Larry Kudlow Thinks Teachers Make $120,000 Yearly

[Jefferson23]

Media pundit was interviewed on the Morning Joe Show where he asserted that teachers make $120,000. This, apparently, is an outrage, showing what leeches teachers are. Apparently you can say anything on these talk shows because they are about opinions, not facts or information or knowledge.

Of course, he was wrong. Rebecca Klein writes on Huffington Post that the average teachers’ salary is $56,393.

Kudlow said he was referring to New York City’s new teacher contract, but he was wrong there too. Klein wrote: “Under the new contract, the maximum salary of teachers is $119,565 per year –- but that is only after at least 22 years of experience in the classroom, a master’s degree and 30 additional academic credits. The starting salary of a teacher in the city is $54,411.”

http://dianeravitch.net/2014/05/17/larry-kudlow-thinks-trachers-make-120000-yearly/

[Doctor_J]

1. Another lying Republican on TV.

The shock nearly killed me.

[Jefferson23]

2. Yea, and the shock that no one confronted his bullshit on msnbc..the liberal cable news, lol. n/t

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

3. TeaPublican Media Pundits make almost $7,000,000.00 per year.

If the idiot can say "teachers make" implying ALL teachers make when in reality he means "a few top teachers make," then all we need to do is look at the Limp Blob's contract to respond with "pundits make $7 Million..." Fight non-logic with similar non-logic.

The problem is that talking heads like Morning Joe won't confront these stupid claims on camera.

OK, so a few teachers, after 22 years and about 7 or more years of college make almost $120,000 per year.

Probably a few doctors, accountants, lawyers, judges and congress-critters also make as much as $120,000.

I would be willing to bet that even a few private sector business department heads who manage 25 individuals on a daily basis might make as much as $120,000 per year as well.

[Igel]

5. It's a stupid game.

Because as soon as people are in an argument, they manipulate the resources grammar makes available to suit them. Listeners go stupid. Speakers go Machiavelli.

Compare two examples. This one, with "teachers make $120k/year" and another one, "Economists support minimum wage increase."

Look at grammar: English bare plurals. "Cats have 4 legs" is true, but a 3-legged cat is a cat. It's prototypical and creates no problems. "Humans need oxygen" is exhaustive--all humans need oxygens. If I say "only African-American study Hausa," Hinnebusch would for sure say, "That's not true: Whites study Hausa". Why? Because there are whites that study Hausa. It's not prototypical (few whites study Hausa), and it's not exhaustive (not all whites study Hausa).

If I say "boys like girls" it's controversial. Not because there are boys who like girls, but because there are boys who like boys. Some will assume that the only interpretation is "all boys like girls" and that must be fought. They will often resent the interpretation that "in general boys like girls" because that sets up a norm, a prototypical situation, and a boy who likes another boy is then a-prototypical, non-normal. Those opposed to gay rights will be just as happy to interpret it that way because it suits his/her agenda. The grammar is clearly underspecified.

So "economists support minimum wage increase" is jubilantly taken on DU to mean "all." It says nothing of the sort. If it's accuracy is challenged, naming two economists who agree with with (Krugman, Stiglitz) establishes its accuracy. Then we'll go back to assuming that it means "all economists" having failed to actually establish that but wanting it to be true. It takes a certain amount of mental discipline to *not* lapse back into thinking it means "all economists"--at the very least we'll take it to mean "most" or "the ones that matter". A (R) will likely take umbrage with that interpretation, and may accuse the statement "economists support a MW increase" to be false because one interpretation is false; he may accuse the speaker of being misleading. (The speaker *may* be misleading, but esp. if newspaper-speak it's just telegraphic.)

The same is at play with "teachers make $120k/year." It's a bare plural. It's not prototypical, to be sure--the pay is near the top of the range in high-pay areas, and off-the-scale in most areas. It's certainly not exhaustive (I'm a counterexample, so it's obvious to me that it can't mean "all teachers&quot . But it's also completely factual under the reading that "there exist at least two teachers who make $120k/year." After all, the grammar is underspecified--it's not the utterance that's false or true, it's what we understand the utterance to mean.

But that's all listener-side. Speaker-side the same game is played. Often a politician, "news analyst," or just some poster on DU will use a bare plural knowing full well that it will be misunderstood but is still true in some licit reading. Sometimes s/he'll use it because his/her thinking is just sloppy and the idea that some =/= all eludes them as they're trying to construct a sentence. The problem is that most people are really bad at sorting out the effect of context. Usually looking at context makes clear if the speaker has in mind "all" or "some," has in mind a prototypical usage or is just contrasting "some" against an assumed "none." Our horrible habit of decontextualizing speech that's not intended to be decontextualized, or of assuming the worst context for foes and the best context for friends, both lead to unnecessary verbiage.

Saying that listeners go stupid and speakers go Machiavelli is, to be honest, giving them both the benefit of the doubt. Of course, in using the bare plural I'm assuming that readers will take the context into account: Here I mean "some, perhaps many," neither limiting myself to having two test cases to base the factuality of the statement on, nor asserting that it's the case all listeners and speakers in every context are both stupid/Machiavellian or even that it's prototypical.

[Igel]

6. And in the right context, that's how you'd put it.

There's be no snark involved, except perhaps for the first, the $7 million, claim. There might be two, the minimum needed for it to be true, but it's far from clear there are two. If it's safe to assume there are at least two, or, even better, a reasonable number (even if it's a minority of them), then the bare plural is just fine.

"Geophysicists make $125k/year" is taken to mean "geophysicists can make up to $125k/year." It might be taken as average, but if it's disambiguated to mean "upper range" instead of "average" few get their nappies knotted. It's certainly not taken to be starting salary.

I've seen people who were particularly embittered, however, try to make it mean "all geophysicists" or "in general". Why? Because it could mean that and they wanted that particular parsing. Context matters.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

7. Absolutely correct. Yes, I went to the snarky extreme.

But it is the "teachers make..." (or substitute geophysicists, physicians, etc.) which implies that "ALL teachers make," when in fact it really means "some teachers MIGHT reach..." with many years experience and years of additional education, which infuriates me.

I was a classroom teacher for 35 years in a high-paying affluent major metro suburban school district. I began my career at $6300 per year. When I retired after 35 years I had reached $96,000. Not a bad final salary, but it did take 35 years to reach it. Teaching salaries never catch up to private sector salaries. I'm not complaining. I knew that when I went into the profession. I didn't stay in the profession to get rich.

Those who are "particularly embittered" about our education and specifically about teachers manage to demean the profession every chance they get and then whine about the "astronomical" salaries. Sad really, because educating our youth is what moves our country forward into the future.

[Turbineguy]

4. Larry Kudlow proves teachers do not make $120,000 per year

If those teachers did, these clowns would get their facts straight.

[4dsc]

8. They should make that much but don't

I'm of firm belief that teachers and police and firemen should make as much as a Congressman..

[theHandpuppet]

9. +1000

Was about to post that very thought myself.

[adirondacker]

10. And to think people pay hard earned money to watch that bullshit.

fuck that. 5 years without cable and don't miss it in the least.