The editors of the Wall Street Journal think Los Angeles teachers are being unrealistic in asking for higher pay:
‘Here we are on a rainy day, in the richest country in the world, in the richest state in the country, in a state as blue as it can be and in a city rife with millionaires, where teachers have to go on strike,†United Teachers Los Angeles president Alex Caputo-Pearl declared Monday. Here we are with another teachable moment in the failures of public union governance.
The 33,000-strong L.A. teachers’ union went on strike Monday as the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) slouches toward insolvency due to unaffordable labor contracts. Despite a putative $1.8 billion reserve, the district is spending about $500 million more each year than its annual revenues and will be broke within two years, which could prompt a state takeover and bankruptcy.
Los Angeles teachers earn on average about $75,000 per year—about $6,000 less than the statewide average—though compensation including health and retirement benefits exceeds $110,000. One problem is the region’s high housing costs make it harder to retain teachers while more and more money is diverted to benefits and pensions.
In this case the editors are wrong. I have said before that my opinion is that there should be some relationship between the pay of civil servants and income in the communities they serve. Consider the chart above. Median income in LA County has been rising sharply. It is not unreasonable for LA’s teachers to think their pay should rise as well.
I think that LA’s problem is that Prop 13 limits property tax revenue, the city cannot impose an income tax, and sales taxes are severely regressive. Incomes are very unequal in Los Angeles—it is the fourth worst metro area in the U. S. after New York, Miami, and New Orleans (Chicago is 15th). There are costs associated with the decisions that Los Angeles and California has made over the years. Pony up.
I’m not sure salaries w/ benefits are disproportionate to the City. Median household income: $54,501 (City); $61,015 (County) per U.S. Census Bureau (2013-2017 avg.). I think one factor to consider: 59.6% of households speak language other than English at home (only a little lower in the county: 56.6%)
Agree about Prop 13, but its been over 40 years since it was passed. We’re almost talking about an immutable law of California culture at this point.
When my wife taught a special needs class in LA, she had ten students speaking six different first languages. That was 35 years ago.
I am not sure comparing a teacher’s salary with the median is the right metric. When you have high levels of inequality you could easily have a bimodal distribution with relatively few folks in the middle so that those numbers are less meaningful. Probably makes more sense to compare their income to expenses ratio and do it for the city, the surrounding counties, the state and nationally. I think that would give a truer picture. That said, you need to include benefits. Its the total package that counts.
Steve
@dave, from friends with kids in LA, I’m told there is a tipping point where native English-speakers will vacate a school if non-English speaking students hit a certain percentage. Test scores start to plummet until its classified as a failure and its remade as a magnet school.
@steve, sure, LA has a hollowed out middle class, but they are still limited from taxes that force out more of the middle class.
I read this morning in another article that people in San Francisco who make $117k a year are considered “low income” and eligible for poverty assistance. Keep in mind that $117k a year is just short of the top 10% income nation-wide.
As far as teachers go, I think they need a competitive compensation package, but it has to be consistent with the ability of localities to actually pay. And the teacher’s unions preference for district-level seniority, credentialism, and deferred compensation isn’t helping.