[quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]
Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?
After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]
Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.
