Secret rightwing strategy to discredit teacher strikes

[Kirzad]

Well, one of the things about the teacher strikes that brings it out of whack with engineers and others fields is that teachers are almost always government employees and what they are paid is not based on any real market value. Engineers get paid more because the education they receive tends to have a value to a company that far surpasses the common laborer, due primarily the rarity of the specialization. Teachers do not have that rarity, nor a marketable value, so long as they remain government employees.

Teachers should receive what they are promised. If they were promised a raise and did not receive it, then they should not continue to work and should bring attention to the actions of their employers (in this case the government) for failing to pay them the promised amount. Why? Because education is a service and nobody is entitled to somebody elses goods or services freely. Employment is and should be based on an employer providing compensation and an employee providing a good or service. If the employer is wanting to not pay that amount, then it is not only legally right, but also morally right that someone providing a service deny that service.

The politics need to be removed from education, because as they stand now, they are little more than the ladder rung of the politically motivated to get started their careers, and the fickle, short-term gains of politicians looking nothing more than to move up and away from the schoolboard, or to governor-hopefuls who use education as an easy attack against the current governor, and it just leaves continuous unfulfilled promises in its wake.

[Aristotle]

That's how much it costed me at an engineering-heavy state college (Early 2000s). Hasn't changed -that- much.

Granted, this is Alabama.

You can go to a cheaper college to get the same Education Degrees.

I believe it comes out to $10/HR currently, I was able to flip pizza's to make my way through without a loan.

Please re-read the facts, not the anecdotal story that likely is leaving out a lot of information/costs:

the College Board reports that a moderate college budget for an in-state public college for the 2017–2018 academic year averaged $25,290. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $50,900.

[Aristotle]

That's how much it costed me at an engineering-heavy state college (Early 2000s). Hasn't changed -that- much.

Granted, this is Alabama.

You can go to a cheaper college to get the same Education Degrees.

I believe it comes out to $10/HR currently, I was able to flip pizza's to make my way through without a loan.

Please re-read the facts, not the anecdotal story that likely is leaving out a lot of information/costs:

the College Board reports that a moderate college budget for an in-state public college for the 2017–2018 academic year averaged $25,290. A moderate budget at a private college averaged $50,900.

In-state tuition for University of Alabama in 2000 was $3.5k, and is now $8.6k.

Tuition is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Sier]

Please re-read the facts, not the anecdotal story that likely is leaving out a lot of information/costs:





Tuition is just the tip of the iceberg.

Here is where my information came from: https://catalog.uah.edu/undergrad/fi.../tuition-fees/

Admittedly, I did live at home, worked through school without owing money, bought books secondhand, etc etc. Not everyone gets to live at home, I guess. Then again, not everyone works through college and often decide to throw in room/board into horrendous loans.

My time allotment during college was as follows: ~14/HRS/WK for college. ~20/HRS/WK for work. ~10/HRS/WK for Homework. ~80/HRS/WK for Threshold. It took me roughly 5 years to graduate. In hindsight, I was far lazier than I should have been, but if I did put in the extra effort, I could have certainly afforded my own apartment during my college education without the need for a loan.

I realize that not everyone has that option. Some people do not have the same support system of parents who agreed to let me live at home through college for one reason or another. However, it does appear that people are making the argument that people who make it through (Insert name of any 4 year degree here) should be guaranteed a $50K/YR salary. That's not how things work.

You don't get to graduate with a history major and hop into a high paying career. (There is no demand)
You don't get to graduate with a drama major and hop into a high paying career. (There is no demand)
You don't get to graduate with an education major and hop into a high paying career. (The market is absolutely flooded with teachers)
You DO get to graduate with a math/science/engineering major and hop into a high paying career. (There is a labor shortage)

It's capitalism. If the market needs something, prices rise. If the market does not need something, prices fall. This is directly applicable to teaching, even if it is a government job. You don't get to just pick something you enjoy doing and assume your salary will be awesomesauce. I didn't choose to be a software engineer because it was gloriously fun, I did it for supporting my family by working 40/HRS a week and being able to afford fun/vacations with my kids during the off-hours. There is a premium for doing something more difficult that you don't necessarily want to do. If you choose to be a teacher and go into the profession KNOWING you don't enjoy it and assuming you will receive a big payout...you're insane.

There is no such thing as a magical money bucket you can chuck at a given profession to make problems go away without causing more problems for everyone else. If teaching pays too little, there will naturally be lesser demand for the profession, and a labor shortage is the next logical step. There is no labor shortage. There are only unhappy teachers who are not satisfied with their pay, which if it is their only motivation to continue teaching, they likely made a poor career decision and should have elected another profession earlier in life.

[Xywalan]

If teaching pays too little, there will naturally be lesser demand for the profession, and a labor shortage is the next logical step. There is no labor shortage. There are only unhappy teachers who are not satisfied with their pay, which if it is their only motivation to continue teaching, they likely made a poor career decision and should have elected another profession earlier in life.

1) This is exactly what I mean by trying to force a square peg into the round hole of education using the hammer of free market. It is an unfortunate situation that a lot of Americans are blinded by the hammer fallacy that they cannot even imagine how there could be anything in between absolute Communism and rampant free market. Since they reject the former, they try to solve every single problem with free market: Environment is getting fucked? No problem, free market will solve it by colonizing Mars or something. Insurance companies are out of control? No, no regulations, free market will solve it cause "bad" companies will get bankrupt and only "good" ones will survive. And now the same with Education: Your public schools suck? Don't worry, free market will solve it, cause "bad" schools will go bankrupt, "bad" teachers will not get hired, etc. etc.

2) Here's the problem with the fantasy view of free market: No, Sier, you are absolutely wrong because you love your hammer fallacy too much. If teaching pays too little, it does not imply that there would be a "labor shortage". Flipping Burger's at Mc Donalds pay a shitty wage. Is America running out of fast food workers? Bwhahaha, no freaking way. Same will hold for teaching. If teaching pays a shitty wage, you will end up with shitty teachers with little qualifications, etc.

3) Here's an alternative: state hires teachers and settles on a fair, livable wage. Since now teaching offers reasonable pay, demand rises which enables the state to select more qualified applicants and teachers. At the same time, the state through some regulations maintains that the balance between the wages in the private and the public sector is not too big. The regulations does not mess too much with the existing free market but the balance between the private sector and public sector ensures that state can hire qualified teachers, or even spend some resources in training or re-training them. It however, requires that state spends more money and resources on Education. Unfortunately, in America it implies giving less tax cuts to the rich people who are the ones bribing the politicians.

[Sier]

1) This is exactly what I mean by trying to force a square peg into the round hole of education using the hammer of free market. It is an unfortunate situation that a lot of Americans are blinded by the hammer fallacy that they cannot even imagine how there could be anything in between absolute Communism and rampant free market. Since they reject the former, they try to solve every single problem with free market: Environment is getting fucked? No problem, free market will solve it by colonizing Mars or something. Insurance companies are out of control? No, no regulations, free market will solve it cause "bad" companies will get bankrupt and only "good" ones will survive. And now the same with Education: Your public schools suck? Don't worry, free market will solve it, cause "bad" schools will go bankrupt, "bad" teachers will not get hired, etc. etc.

We're not talking about Environmentalism. We're talking about a job, which is currently a participant in the "Free Market". It's a round peg in a round peg in this case.

If you have a suggestion as to how a mashup of Communism + Capitalism could correct the issue, please provide it. As discussed previously, raising salaries or minimum wages is generally a stop-gap measure which looks good on a campaign slogan, but only serves to exacerbate inflation. Raising additional taxes to increase teaching salaries would only serve to:
1. Injure the rest of the public due to decreased funds at the expense of the teachers. (Additional taxes)
2. Flood the market with -additional- career teachers, which are already having a difficult job at finding employment.

Again, it's very easy to say "They deserve more money." Do they? Sure. But so do a vast majority of other people. What is the actual solution which does not affect the rest of society as a whole?

2) Here's the problem with the fantasy view of free market: No, Sier, you are absolutely wrong because you love your hammer fallacy too much. If teaching pays too little, it does not imply that there would be a "labor shortage". Flipping Burger's at Mc Donalds pay a shitty wage. Is America running out of fast food workers? Bwhahaha, no freaking way. Same will hold for teaching. If teaching pays a shitty wage, you will end up with shitty teachers with little qualifications, etc.

Flipping Burgers pays a terrible wage because nearly anyone can do it. There are also vastly more people applying for the job flipping burgers than will actually get the job. It's known as "Unskilled labor." In spite of popular belief, even if you engage in unskilled labor, you traditionally have to apply for several restaurant/retail places before you actually get a job.

Teaching pays too little because:
1. It's an easier degree to obtain.
2. There is more supply than demand.

There are literally -0- job openings for public schools in a 50 mile radius on the search I just did, in spite of there being dozens of schools in that same area. There are a few job openings for Private Catholic schools, and probably a dozen openings for going overseas to teach children English (And similar offerings).

3) Here's an alternative: state hires teachers and settles on a fair, livable wage. Since now teaching offers reasonable pay, demand rises which enables the state to select more qualified applicants and teachers. At the same time, the state through some regulations maintains that the balance between the wages in the private and the public sector is not too big. The regulations does not mess too much with the existing free market but the balance between the private sector and public sector ensures that state can hire qualified teachers, or even spend some resources in training or re-training them. It however, requires that state spends more money and resources on Education. Unfortunately, in America it implies giving less tax cuts to the rich people who are the ones bribing the politicians.

Why on Earth would you want demand to rise on an absolutely flooded market? I'm not too sure on the current education system in Denmark, but there are plenty of individuals here with a teaching degree who have to settle for part time Substitute teaching because they literally cannot find steady teaching employment.


So far, I've seen a complete lack of ideas on how to actually fix the problem other than "Give them more money."

My question would be thus:
1. How do you provide the teachers with a small increase in wages without raising taxes, which basically say "Screw you" to everyone else?
2. If you wish to provide the teachers with additional funding, from which state/federal departments should you decrease the funding for to compensate?
3. If you do not wish to raise taxes or impact any other government departments, how would you resolve the issue without firing current teachers to make up for the budgetary discrepancy?

A teacher's job is important, but so is that of a police man, a fire man, a postal worker, and dare I say it, even the "Burger flipper" whom is consistently invoked who actually feeds these people. Money is finite, and to increase the salary of one position simply relocates it from another. There is no such thing as free money. There is no magic money machine. If you print out $1,000,000 dollars and distribute it evenly, a $1.00 cheeseburger is $1.00. If you print out $2,000,000 and distribute it evenly, it becomes a $2.00 cheeseburger.

I acknowledge I'm not qualified to declare the "value" for an individual, but the reality behind the situation is that by passing judgement that a teacher is worth more, you are also declaring that everyone else is worth less. If that's the truth of the statement, well, go ahead and argue it.

A Socialist will say "Person A should make 20/HR, Person B should make 10/HR, and Person C should make 15/HR". A Capitalist says "Let the necessity, demand, and effort of the position determine how much a person is worth." I go with the Capitalist approach in this instance.

[Tartun]

I know so many teachers... I only had maybe two or three really good teachers IMO. It's almost like our society pressures kids to go to 4 year colleges regardless of life goals and experiences and educators somehow consciously or subconsciously encourage otherwise dispassionate kids to become educators themselves

Late trigger warning.

[Kirzad]

I know so many teachers... I only had maybe two or three really good teachers IMO. It's almost like our society pressures kids to go to 4 year colleges regardless of life goals and experiences and educators somehow consciously or subconsciously encourage otherwise dispassionate kids to become educators themselves

Late trigger warning.

Well, let's shy away from college level education for the moment. College is a whole different beast to contend with and has it's own faults that are separate from that of Grade to High School educators. However, I agree that kids are forced into college and it is causing an overall dilution in the value of a college education, and an inflation in the cost of college. Both are bad things.

1) This is exactly what I mean by trying to force a square peg into the round hole of education using the hammer of free market. It is an unfortunate situation that a lot of Americans are blinded by the hammer fallacy that they cannot even imagine how there could be anything in between absolute Communism and rampant free market. Since they reject the former, they try to solve every single problem with free market: Environment is getting fucked? No problem, free market will solve it by colonizing Mars or something.

No, the free market would solve it by private citizens utilizing the court system to sue the companies for the detrimental effects of their actions, or to intercede prior to said issues to prevent them from occurring.

Insurance companies are out of control? No, no regulations, free market will solve it cause "bad" companies will get bankrupt and only "good" ones will survive.

1: Regulations tend to empower larger companies by driving smaller companies into the dirt, thus removing the challenges to those larger companies that would be of benefit to the consumer (lower prices, better coverages, etc.)
2: There's a lot of different kinds of insurance companies out there. Some are more traditional in design, with a CEO and a legal obligation to its shareholders. Some are owned by the individuals that they insure, which means all costs, and profits, are shared by the customer-owner. There are a few other models. I won't list them all. Insurance isn't out of control. Government regulations on the insurance industry is out of control. Also legal requirements to have insurance just to conduct day to day activities is an act of MANUFACTURED DEMAND which means that the suppliers (Insurance Companies) are empowered to charge more than they otherwise would for those coverages, because legislation and regulations artificially permits it.

And now the same with Education: Your public schools suck? Don't worry, free market will solve it, cause "bad" schools will go bankrupt, "bad" teachers will not get hired, etc. etc.

I would type out a long response to this, but I think private school already speak for themselves as to their superiority to the government run alternative.

2) Here's the problem with the fantasy view of free market: No, Sier, you are absolutely wrong because you love your hammer fallacy too much. If teaching pays too little, it does not imply that there would be a "labor shortage".

Every free market decision, including employment, is about a tradeoff. How much time/effort do you trade off for a return of income? Teachers love teaching, usually. That's why they do it. They want a decent wage and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, before they are hired, there is discussion of compensation. They go into their profession with their eyes wide open and knowing how much they are going to make. I feel no sympathy for any teacher that feels they don't get paid enough for the work they do. Nobody gets paid enough for the work they do that doesn't have CEO, CFO, President, etc. as a job title. That's just a reality of life. An agreed upon amount in return of an agreed upon service/good is absolutely fair, even if after the fact one party feels like they should have asked for more. But they didn't.

Where they do have my sympathy and support is if an agreed upon payment was not delivered in return for that service.

Flipping Burger's at Mc Donalds pay a shitty wage. Is America running out of fast food workers? Bwhahaha, no freaking way.

No. America is not running out of fast food. We're also not running out of people who lack the necessary skills and training to perform higher paying jobs that are more demanding, more stressful, more time consuming, etc. A lot of people that are flipping burgers at McDonalds are doing so because it either facilitates something else in their life (social, education, busy work in retirement, etc.) or they don't feel confident in applying for better paying jobs. Flipping burgers is an entry level job that a teenager can do. It requires no special skills. That is why it pays so little.

Same will hold for teaching. If teaching pays a shitty wage, you will end up with shitty teachers with little qualifications, etc.

Except the job market is flooded with qualified teachers. That's the problem. There are a lot more teachers than teaching jobs. Supply and demand. But a teaching degree, while I won't belittle it and say it's easy to get, is still a whole lot easier to get than a Masters in Engineering (Mechanical, Electrical, Computer, Software, Civil...anything Engineering) so a lot more people pursue teaching degrees. Teaching is a pretty easy field to be credentialed for, relatively speaking.



3) Here's an alternative: state hires teachers and settles on a fair, livable wage.[/QUOTE]

Please provide us with an EXACT dollar amount, and feel free to include in the other benefit packages that you think they deserve. Please explain why you feel that this amount is appropriate in two paragraphs or less.

Since now teaching offers reasonable pay, demand rises which enables the state to select more qualified applicants and teachers. At the same time, the state through some regulations maintains that the balance between the wages in the private and the public sector is not too big.

And here is the crux of your problem - you want the state to step in and undermine the private sector, because if it doesn't then the private sector is going to undermine the public sector and snipe all of the most qualified applicants, offering to pay them more, and you'll end up with the exact same situation you currently have...only inflated by about $15,000 annually.

The regulations does not mess too much with the existing free market but the balance between the private sector and public sector ensures that state can hire qualified teachers, or even spend some resources in training or re-training them.

Basically you want the public sector to do what the private sector already can do. You just want a middleman to take his cut in the process. The state already has a theoretical infinite amount of money to leverage any outcome it wants. The fact that it can't do it says not that it needs more money, but rather that it (the state) just can not do it.

It however, requires that state spends more money and resources on Education. Unfortunately, in America it implies giving less tax cuts to the rich people who are the ones bribing the politicians.

The irony of this is too much. Let me explain:

- You want the state to do something.
- You think the state is corrupt and bribed by the rich.
- You think the rich, which apparently bribes the state doesn't want to give more to the state, and it achieves this by giving to the state a thing called bribes.
- You still want this state to do something that the free market is already doing.
- You want this bribed, corrupt state to use it's authority to strong arm the outcome the free market achieves through voluntary measures.
- You think the state is good and the free market is bad.

There is a logical inconsistency here.

[Tartun]

Conform: Exposing the Truth About Common Core and Public Education- by Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe and Kyle Olson

The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money- by Brian Caplan

Two interesting books that talk about different alternatives to the US education culture. A culture that is producing undersikilled, socially inept young people who sometimes carry out mass shootings. (That's not what the books are about)

Interestingly, Brian Caplan does not single out public schools.