Unemployment rate in the U.S.?

concealer404

I want to know where teachers are making $75k-$100k a year, Joe. I'll go to school. I make a good $20k more now than a starting teacher does here.

inspiredsports

sucks2beme wrote: »

Until a third a third party rises up, we are in trouble. Neither current
party is doing us any favors. Abortion really is a non-issue to 99%
of us. Yet is one of major things both parties use as their litmus test.
WTF? Both party's have been hijacked by extremists. There are no
gray areas, no neutral ground. A couple of independant senators
elected to office would break up this nonsense and if these guys were
truly honest, spoil the lobbyists paid influence.
This is as likely to happen as me hiting the lottery.
Pass me the tin foil, please.

I agree to a point, but third parties seem to divide elections and allow the party least equipped to succeed get the win.

I think what we really need vote against anyone in BOTH CURRENT PARTIES who has no business background and is not pro-jobs / pro-business.

I am flabbergasted by the number of current politicians who have done NOTHING other than talk for a living and seem absolutely set on destroying or taking over entire business sectors.

I think it is imperative that our leaders know how to create wealth and make payroll. If not, economic prosperity (read JOBS) will be a thing of the past and unemployment percentages will rise into the mid twenties.

hearingimpared

concealer404 wrote: »

I want to know where teachers are making $75k-$100k a year, Joe. I'll go to school. I make a good $20k more now than a starting teacher does here.

Ben and Constantine; I heard about this on a debate on a talk radio show I listen to about a month ago. I don't remember the school district but it was in a ritzy part of the country. Other than that I can't answer your questions or maybe I can. The talk radio host has a website, I think I'll pay it a visit to see if I can get the details.

Norm Apter

concealer404 wrote: »

I want to know where teachers are making $75k-$100k a year, Joe. I'll go to school. I make a good $20k more now than a starting teacher does here.

Yeah, no kidding. I was on the job market for tenure-track university positions last year. For most public universities in the midwest (where admittedly the cost of living is lower than on the coasts), it is my understanding that most starting salaries were in the mid 40s range for positions in the humanities/social sciences...looks like I chose the wrong branch of education :eek:

mhardy6647

concealer404 wrote: »

I want to know where teachers are making $75k-$100k a year, Joe. I'll go to school. I make a good $20k more now than a starting teacher does here.

They do in many districts here in MA (including the one where I live), if they're at the top of their rank in seniority. That's a nine-month salary.

By the way, I don't begrudge 'em that... there is nothing more valuable than education.

Face

I believe teachers make 75-100k around here. But if you look at house prices and taxes around here, it's all relative.

concealer404

I think starting pay for a teacher around here is pretty much right at $30k. Pretty sad.

hearingimpared

mhardy6647 wrote: »

They do in many districts here in MA (including the one where I live), if they're at the top of their rank in seniority. That's a nine-month salary.

By the way, I don't begrudge 'em that... there is nothing more valuable than education.

I absolutely don't begrudge them that. I remember what my father and sister made before the teachers union got into full swing. What I object to is when a teacher states that one of the reasons they are going on strike is because they are not making enough money to pay their schooling loans off . . . that is absurd. Plus, making $75 to $100k is nothing to sneeze at even in the highest cost of living areas with the exception of New York or Boston. Can anyone else think of places where that amount of money per nine months wouldn't be enough to live comfortably?

BTW Ben & Constantine I've scoured the website and can't find that radio show in the archives so you are just going to have to take my word for it.

Norm Apter

Face wrote: »

I believe teachers make 75-100k around here. But if you look at house prices and taxes around here, it's all relative.

Actually, now that I think about it, that (the point about relativity) makes a lot of sense. In the two places in which I interviewed this past February -- western Minnesota and Lincoln, Nebraska -- I was told that one could get a pretty spacious house for something in the range of 120k. In L.A., you're looking at 600-700k minimum for condo, if I'm not mistaken (which I could be!)

hearingimpared

Face wrote: »

I believe teachers make 75-100k around here. But if you look at house prices and taxes around here, it's all relative.

Yeah Mike you are talking about the New York area. $75 to $100K doesn't account for much up there. The cost of living is so high and God forbid the teacher lives in New York. It's all relative is right on the money.

Amherst

hearingimpared wrote: »

Can anyone else think of places where that amount of money per nine months wouldn't be enough to live comfortably?

Yea, New Jersey. Not comfortably so to speak @75k and a family.

I wouldn't call that salary bad, but you would be just get'in by on the lower end of that scale, which is about where our tenured teachers are paid.

cstmar01

The teaching thing goes hand in hand with any jobs though. Your larger cities you are going to be paid more than a smaller city. Example a buddy of mine lives in Chicago and works in the IT industry. Starting out from college he got a job making 75k a year. Around here you would be getting around 40K for the same job. However an apartment comparable to the one I have in chicago would run a lot higher. He lives in a 2 bedroom and is paying around 2K + a month where around here you would have a house if paying 2K a month. hell people around here can buy a house and pay 700 bucks a month for a mortgage payment including escrow (taxes and insurance).

A sub of chicago an ex gf of mine lived in teachers made about the same 75-100K at a high school, however most had their PhD's and it was very hard to get a job there. Then you come here and most make around 35K starting to 50K if they are good and been there awhile.

hearingimpared

Amherst wrote: »

Yea, New Jersey. Not comfortably so to speak @75k and a family.

I wouldn't call that salary bad, but you would be just get'in by on the lower end of that scale, which is about where our tenured teachers are paid.

I don't know Stu I lived in Cherry Hill East for five years with a six figure salary and was very comfortable. It didn't start off with six figures, actually the first year I made $75 plus perks and owned a five bedroom, three bathroom house with a 2 1/2 car garage and plenty of land.

cfrizz

inspiredsports wrote: »

I think what we really need vote against anyone in BOTH CURRENT PARTIES who has no business background and is not pro-jobs / pro-business.

Please that's a laugh, if they become more pro-jobs, business, these businesses will ship the rest of the jobs overseas for some foriegner to do so that the rest of the country can be out of work as well!:mad:

mhardy6647

Face wrote: »

I believe teachers make 75-100k around here. But if you look at house prices and taxes around here, it's all relative.

Here, too.

inspiredsports

cfrizz wrote: »

Please that's a laugh, if they become more pro-jobs, business, these businesses will ship the rest of the jobs overseas for some foriegner to do so that the rest of the country can be out of work as well!:mad:

I'm not following the logic behind your post, but that's OK

Seems all of your posts contain the little pissed off :mad: dude

jdhdiggs

It's because she thinks businesses should be forced to move to where the unemployed are and pay above market wages instead of trying to make a profit for themselves. Or at least that's what I get from her posts.

cheif pontiac

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Everyone gets a cut... In fact, I would scrap the IRS all-together and go with a flat 15% on all income over 25k for an individual and 20% flat an corporate/business income above 500k.

According to most economists, this would be enough to handle everything and allow for paying of the national debt. To ensure these rates never change, a supermajority would be needed to increase them, and the only time such an option would be available would be in time of war.

There would be no need for ANY other taxes(state/sales taxes etc.) beyond the rates indicated above.

I am out on this topic:)...

Unfortunately, we are in a time of war.

The region I am in is listed as 14.6% unemployment , the reality is double that. My immediate area is at 40% unemployment.

inspiredsports

Amherst wrote: »

1) Enact a flat federal income tax, fair share of burden for all (almost passed in the 80's).

2) Concentrate on return to manufacturing (probably impossible, but maybe the only way out). The paper economy, office workers, has clearly failed.

3) Remove all lobbyist from Washington (by the people - for the people)
force politicians to listen to constituents instead of money trail.

4) Add time into the equation (none of this is going away any time soon)

I would add, parenthetically, to #2: (a manufacturing supports its own self-generated "paper" economy in that it requires money, investment, accounting, sales, marketing, advertising, etc.)

inspiredsports

jdhdiggs wrote: »

It's because she thinks businesses should be forced to move to where the unemployed are and pay above market wages instead of trying to make a profit for themselves. Or at least that's what I get from her posts.

I'm not sure, but would like to get her input as to how I can personally rehire the four great folks I recently had to let go due to bankruptcies, slow payment and slow sales and my reaching the upper limit of my borrowing ability to make payroll for nearly 24 months (which I still have to pay back).

In reality, I've laid off more people than that because I cut my own salary by a huge percentage to survive.

We didn't take a family vacation in 2009. Not 1 penny spent to stimulate a local economy where we would normally vacation.

I stopped paying for a land line into my home because I have a cell so AT&T lost that percentage of revenue that I'm sure paid some portion of a salary.

I cut my cable bill by turning off extras so Time Warner lost that revenue that I'm sure paid some percentage of a salary.

We did not run our air condition in 2009, and have only run it for about 2 weeks this year.

My son and I stopped skiiing at the local ski hill which was only $325 (each) for a season pass, some gas and some munchies.

We have 6 drivers and share 5 cars, but are making the older 1993, 1994 and 1995 models do, and I'm changing oil and brakes myself for the first time in 30 years. Local car dealers and mechanics suffer.

These are just a few of about 100 cuts we've made, and EVERY CENT SAVED went to paying employees as long as we could.

And by the way, EVERY SINGLE TAX percentage we pay went UP, into the face of lower sales and pay.

nooshinjohn

cheif pontiac wrote: »

Unfortunately, we are in a time of war.

The region I am in is listed as 14.6% unemployment , the reality is double that. My immediate area is at 40% unemployment.

Sorry to hear the rate is so high where you are at... As far as war is concerned, Only the Congress of the United States has that power, and no state of war has asked for by the President. Though we are fighting a war now, this action is not a "delcared war", and as such would not be able to trigger the raising of taxes. Besides, I doubt a supermajority of Congress approves of what we are doing now anyway.

sucks2beme

So, would I move for a job? I have several times, to states I've never seen
until I went for the job interview. Of course, part of it was seeing if the area
had a lot of positives going on. For instance, I'd be hard pressed to move to Detroit for a job.
But the way things are going, I might end up ANYWHERE
there's a paycheck. My family is scattered to the winds, because rural Iowa
didn't have any jobs back in the 70's. Or 80's,90's, ETC.

sucks2beme

cheif pontiac wrote: »

Unfortunately, we are in a time of war.

Actually, Wars over. It's now a time of extremely violent peace.
The trouble with trying to occupy a country is anything you do is wrong.
In the end, the locals will always hate you.
I still haven't figured out why they decided to split their effort to
two different countries, and the bad guys in Afganistan got away.

vc69

sucks2beme wrote: »

My family is scattered to the winds, because rural Iowa didn't have any jobs back in the 70's. Or 80's,90's, ETC.

Interesting, I bailed out of Iowa in 82 for that reason. People were trying to support families by working at Taco Hell (or anywhere) b/c farming and related jobs had crashed. I ended up in Mississippi.

sucks2beme

vc69 wrote: »

Interesting, I bailed out of Iowa in 82 for that reason. People were trying to support families by working at Taco Hell (or anywhere) b/c farming and related jobs had crashed. I ended up in Mississippi.

I find the concept of not moving to find work a bit odd. But that
was a reality you leaned to live with up there. If you weren't going to
turn sod, you moved away.

madmax

Moving is fun stuff! There is nothing like the excitement of finding new places to go to, new people to see and different scenery! I have to admit I would not be too willing to move from where I'm at now.

cfrizz

jdhdiggs wrote: »

It's because she thinks businesses should be forced to move to where the unemployed are and pay above market wages instead of trying to make a profit for themselves. Or at least that's what I get from her posts.

No James that's not what I think, and I'm not talking about small business owners. I'm talking about the big corps that keep sending our jobs overseas and leaving skilled people here out of work.

I NEVER made market wages our wages got frozen half way there & that where they stayed. The salary ranges are an absolute joke.

I'm more than willing to take less than what I use to make, so long as I can pay my bills & put food on the table I'm happy, But these companies just assume that I won't do so & won't give me & others a chance to make a living.

There is something terribly broke in this country and it needs to be fixed.

inspiredsports

cfrizz wrote: »

. . . There is something terribly broke in this country and it needs to be fixed.

My apologies to the original poster, but in a few words; Our leaders no longer honor the US Constitution. We make and they take.

cfrizz

inspiredsports wrote: »

My apologies to the original poster, but in a few words; Our leaders no longer honor the US Constitution. We make and they take.

It's always easier to blame whomever is in office at the time, and the unrelenting greed and selfishness is certainly not limited to DC.

You can't blame DC for all of these corporations greed whose leaders make millions & millions of dollars to run the companies into the ground & instead of being held accountable, end up with golden parachutes, or who are putting millions out of jobs so they can pay pennies to some other people outside of the U.S.

Those who are out of work, if they are lucky will get unemployment for a time, but it certainly isn't enough to survive on especially if you have a family, and even if you didn't paying for health insurance while you are out of work will wipe out what little you are getting in UE and then some.

Some of you would even begrudge us that little bit. Or do you think it is only one side of the aisle that is out of work?

I don't think the Constitution could have forseen any of this mess. Nor was it supposed to it has nothing to do with millions of Americans being put out of work.

hearingimpared

cfrizz wrote: »

It's always easier to blame whomever is in office at the time, and the unrelenting greed and selfishness is certainly not limited to DC.

You can't blame DC for all of these corporations greed whose leaders make millions & millions of dollars to run the companies into the ground & instead of being held accountable, end up with golden parachutes, or who are putting millions out of jobs so they can pay pennies to some other people outside of the U.S.

Those who are out of work, if they are lucky will get unemployment for a time, but it certainly isn't enough to survive on especially if you have a family, and even if you didn't paying for health insurance while you are out of work will wipe out what little you are getting in UE and then some.

Some of you would even begrudge us that little bit. Or do you think it is only one side of the aisle that is out of work?

I don't think the Constitution could have forseen any of this mess. Nor was it supposed to it has nothing to do with millions of Americans being put out of work.

The big corporations are what made this country number one in the world. I can't see them being blamed for the economic downturn. True they have a resposibility to the stock holders bottom line and true some not all have outsourced to other countries but if we the public and the unions weren't so money, money, money crazy, I'm sure that it would be profitable for corporations to keep the workforce here. Ya can't blame a corporation for not wanting to pay an employee here $75K a year when they can pay a foreigner with probably more education and knoweldge $6 to $8 per hour to do the same job. I'm speaking of India here where I have years of experience working with them and they are information sponges.

Cathy I disagree that the current adminstration isn't causing a problem. AFter Bush who did a a lot of spending, Obama went hog wild with spending and has us in debt that we will probably never get out of.


FLAME SUIT; engage!