[krakensden]

> Oh really? Public employees are far more likely to have pensions than the rest of us. Public employees earn significantly more too and have greater job security.

Good benefits yes, good salary, not so much: http://www.onlinedegrees.org/calculator/degrees/education

for instance. I really have no idea how people complain that teachers are overpaid. It beats picking lettuce, but consider the opportunity cost of a bachelors and a teaching certificate. They could be making a lot more money if they were doing anything else.

[jbooth]

Yeah, that's one of those "believe it because I want to believe it" things.

I mean, do these people actually know any teachers? Why aren't they teachers themselves if it's so great?

I know for a fact that I'm not a teacher because the pay is shit and I'm not a good enough person to sacrifice my lifestyle for it. At least I can admit that.

[anamax]

"public employees" != "teachers".

> They could be making a lot more money if they were doing anything else.

And we also know that they're getting things that they value more than said "extra money". (The alternative is that they're incapable of evaluating their own utility function.)

That said, I'm willing to pay more to get more. Of course, that means paying other folks, because current salaries are adequate for the current teachers. (You don't want to argue that they'd teach better if they were paid more.)

However, "get more" requires some proof, not a "you'll get better people" argument.

So, how do you propose to measure the benefits that you expect to get from these new teachers? (Surely you're not willing to pay for something that you don't get....)