How come bottomfine1 is not back defending his finding that started this post? Could he sustain it across the board or is the use of a single case as a blanket fact the only way the right wingers know how to convince people that for example teachers are whiners and deserve pay cuts rather than the lavish stuff they enjoy?
I'd not run from a debate about what I posted; unfortunately my DSL access kept me off line for a couple of days when I was installing a new system.
I merely posted a summary of a Rocky Mtn News article that included retirement with salary to give a better picture of teacher income
in one, just one district in Colorado. Denver Public Schools are below or way below pay schedule compared to other districts. And since their retirement system is so screwed up (read too much unpaid liability), they are not being allowed to join the state system that covers almost all public employees.
To solve their retention problem,they will likely spread the pension contribution to the front of the career and reduce it on the back end which should give both newcomers and oldtimers incentive to stay.
Note the story didn't include health benefits which are sizable.
My (non-partisan) agenda is that when we hear teachers complain about their pay we never hear about the lavish benefits which are the envy of the private sector.
Wouldn't you like to retire at age 55 and draw down over the next thirty years, more money than you made in salary in the previous 30 years? You can in the Denver system--until it runs out of staff or goes broke.