5 ms·

$150k is not that much for San Francisco, especially when it includes benefits. Two people earning that salary would not affort the median home in the area. In

$150k is not that much for San Francisco, especially when it includes benefits. Two people earning that salary would not affort the median home in the area. In that sense, it's lower than the salary people generally expect from a middle class job.

rahimnathwani 1y ago
$150k is over 2x the median individual income for San Francisco.
- jltsiren 1y ago
  The listed salaries are in the $110k to $120k range. To reach $150k, you need to add benefits such as healthcare and employer matches to retirement contributions. Those numbers are marginally higher than the median individual income for someone with a bachelor's degree in San Francisco ($106.5k in 2023, according to some estimates). Even the best-paid teachers only get an average salary, while most are paid much less. And because it's San Francisco, that average salary is worth less than the average salary in an average location. There are many conflicting estimates of the annual working hours of teachers. But according to most of them, teachers work more than the average full-time job.
  - rahimnathwani 1y ago
    the median individual income for someone with a bachelor's degree in San Francisco Do you believe that teachers working at SFUSD schools are comparable to the median person with a bachelor's degree in San Francisco? you need to add benefits such as healthcare and employer matches to retirement contributions Why would you not include those in the comparison? For most private employers, these amounts are single digits or zero. But for SFUSD, being able to retire and still be paid 90% of your salary indefinitely is a major part of the total compensation story. If you compare base salary only, you're not comparing like with like. You get closer to comparing like with like if you compare SFUSD total comp with private sector current comp (base salary and bonus).
    - jltsiren 1y ago
      The point was that teachers earn less than what they could get in other jobs in the same area. Comparisons should be based on the lifestyle the compensation enables rather than some abstract numbers. People generally have the greatest need for money when they are buying a home, starting a family, and raising kids. Money in hand today is much more valuable than mandatory retirement benefits you can only enjoy decades later.
      - rahimnathwani 1y ago
        The point was that teachers earn less than what they could get in other jobs in the same area. I don't believe that's true. People generally have the greatest need for money when they are buying a home... Maybe, but the fact that you don't have to save for retirement frees up money to spend on a home!
        jltsiren 1y ago
        Most pensions are not purely free money. Employees are usually required to contribute a nontrivial fraction of their nominal salary towards the pension. For SFUSD, the typical rate seems to be 9%.
        rahimnathwani 1y ago
        Yeah, I think they pay about a third of the total contributions. But the state also steps in to pay for any shortfalls. So I think effectively pay less than a third of total contributions.
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      You appear to be very strongly invested in this completely bizarre narrative that teachers in SFUSD are not low paid, and basically every number you’ve used is wrong or misleading. Nobody is getting 90% of their salary as a pension. If you retire at 62 after 30 years teaching you will get 66% of your salary as a pension. Personally, in my private sector job, my healthcare and retirement matching is more than the benefits amount for SFUSD, so excluding that is just ridiculous.

rahimnathwani 1y ago

$150k is over 2x the median individual income for San Francisco.

jltsiren 1y ago
The listed salaries are in the $110k to $120k range. To reach $150k, you need to add benefits such as healthcare and employer matches to retirement contributions. Those numbers are marginally higher than the median individual income for someone with a bachelor's degree in San Francisco ($106.5k in 2023, according to some estimates). Even the best-paid teachers only get an average salary, while most are paid much less. And because it's San Francisco, that average salary is worth less than the average salary in an average location. There are many conflicting estimates of the annual working hours of teachers. But according to most of them, teachers work more than the average full-time job.
- rahimnathwani 1y ago
  the median individual income for someone with a bachelor's degree in San Francisco Do you believe that teachers working at SFUSD schools are comparable to the median person with a bachelor's degree in San Francisco? you need to add benefits such as healthcare and employer matches to retirement contributions Why would you not include those in the comparison? For most private employers, these amounts are single digits or zero. But for SFUSD, being able to retire and still be paid 90% of your salary indefinitely is a major part of the total compensation story. If you compare base salary only, you're not comparing like with like. You get closer to comparing like with like if you compare SFUSD total comp with private sector current comp (base salary and bonus).
  - jltsiren 1y ago
    The point was that teachers earn less than what they could get in other jobs in the same area. Comparisons should be based on the lifestyle the compensation enables rather than some abstract numbers. People generally have the greatest need for money when they are buying a home, starting a family, and raising kids. Money in hand today is much more valuable than mandatory retirement benefits you can only enjoy decades later.
    - rahimnathwani 1y ago
      The point was that teachers earn less than what they could get in other jobs in the same area. I don't believe that's true. People generally have the greatest need for money when they are buying a home... Maybe, but the fact that you don't have to save for retirement frees up money to spend on a home!
      - jltsiren 1y ago
        Most pensions are not purely free money. Employees are usually required to contribute a nontrivial fraction of their nominal salary towards the pension. For SFUSD, the typical rate seems to be 9%.
        rahimnathwani 1y ago
        Yeah, I think they pay about a third of the total contributions. But the state also steps in to pay for any shortfalls. So I think effectively pay less than a third of total contributions.
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    You appear to be very strongly invested in this completely bizarre narrative that teachers in SFUSD are not low paid, and basically every number you’ve used is wrong or misleading. Nobody is getting 90% of their salary as a pension. If you retire at 62 after 30 years teaching you will get 66% of your salary as a pension. Personally, in my private sector job, my healthcare and retirement matching is more than the benefits amount for SFUSD, so excluding that is just ridiculous.