What is driving America off the cliff

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

In what ways? Are you disputing the difference in benefits? Have you worked a govt job? I have done contracting work for the feds and it was amazing how much more they paid above what I would in the private sector. The few people I know who work for govt, though on a city and state level, make a little bit more than the private sector salary wise, but their benefits are through the effing roof compared to anything I have seen in the private sector.

I am disputing the difference in benefits, at least at the state and university level.

Yes, I have worked both in the private and public sectors.

Everyone in my unit makes less now than they would in the private sector. They all have 401k retirement plans. If they want themselves, their wives, and their children covered under the BC/BS PPO plan, they pay $294/mo. For just them and their spouse, it's $263/mo.

Maybe it's different at the federal level or in a different state, but in my experience, it's no cakewalk. We also have to let people go and everyone's salary at my university is frozen.

The pension plans my friends recieve are very nice. 13% contribution per year. 401K is matched upto 8%. And guranteed 4.5% salary increases. First I have never worked for a private company with a pension plan. And even if I did I highly doubt it would be 13% of income. And I havent run across a private company that matches past 6%.Though I am sure there are companies out there that do, i have yet to see one. And most salary increases are 1-3% to match inflation. Everybody I know private or public has a frozen salary right now. And my health options arent much better. My wife cant even add me to her plan.

That said my article talks about the avg benefit\compensation differences. Our experiences are purely anecdotal.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: daishi5
It is not money you are giving up to keep that person alive, you are giving up everything else that you could do instead of keep that person alive. Try this for an example, keep one elderly person alive, who needs constant care, requiring 3 nurses, and the equivalent of 4 other support personnel just to keep this person breathing, and barely functioning. Or you could put those 7 people to work making mosquito nets for Africa and save somewhere around 200 people from dying from malaria or whatever disease it is mosquitos carry.

The problem with all these things that cost a lot of money is not the money, the money is purely a measure of what else you could do instead of the course of action you choose. When you buy a $10 dollar shirt, you are giving up 10, $1 dollar cheeseburgers, or save a life for $20,000 and you pass up the chance to give 10 poor children $2,000 worth of services each. The entire meaning of money is that it makes it easy to measure what else you could do as alternatives. That is what people need to realize about all this stuff we have the government spend money on.

Isn't it sad how many people don't understand the concept of opportunity cost? Do they even teach it in grade school anymore?

Whenever a sentence begins "If it only saves one life..." I have to brace myself for the stupidity that's about to be unleashed.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Maybe they aren't paid more directly, but their pension and health-care plans are SOLID GOLD lol. Also, I'd like to see a percentage of layoffs on private vs. government. I hear thousands of layoffs from the private sector all the time, but never hear anything from the gov sector other than the "6 month" "u-may-get-a-pink-slip."

Ultimately, this is a complex issue, and really depends on both the job classification (for example, the federal gov't employees hundreds, if not thousands, of MDs. Do you think they earn more or less than private MDs?) and level of gov't (local, state, federal).

I know for a FACT that primary care MD's here in CA working for our overpriced prisoner health care system earn MUCH more than private practice MD's even groups. Try starting $275,000 per year. (BTW this is higher than general surgeons usually get) The medical director for one of the state prisons in CA is paid over $.70 per MILE to commute each day from Los Angeles with his Hummer. (He drives about ~200 miles per day or so)

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

In what ways? Are you disputing the difference in benefits? Have you worked a govt job? I have done contracting work for the feds and it was amazing how much more they paid above what I would in the private sector. The few people I know who work for govt, though on a city and state level, make a little bit more than the private sector salary wise, but their benefits are through the effing roof compared to anything I have seen in the private sector.

I am disputing the difference in benefits, at least at the state and university level.

Yes, I have worked both in the private and public sectors.

Everyone in my unit makes less now than they would in the private sector. They all have 401k retirement plans. If they want themselves, their wives, and their children covered under the BC/BS PPO plan, they pay $294/mo. For just them and their spouse, it's $263/mo.

Maybe it's different at the federal level or in a different state, but in my experience, it's no cakewalk. We also have to let people go and everyone's salary at my university is frozen.

The pension plans my friends recieve are very nice. 13% contribution per year. 401K is matched upto 8%. And guranteed 4.5% salary increases. First I have never worked for a private company with a pension plan. And even if I did I highly doubt it would be 13% of income. And I havent run across a private company that matches past 6%.Though I am sure there are companies out there that do, i have yet to see one. And most salary increases are 1-3% to match inflation. Everybody I know private or public has a frozen salary right now. And my health options arent much better. My wife cant even add me to her plan.

That said my article talks about the avg benefit\compensation differences. Our experiences are purely anecdotal.

And that's why it's unfair to say that public workers make more. Believe me, we often don't. And the author's data is just "one study." He doesn't specify which study. It's a foolish generalization to make and his evidence is clearly lacking.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Please dont bother responding if all you are going to do is attack the author or me.

No attack on you. I don't have to attack the author. CNN did a fine job of that by including this statement of facts at the top of the article at your link:

By John Feehery
Special to CNN

Editor's note: John Feehery worked as a staffer for former House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other Republicans in Congress. He is president of Feehery Group, a Washington-based advocacy firm that has represented clients including News Corp., Ford Motor Company and the United States Chamber of Commerce. He formerly was a government relations executive vice president for the Motion Picture Association of America.

Draw your own conclusions. I know I have.

 

[frostedflakes]

Some tough questions, but unfortunately Congress hates dealing with real issues, so I'm not counting on them being addressed anytime soon.

Increasing the age to start collecting Social Security is one change that needs to be made, but the opposition to an idea like this would probably be enormous. SS reform will either happen at the last minute or the program will just go bankrupt. I personally couldn't care less, because I intend to save up for my own retirement. I do not anticipate being able to collect SS when I come of retirement age.

I also agree that end of life healthcare costs are nuts, but how do you tell a family that we won't try to keep grandma or grandpa alive because it's too expensive? I don't know if this is something that could be changed with policy, we just need people to start accepting that sometimes it's better to let old people die off peacefully than to expend significant resources keeping them alive. I intend to include some kind of Dr Kevorkian clause in my will so that if I ever end up in such bad shape, my family will know to put me out of my misery. I have a few older relatives that basically do nothing but take up space; they can't communicate, don't have any idea what's going on around them, etc. That's not living, and IMO it is also very selfish as well and a waste of resources. I know it's hard, but people just need to learn when it's time to let their loved ones go.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Maybe they aren't paid more directly, but their pension and health-care plans are SOLID GOLD lol. Also, I'd like to see a percentage of layoffs on private vs. government. I hear thousands of layoffs from the private sector all the time, but never hear anything from the gov sector other than the "6 month" "u-may-get-a-pink-slip."

Ultimately, this is a complex issue, and really depends on both the job classification (for example, the federal gov't employees hundreds, if not thousands, of MDs. Do you think they earn more or less than private MDs?) and level of gov't (local, state, federal).

I know for a FACT that primary care MD's here in CA working for our overpriced prisoner health care system earn MUCH more than private practice MD's even groups. Try starting $275,000 per year. (BTW this is higher than general surgeons usually get) The medical director for one of the state prisons in CA is paid over $.70 per MILE to commute each day from Los Angeles with his Hummer. (He drives about ~200 miles per day or so)

Note that I said federal - I have no idea what the various states pay MDs. Your example just proves my point, that pay varies depending on the level of gov't. If Cal. MDs really make that much working for the state, that's well above the federal pay scale.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

In what ways? Are you disputing the difference in benefits? Have you worked a govt job? I have done contracting work for the feds and it was amazing how much more they paid above what I would in the private sector. The few people I know who work for govt, though on a city and state level, make a little bit more than the private sector salary wise, but their benefits are through the effing roof compared to anything I have seen in the private sector.

I am disputing the difference in benefits, at least at the state and university level.

Yes, I have worked both in the private and public sectors.

Everyone in my unit makes less now than they would in the private sector. They all have 401k retirement plans. If they want themselves, their wives, and their children covered under the BC/BS PPO plan, they pay $294/mo. For just them and their spouse, it's $263/mo.

Maybe it's different at the federal level or in a different state, but in my experience, it's no cakewalk. We also have to let people go and everyone's salary at my university is frozen.

The pension plans my friends recieve are very nice. 13% contribution per year. 401K is matched upto 8%. And guranteed 4.5% salary increases. First I have never worked for a private company with a pension plan. And even if I did I highly doubt it would be 13% of income. And I havent run across a private company that matches past 6%.Though I am sure there are companies out there that do, i have yet to see one. And most salary increases are 1-3% to match inflation. Everybody I know private or public has a frozen salary right now. And my health options arent much better. My wife cant even add me to her plan.

That said my article talks about the avg benefit\compensation differences. Our experiences are purely anecdotal.

And that's why it's unfair to say that public workers make more. Believe me, we often don't. And the author's data is just "one study." He doesn't specify which study. It's a foolish generalization to make and his evidence is clearly lacking.

Ok it's one study. You seem to make every attempt at discounting that one study, but it's one set of data that's more meaningful than anecdotal evidence from one person. I have neighbors who work in nursing and hell their pension plan is insane. When you throw in benefits and everything, their salaries can easily match that of an engineer.

What I'm saying is that you can easily find anecdotal evidence to show one thing or another, but when it's a generalization that public employees get insane benefits and there are studies to show it, then perhaps it's something worth thinking about and not really something to be denying.

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Maybe they aren't paid more directly, but their pension and health-care plans are SOLID GOLD lol. Also, I'd like to see a percentage of layoffs on private vs. government. I hear thousands of layoffs from the private sector all the time, but never hear anything from the gov sector other than the "6 month" "u-may-get-a-pink-slip."

Ultimately, this is a complex issue, and really depends on both the job classification (for example, the federal gov't employees hundreds, if not thousands, of MDs. Do you think they earn more or less than private MDs?) and level of gov't (local, state, federal).

I know for a FACT that primary care MD's here in CA working for our overpriced prisoner health care system earn MUCH more than private practice MD's even groups. Try starting $275,000 per year. (BTW this is higher than general surgeons usually get) The medical director for one of the state prisons in CA is paid over $.70 per MILE to commute each day from Los Angeles with his Hummer. (He drives about ~200 miles per day or so)

Definitely on the high side. MDs at Kaiser start around $180k. Your figure is 50% higher. LOL.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI...t.questions/index.html

Please dont bother responding if all you are going to do is attack the author or me.

I like how he lays it on the line about people wanting smaller govt, less taxes, provided the govt doesnt yank the programs people want.

I also found the 4 questions he brings to the table valid and ones I have asked in the past.

1. My friend, his wife, and I were talking about this last weekend. They heard there is a possibility we may start seeing avg ages pushing into the 80,90s, and maybe even triple digits in the next 100 years. How can our social programs survive when people spend over half their life not producing?

2. The numbers I have heard claim 80-85% of your medical costs are incurred in the last 2 years of life. Does it make sense to spend so much to prolong life for a few months? I understand the moral ramifications from possibly rationing to people on their death bed. But at some point it will need to be addressed when we run out of money.

3. I asked this question running up to the election. We are moving to a system where a smaller portion of people pay income taxes? It is possible under Obama half the workforce will essentially pay no federal income taxes. Though my questions were centered around, is it good for the nation to have such a large portion of the population not feel the financial effects of the programs they vote to enact? Would it make for a better govt if even the poor invested some of their income into the govt? And will we have a govt paid for by the rich for the rich????

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

1) people are working longer, and just about every retiree i know has a side job for the lulz. For instance, at the golf course i worked at the last couple summers, about 1/4 of the employees were retired teachers.

2) i'm not sure if the figures are exactly correct, but a very large proportion of healthcare is spent in your last 2 years of life. Something could probably be done to mitigate this to a certain level, but i wouldn't want to take it too far.

3) i think everyone should pay a little bit in taxes, but i see it as being more than fair for the very rich to pay a much larger share of their income than the poor and middle class.

4) The government does pay more, but alot of it is to that it takes more to retain employees and government jobs tend to be in more expensive areas, particularly bureaucratic jobs

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Skoorb
1) People should be productive longer unless a) physically incapable or b) have their own money that they don't need to work
2) Too much is spent keeping people alive, but I don't know what a tenable alternative is

That is true. If they can't pay for it, take them off life support. We can save millions in medicare and social security if we used our brains instead of our hearts.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll take that seriously.

We are humans, not machines. We can't dehumanize people on the basis that it costs too much to treat them as human. That's a line I'm not willing to cross, and I don't think anyone else should either.

So where is this money going to come from??? You do realize that is has to come from somewhere, don't you???

Of course I do. I'm not saying it's an easy situation. I'm saying that a human's life is more important than money.

i was ready a few days ago that to turn the tide in the fight against malaria it would cost about 2.5 billion annually, which is a pittance compared to the annual losses from the disease, and we still can't come up with the money

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Why do you say this? At one time it was well known that government paid less, but you had higher job security; however this tide has turned.

Did you read the article?

"According to one study, public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, while private-sector workers got benefits worth $7.98 an hour. Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour, $11.90 more than in the private sector."



I agree with all of this guys points. My generation will sadly be the generation that has to work till 80/90 because Social Security won't kick in until then for us. Plus we will be the ones still paying for the generation before us who got to retire at 70 and live till 110.

most government jobs are either college-educated type positions, or have a high risk premium (military, police, etc)

 

[sandorski]

Yup, increase the Age for Public Pension availability. Make exceptions for those who encounter Medical conditions that don't allow for Employment. Even if you bump it up to 70 you'll save $Big. If people want to Retire earlier, they'll have to do it on their own. That's very doable most of the time, if one really wants it. I really think Financial Planning and other Personal Finance should be Mandatory studies in High School. Seems that the only Financial Advice given is in Commercials and a few TV Shows few people ever watch.

 

[fisheerman]

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: Genx87

4. A relatively minor issue but one that should be addressed none the less. Why are govt workers paid higher than the private sector for similar work? Is this an efficient manner to run our govt? Especially one that is going to represent a larger slice of the workforce?

This is simply false.

Maybe they aren't paid more directly, but their pension and health-care plans are SOLID GOLD lol. Also, I'd like to see a percentage of layoffs on private vs. government. I hear thousands of layoffs from the private sector all the time, but never hear anything from the gov sector other than the "6 month" "u-may-get-a-pink-slip."

Ultimately, this is a complex issue, and really depends on both the job classification (for example, the federal gov't employees hundreds, if not thousands, of MDs. Do you think they earn more or less than private MDs?) and level of gov't (local, state, federal).

I know for a FACT that primary care MD's here in CA working for our overpriced prisoner health care system earn MUCH more than private practice MD's even groups. Try starting $275,000 per year. (BTW this is higher than general surgeons usually get) The medical director for one of the state prisons in CA is paid over $.70 per MILE to commute each day from Los Angeles with his Hummer. (He drives about ~200 miles per day or so)

CALI shouldn't count for any comparison of state/city government workers. The state and city have there heads in the sand when it comes to compensation and finances and is the reasons cities in and the state of CA are going bust.

These outragous salaries aren't the norm for the country.
I've been on both sides public and private.

Private
More money
More stress
Higher cost benefits
401k
Less job security

Public
Less money
Less stress
Lower cost benefits
Pension
More job security.

This is in the IT software development world.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Ok it's one study. You seem to make every attempt at discounting that one study, but it's one set of data that's more meaningful than anecdotal evidence from one person. I have neighbors who work in nursing and hell their pension plan is insane. When you throw in benefits and everything, their salaries can easily match that of an engineer.

What I'm saying is that you can easily find anecdotal evidence to show one thing or another, but when it's a generalization that public employees get insane benefits and there are studies to show it, then perhaps it's something worth thinking about and not really something to be denying.

How is this author's "one study," not "studies," not anecdotal? His study isn't cited and therefore is unverifiable and the mere act of omission makes it untrustworthy in my opinion. I can also make up facts or go and quote some left-wing think tank without citing it. Would you take me seriously?

We don't know any of the parameters of the "study" or who conducted it. We know nothing about it, except that it is being used by a known partisan attempting to make a point. You think his information has more weight than mine? At least I never worked for Republican staffers.

I'm willing to admit my data is anecdotal. Mine is anecdotal not because of its lack of veracity, but because it lacks the scope to make a broad conclusion. I'm not making one. I'm saying that not every public worker is overpaid while receiving awesome benefits. We get laid off, we lose retirement money. It may be different at the federal level or in a different state, I've already said as such. I'm not going to make the broad generalization that public employees are underpaid as it would be just as stupid as saying public workers are overpaid because of one former Republican staffer's uncited evidence. How hard would it have been for him to include this information?

In regards to nursing, why shouldn't they make as much as engineers? In case you haven't noticed, they are in extremely high demand.

 

[wwswimming]

i thought Chris Martenson had a great essay on the subject.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/...ica-being-looted/16444

"To me, that is a sure sign that someone is too deeply embedded, too deeply conflicted, too detached from reality to even know where to draw the line. Timothy apparently cannot distinguish between the ?best interest of the American people? and Goldman Sachs raking in billions of undeserved public dollars. To him, those are one and the same thing and that's a major reason why I have grave doubts that the bailouts will succeed."

 

[aphex]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
i thought Chris Martenson had a great essay on the subject.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/...ica-being-looted/16444

"To me, that is a sure sign that someone is too deeply embedded, too deeply conflicted, too detached from reality to even know where to draw the line. Timothy apparently cannot distinguish between the ?best interest of the American people? and Goldman Sachs raking in billions of undeserved public dollars. To him, those are one and the same thing and that's a major reason why I have grave doubts that the bailouts will succeed."

Good read, thanks.