> Suggesting [x], is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
The root parent shared a values-based opinion with no objective support.
Your parent asked for an explanation of the circular conclusion.
Since that isn't accurate (lobbying can be dangerous) there wasn't anything substantial to respond to.
- Lobbying can be dangerous
Those two things are orthogonal. Lobbying is not "an opinion". Lobbying is an attempt to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of government officials. An opinion is just what someone thinks about someone. It is possible to lobby your government official to get them to support your position, but that doesn't make them the same thing.
At face value, it really sounds like you're accusing people of thought-crimes for having an opinion (e.g. firefighters are overpaid/underpaid/fairly-paid).
> (lobbying can be dangerous)
And if you think that firefighters are underpaid, then couldn't lobbying (i.e. firefighter unions) possibly produce "good" outcomes? Can someone call that outcome dangerous? This really boils down to you making a value judgment AGAINST lowering firefighter pay. That's what the grandparent comment said and other commenters asked for the reasoning.
Now, for a person to have an opinion is fine. But this is a partisan organization, devoted to pushing an agenda and spread it to the public opinion. If they were to succeed, teachers would see their salaries effectively cut.
Why would someone with a math background take $40k to teach a bunch of kids math when they can learn a bit of python and make $140k doing data science? Some do, but outside of rare exceptions, you aren't going to get the best talent.
You also end up with teachers who can't be bothered to learn how the subject is used in the real world. I barely put effort into learning matrices or complex numbers in high school.
"You just have to learn it, There aren't any practical uses for it" said my highschool algebra teacher told me when I asked what these are used for.
Do they actually have different qualifications? Each of them has to be trained for a teaching job and, er, remember most of their school program?
In the same vein instructor at the bootcamp is someone who's good at motivational shouting and in all likelihood isn't missing opportunities to serve as a commando.
The fact that all teachers are trained the same is a big problem. Personally I am fan of not having "trained teachers" for anything beyond grade school
After that we should be using subject matter experts
No we should be using teachers, people trained to effectively communicate and teach concepts of a subject.
A subject matter expert can be an expert in a subject but terrible at communicating and teaching that concept. Knowing that concept is not equivalent to effective communication. This is analogous to Great Software engineers becoming mangers with no managing talent whatsoever.
I hope even the dumbest 20% of people can understand that $40k per year is not sufficient pay for almost everywhere in the country, much less Baltimore.
But it is possible for firefighters or teachers or anyone to be overpaid. I have even seen it where the firefighters union (and police unions) have captured local government, and captured DB pensions worth millions of dollars where they walk away at age 45 with a $100k+ per year annuity for the rest of their life.
When I read a comment like this, I'm reminded of how much of a bubble HN is. $40k a year is higher than the median personal income of the US, which is higher than the median personal income of Baltimore.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
https://datacommons.org/place/geoId/2404000?utm_medium=explo...
Also, a better comparison would be to median income of people of working age working in roles with the work and responsibilities of teachers, or the type of work that our ideal teachers are doing instead of teaching, because the pay is so meager.
Rent, auto insurance, food, mobile, retirement savings, clothing, healthcare, taxes, emergency savings. There is no way to fit that all in $40k.
Which I assume must be evident to anyone that has had to pay bills.
Anecdotally, it is eminently possible to live a modest life on $40k. I know several people that do, and would have no trouble doing so myself if I needed to based on my actual expenses. The idea that Americans can't live on $40k is out of touch with reality; in many parts of the US that is considered a pretty good wage.
You'll live in a small house or suitable apartment, you'll cook at home almost all the time using inexpensive ingredients, and you'll take inexpensive vacations. You won't have any fancy stuff, aside from one or two special "nice" things, and the stuff you do have you'll use for as long as it is feasible to do so. The most challenging expense will be transportation, because you'll rely on your car and cars are prone to significant random and variable expenses.
Savings won't be enough to cover retirement but you will have a modest amount, you'll mostly be relying on Social Security. Even poor people often have a very modest amount of savings. I know a single mother who amassed $20k savings on a $30k income just by saving for many years.
The ugly part, and one of the main reasons I would not recommend raising a family this way even though I know how, is the social consequences because it comes with a lot of class signals. People in this class are often treated quite shabbily by people that live in the expensive coastal cities, which will impact your kids.
>insufficient pay for a full time career, much less one that requires working far more than 40 hours per week, and take on huge liability working with kids which likely do not have supportive home lives.
There are plenty of other $40k jobs that let you be a desk jockey and browse HN while you work 4 hours per day.