Amica Nostra

1 minute ago, bcking said:

I'm not disagreeing with that data being important.

 

Insaying the Brookings institute was being misleading in the use of that figure. Likely intentionally misleading.

 

They give the figure and then "sum it up" completely incorrectly. That isn't okay. They need to talk about what the data actually means and not what they want it to mean.

 let me look at the article again

1 hour ago, bcking said:

It's misleading because the article you copy/pasted was using it to argue that we don't pay our teachers as much as other countries. Right after the figure their "summary" was

 

"The quick lesson is that in most industrialized countries relative teacher pay is higher than in the United States. "

 

That isn't what that particular graph was showing, and it is misleading to state that the "quick lesson" from the graph is that one bit of information. The graph shows that the RATIO of teacher salary to similarly educated people in the US is lower than the same ratio in other countries. That can either be because of 1. Teacher salary is lower or 2. Other careers pay higher

 

To get at which of those two things explains the lower ratio you have to look at the Chart D3.2 (the one I attached). When you just look at teacher's salaries compared to other countries (adjusted for PPP), we rank 4th for starting salary (maybe 8-10th at the high end of the pay scale). We aren't in the bottom.

 

That would suggest that the lower ratio seen is likely due to higher pay for other careers, rather than lower pay for teachers. 

 

EDIT: And just to reiterate again - That third graph (the one showing how much more you would have to pay teachers to match other countries) - They cite the OECD Education at a Glance as their source. I've scanned through the relevant chapters (granted not the whole thing, it's very very long) and I can't find that figure anywhere. So they didn't take it from the OECD document. It would have had a figure number like the graph that they actually took from that document. So not sure where they got that data.

The discussion about ratios becomes more important when you bring it down to the community level.

Here is why the relative or ratio argument is important. We receive benefits to our community when our public servants can afford to live in our community. If your police are seen on a daily basis, if your fireman has a shorter commute, if your child sees her teacher when they are out shopping, all of things are lost if the folks have to commute.

Michael spotted chillin with this friends 

A third federal judge has rejected the Trump administration’s justification for winding down the program protecting immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children.

U.S. District Court Judge John Bates said on Tuesday that the Department of Homeland Security’s legal explanation for the decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, was too flimsy and, ultimately, unpersuasive.

5 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

first define a living wage.  50k is a lot more in rural arkansas than suburban new jersey.

the reason we are seeing strikes in Oklahoma and the like is that Teachers salaries are 44 on Average for a high school teacher.  Starting wages are abysmally low.

5 hours ago, Boiler said:

Teachers of course get much better benefits and a lot of job security not open to others. Etc etc.

Yes because no one is standing in line for their job.

5 hours ago, bcking said:

The chart you linked from the OECD paper (which I linked to as well) is misleading.

 

That chart is showing the RATIO of what a teacher gets paid compared to a "similarly educated adult" in the same country. So we pay our teachers on average around 75-80% of what someone else with a similar education makes in other careers. 

 

That chart isn't ranking countries in terms of pay for teachers (adjusted into PPP). The chart I linked to is the actual comparison. 

 

That "percentage increase" chart - I have no idea where they got that data since it doesn't fit with the actual data in the OECD PDF. Only Luxembourg, Germany and Denmark pay their teachers more than we do, when adjusted for PPP (adjusting each currency into USD based on purchasing power in the country). We look worse when you compare INTERNALLY within countries to what the average salaries are for similarly educated people. But that likely reflects that in the USD people can make more money in other countries more easily (salaries are higher). 

I dont know if it is misleading.  If we require 5 years of education for teachers , ask for them to continue their education process so they have a masters or equivalent AND ask them to be passionate about our most important resource, shouldn't we benchmark them against science, medicine and technology jobs?

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/04/18/public-thinks-tax-bill-was-payoff-to-gop-donors/

The Democrats have launched a new initiative aimed at doing a better job of understanding where the public is on a variety of controversial issues so that they can do a better job of crafting their political messaging. It’s useful research because it reveals which topics have real salience and which ones don’t really “move the needle.” For one example, voters don’t really mind that Trump is using the presidency to add revenue to his various businesses and they’re not very receptive to the idea that he’s lazy, golfs too much and is too disengaged. On the other hand, they are alarmed that he doesn’t read his daily intelligence briefings. That’s the kind of nuance that can be gleaned by careful survey research.

One thing the pollsters have discovered is that the tax bill is unpopular, and the strongest argument against it is the idea that it was designed not based on sound policy or because it’s consistent with conservative ideology and goals, but simply to pay back the party’s biggest donors.

One key difference the research found is voters are more receptive to the argument that Republicans are likelier to use government to personally enrich themselves and their wealthy donors. “They actually don’t think the tax plan was done for policy reasons,” Pollock said. “They don’t even think it was done for ideological reasons. They think it was done for purely dirty campaign reasons.”

Since the public already believes this, messaging around it is comparatively easy. And since the polling took place while the nation was doing its taxes, the tax bill should have been enjoying a high point in popularity. People ought to have discovered some extra, perhaps unexpected, cash in their pockets. But the tax law has been losing support rapidly in recent weeks. A lot of congressional Republicans are blaming the president for going off message in March by talking about tariffs and trade wars rather then continuing to tout the supposed benefits of their only legislative accomplishment of the last year.

merican teachers are underpaid.

More specifically, American teachers are underpaid when compared to teachers in the nations we compete with. Let me begin with a picture showing how we compare to Finland—everyone’s favorite educational success story and a country not noted for paying its teachers especially well. Then we’ll talk some about the right way to make international teacher salary comparisons. After that, some more data.

Even against modest-paying Finland, American teachers are underpaid. If we wanted to raise the relative salaries of American teachers to the level seen in Finland, we’d require a 10 percent raise for primary school teachers, an 18 percent raise in lower secondary, and a 28 percent raise for upper secondary school teachers.

What is the right way to make international comparisons of teacher salaries? The answer depends on why you think salaries are important. Is it because someone with a particular set of qualifications deserves a certain level of pay? Or perhaps some general level of fairness or equity? To an economist, the answer is rather different: you want to pay enough to attract really good people to become teachers in the first place and to remain in teaching rather than bailing out for a more lucrative career. That means that the right way to compare across countries is to look at how teacher pay within the country compares to pay in alternative careers that a person might consider when deciding whether to become a teacher.

The OECD has put together a set of comparisons of teacher pay to earnings of all college graduates. These are the numbers shown in the chart above, and the numbers used throughout this post. You can see in the chart that both Finland and the United States pay teachers less than they pay other college graduates, but Finland gets notably closer than we do.

I picked Finland for the comparison in the chart above because, well because lots of countries aspire to be Finland when it comes to education. While paying better than the U.S., Finland is pretty much an average player when it comes to teacher pay. Most of the developed countries with which we compete pay much better. Here’s the relevant picture taken directly from the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2015.

The quick lesson is that in most industrialized countries relative teacher pay is higher than in the United States. To see the gap in a different way, the next chart tells how much the U.S. would have to raise upper secondary salaries to match relative salaries in a variety of other countries. Just as we saw for the example of Finland in the opening graphic, the gaps are even larger for upper secondary than for lower secondary.

While American salaries aren’t the lowest, many other countries not only pay better, but the gap is really, really big.

The simple summary: Other countries make teaching a more financially attractive career for college graduates than we do.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/06/20/teacher-pay-around-the-world/

The facts are the facts. But allow me to predict one response to these facts: “Teachers aren’t motivated by money, they teach because they love it.” Often true. And I’ve noticed that the people who say that teachers teach for love are quite often themselves very good teachers. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine someone who teaches well who doesn’t like their students. However, it’s very easy to imagine many, many potential teachers—who would also love their students just as much—who have made the decision to forego a teaching career in order to better provide for their family.

Dollars aren’t the only thing that determines career choice. Prestige and working conditions matter too. (Finland pays a fair amount better than the U.S. The prestige attached to being a teacher is enormously higher.) My guess is that being a teacher has both more prestige and better working conditions in other industrialized countries than here at home. (How do administrators treat teachers? How do parents treat teachers? Heck even, how do students treat teachers?) No data though, so either facts or anecdotes from those who know more about teaching in other countries are in order.

Last word: Making teaching a financially more attractive career isn’t the only thing that matters for who teaches. It does matter though, and probably it matters a lot.

Editor’s Note: Updated on June 27, 2016 to replace the first chart and rectify a labeling error that used “percentage increase” rather than “percentage point increase.”

8 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I said Socialist.

guess that depends upon your definition of Socialist

33 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Which Socialist Country pays Teachers so well? Cuba? Venezuela?

Germany, France, Japan, Nordic countries..

3 hours ago, Boiler said:

Ok so half, seems a collection issue. Apple pay? There are so many options.

Here is an option: we could just step up as a group and agree that funding public education is consistent with our values as Americans and fund teachers at a living wage.

2 hours ago, smilesammich said:

this is the article i read this morning (before they revoked bond) https://www.newschannel5.com/news/attorney-explains-why-accused-waffle-house-killer-is-allowed-bond

Interesting 

42 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

what i read this morning stated that only death penalty cases were denied bond in tennessee, but the da hasn't determined if that's what they'll pursue? 

Really ? Flight risk is not the driving factor?

45 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

So she swore and vented like any other politician during off-camera debate prep?

 

Grab the smelling salts!

It is very important for some folks to keep Hillary front and center, why is anyone's guess 

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Reckon his dad should be locked up in a cell right beside him for a few months. 

A few months for helping cut down 4 young lives sounds about right. 

42 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

 

again, I believe it was a poor choice of wording and not the intent of the author, forget entertainment and substitute charisma or charismatic it changes the tone of the message dramatically. John F. Kennedy was entertaining, people liked to listen to him does not convey his charismatic nature.

 

Liking his message and voting accordingly does not mean the vote was based on entertainment value

 

I think Bob Leonard chose his words very precisely and accurately. Read the article to see if you agree. My question is: right, left or center, why is the entertainment value of a candidate driving our selection? Because when you see a Trump rally you realize that this is about entertainment, just another reality show.

19 hours ago, Randyandyuni said:

they do not think he is entertainment, they think he is entertaining, aa not subtle difference. They are engaged by him, not amused by him. If he had used the word charismatic instead, you would not have commented on that part because it is a more common way to convey what the author intended (imho).

 

for me, he doesn't bend conventions of speech so much as he doesn't water down his wording to avoid offending someone using what is effectively a synonym that has been co-opted as a  mean spirited word.

 

fox domination in rural America is no worse than more liberal points of view dominating in more urban parts of the country, what is not good in both areas is the tenor of the voice and the left/right leanings of what should be unbiased reporting. Rather than tell me what to believe, well me the unbiased story and let me decide for myself.

 

I understand  the difference between entertaining and entertainment. My point is in choosing our countries leaders, their entertainment value should not be a major factor.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/23/politics/george-hw-bush/index.html

1 hour ago, jg121783 said:

I understand you can't prove many of these groups are in fact racists. Even the specific example I gave you. Usually the burden of proof is on the side alleging guilt. But I understand you along with the SPLC would rather accuse people and groups of being racist then try to shift the burden of proof to the accused. I'll give you one more chance to prove the Daily Caller is racist or I'm just gonna assume you don't have a leg to stand on and move on.

You are accusing me of what?

4 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

 

How about you give me examples of how one of these groups is racist instead of asking me to prove a negative. Let's start with Daily Caller.

we are not asking the imposssible, to prove a negative, we are asking for you to back this statement up 

" They falsely label groups and people they disagree with as racists. Big difference."

28 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

examples?

What she said, Examples?

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

 

I think everyone would agree

Well, 78 % of everyone anyways

This is the Lynchpin:

"In the end, he says, his conservative friends supported Trump because he spoke frankly, was entertaining and they hated Hillary Clinton more than anyone thought. Barring anything criminal, that won’t change"

Question: 

Why does Rural Americans think he is entertainment? I get that politics has ratings and television personalities, but this is a civic duty. Being entertaining is not an asset that I associate with public office, other than the odd speech.

Question: Does he speak frankly or does he bend conventions of speech and that scratches an itch for those who are looking for a break from "politically correct" speech?

Question: How is it that Fox news dominates the conversation in rural America and is that healthy for them or the country?

Around the country, Republicans embroiled in tough primaries are increasingly emulating President Trump — by echoing his xenophobia, his veiled racist appeals, his attacks on the news media, and even occasionally his calls for imprisoning his political opponents.

Meanwhile, all indications are that Trump is heading for a serious confrontation with special counsel Robert S. Mueller III or Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein over the Russia investigation.

So how long until multiple GOP primary candidates begin seriously running on the message that the Mueller probe is part of an illegitimate Deep State coup that justifies Trump shutting it down by any means necessary — that is, on a message of unabashed authoritarianism?

Two new articles — one in the New York Times, the other in National Journal — illustrate what’s happening in many of these GOP primaries. The Times piece, by Jeremy Peters, reports that in West Virginia, GOP Senate primary candidate Don Blankenship is running an ad that says: “We don’t need to investigate our president. We need to arrest Hillary … Lock her up!”

In multiple GOP races across the country, the Times piece reports, candidates are employing phrases such as “drain the swamp,” “build the wall,” “rigged system” and even “fake news.” The GOP Senate candidate in Tennessee ran an ad that promises to stand with Trump “every step of the way to build that wall,” and even echoes Trump’s attacks on African American football players protesting systemic racism and police brutality:  “I stand when the president walks in the room. And yes, I stand when I hear ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.'”

Meanwhile, National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar reports that in the Indiana Senate GOP primary, Mike Braun, the candidate who is most vocally emphasizing Trump’s messages — on trade, the Washington “swamp” and “amnesty” — appears to be gaining the advantage. Braun’s ads basically recast true conservatism as Trumpism in its incarnation as populist anti-establishment ethno-nationalism.

It gets worse. As the Indianapolis Star recently reported, one of the Indiana GOP Senate candidates has bashed “Crooked Hillary Clinton,” and all three have cast aspersions on the Mueller probe. One called it a “fishing expedition,” and another claimed: “Nothing’s been turned up except that Hillary Clinton is the real guilty party here.”

The question all this raises is whether there is a large swath of GOP primary voters who are fully prepared to march behind Trump into full-blown authoritarianism. The original plan was for Republicans to make tax cuts the centerpiece of their midterm campaign agenda. But in the Virginia gubernatorial race, the Republican candidate resorted to Trumpian xenophobia and a defense of Confederate statues to activate the GOP base, and in the Pennsylvania House special election, Republicans cycled the tax cuts out of their messaging. There just doesn’t appear to be much of a constituency for Paul Ryan Republicanism among today’s GOP voters.

The retirement of the House speaker himself has brought this recognition to a head. Figures such as Ryan and Sen. Marco Rubio were supposed to create a youthful, forward-looking aura around limited government, constitutional conservatism and tax-cutting, safety-net-shredding plutocracy, broadening their appeal to (and edging the GOP into a new accommodation with) 21st-century diversifying America. But Trump won, Ryan is retiring to spend more time with his faded college Ayn Rand poster, and on his way out Ryan has acquiesced to Trump’s nativist nationalism and has lent his tacit support to the weaponization of Congress’ oversight machinery against the investigation into Trump, furthering his assaults on our institutions and the rule of law.