How did the media pull it off. Turning teachers,firefighters into the enemy #1

[Ausm]

Uh, judging by the results, the unsustainable benefits and massive deficits, yes they do. They just go back to the taxpayer every couple of years to get more money, threatening cuts to popular/needed programs if they don't get more money.... and thus the ever increasing property tax rates to fund the school districts.

My school district taxes have doubled over the past 5 years, plus additional bond issues, levies etc. The public gets to vote on those things, but the unions have a great PR campaign, basically making it seem like anyone against those increases must hate kids and hate education.

LMAO...yeah riiiiiight.

 

[PeshakJang]

So, setting aside the degree to which the OP did or did not start with a ridiculous premise, your position is two wrongs make a right?

You're like a non sequitur... You just can't follow.

That would certainly explain you. You might be useful if you attempted to demonstrate objectively and factually how the OP is wrong, but of course that would require you to actually know something, maybe do a little research, and assemble words into a coherent argument.

I made two very concise and accurate points directly addressing the OP. Tell me what you've contributed so far again?

Thanks kiddo... Try to keep up.

 

[silverpig]

It's not the media, it's the average citizen who is upset with these groups. Stories of cops who make $100,000 in retirement are not acceptable. It is not acceptable that school administrators make $200,000+. Frankly, it doesn't even seem fair to me that teachers make more than average salaries (which they do in some states) considering they get a fourth of the year off and are in a profession to help kids. These are not free market salaries, these are salaries extorted from the public by public sector unions.

If you want to be progressive, that's fine. Help EVERYONE. Don't set a system where public employees (who already have great benefits and job security) start making more than the average citizen.

School administrators aren't part of the union, have at least a master's degree and many years of experience, and are managers of an organization of ~1000 people. They work year-round (yes, in the summer too). What would that bring in the private sector?

Teachers have at least a 4-year degree, often they have two, and many have a master's in addition. They are at LEAST as well educated as an engineer, and are better educated than the general public. My wife got $48k in her 3rd year of teaching, but was making $45/hr on the side in private tutoring (that's about $90k/yr annual), and was fully booked up for the year with tutoring within 4 days of listing herself as available for students. Going free-market she probably could have pulled in $100k in private tutoring, and you think her $48k is overpayment?

A study a while back that was published in the NYT put the value to society of a rockstar kindergarten teacher at $320k/yr. Even at Apple's insane 50% margins, you're looking $160k/yr for a great teacher and probably $100k/yr for the average teacher, if you were to price it out properly.

 

[Craig234]

This is what concentrated wealth does - among other things it buys public opinion.

If you go to a dictatorship, you see pictures of the dictator on all the walls it seems.

Here, the parties with the money want more of everyone's money, and that means lower wages for the citizens, and that means spreading their propaganda for that.

That often means demonizing anyone who supports higher wages, a stronger middle class. And their money goes to 'think tanks' and media who spread that message.

And it works. Note even posts in this thread blaming 'teachers and fire-fighters' for becoming 'the enemy'. I see people from Wisconsin against and people for the cuts there.

They're able to hide policies making the rich richer, while turning many against workers.

That's how these things work. Debt is a tool for them - 'we can't afford' is a weapon for them to cut against the people. Take Paul Ryan's plan - it not only cuts the spending on Medicare - good for the citizens - by a third or $8,000 per year - since 'we can't afford it'; it also has a further tax cut for the rich giving them that $8,000 a year. So it'll do nothing about the debt it uses to justify the cut - it's just a craven transfer of wealth away from people's medical care to make the rich richer, hidden behind lies.

And the people who do this hire con men for Republican politician spots - whoever can get the people to fall for this crap are given large sums to win elections and do so.

That's who we see up spouting the careful propaganda for Republicans - 'job creators need more tax cuts, the people are paid too much to 'be competitive' - these con men.

And that's why you see a con man like a Chris Christie or Herman Cain or Scott Walker with such ties to interests like the Koch Brothers.

And it's interests like the Koch Brothers who insinuated their way into the 'Tea Party' so that the people there were suddenly fighting for the Koch agenda - 'get rid of the EPA!'

Save234

 

[JSt0rm]

Tell me how that has anything to do with my original statement?

I'm just asking.

Maybe the union is actually keeping their wages lower like the teachers union in washington dc.

My question still stands.

 

[BoberFett]

This is what concentrated wealth does - among other things it buys public opinion.

You're right. We should definitely ban unions and their concentration of union dues which they use to buy public opinion.

 

[Deeko]

In the beginning the Tea party, and the regular American Joe six pack were all asking for heads the "Evil bankers and Wall street folk" and enemy #1 was the Big Bankers (ie GS etc..)

The American public was upset about the bailouts, lemon socialism handed to the bankers when they made a bad bet. the classic privatizing profits, socializing losses.

Then somehow the real enemy has become the average teacher, firefighter and cop etc.. They are now the "Evil enemy" The Tea party and Joe Six pack have forgotten about Wall street and now the enemy is some elementary school teacher.

Seems like a perfect execution of changing the message.

haha what? Regardless of what side of the political aisle you lean to, the premise of this post is just false. The tea party was never about Wall Street nor was their "enemy #1 ... the Big Banks (ie GS etc)".

They protested bailouts because they didn't want borrowed tax money used to prop up a corporation, it had nothing to do with them being "anti wall street", you may recall that they were against the second round of bailouts as well, which had nothing to do with banks.

You seem to be under the impression that the tea party and OWS started as the same group, with OWS breaking off and staying true to message, with the tea party changing their message. This impression is in absolutely no way accurate.

 

[JSt0rm]

You're right. We should definitely ban unions and their concentration of union dues which they use to buy public opinion.

We should ban both.

 

[Infohawk]

School administrators aren't part of the union, have at least a master's degree and many years of experience, and are managers of an organization of ~1000 people. They work year-round (yes, in the summer too). What would that bring in the private sector?

Lots of people with masters degree aren't making the absurd salaries that administrators are. There are science PhDs making a lot less and working a lot more. What bugs me the most about the school administrators is the idea that their organizations require a lot of management. First of all most teachers are licensed and work independently. The reality is that they are fairly autonomous. Second, schools have been around for ages. We aren't talking about management of a high-tech firm in an ever-changing global market. We're talking about something that doesn't change that much (and if anything is tinkered with TOO much.)

Teachers have at least a 4-year degree, often they have two, and many have a master's in addition. They are at LEAST as well educated as an engineer

Who cares if they have a lot of years of education under their belt. That's like saying a PhD in English deserves to make much more than an electrical engineer who's only been in school for four years. What you're neglecting is the supply and demand aspect. Also, I knew an older professor who pointed out that his sister would not have been able to teach in this day and age because she wasn't good at math and probably couldn't have done college math. (She was not a math professor). Yet she was a good teacher in her time. What's the point of this story? The point is that we have too many educational requirements for a lot of teaching positions today. You could suddenly require a PhD to teach high school. Your argument would then be that they deserve a higher salary bu the reality would be that they are just overeducated for the position.

and are better educated than the general public. My wife got $48k in her 3rd year of teaching, but was making $45/hr on the side in private tutoring (that's about $90k/yr annual), and was fully booked up for the year with tutoring within 4 days of listing herself as available for students. Going free-market she probably could have pulled in $100k in private tutoring, and you think her $48k is overpayment?

Then why isn't she doing private tutoring full time? Probably has something to do with the benefits and stability of the job. Or maybe she likes helping people. And arguing about free markets is dangerous in your case. The reality is that a lot of private school teachers make less than public school teachers. What's going on there? Oh that's right they don't have unions and are willing to be more flexible about things like no certifications even though in many cases their students do better.

A study a while back that was published in the NYT put the value to society of a rockstar kindergarten teacher at $320k/yr. Even at Apple's insane 50% margins, you're looking $160k/yr for a great teacher and probably $100k/yr for the average teacher, if you were to price it out properly.

And professional basketball players aren't really any value to society as a whole. Who cares? The main thing you seem to be missing in all your arguments is the supply and demand aspect. It doesn't matter how educated you are or how much you are contributing. We have a free market. The reality is that there is a huge supply of potential teachers out there. As a voter, I think high school teachers should be a middle-class job making the average salary in their area if not less when you consider the time they get off and the job stability they have. For elementary school teachers who probably shouldn't have to have a four-year degree (even if today they are required to have that) it should be less.

 

[dank69]

Lots of people with masters degree aren't making the absurd salaries that administrators are. There are science PhDs making a lot less and working a lot more. What bugs me the most about the school administrators is the idea that their organizations require a lot of management. First of all most teachers are licensed and work independently. The reality is that they are fairly autonomous. Second, schools have been around for ages. We aren't talking about management of a high-tech firm in an ever-changing global market. We're talking about something that doesn't change that much (and if anything is tinkered with TOO much.)

...

Lol, I had to stop right there. It's nice that you think keeping curriculum up to date with current knowledge is trivial. WTF man?

 

[BoberFett]

We should ban both.

That's fair.

I just like pointing out how stupid Craig is. He so dumb doesn't even realize just how wrong he is.

 

[monovillage]

Lol, I had to stop right there. It's nice that you think keeping curriculum up to date with current knowledge is trivial. WTF man?

Do you really think a 3rd grade teacher needs a Bachelors degree, a teaching certificate and should be paid more money if the have a Masters degree? Why?

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

LMAO...yeah riiiiiight.

It most likely could have.
I just look at my taxes on my house over the last 10 years and sure enough, the taxes paid to the ISD are almost 3x higher now.

The issue is the value of the home has doubled in that time, but the rate has exceeded the increase in value of the house, so taxes here have gone up substantially.

What you should concern yourself with is why are our schools the laughing stock of the "developed" world, when we spend so much money on it? That should tell you that the system isn't setup to be anything but a cash cow for the unions. Union leaders don't care about children getting an education, they care about increased revenue through union dues.

http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
Even if you don't join a union, in some states you are still required to pay union dues. Tell me that's not f*cked up. A private entity is taxing an employee. That's because unions started out as a good idea to protect employees but turned into a criminal institute of extortion and bribery.

 

[JSt0rm]

That's fair.

I just like pointing out how stupid Craig is. He so dumb doesn't even realize just how wrong he is.

Well there are guys on the other side that want to ban unions but let corporations do whatever they want. So however bad he is I bet he would accept unions not having access to government if it meant no corporations too.

 

[Infohawk]

Lol, I had to stop right there. It's nice that you think keeping curriculum up to date with current knowledge is trivial. WTF man?

We're talking about school administrators here. The public school curriculum is usually decided on a state-wide basis and is heavily political. Math and English don't change and when people try new things like "new math" it usually fails miserably. Basic science hasn't changed much either. Maybe some AP stuff has changed but that's going to come down from AP testers. So no there's nothing about that that justifies the ridiculous salaries they get.

Again, if you compare it to management at just about any private sector it's not comparable even though a lot of people are underneath you. There's no outside competition (although that's changing a little now) and most of the stuff is set in stone anyway by state-wide pay schemes, class-sizes, etc.

In addition to all this, I think the public expects these administrators to be doing it in large part for altruistic reasons. It just not the first job that comes to mind when someone thinks of a job that pays over $200,000. This has nothing to do with the media. It's legitimate irritation by average citizens seeing a public bureaucrat make so much.

 

[Darwin333]

Tea party was about taxes, not Wall street.
Taxed
Enough
Already

Remember? You have them confused with OWS.

No it wasn't. The modern Tea Party movement, before it was corrupted, was mainly a result of the bailouts. More along the lines of taxation without representation since we disagreed with the bailouts like 60-1 and our representatives still did it with our tax dollars.

 

[silverpig]

Lots of people with masters degree aren't making the absurd salaries that administrators are. There are science PhDs making a lot less and working a lot more. What bugs me the most about the school administrators is the idea that their organizations require a lot of management. First of all most teachers are licensed and work independently. The reality is that they are fairly autonomous. Second, schools have been around for ages. We aren't talking about management of a high-tech firm in an ever-changing global market. We're talking about something that doesn't change that much (and if anything is tinkered with TOO much.)

My aunt has a chem Ph.D and manages a department at a private company. She manages fewer people than most schools have teachers. I think she's over $100k. If you want to not talk education and want to talk about the job, find what a manager of ~1000 people where the job requirements are 10 years experience and a master's degree are would make.

Who cares if they have a lot of years of education under their belt. That's like saying a PhD in English deserves to make much more than an electrical engineer who's only been in school for four years. What you're neglecting is the supply and demand aspect. Also, I knew an older professor who pointed out that his sister would not have been able to teach in this day and age because she wasn't good at math and probably couldn't have done college math. (She was not a math professor). Yet she was a good teacher in her time. What's the point of this story? The point is that we have too many educational requirements for a lot of teaching positions today. You could suddenly require a PhD to teach high school. Your argument would then be that they deserve a higher salary bu the reality would be that they are just overeducated for the position.

You might have a point if there was a job that REQUIRED an English Ph.D to get it. Last I checked profs at universities were about the only job that had such a requirement. Being a P.Eng requires a bachelor's degree and something like 3 years experience as an EIT.

I'm not neglecting supply and demand at all. You're neglecting how you properly price something in the free market. Pricing is set by the willingness to pay of the customer based on the value they receive. Society undervalues teachers, and because there is only one customer, that sets the price to be below the true value. Salaries are low based on the value and requirements to teach, and so you get poor teachers. Check out an organization called "Teach for America". They recruit the best and brightest from the top schools and convince them to go into teaching. These are people whose skillsets could easily bring $250k+ on the open market in a corporate job. If you want good teachers, you have to pay for it, and apparently we don't.

Then why isn't she doing private tutoring full time? Probably has something to do with the benefits and stability of the job. Or maybe she likes helping people. And arguing about free markets is dangerous in your case. The reality is that a lot of private school teachers make less than public school teachers. What's going on there? Oh that's right they don't have unions and are willing to be more flexible about things like no certifications even though in many cases their students do better.

The real answer is we moved across the country for my job recently and she is now unemployed while she interviews for a new position. Part of the answer is also that in order to get those kind of rates you have to be a certified teacher working in the district, which gets you the credibility you need in order to get those rates. So it's not really possible to do it full time during the school year unless you go through some complicated work schedule of remaining as a substitute teacher and not taking any assignments.

Private school systems vary. Some actually pay more than the public system. That was the case back in our old city. Students in private schools do better because the parents have the money to pay for private tutors on the side. The majority of my wife's clients were private school students whose parents were shelling out $2k+ a month for each kid on tutors alone (times 4 kids). Oh, and private schools teach the exams in the last year.

And professional basketball players aren't really any value to society as a whole. Who cares? The main thing you seem to be missing in all your arguments is the supply and demand aspect. It doesn't matter how educated you are or how much you are contributing. We have a free market. The reality is that there is a huge supply of potential teachers out there. As a voter, I think high school teachers should be a middle-class job making the average salary in their area if not less when you consider the time they get off and the job stability they have. For elementary school teachers who probably shouldn't have to have a four-year degree (even if today they are required to have that) it should be less.

They certainly do have a value to society. Their tax revenue + the incremental tax revenue from all the things sold with their endorsement and/or their name on them is a good place to start. They certainly have a value to the club they play for, which is why they get paid what they do.

Supply and demand is more complicated in this case than you have considered as you haven't taken pricing into account. Pricing is artificially set by the fact that government is involved and sets a price ceiling and essentially a price floor. Without government involvement at all in education you'd have a rockstar school with rockstar teachers all making $500k and teaching billionaires' kids. You'd also have a lot of people who couldn't afford to fund their kids' share of their school and they'd thus be uneducated.

You seem to think elementary school teachers are just glorified babysitters. If that's the attitude you have, that's what you'll get, and the kids in your schools would come out at an appropriate level. Refrigerator privileges anyone?

 

[micrometers]

It's not the media, but it is an area which I can sort of agree with Tea Party folk.

Teachers and firefighters and cops are in public sector unions, and on a whole that group has made gains while private sector workers, I'm talking steelworkers, have lost ground.

 

[HumblePie]

Wonderful post! Too bad it's wrong.
Administrators are NOT part of the teacher's union. The teacher's union is made up of... teachers, as well as a handful of union representatives. i.e. for every school in my county and 2 surrounding counties, we have one person who is an employee just of the union. Otherwise, all the members of the union are teachers.

Furthermore, you think the public is under-represented in teacher union negotiations for new contracts?? Wow. The public elects a board of education. The board of education & school lawyers represent the public in negotiations; and they generally don't just bend over. Further, the school budget & any tax increases are part of the local school elections (though now, in NY, schools are limited to a 2% budget increase each year.)

Equally wonderful post for showing anecdotal evidence. Different unions in different areas have different make ups and members. Congrats for your area's teachers' union not being a fucked up piece of shit! Not all areas of the country as a whole are so lucky. Different areas with different people and different laws contribute as a whole to good or bad unions.

I have no problems with good unions, but only that bad ones as described by sm625. Those do exist out there as well as the good unions you are used to.

The trick is removing or fixing the bad unions and structures. Then putting into place measures to prevent it from coming back again. Sort of like cutting out the cancer from the body and using treatments to prevent it from coming back. Instead of just killing the whole person or just cutting it out while praying it never comes back.

 

[Craig234]

haha what? Regardless of what side of the political aisle you lean to, the premise of this post is just false. The tea party was never about Wall Street nor was their "enemy #1 ... the Big Banks (ie GS etc)".

They protested bailouts because they didn't want borrowed tax money used to prop up a corporation, it had nothing to do with them being "anti wall street", you may recall that they were against the second round of bailouts as well, which had nothing to do with banks.

You seem to be under the impression that the tea party and OWS started as the same group, with OWS breaking off and staying true to message, with the tea party changing their message. This impression is in absolutely no way accurate.

I don't know any one 'official tea party platform'. The roots of the party largely led from the rant by a Wall Street trader on video against helping poor mortgage borrowers.

Local people quickly jumped on 'protesting' and the 'movement' was quickly adopted by interests from Fox News to the Kock brothers.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the views of members:

Views of supporters

Various polls have also probed Tea Party supporters for their views on a variety of political and controversial issues. A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".[88][89]

More than half (52%) of Tea Party supporters told pollsters for CBS/New York Times that they think their own "income taxes this year are fair".[82] Additionally, a Bloomberg News poll found that Tea Partiers are not against increased government action in all cases. "The ideas that find nearly universal agreement among Tea Party supporters are rather vague," says J. Ann Selzer, the pollster who created the survey. "You would think any idea that involves more government action would be anathema, and that is just not the case."

In advance of a new edition of their book American Grace, David E. Campbell of Notre Dame and Robert D. Putnam of Harvard published in a The New York Times opinion the results of their research into political attitudes, finding that Tea Party supporters had been largely "highly partisan Republicans" (and not "nonpartisan political neophytes"). Additionally, according to Campbell and Putnam, their rank and file is more concerned about "putting God in government" than it is with trying to shrink government.[96]

The 2010 midterm elections demonstrated considerable skepticism within the Tea Party movement with respect to the dangers and the reality of global warming. A New York Times/CBS News Poll during the election revealed that only a small percentage of Tea Party supporters considered global warming a serious problem, much less than the portion of the general public that does. The Tea Party is strongly opposed to government-imposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions as part of emissions trading legislation to encourage use of fuels that emit less carbon dioxide.[97] An example is the movement's support of California Proposition 23, which would suspend AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.[98] The proposition failed to pass, with less than 40% voting in favor.[99]

Many of the movement's members also favor stricter measures against illegal immigration.[100]

I see myths that are false the tea party likes to tell - like its 'non-partisan' orientation in contrast to actually being a very Republican, if not mainstream Republican, group.

Another does have to do with race - besides the memberships' race, there's a common theme - the minority homebuyers targeted by the Wall Street schemes to make a lot of money by making a lot of bad sub-prime loans; Hispanic illegal immigrants; and another type of bigotry against gays. But they also have a lot of their agenda supplied by 'big business' like the Koch brothers - opposing environemntal regulation, even though the movement has sometimes criticized corrupt Wall Street practices.

I agree that it has nothing to do with OWS, which was formed purely out of resistance to the corrupt practices of the finance industry against decades of corrupt practicies in businesses and government the last few decades, and include policies making the rich far richer at the people's expense, Wall Street draining more wealth from the economy for its own gain not contributing to society, the lack of criminal accountability around the 2008 crash, high unemployment etc.

There is some small overlap between the two, but they are unrelated.

 

[JSt0rm]

Craig, Would you accept unions losing their rights to lobby government if it also meant corporations also lost that right?

Would you accept it IF the only money that went into political campaigns was public tax dollars for that purpose?

 

[Craig234]

Craig, Would you accept unions losing their rights to lobby government if it also meant corporations also lost that right?

Would you accept it IF the only money that went into political campaigns was public tax dollars for that purpose?

Of course.

We have to be careful about 'lobbying', though.

Groups have the right to express their views and argue for what they want. The issue is the role of money put into the elections and other areas corrupting politics.

 

[BoberFett]

Well there are guys on the other side that want to ban unions but let corporations do whatever they want. So however bad he is I bet he would accept unions not having access to government if it meant no corporations too.

I'd have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure he would not accept that. I believe he has stated that while he wants to eliminate corporate money, he would have no problem with union lobbying because they "represent the worker" or some such bullshit.

 

[Infohawk]

My aunt has a chem Ph.D and manages a department at a private company. She manages fewer people than most schools have teachers. I think she's over $100k. If you want to not talk education and want to talk about the job, find what a manager of ~1000 people where the job requirements are 10 years experience and a master's degree are would make.

Your aunt is a manager at a private company. That's why she makes over $100K. You must have heard about all the post-docs these days that have PhDs and aren't making anything. It's so bad they've formed unions in certain places. And I'm not necessarily going to argue that $100,000 is too much for a high level public administrator. But $200,000 certainly is IMO. And I've seen the salaries that go above that, even into the $300,000 which is beyond absurd. And again, I don't see how managing a government bureaucracy where many things are dictated by law and faces no competition is anywhere comparable to a privately-run for-profit that has international and domestic competition jeopardizing its very existence.

I'm not neglecting supply and demand at all. You're neglecting how you properly price something in the free market. Pricing is set by the willingness to pay of the customer based on the value they receive.

If you want to see how teaching is priced in the free market look at private schools where salaries are lower even though tuition is higher and results are better. Proof: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_079.asp.

Check out an organization called "Teach for America". They recruit the best and brightest from the top schools and convince them to go into teaching. These are people whose skillsets could easily bring $250k+ on the open market in a corporate job. If you want good teachers, you have to pay for it, and apparently we don't.

I know people that have done this. You are overstating their skill sets. It's common among people who decide to go into teaching at all levels. They think about all the money CERTAIN people make in the private sector. Just because you go to an Ivy League school doesn't mean you automatically make $250+. And if you do you're probably working all the time. The people I know who did this basically like the lifestyle of teaching. And think about it, being a genius doesn't make you a better teacher.

So it's not really possible to do it full time during the school year unless you go through some complicated work schedule of remaining as a substitute teacher and not taking any assignments.

Right so you shouldn't act like that would be the real-world salary of a teacher. (I also imagine most kids are in school during the day and you can't fit an entire workweek full of teaching.) Again, that's not what private school teachers make.

Private school systems vary. Some actually pay more than the public system.

Not on average. See above.

That was the case back in our old city. Students in private schools do better because the parents have the money to pay for private tutors on the side. The majority of my wife's clients were private school students whose parents were shelling out $2k+ a month for each kid on tutors alone (times 4 kids). Oh, and private schools teach the exams in the last year.

Private schools do better for a variety of reasons. (I think it's a bit silly to act like they're all getting tutored by public-school teachers though.) I don't think it's necessary to go into those, but the bottom line is that they do at least as well as public schools with teachers making less.

They certainly have a value to the club they play for, which is why they get paid what they do.

Did you take microeconomics in college? I'm not trying to be mean but what you're saying doesn't fit with basic economic theory. If people shat out gold, gold would not be worth what it is today. Think about food. It's the most important thing in the universe to humans, but it's cheap because the supply is plentiful and food is fungible. One donut is the same as another donut. Basketball players get paid so much because they are the best in the world. There are only a couple hundred of spots in the NBA. Sure a lot of people play basketball but Kobe Bryant is not the same as some high school goofball.

Supply and demand is more complicated in this case than you have considered as you haven't taken pricing into account. Pricing is artificially set by the fact that government is involved and sets a price ceiling and essentially a price floor.

No, as we've seen now if anything the unions set the price higher and the private market shows the natural wage would be lower.

Without government involvement at all in education you'd have a rockstar school with rockstar teachers all making $500k and teaching billionaires' kids.

Nothing is stopping billionaires from doing that. That's the situation as it exists today. And yet teachers at elite private schools and even elite universities don't make THAT much. Because many people can be a teacher, even a good one.

You seem to think elementary school teachers are just glorified babysitters. If that's the attitude you have, that's what you'll get, and the kids in your schools would come out at an appropriate level. Refrigerator privileges anyone?

Not at all. I just don't think that teaching requires that raw brain power and massive education that you do. I imagine that things like patience, kindness and fairness make a huge difference at that level. Being able to do differential equations is irrelevant. Having a PhD is irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I respect teachers and I think they're more important most of the people on Wall St. But they don't deserve to be paid above-average salaries by the tax-payer who in unpleasant environments where they can lose their job at the drop of a hat and have less and less benefits.

 

[monovillage]

Craig, Would you accept unions losing their rights to lobby government if it also meant corporations also lost that right?

Would you accept it IF the only money that went into political campaigns was public tax dollars for that purpose?

You have got to be kidding. Of course every lefty in the country would slobber all over themselves to get taxpayers to fund their politicians. What were you thinking to wave that kind of incentive in front of a progressive?