Printable View
Like Kukri said, I ain't paying them. I oppose taxpayer funded stadiums, and I don't go to football games because it's way to expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
I wonder how many hospitals increased by astronomical percentages the number of highly paid positions they had, the number of employees they had, since the recession began.Quote:
To say that Fed employees earn twice the national average is as relevant as saying that in a hospital,
:rolleyes:
CR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Communist
If he was a communist, he would nationalise the Stadiums and lower the wages so they are fairer, he would lower the prices so more people could go and enjoy the games. He would open community intatives to help young people get into sports with the profits he would rake in and assist in other community led ventures, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
O rly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Meh, 'merican sports ARE communist. What with their tight regulations, salary caps, egalitarianism, drafting of young players. :smug:
So you don't buy any of the products advertised there either?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If the company has a large bureaucracy and their prices go up, he won't have to buy the product. He always has to pay the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So you mean if he thinks Coca cola pays too much for their advertisement, he can switch to Pepsi because they uhm, advertise there, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
I was just saying he probably pays for them in some way or another, of course it might be possible to live in a remote mountain and grow your own cattle and vegetables to save on the advertising costs so you only pay taxes anymore but I doubt many people really care enough.
Or he can buy generic supermarket cola at less than half of the unit price of Coca Cola. Or just not buy cola altogether. That's the thing - it's his choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
yes you can. i don't watch TV, i don't have a TV, i don't pay for a TV license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
we had a plymouth brethren kid when i was in school, he didn't watch TV and we thought he was a freak, now it doesn't seem so much of a big deal.
[edit] off course i don't think TV is evil, but the point stands [/edit]
I don't have TV either, but Coca cola isn't the only thing they advertise there so are you trying to say that Crazed Rabbit goes to the supermarket with a list of things they advertise in sports games where he thinks the athletes are overpaid and consciously avoids buying anything on that list so that he does not support their high wages? I'd like to hear that from himself. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
No, but if he wanted to he could. Perhaps he likes Coca Cola. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to buy it. Our point is entirely that one is mandatory and one is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And my point was entirely that, mandatory or not, he pays for it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Yes and no. He pays for the products he wants and only those he wants, which has the positive side effect of keeping the economy going, which allows other people to make the same choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Paying your taxes has the positive side effect of keeping people alive, which allows those people to make choices in the first place. Of course he could pay only for those he wants to be alive and only those, but he couldn't pay me enough to tell a soldier to go to war naked because someone chose not to pay for his gear. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
EMFM should you recommend that you can choose which airports to use or which kind of national defense CR should personally use?Quote:
Originally Posted by CR's source
I can choose which airports or airlines to use, and indeed I do. When airport tax becomes prohibitive I will simply move my business to the airport nearby with slightly less airport tax if that makes the overall cost cheaper. National defense is another matter, and obviously some things should be handled by government, but that does not necessarily invalidate my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Which brings me back to my first point that I have to pay those taxes, whereas I can choose from where I acquire food, water, luxuries, and shelter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Well, back to civil servants.
Everyone has this stereotype of the surly person behind the counter who treats you like dirt and won't deal with your problem.
That is a very convenient stereotype for the politicians. It is even true of a very few places...Usually the DMV...
Anyway, the average civil servant is anything but overpaid for the work they do and most of the retirement plans are a shadow of what they once were.
There is waste in government, beyond any doubt! And it to a great extent stems from bureaucracy.
But the biggest part is political patronage and how it is funneled back into the privet sector.
Government is top heavy with administrators and managers who increase costs and the guy at the bottom gets all the blame.
Worthless studies of everything from traffic to how to reduce costs are a major factor in what you pay too.
Government contracts to privet firms cost you an arm and a leg, and but for accounting reasons and high managers’ salaries could be done cheaper by the public sector.
I once worked as a federal employee. In one organization, a workforce of 600 personnel supported a top level management force of 280 managers, not to mention their office staff and equipment.
All those people had to justify their jobs by writing requirements and regulations governing the work being done.
Now when costs are too high, guess who gets eliminated... They find new places for those managers and eliminate the workforce.
They can show a cost savings on paper but what was the service worth...and then they have a privet firm perform the task at only double the cost.
So by all means save your money and privatize...
Except that the reason for civil service is because the privet sector could not be trusted with the quality of work...
Hang on...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
So a Republican congress increases the wages for Federal employees. Does this by increasing the wages for the higher ups and by higher defense spending pork. This will be reversed by a Democrat congress, but in the statistics it will show up for 2009-2012 as the period of increased federal spending?
The Republicans are the most deviously clever political force on the planet.
Edit: Also, might as well repeat that: federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.
I should've added that the closest other airport is 130 km away... Or why not 340 km to take another airport.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
According to a federal employee who has a vested interest in making us think that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Also, the Congress has been Democratic since 2006 - it was the Democratic congressmen who raised the salaries.
In America we have a saying, "Good enough for government work".Quote:
Except that the reason for civil service is because the privet sector could not be trusted with the quality of work...
CR
Take another airline then, the one with the most competitive rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
One more bout of reason like that and I'm putting you on ignore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Not going well here so I rather spell out my point. Airports, roads, rails, sanitation and several other infrastructures are of monopolistic nature due to obvious inefficiency for having multiple systems. Monopoles are by nature not free market, thus not having the benefit of competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
So the only classical capitalistic driving force is profit, putting a non-regulated road stuck at the mercy of the stock market, who have the attention span of a four year old, the long term planning of a gold fish and the company loyalty of a leaf in a tornado.
Or is goverment regulated/owned, who need employees.
I'm not surprised. It's elementary, my dear Watson, sayings are always built on facts and never at all on perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Anyway. If I get you right, the goverment suck out your money and employes stupid people that get payed the highest salaries, while the private sector are stuck with all those smart people who get payed much less.
Wait a minute, doesn't high salaries usually be the recruiment tool for competence? :thinking2:
When I did that job I was working for the Defense Department.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Yes, Good enough for Government Work meant that you could take the shortcuts and not make it a quality product because the government would pay you anyway...it was a contractors attitude and exactly why the first civil service was founded. To build quality products for Defense.
What was said from the Federal Managers Association actually comes from the GAO.
To a certain point it is true, particularly for clerks and aidmin which is the bulk of employees.
There are many specialists though and they are better paid.
That article gives absolutely no information on which positions are earning those salaries. How can you call those salaries crazy when you have no idea what the jobs are? Are you insinuating that there's no job in the entire federal government that warrants a $150-$170k salary?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Federal employees get their salaries raised every year by between 1 to 3 percent, it's called a cost of living adjustment and is intended to compensate for inflation. It happens every year, regardless of who is in office in Congress. Republicans approve it annually just as much as Democrats do, and there's never any opposition to it by the minority party, regardless of who's in power. Considering that most federal employees are not eligible for bonuses, a 1 to 3 percent pay rise isn't very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
FYI, federal salary information is not secret. The basic GS scale (which the vast majority of us are on) is freely available here. Pick an individual city to see the local cost of living adjustment, or use the 'Rest of United States' option if you want to see what the pay levels are outside of those cities. As you'll see, there are a lot of positions that aren't paying a whole lot, and it's only at the highest GS levels where anyone is making a 6 figure salary.
To give you a comparison, my agency hires attorneys at either the GS-9 level if they're fresh out of law school and at GS-11 if they've had at least 2 years of legal experience. On the DC pay scale, that's $50k for a new grad and $60k for an experienced attorney. Not only is that less than half of what big firms pay brand new attorneys, it's also in a city that's extremely expensive to live in. Keep in mind that the average person graduates law school with over $100k in debt due to student loans. The same is true for a lot of the other higher-pay scale jobs, which require Masters or PhDs. $100k isn't as much as it seems when you've got to pay $2k on loans every month on top of all your other living expenses, and those loans often can take 20+ years to pay off AND you can't get rid of them by bankruptcy.
Also, if you want to know much much money any single Federal employee makes, that information is also available to the public by law. You can get salary info through 2008 right here. Go look up the people you know in your area, I'm sure you'll find they're not stupendously wealthy.
Pay isn't everything. Civil servants also have job security, and the higher ranking ones have essentially unaccountable levels of power. Yes, things must be done in the proper way, but in effect bureaucrats often end up with a fair amount of power. They are not accountable to the taxpayer, as the taxpayer cannot remove them from office. They aren't really accountable to politicians, since politicians come and go, and in practice the civil service is probably as powerful as they are anyway. Money isn't everything.
Not in this countryQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Here it is almost impossible to fire a Beamter, and in your country I believe it is difficult also difficult to fire high-ranking civil servants especially, but also teachers, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Difficult to fire, yes, but not difficult to move around and ruin their career.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
In the UK, civil servants serve. They are meant to be impartial to politics and the government in power. Their objectivity is what aids a smooth (ha) transition of power between governments (unlike the US for example, where a whole swathe of mid/high ranking civil servants are appointed by the government in power).
I utterly refute EMFM's assertion that Civil Servants have as much power as politicians. Some will, by nature of their skill and success gain the ear of ministers in power, but otherwise there is a strict chain of authority where ultimately everything that happens or is approved is done so with a ministers approval or guidance. The elected MPs are those who take decisions, civil servants implement them on their behalf.
Having worked in both private secor and civil service, I am happy to say that both have their advantages and disadvantages. To argue otherwise, or that one is simply better is the height of ignorance and idiocy. Yes, that is intended as potentially insulting.