Paying teachers @ $3/hr like a babysitter would give them salaries of $105,000/year.

[eridani]

Are you sick of highly-paid teachers?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/22/948224/-Are-you-sick-of-highly-paid-teachers

That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and planning -- that equals 6-1/2 hours).
So each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585 a day.

However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

LET'S SEE....

That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).

[indie9197]

1. I understand the point you are trying to make

but equating teachers to babysitters is insulting. I only have two kids but the majority of their teachers have been a lot better than babysitters.

[eridani]

2. I think it's a great way to turn the tables on conservatives who spout this stuff n/t

[elleng]

3. Yes it is a great way to 'turn the tables,'

and a good lesson in 'economics.'
Thanks

[LWolf]

10. It is insulting, but that's the point.

That's exactly how we are treated by many.

We're treated that way, but not paid that way. And since we are NOT babysitters, we should be paid like the professionals we are.

[EconGreen]

4. Don't like this math

There's no question that teachers are unequivocally underpaid; anyone arguing that point is being intentionally obtuse in my mind.

That said, this math shows nothing concrete and we can certainly find more convincing evidence. I understand that the idea is to make it as simple as possible so that everyone can see clearly how badly we need to raise teachers' salaries, but we can't be disingenuous to do it.

This math completely disregards the idea that the teacher paradigm basically faces an equivalent idea to decreasing returns to scale (I mean this in the sense that doubling the amount of students a teacher is responsible less than doubles his/her time/effort requirement). Stating that a teacher should be paid double for teaching 30 students as opposed to 15 is not an accurate depiction of what the job entails (in general). Maybe this type dynamic is accurate for special needs classes or really young grades where the majority of the job is direct teacher/student interactions. But as the students get older and actual lectures become an increasingly central aspect of the job, using a constant valuation system really doesn't work.

Again, not disputing the result, just questioning the proof.

[eridani]

5. Asuming each kid in the class had different parents,

--those parents would have had to pony up $3/hr each for a babysitter.

[EconGreen]

6. Sure

I get that was the premise of the exercise. My point is, this is only looking at one side of the equation. If we see that a babysitter earns $3 and hour, it means this is the equilibrium price resulting in the babysitting market (in a very simplified context). But that market it predicated around one on one personal contact, a dynamic which does not exist in most classroom settings. The point is, just because parents are willing to pay $3 an hour doesn't mean that this is the optimal price for a teacher to receive per student. These are fundamentally different markets and a comparison made on direct incomes is incomplete at best.

That is one argument to make. A much more straightforward critique is that baby sitters are generally not responsible for any other costs during care; most all babysitting is done in the child's home. If the child is bored, he/she plays with his/her own toys. If the child is hungry, he/she eats the parents food. If it is raining, he/she maintains refuge under his/her parents' roof. Virtually no situations arise where the babysitter is responsible to pay any portion of their income to care for the child. This dynamic does not exist in classrooms. A portion of the student's tuition needs to be paid to food, buildings, playgrounds, supplies, etc. If we accept the argument that parents should be paying $3 an hour for their child's schooling, the dynamic of this setting dictates that the teacher only receive a portion of it. The rest is required to provide all the objects necessary for the learning environment.

Either way you consider it, the math doesn't work here.

[eridani]

7. You're missing the entire point of the exercise

--which is that it's idiotic to accept the conservative assertion that teaching is just like babysitting.

[EconGreen]

8. No, I'm not

I understand that it's an entirely idiotic proposition in every sense. The point I'm making is that we need to be better than resorting to idiotic retorts. The claim that teachers are just babysitters is utterly nonsensical on it's face and requires very little effort to entirely disprove. My point is that we should not need to resort to faux math in the hopes of tricking lesser minds to think they have made a logical inconsistency. We should be able to prove that outright. Again, I'm not arguing with the conclusion, but I don't accept a false proof to show it.

Republicans' stupidity does not excuse our being disingenuous. We are better than that!

[AnneD]

9. I understand your point...

I really do. Some of the best advice I ever got was KIS-keep it simple. Part of the problem that most democratic arguments have is they get bogged down in the minutia of facts. The GOP in their simple mindedness always sound like they have a straightforward message. While it isn't true-there it is and we have to deal with it. This is such an elegantly simple argument that the simple mind has trouble refuting it. Save the facts for the policy makers, this is an argument that gives folks pause to think, even GOP.

[femmocrat]

11. Wow! I teach 800 students in 4 buildings.

Move over, Warren Buffett!

[Jefferson23]

12. Ha ha...great OP!

lol@ I am not going to pay them for any vacations.

K&R