Worldwide Salaries Comparison

[ERD50]

LG4NB, interesting perspective. I guess I tend to look at things like this in terms of the simple economic models, you are looking at them in a much more philosophical way. I'm not sure the end result is much different though.

I may not convey this well, but that won't keep me from trying . I'm thinking the whole supply/demand thing *is* a reflection of societies values, and maybe the best reflection that we have?

... just because not many people might want to be or even could be a doctor still gives no reason by itself as to why they get paid so much. you can argue supply and demand but, ...

you can argue it is because they have to pay a few $100k for schooling and so therefore they get to charge a few $mm later ...

and that is where the demand side comes back into play. There *is* demand for doctors <insert any high paid profession>, and high 'barriers to entry' (smarts, education, time, $, motivation) - so that leads to high pay.

I get the sense that people miss the supply/demand thing when I see phrases like 'they get to charge....'. It doesn't work that way. I could invest a bunch of time and money in learning some skill that has no demand, and I wouldn't 'get to charge' anything for it. People pay what they need to, for doctors or ditch-diggers.

another system's values might, say, pay for the doctor's schooling and then maybe high prices aren't quite so justified.

Yes, with lower barriers to entry, salaries (on average) would go down. But, there is no free lunch, so since we would be part of the system that paid for the education, it sounds like a circle to me. Unless that system creates *more* doctors, then prices could come down, but that is just supply/demand again.

doing what they just happen to have a talent for and consider that their contribution to this shared society. consider doctors without borders; what is their profit margin?

There are plenty of example in society. Many people take jobs that don't pay well, but they are doing something they love, or something that they feel is very needed and appreciated. 'Total compensation' is certianly not measured only in $'s. Most people give to charities, and don't try to measure the profit margin.

sure, systems spin off secondary values, but it is the primary ones which set up that system of trade in the first place and i suspect they leave telltale signs in salaries of particular careers.

No doubt.

just what is the price of your renoir in a world where only the highest bidder gets to enjoy it privately? what does it say of the value of that system. now what is the price of that very same renoir where nobody gets to bid but instead it is placed in a museum where everyone can enjoy it for free? what does it say of the value of that system?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. Is someone (a gov't?) going to determine who can own private artworks or not? I don't think I'd like that intrusion into my life. Now, if a private collector tried to buy up every renoir in the world so no one else could enjoy them - well, I'd bet museums would be able to raise money to keep them - that would show the value to society. BTW, the Art Institute in Chicago *is* free this whole month - I got there and enjoyed the Renoirs, among others.

capitalism is nothing more than a mirror of a set of values. i know how to live in that mirror but i do not care to be trapped there.

Yes, I agree that capitalism is a mirror. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, and I certainly don't know anything to replace it.

I hope none of this came across as 'argumentative' (seems I can't tell) - I appreciate discussion with people with different views, I need a fresh outlook from time to time.

-ERD50

 

[dumpster56]

The 100K salary is really not a supply and demand thing. The teacher making the 100K had to be there in the position for upwards of 35 to 40 years. The new teacher getting the job will make 40K with less benefits and most likely never staying that many years as a teacher.

 

[lets-retire]

The 100K salary is really not a supply and demand thing. The teacher making the 100K had to be there in the position for upwards of 35 to 40 years. The new teacher getting the job will make 40K with less benefits and most likely never staying that many years as a teacher.

Until teachers stopp trying to be doctors, and prescribe medicines and actually take control of their classromms, like they were in control several year/decades ago they will not receive much sympathy from me. My son is in fourth grade now. HIs kindergarten teacher said, after the first month, "He is very active and needs to be seen by a doctor." She also had issues with most of her other students. His first grade teacher said the same thing. This time we actually took him to his doctor and filled out the questionaire, along with his teacher. The results of the survey, yes he is very active, but not hyperactive so no treatment required. The ironic thing is the teacher's survey results put my son at the lowest activity level of the three survey, so what does that say about her asssessment of her other students and her control of her classroom. His second grade teacher, who also was very experienced, didn't have a probem with him. HIs first thrid grade teacher again wanted him druged and under medical treatment for ADHD. She as a bit shoked when she was informed that he would not be receiving treatment (she wsa not made aware of his last schools attempts to give him drugs). His second third grade teacher didn't have any problems with my son. Most of his fourth grade teachers want him on drugs, again. I find it very interesting that the teachers my son likes the most are the ones who put him in his place. I also find it interesting that the teachers, who CONTROL

 

[lets-retire]

The 100K salary is really not a supply and demand thing. The teacher making the 100K had to be there in the position for upwards of 35 to 40 years. The new teacher getting the job will make 40K with less benefits and most likely never staying that many years as a teacher.

Until teachers stop trying to be doctors, and prescribe medicines and actually take control of their classrooms, like they were in control several year/decades ago they will not receive much sympathy from me. My son is in fourth grade now. His kindergarten teacher said, after the first month, "He is very active and needs to be seen by a doctor." She also had issues with most of her other students. His first grade teacher said the same thing. This time we actually took him to his doctor and filled out the questionnaire, along with his teacher. The results of the survey, yes he is very active, but not hyperactive so no treatment required. The ironic thing is the teacher's survey results put my son at the lowest activity level of the three survey, so what does that say about her assessment of her other students and her control of her classroom. His second grade teacher, who also was very experienced, didn't have a problem with him. His first third grade teacher again wanted him drugged and under medical treatment for ADHD. She as a bit shocked when she was informed that he would not be receiving treatment (she was not made aware of his last schools attempts to give him drugs). His second third grade teacher didn't have any problems with my son. Most of his fourth grade teachers want him on drugs, again. I find it very interesting that the teachers my son likes the most are the ones who put him in his place. I also find it interesting that the teachers, who CONTROL their classrooms are the ones who are able to get him to do the things he is supposed to be doing, with very few problems.

I will be the first to lay into my son when he is doing things he is not supposed to do. When I receive notes from his teachers complaining that he is just playing in class and their response is to simply tell him to do his work instead of taking an appropriate action, to me it sounds like they do not have control of their classrooms. Sorry teachers, but kids are going to try to play. If you cannot stop them from playing, maybe you are in the wrong profession. I can explain to the kid what is appropriate conduct at school , and maybe discipline him when he gets home, but nothing is more effective than actually discipling the child in the classroom, when the inappropriate conduct is occurring.

Think about it a kid gets in trouble at school and their friends see a note go home to their parents. The kid's friends do not see any other negative actions occur, so the kid who's goofing off can say anything they want, about how nothing happened. If the kid is disciplined in class ans well as at home then it shows the other students that they will not get away with goofing off and having nothing happen.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I'm thinking the whole supply/demand thing *is* a reflection of societies values, and maybe the best reflection that we have?

it is a reflection of this particular society's values. it is not a reflection of a society which does not hold as high similar values.

and that is where the demand side comes back into play. There *is* demand for doctors <insert any high paid profession>, and high 'barriers to entry' (smarts, education, time, $, motivation) - so that leads to high pay.

even though demand can justify price within an artificially constructed economic system (as they all are) that does not mean that price is intrinsic to it, but rather price is based upon what we value. that statement was not meant to deny holy supply and demand in omnipresent capitalism. but if you did not value the services of a doctor--say you lived on a world inhabited only by christian scientists--then it would not matter if there was only one doc left on the entire planet for he still would not command much of a salary if no one valued his service.

whereas if the services of a court jester were highly regarded or valued, then the many court jesters might earn more than the few doctors simply because we placed a higher value on laughter than on surgery.

But, there is no free lunch

today's specials on the menu: welfare & inheritance.

 

[travelover]

............. My son is in fourth grade now. His kindergarten teacher said, after the first month, "He is very active and needs to be seen by a doctor." She also had issues with most of her other students. His first grade teacher said the same thing. This time we actually took him to his doctor and filled out the questionnaire, along with his teacher. The results of the survey, yes he is very active, but not hyperactive so no treatment required. The ironic thing is the teacher's survey results put my son at the lowest activity level of the three survey, so what does that say about her assessment of her other students and her control of her classroom. His second grade teacher, who also was very experienced, didn't have a problem with him. His first third grade teacher again wanted him drugged and under medical treatment for ADHD. She as a bit shocked when she was informed that he would not be receiving treatment (she was not made aware of his last schools attempts to give him drugs). His second third grade teacher didn't have any problems with my son. Most of his fourth grade teachers want him on drugs, again. I find it very interesting that the teachers my son likes the most are the ones who put him in his place. I also find it interesting that the teachers, who CONTROL their classrooms are the ones who are able to get him to do the things he is supposed to be doing, with very few problems.
...............

So, every teacher from kindergarten to 4th grade has a problem with your son's behavior and your conclusion is there is nothing wrong with your son - the teachers are all crazy? You may be able to control your son, but I doubt that you could do it with 25 other students to teach, especially within the confines of the allowable discipline actions dictated by the school system.

Sorry, but I think you may be enabling your son's behavior.

 

[armor99]

even your supply side reasoning still speaks to primal values rather than values spun off some economic system. just because not many people might want to be or even could be a doctor still gives no reason by itself as to why they get paid so much.

Ok... I just had to comment on this one. Doctors have to go through 8+ years of schooling and often face $100,000+ of debt the moment that they get out of school. Is it really so wrong (or greedy) to want to be well compensated for that level of effort? If doctors got paid only 30k/year, then who in their right mind would EVER want to go through all of that? People willingly choose what professions to go into. I certainly hope you are not in favor of the govt determining what profession you may enter into, depending on which fields might happen to be lacking at the moment.
Anyone in the US is free to sell their services for as much as they want to. And people are free to accept, or reject those services as they wish. Just because you might think a service is too expensive does not mean that it is. The only thing that determines that a service is too expensive, is when people stop buying it, and the service provider goes out of business. Again... the fact vs. opinion thing. If a baker wants to try to sell cookies for $50 each, then that baker is free to do such a thing in america. More than likely he will not get it, and will go out of business if they try it, but you also have the right to make foolish business decisions in america too. I agree that the prices for medicine are at an all time high in this country, but the only cure to that is not more regulation from the govt, but less. With less regulation comes more competition among doctors, and the quality would go up, and the price would come down. I really am curious though.... if in your opinion it is not supply and demand that is currently determining how much a doctor makes, what exactly do you think determines it?

 

[lets-retire]

So, every teacher from kindergarten to 4th grade has a problem with your son's behavior and your conclusion is there is nothing wrong with your son - the teachers are all crazy? You may be able to control your son, but I doubt that you could do it with 25 other students to teach, especially within the confines of the allowable discipline actions dictated by the school system.

Sorry, but I think you may be enabling your son's behavior.

Re-read what was written. Neither his second grade teacher, nor his second third grade teacher had a problem with his conduct. His kindergarten teacher didn't think the parents talked. Out of the 15 parents we talked to all of them had been pressured to put their kids on drugs, by the teacher. That's pretty impressive, since there were only 23 kids in his class. His first third grade teacher also didn't think the parents talked. During one of the open houses we discovered, out of 30 students, 19 parents seemed to have horrible children. When we went to the school office concerning our kid's behavior the secretary would roll her eyes as soon as she heard who the teacher was, as if to imply the teacher was the issue. I did forget to include his Pre-K teacher, who also didn't have any problems with him.

I try to stay out of the classroom policies, but when he was in kindergarten I had to put my foot down. When my kid was acting up she felt he had extra energy to burn off, so she would let him go outside to play for ten minutes. As soon as I found that out I told her if she did it again I would be filing a formal complaint, because all she was doing is providing positive reinforcement of bad behavior, then complaining that his behavior was bad.

As was written in the first post the teachers having issues with the kid all implied my son needed to be put on drugs. I have become very short with the teachers when they make that implication, since his doctor has recommended strongly against any drugs, even after he was "tested". I would place my faith in the surveys and opinion of the trained medical professionals before I place my trust in the medical advise of a teacher. Did you read the statement that when we did take the kid to be evaluated for treatment for ADHD his teachers survey showed he was less active, then mine and the DW's. The decision to seek an evaluation was made after he received two teachers who had problems with him. The final determination was he is active, but not so much that he needs treatment. So that goes back on the teacher, to control the classroom. As far as enabling he is punished when he steps out of line, however punishment three or four hours later is much less effective. Not too mention when the teacher let him get away with poor behavior time and time again with no negative repercussions and very little positive reinforcement of good behavior, he has no incentive to change his conduct in school.

Do you provide corrective actions to an unhouse broken dog three house after it has soiled your floor. It is a little late for that. The same goes or punishing the kid four or five hours after his gets into trouble at school. Several requests have been made to provide us feed back, both good and bad of his behavior in the classroom. Which has resulted in you kid have played continuously for the last few weeks.... when the last contact we had has been a month or two earlier. The point is if we are not appraised of the problem there is little we can do and if notified as soon as it occurs there is nothing we can do. So the problem is lack of teacher involvement in the kids education. As soon as it is affordable he is leaving the public sector for a better private school.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

armor, half that i already addressed. the other half of what you seem to be saying had nothing to do with what i was talking about. erd50 was questioning my suggestion that careers are rewarded based upon a hierarchy of values which set up certain economic structures of societies.

if you do not believe that doctors receive compensation based on their perceived value to society and based upon how society believes compensation ought to be dispensed, then ask yourself why doctors get their own salutations but garbage men do not. no one is putting garbage men up on pedestals? the esteem placed on doctors has nothing to do with their high salaries?

before they fell out of favor of the tribe, witch doctors used to make a lot of money too.

 

[travelover]

............... As soon as it is affordable he is leaving the public sector for a better private school.

I think that is a good idea. It will allow the other kids in the public school classroom to get their fair share of attention.

I also really hope the change will work for your son.

 

[Khan]

Stated as fact:

I agree that the prices for medicine are at an all time high in this country, but the only cure to that is not more regulation from the govt, but less. With less regulation comes more competition among doctors, and the quality would go up, and the price would come down.

Has this ever been tried?

 

[ERD50]

that statement was not meant to deny holy supply and demand in omnipresent capitalism.

--say you lived on a world inhabited only by christian scientists--then it would not matter if there was only one doc left on the entire planet for he still would not command much of a salary if no one valued his service.

whereas if the services of a court jester were highly regarded or valued, then the many court jesters might earn more than the few doctors simply because we placed a higher value on laughter than on surgery.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it appears to me we are in total agreement - yet you seem to think we are not?

Your CS/doctor example - exactly, there would be no demand, so no high compensation for the doctor.

Your Court Jester example - seems to me we have plenty of entertainers that make more $ than most doctors? So yes, supply/demand impacts this, and both are a reflection of our society's values.

Not too many people aspire to be a garbage collector. It is a necessary but not 'glamorous' job, so that shouldn't be surprising. Sometimes the less glamourous jobs need to offer a relatively higher compensation just to attract people to that job.

it is a reflection of this particular society's values. it is not a reflection of a society which does not hold as high similar values.

No doubt.

I guess what you are saying is not that supply/demand does not reflect our values, but that you think our values are out-of-whack? I won't disagree with that either. And I'll include myself in that.

today's specials on the menu: welfare & inheritance.

OK, maybe a 'free lunch' for the heirs, but not one they had a say in. Debatable for the welfare person (there's a 'price' to pay to be on welfare).

-ERD50

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I don't think salaries are any indication of what 'value' society places on a job.

there we were in disagreement

I'm thinking the whole supply/demand thing *is* a reflection of societies values,

while there we are in agreement.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but it appears to me we are in total agreement - yet you seem to think we are not?

the difference being whether or not you are inside the mirror looking out or outside the mirror looking in.

 

[youbet]

As soon as it is affordable he is leaving the public sector for a better private school.

You should clearly understand the pros and cons of your various alternatives for your son's education. Public schools, private schools and home schooling all have their advantages and disadvantages. And there is significant variation within each category.

Public schools and public school teachers reflect local/state laws, the school board, the people that elect the school board, the administrators the school board hires, the policies the school board sets, the aggregate personality of the parents in the neighborhood, etc. Private schools are all over the map varying from exclusive secular schools for high IQ / rich kiddies to religious fundamentalist (not just Christian right) schools. Home schoolers might be religious fundamentalists, ex-hippy commune dwellers or just extremely independent folks.

If you don't think you can quickly change the situation in the school your son is attending now to your liking, change the school! Don't feel singled out. People move between educational resources all the time as no one school is going to be best for every student.

If cost is an issue, while this is certainly up to you, I put my son's education ahead of retirement savings on my priority list. Frankly, it wasn't even close.

 

[youbet]

I just love the teacher bashing that goes on here. 100K teacher salary, Ok if you taught for 40 years and have a PHD in the public schools in parts of NJ CT and NY yep near 100 K.

Gee, it seems like the teacher pay subject flares up every few months.......

Public sector teacher compensation varies dramatically from place to place. In Illinois, for example, rural school districts generally have low pay and struggle to attract and retain teachers, especially in special ed, math, science and language. High tier Chicago suburbs have high pay and huge stacks of resumes from highly qualified teachers in all subject areas. Frequently, even their substitutes and teachers aids are highly credentialed teachers trying to be hired in that district.

It's hardly a free market. Ultimately, school boards can only pay what the tax payers will allow and can afford, not what the market requires. Non-monetary circumstances such as socio-economic status of the students, amenities available to teachers residing in the area and condition of the infrastructure play big roles. Public sector teachers are frequently organized into unions or associations which not only bargain directly for wages but over the long run determine what salary schedules look like. The salary schedules frequently benefit long tenured teachers at the expense of new teachers making it difficult to recruit. And the unions insist that teachers of all subject areas be paid the same, even if there is a long term surplus of teachers in some subject areas and severe shortages in others.

Anyone can easily give accurate anecdotal examples of under-paid and over-paid teachers. They both exist! People seem so ill informed when they stress one side or the other when both sides are there.

Solutions are going to be complicated and controversial. There will be winners and losers. Funding and managing public education is such a mire it's no wonder private schools and home schooling are so popular.

DW ( a retired special ed teacher now doing some part time compensated and volunteer work) and I worked very hard with our son and DIL to help them pick a suburb/neighborhood with public schools that do a good job and reflect their values. Our oldest grandson has special needs and that was also an important consideration. If we hadn't found what we wanted in the public sector, we would have paid for private schooling, although getting what you want there isn't a slam dunk either.

Bottom line...... lots of variation between and within public and private school systems. Anecdoctal examples of under-compensated and over-compensated teachers exist. You have to be a good shopper and be proactive in getting what you want for your kids.

 

[lets-retire]

youbet--He's actually doing fairly well in school. Where he is having the problems is he finishes his work quickly so he can goof off. Sometimes he goes so fast he makes simple mistakes. If he was goofing off and not doing his work then that would be different issue. I've even tried to get some of his teachers to give him extra work when he is finished with the assignment. Unfortunately they refuse.

 

[youbet]

Unfortunately they refuse.

And refusing may or may not be the right thing for them to do. With 25 or 30 other kids to keep up with, the teacher may not feel that customized assignments can be provided for your son. Or maybe the teacher is just belligerently refusing. Can't tell from here.

In any case, if a private school with a lower student/teacher ratio so your son could receive individualized attention due to his work habits would help, that's what you need to do.

 

[armor99]

Stated as fact:



Has this ever been tried?

There are lots of examples of it.... but here is a simple one. There is very little govt regulation in the electronics industry. Four years ago I bought a 50" DLP tv for around $2300. Now you can get one that has better features, lasts longer, and only costs $1700. How exactly did that happen? Competition among manufacturers drove them to find cheaper ways to manufacture the TV's and to make their products have better features than others. Cell phones are another grat example. A modern cell phone is far superior in every way to the "brick" of decades ago. But the only reason manufacturers pushed for innovation is for more market share.... and why do they care about market share?..... yup.... back to that competition thing again. Without competition no company would feel the need to design newer better products, or find ways to make their producs cheaper either.

 

[ERD50]

the difference being whether or not you are inside the mirror looking out or outside the mirror looking in.

OK - yes, it is all a circular thing I guess. I don't think we can really separate one from the other.

Society may place a high 'value' on something, but if there is a large supply, that 'value' is not realized in $.

Other things we may take for granted, and not consciously place much 'value' on, until it is in short supply (air, water).

-ERD50

 

[Khan]

There are lots of examples of it.... but here is a simple one. There is very little govt regulation in the electronics industry. Four years ago I bought a 50" DLP tv for around $2300. Now you can get one that has better features, lasts longer, and only costs $1700. How exactly did that happen? Competition among manufacturers drove them to find cheaper ways to manufacture the TV's and to make their products have better features than others. Cell phones are another grat example. A modern cell phone is far superior in every way to the "brick" of decades ago. But the only reason manufacturers pushed for innovation is for more market share.... and why do they care about market share?..... yup.... back to that competition thing again. Without competition no company would feel the need to design newer better products, or find ways to make their producs cheaper either.

I meant concerning doctors.

 

[dumpster56]

There are lots of examples of it.... but here is a simple one. There is very little govt regulation in the electronics industry. Four years ago I bought a 50" DLP tv for around $2300. Now you can get one that has better features, lasts longer, and only costs $1700. How exactly did that happen? Competition among manufacturers drove them to find cheaper ways to manufacture the TV's and to make their products have better features than others. Cell phones are another grat example. A modern cell phone is far superior in every way to the "brick" of decades ago. But the only reason manufacturers pushed for innovation is for more market share.... and why do they care about market share?..... yup.... back to that competition thing again. Without competition no company would feel the need to design newer better products, or find ways to make their producs cheaper either.

That is still way too much for a TV.

50 inches? Heck my 27 inch magnavox for 199 bought last year works just fine.

 

[dumpster56]

Gee, it seems like the teacher pay subject flares up every few months.......

Public sector teacher compensation varies dramatically from place to place. In Illinois, for example, rural school districts generally have low pay and struggle to attract and retain teachers, especially in special ed, math, science and language. High tier Chicago suburbs have high pay and huge stacks of resumes from highly qualified teachers in all subject areas. Frequently, even their substitutes and teachers aids are highly credentialed teachers trying to be hired in that district.

It's hardly a free market. Ultimately, school boards can only pay what the tax payers will allow and can afford, not what the market requires. Non-monetary circumstances such as socio-economic status of the students, amenities available to teachers residing in the area and condition of the infrastructure play big roles. Public sector teachers are frequently organized into unions or associations which not only bargain directly for wages but over the long run determine what salary schedules look like. The salary schedules frequently benefit long tenured teachers at the expense of new teachers making it difficult to recruit. And the unions insist that teachers of all subject areas be paid the same, even if there is a long term surplus of teachers in some subject areas and severe shortages in others.

Anyone can easily give accurate anecdotal examples of under-paid and over-paid teachers. They both exist! People seem so ill informed when they stress one side or the other when both sides are there.

Solutions are going to be complicated and controversial. There will be winners and losers. Funding and managing public education is such a mire it's no wonder private schools and home schooling are so popular.

DW ( a retired special ed teacher now doing some part time compensated and volunteer work) and I worked very hard with our son and DIL to help them pick a suburb/neighborhood with public schools that do a good job and reflect their values. Our oldest grandson has special needs and that was also an important consideration. If we hadn't found what we wanted in the public sector, we would have paid for private schooling, although getting what you want there isn't a slam dunk either.

Bottom line...... lots of variation between and within public and private school systems. Anecdoctal examples of under-compensated and over-compensated teachers exist. You have to be a good shopper and be proactive in getting what you want for your kids.

On point there. Now I would also say that the union does not hold much water in my book. I was in a state for 30 years with both the NEA and AFT worked for both unions at various times during my teaching career in New Jersey. It is a sound bite that says oh you cannot get rid of bad teachers because of the union. A top notch administrator can have a poor teacher removed easily. I have seen it done many times. A problem is many of the principals are just weak, they were bad or weak teachers who quickly left the classroom. Kinda like bad lawyers become well bad judges.

Anyway back to my point here in North Carolina there are NO UNIONS! Poor salary guides set by the state, getting good teachers to stay is hard. I am teaching 3 days a week on 3 different 20% positions at three different schools, and the young new teachers are all wondering why they moved down here for the 32K starting pay and only 40K after 8 years.

 

[dumpster56]

Until teachers stop trying to be doctors, and prescribe medicines and actually take control of their classrooms, like they were in control several year/decades ago they will not receive much sympathy from me. My son is in fourth grade now. His kindergarten teacher said, after the first month, "He is very active and needs to be seen by a doctor." She also had issues with most of her other students. His first grade teacher said the same thing. This time we actually took him to his doctor and filled out the questionnaire, along with his teacher. The results of the survey, yes he is very active, but not hyperactive so no treatment required. The ironic thing is the teacher's survey results put my son at the lowest activity level of the three survey, so what does that say about her assessment of her other students and her control of her classroom. His second grade teacher, who also was very experienced, didn't have a problem with him. His first third grade teacher again wanted him drugged and under medical treatment for ADHD. She as a bit shocked when she was informed that he would not be receiving treatment (she was not made aware of his last schools attempts to give him drugs). His second third grade teacher didn't have any problems with my son. Most of his fourth grade teachers want him on drugs, again. I find it very interesting that the teachers my son likes the most are the ones who put him in his place. I also find it interesting that the teachers, who CONTROL their classrooms are the ones who are able to get him to do the things he is supposed to be doing, with very few problems.

I will be the first to lay into my son when he is doing things he is not supposed to do. When I receive notes from his teachers complaining that he is just playing in class and their response is to simply tell him to do his work instead of taking an appropriate action, to me it sounds like they do not have control of their classrooms. Sorry teachers, but kids are going to try to play. If you cannot stop them from playing, maybe you are in the wrong profession. I can explain to the kid what is appropriate conduct at school , and maybe discipline him when he gets home, but nothing is more effective than actually discipling the child in the classroom, when the inappropriate conduct is occurring.

Think about it a kid gets in trouble at school and their friends see a note go home to their parents. The kid's friends do not see any other negative actions occur, so the kid who's goofing off can say anything they want, about how nothing happened. If the kid is disciplined in class ans well as at home then it shows the other students that they will not get away with goofing off and having nothing happen.

It is the system, the teacher is only as good as who hired the teacher. Look hard at who is running the school. I have worked for well over 30 Principals over a 30 year career and sorry to say well over half should have been retired long ago. THEY are the reason for some of the poor teachers .

By the way try teaching in an east coast inner city high school and NOT BE a Psychiatrist! I had to be the students doctor, yes had to have kids sent to the doctor after showing up to school with various ailments that their worthless parents should have dealt with, a social worker, a parent a job coach etc.. When we are able to TEACH and JUST teach the required curriculum it might be easier to see improved learning.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

um, sorry erd50. but you have stepped back into the mirror, trapped by the reflection of supply and demand as being the only feasible economic system when it is not.

my point is not that society places values on things but rather my point is that the values of society is what determines which things get what value. there is a difference between the value of a thing and the values of a person. it is the values of a person which determine the value of a thing because things by themselves have no intrinsic value outside, perhaps, of some utilitarian purposes. but even then it is the values of a society which determine the values of things from outside the subsystem of supply & demand.

gold as a filling might have some intrinsic value, but that the gold is valuable is entirely artificial. it is only valuable because some people desire it. if they did not desire gold, than maybe chocolate pudding would become highly valuable because then pudding would be in short supply. but you can't fill a cavity with pudding and so there is no intrinsic value there, only the value which is artificially assigned to it in a process inextricable to the values of a society.

the value of a thing, regardless of the available quantity of that thing, will be much different given its use in a society with values favoring sharing as opposed to its use in different society with values favoring hoarding. it is still the same thing. it is even still in the same quantity. the supply and demand of it has not changed yet its value differs according to which society uses it because the values of those society differ.

and so that is why i suggested in the first place that the assigned values might be seen as a marker as to what carries more importance in any particular society. i did not mean to intrude upon anyone's sensitivity or unquestioned affection of capitalism.

 

[Marquette]

gold as a filling might have some intrinsic value, but that the gold is valuable is entirely artificial. it is only valuable because some people desire it. if they did not desire gold, than maybe chocolate pudding would become highly valuable because then pudding would be in short supply.

And Bill Cosby would be the richest person in the world!