# Education bubble? Time to invest ?



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Being long @ the top of a bubble does not seam to work out well for the investor.

Without courage it is often easier to see ourselfs in others, As well as the fact it seams easier to get info on the United States. I will refure to the United States.

In the old movies it seams the young people wanted to "see" the world. Today the focus seams to be on going to school & let the school show them the world. My experience with school was to just simply memorize & repeat & I was never shown the laws of logic & principals of thought.

Since the focus has become on education the country cant even provide for itself & a lot of manufacturing is done off shore. The U S has to borrow to pay for the goods because it is less productive.

Some say the Roman Empiror fell because the people stopped becoming productive & wanted to be entertained. Is the United States going to fall because the primary focus went from thinking to that of learning? From experience one is always learning but when I try to learn through the eyes of others my mind often becomes a junk heap of invalid theories.

The speculating in the education bubble keeps growing which can be evidenced by the ever increasing student debt. When there is a lot of money being borrowed by the masses for investments it often indicates a top is near & the investors get burned.

Is speculating in education any differnt then speculating in other investments? 

Should it be done when a percentage of the population are going deep in debt ?

Should it be done when the investment has a weak foundation i.e., having a high number of students taking a course that has only a few jobs ?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

One of my favourite topics. 

Quote from Milevsky in the WSJ on this topic: 

_Recall that the dividends you receive from your human capital are not solely the result of hard work, innate skills, fortuitous parents or sheer luck. Rather, these dividends can be traced to the investment of time, money and effort during your student years. The skills you acquire in your late teens and early 20s set the stage for the value of human capital. Surgeons who spent more than 10 years as undergraduates plus medical school and then internship and residency invested in their human capital. They were not consuming time. They were investing time.

Therefore, in my opinion—and this might get me in trouble with my academic colleagues—too many students (and some parents) view education as a consumption good. They immerse themselves in a liberal-arts degree and study dance or literature or dance literature, without any regard for how this might influence the future dividends of their human capital.

It is time to wake up and measure the internal rates of return from your undergraduate major. If it is too late for you, then make sure your kids are aware of this. Invest time acquiring skills that will diversify the risk inherent in human capital. Just as consumers continue to demand greater transparency and disclosure of the risks inherent in financial products, perhaps it is time to think about the risks of an undergraduate degree in Latin or Greek. Trust me here. Learning some cost accounting, microeconomics and business statistics will help reduce the future risk on their future balance sheet. Do not let your kids leave college without a hedge for the human capital._

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704904604575262712612181000.html


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> One of my favourite topics.


And what is your opinion?

Myself, I think that there is no generalized education bubble per say. I see it more as students not receiving the tools that they need to make important decisions about their future. This leads to poor decisions and accumulation of student debts.

An undergrad in Latin or Greek is worth the same as it was 20 years ago (e.g., not very much). The cost to get such a degree has increased, but I am not even sure that it surpassed inflation. I would need to look it up.... Several years ago, only the very rich and children of the wealthy could get a university education. Today, pretty much anybody can pay for a university education.

Besides, a bubble presuposes that the asset becomes very overpriced compared to some other metric. If you were to compare the cost of a university education 20 years ago and the salary it lead to (for similar professions today), would it be vastly overpriced compared to now?

Further, most bubbles function under the "greater fool theory". As in, people rely on someone else purchasing the asset for more than the initial purchaser paid for. At the end, someone is caught holding the bag. Unless you predict some radical change in the way human society operates ( e.g., robots do all the thinking from now on), I don't believe you will be "caught" with a worthless education (as long as it was not worthless to begin with).


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

I recall, when my late wife & I lived on Salt Spring Island, talking to a young guy, (with green hair and all the 'trimmings'), who was undertaking some plumbing installation for us........he said that, almost to a person, his cohort wanted "clean, office jobs", (as opposed to jobs cleaning offices ;-) ), which were 'meaningful'........he, being more realistic, opted for a trade, and one that there will almost undoubtedly, in some form or other, be a need for.

Courses in Gender Neutral Underwater Basketweaving, (and/or English Literature, Art Appreciation and the like), are somewhat less than realistic, (unless one is a wealthy dilettante), and offer little or nothing in the way of economic self-preservation.


----------



## financialuproar (Jan 26, 2010)

Guigz said:


> An undergrad in Latin or Greek is worth the same as it was 20 years ago (e.g., not very much). The cost to get such a degree has increased, but I am not even sure that it surpassed inflation. I would need to look it up.... Several years ago, only the very rich and children of the wealthy could get a university education. Today, pretty much anybody can pay for a university education.


Actually, Guigz, the data I've seen on the subject suggests the cost of a degree has increased at a much greater rate than inflation over the last few decades, especially in the U.S. 

As for education, I think we need to stop telling our young people that education automatically equals a good investment. Education should be part of the journey to get where you want to be. If you want to be a teacher, or a nurse, or an engineer, then off to the local university you go. And if you don't? Then don't go to school thinking university life will be some sort of magic elixir that takes you to the promised land. As one of the posters said above, it's high time people thought critically about the actual return they're getting on their education investment.


----------



## sharbit (Apr 26, 2012)

I actually really like this topic. I think there’s a problem with people going to universities and getting degrees in something that there are a limited number of jobs for. I lucked out and went into something that has done well for me. One of my friends went into Philosophy and unfortunately is back in school for another 3 years to get a career. Fields like that almost need to have a limited number of seats and mandatory work experience before you're allowed to apply. I know when I was 17 I had absolutely no concept of money or career but your being committed to x years of tuition and possibly living on your own; you'd better hope you picked right or your life is somewhat derailed - at 17. Similar issues exist with degrees that cost insane amounts like an MBA; it seems like you're taking on a lot of risk for something that doesn't really have a solid career path.

As for the US being at its ends I really disagree. Its definitely not the super power it was but there’s really no other country that has stepped up with its innovation. Europe has definitely gotten more competitive (Germany /UK/France) but right now is busy burning down its buildings. China has shown growth but no real innovation; its easy to catch up then it is to innovate. Education is part of this innovation. Every single recession people think

I think its truly unfortunate that we've lost manufacturing in north america. I personally blame politicians. That being said I'd argue the jobs are going to come back in another form; robotics. These are all high paying jobs which require specialisation that I'd argue can only be done here. A lot of policy has to change too in order to incentivise these things such as raising the cost of off shoring through say tariffs or something. On a similar note the sources of innovation will be those that occupy the largest pieces of household or corporate balance sheets in terms of either cost or risk. These would be healtcare, manufacturing and energy.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

financialuproar said:


> Actually, Guigz, the data I've seen on the subject suggests the cost of a degree has increased at a much greater rate than inflation over the last few decades, especially in the U.S.


Do you have any links that you can share? 

The data that I have seen suggests that while a larger portion of the fees have been transferred to the students (from Government), the overall cost of education is roughly the same (inflation adjusted). 

Here is one source of information :http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/access_ac...x1997002-eng.pdf&t=Education Quarterly Review

It looks at education cost (amongst many other things) between 1975 and 1995. 

I also found more recent information for 2008 to 2013. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/educ50a-eng.htm

It shows a 17% increase between 2008 and 2013.


I think that we have to be wary of any publications that show a ballooning student debt costs/amounts and equates this to increased education costs.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

there probably are not too many liberal arts educators here - & i'm not one - but a problem with advocating trade school educational choices is that the choosing typically has to be done at a very young age. So we can't know how many dancers, physicists, musicians or early childhood education specialists get sidelined as a result & end up in plumbing or secretarial school.

my oldest child has a friend whose parents had astonishingly little education. The father was a successful businessman, but he had left school after grade four. Translaton: in rural eastern ontario, his farm parents had taken him out of school after grade four & put him to work fulltime, aged 10 years, on the family farm.

these parents had encouraged my daughter's friend to train for a practical career in computer programming at a junior college. It was the most they dared to hope for their youngest child & only boy, who had done well in science & math from an early age. He graduated & got a decent job right away, age 21 years.

but what he'd always dreamed of becoming - still wishes he could be - is a doctor. I can see clearly that he has all the native capabilities to succeed. The only thing that went missing in his life was an adult who would encourage him. Someone to dream the impossible dream with him, to help him scrounge up all the money that would have been necessary to get him through medical school.

i think it's inaccurate today to disparage liberal arts & science studies as so much "latin, greek & basket-weaving." Are latin or greek even taught at the undergraduate level in university any more ? AFAIK liberal arts studies include science & math.

if the young man mentioned above had had the good fortune to pass through a high school or college environment that could have supported him to realize his dream - in other words, if he'd ever known any alternative to the get-a-job-ASAP family script - he would be a medical doctor today.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

/spinoff - I took Latin (and some Greek) in high school and then Latin in university.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

What us young people today need to do is just SOMETHING that's productive. Anything. Choosing between computer science and medicine isn't the issue. Choosing between computer science and History of Film or Womens Studies is the issue.

A related issue is the fabrication of government jobs stemming a desire to hire all of these Womens studies/Environment/Public Policy Majors that otherwise are unemployable in the real market.

A third issue is that highschoolers are choosing these degrees paths with the forgone conclusion that their degree will lead them into a government job. It's now seen as a_ desirable _ and respectable thing to work for 37.5 hours a week in a completely pointless office of the government.

The government won't be able to shrink until the education system stops recruiting towards useless degrees, and that won't stop until the attitude about working for the government returns to its rightful mindset of "if the only job you can get is with the government it's akin to accepting charity, and not something to be particularly proud of"


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I was very concerned for my daughter when she first enrolled into college as she wanted to pursue something in Art Field.We have a friend whose daughter went to school 4 years only to get a job at Walmart and a $40,000 student loan.My husband and I laid back and supported our daughter ,she came home last week and told us she is going to get her MFA in Graphics Design and hopefully be a Professor.She has been in top of class and won so many scholarships that this 2012/2013 study year has not cost a dime in tuition just her materials and some text books.If your kids are smart enough you have to let them try whatever they want but I would be more concerned about having a child barely passing high school wanting to sign up for 7 Year program knowing the odds are stacked against them to even pass the grade.


----------



## financialuproar (Jan 26, 2010)

Guigz said:


> Do you have any links that you can share?
> 
> The data that I have seen suggests that while a larger portion of the fees have been transferred to the students (from Government), the overall cost of education is roughly the same (inflation adjusted).
> 
> ...


Here's the U.S. data I found. The numbers are adjusted for inflation, and the cost for an education in real dollars has more than doubled over the last 30 years down south.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76

As for the Canadian numbers, isn't a 17% increase over the past 5 years far exceeding the rate of inflation? What's inflation averaged for that time, 2% (annually)? 

It's a simple supply/demand equation. Universities are flooded with applications, they can only accommodate a fixed number of students, so they raise their rates.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

There is also a spiral of govt. subsidies leading to increased tuition costs leading to more subsidies.
Like the recent Ontario govt. education subsidies announced last year.

Tuition costs will go up approx. by the same amount.
Then govt. will give more subsidies and costs will go up about the same %, and so on the saga will continue.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I wonder what the numbers between the number of people who enter university and the numbers who actually graduate would show.

I read an article on NCAA scholarships and it was discouraging how few student/athletes actually graduated.

Lots of student debt owed............without the future financial benefit of a degree, I would suspect.

It isn't just university education. The springing up of so many "private" colleges, with poor track records for future employment, has burdened some graduates with worthless credentials and a pile of debt as well.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Suzy Ormans famous saying: People first then money then things

Should the investor first require the precise nature needed to be successfull @ investing before they invest ?

Should money that can be used as seedcorn to plant a tree that will bear the fruit of financial independence be devoured on useless stuff ?

Should the fruit (money) then be harvested each season without cutting down the tree then have the fruit add value to life instead of letting it fall to the ground & rot.


Investing is investing weather it is buying stocks & bonds or investing in going to school I kinda think the precise nature is needed first.

If a student goes to school & thier nature is not of taking responsibility they will most likely fail the same way as the stock & bond investor would fail.

Precise nature first, then invest, then things


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

marina628 said:


> I was very concerned for my daughter when she first enrolled into college as she wanted to pursue something in Art Field.We have a friend whose daughter went to school 4 years only to get a job at Walmart and a $40,000 student loan.My husband and I laid back and supported our daughter ,she came home last week and told us she is going to get her MFA in Graphics Design and hopefully be a Professor.She has been in top of class and won so many scholarships that this 2012/2013 study year has not cost a dime in tuition just her materials and some text books.If your kids are smart enough you have to let them try whatever they want but I would be more concerned about having a child barely passing high school wanting to sign up for 7 Year program knowing the odds are stacked against them to even pass the grade.


A good point here about the "soft" studies. Even though on the face of it, they may appear useless, there can be practical applications. That degree in English? I remember meeting someone who was making a decent living writing up documentation for a HiTech firm. That degree in arts? Perhaps a graphic or GUI designer for software firms. Women's studies? Maybe marketing to target women shoppers or voters. 

It's just a thought from someone with an engineering background. I remember when I went through there was always a bit of a push to ensure science and engineering students had some soft skills to make them more well-rounded.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

financialuproar said:


> Here's the U.S. data I found. The numbers are adjusted for inflation, and the cost for an education in real dollars has more than doubled over the last 30 years down south.
> 
> http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
> 
> ...



The data in the study looks only at one facet of the problem, cost to students. It does not consider the entire picture.

The same study shows that University spending on a per student basis has *dropped* between 2001 and now. If you consider that the majority of Universities are not-for-profit, the fact that they are spending less, yet it is more costly to students means that there has been a transfer of fees from the society to the users (students). This is does not equate to a bubble.

Same thing with Canadian Universities. Besides I don't think that a 17% increase over 5 years VS 11% with just inflation is bubble territory.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

The high-level education can return to its old good principles and necessity only when it will cease being a Big Business and an inflationary element in terms of human capital.
It should be free, assess the students more objectively (i.e. no inflated marks/grades) and more profound, instead of being superficial.

I look at my older son, who is in the 1st grade, and I am shocked - in my country in Europe even from the 1st grade, we were using fountain pens and were taught how to write properly, using good calligraphy and specially designed notebooks with guiding lines. Also the math was strong and we were really getting homeworks/assignments since 1st grade. What I see here instead is the use of raw pencils, children trying to write with "typographic letters" and no homework assignments.

And we are wondering why the Chinese are good? Sometimes their pupils spend time with the school+homework until 6-7pm !

There is a complete dis-consideration for the educational system here, imho. Superficiality. Taxpayers' money spent unwisely.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

smihaila said:


> It should be free


If it's going to be 'free', who will have to pay for it?


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

smihaila said:


> in my country in Europe even from the 1st grade, we were using fountain pens and were taught how to write properly, using good calligraphy and specially designed notebooks with guiding lines.


No touch screens back then, no texting, and proper grammar was taught too.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

smihaila said:


> I look at my older son, who is in the 1st grade, and I am shocked - in my country in Europe even from the 1st grade, we were using fountain pens and were taught how to write properly, using good calligraphy and specially designed notebooks with guiding lines. Also the math was strong and we were really getting homeworks/assignments since 1st grade. What I see here instead is the use of raw pencils, children trying to write with "typographic letters" and no homework assignments.


When I was in high-school, there were lots of newly Russian immigrants in my school & those who were my friends [and others in general], were the brightest in science & math; today all said friends are specialists in the field of computer & medicine [practising as well as teaching at universities]. So perhaps you might want to go to Russia or back to 'your country in Europe' if you're so unhappy & 'shocked' with the Canadian system.

When my son, too, was in 1st grade, I was also surprised at certain teaching methods, but it did not stop me from teaching him better calligraphy/buying him notebooks with guidelines, etc. [I was taught that way and so I coached him in same manner]. You can't expect the school to do it all for your children; you, as a parent, have a big part to play in enriching your children's education as well. 

*Two Opposite Education Systems Ranked on Top*

- South Korea emphasizes exams, rote learning, discipline and long hours for students, most of whom also attend private cram schools. 
- Finland has short school days, little homework and a focus on “helping children understand and apply knowledge, not merely repeat it,” the report said.

Also in the top 10 were Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and *Canada.* 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/world/europe/two-opposite-education-systems-ranked-on-top.html


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> If it's going to be 'free', who will have to pay for it?


Exactly!

I do believe that higher education should be free for the brightest in forms of grants, scholarships, etc., but it should not be free for all, as I happen to believe that such a free system would be financed by the less advantaged, plus other obvious reasons why such a system would be unfair.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Sampson said:


> No touch screens back then, no texting, and proper grammar was taught too.


'Back then', the above was also true here, not just in Europe.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> Exactly!
> 
> I do believe that higher education should be free for the brightest in forms of grants, scholarships, etc., but it should not be free for all, as I happen to believe that such a free system would be financed by the less advantaged, plus other obvious reasons why such a system would be unfair.


I think 'subsidized' or 'supported' would be the preferred terminology.......'free' implies _Manna from Heaven_.....and TNSTAAFL.


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> 'Back then', the above was also true here, not just in Europe.


My post was brief, but I was rather suggesting that technologies have changed dramatically and they must be incorporated into present day teaching methods. Here or in good o' Europe.

While I believe there is value in using something like calligraphy practice to instill and train discipline, the art or act of using calligraphy isn't directly linked to a good or bad education system. I don't know how active school programs are at trying to enhance and develop curricula using modern technological methods, but they need to focus on this.

It is difficult to say in Canada, since there is no apparent goal or objective of the Canadian economy to become X in 10 years, so what type of students/citizens are we trying to produce and how will they be productive in the our future economy?


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm going to put a plug in here for cursive writing (not calligraphy, just the use of joined-up letters). One of my kids, at her school, uses cursive exclusively. It looks beautiful but more to the point, there are (apparently) strong reasons for the use of cursive as a brain development tool.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Sampson said:


> 1. I was rather suggesting that technologies have changed dramatically...
> 2. the art or act of using calligraphy isn't directly linked to a good or bad education system.
> 3. I don't know how active school programs are at trying to enhance and develop curricula using modern technological methods, but they need to focus on this.


1. I had understood you perfectly & was just teasing/completing your short post. 

2. True enough, however, it helps with beautiful & decipherable cursive handwriting [from the Greek Kalli + graphia = beautiful writing], which is important despite current technology. 

Do not underestimate the role of calligraphy, as for young & developing children, it also helps with eye-hand coordination/small muscle development/fine motor skills, etc. I must say that calligraphy worked better for me than for my son, ie: I have the more beautiful handwriting. 

3. For sure the government is active as global technological changes have advanced at such a dizzying speed in the last few years, that it has altered, by necessity, not only the way we ought to teach now & in the future, but also the way we do business, so we have all been affected regardless of age!

Embracing change and being prepared for constant learning & innovation is where we are/should be at [regardless of age].


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Who can do this without computers?


























*Six Arts:* 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Arts


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Cursive and calligraphy are often touted for the small-motor benefits, but did you know that all "cross-body" activities (activities in which one limb crosses the midline of the body, such as writing in a joined motion, i.e. using cursive) stimulate the brain to make more and stronger connections between right and left hemispheres? 

My kid who does cursive is dyslexic, and not only is cursive easier for dyslexic kids to both read and write, it stimulates this particular form of brain development. Dyslexic kids have a lot of deficits and require specific training and development in creating neural pathways from right to left sides of the brain (and back). 

Sometimes you will see senior citizens doing various exercises which cross the body (tap left foot with right hand, etc.) - this is the same theory; promoting cross-brain activity and stimulation. But good old "traditional" cursive does this as well!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Finland does have a very successful laid back style of education, but it should be noted that to be a teacher in Finland requires a Masters Degree in Education. They also have small classes, and devote the time and energy ensuring that every student fully understands the material before moving forward. Finnish society puts great value on the teaching profession and teachers earn as much as doctors.

In Canada, there are groups who want to eliminate teacher unions and cut their pay, and reduce educations spending.

Different countries................different views of the importance of education.................different results.

It doesn't really matter how some organization ranks our education system, when university and colleges have to operate pre-entrance courses to get high school graduates up to basic levels of college preparation.........something isn't connecting.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

You know what? Teachers here *do* earn as much as doctors. GPs, anyway. That's if you count the (fewer) years of (much cheaper) higher education, and the guaranteed DB pension in retirement, and the much much much fewer hours teachers work, compared to doctors. Over a lifetime, an average Ontario teacher will handily outearn the average GP.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> In Canada, there are groups who want to eliminate teacher unions and cut their pay, and reduce educations spending.


It is not an *and*.
Education spending is not the same as paying more money to the teachers.
It is entirely possible to have the public goal of spending more money on education in general, without necessarily paying even more money to teachers.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> When I was in high-school, there were lots of newly Russian immigrants in my school & those who were my friends [and others in general], were the brightest in science & math; today all said friends are specialists in the field of computer & medicine [practising as well as teaching at universities]. *So perhaps you might want to go to Russia or back to 'your country in Europe' if you're so unhappy & 'shocked' with the Canadian system*.
> 
> When my son, too, was in 1st grade, I was also surprised at certain teaching methods, but it did not stop me from teaching him better calligraphy/buying him notebooks with guidelines, etc. [I was taught that way and so I coached him in same manner]. You can't expect the school to do it all for your children; *you, as a parent, have a big part to play in enriching your children's education as well. *


Totally agree on both points.

Not sure about the calligraphy part though. I could never write worth sh** and I turned out all right (or good enough at least). 

Maybe if I had been given access to a fountain pen or quill & ink things would have turned out differently?


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> Not sure about the calligraphy part though. I could never write worth sh** and I turned out all right (or good enough at least).


I guess your gross motor skills developed better/faster [as is the case with boys]. Anyhow, never too late to improve; maybe an old-fashioned feather pen might help. :biggrin:










I don't have any stats., but probably a safe assumption that lower legibility belongs to males. 

*M.gal:* very interesting post #29.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> I'm going to put a plug in here for cursive writing (not calligraphy, just the use of joined-up letters). One of my kids, at her school, uses cursive exclusively. It looks beautiful but more to the point, there are (apparently) strong reasons for the use of cursive as a brain development tool.


There likely exist a skill that can be thaught in school that intersects brain development and usefulness. Cursive writing is not one of them. I could see it as an elective, maybe, but not as as a requirement for the program. Especially considering the world that we live in currently.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> You know what? Teachers here *do* earn as much as doctors. GPs, anyway. That's if you count the (fewer) years of (much cheaper) higher education, and the guaranteed DB pension in retirement, and the much much much fewer hours teachers work, compared to doctors. Over a lifetime, an average Ontario teacher will handily outearn the average GP.


It is not a very fair comparison, you are comparing the maximum teachers can make with the minimum doctors can make and then generalizing. Besides, I am not convinced that what you are stating is true. Here is what I found:

The average salary for teachers in Ontario with 6 years of education is: 42 to 73K$

For teachers with 4 years education it is : 37K-62K$.

It would be safe to say that the average of both groups would likely be around 50-60K$. Let's be generous and put it at 60K$.

Comparatively, the GP will make between 111K$ and 164K$ on average (in Ontario). Let's be conservative and say that he makes 120K$ per year on average.

To get there, the GP will need 9-11 years of training. The teacher, on average, will need 5 years of training.

I don't even need to run the numbers to find that the intersect between both groups, assuming that they start at the same time, is not very far in the future.

I am not saying that teachers are not overpaid, I am saying that we should stick to fact instead of fantasy to make this argument.

http://www.salaryexpert.com/index.c...bCategory=unknown&JobAvailabilitySourceVar=28

http://resource.educationcanada.com/salaries.html/


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Not fantasy and I'm not generalizing. More details later. Also: doctors have no pension, pay staff, and work 12 months per year. You can't generalize "years of training" -- have you checked med school tuition rates lately?!


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

I will have to disagree with you that you are not generalizing, but I am looking forward to your numbers.

------------ edit

And none of that " Ohhh, but the teacher only really works 4 hours per day teaching, so we can multiply their annual salary x2". I am looking at you Globe and Mail......


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

sags said:


> Different countries................different views of the importance of education.................different results.


...and (Finland) a different, (virtually homogeneous), society with different values and objectives.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

Nemo2 said:


> I think 'subsidized' or 'supported' would be the preferred terminology.......'free' implies _Manna from Heaven_.....and TNSTAAFL.


Correct. Yes, that's what I meant (i.e. not free as in free beer  ). Thanks for clarifying.

The corporations and employees could contribute. And not necessarily via property taxes.
Such system is still working well in several Europeans country. And the quality of higher education did not go down using such system.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

Sampson said:


> My post was brief, but I was rather suggesting that technologies have changed dramatically and they must be incorporated into present day teaching methods. Here or in good o' Europe.
> 
> While I believe there is value in using something like calligraphy practice to instill and train discipline, the art or act of using calligraphy isn't directly linked to a good or bad education system. I don't know how active school programs are at trying to enhance and develop curricula using modern technological methods, but they need to focus on this.


I was a bit in a hurry when I wrote my initial message. I meant by calligraphy not something like an 'art of writing' (i.e. like the ancient scribes or people from older administrations) - I just meant that, the use of pencils and/or ball pens as opposed to fountain/nib pens is not a good contributor to a pupil's fluid writing skills. I see that as promoting something like a bad habit, especially at such early ages for the kids. And on top of that, not too much effort from the teachers to cultivate handwriting / cursive writing instead of scribing the letters one by one like from a newspaper.


----------



## smihaila (Apr 6, 2009)

sags said:


> Finland does have a very successful laid back style of education, but it should be noted that to be a teacher in Finland requires a Masters Degree in Education. They also have small classes, and devote the time and energy ensuring that every student fully understands the material before moving forward. Finnish society puts great value on the teaching profession and teachers earn as much as doctors.
> 
> In Canada, there are groups who want to eliminate teacher unions and cut their pay, and reduce educations spending.
> 
> ...


I couldn't have said it myself better! The big, trans-national corporations (I call them TNC) have little interest in having reasonably educated citizens in the Western Hemishphere! These TNCs are now bypassing sovereign nations and are trying to bring a one world Government (as a next phase of the capitalism - which, in its classical form seems to have reached its end - not too much opportunity for expansion of capital and 'growth by all means'). On top of that, these parasitic oligarchies, thirsty for power and money, are brainwashing us with useless media / propaganda. We have to make real efforts in order to understand something meaningful from our world today's events.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

When I was 12 my aunt and Uncle gave me a Calligraphy set ,I always do out my own cards and still have all the tools .It is one of the best gifts I ever received and my kids enjoy this as well.


Toronto.gal said:


> Who can do this without computers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

My niece's first day teaching in Brampton Ontario Grade 4 was $160 a day not including the value of her benefits.This was in 2009 so probably is higher now.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

"Investing" in education does not mean simply paying more to teachers.
There are many more aspects of education being neglected and left to decay, while the focus is almost exclusively on teachers' pay and pensions.

For instance, building more schools, improving the conditions of existing schools (repairs, etc.), reducing class sizes, more programs - those are all avenues for investments.

While the following is happening, teachers' unions are lobbying for more pay for themselves:
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...to-trim-costs-will-hurt-students-trustees-say

It is sad that "investment" in education has come to mean just more pay and benefits to teachers.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

I don't think anyone linked to this yet (though I may have missed it); Ken Robinson's brilliant talk from 2006 about education and creativity:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Not fantasy and I'm not generalizing. More details later. Also: doctors have no pension, pay staff, and work 12 months per year. You can't generalize "years of training" -- have you checked med school tuition rates lately?!


I trust the numbers of a published author.

Skeptics can do their own research; I always do when necessary.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I have a half-worked-up financial model beside me in chicken scratch so far. At its heart this is a classic time value of money problem which I should be able to display simply. I have a few missing pieces of data - the tuition premium paid by doctors for med school, and an open question about whether I should "inflate" teachers' salaries by 17% to allow for the fact that they work 10 months per year. If/when I get time I will post a model for others to review. 

The original study I have on this (by an actuary) compares physicians (GPs) and TTC ticket collectors, but I don't have permission to share that one. It's pretty surprising, in a way; if you just wanted to maximize lifetime income and you were hypothetically considering either becoming a TTC ticket collector or a GP, the TTC route (ha) wins hands down.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

OK, here is my simplistic model. It ignores inflation, time value of money, and lots of other real-world input. 

Teacher: Starts PSE at age 20, completes it by 25, begins teaching at age 26. Retires at 65 but receives pension until 85. (Don't worry, I'm killing the doctor and the teacher at the same age.)

Using the average salary figures provided, earns $60K per year for a total of 59 years (ages 26-85). (Note: I did not discount the pension; I'm assuming they receive $60K in retirement as well. This is because teachers with 35+ years of experience will earn well in excess of the "average" salary, so because I am modelling the whole salary cash flow over time, I'm just assuming they receive $60K in retirement as well as during their working years). 

Total lifetime earnings for our stylized teacher: $60K per year * 59 years = $3.54M. 

GP: starts PSE at age 20, completes 4-year undergraduate, then 4 years of medical school, then 2-year family medicine residency. Begins full-time work at age 31. Earns average salary of $120 (figures provided earlier, not by me) for 30 years, to age 65 (I am having the physician and the teacher retire at the same time). 

Total lifetime earnings for our stylized GP: $120K per year * 30 years = $3.6M. 

Putting in real-world assumptions makes the case much more strongly that teachers earn more than GPs, primarily because the market value of a guaranteed, inflation-protected pension from age 65 and paying $65K to age 85 is well in excess of $1M.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Add in the fact that the average GP is working far more hours than the average teacher.
All that extra leisure time must be worth something (a lot, IMHO).


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Harold: really, any "real-world" assumptions that I add in (the tuition differential between med school and getting a teaching certificate, the number of hours worked by physicians versus teachers, etc.) just tilts the example further and further towards teachers. This is the *most* conservative model I could come up with and the fact that teachers work (at least) two months less than physicians is a major factor that I have not included.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> Teacher: Starts PSE at age 20, completes it by 25, begins teaching at age 26. Retires at 65 but receives pension until 85. (Don't worry, I'm killing the doctor and the teacher at the same age.)
> 
> Using the average salary figures provided, earns $60K per year for a total of 59 years (ages 26-85). (Note: I did not discount the pension; I'm assuming they receive $60K in retirement as well. This is because teachers with 35+ years of experience will earn well in excess of the "average" salary, so because I am modelling the whole salary cash flow over time, I'm just assuming they receive $60K in retirement as well as during their working years).
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting more details.

Although the numbers that you show are closer than I expected, I have several issues with the analysis.

1) The physician's salary is very lowball estimate of the average physician salary. I know that I am the one that provided the figure, but my point was to show that even in the best case scenario, a GP still made more money. In reality, the 17th and 67th percentile of an Ontarian GPs salary is, respectively 112 K$ and 164K$. When bonuses are added, the average is about 194K$. If you are factoring that the teacher's salary is increasing, you should do the same for the GP.

2)Time value of money. Would you rather have 120$K (inflation adjusted for argument sake) per year for 30 years or 60K$ (inflation adjusted) per year for 59 years? I know which one I would select. 

3) The actuarial value of the teacher's pension is not relevant since it cannot be cashed and you are already accounting for the cashflow.

4) The pension that a teacher receives is not entirely funded by the employer. The teacher in your example making 60K$ per year will have contributed 272,000$ to the pension plan by the time he retires. This has not been accounted for in the analysis. 

I think it would be interesting to model the situation using the entire salary range, I believe the outcome would be quite different.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Add in the fact that the average GP is working far more hours than the average teacher.
> All that extra leisure time must be worth something (a lot, IMHO).


By the same logic, people on welfare are paid infinity dollars per hour. Would you rather be a hobo or a GP?

I think that we have to stick with tangible information else we will trip on the flowers in the carpet.

Comparing an average doctor with an average teacher is a valid comparison (IMHO), when you start throwing "adjustments" is when you start leaving reality for fantasy.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Comparing an average doctor with an average teacher is a valid comparison (IMHO), when you start throwing "adjustments" is when you start leaving reality for fantasy.


Of course you have to account for standard hours worked.
Wages are a compensation for labor performed.
By your logic, you shouldn't adjust any numbers for inflation, currency differences, time value of money, etc.

Teachers in Japan make 1M Yen - let's not adjust for currency differences.
Teachers made $500 in 1935 - let's not adjust for inflation.

Welfare is welfare, it is not a compensation for labor.
So you cannot compare wages per hour with welfare per hour.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

When I use quote around adjustment, I am talking about non tangible and highly variable factors. Can you put a price on being in a room with 30 unruly screaming children for 5-6 hours a day? I don't think so. 

Of course you have to account for tangible differences such as inflation and currency differences.



HaroldCrump said:


> Of course you have to account for standard hours worked.


You can account for hours worked if you like. However, the resultant comparison will be a ratio, not an absolute difference which is what we are looking at here.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Guigz said:


> When I use quote around adjustment, I am talking about non tangible and highly variable factors. Can you put a price on being in a room with 30 unruly screaming children for 5-6 hours a day? I don't think so.


Um, well, that is kinda already accounted for in the prevailing wages for a teacher.

The doctor in our example will turn around and ask you : _Can you put a price on being in a room with 30 sick, hacking, coughing, puking patients 14 hrs. a day_? 

The doctor will claim, as will the teacher, that he/she deserves more for putting up with their work conditions.

The reason you believe that particular factor is intangible is because we do not have a fair free market for price determination.
In Adam Smith's world, the free hand of the market will determine the $ value of having to put up with 30 screaming children, or 30 sick patients.

Just because we have a rigged market in both cases (i.e. rigged by negotiation between unions and governments) does not mean those factors are intangible.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Thanks for posting more details.
> 
> Although the numbers that you show are closer than I expected, I have several issues with the analysis.
> 
> ...


I very specifically did NOT actuarially adjust the teacher's pension, I created a constant cashflow with constant dollars. The teacher's contribution to the pension plan is not relevant; both teachers and doctors can and do fund post-employment income streams. You said average teacher's salary is $60K, I went with that. Actuarial adjustment of the teacher's pension in retirement pushes the numbers quite a bit higher; like adding 30-40%. 

Doctors don't typically earn a salary; it is only in quite rare circumstances that doctors ever earn a salary (directly; many doctors will be paid a salary through an incorporated medical practice, but this is not the same thing as being an employee of a third party). I went with your figures because you presented them. 

I suspect you might be a teacher, but if so, I suspect you do not teach math.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

An average GP sees more like 60 patients a day, every one of them sick.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Just because we have a rigged market in both cases (i.e. rigged by negotiation between unions and governments) does not mean those factors are intangible.


Fair enough. 

The problem is, wether the market is fixed is not pertinent to what we are looking at. What we are interested in (at least, what M.Gal and I are discussing) is the bottom line. At the end of their lives, who will have amassed more money, the average doctor or the average teacher?

Because the bottom line is what we are looking at, it does not matter who had more vacation or who had what night off.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> The problem is, wether the market is fixed is not pertinent to what we are looking at. What we are interested in (at least, what M.Gal and I are discussing) is the bottom line. At the end of their lives, *who will have amassed more money*, the average doctor or the average teacher?
> 
> Because the bottom line is what we are looking at, it does not matter who had more vacation or who had what night off.


I am looking at lifetime earnings, not size of nest egg. A pension is de facto compensation from employment.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> I suspect you might be a teacher, but if so, I suspect you do not teach math.


This is completely uncalled for. You just attack the person when you run out of arguments? With upwards of 4,000 posts, one would hope that you would not have to resort to launching insults.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> I am looking at lifetime earnings, not size of nest egg. A pension is de facto compensation from employment.


I meant earned not amassed.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Guigz said:


> This is completely uncalled for. You just attack the person when you run out of arguments? With upwards of 4,000 posts, one would hope that you would not have to resort to launching insults.


Well, it wasn't meant as an insult, more as a statement of fact. Uh, you might interpret that as an insult also. 

I meant, I suspect you don't teach math, because although you use a term like "actuarial adjustment," I don't think you know what that means.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

Because you know what a math teacher should and shouldn't know? Oh right, you know it all!


Here is a revised scenario:

Teacher: Starts PSE at age 20, completes it by 25, begins teaching at age 26. Retires at 65 but receives pension until 85. (Don't worry, I'm killing the doctor and the teacher at the same age.)

Using *the top salary possible for a teacher*, earns *$78K at the start and ramps up to $94K and then gets $65K in pension* per year for a total of 59 years (ages 26-85). 

Total lifetime earnings for our stylized teacher: earns an average of per $85K year * 59 years =* $5.04M*. 

GP: starts PSE at age 20, completes 4-year undergraduate, then 4 years of medical school, then 2-year family medicine residency. Begins full-time work at age 30. Earns a start salary of *$100K which increases by $10K per year until it peaks at $220K for 35years, to age 65 (I am having the physician and the teacher retire at the same time)*. 

Total lifetime earnings for our stylized GP: $120K-$220K per year * 30 years = *$7.14M*. 

------------------

BTW you made a mistake (on purpose?) in your original scenario MGal, you mistakenly only made the GP work for 30 years instead of 35 so he was retiring at 60 and not 65 like the teacher. If you had not made this mistake, your original scenario would yield $4.2M for the GP and $3.54M for the teacher.

So who sucks at math now? This is pretty embarassing for you given how you are a certified financial planner and all. I am not a teacher.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

My daughter is home tomorrow from School due to the rotating strike , that sucks


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I'm not mistake-free.  But I don't suck at math. You do seem to take this pretty personally, I do wonder what your stake in the argument is.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

My stake was purely intellectual. 

That is, until you insulted my math skills.

I think you owe me, at the very least, an apology.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Guigz. I didn't intend to insult you. I said I suspected that if you were a teacher, you didn't teach math. I didn't actually say your math skills "sucked." I said I thought you don't understand what the term "actuarially adjusted" means. 

I'm sorry you took umbrage at my remarks. If your stake is purely intellectual, you should at least find this enjoyable. I'm sorry if I interrupted that for you.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Guigz said:


> This is completely uncalled for. You just attack the person when you run out of arguments? With upwards of 4,000 posts, one would hope that you would not have to resort to launching insults.


Maybe MoneyGal was just having fun with you, didn't you think so? [it's what you told me once when you were picking on me].

Precisely because of her 'upwards of 4,000 posts' here, that she has been one of the major contributors, so if anyone was less than polite, it was you Guigz and it's you who owes the apology to MoneyGal!


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Toronto.gal said:


> Precisely because of her 'upwards of 4,000 posts' here, that she has been one of the major contributors


In MoneyGal's case the respect is warranted, but I hope nobody here automatically equates quantity with quality. Status should never be accorded based simply on the number of posts; I think the system built into these forums that identifies someone as a "Senior Member" based simply on post count can be misleading. In some cases (not MoneyGal's of course), a high post rate can simply reflect the fact that a person might be loquacious or opinionated. A person who contributes 10 high-quality, informative posts over a period of 5 years adds more to our collective understanding and perspective than someone who contributes 8,000 posts of drivel.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

brad said:


> someone who contributes 8,000 posts of drivel.


:encouragement: When I first noticed "Senior Member" appended to _my_ name I commented to my lady that it must be in recognition of my advanced years.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

brad said:


> I hope nobody here automatically equates quantity with quality.


That is *not* at all what I meant Brad and you know it, hence there had been no need for having somewhat distracted my clear message/meaning with the above mentioned, which goes without saying!

MoneyGal is one of the TOP contributors here with respect to financial content, and anyone that has been around this forum long enough, knows this and requires no clarification as to what I meant.

Might have been nice though, if some of you gentlemen had come to her defense instead of clarifying the obvious.

She is also one of the most patient I might add, who goes on helping people even after having been insulted [not even talking about this case M.gal].


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> :encouragement: When I first noticed "Senior Member" appended to _my_ name I commented to my lady that it must be in recognition of my advanced years.


LOL Nemo, but you certainly are recognized for your humour/wisdom around here. :encouragement:


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Toronto.gal said:


> LOL Nemo, but you certainly are recognized for your humour/wisdom around here. :encouragement:


Awww....:redface: that's sooooo sweet.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Maybe MoneyGal was just having fun with you, didn't you think so? [it's what you told me once when you were picking on me].
> 
> Precisely because of her 'upwards of 4,000 posts' here, that she has been one of the major contributors, so if anyone was less than polite, it was you Guigz and it's you who owes the apology to MoneyGal!


You think it is fun that people on this forum get put down ? 

I am not saying that Money gal contributed nothing to the forum, I am saying that she put me down for missusing an expression, and inferred that because of this I was not good at maths when it was her in the first place that failed at basic arithmetics. I am just asking her to acknowledge this. 

I don't see how the fact that she has more or less post means that I was not polite. The two statements are unrelated. She could have less post and I could still have been impolite or she could have double the number of posts she has and I could have been very polite. But I feel I am wasting my time talking to you, you're just cheerleading for her regardless of what I say... 

I recognize that my responses were abrupt after Mgal inferred I was not a math teacher, but I think that senior members of this forum, especially "experts", need to act like stewards of the community. Experts sitting on their throne and screaming "I am right and, btw, you suck" does not cut it for me.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> MoneyGal is one of the TOP contributors here with respect to financial content, and anyone that has been around this forum long enough, knows this and requires no clarification as to what I meant.


Sorry, I call em like I see em. I will not just take someone's word for it regardlesss of their number of posts. They need to put the money where their mouth is and provide evidence and arguments. 

In this specific case, MGal said the average teacher would outearn the average GP. Clearly, that is not the case even if we fudge the number in the teacher's favor.

It *is* closer than I expected, but it is still not true.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Guigz said:


> .
> 
> I recognize that my responses were abrupt....


That's basically it Guigz & IMO, there had been no need. 

As for the post counts, most are highly accurate/informative/helpful, and what I had meant [needless to say, we all make mistakes; it's an anonymous/free/public forum after all].

Are the put-downs fun? No, never; I have experienced a few myself & unfairly, too, I might add. But IMHO, that's not what took place here.

Anyway, you received the apology you were asking for and now it's your turn. :encouragement:


----------



## Sampson (Apr 3, 2009)

TGal, can you please use your mediating skills for the NHL and NHLPA next?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sampson said:


> TGal, can you please use your mediating skills for the NHL and NHLPA next?


Yea..........talk about numbers............

I generally support unions, but I have to wonder if a group of highly paid hockey players, with short career earning years, are being well served by their union, in this instance.

How does Sidney Crosby make up the loss of 9 million dollar salary over the somewhat dubious span of his remaining career, given his concussions ?


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

It is very easy to have a misunderstanding.

I have a lot of respect for MGal.

I have often not been part of the crowd. In school I failed 2 grades by grade 12. Everyone likes to ski the new shaped skis I prefere the old straight skis because I like to ski based on a tapestry of fibonnacci relationships. Dispite what most experts say I find I get the best results if I only resistance train every 28-30 days. In 2008 I did not fit into the norm & when everyone else was losing money I was making it.

When I came to this site as jet powder I never fit in as the norm & was perhaps misunderstood. Mgal seams to have a strong understanding that it is good to have people on here with differnt views & understanding. 

To Put down or remove those with something differnt to say because they do not conform to the norm will not make the members of this site strong. 
There were not to many that welcomed me when I posted as Jet powder. Mgal was one along with Dogcom


Tgal

I do not know how to down load onto this site. I sent the first page of my 2008 year end summary to a friend of mine to show how put option prices explode higher during panic selling. My name & account number can be removed & if you want you can post. I can send a copy to an email address. When I posted as Jet powder I sometimes pushed the envolope but my only goal was for truth. CC has done an excellent job with this site & unlike a lot of other sites I would have been banned for not conforming to the norm many times.

The main reason I started posting my trades in personal diary was to set an example that if one of the worst spellers & users of the English language could make money in the market by doing thier own thing others could probably do the same. (of course I will not be right a 100% of the time)

From my experience independent thinking over dependent thinking will increase the odds of making money in the market. If you post 2008 gains & after I set an example that high intelligence is not needed to make money in the market I will stop posting as lone wolf. I will then come back as a differnt name because the last thing I want is for anyone to blindly follow me.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

I failed to mention in my last post to mention not only do I got a lot of respect for MGal but also for Guigz who in my opinion is a valuable contributor & does make a positive difference. A little misunderstanding now & then I think is probably found on all forums


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Guigz said:


> Because you know what a math teacher should and shouldn't know? Oh right, you know it all!
> 
> 
> Here is a revised scenario:
> ...



I have finally had the time to come back to this at least a little and review the counterargument here. 

The math presented above by Guigz is *also* wrong. 65-31 = 34, not 35. 

Well, actually, that's just the math that I can see. I have no idea how the "$120-220K per year" and "$78-$94-$65" paths are supposed to play out, so I have no way of checking that math. I did show my methods, because crowd-sourcing can be a good way to confirm calculations (as I inadvertantly demonstrated).


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Not sure if this file down loaded properly showing trades for 2008. The herd mentality will always exsist but people like Mgal will help limit the damage.

The most important thing Iam concerned with is the true understanding of concepts & thier exact meaning regardless of who says what. It is good to have people on here like Mgal that will not put down people who post with differnt ideas & concepts that differ from the norm but it is also good to always have people like Guigz that questions. Sometimes one does not fully understand what another is saying & sometimes enen Nasa makes mistakes. From what I have read on here Mgal is very good @ her job. I think I would have done better in school with a teacher like Guigz because of thier questioning if something is true or not.


----------



## Guigz (Oct 28, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> I have finally had the time to come back to this at least a little and review the counterargument here.
> 
> The math presented above by Guigz is *also* wrong. 65-31 = 34, not 35.
> 
> Well, actually, that's just the math that I can see. I have no idea how the "$120-220K per year" and "$78-$94-$65" paths are supposed to play out, so I have no way of checking that math. I did show my methods, because crowd-sourcing can be a good way to confirm calculations (as I inadvertantly demonstrated).


Sorry MGal, it seems like you are just seeing what you want to see. 

I clearly state in my example that the GP starts at 30 years of age and ends at 65. Hence 35 not 34. Or are you referring to your example?

Also, the teacher's ramp up in salary is the maximum possible according to the Ontario teacher's convention (or whatever it is called). That is a teacher with 6 years post secondary education. 

For the GP, I explained how the ramp up worked. :"...*Earns a start salary of $100K which increases by $10K per year until it peaks at $220K* .."

I have a spreadsheet I could post if I figured how.

Regardless how you cut it, the fact of the matter is GP will earn about 7 Millions over *30 years* while the teacher will earn about 5 millions over *60 years*. I know which of the two I would rather be.


----------

