[quote=Eugene]I have an idea. Why don’t you become a firefighter, Brian? It’s such a sweet job, practically a sinecure, high pay, absolutely insane benefits. And all you have to do is go into burning buildings once in a while.[/quote]
I never understand this line of thought. I really dont. It is some kind of weird taunt, saying: “well if you dont like it, why dont you take part in it, and increase the amount of (what you consider to be wasteful spending) going to you.” (this is almost an afformation of ‘two wrongs do make a right’)
This assumes that:
A) You are not already making more money than a firefighter (with benifits included). The taunt alludes that you should better your life by getting all this money, but what if it is less than you already make? Are you suppose to decrease your income potential to make your point?
B) Is someone who already contributes more to DAILY society, maybe say a doctor or lawyer or pharmascist or structural engineer, not allowed to criticize what they consider to be unfair pay because they make more already?
(before you go off on the partial list of jobs I listed, you use all of the above far more often in daily life than you do a firefighter running into burning buildings, and all can be life saving occupations)
(on the same line of thought, are people who make more than firefighters not allowed to question their incomes because they already make more than them? If so, I dont think your boss could ever question you giving yourself a big raise this year, because it is most likly that they make more than you.)
C) Firefighting jobs are easy to get. I dont know San Diego, but one of my best friends in Santa Barbara had to wait YEARS to get a fire fighter job. He had all the connections, was one of the best athelets in school, (played college football too boot! he isnt weak), volinteered for over a year before he got a part time job, to get a shot at the full time job, all the while being supported by his parents and living at home. etc etc. Police I believe to be different, but I have never really heard of a darth of firefighters in CA. Some people may not have the ability or resources to wait as long as my friend did to become a firefighter. Does that mean you cant discuss this public benifit in a ‘negative’ way?
D) That tax payers can’t question what most certainly is a unique benifit, almost unheard of outside of government in today’s society, that they are paying for? As if somehow the we need to sit down and shut up and take what “our servents” give us?
E) That you meet the phyiscal qualifications to be a firefighter. What if you were paralized from the waist down at birth? You could still be all of the above mentioned occupations, but not a firefighter. Can you never question the cost of our fire fighters because you could never be one? What about 100 million dollar bonus’s to oil speculators? Can we never question such payouts because we dont have the risk apatite and conceptual understandings of market dynamics (nor the brain power to get it in a time period to benifit from it)to make those types of moves?
I believe the post is ment to challenge the notion that they are overpayed, by convaying a sense of the unusual risks being taken by firefighters. However, if that is the point why cant we have an intellectual conversation about appropriate conpensation for risks, without resorting to childish antics? I ask this not as a slam to the poster, but to all that have written so many similar posts on similar threads. Why is it such a bad thing to question the current risk/reward structure of ‘our public servents’?
