Free market principles demand that the way to impr. education is to pay teachers more

[Avorysuds]

Good teacher educates his (or her) class very well.

Poor teacher does a shitty job of it.

Contracts require that both get pretty much the same raise.

Good teacher gets no reward for doing job better than poor teacher.

Now good teacher happens to be younger and a more recent graduate of the teaching mills. And the economy kinda blows. So in an effort to permit the local taxpayers to keep their own homes, the local gubmint allocates a smaller share of the tax revenues to the school district. Damnitall, some teachers have got to go. Nobody wants them to go, but go they must.

How does the school board determine which teachers gotta get the heave ho? Will it be based on merit? If so, the cheaper younger BETTER "good" teacher stays! Praise be to Allah, the children will be hurt less. Or will it be based on seniority? If the latter, the more expensive, older, worse educator stays and the better teacher gets the heave ho. Praise be to Allah, the unions have preserved a higher paying job at the expense of the children!

Free market "analysis" doesn't work in a non-free non-market.

Remember, public service union teachers in Wisconsin say "Fuck you!" to the children!

Most states have tenure laws. Once a teacher makes it through the first few years they will have tenure. Tenured teachers can be fired for a number of reasons, but it's rare. Most districts will rid themselves or teachers that are bad employees in the first year or so. A tenured teacher who just can't teach, is often transfered, sometimes to a district level non-teaching position, other times to a position that no other teacher will accept in hopes of moving them on.

And when the number of moved tenured teachers builds up (like it has) what do you do to fix that problem? Well, you again start at the very ass end of that problem and create bran spankin new ones, of course with more money needed.

A freer market would dissolve a crap teach (probably) leaving an open spot for a good teacher. But again, for a more liberal minded person the WI issue has absolutely nothing to do with quality of education for students... It's about buying votes from Union, shocking how the party than benefits from the corruption is the party so upset with ending that corruption.

 

[rdean]

Voting for the school board is like voting for president. The guy that seemed like a good choice gets power hungry. In a community, teachers are outnumbered in relation to the population of the community. The majority of voting taxpayers (at least in our area) tend to vote for board members who are going to appease the parents of the school. The teachers tend to want to vote for the board member who is going to do things right for the school and back up the teachers....however, they tend to get out voted.

My school contract I signed when I became a teacher pretty much said, (paraphrasing) "You are an educator with said district and we can make you teach any subject and make you do any job we wish." Administrations are figuring out how to write contracts to best support them and not the teacher.

Let's not forget Superintendents. From what I've seen in the last few years, Superintendents have gotten it figured out. They are staying at a school for a couple of years, pissing everyone off, then being "run off" by the community. HOWEVER, they leave before their contract is up and usually negotiate two to three more years of Salary from the schoo. The next year they get a job at another school and pull the same crap. Our former superintendent was run off from a previous school (our board was retarded to hire her). She was working for us and still getting full salary from the previous school. She was here a couple of years and got run off from our district. She got 2 more years of salary. So, now she's working at another school and now getting 3 salaries from three different schools. I have talked to people in other districts and their having the same problem.

Anyway, that's my rant.

School board positions are entry level positions in the world of political office. I would say half those who run have little interest in the schools. It's just a place to start their political career.

I understand that Obama was Chairman of a Chicago Elementary School's PTA from 2002-2003.

Plus he was on one of the Boards of the multi million dollar conservative right wing Annenberg Foundation. He was a state Senator who authored many of the states laws and was a Senator from the state of Illinois who authored many pieces of legislation that actually became law. I guess you are able to do that when you teach the constitution for 10 years, are one of the editors of the Harvard law review and writes best selling books.

Of course, right wingers write books too. Sarah Palin "wrote" "Going Rouge by Lynn Vincent".

Most right wingers only spend time with one book. It's where they get all their knowledge about EVERYTHING. That's why their plans work out the way they do.

 

[Flopper]

There is a problem in your comparison. The restaurant owner does not have unlimited credit and can not create money. The government can. So the government can expand, limited only by Congress. This is a very powerful and useful tool if used correctly. The government can always afford to spend more than it collects in taxes but of course there is a price to pay in the form of inflation and eventually higher interest on the debt.

We will never pay off that 14 trillion dollar debt and there is no need to do so. However, deficits should be limited to national emergencies and there lies the problem. Some see the deterioration of the education system as an emergency. Some saw Iraq and Afghanistan as an emergency. Others saw the recession as an emergency. The only way to control the deficit is a balanced budget amendment.

What a steaming pile of bile. I feel dirty for just reading it.

There is little similarity between government finance and business finance. Unlike businesses, the government can create revenue by increasing taxes or fees, enjoy unlimited credit, and can create money to pay off debt. Business can finance from revenue, debt, or by selling equity. Government is limited to revenue or debt. Businesses may payoff debt for various reasons but government rarely reduces it's debt not even when it runs a surplus.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you have a shortage of people filling a given job field....
If you have too many people in the field performing at sub par....
If you cannot attract better skilled and qualified people....
The free market approach is to offer more highly skilled people a better salary than they will find elsewhere

One of the many problems with this theory is that more pay =/= better teachers and better teachers =/= better student education. Both are possible. but neither is necessary.

So why do so many conservatives so often complain about teachers being paid too much?

Strawman, anyone?

 

[BrianH]

If you have a shortage of people filling a given job field....

If you have too many people in the field performing at sub par....

If you cannot attract better skilled and qualified people....

The free market approach is to offer more highly skilled people a better salary than they will find elsewhere, so that they will want to do the job you are asking them. So why do so many conservatives so often complain about teachers being paid too much?

I think the bigger question here is why Democrats like to add thousands of government jobs when we already have a debt. It doesn't take an idiot to do the math. When a restaurant owner can't afford to pay more waitresses, he doesn't hire them. The government should not create more government jobs when there is no way to pay them....ESPCIALLY since we have a 14 trillion dollar debt.

There is a problem in your comparison. The restaurant owner does not have unlimited credit and can not create money. The government can. So the government can expand, limited only by Congress. This is a very powerful and useful tool if used correctly. The government can always afford to spend more than it collects in taxes but of course there is a price to pay in the form of inflation and eventually higher interest on the debt.

We will never pay off that 14 trillion dollar debt and there is no need to do so. However, deficits should be limited to national emergencies and there lies the problem. Some see the deterioration of the education system as an emergency. Some saw Iraq and Afghanistan as an emergency. Others saw the recession as an emergency. The only way to control the deficit is a balanced budget amendment.

And the leads to my second beef with hiring government workers. The government can print out money, but what happens when they do? Our dollar devalues and becomes worth less and less.

 

[Flopper]

I think the bigger question here is why Democrats like to add thousands of government jobs when we already have a debt. It doesn't take an idiot to do the math. When a restaurant owner can't afford to pay more waitresses, he doesn't hire them. The government should not create more government jobs when there is no way to pay them....ESPCIALLY since we have a 14 trillion dollar debt.

There is a problem in your comparison. The restaurant owner does not have unlimited credit and can not create money. The government can. So the government can expand, limited only by Congress. This is a very powerful and useful tool if used correctly. The government can always afford to spend more than it collects in taxes but of course there is a price to pay in the form of inflation and eventually higher interest on the debt.

We will never pay off that 14 trillion dollar debt and there is no need to do so. However, deficits should be limited to national emergencies and there lies the problem. Some see the deterioration of the education system as an emergency. Some saw Iraq and Afghanistan as an emergency. Others saw the recession as an emergency. The only way to control the deficit is a balanced budget amendment.

And the leads to my second beef with hiring government workers. The government can print out money, but what happens when they do? Our dollar devalues and becomes worth less and less.

You would expect that civilian federal government employment would be on a steady uptrend as government spending has increased over the years, but that does not seem to be the case. Check out the link below from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. It show the total civilian federal employment by year. It reached a peak in the late 1980's and early 1990's of around 3 million. Since then it has varied from about 2.9 to 2.6 million with no real trend. In 2009 it was 2.7 million.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

There are two ways to look at the value of the US dollar, the value relative to other currencies and the buying power of the dollar. Although increases in the money supply can certainly put pressure on the dollar in world market and can lead to inflation hear at home, there is no direct correlation. There are a lot of other factors that come into play.

Back in 2009 when the administration laid out it's game plan for dealing with the recession, economists were commenting on the tightrope the administration was walking. The massive stimulation and resulting increase in the money supply had to pull the country out of recession before inflation hit. So far so go. Inflation in Jan 2010 was 2.63%. In Jan 2011 it was 1.63%, a full 1% below a year ago. Inflation is almost sure to rise this year with increase in food prices and oil. However, this inflation is due to global issues not the money supply.

Current Inflation

 

[BrianH]

There is a problem in your comparison. The restaurant owner does not have unlimited credit and can not create money. The government can. So the government can expand, limited only by Congress. This is a very powerful and useful tool if used correctly. The government can always afford to spend more than it collects in taxes but of course there is a price to pay in the form of inflation and eventually higher interest on the debt.

We will never pay off that 14 trillion dollar debt and there is no need to do so. However, deficits should be limited to national emergencies and there lies the problem. Some see the deterioration of the education system as an emergency. Some saw Iraq and Afghanistan as an emergency. Others saw the recession as an emergency. The only way to control the deficit is a balanced budget amendment.

And the leads to my second beef with hiring government workers. The government can print out money, but what happens when they do? Our dollar devalues and becomes worth less and less.

You would expect that civilian federal government employment would be on a steady uptrend as government spending has increased over the years, but that does not seem to be the case. Check out the link below from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. It show the total civilian federal employment by year. It reached a peak in the late 1980's and early 1990's of around 3 million. Since then it has varied from about 2.9 to 2.6 million with no real trend. In 2009 it was 2.7 million.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

There are two ways to look at the value of the US dollar, the value relative to other currencies and the buying power of the dollar. Although increases in the money supply can certainly put pressure on the dollar in world market and can lead to inflation hear at home, there is no direct correlation. There are a lot of other factors that come into play.

Back in 2009 when the administration laid out it's game plan for dealing with the recession, economists were commenting on the tightrope the administration was walking. The massive stimulation and resulting increase in the money supply had to pull the country out of recession before inflation hit. So far so go. Inflation in Jan 2010 was 2.63%. In Jan 2011 it was 1.63%, a full 1% below a year ago. Inflation is almost sure to rise this year with increase in food prices and oil. However, this inflation is due to global issues not the money supply.

Current Inflation

The problem is that the only way you can afford to print more money, is if your GDP increases. If you print more money, but have that money to spend on the same amount of goods and products, then the money is worth less. The inflation we're seeing now also can devalue the dollar, considering that the dollar will buy less and less because product prices rise.

you are right that there are many factors to include

 

[shintao]

If you have a shortage of people filling a given job field....

If you have too many people in the field performing at sub par....

If you cannot attract better skilled and qualified people....

The free market approach is to offer more highly skilled people a better salary than they will find elsewhere, so that they will want to do the job you are asking them. So why do so many conservatives so often complain about teachers being paid too much?

How do you account for the present dismal situation regarding the nations status in education? Teachers aren't paupers are they?

Geeze dude, a basket ball player makes more than a teacher. Where you been?

 

[shintao]

And the leads to my second beef with hiring government workers. The government can print out money, but what happens when they do? Our dollar devalues and becomes worth less and less.

You would expect that civilian federal government employment would be on a steady uptrend as government spending has increased over the years, but that does not seem to be the case. Check out the link below from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. It show the total civilian federal employment by year. It reached a peak in the late 1980's and early 1990's of around 3 million. Since then it has varied from about 2.9 to 2.6 million with no real trend. In 2009 it was 2.7 million.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

There are two ways to look at the value of the US dollar, the value relative to other currencies and the buying power of the dollar. Although increases in the money supply can certainly put pressure on the dollar in world market and can lead to inflation hear at home, there is no direct correlation. There are a lot of other factors that come into play.

Back in 2009 when the administration laid out it's game plan for dealing with the recession, economists were commenting on the tightrope the administration was walking. The massive stimulation and resulting increase in the money supply had to pull the country out of recession before inflation hit. So far so go. Inflation in Jan 2010 was 2.63%. In Jan 2011 it was 1.63%, a full 1% below a year ago. Inflation is almost sure to rise this year with increase in food prices and oil. However, this inflation is due to global issues not the money supply.

Current Inflation

The problem is that the only way you can afford to print more money, is if your GDP increases. If you print more money, but have that money to spend on the same amount of goods and products, then the money is worth less. The inflation we're seeing now also can devalue the dollar, considering that the dollar will buy less and less because product prices rise.

you are right that there are many factors to include

so is your avatar of a guy who just cut off his own arm?

 

[BrianH]

You would expect that civilian federal government employment would be on a steady uptrend as government spending has increased over the years, but that does not seem to be the case. Check out the link below from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. It show the total civilian federal employment by year. It reached a peak in the late 1980's and early 1990's of around 3 million. Since then it has varied from about 2.9 to 2.6 million with no real trend. In 2009 it was 2.7 million.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

There are two ways to look at the value of the US dollar, the value relative to other currencies and the buying power of the dollar. Although increases in the money supply can certainly put pressure on the dollar in world market and can lead to inflation hear at home, there is no direct correlation. There are a lot of other factors that come into play.

Back in 2009 when the administration laid out it's game plan for dealing with the recession, economists were commenting on the tightrope the administration was walking. The massive stimulation and resulting increase in the money supply had to pull the country out of recession before inflation hit. So far so go. Inflation in Jan 2010 was 2.63%. In Jan 2011 it was 1.63%, a full 1% below a year ago. Inflation is almost sure to rise this year with increase in food prices and oil. However, this inflation is due to global issues not the money supply.

Current Inflation

The problem is that the only way you can afford to print more money, is if your GDP increases. If you print more money, but have that money to spend on the same amount of goods and products, then the money is worth less. The inflation we're seeing now also can devalue the dollar, considering that the dollar will buy less and less because product prices rise.

you are right that there are many factors to include

so is your avatar of a guy who just cut off his own arm?

lol. Pretty much. It represents Texas willingness to sacrifice anything to win their freedom. It was designed during the Texas Revolution and is the flag of Goliad, TX.

I believe that someone said "I'd cut off my right arm to wind independence." That's not an exact quote, but something similar to what someone was believed to have said.

 

[Liability]

If you have a shortage of people filling a given job field....

If you have too many people in the field performing at sub par....

If you cannot attract better skilled and qualified people....

The free market approach is to offer more highly skilled people a better salary than they will find elsewhere, so that they will want to do the job you are asking them. So why do so many conservatives so often complain about teachers being paid too much?

How do you account for the present dismal situation regarding the nations status in education? Teachers aren't paupers are they?

Geeze dude, a basket ball player makes more than a teacher. Where you been?

That has ALWAYS been a bogus and rather stupid "argument."

There are like 4 million teachers in the USA.

There are fewer than 500 professional (NBA) hoop players in America.

If we paid our teachers the same as we pay the NBA players (minimum pay), which is approximately $450,000.00 in the first year, then the PAY for US teachers, alone would be: $1,800,000,000,000.00.

Maybe we could get the President to commit to that in the next stimulus bill. He wraps his mind around those kind of numbers at our collective expense! (Personally, much as I believe teachers deserve better pay, as a rule, I kinda also sorta think that we can't quite afford to pay $1.8 TRILLION per year on salary alone for teachers alone. Call me Scrooge.)

 

[Charles_Main]

Free market principles say paying teachers according to their performance is the way to improve Education. Not giving Teachers Tenure and paying them all the same despite their performances. Do a good job get paid more. That my friend is the way of the free market. There is no Free Market rule that says simply paying people more will make them do a better job, in fact the exact opposite is the case. If you do not do a good job the Free market says you deserve less than the good teachers.

So you're suggesting that the free market only can operate when pay is handed out on a commission basis?

Who said anything about commission Bud. Were talking merit pay. Raises based on how well you teach, not some union negotiated schedule that demands you get your raises regardless of how well or poorly you do your jobs. Like I said you clearly have no idea what Free Market Principles are, and really should not be lecturing people on them.

Private schools already compete for students. Suggesting otherwise is just silly. A voucher program will not do anything to create or change that competition. All it would do is dump government funds into private business. I thought that was a no, no for the conservative bend? Isn't that how prices rise through the roof? Isn't that supposedly why health care costs so much? If private schools want more students then they should adjust their tuition rates lower to attract more students. That's the free market way.

The point of Vouchers is to make Public schools compete for students with Private ones. It is to give access to the poor to Private schools instead of forcing them to send their kids to under performing Public Schools. Again you demonstrate Blatant Ignorance.

You no Nothing of the Free market it seems.

It seems to me that you have a specifically tailored notion of how you want free markets to work, regardless of whether or not it does happen that way.

It seems you have no clear idea how the Free Market works at all. If you can not understand that Pay Schedules that ignore Teacher Performance, and Tenure that allows under performing teachers to continue to work, and be paid just as well as the Over achieving Teachers is completely anti Free market then I can think of no further proof needed that you have no Idea was Free market even means.

You started this thread by implying that the Free market dictates higher pay means better workers. There is no such free market law. The Truth is if a worker is good, they get higher pay, because they are better workers. You do not make better workers by giving out higher pay and ignoring performance. You get better workers by rewarding good performance. You keep better workers by weeding out the under performing and firing their asses to make room for people willing to do a better job. Period.

 

[snjmom]

I don't see how anyone can deny there is a free market in education and just like in any free market, those that can't meet the price don't get the product. Public education is a basic education, not an elite education. If you want an elite education, you pay the additional premium price whether through price or opportunity cost. Exceptional poor students may apply for scholarships and unexceptional poor children simply will not be accepted. I participate in both markets, paying my local property tax, paying for private schools when I want them. I have no problems with the level of education my children have received at both public and private schools and always choose to supplement the school experience with additional instruction at home.

If your child is getting a shitty education, look no further than the mirror. As for public employee pay, if you are going to deny any union, you must deny all.

Really, how many are demanding their seat at the table to negotiate military pay? Going after the teachers and the intellectuals is always the first step. I wonder when the Chinese will declare victory?

 

[snjmom]

Who said anything about commission Bud. Were talking merit pay. Raises based on how well you teach, not some union negotiated schedule that demands you get your raises regardless of how well or poorly you do your jobs. Like I said you clearly have no idea what Free Market Principles are, and really should not be lecturing people on them.




The point of Vouchers is to make Public schools compete for students with Private ones. It is to give access to the poor to Private schools instead of forcing them to send their kids to under performing Public Schools. Again you demonstrate Blatant Ignorance.



It seems you have no clear idea how the Free Market works at all. If you can not understand that Pay Schedules that ignore Teacher Performance, and Tenure that allows under performing teachers to continue to work, and be paid just as well as the Over achieving Teachers is completely anti Free market then I can think of no further proof needed that you have no Idea was Free market even means.

You started this thread by implying that the Free market dictates higher pay means better workers. There is no such free market law. The Truth is if a worker is good, they get higher pay, because they are better workers. You do not make better workers by giving out higher pay and ignoring performance. You get better workers by rewarding good performance. You keep better workers by weeding out the under performing and firing their asses to make room for people willing to do a better job. Period.

Simply not true.

Tenure

Most states protect teachers in public schools from arbitrary dismissal through tenure statutes. Under these tenure statutes, once a teacher has attained tenure, his or her contract renews automatically each year. School districts may dismiss tenured teachers only by a showing of cause, after following such procedural requirements as providing notice to the teacher, specifying the charges against the teacher, and providing the teacher with a meaningful hearing. Most tenure statutes require teachers to remain employed during a probationary period for a certain number of years. Once this probationary period has ended, teachers in some states will earn tenure automatically. In other states, the local school board must take some action to grant tenure to the teacher, often at the conclusion of a review of the teacher's performance. Tenure also provides some protection for teachers against demotion, salary reductions, and other discipline. However, tenure does not guarantee that a teacher may retain a particular position, such as a coaching position, nor does it provide indefinite employment.

Dismissal for Cause

A school must show cause in order to dismiss a teacher who has attained tenure status. Some state statutes provide a list of circumstances where a school may dismiss a teacher. These circumstances are similar to those in which a state agency may revoke a teacher's certification. Some causes for dismissal include the following:

Immoral conduct
Incompetence
Neglect of duty
Substantial noncompliance with school laws
CONVICTION of a crime
Insubordination
Fraud or misrepresentation
Due Process Rights of Teachers

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, provides that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This clause applies to public school districts and provides the minimum procedural requirements that each public school district must satisfy when dismissing a teacher who has attained tenure. Note that in this context, due process does not prescribe the reasons why a teacher may be dismissed, but rather it prescribes the procedures a school must follow to dismiss a teacher. Note also that many state statutory provisions for dismissing a teacher actually exceed the minimum requirements under the Due Process Clause.

The United States Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that a tenured teacher must be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against him or her, an explanation of the EVIDENCE obtained by the employer, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.

Link


Anyone in the real world knows that the correlation between hard work and success are weak at best and that no rewards are necessary as long as you can keep the workforce terrorized by constant lay-offs and outsourcing.

 

[Flopper]

Good teacher educates his (or her) class very well.

Poor teacher does a shitty job of it.

Contracts require that both get pretty much the same raise.

Good teacher gets no reward for doing job better than poor teacher.

Now good teacher happens to be younger and a more recent graduate of the teaching mills. And the economy kinda blows. So in an effort to permit the local taxpayers to keep their own homes, the local gubmint allocates a smaller share of the tax revenues to the school district. Damnitall, some teachers have got to go. Nobody wants them to go, but go they must.

How does the school board determine which teachers gotta get the heave ho? Will it be based on merit? If so, the cheaper younger BETTER "good" teacher stays! Praise be to Allah, the children will be hurt less. Or will it be based on seniority? If the latter, the more expensive, older, worse educator stays and the better teacher gets the heave ho. Praise be to Allah, the unions have preserved a higher paying job at the expense of the children!

Free market "analysis" doesn't work in a non-free non-market.

Remember, public service union teachers in Wisconsin say "Fuck you!" to the children!

Most states have tenure laws. Once a teacher makes it through the first few years they will have tenure. Tenured teachers can be fired for a number of reasons, but it's rare. Most districts will rid themselves or teachers that are bad employees in the first year or so. A tenured teacher who just can't teach, is often transfered, sometimes to a district level non-teaching position, other times to a position that no other teacher will accept in hopes of moving them on.

And when the number of moved tenured teachers builds up (like it has) what do you do to fix that problem? Well, you again start at the very ass end of that problem and create bran spankin new ones, of course with more money needed.

A freer market would dissolve a crap teach (probably) leaving an open spot for a good teacher. But again, for a more liberal minded person the WI issue has absolutely nothing to do with quality of education for students... It's about buying votes from Union, shocking how the party than benefits from the corruption is the party so upset with ending that corruption.

Teachers are screened pretty well before they are hired. In the district that I'm familiar with, new teachers are monitored throughout the year. Teacher's that do a poor job are put on probation for another year. If they don't improve, they're fired.

The real problem is when good teachers become discouraged with the system and then just put in their time waiting to retire or find a better job.

School districts are not run like businesses and probably never will be. They typically are interfaces between the schools and the state dept. of education and they negotiate with the teacher's union. What they do not do is make changes in the classrooms that improves education. Local teacher unions take a lot of heat but they do quite a bit of good. Without pressure from the unions, there would be very few improvements in the classroom. The only demands from unions that make the news are demands for pay raises. There are really lots on the table other the pay raises.

 

[Flopper]

And the leads to my second beef with hiring government workers. The government can print out money, but what happens when they do? Our dollar devalues and becomes worth less and less.

You would expect that civilian federal government employment would be on a steady uptrend as government spending has increased over the years, but that does not seem to be the case. Check out the link below from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. It show the total civilian federal employment by year. It reached a peak in the late 1980's and early 1990's of around 3 million. Since then it has varied from about 2.9 to 2.6 million with no real trend. In 2009 it was 2.7 million.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

There are two ways to look at the value of the US dollar, the value relative to other currencies and the buying power of the dollar. Although increases in the money supply can certainly put pressure on the dollar in world market and can lead to inflation hear at home, there is no direct correlation. There are a lot of other factors that come into play.

Back in 2009 when the administration laid out it's game plan for dealing with the recession, economists were commenting on the tightrope the administration was walking. The massive stimulation and resulting increase in the money supply had to pull the country out of recession before inflation hit. So far so go. Inflation in Jan 2010 was 2.63%. In Jan 2011 it was 1.63%, a full 1% below a year ago. Inflation is almost sure to rise this year with increase in food prices and oil. However, this inflation is due to global issues not the money supply.

Current Inflation

The problem is that the only way you can afford to print more money, is if your GDP increases. If you print more money, but have that money to spend on the same amount of goods and products, then the money is worth less. The inflation we're seeing now also can devalue the dollar, considering that the dollar will buy less and less because product prices rise.

you are right that there are many factors to include

We are not seeing any real inflation. 1.63% is considered excellent by economists. Anything under 4% is considered good. The real danger is not 2, 3 or 4 percent inflation. The danger is an inflationary spiral that could occur if growth really takes off. As long as growth stays at the currently level, that's pretty unlikely. Excessive deficit financing sets the stage for an inflationary spiral once growth really starts moving. Whether that happens or not is anybody's guess.

 

[jgarden]

Strangely enought, American teachers, an occupation that is held in such low esteem in their own country, are a valued commodity in virtually every other corner in the world.

The difference is that outside of the US, parents value education and place demands on their children - in America, its the parents who demand the teachers do the parenting, but would rather complain than place any demands on themselves!

 

[Samson]

The problem is that the only way you can afford to print more money, is if your GDP increases. If you print more money, but have that money to spend on the same amount of goods and products, then the money is worth less. The inflation we're seeing now also can devalue the dollar, considering that the dollar will buy less and less because product prices rise.

you are right that there are many factors to include

so is your avatar of a guy who just cut off his own arm?

lol. Pretty much. It represents Texas willingness to sacrifice anything to win their freedom. It was designed during the Texas Revolution and is the flag of Goliad, TX.

I believe that someone said "I'd cut off my right arm to wind independence." That's not an exact quote, but something similar to what someone was believed to have said.

Ironically the Texans surrendured at Goliad.

 

[Samson]

Strangely enought, American teachers, an occupation that is held in such low esteem in their own country, are a valued commodity in virtually every other corner in the world.

The difference is that outside of the US, parents value education and place demands on their children - in America, its the parents who demand the teachers do the parenting, but would rather complain than place any demands on themselves!

So, um.....



Why don't American Teachers go to "virually every other corner of the world" to work?

And..um, why are people immigrating from virtually every corner of the world into the USA and enrolling their kids to be taught by American Teachers?

 

[bodecea]

Strangely enought, American teachers, an occupation that is held in such low esteem in their own country, are a valued commodity in virtually every other corner in the world.

The difference is that outside of the US, parents value education and place demands on their children - in America, its the parents who demand the teachers do the parenting, but would rather complain than place any demands on themselves!

So, um.....



Why don't American Teachers go to "virually every other corner of the world" to work?

And..um, why are people immigrating from virtually every corner of the world into the USA and enrolling their kids to be taught by American Teachers?

Um...Free?