When $76K Per Year + 16% Pay Raise Isn't Enough to Teach ...

[NickTheCage]

So are we to assume that for any data source you've ever cited, you did the "real research" to confirm their conclusions?

I don't post polls much around here unless they are obvious (probably didn't do much research) or I have it on hand to confirm it hasn't been manipulated and/or slightly manipulated . If I am going to analysis polling in depth or conduct them, I better get paid for it. Maybe Phillyspeaks want to hire me

[Jelly Roll]

That all depends on position, industry, what you produce, etc ...

When I left NYC my wife was clocking 60+ hrs + weekends and travel to Asia directing an extremely profitable line for a major American designer (fashion industry). She was making 100K+ plus bennies when she resigned and became mom full time (2nd child). That said; three of our good friends put in the same (maybe a few more hrs) in investment banking, strategic acquisitions, and I wouldn't cry for them financially. The closest to me out of the bunch is my closest friend outside of my wife and he clocks in @ $325K+ bennies + bonus and his corp is known for less pay but stronger job security. Your friends, should they stay in the industry and produce, are in the right industry to ca$h in as they get older and stick with it.

The OBGYN .. no clue but they just built a monster house in my development and if your entrepreneur it depends on the year you have. I have had great years with less hrs and not so great years where I seem to double my workload to make up for some employees who may not be producing, poor economic conditions as it pertains to my industries, amongst a host of other reasons.

Are we then in agreement that the people you are comparing to teachers make significantly more in income? Just based off of income you should be able to determine that these people are in no way close to the average professional. Why would you use them in a comparison to teachers?

[NickTheCage]

Are we then in agreement that the people you are comparing to teachers make significantly more in income? Just based off of income you should be able to determine that these people are in no way close to the average professional. Why would you use them in a comparison to teachers?

If you read my posts that is exactly why I asked what they classify as professionals b4 I form an opinion on the authenticity of the survey?

These are people I know and excluding the Dr., they work in NYC which is in another stratosphere; especially in the world of finance where our Uncle Ben gives them free money to play with. There are a ton of finance professionals who work at your local Schwab, Fidelity, etc, across the country that put in tons of hrs and earn $50K.

[NickTheCage]

It isn't evidence until they release who exactly was polled, what they consider professions, are some of those professions union (they usually have set hrs in their contracts), etc, etc ..

the info is available.

American Time Use Survey Home Page

I wouldn't know where to begin so can you tell me who all these professionals surveyed where?

Also, as I sayed I briefly read the poll and concentrated on the charts. I just realized this was a govt survey, right? If yes I have even more doubt on the authenticity of it.
That is akin to believing a poll for teacher support in Wisky done by Ed Shultz or one on the current support for the war on terror conducted by Sean Hannity.

[Politburo]

If you read my posts that is exactly why I asked what they classify as professionals b4 I form an opinion on the authenticity of the survey?

Not exactly.. you doubted the data from the start and later said you didn't even read the whole thing (all of 8 pages, half of which is charts). Then after learning the definition, you still doubted the data. In fact, you said "it isn't evidence" and you "don't trust it" until you could do "real research" on the data.

Wait.. you just now realized this was a government survey. Really?

[Politburo]

No, seriously, really? The whole ".gov" thing didn't clue you in?

[NickTheCage]

Not exactly.. you doubted the data from the start and later said you didn't even read the whole thing (all of 8 pages, half of which is charts). Then after learning the definition, you still doubted the data. In fact, you said "it isn't evidence" and you "don't trust it" until you could do "real research" on the data.

Wait.. you just now realized this was a government survey. Really?

I specifically explained why I doubt most polls excluding internals or ones that include proper info on who has been polled. I would also include how the questions are delivered and how in depth they are. I briefly read it and concentrated on the charts ...

You're basically parroting what I said so what I'm not sure what your point is?

[NickTheCage]

No, seriously, really? The whole ".gov" thing didn't clue you in?

Read the post and clicked the link .. this is what you want to debate?

[Politburo]

Read the post and clicked the link .. this is what you want to debate?

Well there's not much to debate. It just seems ridiculous to me that we've been discussing this for the past 6 hours, with you doubting the data, and you've only just now realized that we're talking about a government survey (again, not a poll...). And yet you claim to be all about "real research".. well, "unless it is obvious". And even better, your opinion of the data changed when you found out (for the 2nd time) who conducted it.

What post are you talking about reading, anyway? I told you 4 hours ago that the research was conducted by the Census.. this is a joke.

[NickTheCage]

Well there's not much to debate. It just seems ridiculous to me that we've been discussing this for the past 6 hours, with you doubting the data, and you've only just now realized that we're talking about a government survey (again, not a poll...). And yet you claim to be all about "real research".. well, "unless it is obvious". And even better, your opinion of the data changed when you found out (for the 2nd time) who conducted it.

What post are you talking about reading, anyway? I told you 4 hours ago that the research was conducted by the Census.. this is a joke.

No idea when you told me abt census and I never mentioned it
I am discussing the link in post #35 which I read and just clicked the link
My opinion didnt really change re: a gov survey as I have clearly explained why you shouldn't blindly trust polls w/out knowing who and what is behind them

But yeah, I get it. I clicked a link which i do all week @ work and at home, and didn't notice the .gov in the middle of it
Pretty pathetic if you ask me .... but keep pissing in the wind my friend

[JoeBaker]

Why should the POTUS take a position on a local issue?

It was a political ploy during a campaign and nothing more. Romney/Ryan stand with the family. Obama stands with the unions.

It's like the Johnson campaign. It's nothing more than a ploy. The guy can't win. He has 0 chance of winning. Maybe he's running because he has a personal beef with Romney. Maybe he's running because even though he got his clock cleaned in the primary he just wants to see his name on the ballot. Maybe he's running to bankrupt the Libertarian party. He can't be seriously running to win because he can't. He has to have some other motive. A ploy, that is, for personal gain.

[NickTheCage]

It was a political ploy during a campaign and nothing more. Romney/Ryan stand with the family. Obama stands with the unions.

It's like the Johnson campaign. It's nothing more than a ploy. The guy can't win. He has 0 chance of winning. Maybe he's running because he has a personal beef with Romney. Maybe he's running because even though he got his clock cleaned in the primary he just wants to see his name on the ballot. Maybe he's running to bankrupt the Libertarian party. He can't be seriously running to win because he can't. He has to have some other motive. A ploy, that is, for personal gain.

Do you get all you talking points from the RNC, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell?

[raider.adam]

It was a political ploy during a campaign and nothing more. Romney/Ryan stand with the family. Obama stands with the unions.

It's like the Johnson campaign. It's nothing more than a ploy. The guy can't win. He has 0 chance of winning. Maybe he's running because he has a personal beef with Romney. Maybe he's running because even though he got his clock cleaned in the primary he just wants to see his name on the ballot. Maybe he's running to bankrupt the Libertarian party. He can't be seriously running to win because he can't. He has to have some other motive. A ploy, that is, for personal gain.

Or maybe he is running because he actually believes in real solutions and wants to force the discussion.

[JoeBaker]

Do you get all you talking points from the RNC, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell?

Come on man. I only expect that type of reply from Democrats.

Or maybe he is running because he actually believes in real solutions and wants to force the discussion.

I have no problem with that but you don't do it by handing Obama a second term. All politics is local and what not. Maybe the Libertarian party should focus on local elections, build from that. I don't know exactly how long they've been around but they've never been nothing more than a fringe outfit. Have they ever asked themselves why?

And if the real solutions are smaller government, less spending and lower taxes that maybe you should read Romney's position on those issues.

[raider.adam]

Come on man. I only expect that type of reply from Democrats.

I have no problem with that but you don't do it by handing Obama a second term. All politics is local and what not. Maybe the Libertarian party should focus on local elections, build from that. I don't know exactly how long they've been around but they've never been nothing more than a fringe outfit. Have they ever asked themselves why?

And if the real solutions are smaller government, less spending and lower taxes that maybe you should read Romney's position on those issues.

Do you think the Libertarians see much difference if Obama or Romney is in the White House?

For starters, Romney has come out for increased defense spending. To summarize, Gary Johnson says he will be better on civil liberties than Obama and better on the fiscal issues than Romney.

As for party politics, due to a variety of ballot access laws, it is important for them to have a top of the ticket that can break over 5% in a bunch of states.


He and the Libertartian Party are running because they think both candidates are wrong on the issues.

[JoeBaker]

He and the Libertartian Party are running because they think both candidates are wrong on the issues.

What issues?

[NickTheCage]

Come on man. I only expect that type of reply from Democrats.

I lulz'd

I have no problem with that but you don't do it by handing Obama a second term. All politics is local and what not. Maybe the Libertarian party should focus on local elections, build from that. I don't know exactly how long they've been around but they've never been nothing more than a fringe outfit. Have they ever asked themselves why?

And if the real solutions are smaller government, less spending and lower taxes that maybe you should read Romney's position on those issues.

Laff, laff, laff @ reading Romney's positions on the issues.

The only one handing over a 2nd term to the Bamster is Mitt and his campaign. They are running one of the WOAT (in my lifetime) campaigns. There is a treasure chest of things to attack but his campaign is waiting, for what i don't know. Not running many ads or doing much of anything traditional campaigns usually do instead spending his cash trying to keep GJ (VGoode in VA) off the ballet. And where is the RNC? Silent except youtube and internetz add LOL. Mitts team is not even running a national campaign, just a nine state one from Boston. The blew thru 120M in August ... on what? Have you ever seen a more pathetic campaign? No
F'en losers and I will lmao when the Bamster crushes him in Nov. Amateur hour and playing footsies witht he likes of Axelrod is a joke and isn't gonna cut it. I could've had Mitt up by 4/5 pts right now



Per GJ .. he pulls from Obama as much as he does from Romney. Many disaffected 30yrs < voters look like they may defect to Johnson, a large portion which were BamBam voters in 08. Voters from the liberty movement and many Paulistas will go Mitt, GJ, or stay home. Most numbers show that Johnson might not be a factor at all as it will even out the pull, or might even help Romney in some areas. It really isn't exactly clear how that is going to play out but you are very wrong in thinking that GJ only 'hurts' Mittens.