Arguably, more rural schools or those in lower income areas should be paying proportionally better for teachers, to attract talent that would otherwise have no interest in being in that area. Those schools tend to be where students and their families have little or no say about what districts they are in, as they use regional magnet schools that cater to multiple small towns. They’d have to completely upend everything and move a substantial distance to have options urban folks take largely for granted. My town has two public and three private school systems, for example, and its only moderately urban. Where I grew up, one school district serviced 1/4 of the county.
Currently the rural districts pay nearly nothing and its lower than other places which also pay nearly nothing, so they get the worst of the worst educators who can’t find better and it keeps everyone’s wages depressed generationally.
But social mobility is a dream of that past that’s long since dead and buried anyway.
It depends on circumstances, you’re assuming a scenario vs the scenario of a local who went to a good university and wants to stay in their small town. Ideally things are left up to the decision of each community and school board. Like if they want to commit a particular percentage of the funds to teachers pay to attract a greater talent then that’s a decision they can make. My argument is mostly that at minimum teachers should make a decent living wage in respect to the local market. 60k in a rural town in Mississippi, Montana, or West Virginia isn’t the same as 60k in NYC, SF, LA, DC and so on as the default minimum.
I never said anyone shouldn’t make a decent wage wrt:local economy. But I live in a depressed economy, and have my whole life, so I know full well just how stuck people get financially when they are from low cost areas or spend too much of their career time in one. Hardly anyone goes to a good school and then goes back to their shitty home town on purpose, because college is expensive and they can’t pay it off while making peanuts in their hometown. It ends up being an option only desperate people take, which means shitty teachers, which in turn means dumb kids who go on to lead low income lives.
I said rural and low cost areas should pay proportionally more, probably just through state budgets rather than giving them an option they will always choose to fuck up, to attract talent, because it’s good for the community across generations. A rising tide lifts all ships, and maybe people would go to a good school and then go back to their hometown, if their hometown was offering them a decent quality of life.
Its true that 60k is different in low cost areas vs high cost ones, but thats part of my point. Its not like our low income areas are a separate country with their own currency and stuff. The only way it matters that 60k spends differently is if you never plan to leave. Wanna go on vacation? That 6k trip that’s reasonably affordable at 1/20th yearly wages for someone in California who makes 120k (comparing high wages in respective markets), is 1/10 yearly wages for someone making 60, a substantial difference in impact for the same life experience for two people making similarly “good wages” in their local economy, and there aren’t any poor area discounts, either. If they want to sell their house and buy one somewhere with better opportunities, they will absolutely for sure still need a substantial mortgage they will never get approved for because everything is so much more expensive than what they are selling from, and their work income history is so much lower than what’s required. Our goods aren’t cheaper either, other than maybe food and gas. That big purchase is proportionally bigger for someone who earns less, even if everyone around them also earns less.
I’d like to see the income distribution curve sort of level out a bit where mobility (physical, in this case) was a real option for all of us rather than something you have to take a massive risk of homelessness or be from a wealthy area to do. I’d like to see wages in low income areas increase faster than those in big urban areas, simply because they have been so much more stagnant for so much longer (min wage here is still 7.25 and lots of jobs still pay that -can’t live on that here either). Mostly, I’d like to see quality of life increase in poor areas, and that means more money available to the local economy. One of the ways to do this is to get better educational outcomes, make the future workforce desirable. Better education also tends to decrease conservatism, so it’d be doubly good to do. Snowball effect and everything.
it’s just down the road from me. it’s a convergence point between a bunch of mining towns so it’s a bit of a significant labor organization point in central Appalachia. it’s also where Mother Jones founded the UMWA. also prior to European colonization it access between the Allegheny highlands and the great valley made it an ideal trading hub thanks to the New River, so it holds significance to indigenous rights organizers in Appalachia as well. the fact that the median income is $19k/yr is very much a policy choice of enforcing poverty
A lot of interesting information. I’ve found in personal experience the further west one travels the less connected people are to their geographic location. Maybe also it’s an aspect of smaller and bigger states. Like small states seem to have a lot of people with a lot of awareness of the local history and pride vs bigger states it’s very difficult to find someone like that. Maybe a third aspect is high traffic states, aka locations with lots of transplants vs areas with essentially none. So by the time you reach Southern California it’s nearly impossible to casually meet someone who knows anything about the local history much less has a serious pride or attachment to the location.
NYC teachers max out at about $124,000 after 15+ years and if they have a master’s. That’s not some huge amount in NYC. At least they get a pension so they can move to Costa Rica after they retire and live somewhat comfortably.
As a Costarican, I can tell you that inflation will bite them hard when they arrive. Anything below $25K USD a year will have them scrounging, and that’s not even counting the apartment rates or a cleaner service.
That’s livable in that area for the most part. I imagine engineers range 80k to 180k in the same area unless they work their way into management or are in a particular in demand field.
60k was pre 2020 rate, they should be paid 100k+ for how much training and bullshit they have to go through.
150k in like NY, SD, LA, SF. Maybe closer to 60k in Beckley WV. Cost of living and taxes aren’t the same everywhere.
Arguably, more rural schools or those in lower income areas should be paying proportionally better for teachers, to attract talent that would otherwise have no interest in being in that area. Those schools tend to be where students and their families have little or no say about what districts they are in, as they use regional magnet schools that cater to multiple small towns. They’d have to completely upend everything and move a substantial distance to have options urban folks take largely for granted. My town has two public and three private school systems, for example, and its only moderately urban. Where I grew up, one school district serviced 1/4 of the county.
Currently the rural districts pay nearly nothing and its lower than other places which also pay nearly nothing, so they get the worst of the worst educators who can’t find better and it keeps everyone’s wages depressed generationally.
But social mobility is a dream of that past that’s long since dead and buried anyway.
It depends on circumstances, you’re assuming a scenario vs the scenario of a local who went to a good university and wants to stay in their small town. Ideally things are left up to the decision of each community and school board. Like if they want to commit a particular percentage of the funds to teachers pay to attract a greater talent then that’s a decision they can make. My argument is mostly that at minimum teachers should make a decent living wage in respect to the local market. 60k in a rural town in Mississippi, Montana, or West Virginia isn’t the same as 60k in NYC, SF, LA, DC and so on as the default minimum.
I never said anyone shouldn’t make a decent wage wrt:local economy. But I live in a depressed economy, and have my whole life, so I know full well just how stuck people get financially when they are from low cost areas or spend too much of their career time in one. Hardly anyone goes to a good school and then goes back to their shitty home town on purpose, because college is expensive and they can’t pay it off while making peanuts in their hometown. It ends up being an option only desperate people take, which means shitty teachers, which in turn means dumb kids who go on to lead low income lives.
I said rural and low cost areas should pay proportionally more, probably just through state budgets rather than giving them an option they will always choose to fuck up, to attract talent, because it’s good for the community across generations. A rising tide lifts all ships, and maybe people would go to a good school and then go back to their hometown, if their hometown was offering them a decent quality of life.
Its true that 60k is different in low cost areas vs high cost ones, but thats part of my point. Its not like our low income areas are a separate country with their own currency and stuff. The only way it matters that 60k spends differently is if you never plan to leave. Wanna go on vacation? That 6k trip that’s reasonably affordable at 1/20th yearly wages for someone in California who makes 120k (comparing high wages in respective markets), is 1/10 yearly wages for someone making 60, a substantial difference in impact for the same life experience for two people making similarly “good wages” in their local economy, and there aren’t any poor area discounts, either. If they want to sell their house and buy one somewhere with better opportunities, they will absolutely for sure still need a substantial mortgage they will never get approved for because everything is so much more expensive than what they are selling from, and their work income history is so much lower than what’s required. Our goods aren’t cheaper either, other than maybe food and gas. That big purchase is proportionally bigger for someone who earns less, even if everyone around them also earns less.
I’d like to see the income distribution curve sort of level out a bit where mobility (physical, in this case) was a real option for all of us rather than something you have to take a massive risk of homelessness or be from a wealthy area to do. I’d like to see wages in low income areas increase faster than those in big urban areas, simply because they have been so much more stagnant for so much longer (min wage here is still 7.25 and lots of jobs still pay that -can’t live on that here either). Mostly, I’d like to see quality of life increase in poor areas, and that means more money available to the local economy. One of the ways to do this is to get better educational outcomes, make the future workforce desirable. Better education also tends to decrease conservatism, so it’d be doubly good to do. Snowball effect and everything.
Beckley deserves so much more than to be a tourist trap where people get told lies about the union
Lol I literally just picked it off the map. I really wasn’t expecting anyone in this thread to know that location intimately.
it’s just down the road from me. it’s a convergence point between a bunch of mining towns so it’s a bit of a significant labor organization point in central Appalachia. it’s also where Mother Jones founded the UMWA. also prior to European colonization it access between the Allegheny highlands and the great valley made it an ideal trading hub thanks to the New River, so it holds significance to indigenous rights organizers in Appalachia as well. the fact that the median income is $19k/yr is very much a policy choice of enforcing poverty
A lot of interesting information. I’ve found in personal experience the further west one travels the less connected people are to their geographic location. Maybe also it’s an aspect of smaller and bigger states. Like small states seem to have a lot of people with a lot of awareness of the local history and pride vs bigger states it’s very difficult to find someone like that. Maybe a third aspect is high traffic states, aka locations with lots of transplants vs areas with essentially none. So by the time you reach Southern California it’s nearly impossible to casually meet someone who knows anything about the local history much less has a serious pride or attachment to the location.
NYC teachers max out at about $124,000 after 15+ years and if they have a master’s. That’s not some huge amount in NYC. At least they get a pension so they can move to Costa Rica after they retire and live somewhat comfortably.
As a Costarican, I can tell you that inflation will bite them hard when they arrive. Anything below $25K USD a year will have them scrounging, and that’s not even counting the apartment rates or a cleaner service.
That’s livable in that area for the most part. I imagine engineers range 80k to 180k in the same area unless they work their way into management or are in a particular in demand field.