Fun Fact: 6% of Scientists are Republican

[Isun]

Teachers often work from about 7 in the morning to around 7 or 8 in the evening. Not only do they have to teach, but they have to see parents, grade papers, prepare their lesson plans etc. They don't work 8 hour days.

Also as to the summer, yes, they do get a couple months off, but they don't get the whole summer off by any means. They have to prepare for their classes and turn in their yearly plan weeks before the students ever show up.

Underpaid...yes. Perfect example was my mother who with over 26 years of experience and with a master's degree still was only paid around $28,000/yr. Underpaid teachers is a big reason why our education system is so poor. Many can barely support their family, often work summer jobs. When they can make 20 to 50 thousand more in private industy, is it small wonder that most of the highly qualified potential teachers have no interest in teaching? Not really.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Dotard,

Your pissing and moaning about having three months of not working is unwarrented.
First of all, 30,000$ a month divided by 52 (week) and divided again by 5 (days) and once more by 6 (hours) equals $19 dollars an hour.
Second of all, 30,000$ a month divided by 38 (weeks), again divided by 5 (days), and once more by 6 (hours) equals $26 dollars an hour.

Neither one of those equals 34$ an hour and neither one of those include the apparent phantom 7 hours a week you claim they get paid for.

I have, however, confirmed after a difficult google search that teachers can apparently opt for their salary to be divided over the year instead of the typical 38 week (give or take on days) year. I was either unaware that this was an option or I have forgotten about it, but it's much easier to find information on the average pay rate in dollars and not the actual rate by the hour/week/whatever or pay options such as that.

That's seven hours a week. More than a 'full' workday. Not getting paid? You are getting paid. You can elect to have your annual salary distributed during your working time or distributed through out the year. Either way it's an annual salary. You are paid.

Yes, Dot, they are getting paid by taking a hit on their wage on a week-by-week basis.
That is to say, instead of working and getting paid for the additional time for the 3 months, they opt to spead out the money they earn during the other 8 months to cover that time.
Whoop de shit. That is not vacation pay. That is money management.

Same place you got yours. Interacting with dozens from my area. It may just be a case of semantics? Yearly salary of $30000 a year. Some look at it and say that's for the working time, they rest is unpaid, Woah is me. Others look and say that's for the entire year, I get three months vacation. Yay for me!

Hey, did you know that being unemployed and being out on the street is like a 12 month vacation? Those hobos who live out in the cold get a free ride with all that trash that's just lying around.

Or... instead of working as a teacher and getting paid 1/2 to a 1/3rd of what you might consider normal for people with a 4-year degree (or more) to get the same hourly wage without the months of time not working with maybe half of the actual work involved.
Or skip college entirely and just get training with a forklift or welding or construction for an equivelent pay. (Average of $33,000).

That figure was obtained by subtracting the three months off duty. I was looking for pay for actual hours worked. If you figure in those three months then the hourly rate is lower but you are looking at a three month paid vacation. We all know I suk at maths but I'm not that far off. $30,000 divided by 52 weeks is approx. $576 a week? Divided by 30 hours required to be on duty is close enough to call it $20 an hour with a paid three month vacation plus a paid week off for xmas, and a paid week off for Tgiving. Without the three months figured in is approx. $34 an hour.

34(6 hours)(5 days/week)(52 weeks/year) = $53,040/year
Maybe with ten years of experience and/or an advanced degree and/or one of the highest paid teaching positions in the country, but no. You'd be fairly higher than average but still high even if this figure is for 38 weeks a year (@ 38,760$/year).

You were the one who brought it up. You mentioned something about people can get higher paying jobs without the four years.

I certainly did. Your one example doesn't negate the fact that what I stated is still true.

The high level of pay for these jobs is in direct compensation for the risk to your life and limbs. OR the insane hours needed to achieve that level of pay. OR the condition of your work and living enviroment.

That high level of pay is the only reason to choose that job over others. Do you really think any but the most desperate of people would choose to partake that job if it didn't compensate you for the danger you're in?

You know as well as I do that if that job wasn't as dangerous, you'd be lucky if the employer wouldn't try to find a way around the minimum wage laws. (Though I could make the arguement that some rare schools still risk teacher's life and limb, but that's neither here nor there.)

[Autumnlicious]

I bet teachers are driving around in their cadillacs, drinking mimosas on the tax payer dime.

Damn those welfare queens... I mean teachers!!!

[LWP17]

I'm registered as a Republican because when I went to register I agreed more with their general stances. Now, however, I'm not sure what to classify me as. They're all corrupt or will be corrupt given enough power and time.

[Jaysyn]

I'm registered as a Republican because when I went to register I agreed more with their general stances. Now, however, I'm not sure what to classify me as. They're all corrupt or will be corrupt given enough power and time.

Although personally I try to do so when they are actually on the ballot, no one says you have to vote for the party you registered with.

[theVOID]

I'm registered as a Republican because when I went to register I agreed more with their general stances. Now, however, I'm not sure what to classify me as. They're all corrupt or will be corrupt given enough power and time.

Oh, and your justification for that is where?

[lrh9]

Good thing he doesn't need one.

[theVOID]

Do you really need me to point out how dumb that is Lrh9?

Person 1: Where is your justification for the assertion that P
Person 2: Don't need one

That P is a fallacy, namely a bare assertion.

In another form to illustrate the point:

Person 2:
1. All cats are controlling the minds of homeless lonely women
2. Having your mind controlled is a violation of ones rights over their own body
3. Violating the rights of another person is morally wrong, therefore:
4. All cats are bad

Person 1:
Where is your justification for 1?

Person 2:
Don't need one.

[lrh9]

Do you need me to point out how dumb it is to think that you can require anyone to provide any justification for anything they think?

[theVOID]

He made an assertion, a statement of fact, which is not a subjective "I think" statement. I simply asked for his justification for the proposition. If he has any good reason for believing the proposition that "[Politicians] all corrupt or will be corrupt given enough power and time." he will have no problem providing it.

Of course it's a ridiculous assertion, and asking for (not requiring) justification is an effective way to point that out.

If he could provide valid justification for the assertion I would be obliged to agree.

Do you think it is dumb to ask someone to justify their assertions? If so i'm not sure why you have a problem with any position at all from assertions of a God to those that a free-market will self-regulate, after all any well supported belief is necessarily justified, so if you don't care about justification you don't care about well supported beliefs - We both know that's not what you think, so why the double standard?