patrick.net

carrieon says

Nothing surprising here, except for the 0% among Hispanics, if that can be validated?

My god - does anyone here know how to read?

Homeboy says

does anyone here know how to read?

Well, I read your comments. Does that make you feel better?

Dan8267 says

When America invades a country because the teacher's unions in California want it to, I'll concede that those teacher unions have as much power as big oil.

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed war spending?

zzyzzx says

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed war spending?

There is no money (zero government money) squandered on teachers unions. Unless you are referring to the unrealistically high compensation teachers receive.

Average teacher pay is something like 40K, maybe 55K in big cities, and half don't make it more than 5 years in the profession. Sure you can cite examples representing a tiny fraction of teachers in suburbs of New York or Chicago making 90K after 17 years working their way up the salary scale. So ? This is like 1% of teachers and those suburbs choose to pay their teachers well (out of their property taxes).

Stop blaming the teachers you had for your lack of reasoning ability. Some of us just have less intellectual horse power to work with. At least you have Fox news to help you navigate the big questions.

marcus says

Average teacher pay is something like 40K, maybe 55K in big cities, and half
don't make it more than 5 years in the profession. Sure you can cite examples
representing a tiny fraction of teachers in suburbs of New York or Chicago
making 90K after 17 years working their way up the salary scale. So ? This is
like 1% of teachers and those suburbs choose to pay their teachers well (out of
their property taxes).

Here's an example of what you're point was in the Illinois teacher retirement system that all the right wingers constantly whine about:

Membership[edit]TRS membership includes all full-time, part-time, and substitute public school teachers in the State of Illinois employed outside the city of Chicago in positions that require certification by the Illinois State Board of Education.[1] As of June 30, 2010, there were a total of 170,275 active members of TRS. Another 104,222 inactive members were entitled to benefits but not currently receiving any, and 97,754 annuitants and beneficiaries were receiving benefits.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachers%27_Retirement_System_of_the_State_of_Illinois

Guess where the long-term, highest paid teachers are in the state? They're in the right wing dominated, rural, small school districts, that's if the school district survives the revenue starvation by their very own 'conservative' school board. Ironic, huh.

And Joe the (not)plumber just got a union job at Chrysler and is now a member of the UAW, but supposedly he hates it. It's pretty doubtful that he'll quit.

marcus says

There is no money (zero government money) squandered on teachers unions. Unless you are referring to the unrealistically high compensation teachers receive.

I am, plus their luxurious retirement packages are astonishing. Plus today's smaller class sizes also squander a lot of money. I want a minimum of 35 kids per classroom!

http://boston.com/community/blogs/rock_the_schoolhouse/2011/03/how_much_is_an_average_teacher.html

What's a retiring teacher's pension worth?
Well, that's an easy one to answer. It depends on how much a retiring teacher earns at the end of his or her career. So let's start there. According to the state's department of education, in 2009 the average teacher in the Commonwealth earned $67,577 in 2009. That's the last year for which we have complete data. If you apply a reasonable algorithm, based on the lowest assumption for salary increases (just over 4.5% annually) made by the pension system itself, you get an average teacher salary in 2011 of about $74,000.

Retiring teachers, of course, reach salaries that are far beyond the average salaries. You put 30, even 35 years into a profession marked by single salary structures, and seniority acts as a law that makes it so you receive much higher salaries at the end of your career.

Last week, WCVB's Chronicle discussed the national debate on collective bargaining. I noted that a teacher in the profession for 30 years will be able to retire with a pension of just under $60,000. I've gotten lots of emails after that appearance questioning the figure and accusing me of cooking the books. Well, let's go back to the data on statewide teacher compensation. For ease of presentation, I'll present five scenarios for teachers approaching retirement age. If the average teacher salary statewide in 2009 was $67,577, which has since then ramped up to $74,000 in 2011, then the salary for the 30-year veteran approaching retirement age is quite a bit higher than that. After all the average salary includes three-, five-, 10- and 20-year veterans.

Here's my two assumptions, and I think any reasonable person will see that I am bending over backwards to present a fair case:

To figure out the average salaries in 2009 and 2010, as noted above, I've based it on a 4.69% annual increase in salaries since 2009. That's the average increase from 2004 to 2009 and well below the state pension system's assumptions which range from 4.5~8%.
To approximate the salary of a 30-year veteran teacher who is about to retire, I assumed salaries 15 percent higher than the average of all teachers statewide. I have to use some such an assumption because the state does not collect statewide data on the distribution of salaries broken down by years of service or by age. Should you find this an unreasonable assumption, I'd urge you to take a look at the Boston Herald's online database of City of Boston salaries; you can see teacher position salaries. (I’ve linked to Brighton High to be more representative; given the higher percentage of teachers with more seniority at Boston Latin, I thought that would be fairer.)

So, here is what teachers starting their careers at 25 and retiring at 55, 57, 58, 60 and 65 years of age will be able to receive as pension payouts.

For the pension geeks among you, note that the table uses a three-year top salary average, because that is how the Massachusetts pension system calculates payouts. After calculating the average salaries in 2009, 2010, and 2011 salaries ($70,797), I added 15% to approximate the top salaries for 30-year veterans ($81,417). For more on the row entitled “Retirement-plus”, see page 9 of this report. It's a benefit for teachers (sought by the unions) which added $125 million annually to the state's pension liability and induced thousands of teachers to retire early. (Remember the hue and cry about teacher shortages?)

Conclusion: If I am wrong in my assertion regarding the amount received by a 30-year veteran, it is at best a question of being off by two years.

To those people who like to repeat the tired mantra that pensions are not a real and substantive issue, take a look at the table below. It is a simple presentation of the same set of scenarios (career start at 25, retirement at 55, 57, 58, 60 and 65) for the average aged teacher today (who is 44), noting what that teacher's pension payout will be when he or she retires.

This pension discussion does not obviously include other benefits for district school teachers, which include health care benefits during employment (which is part of any private or public employment package) and also health care coverage for retirees (which is next to unheard of for private sector employees). The state and almost all Massachusetts municipalities, with the exception of perhaps a handful of localities, have not even begun thinking about how to pay down the tens of billions of dollars in retiree health care benefits.

So, finally, to those who claim that none of this sometimes too passionately debated discussion would have happened but for the financial crisis, sorry, but no. This is certainly a question of benefits for real-life people, but it is also a story about what numerically is possible. The financial sector's shenanigans merely sped up the flash point of a slow train wreck that we have watched from what seemed like afar.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

When America invades a country because the teacher's unions in California want it to, I'll concede that those teacher unions have as much power as big oil.

How do you know that money squandered on the teachers union doesn't exceed war spending?

Over a million civilians -- men, women, and children -- died in the Iraq War alone. How much is each of those lives worth? Teachers unions aren't in the same league as the warfare industry. Hell, it's not even the same sport.

And once again, if you're bitching and moaning about Teacher's unions, the answer is the same. Overturn Citizen's United. End all PACs and SuperPACs. Publicly finance all elections with equal media time for all candidates. Outlaw selling political ads.

curious2 says

Homeboy says

does anyone here know how to read?

Well, I read your comments. Does that make you feel better?

If you truly knew how to read, you'd skip his comments!

Dan8267 says

Over a million civilians -- men, women, and children -- died in the Iraq War alone. How much is each of those lives worth?

Third world country lives aren't worth much, certainly way less than even the pension of one teacher.

zzyzzx says

Plus today's smaller class sizes also squander a lot of money. I want a minimum of 35 kids per classroom!

There's a guy that's out of touch. Many places have HS classes of 50 per class. Just in case you wonder why you hear some teachers unions fighting for smaller class sizes. I have had classes over 50. And averages in recent years over 40.

Learn a little more logic and reasoning, throw in a few facts, and you will understand that money is taken out of teachers salaries for their pensions instead of SS. Employers contribute as they would SS. Yes they contribute a little more than SS, but that's the extent of the cost of those great pensions. You can easily offset that with the low pay teachers get (on average). You and your employer contribute to a fund for 35 to 40 years and then account for exponential growth. That's where those pensions come from.

Fucking idiot.

If the compensation is so great, how come about half of those going in to teaching quit in the first 5 years ?

zzyzzx says

$67,577 in 2009. That's the last year for which we have complete data. If you apply a reasonable algorithm, based on the lowest assumption for salary increases (just over 4.5% annually) made by the pension system itself, you get an average teacher salary in 2011 of about $74,000.

In los angles, teacher's pay is still the same as 2007. Actually we hd pay cuts for most of the interim.

humanity says

In los angles, teacher's pay is still the same as 2007. Actually we hd pay cuts for most of the interim.

All of us non-teachers have had the same lack of wage growth.

humanity says

In los angles, teacher's pay is still the same as 2007. Actually we hd pay
cuts for most of the interim.

The pussy's data is from a blog, not the actual retirement fund or whatever it's called for that state's/city's teachers.
The giveaway was the INCLUSION of the highest yearly income.
Another right wing fail.

upisdown says

The giveaway was the INCLUSION of the highest yearly income

But teacher's pensions are calculated based upon the highest years income.

humanity says

I have had classes over 50. And averages in recent years over 40.

Not around here.

http://www.data-first.org/data/what-is-our-average-class-size/
According to the National Center for Education Statistic’s Digest of Education Statistics 2010, the national average number of students per teacher was 15.5 in 2007.

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2014-02-20/education/does-class-size-in-arizona-matter-research-says-yes/a37671-1
In the last five years, the average class size in the U.S. has increased 5 percent, to almost 22 students per classroom.

The National Center for Education Statistics says the average class size in Arizona is just over 21 students.

Data for California:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/dr/cefteachavgclssize.asp
Shows average class size in CA being anywhere between 22.7 - 26.4, depending upon the grade level.

zzyzzx says

upisdown
says

The giveaway was the INCLUSION of the highest yearly income

But teacher's pensions are calculated based upon the highest years
income.

Hmmmmmm, that must be the ONLY state then, because all of them(well, it was until your 'example' showed up)use averaging and that includes taking the highest and lowest years out, to get a base for their formulas. Yes, it's usually on the last years of work(5, 7, or 10 years) that have the highest years incomes because of the end of careers/longevity.

But not yours. Again, why didn't you go straight to the retirement fund site for info?

zzyzzx says

n the last five years, the average class size in the U.S. has increased 5 percent, to almost 22 students per classroom.

This would have to be elementary, and may include preschool and special ed.

humanity says

This would have to be elementary, and may include preschool and special ed.

The California data I posed goes through 6th grade. When I can find data for high school I will post that as well, and prove you wrong again.

Now college, that is where you do see large class sizes.

http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/pa/cefcsp.asp

California Education Code (EC) sections 41376 and 41378 prescribe the maximum class sizes and penalties for districts with any classes that exceed the limits established in 1964.

Kindergarten—average class size not to exceed 31 students; no class larger than 33 students
Grades one through three—average class size not to exceed 30 students; no class larger than 32 students
Grades four through eight—in the current fiscal year, average number of students per teacher not to exceed the greater of 29.9 (the statewide average number of students per teacher in 1964) or the district’s average number of students per teacher in 1964

zzyzzx says

Data for California:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/dr/cefteachavgclssize.asp

Shows average class size in CA being anywhere between 22.7 - 26.4, depending upon the grade level.

That's for kindergarten through grade 6.

Good luck keeping 40 eight year olds on task.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/

Note that some of the countries with some of the world’s highest achieving student bodies — like Korea and Japan — have the biggest class sizes.

http://www.educationminnesota.org/en/community/mnschools/schoolstats.aspx

Average high school class size and national ranking: 25.5 (45th)

Really ? You erase this comment ?

I wonder why ?

zzyzzx says

So, finally, to those who claim that none of this sometimes too passionately debated discussion would have happened but for the financial crisis, sorry, but no.

If only you had the common sense and financial skills to do a realistic analysis. I question some of your assumptions. But regardless...

Here's my question to you. For a typical teacher in the middle of Massachussetts, say with 10 years in, making 55K per year. How much more does the govt (i.e. the employer) pay in to the funds (annually), than an employer paying in to social security ?

Because this is the simple and not misleading way to understand for comparative purposes, what the cost of those pensions is (not that you want to know).

If only you had the skills, and the honesty to answer that question.

zzyzzx says

Dan8267 says

Over a million civilians -- men, women, and children -- died in the Iraq War alone. How much is each of those lives worth?

Third world country lives aren't worth much, certainly way less than even the pension of one teacher.

And that says everything we need to know about your politics.

zzyzzx says

So, finally, to those who claim that none of this sometimes too passionately debated discussion would have happened but for the financial crisis, sorry, but no.

If only you had the common sense and financial skills to do a realistic analysis. I question some of your assumptions. But regardless...

Here's my question to you. For a typical teacher in the middle of Massachussetts, say with 10 years in, making 55K per year. How much more does the govt (i.e. the employer) pay in to the funds (annually), than an employer paying in to social security ?

Because this is the simple and not misleading way to understand for comparative purposes, what the cost of those pensions is (not that you want to know).

If only you had the skills, and the honesty to answer that question.

zzyzzx says

http://www.educationminnesota.org/en/community/mnschools/schoolstats.aspx

Average high school class size and national ranking: 25.5 (45th)

Okay. Then use average pay, in your understanding of how teachers are compensated.

humanity says

For a typical teacher in the middle of Massachussetts, say with 10 years in, making 55K per year.

I would expect in MA that it would be higher than the 55K national average.

humanity says

How much more does the govt (i.e. the employer) pay in to the funds (annually), than an employer paying in to social security ?

Not sure, but given the usual pension underfunding it's hard to make a comparison. I.E. - the amount the taxpayers are paying into the pension fund is irrelevant when it's being underfunded (meaning the payment to the pension fund has been deferred to either future tax hikes or bankruptcy instead). I would need to know how much they should be transferring to the pension fund to make a valid comparison.

Still not a valid comparison since Social Security payouts are way less then teacher's pension benefits.

CaptainShuddup says

What do you call a rouge assassin, with remote fire power to take out a whole village with the press of a button.

I prefer blush over rouge, myself, but assassinating rouge altogether seems a little extreme. I say we focus more on those who walk around with lipstick on their teeth. Sorry Captain, I couldn't help myself :)

zzyzzx says

I would expect in MA that it would be higher than the 55K national
average.

So, you don't know if it is, or it isn't. Brilliant

zzyzzx says

Not sure, but given the usual pension underfunding it's hard to make a
comparison.

Ya doubling down on your mania? Not sure? Again, you don't know and it seems as though you have no clue whatsoever and you're OK with that position.

zzyzzx says

the amount the taxpayers are paying into the pension fund is irrelevant when
it's being underfunded (meaning the payment to the pension fund has been
deferred to either future tax hikes or bankruptcy instead).

Is (hypothetical)municipal bankruptcy even possible for Boston? LOL

Nope, but that didn't stop you from insinuating that it can.

27 states prohibit muni bankruptcy
Source: Bankruptcy Bloodbath May Hit Muni Owners: Joe Mysak Bloomberg, February 10, 2010
"...States can’t enter Chapter 9 bankruptcy, and 26 of them prohibit their municipalities from filing, according to Knox and Levinson. “A municipality in those states must seek enactment of a specific statute particular to it authorizing the filing. It goes without saying that a floundering municipality faces an uphill battle in such states.”

Below is the list of 27 states.

Alaska
California (added 10/11/11 source)
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Dakota
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
http://www.freerisk.org/wiki/index.php/Municipal_bankruptcy

upisdown says

27 states prohibit muni bankruptcy

The it will be interesting to see what happens in these states when various municipalities have to do something other than declare bankruptcy. If you go back to my post where I mention this I say bankruptcy OR future tax hikes. Presumably many of these municipalities will tax themselves out of the market (and most taxpayers leave them), or find a way to change state laws to allow bankruptcy

zzyzzx says

upisdown
says

27 states prohibit muni bankruptcy

The it will be interesting to see what happens in these states when various
municipalities have to do something other than declare bankruptcy. If you go
back to my post where I mention this I say bankruptcy OR future tax hikes.
Presumably many of these municipalities will tax themselves out of the market
(and most taxpayers leave them), or find a way to change state laws to allow
bankruptcy

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution funds to begin with.

The WHOLE USA gets it, right wingers hate pensions and don't pay the state's share time after time. The right wing ccronies that did get the money instead should get screwed for a change. Somebody(actually MANY people/entities) got a handout that was already obligated. It's time that shit ended.

upisdown says

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution funds to begin with.

True. But you probably won't like it when they cut welfare benefits.

zzyzzx says

upisdown
says

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution
funds to begin with.

True. But you probably won't like it when they cut welfare
benefits.

LOL, How'd I know you would say that or claim that's where all the money went?

I'll give you this, you right wingers are predictable if you're anything, always blaming the poor and if that's not applicable, create a boogeyman or demonize some group that you didn't like anyway.

Same ole, same ole.

zzyzzx says

Still not a valid comparison since Social Security payouts are way less then teacher's pension benefits.

I wasn't comparing the payouts. I was suggesting what is involved in understanding the actual cost (per state employee, annually) of those pensions.

If you think they are a giant rip off of the tax payers, because jeepers, they seem like so much money, and because you make your typical hand waving argument, then okay.

But if you are intellectually honest, you would do some deeper analysis. How much more are they spending per year, than if it was an employer of a typical job with social security. I think you would find out it's at MOST 5 to 8% more.

So when a teacher is making 55K, to compare it COST wise, to other jobs, it costs the employer a few thousand more. Hey, maybe even 5K more. So ?
The pay is low enough that this is not that big of a deal.

You just don't like it when some poor teacher or cop or mail man who works hard gets a decent pension. I so don't understand that mentality. You don't even understand that what you argue for is in the direction of less of a middle class, and the detraction of what makes America great.

Why shouldn't government jobs,...service jobs that is, pay decently ? Is it because then the private sector has to keep up, and everyones real pay can't drop as fast as you want it to ?

Why are you such a shill for the plutocracy ?

upisdown says

OR, they can divert the funds away from whatever got the pension contribution funds to begin with.

You got it backwards. Our tax dollars have been diverted to pay the pension shortfalls instead of maintaining infrastructure and hiring teachers etc for several years now.

At least here in California, these municipal pension funds run by Calpers expect a totally unrealistic discount rate of 7.5% YOY - down from the even more unrealistic growth rate of 8.25%
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/press/pr-2012/mar/discount-rate.xml

When the Calpers pension fund can't generate that return in the stock market, the individual Cities have to make up the shortfall using our tax dollars..........or foolishly getting bonds like bankrupt cities like Detroit and Stockton.

Why should government unionized employees be GUARANTEED a risk free return on their pension funds that are invested in the stock market - when the rest of us peasants don't?

socal2 says

You got it backwards. Our tax dollars have been diverted to pay the pension
shortfalls instead of maintaining infrastructure and hiring teachers etc for
several years now.

At least here in California, these municipal pension funds run by Calpers
expect a totally unrealistic discount rate of 7.5% YOY - down from the even more
unrealistic growth rate of 8.25%
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/press/pr-2012/mar/discount-rate.xml

When the Calpers pension fund can't generate that return in the stock market,
the individual Cities have to make up the shortfall using our tax
dollars..........or foolishly getting bonds like bankrupt cities like Detroit
and Stockton.

Except that it CAN generate those kind of returns and DOES, as I've showed in the post about that to that lyin sack of shit that goes by spyda_hh.

Fail, but please try again.

upisdown says

Except that it CAN generate those kind of returns and DOES, as I've showed in the post

Please, provide a link to that post. If government officials have found a way to guarantee 7.5% YOY returns, and really deliver them going forward, they deserve election to whatever office they want. The people should be allowed to invest alongside at that rate, since after all it's the people who are on the hook for the guaranteed liabilities predicated on that rate.

curious2 says

Please, provide a link to that post. If government officials have found a way
to guarantee 7.5% YOY returns, and really deliver them going forward, they
deserve election to whatever office they want. The people should be allowed to
invest alongside at that rate, since after all it's the people who are on the
hook for the guaranteed liabilities predicated on that rate.

It's under an OP about California pensions, and there's a post of mine that has a link to CALPERS, but you could just go direct to the CALPERS site and find as easily as what I did, it may take a couple of minutes, but it's rather easy to find.

BTW, they(CALPERS)never guaranteed anything, they have projections for returns and they have beat their OWN projections, and there's no specific or set in stone return % because the parameters change constantly in regards to paying members, non-paying members, and annuitants(those receiving payments).