bonelizzard;683735 wrote:Hey, another outstanding post. Not a slam, but the truth.. I need to learn how to quote portions of the statement and be able to comment after that like you do.. Pretty cool.

Actually, I'm self-conscious about it from time to time.

bonelizzard;683735 wrote:I don't drink. Clouds the mind.

Fair enough. Merely an offer. When I'm out at an occasion in which I prefer to remain keen, I take a similar approach.

bonelizzard;683735 wrote:Hey you said that talking is more "personal" so I was right and you were wrong. I didn't say anything about being more effective in the business world you're reading it out of context. All that I said was, "talking to someone is more personal than email" that's all. So then I'm right and you agree with me? Cool.

In that case, absolutely. If all you meant was that it is more personal, then you were 100% right. My apologies for reading into your post.

bonelizzard;683735 wrote:"Because in America, you're allowed to be blissfully ignorant and wrong" Now is that a personal insult? Moderators? I'm not sure here but I kind of feel that way.

I wasn't attacking you as a person. I was attacking your conclusion. You don't seem like an unintelligent person at all, so I wouldn't say something that suggested you were (not intentionally, anyway). However, even very intelligent people are wrong sometimes.

bonelizzard;683735 wrote:Hum.. is that about SB5, being blissfully ignorant and wrong or about me? Not so confident that this pertains to the thread of SB5. But it's cool that you can say that about me...

Relax. Rest assured that it was not an attack on you as a person. I assure you.

I apologize if my posting sometimes appears opaque. I tend to speak and type very literally, leaving very little to the imagination. As such, take most of what I say at the shallowest of face value, as I try to bring everything to the surface of what I say.

bonelizzard;683735 wrote:Well, here's my opinion. You are always right and you type very well and you certainly can think that you are a brilliant mind that knows everything and is correct all of the time.

Not at all. As I said, I recanted in one of these threads (it was in response to one of GBlock's posts, I believe), and just now, I admitted that I was wrong about how I read one of your earlier statements. I'm far from correct all the time (ask my wife), but I do my best to form the most logical conclusion as much of the time as I can. It's an issue of pursuing being right, not an establishment that I already am.

bonelizzard;683735 wrote:Hey, just stopped by the house for a moment. Can't stick around the house. Back out into the real world.

Actually, I've been out for a few hours today as well. Had to take one of our dogs to training class, ran a few errands, bought the wife a diamond necklace (that side business pays well sometimes ) for our belated Valentines Day dinner tonight, and took the dogs for a walk over to the house of one of the kids in the youth center whom I mentor. He'd never met our big dog, and on Wednesday, he said he wanted to, so I figured today would be appropriate, as weekends are really the only spare time I have. I came back, hopped on here for a few, and this is the first post I've posted since getting back.

Laundry time. Hope the rest of your day goes well. Try to relax. The human body doesn't do as well without rest (something I'm still trying to learn myself).

jc10380;679253 wrote:I do more continuing education than any of you. We train every single day.

As do I. You'd be surprised how frequently the laws change in regard to marketing, financial transactions, and fundraising.

jc10380;679253 wrote:I work more hours than you. I am away from my family 1/3 of my life.

So ... eight hours a day? You think that's "more than" anyone in the private sector? That's essentially the baseline for most full-time jobs. I spend half my life working (literally 12 hours or more a day, including most weekends). At my last job, I worked 60+ hours a week. I always ensure that I get a few hours each day alone with my wife. Doesn't leave me much time to sleep, but hey ... that's how life goes.

jc10380;679253 wrote:We are placed in some of the most stressful situations you could think of, and sometimes wouldn't want to think of.

No offense, but do you have experience in a competitive market?

jc10380;679253 wrote:Our life span is shorter than the average person. Yet, I am overcompensated. Give me a break.

Maybe you aren't. If you're a top-notch teacher, then I am not at all saying you're overpaid. I am MORE than happy to pay a competent, dedicated, qualified teacher a competitive salary. The problem is that the pay scale, to my knowledge, is no different for a top-notch teacher and a lazy, apathetic teacher with the same number of years under their belts. If you're a good teacher (and I'm assuming you are), how are you okay with the fact that those who don't show that they give two s***s about their students make the same as you? I'M certainly not okay with compensating them the same way as I would you, if you're a good teacher.

ptown_trojans_1;683869 wrote:... skosh.

lulz

Writerbuckeye;683700 wrote:I see folks on here throwing around salaries as if SB 5 sets every salary structure for every school district in Ohio.

I don't believe that's true.

I'm guessing this is more propaganda to scare people into working against the bill.

It's not propaganda, it is the state minimum set for teaching salaries in the actual bill. Without the right to bargain wages it is the rate at which a school board may pay a teacher. That means without collectively bargaining the salaries of teachers, the local boards will most likely use that number to balance their budgets. It is scary if you are a teacher making $50,000 that could be cut to $32,000. But it's not propaganda.

Sonofanump;683859 wrote:Yikes, would the credit offset the cost of that child?

Doesn't make a difference one way or the other, if they want to have a child that's their decision. IMO the government shouldn't be engineering societal decisions - but it is reality, which is why I mentioned it.

Speaking of reality, I looked at OH's EZ form. Again assuming no deductions a $21,900 salary is about a 1.7% OH liability, in addition to the 6.7% fed liability - which again is assuming the highest possible tax rate with no above the line deductions or other credits.

Where are you getting anything close to 30%?

UncleYoder;683914 wrote:It's not propaganda, it is the state minimum set for teaching salaries in the actual bill. Without the right to bargain wages it is the rate at which a school board may pay a teacher. That means without collectively bargaining the salaries of teachers, the local boards will most likely use that number to balance their budgets. It is scary if you are a teacher making $50,000 that could be cut to $32,000. But it's not propaganda.

Like I said: PROPAGANDA

No district is going to arbitrarily cut salaries the way you're suggesting. It's simply not going to happen.

How do I know? Common sense.

Now, could districts start paying STARTING teachers based on those salaries? Sure. But I'm absolutely certain most districts are going to set a salary structure competitive with those districts around them, and not some number that has been arbitrarily set as a FLOOR by a state document.

Sonofanump;683858 wrote:You forgot live at home with the parents which would be their best option.

My wife lived at home with her parents for two years after graduation because she worked in a cancer laboratory in a research position making all of $20,000/year, and didn't move out until she went back to school for her MBA - I really don't understand the teachers' comments on this thread - do you all think that everyone despite teachers is living the high life? Everyone is struggling, and many people are living with their parents, not just teachers.

Again, serious question: Do you fully realize the struggles many Americans are facing right now? Forget 10 or 20% paycuts, what about the millions of Americans that took 100% paycuts and might not see a paycheck for many months (or years)? I just can't believe I'm reading the stereotype that teachers are absolutely clueless about how the rest of Americans live - yet post after post it is the same thing. Many people are struggling. Tax revenues are down, in many jurisdictions wwwaaaayyyyyyy down, especially the upper midwest. Why is this so difficult for college graduates to see?

Maybe he is right. The current minimum wage is $7.25/hour, so that must be what everyone makes that can't collectively bargain their wages.

Sonofanump;683784 wrote:Really, that was my tax rate when I made near that amount when starting my profession, but my student loan debt was not near that high due to college being a fraction of that cost.

Cool your dad is named Jesus, I did not know that.

You have no idea what you are talking about if you think someone making 21900 is paying 30% in taxes.

Manhattan Buckeye;683928 wrote:My wife lived at home with her parents for two years after graduation because she worked in a cancer laboratory in a research position making all of $20,000/year, and didn't move out until she went back to school for her MBA - I really don't understand the teachers' comments on this thread - do you all think that everyone despite teachers is living the high life? Everyone is struggling, and many people are living with their parents, not just teachers.

Again, serious question: Do you fully realize the struggles many Americans are facing right now? Forget 10 or 20% paycuts, what about the millions of Americans that took 100% paycuts and might not see a paycheck for many months (or years)? I just can't believe I'm reading the stereotype that teachers are absolutely clueless about how the rest of Americans live - yet post after post it is the same thing. Many people are struggling. Tax revenues are down, in many jurisdictions wwwaaaayyyyyyy down, especially the upper midwest. Why is this so difficult for college graduates to see?

My first two years out of school I also had to live with my mom (this was 1976) because my salary was so low. I worked at a local radio station doing news, sports and advertising writing, and didn't make enough to afford an apartment on my own.

When I got a much better job at the newspaper a year or so later (making all of $9,000 per year with no health benefits or pension) I was finally able to live in a place that housed more than a few drug addicts and folks on welfare. It was all I could afford at the time, and there weren't a lot of beginning jobs available in newspapers back then, and most paid about what this one did.

Even back then, I used to be amazed at the salaries the high school janitor made, with only a few years in. It was considerably more than I was making, and they had benefits and everything!

So stop with the sob stories. Most of us have had to struggle at times when we were starting out. It's not new, and people starting out now actually have it better in teaching than a lot of others who are trying to make ends meet.

Cleveland Buck;683929 wrote:Maybe he is right. The current minimum wage is $7.25/hour, so that must be what everyone makes that can't collectively bargain their wages.

Great comparison. I find it humorous the only ones fighting this bill are the ones that benefit from CBA.

Merit-based pay doesn't have to be excluded from a CBA. The main driver why unions resist is because all else equal, to pay some more others have to be paid less. I don't know anyone that wants to HAVE to work harder to receive the same pay, but IMO this tends to be an exagrerated belief with unions where solidarity and equality almost has to be deeply ingrained for the whole thing to work. Merit based pay is a completely foreign concept to the union culture (as evidenced in this thread and others). Actually competing or trying to outperform your union brethren is almost fundamentally opposed to the interests of job creation and protection

jmog;683930 wrote:You have no idea what you are talking about if you think someone making 21900 is paying 30% in taxes.

10% federal (before deductions), maybe 3% state/local....and 7.2% FICA...So more like 15-20% I suppose. 22k is not far above the poverty line, though.

GOOD NEWS!!!

Getting Paid What You're Worth: Salary Negotiations - For Dummies

Getting Paid What You're Worth: Salary Negotiations

Oh happy day. Your interviewer looks you straight in the eye and says, "We'd like you to join our team; I'm offering you a job, but before we go any further, we should talk about how you'd like to be paid."
The novice interviewee will cave in and ask the interviewer to suggest a salary based on what the company would like to spend. But after all your research on your market value and on the company, you'll realize that this cop-out won't bring home top dollars.
You can do better by following the guidelines contained in the sections that follow.


Read more: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/getting-paid-what-youre-worth-salary-negotiations.html#ixzz1ERjTW7m0

gut;683945 wrote:10% federal (before deductions), maybe 3% state/local....and 7.2% FICA...So more like 15-20% I suppose. 22k is not far above the poverty line, though.

It isn't 10%, the 1040 EZ is a very simple calculation, at most it is 6.7% - I can post the link if you like, and are there any local jurisdictions in Ohio that have a local income tax? If there isn't one it is again a very simple calculation, a bit under 2% - 3 minutes of work at best. As for FICA, I know for years Ohio public workers didn't pay any SS portion - from what I understand that is still the case.

And again that is assuming nothing other than the standard deduction - if one has any student loans the interest paid will qualify as an above the line deduction (thus, in addition to the standard deduction).

jmog;683930 wrote:You have no idea what you are talking about if you think someone making 21900 is paying 30% in taxes.

I wonder why that number is use to determine gross versus actual lost income in civil liability torts.

Sonofanump;684085 wrote:I wonder why that number is use to determine gross versus actual lost income in civil liability torts.

Maybe that person makes more than $21900 a year and is in a higher tax bracket? Do you ever think for yourself?

sleeper;684107 wrote:Maybe that person makes more than $21900 a year and is in a higher tax bracket? Do you ever think for yourself?

I've seen it used on someone making $10 hr, so there goes your theory.

Manhattan Buckeye;683928 wrote:My wife lived at home with her parents for two years after graduation because she worked in a cancer laboratory in a research position making all of $20,000/year, and didn't move out until she went back to school for her MBA - I really don't understand the teachers' comments on this thread - do you all think that everyone despite teachers is living the high life? Everyone is struggling, and many people are living with their parents, not just teachers.

Again, serious question: Do you fully realize the struggles many Americans are facing right now? Forget 10 or 20% paycuts, what about the millions of Americans that took 100% paycuts and might not see a paycheck for many months (or years)? I just can't believe I'm reading the stereotype that teachers are absolutely clueless about how the rest of Americans live - yet post after post it is the same thing. Many people are struggling. Tax revenues are down, in many jurisdictions wwwaaaayyyyyyy down, especially the upper midwest. Why is this so difficult for college graduates to see?

That's great that your wife has the ability to start a job in her profession and live at home.

I do not know if your comment was at me. I am not a teacher. I am just really surprised that most believe that teachers should be making this amount. Of course public sector jobs are non direct revenue producing, so cost benefit is not readily clear. I could understand this hatred if it was a union non-educated labor position. I am looking forward to the discussion for police and fire departments and how much they should make. I have not seen the wage scale for that, has it been published. Is it 40% to 80% of the previous wages with a cap after ten years? Will the other government employees (including elected officials) also be taking this type of salary reduction?

CenterBHSFan;683946 wrote:GOOD NEWS!!!

Getting Paid What You're Worth: Salary Negotiations - For Dummies

Getting Paid What You're Worth: Salary Negotiations

Oh happy day. Your interviewer looks you straight in the eye and says, "We'd like you to join our team; I'm offering you a job, but before we go any further, we should talk about how you'd like to be paid."
The novice interviewee will cave in and ask the interviewer to suggest a salary based on what the company would like to spend. But after all your research on your market value and on the company, you'll realize that this cop-out won't bring home top dollars.
You can do better by following the guidelines contained in the sections that follow.


Read more: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/getting-paid-what-youre-worth-salary-negotiations.html#ixzz1ERjTW7m0

lulz

ptown_trojans_1;683869 wrote:I know you are passionate about the issue, but try and tone it down a skosh. No need to go all caps and bold on us.
Otrap has voiced his opinion, he is not calling you an idiot, just he disagrees with you.
This thread is actually pretty good, but if it starts to head down the drain, LJ and I will shut it down.

Also, yes, no need to mention post counts in the thread. Counts are irrelevant to the thread and the forum as a whole.

ok, no more all caps and bold. I must have misread otraps thread... but it sure sounded that way to me. Bashing me.. Maybe I should read it again. But, ok if you say so. I'm pretty sure that I have not been the only one who has been passionate and voiced some negativity. But if you want to point the finger at me only I guess that's ok too.

Yes, I think there has been some good discussion on here and I would really hate to be the blame for shutting it down. So, please don't. Thanks...

Haven't mentioned post counts since the first time I was corrected by the moderator.. but I will definitely keep that in mind.
Not mentioning it...

signed, Bad guy bonelizzard..

Sonofanump;684146 wrote:That's great that your wife has the ability to start a job in her profession and live at home.

I do not know if your comment was at me. I am not a teacher. I am just really surprised that most believe that teachers should be making this amount. Of course public sector jobs are non direct revenue producing, so cost benefit is not readily clear. I could understand this hatred if it was a union non-educated labor position. I am looking forward to the discussion for police and fire departments and how much they should make. I have not seen the wage scale for that, has it been published. Is it 40% to 80% of the previous wages with a cap after ten years? Will the other government employees (including elected officials) also be taking this type of salary reduction?

News flash: Disagreeing with you on public employee unions is NOT...I repeat...NOT hatred. I get really tired of Democrats/liberals (and yes you qualify on this issue) using that term WHENEVER someone disagrees strongly with them. It's like they try to take some morally superior position by making it personal. Well, it's NOT personal and your position is wrong, as is your very poor choice of words.

Apparently, people who oppose this issue have a hard time keeping civil. Rep. Bob Hagan (D) called a black poster "buckwheat" and told him to "stick it where the sun don't shine" during a debate on Facebook.

Of course, if this were a Republican using that slur, he'd be asked to resign. I'm betting Hagan will be vigorously defended despite his racist remark.

Here's a link with screen shots of the entire conversation.

http://thirdbasepolitics.blogspot.com/2011/02/ohio-rep-bob-hagan-d-calls-black-ohioan.html

While hilarious I agree that the dude should definitely be able to remain civil.

I can't defend this brand of stupidity.

Post #474

bonelizzard;682675 wrote:Phone calls work better. More effective. more personal.

Post #479

O-Trap;682714 wrote:Actually, if your job is at all stressful, phone calls are annoying, because it occupies more of your faculties, and you can't engage it on your own time.

I think Otrap was only talking about the part where you said phone calls were more effective.

bonelizzard;683645 wrote:YOU GUYS ARE WRONG... IF YOU'RE ADULT LIKE AND/OR MATURE ENOUGH YOU WILL ADMIT THIS.. IF YOU TALK TO SOMEONE, IT IS MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE THAN EMAILING THEM AND/OR TEXTING. It's ok to admit when you're wrong. I won't think any less of you and it really does make you look like the bigger man when you do... admit when you're wrong...

Here you only say that phone calls are more effective and don't mention anything about being more personal.

bonelizzard;683735 wrote:Hey you said that talking is more "personal" so I was right and you were wrong.

bonelizzard;684240 wrote:I must have misread otraps thread... but it sure sounded that way to me. Bashing me.

He was never bashing you, just your argument. Which has always been "I'm right and you're wrong" without any actual facts to back it up.