Unions under Attack...

[Judge Jude]

Yeah, I'm asking on the cost-benefit analysis, really. Appreciate being able to touch a third rail without people taking offense. Sometimes on the internet it's not clear when someone is just asking an honest question on a subject they are not familiar with. Helps us all, if that's possible.

My nephews are mainly on the laborer construction worker end. More education would be better for sure; their dad has gotten a lot of foreman jobs over the years, and having a college degree when most did not was a help.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Seeing how behind the rest of the world we are in Education, you'd think there'd be a push to catch up no matter the cost. You get what you pay for in pretty much everything so if you don't invest in the educators, how can you expect a well educated populace?

I really don't understand the backlash about this. Unions may not be perfect, but they at the very least, protect the American worker from becoming slave labor. Ask them to make concessions, but don't take away their bargaining power.

[chancellor]

Right, and the Koch family has also donated tons of money to support fossil fuels, support deregulation, support tea-party organizations, oppose health-care reform, oppose the economic stimulus, oppose global warming research, oppose environmental issues, etc. They have given over $100 Million to various right-wing organizations.

All legally, and with little fanfare. They're choosing to do the same thing that George Soros does with a significant chunk of his money - invest in issues they have strong feelings. My issue was with how you dismissed the statement from reason.com as just being "some blogger". I'd have no issue with dismissing something like that if it were obviously wrong, but it wasn't.

[swampdragon]

The "9 month thing" bothers me too. It is really about 10. Teachers only get paid 10 months a year too.

Somebody find me a job that will pay decent money for two months a year. Sure, that teacher with 15 years teaching and master's degree could work .... where? summer camp for $300 a week? bookstore at minimum wage? if they are lucky? It's tough to enjoy time off if you don't have an income - the mortgage and bills are still 12 months a year.

[chancellor]

I haven't thought enough about this to know exactly where I stand on the optimum amount of education for teachers versus the money invested to get there. But I did want to share this one thought. My first-graders' phys ed teacher is teaching them about all the muscle groups of the body. My daughter was just telling me last night at dinner about triceps, biceps, quadriceps, pectorals, abdominals, etc. I asked her where she learned about that, and she said, "In P.E." So I'm not sure there is a subject where the teacher being more educated is not of value to the students. That doesn't answer the question of cost-benefit analysis, but I think in almost every subject area there is more to learn than one can imagine.

Fair enough. I'm admittedly much more concerned about my kids teachers personality/friendliness/kindness at the grade school level than their education. In high school, my perception there changes a fair amount - I'd rather have a physics teacher with a strong background and good communication skills than one with a weaker background and more touchy-feely. Other parents mileage varies significantly.

[Lurker765]

The "9 month thing" bothers me too. It is really about 10. Teachers only get paid 10 months a year too.

Somebody find me a job that will pay decent money for two months a year. Sure, that teacher with 15 years teaching and master's degree could work .... where? summer camp for $300 a week? bookstore at minimum wage? if they are lucky? It's tough to enjoy time off if you don't have an income - the mortgage and bills are still 12 months a year.

That's a crazy argument. If I get paid $50k to work 12 months a year and you get paid $50 to work 10 months a year I would much rather have two "unpaid" months off. The comparisons earlier in this thread listed annual salary/benefits and compared them. So, if the teacher is getting a reasonable wage for 10 months a year plus 2 months off (and also long Christmas/Thanksgiving/Spring breaks) then that seems like a pretty good perk.

If you want to find a summer job that pays a little you can. The average employee does not have that option since they have to work year round. Or you can stay home with your kids in the summer and not have to pay someone to watch them like most parents have to do.

[GwynnInTheHall]

That's a crazy argument. If I get paid $50k to work 12 months a year and you get paid $50 to work 10 months a year I would much rather have two "unpaid" months off. The comparisons earlier in this thread listed annual salary/benefits and compared them. So, if the teacher is getting a reasonable wage for 10 months a year plus 2 months off (and also long Christmas/Thanksgiving/Spring breaks) then that seems like a pretty good perk.

If you want to find a summer job that pays a little you can. The average employee does not have that option since they have to work year round. Or you can stay home with your kids in the summer and not have to pay someone to watch them like most parents have to do.

Have you tried finding any job lately? Especially one that knows you're only going to be there 2 months? That's pretty unrealistic.

I find it somewhat hypocritical of people to say on one hand--"You Chose to take a lesser paying job because 1. You like it better than other jobs and/or 2. You'd rather do something that benefits the greater good than work a higher paying job you don't like and/or does nothing for the community--so stop complaining about the low pay" and then turn around and complain about the few perks that come from working that same job.

[OaklandA's]

My issue was with how you dismissed the statement from reason.com as just being "some blogger". I'd have no issue with dismissing something like that if it were obviously wrong, but it wasn't.

It's not from reason.com, it's a quote from an anonymous poster from reddit. Actually, most people on the net consider it to be satire, not a fact-based post. Amirite?

Edit to add: If the Kochs want to legalize gay marriage, they are giving their money to the wrong politicians. In the 2010 election, they gave $1.5M to republican candidates (mostly tea-partiers, including Michelle Bachmann) , and around $100K to democratic candidates.

[Mithrandir]

The "9 month thing" bothers me too. It is really about 10. Teachers only get paid 10 months a year too.

Somebody find me a job that will pay decent money for two months a year. Sure, that teacher with 15 years teaching and master's degree could work .... where? summer camp for $300 a week? bookstore at minimum wage? if they are lucky? It's tough to enjoy time off if you don't have an income - the mortgage and bills are still 12 months a year.

Don't teachers get a paycheck for the two months they are off? The same paycheck they get when they are working?

If they don't, then learn how to budget your salary so that it lasts for 12 months.

[frae]

Don't teachers get a paycheck for the two months they are off? The same paycheck they get when they are working?

If they don't, then learn how to budget your salary so that it lasts for 12 months.

I can only comment with accuracy on how I get paid, but yes I get paid once every two weeks, including in the summer. So my year long salary is divided out evenly for a full year. There is an option to take your summer payments in one lump sum at the end of June. Had I ever been a single person without kids I could see myself having done some dumb things with that.

Anyway again just how I know my school district works.

[chancellor]

It's not from reason.com, it's a quote from an anonymous poster from reddit. Actually, most people on the net consider it to be satire, not a fact-based post. Amirite?

The guy is simply summarizing posts by Matt Welch on reason.com and Dave Weigel from Slate. Weigel's reference is here: http://www.slate.com/id/2286169/pagenum/all/

Edit to add: If the Kochs want to legalize gay marriage, they are giving their money to the wrong politicians. In the 2010 election, they gave $1.5M to republican candidates (mostly tea-partiers, including Michelle Bachmann) , and around $100K to democratic candidates.

That's probably because most of their money doesn't go directly to political candidates, it goes to groups that they believe influence thinking. They pour millions into think tanks/research groups, issue advertising, and web-based resources, and thousands into candidates. They're a conservative/libertarian mirror of George Soros, basically.

[Judge Jude]

All over the left blogosphere, might as well be tossed into the blender here as well:

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-taxpayers-actually-contribute-nothing-to-public-employee-pensions/

"contribute nothing" - not sure that's the right description, but better minds than I can weigh in...

[OaklandA's]

The guy is simply summarizing posts by Matt Welch on reason.com and Dave Weigel from Slate. Weigel's reference is here: http://www.slate.com/id/2286169/pagenum/all/

I don't know why I'm even arguing this point, but neither Welch nor Weigel mentions anything about legalizing gay marriage or cutting defense spending in those articles. In any case, trying to assert that the Kochs are friends of progressive causes is absurd, which seemed to be the point of the original post.

[Judge Jude]

This Politico article may shed some light on the Koch philosophical split

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/No_Kochliberal_alliance.html

[chancellor]

I don't know why I'm even arguing this point, but neither Welch nor Weigel mentions anything about legalizing gay marriage or cutting defense spending in those articles. In any case, trying to assert that the Kochs are friends of progressive causes is absurd, which seemed to be the point of the original post.

They're the friends of libertarian causes, and always have been. Some of those fall into the "liberal" side of the aisle.