[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]Okay, let’s say we want to determine how much doctors make (or engineers, or…pick your occupation). I would consider the “average” earnings for workers who had the “standard” qualifications, and worked the “standard” schedule. Anything in addition to this (overtime, bonuses, additional compensation for qualifications above those required for the job, etc.) would be “potential” extra income.

They would have to go above and beyond their normal duties in order to earn this extra income; therefore, I would not include it when discussing earnings for certain occupations UNLESS these extra jobs/qualifications (and income) were addressed as separate from the “standard” earnings.[/quote]

To me, that would be Entry Level. Not average. It’s also the big lie of the union pay scales, IMHO. Particularly when dealing with the likes of the Fire Fighters where EMT, heavy duty operator, etc, are really, the basics of the job.

What you describe is like businesses having five different job descriptions: Employee 1, Employee II, Employee III, Supervisor, Director and then arguing that the low Employee III pay is the real pay when the real job position is Employee III with name your favorite criteria.

As for picking up extra pay as a ‘Coach’ or working summer school, that’s extra. But 15% for a teaching credential, that’s pretty basic. EMT bonus pay when 1/3rd of the FF’s have them and are needed for the job, that’s the same.

So I’m with you if the Union’s will actually list out the real job positions with the real requirements and show the real base pay.

If you make 200% of you published base salary, there’s a problem. Either you work way to much, of you are on the clock way too much for not really working (on call), and that’s a management problem and a Union problem.

Let me be honest, I do not mind if teacher’s average $80,000 and they are effective and work as an effective school. I also don’t mind if Elementary teachers ‘average’ $55K.

I do mind the chronic union paint of poverty to see many school districts having ‘averages’ in the $70K+ range.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]

Go the employer route. IMHO, big employers are a problem but the bigger aggregate problem is right here in our back yard with our double standard for cash paying housecleaners, gardeners, nannies, etc.

Close the employment option and close the benefit option and the illegals will self deport.

The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?

We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]

Go the employer route. IMHO, big employers are a problem but the bigger aggregate problem is right here in our back yard with our double standard for cash paying housecleaners, gardeners, nannies, etc.

Close the employment option and close the benefit option and the illegals will self deport.

The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?

We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]

Go the employer route. IMHO, big employers are a problem but the bigger aggregate problem is right here in our back yard with our double standard for cash paying housecleaners, gardeners, nannies, etc.

Close the employment option and close the benefit option and the illegals will self deport.

The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?

We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]

Go the employer route. IMHO, big employers are a problem but the bigger aggregate problem is right here in our back yard with our double standard for cash paying housecleaners, gardeners, nannies, etc.

Close the employment option and close the benefit option and the illegals will self deport.

The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?

We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]My suggestions for fixing California’s budget problems:

1. Roll back the pension boost enacted by Gray Davis (and friends) to from 3% @XX to 2% @ 55 for public safety workers. I’m an ardent supporter of defined-benefit pension plans, but this increase was totally irresponsible, and I said so back then. Because this increase has been there for so long, and because many older workers have adjusted their finances because of it, those with 10 years or less left before retirement will need a lump payment, perhaps of $50K-$150K (a drop in the bucket when compared to the relative savings) in order to make up for the fact that they are too close to retirement to make up the difference.

2. Cut pay of municipal and state workers by 10%, if they haven’t already been cut (many have).

3. Get serious about illegal immigration, and either demand that the federal government supports all of the illegals and their children, OR charge the employers of illegal immigrants for **every single benefit** used by their workers AND their dependents (legal or not), and include infrastrucuture expenses AND the expenses related to administering this program.

[If we “fix” the illegal immigration problem, it will eliminate about 25-40% of the costs associated with education and prisons, and possibly “welfare” programs — all of these being the largest expenses in the state.]

4. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all residences except a SINGLE, primary residence. Eliminate inheritability of Prop 13 protection IF the heir intends to “step-up” the cost basis upon death of a parent.

5. Get rid of Prop 13 protection for all commercial properties except for a SINGLE property (held by an individual or a trust/LLC controlled by that person). Eliminate the ability to pass Prop 13 protection from seller to buyer via corporate/LLC loopholes.

Once those things are done, see where everything stands, and then raise certain taxes, if necessary. I have a feeling we’d end up with a surplus if we enacted the changes noted above, though.[/quote]

Excellent suggestions, CAR. #3 will make the biggest impact on CA’s budget (both immediate and far-reaching). We must all dilligently stay on our representatives in Congress like glue to hammer this issue home in Washington, no matter how long it takes.[/quote]

Go the employer route. IMHO, big employers are a problem but the bigger aggregate problem is right here in our back yard with our double standard for cash paying housecleaners, gardeners, nannies, etc.

Close the employment option and close the benefit option and the illegals will self deport.

The other solution, is equally simple, remember the hubbub over the raids back in 2008 in Iowa with hundreds arrest at the packing plant? Well, why didn’t the C-level get jail time?

We the C-level of small and medium business figure out they can go to jail for having an illegal workforce, it’ll correct.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
If you think teaching is so easy and overpaid, why aren’t you doing it?[/quote]
Trotting that out again?

Did I say overpaid? – no.
Did I say easy? -no.

Did I say, making $65K plus 15% bonus? – Yes.

Did I say possibly getting $3000 for bilingual – Yes.

It’s kind of like the firefighters, you want to argue their salary schedule and poverty in spite of their W-2s showing six figures.

Can we have a honest discussion about how much the teacher’s really make?

Seriously, the schools should publish actual reported W-2 earnings sans names. kind of like Chang did for the cities and counties.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
If you think teaching is so easy and overpaid, why aren’t you doing it?[/quote]
Trotting that out again?

Did I say overpaid? – no.
Did I say easy? -no.

Did I say, making $65K plus 15% bonus? – Yes.

Did I say possibly getting $3000 for bilingual – Yes.

It’s kind of like the firefighters, you want to argue their salary schedule and poverty in spite of their W-2s showing six figures.

Can we have a honest discussion about how much the teacher’s really make?

Seriously, the schools should publish actual reported W-2 earnings sans names. kind of like Chang did for the cities and counties.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
If you think teaching is so easy and overpaid, why aren’t you doing it?[/quote]
Trotting that out again?

Did I say overpaid? – no.
Did I say easy? -no.

Did I say, making $65K plus 15% bonus? – Yes.

Did I say possibly getting $3000 for bilingual – Yes.

It’s kind of like the firefighters, you want to argue their salary schedule and poverty in spite of their W-2s showing six figures.

Can we have a honest discussion about how much the teacher’s really make?

Seriously, the schools should publish actual reported W-2 earnings sans names. kind of like Chang did for the cities and counties.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
If you think teaching is so easy and overpaid, why aren’t you doing it?[/quote]
Trotting that out again?

Did I say overpaid? – no.
Did I say easy? -no.

Did I say, making $65K plus 15% bonus? – Yes.

Did I say possibly getting $3000 for bilingual – Yes.

It’s kind of like the firefighters, you want to argue their salary schedule and poverty in spite of their W-2s showing six figures.

Can we have a honest discussion about how much the teacher’s really make?

Seriously, the schools should publish actual reported W-2 earnings sans names. kind of like Chang did for the cities and counties.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CA renter]
If you think teaching is so easy and overpaid, why aren’t you doing it?[/quote]
Trotting that out again?

Did I say overpaid? – no.
Did I say easy? -no.

Did I say, making $65K plus 15% bonus? – Yes.

Did I say possibly getting $3000 for bilingual – Yes.

It’s kind of like the firefighters, you want to argue their salary schedule and poverty in spite of their W-2s showing six figures.

Can we have a honest discussion about how much the teacher’s really make?

Seriously, the schools should publish actual reported W-2 earnings sans names. kind of like Chang did for the cities and counties.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=CONCHO][quote=davelj]
I’m no expert on this by a long shot… but are you suggesting that going all-organic would increase crop yields around the globe? In other words, if we abandoned GMO, fertilizers, etc. – all of the “bad” stuff – would the resulting yields not decline on an aggregate basis?[/quote]

There are scores of different crops in scores of different types of farms around the world. High-tech solutions will probably work well in certain environments, not so well in others. Seems like the high-tech stuff isn’t working well in India for whatever reason. There’s not going to be any one answer on how to feed 7 billion people, if it’s even possible at all.[/quote]

I’m not sure what technology/GM solution people are expecting to severe drought followed by torrential rain and flooding.

[Author]

Posts