# Teachers In America



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

(continued from Democrat in the White House thread)
The problem with teachers is that for the most part we DON'T DESERVE to have competetive salaries because in my opinion, most teachers are not good ones. I like to think of myself in the minority, but if you think about it, we've all gone to "primary-middle-high school" for 12 or 13 years, and of those years how many teachers can you remember that made a difference in your life? For me, I remember maybe 3 or 4. Three or Four out of maybe a hundred (remember in MS and HS we have at least 8 teachers a semester). To me thats unacceptable. Why? Honestly, most people get into the field because they can't hack it elsewhere, you all have heard the saying. I work with teachers who don't even like kids, and they disgust me.

There was an interesting article in Feb 25 TIME about merit pay for teachers and teacher training all around the world. Merit pay is difficult because once you get to middle school, how do you decide which teachers get the extra bonuses? My subject, American History, does not have a test that can accurately indicate how a student progresses. Also, progression isn't unending...you can only get 100% of your test answers correct. What happens once you hit that plateau? Also, these bonuses, while well intended, are just not enough. I make a decent salary here in NYC, one of the highest paying areas of the nation, but are you telling me a teacher in South Dakota, making 30k a year will be helped a great deal by an extra 4k? Thats peanuts, especially considering that its not dependable income. I put myself out there to work any and every after school program possible to supplement my salary (except summer school) as I feel most people work 9-5+ for the money they earn. Most teachers in my building run when that 3:20 bell rings, I would rather stay and get paid to do after school programs...unfortunately there are many limits (at least in my school) because of funding, and after school work opportunities are few and far between. This year all that was offered was one program from October through March that paid an extra $1,300. It was three extra hours a week on Tuesday and Thursday to help lower functioning students pass the state ELA and MATH exams. I jumped at it. Other than that, there was nothing else even OFFERED in my school this year, while other schools had tons of programs.


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

rgrossicone said:


> (continued from Democrat in the White House thread)
> The problem with teachers is that for the most part we DON'T DESERVE to have competetive salaries because in my opinion, most teachers are not good ones. I like to think of myself in the minority, but if you think about it, we've all gone to "primary-middle-high school" for 12 or 13 years, and of those years how many teachers can you remember that made a difference in your life? For me, I remember maybe 3 or 4. Three or Four out of maybe a hundred (remember in MS and HS we have at least 8 teachers a semester). To me thats unacceptable. Why? Honestly, most people get into the field because they can't hack it elsewhere, you all have heard the saying. I work with teachers who don't even like kids, and they disgust me.
> 
> There was an interesting article in Feb 25 TIME about merit pay for teachers and teacher training all around the world. Merit pay is difficult because once you get to middle school, how do you decide which teachers get the extra bonuses? My subject, American History, does not have a test that can accurately indicate how a student progresses. Also, progression isn't unending...you can only get 100% of your test answers correct. What happens once you hit that plateau? Also, these bonuses, while well intended, are just not enough. I make a decent salary here in NYC, one of the highest paying areas of the nation, but are you telling me a teacher in South Dakota, making 30k a year will be helped a great deal by an extra 4k? Thats peanuts, especially considering that its not dependable income. I put myself out there to work any and every after school program possible to supplement my salary (except summer school) as I feel most people work 9-5+ for the money they earn. Most teachers in my building run when that 3:20 bell rings, I would rather stay and get paid to do after school programs...unfortunately there are many limits (at least in my school) because of funding, and after school work opportunities are few and far between. This year all that was offered was one program from October through March that paid an extra $1,300. It was three extra hours a week on Tuesday and Thursday to help lower functioning students pass the state ELA and MATH exams. I jumped at it. Other than that, there was nothing else even OFFERED in my school this year, while other schools had tons of programs.


I love teaching, it's the only job I have ever had that allowed me to sleep good at night.

Most teachers do suck. But, it's soo easy to be great and stand out that sucky teachers dont bother me. It's the kids that suffer.

Every teacher today realizes you have to be a teacher and a parent and a friend. Just being a teacher these days typically doesnt make the grade.

I dont have a family and I live basically mortagage free, thus a $35k a year is enough for me and my lifestyle.
I think a teacher to be fool hardy to try to raise and support a family on teacher's pay which many try to do...leaving them finicancially burdened and bitter. That negativity is projected on the student when the bell rings.
I dont have all the answers, but I do have most of them.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I'm confused. Your first comment was:



rgrossicone said:


> which part? That I'm a socialist, or* chose a profession that puts the greater good over personal financial gain?*


Now you are saying most teachers do not deserve higher pay. Many teachers hate kids, you say. They cannot hack it elsewhere. They, you say, disgust you.

So, does this profession put the greater good first? Not from your own description. If not, why did you make that claim as your first claim?

As a good teacher, maybe you can remove my confusion :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Capt Ron (Dec 28, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> I'm confused. Your first comment was:
> 
> Now you are saying most teachers do not deserve higher pay. Many teachers hate kids, you say. They cannot hack it elsewhere. They, you say, disgust you.
> 
> ...


Wayfarer,
I believe he is writing with emotion, not ration.
He believes he should receive greater pay than the other bad teachers because he is a good teaching for the greater good, not the money.

All levels of altruistic goodness should be monetarily rewarded in the realm of education.
However, more money is also expected when schools receive failing grades. 
In essence, the good teachers should be rewarded more money along with the same failing schools they teach for.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Way a true teacher is what Capt Ron says...a friend, a parent, and a teacher. I try to provide that for every student that passes through my doors, and even for those who don't. The idea behind teaching is to create a better human being, therefore creating a better world. I feel like that is what I am trying to do (as well as keep paying my mortgage, car payments, child care for my own - coming soon to a world near you starting 6/13 - and paying off debt for this damned hobby of mine - clothing) and its frustrating to see people who chose to help fewer get paid more (and the fewer they help need it the least). I feel like in order for teachers like myself and Capt Ron to get rewarded, although it sounds like Capt Ron doesn't need it as much as I do, we need to make our profession respectable again. These "bad teachers" that I speak of are why teachers are looked down upon by so many. Too many don't care, too many just AREN'T SMART. But to be honest thats not even the point...the fact that people chose to put themsleves in a spot to help thousands of kids, makes the profession one for the greater good. The only good those "Wall Street dickheads", to quote a New York Magazine article from a few weeks ago,do is for themselves...not thousands, not hundreds.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> Way a true teacher is what Capt Ron says...a friend, a parent, and a teacher. I try to provide that for every student that passes through my doors, and even for those who don't. The idea behind teaching is to create a better human being, therefore creating a better world. I feel like that is what I am trying to do (as well as keep paying my mortgage, car payments, child care for my own - coming soon to a world near you starting 6/13 - and paying off debt for this damned hobby of mine - clothing) and its frustrating to see people who chose to help fewer get paid more (and the fewer they help need it the least). I feel like in order for teachers like myself and Capt Ron to get rewarded, although it sounds like Capt Ron doesn't need it as much as I do, we need to make our profession respectable again. These "bad teachers" that I speak of are why teachers are looked down upon by so many. Too many don't care, too many just AREN'T SMART. But to be honest thats not even the point...the fact that people chose to put themsleves in a spot to help thousands of kids, makes the profession one for the greater good. The only good those "Wall Street dickheads", to quote a New York Magazine article from a few weeks ago,do is for themselves...not thousands, not hundreds.


You had me until that last sentence. I was thinking this guy really does care about teaching, about people, until I read that. I do not know about you, but those "dickheads" are the ones I am counting on to pay for things like children's tuition and retirement. I think I am not alone in this. I think, teachers' pension plans might even have a dollar or two invested.

So your talk of teachers had me going but then you got all liberal knee jerk and ruined it.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

Wayfarer said:


> You had me until that last sentence. I was thinking this guy really does care about teaching, about people, until I read that. I do not know about you, but those "dickheads" are the ones I am counting on to pay for things like children's tuition and retirement. I think I am not alone in this. I think, teachers' pension plans might even have a dollar or two invested.
> 
> So your talk of teachers had me going but then you got all liberal knee jerk and ruined it.


I wasn't calling them that, Joel Lovell of New York Magazine was. I understand how it works...those "dickheads" (mind the quotations) pay for a large chunk of public education from their tax dollars, or at least those who live within the five (arguably four) buroughs do. Sure, my pension is invested, but the world, particularly our society, would be a better place if emphasis was placed just a little less on the billionaires making more, and a little more on getting every American closer to a millionaire. I think those "dickheads" wouldn't miss if a small percentage of their take home income went to help defray extra costs in public education, police (City cops start at 27k-so the people who are on the front lines to stop Al Quaida in this country are most likely living in their mothers basements), sanitation, fire, etc...

We could argue about this until we are blue in the face...lets just agree to disagree (to steal a line from Toby Keith). BTW, I've never used the word "dickhead" this much in my entire adult life.


----------



## stainless (Aug 27, 2007)

I'd like to see teachers get some more money, but I think things like merit pay and bonuses for test results isn't necessarily the best way to do things. I think too much emphasis is placed on the standardized tests, but at the same time that's an easy way to measure performance. You also have to deal with that fact that teachers' unions are very powerful, so there's always going to be a heavy weighting towards seniority instead of who's actually the best at teaching. Additionally, the most financially rewarding route is into administration, while arguably the most good (for the kids) is done in the classroom. So there's financial impetus to push your best teachers out of the classroom where they are doing what they do best.

All that said, I'm not a teacher and I certainly don't have the answers. My mother's an elementary special ed. teacher though, and she really does put the good of her kids above everything else.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

rgrossicone said:


> We could argue about this until we are blue in the face...lets just agree to disagree *(to steal a line from Toby Keith)*. BTW, I've never used the word "dickhead" this much in my entire adult life.


I'm pretty sure both the sentiment and phrase have been around longer than Toby Keith.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

sure has, but I figured I would put a public figure whom would seem to share Ways views in there to make him feel more at home...:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Hmm, I never pictured Wayfarer as a Toby Keith fan.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> sure has, but I figured I would put a public figure whom would seem to share Ways views in there to make him feel more at home...:icon_smile_wink:


I like that. I do not seem to completely agree with a most educated, urbane person, a K-12 teacher, ergo I should relate to someone who's main demographic is ********. Nothing like liberal condescension, is there?

Mr. Urbane, (and yes, that is a double entendre), I have expressed no views yet, other than I disagree that Wall St. is populated by dickheads that fleece the public and do nothing else. I did not even point out that you obviously did not discern the meaning of my post concerning said alleged dickheads. How then have you been able to discern a) my views on teachers and b) what might appeal to me musically? Ah yes, I did not praise you for your insight in economics, pedagogy, and the dickhead status of those on Wall St. Certainly enough to decide I am a country music fan.

Just FYI, I cannot name a single song Mr. Keith performs nor could I even pick him out of a line up. Also, I do not fall for the appeal to celebrity as a valid form of reasoning. I have attempted to not just slam you out of hand. I have not dwelled on your great inconsistencies expressed thus far, but I get this supercilious condescension from you.


----------



## jkreusc (Aug 14, 2006)

rgrossicone said:


> The problem with teachers is that for the most part we DON'T DESERVE to have competetive salaries because in my opinion, most teachers are not good ones.


Its a chicken-and-egg argument though. Teachers suck because the pay sucks, IMO - NOT the other way around. Teaching jobs attract two kinds of people. The first kinds are those who the best they can do is a $35k/yr government job. The second are the altruists.

Make teacher base pay $65-70k right now and index it to the CPI, whatever it takes. Let supply and demand force the junk out over time. It might take 20 years, but it will happen.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jkreusc said:


> Make teacher base pay $65-70k right now and index it to the CPI, whatever it takes. Let supply and demand force the junk out over time. It might take 20 years, but it will happen.


The fact is that in many geographical areas and in many teaching specialties there is already an over supply even with the relatively low salaries. If this is truly going to be corrected by supply and demand, perhaps the answer is to stop looking at teachers as a whole and instead concentrate on those areas of teaching where demand is greater than supply. I'm thinking of the physical sciences and rural/inner city locations.

For example, I had two friends who obtained M.Ed.'s with teaching certificates, one elementary school and the other history. Both were bright, dedicated people who would have made outstanding teachers; however, they both languished for several years doing substitute teaching while waiting for full time jobs to open up in the Southern city where they lived. Eventually both pursued other careers when jobs did not materialize. I'm sure that they could have gone to an inner city school system somewhere or to a very rural school system and got jobs, but that isn't where they wanted to work. Of course had they been chemistry or math teachers they could have gotten jobs in the preferred school system.

Clearly the pay at that particular school system, comparable to other similar school systems, was not a detriment to getting teachers. I don't know if they have good teachers or not; however, my friends would have been very good teachers and they couldn't get in the door even with the low pay. So I'm not sure how increasing pay in a school system like that would improve the quality of the teachers if they aren't already hiring high quality teachers out of the large pool they currently have to select from.

I'm not considering whether teachers should be paid more as a matter of equity or fairness. I'm merely addressing the supply and demand argument. For this reason perhaps the resources should first be directed at those areas where demand exceeds supply.

Cruiser


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Of course had they been chemistry or math teachers they could have gotten jobs in the preferred school system...For this reason perhaps the resources should first be directed at those areas where demand exceeds supply.


You have stumbled onto the right path. Ask yourself why you think chemistry and math teachers are the ones in short supply and you will be on to the answer.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Having been a Wall Street "dickhead" for almost 30 years, I can say with certainty that such a sentiment is nothing but rhetoric to make the far left feel good about their self righteous little lives. The vast majority of Wall Streeters are very hard working, dedicated to their field and feel good about, at the end of the day, helping to grease the engine that hopefully makes everybody's retirement a little bit nicer. My father was a teacher and I married into family of educators (including a father-in-law who was a college professor). I'd still rather hang out with the Wall Streeters.


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

KenR said:


> Having been a Wall Street "dickhead" for almost 30 years, I can say with certainty that such a sentiment is nothing but rhetoric to make the far left feel good about their self righteous little lives. The vast majority of Wall Streeters are very hard working, dedicated to their field and feel good about, at the end of the day, helping to grease the engine that hopefully makes everybody's retirement a little bit nicer. My father was a teacher and I married into family of educators (including a father-in-law who was a college professor). *I'd still rather hang out with the Wall Streeters.*


Including those responsible for the subprime drama?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

eg1 said:


> Including those responsible for the subprime drama?


I think it is unfair to lay this problem at the feet of any one group. I mean, I do not think a gun to the head was used to get people to get into these loans and any simpleton should be able to think, "We have a household income of 80k. What makes us think we can afford a 500k home?" Also, fifteen years ago, I can remember the complaints were that no one would loan to many of the same people that are today's "victims" of the subprime market.

I am not saying parts of Wall St. were not willing players, but at the end of the day, everyone freely entered into these contracts. Give it another year or two and we will be back to complaints that people need to actual conform to LTV ratios, debt/income ratios, and prove their income.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Could someone please explain to me that rationale for the notion that teachers aren't paid enough? What makes teachers so special?

The way I see it they get great fringe benefits, work 9 months and have an excellent potential to earn extra during the summer teaching summer school. If they earn a master's degree then they get an automatic bump in pay. Once they earn tenure they pretty much have it made. In any contract dispute they are automatically media darlings and almost always garner great sympathy from the public. In the grand scheme of things, the education process to become a teacher is not that demanding. The job of being a teacher is relatively stress free when compared to that of an attorney, physician or another profession that has to actually produce results.

Just an example:
https://www.thechampion.org/teachers.asp?formAction=option&year=2006&option=Average+Teacher+Salary

These are the average salaries of teachers in the Chicago area (city + burbs). You can click on a district and actually get the name of the teacher with his/her salary. Some are into the six figures.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Wow pt, thanks for that link. Social workers making over 100k? That is insane. We tend to pay them about 40k and those are positions easy to fill. I guess having a union behind you makes you worth nearly triple?


----------



## StickPig (Feb 8, 2008)

Teachers are paid quite well, given the amount of actual work they do. That said, if we ever hope to recruit a higher quality of teacher, drawing people into education who would otherwise choose a different career field, we will have to pay them more.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Could someone please explain to me that rationale for the notion that teachers aren't paid enough? What makes teachers so special?
> 
> Well, in a way, most people entrust our future to them. While teachers are not the only factor influencing the next generation, they are a significant factor. This may have something to do with them occupying a special category in some people's view.
> 
> If the market supports six figures for them, good on em, I say. Get what you can. That's what A Rod does. That's what Will Smith does.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

My Mother was a Teacher's aide and she worked for the Board of Ed for 15 years and now is back on the registry for on-call Wednesday Thursday and Friday.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Could someone please explain to me that rationale for the notion that teachers aren't paid enough? What makes teachers so special?
> 
> The way I see it they get great fringe benefits, work 9 months and have an excellent potential to earn extra during the summer teaching summer school. If they earn a master's degree then they get an automatic bump in pay. Once they earn tenure they pretty much have it made. In any contract dispute they are automatically media darlings and almost always garner great sympathy from the public. In the grand scheme of things, the education process to become a teacher is not that demanding. The job of being a teacher is relatively stress free when compared to that of an attorney, physician or another profession that has to actually produce results.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the ones like New Trier, Lake Forest, Evanston, Naperville etc....so what? Teachers in the wealthy areas around St. Louis are paid well too. Firefighters in these suburbs make $100k+ because they have to live in the district. In the city they make less than half of that.


----------



## rgrossicone (Jan 27, 2008)

I apologize if I have offended anyone with my language. I used the quotations to emphasize that I do not necessarily agree with that version of what Wall Streeters are, but some do. I recognize that these folks work hard, and long. I recognize that they do good for a lot of people in society. Thats not my point. My point is that their business is about lining the pockets of their own companies FIRST, then if it helps others, thats nice too. Our society financially rewards these types of capitalist enterprises more financially than it does other, more altruistic ones. This probably won't change in my lifetime or that of my childs. 

I also realize that this thread is probably not a place for me to find others who agree with my political beliefs, so I'll stay away, as I don't feel this conversation has been continued with the civility that it deserved, and partly thats because I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

Way, I feel you suggested that either my political beliefs or profession were a problem with your very first response, therefore I gathered you disagreed with me...fine...but apparently your sense of humor does not equal your intellect (or vocabulary/writing ability whichever the case may be). I included a :icon_smile_wink: with my Toby Keith comment to suggest some levity be taken with my response; you didn't take it that way. Your subsequent posts then began questioning my comprehension of your witty responses. I get it buddy. Your tone continued to be nasty and condescending...oh, thanks for not "slapping me out of hand" and also thanks for not "pointing out my great inconsitencies" because I'd hate to be made to look bad.

BTW, some of Toby Keith's stiff isn't half bad, and I'm sure many of his fans would not appreciate you calling them "red necks", but your knowledge and use of slurs is impressive (now there's liberal condescention).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

^ Excellent example of taking on the victim role, totally ignoring how you got into this situation. And for the record, your distancing yourself of calling Wall Streeters "dickheads"...very lame. If you did not agree with that term, why use it to represent your argument? And your characterization of these dickheads is very naive, lacking context, and uni-dimensional at best.

If you would like to begin anew on the discussion, _tabula rasa_, I am up for it. The ball is in your court.

BTW, I really did not flex my knowledge of any slur I used, and this would of course stipulate that the term "red neck" is a slur. I can tell you the history of the term "red neck" as it relates to the Scottish diaspora. The term "hillbilly" is also of Scottish origin, for the interested reader.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

eg1 said:


> Including those responsible for the subprime drama?


NO. Greed is good. Absolute greed unaccompanied by smarts isn't.



rgrossicone said:


> I apologize if I have offended anyone with my language. I used the quotations to emphasize that I do not necessarily agree with that version of what Wall Streeters are, but some do. I recognize that these folks work hard, and long. I recognize that they do good for a lot of people in society. Thats not my point. *My point is that their business is about lining the pockets of their own companies FIRST, then if it helps others, thats nice too. Our society financially rewards these types of capitalist enterprises more financially than it does other, more altruistic ones. This probably won't change in my lifetime or that of my childs*.
> 
> I also realize that this thread is probably not a place for me to find others who agree with my political beliefs, so I'll stay away, as I don't feel this conversation has been continued with the civility that it deserved, and partly thats because I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
> 
> ...


Altruists do not risk their own capital (but they seem to have no problem risking somebody else's). Financial reward moves things forward. Altruism is a lovely sentiment and a nice secondary motivator. But if you think it is a primary motivator for most people, you are not correct. People do not push and strive so they can feel all warm and fuzzy all over, but because there is something tangible at the end of the day for them. That is reality.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

KenR said:


> NO. Greed is good. Absolute greed unaccompanied by smarts isn't.
> 
> Altruists do not risk their own capital (but they seem to have no problem risking somebody else's). Financial reward moves things forward. Altruism is a lovely sentiment and a nice secondary motivator. But if you think it is a primary motivator for most people, you are not correct. People do not push and strive so they can feel all warm and fuzzy all over, but because there is something tangible at the end of the day for them. That is reality.


I would encourage people to check out a good article that appeared in the June 2003 edition of Administrative Science Quarterly (Vol. 48, No.2) pp. 268-305, which is titled Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Business. (You can find that through JSTOR.)

It's quite good at laying out the various positions on whether business should "do well by doing good" or just do well (i.e. increase shareholder value). Obviously, the ur-text for much of this kind of discussion (should companies do more to save the world or not?) is rooted in Friedman's 1970 text:

No surprise, Friedman is conjuring Ayn Rand and coming down squarely on the side of "let business stick to doing what it does best--earn profits." That's the way companies contribute to social betterment. Let government handle the public policy issues. (Of course this is a bit complicated by Friedman's libertarian view on government.)

Strangely, perhaps, Friedman and Robert Reich, he of the Clinton administration, essentially agree that corporations should NOT be pursuing all kinds of social good, at the expence of profits. In Reich's view, our tendency to look to the corporate world to solve the problems that should be addressed by government and its citizens results only in a half-baked "solution" that really does not address the problems in any significant way, while, at the same time, working to weaken democracy.

Reich lays this out in his recent text, Supercapitalism.

This topic of corporate social responsibility is quite interesting once you scratch beneath the surface and examine the consequences and logic behind it, not to mention the legalities. And the unintended consequences (e.g. might companies actually exacerbate a problem, rather than solve it?) are particularly intriguing and unsettling.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

BertieW said:


> This topic of corporate social responsibility is quite interesting once you scratch beneath the surface and examine the consequences and logic behind it, not to mention the legalities. And the unintended consequences (e.g.* might companies actually exacerbate a problem, rather than solve it?)* are particularly intriguing and unsettling.


Bertie:

Good post. I might point the bolded section is the exact question that people, on the other side of the political spectrum from Mr. Reich, ask about government! So I guess the only actors we are left with are the citizens? Something to think about.

After reading your post, I remember a statement that is attributed to John Nash, namely that Smith was incomplete. From that he fashioned his work in game theory. Perhaps this can be applied to corporations and society in this case? Our existing theories are incomplete and there is actually a non-competitive (in terms of goals) solution between the actors that betters society as a whole?

Just a thought.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Bertie:
> 
> Good post. I might point the bolded section is the exact question that people, on the other side of the political spectrum from Mr. Reich, ask about government! So I guess the only actors we are left with are the citizens? Something to think about.
> 
> ...


Well, I agree, and those citizens' voices should be heard through the mechanism of their representatives, at least in this representative democracy. (I would not be surprised if Phinn has another view, but he would be in the minority.) I think Reich would say we get the government we deserve. I know he believes there can be constructive roles for both business and government, but that there currently is some lack of clarity between who does what. We may have the worst of all possible worlds: an enfeebled government beset of cronyism and the power of special interests, left, right and center, and big business that gets mixed messages about its raison d'etre.

I know that Reich is in favour of clarifying these roles, even to the extent of proposing so illiberal a view as getting rid of the corporate income tax and holding the view that companies should not be held criminally liable (e.g. Andersen).

For those who find no redeeming role for government, Reich would remind us that love it, hate it or ignore it, government sets the fundamental economic rules that serve as the framework for the free market. So, in that sense there is no truly free market, in his view.

Some of the research I've encountered suggests that while business can indeed make a significant impact doing social good, this is not its primary responsibility nor are the tasks exercised to achieve that social good likely to be among the firm's core competency. By "exacerbating" a situation, as I noted above, I simply mean that having a company do what might better be achieved through well-conceived public policy we may only be dabbing a bandage on a problem whose seriousness demands a far more comprehensive solution.

On the other hand, those who advocate a free market approach to life have to accept, if being logically coherent, that the fact of companies seeking to "do well and do good" would not exist were the impulse not at some level fueled by market demand. Clearly, some customers reward companies that have as their agenda at least some attempt to ameliorate a social ill. This view would not violate any tenets laid down by Friedman from the perspective of the free market (although he would contend that CEOs have no business imposing what comes down to a tax on shareholders by using their resources for means other than increasing shareholder value. This is something of a different point, one rooted in legal framework. Even here, though, one would have to determine whether or not those "do well and do good" actions did not indeed contribute to the firm's bottom line, in which case this mitigates Friedman's somewhat Calvinist view on the matter.)

But mark me down as one who does indeed see the value that companies bring to society "merely" by creating jobs and products. I'm somewhat dubious about anything above and beyond that firms wish to tackle. But I also see a role for government. Living near Lake Michigan, I know that BP recently tried to dump a bunch more crap into the water, something that this citizen, anyway, opposes.

But back to my own efforts to create value.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Wayfarer;708418BTW said:


> Be that as it may, the use of the term here was not in reference to long ago theological differences in Scotland, but rather to dis Toby Keith and his fans. To that extent it was used in a pejorative manner.
> 
> We do not call people who suffer from mental retardation morons, idiots, or imbeciles; however, at one time these were all legitimate psychological diagnoses in general usage. Now these are all derogatory terms used as a way to call people "stupid". As such, despite the once appropriate origins of these words most would consider it cruel and insensitive to use them to describe a mentally retarded person in this day and time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Be that as it may, the use of the term here was not in reference to long ago theological differences in Scotland, but rather to dis Toby Keith and his fans. To that extent it was used in a pejorative manner.
> 
> I guess my point is, what is your point? The term was used as a slur and that is the way it was received.
> 
> Cruiser


You missed my point entirely it would seem.

He made a comment about my knowledge of slurs and I pointed out that I had not flaunted said knowledge, and then did so. Also, I am not sure I will stipulate either a) I used it as a slur or that b) it is necessarily a slur. If it is, Jeff Foxworthy has built a career on slurs. I would say it can also be used as an identifier. And FYI, those "long ago theological differences"? Not so dead and forgotten. Call someone here the p-word and find out what happens :icon_smile_big:

Also, in all seriousness, those differences were still the cause for war quite recently. Ask any Ulster Scot. Or try and conduct business in many parts of the Highlands on a Sunday. Life is much bigger than you think!

But Cruiser, would I be amiss in thinking you were just looking for a reason to call me out? Nah.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Bertie:

Another good post by you. I might read his book if I am ever at a loss of what to read. I tend to also agree that the core competencies of industry and government probably do not greatly overlap, and one attempts to step outside of their Venn circle, problems usually result.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You missed my point entirely it would seem.


OK, fair enough; however, how many times in the past has my point been entirely missed with no calling off of the dogs?



> it is necessarily a slur. If it is, Jeff Foxworthy has built a career on slurs. I would say it can also be used as an identifier.


And you would be 100 percent correct in that it isn't always meant as a slur. As the child of deep South working class parents I think Foxworthy is a riot. It all goes to intent. And I'll stand by my first thought, it was not meant to be complimentary as used here.



> But Cruiser, would I be amiss in thinking you were just looking for a reason to call me out?


Dadgum it! Nothing gets past you, does it. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Well, in a way, most people entrust our future to them. While teachers are not the only factor influencing the next generation, they are a significant factor. This may have something to do with them occupying a special category in some people's view.
> 
> * If the market supports six figures for them, good on em, I say.* Get what you can. That's what A Rod does. That's what Will Smith does.


I agree. My point was not that they make too much money. It was that they get paid quite well.



Laxplayer said:


> Yeah, the ones like New Trier, Lake Forest, Evanston, Naperville etc....so what? Teachers in the wealthy areas around St. Louis are paid well too. Firefighters in these suburbs make $100k+ because they have to live in the district. In the city they make less than half of that.


Public servants in higher income areas are usually paid better, yes. If you look at the link I provided you will see that Thornton school district (south suburbs encompassing Harvey, Markham and several other poor and disproportionately minority suburbs) has a quite high average salary with quite a number in the six figures.

By the way, I don't know about St. Louis but Chicago City firefighters do quite well considering they only work some 90 odd days per year. They are terrific though and earn every penny!


----------



## eg1 (Jan 17, 2007)

Wayfarer said:


> Bertie:
> 
> Another good post by you. I might read his book if I am ever at a loss of what to read. I tend to also agree that the *core competencies of industry and government probably do not greatly overlap, and one attempts to step outside of their Venn circle, problems usually result*.


As I pointed out in another thread, Jane Jacobs' _Systems of Survival_ also tackles this issue, and probably in at least a slightly more entertaining, if not rigorous, way as Friedman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

eg1 said:


> As I pointed out in another thread, Jane Jacobs' _Systems of Survival_ also tackles this issue, and probably in at least a slightly more entertaining, if not rigorous, way as Friedman.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_of_Survival


I might have to make an Amazon order this weekend. I could use some k-cups too, so might pick up this book.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> I agree. My point was not that they make too much money. It was that they get paid quite well.
> 
> Public servants in higher income areas are usually paid better, yes. If you look at the link I provided you will see that Thornton school district (south suburbs encompassing Harvey, Markham and several other poor and disproportionately minority suburbs) has a quite high average salary with quite a number in the six figures.
> 
> By the way, I don't know about St. Louis but Chicago City firefighters do quite well considering they only work some 90 odd days per year. They are terrific though and earn every penny!


I misunderstood the intent of your post. I thought you were using the salaries of teachers in wealthy suburbs as an example that teachers are overpaid. The firefighters in STL don't make as much as they do in Chicago, but Chicago has a higher cost of living. They do pretty well though, as many of them have second jobs. I have a few friends that work as plumbers or brickmasons on their off-days from the FD. My only problem with the firefighters in the suburbs making such large salaries is that the cops aren't paid anywhere near as well. I guess the trustees of the FD and the IAFF are more influential than the FOP in those areas. The firefighters do have a higher skill level, since they are all paramedics too, but the difference in pay is pretty significant. The Fire Chief in Creve Coeur, MO makes more than the Chief of the FDNY and the NYPD.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I hear the biggest threat to Americas children on their way to an education is the teachers Union, since they don't care at all about the children- $$$$.

Public vouchers are the way to go. One- it would get more children out of the public schools. Second- it would make student class-rooms less full so the teachers can do a better job of teaching instead of baby sitting.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

WA said:


> I hear the biggest threat to Americas children on their way to an education is the teachers Union, since they don't care at all about the children- $$$$.
> 
> Public vouchers are the way to go. One- it would get more children out of the public schools. Second- it would make student class-rooms less full so the teachers can do a better job of teaching instead of baby sitting.


The biggest threat to children's education is their own parent's lack of interest in their children's lives.


----------

