Thursday, September 17, 2015

You Aren't SUPPOSED To Support Yourself On a Teacher's Salary


The problem with "moonlighting" in states like California is that teachers are not going to get any Social Security benefits if they haven't worked at least 20 years in "substantial earnings." The effect of WEP was to screw over teachers and other public employees who are NOT high paid and NEED the money.

Furthermore, because of sexist attitudes about traditional "women's work," teachers are NOT supposed to be able to support themselves on one income. You are supposed to have a husband to pick up the slack (I say husband because the vast majority of teachers are female). This is ruinous for single people, who can't even begin to crack the real estate market anywhere in the country.

Jobs like teaching are considered "secondary income." Women are expected to be supported by men.

This goes double and triple for classified workers in the classroom who don't work a full year in their jobs. They cannot receive unemployment benefits when they are laid off during the summer months or during winter and spring breaks. The federal government allowed for this loophole while requiring private sector industries like logging, construction, and fishing--MALE industries--to pay UI for their workers when they were temporarily laid off. Teachers typically have their annual salaries spread out over 12 months. Classified workers are hourly, so spreading out their income over the summer is impossible. School districts whine about how they can't afford to pay UI, yet it is virtually impossible to get summer work in school districts or other employers. School districts make the assumption classified workers are women who are supported by husbands. They are working for "pin money" and don't need UI and other financial resources. No wonder a substantial number of classified employees are on public assistance.

Regarding housing costs: Houses first became insanely expensive everywhere in the country during the mid-1970s, when real estate greedheads noticed more and more women were flooding the labor force, and they decided to jack up real estate prices in order to further line their own pockets. "Supply and demand" had little to do with this. They figured they could double or triple the home prices because there were now two incomes in a household. Lots of profit for them, but ruinous for married single-earner households, never-marrieds, and people in traditionally female-dominated jobs. They were relegated into renting for the rest of their lives.

Given how bad the economy is, there is NO reason why houses, except in the very few places in the country where there IS demand for the location, are much over 100k. It is greed, pure and simple greed.

No comments: