The biggest sham in public education is this idea of "a teacher's salary" as if an english teacher is equivalent to a math or chemistry teacher. While we can go for hours about the intangible values present in all subjects #allsubjectsmatter, the reality is that someone qualified to be a STEM teacher is accepting a loss in opportunity cost in our current system.

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.

Not everyone is optimizing for the maximum amount of dollars they can squeeze out of an hour of work. Plenty of people would be happy to make less, e.g. a dual-income couple, someone right out of college who needs resume experience, someone who's semi-retired and likes to work with kids, someone who doesn't exactly need the money but wants the benefits, and so on.

We need good teachers for every subject for every student. That means paying them wages that are competitive with their other options. We are not going to meet national demand by relying on people who are "happy to make less, e.g. a dual-income couple, someone right out of college who needs resume experience, someone who's semi-retired and likes to work with kids, someone who doesn't exactly need the money but wants the benefits,"

If sufficient teachers were willing to do the work for current pay, then we would not be seeing 30 kids in a classroom.

What number of kids per class are the current policies aiming for?

> english teacher is equivalent to a math or chemistry teacher

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 they dont is another big problem with public schooling.

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

> 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.

They might succeed, but that is the price of freedom of speech. The good people in society need to work to oppose these organizations, and use the same transparent data to make the opposite case.

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.

> 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.

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...

I know that, and I think it is 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.

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.

I think that's a reasonable view, but what I found more questionable was why you would think that it is so obvious that even the dumbest 20% should share agreement with you.

A cursory knowledge of living expenses?

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.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks those expenses individually based on what people actually spend for each decile of the population and came to a different conclusion.

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.

What kind of life does $40k/yr buy you? Kids? Vacations? Hobbies? Medical, dental, vision insurance? Retirement?

It depends on where you live, but if the household only has a single $40k income they would likely be lower-middle class in most of the country. I know people that are raising kids on that, though I wouldn't recommend it. It would only work in a very high cost-of-living area if you were single, though if you have kids you'll receive significant government subsidies. It will only support a simple and unambitious lifestyle but it won't be terrible by any means.

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.

Thanks for spelling out why I think it should be obvious that $40k is

>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.

I've lived on less. It's worse than being rich but not really that hard. Especially so when it comes with excellent benefits.

was that after 2000 with student loans? My first few jobs after college where under $40, I think my first year in software I made 42K USD but my rent was $300 and i had no kids. 1996

Is the median wage a living wage?

It's Forbes though. The magazine is designed to cater to those who were born on third base and are convinced they hit a triple to get there.

I went to a private, Catholic high school. The teachers were paid less that public schools because some felt a calling to it, there's more autonomy and less BS than a public school, and parents were more engaged. 1/3 of students weren't Catholic; they were there for the academics.

They didn’t need the money?