Debate: Teachers Wages

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are just stating the fact that private school teachers make less then public (I don't know but I'll assume you are right) and that has nothing to do with the discussion then I don't know why you posted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted it in response to this of yours:
"If teachers do contribute so much to society (I"m not argueing with you, I believe they do) then they should have no problem getting paid a good salary by private schools."

Though I did misread it the first time, as "Better than private schools" rather than just "a good salary".


[ QUOTE ]
As for how privatiztion would work, basically here is my theory- In free market capitalism, if people want a product that someone can create and make a profit off of, it will be created. Education is no different. If parents across an area want to send their kids to school, there is no reason not to expect eutrapreanuers or buisnessmen to see profit in creating private schools that basically operate like our colleges do now. There is also no reason not to expect to pay less money then we pay for public schools, being that they will be more efficent since they can fail (which is contrary to public schools). Some schools would be better and cost more, others would geared towards the mddle class, others for poorer areas.

So exactly what will happen? i could imagine a few scenarios, but I think it's impossible to tell exactly how it would happen. Perhapes Borodog or Hmk could say how they would believe it would work.
editted for some bad spelling

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, now that I understand at least part of your model here are the problems I see with it:

1. Education (at all levels, although moreso pre-college) is paid for by society as a whole, not just by the "consumers". Since the education of children benefits society as a whole, I think that is appropriate, Im sure others dont. If that public subsidy is to continue then you can still tax and give vouchers, but you are still not in a purely in a free enterprise system, because there is a guaranteed total market, and the level of demand is fixed (in total, not necessarily equally distributed).

2.In a free market, competition is partly viable because the market can expand..not all sales are achieved by "stealing customers". In a free market school system there is no overall market expansion, total demand is fixed, largely regionally. Since product superiority cant be readily demonstrated the first entries into any market have close to a natural monopoly that will be difficult to break into.

3. There are geographical costraints on where most parents can send their kids to school, and there are social benefits to keeping neighborhood children together. Morevover, this natural districting of schools creates efficiencies of scale. A free enterprise school company can attempt to capture a regional market to take advantage of those efficiencies and natural affinities, but once a "chain" becomes established competition is again restricted because fragmenting that market destroys those efficiencies, strengthening the natural monopolistic nature of education.

4. Evaluation of a good "education" is problematic. Overall success or failure can take years to be clearly established. Therefore the response of the market is necessarily very slow and underperforming schools cant lose market share quickly enough to encourage free market competition.

5. In the transition from public to free enterprise schools, presumably the assets of the school systems would be sold to the highest bidder. However, once those assets are distributed, there are now constraints to competition. A competitor decides it can outperform the existing schools, but it needs to build a new school that is both large eough to accomdate its future market but small enough to not destroy profits during that slow growth period in 3.

6. Existing private schools dont have a track record of academic success over public schools with similar socio/economic student profiles. Charter school success is at best debatable, and they are subsidized. So over all the evidence is that "free enterprise" schools cant be expected to improve education.

7. Most school districts have at least some diversity in socio/economic status. A given cost level will be affordable for some, not affordable for others, adding to the need for taxation and wealth redistribution back in 1. Assuming that vouchers (or some other method of getting the schools paid) are set at a given level, only a portion of that market will be available for a higher cost/higher quality/higher profit school. The margins will be very thin, and entering a market very high risk given the above constraints. Thin margins plus a slow developing market generally dont lead to ROI that is attractive enough for capital formation.

Those are off the top of my head..Im sure I can come up with several more.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Education (at all levels, although moreso pre-college) is paid for by society as a whole, not just by the "consumers". Since the education of children benefits society as a whole, I think that is appropriate, Im sure others dont.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Society as a whole may reap some external effect, but by and large, the people who are benefitting the most from education are the students. I'm much better off personally spending the money that would otherwise go to push a few kids through class on my mortgage, some other investments, or entertainment.

A few big chain stores recently came into my area, and as a result there has been something of an economic boom; more stores have come in, as have more small businesses. The "externality" of the initial chain stores was a positive one on society, but that does not mean that everyone should be funding the businesses.

[ QUOTE ]
A free enterprise school company can attempt to capture a regional market to take advantage of those efficiencies and natural affinities, but once a "chain" becomes established competition is again restricted because fragmenting that market destroys those efficiencies, strengthening the natural monopolistic nature of education.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to become a chain, wouldn't that school need to be providing a good service? You know, one that people like at an affordable cost?

[ QUOTE ]
4. Evaluation of a good "education" is problematic. Overall success or failure can take years to be clearly established. Therefore the response of the market is necessarily very slow and underperforming schools cant lose market share quickly enough to encourage free market competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "education" has no actual goal. What is the point of education? Literacy? Social skill development? IQ development? Job training? A wide mix of trivia that the student is never going to use? Discipline? Why are you forcing kids to go through something they don't enjoy six hours a day (plus a few hours for homework time) for twelve years straight? Are they otherwise doomed to anarchic illiterate stupor?

If education is useful in building careers and leadership qualities or whatever, is it because the education the students are recieving are conducive to same at the price paid for them, or (more likely) because they are mandatory prerequisites by society (and if the latter, the solution doesn't lie in more education)?

[BillUCF]

Holy Crap. hmkpoker and I actually agree on something.

Where are the vouchers?

As for the salary question I have no complaints. I chose to go into teaching for the following reasons.

1. 3.5 months off each year. So a comparable salary is about 75% of an industry job.

2. Great job when u have kids.

3. Teaching high school pays much more than community colleges and many university positions.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Education (at all levels, although moreso pre-college) is paid for by society as a whole, not just by the "consumers". Since the education of children benefits society as a whole, I think that is appropriate, Im sure others dont.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Society as a whole may reap some external effect, but by and large, the people who are benefitting the most from education are the students. I'm much better off personally spending the money that would otherwise go to push a few kids through class on my mortgage, some other investments, or entertainment. <font color="red">A teenager who thinks he knows more about what is good for society than every government in the world. You are entitled to your opinion, as asinine as it is, but obviously have no concept of individual good vs societal good. </font>

A few big chain stores recently came into my area, and as a result there has been something of an economic boom; more stores have come in, as have more small businesses. The "externality" of the initial chain stores was a positive one on society, but that does not mean that everyone should be funding the businesses. <font color="red"> because it is a business to move goods, and if they are goods you dont want, need or can find at a better price it is a bad business. It benefits no one but the people who find value their. Education helps everyone. </font>

[ QUOTE ]
A free enterprise school company can attempt to capture a regional market to take advantage of those efficiencies and natural affinities, but once a "chain" becomes established competition is again restricted because fragmenting that market destroys those efficiencies, strengthening the natural monopolistic nature of education.

[/ QUOTE ]

In order to become a chain, wouldn't that school need to be providing a good service? You know, one that people like at an affordable cost? <font color="red"> if you had the intellect to follow the post you would understand that those chains would be establishied during the transition from public to free enterprise schools, years before any evidence of quality could possibly emerge </font>

[ QUOTE ]
4. Evaluation of a good "education" is problematic. Overall success or failure can take years to be clearly established. Therefore the response of the market is necessarily very slow and underperforming schools cant lose market share quickly enough to encourage free market competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because "education" has no actual goal. What is the point of education? Literacy? Social skill development? IQ development? Job training? A wide mix of trivia that the student is never going to use? Discipline? Why are you forcing kids to go through something they don't enjoy six hours a day (plus a few hours for homework time) for twelve years straight? Are they otherwise doomed to anarchic illiterate stupor? <font color="red">this may unfortunately be your truest statement, since you are a prime example </font>

If education is useful in building careers and leadership qualities or whatever, is it because the education the students are recieving are conducive to same at the price paid for them, or (more likely) because they are mandatory prerequisites by society (and if the latter, the solution doesn't lie in more education)?

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red">try working for a few years and see how far the educated leave you behind. You were on ignore for a reason, thank you for reminding me. </font>

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The teacher's union would raise hell like you couldn't imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the problem today. Nearly everything wrong with public school can be laid at the feet of the teachers' union.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think thats true of all unions or unique to the teachers union?

If the latter, what is about the teachers union (with less organized crime infiltration than many other unions) that made it worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a public employee's union.

natedogg

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The teacher's union would raise hell like you couldn't imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the problem today. Nearly everything wrong with public school can be laid at the feet of the teachers' union.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think thats true of all unions or unique to the teachers union?

If the latter, what is about the teachers union (with less organized crime infiltration than many other unions) that made it worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a public employee's union.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

and why would that make it worse?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
A teenager who thinks he knows more about what is good for society than every government in the world. You are entitled to your opinion, as asinine as it is, but obviously have no concept of individual good vs societal good.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
because it is a business to move goods, and if they are goods you dont want, need or can find at a better price it is a bad business. It benefits no one but the people who find value their. Education helps everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're arguing that a child doesn't benefit more from his own education than I do? And you're doubting that businesses can have indirect positive impacts on local economies?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The teacher's union would raise hell like you couldn't imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the problem today. Nearly everything wrong with public school can be laid at the feet of the teachers' union.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think thats true of all unions or unique to the teachers union?

If the latter, what is about the teachers union (with less organized crime infiltration than many other unions) that made it worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a public employee's union.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

and why would that make it worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

b/c governnment can't fight unions as effectively as private business can.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The teacher's union would raise hell like you couldn't imagine.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the crux of the problem today. Nearly everything wrong with public school can be laid at the feet of the teachers' union.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

do you think thats true of all unions or unique to the teachers union?

If the latter, what is about the teachers union (with less organized crime infiltration than many other unions) that made it worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a public employee's union.

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

and why would that make it worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

b/c governnment can't fight unions as effectively as private business can.

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you say that? The Taylor Law in NYC is pretty powerful in fighting their unions. The government has the power to legislate the union into impotence if they were put in an untenable situation.

I still dont see where the unions are entirely at fault for whatever problems there are in the education system.

[mmbt0ne]

joker,

Serious question: If teaching's such an easy job, why don't you do it?