Father-Daughter Talk

[ski_adk]

Okay, then lets eliminate gov't, tax-payer funded employment. After all, the private-sector looks really ready to hire all of those gov't workers.

[RJSVermont]

Maybe I'm way off here, and please correct me if I am, but I don't think the subjects of this joke really are comparable. I think it's rather foolish.

The father seems to be equating achievement in school with financial success in life. What about all the teachers and social workers out there (My mother included) who have graduated with top honors and possess advanced degress yet still make pathetic wages even though they are contributing more (Constructively) to society than the rich business executive.

The joke seems a bit ignorant to me......

[ski_adk]

Great point RJSVermont.

[BigKahuna13]

Okay, then lets eliminate gov't, tax-payer funded employment. After all, the private-sector looks really ready to hire all of those gov't workers.

If the government stops providing a useful service than someone in the private sector will undoubtedly start providing the same service.
If the service wasn't useful (meaning here that no one's willing to pay for it) then the private sector won't pick it up.

That's the way free markets work

who have graduated with top honors and possess advanced degress yet still make pathetic wages even though they are contributing more (Constructively) to society than the rich business executive.

Why do you buy into the silly stereotype that all teachers are altruistic angels and all business people are greedy slobs?

I suppose people like Henry Ford, Ken Olsen, Bill Gates etc, etc made no useful contributions to society?

[Bubba]

who have graduated with top honors and possess advanced degress yet still make pathetic wages even though they are contributing more (Constructively) to society than the rich business executive.

Why do you buy into the silly stereotype that all teachers are altruistic angels and all business people are greedy slobs?

I suppose people like Henry Ford, Ken Olsen, Bill Gates etc, etc made no useful contributions to society?

Because the stereotype is easy and simplistic? Obviously people who teach are more valuable than people who manufacture stuff, yet they make less money. Oh, how horrid!!!!

The real differences are:

1. Teaching was historically a role women took on and, as a result, the wages were lower historically.

2. Teachers are civil servants and protected by civil service law in most places. They also, in many places, can retire much earlier than the rest of us. That's the old trade off between risk and reward - private employees can be fired at will as opposed to a teacher.

3. Right or wrong, teachers are viewed as working 180 days a year, with summers and holidays off, rather than 250 days like most of us.

My mother was a teacher in NYC, my niece is a teacher in Baltimore, and friends of mine are recently retired NYC teachers at my age and doing quite well on their pensions. I have nothing against teachers, obviously, but while I think they should be paid more, I also understand why they're not.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Okay, then lets eliminate gov't, tax-payer funded employment. After all, the private-sector looks really ready to hire all of those gov't workers.

If the government stops providing a useful service than someone in the private sector will undoubtedly start providing the same service.
If the service wasn't useful (meaning here that no one's willing to pay for it) then the private sector won't pick it up.

That's the way free markets work

Excellent point. That's how it should be....then we don't have this rediculous pork barrel spending! (both parties are guilty of the pork!)

[RJSVermont]

Okay, then lets eliminate gov't, tax-payer funded employment. After all, the private-sector looks really ready to hire all of those gov't workers.

If the government stops providing a useful service than someone in the private sector will undoubtedly start providing the same service.
If the service wasn't useful (meaning here that no one's willing to pay for it) then the private sector won't pick it up.

That's the way free markets work

who have graduated with top honors and possess advanced degress yet still make pathetic wages even though they are contributing more (Constructively) to society than the rich business executive.

Why do you buy into the silly stereotype that all teachers are altruistic angels and all business people are greedy slobs?

I suppose people like Henry Ford, Ken Olsen, Bill Gates etc, etc made no useful contributions to society?

Well I did not specify teachers alone, I merely meant that type of job. The rich business executive comment was in regards to the "father" of the story but if you can honestly say that 99% of those who go to school for a business degree do so out of wanting to make society a better place than maybe I'm wrong.

[RJSVermont]

who have graduated with top honors and possess advanced degress yet still make pathetic wages even though they are contributing more (Constructively) to society than the rich business executive.

Why do you buy into the silly stereotype that all teachers are altruistic angels and all business people are greedy slobs?

I suppose people like Henry Ford, Ken Olsen, Bill Gates etc, etc made no useful contributions to society?

Because the stereotype is easy and simplistic? Obviously people who teach are more valuable than people who manufacture stuff, yet they make less money. Oh, how horrid!!!!

The real differences are:

1. Teaching was historically a role women took on and, as a result, the wages were lower historically.

2. Teachers are civil servants and protected by civil service law in most places. They also, in many places, can retire much earlier than the rest of us. That's the old trade off between risk and reward - private employees can be fired at will as opposed to a teacher.

3. Right or wrong, teachers are viewed as working 180 days a year, with summers and holidays off, rather than 250 days like most of us.

My mother was a teacher in NYC, my niece is a teacher in Baltimore, and friends of mine are recently retired NYC teachers at my age and doing quite well on their pensions. I have nothing against teachers, obviously, but while I think they should be paid more, I also understand why they're not.

My argument was not about teacher's pay, I think you may have missed my point. My argument was merely that the joke is poorly laid out and compares apples to well, something other than apples.

[Bubba]

who have graduated with top honors and possess advanced degress yet still make pathetic wages even though they are contributing more (Constructively) to society than the rich business executive.

Why do you buy into the silly stereotype that all teachers are altruistic angels and all business people are greedy slobs?

I suppose people like Henry Ford, Ken Olsen, Bill Gates etc, etc made no useful contributions to society?

Because the stereotype is easy and simplistic? Obviously people who teach are more valuable than people who manufacture stuff, yet they make less money. Oh, how horrid!!!!

The real differences are:

1. Teaching was historically a role women took on and, as a result, the wages were lower historically.

2. Teachers are civil servants and protected by civil service law in most places. They also, in many places, can retire much earlier than the rest of us. That's the old trade off between risk and reward - private employees can be fired at will as opposed to a teacher.

3. Right or wrong, teachers are viewed as working 180 days a year, with summers and holidays off, rather than 250 days like most of us.

My mother was a teacher in NYC, my niece is a teacher in Baltimore, and friends of mine are recently retired NYC teachers at my age and doing quite well on their pensions. I have nothing against teachers, obviously, but while I think they should be paid more, I also understand why they're not.

My argument was not about teacher's pay, I think you may have missed my point. My argument was merely that the joke is poorly laid out and compares apples to well, something other than apples.

I don't think the analogy is so wildly off base. A person works for a living, earns money, provides for his/her family and saves enough to have a comfortable retirement. Somebody else, quite capable of doing more, loafs through life, aspires to pumping gas, etc. and society says "oh, poor thing" and takes the first person's hard earned money to subsidize the other. The student works hard for good grades, earns a 4.0 GPA and is rightly proud of it. Another student, equally capable, loafs through school, cuts classes, and ends up with a 2.0. The second student will not get as good a job out of school and may lag behind for years in earning power and job growth because of the different paths through which they entered the job market. The analogy is there or, if it's not, it's certainly not apples and oranges.

Most people I know have no problem supporting those who can't fend for themselves. The objection is to supporting people who won't fend for themselves or who, through self-destructive behaviors, keep themselves from succeeding. Most people I know have no problem paying taxes for the military, for basic government services, infrastructure, etc. that's needed to keep this country going and growing. Most people I know, however, object to waste, fraud, abuse, pork barrel nonsense and civil servants who don't seem to care and have no incentive to work harder and better because their jobs are protected.

[BigKahuna13]

Okay, then lets eliminate gov't, tax-payer funded employment. After all, the private-sector looks really ready to hire all of those gov't workers.

If the government stops providing a useful service than someone in the private sector will undoubtedly start providing the same service.
If the service wasn't useful (meaning here that no one's willing to pay for it) then the private sector won't pick it up.

That's the way free markets work

who have graduated with top honors and possess advanced degress yet still make pathetic wages even though they are contributing more (Constructively) to society than the rich business executive.

Why do you buy into the silly stereotype that all teachers are altruistic angels and all business people are greedy slobs?

I suppose people like Henry Ford, Ken Olsen, Bill Gates etc, etc made no useful contributions to society?

Well I did not specify teachers alone, I merely meant that type of job. The rich business executive comment was in regards to the "father" of the story but if you can honestly say that 99% of those who go to school for a business degree do so out of wanting to make society a better place than maybe I'm wrong.

Seriously doubt that you'll find 99% of the people in any job - teachers and social workers included - who do it because they want to make society better. My brother's a teacher. He likes his job and by all accounts is good at it. But he doesn't do it to make society better. He needs a paycheck while he writes the next great American novel and his English Lit PhD doesn't qualify him for much else.

Will admit that there's probably a higher percentage of altruists among teachers and nurses and social workers, but that doesn't really matter in the long run anyway. Mr. Maytag wasn't being altruistic when he invented his washing machine. He was trying to expand his business (and get rich). Yet he probably did more to make more womens' lives better than anyone in history. Not bad for an evil money grubbing business type.