Good news for pilots - retirement age

[Greg Farris]

The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/13/business/transcol14.php
http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=494085

[Mxsmanic]

Greg Farris writes:

> The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.

Is that really good news for pilots who were looking forward to
retiring at 60?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[gpsman]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Greg Farris writes:
>
> > The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.
>
> Is that really good news for pilots who were looking forward to
> retiring at 60?

Which pilots would those be...?

I imagine piloting a simulator might become boring; real aircraft with
air under your very own ass, rarely, if ever.

> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Pass... a-dena
-----

- gpsman

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:39:48 +0100, Greg Farris >
wrote in >:

>The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.
>
>
>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/13/business/transcol14.php
>http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=494085

If I recall correctly, that has repeatedly occurred over the last few
decades.

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.
>
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/13/business/transcol14.php
> http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=494085

Why is this a good thing. So now the old *******s are going to keep
their butts in the left seat and no one else gets a chance? "Good
news"????

-Robert

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:46:38 -0800, Greg Farris wrote:

> Good
> new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
> above post! :-)

Maybe.

I heard a news report about this on the local news station. According to
that, this is all about keeping a sufficiently large pool of pilots
available.

My immediate thought goes to economics 101: supply vs. demand. By raising
the retirement age, the FAA is actually helping to keep pilot salaries
(and pension payments!) down.

So yes, pilots can work longer. And that's good for older pilots (even if
a little temporarily painful for younger pilots {8^). But there is also
that economic downside of the increased supply of pilots to consider.

- Andrew

[Al G[_1_]]

"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> says...
>
>>Why is this a good thing. So now the old *******s are going to keep
>>their butts in the left seat and no one else gets a chance? "Good
>>news"????
>
> Good news for them!
> Good news for the flying public, who benefit from their experience.
> Good new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on
> your
> above post! :-)
>
> Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.
> Pilots have to watch their health all their lives, and most want nothing
> more
> than to maintain their careers as long as possible. The 60 rule was
> antiquated when it was instated 47 years ago - it has become more so
> with
> every passing year.
>
>>
>>-Robert
>>

Robert is right. Some of the greatest "Saves" in aviation history have
been accomplished by a 59 year old captain, Al Haynes/Sioux City comes to
mind
as does a B737 convertible for Hawaiian airlines. Both of these crews had an
"ancient" captain, legally on his last legs age wise, and both exhibited
incredible skill and knowlege of the systems in the process of saving
hundreds of lives. This is no accident, literally.

Al G

Al G

[Jay Honeck]

> Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.
> Pilots have to watch their health all their lives, and most want nothing more
> than to maintain their careers as long as possible. The 60 rule was
> antiquated when it was instated 47 years ago - it has become more so with
> every passing year.

It'll never change, because (after verifying that 60 is the new 50) the
bureaucrats would have to admit that most government pension programs
are absurdly generous and financially unsustainable over time.

Face it: If they admit that age 60 is "too young" to retire (and we
*all* know it is), they will be forced to reassess their own ridiculous
"30 years and out with full-benefits" policy that allows 52 year-old
gummint employees to retire with full pensions.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> It'll never change, because (after verifying that 60 is the new 50) the
> bureaucrats would have to admit that most government pension programs
> are absurdly generous and financially unsustainable over time.

Keeping people working longer helps because they are still contributing.


>
> Face it: If they admit that age 60 is "too young" to retire (and we
> *all* know it is), they will be forced to reassess their own ridiculous
> "30 years and out with full-benefits" policy that allows 52 year-old
> gummint employees to retire with full pensions.

My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

[Jay Honeck]

> My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
> 25 years.

Case closed.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:05:38 -0800, in
om>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> Case closed.

When I was in the military, you could retire at 50% salary after 20 years
or 75% salary after 30 years... We didn't get paid much back then, so 50
or 75 percent of nothing was still nothing...

Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
give them better retirement options...

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article om>,
> says...

> Good news for them!
> Good news for the flying public, who benefit from their experience.
> Good new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
> above post! :-)
>
> Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.

But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs. It will simply mean
that younger pilots won't have the access to the left seat they had
been lead to believe. If a guy can retire at 60, let him retire, let
someone else have a chance on the yoke. I'll be waiting for the first
youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
ramp.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

Newps wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
> 25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
> read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
> 80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
> was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
> not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
> They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
> retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
> pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
> my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

You are a gov't employee and can contribute to a 401K?

-Robert

[Vaughn Simon]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
> the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
> pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs. It will simply mean
> that younger pilots won't have the access to the left seat they had
> been lead to believe. If a guy can retire at 60, let him retire, let
> someone else have a chance on the yoke. I'll be waiting for the first
> youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
> ramp.

Then take it up with your union. The FAA's only consideration in this
matter should be safety, not who gets what seat and when.

Vaughn

[Montblack]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
> Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
> their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
> give them better retirement options...


Bunk.

Private sector employees operate in an environment of 'risk' ...as in, will
I have a job next month? State, County, and Federal employees often do not
face this reality. There is currency in this type of job protection.

On a side note - I love talk about raising the minimum wage. The first
benefactors of a higher minimum wage are State and County workers, who (many
times) have salaries pegged to that number.


Mont

[Robert M. Gary]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> Then take it up with your union. The FAA's only consideration in this
> matter should be safety, not who gets what seat and when.

That's the cutest thing I've ever heard.

-Robert

[Newps]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
>>25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
>>read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
>>80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
>>was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
>>not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
>>They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
>>retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
>>pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
>>my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.
>
>
> You are a gov't employee and can contribute to a 401K?

We call it TSP, for Thrift Savings Plan, but it's essentially the same
as your 401k. I can contribute any amount up to the IRS max which I
believe is $14K this year, goes up about $500 a year, same as you. The
Government contributes another 5% of my base pay.

[Newps]

Vaughn Simon wrote:


>
> Then take it up with your union. The FAA's only consideration in this
> matter should be safety, not who gets what seat and when.
>

That has never been the reason for the age 60 rule.

[Mxsmanic]

gpsman writes:

> Which pilots would those be...?

Pilot unions are opposed to raising the retirement age for pilots. In
fact, from what I understand, they were behind setting the age at 60
to begin with.

> I imagine piloting a simulator might become boring; real aircraft with
> air under your very own ass, rarely, if ever.

So why are unions against raising the maximum age?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Newps writes:

> I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
> my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.

If you can afford to put $14,000 into your 401(k) each year, you have
nothing to complain about.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mxsmanic]

Robert M. Gary writes:

> But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
> the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
> pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs. It will simply mean
> that younger pilots won't have the access to the left seat they had
> been lead to believe. If a guy can retire at 60, let him retire, let
> someone else have a chance on the yoke. I'll be waiting for the first
> youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
> ramp.

Sixty years old is not ancient by any measure. A person can fly for
decades beyond that as long as he remains in good health. And many
people remain in good health through to a much greater age.

Flying should be open to anyone who doesn't have a serious health
problem that interferes with it. Commercial airliners are not fighter
planes, and experience is more important than quick reflexes in these
types of aircraft.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Greg Farris]

In article om>,
says...

>Why is this a good thing. So now the old *******s are going to keep
>their butts in the left seat and no one else gets a chance? "Good
>news"????

Good news for them!
Good news for the flying public, who benefit from their experience.
Good new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
above post! :-)

Good news in general because it's just plain realistic.
Pilots have to watch their health all their lives, and most want nothing more
than to maintain their careers as long as possible. The 60 rule was
antiquated when it was instated 47 years ago - it has become more so with
every passing year.



>
>-Robert
>

[Greg Farris]

In article >,
says...

>
>So yes, pilots can work longer. And that's good for older pilots (even if
>a little temporarily painful for younger pilots {8^).

An underlying theme that comes out of it though is that pilots want to keep
working. They are generally not tempted by early retirement, but would
rather stay on the job.

There are countries where flight attendants have managed to squeeze in on
the disability insurance policies created for pilots. What do you know -
in such places there are lots of flight attendants out on disabilty, and
very few pilots!

When pilots do suffer a health problem, they are often tempted to try to
hide it - because they don't want it to prezvent them from working, even
if they have a golden insurance policy. Many professions would sieze the
opportunity to be out on disability!

Sounds like pilots are pretty satisfied with their work, overall.

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...

>
>But again, contrary to your subject line, *NOT* good for pilots (with
>the possible exception of the few who are actually 59.5). Allowing
>pilots to fly longer WILL NOT create more jobs.


Really quite the socialist view, yours.
You would be right in step in Europe - you should propose a new law that
would not allow airline pilots to log more than 20h a month - double the
airline's operating costs and see how many new jobs you create. With thinking
like that you could have a political career in France!

I was referring to enhancement of the lives and careers of pilots - I think
if you ask practicing pilots, even young ones, most would feel that the 60 rule
is unwelcome.

GF

[Matt Barrow]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:46:38 -0800, Greg Farris wrote:
>
>> Good
>> new for you when you get closer to that age and make a quick 180 on your
>> above post! :-)
>
> Maybe.
>
> I heard a news report about this on the local news station. According to
> that, this is all about keeping a sufficiently large pool of pilots
> available.
>
> My immediate thought goes to economics 101: supply vs. demand. By raising
> the retirement age, the FAA is actually helping to keep pilot salaries
> (and pension payments!) down.

Not quite; notice how age discrimination took over the high tech fields in
the late 90's and forward.

Younger people command lower salaries. MOF, it's rumored that the original
rule was implemented to keep the salaries costs in check back when pilots
were treated like gods (at least by the public if not the airlines) and
their pay was steadily rising.

I wonder if the by 60's some pilots were right under top management in pay
scales.

How's about they lay off some of those overpaid CEO bozos?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
>
> Traditionally, government employees have been paid considerably less than
> their private sector counterparts... One way to compensate for that is to
> give them better retirement options...

....or less real (i.e., productive) work to do.

[Mxsmanic]

Matt Barrow writes:

> I wonder if the by 60's some pilots were right under top management in pay
> scales.

At some airlines, top pilots were paid more than the CEO. I know this
was true at Air France.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Robert M. Gary]

Greg Farris wrote:
> In article . com>,
> says...
> I was referring to enhancement of the lives and careers of pilots - I think
> if you ask practicing pilots, even young ones, most would feel that the 60 rule
> is unwelcome.

If that were true, the union wouldn't have fought over this internally
for decades. Remember, only 1/2 the members are old.
-Robert

[Panic]

--
"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
> The age-old 60-year retirement rule is in the process of being revisited.
>
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/13/business/transcol14.php
> http://www.angolapress-angop.ao/noticia-e.asp?ID=494085

In my opinion the U.S. needs to allow medically qualified pilots to fly
beyond age 60. With so many airlines reneging on their retirement plans at
the same time the minimum age to get Social Security payments is going up,
we will have more and more "retired" pilots having to get jobs as "greeters"
in large stores.

[Greg Farris]

In article . com>,
says...

>
I'll be waiting for the first
>youtube video of a first officer helping an ancient captain up the
>ramp.
>


Maybe I can slow your free-fall off the deep end here by reminding you the
current proposal is only about extending the age to 65!!

GF

[Kev]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Greg Farris wrote:
> > In article . com>,
> > says...
> > I was referring to enhancement of the lives and careers of pilots - I think
> > if you ask practicing pilots, even young ones, most would feel that the 60 rule
> > is unwelcome.
>
> If that were true, the union wouldn't have fought over this internally
> for decades. Remember, only 1/2 the members are old.

According to the news, slightly over half the pilots oppose the age
change. All the union reps on the FAA advisory committee oppose the
rule change. And apparently the pilots who do desire the increase in
age, don't _want_ to keep working, but _have_ to keep working because
of pension decreases.

All the financial, union and political stuff just obscures the fact
that it's not really a physical issue these days.

Regards, Kev

[Margy Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> Newps wrote:
>>
>>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> My mandatory retirement is age 56. I am eligible at 49 when I will have
>>> 25 years. There are no full pensions anymore in the government. Better
>>> read up. The Government started a new retirement system in the mid
>>> 80's. There aren't many people left on the old system. The old system
>>> was a pension only system, they did not pay into social security and did
>>> not receive benefits unless they got their 40 quarters somewhere else.
>>> They received 50% of their highest three years of salary as their
>>> retirement. Now the retirement is much more employee financed. I also
>>> pay into social security. I also put the IRS max of $14K this year into
>>> my 401K. My pension will be less than the 50% the other workers got.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are a gov't employee and can contribute to a 401K?
>
>
> We call it TSP, for Thrift Savings Plan, but it's essentially the same
> as your 401k. I can contribute any amount up to the IRS max which I
> believe is $14K this year, goes up about $500 a year, same as you. The
> Government contributes another 5% of my base pay.
TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get 0%
from them. After a year I think I might get 3%. I'm also in the govt.
pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.

Margy

[Newps]

Margy Natalie wrote:

>>
>> We call it TSP, for Thrift Savings Plan, but it's essentially the same
>> as your 401k. I can contribute any amount up to the IRS max which I
>> believe is $14K this year, goes up about $500 a year, same as you.
>> The Government contributes another 5% of my base pay.



> TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get 0%
> from them.


If you're a Fed then you have to wait either 6 months or a year. I was
putting in $575 a paycheck into the TSP in 2006. I bumped it to $650
for this year. That way my contributions automatically stop by December
when the money comes in handy for Christmas.



After a year I think I might get 3%.

Once you're eligible the plan is the same for everybody. You put in 5%
and the government matches it, 5% is the most they put in. You can go
up to the IRS max.




I'm also in the govt.
> pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.


At 25 years you would get a pension of about 39% of your high three
years base pay. The formula is 1.7% per year for the first 20 then 1%
for every year after that. I can go at age 49 with 25 years. If I stay
until mandatory retirement at 56 that would give me a 46% pension. I
have no desire to stay that long and do not plan to. I want out ASAP.

[Morgans]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

> TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get 0%
> from them. After a year I think I might get 3%. I'm also in the govt.
> pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.
>
So, how are things shaking out with your new position? Still enjoying going
to work, I would imagine. :-)
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:44:19 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>Once you're eligible the plan is the same for everybody. You put in 5%
>and the government matches it, 5% is the most they put in. You can go
>up to the IRS max.


Be aware that to maximize the match in a many retirement plans you
need to spread out your contributions over the entire year of
paychecks.

I'm amazed at how many people who max out their matched retirement
plans by September (or even earlier!) don't realize they're leaving at
least 25% of the match on the table each year.

[Newps]

B A R R Y wrote:

>
> I'm amazed at how many people who max out their matched retirement
> plans by September (or even earlier!) don't realize they're leaving at
> least 25% of the match on the table each year.


That's done by design. The faster you get your money into a rising
market the more money you make. For every paycheck that I forgo the
match I leave $140 on the table. I'm betting I can do better than that.
In the long run you will.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:27:59 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>That's done by design. The faster you get your money into a rising
>market the more money you make.

A.) Dollar cost averaging has a way of evening some of those rises
out. Stock and bond markets don't always rise significantly from
week to week. Sometimes they even decline over a week or two.

B.) My match is a lot more than $140. The match is also "free
money", tax deferred, that works hard over the long term for me.

[Newps]

B A R R Y wrote:

>
> A.) Dollar cost averaging has a way of evening some of those rises
> out. Stock and bond markets don't always rise significantly from
> week to week. Sometimes they even decline over a week or two.
>
> B.) My match is a lot more than $140. The match is also "free
> money", tax deferred, that works hard over the long term for me.


The only thing that matters is what gets you the most money in the end.

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 15:01:33 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>The only thing that matters is what gets you the most money in the end.

Amen, Brother!

[Margy Natalie]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Margy Natalie wrote:
>
>>>
>>> We call it TSP, for Thrift Savings Plan, but it's essentially the
>>> same as your 401k. I can contribute any amount up to the IRS max
>>> which I believe is $14K this year, goes up about $500 a year, same as
>>> you. The Government contributes another 5% of my base pay.
>
>
>
>
>> TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get
>> 0% from them.
>
>
>
> If you're a Fed then you have to wait either 6 months or a year. I was
> putting in $575 a paycheck into the TSP in 2006. I bumped it to $650
> for this year. That way my contributions automatically stop by December
> when the money comes in handy for Christmas.
>
>
>
> After a year I think I might get 3%.
>
> Once you're eligible the plan is the same for everybody. You put in 5%
> and the government matches it, 5% is the most they put in. You can go
> up to the IRS max.
>
>
>
>
> I'm also in the govt.
>
>> pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.
>
>
>
> At 25 years you would get a pension of about 39% of your high three
> years base pay. The formula is 1.7% per year for the first 20 then 1%
> for every year after that. I can go at age 49 with 25 years. If I stay
> until mandatory retirement at 56 that would give me a 46% pension. I
> have no desire to stay that long and do not plan to. I want out ASAP.
Better than I thought, but I'm not staying that long.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote
>
>> TSP this year is $15,500. Since I just started with the govt. I get
>> 0% from them. After a year I think I might get 3%. I'm also in the
>> govt. pension which according to most is worth almost nothing.
>>
> So, how are things shaking out with your new position? Still enjoying
> going to work, I would imagine. :-)
I have to stop coming up with great ideas as I'm getting way too much
work!! I have a bunch of things in the planning stages that are above
and beyond my "job", but that's what makes things interesting. The
docents still like me so I guess I'm doing my job.

Margy

[Morgans]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

> Better than I thought, but I'm not staying that long.

What do you have in mind for your next career? Back to teaching?

I got back into teaching, relatively late, at 35. I'll have to go to 63, to
get the full NC state pension.

I don't know what will go first; my back causing disability eligibility, or
teacher burnout. I doubt I'll make it all the way, though. :-(

Friday, my students were practicing the art of coping baseboards. For those
that don't know, it involves using a hand held coping saw, to get the proper
profile to make two pieces of baseboard fit correctly in a corner. There
were students all over the shop, sitting at tables and work benches,
practicing their skill/art.

One of my future jail residents decided that it would be funny to cut a 3" X
3" table leg off, all but about 1/2" in the middle of the leg. "Funny
stuff" like that chaps my *ss, really bad. It sure does take the joy out of
trying to teach.

Another student, not to be out-done, proceeded to cut off most of a steel
chair leg, before he got caught.

Many of our youth have no respect for anyone else's property, and destroy
things, just because they can. I don't understand the motivation behind
these acts. They don't deserve the right to stay in public education. I'm
sure of that.

Retirement looks better, every day.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

> I have to stop coming up with great ideas as I'm getting way too much
> work!! I have a bunch of things in the planning stages that are above and
> beyond my "job", but that's what makes things interesting. The docents
> still like me so I guess I'm doing my job.

<Chuckle>

And more, no doubt.

Knowing a little of your personality, you will _always_ be trying to do more
than what is required. It is that work ethic that makes our country great.
We need more people with work ethics like you! :-)
--
Jim in NC

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:21:30 -0500, "Morgans" >
wrote:

>I got back into teaching, relatively late, at 35. I'll have to go to 63, to
>get the full NC state pension.
>
>I don't know what will go first; my back causing disability eligibility, or
>teacher burnout. I doubt I'll make it all the way, though. :-(

Swap the back for a knee, and my wife is on a parallel track.

She's a 2nd grade teacher in a NCLB "Failing" school and is definitely
burning out.

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote
>
>> Better than I thought, but I'm not staying that long.
>
>
> What do you have in mind for your next career? Back to teaching?

Full time gardening, punctuated with flying, drinking wine, and going
out on the boat :-). We've got 2 acres on a 3,000' grass field in NC
that is calling my name. As soon as we can quit the rat race we are
outta here!

Seriously, If I was going to put in 25 with the government I'd be in my
70's before I got out.

Margy

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote
>
>> I have to stop coming up with great ideas as I'm getting way too much
>> work!! I have a bunch of things in the planning stages that are above
>> and beyond my "job", but that's what makes things interesting. The
>> docents still like me so I guess I'm doing my job.
>
>
> <Chuckle>
>
> And more, no doubt.
>
> Knowing a little of your personality, you will _always_ be trying to do
> more than what is required. It is that work ethic that makes our
> country great. We need more people with work ethics like you! :-)

Yeah, but getting anything done requires so much pounding your head
against a brick wall. No wonder people give up and do "just what's
required".

Margy

[Morgans]

"B A R R Y" > wrote
>
> Swap the back for a knee, and my wife is on a parallel track.
>
> She's a 2nd grade teacher in a NCLB "Failing" school and is definitely
> burning out.

I'm in a good school, but it seems as though teaching construction, I get
the bottom of the barrel. Imagine that. Construction workers that don't
want to work.

The sad part is, that the 20% hold back the rest of the good ones, that want
to learn.

Until school is a privilege, instead of a requirement, it will stay the
same.

Ones that do not want to be in school should be allowed to leave. In a
couple years, after seeing the outside without a skill, they can go back and
get some training, when they want to be there.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Margy Natalie" > wrote

> Full time gardening, punctuated with flying, drinking wine, and going
> out on the boat :-). We've got 2 acres on a 3,000' grass field in NC
> that is calling my name. As soon as we can quit the rat race we are
> outta here!

Sounds great. NC is God's Country! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Margy Natalie]

Morgans wrote:
>
> "Margy Natalie" > wrote
>
>> Full time gardening, punctuated with flying, drinking wine, and going
>> out on the boat :-). We've got 2 acres on a 3,000' grass field in NC
>> that is calling my name. As soon as we can quit the rat race we are
>> outta here!
>
>
> Sounds great. NC is God's Country! ;-)
It sure is! We have some friends farther east (Apex) who gave us 3
books for the holidays. Barbeque of NC, Winerys of NC and Gardening in
NC. We are working our way through the Barbeque places an winerys. It
makes for fun weekends!

Margy