Of course it’s usually a unionized job as well. How well it pays varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction so how fair the pay is really depends where you are.
It is interesting to note that candidates continue to emerge, though, so it can’t pay that bad.
I agree with this. Individuals are just as valuable as the number of niches that are available to them and that they are naturally suited for. As technology continues to advance, more and more people are going to struggle to tangibly demonstrate their worth. You might be able to place blame on a person with all the right upbringing and genetic endowments who still can’t seem to get it together. But what about the guy with average IQ, charm, and resources?
Disability is context-specific. A person with a borderline IQ could find a niche easily enough back when tending cooking fires and carrying water were highly marketable skills. But nowadays, you have to have a GED to make any kind of “worthwhile” living. Do people with borderline IQs qualify for special services? How about people with “borderline” social skills and “borderline” physicality? Just like the minimum wage needs to be indexed to inflation, maybe we need to regularly adjust the standards we use for who is and isn’t disabled. Right now, I kinda think a lot of borderline cases are falling through the cracks, but everyone’s too busy being judgmental to do anything about it.
The universal payment is something that is growing on me. Would you advocate that as a worldwide solution to mitigate inequality?
Jeez - scaling up worldwide adds complications beyond my poor mental capabilities.
Another anecdatum of questionable significance. Over the past couple of years, I have noticed many many instances in which indigent folk are getting vastly greater medical care that they had before the ACA. Really a striking change. Of the limited number of such folk I see (maybe 5-600 per year), I have not noted a significant number of them gaining competitive employment as a result.
Well… it kind of depends on your yardstick. By overall national pay rates, it’s not terrible. Even in states where teachers are forbidden to strike, like Texas, the minimum pay rate still ranges from about 28k for a new teacher with no experience, to about 46k for a teacher with 20 years of experience.
But that’s also for people with a 4 year specialized degree. Most all of those jobs make more than 45k after 20 years, and most start higher than 28k.
I think it’s particularly telling that states have to mandate a minimum salary for teachers. By doing so, they basically level the playing field for richer/poorer districts- they ALL have to pay at least that minimum, and they level the playing field among subjects- they have to pay a health teacher the same minimum as a math teacher. But the side-effect is that they hamstring the richer districts by not allowing them as much leeway in terms of paying what the market will bear. For example, I’d imagine in a competitive system, a health teacher or PE teacher would be low paid, but good academic subject teachers like say… English, math and sciences would be paid better- those are the subjects that their students are tested on, so districts with more money could pay the health teachers beans, and reallocate that to better English teachers. People might be willing to pay more taxes if it meant that the district could tailor pay to individual teachers instead of having almost military style pay-grades that apply to all teachers in the district with state-mandated minimums.