She's been a teacher for ~15 years and still makes less than $30k a year teaching. She loves helping the kids, but her life isn't worth it.
Pretty much everywhere rural starts under $40k (or under $30k in some cases) and stays under $40k for 5-10 years of experience.
For example tennessee's median home price is $164k, which means $40k is 1/4 the price of a new home.
Meanwhile, California's median home price is $533k and the average teacher's salary is 49k - 84k, making it 1/10 - 1/6 the price of a new home
This is somewhat of a digression, but the extremely low rate of teacher pay (for a job that requires a Master's degree) limits the pool of available teachers greatly. The people taking these jobs typically must have some other way of supporting their family; either their spouse has a higher-paying professional job or they are the beneficiary of some other form of generational wealth.
But we tend to lose the teachers who must make ends meet their own selves on a teacher's pay. There is no good economic argument made to become an elementary school teacher.
AMEN. I would NEVER recommend ANYONE become a teacher based on my wife's experiences. You used to be able to write off expenses as "non-reimbursed employee expenses" but they cut that out so teachers get the token $200 writeoff. We spend almost 10x that annually supporting her in the classroom.
It really is glorified day care in most peoples minds which is a real shame.
Yea, it sucks all around.
But the point stands, the pay is not good at all for the workload. And that was before covid. Aurora public schools have requisitioned two covid-19 tests per month for it's 4k teachers [0]. That's it. They already had high teacher turnover before this mess. Now, I'm afraid that though the schools may be open, they will not be attended.
[0] https://coloradosun.com/2020/07/14/aurora-public-schools-cor...
I think that's pathetic that we don't give ALL school's enough money so everyone has everything they need.
Edit: my point being, even if a teacher makes good $$, they can spend quite a bit of it on student's so take home really becomes a LOT less.
Unless there's some regulation in Colorado that doesn't exist in New York, teaching does not require a master's degree. It does require specific training and certification, but there are undergraduate programs that offer this.
There are also master's programs, they just aren't required.
https://www.teachingdegree.org/states/ohio/#:~:text=Generall....
[1]: https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/04/16/interactive-map-teach....
Teacher pay is not extremely low. The median teacher salary is usually pretty close to the median salary for the state. Plus they get good benefits, a pension, and much more time off than other jobs. It's a solid middle class life.
Anecdotes tell you very little about the bigger picture.
The fact that people constantly compare teaching salaries to non-professional jobs and minimum wage workers is very telling.
> ...median annual income of $58,230.
> This number would be above the average salary in the U.S., but it's the median of an awfully wide range of salaries. Elementary school teachers in the bottom 10% of income only made around $37,780, while those in the highest 10% could make as much as $95,270.
You then scroll down to the section on per-state numbers and see the wide gaps between states. You also see that this article, like others, suddenly jump to using mean instead of median.
I usually don't play this card, but show the data. You are likely only looking at a specific statistical lens that does not paint a real picture.
[1]: https://www.niche.com/blog/teacher-salaries-in-america/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/05/16/stat...
While true in absolute dollars, it doesn't really seem to be true in inflation adjusted dollars.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZbUD16t4aaM6rCOmFogjxkVhRpJ...
https://edsource.org/2015/states-in-motion-school-finance-na...
Even if it stayed constant per your graph, teachers are competing with growth in administrators for education dollars.
No relation, saw one of their engineering jobs on HN and your comment made me think of a solution for your mother's situation (it's teaching over Zoom).
A few other school districts around us have cancelled their in-person plans, at least for a few months, so hopefully her district does the same.
The federal government has no jurisdiction over education. The only exception to that is the civil rights (Brown v. Board of Education) and it's quite limited in scope. COVID is certainly out of scope.
The presidential talk about it is just that - talk.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/17/08/when-it-comes-educ...
It's possible that GP was referring to the current federal government in general re: Covid-19, not specifically their jurisdiction over education. And in that sense they're correct: the current leadership in the US is a disaster and "worse than useless".
And even if Trump issued a "mask mandate" on the first day, for example, who is to enforce it? The FBI?
Do you think they have no levers to pull to affect policy from a federal level other than physically forcing people to do things? I'm not really sure what your point is.
"Teachers in the province earn an average salary of around $86,000, according to data provided by Ontario's Ministry of Education. Only in Alberta are average teacher salaries higher, around $89,000"
It's the government that the collective beliefs and cultural assumptions of this country have built. Maybe there's a cause-effect link in there, somewhere, you would think?
That's because States are political units, not just arbitrary boundaries. So they also have a voice in the federal government as States. To me, Wyoming being able to not be run roughshod over by California just because California has a lot more people is a feature, not a bug.
What they were describing applies to every federally elected position, in different amounts. Whether it's a bug or a feature (as a whole or for each position) is very much up for discussion, but it's orthogonal.
It does. I didn't mean to imply that what I said didn't also apply to the Electoral College. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
(I'll note that this doesn't mean there weren't interesting points worth discussing that you've been trying to get at, just that you've at least wound up unclear in how you've been expressing them.)
What do you mean by the Senate is broken?
It's working as designed, but that seems to be irrelevant to not2b.
There is no Electoral College for senators; they are elected by direct popular vote.
> and to a small extent house of representatives
Same comment.
> There is no Electoral College for senators; they are elected by direct popular vote.
That's irrelevant. The parent commenters says:
>where the votes of certain states are much more valuable than others.
How can you argue that this isn't the case when wyoming gets the same amount of senate votes as california?
In fact, the inequity in voting power produced by the Electoral College is a direct consequence of that in the structure of the House and Senate, since the latter is apportioned simply (except for DC) by adding the apportionment of House and Senate seats.
Yes, some states have House seats that represent somewhat fewer people than some other states. I suppose, technically, that means the votes in that state are "more valuable". It's far different from the Senate, though.
It's absolutely true of the House, though because of granularity rather than fixed representation, so it's not simply smaller-states-are-overrepresented. (But instead smaller states have the most variable representation.)
> Yes, some states have House seats that represent somewhat fewer people than some other states
“Somewhat fewer” in the sense that 527,000 (Rhode Island) is “somewhat fewer” than 994,000 (Montana), but, while it's a narrower range than the Senate (65.7:1) or EC (3.59:1), 1.88:1 isn't a close ratio.
To some extent the inequity you describe can be corrected by forcing particular methods for apportionment that can better prevent gerrymandering, and by increasing the size of the House to reduce the difference between the populations of the least and most populous districts. A certain amount of inequity of this type is, however, unavoidable in any representative democracy.
Also, this particular inequity is important to people only to the extent that what the Federal government does directly affects their lives. So an obvious way to reduce the impact of this inequity is to reduce the ways in which the Federal government can affect individual people's lives. The idea that Federal laws and regulations should be able to micromanage so many aspects of everyone's lives would have been horrifying to any of the Founders. Not only that, but it also disempowers people by making them much less aware of everyone's ability to find local solutions to local problems.
Another point to make is that the main problem with the Senate and the House has nothing to do with the inequity you describe: it is the simple fact that Congress has very low approval ratings but very high incumbent reelection rates. That means members of Congress are effectively never held accountable for bad policy decisions; they can continue to make them with impunity since they know they are not risking reelection by doing so. (For example, in all the furor over the CDC and FDA bungling COVID-19 testing, nobody to my knowledge has observed that the only reason the FDA had the power to prohibit State and local health authorities from developing their own tests is that Congress gave it that power, and legislation to rethink bad policy decisions like that is not even on the table.) That is not something that can be fixed by adopting a different system for apportionments.
Wrong.
Individual members of Congress tend to have high (often overwhelming) approval in their districts (or states for Senators); members generally do a good job of representing the people they are elected by.
Congress as an institution has low approval rates because people dislike what it does in aggregate, not what the people they have a vote in do. If Congress was more effectively representative—which is a matter of apportionment and electoral system—the aggregate approval would be higher.
This is not only analytically obvious, but borne out by actual results of surveys of public approval of representative democratic governments in general and legislative bodies specifically when compared to measures of effective proportionality of representation.
In other words, people like their individual representatives because those representatives favor their preferred policies; but they strongly disapprove of Congress as a whole because they don't see any of those preferred policies actually being enacted.
> If Congress was more effectively representative—which is a matter of apportionment and electoral system—the aggregate approval would be higher.
This assumes that, by changing apportionment and the electoral system, more people would see Congress enacting their preferred policies. I don't think this is true. I think the reason Congress as a whole doesn't enact anyone's preferred policies is that there is no broad bipartisan consensus behind any of them; if a majority exists at all in favor of any particular policies, it is a thin majority, and there is no majority with enough consensus on a range of policies to be able to make the required legislative deals to get those policies enacted.
In other words, Congress is reflecting the fact that the country as a whole does not have a broad consensus in favor of most policies that are on the table. And in that situation, those policies shouldn't be enacted. So I would argue that in this respect our current system is doing exactly the job the Founders intended it to do: it is preventing thin majorities from imposing their preferred policies on everyone.
However, the disconnect between individual approval ratings and the overall approval rating of Congress does allow something else to happen: since there is effectively no competition for individual seats, there is no accountability for bad policy decisions that do have broad bipartisan consensus behind them. So those decisions can be, and are, made with impunity. The grant of power to the FDA that I mentioned previously is an example: there is no serious opposition from either party in Congress to granting unelected bureaucrats in Federal agencies extremely broad powers that affect everyone and cannot be effectively challenged. So that disastrous policy decision continues on while people squabble over policies that have only thin majorities, if any, in favor of them.
You assume the Democrats would win a popular vote easily. First, Republicans would actually campaign in California for a change. They might even move left a tad on some issues. Democrats might decide it's the time to go batshit insane and go further left, leaving an even wider, disenfranchised center than we have now.
Dear god, do facts not matter at all? He absolutely lost the popular vote. He won the election through the electoral college. It's the system we have and it's what determines the election but to say he didn't lost the popular vote is false and revisionist.
Here's a football game. Team A scores 17 points on 284 yards of offense. Team B scores 10 points but has 317 yards of offense. Team B's fans say "We won on total offense!" That's great, Team B fans. Here, have a lollipop.
Why am I being so condescending? Because no football game is decided based on total offense. They're decide on points. Team B "won" something that is a statistical category, not a game.
In the same way, Hillary won a statistic, not an election. So all this "Trump lost the popular vote" is... yeah, so what? Winning the popular vote plus six bucks will get you a latte at Starbucks. And Democrats knew what the rules were going into the election, and have known ever since. Who cares about the popular vote? It's totally irrelevant. They. Lost. The. Election.
I seriously hope you're baiting and don't actually believe that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
Nominee Donald Trump Hillary Clinton
[...]
Popular vote 62,984,828 65,853,514
If instead the president was chosen by popular vote, both parties likely would have campaigned differently.
This is a non-sequitur. Whether or not that metric (popular vote) has a bearing on the results of presidential election is irrelevant to the statement of whether he won in that metric.
Furthermore, it's counter-productive to the discussion to preface a comment with a politically charged comment (trump and some of his supporters legitimately believes he got more popular vote than clinton, despite evidence to the contrary), then backpedal on that statement by adding a bunch of qualifiers.
"Chrome won" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14420972, despite the lack of an actual competition for internet browser market share
"Linux and open source have won, get over it" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23673867
"Teenage Engineering has won over kids and professionals with a synthesizer" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20527069
> There is no contest for the popular vote.
And that since the rules weren’t “whoever wins the national popular vote is president” we can’t know how campaigns and voters would have behaved under that rule set, making appeals to the “popular vote” meaningless. A position which I actually agree with, despite very much not liking the last couple R presidents who won despite “losing” the (meaningless, and not a useful measure of much given the above) popular vote.
It’s fun to complain about when your (our, perhaps) person loses but is about as meaningful as “our team should have won because we had more men-on-base”. Well, OK, but baseball is played to optimize for runs because that’s how you win, so no, you shouldn’t have won, and also if the other team had been optimizing for men-on-base you may still have lost—we simply can’t know.