Posted on 06/11/2002 12:04:12 PM PDT by RJCogburn
Big deal about your statement - you, I and nearly the entire American people believe that.
~One is not "thriving" on less than $25,000 per year gross annual pay. I've taken two five-figure pay cuts (leaving the private sector, then moving to a rural school) in my effort to get some real thinking skills developing in the classroom.
~Secondly, I do not contradict that statement with my career choice. I am the most avid proponent of alternatives to public schooling that you could ever hope to find, and I do my best to change the foolish education bureaucracy from the inside. I also lecture on the importance of FReedom, Liberty and the Constitution inside of my classes... my math classes.
~Thirdly, the fact that mostly state and local taxes are used for education is not a contradiction on my part. It is the failure of the majority of the public to understand that they've instituted the 10th plank of the Communist Manifesto. I would be teaching no matter who was paying the bills.
Must you always be so wrong, and simultaneously so self-righteous about it, all while refusing to acknowledge how your posts are so thoroughly dissected and trashed on a daily basis on FR?
Nothing about the content or logic in that post is changed by anything in my personal or professional life. There is nothing hypocritical about being a proponent of Liberty while working in a public school. It is expressly because the education bureaucracy is self-destructing under our present Marxist system that I went into teaching in the first place (as if it is any of your business in the first place, or even relevant to the conversation).
So you're assuming that our average customer would be able to absorb that kind of price increase. Labor is by far the largest expense we have, and that 50% across the payroll would be passed directly on to our consumers. There's no magic cookie jar to pull that cash from, it comes from our customer's wallets. I think we'd find that a large number of our current customers couldn't afford our product if our salaries were 50% higher. Based on a lower sales volume, I don't see how we'd be able to maintain those higher salaries for any length of time. In my business, the cost of production is very high for the first widget, but as we're able to make more of them, the cost per unit drops significantly, I can make more on volume than I can by hiking the price.
Of course, with no competition, there simply wouldn't be a good alternative for many of our customers, so they'd go back to whatever they did prior to our product being available. We'd certainly be a smaller company, that might be good for my personal financial situation, since by your figures I could be earning 50% more, but I don't see how it would help the economy in general, since fewer people would be employed here in light of lower sales. I'm not going to eat out twice as much or buy twice as much toothpaste, so pushing my new found 50% back into the economy isn't going to have the same effect as the three entry level coders who don't have jobs any longer. I suppose I could invest it for a few years, and then live off the interest...
Sounds like a receipe for economic contraction to me.
BTW - I hear the typical software developer's salaries have declined in the past few years.
From a purely anecdotal stanpoint, I haven't seen it. Of course, you could come at it from the other side and say that the Internet bubble is what made many of those saleries so high in the first place, and any decline is simply the market correcting the problem and removing inefficiencies. A lot of companies found out that you have to make money at some point, or the enterprise isn't viable.
At the end of the day, you can't make six figures a year (or whatever it is you're "worth," however you decide to define it) if there are no customers who want, or can afford, the goods or services you are willing and able to produce. Saying that salaries would be 50% higher ignores a significant portion of the equation.
Hmmm...you left the private sector to join the public sector, where merit means nothing.
Seems you benefit from socialism, while hoping those in the private sector lose their jobs to foreign imported cheap labor.
Did I mention in an earlier post that you sound like a mean-spirited person?
Merit means nothing in the classroom? Apparently you're one of the 'D' students. I ran to the education system because I wanted to make sure that there was at least one more teacher who made the students earn their grades. Also, if you can possibly find some reading comprehension in that 3rd grade mentality of yours, you'll notice that I took two MAJOR pay cuts to be the 'beneficiary' of the union's Socialist pay scales. To use smaller words, so you won't misunderstand: I didn't do it for the money, moron.
If I were paid what I was worth in my teaching position (even just compared to other teachers in my district), my salary would probably double. For the second time, I LOSE money thanks to the Socialists in the system.
while hoping those in the private sector lose their jobs to foreign imported cheap labor.
My leaving the private sector for a lower-paying job made someone LOSE a job to 'foreign imported cheap labor'? Once again, your thinking skills fail you. I left a high-paying job, so now the opening will be filled by an American who can make twice as much as I do, GAINING them a good job (as long as they have the training and degrees that I did). 'Foreign imported cheap labor' doesn't exactly qualify for the job listing.
It sounds like your poor thinking skills lost you a job to a 'foreigner', and your petty little ego just can't seem to let the issue drop.
Did I mention in an earlier post that you sound like a mean-spirited person?
Got a problem with that? It is nice to see that, once again, your liberal-Democrat talking points shine right through.
Like companies becoming more "efficient" by importing cheap IT labor.
Do you realize your future is on the line?
Saying that salaries would be 50% higher ignores a significant portion of the equation.
Yeah, maybe they should lower your salary to minimum wage, (it's for the economy you know)?
Let's be honest, you "ran" to the educational system because you couldn't make it in private industry, and you just love the guaranteed wage increases and job security, and the outrageous retirement benefits.
And you get all the above no matter how poor your performance is.
That's the whole point of the discussion, isn't it. Who is responsible for my future? I've done what I need to do to secure my future. I've maintained my certifications. I've continued my formal education. I could have spent that time lounging around, but I choose not to. I could have spent the money in the savings account on a sporty car, but I didn't. I've made sure that I have some savings so that if I were to find myself out of work, or an asteroid were to whack me on the head, I would not be destitute the first week a paycheck didn't show up. I am confident that I will be able to adapt to changes that the market throws at me.
Yeah, maybe they should lower your salary to minimum wage, (it's for the economy you know)?
Nice bit of hyperoble. The fact is, my employer could do that. If for some reason the business couldn't support my salary, my employer SHOULD do that. And I would consider the position and the motivation behind the change of policy, and then determine if it was worth staying on, or if it were time to move on.
If my employer were to come to me and want to reduce my salary to minimum wage, I would certainly take that as a negotiating opportunity. I might be willing to work for a reduced salary if I were given a share of the equity, or other considerations.
And I would exercise my right to not work for my prsent employer any longer. I've swtiched jobs before. I'm not afraid of doing it again. I know what my skills are worth and the value that I provide. The cost and benefit to my current employer would be measured not only in the amount of cost savings in payroll, but in the cost increase in not having me to do the job I've been doing. If it takes two people to do the job I've been doing, no cost savings would realized, no effencies would be recognized. If my current employer wanted to start runing the business that way, it would be time to move on anyway. I wouldn't want to be working for a company that repeatedly makes bad business decisions, the long term prospects aren't good if you continually whiff at the ball.
Of course, I could go to work for the competition, there's an additional cost to my former employer and a benefit to my new employer in my understanding of the business.
Yes, they could decide to lower my salary to minimum wage, but it wouldn't be a rational business decision. However, if someone comes along who can do 2X the work I do for 1/2 the pay, replacing me would be a rational business decision.
I've enjoyed the discourse, but I think we're getting to the point where we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. But we're clearly not convincing the other of our respective philosophies. I think the glass is half full, and being filled. You think the glass is half empty, and being drained.
What about if by the 20th week a paycheck didn't show up?
BTW - I hear in many professions, particularly in the IT field that many people who lose their jobs find it very difficult to find another somewhat equivalent position.
You might ask some of our fellow FReepers if that situation is true.
Perhaps you should see beyond your own situation as more astute people would do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.