"... On Jul 13, 2:24 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: ..."
> One UK news story today was about a primary school headmaster getting > £237,000 a year. Loads of parents cold be found to say this is fine > because he's doing a good job. No one really knows whether this is > true or not. Maybe a few teachers are really responsible, or he's > just good at bending Offstead evaluations. That sounds more like the compensation for a university or college dean or president than a primary school headmaster (principal??) I doubt there is many communities that could afford to pay their primary school teachers such a salary for long. They'd go broke. Need to balance between talent and revenues. > I don't really care - what > gets to me is the way 'we' know sweet FA and voice opinions that make > us into instant idiots. Most colleagues tell me those vaunted by the > system are usually its worst. This was my general experience. Aye, mine as well. This is called the Peter Principle. Each person rises to their level of incompetence. It's also what fills bureaucracies, corporations and large organizations and what brings about their ineptitude and eventual failure. But in simple fact I'd have to say it's nothing more than people reacting with their emotions rather than rational behavior. > I believe we ahev enough history to explode the myth of leadership and > needs for great disparity in pay and wealth. Hmm. I'd have to give that some thought. Humans are profit minded creatures. We need material goods in exchange for our labors and if the labors include running a large corporation efficiently and profitably while being honest and moral about it, I'd say that person deserves big money and best perks. On the other hand, if our labors only are fit for bolting the same part in the same place, one after the other, day after week after month after year ad nauseaum, then they are only deserving of the lowest pay and smallest benefits. > I don't think we can ever have the critical mass as you put it Gruff - > we'd never get round to enough wo slap them all with our wet fish. It > may, as you say be possible in the future because of better and more > available history. I doubt we are going to last long enough. A critical mass may be smaller than you think. It doesn't take much to get people moving. I've been reading lately how minorities and energize and motivate majorities. The tea party, regardless their radicalism, is a good example of this. Oh, and I think I can guarantee that we will be here for a very long time ... long enough to get most of these problems solved and discover new ones to challenge us.
