I'm getting paid $180k/yr to do nothing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guys, consolidate your work to 4 days and come sub on the 5th. Please!

—teacher who had to cover a colleague’s classes again today because no one picked up the job

I have thought about doing this occasionally to help out. I would probably only do this for a teacher taking a vacation day rather than a sick day because I think it's a tough position for someone to come into a class of kids they don't know teaching a random grade of kids with perhaps no lesson plan. I get it if you're sick you probably can't lay out what someone should cover with the kids so that's probably why I would only do planned vacations. There are also a limited number of schools I would want to substitute in. I also get it that if you sub you don't get to choose which makes me hesitant to do it.

I do volunteer on my days off in the school though. I make copies, sort papers, read stories to kids in the library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t just paying me for busy work. They are also paying me to be available to solve problems that come up. To have access to my expertise.

Perhaps you should be paid only for when your expertise is actually used.

This thread frustrates me because it’s showing how severely imbalanced careers are. I’m a teacher who is highly skilled and highly credentialed. My employer needs my skills 55-60 hours a week, sometimes more. I solve problems that come up 15-20 times a day. And my work is extremely important.

This imbalance is driving so many people out of teaching. Why should I work so hard for so little when I can get a job sitting around for more pay? (Perhaps I’m overqualified?)

The biggest mistake people make is associating work with pay.

Lifting boulders manually that weigh 490 lbs each is hard work. Is it valuable? Not really. Not saying teaching isn't valuable, but just because it is hard work doesn't guarantee high pay. Getting a teaching job isn't the hardest thing to do in the world and there is plenty of supply in labor. It's a lot harder though to get an advanced degree in a highly technical discipline like engineering and licensing/certs in specialized fields. Sure, you might get a gig making $180k coasting in a job, but there's simply less labor supply, which is why it exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are these jobs and are they hiring? Seriously, I have been looking for work for the last year and striking out. I would love one of these jobs.

Yes, all the time. They are corporate cog jobs. Look at the largest companies on the Forbes list and start applying for entry level from there. My company hires entry level at about 120K for grads. They have to go through a very rigorous program and graduate. Once they graduate the potential to land one of these role is high and pay goes up - but it’s a bit of a crap shoot. Some of the “teams” work 24/7 relentlessly. I’ve been on both types of teams. I actually prefer the teams with tons of work. There is lots of office team unity and good teams are like family a bit; but there are toxic ones to that work hard and stab everyone in the back. So, there’s a bit of everything. I think any huge company with high revenue will be like this.

What company starts at 120k? I've been working for 30 years and don't make that. I'm sure I can get a masters in whatever is needed.

Technical roles, mostly scientific and specialized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a 50 year old woman will they hire me still entry level or have I missed the boat on this? I go into work every day. No big deal to me.

Definitely not! So much ageism and sexism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t just paying me for busy work. They are also paying me to be available to solve problems that come up. To have access to my expertise.

Perhaps you should be paid only for when your expertise is actually used.

This thread frustrates me because it’s showing how severely imbalanced careers are. I’m a teacher who is highly skilled and highly credentialed. My employer needs my skills 55-60 hours a week, sometimes more. I solve problems that come up 15-20 times a day. And my work is extremely important.

This imbalance is driving so many people out of teaching. Why should I work so hard for so little when I can get a job sitting around for more pay? (Perhaps I’m overqualified?)

So get another job then. Bottom line - the market doesn’t need to pay teachers a lot because actually quite a lot of people are capable and willing to do it. Because it’s actually not that bad - summers off is HUGE and no, you’re not actually working all summer - so get over yourself.

… written by a person who knows nothing about teaching. No, plenty of people AREN’T capable and willing to do it. That’s why we are experiencing a major shortage. And no, it IS “actually that bad.” Unlike the many people posting about their easy jobs that pay tons of $$, teachers work without breaks in stressful, unsustainable conditions. Many people can’t last, demonstrating how hard the job actually is. And I didn’t even mention summer, so what was up with that weird comment?

And I’m happy to “get over myself” and quit like everybody else. Question is, what happens then?

Then quit. We live in a market economy (capitalism functions on supply and demand). When there are no teachers then they pay will go up. You just have to sacrifice one generation of public school kids to do it. Wealthy private schools will pay just slightly above the publics at every step in that journey, so they will be slightly better off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Glad I'm not the only one. At 180k. I can get my work done in about 2-3 hours most days

I am so glad OP started this thread, I make 160k in middle management, work no more than 10-15 hours a week. I WFH 4 days and it all sounds great on paper but I am bored out of my mind. Just for context, I don’t have any pending deliverables, can finish my work really quickly because I am good at it

My kids are 14 and 16, this job provides a great work life balance so I am scared to change jobs. Once again, boredom is my biggest challenge, maybe I should go into office 2-3 days and that will alleviate this feeling of not being productive.

+1
Go into the office and just have coffee and lunch. I also get tons of exercise!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh... I am a fed and have been working 60 hour weeks. I need to get out of the role of actually doing the work and into management. I listen to my DH and he spends all day on the phone BSing. Does no real work whatsoever.

SAME! I grind for 100k (WFH) writing and implementing grants. I do love it though. DH makes about 225k (WFH) and just BSes all day on the phone/Zooms. Just yukking it up with other people he's known for years in his industry. Occasionally he travels to do a site visit, which is fun for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t just paying me for busy work. They are also paying me to be available to solve problems that come up. To have access to my expertise.

Perhaps you should be paid only for when your expertise is actually used.

This thread frustrates me because it’s showing how severely imbalanced careers are. I’m a teacher who is highly skilled and highly credentialed. My employer needs my skills 55-60 hours a week, sometimes more. I solve problems that come up 15-20 times a day. And my work is extremely important.

This imbalance is driving so many people out of teaching. Why should I work so hard for so little when I can get a job sitting around for more pay? (Perhaps I’m overqualified?)

So get another job then. Bottom line - the market doesn’t need to pay teachers a lot because actually quite a lot of people are capable and willing to do it. Because it’s actually not that bad - summers off is HUGE and no, you’re not actually working all summer - so get over yourself.

I'm not a teacher, but it's impressive how much wrong you managed to cram into one post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm a 50 year old woman will they hire me still entry level or have I missed the boat on this? I go into work every day. No big deal to me.

Definitely not! So much ageism and sexism

To the 50yo woman, if you don't have any tech skills you could go into HR, then job hop until you make more money. Our HR dept seems shortstaffed and overwhelmed though, so be careful.

[Anonymous]

Damn. I have a job that doesn’t pay a living wage in order to have this lifestyle so I can use that time running around caring for my DCs and trying not to drown in housework. I’m envious! Teach yourself a new language and take a Coursera on a topic that interests you. Take a 40min walk at lunch every day or do the garage stairwell. Join a second book club so you have more you can read at your desk (Kindle in browser). Get ahead of your planning and scheduling. Plan your next vacation. Take your team out for lunch monthly. To the person with enough privacy to take naps in their recliner: spend some of that time with a Bosu ball or doing planks and other core workouts. Lucky you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t just paying me for busy work. They are also paying me to be available to solve problems that come up. To have access to my expertise.

Perhaps you should be paid only for when your expertise is actually used.

This thread frustrates me because it’s showing how severely imbalanced careers are. I’m a teacher who is highly skilled and highly credentialed. My employer needs my skills 55-60 hours a week, sometimes more. I solve problems that come up 15-20 times a day. And my work is extremely important.

This imbalance is driving so many people out of teaching. Why should I work so hard for so little when I can get a job sitting around for more pay? (Perhaps I’m overqualified?)

So get another job then. Bottom line - the market doesn’t need to pay teachers a lot because actually quite a lot of people are capable and willing to do it. Because it’s actually not that bad - summers off is HUGE and no, you’re not actually working all summer - so get over yourself.

… written by a person who knows nothing about teaching. No, plenty of people AREN’T capable and willing to do it. That’s why we are experiencing a major shortage. And no, it IS “actually that bad.” Unlike the many people posting about their easy jobs that pay tons of $$, teachers work without breaks in stressful, unsustainable conditions. Many people can’t last, demonstrating how hard the job actually is. And I didn’t even mention summer, so what was up with that weird comment?

And I’m happy to “get over myself” and quit like everybody else. Question is, what happens then?

Then quit. We live in a market economy (capitalism functions on supply and demand). When there are no teachers then they pay will go up. You just have to sacrifice one generation of public school kids to do it. Wealthy private schools will pay just slightly above the publics at every step in that journey, so they will be slightly better off.

Wealthy privates pay less than public schools + no pension. It’s a job for people with a well-to-do spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t just paying me for busy work. They are also paying me to be available to solve problems that come up. To have access to my expertise.

Perhaps you should be paid only for when your expertise is actually used.

This thread frustrates me because it’s showing how severely imbalanced careers are. I’m a teacher who is highly skilled and highly credentialed. My employer needs my skills 55-60 hours a week, sometimes more. I solve problems that come up 15-20 times a day. And my work is extremely important.

This imbalance is driving so many people out of teaching. Why should I work so hard for so little when I can get a job sitting around for more pay? (Perhaps I’m overqualified?)

So get another job then. Bottom line - the market doesn’t need to pay teachers a lot because actually quite a lot of people are capable and willing to do it. Because it’s actually not that bad - summers off is HUGE and no, you’re not actually working all summer - so get over yourself.

… written by a person who knows nothing about teaching. No, plenty of people AREN’T capable and willing to do it. That’s why we are experiencing a major shortage. And no, it IS “actually that bad.” Unlike the many people posting about their easy jobs that pay tons of $$, teachers work without breaks in stressful, unsustainable conditions. Many people can’t last, demonstrating how hard the job actually is. And I didn’t even mention summer, so what was up with that weird comment?

And I’m happy to “get over myself” and quit like everybody else. Question is, what happens then?

Then quit. We live in a market economy (capitalism functions on supply and demand). When there are no teachers then they pay will go up. You just have to sacrifice one generation of public school kids to do it. Wealthy private schools will pay just slightly above the publics at every step in that journey, so they will be slightly better off.

Wealthy privates pay less than public schools + no pension. It’s a job for people with a well-to-do spouse.

+1. I’m a private school teacher who switched from public. Wealthy privates will weather this shortage better than public schools, but it absolutely isn’t going to be because of the pay. Conditions can be much better in private schools, leading to better work/life balance and less emotional/physical stress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t just paying me for busy work. They are also paying me to be available to solve problems that come up. To have access to my expertise.

Perhaps you should be paid only for when your expertise is actually used.

This thread frustrates me because it’s showing how severely imbalanced careers are. I’m a teacher who is highly skilled and highly credentialed. My employer needs my skills 55-60 hours a week, sometimes more. I solve problems that come up 15-20 times a day. And my work is extremely important.

This imbalance is driving so many people out of teaching. Why should I work so hard for so little when I can get a job sitting around for more pay? (Perhaps I’m overqualified?)

So get another job then. Bottom line - the market doesn’t need to pay teachers a lot because actually quite a lot of people are capable and willing to do it. Because it’s actually not that bad - summers off is HUGE and no, you’re not actually working all summer - so get over yourself.

… written by a person who knows nothing about teaching. No, plenty of people AREN’T capable and willing to do it. That’s why we are experiencing a major shortage. And no, it IS “actually that bad.” Unlike the many people posting about their easy jobs that pay tons of $$, teachers work without breaks in stressful, unsustainable conditions. Many people can’t last, demonstrating how hard the job actually is. And I didn’t even mention summer, so what was up with that weird comment?

And I’m happy to “get over myself” and quit like everybody else. Question is, what happens then?

Then quit. We live in a market economy (capitalism functions on supply and demand). When there are no teachers then they pay will go up. You just have to sacrifice one generation of public school kids to do it. Wealthy private schools will pay just slightly above the publics at every step in that journey, so they will be slightly better off.

Wealthy privates pay less than public schools + no pension. It’s a job for people with a well-to-do spouse.

I'm the PP you responded to and I thought this might be the case. My point still stands the private schools will be fine. At my kids' schools I think they select upper class women of wealthy husbands who want to send their kids private. Even the teachers wear golden goose shoes and drive expensive cars there. My guess it that it's not from the teaching salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, consolidate your work to 4 days and come sub on the 5th. Please!

—teacher who had to cover a colleague’s classes again today because no one picked up the job

I have thought about doing this occasionally to help out. I would probably only do this for a teacher taking a vacation day rather than a sick day because I think it's a tough position for someone to come into a class of kids they don't know teaching a random grade of kids with perhaps no lesson plan. I get it if you're sick you probably can't lay out what someone should cover with the kids so that's probably why I would only do planned vacations. There are also a limited number of schools I would want to substitute in. I also get it that if you sub you don't get to choose which makes me hesitant to do it.

I do volunteer on my days off in the school though. I make copies, sort papers, read stories to kids in the library.

Teacher here. Thank you! Anything you can do (making copies, sorting, etc) means that I can focus elsewhere and get more done during work hours. I really appreciate you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They aren’t just paying me for busy work. They are also paying me to be available to solve problems that come up. To have access to my expertise.

Perhaps you should be paid only for when your expertise is actually used.

This thread frustrates me because it’s showing how severely imbalanced careers are. I’m a teacher who is highly skilled and highly credentialed. My employer needs my skills 55-60 hours a week, sometimes more. I solve problems that come up 15-20 times a day. And my work is extremely important.

This imbalance is driving so many people out of teaching. Why should I work so hard for so little when I can get a job sitting around for more pay? (Perhaps I’m overqualified?)

So get another job then. Bottom line - the market doesn’t need to pay teachers a lot because actually quite a lot of people are capable and willing to do it. Because it’s actually not that bad - summers off is HUGE and no, you’re not actually working all summer - so get over yourself.

… written by a person who knows nothing about teaching. No, plenty of people AREN’T capable and willing to do it. That’s why we are experiencing a major shortage. And no, it IS “actually that bad.” Unlike the many people posting about their easy jobs that pay tons of $$, teachers work without breaks in stressful, unsustainable conditions. Many people can’t last, demonstrating how hard the job actually is. And I didn’t even mention summer, so what was up with that weird comment?

And I’m happy to “get over myself” and quit like everybody else. Question is, what happens then?

Then quit. We live in a market economy (capitalism functions on supply and demand). When there are no teachers then they pay will go up. You just have to sacrifice one generation of public school kids to do it. Wealthy private schools will pay just slightly above the publics at every step in that journey, so they will be slightly better off.

Wealthy privates pay less than public schools + no pension. It’s a job for people with a well-to-do spouse.

I'm the PP you responded to and I thought this might be the case. My point still stands the private schools will be fine. At my kids' schools I think they select upper class women of wealthy husbands who want to send their kids private. *Even* the teacherswear golden goose shoes and drive expensive cars there. My guess it that it's not from the teaching salary.

Wow