Personal vs. Social Responsibility

Remove all ads!

 

I have to agree. I was actually very surprised by this remark considering how much value is placed on education in most modern industrailized nations. But it is typical because teachers are usually treated with contempt by many ideologues in this country (I'm not sure how it is in Europe). But I really did not want to get off the main topic, which was mostly about the economic and social problems that exist between the rich and the poor. But I agree, it was an insulting comment.

It's a real shame that honest, hard working people are spoken of with contmept. The measurement for "success" is now only measured by how many dollars, and not much else. The reasons listed are hardly those for which teachers are not well paid. They are state or city employees, like firemen and policemen, who are paid about the same. Yet, they would be surprised to hear that their jobs are not "stressful." I guess getting shot at and having to go into burning buildings are not "stressful" enough jobs.

[ January 05, 2005, 02:32: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I know about seven families in the welfare system. Out of these, five of them are abusing it - for example, three of them aren't working because they get enough money from welfare to cover their expenses, and the other two abusers aren't moving in with their lovers, nor are they getting married, because said lovers work and they don't want to have their welfare lowered. I am, therefore, not strongly in support of it. If I know five people who abuse it, who knows how many others there are? And the percentage of them who are abusing it isn't good, either. If I assume that this is an accurate microcosm of he welfare community, I can't support it in good sense. However, if the people who were on welfare were required to go to at least three job interviews per month if not gainfully employed, bringing written proof back from the employer they were interviewed by (who would, of course, note whether or not the applicant tried to swing the interview in an unfavorable way) to the government, I would likely support it. As it is now, it's too easy to take advantage of.

I support paying taxes into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, because we assume that the people that reap the benefits have been contributing members of the society for a significant portion of their lives. If someone immigrates, however, I feel that they should pay tax into these programs for no less than fifteen years before they can be elegible for inclusion into the program(s).

 

If I know five families who don't abuse it and very simply need it to eat, who knows how many others there are?

 

joacqin,

It is not insulting to say that a job is not especially stressful or challenging (I was speaking to intelligence, not emotion, you only get paid for emotion in Hollyweird ). I would say that burger flipping or trash collection fall in these categories as well, but most of the people who do these jobs are good people who are just trying to make their way through life to the best of their ability/motivation. There are exceptions to the rule, but in the US, at most public schools (where the majority of K-12 students go) the teachers are somewhat below the average in intelligence and motivation when compared to white-collar workers. This may be politically incorrect to say, but it is undeniably true (except of course to those who work in the education industry, but they aren’t exactly impartial witnesses).

So if you disagree, why don't you explain to me why there are so many people willing to go into the field of teaching if the rewards are so low?

And yes, K-12 I went to public schools, and they are very ****ty in the US.

AMaster:

But what is the system doing to make these 5 families self-sufficient? Sliths point is very well made, but I would argue that it shouldn't be what you paid in that determines what/if you get back, but how long you are allowed to continue to draw. A bureaucracy (just like any other organization) has a natural inclination to try justifying its existence, and in the case of welfare, this is accomplished best by making people dependent upon it. Setting up welfare with the aim of eliminating dependence upon it does not serve this end. This is why the people have to use the gov't to ensure that the bureaucracy cannot set up this type of system, and in the US we are failing miserably!

I really don’t understand why people think that the gov’t is especially good at accomplishing anything. With few exceptions (natural monopolies jump out at me) the gov’t has failed whenever it attempts to broadly regulate anything. The gov’t works best when it provides incentive for behaviors that are in the best interest of the general welfare of its citizens, and deterrence for things that are ill to society. In general, whenever it enforces absolutes it creates a vacuum in the private sector that will either be filled by those willing to break the law, or such inefficiency that they cost far outweighs the benefits. For examples research prohibition and the federalization of airport security.

This begs the question; can social responsibility only be accomplished through gov’t agencies? I don’t believe so, but it seems that many do.

 

DW, people are willing to go into the field of education because they want to make a difference. They want to help people, and to be able to do this they are willing to accept lower wages and worse conditions. They accept this because they answer to their pupils, not to a boss or a career. Beleive it or not but there are people for whom money is not everything.

In a matter of weeks I finish my master degree in education and I do find your remarks not only insulting but also odd. The people I have studied together with are like most other academics, smarter than the average chum, some a lot smarter and some not very much smarter but in general they are more intelligent than the people who dont get degrees. The real idiots among the teachers are those who stay in the university to run the teacher educations, they are the morons who are too stupid and lacking the most rudimentary social skills and are thus unable to teach in the schools.

You claims are not even anecdotical but pulled completely from your beind. You just simply dont have a clue, just baseless prejudices. You sound like a rowdy teenager who dont like to go to school and is trying to whine about it in an intelligent manner but ends up making a fool of himself.

 

Unless the job is - in fact - very stressful and/or very challenging.

OK, I'm biased - my wife is an elementary school teacher. But I will say this - every teacher in the Maryland school system is required to have a college degree, and the majority of them have gone beyond the basic bachelor's degree and have a master's degree. There are a few PhDs as well, but the majority of the teachers do not possess them. The point being, if it requires a college degree, then I would say that you have to be at least of average intelligence to get a college degree. I don't know many people with IQs around 90 who graduate from college.

There are many reasons why poeple would go into teaching beyond money. What if they like it and are good at it?

As far as not challenging, I have to disagree. In some respects I think that the youngest students can be the most challenging, because there is nothing there to build from. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to get a group of 1st graders to read. As the typical 6 year old has an attention span of about 6 minutes, it must be very challenging indeed.

With the "No Child Left Behind" Act, it has also become quite stressful as schools are now required to hit target scores, and could potentially lose funding if they do not. This has also changed the ciriculum in many public school as well. Now the majority of time in school is spent teaching only topics that are seen on the test. While this allows for the students to perform better on the test, the total amount of information that is presented in class in a given year has actually been reduced in most cases. Classes such as geography, health, social studies, and even history are given far less time in class, because those subjects are not on the test.

 

No successful gov't programs? Gov't programs in the us have produced the atomic bomb, space flight, radar, the federal highway system, public education, the police force, firefighters, all four branches of the armed services, the entire judiciary, the national state park system, and yes, even the computer and the internet, to name but a few. Why, even "democracy" is the product of the gov't.

You don't do yourself any service by painting the entire gov't with such a broad brush. The anti-gov't rhetoric of the right is obviously very effective, but you seem to have bought it hook line and sinker rather than realizing that it was only ever pointed toward certain defined targets: welfare reform, privatization of certain industries, elimination of certain taxes, etc. So when they say "the gov't screws everything it touches up" (unlike corporate america?), they are really being strategic rather than completely serious about all aspects of the gov't.

And remember, some people are motivated by rewards other than money. In fact, prestige and belief in a noble cause are probably even better motivators than money. Shocking, no? And remember, the US war in Iraq, which no doubt you support, is being faught by gov't employees, most of whom fit into your lower 50%, who are getting paid peanuts to kill other human beings and risk death themselves. But they're only intellectually deficient unskilled suckers, no?

 

Sorry, this is totally off the original topic but in line with the last posts.

I can't comment on the American education system, but I have a reasonable knowledge of the English one - both my parents were in teaching, and my step mother still is. A number of freinds are now teachers, training to be teachers or otherwise employed in education establishments.

I would say there are two reasons that teaching is not paid well in Britain.
Firstly, and primarily is because it is state funded and, (other than the MP's themselves,) there are few well paid state funded jobs.
Secondly (I believe) is indeed supply and demand. Unfortunately I think a lot of people are drawn to teaching because of the long holidays - somewhere around 15 weeks a year in Britain. Increase the salary and you'd have even more applicants. Unfortunately it is a high stress job and I gather there is a fairly high turnover of new teachers when they realise they are really not cut out for the job. Hence we have had a big TV recruiting drive for the last few years. Inner city schools, particularly London, suffer very badly and generally this is down to childrens behaviour. One of my friends works for a south london school and has to deal with the police at least once a week. On a project we were working on in Paddington it was recommended that no-one left site within an hour of school arrrival/departure times due to attacks by pupils. (And we're talking about builders here)
The problem is that teachers have no power any longer, they're not even allowed to use sarcasm! The kids know it, so get away with just about anything. I've just no idea how someone can try to teach under those circumstances.

Alternatively I have a number of friends in high paid management consultancy and accountancy positions. Although they work long days, in comparison they have fairly stress free lives.

 

If teaching is such a rewarding field that it is worth passing up on a better paycheck, then so be it, but it isn't like you don't know it going in.

Also, when I was in college I couldn't begin to list the number if business, architecture, engineering, math, and vet medicine majors who changed their major to primary education (or hotel and restaurant management) because they couldn't make it in these more difficult majors. Sorry, but you are not going to convince me that public educators are the brightest of society. I agree that they are definitely smart enough to get a higher paying job in the private sector, but don’t ask me to feel too sorry for them just because they make the choice to walk away from the bigger paycheck.

Bion,

You really consider the atomic bomb a success? Space flight? There have certainly been some success from privately funded experiments that have been a success, but we haven't been back to the moon in 30 years! NASA is a complete failure, they can't even get satellites into orbit reliably, and private industry has had to take over this industry. The Shuttle program is in total disarray! The federal highway system? Why are 80%+ of the bridges in this nation being used decades past their intended lifespan, creating a hazard for all of us? Have you driven on the interstates lately? They are in horrible shape. Public education? You mean public indoctrination? If public schools are so wonderful why is it that rich people almost invariably send their kids to private schools? All 4 branches of the armed forces? Soon to be all 3 branches. I guess you like $100 hammers and $300 toilet seats? The judiciary that legislates from the bench? The internet? Sorry, but while a small part of the rudimentary functions were developed by the military and the government, without private industry taking it over it would be a small file sharing system. The final fallacy is that democracy exists because of the gov’t. Democracy exists because people demand it and are willing to sacrifice in order to keep the gov’t from taking it away. In a democracy the government is a result of the people, and without free trade to support it, it would fall under its own weight.

I haven't bought anything hook line and sinker. To the contrary you have bought the gov't's overblown sense of importance hook line and sinker. This nation is great in spite of the gov't (and because of its people), not because of it.

Now as for your last statement:

I never said that anyone should be solely motivated by money, or that there is anything wrong with choosing a field based upon values other than how much money one can make at it. When I left the financial services industry I was 1 employee short of making Assistant Vice President (a position I obtained in less than 5 years, starting at the dead bottom). I walked away from a rocket ship to the top because my wife and I had a child, and wanted another, and I didn't want to work 80-hour workweeks. I wanted to spend time with my family, so I took a position as an analyst with a telecom corp. My job is rewarding, and I wouldn't trade it for the VP position I was close to getting for 3x the money I make now. I am the last person who would criticize someone for walking away from money for something more rewarding. I resent the fact that you imply that I think anyone who does something for a living without a big monetary reward as being inferior. Quite to the contrary, I have a lot of respect for the majority of educators. However, I have no respect for the system that handicaps them by telling them that they can't give their students a copy of the Declaration of Independence because it mentions god. I think it is ridiculous that you have 6-year-old children being suspended or expelled for bringing a plastic knife to school in their lunch. I think that it is insane that we have to revise history in order to make it fit with our politically correct views.

Further, I have an enormous amount of respect for those in the military who ensure our freedom, especially when they have to deal with a gov't that has little regard for their safety unless it is in their best political interests to do so ("I actually voted for the 80 billion, before I voted against it"). Politicians should be less worried whether or not the body armor the soldiers should have is manufactured in politician's district and more worried about making sure they have it. That being said, they are no more deserving of more pay than any of the rest of us. The reason for this is because there is no fairer or more equitable way to determine the worth of something than the marketplace, because what anything is worth varies from person to person. When we can’t recruit qualified people, we will need to raise the pay.

Quit twisting my words around to create an air of hostility that doesn't exist!

Now, for a little social responsibility that all of us have in regards to this topic. If you believe you are underpaid in your current job, you have a civic duty to go find an employer who will pay you a salary that is equal to your worth. If you do not, you are dragging everyone in your industry down! By just sitting there and continuing to work for an employer who underpays you, you are dragging everyone around you down. So meet your social responsibility and get your resumes out and start searching for that new job today!

 

That sounded pretty straight forward to me. But if you are really saying that the best go into busimess, and won't work in government or public jobs because of low pay, there is some truth in that. And the mods would probably rather see this on its own thread. So, I will make one:

http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/20/1141.html

 

DW: If it wasn't clear, my question to Slith was rhetorical--along the lines of "anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all" I suppose I should've been more clear. My error

 

Well I live in one and know exactly zero families who abuse it. Those who abuse the welfare system are usually young unemployed who have just graduated from the university and can't find jobs that fit their education (and refuse jobs that do not require education). After five years (usually more) living by stretching the penny and working when not studying and the finally when graduated not even being able to get a job understandably ticks off people. The danger in this is if you remain unemployed for too long you end up in the so called "unemployment loop" and after about two years of unemployment nobody even wants to hire you anymore since you've been too long out of touch with your subject. This is a huge problem in here where people are "overeducating themselves" meaning that our educational system is a bit too effective.
Everyone can't become lawyers, doctors or CEO's. We also need people who are willing to become plumbers, factoryworkers, cooks, waitors etc.

It is true that cutting off the unemployment support may force the unemployed to work but having a lawyers degree and mopping the floors of McDonalds to earn ones living ain't exactly motivating and healthy for the psyche.

This might be offtopic but I felt the need as a person living in a welfare country to illustrate why most people abuse the welfare system. To say they do so because they are lazy is incredibly narrowminded and naive. I'm not saying that there are those who do it but they are a very small fraction of the unemployed.

 

Here's the thing I don't get - do you actually get a lot of money when on welfare? I thought they just gave you enough money to get by, and that you could earn far more by working a standard 40 hour work week then they give you via welfare. Yes, you'll actually have to work for that money instead of it being handed to you, but you'll earn more than you would normally get.

How much do people typically get on welfare? I'm sure it is somewhat dependent upon how many children are in the household, but there has to be some base number. I would imagine that most people would prefer getting jobs for the same reason people prefer not remaining on unemployment - you get a lot less. From personal experience, getting paid via the unemployment system is not a sustainable position to be in. You receive checks for half of what your salary was, or $900 per month, whichever is less. I was receiving unemployment for six months, and that's something I hope I never have to do again.

 

When I was on Welfare, It wasn't enough for everything. If I ever try it again, it would need to be disability, which pays better than a minimum wage job, but not too much. Now I was just a single guy with no kids, but a single mother might well get more than she would take home from a full time job. If it's not that much, then child care costs would make it unfeasable to work...