Olorinus the Vile wrote:
Please also tell me how much the average teacher pays out of pocket for the training to become a teacher - because that should figure into what a fair wage for a teacher is.
First off, why does this matter? Did the degrees earned by the other 99% of people who graduated college magically cost them less or something?
Secondly, the very concept of trying to figure out "what a fair wage for <anyone> is" shows just how warped your understanding of labor value is. There's no such thing as a third party figuring out a fair wage is. The fair wage is what the employer is wiling to pay, which the employee is willing to accept. Unfortunately, when the government (and some larger unions) get involved, the first thing they do is eliminate competition so that the normal market forces you'd use to make that process work aren't present. Then they sell the masses on the idea that we should just make up pay numbers by fiat based on what we think the value of something is.
I would also like to see the evidence that shows more poorly paid teachers achieve better results in teaching literacy skills.
Well, if we're to take the assumption that K-12 public school teachers make more than K-12 private school teachers as truth, then this would seem to be the case. Of course, we all know it's not really about the pay though. It's about whether the system operates in a competitive environment or not. Private schools manage to produce better educated students with less money spent per student very very consistently.
Your question is somewhat of a red herring, isn't it?
And would you be so kind to explain how the collapse of the detroit car industry is the fault of city council or whomever you are blaming here? Forgive me, but where I come from, civic politicians have very little leverage over industries which are heavily affected by global competition.
The city of Detroit was an experiment in planned civic development, which failed spectacularly. The problems and how they are connected to those running the city go farther than just the auto industry. You're assuming that the city affected the car industry which affected the prosperity. It's more like the city affected prosperity, which chased away anyone who wanted a better life and was able to leave, which left the city (and the car industry) with those who stayed. It wasn't quite the chain you're talking about, but the whole mess is interconnected.
I am pretty sure a lot of the people working in those car plants were making more than teachers. Which is more important? Making cars or teaching children? Which requires more of a personal investment in resources in order to attain qualifications?
And I'm pretty sure they were also union employers who were overpaid. I'm not sure what your point is. If you think that the pay of those workers is the doing of the evil free market, you really don't understand what's going on.
The problem with Detroit is that they ran all the actual free market players out of the city. Which left only those that could be subsidized or contractually forced to stay. The result was predictable. The city fell into decline. You just can't maintain a system like that for very long. Detroit is a lesson for us about what happens when liberal economic policies are actually adopted across the board. It's what happens when you attempt to have "really smart people" decide what the outcomes should be and empower them to make those things happen instead of just letting the natural forces out there determine the result. No matter how smart you think you are, or how well funded your committees are, you're just never going to determine how much a loaf of bread (or a persons salary) should be better than a market in which people get to choose what to spend their own money on.
That's why liberal policies fail. The unfortunate fact is that not enough people realize this.