Are teachers overpaid?!

[Pu-239]

A guy here at work's wife is a teacher. She teaches special ed, ie. the problem kids. She had one kid who cussed her out violently (no, not turrets). She called the principal to call the police. Well, she and her aide spent the next four hours SITTING on this boy until the police arrived. The assistant principal was sitting ON HIS ASS IN THE ROOM not helping.

She has these problems all the time.

I used to be in those classes in 5th and 7th grade. The students in them were insane. I disapprove of any system that segregates the special ed people from the normal people. It has fucked up my social life (though it was already fucked to begin with).

[Darth Wong]

The problem with teaching salaries is as follows:

1) Parental resentment at teachers who treat you dismissively and ignore your input. It is difficult to get someone on your side about your salary when his last experience with a teacher was extremely negative.

2) The fact that a brilliant, caring teacher is paid the same as a stupid, apathetic teacher (thanks to unionization and pay by seniority).

3) The huge amount of vacation time does not endear them to people who do not, for example, get two and a half months off in summer, nor does it make those people sympathetic to their pleas for more salary.

4) The argument that they are crucial for society is dicey at best; it's true, but it's also true for many other sectors of society such as sewage and water treatment workers (watch how fast society goes to hell if the sewage and water treatment plants all shut down), and they are paid even less.

5) The "extra work off hours" argument sounds convincing to people who don't have jobs, but for those who do, a huge and increasing number also do a lot of work off hours, auto mechanics pay for their own tools and in many cases for skills retraining, etc.

In short, negative parental experiences with teachers and a sympathy gap drawn from the fact that teachers publicize the travails of their own jobs while disregarding those of others (surely a police officer staring down violent armed criminals faces greater stress than a teacher staring down unruly kids) both limit public sympathy for teachers. I have no doubt that there are teachers out there who deserve to be paid more. I also have no doubt that there are teachers out there who deserve to get fired and put on welfare, and I've met some of both kinds.

If parents had more say in the way schools ran and teacher pay was linked to parental satisfaction in some way, I dare say you'd start seeing some much more highly paid teachers (along with some others getting tossed out on their asses).

[Next of Kin]

Part of the misconception with teacher's contracts is that they are always getting raises. So far, the amount of raises in the last have just kept pace with inflation. However, some have the belief that teachers are millionaires.

[Stravo]

Teachers Unions have also been adamantly opposed to scaling pay based on performance. This would have an effect that mediocrises the teaching pool so we get idiots like the one in the Kingdom of Canada thread. Incentive based pay seems to always be opposed by unions in any industry, why? Because the vast majority of workers are not that good and rewarding a few breeds resentment? I don't give two shits if teachers resent each other as long as my kid is getting the best education out there by the best teachers. Here in NYC that usually means private school.

I currently shell out 300 bucks a month to make sure my daughter gets a quality education (with an unfortunate dose of Catholic dogma) I wish I didn't have to do that but Public school is a fucking disaster. I believe the whole system needs to be shaken up from top to bottom if we're going to get anything done. I for one oppose this PCing of the schools, in my day there was nothing less PC than Sister Catherine wacking us across our knuckles with a thick plastic hairbrush for talking too much, etc. She even had a theme song to her beatings. I shit you not. "This is my brush...this is my brush...you have been bad...you must be punished." No one said it was a good song but she sang it.

I hated her then and now I understand what she was doing.

[jegs2]

I see what you say about unions, and I agree. Overall, they award longevity rather than performance. Adding to that cute song you wrote, I had a large black teacher named, Mr. Thorpe, when I was in 4th Grade. I yet remember his stack of five wooden rulers, held together with duct tape. I also remember his hand clamped on my wrist and those rulers slamming into my palm. Closing the hand always proved a mistake, as those rulers smacking into knuckles hurt much worse...

[Queeb Salaron]

I see what you say about unions, and I agree. Overall, they award longevity rather than performance. Adding to that cute song you wrote, I had a large black teacher named, Mr. Thorpe, when I was in 4th Grade. I yet remember his stack of five wooden rulers, held together with duct tape. I also remember his hand clamped on my wrist and those rulers slamming into my palm. Closing the hand always proved a mistake, as those rulers smacking into knuckles hurt much worse...

::Nods:: I just told them to keep hitting me and laughed at them when they did. Then they sent me to the headmaster's office. They thought I was a glutton for punishment.

I kindly explained to my headmasters that it wasn't my fault that they were angry people and my civil rebellions pushed them over the edge. How could I control such mitigating factors as the teacher's wife not putting out the night before, or the coffee machine in the lounge being broken, or the expletives scratched into his hood, or anything else that could have set him on that bad mood in the first place? And why should my sarcasm be punished as a result of his bad mood? I wasn't offensive, just cynical. Essentially, being myself got me punished because my english teacher didn't get any poon. Everything starts with a fuck, and everything (to that point) ended with a fuck.

I found that hilariously funny. That's why I laughed at them.

[aerius]

For every good teacher I've had, I've had at least 3-4 incompetant morons who should've had their asses fired. Why? I'm not sure as I haven't put much thought into it, but a lot of the reasons discussed in this thread make sense, especially the union part. When I worked for Canada Customs we had a very similar situation in that our unionized workers literally could not be fired, and even if they got fired the union would sue and get their jobs back in many cases. Knowing that they were practically unfireable, a lot of the unionized workers just dicked around every day and did absolutely no fucking work. They didn't care about their work at all, just the fact that they collected a paycheck at the end of each week.

I saw a lot of that same attitude in the marginal teachers that I've had over the years. I don't think they really cared about teaching, nor did they take any pride in their work that I could see. They just showed up for class every day and went through the motions of teaching, much like my unionized co-workers at Customs. And just like the Customs guys, you can't get them fired.

The good teachers are very underpaid, while the bad ones should be looking for jobs outside of teaching. If you can't be bothered to care or take pride in a job as important as teaching, you're in the wrong job.

[Master of Ossus]

People are ALWAYS paid an amount of money equivalent to the value of their position and abilities in that position to society. Society has decided that Barry Bonds' ability to hit baseballs is vastly more important than my ability to write newspapers, which in turn is more valuable than the local middle school janitor. It's not necessarily fair to the individual, but it's the only possible societal method of determining compensation.

[Queeb Salaron]

People are ALWAYS paid an amount of money equivalent to the value of their position and abilities in that position to society. Society has decided that Barry Bonds' ability to hit baseballs is vastly more important than my ability to write newspapers, which in turn is more valuable than the local middle school janitor. It's not necessarily fair to the individual, but it's the only possible societal method of determining compensation.

Whoa there, killer. Compensation for what? Are we compensating Barry Bonds for the injuries inflicted upon him as a result of his enormous celebrity status, physical stature, and baseball statistics, not to mention lack of marketable real-world skills? Of course not. The fact is that American society does NOT value his position in society as valuable. The sports industry is designed to entertain, and society can CERTAINLY find other ways of entertaining itself. But because it is entertainment, people opt to support it. Baseball is a good way to kick back and relax, sure, but it's most certainly not essential to the existence of society. Having competent teachers, however, IS of vital necessity to society. And when the average teacher makes 1% of what Barry Bonds makes, you KNOW there's something wrong. The proportions are exactly opposite; it would take 100 Barry Bondses to equal 1 competent teacher. So no, people are NOT "always paid an amount of money equivalent to the value of their position...." If such were the case, the parking lots at school would be filled with Benzes and BMWs, and professional athletes would be driving 2-decades old Volvos.

[Master of Ossus]

Whoa there, killer. Compensation for what? Are we compensating Barry Bonds for the injuries inflicted upon him as a result of his enormous celebrity status, physical stature, and baseball statistics, not to mention lack of marketable real-world skills? Of course not. The fact is that American society does NOT value his position in society as valuable. The sports industry is designed to entertain, and society can CERTAINLY find other ways of entertaining itself. But because it is entertainment, people opt to support it.

Some people consider baseball to be a superior form of entertainment, we therefore pay our baseball players more than the people who cut our hair. This is basic economics.

Baseball is a good way to kick back and relax, sure, but it's most certainly not essential to the existence of society. Having competent teachers, however, IS of vital necessity to society.

Wrong. Societies have existed without teachers. Moreover, many more people can be competent teachers than can be competent MLB players. Thus, society deems the skills and abilities that Barry Bonds has as being more valuable than the skills and talents teachers display, as an incentive for Barry Bonds to play baseball rather than get a job as a janitor, a teacher, or even a lawyer.

And when the average teacher makes 1% of what Barry Bonds makes, you KNOW there's something wrong. The proportions are exactly opposite; it would take 100 Barry Bondses to equal 1 competent teacher. So no, people are NOT "always paid an amount of money equivalent to the value of their position...." If such were the case, the parking lots at school would be filled with Benzes and BMWs, and professional athletes would be driving 2-decades old Volvos.

Wrong again. My economics model explains all of this. Your model admits to being confused as to the reasons why Barry Bonds is paid more than teachers. Thus, my model is infinitely superior.

[Alex Moon]

Whoa there, killer. Compensation for what? Are we compensating Barry Bonds for the injuries inflicted upon him as a result of his enormous celebrity status, physical stature, and baseball statistics, not to mention lack of marketable real-world skills? Of course not. The fact is that American society does NOT value his position in society as valuable. The sports industry is designed to entertain, and society can CERTAINLY find other ways of entertaining itself. But because it is entertainment, people opt to support it.

That makes it valuable. The fact is that people choose to watch baseball as their form of entertainment. Barry Bonds can do what few others can, and his ability to play brings crowds to see a game. That is what makes him valuable.

Baseball is a good way to kick back and relax, sure, but it's most certainly not essential to the existence of society.

Irrellavent. Society's actions decides what it deems valuable, whether or not it is necessary for society as a whole is only a portion of the equation.

Having competent teachers, however, IS of vital necessity to society. And when the average teacher makes 1% of what Barry Bonds makes, you KNOW there's something wrong.

According to you there's something wrong. You're using your morality to interperate the facts.

The proportions are exactly opposite; it would take 100 Barry Bondses to equal 1 competent teacher. So no, people are NOT "always paid an amount of money equivalent to the value of their position...." If such were the case, the parking lots at school would be filled with Benzes and BMWs, and professional athletes would be driving 2-decades old Volvos.

Professional sports provide millions of dollars to local communities, as well as prestige for said communities. They are also only able to be played well enough by a few people. It's simple supply and demand, and any economics student past first year will tell you the same.

[Queeb Salaron]

Some people consider baseball to be a superior form of entertainment, we therefore pay our baseball players more than the people who cut our hair. This is basic economics.

That's not what you said, though. You said that society always pays people according to the value that their skills have to society. Let me explain the nature of professional sports to you a little bit: It's an industry that capitalizes on the sidebar interests of the male population. Deny it all you want, but it is MEN who are primarily attracted to sports. Therefore, if you are to assume that baseball players such as Barry Bonds make so much money because society deems them as valuable, you have to understand that his skills are really only a "superior form of entertainment" to about 50% of society, if that. You also have to take into consideration that not every man LIKES sports all that much, and that represents a significant population of society in relation to those who DO like sports. It may not be huge, but it's there. How can Barry Bonds's salary reflect the values of society when only 50% of society supports him?

Also, because the sports entertainment industry is just that, an industry, it MILKS society for money. They first hype up the sport, then raise the prices for the hyped merchandise, and then give what's leftover to the owners who distribute that money to the players as they see fit. It's not that society wakes up in the morning and says, "hey, I'll donate tons of money to major TV networks so that I can watch my baseball on TV." By contrast, people have few qualms about paying taxes so that their kids can get a decent education.

Wrong. Societies have existed without teachers.

THIS society CANNOT exist without teachers.

Moreover, many more people can be competent teachers than can be competent MLB players.

If it's so easy, why aren't more people doing it? The US is STARVING for competent teachers.

Thus, society deems the skills and abilities that Barry Bonds has as being more valuable than the skills and talents teachers display, as an incentive for Barry Bonds to play baseball rather than get a job as a janitor, a teacher, or even a lawyer.

I, for one, most certainly do NOT value an athlete's ability over the ability for one person to convey intelligence to another person. I don't know how you can base that claim in reality. I'm looking for definite proof. Obviously the amount of money a person makes isn't indicative of society's values. Drug dealers make a killing. Corporate criminals retire happily. The mob was notorious for making an illicit living. Is crime, now, a value of society? I should think not, considering we've constructed and support a judicial system to stop it.

Wrong again. My economics model explains all of this. Your model admits to being confused as to the reasons why Barry Bonds is paid more than teachers. Thus, my model is infinitely superior.

Fine, that may be true. But A) You don't need to be an ass about it, and B) Here's an explanation of my views that is infinitely more superior.

Alex, I'd go through your post point-by-point, too, but I think I addressed everything here. If not, lemme know.

[RedImperator]

Your socialist colors are showing, Queeb. You're sitting around wondering why people who's value to society is essentially zero (professional baseball players) or less than zero (drug dealers) make more money than people who's value is very high (teachers) or even marginal (street sweepers). People aren't paid according to their value to society. The societies that tried that failed rather abruptly in the late 1980s and early 1990s--you might remember an egalitarian experiment called the U.S.S.R. and its associated satellite states.

People in the private sector are worth what industry is willing to pay them. Barry Bonds is worth millions of dollars to the San Francisco Giants, in gate receipts, TV viewership, and liscensed merchandise. He's going to get paid millions of dollars to play for them because if they didn't pay him that much he'd go somewhere else, and take those gate receipts, TV viewers, and liscensed merchandise buyers with him. Barry Bonds has no objective value for society past the taxes he pays (he's kind of an asshole, truth be told), but he's worth millions to the Giants, and that's all that matters. Teachers, unfortunately, are not worth more than what they're already getting paid to the taxpayers. I wish teachers were paid millions of dollars--I'd be taking out a loan for the down payment for my summer home in the Caymans already--but they aren't worth that much to the people who pay their salary.

[Master of Ossus]

That's not what you said, though. You said that society always pays people according to the value that their skills have to society. Let me explain the nature of professional sports to you a little bit: It's an industry that capitalizes on the sidebar interests of the male population.

You have to explain this to me? I already know this. I also know that it affects my argument in no way.

Deny it all you want, but it is MEN who are primarily attracted to sports.

Men are part of society. Concession accepted.

Therefore, if you are to assume that baseball players such as Barry Bonds make so much money because society deems them as valuable, you have to understand that his skills are really only a "superior form of entertainment" to about 50% of society, if that.

Who gives a flying fuck? The point is that that small percentage of society that's willing to pay to see Barry Bonds hit baseballs is willing to shell out more money to do that than others are willing to pay to educate children. This means that Barry Bonds' talents are more societally valuable.

You also have to take into consideration that not every man LIKES sports all that much, and that represents a significant population of society in relation to those who DO like sports.

Who gives a flying fuck? How does this affect my argument in any way? You're using strawmen to attack my argument, which is that society pays Barry Bonds better than it pays teachers because Barry Bonds' skills have been deemed more important to society than teaching. If I had said that society believes Britney Spears' talents are more societally valuable than those of teachers, the argument would be the same. It's irrelevent how many or how few people actually partake in an activity, provided that there is a market for it.

It may not be huge, but it's there. How can Barry Bonds's salary reflect the values of society when only 50% of society supports him?

LMAO! Have you EVER walked into an economics class in your entire life? No wonder you were willing to blatantly take advantage of the suffering and death of numerous people in order to promote your political views.

Also, because the sports entertainment industry is just that, an industry, it MILKS society for money. They first hype up the sport, then raise the prices for the hyped merchandise, and then give what's leftover to the owners who distribute that money to the players as they see fit. It's not that society wakes up in the morning and says, "hey, I'll donate tons of money to major TV networks so that I can watch my baseball on TV." By contrast, people have few qualms about paying taxes so that their kids can get a decent education.

Wrong. Societies have existed without teachers.

THIS society CANNOT exist without teachers.

Perhaps, but it can easily exist without a single teacher. The MP of each teacher is not that great. The MP of Barry Bonds is far greater.

Moreover, many more people can be competent teachers than can be competent MLB players.

If it's so easy, why aren't more people doing it? The US is STARVING for competent teachers.

Bullshit. They're laying off teachers in most states. Where the fuck did you get such laughably crappy information?

Moreover, many people who could become teachers have gone into industry or another field, as they have been attracted by the higher wages there. You're saying that it's easy. That's EXACTLY THE FRICKIN' POINT. That's why it takes higher wages to lure people to more difficult jobs, requiring more specialized or greater skills.

Thus, society deems the skills and abilities that Barry Bonds has as being more valuable than the skills and talents teachers display, as an incentive for Barry Bonds to play baseball rather than get a job as a janitor, a teacher, or even a lawyer.

I, for one, most certainly do NOT value an athlete's ability over the ability for one person to convey intelligence to another person.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Everyone point and laugh at the blatantly obvious self-contradiction. 50% of Americans don't even like sports. That's not society. But I represent society, because my morals are better than those of society. Again, I ask if you have ever gone to an economics class in your entire life.

I don't know how you can base that claim in reality. I'm looking for definite proof. Obviously the amount of money a person makes isn't indicative of society's values.

Yes it is.

Drug dealers make a killing. Corporate criminals retire happily.

So obviously society has decided that the risks that they take in becoming drug dealers and corporate criminals requires that they be attracted to the field through large wages. How does this disprove my model? It supports it.

The mob was notorious for making an illicit living. Is crime, now, a value of society? I should think not, considering we've constructed and support a judicial system to stop it.

You are confusing societal moral values with societal values. In this case, the two are not interchangeable. Are you always this mind-bendingly stupid?

Wrong again. My economics model explains all of this. Your model admits to being confused as to the reasons why Barry Bonds is paid more than teachers. Thus, my model is infinitely superior.

Fine, that may be true. But A) You don't need to be an ass about it, and B) Here's an explanation of my views that is infinitely more superior.

First of all, yours is a blatant ad hominem attack.

Second, where the hell is your explanation for your views that is "infinitely more superior?"

[Master of Ossus]

Your socialist colors are showing, Queeb.

Queeb, are you really a socialist?

[Queeb Salaron]

Your socialist colors are showing, Queeb.

Were they ever really hidden??

You're sitting around wondering why people who's value to society is essentially zero (professional baseball players) or less than zero (drug dealers) make more money than people who's value is very high (teachers) or even marginal (street sweepers). People aren't paid according to their value to society.

Yes, I realize this. But Master of Ossus argued otherwise. And we can't be having that, can we? The difference is that I think they SHOULD be, and you think they SHOULDN'T be. But you bring up a good point:

The societies that tried that failed rather abruptly in the late 1980s and early 1990s--you might remember an egalitarian experiment called the U.S.S.R. and its associated satellite states.

Did the USSR collapse because it paid people what they earned? Or were there other mitigating factors that had to do with it, too? Besides, I'm not arguing for a complete communist revolution. I just wish people were paid what they're worth. That means corporate execs who sit on their asses and watch the cash roll in get a significant pay cut as their underlings who work their asses off for half the pay get pay raises and a chance for growth.

People in the private sector are worth what industry is willing to pay them. Barry Bonds is worth millions of dollars to the San Francisco Giants, in gate receipts, TV viewership, and liscensed merchandise. He's going to get paid millions of dollars to play for them because if they didn't pay him that much he'd go somewhere else, and take those gate receipts, TV viewers, and liscensed merchandise buyers with him. Barry Bonds has no objective value for society past the taxes he pays (he's kind of an asshole, truth be told), but he's worth millions to the Giants, and that's all that matters. Teachers, unfortunately, are not worth more than what they're already getting paid to the taxpayers. I wish teachers were paid millions of dollars--I'd be taking out a loan for the down payment for my summer home in the Caymans already--but they aren't worth that much to the people who pay their salary.

Yes yes yes yes... but is that RIGHT? That was the point I was trying to make. Is it right that teachers should make so little where ballplayers make so much? The answer, to anyone who has a heart, is no, of course not. ::Shrugs:: Or at least I can't conceive of anyone who could make that argument.

And even if they did, Zaia would have a word or two to say about it.

[Alex Moon]

Your socialist colors are showing, Queeb.

Were they ever really hidden??

You're sitting around wondering why people who's value to society is essentially zero (professional baseball players) or less than zero (drug dealers) make more money than people who's value is very high (teachers) or even marginal (street sweepers). People aren't paid according to their value to society.

Yes, I realize this. But Master of Ossus argued otherwise. And we can't be having that, can we? The difference is that I think they SHOULD be, and you think they SHOULDN'T be. But you bring up a good point:

There's your problem. Right or wrong are your own opinions. You may dislike the fact that the market places a high value on baseball players, but that doesn't change the fact that it does.

The societies that tried that failed rather abruptly in the late 1980s and early 1990s--you might remember an egalitarian experiment called the U.S.S.R. and its associated satellite states.

Did the USSR collapse because it paid people what they earned? Or were there other mitigating factors that had to do with it, too? Besides, I'm not arguing for a complete communist revolution. I just wish people were paid what they're worth. That means corporate execs who sit on their asses and watch the cash roll in get a significant pay cut as their underlings who work their asses off for half the pay get pay raises and a chance for growth.

Corporate execs are hired to make decisions that effect the lives of thousands of people both employees as well as stockholders. They hardly sit on their asses. The average janitor or even middle manager does not necessarily have the same skills as a member of the board of directors.

People in the private sector are worth what industry is willing to pay them. Barry Bonds is worth millions of dollars to the San Francisco Giants, in gate receipts, TV viewership, and liscensed merchandise. He's going to get paid millions of dollars to play for them because if they didn't pay him that much he'd go somewhere else, and take those gate receipts, TV viewers, and liscensed merchandise buyers with him. Barry Bonds has no objective value for society past the taxes he pays (he's kind of an asshole, truth be told), but he's worth millions to the Giants, and that's all that matters. Teachers, unfortunately, are not worth more than what they're already getting paid to the taxpayers. I wish teachers were paid millions of dollars--I'd be taking out a loan for the down payment for my summer home in the Caymans already--but they aren't worth that much to the people who pay their salary.

Yes yes yes yes... but is that RIGHT? That was the point I was trying to make. Is it right that teachers should make so little where ballplayers make so much? The answer, to anyone who has a heart, is no, of course not. ::Shrugs:: Or at least I can't conceive of anyone who could make that argument.

Whether or not it's right is irrelevant. They are valuable to the market. Whether you approve of that is your own damn business.

[Queeb Salaron]

Ossus, I've come to the conclusion that we're arguing different points. I apologize for the confusion. I was under the impression that you were arguing the nature of the moral values of society, instead of the apparent values of society. All apologies. All non-moral points conceded.

[Master of Ossus]

Ossus, I've come to the conclusion that we're arguing different points. I apologize for the confusion. I was under the impression that you were arguing the nature of the moral values of society, instead of the apparent values of society. All apologies. All non-moral points conceded.

Oh, I see. That was kind of strange. Okay, then.

[PrinceofLowLight]

Here in NYC, I can't remember a schoolyear goiong by where we didn't get the eventual notice that the budget had been cut by 23 million or so (makes me wonder what the original budget was) and that certain afterschools, supplies and classes along with it.

The biggest problem is definitely at the cash source. I don't think I've ever had a teacher math or science teacher with an actual degree in the subject, obviously because they could make so much more in the private sector. I really can't see a cure for this: there are just too many people to give them the 75k/year or so salaries that would making teaching math or science anything near competitive.

Of course, that's only the biggest of many huge problems. There are just no standards, which makes for crops of students that just don't give a damn and disrupt everything. Most high schools (except for the specialized technical schools) have to accept 25% of their student body from kids who read at a 6th grade level. The schools coddle the bad students and don't even TRY to do anything constructive about them. My middle school was one of the best public ones in the city, and "drill instructor" type subs would always just get snide remarks and apathy, but I understand their mentality now and am fully of the opinion that teachers should carry cattleprods.

Standards for teaching ties in with funding but it's also a real cadaver in the floorboards. I've had a spanish teacher that didn't even have a high school diploma and went into 20 minute rants about how white people are the cause of all the world's problems. She was paid just as much as the teachers who went out to provide interesting, engaging classes and paid for most of it out of their own pockets. What's worse is that they were so strapped for teachers that she even got her magic five years.

I really can't see a solution for all of this, not even a far-off, difficult one.

[Queeb Salaron]

Alex:
See, I'm trying to make a moral point, not a point about the apparent values of society. So perhaps you are right, and society DOES value these people over teachers and all... But my original point was this: That's not right. Which is why we got all tangled up. It's morals vs. reality, and those arguements never turn out pretty. And these values should change. I thought they were headed in the right direction, what with police officers and firemen getting so much recognition after 9/11. But I was wrong.

Ah well. If you want to debate this, I'm all for it. But if not, points conceded.

[Alex Moon]

Alex:
See, I'm trying to make a moral point, not a point about the apparent values of society. So perhaps you are right, and society DOES value these people over teachers and all... But my original point was this: That's not right. Which is why we got all tangled up. It's morals vs. reality, and those arguements never turn out pretty. And these values should change. I thought they were headed in the right direction, what with police officers and firemen getting so much recognition after 9/11. But I was wrong.

Ah well. If you want to debate this, I'm all for it. But if not, points conceded.

Ah, ok.

[RedImperator]

Yes, I realize this. But Master of Ossus argued otherwise. And we can't be having that, can we? The difference is that I think they SHOULD be, and you think they SHOULDN'T be. But you bring up a good point:

The societies that tried that failed rather abruptly in the late 1980s and early 1990s--you might remember an egalitarian experiment called the U.S.S.R. and its associated satellite states.

Did the USSR collapse because it paid people what they earned? Or were there other mitigating factors that had to do with it, too? Besides, I'm not arguing for a complete communist revolution. I just wish people were paid what they're worth. That means corporate execs who sit on their asses and watch the cash roll in get a significant pay cut as their underlings who work their asses off for half the pay get pay raises and a chance for growth.

The U.S.S.R. collapsed because they thought that the market was a social construct, not the inevitable result of human nature. When they tried to pretend they'd outsmarted it, they ran their economy into the ground and their society fell apart as soon as the police state was removed (the fact that a repressive totolitarian police state was necessary to keep the society working at all speaks volumes). If you care to argue otherwise, feel free. I like winning arguments.

On corporate executives: they're paid a lot because they're responsible for a lot--in a well-run company, executives' jobs depend on their decisions, and so do the jobs of hundreds, maybe thousands of employees and the fortunes of the shareholders. There have been, of course, well-publicized incidents of grossly overpaid idiots and crooks put into positions of responsibility in corporations. But the market eventually punished them and the board of directors who hired them and didn't keep tabs on them. I hear you could have gotten some great deals at Enron's liquidation auction.

Yes yes yes yes... but is that RIGHT? That was the point I was trying to make. Is it right that teachers should make so little where ballplayers make so much? The answer, to anyone who has a heart, is no, of course not. ::Shrugs:: Or at least I can't conceive of anyone who could make that argument.

And even if they did, Zaia would have a word or two to say about it.

Asking if market forces are "right" is like asking if gravity or evolution is "right". It's the way it is, and pretending otherwise has universally brought only misery to people.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

We could pay teachers more money if we had fewer teachers. One problem these days is there's a fallacious theory being spread about that smaller class sizes improve the quality of instruction. It's unproven and it's being pushed by the teachers' unions solely so they can get more bloated membership rolls to improve their lobbying power on Capitol Hill and in the various state capitols.

Another thing to point out is that teachers are over-certified. It's inconceivable that someone with the prereqs for a four year degree, followed by the course concentration, having passed with - say - a B average - couldn't teach that at up to the high school level. Why do you need any special teacher certification, other than, say, an extra quarter to tack onto your degree should you decide you might want a job like that? Teaching degrees would seem to be specialty items for producing individuals skilled in instructing elementary-aged children or younger, and not necessary for Middle School or High School.

This would, of course, instantly eliminate the squeeze on available teachers, and greatly reduce the costs associated with being a teacher - no lengthy specialist teaching degree, you could staff a school entirely with part-time teachers who teach single courses, even (in theory anyway) - and without the need to pay off college tuition for a teaching degree you'd be able to live comfortably on a smaller salary.

Combined with the potential increase if we had realistic class sizes, that would be more than enough. One thing that would greatly improve instruction within classes would be more utilization of the students to teach each other. This needs to start early on. Also, we might consider going back to the old system of teaching multiple grades in a single classroom (if concentrating on the same subject). That would allow the older and more advanced students to aide the younger.

[Darth Wong]

We could pay teachers more money if we had fewer teachers. One problem these days is there's a fallacious theory being spread about that smaller class sizes improve the quality of instruction. It's unproven and it's being pushed by the teachers' unions solely so they can get more bloated membership rolls to improve their lobbying power on Capitol Hill and in the various state capitols.

Very large class sizes lead to a different style of instruction which does not work well with many students. I know you make everything into an abstract intellectual game in your mind because that's how you view the world, but if it was your child, you might not want him or her being shoved into classroom with 50 others kids for mindless drills.

Another thing to point out is that teachers are over-certified. It's inconceivable that someone with the prereqs for a four year degree, followed by the course concentration, having passed with - say - a B average - couldn't teach that at up to the high school level. Why do you need any special teacher certification, other than, say, an extra quarter to tack onto your degree should you decide you might want a job like that? Teaching degrees would seem to be specialty items for producing individuals skilled in instructing elementary-aged children or younger, and not necessary for Middle School or High School.

I agree, although they should obviously be necessary for very young children, where the skill of the teacher is paramount and can affect the child's whole path in life.

This would, of course, instantly eliminate the squeeze on available teachers, and greatly reduce the costs associated with being a teacher - no lengthy specialist teaching degree, you could staff a school entirely with part-time teachers who teach single courses, even (in theory anyway) - and without the need to pay off college tuition for a teaching degree you'd be able to live comfortably on a smaller salary.

That is quite frankly a ridiculous fantasy. Lower-qualified teachers would still demand full-time benefits and high salary, because they have our children's futures in their hands and that's leverage.

Combined with the potential increase if we had realistic class sizes, that would be more than enough. One thing that would greatly improve instruction within classes would be more utilization of the students to teach each other. This needs to start early on. Also, we might consider going back to the old system of teaching multiple grades in a single classroom (if concentrating on the same subject). That would allow the older and more advanced students to aide the younger.

Everything works beautifully in a fantasy world where everyone co-operates and nothing goes wrong. I'm surprised to hear this kind of Peter Pan fantasy coming from you of all people.