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.