Research disproves more myths about teachers.

A post from a couple of days ago dealt with the myth that teachers only work part of the year. Here's another item which addresses 4 myths about teachers:

• Teachers are overpaid.
• Teachers get a free pension.
• Teachers only work 7 hours per day, 180 days per year.
• Unions are too powerful.

This particular article focuses on New Jersey, but uses national research in putting to rest the issue that teachers are overpaid. According to the article:

"When someone complains about teachers making too much money, what they are really saying is, “I know a teacher and he makes more money than me, therefore he is overpaid.”  So let’s take a look at exactly how much teachers are making."

Here's the link:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/03/991015/-The-Politics-of-Education:-The-Assault-on-Teachers?detail=hide

Relax teachers, your job isn't real!

The jobs numbers that came out last week were certainly a disappointment. Only an additional 18,000 jobs created for the previous month. What's interesting is to look inside those numbers. Turns out that there were really 57,000 new private-sector jobs, but the public-sector lost 39,000 jobs--mostly teachers.

And this has been happening for a while. Have a look at this graph:

Source: Economic Policy Institute

"In total, the public sector has lost 430,000 jobs compared to the private sector's net gain of 980,000 jobs since the Great Recession ended in June 2009 – an average of nearly 19,000 jobs each month over that time." Many--perhaps a majority--of these lost jobs were in education.

But, not to worry, because these lost public sector jobs were not "real" jobs. I know, the job I had teaching physics and computers for 33 years seemed like a "real" job. I got a paycheck, spent much of it in the local stores, paid taxes and raised a family. How stupid I was to not have seen the truth.

Friday evening, conservative darling Ann Coulter showed me the light. "Government can't create jobs," she said on TV. Those jobs aren't "real jobs." They're a "drain on society" because government workers are "not revenue producers."

Let me be very delicate about this: That's one of the biggest loads of crap I have ever seen delivered with a straight face.

Agreed, most government jobs do not involve making and selling things like Ms Coulter's books. But think about how government workers enhance the revenue she generates from book sales:

• If someone tries to steal her work and publish an identical book under their own name, government workers (police, prosecutor, judges, etc.) will protect her income stream.
• If she invests some of her income in a bed-and-breakfast just outside a national park, government workers (rangers, maintenance workers, etc.) will see to it that the park continues to attract visitors, some of whom will stay at her B&B.
• When she flies around the country on a book tour, the airline benefits from all those air traffic controllers who keep planes from colliding. If the airlines had to pay for this service themselves, her ticket would be much more expensive.
• It's difficult to write or sell books when you're ill. Government workers make sure there are no poisons in her air or food supply.
• If she were to have children, government workers (teachers) will provide daycare. They will work for babysitting wages and throw in a free education to boot. She won't need to hire a nanny or skip her latest book tour to care for her kids during the day. 
• When she appears on TV, government workers (FCC) and those nasty government "regulations" make sure that TV and radio broadcasters do not claim the "freedom" to place their signals on any frequency they darn well choose.

Sorry lady, I'm a teacher. It's a real job, and if you don't think it is, you're an idiot!

Assume the crash position and brace for impact.

Jonathan Capehart is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Post. His July 1 piece concerning the debt limit ended with a paragraph that got my full attention: "If the United States were a jet and the American people were passengers and I were your flight attendant, you’d hear me calmly say, “Assume the crash position and brace for impact.”


Months ago, most knowledgeable people took the position that a default by the U.S. was unthinkable. "The adults," they reasoned, "will eventually take over and put an end to this foolishness." Now, those same people are beginning to think the unthinkable: the adults may not be able to gain control of the situation.


What happens if we default? It's never happened, so we're not certain, but here's a good guess:


http://www.davemanuel.com/what-would-happen-if-the-united-states-defaulted-on-its-debt-96/

Personally, I've been looking for answers concerning how to protect my savings from evaporation in the event of a default. After reading some of the possible scenarios, such as the one above, I've come to realize that my investments may be the least of my worries.

Here's an interesting column by Bruce Bartlett, a former adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official in the George W. Bush administration:


5 myths about the debt ceiling

Bartlett makes the following point, which many Americans do not understand:

"The debt ceiling is a cap on the amount of securities the Treasury can issue, something it does to raise money to pay for government expenses. These expenses, and the deficit they’ve wrought, are a result of past actions by Congress to create entitlement programs, make appropriations and cut taxes. In that sense, raising the debt limit is about paying for past expenses, not controlling future ones. For Congress to refuse to let Treasury raise the cash to pay the bills that Congress itself has run up simply makes no sense." [Emphasis mine.]


"Don't worry about default." That seems to be an increasingly popular opinion on the far-right. "We  have more than enough income to allow timely payment of the interest on Treasury bonds when it comes due, and we will just have to prioritize the rest of our spending."


I saw a recent TV appearance by former G.W. Bush speechwriter and conservative pundit David Frum, He couldn't believe the apparent lack of forethought involved in this position. He pointed out that since the expenditures which would have to be "prioritized" have all been approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, this would put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of the executive branch, since Congress would have no say in how the expenses were prioritized.


"If I were the president in this situation, " Frum said, "I would assign very low priorities to expenses such as Medicaid payments to Texas. Defense contractors, particularly those in Georgia, might get a very low priority." You folks in Iowa who thought this was a great idea? Guess what, we're paying the troops, which means there's no money left for your farm subsidies! 


Well, that's enough good news for today. It's well worth your time to become knowledgeable about this situation. It's also worth a few minutes of your time to let your representatives in Congress in on your thoughts. Remember, yesterday's blog post contains help in finding out how to contact them.

Fasten your seatbelt, it's going be a wild two weeks!

Earlier today, I received an email from a WNY retiree wondering if I had heard that President Obama had put Social Security onto the debt ceiling negotiating table and, if so, what I knew about it.

The president has said that there needs to be a deal worked out by July 22, allowing time for Congress to pass legislation relative to the debt ceiling and get it to his desk by the August 2 deadline. It is now exactly 2 weeks before that July 22 date. Expect the next two weeks to be filled with lots of "hair on fire" stories in the media.

The real negotiations will go on away from public view, while the 24/7 news cycle will have lots of time to fill with talking heads speculating. Every so often, one side or the other will launch a "trial balloon" to elicit public reaction. I believe the current Social Security angle is just such a trial balloon. Perhaps it's purpose is to arouse a strong public reaction in order to bolster the president's negotiating position. "See, the public went nuts when we floated that trial balloon. There's no way that will ever fly. It would be political suicide."

Perhaps, the president really is interested in doing something with Social Security. (Although this program has not contributed one penny to our deficit.) At any rate, the best thing you can do is let your representative and senators know how you feel.

NYSUT has provided a great resource on its website which allows you to input your ZIP code and get a listing of your elected officials at both state and national levels, including their contact information. Here is he link:

Who are my legislators?

The above link will give the legislator's office phone number. Here is a link allowing you to find their email and/or website. (Very often, the website contains a form which allows you to send comments to the legislator. Look at the website if there is no email address.) Here is the link:

Congressional email/website directory

Want to let the president know how you feel? There is a comment form on the White House website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Tomorrow, I'll update you on some interesting information relative to the debt-ceiling debate. Here's a sample:

If he's not the richest man in the world, Warren Buffett is close to it. He got there by knowing a thing or two about money. What's his opinion on the debt-ceiling crisis?:

In May, Buffett stated at a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder's meeting that if the Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling, it would constitute "the most asinine act" in the nation's history, reports Reuters.


"We raised the debt ceiling seven times during the Bush Administration," Buffett told CNBC on Thursday. Now, the Republican-controlled Congress is "trying to use the incentive now that we're going to blow your brains out, America, in terms of your debt worthiness over time."

According to the U.S. Debt Clock, America's total public debt equals close to $14.3 trillion which, according to the CIA World Factbook, is roughly 60 percent of the annual gross domestic product.

But even with this information, Buffett is unfazed.

"We had debt at 120 percent of the GDP, far higher than this, after World War II and no one went around threatening that we're going to ruin the credit of the United States or something in order to get a better balance of debt to GDP."

You can read the entire buffet story here:

Buffett; GOP threatening to 'blow your brains out' over debt ceiling

Teachers don't work a full year?

Ask anyone. Teaching's a cushy job. Work from 7:30 to 3, and get the whole summer off. You and I know that's bull, but now we have some real research to back us up.

According to a post in the Wall Street Journal's "Real Time Economics" blog:

" American teachers are the most productive among major developed countries, according to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development....Among 27 member nations tracked by the OECD, U.S. primary-school educators spent 1,097 hours a year teaching despite only spending 36 weeks a year in the classroom — among the lowest among the countries tracked. That was more than 100 hours more than New Zealand, in second place at 985 hours, despite students in that country going to school for 39 weeks. The OECD average is 786 hours."


"And that’s just the time teachers spend on instruction. Including hours teachers spend on work at home and outside the classroom, American primary-school educators spend 1,913 working in a year. According to data from the comparable year in a Labor Department survey, an average full-time employee works 1,932 hours a year spread out over 48 weeks (excluding two weeks vacation and federal holidays)."

Be careful of this when looking for a new car!

Buying a car is something that many retirees are used to doing. We spend time figuring out if we should buy or lease, which model best fits our needs and pocketbooks. Now there's something else to consider when buying a car.

Does the car come with a spare tire?

That's right, manufacturers are beginning to leave off this once standard piece of equipment to save money, save weight and thus increase gas mileage.

The Chicago Tribune carried a story about this this morning.

"More expensive cars — including nearly the entire BMW lineup — are forsaking spare tires for run-flat tires, which are made with special reinforcement and can be driven at moderate speeds for 50 miles or so with a puncture."


What about less expensive cars?


" Like Chevy and Buick, Hyundai sells cars with tirerepair kits. These consist of a can of sealant, which is injected through the valve stem to plug the puncture, and an electric pump to reinflate the tire."


"It's not as good as having an extra tire. The sealant kits "work only if you have a simple puncture in the tread of the tire. And if you use it, it is only a temporary fix," said Eugene Petersen, the tire expert for Consumer Reports magazine. Petersen said the sealant kits don't work for a tire that is shredded or suffers a complete blowout."


According to the article: "The no-spare club includes the Hyundai Elantra and Chevrolet's Cruze and Malibu, three of America's top-selling sedans. Buick's 2012 Regal GS and upcoming hybrid versions of both its Regal and LaCrosse sedans will be sans spare, as will some versions of the next year's Kia Optima."


All manufacturers, however, are "looking at the idea."


So, on your next car shopping trip, don't assume that what's always been found in the trunk is still there!

Sometimes, the comments tell the story.

Yesterday, the NY Times ran a piece by Ron Lieber in their "your money" section. The last two paragraphs tell the story:


"The big picture question, however, remains one that is more moral than economic. Decades ago, we made promises to government workers. Now, depending on your view, those promises have turned out to be too generous. Or they were based on funny math or absurd predictions of long-term stock market performance. Or they were undermined by the financial crisis, and it’s all the bankers’ fault.

Whatever your view, we now face a choice: Should all taxpayers (including the retired workers themselves) pay a lot more in taxes and accept large cuts in government services to pay for the promises to government employees? Or should we break the promises (by a little — or more than a little) because they have turned out to cost too much?"

There were more than 50 comments. Of course, there some like this one from "Outraged":

"We can no longer pay pensions to public employees, period. We're just diverting way too much money away from infrastructure, schools, etc just to pay grandma and grandpa who since retiring at age 55-60, live for 30 plus years."

But many more were thoughtful, and provide some interesting points we all can make when defending our pensions. Here are some examples:

From RL in New Jersey: "Reneging on those promises is akin to going into an expensive restaurant and ordering a sumptuous meal and then skipping out on the check and saying "I'm not paying for this because I didn't know it would be so expensive." It is theft, plain and simple."

RTurkington in VA: "So apparently, while the contracts for Wall Streeters were set in cement and could not be broken-even though they were ludicrious for men who played a huge role in bringing our economy to its knees; when it comes to men and women who busted their tails doing REAL work for years, believing and trusting that the forgone wage increases during those years, the passing up of perks then so they could better protect their families in later years, THOSE contracts aren't worth the paper they are written on. In otherwords, those who tried to plan ahaead and be RESPONSIBLE are to be penalized while those who sleazed their way to fortunes will continue to be rewarded."

Rob in NY: "New Jersey is a good example of how people running governments broke the pension promise a little ata time. The government refused over many years to pay the money into the pension fund that the professional actuaries said was professionally necessary to fund those pensions, and spent the money on items that they thought their supporters liked, instead. Now, when instead of holding accountable those in government who made those careless decisions, writers and otrhers ask whether the promise is too costly. We have governors who push for cutting pension promises to hard working ordinary men and women while using government helicopters to fly to see their children play sports and are outraged that anyone thinks they are doing something wrong. "

Alan, Huntington, NY: "....The solution to our problems cannot be that we look to the promises made 40 years ago and take the fruits of a lifetime of labor from people who have no way to make it up...."

Shelby, NYC: "I am flaberghasted that our tax dollars flowed into Wall Street companies that then turned around and handed them out as insane bonuses to the very individuals who drove their companies and our economy into the ground. The hue and cry of "But they had contracts! We have to respect contract law!" was inconceivalbe to me as an attorney, because a contract is a mutually binding agreement with benefit to both parties -- those individuals did not perform their end of the bargin, so why would these contracts be respected? Now we have public workers who scrimped by on little pay with the expectation of being comfortable in retirement. These are people who actually served the public good, who took on jobs that helped their communities and the nation. But their contracts aren't to be respected? They held up their end of the bargin, unlike the Wall Streeters who failed to do their jobs. (I don't know about you, but if I bankrupted my company, I would expect a pink slip, not a pay check.) Are we saying that once we have wrung all possible work out of these public servants, we should just throw them aside and reneg on the contracts they have already fulfilled? That's not an America I want to live in."

John, Austin, TX:"....The attitude of "I don't have it so neither should you" needs to revert to "hey, you've got it and so should I". 

Workers, both union and non-union have given back the gains of the struggles of a century ago - think Triangle Shirt Waist Company - over the past thirty years based on the false promise (or premise, if you prefer,) that the economic benefits would "trickle down" and "lift all boats". Hasn't happened folks. 

Workers continue to give back to save their jobs as the management and investors rake in the spoils...."

Bonnie, Madison, WI: "Let me get this straight. It's OK to spend billions and billions of my tax money on building other nations and wars that have no end. It's OK to use my tax money to bail out corporations that are "too large to fail". It's OK to let Wall Street guys earn million dollar bonuses after their greed nearly destroyed my 403b funds put away for retirement. And now it's OK to rob my pension funds in order to clean up their mess. How can any NY Times reader agree with this approach? One possible reason: it's easier and quicker to steal from retirees who are relatively powerless compared to the guys who got us into this mess. "

Llyn, Wisconsin: "....Our fiscal problems are not the fault of present and future retirees, except for the fact that we believed politicians when they promised that funds "borrowed" would be paid back. The public should never have allowed Congress to begin using Social Security tax dollars as general revenue. Boomers are the largest work force this country has ever seen, and we have been paying into Social Security as well as other retirement funds for our entire working lives. We are now apparently going to be victims of grand theft...."

RS, Seattle, WA: "....reducing benefits to workers who are already retired is ridiculous. They didn't make the rules, they followed them, and changing the rules after the game is over is beyond unfair. I certainly wouldn't want someone to do this to me and I wouldn't do it to anyone else. 

Yes, some unions have pressed for, and won, overly generous benefit packages for their members. But at the end of day, it was state legislators, city councils, and governors who approved these deals, and then didn't set aside funds to meet those obligations. Those are the people who need to be held accountable."

smca, NJ: "....In NJ, the cause of public workers' pension problems is the theft of their pension funds by the state government not paying its share over many years. And that was even when the economy was excellent!...."

Horace, Bronx, NY:...." In boom times no one wanted to work in the public sector because pay and benefits weren't attractive....."

Rosa, MN: ".... Its running government like a shady business with cash flow problems. You just stiff the folks who do work for you.."

Oldhistorian69, Greenville, SC: "....By, the way what happens down the line when people on these popular private pension plans find that they have run out of money and don't have enough money for cat food for their supper."

Maloyo, NY: "....A few weeks ago there was a Room for Debate discussion about nudging older workers out of their jobs. So some of you young'ens want to push us out with one hand and take our pensions with the other...."

Northsider, MN: "Divide and conquer. Build resentment in one group of peons against another, slightly more fortunate group of peons, so they fight each other instead of you. Portray all those who recieve benefits from government as undeserving (unless the benefits are tax breaks on corporate jets and hiring foreign labor). Wake up, people. The top 10% of this country's economic elite have the game figured out, and they are playing the tricks the rulers of societies have used to crush the lower classes for centuries. Only now they have control of mass media...."

 Here is the link to the NY Times piece:

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/the-impossible-public-pensions-choices/