2015-2016 Republican Primary Season - Trump Courts the Conservatives

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Dutch, I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with "Democrat Party" and "Democratics," but every time you open your mouth that way, I take you less seriously.

Is that your goal? Or is this some kind of passive-aggressive trolling so that you can get your digs in without crossing Jim's "don't get personal" line?

I think he's trying to Trump-like troll us . I agree with SackAttack's sentiments btw.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because the thing is, he's not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. To the extent THAT'S a thing, it's superficial.

Look, he enacts Act 10 to bust the public unions, especially the teachers. He pushes for repeated cuts to education spending. You know what REALLY drives employers wild and makes them want to move to a state? Hint: It's not attacking the education system. They want an educated workforce that can do the shit they need done. So, yay, people save a median of 70 bucks on property taxes, but the damage done to the rest of the state infrastructure is incalculable.

Additionally, and this bears repeating with a loud fucking megaphone, the teachers' union AGREED TO EVERY FINANCIAL CONCESSION WALKER ASKED FOR. The ONE thing they disagreed with was the complete neutering of their collective bargaining rights. They have no rights, in the state of Wisconsin, to bargain for ANYTHING outside of cost-of-living raises anymore. Not one. Damned. Thing. The financial concessions the governor said were essential to saving the state, the teachers agreed to. But that wasn't enough for him.

Now, moving forward five years, you talk about him acting in the best interests of the taxpayers?

Just what do you call it when the governor proposes cutting higher education funding by $300 million and taking out $300 million in loans that the state won't begin to repay for 13 years, to pay for a new basketball arena for billionaire ownership that doesn't want to fund it themselves? The state will be incurring interest for THIRTEEN YEARS before the first check is written to pay down that debt, and it's to build the Bucks a new arena. Sports facilities are a shell game. They don't ever return the kind of economic benefits sports franchise owners claim they will when they insist cities should foot the bill.

That's what he is fiscally. He's not fiscally conservative, and he CERTAINLY doesn't give a shit about getting "taxpayers" the best deal.



Except in his zeal to cut services, he DID end up overpaying for them. Funding was reduced for things like bridge repair/construction. A bridge here in Green Bay sagged, had to be shut down, and needed emergency repairs conducted at greater cost than what normal maintenance would have been in the first place.

Why? He had tax cuts to hand out, dummy. Who needs things like infrastructure when you can be a tax cut champion?

A big +1.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think he's trying to Trump-like troll us . I agree with SackAttack's sentiments btw.

I didn't start this game. I was ask to call them Democratics.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) Used as an adjective rather than an appellation, it's "Democratic," not "Democrat." That's what the party calls itself: "The Democratic Party." They don't, and never have, called themselves "The Democrat Party." Using the pejorative variant pushed by conservative talk radio doesn't do much to make anybody think that you're just an open-minded bloke looking for the truth.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I didn't start this game. I was ask to call them Democratics.

You're either deliberately obtuse (ergo: trolling) or you have a pile of rocks for brains.

"Used as an adjective rather than an appellation." I'm sorry, I appear to have used words bigger than your capacity for mental processing. I'll dumb it down, just in case you really aren't trolling.

"Democratic" is an adjective for the larger collective, the Party. Thus, it is the "Democratic Party." The appellation - to use a smaller word, the name - for an individual member of that party is a "Democrat." A Democrat belongs to the Democratic Party.

Nowhere in there were you asked to refer to individual constituent members of the Party as Democratics. That was your deliberate misreading of the chastisement originally given.

Now, are we done here? Are you ready to use proper words like a big boy, or should I just assume that you're a worthless troll and not worth taking seriously? Because really, those are the options. If you insist on using the petty "Democrat Party" and "Democratics" pejoratives (I'm sorry, that word may be too big for you: insults) to refer to your political rivals, I can't take anything you have to say, no matter how much common sense it does or does not contain, seriously.

[Dutch]

You are a wordy, wordy, bird.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Now, are we done here? Are you ready to use proper words like a big boy, or should I just assume that you're a worthless troll and not worth taking seriously? Because really, those are the options. If you insist on using the petty "Democrat Party" and "Democratics" pejoratives (I'm sorry, that word may be too big for you: insults) to refer to your political rivals, I can't take anything you have to say, no matter how much common sense it does or does not contain, seriously.

Originally Posted by Dutch

You are a wordy, wordy, bird.

Moron, troll, or willing to be a big boy? C'mon, Dutch. It's not hard. All you have to do is lay claim to one.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Moron, troll, or willing to be a big boy? C'mon, Dutch. It's not hard. All you have to do is lay claim to one.

Sometimes I feel like we are at two totally different emotional levels when chatting.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because the thing is, he's not acting in the best interest of the taxpayers. To the extent THAT'S a thing, it's superficial.

Actually he is. He removed something that could be used to leverage more money out of taxpayers. It was shrewd, but if you want your representatives to find the best value for your tax dollars, it was a good move long term.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Just what do you call it when the governor proposes cutting higher education funding by $300 million and taking out $300 million in loans that the state won't begin to repay for 13 years, to pay for a new basketball arena for billionaire ownership that doesn't want to fund it themselves? The state will be incurring interest for THIRTEEN YEARS before the first check is written to pay down that debt, and it's to build the Bucks a new arena. Sports facilities are a shell game. They don't ever return the kind of economic benefits sports franchise owners claim they will when they insist cities should foot the bill.

The State of Wisconsin even after cuts still spends thousands more per student each year than most OECD countries. Wisconsin remains in the top half of the country in education spending per student. Teacher salaries remain in the top half of the country too.

I don't think adding more money to teacher's salaries and benefits packages somehow translates to better students these days.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Why? He had tax cuts to hand out, dummy. Who needs things like infrastructure when you can be a tax cut champion?

I don't necessarily agree with the tax cuts. But Wisconsin was heading in a bad direction years ago. Enormous structural deficit and struggling to pay off outstanding debt. That has for the most part turned around.

Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I live in a state that did the exact opposite. Unions got whatever they wanted and the state is now in a position where it can't be fixed.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I live in a state that did the exact opposite. Unions got whatever they wanted and the state is now in a position where it can't be fixed.

Is that because of unions, or maybe the fact that four of the previous seven governors went to prison might also have something to do with it? Lots of other states have unions that aren't a crippling problem.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe I'm sensitive to it because I live in a state that did the exact opposite. Unions got whatever they wanted and the state is now in a position where it can't be fixed.

And, once again, the unions he insisted on breaking were amenable to literally every one of the financial concessions he sought to extract. This was not the unions trying to walk all over the state and the state just doing what it had to do to keep costs under control.

Scott Walker set after the unions to break them for political purposes, and spared the ones who were friendly to him politically. There was no need for what he did. It was about breaking groups he saw as being friendly to his political opposition and painting it in terms of "well, the state needs this to control costs," while obfuscating the actual truth of the matter.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Sometimes I feel like we are at two totally different emotional levels when chatting.

Well, you're acting like a child with your petty, needless pejoratives, so does that mean you're putting me in the role of the exasperated parent?

[cuervo72]

You know, if there are 16 entrants we shouldn't have huge debates or even primaries.

We should have a bracket.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

You know, if there are 16 entrants we shouldn't have huge debates or even primaries.

We should have a bracket.

Had a snarky reply to that post, but the more I think about it...how WOULD you seed the 16 official contenders?

I'm fascinated by the idea. Trump seems like a 16 or maybe a 15 seed in terms of viability, but he has wealth behind him.

Hmm. I'm going to have to give this some thought.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by cartman

Is that because of unions, or maybe the fact that four of the previous seven governors went to prison might also have something to do with it? Lots of other states have unions that aren't a crippling problem.

I don't blame unions at all. They used their leverage and political posturing to get what they could. Everyone would do the same.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And, once again, the unions he insisted on breaking were amenable to literally every one of the financial concessions he sought to extract. This was not the unions trying to walk all over the state and the state just doing what it had to do to keep costs under control.

Scott Walker set after the unions to break them for political purposes, and spared the ones who were friendly to him politically. There was no need for what he did. It was about breaking groups he saw as being friendly to his political opposition and painting it in terms of "well, the state needs this to control costs," while obfuscating the actual truth of the matter.

I don't know what his personal reasons for it were, but it removed the leverage that unions had over the state. The state is now in a significantly better position to negotiate new contracts with their employees than they were before.

The unions agreeing to the financial concessions didn't matter. That's a short term solution. This is a long term one. If the union could have gotten that kind of leverage over the state long term, they would do the exact same thing. It's just business.

[Solecismic]

Sack, I'd like you to take a couple of weeks away from this thread, if it's OK with you.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't know what his personal reasons for it were, but it removed the leverage that unions had over the state. The state is now in a significantly better position to negotiate new contracts with their employees than they were before.

It's not negotiation, dude. There IS no "position to negotiate new contracts." There is no leverage. The state dictates terms. The union has no statutory authority any longer to negotiate anything but cost of living adjustments. They can't negotiate pension payments, they can't negotiate health contributions, they can't negotiate working conditions (for whatever value of "working conditions" would ordinarily be in a public union's contract), they can't negotiate vacation time (remember, this is all public unions except first responders, so it's not just a teachers thing), they can't negotiate entry level pay, any of it. Literally the only thing they can bargain for is cost-of-living adjustments. They can't bargain for working conditions, entry level pay, or anything else you can think of. They can bargain for COLA and state law places limits on how much of a COL adjustment can happen in a contract.

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Sack, I'd like you to take a couple of weeks away from this thread, if it's OK with you.

It isn't, really.

But if you want to PM me and discuss it privately so we don't pollute the thread, I'm willing to have that discussion, and I'll stay out of the thread while that discussion is ongoing out of respect for you. But when I see you asking me to step away, there are only two reasons I can think of for that, and one is a complete nonstarter.

[Solecismic]

I'm not a moderator, so it's only a request. Your choice.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's not negotiation, dude. There IS no "position to negotiate new contracts." There is no leverage. The state dictates terms. The union has no statutory authority any longer to negotiate anything but cost of living adjustments. They can't negotiate pension payments, they can't negotiate health contributions, they can't negotiate working conditions (for whatever value of "working conditions" would ordinarily be in a public union's contract), they can't negotiate vacation time (remember, this is all public unions except first responders, so it's not just a teachers thing), they can't negotiate entry level pay, any of it. Literally the only thing they can bargain for is cost-of-living adjustments. They can't bargain for working conditions, entry level pay, or anything else you can think of. They can bargain for COLA and state law places limits on how much of a COL adjustment can happen in a contract.

That seems like a pretty good position to be in if you're the state. Why are you upset about this? Why would you root for a position where you're spending more tax dollars than you need to for a service?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That seems like a pretty good position to be in if you're the state. Why are you upset about this? Why would you root for a position where you're spending more tax dollars than you need to for a service?

Let's see... it might be because of the following:

1) Killing the unions will result in a decline of teacher quality, both in terms of retaining talent and attracting it in the first place?

2) It's part of Walker's systematic attack on education in the state. $200 million in cuts to the UW system *and* elimination of many tenure protections that are going to make the top researchers and teaching faculty go elsewhere? It's difficult enough to attract top talent in a flyover state - aggressively going after the very things that have made Wisconsin a strong state educationally pre-Walker isn't going to help matters.

3) When you bomb away at a state's education system, you're trading away the future of the state. A less educated state population is one whose work performance sharply declines.

4) Remember the Wisconsin Idea? That was a driving force behind the state being one of the better places to live in the Midwest from an overall quality of life standpoint. Walker has taken a hatchet job to that with his scorched earth tactics.

Essentially, all Walker has done in his governorship is turn Wisconsin into Mississippi North. And that's not a good thing.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That seems like a pretty good position to be in if you're the state. Why are you upset about this? Why would you root for a position where you're spending more tax dollars than you need to for a service?

Because you often get what you pay for? Just a thought. As I mentioned upthread, Skimping on bridge maintenance cost the state more than it saved. Spending as little as possible isn't always the best route.

Originally Posted by Izulde

Let's see... it might be because of the following:

1) Killing the unions will result in a decline of teacher quality, both in terms of retaining talent and attracting it in the first place?

Especially the higher up the ladder you go, yes.

2) It's part of Walker's systematic attack on education in the state. $200 million in cuts to the UW system *and* elimination of many tenure protections that are going to make the top researchers and teaching faculty go elsewhere? It's difficult enough to attract top talent in a flyover state - aggressively going after the very things that have made Wisconsin a strong state educationally pre-Walker isn't going to help matters.

And those are just this year's cuts. It isn't like the UW cuts are the first time he's ever cut education spending at any level. It's part of an ongoing pattern.

3) When you bomb away at a state's education system, you're trading away the future of the state. A less educated state population is one whose work performance sharply declines.

And it can take a generation or more to undo the damage done in a very short time. Structural changes like these aren't like slapping a coat of paint on a building. It's not like the next Democratic governor can just undo all of Walker's infrastructure mistakes, and that's assuming she has a sympathetic Legislature to work with (which she ain't gonna if Democrats don't turn out in enough force in 2020 to overcome the fact that 60% of ballots cast went for Democrats in WI last term, but only 40% of Assembly and Senate seats went to Democrats).

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And those are just this year's cuts. It isn't like the UW cuts are the first time he's ever cut education spending at any level. It's part of an ongoing pattern.

Believe me, I'm well aware. I still follow Wisconsin state-level politics (Nevada's isn't very interesting - because of the sheer stupidity of term limits, the state is completely owned by the casinos and the mining companies.)

[RainMaker]

Little heavy on the hyperbole. Like I said, Wisconsin is still in the top half of the country in terms of spending per student and teacher salaries. This in a field that is over-saturated. The state is nothing like Mississippi and if that's the argument teachers are making, perhaps it's best if they found some new teachers.

As for the UW system, Madison hovers between 3rd or 4th in the country when it comes to research funding. In fact, when you just account for state funding there, they dwarf almost everyone. This includes their Big 10 brethren and all the big state schools in California. Tuition wise the school is also on the lower end compared to those with similar profiles.

I get if you feel teachers should get paid a bunch more just because you like them. That the market shouldn't play a role. But the hyperbole that Wisconsin is becoming Mississippi is ridiculous. Your state still funds education at high levels and that includes at it's highest.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because you often get what you pay for? Just a thought. As I mentioned upthread, Skimping on bridge maintenance cost the state more than it saved. Spending as little as possible isn't always the best route.

Not when one side had leverage on you. This removed that leverage they had. There isn't a shortage of teachers out there either. They are still being paid well above market value.

And if this is about having the best teachers, why would you be against a measure that removed things like binding arbitration which made it near impossible to fire a bad teacher?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Not when one side had leverage on you. This removed that leverage they had.

If all it was was removing leverage, you'd have an even negotiating position. You don't have that now. The ability of public servants to influence their bargaining position was taken away, and the result has been an increase in teacher retirements to preserve the benefits they had earned under previous contracts. Why? They have no bargaining power any longer to ensure those benefits aren't eroded. They are literally, by law, not allowed to bargain those things. That isn't good for the state, when you have an exodus of experienced teachers.

There isn't a shortage of teachers out there either. They are still being paid well above market value.

1) That's not a term that has any meaning when the labor involved has no ability to bargain for its own worth. And, remember, this isn't just about teachers. ALL public servants, save for the first responders' unions (who also supported Walker) were impacted by this. Market forces aren't a one-way entity.

2) You say "Wisconsin is still in the top half of the country" as if that's something to be proud of. "Yay, we're average"? Wisconsin had a top-5 educational system in the country when I moved here, and by most metrics, that has slipped under Governor Walker. Education has been his favorite punching bag, and that's after declaring the state "open for business."

Define your terms, though. When you talk about rankings, are you using the mean? The median? I can tell you that new teachers in my school district make about as much as I would make working part time at a major retailer over the course of a year. State law has previously been fairly specific about requirements to be a licensed teacher, as well, so most of these people also aren't going to have a bachelor's and call it a day. Advanced degrees and they make about what they might make in retail. Oh, it might be different in Milwaukee, just like it's probably different in LA proper compared to rural northern California, but that skews the numbers.

And if this is about having the best teachers, why would you be against a measure that removed things like binding arbitration which made it near impossible to fire a bad teacher?

Why is it necessary to completely excise bargaining rights in order to be able to fire a bad teacher? That's a little bit "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." Whatever issues you have with the teaching profession, completely removing the right of public employees to bargain anything related to their employment because "we can't fire bad public employees under the current contracts" is ludicrous.

[Solecismic]

This is an interesting take on the teacher tenure/performance argument:

Most Likely to Succeed - The New Yorker

We're conditioned in America to throw money at problems. Throw enough money, and maybe they get solved. But I don't think that always works very well.

That's not to say that Walker necessarily has any better answers. Funding for gifted and talented education in Wisconsin is $0 now, maybe thanks to him. I can't support that.

The football analogies in the article above are a bit weak. I've found, for instance, that quarterback scouting is greatly improved in recent years - and it wasn't all that bad 15 years ago. Obviously, Chase Daniel is not a success story in the NFL. He was not drafted.

But I think teacher tenure needs a hard look. The solutions the authors suggest would do the most good are completely impossible in today's political arena. Not even a Republican would suggest them.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But I think teacher tenure needs a hard look. The solutions the authors suggest would do the most good are completely impossible in today's political arena. Not even a Republican would suggest them.

If one of the solutions you're referring to is the "hire anybody with a bachelor's and a pulse," that basically WAS a proposal for this year's state budget - to allow anybody to teach certain non-core subjects, and to require only a bachelor's degree for those core subjects.

The outcry shouted it down, but it was proposed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If all it was was removing leverage, you'd have an even negotiating position. You don't have that now. The ability of public servants to influence their bargaining position was taken away, and the result has been an increase in teacher retirements to preserve the benefits they had earned under previous contracts. Why? They have no bargaining power any longer to ensure those benefits aren't eroded. They are literally, by law, not allowed to bargain those things. That isn't good for the state, when you have an exodus of experienced teachers.

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The state is purchasing a service (teaching). It is in the states interest to fill that service by providing the best value for the taxpayers. Why would the state purposely put themselves at a disadvantage in doing so? Your entire argument is that the state should give the side they are purchasing the service from an advantage out of the kindness of their heart.

And teachers do have the ultimate bargaining power. They can choose not to work as a teacher in that state. And if the state feels they can't bring in the talent they want, they can raise the salaries and benefits till they reach their goal. This is something the taxpayers should be deciding with their vote.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You say "Wisconsin is still in the top half of the country" as if that's something to be proud of. "Yay, we're average"? Wisconsin had a top-5 educational system in the country when I moved here, and by most metrics, that has slipped under Governor Walker. Education has been his favorite punching bag, and that's after declaring the state "open for business."

What metric is that? You're still #2 in ACT test scores. Been at #2 for years with no signs of dropping (you're even up a little from last year!). So where are you seeing this drop?

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Define your terms, though. When you talk about rankings, are you using the mean? The median? I can tell you that new teachers in my school district make about as much as I would make working part time at a major retailer over the course of a year. State law has previously been fairly specific about requirements to be a licensed teacher, as well, so most of these people also aren't going to have a bachelor's and call it a day. Advanced degrees and they make about what they might make in retail. Oh, it might be different in Milwaukee, just like it's probably different in LA proper compared to rural northern California, but that skews the numbers.

The average teacher salary in Wisconsin was right around $55,000 a year. That was 19th or 21st in the country depending on who's estimates you go with. That doesn't account for the average of $23,000 in benefits that are also included in their compensation package. That's $78,000 in compensation for your average teacher in the state of Wisconsin. And remember, Wisconsin has a lower cost of living than most states making that money stretch even more.

Please let me know where the part-time retail jobs are that are offering up compensation packages in the $78,000 a year range.

I'm also not arguing that the state should nickel and dime teachers. I'm simply saying that neutering the union is a benefit for the state and it's taxpayers. It eliminates and obstacle and increases their flexibility. Sucks if you're a union employee, but not if you're a taxpayer. Walker represents the taxpayer.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If one of the solutions you're referring to is the "hire anybody with a bachelor's and a pulse," that basically WAS a proposal for this year's state budget - to allow anybody to teach certain non-core subjects, and to require only a bachelor's degree for those core subjects.

The outcry shouted it down, but it was proposed.

Similar things are in place with a lot of states that have poor educational systems/a shortage of teachers, under the heading of Alternate Routes to Licensing.

Clark County, for example, which is one of the worst school districts in the country, relies heavily on this because they can't keep faculty.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You're making this more complicated than it needs to be. The state is purchasing a service (teaching). It is in the states interest to fill that service by providing the best value for the taxpayers. Why would the state purposely put themselves at a disadvantage in doing so? Your entire argument is that the state should give the side they are purchasing the service from an advantage out of the kindness of their heart.

It has nothing to do with the kindness of their hearts. It has everything to do with the fact that the actions of the State of Wisconsin do not happen in a vacuum. Wisconsin can strip bargaining rights from teachers, but it cannot inhibit their mobility - and especially not the mobility of the best teachers. They will be in demand anywhere they choose to go. The ones who get stuck holding the bill are the ones that, allegedly, the state should most be seeking to get rid of. The ones who will roll over and take it are the ones who don't have the same options.

The state should be seeking to maximize the utility of tax dollars spent, but that is not the same thing as "spend the least amount possible" on whatever it happens to be. I already illustrated upthread one area where trying to skimp ultimately cost the state more than the savings it thought it realized. A drought of quality teachers is not something you can just hire a construction firm to work overtime for six weeks to fix.

You want to get the best bang for your buck, but that is not the same thing as 'spend the absolute minimum necessary to do the job.'

And teachers do have the ultimate bargaining power. They can choose not to work as a teacher in that state. And if the state feels they can't bring in the talent they want, they can raise the salaries and benefits till they reach their goal. This is something the taxpayers should be deciding with their vote.

You just made my point. The teachers who are in demand can leave, and will leave. The ones left behind will be of inferior quality, and the state's education system will suffer. The damage may not be immediately noticeable. But it will be cumulative. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say it's a generational fix. If those of us who oppose(d) Act 10 are correct and this is bad for Wisconsin's educational system, you cannot fix this overnight. This is the ultimate in high-stakes poker with the state's educational system. Giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming that they really believe this will improve the educational system, Walker and the GOP are betting big that these changes won't have the negative impact opponents of Act 10 believe. There's no soft landing here. Either Walker et al are right, and 20 years from now they get to say "we told you so," or they're wrong, and repairing the damage will take a generation or more. "Throwing money at" the schools at some point down the road won't repair the loss of quality teachers the state has had in the interim, or the decision by students entering college not to enter the teaching profession because of the state's adversarial attitude towards teachers. This is not as simple as "push a button, get a response."

But in the meantime, yes, the best teachers can, and will, seek other opportunities. Maybe those will be in states that value education. Maybe those opportunities will be in other countries. And once you lose them, you're not getting them back. It's the same on the national level with science funding. If you cut funding, scientists will go where the funding is, and that's a generational loss.

What metric is that? You're still #2 in ACT test scores. Been at #2 for years with no signs of dropping (you're even up a little from last year!). So where are you seeing this drop?

I compared the NEA's most recent ranking data with that available the year Walker took office. In 2011, the ranking data available had 952,000 school-aged children in Wisconsin. and about 872,000 enrolled in public schools. 66,603 students graduated from Wisconsin public high schools. If you divide 872k by 13 (K-12), you get about 67,070 students who would be expected to be of age to graduate. You can't assume even distribution across all grades, but we're simplifying here. That's about a 99% graduation rate.

The most recent data from the NEA has 967k school-aged children in Wisconsin. Public school enrollment was about 874k, or essentially static despite the growth in the school-age population (Governor Walker and his allies in the Legislature have been pushing for vouchers for religious and charter education, and while I don't have data as to how popular that's been, that is one possible explanation for why public school enrollment has remained effectively flat despite population growth).

The number of public high school graduates? 60,687. If you divide 874k by 13, you get ~67,230 students you would expect to be high school seniors.

ACT scores are the ultimate in self-selected samples. There are various ACT exams applied throughout high school in Wisconsin, but the scores reported for the averages are generally going to be those scores from the exams taken by prospective college students. Thus, that's not the best example of a healthy educational system. The kids who are going to college are going to take the ACT or SAT regardless, and so you would expect scores to remain reasonably high in that subset. Kids who drop out or who otherwise are not on a graduation track don't necessarily take those exams. If there is greater distress there, it won't show up in ACT scores.

15,000 additional school-age children in Wisconsin, so this (probably) isn't a case of the most recent senior year just being a blip in birthrates. 17 years ago would be 1998, when the economy was still strong. That's not a candidate for a year when parents would go "gosh, we can't afford to have children."

This probably isn't a case of this year's senior class being 10% smaller in size than four years ago. If anything, any reduction in graduating class sizes would come from children born since 2008, who haven't yet matriculated high enough to where we would expect to see a drop in the number of eligible high school seniors. But we HAVE seen a 9% drop in the number of eligible high school seniors who actually graduated. There could be any number of factors in play here, and they may be interlocking, but that number speaks much more loudly to me about the health of Wisconsin's educational system than ACT scores remaining static.

The average teacher salary in Wisconsin was right around $55,000 a year. That was 19th or 21st in the country depending on who's estimates you go with. That doesn't account for the average of $23,000 in benefits that are also included in their compensation package. That's $78,000 in compensation for your average teacher in the state of Wisconsin. And remember, Wisconsin has a lower cost of living than most states making that money stretch even more.

Please let me know where the part-time retail jobs are that are offering up compensation packages in the $78,000 a year range.

This is why I asked you to define your terms. "Average" is misleading, because it will account for teachers in places like Madison and Milwaukee, where the cost of living is higher.

That includes administrators, who are paid somewhat better than regular teachers; that includes experienced teachers, who will not necessarily be reflective of the "usual" experience in a district; and even if they're getting $23k in benefits universally (benefits presumably being one area we might expect some level of equality of experience), there are districts in Wisconsin where total compensation is around $50k once you add those $23k in benefits. That's...about what you'd expect in terms of take-home from full-time retail work.

Anecdotally, the offered pay I've seen for teacher openings in Ashwaubenon, when made public, has been in the $19,000/year range for new teachers. How long do they have to teach to get from $19k to the total compensation package of $78k you cite? Good question.

I'm also not arguing that the state should nickel and dime teachers. I'm simply saying that neutering the union is a benefit for the state and it's taxpayers. It eliminates and obstacle and increases their flexibility. Sucks if you're a union employee, but not if you're a taxpayer. Walker represents the taxpayer.

Union employees don't also pay taxes? Their taxes are somehow less equal than the taxes non-public employees pay?

Is this where I should point out that exempting the first responders from the affected public employee unions affected by Act 10 could be considered a 14th Amendment issue?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It has nothing to do with the kindness of their hearts. It has everything to do with the fact that the actions of the State of Wisconsin do not happen in a vacuum. Wisconsin can strip bargaining rights from teachers, but it cannot inhibit their mobility - and especially not the mobility of the best teachers. They will be in demand anywhere they choose to go. The ones who get stuck holding the bill are the ones that, allegedly, the state should most be seeking to get rid of. The ones who will roll over and take it are the ones who don't have the same options.

What does this have to do with unions? You want the state to hire and pay for the best teachers they can. That's great. Push for that. You don't need a union to accomplish that.

A union represents all teachers. The good and the bad ones. You seem to be implying that a union is somehow responsible for teachers becoming better. Their job is to get their members paid the most amount of money possible and make it difficult for them to be fired.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I compared the NEA's most recent ranking data with that available the year Walker took office. In 2011, the ranking data available had 952,000 school-aged children in Wisconsin. and about 872,000 enrolled in public schools. 66,603 students graduated from Wisconsin public high schools. If you divide 872k by 13 (K-12), you get about 67,070 students who would be expected to be of age to graduate. You can't assume even distribution across all grades, but we're simplifying here. That's about a 99% graduation rate.

You're data is wrong. No state has had or has anywhere close to a 99% graduation rate. I don't know why you're trying estimate it from other raw data and not just use the data on it that is readily available.

The 4-year graduation rate in Wisconsin is currently at 88%. This puts you 2nd in the country behind Iowa (who coincidentally spends much less on education per student than Wisconsin). Wisconsin's 4-year graduation rate is actually up from 85.7% it was in 2010 right before Walker took over. If you're trying to peg educational problems on Walker, graduation rate is not the route I'd take.

Also worth pointing out that Milwaukee Public Schools is dragging down the state's overall graduation rate (it's one of the few areas in the state that saw a drop). It also has some of the highest paid teachers in the state.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

ACT scores are the ultimate in self-selected samples. There are various ACT exams applied throughout high school in Wisconsin, but the scores reported for the averages are generally going to be those scores from the exams taken by prospective college students. Thus, that's not the best example of a healthy educational system. The kids who are going to college are going to take the ACT or SAT regardless, and so you would expect scores to remain reasonably high in that subset. Kids who drop out or who otherwise are not on a graduation track don't necessarily take those exams. If there is greater distress there, it won't show up in ACT scores.

It's one of the few ways of comparing success from students in one state to another. Worth noting that Wisconsin has a large number of their students take the ACT compared to other states. So your scores are not a result of a handful of smart kids inflating it.

Either way, your state is seeing improvements in test scores and graduation rates but you keep telling me the educational system is going in the toilet.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That includes administrators, who are paid somewhat better than regular teachers; that includes experienced teachers, who will not necessarily be reflective of the "usual" experience in a district; and even if they're getting $23k in benefits universally (benefits presumably being one area we might expect some level of equality of experience), there are districts in Wisconsin where total compensation is around $50k once you add those $23k in benefits. That's...about what you'd expect in terms of take-home from full-time retail work.

I can't find any district in the state where salary for full-time teachers is under $30,000. I don't know where you are pulling it from but I'm looking through the actual database of public school employees.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Anecdotally, the offered pay I've seen for teacher openings in Ashwaubenon, when made public, has been in the $19,000/year range for new teachers. How long do they have to teach to get from $19k to the total compensation package of $78k you cite? Good question.

These people are lying to you. No full-time teacher in that district makes under $30,000. The low end in that district is $36,250 for starting salary with just over $13,500 in benefits added on if they are single (much more if they are married). That's right at $50,000 in total compensation as the absolute low end in that district with the vast majority of teachers making significantly more. This data is all publicly available.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Union employees don't also pay taxes? Their taxes are somehow less equal than the taxes non-public employees pay?

So do construction workers. I still don't want to pay over market value for construction projects.

[RainMaker]

Also worth adding that Wisconsin teachers are contracted for around 191 days. The rest of the population with full-time jobs are probably working 230-250 days a year. Makes that compensation package even nicer.

[BillJasper]

Has Trump actually declared? His signage says 'Donald Trump Exploratory Committee' still.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

These people are lying to you.

No, you're right. School districts are in the habit of posting employment notices with false figures to lie to me.

No full-time teacher in that district makes under $30,000.

The notice didn't specify full-time. Maybe they were hiring substitutes, I don't know. That would seem weird, though, advertising for substitutes at the rate I cited without specifying that it wasn't full-time work. Doesn't seem like a great way to get bites to me.

So do construction workers. I still don't want to pay over market value for construction projects.

Once again, "market value" is established by a contract between buyers and selers. If the buyers of a good or service can force their desired price, that isn't "market value." Teachers and other public servants are not in a place where they have any influence over the contract beyond a straight yes or no. That's not market forces at work, and the compensation you pay the teachers under that model is not in any way reflective of market forces.

Construction is a little different. You can put out bids for a contract to do construction work, but you aren't necessarily going to pick the lowest bid, either. You're looking for the best bang for your buck, and that includes history of work quality - is this work just going to have to get done all over later and drive up the aggregate cost? - ability to get the job done on time, history of cost overruns, that sort of thing. Even in construction it's not as simple as "pay the minimum you can get away with and everything will be fine." If you do, you might get bit in the ass by hidden costs and end up paying more than you would have with a different company, or paying another company to fix the screwups made by the lowest bidder.

What Walker did was say "we're just not going to bother with this construction project right now and save money that way" and then, oops, his gamble didn't pay off, and the state had to contract a rush fix that cost more than just doing the maintenance in the first place would have.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If the buyers of a good or service can force their desired price, that isn't "market value." Teachers and other public servants are not in a place where they have any influence over the contract beyond a straight yes or no. That's not market forces at work, and the compensation you pay the teachers under that model is not in any way reflective of market forces.

They aren't forcing anything on anyone. You are not required to work as a public school teacher in the state of Wisconsin. It is not the only job on the planet.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Well, you're acting like a child with your petty, needless pejoratives, so does that mean you're putting me in the role of the exasperated parent?

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Also worth adding that Wisconsin teachers are contracted for around 191 days. The rest of the population with full-time jobs are probably working 230-250 days a year. Makes that compensation package even nicer.

When you factor in the total number of hours worked per week during the school year, the actual number of work hours is about the same, potentially more for teachers.

Remember, it's not just the in-class instruction. It's the class prep, grading, responding to parent and student emails, having conferences, etc. During the school year, even when they're at home, teachers are still at work.

You seem to have a lot of scorn for teachers, and I feel sorry for you that you have this mentality.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

I think that was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Dutch had been pulling his Forrest Gump-wannabe shtick.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You seem to have a lot of scorn for teachers, and I feel sorry for you that you have this mentality.

Well go ahead & pity me too.

I really can't think of a group -- collectively -- that I trust less. I find politicians,doctors and even lawyers overall to be more trustworthy and less inclined toward self-interest. And there is absolutely positively no group on the planet I trust to self-regulate/self-monitor less. And that's before we even get to capabilities or competence concerns.

Fair to note that living in Georgia my entire life has most definitely influenced my opinion on the subject.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

Well using the term "Democrat Party" is generally an insult. It's often pushed by people like Rush Limbaugh.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Well using the term "Democrat Party" is generally an insult. It's often pushed by people like Rush Limbaugh.

This. It has been generally seen as deliberately mis-saying the name of the party. IIRC, Rush also tends to pronounce it as "democ-RAT Party".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Okay, I totally admit I only clicked on this thread page. So I might be completely missing things. But did Sack really throw a hissy fit over Democrat versus Democratic?

It isn't that big of a deal, but his repeated misuse shows that he's being deliberately asshatish. Calling that out is sort of the broken windows theory of board behavior.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Izulde

You seem to have a lot of scorn for teachers, and I feel sorry for you that you have this mentality.

Not at all. I just think the state should get the best value they can for their services. And people trying to portray anyone who doesn't want to pay over market value for a service as having scorn for that profession is doing so for political motives.

[Dutch]

To be fair...to myself, I guess...Ive never used the term Democrat as an insult until I got flamed for it. Didn't realize it was, honestly. But yeah, I switched to Democratic to follow a request from SA (I think) and apparently I used it wrong. I really don't give a shit, after all there are more serious insults slung around that don't get that much attention.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

To be fair...to myself, I guess...Ive never used the term Democrat as an insult until I got flamed for it. Didn't realize it was, honestly. But yeah, I switched to Democratic to follow a request from SA (I think) and apparently I used it wrong. I really don't give a shit, after all there are more serious insults slung around that don't get that much attention.

See what happens when you don't just stick with Demoncrat?

[Chief Rum]

Hmm, it seems clear from the Dems on the board that that is an insult. It just seems like a silly one to me.

But then I don't listen to asshats like Limbaugh, as I am a fiscal/Libertarian Republican with leftish social views. And I avoid political radio or TV in all forms if I can help it.

I actually can't recall a time when Dems weren't called Democrats, and that it wasn't perfectly acceptable. I thought that was just a nod to how awkward and weird "Democratic" sounds when you say it.

[JPhillips]

Democrats = correct

Democratic Party = correct

Democrat Party = asshatish

Democratics = asshatish

edit: It really isn't a big deal, but like being called John after repeatedly requesting Jonathan, it's just asshatish.

[molson]

I'm sure the people offended by all that would never insult Republicans as a group.

[NobodyHere]

"Democrats" by itself is fine. But "Democrat Party" is the insult being push by right wing media.

ETA: Or what JPhillips said

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

"Democrats" by itself is fine. But "Democrat Party" is the insult being push by right wing media.

ETA: Or what JPhillips said

Okay, thanks.

It's all weird to me. If left leaning commentators started exclusively dropping the "an" in Republican or something like that ("Republic Party") as some sort of an insult, I would seriously shrug my shoulders at their idiocy and move on. Life's too short to get upset about crap like that.