Welcome to Wisconsin

The sign says it all...

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (151)

  1. Munkyman

    it screams sore loser.

    June 07, 2012
    1. livepast60

      Who else bid on owning Wisconsin?

      June 07, 2012
      1. Munkyman

        the citizens who voted? It would have been nice to see an independent win but, as this was a recall election forced by the unions I think that the citizens of Wisconsin have stated they would elect them again & this photo shopped image wouldn’t have surfaced if the election had gone the way the unions wanted. I think it’s a case of a sore loser.

        June 07, 2012
        1. livepast60

          I risk saying I KNOW there are many sore losers, especially the public workers who lose the right to have someone represent them in negotiations. The question is how many WI residents will be sore losers when the impact of refusing to negotiate and inadequacy of salary and benefit provisions keep potential workers from choosing to work in the public sector.

          In my state, public workers chose secretarial and lower positions in state and local municipalities, although the salaries were lower, in order to get health and retirement benefits. When the same lower salaries are offered without the benefits, there is no real reason to work in the public sector.

          We then get the situation like in the 1970’s where teachers, competent tradesmen, and educated people stay away from jobs that really require more skills. All you get are temporaries and slow relatives to fill the positions – then the round of public incompetence is refreshed.

          June 07, 2012
          1. Munkyman

            I’ll be back after work to post average wages in Wisconsin.

            June 07, 2012
          2. wirelessguru1

            Well, it is time for the Government workers to finally FIGURE out that they are NOT part of the ruling elites and/or of a “privileged” class…

            June 07, 2012
          3. Munkyman

            The average Wisconsinite earns $37,000, this includes the folk who earn in excess of $250,000 & those who don’t send their kids to public school.

            The actual average when you knock that top 2% out of the equation is closer to $30,000.
            25.4% of Wisconsin residents hold a bachelor’s degree or higher.

            The average Wisconsin teacher earns $52,644 & this doesn’t account for benefits.
            I can’t find the salaries of department heads but, if they’re anything like NY state it’s just about $100,000+benefits.

            If these teachers want to earn more money I suggest they go to work on Wall St or learn to computer program or do any of the other jobs they grouse about earning more money than they. If you wanted to be a teacher because of the pay you made a bad decision if you wanted to teach & you can’t live on the wage you made a bad decision but, to expect that you should make 60% more than the average citizen when you’re a public servant isn’t reasonable. In the US we pay $7700 per child on average for education & the next most extravagant nation spends about $5700 while getting far superior results.

            June 08, 2012
            1. gbakere

              Those are such wonderful points but you can find stats that lean the other way as well. More importantly, why are you trying to change the subject? The post is about money in politics based on the fact that a handful of big money interests bought our election. This is no longer a democracy. It is a plutocracy and Wisconsin’s government is being purchased by big money interests such as the Koch Brothers. I don’t see the connection between that and unions.

              June 08, 2012
              1. Munkyman

                the largest single campaign spender is the NEA it spend $56 million & more a year on influencing elections.

                June 08, 2012
                1. gbakere

                  Which perfectly illustrates my point.

                  June 08, 2012
                2. Munkyman

                  Which is that you’re pissed because the NEA couldn’t buy an election or 6… this time.

                  June 08, 2012
                3. gbakere

                  Munky…
                  I won’t deny that I wish my candidate had won this election. I told you that this post is not about sore losers. You make the assumption that I’m pissed that my side couldn’t buy this election. I assume you make that assumption simply because the candidate I supported and the philosophy I support when it comes to politics wasn’t victorious in this election. Since you don’t know me or anything about me, you have no idea how ridiculous your assumption is. I have supported eliminating money from politics for as long as I can remember and I fully supported the McCain/Feingold bill. I’ve been posting on blogs for about three years and many of my posts had to do with the removal of campaign financing as it stood and especially since the absurd Citizens United ruling. I was against big money interests on either side having the power to influence elections long before the Wisconsin recall. You have posted here and called me a sore loser with no basis for your claim. Then you accused me of being pissed because my side wasn’t able to buy this election. In addition, you have done everything you could to change the subject by making it a discussion about teacher’s wages. Perhaps that’s because you don’t have a legitimate argument against the idea that campaign financing is simply anti-American and has changed our system from what is supposed to be a democracy to a plutocracy. In light of the fact that you have shown nothing but disrespect for me by calling me a name, making a blatantly false assumption and refusing to stay on track as to what this post is about, let’s just not pull any punches here. I will not make any assumptions about you. You’re a fucking insignificant asshole. There…how do you like me so far? lol

                  June 08, 2012
                4. livepast60

                  I thought you gave a very good post -
                  up to the point of starting insults.
                  I think the single sentence soiled the above.

                  June 08, 2012
                5. gbakere

                  livepast60…
                  Perhaps you’re right but virtually everything he did on this post was about him and what he chose to make it and I felt nothing but a level of disrespect from him from the get-go with his sore loser comment. You two had quite the free-for-all about teacher’s wages which was the direction he took almost immediately and has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of powerful entities buying elections. I happen to be past 60. It has taken me many years to realize that I don’t have to tolerate disrespect from anyone. Therefore, I won’t tolerate it. I took his disrespect long enough. Perhaps you weren’t as offended by his arrogance as I though he certainly was disrespectful toward you as well. That’s your choice. When reading other posts he’s made, I have come to realize, that’s his MO. I simply decided to call a spade a spade. You won’t find anywhere on this post where I have disrespected anyone. I’m sorry if it offended you but I don’t regret it.

                  June 08, 2012
                6. livepast60

                  I just think the post would have done better without the spades. I can handle it; this forum allows such. I can just do without it; as I decided not to curse as a child. No big deal.

                  June 08, 2012
                7. gbakere

                  live…
                  Cuss words are just that…words. I once saw on a marquee, “swearing is a lazy man’s way of being emphatic.” I completely agree. It’s short, sweet, easy, and gets the point across with very little effort. I have never been put off by foul language. I use it daily and I use it often. It’s not something I regret or that I’m ashamed of or feel any guilt about. In general, I am respectful on these posts until someone is disrespectful toward me. Then I may become lazily emphatic.

                  June 09, 2012
                8. livepast60

                  “You two had quite the free-for-all about teacher’s wages which was the direction he took almost immediately and has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of powerful entities buying elections.”

                  True, it has little to do with validity, it has more to do with the purpose to reduce wages and benefits of all workers, starting with union workers, so there can be more profit margin.

                  June 09, 2012
              2. Munkyman

                What profit margin are we talking about with public sector unions? A few dollars back into my paycheck? A 1/10th of a percent off my property taxes? All while still paying the average teacher what the average liberal arts grad earns. This isn’t a profit argument it’s a hostage negotiation.

                June 09, 2012
                1. livepast60

                  I can see your point from the pockets of workers (you concerned with you);

                  I see it also as a general attack by corporations on all unions so the corporations don’t allow negotiations from formal worker groups, thus driving down salaries and benefits in general. International corporations don’t only see profits from sales, but also from reducing labor costs.

                  June 09, 2012
                2. Munkyman

                  I’m more concerned about the tax payer who lives a little closer to poverty than I & who still pays a full share of property taxes & sales taxes, the #1 source of education funding.

                  If the union gets teachers more money that equals more dues which gives the union more power in politics to get the teachers more money & extract more dues & gain more power in politics. Sales taxes tend to be the greatest tax burden the average (& poorer) citizen pays. Now this was about teachers but, I’m much more disgusted by the fact that my local police force hires policemen at wages ranging from $41k to $90k, & then I see what our firemen earn, men who risk their lives daily running into burning buildings to save lives getting less than either a teacher or a cop & in some cases even me. I see what a Coast Guard rescue swimmer earns & what a Lance Corporal earns but, no one cares about their sacrifices & compensation because they don’t have a $50,000,000 political warchest to play with. After all they chose their career, same as that teacher.

                  I hold the same view about Congress if my rep is supposed to represent the average citizen then they should be compensated at the average wage, our Senators a little more & the President should make about $106k (that’s the top contributing bracket for Social Security) if they can’t make it on that then, in my most humble opinion, they’re not frugal enough to lead us.

                  I’m not picking on teachers but, let us not confuse the issue this was a recall election that wouldn’t have happened if the NEA wasn’t behind the demand & the citizens of Wisconsin rallied behind their original choices in every case.

                  June 09, 2012
                3. livepast60

                  I understand your concern.

                  My point is that salaries, like interest on loans, is set to attract workers. Guarantee me that I wouldn’t get shot by a drunk during a family argument, or at a traffic stop, I might have considered being a policeman. When ecological concerns were less, and gas pressures in air conditioners were around 250 psig I worried, now at 400 psig, I avoid it. If I could have taught without paying for four years of college, I would have tried it in a snap. If a union plumber or construction worker could be guaranteed work all year, they could drop wages.

                  Looking at work as some have expressed that it is all the same, I could care less which job I did.

                  The other point is that if prices were set so everybody could afford anything, that is a dream.

                  June 09, 2012
                4. Munkyman

                  That’s in the private sector we don’t want money motivated people in the public sector we want people who serve because they feel compelled to do so, not because you can’t beat the retirement benefits or health care package. We need the people who’d be Marines or Rescue swimmers not those who’d be (& have been) lawyers or brokers.

                  I point to the fact that our education system began failing at about the same time we began worrying about competitive pay.

                  June 09, 2012
                5. livepast60

                  “We need the people who’d be Marines or Rescue swimmers "
                  Righto … and do it out of love for the people at a nice minimum wage.

                  June 09, 2012
                6. livepast60

                  “our education system began failing at about the same time we began worrying about competitive pay.”
                  I agree with that. I was in school when most of the teachers were maidens getting extremely low pay in comparison to men. Then the births after the wars made so many children they had to build bigger schools and attract teachers, then add supervisors and bus them all to and from school.

                  If schools were like in the ‘good ol days’ where kids walked to small schools and there were no football fields to maintain, the price of education could be cut WAYYY down.

                  Coulda woulda shoulda.

                  June 09, 2012
                7. Munkyman

                  could, aught, can but, the NEA will fight it tooth & nail.

                  June 10, 2012
            2. livepast60

              Keep spreading the myths to make it worse. Again …
              The AVERAGE salary is a deceptive comparison. The AVERAGE worker in government is higher educated in order to do more high level work. There are very few MacDonald’s or Walmart workers in government, if there are, they are outsourced. The top jobs of professional, computer, judge, supervisory are skewed higher in government.

              What you are suggesting, to be a computer specialist, scientist, math insurance, stock, broker, chemistry are already happening. Someone who teaches those in school has chosen to do a lower-level job repeating basics for kids. School boards will always have to attract teachers through a combination of salary and benefits, as will the towns and state.

              Drop the attraction to less than industry and there is no need to finish education courses aside from the college specialty while getting better in industry. The only ‘teachers’ with salaries higher than in industry are the supervisors who aren’t teaching and the ones with decades of experience and degrees. The rest are marginal salaries, That is the deception in comparing averages with teacher salaries.

              “A sample salary schedule shows the major features of the pay schedule for a typical school district for the 1998-99 school year. In this example, the beginning salary for a new teacher with a Bachelor’s degree and no prior teaching experience was $27,628. That was about 79% of the beginning salary for all college graduates with a liberal arts degree who entered the workforce in that year.

              Sample teacher salary schedule, 1998-99 school year

              Step BS BS+15 BS+30 MS MS+15 MS+30 PhD
              0 27,628 28,641 29,061 31,133 32,098 33,193 35,788
              1 28,129 28,698 29,148 31,309 32,300 33,429 36,086
              2 28,500 28,844 29,328 31,580 32,600 33,756 36,476
              3 29,018 29,395 29,906 32,249 33,300 34,486 37,265
              4 29,752 30,158 30,699 33,145 34,214 35,429 38,268
              5 30,155 30,592 31,162 33,685 34,797 36,042 38,941
              6 30,653 31,120 31,721 34,335 35,474 36,750 39,709
              7 31,247 31,742 32,372 35,075 36,246 37,532 40,572
              8 31,934 32,460 33,119 35,863 37,114 38,452 41,530
              9 32,715 33,271 33,961 36,846 38,076 39,444 42,583
              10 33,592 34,176 34,897 37,873 39,134 40,530 43,730"
              http://cpre.wceruw.org/tcomp/general/singlesalary.php

              June 08, 2012
              1. Munkyman

                can’t you find statistics newer that 13 years old?

                June 08, 2012
                1. livepast60

                  Maybe. Try to win your point by imagining the public sector raised salaries by 50% over the last 13 years

                  Here are the statewide lists
                  http://media.journalinteractive.com/documents/Average+Teacher+Salaries+2009-2010+school+year.xls.

                  Here is the raw data for the past decade.
                  http://dpi.wi.gov/lbstat/newasr.html

                  June 08, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  Excel file don’t copy well to text. Salaries have gone up a few thousand dollars for most. As said, the average is skewed higher by the longer term teachers and the administrators. There is also a difference between grammar school teacher salaries not requiring math, science, chemistry, computer skills at the level of high school.

                  District Dist Code Cty Code CESA Pos Code Position Low Salary High Salary Average Salary Average Fringe Average Local Experience Average Total Experience

                  De Pere Sch Dist 1414 05 07 53 Teacher $28,105 $74,062 $51,613 $24,001 10.54 13.4
                  De Soto Area Sch Dist 1421 62 04 53 Teacher $30,821 $57,959 $42,686 $24,616 13.3 14.67
                  Dodgeville Sch Dist 1428 25 03 53 Teacher $32,530 $54,250 $46,759 $25,345 13.58 16.96
                  Dover #1 Sch Dist 1449 51 02 53 Teacher $42,596 $53,640 $47,428 $21,142 19.25 21.31
                  Drummond Area Sch Dist 1491 04 12 53 Teacher $32,447 $55,204 $45,663 $25,824 13.76 16.93
                  Durand Sch Dist 1499 46 11 53 Teacher $30,594 $57,415 $49,055 $30,175 16.4 19.34
                  Northland Pines Sch Dist 1526 63 09 53 Teacher $32,153 $70,238 $50,162 $22,895 12.2 14.51
                  East Troy Community Sch Dist 1540 64 02 53 Teacher $20,000 $116,066 $54,922 $26,067 13.56 15.53
                  Eau Claire Area Sch Dist 1554 18 10 53 Teacher $18,295 $77,451 $52,356 $27,842 13.24 16.06
                  Edgar Sch Dist 1561 37 09 53 Teacher $36,990 $58,094 $48,717 $24,984 15.91 18.31
                  Edgerton Sch Dist 1 1568 53 02 53 Teacher $32,110 $68,931 $47,752 $27,309 12.95 14.25

                  June 08, 2012
                3. Munkyman

                  “After 15 years of relative stagnation, the average teacher salary increased 4.5% in 2006-07, to $51,009. The growth was even higher for beginning teachers up 6.2% to $35,284. Both increases easily out pace the 2.8% rate of inflation.”

                  from the American Federation of Teachers
                  http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/salarysurvey07.pdf

                  Average wage for beginning teachers is $35,000 not $22,000. Who’s spreading “myths?”

                  June 08, 2012
                4. Munkyman

                  I imagine your xls chart includes all teachers including aides & substitutes who do earn far less than an actual “teacher.”

                  June 08, 2012
                5. livepast60

                  Imagining is a good thing. Do you have the interest to call and verify your imagination, even if you lose your point?

                  June 08, 2012
                6. livepast60

                  “Average wage for beginning teachers is $35,000 not $22,000.”
                  Again, you go back to average.
                  Average means the teacher has been teaching for 12 years and is making a scale that got them to $35,000 over 10 years, while the professional in industry has been going up the scale from a starting salary that took the teacher 10 years to achieve.

                  No matter your position, we will see what really happens to change teacher salaries to a lower scale and how that attracts kids with high student loans to teaching.

                  You’re right, if they can’t make it as a teacher because their salaries won’t carry them or let them support a family, they’ll go to industry. The thing to be seen is how many.

                  June 08, 2012
                7. Munkyman

                  nope because I know the wage range for those jobs as well as the jobs of principal, counselors, the adjustments for coaching in most states & even the earnings of janitors & cafeteria workers. I used to sell a benefits “instrument” to teachers & school employees, I researched their ability to buy my product so that I didn’t try to sell under or over their ability to buy. I know the wages as well as most & I know where to look. A cafeteria worker will be lucky to retire making $25,000 in NY & far more likely to retire at a wage of $21,000 after 20 years. Bus drivers make very little in most places & when you think that they usually work about 4 hours a day it’s hard to argue they should make much more, they get good benefits, far better than most who earn that wage.

                  June 08, 2012
                8. Munkyman

                  Beginning is new not 10-15 years experience don’t play dumb.

                  June 08, 2012
                9. livepast60

                  Of course beginning is ‘new’. so while teachers start somewhere around $22,000 to $30,000 according to skills and go up to the average in 12 years, if they started in industry, they’d start at $30,000 and go up to $50,000 or so in the same time. Skilled math, science, computer students will start at the $50,000 a year range and go up from there over ten years.

                  I suspect that as an industry rep and supervisor, you see the benefit of getting ‘young suckers’ that don’t see their salary potentials to work for less for the benefit of society and profit. Perhaps there are enough young women who love to work with children and know they can get support from their family or husband.

                  The supervisor won’t need to worry about the reasons a person works for less until the supply of the unaware runs down. Thus, there is the need to continue the ‘average’ myth that all teachers make $32,000 a year, and the average IQ is 100, so there aren’t 10% of the population that is below 80 IQ that teachers have to teach.

                  The attitude is that school boards across the nation were so stupid as to make salaries and benefits too high, and there was no reason to attract teachers at such salaries and benefits. They’ve only been discovered as lacking by the smart ones that just grew older than 30.

                  June 08, 2012
                10. Munkyman

                  The AFT says that the average teacher begins at $35,000.
                  That’s the American Federation of Teachers, as in NEA/AFT.
                  When my buddy’s wife began teaching full time after raising her kids to school age she went from about $20,000 to about $37,000 from substitute to full time high school teacher. There are teachers who make less than $30,000 they’re usually not "fully employed & on occasion they still wind up earning more than the average in their locale or they are getting education reimbursements as part of their compensation package so they aren’t stuck under those crippling debts they chose to incur & that average $25,250.

                  http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/03/average-student-debt-reaches-all-time-high

                  Teachers start with lower wages than other recent grads but, with much more job security & benefits that are lavish when compared to the private sector by Obama’s standards:

                  “Powerful labor unions at the core of the Democratic base are opposed to the Cadillac tax, saying that in some cases union members gave up wage increases in return for richer healthcare benefits.”
                  http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/07/nation/la-na-health-obama7-2010jan07

                  The NEA is the most politically powerful labor union in the nation.

                  June 08, 2012
                11. livepast60

                  Oh, good …
                  you went from the WI average
                  to the National average.
                  A way to avoid understanding that below $30,000 is the average starting salary that advances about $1500 a year for ten years. While college grads start at what teachers get after 12 years.

                  Keep mixing high school grad salaries with college grad salaries
                  We can get a society with no college grads yet.

                  June 08, 2012
                12. Munkyman

                  teachers “Starting pay in Wisconsin, which lands at $33,800”
                  http://www.weac.org/news_and_publications/education_news/11-02-16/Wisconsin_teacher_pay_drops_to_lowest_level_in_50_years.aspx

                  plus benefits the average person won’t see for 10 years if ever.

                  “While the association’s survey didn’t break out starting salaries for individual liberal arts majors, offers were up a whopping 9.5% to $35,633 for the group as a whole.”
                  http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/pf/college_graduates_salaries/index.htm

                  That’s less than $1800/year & it doesn’t account for the benefits a teacher enjoys & that other new hire won’t enjoy for months to years if ever.

                  June 08, 2012
                13. livepast60

                  I can see we’re not going to get any farther with this discussion.
                  You repeat the averages, which mean half the population is less.
                  The starting WI salaries are before you:
                  De Pere Sch Dist 1414 05 07 53 Teacher $28,105 $74,062 $51,613 $24,001 10.54 13.4
                  De Soto Area Sch Dist 1421 62 04 53 Teacher $30,821 $57,959 $42,686 $24,616 13.3 14.67
                  Dodgeville Sch Dist 1428 25 03 53 Teacher $32,530 $54,250 $46,759 $25,345 13.58 16.96
                  Dover #1 Sch Dist 1449 51 02 53 Teacher $42,596 $53,640 $47,428 $21,142 19.25 21.31
                  Drummond Area Sch Dist 1491 04 12 53 Teacher $32,447 $55,204 $45,663 $25,824 13.76 16.93

                  You will win your point when average salaries and benefits equal starting salaries and benefits for industry of the same skill sets.

                  Meanwhile, I’d advise going straight to industry for $50.000 a year not requiring a degree instead of $35,000 as a teacher – after the college grads doing Walmart and waiting have filled all those positions.

                  June 08, 2012
                14. Munkyman

                  According to government data, the average salary for jobs in De Pere, Wisconsin is $33438, and the median income of households in De Pere was $50282.

                  Your brand new teacher right out of school is earning $28,641 more than 1/2 of the average De Pere household & more than 85% of the regions average wage, not starting wage but, average wage, again if you went in to public service to get rich you made a bad decision & I don’t feel compelled to compensate you for it. If you wnet into it for a secure job with average wages you still went into it for the wrong reasons & I don’t feel compelled to argue averages with you. If you’re putting out top students year after year I want you to be rewarded & if you are not I want you to think about a career change. If you’re in it because you love kids & want to help them learn, grow, explore then I sincerely doubt you’re complaining about wages when 1/2 your class doesn’t have what you have & there’s a fair chance with the education you bestow on them they never will.

                  June 08, 2012
              2. Munkyman

                http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/wisconsin.html

                June 08, 2012
                1. livepast60

                  I can see that the school boards are deceiving starting teachers, as the starting salary scale in most areas is about $30,000 and doesn’t advance to starting salaries in industry until the teacher has been teaching for 10 years.

                  June 08, 2012
              3. Munkyman

                average starting wages for a person with a bachelors degree

                June 08, 2012
              4. gbakere

                With all due respects to both of you, you will never come to an agreement on what the wages are for teachers.
                Should teachers have the right to collectively bargain for their wages and benefits? Absolutely! All “employees”, whether working for business or government are essentially independent contractors who hire out their expertise, education, physical abilities, reputation, etc. to an employer in exactly the same way a business hires out their services. The employee is the seller and the employer is the buyer. When the employee is hired, an agreement is made where the employee agrees to provide services to the employer exactly as businesses do. Employees aren’t slaves and business people aren’t slave owners.

                Businesses, in order to share knowledge, network for the purpose of gaining ideas, contacts and access to people, and for the purpose of negotiating with government for a better business environment, lower taxes and fewer regulations, can gain clout by forming business associations. The difference between what businesses form and what employees form is in name only. Businesses form business associations and employees form unions…but they’re all unions, set up for the purpose of gaining clout through shear numbers.

                It seems only fair that if business associations can have access to negotiate with government for their benefit, employee unions should have the same right. Or, conversely, if employee unions can’t have access to negotiate with government, business associations shouldn’t have that right either.

                Government is set up to represent the people. Government is the largest employer in our country, employing millions of people. And those people can’t collectively negotiate with their employer? We take away their right to negotiate because of what the employer is and how the employer is funded? Give me a break.

                That said, still…none of this has anything to do with money in politics except perhaps, in a very indirect way. None of this can be resolved when there are parties that have an unfair level of power over our elected officials. If the power brokers successfully continue on their quest to control our government, there will be anarchy. I, for one, might well be leading the charge.

                June 08, 2012
                1. rhrebel

                  gbakere: If the power brokers successfully continue on their quest to control our government, there will be anarchy. I, for one, might well be leading the charge.
                  -——————————————————————————————————————————-

                  And I will be second in line with you!

                  June 08, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  Veterans didn’t fight to have their vote dismissed by corporate dictatorship;
                  so such dictators have always risked.

                  June 08, 2012
  2. livepast60

    Average wages don’t prove the problem. The problem is in the lower quartile of the average where salaries are close to the poverty level below $22,000 a year for a family. The people at the top scales, the supervisors and legislative buddies with high-paying jobs that raise the average don’t have the problem in negotiations.

    June 07, 2012
    1. livepast60

      “Author(s):
      Alicia H. Munnell, Jean-Pierre Aubry, Josh Hurwitz, and Laura Quinby of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College

      Publication date:
      September 2011

      Filed under:
      Research Studies

      Key findings:

      State and local workers have a wage penalty of 9.5 percent. Pension contributions and retiree health insurance help close the gap. Total compensation for public sector workers is about 4 percent less than that in the private sector."

      http://slge.org/publications/comparing-compensation-state-local-versus-private-sector-workers

      June 07, 2012
    2. livepast60

      “Federal employees make 26.3 percent less than private sector workers on average, a recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics found, cited by the Washington Post. The figures were compiled for the Federal Salary Council, a group made up of union representatives, federal officials and other wage experts. One member of the council says the widening gap is largely a result of the federal employee pay freeze that President Obama’s administration announced last year.

      About 24,000 public sector jobs were lost last month, offsetting the 104,000 private sector job gains. The losses aren’t new either: Since the beginning of 2010 the government has cut an average of 23,000 jobs per month or 509,000 total . "
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/government-employees-23-percent-less-private-sector_n_1080108.html

      June 07, 2012
      1. Munkyman

        These reports say the average salary for civilian federal employees was $81,258 in 2009 — about 61 percent higher than the $50,462 paid to the average private sector worker, but not double

        http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/

        June 08, 2012
    3. wirelessguru1

      Maybe because those at the top are with the 1%…

      June 07, 2012
    4. Munkyman

      Preschool teachers in Wisconsin start at 23,000 & aren’t required to have a bachelors.

      June 08, 2012
      1. livepast60

        I can see that. They might be required to get one in so many years before they are ‘permanent’. Many school boards require a degree to ‘look good’ and to have leverage to replace with another bright mom at low salary.

        June 08, 2012
      2. jillsthoughts

        You need a high ratio of adults to kids at the preschool level, and districts cannot afford to have all teachers in the classroom. Are all of the individuals in those classrooms really “teachers,” or are they teacher’s aides? And so are they averaging teacher aides wages with teachers wages? If these teachers/aides work 40 hours a week for 38 weeks (typical school year), they are making $15 an hour. Do these wages include their benefits? Typically, teacher wages are reported including benefits. So you take out their health care and union dues, etc, and they are probably making about $7 an hour. (But hey, at least they have health care. Maybe they can’t feed their family, though.)

        I have a teacher friend who, when she takes out her family’s health care costs from each paycheck (her husband is self-employed and so their insurance goes through her) and daycare for one of their children, she has about $300 every two weeks left. Oh, and she has a master’s degree +30 credits toward specialist degree. $150 a week for groceries and living expenses. Thank God she isn’t a single parent, but there are plenty of single parents out there, teaching or working as an aide at their child’s school.

        Sorry, I am coming into this discussion late. Haven’t gone back to check all your links.

        June 10, 2012
        1. livepast60

          Right. All the arguers with no employer experience are seeing is that teachers make more money than they do on average, which includes supervisors making 4 times what one teacher makes and six times what a school aid makes. I see a coming period of school board jitters trying to convince the taxpayers they really need some teachers while the parents wonder what’s going on. Perhaps swapping jobs from landscapers to teachers and getting rid of the college grads might get taxes down to 1%.

          June 10, 2012
          1. jillsthoughts

            Our district now hires people with four year degrees to substitute in the classroom. No, their degree doesn’t have to be in education at all. I am not sure when this change occurred, but I am guessing that our former governor Tim Pawlenty had something to do with it. After all, teachers are just warm bodies in the classroom, right?

            June 10, 2012
            1. livepast60

              Gives a good idea of how many are prepared to take the job because they want to know how to be a good teacher.

              The people without the teacher training are fresh meat for local politics, so newbies can be hired at lower salaries before they are run out of the classroom in a few years before tenure.

              June 10, 2012
              1. jillsthoughts

                People complain about education today. Wait until the republicans do away with the Department of Education. This is where they are heading.

                June 10, 2012
                1. livepast60

                  I’m on the fence about having a federal education department. If a state has a problem with local churches setting legislators to make state schools religious institutions, then federal assistance might be needed. Otherwise, states can and do run education successfully without federal insistence and ‘carrot’ type federal promises of money. We’ve arrived at a fairly sophisticated sharing of information.

                  June 10, 2012
                2. jillsthoughts

                  To be honest, the DoE only pays out a portion of what they require districts to comply with. There is no doubt that they are fucked up. I ran programs that required federal and state funding for a few years in my district. It was insulting what the feds actually paid after they told us what they expected us to do with at-risk kids. Special ed is so poorly paid out. I feel bad for kids with significant educational needs. And when people bitch about what is spent at the local level, it is only because the feds and state can’t deliver.

                  June 10, 2012
                3. livepast60

                  “when people bitch about what is spent at the local level, it is only because the feds and state can’t deliver.”
                  Seems like all the more reason to ignore the feds.

                  June 10, 2012
                4. jillsthoughts

                  Since the federal government only contributes less than 10% to a district’s budget, it really doesn’t seem to matter much, but the reality is that special ed kids (almost wrote “ids” again!) cost more to educate and districts will nearly prostitute themselves for that money. I ought to know, I wrote grants for federal funds.

                  June 10, 2012
                5. livepast60

                  Special ed has always been a thorny issue, between parents not admitting, and school districts not wanting to pay for the extra care needed. It used to be that schools could ‘get away with’ mainstreaming until they dropped out or sending out to another facility. Larger central schools made it possible for special classes in the facility.

                  June 11, 2012
                6. jillsthoughts

                  It would be less expensive to send them to another facility that can accommodate the students’ needs, but it isn’t necessarily the right thing to do. For instance, a child with a debilitating physical handicap like being paraplegic should not be sent to a separate facility since they are able to interact with their peers with normal mental capability. A mildly mentally disabled child (sorry, I am not up on the proper terms these days) would do well to learn socialization skills from kids who are developmentally age appropriate. Kids with emotional and behavioral issues should have opportunities to interact with kids who do NOT have these issues, for proper socialization models as well. These all make the case for inclusion.

                  A blind student might be better served in a separate facility, as well as a deaf student, but many of these kids are mainstreamed at their local school, but the schools are asked to provide the services they need to help them succeed in the mainstream.

                  And then there are the kids who have absolutely no awareness of their peers because of their mental disabilities, and yet we are asked to provide services for them in our public schools.

                  Yes, large school districts can accommodate all these kids, but most school districts really cannot, but legally must provide the service or send the student and the money that follows him to a better serving facility.

                  It is really thorny, indeed.

                  June 11, 2012
        2. Munkyman

          But they have her husband’s income with no health benefits taken out & they have one of the best healthcare packages available. I know a woman in a very similar situation & they own 20 some homes that they rent out that they procured as he matured his contracting business. Her money was her’s & his money took care of everything but, the health care.

          So before you lament her $300(take home)/paycheck, you haven’t told us how much her contribution is to her retirement benefits or what their household income is or even what that insurance premium is. There are people in the private sector looking at $600 a month & more for healthcare that isn’t as good as that available to most if not all teachers.

          What is their household income, do you know? What kind of car does she drive, what year?

          June 10, 2012
          1. livepast60

            “I know a woman in a very similar situation & they own 20 some homes that they rent out that they procured as he matured his contracting business. "

            Don’t try to make a convincing argument that a very good contracting business is the norm. Might as well argue that Romney’s wife is helping him out of debt.

            June 10, 2012
            1. Munkyman

              I’m not arguing any norms I’m arguing that only a tiny portion of their family’s finances are being revealed & we’re supposed to feel sorry for this woman because with a Master’s degree she chose to pursue is only rendering her $300/paycheck after she buys her benefits… if she didn’t have that family her benefits would be significantly cheaper so if we choose to take in the negatives we have to balance our equation with the positives which are left unknown in this case.

              June 10, 2012
              1. livepast60

                Her cup is better than half full.

                June 10, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  We have no way of knowing the actual volume of her cup without a lot more information about the family & the totality of her “deductions.” We don’t know what her husband’s income is or even what he does as self employed so that we can make a good guess at what he earns or what type of investment vehicles are available to him, we can be relatively sure he doesn’t get a match on his contributions such as most “employees” in the public sector enjoy.

                  June 10, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  True. It’s difficult to gauge, as is the situation without husbands that own successful businesses.

                  June 10, 2012
                3. Munkyman

                  Exactly but, it’s important to know he didn’t start off well or even successful, he persevered & they made do until his reputation began to grow, he came from a poor & broken home as did his wife they had no special luck or leg up they just worked a lot harder than most people are willing to & made most of the right choices when it came to spending or saving their money.

                  June 10, 2012
              2. jillsthoughts

                “if she didn’t have that family her benefits would be significantly cheaper” … until someone gets sick.

                You’re diverting. I’m using your numbers from up above. I didn’t even include taking out taxes…

                June 10, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  So are you these are issues the average worker/taxpayer has to deal with as well, they’re not special teacher problems & the solutions are the same, Aid to Families with Dependent Children or find another job that meets their needs & fits their plan.

                  June 10, 2012
          2. jillsthoughts

            Are you avoiding my comment about this occurring for a single parent family? It doesn’t matter what her husband makes because it is not about her. It is about a single teacher’s income. If she were the only provider in her family, she’d have to make do on $300 every two weeks.

            Your other comments also are avoidance tactics. For instance, I didn’t mention her taking out any retirement benefits. A single parent would not be able to take out additional retirement.

            June 10, 2012
          3. jillsthoughts

            Please address this: " Thank God she isn’t a single parent, but there are plenty of single parents out there, teaching or working as an aide at their child’s school."

            June 10, 2012
            1. livepast60

              “if she didn’t have that family her benefits would be significantly cheaper”
              I think this skirted the possibility of someone suggesting not having children, to pay the quarter million to raise each, so lower salaries could be tolerated. Not a nice concept.

              June 10, 2012
            2. Munkyman

              There are plenty of single parents working as hotel maids & other menial jobs for $8 an hour, where’s your concern for their wages? You place way too much importance on your chosen career & you seem to think you deserve more because of it, that’s not very “democratic.” It’s also not too bright because computers are already replacing you with superior results.

              June 11, 2012
              1. livepast60

                That’s true. i see there are computers being made that can change diapers and take care of kindergarten kids. Schools can get rid of lowest grade teachers to be replaced with robots. Parents can have programming teacher conferences.

                June 11, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  I wonder if you try to read things in the most fouled up way possible just for fun.

                  Distance education is common in college & SAT prep is often done with computer classes, as most 100 level math classes are also taught by a computer with the “professor” sitting in the corner reading a book.

                  Home school makes valuable use of computer aided education & has a documented history of producing superior students & while it’s true some kids don’t excel in home school that same statement is far more true in public schools.

                  Simple computers don’t clean as well as we do just yet & the expense isn’t justified when replacing an $8/hr worker, there’s incentive to get computers to replace “professionals” such as the Da Vinci operating system is beginning to do. http://www.davincisurgery.com/

                  Often enough a teacher in public schools isn’t even a warm body, they turn on a movie & leave the classroom to the “Lord of the Flies” as they go off to their lounge or to chat with the office staff, perhaps even deal with personal business instead of educating our kids. This was already happening 26 years ago when I was in American History, I read the textbook as my classmates watched Gone with the Wind as our study of the Civil War & Reconstruction simply because our hippy teacher didn’t like talking about war.

                  June 11, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  You presented a dream world where parents at home have nothing to do with guiding their children to use the computers. The same must not be done in schools. Taking extreme positions has its downsides.

                  I agree with you that students who don’t need personal supervision can do very well learning on computers. The ‘trick’ is how to get them to be individual researchers using computers. Sitting students in front of videos doesn’t guarantee the info gets into the brain. Your complaint about your ‘hippy teacher’ is that he didn’t engage you in active conversation about the subject. The same applies to students left to their own devices to use machines to learn without a human guide to motivate them. Not having real discussions doesn’t get practice in thought.

                  June 11, 2012
                3. Munkyman

                  There you go twisting again, I said nothing about a dream world where parents can just plop the kid in front of a computer. I said that the computer is used very well in home schooling. there are several subjects that computers teach better than teachers do math is the most glaring example but, they do a better job of testing comprehension than most teachers do simply because it’s a one to one relationship & the questions to be asked are generic, you don’t need a warm body for it. If it’s ok to replace the workers at DMV with computers what makes a teacher who can’t teach effectively any more valuable? Computers were built for this & they were built for that, they weren’t built to change diapers or dog poo but, give them a few more years & I bet they’ll be doing both without complaint.

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEfulldLx_U

                  June 11, 2012
                4. livepast60

                  I agree with this:
                  “I said that the computer is used very well in home schooling. there are several subjects that computers teach better than teachers do math is the most glaring example but, they do a better job of testing comprehension than most teachers do simply because it’s a one to one relationship & the questions to be asked are generic, you don’t need a warm body for it.”

                  But so what? Are you proposing that the AVERAGE teacher can be replaced with the AVERAGE computer because the AVERAGE student doesn’t need supervision by a teacher? I don’t see where that affects the salary of a live person who must motivate and talk to a student.

                  June 11, 2012
                5. Munkyman

                  It’s the parents job to motivate & talk with their child, often enough public school teachers motivate kids to act out against their home. kids go to school & come home to turn dad in for growing his own marijuana, the folk at school lied they said they’d get help for the family they instead arrested the parents & threw the kids in foster care, no neglect no abuse just a family doing their own thing & it was ruined because educators lied to the kid.

                  What a particular teacher wants to motivate your child to do may not be in the best interests of you, your child or your country so if anyone is to have that kind of power over your child it should be you.

                  June 11, 2012
                6. livepast60

                  At least you got off the AVERAGE and got into an extreme example of parental behavior and teacher behavior.
                  OVer 50% of students in city schools drop out – primarily because they live in single-parent homes where the parent hasn’t the intelligence or resources to be a good example. Teachers have to work with that at the skill level they have – not the IDEAL nor AVERAGE.

                  June 11, 2012
                7. Munkyman

                  *& the teachers fail to reach them so why waste money on teachers who can’t retain an at risk child? Teh kid would be better off if we gave them a laptop & $7000 a year allowance.

                  June 11, 2012
                8. jillsthoughts

                  Munkyman has absolutely NO IDEA what the hell he is talking about. Computers cannot provide adequate feedback for a kid struggling in his studies. Just try to change your password sometime. That can be a challenge in itself. And then come back and tell me how a computer can explain how trigonometry works to a kid who just doesn’t get it.

                  I have absolutely no patience for stupid today. I am gonna let you handle him today.

                  June 11, 2012
                9. livepast60

                  Now I think I know why Dutch teachers in Germany get frustrated enough to characterize.

                  The best challenges are students who will discuss what they are learning in real time and can’t be disruptive while there is no bell to break up the discussion.

                  June 11, 2012
                10. jillsthoughts

                  Not a lot of higher level thinking skills can be used on a computer. But munkyman doesn’t understand that. He thinks education is readin’, writin,’ and ’rithmatic.

                  June 11, 2012
                11. livepast60

                  Programming computers and writing math in math symbols on a computer is high level; but that’s unusual use for grade schoolers. I’m not that sure what he thinks education is. I think he’s developing some ideas on the fly.

                  June 11, 2012
                12. Munkyman

                  Jill trigonometry is taught by computers in community colleges across the nation as an education professional I thought you’d know that computer programs are teaching classes up to calculus primarily using the same game theory tactics used in video game design, they attract the students attention better & hold it longer.

                  http://www.khanacademy.org/

                  June 11, 2012
                13. livepast60

                  http://www.khanacademy.org/
                  Great link. Thanks!

                  Wish I had that 20 years ago.

                  June 11, 2012
                14. Munkyman

                  glad to share, MIT has their open courseware project too.
                  http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
                  for the more advanced topics.

                  June 11, 2012
                15. livepast60

                  Yo! cool. I thought the colleges would never let go of knowledge for less than $40,000 a year any more.

                  June 11, 2012
                16. Munkyman

                  you should visit my page titled links, I think you’d enjoy a number of them.

                  June 11, 2012
                17. livepast60

                  Visited the links page and bookmarked, Thanks.

                  June 11, 2012
              2. livepast60

                What I can’t figure is why hotel maids aren’t replaced with computers yet.

                June 11, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  Who would you seek to replace 1st, those who you don’t have enough of or those that you can always get more of & do it cheaply?

                  June 11, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  The critical point now is how NOT to replace people with machines, as there hasn’t been a need for as many people to get work done for 20 years. Manufacturing efficiency improves when not having people who get sick or tired, Our employment picture has been getting progressively worse due to executives doing their own typing and communication without secretaries to ‘dress up and correct’ the yellow lined papers. We no longer have people side-by-side on as many manufacturing lines. Self-driving vehicles are coming on line to make trucking different.

                  If and when people are completely replaced with machines, what do humans do about their work ethic? The idea about work then is redefined to something unknown.

                  June 11, 2012
                3. Munkyman

                  BS it’s finding what people can be replaced by machines & which cannot then focusing on making more people into those who cannot be replaced by computers. It’ll be another 20 years or so before computers effectively replace the chef because our skill is as much art as science but, they’ve made good attempts in the realm of fat food & in 20 years you may not have a burger never touched by human hands.

                  Efficiency & productivity is what counts when comparing societies if computers do it better & faster then they should be doing it, if people do it more reliably then it should be done by a person especially when it’s public money being spent. In the private sector simple desire plays a much larger role, in the public sector it’s about meeting needs & the need for public sector jobs isn’t a rational need it’s spending other’s money for no good reason when a computer delivers better for less.

                  June 11, 2012
                4. livepast60

                  AH! I understand: “on making more people into those who cannot be replaced by computers.” There is going to be some genetic engineering to make those with IQ below 100 become AVERAGE intelligence so they can be plugged into jobs that would otherwise be above their comprehension level.
                  OR
                  We’ll have to accept that some low-level jobs can’ be replaced by computers and we’ll make more jobs into low-level skill jobs. We’ll bring the AVERAGE closer together.

                  June 11, 2012
                5. Munkyman

                  don’t forget those robots & computers will need average technicians to repair them on occasion & it’ll be awhile before artisans, land scapers, special ed educators, prison guards & the like are going to be replaced if they ever will.

                  June 11, 2012
              3. livepast60

                True, all you have to do is figure out how to get the 50% of city kids dropping out before graduation to take those computer jobs.

                June 11, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  or they could just be teachers.

                  June 11, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  True – If the schools no longer require High School nor college diplomas for teaching credentials to lower the salaries.

                  June 11, 2012
                3. Munkyman

                  or they can get their GED go to Phoenix.edu take some online classes & get their master’s in education without having to go to a class room for anything more than tests & their internship.

                  June 11, 2012
                4. livepast60

                  Good idea. I’d be very happy to have a teacher that was motivated in that way see what it would really take to become a leader in front of 30 kids who felt the same way he did before his attitude changed to study on line.

                  June 11, 2012
              4. jillsthoughts

                Hello?? Munkyman, again, you go off on these tangents, and it can be so frustrating to carry on a conversation with you.

                See the title of this thread? Read the discussion up to this point? We are talking about teachers. How I feel about single parents with no education who gets paid just $8 an hour is another topic entirely. But I can guess you would know the answer to that.

                I comment on teaching because I know about teaching. I know about wages of teachers and support staff. Why do YOU comment on teaching? Because you went to school??

                Your comment "You place way too much importance on your chosen career & you seem to think you deserve more because of it, that’s not very “democratic.” is absolutely first grade bullying. I think teachers deserve what their education affords and their results prove.

                Finally, please tell me how “computers are replacing teachers with superior results.” Because I have a whole list of arguments that prove just how asinine that comment is, and I can back it with statistics as well.

                June 11, 2012
                1. livepast60

                  “it can be so frustrating to carry on a conversation with you.”
                  IMO, that’s his purpose in debate.

                  “You place way too much importance on your chosen career & you seem to think you deserve more because of it”
                  I find that an interesting ‘mythic’ viewpoint; which negates the reason that someone might choose a career because they might look forward to enjoying it WITH a better income. As if there is something wrong with THAT. It seems to be a commie concept of equal pay to forward societal ’fairness of equality" proposed by a conservative – a hoot.

                  June 11, 2012
                2. Munkyman

                  They are getting more than equal pay & they’re still demanding more. While the average computer programmer earns more the average programming student is stuck in help desk for a couple years earning far less with fewer benefits answering phone calls from people who can’t change a password by themselves. If they weren’t getting a better than fair wage I wouldn’t be arguing, it’s that I’m expected to provide them with better than average & be thankful for the opportunity to do so while they are providing us with less than what we’re paying for all along that galls me.

                  Yes when I find your argument to be fecal I seek to frustrate it with logic, that is the point of debate frustrate the irrational with the rational. If you’d been taught logic in school (as that programmer was) you’d know these things.

                  June 11, 2012
                3. livepast60

                  “While the average computer programmer earns more the average programming student is stuck in help desk for a couple years earning far less with fewer benefits answering phone calls from people who can’t change a password by themselves. If they weren’t getting a better than fair wage I wouldn’t be arguing, it’s that I’m expected to provide them with better than average & be thankful for the opportunity to do so while they are providing us with less than what we’re paying for all along that galls me.”

                  Appears that you want a rigid pay scale for various vocations set by a committee or national vote so few feel insulted by better salaries. No attempts at ‘selling’ your assets (negotiation) with supervisors allowed.

                  June 11, 2012
                4. Munkyman

                  NO that’s not what I want. I want public employee pay to be based on the GDP with regard to federal employees at the elected & appointment level, then for those career bureaucrats out in the field for it to be based on the regional economic profile. Likewise in my state (I have no right to tell you how to deal with things in your state) I’d like our elected & appointed offices to have their pay based on my state’s GDP & then regional state employees to have their pay based on their region’s economy. County employee’s elected, appointed or hired should not make more than twice what the average citizen of that county earns. Public servants shouldn’t be payed so much that income is the draw, the opportunity to serve is what should motivate public servants. Most of our elected officials & appointees are already millionaires the pay we give them is merely a token anyway when compared to their external incomes. I don’t like the idea that a teacher earns enough to send their child to private school because the public system they work in isn’t good enough for their progeny. I don’t like the idea that a cop can retire at 45 with full wages ($75k in this particular case) for the rest of his life & time to build another pension on top of that so that at 65 he’s collecting 3 pensions & 401(k) payouts that got a full match to 8% (16% of his pay into a retirement fund). I don’t begrudge any public servant a living wage, average wage or even merit pay but, the government is our largest employer with pension funds one of our largest expenses right behind the payroll & just ahead of infrastructure maintenance. We simply have to be more frugal in government & that means everywhere, it seems wisest to start where the smallest changes will make the greatest difference. That’s the teachers, the police, the highway workers & the bureaucrats getting tough on them may actually shame some of our politicians into taking Nelson Mandela’s example & announce that they are simply paid too much & have decided to donate the excess to charity until the error can be rectified. (One of the most inspirational scenes in the movie Invictus. I wonder how many men we have with that much character in government here.)

                  June 11, 2012
                5. livepast60

                  So who do you appoint or elect to set these wage controls?

                  June 11, 2012
                6. Munkyman

                  I favor the GAO creating algorithms that rely on the GDP being plugged into them & the measure being passed as an Amendment on fiscal responsibility in the federal government for the federal part & the same for my state constitution & county’s charter. To be quite honest my county is rather wealthy so I’m not inclined to pay any county official twice the median wage here… it would seem to me all public employee salaries should be capped at what is now about $106k (that’s the cap for SSI contributions, it seems like a significant dividing line).

                  June 11, 2012
            3. Munkyman

              Now please address why you won’t tell us what her husband does or the fact that many Americans choose to have one of the folk in the family work for benefits & not much more thanks to the rising costs of benefits. The situation you discuss is very common & in most cases the family is far enough from the poverty line & is actually doing better than the average because that’s a family functioning well they are each bringing the most valuable thing they can to the “table” he brings a strong earning potential & she brings a secure safety net superior to that the average citizen has access to & probably a retirement plan that will pay her more after she’s retired than she earns currently it might even be indemnified to pay him forever if she dies 1st, not the smartest way to plan considering the odds of who’s going to die 1st in that family but, many choose that option.

              June 11, 2012
              1. livepast60

                “in most cases "
                A repeat of the AVERAGE as being the example for ALL.
                The AVERAGE worker has a job, so it’s easier to ignore the 26 million unemployed.
                The AVERAGE worker has a good salary, so it’s easier to ignore the part-timers and low paid.
                Get off the AVERAGE and MOST and think of millions that bring the AVERAGE lower.

                June 11, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  I am, I’m think of how to keep their money in their pockets so they can afford to spend more of their time with their kids.

                  June 11, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  Just change human nature to become more frugal.

                  June 11, 2012
                3. Munkyman

                  That’s an argument with merit, it seems that it’s not a factor in human nature but, rater social programming since people around the world display different levels of frugality & savings habits regardless of their incomes.

                  June 11, 2012
                4. livepast60

                  So who has the authority and knowledge to socially program?

                  June 11, 2012
              2. jillsthoughts

                Because that was besides the point. The point was that a teacher salary, a teacher with a master’s degree PLUS, who has to provide insurance for her family and has at least one child in daycare is lucky to take home $300 every two weeks. What her husband does is not a part of the equation. Not all teachers have partners to share the load.

                Quit trying to change the subject at every turn, Munkyman. That is extremely frustrating to have to read through.

                June 11, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  The point is she chose that career & that level of education no one forced her to & now she’s having issues not many others seem to be having with similar circumstances. & The main point is we’re not getting enough information about her finances regardless of the self employed spouse you placed in the equation.

                  June 12, 2012
              3. livepast60

                So who has the authority and knowledge to socially program?

                June 11, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  parents, teachers, & preachers, media programmers, newsreaders & pundits, authors, artists & musicians. there’s no authority nor much knowledge needed just a wide casting net.

                  June 11, 2012
                2. livepast60

                  Read the Dictionary of Occupation Titles then let them decide which salaries are fair and equitable for each vocation.
                  http://www.occupationalinfo.org/contents.html

                  June 12, 2012
    5. anukulardecider

      WTF is wrong with a teacher earning a decent living?

      June 08, 2012
      1. livepast60

        They get as much or more than others without a degree.
        Communism calls for getting as much as anyone else, no matter what or how much you study.

        June 08, 2012
        1. anukulardecider

          What kind of idiot wouldn’t want teachers to make a decent living?

          June 08, 2012
          1. Munkyman

            decent is in this case definable as average, they get more than average in most cases & still demand more while giving us less & less in the way of an education. If they want out of the middle class they should write a book not gouge the tax payers.

            June 10, 2012
        2. anukulardecider

          What kind of idiot wouldn’t want teachers to make a decent living?

          June 08, 2012
  3. gbakere

    Our democracy is completely gone. We have a plutocracy.

    This post isn’t about sore losers and the idea that the whole thing was brought about by unions is absurd. Of all the people I know who worked tirelessly, outdoors, in the dead of Wisconsin’s bitter cold winter on getting signatures, not one was a union worker. This post is about money in politics.

    Munk…you complain about unions but consider this: Unions are made up of masses of Americans (in this case, Wisconsinites). How is it alright to allow the interests of the six major donors who contributed to Walker’s campaign to take precedence over the interests of masses of people? Walker had very little grass roots support. Barrett’s support was mostly from grass roots fundraising efforts. Walker outspent Barrett by roughly 8 to 1. 2/3 of Walker’s money came from out of state. 1/4 of Barret’s money came from out of state. Walker spent over 30 million. Barrett spent 4 million. The Koch Brothers alone spent more than double what Barrett’s entire campaign spent. “We, the people” can’t compete financially with Corporate America and the wealthy and our government, according to the U. S. Constitution, is to be run by “We, the people.”

    The motives behind these large, out of state donors had nothing to do with the best interests of Wisconsin. Their only interest is that Wisconsin is a good place to make a lot of money. I am a capitalist. I believe that corporations and the wealthy should have the right to make as much money as they desire. I have no problem with the fact that their only loyalty is to profits. That is what they get paid for. That is their job. But because their loyalty is only toward making money and not the best interests of Americans, they should not be allowed to influence elections with their money. By funneling huge sums of money into this Wisconsin political campaign, they not only influenced the election, they hired a puppet governor to do their bidding. Walker works for them – not us. Big money should not be more important than the will of the masses. 94% of elections are won by the candidate with th most money. Contributing to a political campaign is simply a business investment with a 94% guarantee of a return on investment. The air waves here were bombarded with lies and distortions about Barrett and bragged about things that Walker supposedly did that he never did. This kind of conflict of interests is illegal in business, yet in politics, it’s flagrant.

    This isn’t a partisan thing. We, the people have many differences, but government, Right or Left, cannot be expected to bring resolve to any of our differences when our legislators are being bribed to carry out the agendas of corporations and the wealthy. We simply no longer have a democracy. It is a plutocracy. Our legislators are supposed to represent the best interests of “We, the people,” not simply “We, the wealthy.” That means that you and I get to have one vote each, which is supposed to be the exact same level of influence on an election as David Koch, Donald Trump, George Soros or Jeffrey Immelt. That is what our Constitution guarantees. But our Constitution is being ignored.

    ~ Take the money out of politics and all that’s left is the best interests of “We, the people.” ~

    June 07, 2012
    1. livepast60

      “That means that you and I get to have one vote each, which is supposed to be the exact same level of influence on an election as David Koch, Donald Trump, George Soros or Jeffrey Immelt. That is what our Constitution guarantees.”

      That gets back to the Constitutional argument. The weakness of that point is that we have the electoral process, which elects representatives for the people of states, and the Senate which represents the state regardless of population. So the democracy of one vote per person isn’t completely the way it works. Add to that the electoral college, which was made to prevent the tyranny of the majority over the minorities, and the one-man- one-vote democracy doesn’t exist.

      Unfortunately, the original document made the most powerful landowners (as industry was agriculture in the main then) the people to decide the fate of the less affluent. That is exactly what the Koch brothers and their peers want to happen, except the original founders never foresaw that nations would allow corporations such power, and warned against it. Unfortunately, in strict Constitutionalism, the Supreme Court can vote in favor of Fascist Corporatism and did in the ‘corporations are people’ ruling. The Constitution would need more amendments to change the influence of the wealthy on elections. At least some rules that Congressmen couldn’t be bought to circumvent.

      I think you are correct in that the days of believing the US is a one-person-one-vote democracy is over. Corporations don’t care if they appear to be the real ruling powers and have no need to hide it any longer.

      June 07, 2012
      1. gbakere

        I agree, the Electoral College sucks however, I understand the arguments for it. Regardless, the Constitution is what it is and if I were a strict Constitutionalist, I’d be a Libertarian, understanding that the federal government has no right to tax anyone for anything beyond supporting the three branches of government, the military and an emergency surplus. But I’m not a strict Constitutionalist. I’m a Liberal. We are supposed to have a democracy and we don’t and that is the point I was trying to make with this post. We have a plutocracy, not terribly unlike many European countries of the past that our ancestors fled from.

        Discrepancies between union wages vs the private sector are immaterial. The basic philosophy of this country is that no one, regardless of wealth or lack thereof, should have any more or less power to influence the outcome of our elections. We are all suposed to be equal in that respect.

        June 07, 2012
        1. livepast60

          “The basic philosophy of this country is that no one, regardless of wealth or lack thereof, should have any more or less power to influence the outcome of our elections.”

          Work that out with the party that is trying to eliminate voting by requiring new voter ID.

          “We are all suposed to be equal in that respect.”

          Shoulda, coulda, woulda, gets us no closer to equal under existing law.

          June 07, 2012
          1. gbakere

            I completely agree live. It is the politicians who have been hired by the wealthy who are doing everything they can to disenfranchise voters who are likely to vote against their agendas. Another reason for getting the money out of politics…and there are many.

            June 07, 2012
        2. Munkyman

          “I agree, the Electoral College sucks however, I understand the arguments for it. " I think things could suck a lot more without it & it’s never turned on the people itself, it was as much a victim of gerrymandered districts as the citizens in them. You seem to have a pretty good grasp on the Constitutionalist argument, I generally hold as a Libertarian, most Libertarians accept that there are a few things that because of their dependencies belong in the federal government’s stewardship, highways for one as they are components in both our military preparedness & the general interstate commerce, rails, both sea & airports fall into this as well, there are environmental concerns that are global & thus should fall to the feds to oversee if not administer & social concerns for the feds to oversee if not administer. The Constitution was made to be amended as we needed to, one of the biggest issues in American stems from a Congressional end run around the amendment process it’s the Congressional Act & ever since Prohibition they have become increasingly popular & in my opinion abused often in favor of the various special interests we both abhor in our political process.

          June 11, 2012
      2. wirelessguru1

        Well, it was NEVER a one-person-one-vote democracy!

        Again, only a complete moron or a delusional wishful thinker would believe that we have a democracy!!!

        The elites rule, so it is time to wake up now!!!

        +1 (Neo)

        June 07, 2012
    2. wirelessguru1

      Of course. Only a complete moron or a delusional wishful thinker would believe that we have a democracy!

      June 07, 2012
    3. Munkyman

      The NEA was the single largest donor in that election.

      June 08, 2012
    4. Munkyman

      As a matter of fact the NEA is usually the single largest donor in any election to the tune of about $56 million a year.

      June 08, 2012
      1. livepast60

        1 ActBlue $62,816,969
        2 AT&T Inc $48,860,161
        3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $47,977,038
        4 National Assn of Realtors $41,882,616
        5 National Education Assn $41,412,233
        6 Goldman Sachs $38,332,420
        7 Service Employees International Union $38,237,146
        8 American Assn for Justice $35,844,429
        9 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $35,233,775
        10 American Federation of Teachers $33,615,766

        http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

        June 08, 2012
        1. Munkyman

          http://educationnext.org/the-long-reach-of-teachers-unions/

          http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml?PHPSESSID=6a8f67e0d24618da7d8b1a960ecbc670

          2007-2008 “$56,349,269”

          They’re already committed to their own $15 million dollar advertising campaign for this election cycle & then you have to add in various entities they sponsor who spend their money influencing elections for them so that it’ll look like it’s many organizations instead of just the NEA/AFT who when combined spent some $77 million on the 2007-08 campaign.

          June 09, 2012
          1. gbakere

            Geez…do you really think that unions, environmental groups, human rights groups and grass roots funding can compete with big banks, big oil, mining, etc.? Compared to the amount of money that organizations sponsoring the Left can raise, it’s chump change to what major corporations can contribute. In addition, you’re comparing organizations which represent the interests of masses of people to a relative handful of power brokers whose only interest is their own. If you want these power brokers to run out government, that’s exactly what we now have which is the point of this post. I don’t care if it’s power brokers or unions, I don’t want our elections to be financed by special interests. If our politicians need funding, let them garner support from grass roots efforts with $100 limit on donations or fund elections with tax money, but allowing any entity to influence an election and purchase the loyalty of a politician is against everything I think America should stand for. If I were to think that I could never have an equal level of influence over the outcome of an election as David Koch, I wouldn’t participate. What would be the point. Right now we’re still on the battlefield so I still have some level of hope.

            June 09, 2012
            1. Munkyman

              The money trail would suggest so & if you think the unions are bound to contribution limits you’re naive.

              Read the links, the left is as corrupt as the right & just because they use a different “smoke screen” doesn’t make them any better & it might make them worse.

              What cursing are we talking about?

              June 09, 2012
              1. gbakere

                Munk…
                The Left might well be as corrupt as the Right. So what? I never said that unions have contribution limits. I said, “I don’t care if it’s power brokers or unions, I don’t want our elections to be financed by special interests.”

                June 09, 2012
                1. Munkyman

                  & there we agree completely.

                  June 09, 2012
  4. gbakere

    Geez…thank you wireless for your amazing insight.

    Well…I’m all for respectful debate. Unfortunately, wireless will never get to see this. He is gone…seeyaaa!

    June 07, 2012
    1. anukulardecider

      WAKE UP, G!!! I don’t even see his comments. It says they are below my viewing threshold. When you hit block, make sure you hit ignore too….that way you don’t even have to waste your time looking at his comments.

      June 08, 2012
      1. gbakere

        Ok…done…I’m awake. Oh…and I ignored him too. Thank you.

        June 08, 2012
  5. Munkyman

    BTW Baker you don’t have to tell me how insignificant I am, I know how insignificant we all are & that’s often the basis of my argument when people begin whining about what they think they deserve.

    I, as are you, am 1 person out of billions on a tiny little planet circling a star that’s one out of a number greater than 10^(10^35)… pretty insignificant but, my opinion is as significant as yours & it’s my opinion that sign was photoshopped by someone who was upset the recall didn’t go the way they wanted & that instead of accepting the will of the people in Wisconsin they decided to vent their animosity with accusation. A sore loser.

    June 11, 2012