3 ms·

We respect elementary school teachers, but their starting salary is squat. Conversely auditors and accountants are considered mind-numbing jobs, but they're pai

We respect elementary school teachers, but their starting salary is squat. Conversely auditors and accountants are considered mind-numbing jobs, but they're paid nicely. This is false. I just checked average salaries (see http://www.salarylist.com/all-accountant-real-jobs-salary.htm http://www.salarylist.com/all-accountant-real-jobs-salary.ht... and http://www.salarylist.com/all-teacher-real-jobs-salary.htm http://www.salarylist.com/all-teacher-real-jobs-salary.htm ). The difference is less than 10%. The average accountant job listed is $40,461. The average teacher job listed is $37,200. (in my area of NJ, even a entry-level teacher makes more than that) There really seems to be a whole mythology about low teacher pay, but this just isn't true. It's not true on a nominal scale, and it's even less true when you factor in the days off and other benefits.

loganfrederick 16y ago
Might just be me, but those numbers just make me feel bad for accountants too, as opposed to thinking teachers are getting great pay.
- tshauck 16y ago
  Don't feel too bad, this probably considers all accountants... had they stayed in school an extra year for the CPA, they probably make twice that.
tokenadult 16y ago
Yes, the big fallacy about teacher compensation is to take compensation as consisting only of nominal salary, and not also of employer-funded (that is, taxpayer-funded) benefits and working conditions. Schoolteachers are well compensated in relation to barriers to entry to the occupation and in terms of performance standards imposed on the occupation. (I am a teacher in private practice. I have to convince my clients to pay out of pocket for my services after their children have already attended tax-subsidized classes at other hours of the day.)
smanek 16y ago
The problem is that a teacher's salary is weighted more towards the tail end of their career than most other professions. In my high school, we had gym teachers who had been there for 30 years earning well over a $100K. And we had an ingenious (new) Math teacher earning $40K. Over his career, the new Math teacher will probably earn reasonably well (especially when you take into account the extraordinarily generous pension and benefits, 3 months of vacation time a year, etc). But, the first 10 years (which is probably the time of his life that he's getting married, having young kids, trying to buy a house, etc) are going to be pretty tough.
showerst 16y ago
First of all I'd question that source, it lists some elementary and high school teachers making $300,000+/year. Secondly average salary is a lousy comparison point, because in many industries like accounting the starting is fairly low, but the ceiling is quite high. In teaching it's relatively flat, and you need an advanced to degree to advance at all. A relatively senior accountant makes vastly more than a relatively senior teacher, and oftentimes for only 6 years of US schooling (4 year undergrad + 1-2 year certification). To break into the higher ranks of teacher salaries (or in some areas to get a job at all) you're required to do a 4 year undergrad + a teaching certificate + a masters, so you're talking about $40,000 for 7 seven years of schooling, with a ceiling somewhere around $90,000 even with a PHD. It might be fair to argue that you should be doing it for the love anyway, but I know people that would want to teach but specifically didn't go into it because they planned to have families and were worried about the income.
- smanek 16y ago
  $300K isn't inconceivable. The superintendant of my HS's district made a little over $250K, and that was ~7 years ago. Some individual teachers in Chicago ostensibly made over $400K during their final year since they cashed out 20+ years of sick and/or vacation days.
SMrF 16y ago
I'm sorry, but $37,000 per year is not a great starting salary, especially for a job that plays a fundamental role in shaping and improving our society. My wife is finishing up graduate school to start teaching in poor, urban schools. Chicago starting salaries are higher, I think around $55,000. I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Your claim that your wife isn't paid enough is demonstrably false. Sorry if this sounds like a smart-aleck reply, but I mean it in a dispassionate sense. I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money. This is a conversation about economics, incentives, and what people actually choose to do. It is not about feelings, platitudes, and how we believe that the world should work. Any economist can tell you that if your wife and the school have entered into this arrangement of their own free will, then the amount that she is getting compensated is enough -- by definition. The fact that she is willing to perform her job for this salary and other benefits shows definitely that she values her compensation more than she values what she could otherwise derive from any other opportunity open to her. If there were something else that increased her personal utility function more, than by definition, she would choose that alternative. The absence of such a choice demonstrates that this is the best available.
  - SMrF 16y ago
    Salaries are set by CPS and go up on a schedule based on years of experience. How is that a market? Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city. If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as a donation -- she is not payed enough!
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      Salaries are set by CPS ... How is that a market? Education as an industry is broken in many other ways that make it fail as a market. But in the scope of our discussion, she has chosen freely to accept the offer; the school has chosen freely to extend that offer to her. That's all that's necessary to prove my point. Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city. I intentionally worded my reply so as not to limit my reference to her salary. I said her compensation, or her benefits. This includes the satisfaction that she gets from making "a donation to society and to our city". If that makes her feel good, then it's absolutely part of her compensation, part of the package deal that makes her accept the employment contract. You can't say that you want a salary that in a vacuum matches the most mundane or unpleasant job, and then reap the additional job satisfaction yourself. Think of it this way: would you take a job as an astronaut, getting paid nothing but room and board to do it? I, and I expect many other people, probably would. And we'd feel mighty lucky to have had that chance. Considering the satisfaction we got from actually going into space, the entirety of our compensation was enormous. (Really, I'm not just babbling. This is how economics works. Those people who think that economists are only thinking about money couldn't be any farther from the truth. Economics is the study of why people make decisions, why they choose one alternative above another.)

loganfrederick 16y ago

Might just be me, but those numbers just make me feel bad for accountants too, as opposed to thinking teachers are getting great pay.

tshauck 16y ago
Don't feel too bad, this probably considers all accountants... had they stayed in school an extra year for the CPA, they probably make twice that.

tokenadult 16y ago

Yes, the big fallacy about teacher compensation is to take compensation as consisting only of nominal salary, and not also of employer-funded (that is, taxpayer-funded) benefits and working conditions. Schoolteachers are well compensated in relation to barriers to entry to the occupation and in terms of performance standards imposed on the occupation. (I am a teacher in private practice. I have to convince my clients to pay out of pocket for my services after their children have already attended tax-subsidized classes at other hours of the day.)

smanek 16y ago

The problem is that a teacher's salary is weighted more towards the tail end of their career than most other professions. In my high school, we had gym teachers who had been there for 30 years earning well over a $100K. And we had an ingenious (new) Math teacher earning $40K. Over his career, the new Math teacher will probably earn reasonably well (especially when you take into account the extraordinarily generous pension and benefits, 3 months of vacation time a year, etc). But, the first 10 years (which is probably the time of his life that he's getting married, having young kids, trying to buy a house, etc) are going to be pretty tough.

showerst 16y ago

First of all I'd question that source, it lists some elementary and high school teachers making $300,000+/year. Secondly average salary is a lousy comparison point, because in many industries like accounting the starting is fairly low, but the ceiling is quite high. In teaching it's relatively flat, and you need an advanced to degree to advance at all. A relatively senior accountant makes vastly more than a relatively senior teacher, and oftentimes for only 6 years of US schooling (4 year undergrad + 1-2 year certification). To break into the higher ranks of teacher salaries (or in some areas to get a job at all) you're required to do a 4 year undergrad + a teaching certificate + a masters, so you're talking about $40,000 for 7 seven years of schooling, with a ceiling somewhere around $90,000 even with a PHD. It might be fair to argue that you should be doing it for the love anyway, but I know people that would want to teach but specifically didn't go into it because they planned to have families and were worried about the income.

smanek 16y ago
$300K isn't inconceivable. The superintendant of my HS's district made a little over $250K, and that was ~7 years ago. Some individual teachers in Chicago ostensibly made over $400K during their final year since they cashed out 20+ years of sick and/or vacation days.

SMrF 16y ago

I'm sorry, but $37,000 per year is not a great starting salary, especially for a job that plays a fundamental role in shaping and improving our society. My wife is finishing up graduate school to start teaching in poor, urban schools. Chicago starting salaries are higher, I think around $55,000. I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Your claim that your wife isn't paid enough is demonstrably false. Sorry if this sounds like a smart-aleck reply, but I mean it in a dispassionate sense. I've seen the challenge she faces at her job and I can tell you -- this is not enough money. This is a conversation about economics, incentives, and what people actually choose to do. It is not about feelings, platitudes, and how we believe that the world should work. Any economist can tell you that if your wife and the school have entered into this arrangement of their own free will, then the amount that she is getting compensated is enough -- by definition. The fact that she is willing to perform her job for this salary and other benefits shows definitely that she values her compensation more than she values what she could otherwise derive from any other opportunity open to her. If there were something else that increased her personal utility function more, than by definition, she would choose that alternative. The absence of such a choice demonstrates that this is the best available.
- SMrF 16y ago
  Salaries are set by CPS and go up on a schedule based on years of experience. How is that a market? Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city. If we have to look at her decision to be a teacher as a donation -- she is not payed enough!
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Salaries are set by CPS ... How is that a market? Education as an industry is broken in many other ways that make it fail as a market. But in the scope of our discussion, she has chosen freely to accept the offer; the school has chosen freely to extend that offer to her. That's all that's necessary to prove my point. Yes, she is willing to work at this salary. But we look at is as a donation to society and to our city. I intentionally worded my reply so as not to limit my reference to her salary. I said her compensation, or her benefits. This includes the satisfaction that she gets from making "a donation to society and to our city". If that makes her feel good, then it's absolutely part of her compensation, part of the package deal that makes her accept the employment contract. You can't say that you want a salary that in a vacuum matches the most mundane or unpleasant job, and then reap the additional job satisfaction yourself. Think of it this way: would you take a job as an astronaut, getting paid nothing but room and board to do it? I, and I expect many other people, probably would. And we'd feel mighty lucky to have had that chance. Considering the satisfaction we got from actually going into space, the entirety of our compensation was enormous. (Really, I'm not just babbling. This is how economics works. Those people who think that economists are only thinking about money couldn't be any farther from the truth. Economics is the study of why people make decisions, why they choose one alternative above another.)