Sheilbh's Scott Walker Lovefest and Union Bashing Megathread

[Admiral Yi]

I disagree.  My guess is very few impartial observers see public benefit in carried interest treatment, depletion allowances, or spending on unnecessary defense procurement

Increased risk-taking, increased exploration and drilling, increased military capability.

Sure there is a public benefit - increased compensation attracts higher quality applicants for an important public function and the teacher will have more income to spend on other goods over his or her lifetime.

A specific person having more income, and the taxpaying public conversely less, is not a public benefit.

[Jacob]

I disagree.  My guess is very few impartial observers see public benefit in carried interest treatment, depletion allowances, or spending on unnecessary defense procurement

Increased risk-taking, increased exploration and drilling, increased military capability.

Sure there is a public benefit - increased compensation attracts higher quality applicants for an important public function and the teacher will have more income to spend on other goods over his or her lifetime.

A specific person having more income, and the taxpaying public conversely less, is not a public benefit.

But public education being of a higher quality is very much a public benefit.

[The Brain]

We have the idea in Sweden as well that somehow teaching is fundamentally different from every other fucking job on the planet.

We have a circular problem in the US, where we need to pay teachers better, but the teachers we have are providing a service that's genuinely not that valuable.

Same in Sweden. They need to increase their productivity, but since they are selected from the retarded they don't understand the concept.

[Admiral Yi]

But public education being of a higher quality is very much a public benefit.

Sure.  So the ensuing question is: does raising an existing teacher's salary increase the quality of public education?

[frunk]

Sure.  So the ensuing question is: does raising an existing teacher's salary increase the quality of public education?

If the teacher is currently underpaid, yes.

[Jacob]

But public education being of a higher quality is very much a public benefit.

Sure.  So the ensuing question is: does raising an existing teacher's salary increase the quality of public education?

I'd think so, at least if we apply basic economic theory.

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

[Admiral Yi]

I'd think so, at least if we apply basic economic theory.

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

I agree this will hold true if we offer new teachers a higher salary.  I just don't see the improvement that comes from offering a current teacher, one who is not looking to quit, more money.

[CountDeMoney]

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

But see, as everybody knows, teachers don't do it for the money, they do it for the love of teaching.  Therefore, they really don't need any money at all.  They should just be happy with teaching and all the happiness teaching provides.

[MadImmortalMan]

Well, there would still be the limitation that the system itself limits the effectiveness that teachers can actually reach. Schools make good teachers into bad ones.

[The Minsky Moment]

A private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

I don't understand what this is saying.

And that is what public sector unions are - in fact, that is largely the *only* reason they exist at all, since the idea that there is some innate power disparity absent their existence has never been shown to actually exist anyway.

Of course there is a disparity.  The state as employer is in a position to say take it or leave it with respect to wage increases or any other issues.  For certain jobs where there are state licensing requirements there is even more disparity. 

[Jacob]

I'd think so, at least if we apply basic economic theory.

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

I agree this will hold true if we offer new teachers a higher salary.  I just don't see the improvement that comes from offering a current teacher, one who is not looking to quit, more money.

Why would new teachers apply if they see existing teachers underpaid and being treated like shit?

How can you tell if a current teacher is looking to quit or not and thus determine the appropriate level of compensation?

[MadImmortalMan]

A private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

I don't understand what this is saying.

And that is what public sector unions are - in fact, that is largely the *only* reason they exist at all, since the idea that there is some innate power disparity absent their existence has never been shown to actually exist anyway.

Of course there is a disparity.  The state as employer is in a position to say take it or leave it with respect to wage increases or any other issues.  For certain jobs where there are state licensing requirements there is even more disparity.

Most people can't vote for their bosses. So there is that.

[Admiral Yi]

Why would new teachers apply if they see existing teachers underpaid and being treated like shit?

You're assuming everyone has to be paid the same, which is a union thing, not a state of nature thing.  Also, we were talking about raising pay to attract more talent, not whether current teachers are underpaid and/or being treated like shit.

How can you tell if a current teacher is looking to quit or not and thus determine the appropriate level of compensation?

You can look at retention rates for indications.  Or ask them.

[Sheilbh]

Most people can't vote for their bosses. So there is that.

Or have their bosses voted on by everyone else.

[The Minsky Moment]

I disagree.  My guess is very few impartial observers see public benefit in carried interest treatment, depletion allowances, or spending on unnecessary defense procurement

Increased risk-taking, increased exploration and drilling, increased military capability.

Even if some of those benefits exist, how are they NET benefits?
If you take a million dollars from the taxpayer and give it to companies that sell doodads, then sure enough you are likely to see more doodad production.  But you will be hard pressed to explain why that is a net economic benefit.
You have to prepared to defend the economic case for public subsidy.

A specific person having more income, and the taxpaying public conversely less, is not a public benefit.

If Ricardian Equivalence holds strictly, then yes, otherwise not necessarily.

But one can also make the same subsidy argument you make above.  Education is a public good.  Pay teachers more, you will get better teachers, and higher education quality.

Is that going to be true?  Maybe.  At least as true as the proposition that subsidizing defense contractors gives better defense, or giving favorable tax treatment to private equity leads to superior capital allocation or subsidizing oil companies is a superior energy policy.