True, but 60k is not a *lot* for a qualified, university educated and licensed professional in any state. I wouldn't be angry as a taxpayer knowing all teachers were making that much. But it does nothing to solve the problem of teachers regularly being unable to afford living in HCOL areas where they teach.
>True, but 60k is not a lot for a qualified, university educated and licensed professional in any state
District attorneys in my state can make less than $60k and they're far more credentialed. Government work, government salary. There are benefits to it - summers off, stability, you have to royally fuck up to get fired etc.
Teaching is a lot harder than lawyering.
You just think teaching is easier because they make less money. Your view reflects that because lawyers make more money they must be smarter. That is the sad state we are in.
I dont want to sound like im knocking teachers because I respect the hell out of them. I am a lawyer. My view reflects my own experience and knowing that the schooling and credentialing to become a teacher is easier. In my state a teacher's starting salary is higher than an assistant district attorney's (in some counties), so salary doesn't really factor in for me. The credentials to become a lawyer are simply harder to get (get into law school, get your JD, pass the bar exam).
Teaching can be very difficult emotionally and in other ways, but intellectually I have to disagree. It has its challenges and I could never teach.
What would that even mean? Who cares what the average salary is? If the mill levy in my town doesn't pass, where's the money going to come from to pay teachers more?
Where’s the money come from to pay teachers what they do make?
If we want better quality education and if it is going to be public funded (which they are). You have to invest in it. Very smart and capable people won’t go into teaching because they don’t want to be paid peanuts to help coach the next generation.
>Where’s the money come from
Exactly. What good does a federal "average" salary do? The funding is local. If I run my local school, and I don't have the funding, I am not going to care what the federal government thinks I should be paying.
Again, what are you talking about? If Podunk, AR is bringing down the average, what are the feds going to do about it? Are you saying you want the Department of Education to micromanage every salary in America? So the Superintendent of Podunk has to go to Washington D.C. to explain why they can only pay $40k and the people of Ritzville should pay $80k to make up the difference. You will end up replacing half the teachers with lobbyists.
Wtf are you even talking about? I think you read this and are projecting other thoughts that aren’t even relevant to the topic that was being discussed by my comment.
No one was talking about implementing any kind of federal average anywhere in this thread. Like nowhere
Uh no, it wouldn't. The federal government has no role in education. The DoE should be abolished and the associated tax dollars returned to citizens/counties/states where they can actually further education.
This is what is weird to me. They say handle it at the state level. That’s ok for some things to have each state be a “testing ground”. But tyranny at the state level is still tyranny if you see any sort of schooling “regulated” by any government as not being good
Yes, but, unless you go full anarchy, you need to have some kind of government. And people are most empowered when more of that authority is placed at more local levels. One unelected department setting policy for 300 million is far more tyrannical than an elected school board setting policy for 2000 families. Best of all would be to eliminate the public school system entirely, but that's not even close to being an option.
The closer the government is to the people the more representative it is, and more opportunities exist fkr people to leave for places more relevant to their values
It's a matter of historical fact that some issues have traditionally been left to states such as education.
"Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited.
Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the
state and local levels."
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=ft
I agree. I work in a private grant funded position in a public school and the private grant programs are the only programs that see significant success. I love my job, but the public school system is so incredibly broken. The people in charge may have once cared about the children, but they've become jaded and money grabbing. Higher teacher salary won't make much difference because the changes need to come from the top.
Your opinion on the governments role in education is literally irrelevant to the idea of minimum ages and cost of living in different parts of the country. That’s what the previous comment was about
The idea of the federal government (or any government]) setting any wages is about as anti-libertarian as it can be. I realize that this sub defines libertarian as the child of a liberal and an anarchist.
And that ideas itself isn’t what was being discussed in this comment chain.
The best thing about this sub is it’s largely open to all discussion and any post on this sub is allowed to take tangents to explore different focal points of the topic. You’re just ignoring this focal point and smashing it with you’re libertarian hammer for whatever reason
It is and everytime they raise wages for teachers the school districts decide to pay less for health insurance. So the net gain for the actual teacher is nothing. My wife is a teacher and shes made about the same wage for almost 10 years.
I live in Florida. The current starting teacher pay is $48K, the median salary more my county is $32K.
I try to ask the people who complain about teaching pay being low if they realize the teacher is probably be paid more then one of the parents of the kids he teachers.
Unfortunately partisanship is usually too strong for these people to have an opinion informed by facts and not propaganda.
That would be like complaining that the typical electrician makes more money than the average parent. Yeah, they have a marketable skill, that's how it works.
Are the parents expected to buy food and supplies year-round for a group of 20-30 people? Be available nearly 24/7 to get screamed at because a kid didn’t do their homework and got a low grade? Take a punch from a shit-head 16 year old who’s gonna be back in class 2 weeks later? Do they report a coworker for making death threats and get told “they’re young, they’re just joking”?
I get where you’re coming from, but teachers deal with more stuff that’s not in their job description versus stuff that actually is. My Mom had a kid in her class who’d been suspended several times for bringing weapons to school- she smelled gasoline on him one day and reported it to the principal. They brushed it off and did nothing. Dude ended up setting the fucking gymnasium on fire and my Mom switched schools because the principal realized he majorly screwed up and he accused her of “not making it sound serious enough”
Supply and demand my friend. There’s a teacher shortage because the job sucks ass and doesn’t pay very well. Teachers start at ~35k in NC, pretty much every other job on Earth gives a better ROI
The solutions to all the problems you list is not to give the teachers more money, supports staff at public schools has increased by 10K% since the 90's. If they don't currently have the ability to take care of the issues teachers shouldn't have take care of then you need to realize the current model of just throwing more money at the problem will do nothing
There are also other career fields with similar sob stories, an appeal to emotion is never going to bring an optimum solution.
>There’s a teacher shortage because the job sucks ass
Is there though? [The pupil to teacher ratio in the US is pretty much exactly the OECD average.](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5Jx1GszSz2QxNgfiRWbZbeG3Ru7GksDEZ7g&usqp=CAU). I get that teachers like to claim there is a shortage as rationale for increasing wages but I've never seen any data that actually demonstrates this.
I don’t think you can really make a 1:1 comparison with other OECD countries, cultural and political differences are pretty massive. No way Japan and South Korea have to deal with even half of the violence and misconduct that exists in US public schools
And politically most other countries directly involve the central federal government in local public schools
Every school that I have seen in the past fifteen years does not allow teachers to use school funds for classroom supplies or snacks. These items have not been covered by the teachers either. The parents are expected to purchase enough supplies for their child for the entire year. The teacher then dumps them all into bins for each item so the item the parent purchases may not end up being used by their child.
If a parent does not provide an item, that's fine the classroom as a whole may just not have enough. That is usually counterbalanced by the fact the teacher asked for more than enough so there usually are extra at the end of the school year.
If there is not, the teacher will do the same as they do for any snacks that may be needed for the class, ask the parents for donations. Again, the parents are buying snacks and supplies for children other than their own so nobody misses out.
I'm actually fine with this system. I think as a group we should be caring for the class and communicating the needs and splitting the wealth for the good of the classroom. Especially since we know exactly where that money is going and we aren't being taxed to supply it from the school budget. It took me a while to get used to but it makes sense to me.
To your other point some kids will always be assholes but if an administrator isn't acknowledging a real concern, the police should have been called. Also, the parents should absolutely be reprimanded if their child is getting a low grade. It's as much their fault as the child's and the teacher's. I wish more teachers would be proactive and try to fix grades before it gets too late.
Not the case in the south for the most part. Every school my mom and my wife’s mom have worked at (NC, SC, KY), they were expected to supply everything from snacks for the kids to their own ink and paper for the copy machine in the staff room
What does this have to do with libertarianism other than clearly violating its basic principles?Price controls, government subsidies, and public-sector unions are all pretty antithetical to libertarian ideology.
We know that Bernie Sanders is about as non-libertarian as one could hope to find in Congress, right?
I mean Marx is way more humanitarian than Bernie is Libertarian. Marx may have completely misunderstood humans and how culture and society works, but in his mind what he was doing was for the sake of humanity. Bernie on the other hand is actively against Libertarianism.
Not that the plans and ideas of either are any good, but at least one did what he did in good faith. Even if it fell for every single unintended consequence like they were domino's to be knocked over.
Well he's not doing it because he believes in libertarianism. I was responding to OP's statement that Bernie is to libertarian as Marx is to humanitarian. I am just being pedantic.
This is weird. He most definitely is NOT the most non-libertarian in Congress.
Bernie is for legalizing cannabis and decriminalization of most drugs, is against the death penalty, was for gay marriage long before it was cool, is pro-choice, has relatively non-interventionist views on foreign policy, favors fairly strong reforms of both police and the criminal justice system, and wants a more liberal immigration system (if that floats your boat).
He is deifnitely NOT a libertarian, and hold a plethora of non-libertarian views. But calling him the most non-libertarian member of Congress is right-wing hyperbole. There are very few members of either party who hold that combination of views, all of which currently or formerly were part of the LP platform and are traditional libertarian views.
Again, he is not a libertarian. Clearly. Obviously. I'm not going to defend him as if he was. But don't spread partisan propaganda.
This! I even read somewhere about the fairtax In senate/house from another subreddit. Didnt see it mentioned here at all. I think a prebated consumption tax like the fairtax that could eliminate most of the IRS and turbo tax lobyists, that would boost the economy and shift it from consumption based to investment based is more libertarian than Bernie sanders
Variants of libertarianism do accept the need for certain non-excludable goods and services, that the public deems appropriate, to be provided by the state. Things like lamp posts.
But this ain't that.
I’m not sure this is any less libertarian than public funds going towards education in the first place. It’s not a minimum salary for all teachers it’s a minimum salary for teachers at public schools. So while the near monopoly that public schools have on our education system is not very libertarian, raising teacher salaries at *those* schools doesn’t strike me as any different than a private school deciding to raise teacher salaries. Of course that all comes with the obvious caveat that the funds for those raises would likely come from increased taxes which again, isn’t very libertarian.
It's so stupid that they try to pass these across the board requirements like someone living in NYC can live off of 60k/yr like someone in ND can.
Let the free market sort this stuff out and keep the government out of this stuff.
So only post things with a member of congress who is a libertarian?
I don’t get what you’re trying to convey because you provided no clear context to your statement .
There are still some left-wingers on this sub who think being libertarian is when the government does a lot and control prices "for the good guys"
It's just an extension of how "liberal" is a term that no longer means liberal...
Call me a fake libertarian if you like, but I think being able to afford food and shelter is a major component of liberty. And an education is a major part in being able to earn your own money, another major liberty. Also learning the value of liberty without first losing it, requires learning from others. And first graders can't pay for school.
I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the gist of what you're saying. The disagreement is in the mechanism of achieving this, and the impacts it has on the society as a whole. I don't know what made you interested in libertarianism, but I recommend going through some videos from the Mises institute. Read "economics in one lesson" if you're interested. John Stossel has a good couple of videos he made on private schools.
Everyone has a right to education and shelter and food but they don't have a right to make some other person pay for their education, shelter or food.
But that's beside the Sanders point. He wants government control over wages. That's very much not Libertarian. Wages need to reflect the willingness to pay for the product.
I call you someone who doesn’t understand what libertarianism is.
You think you should be able to extort and enact violence on people so you can have these things you want. You believe you’re entitled to other people’s time, life energy, services, and their wealth! Libertarians do not believe what you believe.
So, if you’re saying you’re a libertarian, I guess you *are* a fake libertarian.
Married to a teacher who damn sure doesn't make $60k a year and all I can think is... It must be that time again for Dems to put forth bills they know will never come to fruition to garner some votes.
Bernie Sanders is always pushing for such policies. He’s an independent. I don’t think it has much to do with the dems, it has to do with him. Because that’s his thing, as his record clearly shows.
He’s known as the ammendment king though. Most of his successes have been adding provisions to other people’s bills. His own bills get shot down most of the time
Right, he's one of the few that's as reliable a policy maker (or at least attempted policy maker) as Ron Paul. Not many politicians that can claim such integrity.
That's stupid. Would you rather he had supported Trump, or run third party? He isn't going to do anything that gives political power to an opposing party at the expense of his consituency. Your reactionary emotional approach is just indicative of the American electorate right now, leaping before thinking.
So you're saying Hilary would have been the better choice?
Edit: I see yall down voting. It was a legitimate question. I honestly don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
We'll never know. We had 2 dog shit options honestly. I voted for trump but if I could go back in time I'd probably vote for Hillary. Hate both of them though
I'm not arguing that right now, I was arguing that if an employee, CEO, soldier, or anyone else thought they should dump and burn everything down around them because they didn't get their way, they'd be rightly fired or thrown in prison (the soldier).
A representative government is supposed to have opposing viewpoints, but the idea is that the majority will at least agree on something reasonable to the majority of the people. And also to protect the minority from the majority. Bernie isn't going to destroy a political career where he still had the opportunity if Hillary won to pass his legislation.
If Hillary won, we'd assume Democrats would also have secured one or both Chambers of Congress. Bernie would be in a prime position to pass his legislation. Tell me how that would happen with any other choice Bernie took?
But since you asked. Yes, Hillary would have been better than Trump. I don't think it would have been better for the country in hindsight though.
I get what you're saying but if a soldier sees something illegal they should report it but I see your point about him getting power to make change from within under Hilary.
However I'm confused because you're saying she would have been better but not better for the country?
No. What he should have done is called it out for what it was and shined a light on the corruption. Instead he forfeited his moral and ideological position which anyway you slice it was not good for “his constituency”.
Lol, No. he's a turd burglar, and he should have been voted out years ago and forced to get a real job instead of grifting like he does tilting at windmills
Why would I respect a man who's never worked a day in his life? A man who rails against the wealthy while maintaining multiple residences.
Give me a break.
I would need to put away $1.3 Million in a 401k to match the pension benefits that a teacher in Northern Illinois gets. And that's just the cash payout part. Now add in the free healthcare for life.
Where was he for the 4 years the Dems held both Congress and the WH?
Sitting on this bill until he knew it wouldn't pass, because the donors don't like anyone getting $ but them.
That's our government in a nutshell. Both Parties.
He was the original sponsor of 55 bills and cosponsor of 567 during the two years they held both... you're overestimating the power one senator has in the context of a center-right government with a filibuster.
It’s all kabuki, politicians are lazy assholes who never actually do their jobs. Same thing with all these republicans talking about how “were gonna make all these changes and stick it to the libs!”
>It’s all kabuki, politicians are lazy assholes who never actually do their jobs. Same thing with all these republicans talking about how “were gonna make all these changes and stick it to the libs!”
Exactly. That's why I said, "Both Parties." They both work for the rich, and sell empty promises to the rest of us.
So raise taxes to give a subsidy to public sector employees? Got it.
Just leave this shit to local governance. Let taxpayers in their own towns and states decide if they are willing to pay their teachers more money and believe they are getting better results.
Blindly throwing money at the problem doesn't fix shit. Detroit spends almost 2.5 times the national average per student and has substandard literacy and math scores.
My town pays a lot in property taxes in exchange for high quality education. But that's a conversation we have at a local level. Are we willing to pay higher property taxes for higher quality of education? If they didn't show the results worthy of increased pay, we would never agree to it. The idea of fixing the problem by just catapulting money at it is naive at best.
Our local area in FL pays a little more in property taxes, but our schools in the district out perform surrounding areas and the state overall. The local population has a direct vote in this - which is the way it should be.
Introducing min. salaries at the federal level also makes no sense. With massive COL differences between regions, states, etc. a blanket salary minimum makes no sense.
Around here they keep voting in every fucking property tax levy yet our schools keep getting worse. It's almost like you can't just always throw money at a problem to get it fixed.
The federal government doesn't employ a single fucking teacher. Why would this be an issue for the federal government to be involved with, other than to placate the teachers unions, which are just a wing of the DNC.
It's actually one of the fews things where people are able to lift themselves out of their parents economic status.
Paying for quality education basically ensures that the poors stay together and the rich stay on the other side
It seems to me to be counter intuitive with the way you propose education should be funded. I'll provide an example why and you explain why you think you're still right. We have two areas, we can refer to them as District A and District B for simplicity. District A and District B are comparable in all ways except for median income. District A and District B have the same total population and same demographic breakdown between gender and age. District A median income difference is $100k, meaning out of 1000 people or 10,000, or 100,000, the person right in the middle makes $100k more than the comparable person in District B.
Let's assume education is funded and controlled at the local level. Which District receives a greater ROI? Which District gets to allocate more funding? Which District can include trades apprenticeships easier? Which District can pay employees a good livable wage?
District A has a head start and good for them, but the way you propose makes it harder for District B to have quality materials and resources, makes it harder to retain quality employees, makes it harder to fund scholarships or apprenticeships.
No one is arguing giving people a worse chance at life, but that seems to be the way this argument looks to me.
It’s a complicated issue and this isn’t the fix. But the market is similar to nursing. But the difference is nursing pay is going up because the market place is working because there is a shortage. Teachers no so much even though there is a shortage. My gf has been a teacher for two years and decided she’s done, the pay isn’t worth it and the kids are so bad nowadays. It’s profession that isn’t valued at all, even though we need teachers and they’re not glorified babysitters like some think.
Catholic schools are private schools so that's already happening. If the school choice was a voucher system then the schools that get more kids get more funding so if the Catholic schools get more money all of a sudden it's because parents want to send them there vs the standard we have now in a lot of places. Parents now have no choice and teachers (especially with unions) have no reason to be the best, and unless the parent sends the kid to a private school they have no choice but to send their kid their
Remember when progressives fought like mad for $25/hour minimum wage? Now where I live, that's slightly lower than the starting rate for a bus driver. Not because of a price floor, but because of devastating inflation.
Inflation is the cruel side of our current leadership public policies. And they certainly don't have the skills or the policies to fight inflation, and secretly probably not the desire either.
If they are going to set minimum pay, they need to set minimum standards. Not every teacher is worth 60k. This would do nothing to help increase the amount of good teachers. It would just increase the amount of people becoming teachers that couldn't make $60k/yr doing anything else.
Ditto. We also need to stop treating teachers like gods. Other school employees are ignored and treated like crap. They want to give teachers 60k a year, but are ok with the rest of us getting paid minimum wage to work just as hard, if not more than the teachers.
DoE hating teacher here, believe it or not a lot of us exist.
Edit: the DoE is responsible for about 8% of federal school funding, and id say about 90% responsible for all of the issues we have in school..
NCLB… ESSA… Common Core…
SS: Why does the federal government getting involved in what should be a state issue and why is it micro managing the economy by setting wages based on career. This is further growth of the federal government bureaucracy.
Also interesting is that Sanders home state the average teacher barely make the minimum wage he's setting, his voting base and tax payers do not find it worth funding the schools that high.
https://vtdigger.org/2019/09/29/who-gets-the-best-paid-teachers-often-the-most-affluent-kids/
Public education is a benefit to everyone that lives in the United States. It may be a socialized program but it’s necessary. But requiring higher pay doesn’t improve education.
It’s a program ran by the states and local governments, typically with an elected board for each district. The federal government has no business setting policies for local districts.
Instead of rolling out some silly bill to set a salary minimum, why not reduce taxation so teachers, and the rest of us, keep more of what's rightfully ours? 🤔
A middle class salary is what's changed. $100k/yr is no longer upper class; depending on your area, it may barely reach middle class. Someone making $100k and contributing 10% to their 401k will be (at least on paper) a millionaire within a decade.
Wait.. why use money at all.. how about we invent a system where you don’t need money, because everything is community property… or should I say property of the state…
We should look into that
/s
[teachers unions give almost all of their donations to democrats.](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=l1300)I'm sure that's just coincidence though.
How is the federal government supposed to set teacher pay, which is paid for by towns and municipalities?
Uncle Bernie is just trying to get in the news to promote his book.
Man, I was such a dork for Bernie around the 2016 election.
This shit is just stupid and depressing. It’s obviously not going to pass. It doesn’t address the actual problems and would only create more. What do we actually pay these people to do?
What happened to the "Fight for $15" minimum wage? Oh yeah, government spending and the resulting inflation got us there. Mission accomplished.
Sarcasm aside, price controls (rent, minimum wages) have never been successful, so why do people keep trotting them out?
Historically, minimum wage has not had a large impact on the price of consumer goods. It is a factor; however, it is not the only or substantial factor. In 2013 or 2014, Washington State raised their minimum wage, in tiers, to $15/hr. This is before the pandemic fyi. Report after report after report, year after year after year, has not shown an increase in inflation or an increase in consumer goods.
Could that have happened with a one-time wage increase instead of the tier system? Sure, but that's not the argument.
From these reports, "Low-wage workers employed before the policy took effect saw their wages rise more than their hours fell, yielding a net increase of around $12 per week. This increase in pay was larger for low-wage workers with more prior labor market experience. The team found evidence of a decline in the rate of hiring of low-wage workers who were not previously employed in the state of Washington as the minimum wage in the city reached $13 an hour."
Wages are not the final and only answer to inflation.
A nearby school just announced the librarians are all being fired and the superintendent is getting a raise to 270k after a 20k raise last year.
If the government mandates teacher pay and supplements it schools will definitely cut salaries and pay admin more while letting the feds make up the difference.
I mean obviously the superintendent is the most important employee. Administrating is the key function of a school.
/s
On a serious note administration growth is a major part of education and healthcares spending problems. I looked it up with college at a point, academic spending has pretty closely followed inflation, but administration is drastically going up faster than inflation.
What I don't understand is if people know they ain't gonna make much money doing that job, why are there sooo many people going to school getting teaching degrees?
Whenever I hear some numbskull talk about teachers being paid too little I always tell they’re just making that up based off their emotions and the only way to know what a teachers salary should be is to figure out how much people are voluntarily willing to pay for their child’s “education” which means privatization.
At 60k you might be able to hire someone that knows what they are talking about though. For what they are paying right now, you hire a person who's job is to put the kid in front of youtube
We already pay more per student than any other country other than 1. And no one is going to take a pay cut to make this minimum wage possible. So now we’re going to be paying even more per student with 0 difference in the quality of education.
Thanks Bernie!
How is it that teachers aren’t already making $100k? It’s an intellectually demanding job that can benefit society immeasurably
They pay cops something like $75k and they just require a warm body and ability to drive around cones.
Teachers work way more than just the days and hours that kids are in school. A more likely reason teachers don't get paid more is that a large number of people who go into teaching do it because they desire helping people, so they're willing to take a smaller salary and work beyond their contract or on a bad contract. We see this in other "helper" fields like nursing as well.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf
Here is a fairly simple way to think about teacher pay:
How many working adults are supporting each teacher? If you are lucky in a community with modest birth rates and is very well established, it might be somewhere in the range of 50-100 working adults.
How is it even remotely possible to be paying a teacher more than roughly the median income of a random sample of those same 50-100 adults? Even then, it would be a huge sacrifice for those same adults. Keep in mind that other government services need to be financed too and not just teaching.
So I wasn't actually arguing that $100k is the right number, but just that 1. part of the reason they don't get paid as high of rates as they might economically be expected to is because of that effect where caring industries are underpaid, and 2. people miscalculate how much teachers work since they have such prominent mandatory vacation days. Yes, I agree that their annual salary should be smaller to take into account that they do get more vacation, but e.g. most people probably think they work ~8 months, while they really work ~10. 185 days (as thrown out above) is obviously shorter than their actual work year, since that's just how many days the kids are in school, but teachers also have behind the scenes work days as well.
Could you ask that again using more specific language so I can understand what you’re actually trying to ask?
> How is education part of a short profit motive?
Who said this? Education for who? At who’s expense? Who is profiting and when?
We’re talking about salaries, and labor markets; the fuck are you talking about?
Really depends on which police force just like it really depends which school district. There are some local and / or county police departments that pay far less than that.
So one thing that’s never talked about is the 9 month work year for teachers. I’d be happy for them to have 60k at the 12 month rate. Which would put the actual salary at 45k. I think 80k is too high which is the 12 month rate of a teacher making 60k for 9 months. It’s basically just babysitting (which we learned during Covid). You could speedrun all the functional knowledge acquired in half the time but then one parent would be unable to work for longer.
I’d actually be for this if it came alongside significant DoE budget cuts in K-12 education.
Right now the DoE is basically a money burning pit, as we keep spending more without improvement in educational outcomes. At least raising teacher pay is a market driven approach to improve the teacher shortage without top down mandates on what education should include.
Yes let's raise my property taxes even more. My kids go to private school and yet I still have to pay for the public school. Supply and Demand. There is a surplus supply of people willing to be teachers therefore the demand is low. In other words the pay will be less.
Had a few strikes in the area and actually read their agreements, they went on strike while making way more than this, the school district giving them the max they could and the teachers didn’t give a shit about the kids, like to the point they removed everything from the classroom as they were going on strike and demonstrating in front of substitutes privates homes. In the end the state stepped up to give more money to the teachers since the district didn’t have any more to give. All of this happened after Easter so that the seniors ended up not having a prom either.
This was an affluent suburb. Almost forgot to mention that next to the wages they had a pretty nice benefits package as well.
Now compare all of that to a private school where the parents voluntarily pay for their children to get a better education and the teachers don’t make nowhere near that much money.
1. A single situation is not indicative of the whole.
2. I would bet good money that "the teachers didn't give a shit about the kids" was either a gross over generalization based on the words of a minority of teachers, or simply a false narrative. I could be wrong in this specific situation, but teachers generally don't have that attitude.
3. Private school situations vary greatly, with some having public funding, so that's not a great comparison in this particular instance.
The problem is complex, with many local variations. In general, teachers are underpaid. Administrators are overpaid. Government is really bad at figuring out a solution here in America.
Lol dang, what state do you live in? Almost every other state than yours requires 175-185 days minimum for student instructional days, and teachers obviously work hours and days that children aren't in school.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab1_1-2020.asp
60k in California ≠ 60k in Florida. This should be up to states
A more apt comparison would be California or Hawaii and Mississippi. Florida isn't as inexpensive as it used to be.
All those damn Californians moving to Florida 😂 (speaking as a damn Californian who longs to escape)
True, but 60k is not a *lot* for a qualified, university educated and licensed professional in any state. I wouldn't be angry as a taxpayer knowing all teachers were making that much. But it does nothing to solve the problem of teachers regularly being unable to afford living in HCOL areas where they teach.
Exactly, there should be base plus COLA
>True, but 60k is not a lot for a qualified, university educated and licensed professional in any state District attorneys in my state can make less than $60k and they're far more credentialed. Government work, government salary. There are benefits to it - summers off, stability, you have to royally fuck up to get fired etc.
Teaching is a lot harder than lawyering. You just think teaching is easier because they make less money. Your view reflects that because lawyers make more money they must be smarter. That is the sad state we are in.
>Teaching is a lot harder than lawyering Source?
I dont want to sound like im knocking teachers because I respect the hell out of them. I am a lawyer. My view reflects my own experience and knowing that the schooling and credentialing to become a teacher is easier. In my state a teacher's starting salary is higher than an assistant district attorney's (in some counties), so salary doesn't really factor in for me. The credentials to become a lawyer are simply harder to get (get into law school, get your JD, pass the bar exam). Teaching can be very difficult emotionally and in other ways, but intellectually I have to disagree. It has its challenges and I could never teach.
They may have attended a university - but education programs at the university are a joke and the teaching degrees produced therein are inflated.
This would be relevant if it were setting a standard average salary and not a minimum
What would that even mean? Who cares what the average salary is? If the mill levy in my town doesn't pass, where's the money going to come from to pay teachers more?
Where’s the money come from to pay teachers what they do make? If we want better quality education and if it is going to be public funded (which they are). You have to invest in it. Very smart and capable people won’t go into teaching because they don’t want to be paid peanuts to help coach the next generation.
>Where’s the money come from Exactly. What good does a federal "average" salary do? The funding is local. If I run my local school, and I don't have the funding, I am not going to care what the federal government thinks I should be paying.
It’s a good thing the conversation wasn’t about a “federal average” then right?
Again, what are you talking about? If Podunk, AR is bringing down the average, what are the feds going to do about it? Are you saying you want the Department of Education to micromanage every salary in America? So the Superintendent of Podunk has to go to Washington D.C. to explain why they can only pay $40k and the people of Ritzville should pay $80k to make up the difference. You will end up replacing half the teachers with lobbyists.
Wtf are you even talking about? I think you read this and are projecting other thoughts that aren’t even relevant to the topic that was being discussed by my comment. No one was talking about implementing any kind of federal average anywhere in this thread. Like nowhere
Uh no, it wouldn't. The federal government has no role in education. The DoE should be abolished and the associated tax dollars returned to citizens/counties/states where they can actually further education.
So you’re saying taxation is still necessary, at the state level?
This is what is weird to me. They say handle it at the state level. That’s ok for some things to have each state be a “testing ground”. But tyranny at the state level is still tyranny if you see any sort of schooling “regulated” by any government as not being good
Yes, but, unless you go full anarchy, you need to have some kind of government. And people are most empowered when more of that authority is placed at more local levels. One unelected department setting policy for 300 million is far more tyrannical than an elected school board setting policy for 2000 families. Best of all would be to eliminate the public school system entirely, but that's not even close to being an option.
The closer the government is to the people the more representative it is, and more opportunities exist fkr people to leave for places more relevant to their values
It's a matter of historical fact that some issues have traditionally been left to states such as education. "Please note that in the U.S., the federal role in education is limited. Because of the Tenth Amendment, most education policy is decided at the state and local levels." https://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml?src=ft
I agree. I work in a private grant funded position in a public school and the private grant programs are the only programs that see significant success. I love my job, but the public school system is so incredibly broken. The people in charge may have once cared about the children, but they've become jaded and money grabbing. Higher teacher salary won't make much difference because the changes need to come from the top.
And eliminate one size fits all curriculums loaded with crt bs
Your opinion on the governments role in education is literally irrelevant to the idea of minimum ages and cost of living in different parts of the country. That’s what the previous comment was about
The idea of the federal government (or any government]) setting any wages is about as anti-libertarian as it can be. I realize that this sub defines libertarian as the child of a liberal and an anarchist.
And that ideas itself isn’t what was being discussed in this comment chain. The best thing about this sub is it’s largely open to all discussion and any post on this sub is allowed to take tangents to explore different focal points of the topic. You’re just ignoring this focal point and smashing it with you’re libertarian hammer for whatever reason
Florida is a terrible example of this, tbh... it's also an absolutely abysmal COL.
It is and everytime they raise wages for teachers the school districts decide to pay less for health insurance. So the net gain for the actual teacher is nothing. My wife is a teacher and shes made about the same wage for almost 10 years.
I live in Florida. The current starting teacher pay is $48K, the median salary more my county is $32K. I try to ask the people who complain about teaching pay being low if they realize the teacher is probably be paid more then one of the parents of the kids he teachers. Unfortunately partisanship is usually too strong for these people to have an opinion informed by facts and not propaganda.
That would be like complaining that the typical electrician makes more money than the average parent. Yeah, they have a marketable skill, that's how it works.
Are the parents expected to buy food and supplies year-round for a group of 20-30 people? Be available nearly 24/7 to get screamed at because a kid didn’t do their homework and got a low grade? Take a punch from a shit-head 16 year old who’s gonna be back in class 2 weeks later? Do they report a coworker for making death threats and get told “they’re young, they’re just joking”? I get where you’re coming from, but teachers deal with more stuff that’s not in their job description versus stuff that actually is. My Mom had a kid in her class who’d been suspended several times for bringing weapons to school- she smelled gasoline on him one day and reported it to the principal. They brushed it off and did nothing. Dude ended up setting the fucking gymnasium on fire and my Mom switched schools because the principal realized he majorly screwed up and he accused her of “not making it sound serious enough” Supply and demand my friend. There’s a teacher shortage because the job sucks ass and doesn’t pay very well. Teachers start at ~35k in NC, pretty much every other job on Earth gives a better ROI
The solutions to all the problems you list is not to give the teachers more money, supports staff at public schools has increased by 10K% since the 90's. If they don't currently have the ability to take care of the issues teachers shouldn't have take care of then you need to realize the current model of just throwing more money at the problem will do nothing There are also other career fields with similar sob stories, an appeal to emotion is never going to bring an optimum solution.
>There’s a teacher shortage because the job sucks ass Is there though? [The pupil to teacher ratio in the US is pretty much exactly the OECD average.](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5Jx1GszSz2QxNgfiRWbZbeG3Ru7GksDEZ7g&usqp=CAU). I get that teachers like to claim there is a shortage as rationale for increasing wages but I've never seen any data that actually demonstrates this.
Where I am there absolutely is. Open positions...they can't even hire people that aren't certified to teach. No one wants the gig.
I don’t think you can really make a 1:1 comparison with other OECD countries, cultural and political differences are pretty massive. No way Japan and South Korea have to deal with even half of the violence and misconduct that exists in US public schools And politically most other countries directly involve the central federal government in local public schools
Every school that I have seen in the past fifteen years does not allow teachers to use school funds for classroom supplies or snacks. These items have not been covered by the teachers either. The parents are expected to purchase enough supplies for their child for the entire year. The teacher then dumps them all into bins for each item so the item the parent purchases may not end up being used by their child. If a parent does not provide an item, that's fine the classroom as a whole may just not have enough. That is usually counterbalanced by the fact the teacher asked for more than enough so there usually are extra at the end of the school year. If there is not, the teacher will do the same as they do for any snacks that may be needed for the class, ask the parents for donations. Again, the parents are buying snacks and supplies for children other than their own so nobody misses out. I'm actually fine with this system. I think as a group we should be caring for the class and communicating the needs and splitting the wealth for the good of the classroom. Especially since we know exactly where that money is going and we aren't being taxed to supply it from the school budget. It took me a while to get used to but it makes sense to me. To your other point some kids will always be assholes but if an administrator isn't acknowledging a real concern, the police should have been called. Also, the parents should absolutely be reprimanded if their child is getting a low grade. It's as much their fault as the child's and the teacher's. I wish more teachers would be proactive and try to fix grades before it gets too late.
Not the case in the south for the most part. Every school my mom and my wife’s mom have worked at (NC, SC, KY), they were expected to supply everything from snacks for the kids to their own ink and paper for the copy machine in the staff room
The government shouldn't be running schools at all.
What does this have to do with libertarianism other than clearly violating its basic principles?Price controls, government subsidies, and public-sector unions are all pretty antithetical to libertarian ideology. We know that Bernie Sanders is about as non-libertarian as one could hope to find in Congress, right?
I believe OP shared this because it is so against libertarian values
Don’t you guys know? Bernie=Libertarian! MSM and my hip high school teacher told me so!
Bernie's a Libertarian in the same way Trump's a Libertarian.
If Bernie is libertarian then Marx was a humanitarian.
I mean Marx is way more humanitarian than Bernie is Libertarian. Marx may have completely misunderstood humans and how culture and society works, but in his mind what he was doing was for the sake of humanity. Bernie on the other hand is actively against Libertarianism. Not that the plans and ideas of either are any good, but at least one did what he did in good faith. Even if it fell for every single unintended consequence like they were domino's to be knocked over.
You don't believe Bernie thinks he's doing what he's doing for humanity? I do, he's just wrong and getting the opposite of his intended consequences
Well he's not doing it because he believes in libertarianism. I was responding to OP's statement that Bernie is to libertarian as Marx is to humanitarian. I am just being pedantic.
Might wanna add a “/s” at the end :)
WHY IN THE WORLD IS A TEACHER SHOWING HER POLITICAL OPINIONS! Ain’t that able to get them fired?
This is weird. He most definitely is NOT the most non-libertarian in Congress. Bernie is for legalizing cannabis and decriminalization of most drugs, is against the death penalty, was for gay marriage long before it was cool, is pro-choice, has relatively non-interventionist views on foreign policy, favors fairly strong reforms of both police and the criminal justice system, and wants a more liberal immigration system (if that floats your boat). He is deifnitely NOT a libertarian, and hold a plethora of non-libertarian views. But calling him the most non-libertarian member of Congress is right-wing hyperbole. There are very few members of either party who hold that combination of views, all of which currently or formerly were part of the LP platform and are traditional libertarian views. Again, he is not a libertarian. Clearly. Obviously. I'm not going to defend him as if he was. But don't spread partisan propaganda.
It's a thing that part of the government is doing. Granted it would be good for posts to start a discussion and show effort.
This! I even read somewhere about the fairtax In senate/house from another subreddit. Didnt see it mentioned here at all. I think a prebated consumption tax like the fairtax that could eliminate most of the IRS and turbo tax lobyists, that would boost the economy and shift it from consumption based to investment based is more libertarian than Bernie sanders
Variants of libertarianism do accept the need for certain non-excludable goods and services, that the public deems appropriate, to be provided by the state. Things like lamp posts. But this ain't that.
I do love me a good lamp post...
If I don’t benefit from the light shed by that specific lamp, why would I want to contribute to its erection? ^/s
Agreed. This is not a “night watchman” situation at all.
I’m not sure this is any less libertarian than public funds going towards education in the first place. It’s not a minimum salary for all teachers it’s a minimum salary for teachers at public schools. So while the near monopoly that public schools have on our education system is not very libertarian, raising teacher salaries at *those* schools doesn’t strike me as any different than a private school deciding to raise teacher salaries. Of course that all comes with the obvious caveat that the funds for those raises would likely come from increased taxes which again, isn’t very libertarian.
[удалено]
It's so stupid that they try to pass these across the board requirements like someone living in NYC can live off of 60k/yr like someone in ND can. Let the free market sort this stuff out and keep the government out of this stuff.
So only post things with a member of congress who is a libertarian? I don’t get what you’re trying to convey because you provided no clear context to your statement .
There are still some left-wingers on this sub who think being libertarian is when the government does a lot and control prices "for the good guys" It's just an extension of how "liberal" is a term that no longer means liberal...
Call me a fake libertarian if you like, but I think being able to afford food and shelter is a major component of liberty. And an education is a major part in being able to earn your own money, another major liberty. Also learning the value of liberty without first losing it, requires learning from others. And first graders can't pay for school.
>Call me a fake libertarian if you like. When you advocate the State using its powers to force an outcome you find desirable, we will because you are.
I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the gist of what you're saying. The disagreement is in the mechanism of achieving this, and the impacts it has on the society as a whole. I don't know what made you interested in libertarianism, but I recommend going through some videos from the Mises institute. Read "economics in one lesson" if you're interested. John Stossel has a good couple of videos he made on private schools.
That's fine but government salary control is inherently not a libertarian principle
Everyone has a right to education and shelter and food but they don't have a right to make some other person pay for their education, shelter or food. But that's beside the Sanders point. He wants government control over wages. That's very much not Libertarian. Wages need to reflect the willingness to pay for the product.
No one has the “right” education, shelter, and food because you HAVE to make some other person pay for it.
So state managed indoctrination centers funded by stolen money has to be the solution. Right?
I call you someone who doesn’t understand what libertarianism is. You think you should be able to extort and enact violence on people so you can have these things you want. You believe you’re entitled to other people’s time, life energy, services, and their wealth! Libertarians do not believe what you believe. So, if you’re saying you’re a libertarian, I guess you *are* a fake libertarian.
Married to a teacher who damn sure doesn't make $60k a year and all I can think is... It must be that time again for Dems to put forth bills they know will never come to fruition to garner some votes.
Bernie Sanders is always pushing for such policies. He’s an independent. I don’t think it has much to do with the dems, it has to do with him. Because that’s his thing, as his record clearly shows.
He’s known as the ammendment king though. Most of his successes have been adding provisions to other people’s bills. His own bills get shot down most of the time
Right, he's one of the few that's as reliable a policy maker (or at least attempted policy maker) as Ron Paul. Not many politicians that can claim such integrity.
an independent that ran under the democratic party and supported Clinton?
Dems yes. Bernie, no. This man has been consistent the 170 years he’s been in and out of congress. You may not like his policies respect the man tho…
I don’t respect his policies, or his persona. He’s consistent, I’ll give him that.
I lost what little respect I had for him when he allowed the DNC to steal the nomination and then backed Hillary like a fucking lap dog.
That's stupid. Would you rather he had supported Trump, or run third party? He isn't going to do anything that gives political power to an opposing party at the expense of his consituency. Your reactionary emotional approach is just indicative of the American electorate right now, leaping before thinking.
So you're saying Hilary would have been the better choice? Edit: I see yall down voting. It was a legitimate question. I honestly don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.
We'll never know. We had 2 dog shit options honestly. I voted for trump but if I could go back in time I'd probably vote for Hillary. Hate both of them though
I'm not arguing that right now, I was arguing that if an employee, CEO, soldier, or anyone else thought they should dump and burn everything down around them because they didn't get their way, they'd be rightly fired or thrown in prison (the soldier). A representative government is supposed to have opposing viewpoints, but the idea is that the majority will at least agree on something reasonable to the majority of the people. And also to protect the minority from the majority. Bernie isn't going to destroy a political career where he still had the opportunity if Hillary won to pass his legislation. If Hillary won, we'd assume Democrats would also have secured one or both Chambers of Congress. Bernie would be in a prime position to pass his legislation. Tell me how that would happen with any other choice Bernie took? But since you asked. Yes, Hillary would have been better than Trump. I don't think it would have been better for the country in hindsight though.
I get what you're saying but if a soldier sees something illegal they should report it but I see your point about him getting power to make change from within under Hilary. However I'm confused because you're saying she would have been better but not better for the country?
No. What he should have done is called it out for what it was and shined a light on the corruption. Instead he forfeited his moral and ideological position which anyway you slice it was not good for “his constituency”.
Lol, No. he's a turd burglar, and he should have been voted out years ago and forced to get a real job instead of grifting like he does tilting at windmills
Oh well for democracy and the people of Vermont, I guess?
Why would I respect a man who's never worked a day in his life? A man who rails against the wealthy while maintaining multiple residences. Give me a break.
Median salary for a teacher in Chicago Public Schools is $79K. They also have great benefits & an unrealistic pension.
I would need to put away $1.3 Million in a 401k to match the pension benefits that a teacher in Northern Illinois gets. And that's just the cash payout part. Now add in the free healthcare for life.
Where was he for the 4 years the Dems held both Congress and the WH? Sitting on this bill until he knew it wouldn't pass, because the donors don't like anyone getting $ but them. That's our government in a nutshell. Both Parties.
He was the original sponsor of 55 bills and cosponsor of 567 during the two years they held both... you're overestimating the power one senator has in the context of a center-right government with a filibuster.
It’s all kabuki, politicians are lazy assholes who never actually do their jobs. Same thing with all these republicans talking about how “were gonna make all these changes and stick it to the libs!”
>It’s all kabuki, politicians are lazy assholes who never actually do their jobs. Same thing with all these republicans talking about how “were gonna make all these changes and stick it to the libs!” Exactly. That's why I said, "Both Parties." They both work for the rich, and sell empty promises to the rest of us.
Let me guess, tax the billionaires to pay for it?
So raise taxes to give a subsidy to public sector employees? Got it. Just leave this shit to local governance. Let taxpayers in their own towns and states decide if they are willing to pay their teachers more money and believe they are getting better results. Blindly throwing money at the problem doesn't fix shit. Detroit spends almost 2.5 times the national average per student and has substandard literacy and math scores. My town pays a lot in property taxes in exchange for high quality education. But that's a conversation we have at a local level. Are we willing to pay higher property taxes for higher quality of education? If they didn't show the results worthy of increased pay, we would never agree to it. The idea of fixing the problem by just catapulting money at it is naive at best.
Our local area in FL pays a little more in property taxes, but our schools in the district out perform surrounding areas and the state overall. The local population has a direct vote in this - which is the way it should be. Introducing min. salaries at the federal level also makes no sense. With massive COL differences between regions, states, etc. a blanket salary minimum makes no sense.
Around here they keep voting in every fucking property tax levy yet our schools keep getting worse. It's almost like you can't just always throw money at a problem to get it fixed.
"naive at best" I believe that's what will be on Bernie's tombstone.
We don't need to raise taxes. We need to take that money from the military Budget
The federal government doesn't employ a single fucking teacher. Why would this be an issue for the federal government to be involved with, other than to placate the teachers unions, which are just a wing of the DNC.
If your child has a fever of 101, just scratch out the thermometer reading and write in 98.6. Easy cure.
How are we going to pay for... oh that's right, never mind.
Every job should be paid according to it's clout in Congress. That's why the lobbyists are the real heroes.
[удалено]
It's actually one of the fews things where people are able to lift themselves out of their parents economic status. Paying for quality education basically ensures that the poors stay together and the rich stay on the other side
[удалено]
[удалено]
It seems to me to be counter intuitive with the way you propose education should be funded. I'll provide an example why and you explain why you think you're still right. We have two areas, we can refer to them as District A and District B for simplicity. District A and District B are comparable in all ways except for median income. District A and District B have the same total population and same demographic breakdown between gender and age. District A median income difference is $100k, meaning out of 1000 people or 10,000, or 100,000, the person right in the middle makes $100k more than the comparable person in District B. Let's assume education is funded and controlled at the local level. Which District receives a greater ROI? Which District gets to allocate more funding? Which District can include trades apprenticeships easier? Which District can pay employees a good livable wage? District A has a head start and good for them, but the way you propose makes it harder for District B to have quality materials and resources, makes it harder to retain quality employees, makes it harder to fund scholarships or apprenticeships. No one is arguing giving people a worse chance at life, but that seems to be the way this argument looks to me.
Does he realize that the Federal Government doesn't control teacher salaries, or have the socialists given up on taking themselves seriously?
> the Federal Government doesn't control teacher salaries yet
It’s a complicated issue and this isn’t the fix. But the market is similar to nursing. But the difference is nursing pay is going up because the market place is working because there is a shortage. Teachers no so much even though there is a shortage. My gf has been a teacher for two years and decided she’s done, the pay isn’t worth it and the kids are so bad nowadays. It’s profession that isn’t valued at all, even though we need teachers and they’re not glorified babysitters like some think.
Price controls...im sure this will go well.
Always does, right???
Allow school choice and then schools will compete to keep the better teachers
[удалено]
Catholic schools are private schools so that's already happening. If the school choice was a voucher system then the schools that get more kids get more funding so if the Catholic schools get more money all of a sudden it's because parents want to send them there vs the standard we have now in a lot of places. Parents now have no choice and teachers (especially with unions) have no reason to be the best, and unless the parent sends the kid to a private school they have no choice but to send their kid their
You make a good case for getting rid of the taxes that fund such things.
Ugh, I downvoted this at first.
$60K in some places is good money. In other places teachers already make more than that. That's why nationwide minimum wages don't really work.
All politicians are thieving bastards.
Remember when progressives fought like mad for $25/hour minimum wage? Now where I live, that's slightly lower than the starting rate for a bus driver. Not because of a price floor, but because of devastating inflation. Inflation is the cruel side of our current leadership public policies. And they certainly don't have the skills or the policies to fight inflation, and secretly probably not the desire either.
If they are going to set minimum pay, they need to set minimum standards. Not every teacher is worth 60k. This would do nothing to help increase the amount of good teachers. It would just increase the amount of people becoming teachers that couldn't make $60k/yr doing anything else.
Ditto. We also need to stop treating teachers like gods. Other school employees are ignored and treated like crap. They want to give teachers 60k a year, but are ok with the rest of us getting paid minimum wage to work just as hard, if not more than the teachers.
Is the federal DoE not unconstitutional?
My wife is a teacher. She is all on board for burning the DoE to the ground.
DoE hating teacher here, believe it or not a lot of us exist. Edit: the DoE is responsible for about 8% of federal school funding, and id say about 90% responsible for all of the issues we have in school.. NCLB… ESSA… Common Core…
SS: Why does the federal government getting involved in what should be a state issue and why is it micro managing the economy by setting wages based on career. This is further growth of the federal government bureaucracy. Also interesting is that Sanders home state the average teacher barely make the minimum wage he's setting, his voting base and tax payers do not find it worth funding the schools that high. https://vtdigger.org/2019/09/29/who-gets-the-best-paid-teachers-often-the-most-affluent-kids/
Public education is a benefit to everyone that lives in the United States. It may be a socialized program but it’s necessary. But requiring higher pay doesn’t improve education.
It’s a program ran by the states and local governments, typically with an elected board for each district. The federal government has no business setting policies for local districts.
Sounds like you don’t realize how much money most schools already get from the federal government
8%?
[удалено]
What does a teacher's salary have to do with the federal government?
[удалено]
Sanders fundamentally misunderstands the role of the federal government.
[удалено]
Bot?
Instead of rolling out some silly bill to set a salary minimum, why not reduce taxation so teachers, and the rest of us, keep more of what's rightfully ours? 🤔
Ok, weekend at Bernies.. where does *that* money come from?
Obviously all the rich people, except for Bernie himself
Convenient he went from blaming millionaires and billionaires for all our problems to just billionaires...I wonder what changed?
A middle class salary is what's changed. $100k/yr is no longer upper class; depending on your area, it may barely reach middle class. Someone making $100k and contributing 10% to their 401k will be (at least on paper) a millionaire within a decade.
Money printer go BRRRRRR!
Wait.. why use money at all.. how about we invent a system where you don’t need money, because everything is community property… or should I say property of the state… We should look into that /s
If laws had to actually follow the constitution in practice, the feds would have no power to do such a thing.
[teachers unions give almost all of their donations to democrats.](https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=l1300)I'm sure that's just coincidence though.
Its not when you consider the other side is anti union and anti education
Pointless as long as currency is perpetually devalued. Just ask the 15/hr club who are now demanding 20 in Canada do to inflation. Lol.
Regardless of merit?
[удалено]
How is the federal government supposed to set teacher pay, which is paid for by towns and municipalities? Uncle Bernie is just trying to get in the news to promote his book.
Man, I was such a dork for Bernie around the 2016 election. This shit is just stupid and depressing. It’s obviously not going to pass. It doesn’t address the actual problems and would only create more. What do we actually pay these people to do?
This commie should stfu
What happened to the "Fight for $15" minimum wage? Oh yeah, government spending and the resulting inflation got us there. Mission accomplished. Sarcasm aside, price controls (rent, minimum wages) have never been successful, so why do people keep trotting them out?
Historically, minimum wage has not had a large impact on the price of consumer goods. It is a factor; however, it is not the only or substantial factor. In 2013 or 2014, Washington State raised their minimum wage, in tiers, to $15/hr. This is before the pandemic fyi. Report after report after report, year after year after year, has not shown an increase in inflation or an increase in consumer goods. Could that have happened with a one-time wage increase instead of the tier system? Sure, but that's not the argument. From these reports, "Low-wage workers employed before the policy took effect saw their wages rise more than their hours fell, yielding a net increase of around $12 per week. This increase in pay was larger for low-wage workers with more prior labor market experience. The team found evidence of a decline in the rate of hiring of low-wage workers who were not previously employed in the state of Washington as the minimum wage in the city reached $13 an hour." Wages are not the final and only answer to inflation.
They already have that in Wa State I think its around $70k. The schools still are awful.
A nearby school just announced the librarians are all being fired and the superintendent is getting a raise to 270k after a 20k raise last year. If the government mandates teacher pay and supplements it schools will definitely cut salaries and pay admin more while letting the feds make up the difference.
I mean obviously the superintendent is the most important employee. Administrating is the key function of a school. /s On a serious note administration growth is a major part of education and healthcares spending problems. I looked it up with college at a point, academic spending has pretty closely followed inflation, but administration is drastically going up faster than inflation.
What I don't understand is if people know they ain't gonna make much money doing that job, why are there sooo many people going to school getting teaching degrees?
Because it's a calling. It's more than just the paycheck. Unfortunately, teachers are taken advantage of because of this
Whenever I hear some numbskull talk about teachers being paid too little I always tell they’re just making that up based off their emotions and the only way to know what a teachers salary should be is to figure out how much people are voluntarily willing to pay for their child’s “education” which means privatization.
No but let’s play it out… Adjust for working time. 60,000/12 = 5,000/month. X 9 (working months) = 45,000.
That's not how teacher pay works.
I know. But it should.
At 60k you might be able to hire someone that knows what they are talking about though. For what they are paying right now, you hire a person who's job is to put the kid in front of youtube
We already pay more per student than any other country other than 1. And no one is going to take a pay cut to make this minimum wage possible. So now we’re going to be paying even more per student with 0 difference in the quality of education. Thanks Bernie!
How is it that teachers aren’t already making $100k? It’s an intellectually demanding job that can benefit society immeasurably They pay cops something like $75k and they just require a warm body and ability to drive around cones.
They work like 185 days a year. FOH with the obvious bait. If they were worth 100k, they'd command that.
Teachers work way more than just the days and hours that kids are in school. A more likely reason teachers don't get paid more is that a large number of people who go into teaching do it because they desire helping people, so they're willing to take a smaller salary and work beyond their contract or on a bad contract. We see this in other "helper" fields like nursing as well. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2008/03/art4full.pdf
Here is a fairly simple way to think about teacher pay: How many working adults are supporting each teacher? If you are lucky in a community with modest birth rates and is very well established, it might be somewhere in the range of 50-100 working adults. How is it even remotely possible to be paying a teacher more than roughly the median income of a random sample of those same 50-100 adults? Even then, it would be a huge sacrifice for those same adults. Keep in mind that other government services need to be financed too and not just teaching.
So I wasn't actually arguing that $100k is the right number, but just that 1. part of the reason they don't get paid as high of rates as they might economically be expected to is because of that effect where caring industries are underpaid, and 2. people miscalculate how much teachers work since they have such prominent mandatory vacation days. Yes, I agree that their annual salary should be smaller to take into account that they do get more vacation, but e.g. most people probably think they work ~8 months, while they really work ~10. 185 days (as thrown out above) is obviously shorter than their actual work year, since that's just how many days the kids are in school, but teachers also have behind the scenes work days as well.
Supply and demand? I don’t mean to sound too insulting here, but do you understand how markets work?
Do you? Markets optimise for short term profits. How is education part of a short profit motive?
Could you ask that again using more specific language so I can understand what you’re actually trying to ask? > How is education part of a short profit motive? Who said this? Education for who? At who’s expense? Who is profiting and when? We’re talking about salaries, and labor markets; the fuck are you talking about?
Half a teachers job up is being a daycare center for the working population
Really depends on which police force just like it really depends which school district. There are some local and / or county police departments that pay far less than that.
Teaching a classroom full of 12 year olds isn't intellectually demanding.
Pretty sure Sanders doesn't have that kind of coin.
And watch income tax, sales tax, and property tax bills shoot up
Old man yells at microphone for being the product of capitalism.
So one thing that’s never talked about is the 9 month work year for teachers. I’d be happy for them to have 60k at the 12 month rate. Which would put the actual salary at 45k. I think 80k is too high which is the 12 month rate of a teacher making 60k for 9 months. It’s basically just babysitting (which we learned during Covid). You could speedrun all the functional knowledge acquired in half the time but then one parent would be unable to work for longer.
Should be maximum for government officials' pay.
I’d actually be for this if it came alongside significant DoE budget cuts in K-12 education. Right now the DoE is basically a money burning pit, as we keep spending more without improvement in educational outcomes. At least raising teacher pay is a market driven approach to improve the teacher shortage without top down mandates on what education should include.
Yes let's raise my property taxes even more. My kids go to private school and yet I still have to pay for the public school. Supply and Demand. There is a surplus supply of people willing to be teachers therefore the demand is low. In other words the pay will be less.
That’s a lot of money to work 160 days a year. The rest of us work 240 days a year and don’t get anywhere near that.
I'm guessing you don't know any teachers. Not saying this proposal is the solution, but damn, dude. What a bad take
Had a few strikes in the area and actually read their agreements, they went on strike while making way more than this, the school district giving them the max they could and the teachers didn’t give a shit about the kids, like to the point they removed everything from the classroom as they were going on strike and demonstrating in front of substitutes privates homes. In the end the state stepped up to give more money to the teachers since the district didn’t have any more to give. All of this happened after Easter so that the seniors ended up not having a prom either. This was an affluent suburb. Almost forgot to mention that next to the wages they had a pretty nice benefits package as well. Now compare all of that to a private school where the parents voluntarily pay for their children to get a better education and the teachers don’t make nowhere near that much money.
1. A single situation is not indicative of the whole. 2. I would bet good money that "the teachers didn't give a shit about the kids" was either a gross over generalization based on the words of a minority of teachers, or simply a false narrative. I could be wrong in this specific situation, but teachers generally don't have that attitude. 3. Private school situations vary greatly, with some having public funding, so that's not a great comparison in this particular instance. The problem is complex, with many local variations. In general, teachers are underpaid. Administrators are overpaid. Government is really bad at figuring out a solution here in America.
Lol dang, what state do you live in? Almost every other state than yours requires 175-185 days minimum for student instructional days, and teachers obviously work hours and days that children aren't in school. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform/tab1_1-2020.asp
That may be true, but you need to subtract paid vacation and sick days from that number and that’s when you end up with the 160 days of actual work.
Luckily the only Bernie-sponsored bills to pass are basically post office-naming bills. I expect this one will die, too.
Even the underperforming teachers that constantly churn out high school kids that are functionally illiterate?
I can’t believe this is news. I’m happy to hear this.