Public School Teachers Aren't Underpaid (WSJ)

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Mainly, because it's the most common, and I've read it many times. I understand the argument enough that I wanted a fresh challenge of my personal beliefs.

Can you expand on why it is a comically flawed assumption?

Originally Posted by JesseK

For example, investment bankers create no organic economic growth (they shift money around ... that's all they do ...), therefore aren't 'skilled' at anything but generating their own (or clients') wealth. They are paid magnitudes more than teachers, who plant the seeds of future organic economic growth. What an oxymoron.

I don't think this is true. It takes capital to run a business and invest in R&D, and businesses don't have that kind of capital sitting around. In December 2006, the Ford Motor Company was hemorrhaging cash with no clear turnaround. They went to investment banks and mortgaged the entire company for some $23.6 billion. Ford is now profitable, and was the only one of the Big Three that didn't go to Uncle Sam to get bailed out. While they cut back big then, their recovery is remarkable, recently reaching an agreement with the UAW to bring on some additional 12,000 workers by 2012. Obviously, they need to hire engineers to design the new cars too.

When the airplanes are sold to the airlines, the airlines purchases are all financed. Airlines have notoriously slim margins, they don't keep bales of cash in the back room.

Good investment bankers move money... but they move it to places where they can make the most off of it. Banks don't like to see defaults, they like to see those interest payments.

How do you create wealth without generating economic growth? People certainly get overenthusiastic and cause bubbles, but during the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble there were plenty of people making real money from others overly-enthusiastic viewpoints.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Ian Curtis

I don't think this is true. It takes capital to run a business and invest in R&D, and businesses don't have that kind of capital sitting around. In December 2006, the Ford Motor Company was hemorrhaging cash with no clear turnaround. They went to investment banks and mortgaged the entire company for some $23.6 billion. Ford is now profitable, and was the only one of the Big Three that didn't go to Uncle Sam to get bailed out. While they cut back big then, their recovery is remarkable, recently reaching an agreement with the UAW to bring on some additional 12,000 workers by 2012. Obviously, they need to hire engineers to design the new cars too.

When the airplanes are sold to the airlines, the airlines purchases are all financed. Airlines have notoriously slim margins, they don't keep bales of cash in the back room.

Good investment bankers move money... but they move it to places where they can make the most off of it. Banks don't like to see defaults, they like to see those interest payments.

How do you create wealth without generating economic growth? People certainly get overenthusiastic and cause bubbles, but during the dot-com bubble and the housing bubble there were plenty of people making real money from others overly-enthusiastic viewpoints.

I-bankers net around $100k after bonuses in their first year of employment. That $100k rounds out to roughly $30/hr since 1st-year i-bankers work 90+ hours per week, yet that still pales in comparison to the roughly $40k per year at 60+ hours a week. Why? The hours get better as an i-banker, while as a teacher they do not. The compensation can get far better for an i-banker, whereas a teacher's salary is randomly frozen for whatever budget reason. On top of that, i-bankers' bonuses usually have much larger swings that correlate with the economy. I few i-banker guys I knew from college grossed $200k last year after 3 years with a firm.

I still fail to see why an investment banker, with an average salary + bonus package of $100k+ starting out has the skill to merit so much larger of a salary than a teacher, which is the context of the article. Averaged over 3 years, the best "newbie" i-bankers can net over $500k (was $750k in the bubbles, $200k in the busts), whereas the best "newbie" teachers will be lucky to net $150k. Teachers may have other means of compensation that come about later, but in too many instances those means of compensation are threatened and eliminated. Additionally, i-bankers are able to invest magnitudes more of their personal money in order to generate even more wealth: an opportunity that most teachers simply do not have due to numbers alone.

How much these two professions make is more due to the focus of their careers (generating wealth vs. generating knowledge) rather than their actual skills. That the authors argue to reduce teacher compensation further based upon skill sets is (IMO) unscrupulous.

[waialua359]

With a degree in EE, MBA, teaching certificate in Science and Math with 18 years of experience in education, here are a few "general" comments:
1. Teachers in general are underpaid for the high expectations and "miracles" they are supposed to perform day in and day out. Whether they reach it or not, is another debate.
2. Teachers are not equipped with the facilities, adequate training, and time to do a good job.
3. The support staff you often see in businesses that are "essential" to surviving, are not found in schools. Teachers are often left with the task of doing it all.
4. While some may argue that many teachers are not highly qualified or intelligent enough vs. those in industry, I personally feel it's not the most important attribute. I've seen enough people with PhD's that cant even teach a simple lesson that students will understand and apply.
Personal determination and a caring attitude goes a long way in getting kids to learn and apply themselves.

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by JesseK

How much these two professions make is more due to the focus of their careers (generating wealth vs. generating knowledge) rather than their actual skills. That the authors argue to reduce teacher compensation further based upon skill sets is (IMO) unscrupulous.

I think the vast majority of people in finance are drastically over paid for what they do. However, it is also important to keep in mind who is paying these salaries, public school teachers are being paid by the school department they work for through public funds, Investment bankers are paid by a private company that is making money directly off of their work, Investment bankers get paid a lot of money because they generate a lot of money for the company.

I also hate how much generalization there is in this thread about hours worked. I agree that the vast majority of good teachers work significantly longer hours than they are paid for, and I agree that these teachers are underpaid. However I also know that it is not true that every teacher (or in many schools even most teachers) are working 60+ hours a week. I know teachers here in Virginia that are at happy hour by 4 on school days, and they aren't going home after that to draw up lesson plans, I hear simmilar stories from friends who teach in NY, MA, and RI. Some teachers are teachers because they can be out of work by 3 and have school vacations and summers off. These are not the good teachers, however in nearly all school departments they recieve identical pay and benefits to the teachers putting in long days and spending their nights and weekends grading and preparing. That I believe is the fundamental flaw in the way teachers are compensated.

In nearly every other industry your salary after a couple years when your success can be viewed is based on your contribution, the better you do, the more you make. In education this is almost never the case, in almost all teachers unions it is simply the longer you teach the more you make. Teaching isn't unique in that the top workers invest significantly more time (unpaid OT) than the rest of the workers, as was stated before it is very common in engineering (and finance) as well. It is not uncommon for me to work 10 hours on a regular day, nor is it uncommon for me to work weekends, or even to spend more time at work than at home when a project is due or when a customer has a problem. 40 hour weeks are a joke in the engineering world, some people are in at 9 and out at 5 but they are the minority. The difference between all of this unpaid OT in the engineering world and in education is that I know that my contributions are being recognized and that I will be compensated for that extra work in the long run (through raises and promotions) most school systems don't offer this kind of benefit.

It is also worth noting that it is significantly easier to earn a degree in education than in most other fields. It is not however easy by any means to earn that degree and be able to effectively apply it in a real classroom. The fact that it is so much easier to earn and education degree than it is to teach is the reason that so many unqualified teachers are out there, I know that teachers often point out that teaching isn't the 8-3 180 day a year hanging out with kids all day job as many like to dedscribe it, however there are a lot of people who go into education looking for that job and many who even manage to stick around and not work much more than those hours.

(note: that I don't intend to offend any teachers, however I am sure you all know teachers who don't put in that extra effort. I know that there is no way to be an effective teacher only working the hours you get paid for, and I am willing to bet that any of the teachers crazy enough to devote the number of hours to FIRST that are necessary are likely at the table grading papers after work, not at the bar enjoying half priced appetizers)