21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyHow would you decide how much the stipend from the government would be and who gets it?
I think society would be a lot better off if the entire thing was done away with and parents were given a stipend for homeschooling. No more mass school shootings, no more captive audience students brainwashed with liberal indoctrination.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfChoosing a career path that is commensurate with your desire for personal wealth is typical and a common sense solution.
Does it seem typical to you of the so-called "entitlement culture" that someone would willfully choose a career path that is already way more lucrative than most others, like folks on Wall Street and in boardrooms, and then press for more and more money, more stock options, more bonuses?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfDoesn't much matter what I would decide. But it seems logical to base it on cost of living in the area. The parent receive a government check and either keep it and one of them teaches the kids or they spend it on a tutor.
How would you decide how much the stipend from the government would be and who gets it?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyOn some selfish atomized anti-social personal level perhaps; but isn't committed people campaigning to haul their underpaid profession up by improving work conditions and making it more attractive also "a common-sense solution"?
Choosing a career path that is commensurate with your desire for personal wealth is typical and a common sense solution.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyHow much money are you talking about? Two kids, an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old, ballpark figure for an annual stipend?
Doesn't much matter what I would decide. But it seems logical to base it on cost of living in the area. The parent receive a government check and either keep it and one of them teaches the kids or they spend it on a tutor.
Originally posted by @fmfIs that how you would describe someone who would willfully choose a low-paying career, then demand the taxpayers pony up to increase his/her salary? I mean, boiled down, isn't requiring that everyone else sacrifice so that you can obtain more wealth, a completely selfish endeavor?
On some selfish atomized anti-social personal level perhaps
It's no different than the [edit: unskilled workers] pushing brooms at McDonalds complaining that it's not enough to support a spouse and kids--and demanding 15 to 20 dollar an hour minimum wage. That may seem like "common sense" to some, but all it succeeds in doing is driving the cost of goods up, putting people out of business, and ushering in an age of automation where positions--formerly filled by human beings--are eliminated entirely.
but isn't committed people campaigning to haul their underpaid profession up by improving work conditions and making it more attractive also "a common-sense solution"?
Yes, as long as the ones striking are prepared to be replaced.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfAdd all the money up for the entire cost of education. That's the education dept., infrastructure, teachers, facilities management, school buses and drivers, everything. Then divide it all among parents with school-aged children, factoring in cost of living.
How much money are you talking about? Two kids, an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old, ballpark figure for an annual stipend?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @romans1009This is one hundred percent accurate.
Teachers knew the pay going in.
It’s a great misnomer to think salaries are determined (or should be determined) by how important the job is. Instead salaries are determined by how many other people can do the job.
That’s why a professional baseball player will always make more money than a teacher despite the former “just playing a game.” Only a h ...[text shortened]... ber of people capable of teaching - or being trained to capably teach - is exponentially higher.
Being a teacher generally just involves a Bachelor's degree. I have heard that there are incentive sin many places to complete additional degrees, but this is supplementary. The linked website below this paragraph shows that a Bachelor's with the completion of what I imagine is a concurrent program on education is what is required...
http://tobecomeateacher.org/the-long-and-short-of-becoming-a-teacher-in-the-u-s/
The fact of the matter is that the US economy is not even as good as it was in the 1990s, making the actual worth of someone fulfilling these roles even less.
Due to one of the translation projects I worked on, I am familiar that being a junior high or high school teacher was once rather prestigious -- particularly in the early 20th century. You can often read about intellectuals who taught at a high school for a time before becoming professors ,and these things are often cited like it was a stepping stone. THis is particularly true of less developed places like Japan, and in particularly less developed places, like Togoland, being a secondary school teacher was an incredibly competitive job and source of future national leaders...
These days... IDK, man.
Getting a Bachelor's is not particularly challenging, my friends, and people are looking for jobs.
Let's not pretend that they deserve an incredibly high wage merely because of the principle of the matter.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyNo, I am describing what you thought was "a common-sense solution" as being something that may work on your own selfish atomized anti-social personal level. I have already described someone in a low paying career such as teaching who then campaigns for better pay and conditions in their profession as not only being engaged in a necessary endeavour but also a virtuous one.
Is that how you would describe someone who would willfully choose a low-paying career, then demand the taxpayers pony up to increase his/her salary?
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyTrained, skilled, educated teachers trying to turn their profession into one that is not "low paid" is no different than unskilled workers pushing brooms at McDonalds asking for more money? Are you sure?
It's no different than the [edit: unskilled workers] pushing brooms at McDonalds complaining that it's not enough to support a spouse and kids--and demanding 15 to 20 dollar an hour minimum wage. That may seem like "common sense" to some, but all it succeeds in doing is driving the cost of goods up, putting people out of business, and ushering in an age of automation where positions--formerly filled by human beings--are eliminated entirely.
21 May 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @tom-wolseySo, how much money are you talking about?
Add all the money up for the entire cost of education. That's the education dept., infrastructure, teachers, facilities management, school buses and drivers, everything. Then divide it all among parents with school-aged children, factoring in cost of living.
Two kids, an 8-year-old and a 15-year-old. An annual stipend for homeschooling
Give a ballpark figure.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseySo, just to illustrate your proposal a bit: how much would an unskilled worker pushing a broom at McDonalds get from the government to provide homeschooling? Just an approximate dollar amount would be interesting.
I think society would be a lot better off if the entire thing was done away with and parents were given a stipend for home schooling.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @fmfAh, I was waiting for the passive aggressive to kick in. It was just a matter of how many leading questions would get you there. So now *I* am selfish and anti-social.
No, I am describing ... your own selfish atomized anti-social personal level.
Is that what you are in the business of doing? Ask a bunch of set up questions and then wrap it up with an insult to the other person's character? I'm just giving you cold hard facts without any emotional pleas. It's how a free market system works. If you want guaranteed lucrative salaries for all government employees, then vote all the Conservatives out of office and replace our current system with Socialism/Communism/Statism/Marxism.
No matter what you think about me, or what you think of teachers and stock brokers. The fact remains: If money is most important to someone, that person should pursue a career that earns a lot of money. Yes I know, you've already complained that I keep repeating the facts. But I feel forced to since you apparently ignore them and instead just sit back and ask questions, pursue emotional arguments, and lob ad homs.
21 May 18
Originally posted by @tom-wolseyBut whatever your passions about teaching, one must still feed ones family, and being told to abandon ones dreams in order to do so is unfathomable, especially considering the sheer importance of the job. The problem comes down to the state government simply not prioritizing properly, preferring to instead spend money on those they can get campaign donation kickbacks from, instead of those we charge with teaching our kids.
I'm all for qualified teachers making more money. Again, average teacher salary is almost 60k. I'm only saying that choosing a low paying job then not being happy with the pay and not being wiling to relocate reflects more on the individual's career choice. Other teachers took the job because of a passion for the kids, not as means to achieve personal wealth.