3 ms·

The labor market - especially the low paid labor market - is a lot less liquid than it needs to be for pure supply/demand to work in the US (that's also taking

The labor market - especially the low paid labor market - is a lot less liquid than it needs to be for pure supply/demand to work in the US (that's also taking human suffering caused by poverty out of the equation, which is pretty callous). Laissez-faire markets are also bad at taking negative externalities into account. Food being too expensive to afford in the stores while it's also rotting in the fields (which has happened in my state multiple times on the last few decades) is really bad. Children not being being effectively taught because teachers are quitting due to burnout and terrible wages is really bad. I don't think it's sufficient to shrug out hands and say "it'll work itself out" when we can actively see very these kinds of detrimental problems

rahimnathwani 5y ago
> Children not being being effectively taught because teachers are quitting due to burnout and terrible wages is really bad. The market for teachers, at least in the US, is not a 'laissez-faire market'.
- macinjosh 5y ago
  Neither is the farm/food market. It is heavily subsidized and regulated by the government to incentivize very specific outcomes.
- HarryHirsch 5y ago
  The market for teachers, at least in the US, is not a 'laissez-faire market' Whatever that means. In Alabama the low wages and poor working conditions have now led to a grave teacher shortage. The government's solution? Suspend teacher certification. To use graphic imagery: the talent pool is full of piss, let's open it to the incontinents!
  - rahimnathwani 5y ago
    "the talent pool is full of piss" This suggests 'teacher certification' isn't effective at distinguishing between good and bad teachers. "Suspend teacher certification" If 'teacher certification' isn't useful for distinguishing good/bad teachers, then removing the requirement may be a good idea. "In Alabama" It's hard to fire bad teachers in Alabama. If you're a principal in an Alabama public school, you can't just give a poorly performing teachers 2-4 weeks' notice, freeing up the money to hire someone new. Look up 'Alabama teacher tenure'.
    - HarryHirsch 5y ago
      The way to raise standards isn't to lower expectations. But you have to offer something in return, money or job security, either will work, no one will work for free. And what's this obsession with firing people? You can get rid of subpar performers, but the rapid turnover isn't going to improve the average unless you manage to hire and retain above average performers. In the long run, it's a supply issue, and the revolving door model is going to do nothing about the subpar supply.
      - rahimnathwani 5y ago
        Re: #1, I didn't talk about lowering expectations. I talked about removing a requirement that you said resulted in a poor talent pool. Re: #2 getting rid of underperformers helps you hire good teachers (because, unless you fire someone, you have no money to hire someone new), and retain good ones (because, if you're a good teacher, you're not going to want to work somewhere where your students' other teachers are bad).
        HarryHirsch 5y ago
        If you look at the PRAXIS exam (there's example tests out there) you'll see that the bar is set extremely low already. Dropping it does nothing to improve the talent pool and will certainly not attract quality applicants. I've said it already - it's not the best students that go to work in teaching. You can fire a low performer, but chances are that the replacement is just as bad. It's a supply issue, a training issue and a culture issue - the anti-intellectualism in large swathes of the population really doesn't help matters.
        rahimnathwani 5y ago
        You say "It's a supply issue, a training issue and a culture issue". This may be true, but it's the result of how the system is set up and, in particular, the interaction between: a) politicians b) teachers and teachers unions c) school district leaders d) school district administration staff e) students In most systems, group (e) is the one with the least power. Their parents may be able to vote for school board members, but these elections are infrequent, and the way to get elected is not by being an advocate for students, but by aligning with a particular political party, or getting the support of teachers unions. Parents cannot easily opt out of that system. In Alabama, per pupil spending is ~$10k/year. This distorts the market: a parochial school that costs $10k/year to run cannot compete with a public school that costs $10k/year to run, even if the former better. Because in one case the marginal cost to the parent is $0. It comes back to what I said at the start of our conversation: The market for teachers, at least in the US, is not a 'laissez-faire market'.

rahimnathwani 5y ago

> Children not being being effectively taught because teachers are quitting due to burnout and terrible wages is really bad. The market for teachers, at least in the US, is not a 'laissez-faire market'.

macinjosh 5y ago
Neither is the farm/food market. It is heavily subsidized and regulated by the government to incentivize very specific outcomes.
HarryHirsch 5y ago
The market for teachers, at least in the US, is not a 'laissez-faire market' Whatever that means. In Alabama the low wages and poor working conditions have now led to a grave teacher shortage. The government's solution? Suspend teacher certification. To use graphic imagery: the talent pool is full of piss, let's open it to the incontinents!
- rahimnathwani 5y ago
  "the talent pool is full of piss" This suggests 'teacher certification' isn't effective at distinguishing between good and bad teachers. "Suspend teacher certification" If 'teacher certification' isn't useful for distinguishing good/bad teachers, then removing the requirement may be a good idea. "In Alabama" It's hard to fire bad teachers in Alabama. If you're a principal in an Alabama public school, you can't just give a poorly performing teachers 2-4 weeks' notice, freeing up the money to hire someone new. Look up 'Alabama teacher tenure'.
  - HarryHirsch 5y ago
    The way to raise standards isn't to lower expectations. But you have to offer something in return, money or job security, either will work, no one will work for free. And what's this obsession with firing people? You can get rid of subpar performers, but the rapid turnover isn't going to improve the average unless you manage to hire and retain above average performers. In the long run, it's a supply issue, and the revolving door model is going to do nothing about the subpar supply.
    - rahimnathwani 5y ago
      Re: #1, I didn't talk about lowering expectations. I talked about removing a requirement that you said resulted in a poor talent pool. Re: #2 getting rid of underperformers helps you hire good teachers (because, unless you fire someone, you have no money to hire someone new), and retain good ones (because, if you're a good teacher, you're not going to want to work somewhere where your students' other teachers are bad).
      - HarryHirsch 5y ago
        If you look at the PRAXIS exam (there's example tests out there) you'll see that the bar is set extremely low already. Dropping it does nothing to improve the talent pool and will certainly not attract quality applicants. I've said it already - it's not the best students that go to work in teaching. You can fire a low performer, but chances are that the replacement is just as bad. It's a supply issue, a training issue and a culture issue - the anti-intellectualism in large swathes of the population really doesn't help matters.
        rahimnathwani 5y ago
        You say "It's a supply issue, a training issue and a culture issue". This may be true, but it's the result of how the system is set up and, in particular, the interaction between: a) politicians b) teachers and teachers unions c) school district leaders d) school district administration staff e) students In most systems, group (e) is the one with the least power. Their parents may be able to vote for school board members, but these elections are infrequent, and the way to get elected is not by being an advocate for students, but by aligning with a particular political party, or getting the support of teachers unions. Parents cannot easily opt out of that system. In Alabama, per pupil spending is ~$10k/year. This distorts the market: a parochial school that costs $10k/year to run cannot compete with a public school that costs $10k/year to run, even if the former better. Because in one case the marginal cost to the parent is $0. It comes back to what I said at the start of our conversation: The market for teachers, at least in the US, is not a 'laissez-faire market'.