|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
buravirgil
Joined: 23 Jan 2014 Posts: 967 Location: Jiangxi Province, China
|
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Piper2 wrote: |
| By all means post, |
Thank you
| Quote: |
| but please stop attempting to derail the discussion. You introduced a quote from an economics book to prove (I think) that the discussion has no merit. This seems to me unnecessarily confrontational, as is your general tone. |
The cite qualifies the expression "supply and demand" as limited in its predictive utility. The cite undermines a premise, only. And that premise is might wages increase (because of regulations). Jim replied to my contribution, hardly a derail. Contained in my responses are words (you claim too difficult to understand) about how the new regulations will impact institutional schools and for-profit language schools differently.
Which is a crux to Jim's comment on which you started this thread-- with China's growth across so many local markets, language school franchises, tempted by potential earnings, might have the cash in hand to further the graft surrounding visa procedures, resulting in more unfortunate stories from job prospectors we've seen posted to this forum.
And this is why experienced teachers have nearly unanimously declared: Come on a Z, or not at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Piper2
Joined: 13 Jun 2014 Posts: 146
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2014 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| buravirgil wrote: |
| Piper2 wrote: |
| buravirgil, it may not surprise you to hear I have not studied economics or business. I am an FT, posting to other FTs, asking them to discuss something. |
As am I, an FT, who has not studied economics or business, and am participating in that discussion. I offer dissent that (a) a premise of supply and demand (a term of business and economics you introduce) won't adequately answer whether wages will rise or fall, and (b) aspects of your prose stifle as much discussion as it engenders.
| Quote: |
| I do not even know what point you are trying to make. I think you are saying that I am wrong. Ok. |
Nope
| Quote: |
| But my questions and others' answers still interest me. |
Except for mine?
| Quote: |
If you cannot bear to read the thread (because of whatever it is you are saying), respectfully, please do not read it  |
What's being borne here is a request to cease criticism. How 'bout you post whatever you want, read what you want, and extend the same courtesy?
| Quote: |
| I wrote "Surely this should eventually result in schools offering better pay/package?", hoping it would provoke discussion. But not what you are discussing... |
Yeah, well, hope implies doubt and your use of surely surely caught my attention as unintentionally patronizing. |
| buravirgil wrote: |
The cite qualifies the expression "supply and demand" as limited in its predictive utility. The cite undermines a premise, only. And that premise is might wages increase (because of regulations). Jim replied to my contribution, hardly a derail. Contained in my responses are words (you claim too difficult to understand) about how the new regulations will impact institutional schools and for-profit language schools differently.
Which is a crux to Jim's comment on which you started this thread-- with China's growth across so many local markets, language school franchises, tempted by potential earnings, might have the cash in hand to further the graft surrounding visa procedures, resulting in more unfortunate stories from job prospectors we've seen posted to this forum.
And this is why experienced teachers have nearly unanimously declared: Come on a Z, or not at all. |
At least half the threads on this forum are pretty pointless. What is so special about this thread that it deserves to be killed off?
It is such a shame to see someone who is obviously very well educated and intelligent go to such lengths to prove such a worthless point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NiHaoDaJia

Joined: 07 Aug 2014 Posts: 118
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As we all know, China's economy is growing rapidly and the country is reaching a much higher level of development. This means China's need is for teachers with higher education and qualifications. China's gross domestic product increased 7.5% in the second quarter of 2014, according to the National Bureau of Statistics of China. I am an English teacher from America teaching in China because I enjoy the culture and society. There is a need for teachers who have proper degrees, experience, and skills and follow the rules, standards, and customs of China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Highlander.Mark
Joined: 29 Jun 2013 Posts: 55
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Piper2 wrote: |
| buravirgil wrote: |
| Piper2 wrote: |
| buravirgil, it may not surprise you to hear I have not studied economics or business. I am an FT, posting to other FTs, asking them to discuss something. |
As am I, an FT, who has not studied economics or business, and am participating in that discussion. I offer dissent that (a) a premise of supply and demand (a term of business and economics you introduce) won't adequately answer whether wages will rise or fall, and (b) aspects of your prose stifle as much discussion as it engenders.
| Quote: |
| I do not even know what point you are trying to make. I think you are saying that I am wrong. Ok. |
Nope
| Quote: |
| But my questions and others' answers still interest me. |
Except for mine?
| Quote: |
If you cannot bear to read the thread (because of whatever it is you are saying), respectfully, please do not read it  |
What's being borne here is a request to cease criticism. How 'bout you post whatever you want, read what you want, and extend the same courtesy?
| Quote: |
| I wrote "Surely this should eventually result in schools offering better pay/package?", hoping it would provoke discussion. But not what you are discussing... |
Yeah, well, hope implies doubt and your use of surely surely caught my attention as unintentionally patronizing. |
| buravirgil wrote: |
The cite qualifies the expression "supply and demand" as limited in its predictive utility. The cite undermines a premise, only. And that premise is might wages increase (because of regulations). Jim replied to my contribution, hardly a derail. Contained in my responses are words (you claim too difficult to understand) about how the new regulations will impact institutional schools and for-profit language schools differently.
Which is a crux to Jim's comment on which you started this thread-- with China's growth across so many local markets, language school franchises, tempted by potential earnings, might have the cash in hand to further the graft surrounding visa procedures, resulting in more unfortunate stories from job prospectors we've seen posted to this forum.
And this is why experienced teachers have nearly unanimously declared: Come on a Z, or not at all. |
At least half the threads on this forum are pretty pointless. What is so special about this thread that it deserves to be killed off?
It is such a shame to see someone who is obviously very well educated and intelligent go to such lengths to prove such a worthless point. |
Agreed -Talk about how to ruin a discussion... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bud Powell
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 Posts: 1736
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
All econobabble aside, if we were dealing with a western business model based upon supply-and-demand, if the supply of FTs were to drop and demand remained constant, pay would increase in order to increase the number of qualified FT wanting to work in China.
My guess is that when it becomes clear that merely raising the standards set for FTs won't equate more, quality FTs, Chinese bureaucrats won't think to raise the salaries. Instead, what will probably happen is that the schools will figure a way to flout the law to a greater degree than the past. If money is to be made in the process (e.g., selling Z visas in HK) the problem of incompetent FTs may worsen.
My cousin's kid just graduated college and is working in Dubai and pulling down $40,000.00 for a one-year contract. Do you think China will pay that kind of money for qualified western teachers?
No. In addition to paying primarily subsistence wages, China makes it difficult for FTs to even send money out of the country. Go figure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LongShiKong
Joined: 28 May 2007 Posts: 1082 Location: China
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NiHaoDaJia wrote: |
| As we all know, China's economy is growing rapidly and the country is reaching a much higher level of development. This means China's need is for teachers with higher education and qualifications. |
Welcome to Asia!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Piper2
Joined: 13 Jun 2014 Posts: 146
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks all for continuing the discussion...
NiHaoDaJia, many if not most posters would agree with you that China should ensure a better standard of FT teaches English The problem is how will China attract those better qualified and experienced (which on paper translates into better) teachers? The Middle East attracts these teachers by offering more money than other places. I was wondering if other posters thought it likely that China would start offering more money.
Bud, I think state schools will not raise pay (at least not for a long while), but what about private schools? Many private schools already pay much more than state schools which to me suggests they understand how better pay/package helps to attract and retain the higher qualified and more experienced teachers that in turn encourages parents to part with their cash. I think private schools might increase pay if they cannot get enough of the teachers they want.
I also think many schools resorting to flouting the law is a likely outcome if they refuse to raise pay. Is this a risky option for the schools (we already know it is for FTs)? Is the government likely to let these new regulations slide? Or is the problem there are too many bureaucrats on the take for this stricter government policy to really take hold?
If so, if only private schools will improve pay (assuming they will), it looks like these schools are where we will see most of the more qualified FTs. Which in turn may cause sufficient or over-supply of qualified FTs for these schools, tending to stabilise or reduce private school pay?? Does this mean we need the authorities to enforce regulations to see any chance of significant pay increase? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bud Powell
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 Posts: 1736
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Piper2 wrote: |
Bud, I think state schools will not raise pay (at least not for a long while), but what about private schools? Many private schools already pay much more than state schools which to me suggests they understand how better pay/package helps to attract and retain the higher qualified and more experienced teachers that in turn encourages parents to part with their cash. I think private schools might increase pay if they cannot get enough of the teachers they want.
"... if only private schools will improve pay (assuming they will), it looks like these schools are where we will see most of the more qualified FTs. Which in turn may cause sufficient or over-supply of qualified FTs for these schools, tending to stabilise or reduce private school pay?? Does this mean we need the authorities to enforce regulations to see any chance of significant pay increase?" |
I agree. Public schools will continue to attract and hire unqualified teachers as long as pay stays low, and the only way that the quality of teachers will increase at both the public universities and the private enterprises is if the government enforces the laws. Unfortunately, both public universities and private enterprises often resort to graft to bypass the laws in order to fill their needs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Buckeye Bob
Joined: 11 Aug 2014 Posts: 71
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes you are correct OP. But it goes beyond the "new regulations". Horrific air pollutions, and endless scams and schemes are also keeping people from coming to China to teach, as well as the fact that Korea, Japan, and Singapore pay almost 50%-150% more in wages for the same hours worked.
People who remain in China should be in a position to ask for a significant pay raise these days. BTW... just look at how many new job ads include free housing as compared to just five years ago. This is a sure sign of HR desperation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SH_Panda

Joined: 31 May 2011 Posts: 455
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Buckeye Bob wrote: |
Yes you are correct OP. But it goes beyond the "new regulations". Horrific air pollutions, and endless scams and schemes are also keeping people from coming to China to teach, as well as the fact that Korea, Japan, and Singapore pay almost 50%-150% more in wages for the same hours worked.
People who remain in China should be in a position to ask for a significant pay raise these days. BTW... just look at how many new job ads include free housing as compared to just five years ago. This is a sure sign of HR desperation. |
The cost of living is also significantly higher in those countries you mentioned. I save a lot more money here than I did in K-Land.
By the way do you happen to know a website or organisation I could join who might protect me from those 'endless scams and schemes'? Some kind of union perhaps? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Kong
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 Posts: 349
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2014 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Buckeye Bob wrote: |
| Yes you are correct OP. But it goes beyond the "new regulations". Horrific air pollutions, and endless scams and schemes are also keeping people from coming to China to teach, as well as the fact that Korea, Japan, and Singapore pay almost 50%-150% more in wages for the same hours worked. |
Link?
Source? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Buckeye Bob
Joined: 11 Aug 2014 Posts: 71
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Kong wrote: |
| Buckeye Bob wrote: |
| Yes you are correct OP. But it goes beyond the "new regulations". Horrific air pollutions, and endless scams and schemes are also keeping people from coming to China to teach, as well as the fact that Korea, Japan, and Singapore pay almost 50%-150% more in wages for the same hours worked. |
Link?
Source? |
Sources are many including the Huffington Post, Economist, South China Morning Post. Let your fingers do the walking and do some homework on your own son. Try Google, Ask, Bing, WebCrawler, Dogpile, or Yahoo - take your pick. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LarssonCrew
Joined: 06 Jun 2009 Posts: 1308
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Japan pays what? $3000 a month?
I spoke to a guy in Korea pulling in $3500 a month teaching 28 hours or so.
In Singapore most English tutors charge around 250-300 rmb per hour.
I guess it's the same as some first tier cities in China, but my friend worked at a Japanese university in the sticks and still picked up close to $3000, is there ANY uni that will pay 18,000 RMB a month in China? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bud Powell
Joined: 11 Jul 2013 Posts: 1736
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Piper2 wrote: |
"Many private schools already pay much more than state schools which to me suggests they understand how better pay/package helps to attract and retain the higher qualified and more experienced teachers..."
|
But do they really get better qualified teachers on the whole? They certainly get more applicants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The_Kong
Joined: 15 Apr 2014 Posts: 349
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2014 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Buckeye Bob wrote: |
| The_Kong wrote: |
| Buckeye Bob wrote: |
| Yes you are correct OP. But it goes beyond the "new regulations". Horrific air pollutions, and endless scams and schemes are also keeping people from coming to China to teach, as well as the fact that Korea, Japan, and Singapore pay almost 50%-150% more in wages for the same hours worked. |
Link?
Source? |
Sources are many including the Huffington Post, Economist, South China Morning Post. Let your fingers do the walking and do some homework on your own son. Try Google, Ask, Bing, WebCrawler, Dogpile, or Yahoo - take your pick. |
Your making the point, you provide the proof. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|