The problem with the issue of teachers' paid is complicated by community values. Some communities really value education and families will actively try to get their kids into good schools hence increasing paid for teachers in those areas. Some communities don't value education as much or are just too poor to pay teachers well. What do we do about the latter situations? It's not fair for the children that they will fall behind others in life because of where they happen to be born. How do we promote healthy values across this nation without being overly intrusive into personal choice and freedom? On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 2:09 PM Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I am basing my understanding the Austrian school of economics, which is > rooted in neoclassical thinking. I would argue that the Marxist models you > are using are simply wrong, because they don’t accurately represent what > is actually happening in the marketplace. > It’s possible to talk about use-value, but the problem with such a concept > is that nothing has a fixed value. Air for instance can be worth nothing or > worth everything if you are under water. Simple wheat can be worth > everything if you are starving and nothing if you aren’t. I wouldn’t pay > anything for a 5 kg of raw wheat right now – it would be of less value to > me currently than a single dorito chip. > > so the first difference between Marxist and neo-classical thinking, is the > realization that value is subjective. If you are using models where you > are expecting to find use-value or labour-value to be accurately > represented in exchange-value, then your models will fail almost > immediately. > > There is no such thing as labour-value, since Picasso can spend five > seconds on a doodle and it would be worth more than a very skilful painter > using 100 hours or Kim Kardashian could take a single selfie which could be > worth a months wages of a school teacher. > > But let’s tackle the problem, we both think teachers provide something > which should be valuable, but isn’t really valued that much in the market. > Let’s say we both agree that teachers should be paid more, I will make the > argument that my models can solve the problem and your models will > misdiagnose the problem and ultimately make the problem worse. > > You think teachers are underpaid because of an economic signal from > society. I don’t think teachers are underpaid. Underpaid is a concept that > doesn’t have any meaning, unless you are looking at a field of competition > where someone isn’t getting the same pay as others in the same field – if > their labour is worth more than they are paid, then they can sell it > another place. > > so no, I don’t think teachers are underpaid at a principle. However, let’s > solve the problem you raised. Why do we not value teachers work more ? > I think teachers are “underpaid” because most schools have become a > terrible business-model. There are private schools which have excellent > payment for their teachers. The problem is that public schools are run by > government and the government is insanely inefficient at using money, > because it’s not in competition with anyone. If schools were in > competition with each other, they would compete on low prices for the > students and higher prices for qualified work. They would compete to have > the best teachers, because that would get them more students. > Currently you can be an amazing teacher or a terrible teacher and get paid > the same in the public school system and therefore teachers are generally > underpaid. > competition helps everyone – both the teachers and the students. Public > run schools helps nobody, since it makes everything more expensive and less > profitable. > Under a free market, teachers can become rock-stars and make as much money > as Kim Kardashian. If all entertainment was socialized and ran as public > institutions– none of the stars would make any money. > > However with the models you are using, you will never come to such a > realization, because you are thinking in terms of what people “should” get > paid – instead of looking at payment as a representation of the value a > person is providing. > > > > Best > > Elung > > > > > *Fra: *Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]> > *Sendt: *10. oktober 2019 19:33 > *Til: *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> > *Emne: *Re: podcast with Andrew Yang > > > > This is super interesting. Thanks Alexander. My preference is civility as > well, so please forgive my preemptive armoring. > > > > I think we are at a paradigmatic impasse, as the (neo-classical?) models > you are using I simply don’t use. For example, I find it useful to make a > distinction between *use value* and *exchange value,* which is a > distinction you might find disagreeable. I am also interested in the > category of *objective value* — this is why I say that when Kim Kardashian > makes more with a months worth of instagram posts than the best school > teacher will make in her entire life, I think this is a problem akin to our > society placing value on the wrong things (i.e., valuing something that is > not really valuable). My sense is you might also think that kind of thing > is a problem, but of a different kind? Indeed you speak of unnatural > inequality, which sounds a lot like my idea of *extreme* inequality. Help > me understand the difference please. > > > > Note my concern here is with the underpaid teacher, as it has been all > along ;-) … Childishly… I am worried about my teachers still, who I guess > don’t add value according to the models you are using? … Sincerely, I am > asking how you would model this problem of underpaid, but highly skilled > people in crucial social roles… I see that they consistently receive an > economic signal that they are not of value to society, but I think that > signal is simply an error that should be corrected… > > > > zak > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Alexander Elung <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > I don’t think you have mistaken me for someone else. I have been in a lot > of discussions with Bard recently where personal attack became involved, > but I never used them over arguments and I very rarely use them in > general. I much prefer civil discussion – in this case however, you were > the one who came swinging fists right out the gates. But I will try to be > as civil as humanly possible. > - > > Income isn’t directly tied to skill nor should it be. Your income is > tied to what value you are able to provide in the market. The value is > determined by what people are willing to pay for what you are providing. > What value you are able to provide is therefore indirectly tied to skill, > but there are more factors connected to it than that. > > So we should in fact not expect skill and income to be directly > correlated. You can be extremely skilful and not provide something which > people are interested in or you have can have relatively low skill and > provide something which a lot of people values very highly. This > misunderstanding is your first problem. Unless you make a living off > coercion, your income is based on how much value you are providing I.e what > people are willing to pay you. Skills factor into that, but it’s not the > only factor , since value is subjective. > > your argument that certain things are being over-evaluated is also a > fundamental misunderstanding of how the market works. Value is subjective > Zac – things are only worth the value they have in the market and value in > the marketplace is determined by what people are willing to pay. > > Your second problem is that you think inequality is an accurate measure > for societal problems. It’s not. Poverty, suffering, lack of dignity, > exploitation and so on are actual markers which one can use to analyse if > something is wrong in a society. Inequality is really a bad marker, since > it doesn’t tell us anything about whether or not the difference is natural > or not and whether or not it’s harmful. > > When harry potter makes billions of dollars that makes the income > inequality very high compared to how much the average person makes, but it > doesn’t reflect a problem. People inheriting money also does not reflect > a problem at all. You seem to be very focused on people you think are “ > too rich” instead of focusing on people who are suffering because of > poverty – that is why I think this is subconsciously childish envy. > > Don’t get me wrong – there can be unnatural inequality. If you wanted to > make an actual argument, you could argue that legal protectionism has > created some unfair advantages for corporations which has led them to be > able to hinder competition and therefore get larger market shares than they > would in a free market – that is an actual problem. But inequality in > itself isn’t and thus far you haven’t made a single argument as to why. > > I recommend that you read “economics in one lesson” by Hazlitt or “human > action” by Mises. > > > > Best > > Elung > > > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com_-3Furl-3Dhttp-253A-252F-252Flistserv.jmu.edu-252Fcgi-2Dbin-252Fwa-253FSUBED1-253DTOK-2DSOCIETY-2DL-2526A-253D1-26data-3D02-257C01-257C-257C76abc7c4684e458ad6ad08d74da7f6fa-257C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa-257C1-257C0-257C637063256101465301-26sdata-3D-252FIspkM3eOSavoTd8PuXi-252FupK1FJt4V7KatNgf0rcJOM-253D-26reserved-3D0&d=DwMF-g&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CYwJkXJ7uzCPpuP0hp8slbBoa5qAW47CK-webDpgIyE&s=8Ag8jVV1nipkkJAtjpLq_UXNzyr054nTR8fW9-Y_BTM&e=> > > > ############################ > > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the > following link: > http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 > ############################ To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1