3 ms·
That doesn't make sense. If the parents actually get more productive they can afford paying (e.g. through tax) higher teacher salaries.
by rightbyte 3y ago
That doesn't make sense. If the parents actually get more productive they can afford paying (e.g. through tax) higher teacher salaries.
- JaimeThompson 3y ago>If the parents actually get more productive they can afford paying That assumes that the gains in productivity are passed unto the parents in the form of increased income, do you have any data that shows this to be the case?
- rightbyte 3y agoNo. I believe in the last 20-30 years there has been a reallocation of wealth from wage workers to former house owners and stock owners. But some of the parents gotta be either shareholders or cashed out houseowners? I just moved from a city where teacher pay has gotten on par with engineers. The only thing needed was outlawing hiring unqualified teachers. Suddenly there was money for teacher salaries. It didn't solve the housing question for other sectors though ...
- throwaway426079 3y agoWere there any requirements at all to get hired as a teacher before that change?
- grumpy-de-sre 3y agoI think in general the costs of low productivity sectors tend to outpace the average which kind of negates additional spending (we see that already, educational spending has grown a lot over the years). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect
- jonhohle 3y agoThe next time a tax is raised in your municipality with the promise of supporting education, follow teacher pay and see how much makes it to them. The idea of collecting more taxes to benefit $underserved_group is like an obese person eating more to increase muscle growth.
- grumpy-de-sre 3y agoAlso look at how much of the salary increases get sucked up by the real estate sector (another high "growth" sector in Australia).