So I recently witnessed an online discussion that badly munged two separate issues. Why do we undervalue teachers (in the sense of a paycheck) and why do we vilify the wealthy and famous for not being teachers.
To start with the wealthy, the vilification exists because we like to think that we exist in a meritocracy.The wealthy invariably don’t make their millions by a process that enriches society. It is done by taking from society. They are an aberration in the illusion of the meritocracy. They are usually seen because they have voice not because they have something to say. Their are many great thinkers, statesmen, and artists who truly have something to say, but since distribution is essentially controlled through advertisement the people with voices are not those great men and women. They are the ones who gained corporate sponsorship, these are the ones who are competent, but more importantly, don’t raise waves. The corporate sponsorship give them voice but not something to say.
One point of view in this argument is that they then ply their money to charitable causes. I have no idea about the validity of this argument, it may be true, it may be a fallacy. But even if I concede the point I’m not sure why we assume their qualified to do so. You’ve just assigned these actors, athletes and musicians the task to taking money from one group and giving it to the other (minus their slice, minus their corporate sponsors slice).
Now if the government did this (more than it already does, because it does a lot of this) various factions would be upset. Yet it seems okay to assume that these celebrities will do this well. There is no oversight or even transparency. I find the argument that the wealthy are sanctioned wealth redistribution center weak. Their materialistic lifestyles no doubt employ a great number of people but we aren’t really talking about trickle down economics.
The wealthy are vilified because they are rewarded incongruously with what they provide to society.
Which leads to the teachers who deemed heroes because their situation is exactly reversed. Their reward is much less than the value the provide society. Education is the leading indicator of wealth. Wealth is in turn an indicator for a wealth of issues (health, criminal behavior, etc.) There are few things that add as much value to our society as education, yet the frontline soldiers are hardly paid above the poverty line.
If you listen to politics you’ll constantly hear demands for accountability for teachers and schools. Probably the only other job that is expected to be as accountable is mutual fund manager. Notice the differences in pay scale between those jobs and I would argue that a skilled teacher generates much greater value for their students than the fund manager does for those that own the fund.
I think we’ve established that the value created by the teacher is great and they aren’t compensated in comparison. And were left with the question of why?
First off and probably most significantly is that the job is considered women’s work. It is a job traditionally held by a woman who’s kids have grown up and started their own household or more recently it is perceived as a job that could be held while your own children are attending school. Jobs that are considered women’s work and as such a supplemental income are always depressed in comparison to the rest of the economy. To be clear this is wrong, but it the origin of the low wages for teachers.
This state of affairs is supported by two factors, first is the cyclical nature of generation sizes since WWII, second is the existence of the idealist.
During the education of the babyboom there was a surplus of women who suddenly had a taste for working outside the house. Teaching was one of the professions that they were easily allowed in to. I’d guess this provided a surplus of teachers which of course kept the price low. The school system coasted until the babyboomers started having kids in the early to mid ’70s.
Luckily idealism was there to pick up the slack. A lot of babyboomers were graduating from college and opting for education as a way to change the world, a continuation of the ’60s revolution. Teaching seemed like an attractive position to these idealists. Summers off and such didn’t hurt. These idealists bolstered the ranks for the kids of the babyboomers.
Fast forward to present and there is no untapped labor pool having trouble getting other jobs, nor is their a large pool of idealists. What there is a 2,000,000 teacher shortfall. This will continue until teachers are paid as other professionals in harmony with their contribution or some other group volunteers to be taken advantage of.
Culture, Media