kiryan wrote:two loving parents (preferably male and female).
Rofl, you homophobe. Isn't there some compound you could move to where there are no internets?
kiryan wrote:two loving parents (preferably male and female).
Corth wrote:I'll let you have the last word on that one Sarvis.
kiryan wrote:Are you a homophobeaphobe or do you just call people names when they disagree with your pov?
Pril wrote:Yeah it sucks and yeah they don't get paid enough to deal with crap like that.
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:Teachers are underpaid by around $10,000. It is the most logical, rational number I've come up with in all my years of seeing what my friends do, doing what they do, etc. I feel the numbers used for teacher salaries are 20 years too old.
You're wrong on this Corth, and I back you up 90% of the time. People keep teaching because they LOVE TEACHING every day, regardless of the fact that they are getting paid a salary that doesn't reflect the energy spent or the long-term responsibilities of the vocation. I could go to public school and be paid more, but then we go back to my points in the other posts. I could teach less each day, grade less each day, and say that I'd do that to compensate for the amount they pay me. But I don't, because what I do is more important than what is paid to me; underpaid to me.
Corth wrote:Edit: Forgot to mention. All this and they work 180 days a year.
Kifle wrote:As an example: Lawyers that work pro bono. Is their time really worth nothing? One day they will be paid $100/h, but the next they will make $0/hr. How does this translate into your economic theory that people will work for as much as they think their time is worth? In this case you seem to produce a Schrodinger's Lawyer. The lawyer is in a superposition of states -- both worthless and expensive.
kiryan wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070203498.html
Teachers in DC making 60k+.
School Chancellor floating a proposal to raise their pay 30-40k if they will give up tenure.
What I find interesting is that the proposal floated allows it to be optional, so wouldn't you just have high performing teachers going for the cash and low performing teachers hiding behind tenure?
kiryan wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/02/AR2008070203498.html
Teachers in DC making 60k+.
School Chancellor floating a proposal to raise their pay 30-40k if they will give up tenure.
What I find interesting is that the proposal floated allows it to be optional, so wouldn't you just have high performing teachers going for the cash and low performing teachers hiding behind tenure?
teflor the ranger wrote:"Between 1955 and 1995, the ratio of students-to-teachers in elementary and secondary schools fell from 26.6 to 15 students per teacher, a 40 percent decline ... mainly growth in the pool of mainstream teachers, rather than those of administrators or special-education teachers."
Quantity over Quality
Darius Lakdawalla
Fall 2002 Education Next
The average teacher now teaches fewer children and are arguably less efficient. The slow rise in salary can be justified by that.
Kifle wrote:There's an unspoken rule on the fourms, Pril. You just broke it.
kiryan wrote:I make as much as I do because its the market wage for my job. I do the job I do because its convenient and pays enough to keep me comfortable. If it wasn't good enough pay, I would find another career.
I'm actually thinking about retraining a doctor so I have more options.
kiryan wrote:I must've lost you somewhere.
Teachers have their starting wages and raises dictated by contracts negotiated by the unions generally under threat of work stoppage... How is that a market wages or market determination?
kiryan wrote:I must've lost you somewhere.
Teachers have their starting wages and raises dictated by contracts negotiated by the unions generally under threat of work stoppage... How is that a market wages or market determination?
kiryan wrote:I must've lost you somewhere.
Teachers have their starting wages and raises dictated by contracts negotiated by the unions generally under threat of work stoppage... How is that a market wages or market determination?
kiryan wrote:I must've lost you somewhere.
Teachers have their starting wages and raises dictated by contracts negotiated by the unions generally under threat of work stoppage... How is that a market wages or market determination?
kiryan wrote:is my work worth more, I don't know, in a philosophical sense I doubt it. Heres the difference, if I'm not making as much as I think I should, I'll find another job in a differnet career if necessary, not expect the government to pay me more because I'm doing something noble and important.
Corth wrote:Its a whole lot less arbitrary when you think in terms of supply and demand and realize that nobody in this country is forced to work any particular job.
Corth wrote:Its a whole lot less arbitrary when you think in terms of supply and demand and realize that nobody in this country is forced to work any particular job.
Corth wrote:You provided a list of the maximum saturation for some given professions. So what happens if you get too many of any given profession? Wages decrease. Happily, people leave that profession to do something more lucrative. Or more accurately, if there were too many unemployed struggling lawyers, chances are people would decide not to attend 7 years of school minimum to become one in the first place.
If everyone was a CEO, the unskilled laborer would be making a ton of loot, and there would be a lot of unemployed CEO's :)
Wages are the way that the market allocates human resources. It creates an incentive to do something if there are not enough people doing it, and a disincentive to doing something if too many people are doing it.
How would you prefer to allocate resources? Quotas? Perhaps a committee should hold hearings to determine how many people we should allow into a given profession.
It seems to me that a better way is to simply allow market forces to push people into professions that are in demand. The societal benefit of that is enormous.
Corth wrote:You provided a list of the maximum saturation for some given professions. So what happens if you get too many of any given profession? Wages decrease. Happily, people leave that profession to do something more lucrative. Or more accurately, if there were too many unemployed struggling lawyers, chances are people would decide not to attend 7 years of school minimum to become one in the first place.
If everyone was a CEO, the unskilled laborer would be making a ton of loot, and there would be a lot of unemployed CEO's :)
Wages are the way that the market allocates human resources.
It creates an incentive to do something if there are not enough people doing it, and a disincentive to doing something if too many people are doing it.
How would you prefer to allocate resources? Quotas? Perhaps a committee should hold hearings to determine how many people we should allow into a given profession.
It seems to me that a better way is to simply allow market forces to push people into professions that are in demand. The societal benefit of that is enormous.
Corth wrote:I'm curious how Kifle and Sarvis would, in their perfect world, allocate human resources. Would you impose requirements on the private sector to pay a minimum wage based upon the profession, location, etc? Would you impose those requirements on local governments? Just curious how the arguments you two are making translate into real world policy. What changes would you make if you were president and had a willing Congress?
Gormal wrote:If you're dumb enough to pay for a master's degree so you can apply for a job that you consider underpaid then you're an idiot.
Corth wrote:I'm curious how Kifle and Sarvis would, in their perfect world, allocate human resources. Would you impose requirements on the private sector to pay a minimum wage based upon the profession, location, etc? Would you impose those requirements on local governments? Just curious how the arguments you two are making translate into real world policy. What changes would you make if you were president and had a willing Congress?
Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests