Non-salary CA budget cuts

[CA renter]

BTW, for those who are offended by the facts, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants and “poor” people, you need to get out there and see what we’re talking about. I have a hunch that those of us who are making these claims are not “racist,” but have seen the system from within.

Try to get a job (maybe even volunteer) for a large school district in California, or see if you can talk to someone who works for a prison or a public hospital. Ask them where the money is going. Seriously. Spend a day in a welfare office or a grocery store and see who is getting all the subsidies.

Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to what you don’t like to hear, try finding the facts for yourselves and prove us wrong. I would LOVE to be proven wrong; but so far, the only thing advocates for illegal immigration do is name-call and throw around a bunch of racist terms. That’s not a legitimate argument.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[DWCAP]

[quote=Eugene][quote=DWCAP]
Ok, I am not gonna say I know how to fix anything. I have been mulling what TG said earlier for a day or two now, and still have not made up my mind on alot of stuff. But the above comment doesnt mix well with SOME of the things I have been reading. The link below shows CA teachers at 120% of the national average, and certainly the highest in the west. I get the feeling that this is a data set that is highly dependent upon the standard being compared to for relivance to ones argument.

http://www.osba.org/lrelatns/salary/rankings.htm

(full disclosure, this only goes from 00-04, maybe everyone else just passed Ca teachers up? Gotta keep reading)

[/quote]

On the other hand, back in 2004, CA K-12 spending per pupil was ranked #29 in the nation, below national average. Top 3 were NJ, NY, CT. Three lowest-paying states were Idaho, Arizona, Utah (who needs teachers when you have preachers?)

Apparently, CA spends almost as much on teacher salaries as NY and CT (to be expected, considering our cost of living…) but skimps on everything else.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22519.html%5B/quote%5D

per student can be a very misleading indicator. Fixed costs can really change when you start splitting them among students. I mean, what is the real cost to a principal when the average class rises from 20 to 25? I have to believe very little, though that is a 25% increase in total students. The cost of the classroom, the cost of the teacher, the cost of the electricity to light the room are exactly the same. Maybe a small change for increased desks, materials, and subsidized lunches in certain school districts, but you can cut most costs alot more ways.

Or to put it another way,

I once took a class in AP physics that had a grand total of 9 students in it. I also took AP math and AP history, and both had ~20 students. The cost to offer that AP physics class in per students spending was obviously much higher than the math or history classes, but I doubt it actually cost 1 dollar more in an actual accounting sense than the other ones.

Not saying there isnt a problem. I am saying I question your choice of stat to use. I dont think per pupil spending is always the best, becuase it can be manupliated too easily.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Gotta agree on the BS for the 98K teacher. With that said the principal at my son’s elementary school makes about $150K and drives a nice MB. I had a fireman client (a captain in LA) and saw his tax returns. Over $150K per year confirmed.[/quote]

Yes, administrators certainly make more money. Also, fire captains in LA are probably paid fairly well, but I’m guessing s/he had a fair amount of overtime in that $150K. Again, if anyone wants to do it, this is a free country and they can apply for these jobs.

In the meantime, mortgage brokers, realtors, bankers, salesmen and others were making far more than this during the run-up. (not directed at you, sdr)

Just saying…I’d much rather have well-paid law enforcement and safety personnel so we can avoid becoming Mexico or Zimbabwe. I want the very best, most highly-qualified, and thoroughly vetted people in those positions. Not saying we don’t have corruption or inept employees, but our system is far better than those where these govt employees are paid less, IMHO.

Also, you can’t have a well-functioning, capitalist society without a well-regulated, well-trained social and legal infrastructure. Without the rule of law or efficient public safety, you get anarchy and chaos. People are forced to focus on survival — by whatever means — and productivity goes out the window.

Sometimes, when you live in a place where help is literally three buttons and a few minutes away, people tend to take these things for granted.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Gotta agree on the BS for the 98K teacher. With that said the principal at my son’s elementary school makes about $150K and drives a nice MB. I had a fireman client (a captain in LA) and saw his tax returns. Over $150K per year confirmed.[/quote]

Yes, administrators certainly make more money. Also, fire captains in LA are probably paid fairly well, but I’m guessing s/he had a fair amount of overtime in that $150K. Again, if anyone wants to do it, this is a free country and they can apply for these jobs.

In the meantime, mortgage brokers, realtors, bankers, salesmen and others were making far more than this during the run-up. (not directed at you, sdr)

Just saying…I’d much rather have well-paid law enforcement and safety personnel so we can avoid becoming Mexico or Zimbabwe. I want the very best, most highly-qualified, and thoroughly vetted people in those positions. Not saying we don’t have corruption or inept employees, but our system is far better than those where these govt employees are paid less, IMHO.

Also, you can’t have a well-functioning, capitalist society without a well-regulated, well-trained social and legal infrastructure. Without the rule of law or efficient public safety, you get anarchy and chaos. People are forced to focus on survival — by whatever means — and productivity goes out the window.

Sometimes, when you live in a place where help is literally three buttons and a few minutes away, people tend to take these things for granted.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Gotta agree on the BS for the 98K teacher. With that said the principal at my son’s elementary school makes about $150K and drives a nice MB. I had a fireman client (a captain in LA) and saw his tax returns. Over $150K per year confirmed.[/quote]

Yes, administrators certainly make more money. Also, fire captains in LA are probably paid fairly well, but I’m guessing s/he had a fair amount of overtime in that $150K. Again, if anyone wants to do it, this is a free country and they can apply for these jobs.

In the meantime, mortgage brokers, realtors, bankers, salesmen and others were making far more than this during the run-up. (not directed at you, sdr)

Just saying…I’d much rather have well-paid law enforcement and safety personnel so we can avoid becoming Mexico or Zimbabwe. I want the very best, most highly-qualified, and thoroughly vetted people in those positions. Not saying we don’t have corruption or inept employees, but our system is far better than those where these govt employees are paid less, IMHO.

Also, you can’t have a well-functioning, capitalist society without a well-regulated, well-trained social and legal infrastructure. Without the rule of law or efficient public safety, you get anarchy and chaos. People are forced to focus on survival — by whatever means — and productivity goes out the window.

Sometimes, when you live in a place where help is literally three buttons and a few minutes away, people tend to take these things for granted.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Gotta agree on the BS for the 98K teacher. With that said the principal at my son’s elementary school makes about $150K and drives a nice MB. I had a fireman client (a captain in LA) and saw his tax returns. Over $150K per year confirmed.[/quote]

Yes, administrators certainly make more money. Also, fire captains in LA are probably paid fairly well, but I’m guessing s/he had a fair amount of overtime in that $150K. Again, if anyone wants to do it, this is a free country and they can apply for these jobs.

In the meantime, mortgage brokers, realtors, bankers, salesmen and others were making far more than this during the run-up. (not directed at you, sdr)

Just saying…I’d much rather have well-paid law enforcement and safety personnel so we can avoid becoming Mexico or Zimbabwe. I want the very best, most highly-qualified, and thoroughly vetted people in those positions. Not saying we don’t have corruption or inept employees, but our system is far better than those where these govt employees are paid less, IMHO.

Also, you can’t have a well-functioning, capitalist society without a well-regulated, well-trained social and legal infrastructure. Without the rule of law or efficient public safety, you get anarchy and chaos. People are forced to focus on survival — by whatever means — and productivity goes out the window.

Sometimes, when you live in a place where help is literally three buttons and a few minutes away, people tend to take these things for granted.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Gotta agree on the BS for the 98K teacher. With that said the principal at my son’s elementary school makes about $150K and drives a nice MB. I had a fireman client (a captain in LA) and saw his tax returns. Over $150K per year confirmed.[/quote]

Yes, administrators certainly make more money. Also, fire captains in LA are probably paid fairly well, but I’m guessing s/he had a fair amount of overtime in that $150K. Again, if anyone wants to do it, this is a free country and they can apply for these jobs.

In the meantime, mortgage brokers, realtors, bankers, salesmen and others were making far more than this during the run-up. (not directed at you, sdr)

Just saying…I’d much rather have well-paid law enforcement and safety personnel so we can avoid becoming Mexico or Zimbabwe. I want the very best, most highly-qualified, and thoroughly vetted people in those positions. Not saying we don’t have corruption or inept employees, but our system is far better than those where these govt employees are paid less, IMHO.

Also, you can’t have a well-functioning, capitalist society without a well-regulated, well-trained social and legal infrastructure. Without the rule of law or efficient public safety, you get anarchy and chaos. People are forced to focus on survival — by whatever means — and productivity goes out the window.

Sometimes, when you live in a place where help is literally three buttons and a few minutes away, people tend to take these things for granted.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, for those who are offended by the facts, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants and “poor” people, you need to get out there and see what we’re talking about. I have a hunch that those of us who are making these claims are not “racist,” but have seen the system from within.

Try to get a job (maybe even volunteer) for a large school district in California, or see if you can talk to someone who works for a prison or a public hospital. Ask them where the money is going. Seriously. Spend a day in a welfare office or a grocery store and see who is getting all the subsidies.

Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to what you don’t like to hear, try finding the facts for yourselves and prove us wrong. I would LOVE to be proven wrong; but so far, the only thing advocates for illegal immigration do is name-call and throw around a bunch of racist terms. That’s not a legitimate argument. [/quote]

I can’t prove that poor people don’t collect social benefits and I can’t prove that many of them are not brown.I can’t prove that many poor brown people don’t fall through the cracks or that some of them or not just shits that hurt society badly. After that is not done, I could try to challenge what I see as shallow views of the topics of poor people and immigrants(not all brown not all poor & including refugees) but it would be a complete waste of time even if “legality” were not an issue and in many cases it is not.

I am pretty sure many have no capacity or will to try to see much beyond the standard view anyway. Why do we take care of “them” when it could be all for “us”. We miss the fact that if it were not for multiple generations of people just like this generation of primitively scapegoated poor and immigrants(mostly during recessions) we would not have nearly as guilded of a pot to piss in on average. We also might not have an all volunteer military.

As for illegals, scapegoat the social engineers who let them in not the people who come, most of whom are honest, other than having committed the horrible crime of looking for shit work of the underclass,where they are wanted and in a place where it is necessary to politicize the farce that they are not, by deeming them “illegal”.
O.K so I wasted my time. I make myself not one of the “in crowd” is all I accomplish. Oh well.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, for those who are offended by the facts, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants and “poor” people, you need to get out there and see what we’re talking about. I have a hunch that those of us who are making these claims are not “racist,” but have seen the system from within.

Try to get a job (maybe even volunteer) for a large school district in California, or see if you can talk to someone who works for a prison or a public hospital. Ask them where the money is going. Seriously. Spend a day in a welfare office or a grocery store and see who is getting all the subsidies.

Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to what you don’t like to hear, try finding the facts for yourselves and prove us wrong. I would LOVE to be proven wrong; but so far, the only thing advocates for illegal immigration do is name-call and throw around a bunch of racist terms. That’s not a legitimate argument. [/quote]

I can’t prove that poor people don’t collect social benefits and I can’t prove that many of them are not brown.I can’t prove that many poor brown people don’t fall through the cracks or that some of them or not just shits that hurt society badly. After that is not done, I could try to challenge what I see as shallow views of the topics of poor people and immigrants(not all brown not all poor & including refugees) but it would be a complete waste of time even if “legality” were not an issue and in many cases it is not.

I am pretty sure many have no capacity or will to try to see much beyond the standard view anyway. Why do we take care of “them” when it could be all for “us”. We miss the fact that if it were not for multiple generations of people just like this generation of primitively scapegoated poor and immigrants(mostly during recessions) we would not have nearly as guilded of a pot to piss in on average. We also might not have an all volunteer military.

As for illegals, scapegoat the social engineers who let them in not the people who come, most of whom are honest, other than having committed the horrible crime of looking for shit work of the underclass,where they are wanted and in a place where it is necessary to politicize the farce that they are not, by deeming them “illegal”.
O.K so I wasted my time. I make myself not one of the “in crowd” is all I accomplish. Oh well.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, for those who are offended by the facts, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants and “poor” people, you need to get out there and see what we’re talking about. I have a hunch that those of us who are making these claims are not “racist,” but have seen the system from within.

Try to get a job (maybe even volunteer) for a large school district in California, or see if you can talk to someone who works for a prison or a public hospital. Ask them where the money is going. Seriously. Spend a day in a welfare office or a grocery store and see who is getting all the subsidies.

Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to what you don’t like to hear, try finding the facts for yourselves and prove us wrong. I would LOVE to be proven wrong; but so far, the only thing advocates for illegal immigration do is name-call and throw around a bunch of racist terms. That’s not a legitimate argument. [/quote]

I can’t prove that poor people don’t collect social benefits and I can’t prove that many of them are not brown.I can’t prove that many poor brown people don’t fall through the cracks or that some of them or not just shits that hurt society badly. After that is not done, I could try to challenge what I see as shallow views of the topics of poor people and immigrants(not all brown not all poor & including refugees) but it would be a complete waste of time even if “legality” were not an issue and in many cases it is not.

I am pretty sure many have no capacity or will to try to see much beyond the standard view anyway. Why do we take care of “them” when it could be all for “us”. We miss the fact that if it were not for multiple generations of people just like this generation of primitively scapegoated poor and immigrants(mostly during recessions) we would not have nearly as guilded of a pot to piss in on average. We also might not have an all volunteer military.

As for illegals, scapegoat the social engineers who let them in not the people who come, most of whom are honest, other than having committed the horrible crime of looking for shit work of the underclass,where they are wanted and in a place where it is necessary to politicize the farce that they are not, by deeming them “illegal”.
O.K so I wasted my time. I make myself not one of the “in crowd” is all I accomplish. Oh well.

[NotCranky]

[quote=CA renter]BTW, for those who are offended by the facts, especially as it pertains to illegal immigrants and “poor” people, you need to get out there and see what we’re talking about. I have a hunch that those of us who are making these claims are not “racist,” but have seen the system from within.

Try to get a job (maybe even volunteer) for a large school district in California, or see if you can talk to someone who works for a prison or a public hospital. Ask them where the money is going. Seriously. Spend a day in a welfare office or a grocery store and see who is getting all the subsidies.

Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to what you don’t like to hear, try finding the facts for yourselves and prove us wrong. I would LOVE to be proven wrong; but so far, the only thing advocates for illegal immigration do is name-call and throw around a bunch of racist terms. That’s not a legitimate argument. [/quote]

I can’t prove that poor people don’t collect social benefits and I can’t prove that many of them are not brown.I can’t prove that many poor brown people don’t fall through the cracks or that some of them or not just shits that hurt society badly. After that is not done, I could try to challenge what I see as shallow views of the topics of poor people and immigrants(not all brown not all poor & including refugees) but it would be a complete waste of time even if “legality” were not an issue and in many cases it is not.

I am pretty sure many have no capacity or will to try to see much beyond the standard view anyway. Why do we take care of “them” when it could be all for “us”. We miss the fact that if it were not for multiple generations of people just like this generation of primitively scapegoated poor and immigrants(mostly during recessions) we would not have nearly as guilded of a pot to piss in on average. We also might not have an all volunteer military.

As for illegals, scapegoat the social engineers who let them in not the people who come, most of whom are honest, other than having committed the horrible crime of looking for shit work of the underclass,where they are wanted and in a place where it is necessary to politicize the farce that they are not, by deeming them “illegal”.
O.K so I wasted my time. I make myself not one of the “in crowd” is all I accomplish. Oh well.

[Author]

Posts