Former teacher her. I only lasted 4 years in an urban public school - and I am a GREAT teacher. A math teacher at my school lasted one year, and she had a degree from MIT.

It’s not sustainable.

I work 6-8 hours a week and have a 60K retainer. Want to retire, but 5k a month is nice spending money. I'm bored but love the $$ (I was a SAHM for years so this is just "extra"). I volunteer to keep busy and that is much more rewarding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The robots are coming for all of our jobs. I make *only 135k in a mid senior role in my late 40s), but work at a nonproft. I do have projects that are extremely annoying due to offfice BS, but for the most part my job is easy, and I’m overqualified for my role. I work in communications, so a lot of it is exercising good judgement, but the bulk of my work is something a monkey can do- and definitely AI can do, which has always been the case. I’m more than aware AI is going to transform everything before we know it. I use it to take meeting notes and help refine groupthink concepts into something more streamlined. We are goners. Might as well keep at it for 3 more years to become eligible for a pension, but I’m looking for what to do beyond that. And what to advise my kids to do.

Is AI able to know what to do without being told?

Very soon. Right now it can do a lot with just your permission.

Anonymous wrote:The robots are coming for all of our jobs. I make *only 135k in a mid senior role in my late 40s), but work at a nonproft. I do have projects that are extremely annoying due to offfice BS, but for the most part my job is easy, and I’m overqualified for my role. I work in communications, so a lot of it is exercising good judgement, but the bulk of my work is something a monkey can do- and definitely AI can do, which has always been the case. I’m more than aware AI is going to transform everything before we know it. I use it to take meeting notes and help refine groupthink concepts into something more streamlined. We are goners. Might as well keep at it for 3 more years to become eligible for a pension, but I’m looking for what to do beyond that. And what to advise my kids to do.

Is AI able to know what to do without being told?

The robots are coming for all of our jobs. I make *only 135k in a mid senior role in my late 40s), but work at a nonproft. I do have projects that are extremely annoying due to offfice BS, but for the most part my job is easy, and I’m overqualified for my role. I work in communications, so a lot of it is exercising good judgement, but the bulk of my work is something a monkey can do- and definitely AI can do, which has always been the case. I’m more than aware AI is going to transform everything before we know it. I use it to take meeting notes and help refine groupthink concepts into something more streamlined. We are goners. Might as well keep at it for 3 more years to become eligible for a pension, but I’m looking for what to do beyond that. And what to advise my kids to do.

I’m with you OP. I get paid about half what you do, am in office every day and am SO BORED. Most days I’m looking for things to do/create work or side projects for myself. But there is only so much I can do. And yes, I’m a fed. I work with people who equally sit around and do nothing and I don’t know how they can stand it. But I guess the money is decent, and the benefits are great. The sad thing is, if I left this job, I would have to take a major pay cut because it’s such a niche field that it pays even less because to leave government would mean moving to non profit where the money is worse.

Anonymous wrote: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!

+1000

Workout every day, travel a bunch, go live in a different city for a month at a time, travel with your kids all summer around the US.

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.

I’ve been doing substitute teaching for a few years in my time off from my “real” job. The negatives of the in-class routine are accurate. But you do get to choose which schools you sub in and you do get to take the classes you want, so there’s plenty of control over your work. At least this is true in my district. Give it a try!

I'm at $140k and work maybe 10 hours per week.

But my current company is clown central. The 10 hours I contribute provides way more value than all the work that some of my co-workers do.

If I did more than 10 hours of work, I honestly think that there's be a huge backlash against me. Last year, I did try to do more and asked to take on more in the vague hope of "getting ahead". It did nothing more than piss people off.

It was almost like my doing more became a threat to other peoples' 10 hour per week routines. I guess I violated the sacred bond of mutually agreed upon under-performance.

Very strange...

Anonymous wrote:I too have occasional intense projects but outside of those, overall it’s about 20 hrs/week for $240K. Not complaining.

Our society is so messed up.
- work well over 40hours/week with advanced degrees and earn less than 100K in local government

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.

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

Lame response that rebuts nothing. Sorry, teacher salaries don’t need to be high because, relative to other jobs, the potential workforce is huge.

And here is the issue with the teaching profession. If we aren’t worried about quality, then I agree: the potential workforce is huge. Almost anybody can stand in front of a classroom and call security if someone is getting hurt. If we want challenging content to be effectively delivered in a safe and encouraging environment, then that potential workforce shrunk considerably.

We pay teachers with the first group in mind, meaning the teachers who have the content knowledge - as well as the skill to teach it to defiant teenagers - are paid commiserate with the babysitters.

You can blame the Teacher’s Unions for this.

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.

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

Lame response that rebuts nothing. Sorry, teacher salaries don’t need to be high because, relative to other jobs, the potential workforce is huge.

And here is the issue with the teaching profession. If we aren’t worried about quality, then I agree: the potential workforce is huge. Almost anybody can stand in front of a classroom and call security if someone is getting hurt. If we want challenging content to be effectively delivered in a safe and encouraging environment, then that potential workforce shrunk considerably.

We pay teachers with the first group in mind, meaning the teachers who have the content knowledge - as well as the skill to teach it to defiant teenagers - are paid commiserate with the babysitters.

There are variations in quality in every profession. Teachers are not special.

Anonymous wrote:Are you a POC or LBTQ? Or another minority?

You're untouchable. Congrats.

What does this mean?

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.

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

Lame response that rebuts nothing. Sorry, teacher salaries don’t need to be high because, relative to other jobs, the potential workforce is huge.

And here is the issue with the teaching profession. If we aren’t worried about quality, then I agree: the potential workforce is huge. Almost anybody can stand in front of a classroom and call security if someone is getting hurt. If we want challenging content to be effectively delivered in a safe and encouraging environment, then that potential workforce shrunk considerably.

We pay teachers with the first group in mind, meaning the teachers who have the content knowledge - as well as the skill to teach it to defiant teenagers - are paid commiserate with the babysitters.

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.

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

Lame response that rebuts nothing. Sorry, teacher salaries don’t need to be high because, relative to other jobs, the potential workforce is huge.