unions killing jobs...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm sorry, you are just quoting words, without any apparent understanding of the meaning.

Look at the CBO report released this week. Is that CBO prediction for SS better, worse or the same as what was predicted last year?

ok, i'll bite...i have not seen hte new report, and i can't open it on my phone.
are these wonderful new and improved numbers based on the spending default deal they passed along with the debt ceiling increase? i am figuring it is, because it is the only new funding change that is going to happen unless the supercommittee comes up with other ideas.
and if it is, how do you feel about those numbers if it is based on a deal you derided?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, i'll bite...i have not seen hte new report, and i can't open it on my phone.
are these wonderful new and improved numbers based on the spending default deal they passed along with the debt ceiling increase? i am figuring it is, because it is the only new funding change that is going to happen unless the supercommittee comes up with other ideas.
and if it is, how do you feel about those numbers if it is based on a deal you derided?

No. It is just the usually regular readjustment prediction of the health of the Social Security funds, based upon most recent information. Just the regular, usual calculation on it's health and longevity.

[Danzig]

i will have to read that when i get home in ten days.

[Cannon Shell]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

[Danzig]

i read that article yesterday evening when i got to the hotel....thought it was interesting.

[Riot]

That was an interesting opinion article in the WSJ.

But so are these, compiled this week (and being completely ignored by right-wing media, including the Rupert-Murdoch-owned editorial board of the WSJ)

"The Stimulus worked"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...bibJ_blog.html

Study: ”Did the Stimulus Stimulate? Real Time Estimates of the Effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote, Dartmouth College.

What it says: The stimulus had a positive, statistically significant effect on employment. The effects varied by type of spending. Aid to states for education and law enforcement didn’t have a significant effect, but aid to low-income people and infrastructure spending showed very positive impacts. The multiplier was between 1.96 to 2.31 for low-income spending, 1.85 for infrastructure

Study: “Does State Fiscal Relief During Recessions Increase Employment? Evidence from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Gabriel Chodorow-Reich (Berkeley), Laura Feiveson (MIT), Zachary Liscow (Berkeley), and William Gui Woolston (Stanford).

What it says: The state fiscal aid portion of the stimulus, which specifically increased federal Medicaid matching funds, had significant positive effects on employment. The additional matching funds increased employment by 3.5 job-years per $100,000 spent, and the multiplier for the funds is around 2.

Study: ”Fiscal Spending Jobs Multipliers: Evidence from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” Daniel J. Wilson of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

The stimulus created 2 million jobs in its first year, and 3.2 million by March 2011. .... Private sector, state and local government and construction sectors all showed consistently significant positive effects, whereas whether the effect on manufacturing, education and health was positive depends on whether one looks at announcements, obligations or payments.

More detail, original study links, more studies (including two that say effects were marginal) and analysis at website above.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't know. I'm too depressed for the teachers in my family after that.

the reason i asked if those teachers worked similar days/hours is how else can you assure a valid comparison? you can't just say they make more and say that is that. if it is not apples to apples, it is not valid

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the reason i asked if those teachers worked similar days/hours is how else can you assure a valid comparison? you can't just say they make more and say that is that. if it is not apples to apples, it is not valid

It's for a year of work. None of them were broken down into payroll periods.

How can that not be valid? Teachers are not paid hourly, they are paid a salary for a "school year", whatever that might be locally. It's clear that in the US we don't value our teachers, financially, as highly as many other countries. That's a shame. If you want the best and brightest in the profession, you treat them well and make the profession respected and admired in society.

In the United States, we blame teachers for causing financial hardships on our local taxing districts (yeah, like they physically go in and steal the money? That it doesn't take the town to tax and decide what to spend on?) and we call them freeloaders and insult them. And bust their unions.

[Danzig]

of course it matters. whenever it is suggested that school go all year, raher than half, the first things teachers say is they would have to be paid more for working more.
also, what are class sizes elsewhere? benefits, pensions, etc? days off, hours per day worked, planning periods, etc. its all part of the total compensation package.
hamburg jr high and hs teachers have students in their classes for a sum total of four and a half hours a day for 178 days a year~which is less than half of a year. how does that schedule and pay compare to the countries you listed?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

of course it matters. whenever it is suggested that school go all year, raher than half, the first things teachers say is they would have to be paid more for working more.
also, what are class sizes elsewhere? benefits, pensions, etc? days off, hours per day worked, planning periods, etc. its all part of the total compensation package.
hamburg jr high and hs teachers have students in their classes for a sum total of four and a half hours a day for 178 days a year~which is less than half of a year. how does that schedule and pay compare to the countries you listed?

LOL - It looks like you have some detailed investigation to do to find answers to all your questions.

Try searching on each country, and determining their school year, benefits, pension, class size, etc. if you would like to know it.

It's apparent that for a school year, for teachers with 15 years experience, many other countries pay more than the US, whether compared by GDP or even by straight salary.

If you suspect that's not true for some reason, or want to break that information down into hourly salary, etc, do the research and post that for us.

[Danzig]

no ma'am, i do not have a job ahead of me. it is your assertion that other countries offer higher compensation; the burden of proof falls on you to back up your assertion. its why i asked the question.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no ma'am, i do not have a job ahead of me. it is your assertion that other countries offer higher compensation; the burden of proof falls on you to back up your assertion. its why i asked the question.

LOL. My "assertion" was posting that other countries pay more for a teacher with 15 years experience, both by GDP and quite a few by straight salary.

You want to rip that data apart, YOU do it.

Edit: and here is the link for the data http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...und-the-world/

[Danzig]

when i post something, i make sure its verified first.
besides, im in chattanooga tn enjoying the bourbon, on my phone, and certainly unable to do your dirty work for you.
time to eat some ribs. when you have complete info, post it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when i post something, i make sure its verified first.
besides, im in chattanooga tn enjoying the bourbon, on my phone, and certainly unable to do your dirty work for you.
time to eat some ribs. when you have complete info, post it.

LOL I did. If you don't like it, YOU post something different

Enjoy your bourbon and ribs

[Danzig]

oh, i see you edited your post above and added a link. read the link, not the wealth of info needed to make an adequate comparison.
guess it'll have to wait til i get home, since you don't seem interested in proving your point.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, i see you edited your post above and added a link. read the link, not the wealth of info needed to make an adequate comparison.
guess it'll have to wait til i get home, since you don't seem interested in proving your point.

THAT'S a FIRST!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, i see you edited your post above and added a link. read the link, not the wealth of info needed to make an adequate comparison.
guess it'll have to wait til i get home, since you don't seem interested in proving your point.

Excuse me, it's not my point, it's YOUR point you want "me" to prove

And you accusation of "make sure it's verified" is complete nonsense you make up out of thin air.

I posted information about teacher salaries compared to the world and provided the link. Yes, I gave you the data source - if YOU don't like what it says, YOU are the one that has to bring different data to the table.

And BTW, the information you want on teacher hours is right there on the page - if you had really bothered to look.

I am not responsible for proving your arguments against a link.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

THAT'S a FIRST!

I guess when I provide all those tables and charts and graphs and stuff - that seem to irritate plenty of other posters around here - you can't seem them and they become imaginary to you.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

I guess when I provide all those tables and charts and graphs and stuff - that seem to irritate plenty of other posters around here - you can't seem them and they become imaginary to you.

Doesnt bother me when you put up graphs and the like.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Doesnt bother me when you put up graphs and the like.

Apparently you just don't bother to read them? You just said, "that's a first" - now you say, no, it's not.

Yeah, way to go, Timmi

And Danzig: Somebody asked what American teachers made compared to other countries. I posted a whole bunch of countries.

You said - clearly without even looking at it - that what I posted was invalid in your opinion (you wanted the data presented another way), and that being invalid according to your standards is somehow magically my fault. Baloney.

I gave the link. If YOU don't like the way data was posted compared to GDP and straight salary comparison, if YOU don't think the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development doesn't put out good data, I suggest YOU bring other data the way "you want it" to the table.

And, btw, the "way you want it" is listed on the page I posted.