I just returned from the first of Calvin's January Series talks. You can find more information on the January series here. Andy and I will be attending these throughout the month and writing up our experiences. Anybody else attending these?
Today's talk was given by Michael Mandelbaum the author of a book called Democracy's Good Name. His presentation focused on the political preconditions that Democracy requires.
I know, it sounds crazy boring. Really, it wasn't.
Here's an action shot of the good Dr. Mandelbaum while he was answering questions after his talk:
I took three solid pages of notes, very little of which you'll want to read. Here are a few probably befuddled ideas though:
In his mind there are two main political ideas that make up democracy (with subpoints, subsubpoints, and subsubsubpoints): popular sovereignty (people voting for their leaders) and liberty (commonly known as freedom in the United States). It's extremely important to note that not too long ago (like 18th century) these two ideas were often considered contradictory to each other.
One thing that necessitates liberty in this day and age is a free market economy. Free-market economies are driven on greed and selfishness (feel free to debate that one).
A free-market is necessary because it makes other things possible like:
-Private property -Wealth/Affluence, which gives people time to run the democracy.
A few interesting statistics:
In 1975 there were only about 30 democracies worldwide In 2005 that number was 119.
Thoughts? Anything to add?
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (1)
Moreover, you can't really set education level alone as the bar for pay. Some fields that require more education than teaching are less well paid, others are better paid, but each brings with it a cocktail of benefits and costs.Of course, as you note regarding CEOs, it also matters to whom an individual's work is valuable. Social workers might be invaluable to their clients, but those clients are little able to compensate them and they typically receive compensation from the state based on the value society via government allows. At the same time, partners in corporate law firms are also invaluable to their clients, and those clients are well able to compensate them. Clearly one can chafe at the idea that the partner's additional year of schooling and different career path has an additional market value in the area where I live that is well into the seven figures per year.What is interesting to me is that markets are such that those who serve business interests directly always win out over those that serve people or knowledge directly. (Now I realize that's partly a false dichotomy, as Adam Smith would note, since to succeed in business one must serve one's customer.) But, this is a condition that has existed for most of history. Barring monarchs and cleptocratic rulers, it has always been those serving the needs of commerce who are more materially compensated and control the most wealth.
I think you've misunderstood me. I also think you and I have different understandings of government.
You seem to be suggesting that it is wrong for demand for particular skills to set the price such work commands and that this condition, which you view as problematic, should be corrected by unions. I'm confused by this. Unions use collective bargaining to balance the negotiating dynamic between employers and workers and act to safeguard employee interests from exploitation. This is why unions are essential. However, they cannot set wages irrespective of supply and demand except when other inefficiencies intervene. (An example of this is Detroit automakers, who paid more than justified for labor in terms of total compensation, which ultimately led them to financial crisis and to move labor to areas not controlled by unions.) For this reason, teachers' unions negotiate rather different wages and benefits in Manhattan than in rural TN than in Washington, DC.
Now, with respect to demand, yes government policies control the number of teachers per pupil and thus modulate demand. However, this is subject to votes of taxpayers at state and local levels who ultimately must fund the positions via their taxes, so demand is also driven by citizens (consumers).
In any case, I just don't understand how such a situation devalues teachers. Scientists such as me are paid rather different wages in different fields and different parts of the country. Our choices about where to work (university, industry, government, nonprofit) influence our pay and bring distinct balances of benefits, salary, and intangibles. Our willingness to accept certain conditions (supply) together with the need for individuals to do such work (demand) establishes the rough scale of pay. This is how all jobs are. That includes government jobs. Here in Washington, DC, the pay for government lawyers starts higher than other government jobs because they must compete against high-paying jobs offered by private law firms.
Moreover, in the areas of greatest need, teachers are often better paid. In fact, in some troubled school districts the amount of money spent per pupil exceeds all other areas of those states. This is partly due to low supply (people don't want to work in difficult districts). The reason funds are available for this is that tax policies in many states allow for districts with lower tax revenue to borrow from districts with higher tax revenue. This is the cases in states such as NJ and MI. Thus, it is not the case that poorer districts are less able to pay teachers.
Finally, you argue, "if you could pay the best teachers a higher wage, that would be great, but that is not how government jobs work." However, that is exactly what is now being considered in many districts (including Washington, D.C. - http://www.newser.com/story/85... ). Often this move is resisted by unions because they are charged with serving all of their members, not just those deemed "best performing." Note also, that in my difficult district teachers are quite well paid, with top salaries before merit pay being twice the national median salary and in the top fifth of earners and top salaries after merit pay placing them in the top 5% of earners (about the pay of a full professor at an Ivy league university).
js
I am mainly reacting to assumptions that because of market forces teachers don't deserve to be paid more than they (on average) are. It's a hard job that we should value more as a society, I think. Ryan's implication that this opinion is a result of a "halo effect" upset me. Nobody goes into teaching for the money, and that alone should give us pause before we accuse teachers and teacher's unions of being driven solely by greed.
Of course, the economic pressures are much more complex than either of our initial posts accounted for.