queencitybuckeye;627986 wrote:One could argue that someone not capable of doing the simple math involved should not be entrusted with teaching children.
I would rebutt by saying it's not about the math. It's about being rigidly responsible to a budget. One can know the math and not follow the math.
I would contend that those who may not be responsible with their own personal finances may still be adequate teachers of "reading, writing, and 'rithmetic."
Actually, when I hear about
some (not all) teachers claiming that their salaries aren't high enough, my first thought is that they are probably not responsible enough with their personal finances. I've seen how possible it is to live (even be happy and healthy) on a smaller income (for the first half of 2010, my wife and I had made a COMBINED $11,000 to support two people). We never missed a bill payment, and we never went hungry. Expenses were in two categories: those we needed in order to live, and those we'd committed to over a contractual period.
Moreover, I'm willing to bet that if I went into their homes, I could find at least 3 expenses in the budget that would be unnecessary (things like cable, Internet, eating out, travel, unnecessary furniture, etc.). If someone's belt is so tight that they "need" a raise, then they should have already exhausted other options ... like not renewing cable or Internet (or, heaven forbit, cancelling them, and paying the ETF, which is usually smaller than the amount which would be paid over the remainder of the contract).
One can live with that kind of model on a small income. I don't blame anyone for wanting to provide a better life for their families, but unless a teacher's salary is impoverishingly low, I don't take kindly to someone demanding that they need more of my tax dollars, as the truth is, they don't.
If one wants to make more money, one only needs to be resourceful. My wife and I now make good money, as we each have two streams of income. We each have a 9-5 "job" and we each have a sole-proprieter business of our own, which we run whenever we can. Those income streams are less stable, and they don't pay as much, but they certainly help, as neither she nor I get paid THAT well at our 9-5s. Overall, though, it adds up (to the tune of about $80K a year, projected).
GoChiefs is another example. He and his wife do their own low-overhead business together. It's a great model. He and his wife used their noodles and came up with something they could do that wouldn't cost them a ton of overhead (thus slimming their margins), and they have been able to supplement their incomes with it as a result.
If a person can't live on their current salary, then how have they made it thus far? If the problem has been a catastrophe (medical emergency, etc.), then that doesn't mean they necessarily plan on having such a catastrophe every year (and thus, need paid more every year). Things like inflation and additions to the family are legitimate points, but then again, most people in the PRIVATE sector don't get raises just because of inflation or additions to the family, and yet they are able to deal with it.
Sorry about the rant. I am married to a teacher (that's her "9-5" which is more like 7:30-7), and she makes under $21K a year (gross pay), so I'm not speaking as though I don't see all the work that goes into it, etc. She was smart about it, though. Instead of demanding a raise, she got smart and got into a business for herself ... something she knows about, and figured out how to monetize.
When I see how someone could supplement their income without upping the taxes everyone else has to pay, it irks me to see people who would just rather demand that their pay be upped.
