I put this in the autoexec.bat file on every computer in the lab during my Pascal programming class. The next class was a word processing class.

Apparently the FBI was called to investigate when the computer teacher couldn't figure out that it wasn't a real virus. I wasn't really punished because I hadn't done any damage, but my parents got called.

As usual, someone with limited computer skills that can't get a better job somewhere else, ends up teaching computers for slightly more than minimum wage.

We used to have a lot of fun on the Novell network as well when the IT guy (think comic book guy from the Simpsons in real life) would walk away from his desk and leave it logged in. We would give ourselves admin and wreak havoc for a few hours until he noticed there was more than one superuser.

Statements like this make me rage a bit; students have to put up with non-technical teachers in part because precious few people in the high-tech sector can be moved to do teaching work in their community.

It's as much our fault as anyone else's.

That's because a) there's no reward for excellence or penalty for failure in teaching (see the list of articles I compiled here: http://jseliger.com/2009/11/12/susan-engel-doesnt-get/ for more on that subject) and b) standardized contracts mean that high-tech people who want to teach aren't going to be subtly underpaid -- they're going to be vastly underpaid. Notice the data from Payscale.com here: http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/degrees.asp .

I actually thought about being a high school teacher. In Seattle, where I lived, teachers with an M.A. made ~$36K / year and got lockstep pay raises to the point where they'd make around $65K / year after 30 years. You get summer and winter break off, so you can effectively multiply that by 1.2.

Google, Microsoft, and other big tech companies start superstars in the neighborhood of $75 – $100K and go up from there. The possibility of starting your own company is there.

That's why competent technical people seldom work in schools. It isn't "our fault" so much as it is the fault of some combination of voters, teachers' unions, and school districts.

Why should qualified high-tech people work for substandard salaries? You can say out of the goodness of our hearts, but if the service they provide is valuable enough, and I think it is, they should be compensated appropriately.

If you want open source software to take over the world, teach programming to kids. If you want sensible social policies where science and technology are concerned, then teach science and technology to kids. If you want more rational discourse in the future, then teach logic to kids.

Saying, "this is somebody else's job" -- even if you're also saying that it's a valuable job and they should be compensated well for it -- is not just self-serving, it's short-sighted.

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj8IA6xOpSk

Clearly there are people willing to significantly sacrifice their family's financial future for the good of the community. However, there are not enough such people. Thus paying more money allows you to pull in talented people who don't feel the need to sacrifice for their community.

PS: You don't actually need to pay market rates. You just need to reduce the sacrifice enough to attract talented people. EX: I would be willing to take a small paycut to do scientific research, but I am unwilling to take the massive paycut it would take to do so.

Society needs to stop chastising the individual for "not being altruistic enough" and look in the mirror. If we are not willing to pay qualified teachers enough, what does that say about our society as a whole? What does that say about the legacy we leave for our children?

Going into teaching would be stupid because (1) I'd be miserable if I had to fight the bureucracy (2) said bureocracy would prevent me from having the full impact I could have as an instructor and (3) I wouldn't be anywhere near properly compensated. Is that much pain really worth the joy of making a small difference? You're selling yourself short to a stupid and old-fashioned system.

Perhaps changing this would be possible if there was some parallel school system that was completely private and received support from the government in addition to fees from students/parents. Ironically, this is the system we currently have i Norway, but the creation of new private schools is in practice outlawed by the government..severely restricting the possible avenues of teaching and probably limiting the wages of the teachers who want to work there.

Not a big fan of open source then, I take it? Or volunteerism in general?

> Perhaps changing this would be possible if there was some parallel school system that was completely private and received support from the government in addition to fees from students/parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

Also, after-school programs. Or, getting involved in a school board.

There are numerous and ample opportunities for someone with the means and motivation, but I think the real issue here is:

> I wouldn't be anywhere near properly compensated.

I've been wrestling around lately with an ever-widening sense of dismay I have at HN; it's only a problem for me because it's the last community of sorts that I participate in. There are numerous other hobbies and interests that all have their own groups of people, but the advantage to online communities is that they're always there when you need them and not there when you don't.

Anyway, I was whining to a good friend recently about this, because I'm having some trouble adjusting to the idea of not being a member of any communities anymore, and he tried to tell me, "Fuck the money-chasers."

I fundamentally can't relate to what seems to be the majority here on certain issues. It doesn't at all make sense to me that anyone could have this thought process that goes, "Here is a problem ... and I will complain about it ... and I have the power to change it ... but I won't."

How do you think bureaucracies change? They change when enough strong-willed individuals get involved.

Are you waiting for them to change themselves? Nothing changes all by itself; every single improvement in society is brought about by someone who worked for that change.

Where do you think the funding for teachers comes from? Teachers get their funding from voters, and all voters have been students. If students don't go through school and see, really see, that there was value in their education, then they won't be motivated to vote to spend more money on it.

The silliest thing is that we're constantly surrounded by examples of altruism working. The recent "offer HN" series -- which seems to have died out now -- were triggered by just a couple of people choosing to donate their efforts. The recent popular memorial post for Luke Bucklin and family (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1861964) is another example of the impact that a little bit of altruism can have.

And then there's you. I don't think we could ever reach a point of mutual understanding on this topic, because -- and I mean this with no disrespect -- nobody can afford to pay you enough to be altruistic. It looks like more people here see your point of view than mine.

How could I expect to be able to get usable advice on my business from HN then? The odds of my finding anyone here that would understand my motivations and limitations are looking pretty slim.

There seems to be a rampant social disease right now, where "hard" problems are concerned, in which those are always somebody else's problem. A lot of talented people are happy to pour effort into building social networks and other trendy things, because there's money and prestige in that, but when it comes to problems like education, public policy, government, and community development -- those are all somebody else's problem.

That makes me a little bit concerned for the future.

Anyway, this is probably all just a colossal waste of my time and yours. I haven't got anything else to contribute to HN.

That's not how economics works.

There are many ways that this breaks down. In a world of finite resources Money provides a feedback loop which says "repairing and selling car X is worth it but nobody will buy car Y so it's not worth repairing." It also says becoming a Dentist has more value than a Plumber and Poor artists should find something that creates more value.

PS: Conceder that the world is not filled with identical copies of you. Individuals have different values, goals, talents, and resources. Finding the best way to utilize humanity and its resources is a ridiculously complex problem, but the act of buying / biding on what you want communicates your desires. It also bribes people into doing things that they don't want to do because they can then get other people to do things that they want.

Frankly, I find the notion that money is the only indicator of social value not only despicable, but fundamentally wrong in the context of economics. I also think that there are so many utterly obvious counter-examples in so many industries and in so many areas of the world that anyone who still holds this view could not possibly be convinced otherwise. So, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.