Discussion in 'General Education' started by Backroads, Sep 23, 2017.
Sep 23, 2017
No different than states luring companies away from each other. I think that does far more damage than teachers leaving one district for another. What magical state exists where all teachers are paid the same thing?
If someone violates their contract, go after the cert. If their contract has a buyout clause, it's none of their business who pays it.
If teachers were paid a decent and fair salary, I doubt they'd be having this problem. $3000 wouldn't mean much if you were already making something livable, but, when you're making so little, it's not at all shocking that teachers would jump at the chance to make such a small amount more.
It shows how low the pay is that $3,000 is enough to make a difference. That's $300 a month before taxes, probably $180ish after. Not enough to make me do most things. Definitely not enough to start over elsewhere.
Sep 24, 2017
I'm not sure that $3000 wouldn't make a difference to lots of people, though. If you have student loans, and a lot of younger teachers do, it is the difference of being able to make the payments without having to cut corners elsewhere and being very selective in what has to be given up. Many at entry levels have debt and no savings. Turn that $3000 into $4000 and it is easy to see how the stampede gets started, isn't it?
The interesting this is depending on where you must move to or travel to for the new position, most of the raise may be eaten up in additional costs whether it be gas/wear-and-tear, moving expenses, etc. Also, how long will a new district that dips into reserves be able to keep up with the additional costs of a higher salary. What will happen in a few years when the reserves have dried up?
The sustainability is really what I took away from the article. It sounds as if the state and districts are truly struggling to find a way to pay more without causing districts to go bankrupt. I noted that one district utilized some funding from property taxes. Those of us in NJ are all to familiar with that. New teachers must live in state, where property taxes will truly affect your quality of life if you are at the bottom of the pay scale. We're paid more because otherwise we can't afford to live here. It wasn't as bad when you could live just over the border in surrounding states, but NJ has trapped teachers. Vicious cycle.
Not trying to go off topic - it just seems relevant with the Utah situation.
You don't really think they pay you more so you can afford to live here do you? They pay more because that was negotiated by our local teachers unions. Salaries were not always that high. There was a stretch for a while where raises were 6% or more per year for contracts and then it got so out of hand it completely reversed and they started capping everything.
The property taxes are so high to pay us. If they eliminated the schools portion of a property tax in all the non abbot districts, the property tax bill would be cut in half.
I'm greatful they require teachers to live in state now (unless grandfathered in). I think they should heavily tax anyone who takes their salary out of state (especially retirees who relocate). Why? The reason is because NJ loses any benefit from that money. When it's spent in NJ, it is gaining an economic benefit. We already send way too much money to states that don't pay their fair share. At some point we need to change that or there will be nothing to send them.
They pay more because they have to be competitive enough to find good help. They could care less if we can afford to live here, or young teachers must continue to live with their parents. As far as living out of state, I will only say "to each his own". I think you may be overreaching if you are going to bad mouth retirees who relocate. That is, of course, my personal opinion, but one based on actually observing people who can't afford to live in NJ on any diminished income.
But you're glossing over why they can't afford it... it's education costs... Pull out your tax bill and read it. Should we slash school funding to make taxes affordable? Many would jump at that.
And I don't just mean teachers. Same goes for police, fire, dmv, and any other public employees. You stay in NJ or you're taxed to compensate the state for the lost economic capital.
I don't think that just because you were a teacher, etc. in NJ you are obligated to go to your grave in NJ. Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree. Trust me when I say that some new teacher will take my place should I leave and I will wish them well. Also remember that not all teachers work for public schools. Our salaries may be similar, but I can guarantee that our retirement benefits are vastly different.
I'm speaking about only public employees and am not chaining them here. They should be taxed if they leave, that is my position. I also think junk food should be taxed. Why? Because it's a detriment that's causing the government to spend more. You can drink the big gulp, but you need to pay 0.15 cents toward your future diabetes or blood pressure medication.
People are inherently selfish. They have no problem collecting the spoils but want it without the negatives that come with supplying it.
Too controlling and too idealistic for my taste, I'm afraid. In the end, we all end up paying for high salaries. I see the vicious cycle of it all, but taxing your retirement income just because you were a teacher does, in fact, sound like you are trying to "chain them" to NJ. And although my retirement benefits may be lousy, I am very much aware that my salary is commiserate with my public school teachers in the surrounding districts. Why? Because otherwise teachers wouldn't work for them - they would go elsewhere. Best thing, then, would be to simply rent, so you could leave without regrets?
Now, all of that said, Utah hasn't completely followed in NJ's footsteps yet. I suspect that their salaries have been subpar for a while, and they are now in catch-up mode. There will be some growing pains.
Here's another way you could save money. Stop paying our executive director 1.2 million dollars. I feel like I must be reading this article from todays paper wrong. It also says about $900 of our dues go to them alone. That can't be accurate can it?:
I'm a relatively young teacher with a whole lot of student loan debt and next to no savings (although I, admittedly, have family who I can rely on to help me financially in tough times, if need be). I make a reasonable living in my current district, but it is often tough to get by during many months of the year. I would not leave a district that I was happy working in for only a $3,000 pay increase. I know I don't represent everyone, but I seem to be the type of person you were referring to in your post. Now, if I made as little as those in the article, that $3,000 might mean a whole lot more than it does with my current salary.
Once again, NOT about Utah, so maybe you want to start a new thread? There are plenty of NJ teachers on the forum who would be very happy to comment, I'm sure. I won't be one of them, but there are plenty to take my place.
When I came to Nj from IL, I made $15,000 more gross: however, with that came an increase in taxes (the more you make the more you're taxed, am I right?), rent, pension (my old district paid most of my contribution), and healthcare (was paying $600/year then to close to $4,000/year for single). So really, out of pocket I only made a couple hundred bucks more a month (if that). It's worth it because I'm working in a great school that I love doing the exact position I've been looking for, and I don't think $3,000 would have me running away to another district. Who knows how much more healthcare could cost, plus taxes and living expenses. You also have to look at projected salary (how long it takes to get to the top of the guide, how much the pay increments are, etc.) to see if it would really be worth it in the long term.
You were the one who brought it up. I can't just let misinformation go unchallenged.
I don't think that there was misinformation. I noted that the sustainability of the pay raises could be problematic. Salaries will rise to meet demand in any economic system that can find a way to fund that growth. Not unique to any state.
Separate names with a comma.