im saying that market rate of teachers is higher than 20K. its not a touch concept.
That is just another way of saying what you've already said, i.e., the same tautology. Saying "people are willing to pay X amount of money," or "the market rate is X" doesn't address the issue of why they think that product is worth X amount of money. If I am willing to pay $500 for a new PC but $1000 for a new Mac, it isn't enough to say "just because I think Macs are worth more," because the premise and conclusion of that argument are the same. You would have to describe why you think Macs are better computers than PCs for the argument to be meaningful.
Likewise, in the case of teachers, one would have to describe why they think teachers are worth X amount of money compared to a host of other things (whether they are funded by taxes or not, because presumably people might just prefer to not pay anything and use that money on something else in the private sector). I'm arguing that (some) people think that teachers should receive less compensation than, say, a newly graduated MBA because people don't value or understand education, or both. Why do you think it is the case that people don't have a problem with paying MBAs more than teachers? Remember that ultimately you pay for the salary of an MBA as well as a teachers'.
people who are passionate about the profession.
OK. Let's stop wasting so much money on paying doctors and nurses. We could halve their salaries. After all, they should be in it for the passion of helping others, and cutting their benefits couldn't possibly negatively affect the caliber of people that choose those careers. Do you see how that applies to this situation as well?
compared to the communities they serve in.
That isn't a meaningful comparison. Again, to use a physician analogy, if a doctor worked in a community where the median income is $20,000 but he earned $40,000, he would be "paid well" by your standard, but I don't think we would consider that to be a good salary for a doctor. Indeed, it would be difficult to convince anyone but the lowest-quality doctors to work in those areas (this is on average; of course there are exceptions and money is not the only motivating factor in human decision-making. I am focusing on it because the debate really is about money). In reality, that is precisely what happens. The logic extends to any skilled profession, especially those with special responsibilities.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 21/2/11 22:09 (UTC)That is just another way of saying what you've already said, i.e., the same tautology. Saying "people are willing to pay X amount of money," or "the market rate is X" doesn't address the issue of why they think that product is worth X amount of money. If I am willing to pay $500 for a new PC but $1000 for a new Mac, it isn't enough to say "just because I think Macs are worth more," because the premise and conclusion of that argument are the same. You would have to describe why you think Macs are better computers than PCs for the argument to be meaningful.
Likewise, in the case of teachers, one would have to describe why they think teachers are worth X amount of money compared to a host of other things (whether they are funded by taxes or not, because presumably people might just prefer to not pay anything and use that money on something else in the private sector). I'm arguing that (some) people think that teachers should receive less compensation than, say, a newly graduated MBA because people don't value or understand education, or both. Why do you think it is the case that people don't have a problem with paying MBAs more than teachers? Remember that ultimately you pay for the salary of an MBA as well as a teachers'.
people who are passionate about the profession.
OK. Let's stop wasting so much money on paying doctors and nurses. We could halve their salaries. After all, they should be in it for the passion of helping others, and cutting their benefits couldn't possibly negatively affect the caliber of people that choose those careers. Do you see how that applies to this situation as well?
compared to the communities they serve in.
That isn't a meaningful comparison. Again, to use a physician analogy, if a doctor worked in a community where the median income is $20,000 but he earned $40,000, he would be "paid well" by your standard, but I don't think we would consider that to be a good salary for a doctor. Indeed, it would be difficult to convince anyone but the lowest-quality doctors to work in those areas (this is on average; of course there are exceptions and money is not the only motivating factor in human decision-making. I am focusing on it because the debate really is about money). In reality, that is precisely what happens. The logic extends to any skilled profession, especially those with special responsibilities.