^ LOL! That is a false analogy--you have to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers on this board. For the last time, this was and is the point:

Quote :

"Education administrators are some of the highest paid employees in the nation."

And since none of you can prove me wrong, I now invite you to piss off.

And to Pupils DiL8t. . .

As economy suffers, bureaucratic ranks growing at UNC
University leaders, lawmakers say tough times should bring cuts in bureaucracy.
Aug. 17, 2009

Quote :

"Their numbers have nearly doubled, from 10 to 19, and the money paid to them has more than tripled, to a total of nearly $4 million a year."

Quote :

"The number of people with provost or chancellor in their titles alone has increased by 34 percent the past five years, from 312 in 2004 to 418 last year. The cost was $61.1 million, up $25 million from five years before."

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/topstories/story/892138.html

. . .when will the hundreds of millions of dollars in education administrators' salaries in the UNC system alone begin to add up to real money to you?

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 9:11 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 9:10:12 AM

Quote :

"Are you stupid or something? This comparison is the very point"

ok
but its an obvious comparison. Of course an education administrator makes more money than the average american worker, because they have more education!

Although I doubt you will come out and say it you are trying to argue that administrators are overpaid and congress should be investigating them too. They may very well be overpaid, but you would need to compare their salaries to people with a similar education.


this thread should have ended on page 1 (actually like 30 posts into page 1)

8/26/2009 9:16:03 AM

^ Um. . .it's Erskine Bowles (among others) who is saying--now that the shit has hit the fan--that administrators' salaries are too generous and there is too little accountability and lack of definition for the positions at issue.

FYI:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2009/08/12/5783064/bowles.swf

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 9:25 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 9:24:42 AM

Quote :

""Education administrators are some of the highest paid employees in the nation.""

which begs the question, why is this the point? What does this have to do at all with the OP or the thread in general?

Yes, administrators are in the top quartile or even top 10% of earners. So what? So are engineers, doctors, lawyers, managers, professors, bankers, investors and scores of other jobs. And......?

Sure, only 10% make over 80k/year or so. But what happens when you start breaking down the incomes of people over 80 or $100k? You wind up with the vast majority being in the $100-500k (for managers, Drs, lawyers, university admins, etc), then a much smaller group in the $500k-low millions (some Drs and laywers, some bankers, investors), then you have a tiny, tiny group of people making 10's or 100s of millions, comprised of CEOs, crazy investor-types and entertainers.

Just because all these people can be grouped in the "top 10% of earners" doesn't mean they are anything alike.

8/26/2009 10:02:56 AM

^

Quote :

"So what? So are engineers, doctors, lawyers, managers, professors, bankers, investors and scores of other jobs."

How many of these job classifications work for organizations that receive federal money? I mean, I ask because the receipt of federal money seems to be the rationale of many here and elsewhere for government involvement in setting/reducing/recouping/eliminating private compensation.

My main point is that the Democrats are going after the stereotypical greedy Monopoly Man corporate type--and completely ignoring other areas that could just as easily be "reformed" but won't be because they are part of the liberal base. Tort reform would be another good example of an area that's being ignored by Democrats in the health-care reform debate. Why? Answer: The trial lawyers are a key constituency for Democrats, of course.

And. . .

Quote :

"then you have a tiny, tiny group of people making 10's or 100s of millions, comprised of CEOs, crazy investor-types and entertainers."

. . .great point. So why are the Democrats so focused on the compensation of this "tiny, tiny group"?

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 10:17:52 AM

1) education administrators are paid mostly from state funds, not federal
2) like tort reform, whatever bullshit you're spewing about cutting admins salaries would make a much less of an actual difference than what you're projecting. It's like the whole bullshit earmarks campaign McPalin was on last year - yeah, sure, let's get earmark reform. But my god, gain some persecutive and lets focus on things that can actually make a real difference

Quote :

". . .great point. So why are the Democrats so focused on the compensation of this "tiny, tiny group"? "

because the income and wealth of these individuals is so high, it is probably greater than the combined wealth of many entire congressional districts

[Edited on August 26, 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

8/26/2009 10:22:46 AM

1. And all of the federal money from the bailouts is not just paying for CEOs compensation packages. And?

2. Tell it to Erskine Bowles:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2009/08/12/5783064/bowles.swf

3.

Quote :

"because the income and wealth of these individuals is so high, it is probably greater than the combined wealth of many entire congressional districts"

What's your problem with "high" wealth and income? Define "high."

8/26/2009 10:29:25 AM

Quote :

"because the income and wealth of these individuals is so high"

which brings us around to the question of, how much is too high?

I can assure you, the Democratic party is not interested in reducing the income of their wealthy donors (especially since the shift in upper-income donors in recent years has been from the right to the left), only those they can scapegoat for political gain. The entire bailout was essentially the United State Congress making good on the insurance high-paying donors bought with campaign contributions.

How does that serve anyone?

8/26/2009 10:31:22 AM

high wealth?
I don't know, maybe what a university admin makes?

doh! you caught me!!



oh, how about bank and insurance CEOs, kind of why this thread was created in the first place

8/26/2009 10:32:08 AM

How about bank and insurance CEOs? Same question applies.


I'd argue that the banks are far less likely to be attacked since their donations were collectively much higher in the last 20 years (roughly $217,070,951 according to opensecrets.org) than HMOs (a paltry $64,939,874).

8/26/2009 10:35:30 AM

notice I haven't said anything about if I agree or not with the premise of the OP.
However, you have to be dense or just plain blind to not be able to admit that CEOs and executives of Fortune 500 companies are in a class of their own with the amount of money they make

8/26/2009 11:06:23 AM

Quote :

"However, you have to be dense or just plain blind to not be able to admit that CEOs and executives of Fortune 500 companies are in a class of their own with the amount of money they make"

So what? You want class warfare?

Again, define "high" as it relates to compensation please.

8/26/2009 11:13:33 AM

^^ "class of their own" is just a figure of speech.
You know, like "upper percentile"

8/26/2009 11:27:41 AM

^ Okay. What about this?

Quote :

"Again, define 'high' as it relates to compensation please."

8/26/2009 11:47:23 AM

Obviously not Education Administrator pay /thread.

8/26/2009 11:55:01 AM

^^ Okay. What about this?

Quote :

"Again, define 'high' as it relates to compensation please."

8/26/2009 12:07:14 PM

Obviously not Education Administrator pay /thread.

8/26/2009 12:09:34 PM

^x5 Okay. What about this?

Quote :

"Again, define 'high' as it relates to compensation please."

8/26/2009 12:12:12 PM

You're 43 years old? You should be ashamed. I see why you hide your face from here.

8/26/2009 12:12:53 PM

^ Not yet. Some of the good people here know me and have seen me. And I've seen your face now--you should hide it from humanity along with your hideous soul.

I won't respond to you again.

8/26/2009 12:25:15 PM

So I own you on your stupid assertion that Edu Admins are some of the highest paid people in the country and I have a hideous soul? Do you always whine and cry and act like a giant fucking baby this much when you lose arguments?

8/26/2009 12:26:44 PM

ahem. . . $4 million / 19 ~ $210,000.

8/26/2009 1:04:22 PM

Fuck, is that math? Better tell hooksaw so he doesn't trip over it.

8/26/2009 1:07:36 PM