Posted on Wednesday, 3rd March 2010 by Patrick Dorwin
Think of this the next time an MPS teacher tells you how tough they have it.
Average MPS Teacher Compensation Tops $100k/year
The average salary for an MPS teacher is $56,500. When fringe benefits are factored in, the annual compensation will be $100,005 in 2011.
The MacIver Institute has details and video.
Posted in Home | Comments (15) |
15 Responses to “Average MPS teacher compensation: $100,005”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Kind of makes you wonder who the fat cats really are.
March 3rd, 2010 at 11:09 pm
And they never have to worry about coming in over Christmas to meet a deadline.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Just imagine how much they would make if they actually put out a successful product? (ie. graduating children that can read & write and can point to Milwaukee on a map and maybe even count past how many fingers they have.)
March 4th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Merit-based compensation?! Like those unenlightened selfish jerks in the private sector have?! That’s not fair!!
Median household income in “Milwaukee city” is (in 2008 inflation-adjusted dollars) $37,022. Not sure what percentile “average” teachers fall in, but they’re well into the upper half.
March 4th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I know I’m going to take a beating for this, but…
They are required to live in the City of Milwaukee. They are not free to live anywhere they chose (not pro-choice?). They are required to live in a place with sky-high taxes (property tax, wheel tax, additional sales tax, etc.). They are required to live in a place in which if you need the police, it will take forever for them to get sent there. They are required to live in a place with high crime.
They are required to live in a place with a failed public school system.
March 4th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Communists are the only other group requiring residency but at least they pay better in Milwaukee.
Capitalists problem is controlling the millions of people trying to get in.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
They are not free to live anywhere they chose (not pro-choice?).
Unless they were assigned to MPS by the state when they got their license, they chose to live in in Milwaukee by choosing to work there. They’re free to move by choosing to apply in other districts.
They are required to live in a place with a failed public school system.
Are they required to send their own children there, or can they send their kids to any of the Lutheran/Catholic/Jewish schools in the area?
March 4th, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Pullman was a company town outside of Chicago in the 1880s. Employees were required to live in Pullman, despite the fact that cheaper rentals could be found in nearby communities. In 1898 the Illinois Supreme Court required Pullman to dissolve their ownership of the town. Although the employees chose to work for the company, living in the company town (as well as paying rent back to the company and shopping in the company stores) was required (yes, Wikepedia helped refresh my memory from my MPS education). Substitute “Pullman” with “Milwaukee,” and you should get the point.
They are required to live in a place with a failed public school system. If they don’t, they will get fired. If they get fired, they are no longer MPS teachers.
I’m not saying that the MPS teachers deserve $100k a year. I’m not saying that too many are not playing a part in the school system being a failure.
I am saying that Milwaukee’s residency requirement is not consistent with the values of this great nation’s founding fathers.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
The problem is: if the City allows teachers to leave, there will be enormous, and justified, pressure for all of Milwaukee’s City employees to leave. What do you think is keeping property values somewhat within reason in that City?
The solution is: Milwaukee should gradually phase out its antiquated and restrictive residency requirements in fairness to long term employees and so all the housing doesn’t dump on that market at once. Phase out residency over a period of, say, 10 years. And do it now before a Court decides to do it for the City, like what happened in Ohio
Or, gee, even start to implement some of the Kettel Commission recommendations and evolve into a cost-efficient Metropolitan government.
But the solution would required elected officials to look beyond their own self interest and turf.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
They have the freedom to go work somewhere else if they don’t like the conditions their employer sets on them. Take the job in Kansas or get laid off, work over the weekend or get fired, cover your piercings or don’t get promoted to the higher-paying position at the front desk–people who are not teachers make decisions about their employment vs. the lifestyle they would like to have every day, why are teachers magically exempt? How is that “consistent with the values of this great nation’s founding fathers”? Can you point me to the document where any of ‘em say government agencies must ensure people don’t have to make decisions about the directions of their lives?
The Pullman analogy is inapt; teachers are not forced to live in MPS-owned housing or purchase their groceries from MPS-owned stores. They’re not even required to purchase the company product by educating their children at MPS.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Heather, it’s not.
They are required to live in the city. They pay sky-high property taxes back to the city. The result is they shop in stores in which some of the money goes back to the city. They are not required to send their kids to the failed MPS, but they pay a lot more to send them elsewhere.
If you don’t get it, you never will. That’s okay, though. That’s your opinion. I have mine.
Just for clarification:
Do you think it is acceptable for an employer to dictate where their employees live as a condition of that employment?
Don’t think teacher or cop, think employee. Don’t think city or county, think employer.
Just a simple yes or no, please.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Phil:
How about making the City of Milwaukee an attractive place to live? They won’t want to leave.
I’m not trying to pick apart your comment. I do think the city would be better off if if it was a more attractive place to live, not just for its employees.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
$44 THOUSAND IN BENEFITS? A YEAR???
What the F is that?
Oh, yea…
“Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.
These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”
March 5th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
HOPE CHANGE, ACORN and MORE GOVERNMENT.
Where’s Crapper, Schitz and Folktunes these days?
March 6th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Federal pay surpasses private sector
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/06/federal-pay-surpasses-private-sector/