i don't trust nor distrust them. they are regular people to me. just a different job with wildly different social events. except when you have 8 million followers to my 97, you tend to have more ears than i do.
feigned altruism? does living in LA cause that level of cynicism? (serious question)
I lived in LA a good chunk of my life. It’s funny, people who are are into it can spot celebrities often. I couldn’t care less, most of the time when I was with friends and they pointed someone out I didn’t even know who it was. I generally stayed away from those hot spots because everything is overpriced, but when I was in my 20s that’s where coworkers and friends want to go for happy hour. But what makes me mad is how much money they make, and really shows our level of worship. Not just Hollywood, but sports too. NFL minimum is $600,000. Even practice squad makes $150-$200,000 for 17 weeks of practice. When you think about it and the best teacher in the country who literally turns lives around makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player in the country makes who never even made it off the bench. To me that shows where our priorities are and our level of worship on sports and Hollywood. Like anyone would say “no thanks, I’ll go back to working at Best Buy” if the standard for salaries, TV or sports, were 1/5 what they are now. They’d still very well off financially.
Glad you are not a math teacher.
Entertainers get paid what the market will bear
Not their problem we underpay teachers in many parts of the country.
What does the market have to do with teaching math? Obviously they get paid what the market allows, never said it didn't. The market allows it because people are willing to pay $100 a ticket and $12 a beer to watch an NFL game, so the owners can afford to pay the worst player in the league 600k. Not sure what any of that has to do with teaching math. If anything, teaching economics, but I didn't dispute any of that. It just shows the level of devotion we have. Same applies with TV and movies. 40 years ago movie stars and athletes didn't make anything close compared to what they do today, even considering inflation.
Simple. The two statements I made there are separate.
Re: my statement at relief that you are not teaching future leaders the subject of math:
Your math is not correct.
Your statement is that the best teacher in the country makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player makes.
The number you shared as the worst player's salary is $600,00.
1/10 of that is $60,000. "About 1/10" would give you some reasonable leeway of probably another +/-10% of that #....so $6,000.
$54,000-$66,000
I guess the question would be who the best teacher in the country would be.
Teachers in our district can make over $100,000, and many do based on the public listings each year.
If any of the best teachers in the country have access to six figures teaching in public schools then the minimum salary for NFL player would need to be $1MM for your math to work.
The national average for a teacher salary is about $60,000 (actually last I heard it was $58,000, but that still falls within your +/- 10%). Your basing your opinion off one district, I was using the national average. 10% of $600,000 is in fact $60,000. I was going off the assumption that the best teacher in the country is probably closer to the national average rather than being located in an area where the cost of living is high and therefore can make $100,000. Yes, that is possible. It is also possible the best teacher in the country also makes $40k. Which is why I found it better to base my statement off the national average, rather than assume this hypothetical teacher is located in the top 10% of the country.
Teacher's salaries are usually not based off performance, but years of experience and location. Often times the "teacher of the year" award goes to a teacher who has only been on the job 5-10 years. Yes, there could be someone about to retire too, and sometimes its a rookie. The vast majority of teachers in the country will never have an opportunity to earn 100k unless they move out of state, and start their career over again, and in that case, will be at retirement age before they get to that 100k anyway. Since pay generally doesn't reflect performance, and even in the cases that it does, it often does it incorrectly by rewarding teachers who teach high level honors classes and punishing those who teach the lower level kids, this hypothetical best teacher is more likely to fall near the average than the highest paid district. So I don't know what was so mathematically wrong about using an average to make a statement about a hypothetical teacher and instead should have used an example of your single district? Perhaps you can continue to enlighten me? I guess averages are bad now? I haven't taken a math class since high school, I tested out of it for college, so maybe that's changed, averages are bad now when making claims. Base it off your personal bubble to favor your point of view.
You said the best teacher in the country - you didn't say the most average teacher in the country. I only used your words - say what you mean if that wasn't what you meant.
i don't trust nor distrust them. they are regular people to me. just a different job with wildly different social events. except when you have 8 million followers to my 97, you tend to have more ears than i do.
feigned altruism? does living in LA cause that level of cynicism? (serious question)
I lived in LA a good chunk of my life. It’s funny, people who are are into it can spot celebrities often. I couldn’t care less, most of the time when I was with friends and they pointed someone out I didn’t even know who it was. I generally stayed away from those hot spots because everything is overpriced, but when I was in my 20s that’s where coworkers and friends want to go for happy hour. But what makes me mad is how much money they make, and really shows our level of worship. Not just Hollywood, but sports too. NFL minimum is $600,000. Even practice squad makes $150-$200,000 for 17 weeks of practice. When you think about it and the best teacher in the country who literally turns lives around makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player in the country makes who never even made it off the bench. To me that shows where our priorities are and our level of worship on sports and Hollywood. Like anyone would say “no thanks, I’ll go back to working at Best Buy” if the standard for salaries, TV or sports, were 1/5 what they are now. They’d still very well off financially.
Glad you are not a math teacher.
Entertainers get paid what the market will bear
Not their problem we underpay teachers in many parts of the country.
What does the market have to do with teaching math? Obviously they get paid what the market allows, never said it didn't. The market allows it because people are willing to pay $100 a ticket and $12 a beer to watch an NFL game, so the owners can afford to pay the worst player in the league 600k. Not sure what any of that has to do with teaching math. If anything, teaching economics, but I didn't dispute any of that. It just shows the level of devotion we have. Same applies with TV and movies. 40 years ago movie stars and athletes didn't make anything close compared to what they do today, even considering inflation.
Simple. The two statements I made there are separate.
Re: my statement at relief that you are not teaching future leaders the subject of math:
Your math is not correct.
Your statement is that the best teacher in the country makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player makes.
The number you shared as the worst player's salary is $600,00.
1/10 of that is $60,000. "About 1/10" would give you some reasonable leeway of probably another +/-10% of that #....so $6,000.
$54,000-$66,000
I guess the question would be who the best teacher in the country would be.
Teachers in our district can make over $100,000, and many do based on the public listings each year.
If any of the best teachers in the country have access to six figures teaching in public schools then the minimum salary for NFL player would need to be $1MM for your math to work.
The national average for a teacher salary is about $60,000 (actually last I heard it was $58,000, but that still falls within your +/- 10%). Your basing your opinion off one district, I was using the national average. 10% of $600,000 is in fact $60,000. I was going off the assumption that the best teacher in the country is probably closer to the national average rather than being located in an area where the cost of living is high and therefore can make $100,000. Yes, that is possible. It is also possible the best teacher in the country also makes $40k. Which is why I found it better to base my statement off the national average, rather than assume this hypothetical teacher is located in the top 10% of the country.
Teacher's salaries are usually not based off performance, but years of experience and location. Often times the "teacher of the year" award goes to a teacher who has only been on the job 5-10 years. Yes, there could be someone about to retire too, and sometimes its a rookie. The vast majority of teachers in the country will never have an opportunity to earn 100k unless they move out of state, and start their career over again, and in that case, will be at retirement age before they get to that 100k anyway. Since pay generally doesn't reflect performance, and even in the cases that it does, it often does it incorrectly by rewarding teachers who teach high level honors classes and punishing those who teach the lower level kids, this hypothetical best teacher is more likely to fall near the average than the highest paid district. So I don't know what was so mathematically wrong about using an average to make a statement about a hypothetical teacher and instead should have used an example of your single district? Perhaps you can continue to enlighten me? I guess averages are bad now? I haven't taken a math class since high school, I tested out of it for college, so maybe that's changed, averages are bad now when making claims. Base it off your personal bubble to favor your point of view.
You said the best teacher in the country - you didn't say the most average teacher in the country. I only used your words - say what you mean if that wasn't what you meant.
I did. These hypothetical best teachers most likely make $60,000, not $100,000. Not sure what you’re not getting. You’re confusing highest paid with best, and that’s not the case.
i don't trust nor distrust them. they are regular people to me. just a different job with wildly different social events. except when you have 8 million followers to my 97, you tend to have more ears than i do.
feigned altruism? does living in LA cause that level of cynicism? (serious question)
I lived in LA a good chunk of my life. It’s funny, people who are are into it can spot celebrities often. I couldn’t care less, most of the time when I was with friends and they pointed someone out I didn’t even know who it was. I generally stayed away from those hot spots because everything is overpriced, but when I was in my 20s that’s where coworkers and friends want to go for happy hour. But what makes me mad is how much money they make, and really shows our level of worship. Not just Hollywood, but sports too. NFL minimum is $600,000. Even practice squad makes $150-$200,000 for 17 weeks of practice. When you think about it and the best teacher in the country who literally turns lives around makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player in the country makes who never even made it off the bench. To me that shows where our priorities are and our level of worship on sports and Hollywood. Like anyone would say “no thanks, I’ll go back to working at Best Buy” if the standard for salaries, TV or sports, were 1/5 what they are now. They’d still very well off financially.
Glad you are not a math teacher.
Entertainers get paid what the market will bear
Not their problem we underpay teachers in many parts of the country.
What does the market have to do with teaching math? Obviously they get paid what the market allows, never said it didn't. The market allows it because people are willing to pay $100 a ticket and $12 a beer to watch an NFL game, so the owners can afford to pay the worst player in the league 600k. Not sure what any of that has to do with teaching math. If anything, teaching economics, but I didn't dispute any of that. It just shows the level of devotion we have. Same applies with TV and movies. 40 years ago movie stars and athletes didn't make anything close compared to what they do today, even considering inflation.
Simple. The two statements I made there are separate.
Re: my statement at relief that you are not teaching future leaders the subject of math:
Your math is not correct.
Your statement is that the best teacher in the country makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player makes.
The number you shared as the worst player's salary is $600,00.
1/10 of that is $60,000. "About 1/10" would give you some reasonable leeway of probably another +/-10% of that #....so $6,000.
$54,000-$66,000
I guess the question would be who the best teacher in the country would be.
Teachers in our district can make over $100,000, and many do based on the public listings each year.
If any of the best teachers in the country have access to six figures teaching in public schools then the minimum salary for NFL player would need to be $1MM for your math to work.
The national average for a teacher salary is about $60,000 (actually last I heard it was $58,000, but that still falls within your +/- 10%). Your basing your opinion off one district, I was using the national average. 10% of $600,000 is in fact $60,000. I was going off the assumption that the best teacher in the country is probably closer to the national average rather than being located in an area where the cost of living is high and therefore can make $100,000. Yes, that is possible. It is also possible the best teacher in the country also makes $40k. Which is why I found it better to base my statement off the national average, rather than assume this hypothetical teacher is located in the top 10% of the country.
Teacher's salaries are usually not based off performance, but years of experience and location. Often times the "teacher of the year" award goes to a teacher who has only been on the job 5-10 years. Yes, there could be someone about to retire too, and sometimes its a rookie. The vast majority of teachers in the country will never have an opportunity to earn 100k unless they move out of state, and start their career over again, and in that case, will be at retirement age before they get to that 100k anyway. Since pay generally doesn't reflect performance, and even in the cases that it does, it often does it incorrectly by rewarding teachers who teach high level honors classes and punishing those who teach the lower level kids, this hypothetical best teacher is more likely to fall near the average than the highest paid district. So I don't know what was so mathematically wrong about using an average to make a statement about a hypothetical teacher and instead should have used an example of your single district? Perhaps you can continue to enlighten me? I guess averages are bad now? I haven't taken a math class since high school, I tested out of it for college, so maybe that's changed, averages are bad now when making claims. Base it off your personal bubble to favor your point of view.
You said the best teacher in the country - you didn't say the most average teacher in the country. I only used your words - say what you mean if that wasn't what you meant.
Woke up early and couldn’t sleep, so now we can take some of the guess work out of this debate and go back to the virus.
The National teacher of the year for 2019 was Rodney Robinson. He works for the district of Virgie Binford Education Center. Teacher salaries are public and you can look it up by district. I went with the 2019 winner and not the 2020 winner because she was a preschool teacher in 2020. Those salaries are usually even less and often not public. So let’s go with Rodney. There’s a little bit of guess work, but we could get a good idea, probably within that 10% allowance you gave me. His bio states over 10 years of experience, so let’s go with 12. I’m sure if it was higher than that it would have given a higher number. I have to completely guess on education, but they only have 3 columns for that, bachelor’s, master's, and master’s +30 credits. With only a bachelor’s degree his salary was 54k, a master’s degree would be 57k and a master’s + 30 was 60k.
So here we are, the National teacher of the year for 2019 made somewhere between $54,000 and $60,000.
Seems like my statement was more accurate using national averages like I did at first than taking an isolated pocket of the highest paid teachers as an example. Odd.
i don't trust nor distrust them. they are regular people to me. just a different job with wildly different social events. except when you have 8 million followers to my 97, you tend to have more ears than i do.
feigned altruism? does living in LA cause that level of cynicism? (serious question)
I lived in LA a good chunk of my life. It’s funny, people who are are into it can spot celebrities often. I couldn’t care less, most of the time when I was with friends and they pointed someone out I didn’t even know who it was. I generally stayed away from those hot spots because everything is overpriced, but when I was in my 20s that’s where coworkers and friends want to go for happy hour. But what makes me mad is how much money they make, and really shows our level of worship. Not just Hollywood, but sports too. NFL minimum is $600,000. Even practice squad makes $150-$200,000 for 17 weeks of practice. When you think about it and the best teacher in the country who literally turns lives around makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player in the country makes who never even made it off the bench. To me that shows where our priorities are and our level of worship on sports and Hollywood. Like anyone would say “no thanks, I’ll go back to working at Best Buy” if the standard for salaries, TV or sports, were 1/5 what they are now. They’d still very well off financially.
Glad you are not a math teacher.
Entertainers get paid what the market will bear
Not their problem we underpay teachers in many parts of the country.
What does the market have to do with teaching math? Obviously they get paid what the market allows, never said it didn't. The market allows it because people are willing to pay $100 a ticket and $12 a beer to watch an NFL game, so the owners can afford to pay the worst player in the league 600k. Not sure what any of that has to do with teaching math. If anything, teaching economics, but I didn't dispute any of that. It just shows the level of devotion we have. Same applies with TV and movies. 40 years ago movie stars and athletes didn't make anything close compared to what they do today, even considering inflation.
Simple. The two statements I made there are separate.
Re: my statement at relief that you are not teaching future leaders the subject of math:
Your math is not correct.
Your statement is that the best teacher in the country makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player makes.
The number you shared as the worst player's salary is $600,00.
1/10 of that is $60,000. "About 1/10" would give you some reasonable leeway of probably another +/-10% of that #....so $6,000.
$54,000-$66,000
I guess the question would be who the best teacher in the country would be.
Teachers in our district can make over $100,000, and many do based on the public listings each year.
If any of the best teachers in the country have access to six figures teaching in public schools then the minimum salary for NFL player would need to be $1MM for your math to work.
The national average for a teacher salary is about $60,000 (actually last I heard it was $58,000, but that still falls within your +/- 10%). Your basing your opinion off one district, I was using the national average. 10% of $600,000 is in fact $60,000. I was going off the assumption that the best teacher in the country is probably closer to the national average rather than being located in an area where the cost of living is high and therefore can make $100,000. Yes, that is possible. It is also possible the best teacher in the country also makes $40k. Which is why I found it better to base my statement off the national average, rather than assume this hypothetical teacher is located in the top 10% of the country.
Teacher's salaries are usually not based off performance, but years of experience and location. Often times the "teacher of the year" award goes to a teacher who has only been on the job 5-10 years. Yes, there could be someone about to retire too, and sometimes its a rookie. The vast majority of teachers in the country will never have an opportunity to earn 100k unless they move out of state, and start their career over again, and in that case, will be at retirement age before they get to that 100k anyway. Since pay generally doesn't reflect performance, and even in the cases that it does, it often does it incorrectly by rewarding teachers who teach high level honors classes and punishing those who teach the lower level kids, this hypothetical best teacher is more likely to fall near the average than the highest paid district. So I don't know what was so mathematically wrong about using an average to make a statement about a hypothetical teacher and instead should have used an example of your single district? Perhaps you can continue to enlighten me? I guess averages are bad now? I haven't taken a math class since high school, I tested out of it for college, so maybe that's changed, averages are bad now when making claims. Base it off your personal bubble to favor your point of view.
You said the best teacher in the country - you didn't say the most average teacher in the country. I only used your words - say what you mean if that wasn't what you meant.
Woke up early and couldn’t sleep, so now we can take some of the guess work out of this debate and go back to the virus.
The National teacher of the year for 2019 was Rodney Robinson. He works for the district of Virgie Binford Education Center. Teacher salaries are public and you can look it up by district. I went with the 2019 winner and not the 2020 winner because she was a preschool teacher in 2020. Those salaries are usually even less and often not public. So let’s go with Rodney. There’s a little bit of guess work, but we could get a good idea, probably within that 10% allowance you gave me. His bio states over 10 years of experience, so let’s go with 12. I’m sure if it was higher than that it would have given a higher number. I have to completely guess on education, but they only have 3 columns for that, bachelor’s, master's, and master’s +30 credits. With only a bachelor’s degree his salary was 54k, a master’s degree would be 57k and a master’s + 30 was 60k.
So here we are, the National teacher of the year for 2019 made somewhere between $54,000 and $60,000.
Seems like my statement was more accurate using national averages like I did at first than taking an isolated pocket of the highest paid teachers as an example. Odd.
Now we can move on from this dead horse.
I like the idea but a link to that teacher's salary could make your point better rather than more guesswork.
Our stuff is public here. I'm also not willing to concede that a contest winner is the best teacher. (Is a grammy winner the best artist?)
I don't need to go further than my own backyard for proof that teacher's can make far more than 60k. Next time I see them share all of the names and pay rates I will shoot it to you.
Since assumptions are being made, my assumption is never going to be that the best at anything is going to be paid at the average. In the case of teachers, if they get more for years on the job I would assume teachers get better at their jobs as they gain more and more experience. Further, if a higher level of education can garner more dollars, I believe it is fair to assume that teachers may get better with more access to further education.
Of course. He is driving it based on averages and I don't buy that. That would exclude teachers in places that pay well from having the so called best teachers.
i don't trust nor distrust them. they are regular people to me. just a different job with wildly different social events. except when you have 8 million followers to my 97, you tend to have more ears than i do.
feigned altruism? does living in LA cause that level of cynicism? (serious question)
I lived in LA a good chunk of my life. It’s funny, people who are are into it can spot celebrities often. I couldn’t care less, most of the time when I was with friends and they pointed someone out I didn’t even know who it was. I generally stayed away from those hot spots because everything is overpriced, but when I was in my 20s that’s where coworkers and friends want to go for happy hour. But what makes me mad is how much money they make, and really shows our level of worship. Not just Hollywood, but sports too. NFL minimum is $600,000. Even practice squad makes $150-$200,000 for 17 weeks of practice. When you think about it and the best teacher in the country who literally turns lives around makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player in the country makes who never even made it off the bench. To me that shows where our priorities are and our level of worship on sports and Hollywood. Like anyone would say “no thanks, I’ll go back to working at Best Buy” if the standard for salaries, TV or sports, were 1/5 what they are now. They’d still very well off financially.
Glad you are not a math teacher.
Entertainers get paid what the market will bear
Not their problem we underpay teachers in many parts of the country.
What does the market have to do with teaching math? Obviously they get paid what the market allows, never said it didn't. The market allows it because people are willing to pay $100 a ticket and $12 a beer to watch an NFL game, so the owners can afford to pay the worst player in the league 600k. Not sure what any of that has to do with teaching math. If anything, teaching economics, but I didn't dispute any of that. It just shows the level of devotion we have. Same applies with TV and movies. 40 years ago movie stars and athletes didn't make anything close compared to what they do today, even considering inflation.
Simple. The two statements I made there are separate.
Re: my statement at relief that you are not teaching future leaders the subject of math:
Your math is not correct.
Your statement is that the best teacher in the country makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player makes.
The number you shared as the worst player's salary is $600,00.
1/10 of that is $60,000. "About 1/10" would give you some reasonable leeway of probably another +/-10% of that #....so $6,000.
$54,000-$66,000
I guess the question would be who the best teacher in the country would be.
Teachers in our district can make over $100,000, and many do based on the public listings each year.
If any of the best teachers in the country have access to six figures teaching in public schools then the minimum salary for NFL player would need to be $1MM for your math to work.
The national average for a teacher salary is about $60,000 (actually last I heard it was $58,000, but that still falls within your +/- 10%). Your basing your opinion off one district, I was using the national average. 10% of $600,000 is in fact $60,000. I was going off the assumption that the best teacher in the country is probably closer to the national average rather than being located in an area where the cost of living is high and therefore can make $100,000. Yes, that is possible. It is also possible the best teacher in the country also makes $40k. Which is why I found it better to base my statement off the national average, rather than assume this hypothetical teacher is located in the top 10% of the country.
Teacher's salaries are usually not based off performance, but years of experience and location. Often times the "teacher of the year" award goes to a teacher who has only been on the job 5-10 years. Yes, there could be someone about to retire too, and sometimes its a rookie. The vast majority of teachers in the country will never have an opportunity to earn 100k unless they move out of state, and start their career over again, and in that case, will be at retirement age before they get to that 100k anyway. Since pay generally doesn't reflect performance, and even in the cases that it does, it often does it incorrectly by rewarding teachers who teach high level honors classes and punishing those who teach the lower level kids, this hypothetical best teacher is more likely to fall near the average than the highest paid district. So I don't know what was so mathematically wrong about using an average to make a statement about a hypothetical teacher and instead should have used an example of your single district? Perhaps you can continue to enlighten me? I guess averages are bad now? I haven't taken a math class since high school, I tested out of it for college, so maybe that's changed, averages are bad now when making claims. Base it off your personal bubble to favor your point of view.
You said the best teacher in the country - you didn't say the most average teacher in the country. I only used your words - say what you mean if that wasn't what you meant.
Woke up early and couldn’t sleep, so now we can take some of the guess work out of this debate and go back to the virus.
The National teacher of the year for 2019 was Rodney Robinson. He works for the district of Virgie Binford Education Center. Teacher salaries are public and you can look it up by district. I went with the 2019 winner and not the 2020 winner because she was a preschool teacher in 2020. Those salaries are usually even less and often not public. So let’s go with Rodney. There’s a little bit of guess work, but we could get a good idea, probably within that 10% allowance you gave me. His bio states over 10 years of experience, so let’s go with 12. I’m sure if it was higher than that it would have given a higher number. I have to completely guess on education, but they only have 3 columns for that, bachelor’s, master's, and master’s +30 credits. With only a bachelor’s degree his salary was 54k, a master’s degree would be 57k and a master’s + 30 was 60k.
So here we are, the National teacher of the year for 2019 made somewhere between $54,000 and $60,000.
Seems like my statement was more accurate using national averages like I did at first than taking an isolated pocket of the highest paid teachers as an example. Odd.
Now we can move on from this dead horse.
I like the idea but a link to that teacher's salary could make your point better rather than more guesswork.
Our stuff is public here. I'm also not willing to concede that a contest winner is the best teacher. (Is a grammy winner the best artist?)
I don't need to go further than my own backyard for proof that teacher's can make far more than 60k. Next time I see them share all of the names and pay rates I will shoot it to you.
Since assumptions are being made, my assumption is never going to be that the best at anything is going to be paid at the average. In the case of teachers, if they get more for years on the job I would assume teachers get better at their jobs as they gain more and more experience. Further, if a higher level of education can garner more dollars, I believe it is fair to assume that teachers may get better with more access to further education.
I was on my phone and didn’t want to copy links back and forth. I gave the name of the district which is easily found, but here it is. https://www.rvaschools.net/Page/8106
If you don’t think the National teacher of the year should be in the discussion of one of the best teachers, then I don’t have much else to say. The fact is most districts never offer jobs near 100k, many max out with a dr degree and 25 or 30 years in the 75-80k range. You can have every district in the country nominate their best teacher and the reality is the majority are going to fall within that range of 55-65k. Very few districts pay for performance, because it just doesn’t work. You don’t get paid more for being a better teacher, and that average is about where the 10-15 year teacher falls with a master’s degree, so it includes that education and experience you were talking about. But sounds like you still think I’m bad at math because I went with the national average and ignored your local school district. I guess we’ll just have to disagree here.
60.000 dollars a year would be alot in Sweden. Is it not in the US?
"A lot" depends on how one live. In 1997-1998 I had to to live on what using an inflation calculator would equal $12,000 a year today (and we live in a state with a high cost of living). It wasn't easy, but I had enough to pay rent, have a vehicle with insurance and pay my phone bill. Since getting my life back on track, getting married in 2004, and doing much better, I make a good deal more than I did back then, but we still earn less than the median wages in California. And yet we live better than people I know who make more than we do, have enough saved to not be worried about ever going broke, and we have no debt besides a very affordable mortgage. It's all about budgeting. I should write a book about personal finance and budgeting and make a million bucks.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
i don't trust nor distrust them. they are regular people to me. just a different job with wildly different social events. except when you have 8 million followers to my 97, you tend to have more ears than i do.
feigned altruism? does living in LA cause that level of cynicism? (serious question)
I lived in LA a good chunk of my life. It’s funny, people who are are into it can spot celebrities often. I couldn’t care less, most of the time when I was with friends and they pointed someone out I didn’t even know who it was. I generally stayed away from those hot spots because everything is overpriced, but when I was in my 20s that’s where coworkers and friends want to go for happy hour. But what makes me mad is how much money they make, and really shows our level of worship. Not just Hollywood, but sports too. NFL minimum is $600,000. Even practice squad makes $150-$200,000 for 17 weeks of practice. When you think about it and the best teacher in the country who literally turns lives around makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player in the country makes who never even made it off the bench. To me that shows where our priorities are and our level of worship on sports and Hollywood. Like anyone would say “no thanks, I’ll go back to working at Best Buy” if the standard for salaries, TV or sports, were 1/5 what they are now. They’d still very well off financially.
Glad you are not a math teacher.
Entertainers get paid what the market will bear
Not their problem we underpay teachers in many parts of the country.
What does the market have to do with teaching math? Obviously they get paid what the market allows, never said it didn't. The market allows it because people are willing to pay $100 a ticket and $12 a beer to watch an NFL game, so the owners can afford to pay the worst player in the league 600k. Not sure what any of that has to do with teaching math. If anything, teaching economics, but I didn't dispute any of that. It just shows the level of devotion we have. Same applies with TV and movies. 40 years ago movie stars and athletes didn't make anything close compared to what they do today, even considering inflation.
Simple. The two statements I made there are separate.
Re: my statement at relief that you are not teaching future leaders the subject of math:
Your math is not correct.
Your statement is that the best teacher in the country makes about 1/10 what the worst NFL player makes.
The number you shared as the worst player's salary is $600,00.
1/10 of that is $60,000. "About 1/10" would give you some reasonable leeway of probably another +/-10% of that #....so $6,000.
$54,000-$66,000
I guess the question would be who the best teacher in the country would be.
Teachers in our district can make over $100,000, and many do based on the public listings each year.
If any of the best teachers in the country have access to six figures teaching in public schools then the minimum salary for NFL player would need to be $1MM for your math to work.
The national average for a teacher salary is about $60,000 (actually last I heard it was $58,000, but that still falls within your +/- 10%). Your basing your opinion off one district, I was using the national average. 10% of $600,000 is in fact $60,000. I was going off the assumption that the best teacher in the country is probably closer to the national average rather than being located in an area where the cost of living is high and therefore can make $100,000. Yes, that is possible. It is also possible the best teacher in the country also makes $40k. Which is why I found it better to base my statement off the national average, rather than assume this hypothetical teacher is located in the top 10% of the country.
Teacher's salaries are usually not based off performance, but years of experience and location. Often times the "teacher of the year" award goes to a teacher who has only been on the job 5-10 years. Yes, there could be someone about to retire too, and sometimes its a rookie. The vast majority of teachers in the country will never have an opportunity to earn 100k unless they move out of state, and start their career over again, and in that case, will be at retirement age before they get to that 100k anyway. Since pay generally doesn't reflect performance, and even in the cases that it does, it often does it incorrectly by rewarding teachers who teach high level honors classes and punishing those who teach the lower level kids, this hypothetical best teacher is more likely to fall near the average than the highest paid district. So I don't know what was so mathematically wrong about using an average to make a statement about a hypothetical teacher and instead should have used an example of your single district? Perhaps you can continue to enlighten me? I guess averages are bad now? I haven't taken a math class since high school, I tested out of it for college, so maybe that's changed, averages are bad now when making claims. Base it off your personal bubble to favor your point of view.
You said the best teacher in the country - you didn't say the most average teacher in the country. I only used your words - say what you mean if that wasn't what you meant.
Woke up early and couldn’t sleep, so now we can take some of the guess work out of this debate and go back to the virus.
The National teacher of the year for 2019 was Rodney Robinson. He works for the district of Virgie Binford Education Center. Teacher salaries are public and you can look it up by district. I went with the 2019 winner and not the 2020 winner because she was a preschool teacher in 2020. Those salaries are usually even less and often not public. So let’s go with Rodney. There’s a little bit of guess work, but we could get a good idea, probably within that 10% allowance you gave me. His bio states over 10 years of experience, so let’s go with 12. I’m sure if it was higher than that it would have given a higher number. I have to completely guess on education, but they only have 3 columns for that, bachelor’s, master's, and master’s +30 credits. With only a bachelor’s degree his salary was 54k, a master’s degree would be 57k and a master’s + 30 was 60k.
So here we are, the National teacher of the year for 2019 made somewhere between $54,000 and $60,000.
Seems like my statement was more accurate using national averages like I did at first than taking an isolated pocket of the highest paid teachers as an example. Odd.
Now we can move on from this dead horse.
I like the idea but a link to that teacher's salary could make your point better rather than more guesswork.
Our stuff is public here. I'm also not willing to concede that a contest winner is the best teacher. (Is a grammy winner the best artist?)
I don't need to go further than my own backyard for proof that teacher's can make far more than 60k. Next time I see them share all of the names and pay rates I will shoot it to you.
Since assumptions are being made, my assumption is never going to be that the best at anything is going to be paid at the average. In the case of teachers, if they get more for years on the job I would assume teachers get better at their jobs as they gain more and more experience. Further, if a higher level of education can garner more dollars, I believe it is fair to assume that teachers may get better with more access to further education.
I was on my phone and didn’t want to copy links back and forth. I gave the name of the district which is easily found, but here it is. https://www.rvaschools.net/Page/8106
If you don’t think the National teacher of the year should be in the discussion of one of the best teachers, then I don’t have much else to say. The fact is most districts never offer jobs near 100k, many max out with a dr degree and 25 or 30 years in the 75-80k range. You can have every district in the country nominate their best teacher and the reality is the majority are going to fall within that range of 55-65k. Very few districts pay for performance, because it just doesn’t work. You don’t get paid more for being a better teacher, and that average is about where the 10-15 year teacher falls with a master’s degree, so it includes that education and experience you were talking about. But sounds like you still think I’m bad at math because I went with the national average and ignored your local school district. I guess we’ll just have to disagree here.
I don't see individual salaries listed on the site. It looks like a reform school or something - certainly not a regular school...and it is a low income area.
We can continue to disagree on this - I don't accept average as the same thing as best and I also don't accept automatically excluding areas of the county to feed a generalization you made about "the best".
60.000 dollars a year would be alot in Sweden. Is it not in the US?
"A lot" depends on how one live. In 1997-1998 I had to to live on what using an inflation calculator would equal $12,000 a year today (and we live in a state with a high cost of living). It wasn't easy, but I had enough to pay rent, have a vehicle with insurance and pay my phone bill. Since getting my life back on track, getting married in 2004, and doing much better, I make a good deal more than I did back then, but we still earn less than the median wages in California. And yet we live better than people I know who make more than we do, have enough saved to not be worried about ever going broke, and we have no debt besides a very affordable mortgage. It's all about budgeting. I should write a book about personal finance and budgeting and make a million bucks.
60.000 dollars a year would be alot in Sweden. Is it not in the US?
"A lot" depends on how one live. In 1997-1998 I had to to live on what using an inflation calculator would equal $12,000 a year today (and we live in a state with a high cost of living). It wasn't easy, but I had enough to pay rent, have a vehicle with insurance and pay my phone bill. Since getting my life back on track, getting married in 2004, and doing much better, I make a good deal more than I did back then, but we still earn less than the median wages in California. And yet we live better than people I know who make more than we do, have enough saved to not be worried about ever going broke, and we have no debt besides a very affordable mortgage. It's all about budgeting. I should write a book about personal finance and budgeting and make a million bucks.
A million bucks for common sense
To me, it's akin to the never-ending question of "how do I lose weight???" Ummm, burn more calories than you take in.
60.000 dollars a year would be alot in Sweden. Is it not in the US?
"A lot" depends on how one live. In 1997-1998 I had to to live on what using an inflation calculator would equal $12,000 a year today (and we live in a state with a high cost of living). It wasn't easy, but I had enough to pay rent, have a vehicle with insurance and pay my phone bill. Since getting my life back on track, getting married in 2004, and doing much better, I make a good deal more than I did back then, but we still earn less than the median wages in California. And yet we live better than people I know who make more than we do, have enough saved to not be worried about ever going broke, and we have no debt besides a very affordable mortgage. It's all about budgeting. I should write a book about personal finance and budgeting and make a million bucks.
A million bucks for common sense
To me, it's akin to the never-ending question of "how do I lose weight???" Ummm, burn more calories than you take in.
Save more money than you spend.
It ain't that complicated
Just like fighting this virus. Stay away from others, wear masks where deemed appropriate by the scientists. Clean shit where you need to.
But the average person in America is a fucking idiot and fails at all three. Obese. Broke Spreading the Rona
60.000 dollars a year would be alot in Sweden. Is it not in the US?
"A lot" depends on how one live. In 1997-1998 I had to to live on what using an inflation calculator would equal $12,000 a year today (and we live in a state with a high cost of living). It wasn't easy, but I had enough to pay rent, have a vehicle with insurance and pay my phone bill. Since getting my life back on track, getting married in 2004, and doing much better, I make a good deal more than I did back then, but we still earn less than the median wages in California. And yet we live better than people I know who make more than we do, have enough saved to not be worried about ever going broke, and we have no debt besides a very affordable mortgage. It's all about budgeting. I should write a book about personal finance and budgeting and make a million bucks.
A million bucks for common sense
To me, it's akin to the never-ending question of "how do I lose weight???" Ummm, burn more calories than you take in.
Save more money than you spend.
It ain't that complicated
Just like fighting this virus. Stay away from others, wear masks where deemed appropriate by the scientists. Clean shit where you need to.
But the average person in America is a fucking idiot and fails at all three. Obese. Broke Spreading the Rona
Comments
I only used your words - say what you mean if that wasn't what you meant.
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
Prague Krakow Berlin 2018. Berlin 2022
EV, Taormina 1+2 2017.
I wish i was the souvenir you kept your house key on..
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
There’s a little bit of guess work, but we could get a good idea, probably within that 10% allowance you gave me. His bio states over 10 years of experience, so let’s go with 12. I’m sure if it was higher than that it would have given a higher number. I have to completely guess on education, but they only have 3 columns for that, bachelor’s, master's, and master’s +30 credits. With only a bachelor’s degree his salary was 54k, a master’s degree would be 57k and a master’s + 30 was 60k.
Seems like my statement was more accurate using national averages like I did at first than taking an isolated pocket of the highest paid teachers as an example. Odd.
Now we can move on from this dead horse.
www.headstonesband.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm also not willing to concede that a contest winner is the best teacher.
(Is a grammy winner the best artist?)
I don't need to go further than my own backyard for proof that teacher's can make far more than 60k. Next time I see them share all of the names and pay rates I will shoot it to you.
Since assumptions are being made, my assumption is never going to be that the best at anything is going to be paid at the average.
In the case of teachers, if they get more for years on the job I would assume teachers get better at their jobs as they gain more and more experience.
Further, if a higher level of education can garner more dollars, I believe it is fair to assume that teachers may get better with more access to further education.
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
Side note, I make more than 60k a year teaching (20th year teaching 17th year in district).
Rupert Murdoch Gets COVID-19 Shot While Profiting Off Vaccine Misinformation
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5fdcf450c5b60d4163423e7c
And that is not shit pay in Sweden, to my knowledge...
New variant has only ever meant a cool poster
Now it means spread
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
https://www.rvaschools.net/Page/8106
But sounds like you still think I’m bad at math because I went with the national average and ignored your local school district. I guess we’ll just have to disagree here.
"A lot" depends on how one live. In 1997-1998 I had to to live on what using an inflation calculator would equal $12,000 a year today (and we live in a state with a high cost of living). It wasn't easy, but I had enough to pay rent, have a vehicle with insurance and pay my phone bill. Since getting my life back on track, getting married in 2004, and doing much better, I make a good deal more than I did back then, but we still earn less than the median wages in California. And yet we live better than people I know who make more than we do, have enough saved to not be worried about ever going broke, and we have no debt besides a very affordable mortgage. It's all about budgeting. I should write a book about personal finance and budgeting and make a million bucks.
We can continue to disagree on this - I don't accept average as the same thing as best and I also don't accept automatically excluding areas of the county to feed a generalization you made about "the best".
To me, it's akin to the never-ending question of "how do I lose weight???" Ummm, burn more calories than you take in.
Save more money than you spend.
It ain't that complicated!