CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Teachers and Government workers are overpaid.
A thought as to the "true" position: If you want someone who can successfully teach or manage a country, they should be paid little; for if they were paid a lot, then people who have no interest in truly ministering to people would seek to become those who educate the populous and those who govern the populous. Therefore, occupations that are severaly important should be left to those who feel they have a "calling" to do so. A concept like that of "but many who are first will be last, and the last first" could be mentioned here
What does an artificial demand look like specifically then? Which individuals or groups are not in need of education for real, just artificially in need of education? poor people? whites? blacks? gays? women? people with green eyes? Name who doesn't really need to be educated but is being educated due to this phenomenon.
Or which teachers aren't really teaching but instead sitting in empty classrooms because the need for them is artificial?
Because if something is artificial there is some part of it which is not necessary or non existent... or were you just throwing out a catch phrase?
Seriously, how would poor, white, black, gay people or women be artificial demand? Please justify this absurd comment. They are the market demand or real demand. Consumers can be only demand.
Artificial demand is created by the supplier only through the act of force, and this is done by taxation, customers have no control in price, so they take what they want rather than choice of consumer. Artificial demand would involve empty classroom as well as filling up classrooms of subjects that students have no interest. Whether empty or filling up classrooms implies hiring 3 history teachers rather than 2 or hiring 1 art teacher rather than 1 math teacher. It also could be administrative, rather than 2 assistant principles, the school has 3 or 4.
Yet what we see is education falling behind. If there were artificial demand alongside real demand then that real demand would be filled and the U.S. wouldn't be consistently falling behind in every single subject. This is just simple logic. If there is more demand than need than need must be filled. Yet classes are overcrowded and the U.S. has been getting worse and worse across every subject. It means your theory cannot be applied here. It does not work here.
And at the same time you see countries who "create even more artificial demand" by your logic, aka, investing more, surging ahead in all areas in education. The Netherlands, Japan, most of Europe all have governments who all spend more per capita on education, and their education increases.
Your theory is incorrect. It does not work in the real world. It never has.
Teachers are underpaid, and there is no artificial demand, just a lack of resources and a culture that doesn't appreciate education (or the educators) that is all.
I agree. I would stand to argue that the resolution is poorly worded in lumping teachers and government workers together. You're correct in asserting that everyone needs education, but that argument that other government workers such as those in congress are overpaid is one which can be fairly easily supported.
Market demand and government demand are two different things. The current demand for education is an artificial government demand because the state forces everyone to pay and attend school until they are 18.
Neither the market nor government are demanding anything, and even if either were there is nothing inherent about either to make it fundamentally different than the other in practice. This is just your anti-government bias blinding you to reality as usual.
In our country, they are. Less money, more work. Thats how it goes here. I think that is the reason why people here, dont choose being a teacher as a profession.
I live in Canada, and I can say that in our country, teachers are not over-paid. I am the son of a teacher, so I have personal experience. Teachers have a very difficult job, and they earn every penny they make.
Most also feel they have a calling to pay bills and raise families, that is often a stronger calling.
Here's what would work better, pay teachers what they are actually worth. Instead of D and C students from community colleges (in large part) deciding to teach as a fall back career, it would be sought out competitively by the A students and those with Masters degrees and PHDs.
This is absolutely preposterous. Your claims are groundless. Yes, it does not take a degree to make a teacher, but to generalize all teachers with Masters and Doctorates is outrageous.
All of my college professors had Masters degrees or PHDs. They were to a single one better than a single grade or high school teacher I ever had.
Do you have some statistics to back this up?
Just because someone really really likes kids and so has a "calling" they believe to teach them, does not mean they are a good teacher. I'll take an asshole kids hate but who knows what he or she is doing, over some pushover who never does and really can't teach that well because they are busy making kids and their parents feel good about themselves.... frankly.
Don't need statistics. What is ridiculous is the notion that professors are hired to teach, wrong, they were hired to research, students of graduate school teach in college.
Yeah, I agree with you there. Besides, they studied so long so that they would help more in the community.. and not just as teaching as a main thing to do. They could do more research till they want to or up until they grow old. If thats how they help the community, then so be it. There are other people who are more inspiring to teach instead of them. Besides, teaching is not just about some degrees that you get, but it is being abe to motivate the child to be a good student.
I didn't say why they were hired, and why they were hired has no bearing on the argument. They do teach though, and in my experience they are better at it. Probably because they know more.
You are so bad at debating whenever you go outside of quoting your crazy economic theories. Stick to that, go create another debate for you and Guitardog to jerk eachother off to.
Your constant ad hominem is really annoying, tiring and consistent with a man with no arguments but name calling and impervious quips.
Actually, why they are hired is relevant because they research, only some teach at smaller colleges, primary and secondary teachers teach, not do research.
I don't deny that there are good teachers who have a Masters and/or a Ph.D. However, simply because they have a degree does not entitle them to teach. Lower the income rate and only those who believe they have a calling to teach will teach. Everyone else will stay behind in research or go on to another job.
And what about all of the kids who are not taught because there is 1 teacher for every 10,000 kids?
It's a stupid idea, teachers barely make enough as it is.
Decide kids are worth teaching, pay teachers as if we care about kids being educated, and you will get better teachers and smarter kids. Pay them less, you get less teachers, dumber teachers, teachers who don't care, and kids who think dumb shit like whatever prayerfails is gibbering about.
"For public schools, the number of pupils per FTE teacher—that is, the pupil/teacher ratio—declined from 22.3 in 1970 to 17.9 in 1985. After 1985, the public school pupil/teacher ratio continued to decline, reaching 17.2 in 1989. After a period of relative stability during the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, the ratio declined from 17.3 in 1995 to 16.0 in 2000. Decreases have continued since then, and the public school pupil/teacher ratio was 15.4 in 2009. By comparison, the pupil/teacher ratio for private schools was estimated at 12.5 in 2009. The average class size in 2007–08 was 20.0 pupils for public elementary schools and 23.4 pupils for public secondary schools."
This is for the U.S.
There are plenty of teachers out there.
Paying teachers more will only bring in bad teachers, people who don't care about teaching and only care that it is a back up plan to what they had originally wanted to do. Pay them less and you get dedicated teachers who have persevered through education and have the willingness to teach because they have a knack for it and want to teach. Of course, you can find people who want to teach and have gotten their degrees but just aren't good teachers; however, being motivated to go through what he has gone through in order to teach shows a personality type that would not simply let a student fail but would nurture the child and help him grow.
and also then I assume that companies should stop paying CEOs so much because that just attracts CEOs who want to be CEO for the wrong reason, and if you want someone who is truly inspired to be a CEO they should do so for barely enough to live on...
That is your exact logic. The only difference is that you are saying an essential group of people who make hardly any money should be making even less.
Which jobs precisely deserve to get paid their worth as opposed to your theory of payment; minimum-possible-to-make-sure-they-really-really-like-it?
My logic is that of the truly important occupations like that of government employees such as the president, firemen, policemen, teachers, etc: the people who uphold the infrastructure of a country. Businessmen do not uphold countries; they uphold the economy of the nation, which gives rise to better living; they are not individually necessary for a healthy country.
You need a reciprocal economically in order for the notion to work. If there are only poor paying jobs then people (as a whole) will go to whatever job they can find, not one that they can contribute to: if every job declined in income rates then there would be no point in doing so. Think of it this way: inflation and deflation will happen depending on which way one unanimously dropped or raised the job market, which means that jobs (as a whole) after the change would be equal to jobs (as a whole) currently in regards to income rate. You need a rich end so that people can become attracted to the idea of wealth so that those who truly want to do good deeds can exceed in those good deeds.
But you're not saying every job should decline in income, you are saying one specific job should and others should not.
By your own logic that would mean that less people would want to teach, not more.
Even if your theory that paying teachers less would continue to attract those who really want to teach, how do you fill the empty positions? How do you guarantee someone who does want to teach will still want to even knowing they won't be able to afford to pay off student loans, maybe even to feed their kids properly depending on cost of living in their area?
You are applying a double standard to the job of teaching.
I don't agree with your logic anyway. The gap between the rich and the poor is the greatest in U.S. history and this leads to a lower overall standard of living, less opportunity, and so less innovation, less motivation to create, and social and economic stagnation.
That truth aside though, only focusing on teachers, you've not described why a CEO needs to get paid more to attract good CEOs but the job of teaching needs to pay less to attract good teachers.
Why the hell do people need the incentive of a big paycheque to do good deeds. Pay everyone enough to live on and i truly believe there will be people who love teaching doing the teaching, people who love healing doing the doctoring and people who love building doing the building.
When there isn't a big paycheque to entice you, what else is there but love for the work?
If money is not involved, who is going to pick up garbage, who's going to deliver mail, who's going to take care of old people who shit themselves, who's going to deliver pizza...
The notion that humanity will provide itself all of services which continue to advance humanity and improve life without incentive is completely wrong.
And you're agreeing with someone who is not saying "just provide what people need" you are agreeing with someone who says teachers should be poverty stricken, some douche selling bonds can still be a billionaire.
The best teachers are not the assholes the kids hate, nor the pushover making kids and parents feel good about themselves. I've had several teachers who were the basis of my educational inspiration and one day, I hope to do for just one young man or woman what they did for me.
The people who really, truly CARE about what they're teaching and how they present what they're teaching, the ones who know that what they say and how they say it will affect all of the students in their classes, THOSE are the teachers who are really great.
I would wish no less on any child or young adult. That is why I'm studying to be a teacher in art history. I can only hope to project my love for the subject onto one young adult, to repay what was done for me when I was that age.
Teachers are meant to inspire their students to be contributing and notable members of society. Too many teachers are in it for the paycheque and I would gladly do it for minimum wage. It's not about the money, it's about the education.
Hmm.. not all of them. Although some of them are. Ive had some experience with teachers who are PhDs and yet they dont really teach well in school. I agree with you that a degree does not make someone a teacher.. but I think it's his or her dedication to be one. Id also like to state some instances. Three of our PhD teachers dont really teach good. They just give Hwks and Swks without even teaching first. They usually do the discover it on your own method. And most students are not really good at that. Ergo, students fail more in class.
One of the main reasons, IMO, that Americans tend to score so poorly in global educational matrices is because the educators themselves are so undervalued. If you pay someone peanuts to do an important job then logic dictates that you should expect peanuts in return. While I agree that teachers and other government workers are not subject to the same market demands and forces that influence wages as workers in the private sector, we need to recognize that these people are an essential part of the national infrastructure and that without them, we're fucked.
I believe that they are underpaid. Seeing that some of them are not motivated in teaching and some are even using the act of being a teacher for perverted purposes with their students such as blackmailing them using their grades so that they can have their way with them.
Teachers should be given higher salary so as to motivate them in their work. Even if you have a calling in your profession, if your salary is not enough for your family then you would`t be motivated in your work thus succumbing to ineffectiveness in teaching.
Well scum bag teachers should first of all be filtered properly by the school. I don`t think it is the government`s responsibility since the school itself must create its own standards and thus these scumbag teachers are only present since they allowed them to be so.
If you give them less, then less students will take up being a teacher as profession and the problem in education would increase.
It is the responsibility of the school to uplift its quality of education since the government is not always present in the vicinity. Therefore if the standard of education should be increased, then the school should increase its qualifications in being a teacher. Adhering to the increase in the quality of the teacher`s skills, a higher salary is its just reward.
You cannot raise a family and live in our society with passion alone. Money is a necessity to all.
I think this question is posed in a manner which unjustly lumps teachers and government workers together in the same field. Furthermore the phrase 'government workers' is fairly broad and covers a rather large area of occupations. While I would agree certain certain government workers such as congressmen and members of senate are overpaid, others such as social workers are not.
As for teachers? They are certainly not underpaid.
They are not over paid because there is no cost to get knowledge.we can give trillion rupees to buy knowledge.if you are intelligent so you can understand what I want to say ( i am in favor of this topic);