2012 Edition: What's your raise this year?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by flu on February 16, 2012 - 7:51am

We use to do this... Are you guys seeing employers giving more, giving less or about the same.

I'll start.
1)Side gig... I didn't give myself a raise this year.

2)In my full time rat race..4% bump,8% bonus cash bonus, and $80k worth of equity that now takes 4 years to vest, so I guess you can say that's about a $20k equity bonus per year. Looks like my bonus was cut in half, the equity was about the same and the base pay raise was about the same.

Submitted by CA renter on April 27, 2012 - 10:30pm.

pri_dk wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Absolutely. As a matter of fact, private industry funds the majority of applied research -- where profits are more likely to be made. I've never said otherwise (Pri likes to twist my words and edit my posts to suit his purposes).

What I HAVE said is that technology/innovation would not be where it is today without publicly-funded R&D. I have also said that our economy is based on a symbiotic relationship between public and private entities.

If there is any question as to my stance, please feel free to re-read my posts in this thread. Do not pay attention to the hack jobs that Pri has done to my posts. His claims about my beliefs and statements are not at all based in reality.

No, what you actually said was that ""free market" countries don't innovate (citation above.) Then you started backpedaling, along the way claiming that the government does all the "hard" work and that corporations just pickup the "easy" parts and now you've settled on the "we wouldn't be anywhere without government research" argument.

Keep in mind that the NSF and most major government research funding did not even exist before the 1950s or so. The US had a helluva lot of technology before the government started handing out research grants.

I have no problem with government-funded research and I generally think it's a good investment. But history has proven that we would still have plenty of progress without it, and the argument that all innovation is rooted in government research is absolutely ludicrous and completely unsubstantiated.

No, I didn't say that. Your reading comprehension problem rears its ugly head, yet again. I never said that "free market" countries don't innovate; I was asking whether "free markets" flourished in low/no tax countries without stable govts, etc. vs. in higher-tax countries with all of those conditions. What I said was that [successful] "free markets" cannot exist without a stable government, rule of law, and social safety nets -- all of which require a strong government and public infrastructure that is supported by taxes.

Here is my ENTIRE post (free from your "editing" hack jobs) from which you've clipped that paragraph, in addition to sdr's post to which I was responding (from the second page in this thread):

sdrealtor wrote:
Submitted by sdrealtor on February 20, 2012 - 11:52pm.
I have to laugh because you constantly miss the point. Its not public vs private for me. It is socialism vs capitalism. You beleive in the former and I in the later. The public sector is simply the workplace of choice for socialists. I believe in expanding one's mind through education be it public school or private school. There are winners and loser in that environment. You beleive in a sheltered and controlled education such as home schooling where there are only winners. Sorry but that contradicts your zero sum game philosophy. We cant all win.

I beleive in the risk taking and innovation that is the core of the American Spirit. These are the things that make this the best country in the world. You beleive that everyone should put their head down and work hard as part of a large machine. That work ethic while admirable can be found anywhere in the world. No where else in the world do you find the innovation, creativity and spirit that exists in our country.

I am not a right winged rah rah USA patriot. If anything I am left of center, live and let live liberal. But I am a beleiver in the American Spirit that recognizes the value of someone willing to put their ass on the line and take the risks that create a better world. That can be through pursuing higher education or pursuing an entrepreneurial enterprise. Just being being another cog in the machine is not what got us here nor is it what will keep us here.

CA renter wrote:
If you're right, then where are these "free market" countries with all the innovation and creativity? Are they in no/low-tax countries with no/few social safety nets, or are they in places where there is a stable government, rule of law, and safety nets for those who are less fortunate -- along with the relatively high taxes required by those systems?

If you have to focus on basic survival (which is what you see in countries with weak/no governments, weak law enforcement, and unpaid or low-paid public employees), you will not likely be coming up with new, innovative inventions. Let's not forget all the basic research that enables this "innovation" to take place -- with most of that being funded by good ol' taxpayers, not private industry.

Where you and I disagree is that you seem to think that "socialism" and "capitalism" are two disparate systems; I think the two are absolutely essential for the other to exist successfully -- it is a symbiotic relationship.

BTW, where in the world did you get the idea that I was opposed to entrepreneurial enterprise or education? I come from a long line of educators and college graduates, and have always emphasized learning for the sake of learning (one of the many reasons we homeschool, BTW).

There is a HUGE difference between entrepreneurial enterprise where someone creates or improves upon a good/service vs. leveraged speculation. A HUGE difference. I favor the former and oppose the latter because it drains money from the economy while not providing any material benefits to society.

Going to Vegas and throwing $100K on red is "taking risks," but I fail to see how that should entitle someone to any kind of reward. You and I define "risk" differently, and we differ on what we feel is beneficial vs. detrimental to society as far as those "risks" are concerned.

I also have to comment on your persistence that "rich" people take risks, as if they do so with their own money. The most successful speculators rarely use their own money; they usually borrow it or obtain it from suckers in some kind of "investment" scheme.

Submitted by harvey on April 28, 2012 - 8:11am.

CA renter wrote:
[basically a cut and paste of the entire thread...]

So much for a concise statement of your argument.

If back-pedaling were an Olympic event we'd have gold medalist on our hands.

Nobody wants to re-read your drivel over and over again. We just want to know what point you are trying to make.

Your (modified) claim of "there is no innovation without taxes and government social safety nets" could easily be dismissed as nonsense by any 8th grader who pays attention in history class:

The 19th century in America and England was one of the most significant periods of innovation in world history (the list of innovations during this period is long and well-known, but I have no doubt you will pretend they don't exist and carry on with some other nonsense.)

- Were there social safety nets in America during this time?

No. There was no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD, ... Noting even remotely like these programs. (At this point she will go off googling to find an example of an obscure insignificant government program and declare me "wrong" ...)

- Were there taxes?

Much lower than today (e.g. there was no income tax.)

- Federal research programs?

Insignificant. In fact the University "system" was only a shell of what we have today. E.g. Berkeley was a tiny private college, many of today's big research Universities were just starting out (thanks to donations from rich guys like Stanford.) Most colleges taught humanities and theology.

- Was there a government? Of course, but it it was very "hands off" - remember that fancy French word?

And yet the Industrial Revolution still happened!

Somehow we managed to have all this innovation with only a tiny fraction of the government we had today - a government that did little more than maintain a military, enforce contracts, and build basic infrastructure.

So your thesis is totally wrong. There is a massive, glaring, undisputed example in history that simply demolishes your argument.

History has proven that social safety nets and government research are NOT required for innovation and progress.

But of course you choose to ignore the obvious and overwhelming basic facts, and instead chose to go on nonsensical tangents claiming that "Europe is socialist, all important innovation starts with the government, the Soviet Union failed because the mean Americans weren't nice to them" - any desperate unsupported claim necessary to prove that government workers are somehow the key to everything good in life.

But all is not lost!

You have the internet, and you will find something that sorta almost hints at the contrary (provided we ignore logic and the bulk of the evidence), and soon we will be blessed with a bounty of long posts of italics with a little boldface.

Google on, brave defender of the public-sector!

Submitted by bearishgurl on April 28, 2012 - 12:02pm.

Just thought I'd check back in and see here that pri_dk has managed to keep the "private-sector-innovation-over-public sector" argument humming along nicely here and also contribute to two other threads whilst NOT responding to the obvious . . . . my $128M questions.

Throughout my long "career" as a bureaucrat, I have found that those families who typically use the MOST free or low-cost public services are, in general, the biggest complainers about public agencies their workers and pri_dk (if his March 5 post is true), true to form, appears to be no exception. I'm not condemning him or his family from using services if they truly are because this is what they are in place for. I'm just wondering how he reconciles the right side of his typing fingers to those of his left side (mouth to fingers) when slamming current and "retired" public employees and their "pensions" on this forum on countless threads.

Just sayin'..... ;=]

Submitted by CA renter on April 28, 2012 - 10:58pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
Throughout my long "career" as a bureaucrat, I have found that those families [people, in general -CAR] who typically use the MOST free or low-cost public services are, in general, the biggest complainers about public agencies their workers...

I have definitely noticed this, but have also noticed that private government contractors are some of the worst complainers -- as if they aren't a HUGE part of the very problem they're complaining about.

Submitted by harvey on April 29, 2012 - 7:07am.

CA renter wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
Throughout my long "career" as a bureaucrat, I have found that those families [people, in general -CAR] who typically use the MOST free or low-cost public services are, in general, the biggest complainers about public agencies their workers...

I have definitely noticed this, but have also noticed that private government contractors are some of the worst complainers -- as if they aren't a HUGE part of the very problem they're complaining about.

I fear I may lose this debate, as I am now facing logic's most powerful adversaries:

Personal innuendo, stereotypes, and groundless speculation.

Facts and reality are worthless against these weapons, especially when wielded by seasoned practitioners of the art.

Oh venerable hens, I yield to your superiority!

Submitted by bearishgurl on April 29, 2012 - 12:55pm.

(deleted by the admin as too obnoxious even for an unmoderated forum)

Submitted by CA renter on April 29, 2012 - 4:36pm.

pri_dk wrote:
Personal innuendo, stereotypes, and groundless speculation.

You've just described your "debate tactics" to a "T," but forgot to add: "twisting other people's arguments into something they're not" and "taking quotes out of context."

Submitted by harvey on April 29, 2012 - 4:57pm.

CA renter wrote:
pri_dk wrote:
Personal innuendo, stereotypes, and groundless speculation.

You've just described your "debate tactics" to a "T," but forgot to add: "twisting other people's arguments into something they're not" and "taking quotes out of context."

In other words, you cannot comprehend the difference between talking about someone's arguments vs. talking about their family.

Keep showing us just how much class you have!

Submitted by CA renter on April 29, 2012 - 6:38pm.

pri_dk wrote:
CA renter wrote:
pri_dk wrote:
Personal innuendo, stereotypes, and groundless speculation.

You've just described your "debate tactics" to a "T," but forgot to add: "twisting other people's arguments into something they're not" and "taking quotes out of context."

In other words, you cannot comprehend the difference between talking about someone's arguments vs. talking about their family.

Keep showing us just how much class you have!

You are the king of personal attacks, and rarely stick to the topic being debated without making derrogatory (and completely uninformed) comments about other posters. I've never once initiated a personal attack on a blog in well over a decade of participating in online blogs/forums, while you do so regularly, and not just with me.

FWIW, I agree that one's family is sacred and should be left out of any online arguments and debates. Additionally, any information gleaned from off-line and/or personal communications should remain off-line.

Submitted by all on April 29, 2012 - 9:43pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Throughout my long "career" as a bureaucrat, I have found that those families who typically use the MOST free or low-cost public services are, in general, the biggest complainers about public agencies their workers...

Well, that's probably because those families deal with public agencies the most, no?

Submitted by harvey on April 30, 2012 - 6:52am.

captcha wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Throughout my long "career" as a bureaucrat, I have found that those families who typically use the MOST free or low-cost public services are, in general, the biggest complainers about public agencies their workers...

Well, that's probably because those families deal with public agencies the most, no?

Hey, you can't use logic here!

The sad part is that no one here is actually questioning the competence of public employees. Myself, I don't really have an issue with any public service (although I haven't actually been to the DMV in years...)

The basic issue is the unsustainable public pension system in CA. Public employees aren't incompetent, but many are overpaid (particularly the one's who aren't even working any more.)

It seems the only way that some folks have to defend these pensions is to claim that public employees are some sort of superhero caste who contribute so much value to society that their compensation must take priority over all other public needs.

And that's how this spiraled into the "Europe is socialist claims." Because "free-markets" don't innovate, we need government scientists to drive our economy, and it's not true that most technology has come from capitalist economies because lots of stuff comes from Europe and they are socialist.

And we can follow this sound reasoning to it's logical conclusion: "We need to raise taxes and increase school class sizes in order to pay for pensions."

Makes perfect sense, eh?

Submitted by bearishgurl on April 30, 2012 - 11:13am.

captcha wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Throughout my long "career" as a bureaucrat, I have found that those families who typically use the MOST free or low-cost public services are, in general, the biggest complainers about public agencies their workers...

Well, that's probably because those families deal with public agencies the most, no?

Yes, captcha, that's part of it. But it's also because the beneficiaries of these services receive them free or for a very low cost, often for many years and sometimes for a lifetime, so they and/or their caregivers likely feel "entitled" to them and so appreciate them less. It's kind of like belonging to a HMO where your employer pays the premium. When you don't actually pay for a service or even see the bill and pay a tiny co-pay at each medical visit, you really have no idea how much it all costs. These services are in place specifically to serve eligible populations. If one qualifies for the services, they deserve to have them. This is the sole reason why these programs are in place.

Imagine what your life would be like if you lived in a third-world country and desperately needed even SOME of the health and human services that eligible Americans enjoy!

Submitted by all on April 30, 2012 - 4:05pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Imagine what your life would be like if you lived in a third-world country and desperately needed even SOME of the health and human services that eligible Americans enjoy!

The solution is obvious - send freeloaders to Somalia for a year and they'll stop complaining.

Submitted by AN on April 30, 2012 - 4:13pm.

captcha wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Imagine what your life would be like if you lived in a third-world country and desperately needed even SOME of the health and human services that eligible Americans enjoy!

The solution is obvious - send freeloaders to Somalia for a year and they'll stop complaining.


Would those people also get their tax $ back for all the years they paid and not use the service?

Submitted by all on April 30, 2012 - 8:06pm.

AN wrote:
captcha wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Imagine what your life would be like if you lived in a third-world country and desperately needed even SOME of the health and human services that eligible Americans enjoy!

The solution is obvious - send freeloaders to Somalia for a year and they'll stop complaining.


Would those people also get their tax $ back for all the years they paid and not use the service?

Sure, just like H1B's that get to collect the employee's share of SS/medicare taxes when they leave.

Submitted by AN on April 30, 2012 - 8:21pm.

captcha wrote:
AN wrote:
captcha wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Imagine what your life would be like if you lived in a third-world country and desperately needed even SOME of the health and human services that eligible Americans enjoy!

The solution is obvious - send freeloaders to Somalia for a year and they'll stop complaining.


Would those people also get their tax $ back for all the years they paid and not use the service?

Sure, just like H1B's that get to collect the employee's share of SS/medicare taxes when they leave.


Nevermind.

Submitted by ltsdd on May 31, 2012 - 6:48am.

"If you believe that government funding only harms innovation, let us introduce you to Uncle Sam's most successful start-up: Silicon Valley...."

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/s...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.