Hacker News Reader

Comment by rhizome | Hacker News Reader

Oh but they employ more IT people, and require a CTO for the district, and all kinds of other spongers. Teachers should be getting paid at least double what they are now, and I have no problem with teachers starting at high five figures like a web developer can. I don't know if this means they're underfunded, funded enough but in the wrong places, or what, but for all that teachers have to work under, it is criminal what they are paid.

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?

View on HN

One problem is that many of the teachers of today don't deserve to be paid double. They aren't the cream of the crop.

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.

But if you don't raise the salary you're not going to attract better people. I bet if you doubled the pay you would have far better people to select from.

You get better people when you raise compensation. Big whoop, you get some freeloader problems. Why would that be a bigger problem than any other aspect of society? My main point is that teachers are held to some of the highest character standards in society, and should be compensated as such. By way of contrast, think of the character standards for CxOs of public companies and/or financial institutions. Feel free to list your own here, but I'll start:

1. N/A

Money is not the only motivator. Constantly having to deal with politics is a de-motivator for people who want to focus on educating students.

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.

When the market raises salaries, it is based on ability.

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-...

well, its true. The most capable workers earn more than workers that are barely capable. And as someone's capabilities grow, their salary tends to go up.

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.

>Teachers should be getting paid at least double what they are now

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?

Sometimes this is because of tenure / union issues. Which brings me to my point: teacher compensation shouldn't just be about attracting new people (what do we do with the old ones, ship em to Yemen?), it should also be about training, empowering, and incentivizing the existing cadre to perform to higher standards.

Higher standards? They already have to perform under impossible demands with no resources.

Rephrase: with higher efficacy.

Nice, you downvote me for your imprecision. Are you an MBA?

How about "first things first?"

What is your definition of 'everywhere'? UK does rough supply management (well rough sometimes, we do get lags) and attempts to manage the number of training places.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com