Sorry I’m late. Beta and I got into an argument over economics on our way into town and I missed my turn. It occurred to her that she hadn’t been only braiding in history yesterday, because she remembered her teacher saying something about how politicians should be well-paid, while she believed they ought to do it for I don’t know what. Love of politics I guess, or perfection of their natural talent for politics.
Money would attract more people, though, I said, some of whom would be talented.
It was like walking barefoot into a roomful of hungry weasels. Scraps of bloody skin were dangling from my argument in no time. Nevertheless, I’m proud to report I held my own. It helped that I’m 45 and have a degree in economics, and she’s 15.
Not that it was easy. I got a bit bogged down over the concept of utility when it occurred to me mid-argument that while utility is a useful conceptual tool, it is also not your most precisely delimited concept.
“Everyone makes economic decisions all the time,” I said. “Every decision is based on some form of cost-benefit analysis, in which a person takes their utility into consideration. Not only money or income, but also how good something makes them feel, the respect it gets them, and on and on.”
“Why is everything economics with you?”
“I’m 45 and have a degree in economics, baby.”
“Economics.”
“And you’re 15.”
“So what is utility exactly, then?”
“A useful conceptual tool. Shit, I totally missed our turn. Money is part of the mix. Someone may become a politician for any number of reasons, but income is part of the utility equation. Look at teachers — there are some good ones who do it for charitable reasons, but many otherwise talented candidates don’t go into that line of work because the pay is so bad, respect is so low and they get so little support from parents, government, etc.”
“That’s what I’m saying. If you pay politicians more, then it would attract all the bad teachers into politics, and you have even more bad politicians.”
When I was a student, I once tried to explain the concept of futures markets to a woman of my acquaintance using the example of babies, thinking it would be easier for her to imagine babies than pork bellies or foreign exchange.
“You could buy the product now, and take delivery at a future date. Babies, for example. In nine months.”
“Why do I want to buy a baby? That’s terrible.”
“It’s only an example.”
“I could just make my own baby.”
“I’m only saying.”
“Or adopt one.”
I ended up marrying her, and making Beta, among other things.
if you paid teachers more, you might get a higher quality of teachers. i don’t think if you paid politicians more you’d get better politicians. i think they’re in it for the power more than the money in the first place. you’d just be more likely to get more trump types, driven by money and power.
I think so too, but it wouldn’t have been much of an argument if I’d’ve agreed with my kid.
Why do you get a higher quality of teacher just because you pay them more? I think you only get more applications.
You should pay politicians less – maybe those who really, really want to do it, will do it.
first off – let me just say i assume that many people out there are like me and want to be paid enough to realise they are appreciated.
second – i think it would be a great idea to pay more to teachers. that way they will feel they are in a prestigious position (not just a noble, good cause) and this will attract applications from people who are willing to work in prestigious positions. if more people apply, and the competition increases you will get better quality people becoming teachers.
third – i’m not sure that this idea will work with politicians, because politics is something else. pay civil servants more so that they do their job and don’t feel justified in taking bribes (see singapore) but not politicians!
Teachers ought to get paid based on the value of the position to parents and society in general. Ask people to rate professions in terms of how important it is to have smart, educated, competent, experienced, talented people in those positions. As employers to rate professions on how valuable they are to their businesses. Ask them to consider truck drivers, bakers, librarians, assembly line workers, construction workers, bartenders, accountants, janitors, etc., and, of course, to consider teachers. If teachers are rated more important, in those terms, than, say, truck drivers and bakers and assemly line workers and bartenders and construction workers, then make sure teachers get paid more than the average incomes in those other professions.
And, thinking in US terms, make these wages a federal requirement, and pay teachers with federal taxes. Don’t let crappy little local organizations run by anti-tax yahoos decide that teachers don’t deserve a good living. Also, do not adjust teacher pay to match the cost of living in the area. Make it high enough to live in (or within reasonable commuting distance of) pretty much anywhere there are schools in the US. This would make it financially advantageous to live and teach in poorer areas.
Of course, I just made that up as fast as I could type it, but I’m still sure it would be better than the system that’s in place. And I needed an excuse to rant about something.
not to sound overly cynical or anything, but it really doesn’t matter what you pay politicians because the whole point is that they get power and, in this world, money and power hang out together. If they have money, they’ll get power. If they have power, they’ll get money — regardless of salary.
I once saw the mayor and his wife in the grocery store. Most people who saw this were thinking “look there: our mayor: regular guy.” But when his wife pulled a roll of $100 bills out of her Louie Vuitton (or howeveryouspellit) purse to pay the tab, I thought it nothing but odd.
Oh, BTW, I forgot the punchline. THis mayor has since been indicted at the Federal level for racketeering.