Economics Questions

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

John James — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:22:54 GMT

William Green:
John: If my main argument is demonstrably false, as you say, please show me how.

I actually have to show you how teaching is different from occupations in the competitive sector? Seriously? You basically admitted the only reason you're even suggesting it is the same as virtually every other profession is because you're desperately looking for any possible way to justify your illegitimate salary.

All I see is your question about my statement of all wages being inflated, which I have already qualified.

Please show me specifically where you demonstrated that "nearly all professions" have an inflated wage. Again, please explain how that is possible...as in, how can nearly every single actor in the economy be making "more than he should be."

Whether it is possible that all wages could ever decrease, I don't know. I am not sure they could not. In fact, I think it is reasonable to expect the general price level to decrease in a pure free market, and this would include wages.

Well I would hope you would believe that. Because of course if you didn't, you would face a daunting task of having to explain how nearly all wages could be currently all above where they should be (all at the same time), but for some reason the opposite couldn't be possible.

If this whole argument is being made in nominal terms, then I suppose there might be a way one could feasibly work it out...but then again, I have no idea what relevance nominal wage has when the subject of the conversation is the overall health of the economy.

As far as Rothbards argument, I reproduce it here:...

So when Rothbard used the word "martyr" he was actually talking about literally dying for what you believe...not switching occupations, as you used the term. Why am I not surprised you stretched his hyperbole to include yourself...that you would actually consider simply looking for other employment on the same level as committing suicide for your principles.

My argument is teaching fits in the acceptable category outlined by Rothbard.

No it isn't. You resurrected this 8 month old thread because you had "an interest in justifying your inflated salary."

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

William Green — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:16:32 GMT

Sorry, James. I wasn't agreeing with you, but and earlier post. And nor was I playing. Why is it that these types of forums always become depositories for snyde remarks and sarcasm?

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

William Green — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 00:00:06 GMT

John: If my main argument is demonstrably false, as you say, please show me how. That is why I posted in the first place. I'd like to hear legitimate cirtiques of my argument. Unfortunately, I have not heard one yet. I undertsand your hosility and curtness, but I would appreciate a real answer.

All I see is your question about my statement of all wages being inflated, which I have already qualified. Quite frankly, I don't see how you can deny that the most if not all of the professions have inflated wages for the same reason teachers do. And by profession, I mean what might be called the "learned professions": doctors, lawers, engineers, scientists, etc.

The union issue is equally forceful in my argument. teachers are unionized, and this likely results in a large portion of the wage inflation, but this is also true of any other unionized vocation: electricians, carpenters, masons, health care workers, auto workers, pipe fitters...

I would appreciate hearing your argument against this.

It is the wages of these fields which are inflated. If licensure and unionization were abolished, it seems to me wages in all of these fields would decrease.

Whether it is possible that all wages could ever decrease, I don't know. I am not sure they could not. In fact, I think it is reasonable to expect the general price level to decrease in a pure free market, and this would include wages.

It also seems the average wage could decrease if the standard of living decreased over time, as might happen after some major economic or natural calamity, but of course that is irrelevant here. I would appreciate hearing your argument against this as well, though I'm not sure it's essential to my argument.

As far as Rothbards argument, I reproduce it here:

What about working as a government employee? It is true that, other things being equal, it is far better, on libertarian as well as pragmatic grounds, to work for a private employer rather than government. But suppose that the government has monopolized, or virtually monopolized, your occupation, so that there is no practical alternative to working for the government?

Take, for example, the Soviet Union, where the government has, in effect, nationalized all occupations, and where there are no, or virtually no, private employers. Are we to condemn all Russians whatsoever as "criminals" because they are government employees? Is it the only moral act of every Russian to commit suicide? But that would be idiotic. Surely there are no moral systems that require people to be martyrs.

But the United States, while scarcely as far gone as Russia, has had many occupations virtually monopolized by the government. It is impossible to practice medicine without becoming part of a highly regulated and cartelized profession. If one's vocation is university teaching, it is almost impossible to find a university that is not owned, economically if not legally, by the government. If one's criterion of government ownership is the receipt of over 50% of one's income from the government, then there are virtually no universities, and only one or two small colleges, that can be called "private." During the riots of the late 1960's, students at Columbia discovered that far more than 50% of the income of that allegedly "private" university came from the government. In such a situation, it is foolish and sectarian to condemn teachers for being located in a government university.

There is nothing wrong, and everything rational, then, about accepting the matrix in one's daily life. What's wrong is working to aggravate, to add to, the statist matrix. To give an example from my own career. For many years I taught at a "private" university (although I would not be surprised to find that more than half its income came from the government). The university has long teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, and years ago it tried to correct that condition by getting itself "statized" through merging with the State University of New York system, in those halcyon days rolling in dough. For a while, it looked as if this merger would occur, and there was a great deal of pressure on every member of the faculty to show up in Albany and lobby for merger into the State system. This I refused to do, since I believed it to be immoral to agitate to add to the statism around me.

Does that mean that all libertarians can cheerfully work for the government, apart from not lobbying for statism, and forget about conscience in this area? Certainly not. For here it is vital to distinguish between two kinds of State activities: (a) those actions that would be perfectly legitimate if performed by private firms on the market; and (b) those actions that are per se immoral and criminal, and that would be illicit in a libertarian society. The latter must not be performed by libertarians in any circumstances. Thus, a libertarian must not be: a concentration camp director or guard; an official of the IRS; an official of the Selective Service System; or a controller or regulator of society or the economy.

My argument is teaching fits in the acceptable category outlined by Rothbard. The "professional" world of this country has effectively been monopolized by the State and/or distorted by regulations, licensure, and unionization.

Again, I understand that public school teachers are public employees, and clearly outside the private sector, while other professionals may be (nominally?) within the private sector. However, in light of Rothbard's argument above, and in light of the consideration that the wage inflation issue is no different for teachers tahn any of these (quasi-)private professional positions, It seems to me my position may be no worse.

And again, I am open to alternative views. In fact, as I have already stated, my historical view has been that my position IS worse. It is only very recently that I have begun to explore this new idea.

I am not afraid of admitting my position is worse. I have lived with the thougt for many years already (as I look for a way out of public teaching). I come to these forums for genuine input. I've no interest in making excuses. Nor have I interest in argument for arguments sake or rhetorical battles.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

John James — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:44:50 GMT

John James:
William Green:
my entire argument is that teaching is no different than any professional or unionized field.
And my argument is that that is demonstrably false. [...] You have made it quite obvious you do have a real problem with the illegitimate position you hold and are reaching for any justification you possibly can.
William Green:
I agree.

Great. Thanks for playing.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

William Green — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 22:53:28 GMT

I agree. The system is in a shambles, largely because education cannot be systematized and standardized. People cannot be systematized and standardized. And it has been getting worse over time. Ask any veteran high school teacher and they will tell you. College professors say the same. Part of teh issue here, of course, is the lowering of standards and incorporation of bogus educational philosophies, but even the first public schools were worse than the alternative--individual choice in education. Unfortunately, the current trend is toward increasing standardization and centralized control of the schools, curriculum, and assessment.

Education per se, however, is very important and highly correlated with success, I think (I am speaking of education in a Nockian sense, I am not equating education with our present system). My children are homeschooled and have received a great education, in my biased opinion, but I do not doubt that there are private schools (and even a few public schools) that also do a good job for many students. And I am sure that if it were all released from gov. control, many new kinds of schools and alternatives would arise that would improve education for all simply because they would be more personalized and more diverse so that more ideas could be tried. Some students would not go to school at all and would be better off for it. Some might opt for apprenticeships or other non-school alternatives. Some would educate themselves. Many, however, would choose some sort of school or formalized program, I think. Thsi is evidenced within the homeschool community where unschooling and less formal programs represnet the minority. Many kids seem to do better with a more formalized approach. I used to feel that less structure was better, but I don't think that is true for most kids.

In addition, I wonder if the structure of modern society hasn't made specialized and technical training more important than it ever was in the past. In other words, it used to be one could just watch his Dad make nails and be bale to make a living. Things are no longer so simple, I think. I am as big a fan of Gatto as anyone, but say what we will about formal educational programs, I think they fill a need and have a role to play in society.

I used to be into "constructivism" in eduacation--where the teacher tries to help the students discover concepts for themselves--construct their own understandings (John Dewey style). Aside from the fact this is difficult when teaching the structure of the atom, I have been thinking that old fashioned chalk and talk is often more effective and efficient. This of course varies with the student, as always.

Just thinking out loud. Sorry.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

John James — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 22:25:42 GMT

William Green:
my entire argument is that teaching is no different than any professional or unionized field.

And my argument is that that is demonstrably false. In more ways than most people can imagine. And I would think as someone actually in that field you of all people would know that. But then again, you're the one trying to justify your position, so...ya know.

My main point was they are all equivalent.

Again, whatever helps you sleep.

And in fact, even many non-professional and non-unionized fields are in the same boat. Construction companies, day cares, restaurants are all under state certification and regulation that greatly distorts their wages.

So let's recap. Inflated salaries and benefits are "common to nearly all professions", and a teacher's relative pay (inflated), benefits, required work, required work experience, job security, and power over their employer is "no different than any professional or unionized field" and "even many non-professional and non-unionized fields are in the same boat."

I'm gonna ask you again: How can the wage rate be inflated in "nearly all professions"?

And yet I think Rothbard's argument was sound: that in a world in which the State essentially has a hand in everything, we cannot be morally accountable for being involved in such a job. I am not sure it is necessary for all libertarian to inhabit the small realm of the non-regulated economy or black market. I am open to this possibility, I am just not sure it is necessary.

Did Rothbard say "the wage rate is inflated in nearly all professions, and therefore all professions are basically the same in terms of their illegitimate postion?" You have made it quite obvious you do have a real problem with the illegitimate position you hold and are reaching for any justification you possibly can.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

William Green — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 22:07:06 GMT

John: Education is a competititve market. Not all would-be teachers get hired, and jobs at good schools are very competitive. Granted, teacher pay is not merit based, but that is true of any unionized field. As far as other jobs being "life," while teaching is not, again, my entire argument is that teaching is no different than any professional or unionized field. Maybe no such jobs are morally permissible to the libertarian. My main point was they are all equivalent. And in fact, even many non-professional and non-unionized fields are in the same boat. Construction companies, day cares, restaurants are all under state certification and regulation that greatly distorts their wages.

And yet I think Rothbard's argument was sound: that in a world in which the State essentially has a hand in everything, we cannot be morally accountable for being involved in such a job. I am not sure it is necessary for all libertarian to inhabit the small realm of the non-regulated economy or black market. I am open to this possibility, I am just not sure it is necessary.

As far as all wages falling, I mean those of affected fields. What would happen to wages in general if all of these controls were removed. I believe the wages in all of these fields would all fall. That is, they are currently all inflated relative to nonregulated vocations. If the controls were removed, there would instantly be more competition since the regs keep many potential competitors out.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

William Green — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 21:54:36 GMT

Sieben: I agree. I don't believe teachers ahve any special importance.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

Esuric — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 07:40:44 GMT

Or more specifically, a teacher one standard deviation above the mean effectiveness annually generates marginal gains of over $400,000 in present value of student future earnings with a class size of 20 and proportionately higher with larger class sizes.

How do they define "good teacher?" Is a "good teacher" one whose students eventually become wealthy? Did those students become wealthy because of that teacher? It implicitly assumes that there's a direct causal relationship between the material taught to students (in our government school systems) and their future financial performance. This is a ridiculous assumption to make.

Either way, too much emphasis is placed on education, and this is especially true in our system, where the material is either incorrect or entirely superfluous, and where teachers merely prepare students for test taking. I see no reason to believe that there's any sort of relationship between education (especially at the high school and middle school level), on the one hand, and financial success.

In other words, I seriously doubt that Bill Gate's owes much to his 8th grade history teacher, who taught him that the great depression was caused by capitalism, and that FDR "saved capitalism from itself." The wealthy people I know are entirely uneducated.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

John James — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:47:13 GMT

Sieben:
Well I'm saying teachers aren't super important just because they have a non-marginal (i.e. meaningless) productivity of 4.5 million. Lots of things do and that doesn't mean they're super important. Teachers just get this "free pass" like they're super essential to the nation. Don't think so man.

Any moral immigration policy would drop all wages, especially those of low-level professionals drastically. Dunno what real wages and equilibrium would be though. Don't care.

And one could easily argue "teachers" fit into that "low-level professionals" category. Especially when they can get university level degrees and teach high school without even being able to read.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

Sieben — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:28:41 GMT

Well I'm saying teachers aren't super important just because they have a non-marginal (i.e. meaningless) productivity of 4.5 million. Lots of things do and that doesn't mean they're super important. Teachers just get this "free pass" like they're super essential to the nation. Don't think so man.

Any moral immigration policy would drop all wages, especially those of low-level professionals drastically. Dunno what real wages and equilibrium would be though. Don't care.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

John James — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 03:10:35 GMT

William Green:
this is comforting to me because in the past I have have struggled with feeling that my position as a teacher was more immoral and/or more avoidable than theirs.

Great, so basically you've come to be able to justify your unfair position by simply saying "Hey. Other people are doing it too." Whatever works for you, I guess.

My new view is that the inflation of teachers salaries is not a special case, but a common to nearly all professions.

How can the wage rate be inflated in "nearly all professions"?

I suppose I could be a martyr, as Rothbard calls it, and find a job the market for which the state has not distorted, but here I am persuaded by Rothbard that I needn't play the martyr.

Oh yes, actually getting a job in the competitive sector is being a "martyr". Some people just call that "life".

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

William Green — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 02:14:11 GMT

John: I undertsand your confusion. That was in fact my only point--that my position is no worse than theirs. It may seem strange, but this is comforting to me because in the past I have have struggled with feeling that my position as a teacher was more immoral and/or more avoidable than theirs. My new view is that the inflation of teachers salaries is not a special case, but a common to nearly all professions. I just wanted input on that point.

I still believe my wage is inflated. I still bemoan having to live in a state run world. And of course, I am ashamed of my whiney and vocally statist and unionized peers.

I suppose I could be a martyr, as Rothbard calls it, and find a job the market for which the state has not distorted, but here I am persuaded by Rothbard that I needn't play the martyr.

In a free market, I would likely still find a job as a teacher, and there is no telling what my real wage might be. My guess is all real wages would be much higher in a truly free market.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

John James — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 02:01:47 GMT

William Green I fail to see how any of that justifies your inflated wage, as you claim to "have an interest" in doing. Basically the best you've done is said "well...uh...what about those guys? They have unfair wages too."

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not exactly moved.

Re: How much is a teacher worth?

William Green — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 01:40:18 GMT

Sieben:

I'm sorry. I don't follow you. It seems you are referring to the diamond/water paradox, but I don't see how that relates to my argument. There is a reason there is a shortage of teachers, even in private schools. Whether there are enough people in the world who "could" do the job (however you determine that) seems irrelevent. There are no doubt hundreds of millions that "could" be engineers or even doctors, and of course, lawyers. In fact, it is quite an easy thing to be a college professor. I've tried it. It's easier than teaching high school.

There is a market for teachers, however distorted. And the market determines the price. My district would love to pay the teachers less. Why can't they?

I do believe the wages for certified teachers are inflated, but I believe this is priimarily due to the certification and unionization, and so it is an effect common to the professions in genral, and not unique to teachers. That was my main point.