[andymajumder]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

Comparing mid career engineers to teachers through a generic statement is absolutely absurd. How is the training of a computer engineer in anyway similar to that of a english teacher or physical education teacher.
Moreover, engineers don’t get to unionize like teachers do. If engineers could unionize like teachers we would not have a Google, Apple or Qualcomm here in the US…. If teacher salary was based purely on supply and demand, their salaries would be much lower.

[andymajumder]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

Comparing mid career engineers to teachers through a generic statement is absolutely absurd. How is the training of a computer engineer in anyway similar to that of a english teacher or physical education teacher.
Moreover, engineers don’t get to unionize like teachers do. If engineers could unionize like teachers we would not have a Google, Apple or Qualcomm here in the US…. If teacher salary was based purely on supply and demand, their salaries would be much lower.

[andymajumder]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

Comparing mid career engineers to teachers through a generic statement is absolutely absurd. How is the training of a computer engineer in anyway similar to that of a english teacher or physical education teacher.
Moreover, engineers don’t get to unionize like teachers do. If engineers could unionize like teachers we would not have a Google, Apple or Qualcomm here in the US…. If teacher salary was based purely on supply and demand, their salaries would be much lower.

[andymajumder]

[quote=ninaprincess]I think mid career Engineers get around 100k for the same training, so 80k is not too much for teachers.

From the article, the higher range salaries are much higher than the mid career number. So mid career is not the MAX. “The highest salaries offered range from $91,144 at Fountain Valley Elementary to $111,701 at Laguna Beach.”

1 week spring break
2 weeks winter break
11 weeks summer break[/quote]

Comparing mid career engineers to teachers through a generic statement is absolutely absurd. How is the training of a computer engineer in anyway similar to that of a english teacher or physical education teacher.
Moreover, engineers don’t get to unionize like teachers do. If engineers could unionize like teachers we would not have a Google, Apple or Qualcomm here in the US…. If teacher salary was based purely on supply and demand, their salaries would be much lower.

[andymajumder]

SDR…this is very useful, many thanks. Would it be possible to have similar data for 92131. Many thanks.

[andymajumder]

SDR…this is very useful, many thanks. Would it be possible to have similar data for 92131. Many thanks.

[andymajumder]

SDR…this is very useful, many thanks. Would it be possible to have similar data for 92131. Many thanks.

[andymajumder]

SDR…this is very useful, many thanks. Would it be possible to have similar data for 92131. Many thanks.

[andymajumder]

SDR…this is very useful, many thanks. Would it be possible to have similar data for 92131. Many thanks.

[andymajumder]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.

Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]

Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?

There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.

Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]

Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?

There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.

Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]

Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?

There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.

Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]

Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?

There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=faterikcartman][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.

Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]

Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?

There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]

First, spending clearly has not been cut enough or we wouldn’t be discussing this.

Second, it has been shown time and time again that pumping money into a school system does not translate to better educational outcomes. Isn’t 40% of the state budget spent on education with little, if not negative, returns?

Poor people without health insurance? The American understanding of “poor” is wildly different than the rest of the world. Our so-called “poor” live rather well in comparison. Moreover, just because someone doesn’t have health insurance doesn’t mean they could not buy it if they so chose. Often they decide to gamble and buy other things like cars, cell phones, and televisions instead. That’s not my problem. Moreover, catastrophic care insurance would be more affordable but for do-gooders insisting all policies include things like psych and maternity care or sex changes (or some other crazy non-essential) so that the free market is not free and, hence, not functioning properly.

I suspect that people who will shoot me or have me shot (that’s what happens if you don’t pay your taxes and resist arrest and prison) to take care of children I’ve not created, and adults over whom I have no control, will not be satisfied until entire paychecks are taken and then redistributed by those who know better (like themselves). The problem being, if one pays attention to history, is that people will not work to produce the excess they produce now and the system will eventually fail.

Moreover, one cannot have a socially liberal society contemporaneously with a fiscally oppressive and confiscatory one. Taking others [fill in the blank] at the point of a gun is inherently not liberal.

I suggest you read “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayak. The arguments are not new and the results remain the same.[/quote]

Great post…couldn’t agree more, I am a fan of “faterikcartman”

[andymajumder]

[quote=SD Realtor]Hmmm not sure where you got the 440k from. According to the listing agent it is in escrow as of today but they only got 1 offer and it was a cash offer at list price which was 399k. We will see what it closes for.[/quote]

Interesting….if I had 399K in cash, I would still put only 20% down if financing below 5% for 30yrs was available to me.

[Author]

Posts