OT: Public pay & benefits

[jficquette]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.[/quote]

Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.

Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.

John

[sdrealtor]

First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.

[sdrealtor]

First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.

[sdrealtor]

First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.

[sdrealtor]

First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.

[sdrealtor]

First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.[/quote]

Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.

Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.

John[/quote]

Actually, it’s more than that.

Methodology/data type by source:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/perpupilspend.asp

Additional info:

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16

This source claims California spends between $8,853 and $9,706 per pupil.

http://www.edsource.org/data-per-pupil-spend-compare-using-cwi.html

This source claims LAUSD — the most “expensive” school district — spends over $29K per pupil (this is all-inclusive, and includes all benefits, capital costs, interest expense, etc.) :

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-259767-education-district.html
—————-

One thing you have to consider when calculating costs is the fact that public schools have to educate all the students that private schools can’t or won’t take: the severly disabled and special education students, the very poor, non-English speakers, transient students, students with severe behavioral problems, adult education, etc. They also provide services that private schools don’t provide like “free” breakfasts and lunches, counseling/psychological care, healthcare (in some instances), “free” uniforms for low-income students, etc.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that the poorest schools are not allowed to ask parents for financial assistance, they are not even allowed to ask parents to supply pencils, paper, etc. (that was the mandate when I was teaching at a Title I school). That means the schools with the most expensive students have to foot 100% of the costs. Private schools will not and can not do this for $10K per student.

—————

Costs to educate special ed students vs. general ed students:

Because most students with disabilities today spend the majority of the school-day in regular
classrooms, the actual cost of educating a child with a disability is higher than the program costs alone
would imply. Taking total costs into account, the average cost of educating a student with a disability in
the Los Angeles Unified School District was approximately $11,500 during 1991–92. For nondisabled
students, spending averaged $4,000 per pupil.

http://reason.org/files/5bba489f654fc1f7ac773f817b4745f4.pdf

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.[/quote]

Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.

Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.

John[/quote]

Actually, it’s more than that.

Methodology/data type by source:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/perpupilspend.asp

Additional info:

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16

This source claims California spends between $8,853 and $9,706 per pupil.

http://www.edsource.org/data-per-pupil-spend-compare-using-cwi.html

This source claims LAUSD — the most “expensive” school district — spends over $29K per pupil (this is all-inclusive, and includes all benefits, capital costs, interest expense, etc.) :

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-259767-education-district.html
—————-

One thing you have to consider when calculating costs is the fact that public schools have to educate all the students that private schools can’t or won’t take: the severly disabled and special education students, the very poor, non-English speakers, transient students, students with severe behavioral problems, adult education, etc. They also provide services that private schools don’t provide like “free” breakfasts and lunches, counseling/psychological care, healthcare (in some instances), “free” uniforms for low-income students, etc.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that the poorest schools are not allowed to ask parents for financial assistance, they are not even allowed to ask parents to supply pencils, paper, etc. (that was the mandate when I was teaching at a Title I school). That means the schools with the most expensive students have to foot 100% of the costs. Private schools will not and can not do this for $10K per student.

—————

Costs to educate special ed students vs. general ed students:

Because most students with disabilities today spend the majority of the school-day in regular
classrooms, the actual cost of educating a child with a disability is higher than the program costs alone
would imply. Taking total costs into account, the average cost of educating a student with a disability in
the Los Angeles Unified School District was approximately $11,500 during 1991–92. For nondisabled
students, spending averaged $4,000 per pupil.

http://reason.org/files/5bba489f654fc1f7ac773f817b4745f4.pdf

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.[/quote]

Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.

Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.

John[/quote]

Actually, it’s more than that.

Methodology/data type by source:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/perpupilspend.asp

Additional info:

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16

This source claims California spends between $8,853 and $9,706 per pupil.

http://www.edsource.org/data-per-pupil-spend-compare-using-cwi.html

This source claims LAUSD — the most “expensive” school district — spends over $29K per pupil (this is all-inclusive, and includes all benefits, capital costs, interest expense, etc.) :

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-259767-education-district.html
—————-

One thing you have to consider when calculating costs is the fact that public schools have to educate all the students that private schools can’t or won’t take: the severly disabled and special education students, the very poor, non-English speakers, transient students, students with severe behavioral problems, adult education, etc. They also provide services that private schools don’t provide like “free” breakfasts and lunches, counseling/psychological care, healthcare (in some instances), “free” uniforms for low-income students, etc.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that the poorest schools are not allowed to ask parents for financial assistance, they are not even allowed to ask parents to supply pencils, paper, etc. (that was the mandate when I was teaching at a Title I school). That means the schools with the most expensive students have to foot 100% of the costs. Private schools will not and can not do this for $10K per student.

—————

Costs to educate special ed students vs. general ed students:

Because most students with disabilities today spend the majority of the school-day in regular
classrooms, the actual cost of educating a child with a disability is higher than the program costs alone
would imply. Taking total costs into account, the average cost of educating a student with a disability in
the Los Angeles Unified School District was approximately $11,500 during 1991–92. For nondisabled
students, spending averaged $4,000 per pupil.

http://reason.org/files/5bba489f654fc1f7ac773f817b4745f4.pdf

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.[/quote]

Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.

Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.

John[/quote]

Actually, it’s more than that.

Methodology/data type by source:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/perpupilspend.asp

Additional info:

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16

This source claims California spends between $8,853 and $9,706 per pupil.

http://www.edsource.org/data-per-pupil-spend-compare-using-cwi.html

This source claims LAUSD — the most “expensive” school district — spends over $29K per pupil (this is all-inclusive, and includes all benefits, capital costs, interest expense, etc.) :

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-259767-education-district.html
—————-

One thing you have to consider when calculating costs is the fact that public schools have to educate all the students that private schools can’t or won’t take: the severly disabled and special education students, the very poor, non-English speakers, transient students, students with severe behavioral problems, adult education, etc. They also provide services that private schools don’t provide like “free” breakfasts and lunches, counseling/psychological care, healthcare (in some instances), “free” uniforms for low-income students, etc.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that the poorest schools are not allowed to ask parents for financial assistance, they are not even allowed to ask parents to supply pencils, paper, etc. (that was the mandate when I was teaching at a Title I school). That means the schools with the most expensive students have to foot 100% of the costs. Private schools will not and can not do this for $10K per student.

—————

Costs to educate special ed students vs. general ed students:

Because most students with disabilities today spend the majority of the school-day in regular
classrooms, the actual cost of educating a child with a disability is higher than the program costs alone
would imply. Taking total costs into account, the average cost of educating a student with a disability in
the Los Angeles Unified School District was approximately $11,500 during 1991–92. For nondisabled
students, spending averaged $4,000 per pupil.

http://reason.org/files/5bba489f654fc1f7ac773f817b4745f4.pdf

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette][quote=CA renter][quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).[/quote]

That’s the point. Obviously the money is not going to services. It’s going to the public sector’s pockets.

We have a $19 Bill deficit now in Cali:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Calif-budget-plan-relies-on-apf-2965860812.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

That means $15Bil of that deficit is due to pay and benefits.The hell with that. Just fire them and problem solved or cut everyone pay and benefits by 20%. I say that because I think our budget is around $100Bill. Since 80% is for pay and benefits(what a joke), then all you have to do is cut pay by 20-25% and budget is fixed and no decrease in services to the illegals etc.

I don’t think you know the answer to this because I guess you work for the State but do you have idea how many businesses would stay in business with a payroll that was 80% of revenue??

Why can’t we run government like a business?

John[/quote]

This is where I think you’re getting confused. What do you think “services” are? The govt is mostly in the business of providing services (as opposed to goods), and the majority of the costs of “services” will be spent on compensation for the people who provide those services. If you look at service providers in the private sector, I’ll bet the majority of their costs go toward pay/benefits as well.[/quote]

Education for instance. Cali pays $15k per student per year which means $12k of that is for wages and benefits. To put this prespective consider the family with 4 kids in school. That is $60k spent for that family per year. A family could hire a private teacher full time for that.

Give a private company $10k per year per student and I promise you the schools would be much better than they are now.

John[/quote]

Actually, it’s more than that.

Methodology/data type by source:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/fd/ec/perpupilspend.asp

Additional info:

http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D04%26reportNumber%3D16

This source claims California spends between $8,853 and $9,706 per pupil.

http://www.edsource.org/data-per-pupil-spend-compare-using-cwi.html

This source claims LAUSD — the most “expensive” school district — spends over $29K per pupil (this is all-inclusive, and includes all benefits, capital costs, interest expense, etc.) :

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-259767-education-district.html
—————-

One thing you have to consider when calculating costs is the fact that public schools have to educate all the students that private schools can’t or won’t take: the severly disabled and special education students, the very poor, non-English speakers, transient students, students with severe behavioral problems, adult education, etc. They also provide services that private schools don’t provide like “free” breakfasts and lunches, counseling/psychological care, healthcare (in some instances), “free” uniforms for low-income students, etc.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that the poorest schools are not allowed to ask parents for financial assistance, they are not even allowed to ask parents to supply pencils, paper, etc. (that was the mandate when I was teaching at a Title I school). That means the schools with the most expensive students have to foot 100% of the costs. Private schools will not and can not do this for $10K per student.

—————

Costs to educate special ed students vs. general ed students:

Because most students with disabilities today spend the majority of the school-day in regular
classrooms, the actual cost of educating a child with a disability is higher than the program costs alone
would imply. Taking total costs into account, the average cost of educating a student with a disability in
the Los Angeles Unified School District was approximately $11,500 during 1991–92. For nondisabled
students, spending averaged $4,000 per pupil.

http://reason.org/files/5bba489f654fc1f7ac773f817b4745f4.pdf

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.[/quote]

FDNY pay is about equal to what is made here. They actually have better benefits (lifetime medical, up to four weeks paid vacation, pensions after 20 years, etc.).

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

Also, while firefighters back east have to deal with structure fires in older, more dangerous structures (leading cause of death), firefighers in California deal with wildland/brush fires (the second leading cause of death), where firefighters are exposed to fire and smoke for much longer periods of time.

BTW, the $150K/year number that is carelessly thrown around would be inclusive of quite a bit of overtime. Base pay for your average firefighter around here is much lower than that.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.[/quote]

FDNY pay is about equal to what is made here. They actually have better benefits (lifetime medical, up to four weeks paid vacation, pensions after 20 years, etc.).

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

Also, while firefighters back east have to deal with structure fires in older, more dangerous structures (leading cause of death), firefighers in California deal with wildland/brush fires (the second leading cause of death), where firefighters are exposed to fire and smoke for much longer periods of time.

BTW, the $150K/year number that is carelessly thrown around would be inclusive of quite a bit of overtime. Base pay for your average firefighter around here is much lower than that.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.[/quote]

FDNY pay is about equal to what is made here. They actually have better benefits (lifetime medical, up to four weeks paid vacation, pensions after 20 years, etc.).

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

Also, while firefighters back east have to deal with structure fires in older, more dangerous structures (leading cause of death), firefighers in California deal with wildland/brush fires (the second leading cause of death), where firefighters are exposed to fire and smoke for much longer periods of time.

BTW, the $150K/year number that is carelessly thrown around would be inclusive of quite a bit of overtime. Base pay for your average firefighter around here is much lower than that.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]First off I value highly competent public safety people. Just not to the tune of 150K a year plus incredible pensions at the age of about 50. I value them just as much as I did back east where they dont make anything close to what they do here and have much tougher jobs.

Second, entrepreneurial risk is putting YOUR OWN money and capital at risk not some corporations. Entrepreneurial risk taken by highly educated people is NOT what got us into this mess. What got us into this mess is people playing with other people’s money. Education alone does not mean someone should be paid more though some folks are so smart and well educated they deserve to be paid very well. Getting paid alot in my mind is a reward for putting your own money on the line. If more of that was done in banking we would not be in the mess we are in.[/quote]

FDNY pay is about equal to what is made here. They actually have better benefits (lifetime medical, up to four weeks paid vacation, pensions after 20 years, etc.).

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml

Also, while firefighters back east have to deal with structure fires in older, more dangerous structures (leading cause of death), firefighers in California deal with wildland/brush fires (the second leading cause of death), where firefighters are exposed to fire and smoke for much longer periods of time.

BTW, the $150K/year number that is carelessly thrown around would be inclusive of quite a bit of overtime. Base pay for your average firefighter around here is much lower than that.

[Author]

Posts