[quote=CA renter][quote=pri_dk][quote=CA renter]Wow, I can’t believe someone thinks prison guards are overpaid…talk about one of the worst and most difficult jobs out there. Again, if the job is so easy, and the guards are compensated so well, why aren’t all the complainers signing up? [/quote]
Are you still trying to use that strawman?
Read the article:
Over 120,000 people apply every year, according to the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, but the academy only enrolls about 900. That’s an acceptance rate of less than 1%
Lots of people are trying to sign up. Few get in. And it’s not because the standards are so high.
But here’s the point that goes over your head every time this issue comes up: The taxpayers (i.e. you and me) are the EMPLOYERS of the prision guards. We have a every right to a say in the compensation of our EMPLOYEES, because we pay them with OUR money.
It’s not complaining, it’s simple business.
When you go to the grocery store, and notice that a price of a product is far too expensive, and then choose to buy a less expensive, comparable product instead, does that make you a complainer?
The taxpayers are being ripped off. Money is going from schools and other services to pay outrageous salaries to prison guards. We are paying them with money that does not exist. Money that our children will have to pay back decades from now.
You seem to be OK with this situation, even encouraging it.
But at least you’re not a “complainer.”
[And please don’t bother to bring up the “but bankers make so much money” argument. This issue has nothing to do with bankers.][/quote]
Here’s where you and I see things differently. I couldn’t care less if the money coming out of my pocket is going to a “private” entity or a “public” entity. The only thing that matters to me is that my money is going to somebody else.
We are overcharged, on a regular basis, by private corporations who engage in monopolistic practices. Contrary to what the “capitalists” will tell you, we have very little choice, especially WRT basic needs. Wall Street cheers on “M&A” activity as though it’s a good thing. Yes, it’s good for the Captains of Industry who can jack up their already outrageous compensation (and theirs is FAR more outrageous than the pay of most govt workers). It’s not so good for the employees who almost always lose their jobs as a result of the mergers and acquisitions. It’s not good for the consumers who have fewer options when purchasing goods and services, and we have to pay higher prices as a result.
The questions for me are: Who does the most difficult work, and whose jobs yield the greatest benefits to society? Those are the people who should be paid the most. As it stands, the total opposite has happened. The most entitled, soft-bellied, inept “dealmakers” (with the right connections) make the most money, while those whose labor puts food on our tables and who maintain peace, order, and civilization are paid far less.
Unions (public and private) are the only thing maintaining any sort of equilibrium — though it is dwindling. The wealth has been shifted up, and the movement has greatly accelerated over the past decade. It’s not because the people at the top are superior, or more deserving; it’s because they control the laws and they control where the money flows. I’d like to see a strong reversal of this trend. This would lead to a much more healthy, stable and productive society, where more people could enjoy the wealth that they created for themselves. The top/capitalists didn’t create this wealth; the workers did. Time for the workers — public and private — to stand up to those who have sought to grind them into the ground. Time for a revolution. ;)[/quote]
I agree with much or what you said, save one thing.
People should not be paid according to their value to society, they should be paid according to the benefit and scarcity their work is associated with. Professional athletes are not paid according to their value to society (very little because it is simply entertainment), but according to the revenue they draw. If prison guards are paid according to their service and their scarcity of employees then that is appropriate. But according to the figures provided, this is simply not true. We can hope to live in a society where ultimate value is all that is factored, but this is simply not an efficient allocation of resources…
CEO’s of crony capitalist companies are not paid according to their scarcity of talent or their benefit to society. This is far from optimum, but it is not an argument for the continuing disservice in other sectors. They are unrelated. It makes no sense to tie one reform of government to another. They are not mutually exclusive, although both should be reformed. Government established private monopolies are more reprehensible than the outlandish public sector compensation (in some cases), but reform of one should not be a necessary clause for reforming another. They are unrelated!
