know I wouldn't be where I'm at today without my parents and my wife's parents. I've worked hard, but when I've struggled I've been lucky enough to have family that can help. Without that I would be in a much worse place today.

It's very interesting to me that some sort of absolute moral right to current supply and demand determining the value of a good. Never mind that there are all sorts of "outside" influences to this free market we claim to have: direct and indirect government intervention, monopolistic or oligopolistic pressures (yes, those significantly increase naturally occurring supply and demand), collective negotiating by groups of people, etc. But the current value- that's the morally correct one and if you try to put a direct or indirect government influence on it to change supply or demand, that's wrong in some way. It's weird that capitalism and a faux free market has become some sort of blind moral judgment.

SI