Uh oh, repost of top 50 list... with added comments

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Okay folks, I posted this six months or so ago and now I've come back to post it again. Why? Well there are an awful lot of new people (er, new to me anyway) and I'd like to see how many of you I can rile up. :p Only kidding (though I AM donning flame-retardant clothing). These are the "50 Things You Must Do to Save the Earth". A couple of these are a tad dated.

My comments follow. I encourage you to post your own!! And don't take it too seriously. :p

1. Bury your car
2. Become a total vegetarian
3. Grow your own vegetables
4. Have your power lines disconnected
5. Don't have children
6. Limit the world population of vehicles
7. Don't build cars
8. Stop building roads
9. Replace roads with homes, parks and gardens
10. Halt weapons production and exports
11. Stop the sale, distribution and export of cigarettes
12. Send money to Brazil to provide urban jobs for impoverished workers now forced into the rainforests
13. Blockade a lumber truck carrying old-growth trees
14. Spend a month tree-sitting
15. Live within the World Average Income ($1250 a year) for one month ($104.17)
16. Cut up your credit cards
17. Unplug your television
18. Undertake a "Conservation Sabbath" -- one day a week without consuming electricity or fuel
19. Fast one day each week and send the money saved on food to help feed the hungry
20. Adopt a homeless person
21. Raise the Minimum Wage to a survival income
22. Enact a Maximum Wage Law
23. Tie politicians' salaries to the average working wage
24. Replace majority rule with proportional representation
25. Replace the Electoral College with direct democratic elections
26. Abolish the CIA and the National Security Act of 1949
27. Pass a Nature Amendment to the US Constitution
28. Retire Presidential Advisor John Sununu
29. Plant one new tree every day
30. Go to jail for something you believe in
31. Don't own pets
32. Allow all beef-producing domestic cattle to become extinct
33. Redirect the military budget to restoration work; convert weapons factories to peaceful research; retrain soldiers for ecological restoration
34. Remove US Forest Service from under the Agriculture Department; place USFS, Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service under the EPA
35. Consume only products produced within your bioregion
36. Don't eat anything that comes in a package
37. Don't buy anything that comes in a box
38. Require operators and owners of nuclear powerplants to live within one mile of the site
39. Mandate federal recycling and institute a refuse tax on solid waste
40. Pipe polluted water back into the water supplies of the companies that do the polluting
41. Don't own anything that runs on batteries
42. Boycott the Big Top
43. Travel by bus, never by air
44. Stop using toilet paper
45. Extend the life of your wardrobe by learning to make and mend your own clothes
46. Give money to every single panhandler you meet
47. Democratize your workplace: start a union or a collective
48. Is your job sustainable (i.e. recession-proof)? If not, learn to farm
49. Liberate a zoo
50. In honor of Earth Day, ask your boss if you can take a day off to work on healing the planet ... with pay!

And now, my comments.

(1) I don't think so! Stay the HELL away from my vehicles!

(2) Be my guest. But remember, there's always SOMEONE who's a better/more devout vegetarian/vegan than you are. Moi, I enjoy eating meat and fish and chicken and eggs and milk and cheesecake and ice cream and other dairy products and wearing genuine leather gear. I'm afraid I won't be confining myself to plant consumption only.

(3) Hey I got no problem with that. My mother used to grow veggies back when we had a huge backyard in Houston, and we even took them to market to sell and trade. It was fun and a good little lesson in basic capitalism for a 5 year old. :)

(4) Erm, yah, there's an intelligent solution.

(5) More power to ya, alot of the people don't have what it takes to raise kids properly anyway. Better to not have them at all than to drown them all in the bathtub and then have perky little Katie Couric declare you a hero and set up a legal defense fund for you.

(6) Limit how?? Sounds like some flimsy UN or EU resolution anyway.

(7) Err, okay, I won't... I'll buy em from someone else who does. Hey, while you're at it, why not vote for a Presidential Candidate who PROMISES, as part of his PLATFORM, to significantly and progressively INCREASE the price of gasoline (yah, that would be Algore)?

(8) I know some places in North Texas that sort of do this: they've stopped REPAIRING existing roads (still collect the requisite taxes though).

(9) Did you know human beings aren't actually flesh and blood? We're actually *flowers*.

(11) Because we've GOT to save you from yourself. So what if we have to change this from a market economy to a command economy? And hey, what about all those kewl 'Green' liberal kids who use their cigs as part of their 'tude? At least this would stop 60 year old lung cancer victims from suing (and winning against) cigarette manufacturers who SOMEHOW duped them into smoking two packs a day for 40 years.

(14) Hehehehe. Tree-sitting.

(15) 60 cents per hour of work IS pretty bad... Darn, now I feel ashamed that I live in a free market economy, and I think every penny I earn should go to feed those less fortunate (who don't live in a stable capitalistic environment with a healthy entrepreneurial spirit and the freedom of self-determination). Hey, maybe Nike and Dole and others should export some more of their jobs. You know, the ones the liberals are always complaining about?

(16) Now this one makes some real sense to me. Except I think they're coming at it from a different direction than I. I think they think credit cards represent desires and private ownership of property and that YOU don't need to own anything or utilize any more of your own income than you need for basic life maintenance. Hey, the whole reason we need economics is because human beings have unlimited wants and needs and only scarce resources to fulfill those wants and needs--it's all about allocation of resources and choice. But, if we can only get people to not have ANY wants and fulfill everyone's needs equally (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?), then we can have successful totalitarian rule and live in total, centrally-planned harmony and equality. Of course, this would involve some extremely heavy mind control and/or alteration and we might resemble the Borg more than a society of human beings at some point, but hey we'll be a TRUE DEMOCRACY. Yay.

(17) Done. I'm sick of listening to the liberal television media (although I do miss Mr. George Will on Sunday mornings) and the number of shows I'd actually watch this Fall could be counted on one finger (ST Enterprise).

(18) That is, if you haven't already had your power lines disconnected, eh?

(19) Just don't forget to drink lots of fluids. I think this would amount to about $5.00 a week for myself. I have a better idea. Why don't I finish school, start a business, and HIRE some of these hungry people?

(20) Liberalism is so easy. It's all about feelings. All you have to do is feel sorry for someone. Feed the homeless for a week at Christmas and you don't feel quite as ashamed that you or your family have succeeded in achieving a modicum of wealth in our free market economy (while others, for whatever reason, haven't even achieved enough to be able to afford a home). How much harder is it to find a way, through private enterprise, to give the homeless who want to work a job, and to realize that some of the homeless are where they are because of repeating patterns of behavior, of volitional choice?

(21) Oh please. Let's ratchet up the government control of private business so that those who stay at "minimum wage" perpetually have a "survival income"? No, thank you. Minimum wage increases are/would be detrimental for a number of reasons (artificial wage floors, elimination of lower-wage jobs, severe government interference in private enterprise, etc.); BUT... are mostly a vote-garnering tool.

(22) THIS IS THE SINGLE MOST OFFENSIVE SUGGESTION IN THIS WHOLE LIST. :mad:

(24) Why not replace them both with Individual Sovereignty and Self-Government?

(25) Political Campaigns would take place entirely on television and the interests of 90 percent of the counties in the country would be ignored...

(27) Excuse me?? A Nature Amendment? Hey, did you know some bedwetter in California (one of Gray Davis' cronies) a few months ago proposed an Amendment to the US Constitution declaring it ILLEGAL to make a profit by offering a public utility? This the same state that screwed itself over by simultaneously refusing to build any new power plants and adopting haphazard deregulation? HAHAHA!! The Left Coast is always good for a laugh. And now Texas is eeevil because we provide them with power they can't make themselves. :rolleyes:;)

(28) He's been gone a long time. See how old this is? But I have a possible substitute: Let's retire bigoted race-baiting demagogue Jesse Jackson, the single most divisive entity in the US.

(30) Probably will at some point. It probably ain't going to be because I think a damn subspecies of salmon is more important than the lives of four firefighters though (for example).

(31) Wha?!? Not even domesticated dogs and cats? Screw that, when I own a house I'm going to have a loyal inside dog and possibly a well-behaved kitty.

(32) Genocide eh? I take it they'd include chickens and pigs as well? Maybe all domesticated animals? Sheep, horses, etc.?

(33) And then we could all hold hands and put flowers in our hair and ask those mean ole Syrians and Iraqis and Libyans and Chinese and Afghans and Rwandans and Israelis and Palestinians and Sudanese and Indians and Pakistanis and the IRA and Hamas and the PLO and Bin-Laden to also disband their armies and to please please please not attack us. [[snort of contempt]]

(34) Because the EPA does SUCH a GREAT job with their current jurisdictions.

(35) Does anyone know how far my bioregion extends? What if I said it included all of North America?

(36) Doh!! That rules out Little Debbie snack cakes in all their wonderful varieties! Also inclues granola bars, Mrs Baird's bread, corn flakes, potatos, strawberries, pasta, carrots, yogurt, etc.

(37) Well, there you go. If it was in a box at any time during the distribution chain, it's off-limits. There go most or all of my possessions. Which I s'pose is the point. Individual ownership of property is unnecessary and even counterproductive to the goals of the collective community as a whole, right? And how dare you have something your neighbor doesn't have?

(39) This is already mandated on a local level in some areas. Fort Worth, in particular, has some pretty Draconian recycling laws! I was just amazed to hear of some of them. Liberals on the rampage. And I think YET ANOTHER tax is just what we need, don't you? We surely don't have enough money confiscated by the coercive power of the state yet.

(41) Wow, first no electric power, now no battery power either. Guess we'll tell time by sundial in this little Bohemian Utopia we're building here.

(42) When I was a small child, we went to the Ringling Bros circus in Houston. I had nightmares. We had some kind of "backstage pass", so I got to meet the clowns. The whole long, dark evening scared the **** out of me! Some of it was like seeing my fevered nightmares brought to life.

(44) Ewwwww! Not only are they a bunch of ridiculous hyper-tree-huggers, but they smell bad too!

(45) This idea has a bit of merit--the mending part I mean. But I don't really want to make my own clothes. See, this guy named Adam Smith wrote this book called The Wealth of Nations in which he discussed specialization and division of labor and the fact that in a market economy, each person's self-interests guide the general economy "as if by an invisible hand" toward the ends most advantageous to all. When I buy a shirt, an exchange, beneficial to both parties, is occuring. I'm handing over money I've earned elsewhere in exchange for the labor that's been done to create the shirt by those who've specialized in creating shirts. I get what I want--a shirt, which is more valuable or as valuable to me as the amount of money I pay for it; the creator of the shirt gets what he wants--money, which can be used for any purpose and which is more valuable or as valuable to him as the amount of labor expended in the creation of the shirt. Mutual benefits through individual self-interest. I specialize in something which I am able to provide to others in exchange for money, and I use that money to exchange with others who've specialized in a variety of other enterprises. IT IS ONE OF THE KEYS TO THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. It is why this country (and Western Europe et al) is great and why its productive citizens enjoy unprecedented quality of life. I feel sure alot of the "intellectual" ultra-liberal-cum-socialist "thinkers" I've come across haven't even grasped this simple concept.

(46) Go ahead. Make ya feel better. They are victims of the system. It isn't their fault. And remember, they Will Work For Food.

(47) I just LOOOOVE unions. Screw that. The more I think about, the more #47 pisses me off. "Start a collective". Nope.

(48) Um, yah, I was going to suggest "learn a separate set of job skills or earn a second degree". Perhaps they mean you should "learn to farm" so you can collect government subsidies and feed at the public trough.

(49) Oh how quaint. Look, they're suggesting you set all the animals free at your local zoo. Didn't I see a movie like that? I'm not sure it would be safe to have lions and bears roaming the streets (err, parks and gardens--see #9 above).

(50) After he finishes laughing, you can ponder what "healing the planet" would really entail--and just what the hell it is it needs to be healed of.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Never mind. :D

[Lyndsay #2337]

blaw blaw blaw. RED on BLUE is hard on the eyes.

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Originally posted by Lyndsay #2337
RED on BLUE is hard on the eyes.

It sure is.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Yellow works well.

[Allison]

Hey Nepper! :p :p :p

[_Zd_3s_]

Pfff.... That's an awful lot of text. :)
Also, there's a problem with the way you're commenting: (DS does this, too, when he's debating) you should add the comments immediately after an item. This way, I keep scrolling up and down to see what you're referring to with your comment.
(DS is worse, actually, because he adds numbered comments to a text that isn't numbered... :))

And for CHRYSt's sake, change that color! :D

Okay, I'm gonna try and read some of your comments now. :)

[_Zd_JOLT1r_]

I just printed a version to read :D
More easy then scrolling up and down..

And I can give my collegues a copy how they should save mommy earth :)

[_Zd_3s_]

Originally posted by Kokensu in the Firefighter-thread
I think that if it were somehow conveyed that every little thing each of us did HELPED the environment. And if it were conveyed that we SHOULD HELP THE ENVIRONMENT. Then maybe something could change.
Originally posted by Deepsy
Your actually happy with the fact that our own race is on the brink of a disaster not to mention the rest of the ecological system? Wow... im stunned..:hmm: ...
I'm glad you posted this list, Nep. :tup: Now I finally understand how to help out the environment and how to stay away from this disaster! :D

[SimplyCosmic]

Deepsy might want to read the work of Bjorn Lomborg (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/07/science/earth/07GREE.html), an environmentalist who has done extensive research on the actual claims of environmentalist groups.

Turns out most of the claims that things getting worse are based on little or no evidence other than paranoid claims and scare tactics to convince politicians that their extemist views are the truth.

In fact, he presents a boat load of evidence that the environment is doing alot better than it was even 20 years ago, thanks to more efficient technologies. Also world population studies show that while the number of people is growing, the rate of growth is slowing down, as some of the larger countries, including China and the US have shown significant decreases in their birth rates.

His research also shows that the majority of environmental harm comes from third world nations who don't have any of the better industrial technologies that the 1st world nations do, and that increased investment in these countries (opposed to by the anti-globilization protesters that seem to appear everywhere now) would not only help their economy, but local environment as well.

But hey, some people won't be happy until we all live in mud huts and go naked again.

[_Zd_3s_]

Originally posted by SimplyCosmic
But hey, some people won't be happy until we all live in mud huts and go naked again.
Sounds like fun! Let's do that! :D

[Thrakhath]

Good to see you Nep, and that's a good list
/me copies it to his funnies folder :)

[SimplyCosmic]

Sounds like fun! Let's do that!

Well, the naked part can be both good and bad. For every person that being naked would be a good thing for us, there'd be several people you'd rather not be that way.

Besides, how many mud huts have a DSL connection?

[pine]

I'm pretty sure it IS true that in the United States air quality, at least, has gotten better in past years. Pollution in general has definitely decreased. But.....urban sprawl is still occurring at an alarming rate, and the fact remains that while growth is slowing, population continues to increase.

What really bothers me is that people in the USA blindly ignore the fact that our oil reserves are a limited resource while they drive around in their big ugly SUVs and live in HUGE homes that suck down the power to heat in the winter or A/C in the summer....then complain about gas prices and the people in California & their power crisis. A wise man once said "stupidity is the unfortunate side effect of too much privilege." Describes the situation perfectly.

We had some visitors from England recently who were absolutely apalled to find out that my house is really quite small by American standards (and it's wood-heated btw :) ). It was a totally accurate statement, but to the Brits our house seemed enormous.
Why do we have to use so much more than we need?

[SimplyCosmic]

What really bothers me is that people in the USA blindly ignore the fact that our oil reserves are a limited resource while they drive around in their big ugly SUVs and live in HUGE homes that suck down the power to heat in the winter or A/C in the summer....then complain about gas prices and the people in California & their power crisis

Except that in neither case are the problem being caused by an actual physical inability to produce these resources, but instead by the basic greed of each of the power conglomerates.

There's plenty of crude oil, but OPEC is using their usual "crunch" excuses to bleed everyone dry, and the problem in California was due to power companies not wanting to pay other companies high prices.

There simply are not enough SUV's on the planet to warrant the supply "shortage" in such amount as to justify the current prices.

No, our problem now won't get fixed until the President stops wanting to play Star Wars or waving around a smoke and mirrors tax "rebate" and steps up and does something real for the country for a change.

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

aww, I though 'assasinating George 'Dubya' Bush' would make the top ten at least :(;)

[Silver_Dragon]

Yay I can read now. :)

Oh and I don't know much mud huts that has DSL connection. :D

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Originally posted by Pineconeboy
Why do we have to use so much more than we need?

http://forums.planetunreal.com/images/icons/icon14.gif
A valid question and one I'd like to comment on. May I ask another question?

Let's assume the alternative is to provide to each citizen only what he needs. Where then is the reward for excellence, for achievement, for productivity, for hard work and perseverance? What incentive is there for someone to work harder, to go to school far longer than others, to create better products than the competition? What will motivate a citizen to accomplish more than the status quo? How can we justify alloting the same amount of goods and property to the doctor as to the janitor (no offense intended to janitors, I've done my share of janitorial-type hours)? How will design achieve innovation and manufacturing improve in efficiency if at the end of the day there is no premium for success?

Conspicuous consumption (equating acquisition of material goods with social prestige) is one thing, but can we really find fault with the person whose partial motivation for achieving more, working harder, designing more effective products, or becoming better educated (all arguably economic/societal goods) is to reap some of the benefits our free market economy provides for such virtues?

I truly WANT there to be rewards commensurate with what I'm able to achieve in life. How demoralizing would it be to continue on this hard road knowing there is no personal gain to be had whatsoever? That my neighbor will receive precisely what I will receive despite his failure to achieve a fifth of what I've accomplished or will accomplish? That I may work much harder than others but I cannot aspire to reap any additional rewards from that hard work. I guess what I'm trying to point out, is that to a point, greed is good.
-----------------------------------------
That's about all to be said about that for now, :), but about those SUVs: nobody despises those things more than I, but I support everyone's right to own the vehicle of their choosing. *I* wouldn't want one, but that has more to do with the flabby brakes, the soggy suspension, the tepid throttle response, and the extreme roll-over risk. I have other vehicles I'd like to own (sports cars, sport bikes, etc.); but for all intents and purposes, my desire to own a sports car is the same as someone else's desire to own an SUV (although I personally believe some of the boom market for SUVs is due to desire for prestige and false beliefs about the safety an SUV provides; and I think they should be called 'UVs', as I don't see much 'sporty' about a 4 ton behemoth with inadequate drivetrain, suspension, brakes, steering, etc.). Purchasing a vehicle which gets 10 miles to the gallon downhill with a tailwind and then complaining about rising fuel costs seems a little incongruous. But if the price of gas continues to rise and SUVs continue to be popular (barring government intervention, such as Congress' proposed new minimum MPG standards for SUVs which were voted down two months ago), what can be said other than that it's still worth it to buyers to drive the vehicle they want to drive despite the higher costs and the wretched fuel economy? Now if war breaks out in earnest in the Middle East and gas shoots up to $10/gallon, we'll see some absolute shifting of resources as the opportunity cost of driving a gas guzzler becomes too great for many to justify.
-----------------------------------------
Agree or disagree?: Much of California's energy crisis was due to state government interference in free market forces over time, manifested by its strict prevention of the building of more power plants.

[little darlin]

Good post nepenthe. One point though....Where then is the reward for excellence, for achievement, for productivity, for hard work and perseverance? What incentive is there for someone to work harder, to go to school far longer than others, to create better products than the competition?

LOL. Well, at least in America you'd be hard pressed to convince me that the people who are receiving all those rewards are receiving them for the reasons stated above. Nice to think that people get exactly what they deserve for their efforts, but sadly it just ain't so. Case in point: Teachers!!!

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Good point. Ahh, but now we're entering the domain of non-monetary rewards or externalities. And I'm going to both agree and disagree with you, if you'll allow me and follow. I'll use teaching as my example.

It's widely thought that teaching is a relatively difficult (and often dangerous :(), and/or skilled profession, that teachers provide a societal good, and that teachers aren't paid all that well. Correct?

I have a rant all saved up about the NEA and government schools, but you know, I think I'm going to forgo that for the time being. I think my general feelings are clear and my opinion on the subject more or less deducible.

Anyway, we have teachers being paid this comparatively low salary. But is there a shortage of teachers? Can I contend that if there WERE a shortage of teachers, base salaries would INCREASE as a result as districts attempted to attract more to the profession? Can we then say that teachers are currently paid what the current market for teachers will bear in any given area?

So why are people still attracted to the teaching profession? Intangible benefits. Nonmonetary rewards. Desire to enlighten inquisitive young minds. Desire to push some agenda. Love for children. The "teaching bug". And a hundred other reasons. This is part of what makes teaching such a "noble pursuit". No central planning body has preordained that some members of society will become teachers, yet many choose to follow this path, despite the poor salaries. The expected intangible benefits to those specific people outweigh the opportunity cost of pursuing some other field which might yield not only greater monetary rewards but other types of intangible rewards. If the intangible benefits were even greater, we might have even more of a supply of willing teachers, the salaries might be even lower, and the market might still be in equilibrium.

Now, one of the things I sharply disagree with President (and former Governor of the great state of Texas) Bush on is his strong support of the use of standardized testing as an accurate measure of the performance standard of a teacher, a school, a school district, and an entire region. I think it's BS, basically. What ends up occuring is you have schools devoting 40% of the school year to teaching the TAAS (Texas' basic skills test). This is akin to preparing someone for an eye test by handing them the eye chart to study (memorize) one week before the test--he may pass, but have you accurately measured his ability to see? Government school district funding becomes partially dependent on TAAS scores, individual apportionment within the district becomes dependent on TAAS scores, and individual teacher salaries and performance reviews become dependent on TAAS scores. I simply don't believe average scores on standardized tests have ANYthing to do with how able a teacher is to impart knowledge to her students, or how caring and concerned she is, or how patient, or how clear-spoken...

What I'm trying to say is that yes, I agree that within the career of teaching itself, there is little to no commensurate monetary reward for being a great teacher. The intangible rewards that draw a teacher in the first place must continue to suffice as reward for being excellent. Unfortunate, and I could probably make the point that the fact that our schools are government-run enforce and ensure this outcome.

[Lizard Of Oz]

When's the last time you had a 224 percent raise? Don't laugh. That's what American Express CEO Henry Golub got last year. Average CEO pay
went up 35 percent in 1997 to $7.8 million, according to Business Week's recent executive pay survey. Even without all the extras like
subsidized luxury housing, gourmet meals, country clubs, top-notch health care, and investment advice, average CEO pay comes to $150,000
a week.

Average worker pay went up 3 percent last year-all the way to $424 a week. Workers still earn less in wages, adjusting for inflation,
than they did in the 1970s.

The average CEO made 326 times the pay of factory workers last year-up from 209 times factory workers' pay in 1996. Back in 1980,
when many more workers were unionized, the CEO-worker wage gap was much smaller: CEOs made 42 times as much as factory workers.

To get a good picture of the growing CEO-worker wage gap, imagine the Washington Monument. That's what the Boston-based organization
United for a Fair Economy (UFE) did. UFE found that if the 555-foot Washington Monument reflects average 1997 CEO pay, then a replica
representing average worker pay would be just 21 inches tall. The Workers Monument shrunk almost a foot in a year. In 1996, it was
32 inches. Back in 1970, the Workers Monument was 13 feet, 6 inches tall-reflecting a CEO-worker wage gap of 41 to one.

UFE built the Workers Washington Monument and unveiled it at a Capitol Hill press conference for the National Campaign to Close the
Wage Gap. UFE co-director Chuck Collins says, "In 1970, it would have required a pick-up truck to transport the Workers Washington
Monument. By 1996, you could carry on an airplane and put it in the overhead luggage bin. The 1997 model fits easily in the little
space under the seat. If current trends continue, the 1998 Workers Monument will fit in my pocket."

You can check out your favorite companies in Business Week and at the AFL-CIO's web site on CEO pay-www.paywatch.org. The AFL-CIO tells
you how many workers or U.S. presidents it would take to match the pay of particular CEOs and shows you how much health insurance, day
care, and other goods CEO salaries could buy. You can also compare your own salary to that of CEOs.

Up, Up, and Away

The really big money is not in CEO salary and bonuses, but in their stock options, long-term incentive plans, and other perks. Top-earning
CEO Sanford Weill of the Travelers Group made a hefty $7.4 million in salary, but $223.3 million more in stock options and other long-term
compensation, for total 1997 pay of $230.7 million. That's over $4 million a week. In 1996, Weill made a mere $94.2 million. The planned
merger of Travelers and Citicorp has already swelled Weill's fortune by boosting the stock prices of both companies.

CEOs are benefiting greatly from the recent cut in the long-term capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent. For every $1 million
in long-term capital gains on the sale of stock, they'll pay $80,000 less in taxes.

The 1997 pay survey doesn't "even reflect the largest single option sale ever," says Business Week. In December, Disney CEO Michael Eisner
exercised 7.3 million stock options worth over $400 million. But, since the sale came after the close of Disney's fiscal year, Eisner's
windfall won't show up until next year's pay survey. Eisner has more stock option fortunes to come.

Corporations keep finding new ways to enrich their CEOs. A growing number of companies are paying multi-million dollar "retention bonuses"
to CEOs who have no intention of leaving. "From huge signing or retention bonuses to perks such as tax planning and jet use in perpetuity,
to exit packages that guarantee big bucks even if an exec is chased out of office, financial risk is virtually eliminated," says Business
Week.

Take the former head of Apple Computer, Gilbert Amelio. As the Wall Street Journal noted in its executive pay report, Apple lost nearly
$2 billion during Amelio's brief tenure of 17 months. Some 3,600 employees lost their jobs. Amelio's golden parachute included $6.7 million
in severance pay plus other compensation. Amelio said the Apple package "didn't protect my downside as well as I had hoped it would. "
In their report, Executive Excess: CEOs Gain from Massive Downsizing, United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies
feature a "Downsizer Dozen" of "CEOs who rolled in the dough while dumping thousands of workers."

The "Canned-Id Camera" award went to Eastman Kodak who downsized 20,100 workers while putting CEO compensation through the enlarger.
CEO George Fisher's total 1997 compensation, including stock options, was $17 million. Kodak has announced new layoffs this year,
estimating an additional 16,600 layoffs by 1999.

Whirlpool Corporation got the "Putting Workers Through the Wringer Award." Whirlpool announced 4,700 layoffs in 1997 and gave CEO David Whitwam
a 133 percent hike in total compensation. In January, Whirlpool announced additional layoffs of 3,200 workers.

American Express got the "Don't Lose Your Job Without It Award." The company announced layoffs of 3,300 workers in 1997. CEO Harvey Golub reaped a 224 percent pay increase, bringing his total compensation to $33.4 million.

The "Pink Slip Barbie" award went to Mattel. The company announced over 3,174 job cuts in 1997 and gave CEO Jill Barad $10.7 million.
Wall Street executive Julian Robertson says it well: "Everybody here is overpaid, knows they are overpaid and is determined to continue
to be overpaid." Management guru Peter Drucker has long been disgusted with the "unconscionable greed of CEOs." In an interview with Wired
magazine, he endorsed banker J.P. Morgan's idea that the proper ratio "between the top people and the rank and file should be twenty-fold,
post-tax...Beyond that, you create social tension."

Right now, taxpayers help pay for outrageous CEO salaries because corporations can deduct them as a business expense. The Income Equity Act,
introduced by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), would cap the deductibility of executive compensation at 25 times that of the lowest paid full-time
company worker. The act now has over 45 co-sponsors.

The Income Equity Act is one of the measures supported by the National Campaign to Close the Wage Gap, which has over 300 member organizations.
To learn more about the campaign, visit the United for a Fair Economy web site-www.stw.org.


I’m not opposed to individuals making large amounts of money, I am however, oppose to them doing so at other people expense.



P.S. "The intangible rewards " don't put grits on the table, and don't attract the "Best And The Brightest" to a career field that desperately needs the "Best And The Brightest."

[ZodiaK]

Originally posted by Pineconeboy

Why do we have to use so much more than we need?

and now then, after all the rational and wise commentary, /me trashes the whole thing by mis-reading, "Why do we have to use so much more than weed?"

:D :D :D

sorry, ppl.

[(BoD) nepenthe]

That was very interesting, Liz, and can't say I disagree with your final point. I understand downsizing (an even sicker euphemism is "right-sizing") as unfortunate market reality, but it's hard... no, impossible to justify management's voting itself massive pay increases simultaneously (especially Gil Amelio's massive severance package for making all the wrong moves) (by the way, when I said greed was good to a point, this is the point at which it isn't too good).

However, assuming no written laws have been broken and assuming adequate surveillance of activities, I'm not about to say government needs to step in and tell every corporation how to compensate its labor force and its higher-ups. For the most part, that's between the company, its human assets, and its stock holders.

But it's like the pimply kid with the 10th grade education, the blue hair, and the multiple facial piercings bringing the pizza to my door complaining about upper management of the pizza company and how well they're doing and how poorly he's doing and how he thinks he busts his ass a good sight more than they do and what do they have that he doesn't and its people like them ("the man") that are keeping him down... Sometimes I just want to slap the people that I meet each day. :D

I would LOVE to track down that copy of WIRED with the Peter Drucker interview, as Drucker is a certified GENIUS. Any clue when/what issue?

On teachers: agreed about the grits, but are you saying that if we paid our teachers substantially more that we'd somehow get better teachers? Is it possible some people might be attracted to the profession who have no business being teachers (because they're no longer being attracted for all the right reasons--desire to impart knowledge, genuine interest in the well-being of children, etc., but instead have decided to forgo some other career in order to get into a profession that is suddenly much more economically attractive)? Just a muse. I don't have the answers, I just learn as I go. Should we drastically increase funding for teachers across the board? Maybe so. It would be nice to see the teachers who truly care and who truly do a good job highly rewarded for their skills (as opposed to Bush's legacy--the ridiculous attendance and TAAS score-based funding and compensation we suffer in Texas).

OTOH, when I have kids I will not be turning them over to the government for education (and indoctrination?) anyway. :) But the local public education system is a concern of mine anyway because these are the people (today's students) who are going to be providing the goods and services to my family and me in the decades ahead.

[SimplyCosmic]

The Relentless Contrarian (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.08/drucker.html), WIRED magazine 4.08

Post-Capitalist (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.03/drucker.html?pg=1&topic=), WIRED magazine 1.03

Google is your friend.

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Ahh, thank you thank you thank you!!

[pine]

Originally posted by SimplyCosmic

There's plenty of crude oil, but OPEC is using their usual "crunch" excuses to bleed everyone dry, and the problem in California was due to power companies not wanting to pay other companies high prices.

There simply are not enough SUV's on the planet to warrant the supply "shortage" in such amount as to justify the current prices.

No, our problem now won't get fixed until the President stops wanting to play Star Wars or waving around a smoke and mirrors tax "rebate" and steps up and does something real for the country for a change.

I'm not going to argue with you about the lack of merit in some of the prez's actions. but:

"There's plenty of crude oil....." For today. It'll run out. You can say all you want about the amount of resources, but they ARE limited, unless we start mining other planets or something. We're eventually going to find the limit, so what's the point in wasting it now by using unwarranted amounts with gas hog vehicles?

You may feel like you're getting gouged on gas prices; but that's a weird way to think since the United States of America still gets the cheapest gasoline in the world. If you think you're getting ripped off, think about the fact that EVERYONE else pays more than us. Hell, maybe if gas costs more we'll quit freakin wasting it.

Originally posted by (BoD) nepenthe

Let's assume the alternative is to provide to each citizen only what he needs. Where then is the reward for excellence, for achievement, for productivity, for hard work and perseverance? What incentive is there for someone to work harder, to go to school far longer than others, to create better products than the competition? What will motivate a citizen to accomplish more than the status quo? How can we justify alloting the same amount of goods and property to the doctor as to the janitor (no offense intended to janitors, I've done my share of janitorial-type hours)? How will design achieve innovation and manufacturing improve in efficiency if at the end of the day there is no premium for success?

I'm not going to BS and pretend that I know a lot about economics ('cause I don't :) ). That being said:

Providing each citizen with only what they need would be communism. I mean, in a capitalist society, why do we feel we need to spend our hard-earned cash on things like ridiculously large houses and cars. It makes no sense to me. If I ever find myself grown up (the horror!) and in a situation where I have more than enough money to keep me fed well and in a home large enough for my family here's what I'd do with it:

1. Send my kids through college
2. Buy land and NOT build on it
3. Go on lots of vacations in my hybrid car that gets 70 mpg :). The bottom line for me is the experience, not the things.
4. Have a really nice music and computer system
5. Give my money away to charities.

Notice, I can think of plenty of ways to use the dinero for myself, but I feel like these are different than the traditional American dream of buying things like fancy houses and cars whose main purpose, as far as I can tell, is to demonstrate to the rest of the world how wealthy you are. Well, I'd rather demonstrate to the rest of the world that I don't need that stuff. It's a sad misconception of our culture that just things can make you happy. I understand the desire to want some sort of fulfillment for the hard work that you do. I'm just saying that perhaps it's more meaningful to find that fulfillment through means other than material. Do I even need to mention Buddhism?

[pine]

Originally posted by (BoD) nepenthe
But it's like the pimply kid with the 10th grade education, the blue hair, and the multiple facial piercings bringing the pizza to my door complaining about upper management of the pizza company and how well they're doing and how poorly he's doing and how he thinks he busts his ass a good sight more than they do and what do they have that he doesn't and its people like them ("the man") that are keeping him down... Sometimes I just want to slap the people that I meet each day. :D

On teachers: agreed about the grits, but are you saying that if we paid our teachers substantially more that we'd somehow get better teachers? Is it possible some people might be attracted to the profession who have no business being teachers (because they're no longer being attracted for all the right reasons--desire to impart knowledge, genuine interest in the well-being of children, etc., but instead have decided to forgo some other career in order to get into a profession that is suddenly much more economically attractive)? Just a muse. I don't have the answers, I just learn as I go. Should we drastically increase funding for teachers across the board? Maybe so. It would be nice to see the teachers who truly care and who truly do a good job highly rewarded for their skills (as opposed to Bush's legacy--the ridiculous attendance and TAAS score-based funding and compensation we suffer in Texas).

OTOH, when I have kids I will not be turning them over to the government for education (and indoctrination?) anyway. :) But the local public education system is a concern of mine anyway because these are the people (today's students) who are going to be providing the goods and services to my family and me in the decades ahead.

We should at least increase funding for teachers in accordence with how much college they have to go through. They average wage for people who endure as much school as teachers (not to say that they shouldn't get a lot of training!) is quite a lot more than what they make. In some places, they don't even get siginificant cost-of-living.....like my mother, for instance, who's 49, just moved to the western side of Washington, and is finding out that with the cost of living over there she's not even able to put money away for retirement. That sucks. :(

One more comment; you see to be bothered by the fact that teen angst causes the minimum-wage employed high schoolers to see the Institution as the source of their problems. I'd like to point out that we'd probably act that way even if we did get payed a reasonable amount compared to the CEO's and whatnot. Pessimism is part of being young. We'll want to change the world no matter now well things are working.

[(BoD) nepenthe]

I will mention this: there is a Giant Buddhist Temple (http://www.watkeller.com/) not 20 miles from my home! I was brought there this Summer and was skeptical about the whole thing right up until the time I saw the enormous structure rising out of the ground! It's absolutely gorgeous, with the brightest paint I've ever seen and some awesomely made details. Also, the statue of Buddah inside is apparently the largest in North America. There were friendly monks working on various structures around the temple, wearing robes covering their whole bodies and heads (in 105 degree weather no less) and dark goggles. It was a great experience to visit and I'd like to go back again.

PCB, you have a fine list of goals for the future. And I understand where you're coming from when you talk of the acquisition of *things* being of utmost importance to much of the population.

Someone else could come in and say that you're being selfish and wanting more than you need, though. Why do you need a nice music system? Why do you need a gas and electric vehicle, can't you go all electric or continue to use your own power?

And other concerns are raised. Many people no longer feel they're properly protected if they're not riding in a huge SUV (however misguided this may be), and feel a small car is a deathtrap for themselves and their family. I wouldn't want to own an Insight because of the wretched (and IMO unsafe) accelerative abilities, but maybe someone will step up and create a hybrid that actually makes you WANT to get in the car. :) But I'm being too specific and I know those were just your empirical examples to make your point.

I'll reiterate that I agree, some acquisitiveness is just a way to prove how wealthy one is or how high up the socio-economic ladder one has clawed one's way. This is certainly not the only motivation, however. I have only to think of my own goals. I want a vehicle or vehicles which make me feel comfortable, which excite me, which lend security and sure-footedness and protect my family... I want to own a home of sufficient size and quality that I am able to raise kids the way I think they oughta be raised... I want a really nice computer and music system... I want a healthy retirement fund... and, ultimately I want to be able to experience things--travel, shows, excitement, adventures, changing the world for the better, etc., and the best way to ensure I'm not, at age 46, living in a tiny apartment eating Ramen noodles not able to afford even basic transportation, unable to raise a family... is to succeed and reap the benefits. :) I think we're on the same general page though.

By the way, many motorcycles can manage 50-60 or more miles per gallon, we oughta switch over to using those more. :)

[(BoD) nepenthe]

We should at least increase funding for teachers in accordance with how much college they have to go through. The average wage for people who endure as much school as teachers (not to say that they shouldn't get a lot of training!) is quite a lot more than what they make. In some places, they don't even get siginificant cost-of-living.....like my mother, for instance, who's 49, just moved to the western side of Washington, and is finding out that with the cost of living over there she's not even able to put money away for retirement. That sucks. :(


Yes, my mother has been dealing with similar issues (she's not a teacher, but is the underpaid International student advisor for a private university). She's making tough choices about her retirement funds right now (age: 56). PCB, I agree with you in part, because at 49 she's not coming in at 'base salary' and evidently has the experience to justify stronger compensation. Does it seem as if the pay scale is designed under the assumption that the teacher in question will be "person two" in a two-person income family? It does to me. Good luck to her.



One more comment; you seem to be bothered by the fact that teen angst causes the minimum-wage employed high-schoolers to see the Institution as the source of their problems. I'd like to point out that we'd probably act that way even if we did get payed a reasonable amount compared to the CEO's and whatnot. Pessimism is part of being young. We'll want to change the world no matter how well things are working.


Heh. :):) Copy that.

The kid in my example was not a high-schooler, but a high school dropout. Hey, I was there, I worked fast food for three years, I did telephone market research for two years, I went through all that angst and cynicism and '**** the system' type thinking. And then I changed, and read The Fountainhead, and started thinking about things, and learning things, and realized it wasn't 'the man' keeping me where I was, but the person staring at me when I looked in the mirror. :cool:

[pine]

Well said, at all points. I guess, like a lot of things, it boils down to a difference in personal philosophy; also, on some level, what you feel like you NEED. You're right, we do seem to be on the same general page.

That's cool about the Buddhist temple (in Texas????). I ran across a shrine near the top of a gradual, forested hill near where I live; it was really just a pole with a lot of prayer flags but it was a surprise to stumble across it in the middle of the woods, on private land, and in the dominantly Christian area I live in (eastern Washington state).

I agree about using motorcycles more, though a lot of people would say they're too dangerous. I ride my bike everywhere for the time being, and it's as bad; you just have to be way more careful than you would in a car.

Even though I know basically nothing about 'em and have never owned one, I've always been kind of entranced by motorcycles. Have you seen Harley's new design? I don't think it's on the road yet. I read something that described it as "looks fast while standing still," which was pretty accurate. It was a thing of beauty.

[pine]

Originally posted by (BoD) nepenthe

Heh. :):) Copy that.

The kid in my example was not a high-schooler, but a high school dropout. Hey, I was there, I worked fast food for three years, I did telephone market research for two years, I went through all that angst and cynicism and '**** the system' type thinking. And then I changed, and read The Fountainhead, and started thinking about things, and learning things, and realized it wasn't 'the man' keeping me where I was, but the person staring at me when I looked in the mirror. :cool:

Indeed. Guess I didn't realize that your example referred to a specific person, I thought you were commenting on an attitude in general. You're right anyways, the people who go on to become successful adults are those who eventually realize that they're responsible for their own troubles.

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Yup, I've seen the new Harley, in fact there's a thread about it around here somewhere. It puts out twice as much power, doesn't vibrate like a paint-mixer, gets about twice the fuel economy and is dozens of times cleaner emissions-wise, has actual brakes, and looks great. Too much money though. :hmm:

Yup, in north Texas. Not west central Texas, mind you. :p It's a big state. The monks searched all over the country and decided on this area because of the tolerance level, among other things.

Yah, there was a real pizza guy we talked to for a little while, although I also suspected he really liked my girlfriend and was hoping she was my sister. :p But he is just one example to illustrate a general feeling...

[Lizard Of Oz]

In defense of SUV's

I've read the following facts from two different sources but couldn't
locate either in a Gooogle search. One was from an editorial in Car & Driver
Magazine and the other was a NTSB report published somewhere on the net.
The C&D Editotial referenced the NTSB report.

Basically it said this about SUV's:

The accident rate is the same as other vehicles.
Death rate of accidents invovling a soild object (light pole, barrier, etc...) is LOWER than other vehicles.
SUV occupant death rate in muliple car accidents (SUV plus small car) is same as other types of vehicles.
Small car occupant death rate when in an accident with the a SUV is the SAME as small car + samll car accidents.
Roll-over rates are higher. (But injury rates in roll-over accidents are LOWER than that of other types of vehicles.

Gas Guzzling:

My 1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee Larado (4.0L Six) got 22mpg.
My 1999 Subabru Impreza (2.5L Four) gets 19mpg.

:p

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Copy that about the gas consumption. The RX-7 got miserable mileage, around 14 or so (less when I was testing its low polar moment of inertia).

All that may be true about SUVs, but what I also know is that when I'm in one I don't feel very sure or secure. I drove a Suburban months ago. I've driven an Explorer and a Blazer. I don't like the feeling that I'm up there on the 'way drifting along like a leaf in a stream, unable to brake sufficiently, or accelerate sufficiently, dealing with hurlinducing suspension... and I went up on two wheels in my brother's Blazer taking an exit I've done dozens of times in other cars at much higher speeds. Scary!! :eek:

[Lizard Of Oz]

I don't feel very sure or secure. I drove a Suburban months ago. I've driven an Explorer and a Blazer

Well, duh! :)

You should try a Jeep Cherokee or a Toyota 4-Runner. Both feel like cars (big cars).

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Ah, you have a point. :)

[Motz]

As with any profession there are good and bad ones. One must remember teachers only work about 184 days a year.The school system I work in the teachers start at about $26000USD and get a raise for every college credit they get towards their Masters degree,a step raise every year for 20 years,plus any negotiated raise on top of all that.So most don't stay at a low pay for long.So if you figure 184 days times 7 hrs per day(I'm counting work they bring home)They start with about $20.00/hr, not too bad.The problem with just throwing more money at teachers is how do you guarentee(sp?) that with all the politics involved in government school systems, that the teachers will actually get the money? I see so much waste in schools every day just due to political game playing.That is the problem with government school districts,not every thing is done in the best interest of the kids.I think the extra money would be better spent on teacher education.Show the teachers how to better educate the kids,rather than just pay them more.When the kids are getting a better education then you reward the teachers, not before.The government education system is a joke! And I can say that by seeing it first hand.

[little darlin]

Anyway, we have teachers being paid this comparatively low salary. But is there a shortage of teachers? Can I contend that if there WERE a shortage of teachers, base salaries would INCREASE as a result as districts attempted to attract more to the profession? Can we then say that teachers are currently paid what the current market for teachers will bear in any given area?


I enjoyed much of what you wrote in several of your posts Nepenthe. Nice job. Some excellent arguments expressed in there. A few points to make though.
1. There is in fact a shortage of "qualified" teachers in America. When you come down to it though, thats really just a petty semantic difference. I could go ahead and be an astrophysicist as long as they were accepting "unqualified" parties.:D
2. The supply and demand equation is less effective in relationship to the teacher shortage because of where the funding for teacher salaries comes from. Because they are funded by federal, state, and local taxes, schools are really not permitted, and more then that, not capable of "bidding" for the best candidates out there. I think it is fair to say that some people who would be great teachers are disqualified from the position because they cannot support their families on a teachers pay.
3. Please find some better reading material then Ayn Rand. :) she's the philosophical equivalent of a big mac and fries. :D

[little darlin]

Ummh, the Motz, what school system do you work at? Both of my parents were teachers so I know a lot of that stuff just ain't true. They sure as hell work more then 184 days a year. They sure as hell work more then 7 hours a day. And those "step" raises are not very large. I don't recall that my mother, who taught for 30 years and had a masters degree in education from Harvard, ever made above the 30's in salary.:(

[(BoD) nepenthe]

2. "agree somewhat" . It's a sad state of affairs, and one that illustrates well how government often doesn't work too well. I'm not too keen on a lot of aspects of the public school districts, which is why I will seek to avoid them when it comes to educating my own offspring.

3. Ah, picking on the old bat? :D Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are GREAT reading for a 20 year old living on a steady philosophical diet of stale bread crumbs. ;) They don't do a whole lot for me now, but they certainly helped as catalysts for the beginning of my own enlightenment. :)

[little darlin]

Nepenthe, ever read Foucault? A personal fave from my college days.:cool:

[(BoD) nepenthe]

I tried, I really did. But abandoned all hope after a little while. By the time I had the capacity to understand (in some way), other writers had taken precedence. Most of my current recollection of Foucault is now based on one of those "Philosophers Desk Reference" type books which treats each writer/thinker and each milieu in about 10 pages.

I remember the idea that identity isn't something that we possess, but something that is renewed or performed each day and that power flows and can be used according to one's will to use it, rather than being strictly determined by one's lot in life.

Perhaps I will pick up something at the Recycled or Half Price next time I'm out there. :cool:

[Motz]

I work at Beacon City Schools (http://www.beaconcityschools.org/) where the teachers are only required to be there 184 days a year,classes are state mandated at 182 days and they are required to attend 2 superintendants conferance days a year.I will agree that not all school systems have the same yearly schedule,but I can only tell you what I have experience with.The teachers have to be at work by 8:30 and most leave by 3:30.In that time they get time to eat lunch,a prep period and the kids have one special a day(ex. music,gym).So if they take home 2hours worth of work, my estimate my have been might have been a little short.We had teachers retire last year making 60-80 thousand with 30 years of service.And they are not the highest paid in the area. :)

[(BoD) nepenthe]

Hey Motz, howz it going? And what's with the post count?

[little darlin]

Well ok Motz, but what I take from your post is that you are not a teacher and you don't seem to be aware that there are a hell of a lot of unmentionables included in a teachers schedule. Even if a teacher actually comes when the school day begins and leaves when the school day is over, which is highly unlikely from my experience, when they get home they still have hours of papers to grade, and hours of lesson plans to develope. Did I mention that my girlfriend is a teacher in addition to both my parents. I never get to see her.:mad: Trust me on this, teachers work their asses off. If you throw in weekend time spent on school work, summer time spent in seminars, and all the other extras that teachers get no credit for whatsoever, I think your gonna find that teachers don't make a hell of a lot. As to teachers making 60-80 thousand a year, I can believe it might be possible in some school districts but I think you are just putting forth a really extreme example to prove your point. It sure as hell isn't the norm.

Nepenthe, give an eye to some of Foucault's collections of interviews. He was actually quite an entertaining speaker, and its certainly more palatable to read a three paragraph explanation then an incredibly dense 300 page essay. :)

[Motz]

In my example of 60-80 thou a year 80 is the extreme.But remember they had *30years* to get there. I would say the average is 40-50k a year is the norm for a teacher with *20 years* on the job.I think the national average may be going down due to the retirement of older teachers,and the amount of teachers starting at the entry level.Now granted I am not a teacher,I am a maintenance mechanic. But I do speak with the teachers on a daily basis,so I hear their complaints and their lifestyles.I am also friends with the president of the teachers union.I agree that not all schools pay the same, it usually goes up and down with the cost of living in the area.And the amount of "homework" teachers have rises with the grade level they teach.Most of the people I speak with teach at the elementary level.So they may have less "homework" than the secondary teachers have.What would you say is a good estimate of the "homework" your friends do in hours/day? My figures may be exaggerated by your experiance.
Also how many other jobs have a tenure system? (In NY we have a tenure system, after three years a teacher may get tenure which makes it that much harder to get rid of bad teachers) How many other jobs have a national union and a national lobby in WashingtonDC to protect their interests? I have no problem paying teachers more ,but lets have a way to make sure we are getting the best educators for our tax dollars.I see no reason to pay a bad teacher more just because we want to reward the good ones. In my experiance alot of teachers lose their enthusiasm and drive to teach after 5 or 6 years.After that some, not all, teachers are content to just dredge their way through yet another year on their way to retirement. Our superintendant has a theory,if he pays the teachers more,the principals will ask for more(can't have a teacher making more than a principal),then the asst.superintendants will ask for more(same logic applys),then he can ask for more.To give an example our principals average 50-60k, one makes 90k,our business manager makes 80-90k and our superintendant makes 125k plus a car,cell phone,laptop,memberships too organizations paid,and 3k if he takes no sick time.If he gives more money at the bottom it trickles up to him.

I figured out the days worked for you,
52 weeks @ 5days a week =260
9 weeks off in summer =215
7 days off for christmas=208
7 days off for easter=201
one week off for mid winter recess=196
two days off for thanksgiving=194
martin luther king's day=193
presidents day=192
columbus day=191
veteran's day=190
I forgot a few but you can see how i get at my number.

BTW I enjoy debating this with you.You make good points without resorting to flames.You may even change my opinions of teachers.But I believe everything I say so far.It would do me no good to post non-truths,when you could verify everything through the school. :) Just in case you are curious, I make 29,835/yr and I've been there ten years.

Nep my post count dropped when I deleted all my old posts.Good to see you back! :D

[little darlin]

Yes, I think you make some good points too Motz. I suppose we would have to get a hold of some national statistics on teachers salaries to really know what the norm is. I guess my feeling is that, in general, the numbers you gave are still high, but again I don't know for sure. In Maine, starting teachers make around 25 a year, but salaries increase much more slowly from that point.

The days worked question still seems off to me. I mean I do understand where you got your number, I just think that teachers end up putting in a lot more time then that when you add up all the unofficial time worked. I remember my mom hauling her school work with her everywhere, it was like knitting for her or something, she was just always fiddling with it. And as I said, my girlfriend works way too much on that stuff. If I was to estimate, I would say between 2-3 hours a night. It drives me nuts.
:mad:

It would be silly for me to argue that there aren't bad teachers, but you have to understand the kind of scrutiny that teachers operate under. For every kid that screws up in school, the blame is placed squarely at the feet of their teachers, justified or not. And as Nepenthe mentioned, Bush would like to see even more testing done, which is really just another stick to beat teachers over the head with when kids fail. With decisions like this being handed down all the time, you can see why teacher have a need for a national union. Many industries are in fact represented by national unions, probably most with less need for one then teachers have. Any industry that wants to pay for the damn thing can have a national union.

In my experiance alot of teachers lose their enthusiasm and drive to teach after 5 or 6 years.After that some, not all, teachers are content to just dredge their way through yet another year on their way to retirement

I think this is just a misunderstanding of what teachers go through. Teaching is the kind of job where you come in with tons of rediculous ideals about changing the world and crap like that. Eventually, yes, those ideals are bound to be crushed when the reality of the situation sinks in. But if you ask me, thats when teachers really start to become effective. It may appear that teachers just lose their enthusiasm, and many do, but many also just become realists, and more effective because of it. A similar thing happens with social workers of which I am one. I really don't view it as bad change, it's just the natural evolution of a teacher.

I'd love to see some stats on teacher salaries if you feel like getting them. Take it easy:cool:

[Motz]

I found some stats at NEA (http://www.nea.org/publiced/edstats/00rankings/c-11.html). I see the Maine average is 35k and the NY average is just over 50k.They give the national average at 41,700.

[Lizard Of Oz]

Heya Motz, Luv the avatar. :)

Now take your Teachers national average and compare that to other occupations that REQUIRE a simular education level.

[little darlin]

Interesting. Thanks for digging those up.:)