| Author |
Message |
    
Sagitar
Citizen
Username: Sagitar
Post Number: 3
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 3:57 pm: | 
|
The Bergen Record is doing an interesting series about how the public employee unions got over the rest of us...Very interesting.
When you ask a question like why a little town like Maplewood his 40 plus employees in its fire department, you can find the answer here...
http://www.northjersey.com/runawaypay
http://www.northjersey.com/runawaypay/
Focusing on police officers and teachers, we describe a system that has produced $100,000 base salaries for the rank and file, generous pensions and no-cost benefit packages – all at a time when the private sector is going in the opposite direction.
We don't blame the workers. They're paid what government employers are willing to pay them.
We blame the people who established a system that's so one-sided that local governments can't get a break. Those governments sit down to negotiate contracts with police and teachers and it's game over before it even begins. The big losers in the process – taxpayers. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 2055
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:13 pm: |
|
i couldn't agree more. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 246
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Yeah, you're right. They're paid too much. Lets bring police and teacher pay down to minimum wage, about $12,700 per year ($14,800 after October!). I'm SURE we'll get quality law enforcement and education professionals for that! These are people you're trusting your life with, and people you're trusting your children with. By the way, if you really think the Maplewood and South Orange "rank and file" have base (i.e. w/o overtime) salaries of $100,000, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
As far as the benefits go, instead of people complaining about the packages the public employees get, maybe everyone should be demanding that of the private sector? Maybe if CEO's and other higher ups stopped getting multi-million dollar bonuses and other perks, they could afford to take better care of the people who actually do the work for the company. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2774
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Thank you for posting that combustion. |
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8392
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:44 pm: |
|
What they said.
No, not the first two. The last two. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10157
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Recall this is the liberal media asking the questions, not a right wing thinktank.
I could see justifying this kind of package for a big city, but leafy Bergen County? |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10158
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Bad fiscal management
 |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 250
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Recent salaries for some CEO's from Forbes.com. Remember, these figures DON'T include bonuses or other incentives.
Have trouble affording health care? Are your claims denied as medically unnecessary?
Ronald Williams, Aetna, $30.86 million
Edwin Crawford, Caremark Rx, $69.66 million
H Edward Hanway, Cigna, $28.82 million
Jay Gellert, HealthNet, $1.03 million
Thomas MacMahon, Laboratory Corp America, $15.15 million
David Snow, Medco Health, $1.91 million
C. Robert Henrikson, MetLife, $5.5 million
Trevor Fetter, Tenet Healthcare, $3.64 million
William McGuire, UnitedHealth Group, $10.7 million
Think of this next time you're in line and have to deal with an underpaid/overworked cashier.
Eric Claus, Great A&P Tea Company, $1.35 million
Robert Nardelli, Home Depot, $22.8
James Skinner, McDonalds, $4.16 million
Ronald Sargent, Staples, $19.65 million
Robert Ulrich, Target, $39.63 million
H. Lee Scott, Wal-Mart, $10.46 million
What's in your wallet?
Richard Fairbank, Capital One, $249.42 million. No, that is not a misprint. |
John Caffrey
Citizen
Username: Jerseyjack
Post Number: 376
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:05 pm: |
|
First of all, regarding the cop. Yes, the job doesn't take much brains for the money but if you're the guy who takes a bullet, to me, all that money isn't worth it. (That doesn't mean you can't be smart and stll be a cop).
To me, it all comes down to the story of my high school classmate in Millburn H.S., Ted Anderson. He always wanted to be on the force. After graduating M.H.S., he achieved his goal and became a patrolman in Millburn. Things went along swimmingly until the day there was an armed robbery in Marsh's jewelry store. Ted found himself looking down the barrel of a shotgun.
He heard the click and the gun misfired. What are the odds of that? He completed his 20 years and moved to Alaska.
About 1965, another Millburn officer was answering a call about a homeowner whose husband was being held in the basement by an intruder with a pistol. On his way to the homeowner, he encountered a car driving the wrong way on Millburn Avenue (one way street). He stopped, intending to tell the driver to turn the car around and then proceed to aid the homeowner. Instead, was shot in the face.
Fortunately, he lived.
Dave, Millburn ain't the big city either.
Then we go to the case of the teachers. Four years of college and passing the teachers' exam. Yeh, I know, 7 hour day and a 180 day work year. I have seen teachers run out of the the classroom, both in New Providencea and Jersey City where I taught because they couldn't teach.
And the seven hours doesn't include lesson plans and papers to grade...at least 125 papers per day with a comment expected on each kid's paper at least two times per week. Plus, the research papers. Add to that the phone calls home, extra duties you are expected to monitor, record keeping for grades and attendance violations, report cards and comments and college recommendations.
Look at the pay scale of Maplewood/S.O teachers and tell me if you would apply for the job.
Yeh, the guy gets a pension. He also contributes 5% of salary over the course of a teaching career to help fund that pension. During the "go-go 80's and tech 90's the pitch was that you aren't making as much as college grads in the private sector but don't worry because you will get a good pension when you retire.
Now the pressure is on to change the rules just when the game is about over for many public employees. The causes of the problem are simple: if Whitman hadn't borrowed billions from the pension funds to keep taxes low and if the legislature had contributed their share of funding over the last several years, we wouldn't have the news articles about the high cost of pensions.
The challenge is simple: eliminate the pensions and benefits and see who applies for the jobs.
|
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10167
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:09 pm: |
|
A CEO who is able to run a major corporation and earn the attention of mutual fund managers and private placement investors is well worth a few million dollars. There are , of course, exceptions.
John, it's Bergen County. I think local numbers vary, but your Whitman point is correct.
What are the guys and gals in Iraq and Afghanistan earning? If we want to talk about payment equity in terms of danger involved, they should be making a bit more. |
Jeff Markel
Citizen
Username: Jeffmarkel
Post Number: 162
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
Dave - your chart implies that there's something out of whack when tax hikes are significantly higher than CPI increases. I'm sure that somewhere, sometime, there really is something dicey going on, but that's not the case here and now. Consider the MSO school district's budget - in order for them to have maintained the same employees, programs, vacation schedules, textbook purchases, etc (i.e., providing exactly the same services) in 2006-2007 that they did in 2005-2006, the budget (and, because of that, the tax levy) would have had to increase by over 10% - all while CPI increased by just over 4%.
Why? Part of it, of course, is that salaries, about 70% of the budget, currently go up by about 5% a year. Then there are the ever increasing Federal and State mandates for testing, Special Ed, etc, including a lot of new ones from the No Child Left Behind (sic) law, none of which are funded by the Feds. Simply keeping the schools heated in the cold season doubled or tripled in cost the last year, and health insurance for employees has gone up at double digit rates for at least the last 6-8 years.
Remember, CPI is the Consumer Price Index, but school districts and municipalities are not consumers, at least not in the sense of retail consumption - they buy a very different mix of goods and services than retail consumers like you and me.
So your chart, even if factually accurate, is misleading, and to use it as a criticism of government spending is, at best, disingenuous. |
Scully
Citizen
Username: Scully
Post Number: 760
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:32 pm: |
|
Yeah, I'm sure that EXXON dude who retired on, what, $400,000,000.00 was worth every nickel...
Maybe I'd agree a little more if their compensation was tied in to how well their company (and EMPLOYEES - & why don't you ask local franchise owners what their cut is) were doing. And sorry if I seem focused on one industry. Just filled my tank. |
K_soze
Citizen
Username: K_soze
Post Number: 540
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 8:38 pm: |
|
A CEO who is able to run a major corporation and earn the attention of mutual fund managers and private placement investors is well worth a few million dollars
Riiight So the guy who's willing to give his life to save your's isn't worth 75 grand? How about the ones just starting out getting paid 24 thousand a year to deal with all that crap and to be treated like dirt. I'm sure if any of them are reading this thread they're realizing how thankless their job can be. I guess the 38 grand that the teachers get is too much also, another group of people who are totally unappreciated. BTW, Why would you (Sagitar) apply anything from the Bergen Record to Mpd/SO? From what I know Beren County has the highest paid public workers in the state. I made more $$ installing car radios than the starting salaries our officers get, but then again car audio installation is dangerous...I mean, it's pretty sharp behind a dashboard. |
extuscan
Citizen
Username: Extuscan
Post Number: 674
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Regarding "What are the guys and gals in Iraq and Afghanistan earning? If we want to talk about payment equity in terms of danger involved, they should be making a bit more."
I've got three friends there right now and the funny thing is... none of them actually know what they make! I swear I asked all three before they left. Their pay is a base, plus $X for this and $Y for that and then some allowances, and stipends, some of which is taxed, others which isn't... The fact that none of them bothered to actually add it up tells me the aren't doing it for the money!
But I agree with Dave, whatever it is, it isn't enough. Its nowhere near what we're talking about for cops. The pensions aren't even close either. LTC Dad is going to retire with 30 years and will only get about $2k a month.
-John |
hch
Citizen
Username: Hch
Post Number: 299
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 11:42 pm: |
|
New Jersey is in possession of a huge, ticking time bomb. The pension/healthcare obligations that New Jersey has accumulated through its benefit programs for state workers are going to cripple the state's finances.
I'm not sure how long it will take, but someday the state will either hand the taxpayers a big s*** sandwich and tell us to pay it or they will be forced to default on billions in pension and healthcare payments.
There simply will not be enough $$ to cover the obligations unless the system is overhauled before it disintegrates. I'm sure there are many counties and municipalities in the same situation. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1005
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 7:14 am: |
|
How interesting.
The usual suspects respond to overwhelming evidence of a bureaucratic plutocracy that wastes titanic amounts of public $$ by attacking the chairman of EXXON?!?
We were not talking about the salaries of CEO's. Start a different thread.
We are talking about $100K per year, excellent benefits, job security, and a pension that is simply unavailable to any of us private sector schleps.
The big CEO's, overpaid as they are, are not ripping me off. The unionized bureaucrats are.
And who pays for all of this? The poor. Corzine, to pay for all these public plutocrats, hiked the sales tax. A regressive tax paid mostly by poor and lower income people.
Tax the poor, Feed the rich.
And when someone notes the tremendous harm caused by this situation, change the subject and talk about the chairman of Exxon. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3519
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 8:55 am: |
|
Chris: I do agree with you that the sales tax is totally regressive and not the way to finance our way out of this fiscal mess. Same goes with the property tax being used to fund school budgets--this falls disproportionately on the backs of lower income and fixed income renters and home owners.
An income tax seems far more fair--even one that is not progressive. You get taxed on what you earn. If you earn more, you pay more.
I wonder if that is one link between what the CEO of a Pharma company makes and the salary of a police officer or teacher. Here is what I am pondering on this (not sure if I am right--please correct me where I am wrong): Right now, that CEO makes a ton of money but probably pays proportionately far less of his/her salary in taxes than I do (I am in AMT range). Certainly my tax bite impairs my ability to spend money more than theirs does. Since I spend less money on consumables and home improvements, I generate less jobs for others and I pay less sales taxes than I otherwise would. And the state budget seems more balanced on what I pay in taxes (sales and property) than on what the CEO makes as income from all sources.
That CEO cannot spend $45 million a year--heck, I'd be surprised if s/he spends much more than $5 million per year in a typical year. The rest is invested, of course, which is necessary for our economy also--which in the immediate sense it does not generate tax revenues to pay for cops and teachers, and so does not help us fund our social services. But think what would happen if that CEO instead only got $10 million or $20 million, and the balance was paid to workers as higher salaries, or returned to investors as dividends and profits? This would spread dollars out more in the economy, raise general standards of living, increase job growth through consumer spending, and increase taxes paid (assuming we retain the current property and sales tax system).
So the real question becomes, is $10 million or $20 million enough for anyone to make in a year and still provide good enough incentive for the best and brightest to lead companies as they do? From my middle class point of view, it sure as shoot should be, especially if every one of your successful peers is similarly compensated. I am no economist, and I certainly believe in the power of personal economic gain to incent economic growth, but it seems like it is not good social or economic policy to have a few making so much money and creating family empires.
|
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 73
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:23 am: |
|
Jeff Markel - here's something else factually accurate; continuing the practice of increasing taxes at a higher rate than wages are increasing is unsustainable in the long term. You act like increasing salaries 5% a year and absorbing the full increase in the cost of health insurance are inevitable. They are not.
|
greenetree
Supporter
Username: Greenetree
Post Number: 8397
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 9:52 am: |
|
There's a lot wrong with the tax system and we are indeed getting screwed/crushed in the middle.
But, those "cushy" pension/healthcare/vacation days jobs are available to us in the private sector. If we choose them. NJ has a shortage of teachers, especially math and science, no? Howzabout all us scientist-types in the pharma industry quitting our jobs and teaching? And the tax attorneys and accountants? Etc., etc. We may be too old now to join the PD or FD, but there was a time when we weren't and didn't. Encourage your children to do it instead.
I think trying to pin the burden of our financial problems on the men & women who teach our kids and keep our community safe is not gonna go very far.
How about all those highly paid executives who have "earned" all that money for the share holders sponsor a few teachers or cops in their communities? Medco is based in NJ; let David Snow pick up the cost of pension/healthcare for 2 teachers and 2 cops in Franklin Lakes. Or give them 10% of his bonus. That would solve everything, no? |
K_soze
Citizen
Username: K_soze
Post Number: 543
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:08 am: |
|
Sounds good to me |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10172
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:14 am: |
|
I think this sounds better
Quote:In a recent radio interview Corzine said he plans to address some changes starting with negotiations for a new government worker contract this fall. The contracts for most public employee unions expire at the end of June.
"We have to have pension reform and health care reform, and it ought to be done in the standard way that you deal with your employees, through a contract negotiation," Corzine said Tuesday on New Jersey 101.5 FM. "We're going to be calling for that early, and that's going to, I hope, save both money and make sure that public employees will be secure that they'll actually get what's promised."
Some changes, however, can be accomplished through new laws, and Corzine recommended several in his March budget speech, saying pension abuses damage government credibility.
He called for raising the minimum salary for workers to qualify for a government pension, giving newly elected officials a 401(k)-like retirement plan, instead of the more generous defined-benefit government pension, and taking state contractors out of the pension system.
A state task force made some of those recommendations and others last December, but so far no one has acted on the proposals. They are expected to be the subject of more discussion this summer.
|
Jeff Markel
Citizen
Username: Jeffmarkel
Post Number: 163
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 11:25 am: |
|
Joel - no disagreement there, they are unsustainable. But that leaves an awfully big question - how can we continue to receive services (schools, roads, police, fire, etc etc) that cost more each year when those costs go up more than our incomes do? It's not our fault, it's not the fault of our municipal governing/administrative bodies, and it's not the fault of public employees who expect and deserve a competitive wage. They are subject to the same economic forces that we are.
Regardless of how our incomes/expenses increase, these are services we not only expect, but need. I don't know how to reconcile this - but one of the reasons we have full-time (or almost full-time) legislators is so they can and will figure it out. Unfortunately our NJ legislators, of both parties, have abdicated their responsibilities in this regard - most especially Dick Codey who has long been in a position to act and has done nothing. I was very disappointed with Governor Corzine's choice of the sales tax (it taxes most heavily the people least able to pay) but at least he stepped up to the plate to start dealing with some of these problems, which is more than can be said for any of his recent predecessors. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:35 pm: |
|
True, but left unsaid in this entire argument is the very strong influence of the state employee labor unions.
They use their campaign contributions to buy politicians. And we the people have no effective counterweight.
The politicians then vote to give these government unions raises and benefits that far outstrip anything in the private sector.
And we wonder why our taxes are going up at twice the cost of living?
Because the base and bennies of the unions are going up at twice the cost of living.
I have no problem with the unions - they are doing what unions are supposed to do. But let's be honest about the results. |
Admiral_dewey
Citizen
Username: Admiral_dewey
Post Number: 28
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 1:54 pm: |
|
One way to ensure that taxes don't continue to go up at the local and state level is for the federal government to quit cutting taxes for the wealthiest while refusing to cut spending. Local and state governments could then afford to pay teachers and cops what they are worth without an undue tax burden on middle income families.
An excellent report can be found at http://www.faireconomy.org/Taxes/HTMLReports/Shifty_Tax_Cuts.html
Some important findings of the report show how:
The system of taxes that we use to pay for government services — everything from education to public safety — has shifted dramatically in recent decades. The tax system is increasingly unfair and incapable of generating necessary revenues.
Between 2002 and 2004, a full $197 billion in new tax breaks went to the top 1% of American taxpayers. This is money that has disappeared into the pockets of the very wealthy, making it unavailable to solve ongoing budget crises at the state and local levels.
Congress had the option to send aid to the states to prevent $200 billion worth of service cuts and regressive tax increases Rather Congress gave tax breaks totaling roughly the same amount to multi-millionaires and the rest of the top 1%.
The Bush tax cuts to the top 1% of US income earners redirected billions of dollars in revenue that could have eliminated virtually all of the budget shortfalls in the states.
|
Joel Janney
Citizen
Username: Joel_janney
Post Number: 74
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 2:49 pm: |
|
The sales tax taxes most heavily the people who spend the most. That is the people who have the most money and incomes. That's where most of the revenue raised comes from.
However, it does affect people with lower incomes more, because they are spending a much higher percentage of their income on items that are taxed. That's what makes it regressive. But it's not nearly as regressive as a tax cut, which has little or no effect on the bottom 20% because they pay little or no taxes (or even negative taxes at times).
I think the Governor made a great first step. He raised revenues without raising property taxes. He got some spending cuts through. Most importantly, he set the standard for the near term (sound fiscal management and sticking to his guns) and got the Republicans, and even some Democrats (shockingly) talking about the need to make more cuts in the future. |
Jeff Markel
Citizen
Username: Jeffmarkel
Post Number: 164
Registered: 3-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
Of course, lest we forget, over the last 4 years the feds have poured 1/2 trillion dollars into Iraq - that's almost $2000 for every man, woman, and child in the US. To bring it closer to home, that's almost $90 million just from Maplewood and South Orange. We could fill a lot of potholes and pay for a lot of teachers, cops, and firemen with that kind of money. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 255
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
The point I was trying to make with the CEO's was that people are getting uppity about public servants getting $100,000 a year (I'll research that later, I really don't think M/SO police officers make that after only 5 years on the job) when CEO's make the companies bottom line look good by cutting jobs, cutting services, and producing shoddy workmanship, and then get these huge salaries out of it. Which would piss you off more? A cop who puts his life on the line getting a decent wage and health benefits, or the CEO of Capital One, preying of people with poor credit, getting $249 MILLION DOLLARS in salary for the year?
As someone who has had to repeatedly fight with my insurance company for life saving medical care, the fact that the CEO gets a disgustingly huge salary makes me sick. They get these profits by denying as many claims as possible, hoping you won't fight them on it. Recently, I needed more tests, the insurance company denied it as unnecessary. My doctor finally called and said, "fine, don't pay for it, she'll die soon and then you'll save money on her." That made them pay it. What would I have done if my doctor hadn't been willing to play hardball for me?
Years ago I worked at the A&P. I made about 20 cents over minimum wage. Health benefits were to laugh at. They claim they have to pay the worker so little because they have a thin profit margin. Maybe if they didn't overpay so much at the top they wouldn't have such a small profit margin.
Police officers and teachers aren't overpaid. They are fairly compensated for what they do. They provide services that we all benefit from. The public employees aren't pulling one over on the rest of us, it's the private sector that is screwing the average worker, and the sad thing is now the average worker just accepts it. Instead of bemoaning the public employee, the private sector worker should demand that their employers treat them fairly too. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Combustion, you have things exactly backwards.
The private sector is screwing no one. They are not picking my pocket every few months for ever higher property taxes. I can choose to not shop at A & P or use Capital One.
The public sector leaves you no choice. You are forced, FORCED, to pay whatever they ask. It is legalized extortion.
You say teachers and police are not overpaid? Then why do their counterparts in the private sector (the real world) make less? Compare teachers in the failing public schools to the sucessful private schools.
The government that governs best is that which governs least. |
Wendy
Supporter
Username: Wendy
Post Number: 2785
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 6:35 pm: |
|
According to the below link Chris, the public schools are not failing. I can't believe you can still say that the private sector is "screwing no one." Did you read any of the above arguments with an open mind? I would guess not.
http://www.southorangevillage.com/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=108606&post=653838#POST65 3838
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2867
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 6:57 pm: |
|
I can choose to not shop at A & P or use Capital One.
I guess you don't have to use Capital One, but you have to buy groceries. Are Pathmark or Shoprite cheaper? I know Kings isn't. The private sector isn't picking your pocket? Have you been to a gas station? |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 6:58 am: |
|
Yes I have. What the increase in the price of gas has cost me is insignificant compared to my taxes. And again, to repeat myself, I have a choice. I can use mass transit, or walk.
But my taxes are shoved down my throat, like it or not. It is, again, legalized extortion.
Wendy, I find it perplexing when people who have made up their minds in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence accuse others of being close minded. You say 'the public schools are not failing' ?!? I find that comment extraordinary. The evidence of public school failure is absolutely incontestable. Read any newspaper, compare test scores now to 20 years ago, or take a brief peek at any inner city school in the entire country.
Or take a look closer to home. CHS used to be one of the top ranked high schools in the country. Where are we now? |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 697
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 7:07 am: |
|
Chris you must have missed the study published yesterday that showed that public schools were meeting and sometimes exceeding private schools in nationwide test scores. That's good news for public schools, and bad news for those who believe the only answer is to provide vouchers and charter schools.
Unfortunately, you're correct in saying there is still a problem..........although public schools are keeping pace with private overall, the scores themselves are nothing to crow about. Here's the NYT editorial about it today:
July 19, 2006
Editorial
Public vs. Private Schools
The national education reform effort has long suffered from magical thinking about what it takes to improve children’s chances of learning. Instead of homing in on teacher training and high standards, things that distinguish effective schools from poor ones, many reformers have embraced the view that the public schools are irreparably broken and that students of all kinds need to be given vouchers to attend private or religious schools at public expense.
This belief, though widespread, has not held up to careful scrutiny. A growing body of work has shown that the quality of education offered to students varies widely within all school categories. The public, private, charter and religious realms all contain schools that range from good to not so good to downright horrendous.
This point was underscored last week when the United States Education Department released a controversial and long-awaited report comparing public and private schools in terms of student achievement as measured on the federal math and reading tests known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress. As with previous studies, this one debunked the widely held belief that public schools were inferior to their private and religious counterparts. The private schools appeared to have an achievement advantage when the raw scores of students were considered alone. But those perceived advantages melted away when the researchers took into account variables like race, gender and parents’ education and income.
The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, quickly asserted that the study showed public schools were “doing an outstanding job.’’ That seems absurd, when we consider the dismal math and reading scores that American children racked up on last year’s national tests.
What the emerging data show most of all is that public, private, charter and religious schools all suffer from the wide fluctuations in quality and effectiveness. Instead of arguing about the alleged superiority of one category over another, the country should stay focused on the overarching problem: on average, American schoolchildren are performing at mediocre levels in reading, math and science — wherever they attend school.
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1017
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 7:34 am: |
|
But what the NYT and the DOE fail to mention is the horrendous cost of a public education.
Per student spending in the public schools is almost double that of the private schools.
In addition to the fact that the NYT has been pathologically hostile to private schools and vouchers from the word go, and that the politically correct scribes at Pravda have a bad habit of skewing the data to meet their preconceived conclusions. I rather doubt that the NAEP says what they say it does. |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 698
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
The study was peer-reviewed and scrutinized very heavily, so I really feel if you are not going to believe the data, then the preconcieved notions are yours.
Cost? Well, let the private schools take on all of the special ed, all socio-demographic groups, and all ESL students and see if the costs don't escalate considerably.
If you're not a believer in tax-supported public schools, then why not just say so and leave it at that?
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
I am a believer. I have four children in the public schools.
I just want my money's worth. For what we spend on education, we should be getting much better results. And these government unions are part of the problem.
A union exists to get raises and more benefits for it's members, while doing less work. Nothing evil here, it's just what unions do. It is what they are supposed to do. If I was a union member, it is what I would want my union to do.
And this flies in the face of a good education. You cannot hope for excellence in any government agency, let alone the school system, with unions running the show. Their objectives are simply incompatible with excellence in any form.
Want examples? Look no further than my favorite control group, the private sector. Steel, automobiles, the airline industry. All heavily unionized, and all either out of existence or bankrupt. The only companies thriving in any of those or many other industries are those that are non-union. Thank goodness for competition, or we would still be driving sh*t cars and paying through the nose to fly anywhere.
But the government is a monopoly. They dictate, we pay.
Ever wonder why the only growth areas for unions are in the government sector? BECAUSE THERE IS NO COMPETITION. They have a monopoly. They go for double digit raises, and we the people have to pay, like it or not.
Tax the poor to feed the rich. |
Admiral_dewey
Citizen
Username: Admiral_dewey
Post Number: 29
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
Chris,
You continue to complain about your tax burden -- "What the increase in the price of gas has cost me is insignificant compared to my taxes"
-- "But my taxes are shoved down my throat, like it or not"
First, you are right that taxes are shoved down your throat but it is not the teachers union or police officers unions or any other union who are at fault. It is the fault of the Bush administrations tax policy.
Study after study, from The CBO, The Center for Tax Justice, Tax Policy Center, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, United for Fair Economy, has shown that the Bush administration has shifted the burden from the wealthy to the middle class and from the federal governmnet to the state and local govenment.
Add to this the fact that this adminstration has more pork in the federal budget and refuses to cut spending and you have a recipie for disaster.
Second, corporations and the owners of those corporations have allways blamed working people and unions for the high cost of goods and services. It's just not true.
"Steel, automobiles, the airline industry. All heavily unionized, and all either out of existence or bankrupt".
For example,the steel industry in the USA has declined because dumping of steel in the U.S. has been permited. Producers in Russia, Brazil and Korea have been allowed to dump because many wealthy individuals and people in govenrmewnt hope illegal imports will finally drive a stake through the heart of "Big Steel" and its union workforce.
There has been a turnaround in steel since 1987 and it can be credited both to the growth of the minimill steel companies -- no longer new and no longer small -- and to the aggressive restructuring of the large integrated producers. These large steel companies shed excess capacity in the 1980s, formed joint ventures with the Japanese, invested in technology, flattened their organizations, and adopted workplace practices that mobilize the skills and knowledge of their workers. Today, labor productivity in U.S. integrated mills is as high as in Japan, and higher than in integrated mills anywhere else in the world.
I would reccomend two excellent books:
1. Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich -- And Cheat Everybody Else
The book which was written by an investigative reporter shows how the corporate income tax, the estate tax, and the gift tax benefit the super rich. Today someone who earns a yearly salary of $60,000 pays a larger percentage of his income in taxes than the four hundred richest Americans.
2. Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes
This book was written by Bill Gates SR. and Chuck Collins.
|
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 700
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 19, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
Chris,
I don't disagree with the notion that you want your money's worth at all. I also agree that the union/administration relationship has become so adversarial that the union leadership is getting ridicuous on some issues. I agree that teachers, cops, fireman, etc. should pay a portion of their health care insurance costs......as everyone else does. (And since I work for the state at UMDNJ, I'm shooting my own foot here).
But I do disagree with the notion that we should eviscerate the public school system by providing vouchers for private school education. Especially when the evidence indicates that this would not improve education for those who go private, and there is a lot of reason to believe that things would get worse for those that stay in the public system.
|
Madison Ave
Citizen
Username: Madison_ave
Post Number: 6
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 11:33 pm: |
|
I'd like to understand what the ratio of administrators to teachers (the type that teach classes) is. The ratio of supervisors to police on the street.
The private industry has mercilessly cut management (supervisory) overhead to gain efficiencies. I do not believe (but don't have the data to prove) that the public sector has done the same.
The private sector has consolidated (again without mercy) to gain efficiencies. With our many, many local school board, local government bodies - the public sector has obviously not done that. They should.
The private sector has offshored work that does not add value - why isn't the public sector doing the same? Maybe not off-shore - but why not in lower wage areas within the country?
There are other actions that the private sector has taken to compete with the rest of the developing world - yes, including having employees share in the increased cost of benefits. The public sector has been immune to those changes. Maybe we should inject some competition into the public sector.
That is my frustration. Why am I paying high property, income and sales taxes to fund an inefficient system? I have nothing against the "feet on the street" - the people who do the real work and the money they make.
|
hch
Citizen
Username: Hch
Post Number: 313
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:01 am: |
|
Madison Ave, you are correct.
In my (relatively) short career in the private sector I have had the following things happen at various companies:
Job eliminated
Annual raises decreased (percentage wise)
Annual raises delayed
Pension plan eliminated
Health care plan choices reduced from 8 to 3
Health care payments increase as much as 30% in one year
Elimination of various fringe benefits including Xmas Party & Summer Picnic
Elimination of tuition reimbursement
Increased responsibilities with no extra pay
Some of these may seem trivial but most mean a lot of extra $$ out of pocket. I'm still in my 30s so I'm sure I'll see a lot more cost cutting in the future. The public sector, in general, has not gone to the same lengths as the private sector to control costs. The system is inefficient and, in some cases, broken. I don't pretend to have the answers.
|
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Cops & fireman in the NE , there's a reason, they call it the "White mans lottery". BTW on top of the salary % bennys those cops you see @ construction sights get $40.00 to $65.00 a hour to stand around . Send your sons & daughters to the public sector. 2 yrs of community college& within 5 yrs your making 100k in a big NE city & taken care of for life. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 - 12:36 pm: |
|
Hey & as far as danger , thoses jobs don't even make top 10 , try roofing. |
K_soze
Citizen
Username: K_soze
Post Number: 591
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 9:16 am: |
|
So exactly what is your issue? Cops dont get killed enough to justify what they get paid or that somehow all fire/cop jobs are designed to make the "White" man rich? Either way you don't know •••• |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 27, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
1, The job is not as dangerous as its made out to be . 2, They are overpaid in many cities ,3.8mm over the life of a cop is crazy. Jersey City is only about 30% white , but the police force is 80% white , JCFD is 90% white. So you are either a cop or a fireman. Again these jobs on a % bases are not even close to being amongist the most dangerous ,you never read about a cab driver or a roofer or a welder or miner going down in the line of duty , but a lot more of them do. |
K_soze
Citizen
Username: K_soze
Post Number: 647
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 2:05 pm: |
|
Happy now? Dick |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 370
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Don't waste your breath, K. These f'ng jerks are probably happy that there's one less salary to pay. |
wnb
Citizen
Username: Wnb
Post Number: 534
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 3:52 pm: |
|
I believe we should take care of the essentials, and that means the police, fire, and DPW. I would rather see these folks make a good living and the departments well run, at the expense of boondoggle development programs and the like.
Healthy towns have healthy, well funded essential services. Crime is kept under control, emergencies are prepared for, and basic infrastructure is kept in good working order.
Probably one reason "leafy Bergen County" is what it is has to do with having a solid and well compensated police force.
|
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 8:43 am: |
|
But I'm afraid you're missing the point.
The article that started this discussion was framed in relative terms: How the government employees have:
1) smaller workloads than those in the private sector, how
2) they are paid much more, how
3) their benefits are infinitely greater, and how
4) they have job security to boot.
No one is saying we should not take care of the 'essentials'. The argument is that the cost is out of line.
And we would all do well to remember that the cost is paid in taxes. And that cost is borne disproportionately by the poor and lower middle class. The article makes clear that the government employees are now upper middle class.
So we are taxing the poor to feed the rich. Not a good idea. |
combustion
Citizen
Username: Spontaneous
Post Number: 458
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
I read an article in the Star Ledger the other day how the state was starting to track how many employees of private companies were using state-run health insurance due to the private sector cutting out benefits for lower ranking employees. Who do you think is paying for those health benefits? Taxpayers. Talk about taxpayers getting screwed.
I can't find the Ledger article, but here is something along the same lines.
http://www.njpp.org/rpt_familycare.html
|
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 2:41 pm: |
|
Did you know that NJ governmemt has a 35 hr. work week ? |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 1056
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Grrrrr. . .  Add that to the list.
If I may be permitted to anticipate the argument of the usual suspects: No one is advocating cutting cops and teachers to the minimum wage, or eliminating their health care. And I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, defending CEO salaries or the madness that currently passes for leadership in DC. We are just pointing out that these bureaucrats take too much and produce too little. |
|
