>> ^rychan:

>> ^waynef100:
Did I miss the $200,000 checkbox on my student loan application? Where did you get "200k" from? Definitely not from this...
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/pf/college/student_loan_debt/index.htm
>> ^rychan:
"Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life?"
I don't. Do you? Some people must, though, when they take 200k of student loans for a degree that is not worth the investment.
"really mother fucker? Really? You're an idiot."
Nice.


200k was an upper bound so that people didn't accuse me of underestimating the problem. Yes, the average is much lower and thus the whining is even less justified.
Also, it's ridiculous to say that you need to be rich to go to college. Every state has reasonable, inexpensive community college systems and moderately priced state universities that can give you a great education. People manage the 6 figure debts which they can't repay by going to second tier private colleges and majoring in liberal arts.


You may want to research the education system a little more deeply before making criticisms of those that decide to pursue academia. The US education system is becoming increasingly privatised, and the corporations making the profits are often underwritten in part by public funding. Can you think of another situation where risk is placed on the taxpayer, but profits go to the corporations? Do you think it's fair?

In addition, go research the cost of education in the US in the 1980's and then compare the increases in education cost compared to the CPI, you might be a little shocked. Perhaps back in the 1980's your argument held some merit, but we're in 2011, you may as well type purple monkey dishwasher 15 times for all the weight your argument holds.

>> ^waynef100:

Did I miss the $200,000 checkbox on my student loan application? Where did you get "200k" from? Definitely not from this...
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/22/pf/college/student_loan_debt/index.htm
>> ^rychan:
"Wow...so you think college should cost you your entire life?"
I don't. Do you? Some people must, though, when they take 200k of student loans for a degree that is not worth the investment.
"really mother fucker? Really? You're an idiot."
Nice.



200k was an upper bound so that people didn't accuse me of underestimating the problem. Yes, the average is much lower and thus the whining is even less justified.

Also, it's ridiculous to say that you need to be rich to go to college. Every state has reasonable, inexpensive community college systems and moderately priced state universities that can give you a great education. People manage the 6 figure debts which they can't repay by going to second tier private colleges and majoring in liberal arts.

@blankfist

Research that purporting that teaching is a difficult job based on 6 criteria. I suggest the whole document but here's the jest of it.
______________________________________________
---------->Societal Attitude:
The participants in this study believed that the attitude of society toward the teaching profession was unfair and detrimental to their overall functioning. They did not believe that they were valued, despite their advanced levels of education. In a recent nationwide survey of over 11,000 teachers and teacher candidates, Henke, Chen, Geis, and Knepper (2000) found that only 14.6% of the teachers surveyed were satisfied with the esteem in which society held the teaching profession.

--->Denise, a high school English teacher addressed the issue of respect:

"There is a lack of respect for teachers. It's not just the money, but also the attitude I get from administrators and politicians that teachers are trying to get away with something. We have taken these cushy jobs where all we have to do is stand up in front of a bunch of kids and BS for a few hours, and only work ten months of the year, at that teachers have it easy! Every time we ask for something (like, in my county, that the county pay our contribution to the state retirement system, for example), they make us out to look like whiners - give 'em an inch; they'll take a mile. The truth is, though, that teachers care so deeply and work SO much beyond our "contract hours." I can't tell you how many come in for weeks during the summer, as I do, and take on clubs after school (for which we are not compensated), and work during vacations. This lack of respect for teachers gets me down."
______________________________________________
---------->Financial Issues:
On top of the perception that they are not being valued by society, teachers are notoriously underpaid in our country. Four years after their graduation, Henke et al. (2000) surveyed a large sample of college graduates between 1992-1993. They found that the teachers were tied with clerical staff and service workers for the lowest salaries. A recent report from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 2000) found the following to be the case for the 2000-2001 school year:

For new teachers, the $28,986 average beginning salary lagged far behind starting salary offers in other fields for new college graduates. For example, accounting graduates were offered an average $37,143; sales/marketing, $40,033; math/statistics, $49,548; computer science, $49,749; and engineering, $50,033.
The $43,250 average teacher salary fell short of average wages of other white-collar occupations, the report found. For example, mid-level accountants earned an average $52,664, computer system analysts, $71,155; engineers, $74,920; and attorneys, $82,712.
The majority of the participants in this study related that they were simply not paid enough to live comfortably. They drove old cars and lived in inexpensive apartments. Others struggled to save enough money to buy a home.

--->Calvin, a high school science teacher, talked about his pay:

"I love teaching, but I don't know if I love it enough to deprive my family and myself of necessities. I have a baby and another on the way. I can't see how I can ever save enough to make a down payment on a house, even with a second job in the summer."
______________________________________________
---------->Time Scarcity:
Many new teachers were physically and emotionally fatigued to the point of exhaustion. They reported that they worked long days at school, and then took home lesson plans to create, papers to grade, and parents to call. They also worked nights and weekends on school-related work.

--->Jessica, a high school math teacher:

"I work 70 hours a week, and after 3 years it's not getting any better. When Friday night rolls around, all I want to do is fall asleep at 8 p.m.! Obviously that doesn't lead to a very exciting social life, or much of a "life" at all, if I can hardly stay awake long enough to go out to dinner with my friends and family. Even at holidays there are always papers to grade."

--->Fred, a high school English teacher also had difficulty with the amount of time required to do his job, pointing to the effect the time constraints had on family relationships:

The time commitment is the worst. During my first two years of teaching I worked 70-80 hour weeks, including time worked during the school day, in the evenings and over the weekend. Time commitment varies with the subject taught and with experience, but this aspect of the job nearly ran me out of teaching on several occasions and I witnessed one great new teacher leave teaching for this very reason. "It's my job or my marriage," she explained. "I never see my husband, and we're living under the same roof."

______________________________________________
---------->Workload:
The data reveal that it is nearly impossible for a conscientious teacher to complete all that is expected of them in one school day. At the high school level, teachers were teaching five or more classes in a traditional school, and three in a block schedule school. For each class this meant that the teacher's task was to design a complete lesson lasting at least one hour. This lesson had to follow the state curriculum, be engaging and interesting to students, and include various components as required by the school district, such as a warm-up, class activities, and homework. The teachers wanted to use outside resources such as the Internet to connect the material to real world applications. Additionally, they reported that there were often several special needs students in the class, and each of them needed some special accommodation. They found that planning was not a trivial task; it took several hours to design one effective instructional plan.

According to the teachers in this study, class sizes were another difficult feature of the teacher's day. In public high schools, most class sizes ranged from 25 to 35 students for a total of 125-175 students in a traditional school, and 75-105 in a four period block school. Henke et al. (2000) reported that the average number of students taught by secondary teachers each day is 115.8.

--->Abby, a high school history teacher explained the effect of large class sizes:

"Imagine any other professional trying to deal with the needs of this many "customers" at one time. If a physician were seeing patients, and grouped this many together, it is readily apparent how ridiculous it would be to expect her or him to address the needs of each person. The same is true for teachers.
Each student is an individual, with needs and issues that must be addressed. In a class period, the teachers expressed frustration because they could not address the needs of 25 or more students. "

--->Gina, a former high school science teacher described the variety in her workload as well as in her students' abilities:

"What I least expected was the amount of paperwork I had to do. Grading papers, progress reports, parent conferences, English-as-a-Second Language, exceptional students, ADD paperwork, and even work for absent students seem to take more time than "teaching."

To compound the issue, teachers also related many learning issues, where students had questions or misunderstandings that could easily have been cleared up with a few minutes of one-on-one time. They also reported discipline issues that got more serious when they were not addressed. Some students were bored. Some lacked basic skills and could not perform without help. In general, the teachers expressed being frustrated because they are educated professionals who could address these issues, if there were time to get to everyone. There was simply not enough time to address the variety of issues that simultaneously too place. Farkas et al. (2000) reported that 86% of new teachers report that the change most likely to improve teaching is reducing class size.

--->Eva, a high school English teacher summed up her frustration with large class sizes.

"This was not a matter of poor time management; it was a matter of too many students with too many needs and one harried teacher trying to be superhuman. There were times that I had a great lesson plan, only to have it totally derailed because of one or two students who needed individual attention and could not get it."

The total number of students that this professional was expected to evaluate, plan, and care for each day was as many as 150.
______________________________________________
---------->Working Conditions:
School administrators varied in their support of young teachers, and many teachers reported that this support was inadequate. The new teachers felt that they were evaluated and judged, but they would have preferred real feedback and suggestions for improvement of their teaching. They felt that they were often not supported in discipline issues or in conflicts with parents.

--->Carol, a former high school math teacher:

"I was very frustrated with the lack of support from my principal/administration in that after three observations I never got any feedback either in written or verbal form. I never really knew how I was doing. I felt I was doing a good job, but did not think the administration cared one way or the other."

--->Fran, a high school mathematics teacher expressed a need for more funds:

"Teachers should be given all the supplies that they need - $25 is not enough! At all other jobs that I have worked at, whatever you need to do your job is provided."
______________________________________________
---------->Relationships with Students and Parents:
A common problem reported by beginning teachers was student apathy. Many of the novice teachers reported that students had no interest in learning. In addition to attendance problems, a number of students often came to class without pencil, paper, and textbook. It was difficult to force or entice them to participate in classwork, and virtually impossible to get them to do homework.

--->Owen, a former high school mathematics teacher, was frustrated by his students' apathy:

"The vast majority of my students had no interest in learning math and I quickly tired of trying to force them (or entice them). They refused to bring paper or pencil to class, refused to do homework or classwork, and frequently came to class late or not at all. Most of them, to my great surprise, were not at all belligerent or confrontational about their refusal to do anything in class; they just had no intention of working at anything."

--->Mattie, a former high school history teacher, could not deal with the frustration:

"I just became very frustrated teaching to a class of 20 students and about 5 were interested or at least concerned with their grades. I decided not to return, because I was so exhausted and depressed at the end of the year. I just couldn't see "wasting" my time in a classroom where the kids don't care about themselves or what you're trying to accomplish."

--->Eugene, a former high school math teacher, also reported problems with apathy:

"I was frustrated with the apathy of the students. Many days I felt as though I was standing up there talking to myself. It was the longest year of my life. I was an emotional wreck because I felt as if the kids/parents didn't care enough to try or participate."

>> ^ForgedReality:

Bullets are inexpensive. The rich are not. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!


Revolution will never happen. Americans en mass have been molded into complacency and largely to stupid to realize it. Beyond that if we did, we wouldn't be able to agree on the goal, especially when a large chunk of Americans have been mindfucked by conservatives to believe the rich deserve to pay less taxes and should keep what they achieved (read: inherited), that income redistribution is BAD (unless it's from the poor/middle class to the rich, which is fantastic) and have been spoon-fed some crazy ass propaganda (socialism is the devil!).

I mean, just googleing 'how does the average republican feel about income inequality' and I get some juicy quotes strait from the horses mouth. Lovely bits like;

"Those screaming to share the wealth are usually the uneducated and lazy. That's a fact."

"I have no interest in stealing from people so that individuals on the lower rung of the ladder don't "feel" as bad because they have less than someone else."

You just have to love how mindfucked these people are and they just don't even realize it.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or get a job somewhere else with "help..."
I guess I think status-quo bias is mostly just baked into the way Congress was set up in the Constitution. More recently, it's baked into the idea that the Senate can't pass a damn thing without a 3/5ths majority, which is really pretty much something new as of 2009.
To the degree that politicians themselves work to maintain the status quo, I say that's usually lobbyist pressure talking. Businesses don't want the environment fixed, they want the freedom to make a profit polluting the world. Businesses don't want health care universal and inexpensive, they want it to be a huge profit-making industry.
Businesses also have wealth that makes the government's budget look like a triviality, and certainly have more wealth than any individual politician does. Bribery can be a strong motivator, and it's effectively legal now.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either the man is mildly brain-damaged, or the quo was kept by two opposing allies. That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"

In this case, I just don't think you have your facts right. Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, who stepped down to run for Senate as a Republican. Democratic party officials didn't really think they stood much of a chance against Crist, so they didn't really try to recruit a strong candidate, or devote much money to the race. Essentially, the Senate seat was going to be Crist's.
But, Crist made the fatal error of publicly endorsing the Obama stimulus package, and the rabid crazies that run the Republican party demanded he be primaried. In comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the Republican nomination for Senate. This turns into a big, ugly battle, and both Crist and Rubio spend boatloads of cash on the primary. Rubio ultimately wins in a landslide -- 20 points, and gets endorsed by all the bigwigs, i.e. Boehner, McConnell, the NRSC, Michael Steele, etc.
Instead of taking the defeat and walking off the stage, Crist vowed to keep campaigning. At that point there was a ton of talk about whether Crist would run as an Independent, or a Democrat. A bunch of Democratic bigwigs, including Bill Clinton, personally approached Crist about running as a Democrat, even though Meek had already won the Democratic nomination.
Crist rejected that offer, and immediately started running ads slamming both Meek and Rubio. He burned his bridges with both parties.
So the election was a big three-way clusterfuck. Rubio was the Republican nominee, Meek was the Democratic nominee, and Crist chose to try to fight both parties. Even so, Democrats asked Meek to drop out and endorse Crist, but Meek thought that was a bridge too far -- Crist had not made any commitment to the Democratic party, and he was a Congressman and a full-fledged candidate for Senate in his own right, why should he drop out to help someone who wasn't a Democrat?
In the end, Rubio came out on top, but that was because he was the only one with any serious backing to his campaign, both monetarily and in terms of grassroots support (Rubio was a Tea Party darling). Meek had no money, and no grassroots support, and neither did Crist at the end of the day.
I remember it vividly because I was tantalized by the possibility of flipping Crist to the Democratic party and turning a sure Republican hold (due to Crist) into a situation where it became a likely Democratic pickup (due to Crist!). That kinda thing doesn't happen too often. <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">


Christ to me will always have lost because he was tag-teamed. Meek was asked to drop out because he was a loser that siphoned votes. He intentionally stayed for what purpose? I can't think of one besides pride, and that doesn't motivate politicians often enough to be valid.

Crist had a huge grassroots, and large support even if it wasn't tea party fanatics. He should have never been the one to walk off stage. He did the right thing, but right typically loses to the wrongs. I think Crist would never have been happy being a slave to either party--and that's why he left the insanity that is Florida's republicans.

He supported the Obama stimulus and that's fine. He went on attacks but even then kept a positive attitude. And this is why winners cannot be politicians.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:


My problem is more that both sides pretend they hate each other while maintaining the status so that both sides are employed. What is the loss of one seat for one politician? Nothing, not when that pol can just sign a million dollar book deal or get a job somewhere else with "help..."

I guess I think status-quo bias is mostly just baked into the way Congress was set up in the Constitution. More recently, it's baked into the idea that the Senate can't pass a damn thing without a 3/5ths majority, which is really pretty much something new as of 2009.

To the degree that politicians themselves work to maintain the status quo, I say that's usually lobbyist pressure talking. Businesses don't want the environment fixed, they want the freedom to make a profit polluting the world. Businesses don't want health care universal and inexpensive, they want it to be a huge profit-making industry.

Businesses also have wealth that makes the government's budget look like a triviality, and certainly have more wealth than any individual politician does. Bribery can be a strong motivator, and it's effectively legal now.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

For example; Charlie Christ ran against Marco Rubio. By himself, he would have won as a non-party candidate. However, Kendrick Meek (Democrat), a jackass with no chance in hell, not even Ralph Nadar close, kept in the race declaring he would be the victor. Either the man is mildly brain-damaged, or the quo was kept by two opposing allies. That's not paronia, that's simple math. Rubio won with Meek's full support, otherwise, the threat of someone who got tired of his party's bullshit would have threatened his precious "R"


In this case, I just don't think you have your facts right. Charlie Crist was the Republican governor of Florida, who stepped down to run for Senate as a Republican. Democratic party officials didn't really think they stood much of a chance against Crist, so they didn't really try to recruit a strong candidate, or devote much money to the race. Essentially, the Senate seat was going to be Crist's.

But, Crist made the fatal error of publicly endorsing the Obama stimulus package, and the rabid crazies that run the Republican party demanded he be primaried. In comes Marco Rubio to challenge Crist for the Republican nomination for Senate. This turns into a big, ugly battle, and both Crist and Rubio spend boatloads of cash on the primary. Rubio ultimately wins in a landslide -- 20 points, and gets endorsed by all the bigwigs, i.e. Boehner, McConnell, the NRSC, Michael Steele, etc.

Instead of taking the defeat and walking off the stage, Crist vowed to keep campaigning. At that point there was a ton of talk about whether Crist would run as an Independent, or a Democrat. A bunch of Democratic bigwigs, including Bill Clinton, personally approached Crist about running as a Democrat, even though Meek had already won the Democratic nomination.

Crist rejected that offer, and immediately started running ads slamming both Meek and Rubio. He burned his bridges with both parties.

So the election was a big three-way clusterfuck. Rubio was the Republican nominee, Meek was the Democratic nominee, and Crist chose to try to fight both parties. Even so, Democrats asked Meek to drop out and endorse Crist, but Meek thought that was a bridge too far -- Crist had not made any commitment to the Democratic party, and he was a Congressman and a full-fledged candidate for Senate in his own right, why should he drop out to help someone who wasn't a Democrat?

In the end, Rubio came out on top, but that was because he was the only one with any serious backing to his campaign, both monetarily and in terms of grassroots support (Rubio was a Tea Party darling). Meek had no money, and no grassroots support, and neither did Crist at the end of the day.

I remember it vividly because I was tantalized by the possibility of flipping Crist to the Democratic party and turning a sure Republican hold (due to Crist) into a situation where it became a likely Democratic pickup (due to Crist!). That kinda thing doesn't happen too often.

...But on the bright side, housing is really inexpensive!

>> ^eric3579:

promote the inexpensive awesome dentistry. That's what I need.


too much candy and teeth-clenching?

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by eric3579:
*promote the inexpensive awesome dentistry. That's what I need.

*promote the inexpensive awesome dentistry. That's what I need.

@chilaxe

Like I said to Lawdeedaw, I don't agree with the analogy of cutting ears off. It's a red herring argument in my opinion. At best, I think you could say it is equivalent to shaving some skin off the ear lobes--it would leave no permanent damage to the function of the ear, though it would change the appearance slightly. If some culture in the world did that as a means of showing "belonging" and if, additionally, it was shown to be a medically useful procedure in preventing ear illnesses in some people, then I guess I'd have to say I'd have no problem with it being performed on babies.

I notice you left out a very important sentence from your quote (the very next one in fact).

Non-surgical restoration is inexpensive, relatively easy, and gives good results. It is not surgery, and it is not classified as a medical treatment.

They explicitly state that when done correctly the procedure should be painless, though it does take time. There is no conclusive medical evidence that having a foreskin makes sex more pleasurable (see the link to the Bioethics of Circumcision) although there are anecdotal reports from adults who have the procedure done that supports all three views (i.e. some say sex got better, some say sex got worse, some say there is no difference).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying everyone should be circumcised. I'm saying it should be the parents' choice. It should certainly be an informed choice based on all the latest information--they should know for instance that the vast majority of people who go uncircumcised don't have any problems. But they should also do what they think is best for their child. Maybe they're wrong--it turns out eventually that the procedure isn't best for their child. But it's certainly not all that harmful either, judging by the evidence we have.

As parents, we do this on a daily basis--we make decisions that seriously affect our children's future long before they have the aptitude to make the decisions for themselves. And sometimes we make the wrong decisions. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to make the decisions in the first place. Those against circumcision have to unequivocally prove that it is harmful to the child before they can take away parents' rights to choose to have the procedure done. And quite frankly they haven't done that yet, which is why this law will fail. You, personally, can find the practice distasteful (as I do). And you, personally, can choose not to have your male children circumcised (as I have). But our distaste alone doesn't entitle us to stop other parents from having the procedure done on their own children.

In time, I predict this practice will die out. Religious attendance is on the decline and in many countries like the U.K. male circumcision has virtually disappeared. Coincidentally, what led to the dramatic decline in the U.K. and other countries was insurance deciding it was an elective procedure and not paying for it anymore. I think the protesters in San Francisco would be better served by trying to lobby insurance companies not to cover it anymore than to try to pass a law against it.

Wow, that was the longest edit I've ever written. Sorry.

ive been searching for online sources myself. theres a few places you can find excerpts in pdf format but his full essays are hard to find online. but, his books are pretty inexpensive and you can find em at any bookstore, and if you can afford a lil extra there is a collection of his thats around 60 bucks i think that has all of his theological books and another collection that has most of his essays thats around 30 bucks

@shinyblurry, the great divorce is a poignant look at the relationship between the "saved" and "unsaved" in the afterlife. He tells an allegory of a bus ride the residents of hell get to take to heaven where they get to hang out for the day. At the end of the day they can stay if they want but all of em choose to get back on the bus. An interesting look into that choice and what makes them choose instead of just retelling the eternal punishment of a jerkoff god motif

>> ^smooman:

>> ^rychan:
<em>>> <It just seems like a useless exercise to me to try to give people the freedom to use a drug like heroin when it will only cause terrible repercussions.

insert alcohol for heroin in that statement and you get the mindset that gave us prohibition. go the fuck away


I don't think "go the fuck away" is an attitude that's welcome on the sift.

As far as your statement about prohibition, yes, you're right. My attitude is the same that prompted alcohol prohibition, which clear didn't work out. But that doesn't mean that all types of prohibition are folly. We have assault weapon prohibitions, as well, which inhibit your personal freedom to buy a bazooka.

Also, I'd say that alcohol is used responsibly* about 95% of the the time, and heroin about 5% of the time. Unfortunately, alcohol, by virtue of being legal and relatively inexpensive, is used vastly more than heroin so that 5% of irresponsible alcohol use is extremely damaging.

*responsible usage means that your safety and the safety of those around you, your financial well-being, and your social relationships are not negatively influenced.

Prohibition has all sorts of nasty side-effects, as BansheeX points out. We could try to be stricter, like Singapore or China, and that seems to make the drug prohibition much more effective. Or we could decriminalize consumption of drugs, but still require mandatory treatment, like Portugal. Regardless, no country seems to have found the silver bullet to deal with hard drugs.

I think these drugs are well-engineered human poisons, which damage your brain, sometimes permanently, and damage a society enormously. Others disagree, or say that even if this is the case, it should be legal.

What if there were a drug specifically engineered to send a user into a murderous rampage? They might not actually go on a killing spree every time they use it, but it is a common and expected side effect. Should it still be legal to use such a drug?

Here's Schwarzenegger's proposed budget from 07-08:

Income:
44.8% Personal Income tax (progressive)
27.3% Sales tax (flat)
9.3% Other
8.5% Corporation tax (?)
4.3% Motor Vehicle fees (regressive)
2.8% Highway Users taxes (regressive)
0.9% Tobacco tax (regressive)
0.3% Liquor tax (regressive)
1.8% Insurance tax (regressive)

Spending:
31.5% Education
26.6% Health & Human Services
10.4% Higher Education
8.4% Business, Transportation, & Housing
7% Corrections and Rehabilitation (Mostly to imprison nonviolent drug-possession offenders)
5.9% General Government
4.2% Executive, Judicial, Legislative
3.9% Resources
1% Environmental Protection
1% State and Consumer Services
0.3% Labor & Workforce Development

http://2007-08.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/SUM/1249561.html

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:
South Carolina -50th
North Carolina -49th
Georgia -48th
Texas -47th
............Virginia -44th
If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?
by Meredith Menden on Friday, February 18, 2011 at 3:32pm

Are you sick of highly paid teachers?

Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or10 months a year! It's time we put things in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit!

We can get that for less than minimum wage.



That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours).



Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET'S SEE....

That's $585 X 180= $105,300

per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).



What about those special

education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an

hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year.

Wait a minute -- there's

something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher's salary

(nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days

= $277.77/per day/30

students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!



Make a teacher smile; repost this to show appreciation for all educators.



Update: I'm glad that many people have shown their support for teachers by reposting this note, but I am not the original author. I received this as an anonymous chain letter email, and I wanted to share it to support the public workers of Wisconsin.