Full disclosure: I weirdly strongly agree. I work in finance but I'm a really good teacher, I tutor, I did youth work before I turned 30, I hope to return to it one day. I should be a (socially useful) teacher.,

That said, society has decided that teaching is worthless.

No one says that out loud. But it's 100% what we have decided as a society. That decision has been in place since I was in school in the 90s. Its spanned administrations, economic conditions, booms and busts.

If we gave a shit about education, we'd fund it. But we don't. Everyone agrees its vitally important, until it's time to pay 1% more tax so a school can have a working fire alarm.

I feel like the author is blaming macdonalds employees for the fact no one is ordering salad. But on a national scale. Why not just be honest and say it: people want Ez credit and low taxes and if their kids come home with lead poisoning from the school paint, they're OK with that. We'll, not ok with it, but not willing to pay a dime to prevent it...

Its not Harvards fault or the fault of the "best and brightest" that we don't want the things we're meant to want.

Expecting the best and brightest to throw their lives away and work shitty jobs because it would be nice is pretty fucking rich and cheap

the US already spends a tremendous amount of money on education. the overall spending per-student is comparable to that of western european countries, and poorer US cities tend to spend even more, interestingly enough. maybe people don't want to spend 1% more because they just don't believe they'll get much for it.

as for teacher salary, someone with a bachelor's and no other certifications would start at around $50k in my (poor, east coast) city, which is roughly the median household income. this is not much less than tech startups will offer new CS grads in the area. city public school teachers can make over $100k by the end of their careers. certainly not enough to live like a king, but that puts them at about the 80th percentile for household income here. imo, that's pretty good for a public employee.

How do we square "teachers get paid pretty well actually" with "teachers have to buy student supplies out of their own pocket"? Is this happening simultaneously in the same school districts? Or is there a bimodal distribution of resources to school districts?

Do you have a source for poorer cities spending more on education? I’d like to read up on that

If someone has a terrible diet and doesn't exercise, it probably doesn't mean that they don't value their health, but that neuroses and overwhelming temptations have resulted in behaviour that has an adverse effect on their own wellbeing.

Conversely, they could spend a lot of money on fitness gadgets and instructors but never have the genuine motivation to get healthy and therefore fail despite the spending.

Does the same not apply to the things that individuals in society are collectively willing to spend money on? From this perspective you might describe Scandinavian countries as less neurotic, in that they willingly part with larger chunks of their income to go towards state-funded education and public services, and at the same time have a genuine conviction for the most part that this is healthy for society.

Society values teaching quite a bit actually. People pay thousands upon thousands for private schools, tutors, and specialized classes.

It's the citizenry that we deem worthless. That's why there's no money in public education.

Yes, that's correct. I should have drawn a line between the two.

But then of course, you're encouraging the exact thing the author objects to: private institutions for people who actually care (and have some cash to prove it)

The implication is that society has the incorrect values.

Or at least that government has the incorrect values which may or may not align with those of society at large (I would argue, not)

Society values education, not necessarily teaching, it seems.

For an outsider looking in at the US, it looks like they do not really value teachers (compared to professors) much. Not by the economic measure at least.

That is almost right. Society has decided that, on average [or median if you prefer], every job is worthless. Income inequality is skyrocketing between automation, globalization and capital gains. The only jobs that are not worthless are top 10% jobs that increase the inequality gradient, mainly finance or automation.

They are talking about finance, but the same could be said of the computer field.

I would say just a limited number of software engineers work on projects that significantly benefit society.

Seriously, a computer-controlled toilet could be measurably more beneficial to society than most phone applications.

The application of AI to self-driving cars is way more meaningful than applying it (in a negative fashion) to purchasing preferences.

sometimes I spend a long time researching shoes online. What can I say, good shoes are crucial when you live in the mountains. Do I want to waste my time on this task? No. Please sign me up for an algorithm that can assist in this purchasing decision. That way I can spend that time doing more important work. Thank you.

There’s no money in that algorithm. Now a shoe with geolocation and audio capture, sending back real time info about who you are and your daily environment... now we’re talking!