The Giant Noodle
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 7,332
- Reaction score
- 2,011
- Location
- Northern Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel confirms that's how much the average Milwaukee teacher will be paid in salary and benefits in 2011:
the average MPS teacher would receive total compensation of $101,091 -- $59,500 in salary and $41,591 in benefits.
We double-checked with MPS spokeswoman Roseann St. Aubin and she confirmed the figures.
We wanted to compare the $101,091 for MPS teachers to other teachers, but the latest figurescompiled by the state Department of Public Instruction are for 2009-2010, two years earlier.
Ive been saying this for years! Teachers are paid TWICE what they are worth! Reading this REALLY pisses me off!
$101,091: Annual Compensation for Average Milwaukee Teacher | The Weekly Standard
Actually, I think this is completely appropriate compensation.
Actually, I think this is completely appropriate compensation.
I think youre WRONG!!!! :no:
What do you think compensation should be for senior enlisted members of our military with over 20 years of service?
I know that. Doesn't alter my position one little bit.
What do you think compensation should be for senior enlisted members of our military with over 20 years of service?
ALright man...... teachers hardly do any work. They are there for SIX hours a day! Thats 30 hours a WEEK! They are off around 2 days a month for whatever lame holiday comes around. Then they have THREE MONTHS OFF!!! Their job is EASY! At least 3 out of 10 people could walk in and do their job with ZERO training.
You know why its hard to get a teachers position? Because everyone and their cousin wants to be one! So they made it more difficult in Illinois to qualify. My friend Rob is a teacher. He used to be a retail book store manager. He said that was TWICE as difficult.
Lets not even get into how difficult it is to fire a crappy teacher! Or their INSANE pensions! Beginning teachers should make no more than $27K a year and after ten years make no more than $37K a year. Now divide that salary by NINE...... NOT 12 since they only work 9 months. Plus they need to pay 20% of their benefits.
It may be hard to get a teaching position these days, but its hard to find any job. Before the current recession though, I seem to remember story after story of teacher shortages. Especially in math and science. Also, if the job was as easy as you claim, the burnout rate would not be so high.
Actually, I think this is completely appropriate compensation.
ALright man...... teachers hardly do any work. They are there for SIX hours a day! Thats 30 hours a WEEK! They are off around 2 days a month for whatever lame holiday comes around. Then they have THREE MONTHS OFF!!! Their job is EASY! At least 3 out of 10 people could walk in and do their job with ZERO training.
You know why its hard to get a teachers position? Because everyone and their cousin wants to be one! So they made it more difficult in Illinois to qualify. My friend Rob is a teacher. He used to be a retail book store manager. He said that was TWICE as difficult.
Lets not even get into how difficult it is to fire a crappy teacher! Or their INSANE pensions! Beginning teachers should make no more than $27K a year and after ten years make no more than $37K a year. Now divide that salary by NINE...... NOT 12 since they only work 9 months. Plus they need to pay 20% of their benefits.
$59,500 isn't that much more than the national average. So it doesn't shock me like it's supposed to.
Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and Vocational Education
You think $100K is appropriate compensation for a position that typically recruits from the bottom third of college grads, has almost total job security regardless of performance, and requires something like 35 hours per week, for 36 weeks per year? :shock:
Give me a freaking break. I didn't earn that much for the first couple years after I had my freaking MBA and was $150K in debt from school...and I was working a lot more hours than that, at a position that required a lot more work/training.
You think $100K is appropriate compensation for a position that typically recruits from the bottom third of college grads, has almost total job security regardless of performance, and requires something like 35 hours per week, for 36 weeks per year? :shock:
Give me a freaking break. I didn't earn that much for the first couple years after I had my freaking MBA and was $150K in debt from school...and I was working a lot more hours than that, at a position that required a lot more work/training.
Comparable, if not somewhat higher.
I said this to you a year ago when you went on one of these anti-teacher rampages. This denotes that you have no idea what a teacher does. Their job is NOT easy, they get paid for NINE months, not twelve,
CaptainCourtesy said:and they perform one of the most important tasks there is: educating our children.
How does it compare to other compensation packages?The $59K is not the shocking part. To me that seems a bit more than what teachers are worth, but I'm not going to make a big fuss about it. The real shocking number is the $42K in benefits every year. That is absurd.
If the cost is 100k/yr then the cost is 100k/yr. You can't annualize something that's already annual. It just don't make no sense.That makes it even worse. If they're getting paid $100K for nine months, then the REAL annualized cost to the taxpayers is closer to $130K
That makes it even worse. If they're getting paid $100K for nine months, then the REAL annualized cost to the taxpayers is closer to $130K.
Me too, unfortunately it is significantly lower than that.
Like the military?The driving factor in ALL government salaries should be supply and demand.
I said this to you a year ago when you went on one of these anti-teacher rampages. This denotes that you have no idea what a teacher does. Their job is NOT easy, they get paid for NINE months, not twelve, and they perform one of the most important tasks there is: educating our children.
I am really uninterested in whatever your personal vendetta towards teachers is... and your railing against them certainly comes across as personal. Regardless, I don't see anything in your posts that has any accuracy. The only thing I agree with is that it needs to be far easier to fire bad teachers. Other than that, the rest of your post is invalid.
If the cost is 100k/yr then the cost is 100k/yr. You can't annualize something that's already annual. It just don't make no sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?