ballot proposition to decrease state worker’s pay?

[briansd1]

PlnrBoy, if public employees are so qualified as you say, they can easily find alternative employment in the private sector. Nobody is stopping them. I wish them the best.

It’s not a question of what we should pay but what we can afford to pay public employees. It’s not just how much we pay public employees, but how many we should employ.

I’d love to have a maid to clean my apartment. But if I can’t afford one, then it’s either I clean myself or learn to live in a dirty place.

For example, we now have trash pickup once a week in San Diego. But if we can’t afford that, perhaps we need to learn to live with pickup once every 10 days. Or we need to lower the cost of the weekly service by outsourcing to the lowest bidder.

If voters are unwilling to pay more in taxes (I’m one of them) then the government needs to cut back. That’s pretty simple in my opinion.

[Eugene]

[quote]PlnrBoy, if public employees are so qualified as you say, they can easily find alternative employment in the private sector. Nobody is stopping them.

It’s not a question of what we should pay but what we can afford to pay public employees. It’s not just how much we pay them, but how public employees we should have. [/quote]

Right now they obviously can’t find alternative employment, there isn’t any. But sooner or later the economy will recover. When that happens, qualified public employees will jump ship and new positions will be hard to fill. We can close the budget in the short run, but that model of development would be unsustainable.

In the end, we should decide what we want to have and decide how we want to pay. Do we want to keep the honor of having one of the lowest effective property taxes in the nation, or do we want to start spending more on K-12 per pupil than Iowa? Do we want to imitate Texas by cutting welfare spending, if it means, say, a 50% higher crime rate?

[Eugene]

[quote]PlnrBoy, if public employees are so qualified as you say, they can easily find alternative employment in the private sector. Nobody is stopping them.

It’s not a question of what we should pay but what we can afford to pay public employees. It’s not just how much we pay them, but how public employees we should have. [/quote]

Right now they obviously can’t find alternative employment, there isn’t any. But sooner or later the economy will recover. When that happens, qualified public employees will jump ship and new positions will be hard to fill. We can close the budget in the short run, but that model of development would be unsustainable.

In the end, we should decide what we want to have and decide how we want to pay. Do we want to keep the honor of having one of the lowest effective property taxes in the nation, or do we want to start spending more on K-12 per pupil than Iowa? Do we want to imitate Texas by cutting welfare spending, if it means, say, a 50% higher crime rate?

[Eugene]

[quote]PlnrBoy, if public employees are so qualified as you say, they can easily find alternative employment in the private sector. Nobody is stopping them.

It’s not a question of what we should pay but what we can afford to pay public employees. It’s not just how much we pay them, but how public employees we should have. [/quote]

Right now they obviously can’t find alternative employment, there isn’t any. But sooner or later the economy will recover. When that happens, qualified public employees will jump ship and new positions will be hard to fill. We can close the budget in the short run, but that model of development would be unsustainable.

In the end, we should decide what we want to have and decide how we want to pay. Do we want to keep the honor of having one of the lowest effective property taxes in the nation, or do we want to start spending more on K-12 per pupil than Iowa? Do we want to imitate Texas by cutting welfare spending, if it means, say, a 50% higher crime rate?

[Eugene]

[quote]PlnrBoy, if public employees are so qualified as you say, they can easily find alternative employment in the private sector. Nobody is stopping them.

It’s not a question of what we should pay but what we can afford to pay public employees. It’s not just how much we pay them, but how public employees we should have. [/quote]

Right now they obviously can’t find alternative employment, there isn’t any. But sooner or later the economy will recover. When that happens, qualified public employees will jump ship and new positions will be hard to fill. We can close the budget in the short run, but that model of development would be unsustainable.

In the end, we should decide what we want to have and decide how we want to pay. Do we want to keep the honor of having one of the lowest effective property taxes in the nation, or do we want to start spending more on K-12 per pupil than Iowa? Do we want to imitate Texas by cutting welfare spending, if it means, say, a 50% higher crime rate?

[Eugene]

[quote]PlnrBoy, if public employees are so qualified as you say, they can easily find alternative employment in the private sector. Nobody is stopping them.

It’s not a question of what we should pay but what we can afford to pay public employees. It’s not just how much we pay them, but how public employees we should have. [/quote]

Right now they obviously can’t find alternative employment, there isn’t any. But sooner or later the economy will recover. When that happens, qualified public employees will jump ship and new positions will be hard to fill. We can close the budget in the short run, but that model of development would be unsustainable.

In the end, we should decide what we want to have and decide how we want to pay. Do we want to keep the honor of having one of the lowest effective property taxes in the nation, or do we want to start spending more on K-12 per pupil than Iowa? Do we want to imitate Texas by cutting welfare spending, if it means, say, a 50% higher crime rate?

[davelj]

I think I have a better idea.

Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Edit: In addition, the nice thing is that this would allow the state to spend more in years when the economy sucks (that is, run deficits) because surpluses would build during the good years. In other words, it would allow for fiscal flexibility when needed, while not allowing such “flexibility” to grow ad infinitum.

[davelj]

I think I have a better idea.

Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Edit: In addition, the nice thing is that this would allow the state to spend more in years when the economy sucks (that is, run deficits) because surpluses would build during the good years. In other words, it would allow for fiscal flexibility when needed, while not allowing such “flexibility” to grow ad infinitum.

[davelj]

I think I have a better idea.

Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Edit: In addition, the nice thing is that this would allow the state to spend more in years when the economy sucks (that is, run deficits) because surpluses would build during the good years. In other words, it would allow for fiscal flexibility when needed, while not allowing such “flexibility” to grow ad infinitum.

[davelj]

I think I have a better idea.

Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Edit: In addition, the nice thing is that this would allow the state to spend more in years when the economy sucks (that is, run deficits) because surpluses would build during the good years. In other words, it would allow for fiscal flexibility when needed, while not allowing such “flexibility” to grow ad infinitum.

[davelj]

I think I have a better idea.

Just pass a ballot proposition that limits the increase in state spending each year to the following formula:

CPI + (Estimated) Population Change (%)

It’s not perfect, but it would essentially keep state spending per capita constant in real dollars (roughly, that is). Had we done this a decade ago, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Edit: In addition, the nice thing is that this would allow the state to spend more in years when the economy sucks (that is, run deficits) because surpluses would build during the good years. In other words, it would allow for fiscal flexibility when needed, while not allowing such “flexibility” to grow ad infinitum.

[paramount]

PlnrBoy: It’s not accurate to just look at ones paycheck for compensation, you really have to consider a workers total compensation – pay, benefits, retirement, etc…

[paramount]

PlnrBoy: It’s not accurate to just look at ones paycheck for compensation, you really have to consider a workers total compensation – pay, benefits, retirement, etc…

[paramount]

PlnrBoy: It’s not accurate to just look at ones paycheck for compensation, you really have to consider a workers total compensation – pay, benefits, retirement, etc…

[paramount]

PlnrBoy: It’s not accurate to just look at ones paycheck for compensation, you really have to consider a workers total compensation – pay, benefits, retirement, etc…

[Author]

Posts