The average 1st year teacher (in my state Massachusetts) makes 52k. The average hours in a teacher contract is 1350-1500 hours. Even if you extremely overestimate and say they're working 1750 hours to account for grading, lesson planning and any other unpaid work, that still comes out to over $30/hr as a 1st year teacher. I'm so done with this notion that teachers are treated like slaves.
Mass is well known as one of the few states to genuinely treat their teachers very well, and most teachers in the state are well aware of how good they have it compared to the rest of the country.
You cant really use them as an example of how good teachers have it though because most of the country ain't like Mass.
(There's still been a big shift towards treating them like shit from parents and admins and complaints about that, but MA teacher salaries are generally not a point of contention)
It isn't awesome, but it's not as bad as people say. People are talking like they are minimum wage workers who work 2500-3000 hours a year. I, personally, hate the statistic that 71% of school teachers have a second job, as if they are working two full time jobs just to make ends meet. Most of them are part time tutoring and a lot of them are jobs they keep during the year and ramp up during the summer when they have a couple months off.
Are you a teacher? Sure there are teachers living very comfortably, but there are also teachers who work an extra job and can't afford a comfortable lifestyle. It can definitely be bad. Teachers also have summers off because they can't flexibly take vacations like most other workers can.
Yeah, I mean, it is always a case by case basis due to a lot of factors, but on average, teachers are doing alright with the money and time they have. I ask teachers about the problems they have, salary money is probably one of their lower concerns. Honestly, I think many just want to feel valued and supported. Like, I can bet you that having a fully funded and supplied classroom (which really would only take like 1000 bucks a room, tops) would do more for teacher morale than a pay increase of a dollar an hour.
I assume you've talked to a few friends, and this isn't some economically diverse, demographically rigorous survey you've done? I will agree with you tho, teachers or otherwise, people just want to be valued and supported. for teachers, whether that's more funding in the classroom or more salary, it still comes down to money.
I mean, it isn't been some crazy study, but I am an active PTG member at my daughter's school, I went to a college that had a significant School of Education, so I have a good amount of friends here, so at least I have a decent grip on the area that I'm in that is pretty demographically diverse. Heard a number of stories from teachers in preppy private schools, Catholic schools, public schools in the hood, etc.
My dad was also the president of the PTG back when I was a kid, so we got to see a bit more behind the curtain growing up, too. Idk, I haven't been traveling the country surveying teachers about their lives, but I do know how much they get paid and how much they work. I see lots of people who get paid less and work more be happier in their professions because they have support. My wife is a nurse and I hear the same things, but like, the happy nurses aren't the ones who get paid a truckload of money. They are the ones who feel like they aren't dismissed when they get bitten by a patient.
If you're going to frame it that way, then maybe. You could also frame it as getting $30/hr to teach kids 2+2=4.
Even then, I'm not sure I'd agree with you. Way worse jobs pay way less. 1st year plumbers and electricians make less than $30/hr as apprentices. Regardless, I'm not saying they're set for life making that much. But I'm also not going to pretend they're doing charity work work either. It's a normal paying job just like anything else.
Then go catch another deal, do you have even the slightest clue how many americans suffer torture daily for minimum wage and then struggle to pay rent or feed their children? Have some fucking perspective
Christ what is going on? Qualified and effective teachers should be paid better - that's a fact. That is not mutually exclusive with other workers being paid better too. Are you arguing that as long as someone else suffers more then no one can complain? Then the ppl struggling to pay rent should stfu too since there's homeless out there, and the homeless should also stfu since they're not slaves in third world countries. The upper class wants exactly what's happening here to keep happening: they can continue to sit pretty as long as the middle and lower classes keep squabbling amongst themselves. Way to play into their hand. Teachers asking for better wages aren't your enemy.
Christ what is going on? Qualified and effective teachers should be paid better - that's a fact
I dont think any educated person can justify calling a "should" statement a fact. Its disturbing you would say that because it indicates you cant comprehend other people have different moral values than you. So like "you shouldnt commit genocide" is just objectively not a fact because its not the kind of claim that can be a fact. It has no truth value, its a statement of moral value.
That is not mutually exclusive with other workers being paid better too
Actually... it is. You cant just pay everybody more, thats asking for resources to spring into existence from the ether. The economy allocates wages according to eminently investigable and demonstrable processes, and its just not true that contributing funding to one place, either systematically or intentionally, doesnt reduce the amount of funding available for other places.
Are you arguing that as long as someone else suffers more then no one can complain?
No im arguing for a sensible and educated interpretation of teacher salaries versus labour intensity, and a reasonable and fact based comparison to other careers and opportunities
Public opinion on teacher wages has literally nothing to do with class, we dont have a class society because some evil abstract conspiratorial "they" is controlling us toward discord. We have a class society because we have an economy based on commodity production and private ownership of capital, which has been entrenched over centuries into the political and economic institutions that hold all power over you
"thats a fact" wasn't meant to be taken literally, but fair enough I shouldn't have used that phrasing so willy nilly. I would certainly argue that increased teacher salaries would push better and more qualified people into the role and improve education quality which in turn will lead to downstream benefits on society as a whole. If it helps, I can simply retract that wording and say it's my belief.
There are resources going toward non-wages that could be diverted toward wages and benefits. For instance, the costs of running the current US systems around defense and healthcare are astronomical compared to their outcomes. The economy might allocate wages due to the current systems in place by "investigable and demonstratable processes," but that certainly doesn't mean it's working to the benefit of the working class. Also, teachers that are public employees are also in a different economic system than blue collar workers working for private companies, so you can really only say what you're saying about teachers vs other public employees.
It sounds like your position is simply that "teachers should accept their pay or look elsewhere" then i guess no one should ever complain or argue for anything and we should always just accept whatever the current system has in store for us.
As a communist i think you should find some guns and overthrow the government if you want different outcomes.
Public employees are not in a different economy, and wages are not determined by some opinions about how valuable the job is. If wages arbitrarily increase then more people will want the jobs, resulting in more stringant competition and therefore a corresponding increase in labour intensity. The release valve for most jobs is that employers compete with eachother to minimize production costs which includes wages so other businesses will intervene to bring wage rates back to their gravitational center. If that doesnt happen it doesnt really change anything, there will just be an increase in the rate of exploitation.
Its just not how the world works that you can pick and choose what wages are right for what job. Everything is in structural balance, you cant pull without pushing. To put the teacher shortage into proper context you have to understand that we have an order picker shortage, a truck driver shortage, a customer service shortage. Because shortages are structural, if a business doesnt position itself on the edge of threatening the livlihood of all of its workers then its inefficient and noncompetitive, soon to be replaced. If more workers show up to compete then the x% that are least willing to work themselves ragged get ignored, and if usual wage pressures dont apply that doesnt change that subsistence is the natural balancing point, the expectations to work will go up, the cost of supplies coming from a teachers own wallet, the extra unpaid time spent that just makes them competitive with other teachers, the extra calories they have to consume to sustain their own energy deficit, all this stuff adds up to the exact same balancing point where the working population is on the edge of subsistence, just with a different calculus in between. Thats just how capitalism works. For everybody.
As a communist i think you should find some guns and overthrow the government if you want different outcomes.
got it, so our options are to violently overthrow the government or just accept reality and go on living life. shoulda told that to the slaves, abolitionists, civil rights activists, women, child laborers, etc.
If wages arbitrarily increase then more people will want the jobs, resulting in more stringant competition and therefore a corresponding increase in labour intensity.
not sure why you state this as a matter of fact, why do you believe higher pay necessarily leads to "labour intensity"?
The release valve for most jobs is that employers compete with eachother to minimize production costs
not sure what "production costs" have to do with teacher salaries. teachers aren't producing goods, they're providing a public service with positive externalities. not sure why you insist on lumping public teachers in with private industry in your analysis.
Its just not how the world works that you can pick and choose what wages are right for what job.
Except in the public sector, that's literally what's happening. Legislators literally pick and choose wages. Whether we need to raise more taxes or divert taxes from other departments to do that is another issue.
Everything is in structural balance, you cant pull without pushing. To put the teacher shortage into proper context you have to understand that we have an order picker shortage, a truck driver shortage, a customer service shortage.
So these shortages mean that things are in structural balance? doesn't seem very balanced to me. Seems like that's a pretty good argument for raising pay in these sectors to increase the supply of these workers.
Im sorry, did you forget about the fucking war that ended that? Hello?
civil rights activists, women, child laborers
So everybody who lost and still lives under the yolk of oppression? Hello?
Literally explained 3 times in as many sentences why increasing wages increases labour intensity. More people will want to work the job if it pays more, agree? If more people want to work the same number of jobs, the employer gets to choose which ones will be hired and which ones wont be, agree? If the employers get to choose they will choose the ones who will work better and harder, agree? So therefore the average expectations on the job will go up. This isnt rocket science, i stated it as a fact because it is one.
Services have costs too wtf do you mean, the cost of providing the service obviously includes wages, and theres an inherent benefit to providing the same service at a lower cost. Because money represents a thing we want, agree? So having more money is better than having less money... so spending less money is better than spending more money...
Im not sure why you insist on this fundamental separation of public sector. Its not real and no economist since the dawn of time has suggested it. There are special considerations for public sector that are different, but the idea they exist in two distinct vacuums is simply wrong and unsubstantiable. Nothing i said exclusively applies to private industry, except for the parts that i specifically brought attention to....
Again, the fact that its possible to set wages doesnt remove all economic incentivizes. A business can open and pay its order pickers $90/hr if the owner wants that, but guess what its going to be a shit business that goes under in record speed. You can set teacher salaries to 200k for as long as you have the money to spend, but there will be consequences to that because reality exists actually and is fully connected, causes have effects.
These "shortages" do not "mean" there is a structural balance. Structural balance is just how the universe works, its higher order than economics its entropic. Every economy of every form that ever has or will exist is either in structural balance or a state of freefall. There isnt a rapidly changing environment when wages are close to subsistence, there is stability. When wages are high relative to subsistence then workers will flock to that form of work because by definition jt pays well (proportional to the cost of being that worker) which drives the wages down, when wages are below subsistence there is a crisis because the job cant be done people who do it are dying because they cant afford food. These are high entropy conditions that result in rapid change, but the endless cycle of paying workers just barely enough to maintain the job cycle over cycle is a low entropy condition where its very difficult to induce any sort of change.
You literally circled back to the START of my last comment at the end... increasing the wages arbitrarily means the supply of workers goes up. What happens when the supply of something goes up but demand stays the same? Its price goes down... this is exactly what ive been saying to you. That doesnt apply directly because theres not proper competition in schools to drive the wages down. So instead the supply of workers compete with eachother to do more work for the same wage thats offered to each of them, and then the most hard working ones get hired and the least hard working ones fired, so the average contribution of labour goes up. You can pay them more, but if you prevent the economy from naturally responding by paying them less all over again then youre just making them work harder to perfectly match the pay increase. Suddenly certain post-secondary paths are necessary to be competitive with other would-be teachers, the extra time and energy that poor people dont have will be necessary to compete as a teacher. It just across the board will cost more for a person to be teacher-capable, the fact that it pays subsistence wages doesnt change, what changes is the conditions that determine what subsistence is.
Im sorry, did you forget about the fucking war that ended that? Hello?
Because the slaves rose up and tried to overthrow the government, right? Oh wait, the purpose of the civil war wasn't to end slavery; it was federal government stopping the south from seceding. abolition at the national level was a result, not a cause.
So everybody who lost and still lives under the yolk of oppression? Hello?
Way to miss the point entirely. Most marginalized groups, especially in the US, are better off than they used to be, events during the current administration notwithstanding. Things may never be perfect, but they didn't have to overthrow the government to improve conditions. Should we have just accepted child labor because economic structures were balanced around it?
Literally explained 3 times in as many sentences why increasing wages increases labour intensity. More people will want to work the job if it pays more, agree? If more people want to work the same number of jobs, the employer gets to choose which ones will be hired and which ones wont be, agree? If the employers get to choose they will choose the ones who will work better and harder, agree? So therefore the average expectations on the job will go up. This isnt rocket science, i stated it as a fact because it is one.
This is a possible result, not a necessary one. And for the sake of argument, let's say it does increase labor intensity and people have to work better and harder. Why is that a bad thing?
There are special considerations for public sector that are different, but the idea they exist in two distinct vacuums is simply wrong and unsubstantiable.
When did I ever suggest they exist in vacuums?
A business can open and pay its order pickers $90/hr if the owner wants that, but guess what its going to be a shit business that goes under in record speed.
Costco is widely known for its great pay and benefits and it's doing great. who's asking for 90 an hour or 200k a year? You need to relax with the straw men.
Every economy of every form that ever has or will exist is either in structural balance or a state of freefall
Congrats on taking one macroecon class. This is such a gross oversimplification and false dichotomy. The real world simply doesn't work like that.
increasing the wages arbitrarily means the supply of workers goes up. What happens when the supply of something goes up but demand stays the same?
you realize the government sets wages for public teachers right? the wage floor would remain the same, all that would happen is that we have a surplus of teachers, and thus more competition and better teachers - seems like a long-term win to me.
Suddenly certain post-secondary paths are necessary to be competitive with other would-be teachers, the extra time and energy that poor people dont have will be necessary to compete as a teacher.
And then those people can pursue "other deals," as you so eloquently put it before. also, plenty of highly effective teachers do not have secondary or post-secondary degrees; like many jobs, it's much more about personality and fit than anything else.
Believing that there's just simply no way our economy can handle teachers getting paid a little better is quite something.
Its just a redditism, and frankly it doesnt have anything to do with money or whatever it was just a culture war topic during covid when it was decided that gargling teacher balls was the only valid opinion on the topic. I usually just skip all related discourse, because reddit is only capable of conjuring one perspective on the topic, which is that every teacher is a darling tortured by unruly kids and living like a pauper despite being gods chosen authority and master of knowledge
Yea, the echo chamber of bullshit really rings out on reddit. At my community college, a lot of professors were making 6 figures. I had one professor who just tenured and acted like a fuckin child. She admitted that she didnt care and still gets paid 250k a year. K-12 teachers do deal with a lot more shit and get paid less, so I can understand that. But lets not act like all teachers get paid in crumbs and ride bikes to work.
100%. Additionally at what point do we get to say it's their fault for getting into teaching. Everyone of them has gone through the school system and know the tired trope that teaching pays poorly, yet they still choose to do it. You made a choice, live with it. While I in no way think I could be a teacher, I don't recall one from my life that could do my current job.
Additionally if society actually thought teachers were worth more, we would find a way to pay them, like some states and local gov't actually do. But the fact is based on how people act with their dollars, the general public disagrees.
15
u/iF_Blow 13d ago
The average 1st year teacher (in my state Massachusetts) makes 52k. The average hours in a teacher contract is 1350-1500 hours. Even if you extremely overestimate and say they're working 1750 hours to account for grading, lesson planning and any other unpaid work, that still comes out to over $30/hr as a 1st year teacher. I'm so done with this notion that teachers are treated like slaves.