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.
= new reply since forum marked as read