Comment by jbooth | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbooth | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

$64k/year with 5 years experience. That's up from a base of 45k just starting out.

So if I wanted to switch it up to be a math teacher, I'd be cutting my pay to 45k. After sweating it out for 5 years, I'd be up to 65k, still below what entry-level engineers can make in NYC.

And that's in one of the 2 most expensive housing markets in the country.

Regarding "How little can we possibly pay to keep a warm body in teh room" -- this is why modern conservatives should never be taken seriously on education. The idea of quality never even enters into your thinking? I'm not trying to be histrionic here, but why provide education at all if that's how you feel about it?

EDIT: More on that link. The following quote implies we're both overestimating what a 5-year veteran gets:

"NOTE: If you are eligible for the 5 years longevity, please add $1000 to your annual salary Example: Jane smith had completed 5 years of full-time work for the DOE. She is currently on step 6a with the Masters Differential. Her annual salary is $56,707. Her new salary code is 6V and her new annual salary is $57,707."

That seems to imply 5 years with a master's that you got over those summers and went into debt for gets you to 57k. In New York City. What do I get in finance if I'm good at math, almost triple that?

You'd be cutting your pay to $45k ($60k annualized), working less, getting an extra couple months of vacation, and great pension benefits.

I also forgot that for teaching 5 years, you've just earned a pension of 6% of your "Final Average Salary" (average of your last 3 years). So for teaching 5 years, you've just earned a pension of $2900/year (inflation adjusted) starting at age 55 (assuming the 5 year pay is $50,000, not sure I understand the table I posted). Assuming you live to be 80, that's worth another $15k per 9 months of work.

So teachers total comp is $60k per 9 months, just starting out (equivalent to $80k/year). That's really not bad for entry level.

http://thebronxislearning.blogspot.com/2008/10/nyc-teacher-p... (You need Readability to view that page.)

In finance, you are working far more hours than the teacher, and you can also be fired whenever you under perform. You also seem to be assuming that GS or JPM will give a job to just any idiot with a math degree.

"How little can we possibly pay to keep a warm body in teh room"

Not what I said at all. I said "fill our open positions" - in general, to fill a position, you must find qualified people. I'm a strong proponent of measuring performance, firing the warm bodies who don't perform, and offering rewards to those who perform well.

Well, the nickel-and-diming attitude seems to have a strong prejudice against qualified people, even if you say "least amount for a qualified person". Engineering departments managed with that philosophy tend to be filled with mediocre hacks.

As far as teachers working less.. do you know any young teachers? We're both on Hacker News right now. Teachers have been at work since 7AM teaching in front of a classroom, and are currently doing grading and lesson planning.

Regarding the pensions, I agree it's an area for reform, and a case in point of union dysfunction. But as long as people like you come across as borderline hostile to the idea of teachers being paid well for a job well done, they're going to close ranks behind the union, and I would too.

EDIT: I don't care what some report says about hours in the aggregate, especially one that presumably intermingles running-out-the-clock 64yos with young teachers. I don't know how it was compiled but I'm sure I could find one saying the exact opposite if I cared to. I'm assuming you don't know many teachers, otherwise you would get what I'm saying here.

Why do you keep repeating this myth that teachers are not underworked? I've already debunked it in conversations with you. Here it is again:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf

I'm beginning to think you are not interested in a fact-based discussion...

I don't care what some report says about hours in the aggregate, especially one that presumably intermingles running-out-the-clock 64yos with young teachers.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding, but this seems to be flatly stating that Yummyfajitas was right in saying you do not care about the facts?

I'm assuming you don't know many teachers, otherwise you would get what I'm saying here.

I have an aunt and uncle that are teachers and a wife that is going to school to become a teacher right now, but I largely agree with yummyfajitas and he is carefully supporting his arguments with facts and links.

If he and I are wrong about it, would you mind pointing out exactly how rather than saying we just don't understand?

To start with, the fact that it's comparing some self-reported statistics between teachers and "other professionals"? And mushing them together into some total minutes worked figure?

They're estimating the hours worked by a teacher at less than 40. I've never met a teacher who put in less than 40 hours.

Then, as I said upthread, the fact that it's mashing young teachers (the topic at hand) together with running-the-clock 64yo teachers really brings it all together. Maybe this explains the sub-40 hour workweek. Unfortunately, a 5-page PDF report with 4 graphs doesn't summarize the be-all of teaching.

I assume "other professionals" means professionals who are not teachers, as per BLS classifications.

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/11/rpt1full.pdf

Also, if you bothered to read my source as far as page 2, you'd realize that it does provide breakdowns based on teacher age. Apparently it's young teachers who work less, and older (50+) teachers who work more (5.1 hours). See table 2 on page 2.

On that graph: "NOTE: The calculations of hours worked are based on data collected about how survey respondents spent “yesterday.” Thus, average weekly work hours are an extrapolation based on the activity for 1 day."

I mean how much confidence do you have in this thing? And you're repeating it like it's the bible?

Let me ask you a question, do you consider all hours of work equal? What if you compared office work to, say, mining, if they worked an hour fewer, would you say you work harder?

I don't understand - do you believe the note invalidates the table? If so, why?

As for why I quote this study, the ATUS is the standard source for data of this nature. Feel free to post better data if you have it.

Ok, fine, let's assume the data is great.

My original point was that if you want better teachers, you need to pay them commensurate with the value they create. The private sector will generally reward professionals if their service is needed and valuable. If you grant that education is a public good, then it makes sense to pay for good workers. That means taking care of your people while disempowering the union. If you're hostile to the workers they're going to rally around that union, no matter what. You can accomplish more with effective management than with a blanket opposition to teachers being taken care of.

> So teachers total comp is $60k per 9 months, just starting out (equivalent to $80k/year).

On one hand, I understand this statement - afterall, you're getting those summer vacation months. On the other hand though... if I'm used to a salary of 80k/year, it's going to be quite a cut to go to 60k. I would have to spend the summer working somewhere else to make up the missing 20k, or else get used to a different standard of living. Maybe I can find a summer job that combines my ideas of vacation with earning some money (probably less than 20k with those goals), but the whole prospect is not that appealing yet.

People are willing to take paycuts for increased benefits, but here what we're saying is you're simply taking your 80k job and deciding not to work for three months. Sure, the annual salary is the same, but 60k is a lot less attractive than 80k. And of course it's not 60k today either, it's 45k with 15 in the future.

Anyhow, what I'm trying to say is that while the number manipulation makes things look better, 45k/y + summer vacation + 15k/y in pension does not sound like enough compensation to forgo that 80k/y engineering job yet. Especially if I need to deal with the hassle of finding alternate income for the summer months. Also, I would imagine that similarly to SF, NYC offers >80k for starting engineers (if only because of living costs).

If you want money, trade time for money. If you want time, don't make that trade. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Incidentally, the median starting salary for students at NYU/Poly (NYU's new engineering school) is only $62k/year. So it looks like teachers are getting paid the same for 9 months of work that engineers get paid for 12 months of work.

http://www.poly.edu/news/2010/07/26/nyu-poly-jumps-5th-place...

Sure, but I'm saying I want money. And given that I want money, a teaching position is a worse proposition for me than an engineering position (whether due to the annoyance of finding a high-paying summer job every year, running a second job in the extra time I have, or simply because the salary is less regardless). If this holds for other people as well, the only people a teacher's salary would attract are people who want time. Which means the salary is not high enough to attract smart people out of industry whose goal is also to make money.

Is that the median starting salary for NYU students who stay in NYC? Or is that including people who move to New Hampshire?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com