[tptacek]

Does that matter? If we're talking in terms of annual salary, the fact that they "don't get paid" over the summer is irrelevant; it's just the same amount of money distributed on a weird schedule, isn't it? All things being equal, you'd rather have the $60k job that had "an unpaid summer off" than the $60k job where you got paid all summer, right?

[mcguire]

At least the graph in the article is "adjusted" for the 10-month work year. Typically in such discussions, that would mean they multiplied teacher salaries by 12/10 to make them "comparable" to other professions.

Your $60k job is actually a $50k job with an unpaid summer off.

[tptacek]

Are you sure about that? When the Washington Post says that CPS teachers make >$70,000, I'm reasonable sure (but not 100% sure) that's their actual annual compensation. When my kids old school district reports high-school teachers make $110,000, I know for a fact that's their annual comp, not something normalized to their "working months".

[mcguire]

Good point. I'm being hyperbolic. But in these discussions you do have to be careful that someone hasn't annualized a 9 or 10 month salary like the article.