50 years of pension for 20 years of work

[briansd1]

Zeitgeist, what kind of Republican are you anyway?

Other than your dislike of Obama, you sound like a Liberal Democrat.

[DWCAP]

[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’?

[DWCAP]

[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’?

[DWCAP]

[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’?

[DWCAP]

[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’?

[DWCAP]

[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’?

[CA renter]

Can’t speak for the other posters, but yes, I’m referring to the fact that people who have NEVER done these jobs like to criticize what they do and their compensation levels.

Chances are, one of these days, you or a family member will need to call 911 for emergency services. It’s at that point that you realize how amazingly efficient the system is, and that it’s worth every penny.

Do realize that these public servants ARE contributing DAILY to our society, and that there are many good reasons why we moved from volunteer and private services to public services.

Also, many of us have argued the more intellectual points before, yet still have to listen to people whining about public servants. Seriously, if they think it’s so easy and overpaid, they need to do it. Why? Because if they actually qualify (and most won’t), and do the job for a while, they will change their tune. These are not easy jobs, and very few people can do them.

Having an accountable, well-functioning law enforcement and safety infrastructure provides us the ability to do other jobs without having to worry about daily survival. This is the difference between civilized, developed countries and third-world countries.

And it’s very subjective when we assume a lawyer (or CEO, or programmer, etc.) provides a greater benefit to society than a firefighter or police officer. Many would absolutely disagree.

[CA renter]

Can’t speak for the other posters, but yes, I’m referring to the fact that people who have NEVER done these jobs like to criticize what they do and their compensation levels.

Chances are, one of these days, you or a family member will need to call 911 for emergency services. It’s at that point that you realize how amazingly efficient the system is, and that it’s worth every penny.

Do realize that these public servants ARE contributing DAILY to our society, and that there are many good reasons why we moved from volunteer and private services to public services.

Also, many of us have argued the more intellectual points before, yet still have to listen to people whining about public servants. Seriously, if they think it’s so easy and overpaid, they need to do it. Why? Because if they actually qualify (and most won’t), and do the job for a while, they will change their tune. These are not easy jobs, and very few people can do them.

Having an accountable, well-functioning law enforcement and safety infrastructure provides us the ability to do other jobs without having to worry about daily survival. This is the difference between civilized, developed countries and third-world countries.

And it’s very subjective when we assume a lawyer (or CEO, or programmer, etc.) provides a greater benefit to society than a firefighter or police officer. Many would absolutely disagree.

[CA renter]

Can’t speak for the other posters, but yes, I’m referring to the fact that people who have NEVER done these jobs like to criticize what they do and their compensation levels.

Chances are, one of these days, you or a family member will need to call 911 for emergency services. It’s at that point that you realize how amazingly efficient the system is, and that it’s worth every penny.

Do realize that these public servants ARE contributing DAILY to our society, and that there are many good reasons why we moved from volunteer and private services to public services.

Also, many of us have argued the more intellectual points before, yet still have to listen to people whining about public servants. Seriously, if they think it’s so easy and overpaid, they need to do it. Why? Because if they actually qualify (and most won’t), and do the job for a while, they will change their tune. These are not easy jobs, and very few people can do them.

Having an accountable, well-functioning law enforcement and safety infrastructure provides us the ability to do other jobs without having to worry about daily survival. This is the difference between civilized, developed countries and third-world countries.

And it’s very subjective when we assume a lawyer (or CEO, or programmer, etc.) provides a greater benefit to society than a firefighter or police officer. Many would absolutely disagree.

[CA renter]

Can’t speak for the other posters, but yes, I’m referring to the fact that people who have NEVER done these jobs like to criticize what they do and their compensation levels.

Chances are, one of these days, you or a family member will need to call 911 for emergency services. It’s at that point that you realize how amazingly efficient the system is, and that it’s worth every penny.

Do realize that these public servants ARE contributing DAILY to our society, and that there are many good reasons why we moved from volunteer and private services to public services.

Also, many of us have argued the more intellectual points before, yet still have to listen to people whining about public servants. Seriously, if they think it’s so easy and overpaid, they need to do it. Why? Because if they actually qualify (and most won’t), and do the job for a while, they will change their tune. These are not easy jobs, and very few people can do them.

Having an accountable, well-functioning law enforcement and safety infrastructure provides us the ability to do other jobs without having to worry about daily survival. This is the difference between civilized, developed countries and third-world countries.

And it’s very subjective when we assume a lawyer (or CEO, or programmer, etc.) provides a greater benefit to society than a firefighter or police officer. Many would absolutely disagree.

[CA renter]

Can’t speak for the other posters, but yes, I’m referring to the fact that people who have NEVER done these jobs like to criticize what they do and their compensation levels.

Chances are, one of these days, you or a family member will need to call 911 for emergency services. It’s at that point that you realize how amazingly efficient the system is, and that it’s worth every penny.

Do realize that these public servants ARE contributing DAILY to our society, and that there are many good reasons why we moved from volunteer and private services to public services.

Also, many of us have argued the more intellectual points before, yet still have to listen to people whining about public servants. Seriously, if they think it’s so easy and overpaid, they need to do it. Why? Because if they actually qualify (and most won’t), and do the job for a while, they will change their tune. These are not easy jobs, and very few people can do them.

Having an accountable, well-functioning law enforcement and safety infrastructure provides us the ability to do other jobs without having to worry about daily survival. This is the difference between civilized, developed countries and third-world countries.

And it’s very subjective when we assume a lawyer (or CEO, or programmer, etc.) provides a greater benefit to society than a firefighter or police officer. Many would absolutely disagree.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=afx114]Since we’re bagging on other states: Florida is shaped like a big droopy dick for a reason.[/quote]
Awesome.

Best post on this thread.

While I do agree that most public service jobs could be handled more efficiently, I think that treating these as services to be privatized deserves further investigation.

Lets go to places where cops, teachers, and firemen are semi-private employees. I think Nigeria and Tijuana show us some good examples of how to achieve this noble goal.

Similarly, I think Florida stands as a shining jewel of success in how to deal with children both in school and in terms of public safety.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1014461.ece?comments=legacy
http://www.southfloridacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2009/07/12_year_old_florida_boy_in_jai.html

Remember, privatization means better living.

Hopefully someday we can have a standard of living as good as Africa or Latin America.[/quote]
Funny. You guys made my night.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=afx114]Since we’re bagging on other states: Florida is shaped like a big droopy dick for a reason.[/quote]
Awesome.

Best post on this thread.

While I do agree that most public service jobs could be handled more efficiently, I think that treating these as services to be privatized deserves further investigation.

Lets go to places where cops, teachers, and firemen are semi-private employees. I think Nigeria and Tijuana show us some good examples of how to achieve this noble goal.

Similarly, I think Florida stands as a shining jewel of success in how to deal with children both in school and in terms of public safety.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1014461.ece?comments=legacy
http://www.southfloridacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2009/07/12_year_old_florida_boy_in_jai.html

Remember, privatization means better living.

Hopefully someday we can have a standard of living as good as Africa or Latin America.[/quote]
Funny. You guys made my night.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=afx114]Since we’re bagging on other states: Florida is shaped like a big droopy dick for a reason.[/quote]
Awesome.

Best post on this thread.

While I do agree that most public service jobs could be handled more efficiently, I think that treating these as services to be privatized deserves further investigation.

Lets go to places where cops, teachers, and firemen are semi-private employees. I think Nigeria and Tijuana show us some good examples of how to achieve this noble goal.

Similarly, I think Florida stands as a shining jewel of success in how to deal with children both in school and in terms of public safety.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1014461.ece?comments=legacy
http://www.southfloridacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2009/07/12_year_old_florida_boy_in_jai.html

Remember, privatization means better living.

Hopefully someday we can have a standard of living as good as Africa or Latin America.[/quote]
Funny. You guys made my night.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=afx114]Since we’re bagging on other states: Florida is shaped like a big droopy dick for a reason.[/quote]
Awesome.

Best post on this thread.

While I do agree that most public service jobs could be handled more efficiently, I think that treating these as services to be privatized deserves further investigation.

Lets go to places where cops, teachers, and firemen are semi-private employees. I think Nigeria and Tijuana show us some good examples of how to achieve this noble goal.

Similarly, I think Florida stands as a shining jewel of success in how to deal with children both in school and in terms of public safety.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/education/k12/article1014461.ece?comments=legacy
http://www.southfloridacriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2009/07/12_year_old_florida_boy_in_jai.html

Remember, privatization means better living.

Hopefully someday we can have a standard of living as good as Africa or Latin America.[/quote]
Funny. You guys made my night.

[Author]

Posts