Myth Pro and Con about the Minimum Wage

[HeavyAaron]

Teacher pay

Teacher pay seems to always be so contraversial.

It's actually very easy to see if pay for a given field is too low or too high. Is there a shortage of teachers? If yes, then the pay is too low. Is there a surplus of teachers (qualified teachers, willing to work for the going rate that can't find jobs)? If yes then the pay is too high.

The market automatically corrects pay to eliminate surpluses and shortages for most career fields.

Teachers, however, are doubly screwed up. They are generally unionized. All monopolies, unions included, cheat by under supplying, thus artificially boosting price above the market clearing level. But also teacher's pays are often dictated by political machines because most teacher's are government employees. And the government is also a monopoly.

*sigh* The fix is so easy it's embarassing. Privatize and deunionize schools and teachers. Then teacher pay would be dictated by supply and demand just like the pay for engineers, artists, pastry chefs, and practically everyone else.

Aaron

 

[Just thinking]

Hmm, who makes those decisions and what do they get paid for thier obvious lack of skills?

I would think managers and executives of Home Depot --- a group of individuals that are not immune to running successful businesses into the ground. (Rickel - Channel - Sterns - A&S - Grand Union - etc.)

 

[HeavyAaron]

Should, and do are different, the profit motive is very strong. So you can theorheticaly run a bussiness into the ground for your own profit and then skedaddle.

By "you" I presume you mean a CEO of a company that he is not a stockholder (i.e. owner of)? It's true that when the person(s) running a company are not the same as the person(s) owning the company, than there is a potential for disaligned objectives. And of course economists have studied this extensively. So extensively, in fact to have a name for it. It's called "the agency problem." http://cbdd.wsu.edu/kewlcontent/cdoutput/TR505r/page6.htm

There are a number of known solutions. And the present day market incorperates a number of them.

I don't know of any perfect solutions. But for your assertion to hold true you must believe that no solutions exist or are used. You'd be wrong. Of course there are some stunning examples of people getting away with this sort of thing. How'd they do it? They circumvented the solutions, usually in criminal manners. The solutions continue to evolve and improve. It's a current area of research.

Aaron

 

[Just thinking]

... *sigh* The fix is so easy it's embarassing. Privatize and deunionize schools and teachers. Then teacher pay would be dictated by supply and demand just like the pay for engineers, artists, pastry chefs, and practically everyone else.

You might want to turn off that machine that's patting you on the back -- it's not finding the solution, it's implementing it. Go ahead and try to de-unionize them, or privatize them. When you've figured out how to do that then start up your machine.

You have also overlooked one other major factor --- the number of school districts is immense. We do not need to have so many -- sometimes several for just one township. Take a look at the number of districts for just New Jersey alone and imagine the total costs for having so many superintendents and administrations.

 

[HeavyAaron]

You might want to turn off that machine that's patting you on the back -- it's not finding the solution, it's implementing it. Go ahead and try to de-unionize them, or privatize them. When you've figured out how to do that then start up your machine.

Well, it's not even a matter of implementation, per se... it's convincing those who are beifiting from the current system to give up their power... which is, well, not going to happen. I think Arizona has the right idea, however. Here we have MANY charter schools. They are privately run businesses that compete directly with the districts.

You have also overlooked one other major factor --- the number of school districts is immense. We do not need to have so many -- sometimes several for just one township. Take a look at the number of districts for just New Jersey alone and imagine the total costs for having so many superintendents and administrations.

Actually, my belief is that there are too FEW districts, in a sense. There's no competition. If you allowed overlapping districts that parents could choose between, that would be an improvement. Or flipping it around if each school were a "district" then all that management you're referring to could be completely discarded.

But there's a reason that districts are subdivided as it stands that actually saves a TON of money that perhaps you aren't aware of. Desegregation law requires that students be bussed to intigrate the schools along racial lines. However, the courts have said that such bussing is only required WITHIN a district, not interdistrict. Therefore, bussing requirements (and thus costs) go way down when districts are subdivided.

All of this is just artificial creations of governments, of course. Privatizing makes all of this go away magically. Indeed among the benifits would be whatever the most efficient scale of school pools is would naturally evolve into being.

Aaron

 

[Just thinking]

Well, it's not even a matter of implementation, per se... it's convincing those who are beifiting from the current system to give up their power... which is, well, not going to happen. I think Arizona has the right idea, however. Here we have MANY charter schools. They are privately run businesses that compete directly with the districts.

Well, it looks like Arizona has just under 150 school districts, whereas New Jersey has 600 (give or take) --- 4 times as many. Plus, Arizona has room to build schools (private and public) compared to NJ, which has serious development issues; so building more schools in Arizona as compared to NJ is like comparing apples to bowling balls. You're certainly correct in those at the top not willing to give up their power (and salaries) at taxpayers' expense, not to mention local townships' snobbery at mixing their elite students with those of their neighbors on the other side of the tracks, if only by name in the school district. Whether or not you call it implementation or something else, getting the number of districts to a more reasonable (read affordable) number is a task no one has yet been able to tackle.

Actually, my belief is that there are too FEW districts, in a sense. There's no competition. If you allowed overlapping districts that parents could choose between, that would be an improvement. Or flipping it around if each school were a "district" then all that management you're referring to could be completely discarded.

As for too few, I already commented on that -- but making each school a district, I think, would be chaotic in a way with no guarantee as what would be needed from one school to the next, given that the people might then be able to choose as one goes from grade to grade.

But there's a reason that districts are subdivided as it stands that actually saves a TON of money that perhaps you aren't aware of. Desegregation law requires that students be bussed to integrate the schools along racial lines. However, the courts have said that such busing is only required WITHIN a district, not inter district. Therefore, busing requirements (and thus costs) go way down when districts are subdivided.

I don't follow, as there is no reason to think that busing would have to change simply because a district enlarges itself. Besides, if one can overhaul the districts, modifying the busing requirements can be overcome as well. And if it can't be done, then give groups of districts some sort of overall category where the superintendent's position is filled, instead of each district, resulting in 600 or so $100,000 + jobs.

All of this is just artificial creations of governments, of course. Privatizing makes all of this go away magically. Indeed among the benefits would be whatever the most efficient scale of school pools is would naturally evolve into being.

Reducing the number of districts would reduce the amount of administrations, and thus reduce costs. Privatizing is better, but there is going to be too much resistance at too many levels -- at least here in NJ. So as it now stands, the former would be the only possible short term solution.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, if you can support a family working 60 hours a week at minimum wage, it must surely be possible to support yourself working just 40 at minimum wage.

Getting married? If you can't support yourself and your wife on minimum wage, maybe she should work too, hm?

Or else maybe you should get the training to do work that pays more than minimum. How about one of you works that 60 hours a week while the other one gets the training? Then swap places after the trained spouse gets the better job?

As well as reading troubles (going by the other two replies), I see that you have a bit of a problem with reality as well, not to mention that my posts have pointed out that a committed, sensible couple with a well-budgeted expediture can bring up a family on the minimum here.

Let me just try to point out the ridiculous impracticability of what you've stated:

Husband works 60 hours pw. Wife looks after their three children. Daycare in NZ costs at least $200 per week for 40 hours = $600 for the three. Wife gets job at 11/hour for 40 hours. Net loss = $160. Pretty damned silly suggestion.

Ok then, training it must be. Both parents left school without qualifications and neither have the intellectual ability to gain a degree or higher diploma. Given that training costs money, they will need to take out student loans to cover costs. So, the training begins.

Back to you, BP. What does he/she train in? When does he/she do the study? What employment prospects genuinely exist after the "training" is completed - if indeed it gets completed?

You appear to live in a fantasy world.

 

[The Atheist]

*sigh* The fix is so easy it's embarassing. Privatize and deunionize schools and teachers. Then teacher pay would be dictated by supply and demand just like the pay for engineers, artists, pastry chefs, and practically everyone else.

Aaron

Boy, oh boy, have the economists got you by the balls.

Economically, you're quite correct, in a true free market that's just how every job should work. But we insist - through our elected representatives - that safety nets of welfare be provided for the less fortunate and to ensure that kids growing up get at least a chance of getting out of the ghetto.

Just consider, for a few seconds, what the end result of your proposal would be - it's a lot more embarrassing than your answer. All the nice, rich areas would have nice, tidy, well-staffed and well-equipped schools.

And in the urban slums of the world:

Do I really need to paint the picture of what a school in the poor areas of urban Detriot, Chicago, or any one of a hundred other US cities would look like under your regime? Of course, if you have no social conscience, you'd be quite happy with the result - at least until you went outside into the real world.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Just consider, for a few seconds, what the end result of your proposal would be - it's a lot more embarrassing than your answer. All the nice, rich areas would have nice, tidy, well-staffed and well-equipped schools.

And in the urban slums of the world:

Do I really need to paint the picture of what a school in the poor areas of urban Detriot, Chicago, or any one of a hundred other US cities would look like under your regime? Of course, if you have no social conscience, you'd be quite happy with the result - at least until you went outside into the real world.

You've made some (incorrect) assumptions about funding of the schools I didn't state. In fact I would change the funding system from the current one, but only to DECREASE the geographic effects. I'd go into my proposals for this if you like, but we're running pretty far asckew of minimum wage as it is.

Aaron

 

[The Atheist]

You've made some (incorrect) assumptions about funding of the schools I didn't state. In fact I would change the funding system from the current one, but only to DECREASE the geographic effects. I'd go into my proposals for this if you like, but we're running pretty far asckew of minimum wage as it is.

Aaron

(Bolding mine)

Really? Well, thanks for clearing that up, but what you mean is, "I actually posted a load of old bollocks which isn't what I really think, because this:

*sigh* The fix is so easy it's embarassing. Privatize and deunionize schools and teachers. Then teacher pay would be dictated by supply and demand just like the pay for engineers, artists, pastry chefs, and practically everyone else.

doesn't look much like what you've just stated - in fact it's a total contradiction of it.

Like you said, best we get back to the OP now.

 

[HeavyAaron]

(Bolding mine)

Really? Well, thanks for clearing that up, but what you mean is, "I actually posted a load of old bollocks which isn't what I really think, because this:doesn't look much like what you've just stated - in fact it's a total contradiction of it.

Like you said, best we get back to the OP now.

I didn't mean to be confusing, and I see how it could be. But I was not contradicting myself. Privitizing schools does not neccessarily entail parental funding. Do look into charter schools for an example of privatization which doesn't change the funding system at all. Lots of government services have been privatized without changing the funding system (for better or worse.)

Aaron

 

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Hmm, they seem to pay more where you live, a good 'factory wage' here is $8.00/hour while retail might pay around $6.00 to $7.00, but not very often.

Wow. I live in Cedar Rapids, Ia. The industry around here is dominated by software, information services and food-processing. A factory wage at Amana a few miles outside town starts at $14. A few factory jobs start as low as $10, but they're laughably unskilled things like stuffing Oatmeal packets into the variety packs for Ralston. Amost all are $12 and up. Hardly anyony actally gets minimum wage here. As far as I know, that would only apply to things the the concessions operator at the swimming pools, who's pretty much always a high schooler. Even simple jobs like grocery stores and fast food will start at $6-$6.50. Broader retail outlets like K-Mart and Target start at $7.50/hr for day workers and more at night. I believe that we have one of the highest export/import ratios of US cities though, which probably has a lot to do with it.

 

[The Atheist]

I didn't mean to be confusing, and I see how it could be. But I was not contradicting myself. Privitizing schools does not neccessarily entail parental funding. Do look into charter schools for an example of privatization which doesn't change the funding system at all. Lots of government services have been privatized without changing the funding system (for better or worse.)

Aaron

Probably "privatise" isn't quite the right term, without the word "partial" in front of it, but all that's an aside anyway.

We have exactly the same charter system here (the unfortunate side-effect of which has meant an explosion in the number of Catholic schools) but one thing all of the changes and economic reforms have shown is that lower-decile schools need more help, not just the same. I'll just give one example, but the situation is reflected here nationally.

My 7 year-old daughter's decile 10 school raises $30-40,000 per year from parental fundraising.

Equidistant from my house is a decile 1 school which raised $2600 last year from parental fundraising.

Given that the funds raised are used for purchase of sporting equipment and classroom resources, without additional help from government low-decile schools would be a lot worse than they are. Now, I realise that NZ isn't USA, but the same socio-economic problems exist in both countries, so I'd be surprised if the same educational ones didn't exist as well.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Probably "privatise" isn't quite the right term, without the word "partial" in front of it, but all that's an aside anyway.

That's a fair critism. I will accept it. My only defense is that the funding mechanism I would have is both A) uniform accross geography and B) very nearly completely free-market unlike the charter school system. But since I didn't bring that up, I'll take the rebuke.

We have exactly the same charter system here (the unfortunate side-effect of which has meant an explosion in the number of Catholic schools) but one thing

Interesting, but then it wouldn't be "exactly the same" as our charter schools cannot be religious.

all of the changes and economic reforms have shown is that lower-decile schools need more help, not just the same. I'll just give one example, but the situation is reflected here nationally.

I don't know how NZ funds its schools. But in the states it's typically from local property taxes. "The same" would beat the stuffing out of the status quo. I will consider your belief that even same isn't good enough as simply a difference of oppinion that I think can be reasonably held.

Aaron

 

[Rob Lister]

Well, so much for the MW discussion.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Well, so much for the MW...

Really?!? Yay!

...discussion.

Oh, nevermind.

Aaron

 

[The Atheist]

Well, so much for the MW discussion.

Yeah, I know!

But, it is quite closely related to the OP, because many of the same rules apply, and it's a classic example of why free market forces cannot be universally applied, unless we give up on the social framework we work under in developed countries.

We insist that children be given the right to good education, yet we can't seem to insist that those same children's parents have the right to earn a guaranteed, acceptable minimum wage.

Look, I'm the first guy to shout out about the "poor" people who go to foodbanks because they've spent the grocery money on drugs, booze or cigarettes, but if we want to break that cycle, then we need to support the ones who don't abuse the system, but who do try to raise good, honest children while being economically deprived.

The problem, as always, is separating the piss-takers from the truly deserving.

 

[Rob Lister]

Yeah, I know!

But, it is quite closely related to the OP

no, it is not. It is a diversion, unintentional I'm sure, but a diversion nonetheless.

raising MW is the issue, not teacher salaries. While relationships exist amonst the two, relationships exist amongst any other two you might wish to choose.

MW is the issue. Be there or be square.

As previously stated, I'll all for it it, but only because I know that the market will self-correct to make it meaningless. Sure, it will cause some economic slowdown, some increased unemployment, more under-the-table cheating, some inflation, etc, but the market will correct for it nicely because at least congress had the foresight to phase in the increase slowly.

If it feels good, and does no real harm, do it.

 

[The Atheist]

Interesting, but then it wouldn't be "exactly the same" as our charter schools cannot be religious.

Good point, the funding's done the same way, but somewhat surprisingly for a completely secular country, we allow this anomaly to exist. The reason behind it is that letting the RCs build their own schools saves the government having to pay for the capital costs involved and our government has very tight purse-strings!

There are only a very small handful of non-christian private and chartered schools here - economy of scale is the main reason - there just isn't the demand to encourage that kind of investment, apart from by churches and as we all know, churches love money, so have plenty of it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Look, I'm the first guy to shout out about the "poor" people who go to foodbanks because they've spent the grocery money on drugs, booze or cigarettes, but if we want to break that cycle, then we need to support the ones who don't abuse the system, but who do try to raise good, honest children while being economically deprived.

That's actually already a lot easier to do than is commonly believed. In fact, all it really takes to break free from multi-generational poverty is following some basic rules:

1) Don't do drugs or abuse alcohol
2) Don't commit crimes
3) Don't get married before you're 20
4) Don't have kids before you're married

Almost nobody who follows these four simple rules stays in poverty in this country, and almost everyone who remains in poverty broke one or more of those rules.