Public sector employees vs. private sector employees

[student4ever]

As part of a family with two public sector employees, I don't buy most of what I hear regarding public sector employees making more than private sector employees. I suppose it is possible, and I think it may even be probable when it comes to jobs requiring lower education levels, but I've never seen anything I would consider a good source.

As such, I would appreciate it if somebody would put together a side by side comparison of public sector vs. private sector pay and benefits that shows equivalent education and equivalent jobs. For instance, how do public school teachers (the most attacked group of public employees) compare to private school teachers when both have the same education and same experience.

Below, I have listed four situations because I know people in each of these situations and in every case, the public sector employee makes less money, though I will readily admit that public sector employees 5 and 7 below are in more stable situations.

Employees 1 and 2: Education-M.A. in History, Job Type-High school history teacher

Employees 3 and 4: Education-M.S. in Geophysics, Job Type-Environmental Scientist III

Employees 5 and 6: Education-B.A. in Elementary Education, Job Type-Heavy equipment operator

Employees 7 and 8: Education-High school degree/college dropout, Job Type-Heavy equipment operator.

The reason I would like to see this type of side by side comparison is because if public sector employees are going to get blasted I want to see equivalency in the comparisons. In other words, I don't want to see public sector employees who work for the state department of corrections compared to people flipping burgers at McDonalds, which is what most of the comparisons I have seen seem to be.

[Stuck in Seattle]

For years I've posted graphs and charts showing the growth in public employee/teacher wages in real dollars. Sometimes compared to median income wages. I've shown that Reno police and fire benefits alone cost almost as much as the cities the median income per person. And one thing I've learned is that it's useless arguing the point with public employees.

But it's not just wages...it's total compensation, working conditions including time off for vacations and illness, retirement contributions compared to what's paid out later, years of service required till retirement, the double dipping graft, job security (look at the recent recession) and perhaps most of all, the administrative bloat.

I think we disagree quite a bit on some of this at the root level. I think teachers (at least up to HS where some greater facility with some subjects might be needed, but those topics are few) are if anything over schooled as they need the credentials to maximize pay. I don't believe it makes very many of them better teachers. The teachers of today have smaller classes, more tools, more education better working conditions and far more administrative support than in the past and I don't think they are generally one bit better at teaching because of it. In fact I think a person of average intelligence could be as good of a teacher with a short training course as most teachers are with all their oh-so-awesome but meaningless credentials. My best friend in Vegas home schooled his 3 kids...mostly his non college educated wife over just a few hours each day. They were in college by age 17 getting great grades.

I think a heavy equipment operator could be up and teaching quicker and with more skill than a teacher could be up and operating heavy equipment with any level of competence.

But that's just me. I don't think poorly of teachers. I just don't think it's that tough to learn the job.

[student4ever]

Edited: Too harsh.

Can you show me comparable jobs with comparable education requirements? That's all I'm asking.

[jwolfpack]

Edited: Too harsh.

Can you show me comparable jobs with comparable education requirements? That's all I'm asking.

there in lies part of the problem, you can pretty much find data that says exactly what you want it to say. You can go out to conservative research centers and find data that will tell you public employees are riding the gravy train....and you can find liberal think tanks that say the opposite.......You cant go cherry picking and you cant lump all public employees together.

[student4ever]

Also, just as an FYI, my wife has made less money each of the last 3 years despite a promotion. Her health insurance is 33% more expensive and covers much less with a higher deductible than it was just a few years ago. I post this to reiterate the point that the public sector employees are taking hits in this economy too and to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.

EDIT: While I'm at it, the department my wife works in has left several positions open without hiring new people, meaning that they are doing about 30% more work with less pay and worse benefits. Again, the people saying that public sector workers are on some sort of gravy train while the private sector is suffering can be described as nothing short of disingenuous.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Also, just as an FYI, my wife has made less money each of the last 3 years despite a promotion. Her health insurance is 33% more expensive and covers much less with a higher deductible than it was just a few years ago. I post this to reiterate the point that the public sector employees are taking hits in this economy too and to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.

EDIT: While I'm at it, the department my wife works in has left several positions open without hiring new people, meaning that they are doing about 30% more work with less pay and worse benefits. Again, the people saying that public sector workers are on some sort of gravy train while the private sector is suffering can be described as nothing short of disingenuous.
While the private sector sees entire companies going under, the public sector has relatively small cuts. Why not compare total jobs lost in Nevada to public employee jobs lost rather than a small slice of anecdotal data? And it's not disingenuous at all. The private sector is suffering far greater than the public sector.

Finally, much varies between state, county, city and department. I certainly wouldn't say that every department in every municipality is overstaffed and overcompensated. But what I find disingenuous is to suggest that there's not a serious problem. Local tax rates are higher than ever yet cities and states are going broke. The only answer? Higher taxes.

[BustNChops]

Also, just as an FYI, my wife has made less money each of the last 3 years despite a promotion. Her health insurance is 33% more expensive and covers much less with a higher deductible than it was just a few years ago. I post this to reiterate the point that the public sector employees are taking hits in this economy too and to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.

EDIT: While I'm at it, the department my wife works in has left several positions open without hiring new people, meaning that they are doing about 30% more work with less pay and worse benefits. Again, the people saying that public sector workers are on some sort of gravy train while the private sector is suffering can be described as nothing short of disingenuous.

Yes, everybody is taking hits, but the hits are very very different. What sort of pay cut (net loss in pay) has your wife experienced? Many are paying more for health insurance and getting less both in private and public, so that doesn't seem like anything unique.

I'll post my thoughts in a new string, but for comparison sake... my thoughts come from a conservative mindset and from a professional point of view where I took at 50% pay cut 3-years ago, changed jobs and am now down about 35% form what I was used to making. You aren't going to get anywhere with me talking about the hardship you listed. My story is far more common in the private sector than in the public.

I've had this same conversation with a fire fighter buddy of mine (recently laid off in the RFD cut of 26). He talked about their cuts and sacrifices... forgoing raises for the next year... forgoing laundry services.... Where is a 10% net cut in salary - permanently? Instead, he missed getting his job back because the Union said "no" to the City request that fire fighters give 2-weeks notice of vacation instead of 2-hrs. He is unemployed because he and his fellow fire fighters have earned it.

[BustNChops]

I haven't come across a table displaying the direct comparisons, but I am sure they do exist. I'm also sure one can find a table that fits their beliefs and those tables will be complete opposites. I'd be interested in seeing a few takes and might search online later today.

The difference I would see is if one table talks just salary comparisons (I guess that would show public employees on the low end of the scale from starting positions up through senior management. It would then be a toss up for director and executive level.)

The most telling table would be salary + benefits. And that is the real crux of the entire issue as I understand it. Specifically the pensions (income and health care). Private sector pays for their own out of their own contributions 100%. Public sector has a mixed bag, but for many it is an attached benefit to some degree. Public sectors employees have their own Unions (some without) and their pay and benefits vary drastically.

It is difficult to compare a fire fighter and teacher. For example, say a local RFD retires after averaging $100K the last few years, he gets something close to $60K+ per year in retirement + health. The cost for his replacement just went from hiring a new kid making $55K per year + health to a new kid at $55K + $60K + health + health. That is unsustainable. I don't know what teachers retire with, but I am guessing it isn't close to that. Yet, it is still far above a private sector employee who has to pay 100% of their retirement + health. What do teachers get? I have no clue.

To be certain, I have no issue with the individual workers. They pursued the job and the attached benefits that were being offered. In my opinion, it is the leaders (of local, State, Federal) and the Union leaders that have pushed things too far. The main issue lies with them. While these benefits have been great, they are unsustainable and look great on paper, but no one will be able to collect because no one is going to pay them as they currently exist.

The public sector created its own mess. The workers are part of Unions that created the beast and the bureaucracy b.s. that makes change very difficult. Unfortunately, times are going to get very tough for those in the public sector in the next 2-years. The private sector has taken their hit and adjusted as needed in a very complete manner and the public sector (local and State) will finish their adjustment period as it has not yet been completed. When Federal finally comes around and makes its adjustment, this will cause the private and public sector to adjust once again. The hits taken by the private sector are far greater than those taken in the public sector and the private sector isn't going to sit by and take more hits without fighting back.

Sorry for long reply and taking it on a tangent. I couldn't stop.

[student4ever]

My point is that these situations aren't unique and I think that those of you who continually attack public sector employees are complaining blindly without examining actual facts.

To further my anecdotal evidence, my wife's department isn't even on the public tax tip. Her department brings in all of its own money from fees assessed to companies who use their services. Those fees have remained the same, but there are more businesses paying the fees now than there were before the economy tanked. I repeat, more businesses are paying the fees and there is more money in the coffers, yet my wife is getting paid less with less benefits and doing more work. This is why I find most of the arguments as disingenuous at best.

BnC, I understand you took a hit and that is too bad, but do you really think that the best possible thing for the country is that everybody take the exact same hit you took? That seems just as disingenuous as summarily dismissing the fact that your firefighter buddy is now unemployed and blaming all public sector employees for it.

[Stuck in Seattle]

My point is that these situations aren't unique and I think that those of you who continually attack public sector employees are complaining blindly without examining actual facts.

To further my anecdotal evidence, my wife's department isn't even on the public tax tip. Her department brings in all of its own money from fees assessed to companies who use their services. Those fees have remained the same, but there are more businesses paying the fees now than there were before the economy tanked. I repeat, more businesses are paying the fees and there is more money in the coffers, yet my wife is getting paid less with less benefits and doing more work. This is why I find most of the arguments as disingenuous at best.

BnC, I understand you took a hit and that is too bad, but do you really think that the best possible thing for the country is that everybody take the exact same hit you took? That seems just as disingenuous as summarily dismissing the fact that your firefighter buddy is now unemployed and blaming all public sector employees for it.
Here's how fees work up here. The state doesn't tax the private casinos...they charge fees...fees that grow almost every year. The Gambling Commission likes to build up a reserve fund of a few million dollars for contingencies. Every time that fund reaches a decent level, the governor takes that money out and puts it in the general fund to use for some other program.

Then the Gambling Commission increases our fees since they have no reserve.

[student4ever]

And another thing...maybe it is because my background is in the sciences, but the private sector makes oodles more money than the public sector for those with similar backgrounds to me, often with equivalent or better benefits and much greater compensation. I'm choosing to work in the public sector because I prefer it to the job that I would do with the same education in the private sector.

I could take a job right now for 6 figures in the private sector, yet I'm living on temporary jobs in the public sector because that's where I want to work. Unfortunately, there are very few full time employment opportunities in the public sector for me right now so I patch together part time opportunities where I can. That's another significant part of where I'm coming from with my rants on the topic.

I find it hard to believe that my life is all that much different than the average American with a similar background.

[student4ever]

Here's how fees work up here. The state doesn't tax the private casinos...they charge fees...fees that grow almost every year. The Gambling Commission likes to build up a reserve fund of a few million dollars for contingencies. Every time that fund reaches a decent level, the governor takes that money out and puts it in the general fund to use for some other program.

The the Gambling Commission increases our fees since they have no reserve.

Like I said, the fees haven't changed. The number of companies applying for permits and paying the fees has gone up. Yes, they are stripping the excess money out of the department she works in and applying it to the general fund even though the fees are supposed to go to the regulatory agency she works for.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Like I said, the fees haven't changed. The number of companies applying for permits and paying the fees has gone up. Yes, they are stripping the excess money out of the department she works in and applying it to the general fund even though the fees are supposed to go to the regulatory agency she works for.
Then the problem is that they are stripping necessary operating revenue out of your wife's department forcing them to be understaffed. It's not excess revenue if you're laying people off and overworking your staff.

[BustNChops]

My point is that these situations aren't unique and I think that those of you who continually attack public sector employees are complaining blindly without examining actual facts.

S4E - the same could be said being on your side of the fence. I think it is just a very different mind set. In no way am I complaining blindly. I'm not even complaining. If I was a public sector employee with a pension I would be equally upset as I would be fearful of what I would ever be able to collect on it. Public sector employees are not being attacked so please do not victimize them.

To further my anecdotal evidence, my wife's department isn't even on the public tax tip. Her department brings in all of its own money from fees assessed to companies who use their services. Those fees have remained the same, but there are more businesses paying the fees now than there were before the economy tanked. I repeat, more businesses are paying the fees and there is more money in the coffers, yet my wife is getting paid less with less benefits and doing more work. This is why I find most of the arguments as disingenuous at best.

That is an inefficiency of government, but one that will always exist. Your wife's department doesn't fund itself. It is business fees being collected that fund the State. You are looking at it as the money your wife's department collects should stay in their department. I'm glad they are in the black, but that extra money goes to the state that is in the red - where people are being laid off. Every single person in the U.S. that has a job (public or private) is asked to do much more than they used to. Hell in my last position I was asked to do my job + 25% more and at 50% of my existing pay. I had a choice and I left and made a change. Your wife has a choice and decide to leave.

BnC, I understand you took a hit and that is too bad, but do you really think that the best possible thing for the country is that everybody take the exact same hit you took? That seems just as disingenuous as summarily dismissing the fact that your firefighter buddy is now unemployed and blaming all public sector employees for it.

I took the hit and moved on. I don't feel sorry for myself. It is life. I'm actually ok with much of the adjustments that are taking place. I think it sets this country up to be stronger in the future. It may be painful, but we have to go through it.

No, I do not think everybody needs to take a hit. Not even close. Unfortunately, people will suffer and that is a reality. I wish it on no one, but understand it will happen.

There is a simple ugly reality that has existed and never has been discussed openly and that is private sector employees funding public sector benefits/pensions that far exceed their own. It is a good discussion to have on a national scale and get it corrected.

My buddy is unemployed because of the fire fighters union. It is strictly their fault. It is not the the public or private sectors fault.

This seems to be affecting you greatly. There is no disrespect for you or your wife or any of the public sector employees. You shouldn't take take it as a direct reflection upon you/your family. I've met you and thought you were a great guy. I trust that your wife is your better half. From a professional standpoint I trust that she is a hell of a good worker and great at what she does.

[student4ever]

Very reasonable responses BnC. You are right in one regard. I do feel like public employees are being attacked, particularly on a national level, simply for being public employees, which shouldn't be the case, but sure seems to be.

Edit: I also assume my wife is good at her job and you're definitely right that she is my better half...though she does swear more than I do and is much more liberal.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I know it must feel like public service employees are getting no respect. That's not fair to them for sure. For me it comes down to one main problem and that is the relatively recent unionization of public employees, not the employees themselves. It's a perverse system that allows a group of people to take public tax dollars and use them to elect the very people who then get to raise the public's taxes to payoff the unions...who then spend even more millions to continue to elect politicians that are beholden to them for even higher tax payouts.

Who represents the tax payer in that situation? It's not like trade unions where the negotiators on opposing sides of the table have conflicting interests. Both sides benefit when they raise taxes to increase public employee pay and benefits...and the public loses.

This isn't about individuals. It's about a system of perverse incentives that violate the public trust.

[Packfan11]

I've taken a post I had elsewhere and pasting it here since it's more applicable here:


Quote:
Originally Posted by rdc1 http://www.silverandbluesports.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.silverandbluesports.com/forum/showthread.php?p=64409#post64409)
In most cases the debate is not over salary, it is over the benefit packages.


I'm not so sure about that. Check out both the city of Las Vegas, and the Clark County payroll for 2009.

City of Las Vegas Payroll 2009 (http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/2009/las-vegas/)

Clark County Payroll 2009 (http://transparentnevada.com/salaries/2009/clark/)

The volunteer fire fighter coordinator in Clark County makes nearly $500k/year (not including benefits). I'd strongly encourage everyone to scroll through each payroll, and if you can honestly say each public employee is compensated fairly (or at least equivolent to their private sector counterpart), then I'll digress.

Oh yeah - I almost forgot. The animal control supervisor in Clark County makes over a quarter of a million $$ a year.

[student4ever]

Edit: Strike the first reaction to Packfan11's post. I read the website wrong.

Edit 2: Interesting that that website doesn't take furloughs into account and reports pre-furlough numbers.

[Packfan11]

Edit: Strike the first reaction to Packfan11's post. I read the website wrong.

Edit 2: Interesting that that website doesn't take furloughs into account and reports pre-furlough numbers.

I can't recall, but were furlough's mandated in 2009?

[student4ever]

Edit 3: You ask if every public employee is being compensated fairly. I doubt it. There are likely some being overpaid, some being paid appropriately, and some being underpaid. By your question alone, I have to ask if you think every private sector employee is getting underpaid due to public sector employees compensation? If you answer yes to that, then we'll plain and simple never agree.

[student4ever]

I can't recall, but were furlough's mandated in 2009?

I'm pretty sure they were for at least the second half of the year.

[renowiggum]

I'm pretty sure they were for at least the second half of the year.

That's my reccolection, at least at the state level... I believe they started July 2009, and covered all of state fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Edit: Strike the first reaction to Packfan11's post. I read the website wrong.

Edit 2: Interesting that that website doesn't take furloughs into account and reports pre-furlough numbers.
Rereading the thread I see I wasn't responsive early on. To get to the initial point...I don't think public service jobs need to pay the same a private sector jobs...especially considering benefits, security and such. And people have accepted that trade off for ages. You're accepting the trade off now. If there was a dearth of quality people willing to do government jobs then I might think differently. But I've seen no evidence that makes me feel that that dearth exists now or existed in the past when compensation was lower in real dollars.

[Packfan11]

Edit 3: You ask if every public employee is being compensated fairly. I doubt it. There are likely some being overpaid, some being paid appropriately, and some being underpaid. By your question alone, I have to ask if you think every private sector employee is getting underpaid due to public sector employees compensation? If you answer yes to that, then we'll plain and simple never agree.


There are extremes on both sides. The only difference being the public sector wages are available to everyone to see. It's no secret the mantra for generations was to get a public sector job because your job will be secure - regardless of merit or NOT. I emphasize NOT because, short of killing someone, it's extremely difficult to get fired for performance in the public sector....... not the case in the private sector.

As a lifetime private sector employee, I can say I chose that path because I recognized hard work would get rewarded quicker as I was willing to work harder. It appears the road to public sector prosperity is tenure, not talent (yes, that was a broad generalization. And probably a little ignorant, but it's my feeling nonetheless). The career path I chose and the compensation that comes with it is directly correlated to how hard I work. There's no such thing as overtime as a salaried private sector employee. 2 hour notice for vacations? Are you kidding me? There's a reason why firefighters are the highest paid public sector employees in the state. And I'm one of the growing ranks of tax-paying Nevadans who would fire the top 50 highest paid firefighters and hire 300 in their place.

And no I don't think the public sector is hindering the abilities of the private sector to make money. I've never once thought that. <Broad generalization alert> IMO, the private sector embodies the essence of capitalism - with all the joys and sorrows that come with it. The public sector is a service sector that relies on taxes verses profits. In the private sector, there are people watching for abuses to their companies. There is no oversight in the public sector as bureaucracy hides abuses to the system. That's why us private sector folk get irked when it's our tax payer dollars that are being mismanaged.

[Nevadan]

I just completed a cursory job search, as things are getting more than a little edgy here at the 'U.' What I found is that the few private sector jobs available in my field pay almost double what I make and the responsibilities are not dramatically different.

Now, the benefits packages may very well be widely divergent, but not in health insurance, which the private sector positions were better off than I am with the State self-funded package. My plan has been gutted and is nothing better than major medical, now. Unlike the city and county retirement packages, as a state worker, I do contribute to my own retirement and the state matches. City and county workers have their retirement 100% funded, with no employee contribution, except through supplemental deferred comp or annuity programs. Although it can be claimed that employer matching is just not done in the private sector, and I do acknowledge that it likely is done very little in these tough times, I call BS on the general assertion that it is never done. I worked in the private sector for a dozen years, prior to coming to work at the University and I had matching plans at every company I worked for and received employer matches even during the recession in the early '90s.

Ultimately, Nevada has fewer state and local workers per capita than about 48 other states. (http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/SBSIIndexFinal.pdf) (page 45) The per capita tax burden on our citizens is amongst the lowest of any state in the U.S. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html) Our state ranks amongst the lowest, 3rd lowest, in per capita general fund expenditures, except in prisons and roads. (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1&sub=10&yr=91&typ=4&sort=a&o=a&sortc=1)Our tax structure is a hodge-podge POS that has been band-aided together and is utterly dependent upon severely unstable revenue sources, (gaming, sales and property) that become even more unstable when the whole of our economy tanks. The tax structure needs to be rebuilt, from the ground up and to force it out of the boom-bust cycle we've been in for-effing-ever, will require that the whole of the state's citizens take on a slightly larger portion of the almost non-existent current responsibility for the state's solvency and that our elected officials acquire enough spine to do the right thing. I'm not advocating dramatic increases in taxes. We don't want or need to swing the pendulum in the other direction too far, ala New York, Massachusetts, Washington, etc., but if our tax burden could just creep up from the bottom to somewhere above the bottom 15th percentile we could probably find our way out of most of our state's fiscal problems.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I just completed a cursory job search, as things are getting more than a little edgy here at the 'U.' What I found is that the few private sector jobs available in my field pay almost double what I make and the responsibilities are not dramatically different.

Now, the benefits packages may very well be widely divergent, but not in health insurance, which the private sector positions were better off than I am with the State self-funded package. My plan has been gutted and is nothing better than major medical, now. Unlike the city and county retirement packages, as a state worker, I do contribute to my own retirement and the state matches. City and county workers have their retirement 100% funded, with no employee contribution, except through supplemental deferred comp or annuity programs. Although it can be claimed that employer matching is just not done in the private sector, and I do acknowledge that it likely is done very little in these tough times, I call BS on the general assertion that it is never done. I worked in the private sector for a dozen years, prior to coming to work at the University and I had matching plans at every company I worked for and received employer matches even during the recession in the early '90s.

Ultimately, Nevada has fewer state and local workers per capita than about 48 other states. (http://www.sbecouncil.org/uploads/SBSIIndexFinal.pdf) (page 45) The per capita tax burden on our citizens is amongst the lowest of any state in the U.S. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/336.html) Our state ranks amongst the lowest, 3rd lowest, in per capita general fund expenditures, except in prisons and roads. (http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1&sub=10&yr=91&typ=4&sort=a&o=a&sortc=1)Our tax structure is a hodge-podge POS that has been band-aided together and is utterly dependent upon severely unstable revenue sources, (gaming, sales and property) that become even more unstable when the whole of our economy tanks. The tax structure needs to be rebuilt, from the ground up and to force it out of the boom-bust cycle we've been in for-effing-ever, will require that the whole of the state's citizens take on a slightly larger portion of the almost non-existent current responsibility for the state's solvency and that our elected officials acquire enough spine to do the right thing. I'm not advocating dramatic increases in taxes. We don't want or need to swing the pendulum in the other direction too far, ala New York, Massachusetts, Washington, etc., but if our tax burden could just creep up from the bottom to somewhere above the bottom 15th percentile we could probably find our way out of most of our state's fiscal problems.
Nevada is a rare state in that it doesn't have high state taxes and it doesn't fund a lot of the benefits other states do yet it's still struggling worse than most. Thanks for the info as I know a lot more about city and county benefits than state benefits.

But what taxes do you suggest? The only one I can think of that doesn't result in huge swings is a sales tax on necessary goods. People gotta eat no matter the economy.

I know Nevada was trying to add what we in Washington call the "business and opportunity tax" or B&O. It's a tax on gross business receipts so you pay taxes even if your company loses money. That's a terrible idea and hurts small businesses in WA.

I suppose an income tax is one thought, but that will only discourage retirees and new businesses. And states that feature such taxes are struggling anyway. Tough, tough choices.

[Nevadan]

Nevada is a rare state in that it doesn't have high state taxes and it doesn't fund a lot of the benefits other states do yet it's still struggling worse than most. Thanks for the info as I know a lot more about city and county benefits than state benefits.

But what taxes do you suggest? The only one I can think of that doesn't result in huge swings is a sales tax on necessary goods. People gotta eat no matter the economy.

I know Nevada was trying to add what we in Washington call the "business and opportunity tax" or B&O. It's a tax on gross business receipts so you pay taxes even if your company loses money. That's a terrible idea and hurts small businesses in WA.

I suppose an income tax is one thought, but that will only discourage retirees and new businesses. And states that feature such taxes are struggling anyway. Tough, tough choices.

You are right. These are tough, tough choices and I don't know that I have any great ideas. The governor's initiatives falls just short of outright lies, as he robs capital project funds for one-shot operating dollars and pilfers bond reserve accounts that are there to protect our governments' credit ratings when interest rates inevitably rise. I actually used to respect him, but my head must have been way up my azz on that one. He's Gibbons II without the established history of philandering, bad personal judgment and unwavering dogma.

State income tax just isn't gonna happen as it would require two votes of the populace for the amendment of the constitution and we have too may imported, NIMBY oldsters who have no interest in funding any damn thing....and they all vote.

I don't like the idea of a general corporate income tax, but I do not like the various corporations that have setup post office box corporations as tax dodges in our state. Both Microsoft and Apple do it and I'm sure many, many others do, as well. This form of business does very little good, if any, for our state and acts as a means for those companies to dodge what very well may be rightful tax burdens where the lion's share of their business actually occurs.

I also believe strongly that mining needs to bear a heavier burden. The rate could be variable and pegged to some grouping of market variables, but they need to pony up on a level that more closely approximates gaming's tax burden. Right now our natural resources are being plundered by foreign-based companies and the small, relative contribution to our economy that is made up by the minuscule mining tax, employment within the state and various, related sales taxes that are gleaned just don't add up to a fair share.

Nevada Policy Institute, a fairly conservative think-tank, has been advocating lowering the overall sales tax rate and instituting a sales tax on services. I don't know enough about the impact of this, but they seem to think it will help bridge the revenue shortfall. Logically, in my mind at least, this would seem to also be a somewhat turbulent form of revenue, presuming that services rendered would decrease in proportion to the health of the economy.

I think we should tax the shite out of sin and at the same time broaden that piece of the tax base. Booze and tobacco users should pay through the nose for their consumption....and yes, that includes me too....:p

The state should seize back its wild-west status and legalize marijuana. If this were done, they should sell it directly through state-run stores, at least initially. That way they get not only heavy taxation on it, but all of the profit. Also, if the state runs the enterprise, the fed will struggle mightily in trying to impose the federal ban, as they do now with medical marijuana providers. The biggest problem with this would be controlling and regulating interstate transport, so we would likely piss off our neighboring states. However, if there were a legal source in the states, an extraneous benefit would be to start in diminishing the power of the Mexican drug cartels. It would be the beginning of a slippery slope of their losing a portion of their ill-gotten gains and hence may have less incentive to make war along the border.

So, I don't have the outright solutions, but a few ideas. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about the possible sources for tax change as those in our government. It is time they earned their dime and faced the harder choices that are necessary and stop relying on the relatively easy political choices in thier sole reliance on budget cuts to turn things around.

[Packfan11]

I'd be ok with thousands of square miles of wind turbines and solar panels in central Nevada. The state can lease out the land for pennies, and reap the rewards of clean energy sales on the west coast. That, and turn Yucca into a spent fuel refinery verses a storage facility.

[Stuck in Seattle]

You are right. These are tough, tough choices and I don't know that I have any great ideas. The governor's initiatives falls just short of outright lies, as he robs capital project funds for one-shot operating dollars and pilfers bond reserve accounts that are there to protect our governments' credit ratings when interest rates inevitably rise. I actually used to respect him, but my head must have been way up my azz on that one. He's Gibbons II without the established history of philandering, bad personal judgment and unwavering dogma.

State income tax just isn't gonna happen as it would require two votes of the populace for the amendment of the constitution and we have too may imported, NIMBY oldsters who have no interest in funding any damn thing....and they all vote.

I don't like the idea of a general corporate income tax, but I do not like the various corporations that have setup post office box corporations as tax dodges in our state. Both Microsoft and Apple do it and I'm sure many, many others do, as well. This form of business does very little good, if any, for our state and acts as a means for those companies to dodge what very well may be rightful tax burdens where the lion's share of their business actually occurs.

I also believe strongly that mining needs to bear a heavier burden. The rate could be variable and pegged to some grouping of market variables, but they need to pony up on a level that more closely approximates gaming's tax burden. Right now our natural resources are being plundered by foreign-based companies and the small, relative contribution to our economy that is made up by the minuscule mining tax, employment within the state and various, related sales taxes that are gleaned just don't add up to a fair share.

Nevada Policy Institute, a fairly conservative think-tank, has been advocating lowering the overall sales tax rate and instituting a sales tax on services. I don't know enough about the impact of this, but they seem to think it will help bridge the revenue shortfall. Logically, in my mind at least, this would seem to also be a somewhat turbulent form of revenue, presuming that services rendered would decrease in proportion to the health of the economy.

I think we should tax the shite out of sin and at the same time broaden that piece of the tax base. Booze and tobacco users should pay through the nose for their consumption....and yes, that includes me too....:p

The state should seize back its wild-west status and legalize marijuana. If this were done, they should sell it directly through state-run stores, at least initially. That way they get not only heavy taxation on it, but all of the profit. Also, if the state runs the enterprise, the fed will struggle mightily in trying to impose the federal ban, as they do now with medical marijuana providers. The biggest problem with this would be controlling and regulating interstate transport, so we would likely piss off our neighboring states. However, if there were a legal source in the states, an extraneous benefit would be to start in diminishing the power of the Mexican drug cartels. It would be the beginning of a slippery slope of their losing a portion of their ill-gotten gains and hence may have less incentive to make war along the border.

So, I don't have the outright solutions, but a few ideas. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about the possible sources for tax change as those in our government. It is time they earned their dime and faced the harder choices that are necessary and stop relying on the relatively easy political choices in thier sole reliance on budget cuts to turn things around.
You won't get that MJ law to pass a vote.

The border war isn't about pot. The money is in the powders.

States (like WA) are doing all the things you hate about Nevada's Governor even though they have greater tax revenues. Broke is broke and raising taxes is a toxic subject right now.

I'm all for greater Nevada taxes on alcohol and tobacco. As long as such things pay for current programs not create new ones.

I'm iffy on the mines. Not completely closed to the idea, but I've explained my worries about businesses like mining with high start up costs, a product with great variations in value and no pricing power.

[Stuck in Seattle]

I'd be ok with thousands of square miles of wind turbines and solar panels in central Nevada. The state can lease out the land for pennies, and reap the rewards of clean energy sales on the west coast. That, and turn Yucca into a spent fuel refinery verses a storage facility.
Hawthorne would kill to get some nuclear power stations built down there.

[NevadaAllStar]

Keep in mind I am a public sector employee and found the following information posted in my monthly union magazine, but the information comes from an organization called the National Institute on Retirement Security ( http://www.nirsonline.org ). I do not know their political affiliation or leanings, but the study they completed called "Out of Balance" analyzed 20 years of data and has been featured on PBS as well as CNN. Some interesting findings such as:

"Jobs in the public sector typically require more education than private sector positions. Thus, state and local employees are twice as likely to hold a college degree or higher as compared to private sector employees. Only 23% of private sector employees have completed college as compared to about 48% in the public sector."

and

" Wages and salaries of state and local employees are lower than those for private sector employees with comparable earnings determinants such as education and work experience. State workers typically earn 11% less and local workers 12% less.

During the last 15 years, the pay gap has grown - earnings for state and local workers have generally declined relative to comparable private sector employees."

They did factor in the retirement and benefits and found that total compensation is 6.8 percent lower for state employees and 7.4 percent lower for local workers, compared with comparable private sector employees.

The whole study is lengthy and like I said I do not know any behind the scene's bias this organization may have. Here is the link to the study if anyone wants to read it and make their own determinations:

http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/final_out_of_balance_report_april_2010.pdf

[Stuck in Seattle]

http://i926.photobucket.com/albums/ad101/patrickh59/edugraph.jpg

[student4ever]

http://i926.photobucket.com/albums/ad101/patrickh59/edugraph.jpg

I know this is your favorite chart to try to illustrate your point, but do you have a similar chart for private schools? Without a similar chart for private schools, we don't know all the variables required for this debate. Also, we have no idea what the money is spent on. What does the cost of basic goods look like over the same time frame? I'd be willing to bet it is very similar.

Also of note (and key to understanding this graph and its implications), it is impossible for the student scores to change by as high of a percent as the number of teachers or the amount of money being spent per student. The number of teachers and the amount of money being spent per student are open ended on the upward side and can increase for any number of reasons and by any amount. Student scores are closed on the upward side and are restricted because they are already measured in percent or some finite number that is consistent across the timeline. This isn't a fair comparison or way of actually showing this data. You could take any two sets of data where one is a percent of a closed system on the upper end (student scores) and the other is the percent change of an open ended upward system (number of teachers, cost per student) and the open ended upward trending system is always going to appear to vastly outpace or make the percent of a closed system look like it isn't advancing. In other words, while it is true that test scores haven't changed that much, except science going down, how does this chart actually show anything at all? While I'm at it, what is the increase in the number of students? That should be on a chart of this type as well, even if the chart itself is overall meaningless. it is a false comparison and I'm a bit disappointed more people don't recognize it as such, which brings me to the ridiculous rant in the following paragraph.

I'll tell you what I find the most troubling about this chart, the science score drop (though it is interesting that the science and math scores came back up during the steepest increase in per pupil spending). The problem with the American student is that a significant percentage of them are being conditioned away from school to believe that science is some sort of hokey BS that can't be understood and shouldn't be trusted unless it fits their or their parents preconceived notions. The monetary problems of the United States are a side effect of encouraged ignorance with regards to science rather than some construct of the public employment system.

[renowiggum]

Student scores are closed on the upward side and are restricted because they are already measured in percent or some finite number that is consistent across the timeline. This isn't a fair comparison or way of actually showing this data. You could take any two sets of data where one is a percent of a closed system on the upper end (student scores) and the other is the percent change of an open ended upward system (number of teachers, cost per student) and the open ended upward trending system is always going to appear to vastly outpace or make the percent of a closed system look like it isn't advancing.

That's a fair argument - test scores, by their nature, don't just keep going up and up. Even if I do think we waste a lot of money in education, for me it's more an argument about inefficient administrative costs.

But I'd take any private school comparisons with a grain of salt, because the student base in private and public schools isn't the same - if you're allowed to select for the highest achieving kids, you get better results overall, all other things being equal.

[renowiggum]

The monetary problems of the United States are a side effect of encouraged ignorance with regards to science rather than some construct of the public employment system.

I'm not sure I buy this. The monetary problems of the US are a result of people wanting lots of stuff and not wanting to pay for it. I'm amused with every poll that comes out with the majority clearly in favor of all the big causes of our structural deficit, with people adamantly opposed to making the cuts that are needed (cf, "death panels"), but also unwilling to raise taxes to pay for these programs.

It might be that a more rigorous way of thinking would help, but if anything, I'd put the arrow the other way - people don't like to think hard about things, and as a result there are other consequences of which the huge structural deficit and a decline in the sciences are among them.

Of course, I know plenty of people who think the earth is 6,000 years old through church though I don't believe that myself (though I used to). It wasn't been beaten upside the head from outside my church that changed my mind, though, but exposure to someone inside the church that didn't see Young Earth Creationism as the only possible worldview.

But I can say that the more science is wielded as a weapon against faith, the more resistance to science you will get. Your enemy in converting the reluctant churchgoer is not the church or faith itself, but rather those who want to use science as a weapon to destroy that faith. If science is seen as the enemy, it is to be resisted.... but it doesn't have to be that way. I'd go on... but I'm on my way to church. http://www.silverandbluesports.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[student4ever]

I'm not sure I buy this. The monetary problems of the US are a result of people wanting lots of stuff and not wanting to pay for it. I'm amused with every poll that comes out with the majority clearly in favor of all the big causes of our structural deficit, with people adamantly opposed to making the cuts that are needed (cf, "death panels"), but also unwilling to raise taxes to pay for these programs.

It might be that a more rigorous way of thinking would help, but if anything, I'd put the arrow the other way - people don't like to think hard about things, and as a result there are other consequences of which the huge structural deficit and a decline in the sciences are among them.

Of course, I know plenty of people who think the earth is 6,000 years old through church though I don't believe that myself (though I used to). It wasn't been beaten upside the head from outside my church that changed my mind, though, but exposure to someone inside the church that didn't see Young Earth Creationism as the only possible worldview.

But I can say that the more science is wielded as a weapon against faith, the more resistance to science you will get. Your enemy in converting the reluctant churchgoer is not the church or faith itself, but rather those who want to use science as a weapon to destroy that faith. If science is seen as the enemy, it is to be resisted.... but it doesn't have to be that way. I'd go on... but I'm on my way to church. http://www.silverandbluesports.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

You've done well to define the problem. There is a perception that science is attacking religion when I see it happening other way far more often (probably because I'm a scientist). I recently had a conversation with a retired presbyterian pastor who said the following to me. "Christianity shouldn't be so rigid as to ignore the overwhelming evidence that science has presented to us and those people who retain that rigidity are the people who are giving christianity a bad name."

[Stuck in Seattle]

A while back I priced the private schools in the South King County area and they were far far cheaper than what public schools cost.

As for taking private school vs public school measures with a grain of salt because of the difference in the students. Look at the DC voucher program that Obama killed for a good look. On top of that, the major problems in US education are in the inner city. Vouchers would at least allow parents to get their kids out of dangerous and failed public schools that have abdicated any responsibility for actually educating and socializing children.

As for job equivalent wages...I have no idea if what an economist does for the government is the same as what an economist does for an investment firm. Are their risks, hours, security, responsibilities the same? And even if they are...I don't worry about it. We've never struggled to find decent employees for government office.

I have just one problem with public service employees...that is their unions.

UAW didn't result in better cars or more efficient employees. They drove up wages and made work and discipline rules so intricate that it's a constant struggle to make any money. Yet non UAW plants are successful throughout the same region.

Teacher's unions don't make better students nor better teachers. They just make schools more expensive an protect and pay bad teachers the same as good ones. I do agree with Wiggum that admin costs are big problem as well. But what I like about my graph is that it shows that, if nothing else, we're spending way more than we should for education.

Police and Fire unions, like teachers unions do the same thing. The big problem is that for decades teachers, police and fire and held higher moral and social respect than other jobs. Now, with them being organized, any politician that won't voted for higher pay and benefits for these groups is targeted for removal or defeat. The signs go up. "X is against the Police", "X is against educating children", "X is putting your home at risk to fire". Their unions take the public's money paid as wages then uses it to elect the very people that are supposed to negotiate for the public - while expecting them to act in the union's interest rather than that of the general citizen. These politicians know that to cross the unions leads to what we've seen in Wisconsin.

Until these unions are dealt with we will continue to see huge inflationary pressures on wages and benefits for public employees. They will continue to use hundreds of millions of dollars to punish anyone that doesn't tow the line. And it will lead to higher and higher taxation at the expense of private industry and their employees.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Here's some info S4E wanted. I stumble across this stuff all the time, but it's very hard to search for and find or I would have put something up sooner. I got it HERE (http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-much-do-public-school-teachers.html) (fun little blog) and he got it HERE (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/03/public-sector-premium-for-school.html) (a great economics blog).

This is from the second link:

The chart is based on Department of Education data available here (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_075.asp) for the 2007-2008 school year comparing average salaries for public and private school teachers at the elementary and secondary level. Here are some interesting (shocking?) comparisons:


1. Overall, public school teachers make a 34.11% premium compared to their private school counterparts.

2. Controlling for experience, public school teachers make a premium that generally increases with the number of years teaching, reaching a maximum premium of 49% for public school teachers with 25-29 years of experience.

3. [B]Public school teachers with one year of experience make about the same ($42,210) as private school teachers with 25-29 years of experience ($42,910).

4. Comparing teachers with equal education, public school teachers earn large premiums over their private school counterparts, especially for public school teachers with less than a bachelor's degree, who earn more than twice the amount on average ($53,880) as private school teachers with the same level of education ($26,670).


http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu16/pathos21/us-public-vs-private-full-time-teachers-average-incomes-2007-08.jpg

[student4ever]

Thanks SiS. I'll look it over. Solely based on that graph, the comparison is certainly surprising to me because it definitely isn't what I see amongst the people I know personally.

EDIT: One thing that is obvious to me. All teachers are dramatically underpaid whether private or public. As pointed out by someone in the comments, private school teachers make essentially the equivalent of if you were to pay a babysitter $1/hr per kid. That's just sad. This chart should be titled "Why not to be a teacher."

FWIW, I don't put too much stock into the green line there without some more information. You need to take equivalent education into account on that line for it to be meaningful and it isn't clear one way or the other whether that has been taken into account or not.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Thanks SiS. I'll look it over. Solely based on that graph, the comparison is certainly surprising to me because it definitely isn't what I see amongst the people I know personally.
I didn't study it closely and there are some tools at the sites to do more analysis...but while I'll probably take another look at it, I burn out on these arguments. The next 10 years will bring an end to the debate one way or another.

[BustNChops]

EDIT: One thing that is obvious to me. All teachers are dramatically underpaid whether private or public. As pointed out by someone in the comments, private school teachers make essentially the equivalent of if you were to pay a babysitter $1/hr per kid. That's just sad. This chart should be titled "Why not to be a teacher."

I'll disagree that ALL teachers are underpaid. There is going to be a bell curve and I am going to go out on a limb and say that most ("50%") teachers are paid what they currently deserve, more ("25%") that are paid too much and the rest ("25%) aren't paid enough. The Department of Education and the Teachers Union has killed education - look at our world rankings as all the proof that you need. The good teachers need to be paid even more - the bad teachers need to be fired (nearly impossible today) - and the middle 50% need to be incentivized to become good teachers and rewarded for doing so.

What I can agree with you on is paying the ones that deserve the extra money more than what they make today.

It is not a popular thing to say, but the fact is teachers are a 3/4 time job. As such, they are paid accordingly for the number of days worked. I know/have known a number of teachers that have side businesses to supplement their income -- (2 have landscaping companies, 1 has a window washing company another has some water toy rental (Kayak type stuff) company at Tahoe, and my sister in law has a video recording / college recruiting business. I say power to them.

The Harvard Business Review Stat for today was quite interesting and I think feeds into why we need better teachers and more of them + we must get rid of the bad ones.

Good Teachers
Boost Students' Earnings

Over the course of just one year of teaching, a teacher who is at the 60th percentile in effectiveness (better than 60% of others) raises students' lifetime earnings by an average of $5,292 per person, which translates into a present value of $105,830 for a class of 20, says Eric A. Hanusheka of Stanford. Below-average teachers produce corresponding decreases in earnings, so gains will be canceled out if a student gets a bad teacher after having a good one, Hanusheka says.

Source: The economic value of higher teacher quality

[student4ever]

Are there bad teachers? Unquestionably. Is paying them somewhere between the equivalent of $1.00 to $1.50 per hour per kid really the best way to attract the best teachers? Probably not.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Are there bad teachers? Unquestionably. Is paying them somewhere between the equivalent of $1.00 to $1.50 per hour per kid really the best way to attract the best teachers? Probably not.
How do we know a good teacher from a bad one?

[student4ever]

How do we know a good teacher from a bad one?

Fantastic question. What's your answer?

I'm not sure I have one, but I have a P-doc length post below that explains some thoughts I have on the subject.

I'm not convinced it is standardized testing because every student learns differently and at different paces depending on the subject. Are there basic skills that should be learned by the completion of certain levels? Yes. Should those basic skills be tested? Yes. Should a teacher get judged on them? That's where I get a little fuzzy.

I took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills from kindergarten through 8th grade and I don't know that they actually measured any progress for me. I probably could have taken the 8th grade test in 4th or 5th grade and done just as well. In 8th grade, based on my ITBS scores, I was invited to take the ACT. I scored exactly the same as I did when I took it my junior year of high school. Did those tests measure my progress as a student? Absolutely not? I learned a ton in high school, but the tests certainly didn't measure it. If a teacher's performance was based on those tests, mine would have always said the teacher was the bestest teacher ever and they were great at their jobs. While I definitely learned something from every teacher I ever had, I learned just as much on my own. There were several kids in my class that were in a similar situation to me (we were a bunch of nerds) and I'm sure they would all say the same thing.

I'll use a different example from my youth as well. A kid in my class had parents that were probably on drugs or at the very least smoked and drank throughout the mother's pregnancy with him. He wasn't very bright. I still remember in first grade when he tore up his homework, poured glue all over it and started eating it, calling it macaroni and cheese. In kindergarten, he would always gross us out at lunch by sucking milk up through his nose, spitting it out his mouth, and then sucking it back up his nose and swallowing it. His mother died of a drug overdose when we were in first grade. His father died of a drug overdose when we were in 4th grade. In fifth grade, this student's little ovals on the Iowa Basic Skills Test spelled out F-U-C-K-Y-O-U. They made him retake them. I never knew what his scores were, but based on my interactions with him, I'm guessing he was below the minimum standard. Were his scores the results of the teachers he had? I seriously doubt it.

I will say that if tests are the only measure we can use, then the tests need to be tailored to individual students instead of testing for some blanket lower limit. Lower minimum standard testing is complete B.S. in my opinion. BnC mentioned our test scores being lower than several other countries, and I attribute that to forcing teachers into teaching to lower limits as much as I do to parents being less and less involved in education, rather than putting it solely on the backs of the teachers not doing their jobs. If tests must be used, it should be a test that actually measures a student's progress and by tailoring tests to individual students, you are going to bring up the scores of the nation and maybe we can finally get rid of this ridiculous idea that teaching to a lower limit is the way to measure everybody.

That brings me back to my point in the post you responded to SiS. We are paying teachers babysitter money, which means you are bound to get a certain element that are going to be nothing but babysitters. If you up the pay to something more substantial, the majority of the babysitters will get weeded out before they ever get jobs in schools in the first place and those that fall through the cracks will be found out quickly enough.

[Stuck in Seattle]

Teachers are paid babysitting money? Pay means compensation not just salary and their salary alone is better than average for working 180 days a year. And I continue to contend we could easily get equal results paying far less than we currently do. Not that all of that would come from teacher compensation, but the current system is at least 30% fat.

The current system pays more for teachers that complete more education and have more years in service regardless of other factors. I don't believe that either of those attributes makes them better teachers.

The only rational measure of the quality of the teacher is how well they teach...and if that isn't reflected in student achievement then there's a complete disconnect between between quality, effectiveness and outcomes.

The old saying that the plural of anecdote is not data stands in this case. While standardized testing won't capture every success and failure it does establish a level of confidence that achievement and improvement are occurring at a certain level of effectiveness.

It's suggested that more pay would attract better teachers. Yet I fail to see a correlation between pay and quality. Everyone wants to blame the parents...and while that's a factor the current system is the worst possible for addressing it.

I believe that most teachers are actually pretty good. But the system makes that of little consequence. I also believe that they are often over educated for the job. 80% of kids could effectively be taught by people with an associates degree at most. Classes involving advanced mathematics and science and others would require more. But I also believe that the credentialing process of teachers acts as a barrier to entry for people that could be just as effective as 3rd grade teachers with masters degrees. And they'd be thrilled to earn what current public teachers earn. I think the job is far simpler and less complicated than it's made out to be. The administrative complexities certainly make the job harder than it has to be. But with all the teachers I've know, I haven't felt they were generally any more intelligent than many of the blackjack dealers and office workers I've known.

I think the gap between US students and foreign students is mostly of little importance, but what do we use to measure this gap? The very standardized tests that many claim don't measure actual knowledge. The gap is mostly a factor of demographics in my opinion. When 10% of kids are low income ESL/immigrant students and another 8% are impoverished inner city kids that are being left behind - they have a great effect on the comparison. I've read that this gap tends to disappear by the later grades, but I don't have a link to that. The vastly more culturally homogenous countries of Western Europe don't have the issues we in the US have. This also applies to the various other comparisons with Europe. A homogenous advance country the size of Montana is not really the same as the US. But I'm also the guy that thinks college is wasted on a significant percentage of those who attend.

The problem with broken families and struggling kids is real. But the current system keeps throwing money at the problem with no accountability and a proven lack of success. Vouchers and charters can lead to accountability and innovation, but these are the very things the teacher unions fight against. Their greed for money and control trumps their concern for the kids and their ideal of innovation comes down to more pay and smaller classes. But that's not working as it's precisely what we've been doing for the last 20 years.

The demand for vouchers and charters in the inner cities is huge. But the teachers, administrators and middle and upper middle class fight them with all they've got. They don't mind imprisoning the poor and dysfunctional in failing schools as long as it keeps them away from their superior suburban ones.

As for standardized testing I too have a tale. I was a troubled kid for a variety of reasons. I was only passed out of both 7th and 8th grade because of how I measured on the standardized tests at the time. Did those tests capture every nuance of my knowledge? No. But they showed I could read, reason and communicate at a level far beyond my age. Thank goodness for testing.

[NMpackalum]

I've read this thread with some interest now that I have 3 children in school. My perspective is purely based on our school district through interactions with local administrators, teachers and superintendents as PTO president and board members of educational foundations. In my limited experience, I think BustNChops is just about right if not generous with 25/50/25 ratio of those that deserve more/just right/paid too much. Since the title of the thread is public vs private sector, I can tell you that as a private employer I would hire at best 25% of the teachers I've encountered for my business. My brother in law and father in law are high school principals and they would agree with me. My sister in law is the district teacher educator and evaluator and she has completely shifted from pro teacher to disgusted with her profession.

The main problem is no accountability. If you don't get rid of a teacher within the first 3 year contract, you can't get rid of them. The bad teachers get traded around the district to different schools. With respect to pay, With average pay of 50-60k plus significant pension and benefits for 10m work and no accountability for their actions and near untouchable job security, I can't say I'm too sympathetic. Michelle Rhee (former Washington DC superintendent/education reformer) had offered their teachers union incentive pay to triple their average salary if they would agree to allow removal of poorly performing teachers as one of the criteria. Of course this was declined.

Maybe my experience is unusual but I doubt it.

[Stuck in Seattle]

An interesting aside to my claim that the "education gap" is closely tied to demographics. There was a recent article by Paul Krugman that claimed Wisconsin's union teachers provided superior educations to the non union Texas teachers. Of course he used standardized test scores to prove the point.

When these tests support them (in this case or when scores improve) they are proof that they are succeeding, when they can lead to more funding (this case of education gap) they are proof positive but when they go against them they are horribly flawed and detrimental to education. But I digress.

So a blogger pulled the demographic data and test scores and Ta DAAA...

The black students in Texas tested out better than the black students in Wisconsin in all fields.

The Hispanic students in Texas tested out better than the Hispanic students in Wisconsin in all fields but 4th grade science but that was reversed by the 8th grade.

The white students tested out higher than the white students in Wisconsin in all areas.

But because the ratio blacks and Hispanics was much higher in Texas, the overall scores were higher for Wisconsin.

Also, Wisconsin was below the national average in 8 of 18 areas. Texas exceeded the national average in all areas with all 3 demographic groups.

Here's the link. (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/longhorns-17-badgers-1.html)You can check his reasons for using 4th grade and 8th grade data and the data itself. Here's a second post (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/03/badgering-the-witless.html) he made that addresses questions and criticisms. Just for fun here is a scientific study (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2946669)showing that teacher's unions deserve blame for why the inputs to education keep increasing while outcomes don't improve.

Here are the results of Iowahawk's study:

2009 4th Grade Math
White students: Texas 254, Wisconsin 250 (national average 248)
Black students: Texas 231, Wisconsin 217 (national 222)
Hispanic students: Texas 233, Wisconsin 228 (national 227)
2009 8th Grade Math
White students: Texas 301, Wisconsin 294 (national 294)
Black students: Texas 272, Wisconsin 254 (national 260)
Hispanic students: Texas 277, Wisconsin 268 (national 260)
2009 4th Grade Reading
White students: Texas 232, Wisconsin 227 (national 229)
Black students: Texas 213, Wisconsin 192 (national 204)
Hispanic students: Texas 210, Wisconsin 202 (national 204)
2009 8th Grade Reading
White students: Texas 273, Wisconsin 271 (national 271)
Black students: Texas 249, Wisconsin 238 (national 245)
Hispanic students: Texas 251, Wisconsin 250 (national 248)
2009 4th Grade Science
White students: Texas 168, Wisconsin 164 (national 162)
Black students: Texas 139, Wisconsin 121 (national 127)
Hispanic students: Wisconsin 138, Texas 136 (national 130)
2009 8th Grade Science
White students: Texas 167, Wisconsin 165 (national 161)
Black students: Texas 133, Wisconsin 120 (national 125)
Hispanic students: Texas 141, Wisconsin 134 (national 131)

[student4ever]

RE: Babysitter Money

180 days * 8 hours per day= 1440 hours

$42210/1440 hours=$29.3125/hr

$29.3125/hr/20 students=$1.465425 per hour per kid

Babysitter money.

[Stuck in Seattle]

RE: Babysitter Money

180 days * 8 hours per day= 1440 hours

$42210/1440 hours=$29.3125/hr

$29.3125/hr/20 students=$1.465425 per hour per kid

Babysitter money.
Lies, damn lies and statistics. I paid a neighbor kid $20 a night to watch 3 kids for 7 hours a day. That's less than $1 an hour. Day care teachers watch and teach 9 kids for $9hr. A casino Pit Manager supervises dozens of dealers for 8 hours while they're handling millions of dollars in transactions yet only gets $30hr. Oh the horror!