1. https://www.google.com/shopping/product/12258719876160431293...
What if, like say corn subsidies, teachers are guaranteed to be paid enough to be able to buy an average price house within a mile of the school they work at? What if we had to stop bombing one country, let's say Yemen, in order to pay for it? Rhetorical.
These are the most trusted people in society, much more so than the police and politicians, and should be compensated commensurate with both their responsibilities and experience. You gonna leave your 5 year old at the police station or city hall all day?
I'd be fine with dramatically raising teacher pay if you hired the good new people who would be attracted by the pay and ditched all the not-so-good people who are in the field now.
Where the problem comes in is that we all know that's not what would happen.
1. N/A
When the market raises salaries, it is based on ability. When government does it and unions are involved, warm bodies are brought in. Friends and family, people who are political allies, people who kiss ass.
As with so many things, you can't look at an effect and treat it as though it were the cause. For example, productive people are more likely to own real estate. Giving everyone a house won't make them more productive.
Higher salaries are the result of competition for skilled workers and workers responding to the market. You don't get the same results by arbitrarily raising salaries.
The private sector will raise its salaries to keep its workers. And the public sector will get workers that want what the private sector will never give them: freedom from having to compete.
I don't believe this at all, and in fact for teachers I think salaries and compensation have been effectively lowered with respect to their increased responsibilities over the decades. Put simply, teachers are sandbagged. See also: the fundamental attribution error, where an interesting thought experiment can be had by imagining entire occupations subject to its whims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/06/leveson-...
And when an employer looks at someone that can do a lot and at someone that can do very little, they want to pay the former more.
Why? Teachers everywhere have a very hard time getting a job because the supply vastly outstrips the demand. Why should teachers make more when it's clear supply is overpopulated?
How about "first things first?"