Sirthinksalot
Verified User
Bro, do you have any idea how many qualified candidates will apply for an open elementary school teaching position in a good district? There are plenty of qualified candidates who want those jobs.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
California’s economic situation!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Bro, do you have any idea how many qualified candidates will apply for an open elementary school teaching position in a good district? There are plenty of qualified candidates who want those jobs.
There is no reason whatsoever that federal oversight would be required.
Yes there would be because you would need to establish a uniform standard by which merit is judged. Since education is universal, it has to be done at the federal level. There's just no way around it.
I think they should. But I think they should raise taxes on the rich and corporations who have had 40 years of tax cuts and didn't trickle down.
Trickle down it did. That's the problem with that metaphor, it is apt. It's absolutely on all 4s. They have the spigot and some trickles down as the wealthy consume.
That is a formula for wealth disparity. Where is it more wet, the headwaters or the tributaries and creeks?
"Anyone who communicates in metaphors should shampoo my crotch!" as good as it gets
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
Of course you don't. No liberal ever does, but they all seem to know that currently it's not enough.I don't know what that answer is.
Despite the constant carping, there's no shortage of elementary educators. I'd also be strongly in favor of paying AP calculus teachers a lot more than 2nd grade teachers.What I do know is that teachers are underpaid now, given what is expected of them and the personal expense they incur.
No two schools have the same $-per-student because schools are funded by property taxes. So a school in a district with high property values is inevitably going to be better funded than a school in a district with low property values. I happen to think that is immoral and wrong, and that all schools should be funded equally. The current system of funding schools with property taxes is a holdover from Jim Crow that needs to go.
States decide their funding mechanisms and wealthier areas end up subsidizing poorer areas.
You need more teachers.
No, I don't. Considering that fact that critical test scores for American children have dropped precipitously although US education spending is the highest in the world among developed nations, I don't think more money is the answer.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/15/u-s-students-internationally-math-science/
By what rationale does a class of workers who produce poor results deserve financial rewards?
I don't know what that answer is. What I do know is that teachers are underpaid now, given what is expected of them and the personal expense they incur. No two schools have the same $-per-student because schools are funded by property taxes. So a school in a district with high property values is inevitably going to be better funded than a school in a district with low property values. I happen to think that is immoral and wrong, and that all schools should be funded equally. The current system of funding schools with property taxes is a holdover from Jim Crow that needs to go.
I agree 90 % They are underpaid except for all the jobs that make even less and those are many. They have a stout union. Not many gigs can you have 1/4 of the year off.
"The median annual Teacher High School salary in San Diego, CA is $63,016, as of May 30, 2018, with a range usually between $49,930-$74,019 not including bonus and benefit information and other factors that impact base pay.
Teacher High School Salaries in San Diego, CA by education ..."
That's not like food stamps poor or anything. A husband wife combo could make $130K You can buy a starter house on that.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
Yes there would be because you would need to establish a uniform standard by which merit is judged. Since education is universal, it has to be done at the federal level. There's just no way around it.
Your premise is false.
You have me confused with another poster. I never said that.
Then I apologize. So would you agree that class sizes are too big? One of your fellow buddies here talked about LA school class sizes being so large, and that was within the context of teacher pensions.
They said all that crap when Walker reformed the system in Wisconsin. There's not any worse of a teacher shortage than there was before.
Didn't Walker call for more education funding?
Correcting mistakes made in the past isn't being punitive.
Then let's correct the mistake of Investment Funds lying to pension managers. Cause that mistake was never rectified. And again, how is it the teachers' fault that Investment Funds lied to pension managers? You tell us to celebrate and trust in the free market, then refuse to take punitive action against it when it acts in bad faith.
The politicians who set up the pension systems are to blame.
The pension system was fine before Investment Funds started acting in bad faith. So why do you want others to sacrifice while letting the culprits off scot-free? I thought you were the accountability and responsibility people. Guess that only applies selectively, huh?
Democrats controlled the state congress all through Arnold's time in office, no different than today. California relies heavily on personal income tax and cap gains from the top one percent. When the economy is good we boom, when it's not we suffer. You act like Arnold came in and tried to upend how the state was run when he did nothing of the sort. The economy is going to turn while Gavin is governor and Dems control state congress and California will suffer. Are you going to be saying the same thing then that you are now?
Democrats didn't have a super-majority when Arnold was governor. Once they got their super-majority, CA turned around.
Sirthinksalot
Verified User
I think you posted as The Derp before and now it makes sense. Defending California is a very ideological thing hence the need to deny the pension issue.
I do believe you are probably correct about that.
You want good candidates to apply.
No, I don't. I want public funding of education to entirely cease, and schooling to be the sole responsibility of parents. How they choose to accomplish that (or not) and pay for it is not my problem.
The notion that teachers are underpaid is laughable.
the National Center for Education Statistics reports that in 2016-17, the estimated average salary for K-12 teachers was $58,064. The National Education Association’s chart shows the average K-12 teacher earning was $58,353 in 2016-17.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2018/03/05/how-much-or-little-teachers-earn-state-by-state/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7106c684a03a
I'd have to wonder about the intelligence of any individual who'd voluntarily enter and remain in a profession they claim is underpaid.
No, you missed the point. Defined benefit pensions are unsustainable, we don't have the population growth to support them. The point isn't what's better for individuals. Of course defined benefit is better for the individuals. Everyone else can't afford to foot the bill
Yes, we certainly have the ability to fund defined pensions...it just requires higher taxes on someone. Gee, who could that someone be? I'd say the rich and corporations since they have had tax cuts for 40 years and didn't trickle down like we were promised. 401k's are what's not sustainable. Only about half of all Americans actually own stock, and most stock is owned by the top 10%. The average amount a 65 year old has in their 401k is just $176,000. Not enough to sustain retirement.
I see you're back to ignoring unfunded liabilities.
You don't even know how far out they're unfunded. I ask you how far out you're saying they're unfunded and you dodge around the question because you don't know what you're talking about.
You just read some headline and thought it would be nice to attack government workers over something that was wholly manufactured, and wholly caused by bad faith actions by Investment Funds.
Seen the movie and read the book. California's issue is about zoning laws and nimbyism. We simply do not build enough housing to meet demand. It's Econ 101. During the house bubble we built in many tertiary areas where the house wasn't needed instead of building in places like SF and LA where it is. This is going to hurt is long term.
Right, and there's not enough housing because Prop 13 makes building affordable housing unaffordable for municipalities, developers, and homeowners.
So...get rid of Prop 13, right?
I agree to an extent. What caused the collapse of the US housing market in 2007 were non-existent or weak lending standards for subprimes around 2002-4. Those subprimes would end up entering delinquency by 2006-7, with a default rate of around 23%. Prior to 2002-4, the delinquency rate for subprime loans was around 7%. So something happened to the standards for subprimes around 2002-4. Also, not helping the matter, was that the number of subprimes issued jumped from around 110,000 a year from 1993-2003, to about 266,000 a year from 2004-6. So there were tons of more subprimes, with relaxed standards, that were inevitably going to enter delinquency as soon as the introductory ARM rate expired.
I wonder which political ideology was overrepresented in the effort to make "relaxed lending standards" not only possible, but mandatory in some cases.
Want to guess?
In 1995 Fannie and Freddie introduced automated underwriting systems, designed to speed-up the underwriting process. These systems, which soon set underwriting standards for most of the industry (whether or not the loans were purchased by the GSEs) greatly relaxed the underwriting approval process. An independent study of about 1000 loans found that the same loans were 65 percent more likely to be approved by the automated processes versus the traditional processes.[46] The GSE were aggressive in promoting the new, liberalized systems, and even required lenders to use them. In a paper written in January 2004, OFHEO described the process: "Once Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began to use scoring and automated underwriting in their internal business operations, it was not long before each Enterprise required the single-family lenders with which it does business to use such tools. The Enterprises did so by including the use of those technologies in the conforming guidelines for their seller/servicers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis#Wallison's_Dissent
It can be determined at the state level. No need for feds.
Which would make sense if people learned different math state-to-state. But they don't. People learn the same math regardless of what state you live in. That's why it has to be federal. Standards have to be uniform throughout the country.
Bro, do you have any idea how many qualified candidates will apply for an open elementary school teaching position in a good district? There are plenty of qualified candidates who want those jobs.
We don't need them to apply in the good districts, we need them to apply in the bad ones.
Right, and there's not enough housing because Prop 13 makes building affordable housing unaffordable for municipalities, developers, and homeowners.
Is that the only factor, or even a primary one?
How do you propose "getting rid of "prop 13?
So...get rid of Prop 13, right?
We don't need them to apply in the good districts, we need them to apply in the bad ones.
We do? Why?
What do mean by "bad ones", exactly?
And how would you propose to make such a reassignment acceptable to the personnel involved, should your scheme be implemented?
Of course you don't. No liberal ever does, but they all seem to know that currently it's not enough.
Because it isn't. You have teachers saying it isn't. You have administrators saying it isn't. You have superintendents saying it isn't. You have parents saying it isn't. So when you have all those people saying the same thing, what does that mean to you?
Despite the constant carping, there's no shortage of elementary educators. I'd also be strongly in favor of paying AP calculus teachers a lot more than 2nd grade teachers.
So if there's no shortage of good teachers, why are students doing so poorly? And secondly, one of you guys (might have been you) even said class sizes in LA are 50-1. So that would indicate that there aren't enough teachers to fill the demand. And why? Because there's no incentive.
Think about it this way; say you graduate with a degree in mathematics from Georgia Tech. You have two opportunities in front of you; you can take a job at the Atlanta Public School system for $40K a year, but you don't get health insurance right away, your pension benefits are not clearly defined or protected, and you have no job security or you can take a job at Netflix that pays $100K a year, offers tremendous benefits, and even offers to relocate you -all expenses paid- to Palo Alto. Which one would you choose? 99 times out of 100, you'd choose Netflix because of what Netflix offers.
What I'm saying is that if you want the best, you have to offer competitive incentives. Doing away with pensions doesn't accomplish that. It deters good candidates. You might end up with do-gooder types, but there's not enough of those to fill the demand for educators, particularly at the High School level.
tates decide their funding mechanisms and wealthier areas end up subsidizing poorer areas.
No they don't. That doesn't happen. Not with any regularity. And furthermore, it just proves my point that education funding is not equal and it is a version of Jim Crow.
No, I don't. Considering that fact that critical test scores for American children have dropped precipitously although US education spending is the highest in the world among developed nations, I don't think more money is the answer.
Of course, that spending is not equal across all school districts because of how schools are largely funded through property taxes. It's a holdover from Jim Crow that needs to go away.