undefined | Better HN

0 pointstptacek6y ago0 comments

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?

0 comments

mcguire6y ago

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.

tptacekOP6y ago

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".

mcguire6y ago

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointstptacek6y ago0 comments

0 comments

mcguire6y ago

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

tptacekOP6y ago

mcguire6y ago

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse