Alberta 2017 Budget

[Buster]

Originally posted by zhao
Well, I can agree with most of that.

Yes, if you are looking at just the math, quick and dirty corrections have ended depressions quickly. In a big depression leave it be economics is now currently the popular opinion. My example of what happened during the great depression and after ww2 is game, set, and match on proof of laissez-faire economics working.

I'm not disagreeing that your ideology gets results, but I do not like dealing in absolutes. If all your solutions involve a round peg, occasionally you'll be dealt a problem with a square hole and it wont work. (I personally think this recession is a bit of a square hole)

Just because there is a recession caused by someone manipulating the price of oil to kill off competition/ regain market share, doesn't mean there is anymore fat that needs to be cut out of the economy than there normally is. You also need to insulate certain sectors because they take too long to rebuild your skilled workforce/companies/infrastructure in them. You don't need to prop up Joe's oil service company, but you don't close down the university of Calgary because you need to trim some fat and it is running at a loss. You prop that thing up because you need it in the long term.

Even if you do not agree with increasing government projects to flatten the dip in the economy, most people would probably agree when prices are low, that's when it makes the most sense to buy. What a great time to buy, provided we dont turn into detroit v2.0.

There is also an argument for stability vs instability. Huge quick corrections sure cause a lot of instability. While government spending can drag things out, it avoids the economy hitting extreme lows, and makes things more stable. Stability is good for an economy in the long term; its good for future investment, its good for a lot of things.

I think I would agree with you more if it actually worked. The problem is this government "cushion" you speak of - it doesn't work. It's a very ineffective use of the resources in an economy. It's simply one of those things where your theory doesn't translate into practice. Part of the reason is that the government does not generally participate effectively in price discovery - especially for labour, and also for capital. The rest of the economy can react effectively to an increase in the supply of labour (ie recessionary unemployment) by hiring people cheaper and normalizing ROI to some degree. This is why we can make money on oil at $50 or whatever - paycuts.

But the government literally has zero mechanism to take advantage of cheap labour for the things that matter (ie permanent employees). the outcome of government services is not only government waste, but the stickiness of past waste in addition to the increased RATE of waste. Do you see what happens when we suggest pay cuts for nurses or teachers?

[zhao]

yes, the government does terribly with pay corrections, especially with the union workers. "Underpaid" teachers (making up to 93k a year now in a job that you can't get fired for laziness or incompetence) bitching they aren't getting a pay increase in a recession when they should be happy they aren't getting their wage slashed like everyone else. How often have we seen that.

I wasn't talking about renegotiating permanent employees either; that is a pipe dream that is not going to happen even under a conservative government.

anyway, I thank you for your posts, it's been interesting to see another view. I'd say it shifted my view slightly.

[Escape]

teachers make 93k now?
wow

i thought they would be around 50k

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Escape
teachers make 93k now?
wow

i thought they would be around 50k

That's what undereducated oils and gas employees should make, not teachers with educations, 2 University degrees, responsible for educating our Children.

[Buster]

Originally posted by Escape
teachers make 93k now?
wow

i thought they would be around 50k

I did the calculation once. I think when you normalize their compensation for the summer without teaching...then it comes out to $115k or something for the top pay scale.

But people focus too much on what people "should" make. Or what they "deserve". People make what they can manage, based on their negotiating leverage. If you have lots of leverage, then you can earn more. If you have little leverage, you earn less.

Teachers have lots of leverage: Their counter-party (the gov't) has no incentive to drive down wages as they have no real risk of insolvency. Teachers are allowed (encouraged?) to do significant social damage in the form of work actions, strikes, etc. They have essentially a monopoly on our childrens' education which is always going to be a massive gun to our heads.

The government should, as a the monopoly employer, be able to flex its muscles to drive down costs, but that doesnt happen and probably can't happen. If we want to have universal access to health care and education through the government, we must acknowledge that we will NEVER get proper price discovery of wages. They will always be inflated. It's almost a mathematical certainty.

[vengie]

Originally posted by Escape
teachers make 93k now?
wow

i thought they would be around 50k

Senior teachers will yes (9-10 years experience).
My girlfriend, being a 4th year is currently being paid $71k. I wouldn't personally do it, especially with all the shit she has to put up with. Teachers are still grossly underpaid.

[Buster]

Originally posted by vengie


Senior teachers will yes (9-10 years experience).
My girlfriend, being a 4th year is currently being paid $71k. I wouldn't personally do it, especially with all the shit she has to put up with. Teachers are still grossly underpaid.

Here's the thing. If we could magic the government into giving me a rebate on my taxes which get directed to the public education system, I would take those savings, and top up the pay of your GF a lot more than that to teach my kids. If she's good.

the public system holds the good teachers back both in opportunity, quality of the work they can produce and certainly in compensation.

[vengie]

Originally posted by Buster


Here's the thing. If we could magic the government into giving me a rebate on my taxes which get directed to the public education system, I would take those savings, and top up the pay of your GF a lot more than that to teach my kids. If she's good.

the public system holds the good teachers back both in opportunity, quality of the work they can produce and certainly in compensation.

I agree 100%.

[Gestalt]

That doesn't even make any​ sense. Give me taxes back, and I'll adopt a teacher? Wtf?

[Darkane]

Teachers also pay A LOT into their pensions. I believe it's about 13%.

Teachers earn what they make, like any industry there are people who don't give a shit. Contrary to popular belief, there are doctors who graduated with D's. Still trust them? Lol

[zhao]

Originally posted by vengie


Senior teachers will yes (9-10 years experience).
My girlfriend, being a 4th year is currently being paid $71k. I wouldn't personally do it, especially with all the shit she has to put up with. Teachers are still grossly underpaid.

Just checked the current teacher contract in Edmonton, and it's 101k top tier with 10 years expeirence, 97k if you just have the 5 year do a bachelors and take a year of education 'duo degree'. Grossly underpaid my ass.

most every decent job has shit to put up with. at least teachers have a stable income and a stable job, with guaranteed raises for the first 10 years and are very likely to have raises that keep pace with inflation after that.

I'm not seeing any evidence teachers are underpaid around here. Take my job: I have to deal with hiring, dealing with people's fuck ups and putting out the fires they cause, keeping employees happy, keeping insurance companies happy, keeping customers happy, handle billing, all the while trying to drive enough sales to keep the business profitable.

If I do not do my job well I get fired or the company goes under. I also get to deal with the ups and downs of the economy, which translated into I took a pay cut (about 20k) when the recession caught up with us, and now make less than a teacher my age.

I dont get 3 months of holiday in the most desirable times to take holidays. If i'm sick no one does my job for me. I dont get days off for professional development, I cram that in in my own time.

Teachers deal with none of that...

And we've all seen what teachers deal with, because we've all went to school. There was definitely teachers that had it together and everyone respected them, and then there are the ones who were clueless; ones where kids made their lives a living nightmare. If you think 100k to do that job is underpaid, try another office job and see what kind of responsibility it takes to earn 100k.


Teachers show up, deal with 25-30 kids in a class that they baby sit for 6 hours a day, then get to deal with crazy parents. That job is only 'grossly underpaid' if you are in over your head IMO. Or you have some really fucked up sense of entitlement, like people who drive truck on some site making 200k a year and think they are underpaid if they make a dime less than that.

Teachers make 25k less in BC, which has a similar cost of living, and a far higher cost of housing, so no teacher in alberta gets to cry about how underpaid they are IMO. boohoo about paying into a pension too. you get that money back when you retire. I have to pay into a pension also, its called my own damn retirenment fund.

[J-hop]

Please post evidence that high school teachers make 100k. I don't even think most professors make that.....

Also shouldn't we make teaching careers desirable to attract high calibre people?

[Gart]

Originally posted by J-hop
Please post evidence ....<snip>

Here's Edmonton's
some $100k positions within.

easy to find link

edit:

Originally posted by J-hop
I don't even think most professors make that.....

I know you said most professors, but it turns out that all the ones that make $125k must be disclosed (apparently).. cbc link

(news to me, I just found it interesting).

[Buster]

Originally posted by zhao


Just checked the current teacher contract in Edmonton, and it's 101k top tier with 10 years expeirence, 97k if you just have the 5 year do a bachelors and take a year of education 'duo degree'. Grossly underpaid my ass.

most every decent job has shit to put up with. at least teachers have a stable income and a stable job, with guaranteed raises for the first 10 years and are very likely to have raises that keep pace with inflation after that.

I'm not seeing any evidence teachers are underpaid around here. Take my job: I have to deal with hiring, dealing with people's fuck ups and putting out the fires they cause, keeping employees happy, keeping insurance companies happy, keeping customers happy, handle billing, all the while trying to drive enough sales to keep the business profitable.

If I do not do my job well I get fired or the company goes under. I also get to deal with the ups and downs of the economy, which translated into I took a pay cut (about 20k) when the recession caught up with us, and now make less than a teacher my age.

I dont get 3 months of holiday in the most desirable times to take holidays. If i'm sick no one does my job for me. I dont get days off for professional development, I cram that in in my own time.

Teachers deal with none of that...

And we've all seen what teachers deal with, because we've all went to school. There was definitely teachers that had it together and everyone respected them, and then there are the ones who were clueless; ones where kids made their lives a living nightmare. If you think 100k to do that job is underpaid, try another office job and see what kind of responsibility it takes to earn 100k.


Teachers show up, deal with 25-30 kids in a class that they baby sit for 6 hours a day, then get to deal with crazy parents. That job is only 'grossly underpaid' if you are in over your head IMO. Or you have some really fucked up sense of entitlement, like people who drive truck on some site making 200k a year and think they are underpaid if they make a dime less than that.

Teachers make 25k less in BC, which has a similar cost of living, and a far higher cost of housing, so no teacher in alberta gets to cry about how underpaid they are IMO. boohoo about paying into a pension too. you get that money back when you retire. I have to pay into a pension also, its called my own damn retirenment fund.

I'm pretty sure that when teachers complain it's just union-shop conditioning that makes them think they have it hard.

Teaching is an EXCELLENT job. Especially today. Especially in Alberta.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Gart


Here's Edmonton's
some $100k positions within.

easy to find link

edit:



I know you said most professors, but it turns out that all the ones that make $125k must be disclosed (apparently).. cbc link

(news to me, I just found it interesting).

Thanks for the links. What happens after 10 years I wonder? A career with a top out around 100k probably isn't enticing to most.

[dirtsniffer]

Are you kidding? Forgetting about the 3 months of paid vacatin. 100k is a good living.

[ExtraSlow]

Teaching school isn't easy, but don't act like 100k with awesome benefits, vacation and pension is an unattractive package.

[zhao]

Originally posted by J-hop



Thanks for the links. What happens after 10 years I wonder? A career with a top out around 100k probably isn't enticing to most.

Come on, talk about out of touch with reality. That's far above the average income.

-100k a year household income puts you in the top 10% in Canada, with one salary (top 15% in alberta).
-100k a year is double the average wage (49k) in Canada.
-100k is 4 times the median individual income (27k) in Canada.
-100k a year classifies you as upper middle class... on a single income.
- The average teacher salary is more than the average engineer makes.

Two teachers, provided they have the required down payment, shouldn't have trouble getting approved for a 1.5+ million dollar house.

With an average house, assuming their household expenses are inline with my wife and I's, those same two teachers could afford to finance a new Ferarri every 5 years and light it on fire as soon as it's paid off.

It pays very well, even by Alberta standards.

That is not even factoring in the vacation time teachers get... plus 'teacher' is entry level to the field too. You can branch into vice principal, principal, superintendent, all for pay increases. The disclosure website says there are superintendents making 400k in alberta.

[Seth1968]

Flame suit on.

Typical grade Kindergarten to grade 12 teachers are really nothing more than glorified babysitters. Society has inexplicably put them on an ivory tower.

They're way overpaid (especially with 3 months holiday), and don't need anywhere near the "schooling" they have.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by zhao


Come on, talk about out of touch with reality. That's far above the average income.

-100k a year household income puts you in the top 10% in Canada, with one salary (top 15% in alberta).
-100k a year is double the average wage (49k) in Canada.
-100k is 4 times the median individual income (27k) in Canada.
-100k a year classifies you as upper middle class... on a single income.
- The average teacher salary is more than the average engineer makes.

Two teachers, provided they have the required down payment, shouldn't have trouble getting approved for a 1.5+ million dollar house.

With an average house, assuming their household expenses are inline with my wife and I's, those same two teachers could afford to finance a new Ferarri every 5 years and light it on fire as soon as it's paid off.

It pays very well, even by Alberta standards.

That is not even factoring in the vacation time teachers get... plus 'teacher' is entry level to the field too. You can branch into vice principal, principal, superintendent, all for pay increases. The disclosure website says there are superintendents making 400k in alberta.

Sorry but 200k/ year means you could finance a Ferrari every 5 years? Now who is out to lunch. A Beat up 348 maybe....

Of course I guess it depends how how you define "afford". People these days finance cars worth over half their net income per year so I don't even know what the word afford really means anymore.....