Richard Posted: Feb 4, 2007 10:36 AM >It was interesting reading, but I was disappointed at >how the authors never gave actual yearly earnings.
---------------------------- Of course, public school teacher earnings look less impressive when viewed on an annual basis than on an hourly basis. This is because teachers tend to work fewer hours per year, with breaks during the summer, winter and spring. But comparing earnings on an annual basis would be inappropriate when teachers work significantly fewer hours than do other workers. Teachers can use that time to be with family, to engage in activities that they enjoy, or to earn additional money from other employment. That time off is worth money and cannot simply be ignored when comparing earnings. The appropriate way to compare earnings in this circumstance is to focus on hourly rates. (parag. 8) -----------------------------------
>My friend, the architect, bills for the hours he spends >at home working on drawings...
True. And does your friend the architect get paid when he is between jobs? And, who funds his health care and retirement? I.e.,
------------------- Moreover, the earnings data reported here, which are taken directly from the National Compensation Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, do not include retirement and health benefits, which tend to be quite generous for public school teachers relative to other workers. Nor do they include the nonmonetary benefit of greater job security due to the tenure that most public school teachers enjoy. (parag. 9) --------------------
No one is saying you are going to get rich by teaching but, at the very least, teaching is fairly paid; and by some standards, even generously.
