- This topic has 166 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
Ricechex.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
October 24, 2007 at 11:39 PM #10722
-
October 25, 2007 at 1:13 AM #91680
pepsi
ParticipantJust did a quick search and our (CA) total debt is about 45 (end of 2006), plus 1.5B as mentioned in the article for 2007. That is about $1300 for each everyone of us (or about $3700 per household).
-
October 25, 2007 at 9:25 AM #91699
bsrsharma
ParticipantThough that may sound large, for sake of comparison, Federal debt is about $30,000 per capita or $100,000 per household. State debt is to Federal debt what a cat is to a cow. If you include private sector debt too, our Gross National Debt may even become an elephant!
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM #134121
bsrsharma
ParticipantUS’s triple-A credit rating ‘under threat’
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy……
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM #134136
kewp
ParticipantAnd here I thought I was being clever working for the UC system, thinking we would be sheltered from the housing meltdown.
We just got our budget dinged 10%. 🙁
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM #134156
Bugs
ParticipantChula Vista is cutting back services. City of San Diego is cutting back services, the County is cutting back services. Now the state is cutting back services.
Does anyone see a pattern here? The political acceptability of cutting back services is moving up the governmental pecking order.
Before you know it, we’ll get a Presidential line-item veto along with some serious campaign contribution reform for Congress.
Or not.
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM #134181
cr
ParticipantWell, we may be broke, but at least we will be the leaders in stem cell research.
Here’s a crazy idea State of California – how about cutting pay and the number of fat cat bureaucrats sucking our state (and nation for that matter) dry?
When businesses are faced with slowing sales, what do they do?
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM #134236
paramount
ParticipantI think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.
In Private industry we are forced to pay for these inflated benefits and salaries that most people in private industry could only dream of…
But as history shows, Police State’s are expensive to run.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM #134246
Aecetia
ParticipantEntitlements for the undeserving are even more expensive.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM #134440
Aecetia
ParticipantEntitlements for the undeserving are even more expensive.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM #134447
Aecetia
ParticipantEntitlements for the undeserving are even more expensive.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM #134501
Aecetia
ParticipantEntitlements for the undeserving are even more expensive.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:20 AM #134543
Aecetia
ParticipantEntitlements for the undeserving are even more expensive.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM #134266
kewp
Participant
I think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
Benefits are a wash. So far my healthcare has been pretty good, but the dental is weak (which of course is what I need the most help with). No 401k either. With the budget cuts, job security is out the window as well.
-
January 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM #134379
cr
ParticipantGuaranteed employment, immunity from firing layoff or downsizing, pension plans, and in-the-bag cost of living raises don’t exaclty yield the most efficient work ethics.
The government is supposed to answer to the people it’s supposed to serve. Not the other way around.
A few months ago the LA Times had an article on some of the council members who weren’t taking raises because of the budget problems. I think there 8 of the 30 that weren’t. I admire that. I still think they’re overpaid, but it’s noble if not much more.
Our democratic government jobs are really more socialist, as are the the programs for people who don’t work at all.
It’s no wonder were in debt, and there’s no housing bubble to provide a windfall of cash for them to overspend this time.
-
January 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM #134383
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant(imagine this in Arnold’s voice) …
Ask not what Caulifornia can do for you. Ask what you can do for Caulifornia !
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM #134454
paramount
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM #134459
kewp
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
You could say that about any large organization.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM #134650
kewp
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
You could say that about any large organization.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM #134658
kewp
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
You could say that about any large organization.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM #134713
kewp
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
You could say that about any large organization.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:12 PM #134755
kewp
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
You could say that about any large organization.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM #134645
paramount
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM #134653
paramount
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM #134708
paramount
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:10 PM #134750
paramount
ParticipantI think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.
-
January 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM #134575
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant(imagine this in Arnold’s voice) …
Ask not what Caulifornia can do for you. Ask what you can do for Caulifornia !
-
January 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM #134582
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant(imagine this in Arnold’s voice) …
Ask not what Caulifornia can do for you. Ask what you can do for Caulifornia !
-
January 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM #134637
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant(imagine this in Arnold’s voice) …
Ask not what Caulifornia can do for you. Ask what you can do for Caulifornia !
-
January 11, 2008 at 1:05 PM #134679
(former)FormerSanDiegan
Participant(imagine this in Arnold’s voice) …
Ask not what Caulifornia can do for you. Ask what you can do for Caulifornia !
-
January 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM #134570
cr
ParticipantGuaranteed employment, immunity from firing layoff or downsizing, pension plans, and in-the-bag cost of living raises don’t exaclty yield the most efficient work ethics.
The government is supposed to answer to the people it’s supposed to serve. Not the other way around.
A few months ago the LA Times had an article on some of the council members who weren’t taking raises because of the budget problems. I think there 8 of the 30 that weren’t. I admire that. I still think they’re overpaid, but it’s noble if not much more.
Our democratic government jobs are really more socialist, as are the the programs for people who don’t work at all.
It’s no wonder were in debt, and there’s no housing bubble to provide a windfall of cash for them to overspend this time.
-
January 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM #134577
cr
ParticipantGuaranteed employment, immunity from firing layoff or downsizing, pension plans, and in-the-bag cost of living raises don’t exaclty yield the most efficient work ethics.
The government is supposed to answer to the people it’s supposed to serve. Not the other way around.
A few months ago the LA Times had an article on some of the council members who weren’t taking raises because of the budget problems. I think there 8 of the 30 that weren’t. I admire that. I still think they’re overpaid, but it’s noble if not much more.
Our democratic government jobs are really more socialist, as are the the programs for people who don’t work at all.
It’s no wonder were in debt, and there’s no housing bubble to provide a windfall of cash for them to overspend this time.
-
January 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM #134632
cr
ParticipantGuaranteed employment, immunity from firing layoff or downsizing, pension plans, and in-the-bag cost of living raises don’t exaclty yield the most efficient work ethics.
The government is supposed to answer to the people it’s supposed to serve. Not the other way around.
A few months ago the LA Times had an article on some of the council members who weren’t taking raises because of the budget problems. I think there 8 of the 30 that weren’t. I admire that. I still think they’re overpaid, but it’s noble if not much more.
Our democratic government jobs are really more socialist, as are the the programs for people who don’t work at all.
It’s no wonder were in debt, and there’s no housing bubble to provide a windfall of cash for them to overspend this time.
-
January 11, 2008 at 12:59 PM #134674
cr
ParticipantGuaranteed employment, immunity from firing layoff or downsizing, pension plans, and in-the-bag cost of living raises don’t exaclty yield the most efficient work ethics.
The government is supposed to answer to the people it’s supposed to serve. Not the other way around.
A few months ago the LA Times had an article on some of the council members who weren’t taking raises because of the budget problems. I think there 8 of the 30 that weren’t. I admire that. I still think they’re overpaid, but it’s noble if not much more.
Our democratic government jobs are really more socialist, as are the the programs for people who don’t work at all.
It’s no wonder were in debt, and there’s no housing bubble to provide a windfall of cash for them to overspend this time.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM #134489
desmond
ParticipantI would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
You probably would not cut it in the private sector.
Submitted by kewp on January 11, 2008 – 12:36pm
Proves my point.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM #134504
kewp
ParticipantYou probably would not cut it in the private sector.
I spent 8 years in the private sector, most of them at Bell Labs and AT&T. There was just as much waste, incompetence and inefficiency there as in government organizations, in my experience.
As one of my projects is a high-performance anti-malware proxy, Piggingtons is part of the QA process! 🙂
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM #134509
meadandale
ParticipantAt least companies like Bell Labs and AT&T actually PRODUCE something. Government is like a giant tick sucking the lifeblood out of everyone in the private sector.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM #134519
kewp
ParticipantThe University of California system doesn’t produce anything?
What about all the students that the private sector is hiring, that could not have afforded an education otherwise?
And speaking of blood suckers, nobody can hold a candle to the private sector RE machine. Realtors and mortgage brokers produce what, exactly, now?
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM #134525
meadandale
ParticipantWell, the last time I checked, Realtors and Brokers provided a service…the same as lawyers, doctors, accountants….
The beloved UC system where I got two very expensive degrees. Doesn’t look like my tax subsidy got me very much….Oh, and isn’t it wonderful how state schools are getting public financing for research (e.g. stem cells) but any profit they make from the research is privatized and not given back to the state? Yeah, lovely how that works.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:49 PM #134545
NeetaT
Participant“The new securities may yield 3.35 percent to 3.40 percent”
NO THANKS!!!!
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:49 PM #134736
NeetaT
Participant“The new securities may yield 3.35 percent to 3.40 percent”
NO THANKS!!!!
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:49 PM #134744
NeetaT
Participant“The new securities may yield 3.35 percent to 3.40 percent”
NO THANKS!!!!
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:49 PM #134798
NeetaT
Participant“The new securities may yield 3.35 percent to 3.40 percent”
NO THANKS!!!!
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:49 PM #134840
NeetaT
Participant“The new securities may yield 3.35 percent to 3.40 percent”
NO THANKS!!!!
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM #134716
meadandale
ParticipantWell, the last time I checked, Realtors and Brokers provided a service…the same as lawyers, doctors, accountants….
The beloved UC system where I got two very expensive degrees. Doesn’t look like my tax subsidy got me very much….Oh, and isn’t it wonderful how state schools are getting public financing for research (e.g. stem cells) but any profit they make from the research is privatized and not given back to the state? Yeah, lovely how that works.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM #134724
meadandale
ParticipantWell, the last time I checked, Realtors and Brokers provided a service…the same as lawyers, doctors, accountants….
The beloved UC system where I got two very expensive degrees. Doesn’t look like my tax subsidy got me very much….Oh, and isn’t it wonderful how state schools are getting public financing for research (e.g. stem cells) but any profit they make from the research is privatized and not given back to the state? Yeah, lovely how that works.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM #134777
meadandale
ParticipantWell, the last time I checked, Realtors and Brokers provided a service…the same as lawyers, doctors, accountants….
The beloved UC system where I got two very expensive degrees. Doesn’t look like my tax subsidy got me very much….Oh, and isn’t it wonderful how state schools are getting public financing for research (e.g. stem cells) but any profit they make from the research is privatized and not given back to the state? Yeah, lovely how that works.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:35 PM #134818
meadandale
ParticipantWell, the last time I checked, Realtors and Brokers provided a service…the same as lawyers, doctors, accountants….
The beloved UC system where I got two very expensive degrees. Doesn’t look like my tax subsidy got me very much….Oh, and isn’t it wonderful how state schools are getting public financing for research (e.g. stem cells) but any profit they make from the research is privatized and not given back to the state? Yeah, lovely how that works.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM #134711
kewp
ParticipantThe University of California system doesn’t produce anything?
What about all the students that the private sector is hiring, that could not have afforded an education otherwise?
And speaking of blood suckers, nobody can hold a candle to the private sector RE machine. Realtors and mortgage brokers produce what, exactly, now?
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM #134719
kewp
ParticipantThe University of California system doesn’t produce anything?
What about all the students that the private sector is hiring, that could not have afforded an education otherwise?
And speaking of blood suckers, nobody can hold a candle to the private sector RE machine. Realtors and mortgage brokers produce what, exactly, now?
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM #134772
kewp
ParticipantThe University of California system doesn’t produce anything?
What about all the students that the private sector is hiring, that could not have afforded an education otherwise?
And speaking of blood suckers, nobody can hold a candle to the private sector RE machine. Realtors and mortgage brokers produce what, exactly, now?
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:25 PM #134814
kewp
ParticipantThe University of California system doesn’t produce anything?
What about all the students that the private sector is hiring, that could not have afforded an education otherwise?
And speaking of blood suckers, nobody can hold a candle to the private sector RE machine. Realtors and mortgage brokers produce what, exactly, now?
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM #134701
meadandale
ParticipantAt least companies like Bell Labs and AT&T actually PRODUCE something. Government is like a giant tick sucking the lifeblood out of everyone in the private sector.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM #134709
meadandale
ParticipantAt least companies like Bell Labs and AT&T actually PRODUCE something. Government is like a giant tick sucking the lifeblood out of everyone in the private sector.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM #134763
meadandale
ParticipantAt least companies like Bell Labs and AT&T actually PRODUCE something. Government is like a giant tick sucking the lifeblood out of everyone in the private sector.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:19 PM #134805
meadandale
ParticipantAt least companies like Bell Labs and AT&T actually PRODUCE something. Government is like a giant tick sucking the lifeblood out of everyone in the private sector.
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM #134696
kewp
ParticipantYou probably would not cut it in the private sector.
I spent 8 years in the private sector, most of them at Bell Labs and AT&T. There was just as much waste, incompetence and inefficiency there as in government organizations, in my experience.
As one of my projects is a high-performance anti-malware proxy, Piggingtons is part of the QA process! 🙂
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM #134704
kewp
ParticipantYou probably would not cut it in the private sector.
I spent 8 years in the private sector, most of them at Bell Labs and AT&T. There was just as much waste, incompetence and inefficiency there as in government organizations, in my experience.
As one of my projects is a high-performance anti-malware proxy, Piggingtons is part of the QA process! 🙂
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM #134758
kewp
ParticipantYou probably would not cut it in the private sector.
I spent 8 years in the private sector, most of them at Bell Labs and AT&T. There was just as much waste, incompetence and inefficiency there as in government organizations, in my experience.
As one of my projects is a high-performance anti-malware proxy, Piggingtons is part of the QA process! 🙂
-
January 11, 2008 at 4:10 PM #134800
kewp
ParticipantYou probably would not cut it in the private sector.
I spent 8 years in the private sector, most of them at Bell Labs and AT&T. There was just as much waste, incompetence and inefficiency there as in government organizations, in my experience.
As one of my projects is a high-performance anti-malware proxy, Piggingtons is part of the QA process! 🙂
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM #134680
desmond
ParticipantI would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
You probably would not cut it in the private sector.
Submitted by kewp on January 11, 2008 – 12:36pm
Proves my point.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM #134689
desmond
ParticipantI would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
You probably would not cut it in the private sector.
Submitted by kewp on January 11, 2008 – 12:36pm
Proves my point.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM #134743
desmond
ParticipantI would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
You probably would not cut it in the private sector.
Submitted by kewp on January 11, 2008 – 12:36pm
Proves my point.
-
January 11, 2008 at 3:52 PM #134784
desmond
ParticipantI would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
You probably would not cut it in the private sector.
Submitted by kewp on January 11, 2008 – 12:36pm
Proves my point.
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM #134564
drunkle
Participantkewp:
“I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.”
you sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
my gut feeling is that in the past 10 years, public employment has surpassed private in terms of compensation and benefits… private was where you had a shot at making the big bucks, public was secure, but kinda meagre. not so much so, if cops and teachers are pulling 70k salaries… (numbers oft bandied about here in the past as examples of “median workers” who could afford their dream homes in santee)
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM #134589
Ricechex
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM #134611
VoZangre
Participant18 yrs and counting…
Fed employee ( Vets Hospitals) for the above mentioned
(scary-ass) amount of time. Am now about to fly the coop. DEFINITELY UNDERcompensated. A good 10-20% here in SunnyDaygo. And that includes benes. UCSD offers as good or better and are unionized ( box o worms, I know)… the Fed benes are WAY overrated. There is DEFINITELY a culture of slack, do as lil as possible…here… which is aboslutley contagious… Newton’s First Law and all…COntract working and shitty underpaid workers who don’t give a fiddler’s fart beCASUE they have no benes is VERY present here.
As for ” You probably couldn’t cut it.” Sod off, wanker.
ciao for now…
Voz
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:39 PM #134626
mixxalot
ParticipantState and Federal Government workers and waste
I have seen a mixed bag- since I have done contract work a lot with both federal, state and private companies. I see folks who slack off in both govt and private. Waste in both. The benefits are better in govt jobs. Security is a lot better. Pay not bad if you are in high enough level. I am looking into a federal job in technology as many will soon retire and a pension would be nice to have besides just 401k and social security when I retire.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM #134641
Ricechex
ParticipantWell, if you are going to work for DOD, you may re-consider salary. They have gone to a NSPS system, which is a merit performance based system. The problem is, it won’t work that way at all. They have developed a pay banding, supposedly to recruit people in certain fields. Those people will get paid. Other workers, dependent on “available funds.” Heh. That means they won’t be available. If I didn’t have 12 years in, I would find another job.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM #134836
Ricechex
ParticipantWell, if you are going to work for DOD, you may re-consider salary. They have gone to a NSPS system, which is a merit performance based system. The problem is, it won’t work that way at all. They have developed a pay banding, supposedly to recruit people in certain fields. Those people will get paid. Other workers, dependent on “available funds.” Heh. That means they won’t be available. If I didn’t have 12 years in, I would find another job.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM #134843
Ricechex
ParticipantWell, if you are going to work for DOD, you may re-consider salary. They have gone to a NSPS system, which is a merit performance based system. The problem is, it won’t work that way at all. They have developed a pay banding, supposedly to recruit people in certain fields. Those people will get paid. Other workers, dependent on “available funds.” Heh. That means they won’t be available. If I didn’t have 12 years in, I would find another job.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM #134899
Ricechex
ParticipantWell, if you are going to work for DOD, you may re-consider salary. They have gone to a NSPS system, which is a merit performance based system. The problem is, it won’t work that way at all. They have developed a pay banding, supposedly to recruit people in certain fields. Those people will get paid. Other workers, dependent on “available funds.” Heh. That means they won’t be available. If I didn’t have 12 years in, I would find another job.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:47 PM #134941
Ricechex
ParticipantWell, if you are going to work for DOD, you may re-consider salary. They have gone to a NSPS system, which is a merit performance based system. The problem is, it won’t work that way at all. They have developed a pay banding, supposedly to recruit people in certain fields. Those people will get paid. Other workers, dependent on “available funds.” Heh. That means they won’t be available. If I didn’t have 12 years in, I would find another job.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:39 PM #134821
mixxalot
ParticipantState and Federal Government workers and waste
I have seen a mixed bag- since I have done contract work a lot with both federal, state and private companies. I see folks who slack off in both govt and private. Waste in both. The benefits are better in govt jobs. Security is a lot better. Pay not bad if you are in high enough level. I am looking into a federal job in technology as many will soon retire and a pension would be nice to have besides just 401k and social security when I retire.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:39 PM #134828
mixxalot
ParticipantState and Federal Government workers and waste
I have seen a mixed bag- since I have done contract work a lot with both federal, state and private companies. I see folks who slack off in both govt and private. Waste in both. The benefits are better in govt jobs. Security is a lot better. Pay not bad if you are in high enough level. I am looking into a federal job in technology as many will soon retire and a pension would be nice to have besides just 401k and social security when I retire.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:39 PM #134884
mixxalot
ParticipantState and Federal Government workers and waste
I have seen a mixed bag- since I have done contract work a lot with both federal, state and private companies. I see folks who slack off in both govt and private. Waste in both. The benefits are better in govt jobs. Security is a lot better. Pay not bad if you are in high enough level. I am looking into a federal job in technology as many will soon retire and a pension would be nice to have besides just 401k and social security when I retire.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:39 PM #134925
mixxalot
ParticipantState and Federal Government workers and waste
I have seen a mixed bag- since I have done contract work a lot with both federal, state and private companies. I see folks who slack off in both govt and private. Waste in both. The benefits are better in govt jobs. Security is a lot better. Pay not bad if you are in high enough level. I am looking into a federal job in technology as many will soon retire and a pension would be nice to have besides just 401k and social security when I retire.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM #134806
VoZangre
Participant18 yrs and counting…
Fed employee ( Vets Hospitals) for the above mentioned
(scary-ass) amount of time. Am now about to fly the coop. DEFINITELY UNDERcompensated. A good 10-20% here in SunnyDaygo. And that includes benes. UCSD offers as good or better and are unionized ( box o worms, I know)… the Fed benes are WAY overrated. There is DEFINITELY a culture of slack, do as lil as possible…here… which is aboslutley contagious… Newton’s First Law and all…COntract working and shitty underpaid workers who don’t give a fiddler’s fart beCASUE they have no benes is VERY present here.
As for ” You probably couldn’t cut it.” Sod off, wanker.
ciao for now…
Voz
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM #134812
VoZangre
Participant18 yrs and counting…
Fed employee ( Vets Hospitals) for the above mentioned
(scary-ass) amount of time. Am now about to fly the coop. DEFINITELY UNDERcompensated. A good 10-20% here in SunnyDaygo. And that includes benes. UCSD offers as good or better and are unionized ( box o worms, I know)… the Fed benes are WAY overrated. There is DEFINITELY a culture of slack, do as lil as possible…here… which is aboslutley contagious… Newton’s First Law and all…COntract working and shitty underpaid workers who don’t give a fiddler’s fart beCASUE they have no benes is VERY present here.
As for ” You probably couldn’t cut it.” Sod off, wanker.
ciao for now…
Voz
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM #134869
VoZangre
Participant18 yrs and counting…
Fed employee ( Vets Hospitals) for the above mentioned
(scary-ass) amount of time. Am now about to fly the coop. DEFINITELY UNDERcompensated. A good 10-20% here in SunnyDaygo. And that includes benes. UCSD offers as good or better and are unionized ( box o worms, I know)… the Fed benes are WAY overrated. There is DEFINITELY a culture of slack, do as lil as possible…here… which is aboslutley contagious… Newton’s First Law and all…COntract working and shitty underpaid workers who don’t give a fiddler’s fart beCASUE they have no benes is VERY present here.
As for ” You probably couldn’t cut it.” Sod off, wanker.
ciao for now…
Voz
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:17 PM #134910
VoZangre
Participant18 yrs and counting…
Fed employee ( Vets Hospitals) for the above mentioned
(scary-ass) amount of time. Am now about to fly the coop. DEFINITELY UNDERcompensated. A good 10-20% here in SunnyDaygo. And that includes benes. UCSD offers as good or better and are unionized ( box o worms, I know)… the Fed benes are WAY overrated. There is DEFINITELY a culture of slack, do as lil as possible…here… which is aboslutley contagious… Newton’s First Law and all…COntract working and shitty underpaid workers who don’t give a fiddler’s fart beCASUE they have no benes is VERY present here.
As for ” You probably couldn’t cut it.” Sod off, wanker.
ciao for now…
Voz
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM #134781
Ricechex
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM #134790
Ricechex
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM #134846
Ricechex
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:49 PM #134886
Ricechex
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM #134621
kewp
Participantyou sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
Positive. IT security is red-hot right now and when I put out some feelers over the last year the positions were all in that range.
I will admit that in my case, I’ve made pretty much the same in both areas. The potential for upwards mobility seems much more in the private sector, however. Plus one can’t ignore bennies like stock options, 401k, etc.
The big benefit for me in the public sector is I can work a 40 hour week and still have energy for some side projects. Which may make me rich one day, who knows.
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM #134676
stockstradr
ParticipantFive years ago I had no opinion on the efficiency or pay rates of CA government workers vs. private sector.
Then, thanks to introduction from a cousin, my wife and I became part of social circle made up of workers from San Diego and surrounding cities. (State, City, and County workers)
We noticed two categories:
A small minority were college-educated professionals who were UNDERpaid as gov. workers.
The remaining MAJORITY were UNeducated unprofessionals who drifted for years until “striking it rich” by squirming into cushy government jobs. They were way OVERpaid, particularly since such Bottom 20% Performers could hardly even get hired in Private Sector.
Many a weekend evening I shared beers with countless (often drunk) gov workers, who shared their honest assumptions about their gov job:
1) At work they did the Bare Minimum, knowing countless gov reg’s prevented their getting fired (except maybe if they killed a co-worker)…AND they had zero motivation because working hard doesn’t help a gov worker’s career. (Yes, government funding cuts were a risk for job cuts, but that was an unpredictable event so didn’t motivate a better job performance.)
2) To them it was ALL about doing time at the job until they could retire on a fat government pension, often achievable in merely 20 years – and typically paying out remainder-of-life benefits at 60% to 80% of salary! Holy crap; those are my tax dollars paying for THAT.
3) Many worked FOUR days a week MAX but were paid full time.
4) Health benefits were obviously BETTER than in private sector.
5) The second the clock struck their workday closing bell (usually 4:30 PM)…EVERYONE ran for the door. They said by 5 PM their offices were so empty not a mouse was creeping..
6) Those with 10+ years seniority had EIGHT to TWELVE weeks of paid vacation a year. Holy shit, they were ON PAID VACATION one day out of every four work days. No wonder our government moves with the speed of a creeping glacier
Almost every conversation was on how they could facilitate some kind of scam (double jobs, overtime..) to get highest possible salary at retirement, upon which retirement benefits are calculated.
I LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM #134762
paramount
Participantstockstradr: I wish I had not read that, now I am even angrier.
My only glimmer of hope seems to be Ron Paul at this point.
I read last year that CalPERS invests in a hedge fund that focuses on “restructured” companies. A large part of this ‘restructuring’ was to eliminate company pension funds (for private sector employees).
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM #134959
paramount
Participantstockstradr: I wish I had not read that, now I am even angrier.
My only glimmer of hope seems to be Ron Paul at this point.
I read last year that CalPERS invests in a hedge fund that focuses on “restructured” companies. A large part of this ‘restructuring’ was to eliminate company pension funds (for private sector employees).
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM #134968
paramount
Participantstockstradr: I wish I had not read that, now I am even angrier.
My only glimmer of hope seems to be Ron Paul at this point.
I read last year that CalPERS invests in a hedge fund that focuses on “restructured” companies. A large part of this ‘restructuring’ was to eliminate company pension funds (for private sector employees).
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM #135022
paramount
Participantstockstradr: I wish I had not read that, now I am even angrier.
My only glimmer of hope seems to be Ron Paul at this point.
I read last year that CalPERS invests in a hedge fund that focuses on “restructured” companies. A large part of this ‘restructuring’ was to eliminate company pension funds (for private sector employees).
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:53 PM #135064
paramount
Participantstockstradr: I wish I had not read that, now I am even angrier.
My only glimmer of hope seems to be Ron Paul at this point.
I read last year that CalPERS invests in a hedge fund that focuses on “restructured” companies. A large part of this ‘restructuring’ was to eliminate company pension funds (for private sector employees).
-
January 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM #134827
kewp
ParticipantI LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
It must be grueling work, “stockstradr”!!!
Btw, the various CA pension funds are all rotten with toxic debt these days, thanks to you industrious private sector folk!
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM #135143
paramount
ParticipantI’m not sure how valid this comment is about the pensions, but I am sure about this: If it were not for the private sector, public sector employees would have NO pension at all!
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM #135153
Ricechex
ParticipantThere are no pensions for federal government employees as of 18 or so years ago. We put into a retirement plan same as everyone else. The government matches us up to 5%.
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM #135349
Ricechex
ParticipantThere are no pensions for federal government employees as of 18 or so years ago. We put into a retirement plan same as everyone else. The government matches us up to 5%.
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM #135351
Ricechex
ParticipantThere are no pensions for federal government employees as of 18 or so years ago. We put into a retirement plan same as everyone else. The government matches us up to 5%.
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM #135407
Ricechex
ParticipantThere are no pensions for federal government employees as of 18 or so years ago. We put into a retirement plan same as everyone else. The government matches us up to 5%.
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:44 PM #135449
Ricechex
ParticipantThere are no pensions for federal government employees as of 18 or so years ago. We put into a retirement plan same as everyone else. The government matches us up to 5%.
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM #135336
paramount
ParticipantI’m not sure how valid this comment is about the pensions, but I am sure about this: If it were not for the private sector, public sector employees would have NO pension at all!
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM #135341
paramount
ParticipantI’m not sure how valid this comment is about the pensions, but I am sure about this: If it were not for the private sector, public sector employees would have NO pension at all!
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM #135396
paramount
ParticipantI’m not sure how valid this comment is about the pensions, but I am sure about this: If it were not for the private sector, public sector employees would have NO pension at all!
-
January 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM #135438
paramount
ParticipantI’m not sure how valid this comment is about the pensions, but I am sure about this: If it were not for the private sector, public sector employees would have NO pension at all!
-
January 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM #135025
kewp
ParticipantI LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
It must be grueling work, “stockstradr”!!!
Btw, the various CA pension funds are all rotten with toxic debt these days, thanks to you industrious private sector folk!
-
January 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM #135032
kewp
ParticipantI LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
It must be grueling work, “stockstradr”!!!
Btw, the various CA pension funds are all rotten with toxic debt these days, thanks to you industrious private sector folk!
-
January 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM #135086
kewp
ParticipantI LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
It must be grueling work, “stockstradr”!!!
Btw, the various CA pension funds are all rotten with toxic debt these days, thanks to you industrious private sector folk!
-
January 12, 2008 at 8:57 AM #135129
kewp
ParticipantI LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
It must be grueling work, “stockstradr”!!!
Btw, the various CA pension funds are all rotten with toxic debt these days, thanks to you industrious private sector folk!
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM #134868
stockstradr
ParticipantFive years ago I had no opinion on the efficiency or pay rates of CA government workers vs. private sector.
Then, thanks to introduction from a cousin, my wife and I became part of social circle made up of workers from San Diego and surrounding cities. (State, City, and County workers)
We noticed two categories:
A small minority were college-educated professionals who were UNDERpaid as gov. workers.
The remaining MAJORITY were UNeducated unprofessionals who drifted for years until “striking it rich” by squirming into cushy government jobs. They were way OVERpaid, particularly since such Bottom 20% Performers could hardly even get hired in Private Sector.
Many a weekend evening I shared beers with countless (often drunk) gov workers, who shared their honest assumptions about their gov job:
1) At work they did the Bare Minimum, knowing countless gov reg’s prevented their getting fired (except maybe if they killed a co-worker)…AND they had zero motivation because working hard doesn’t help a gov worker’s career. (Yes, government funding cuts were a risk for job cuts, but that was an unpredictable event so didn’t motivate a better job performance.)
2) To them it was ALL about doing time at the job until they could retire on a fat government pension, often achievable in merely 20 years – and typically paying out remainder-of-life benefits at 60% to 80% of salary! Holy crap; those are my tax dollars paying for THAT.
3) Many worked FOUR days a week MAX but were paid full time.
4) Health benefits were obviously BETTER than in private sector.
5) The second the clock struck their workday closing bell (usually 4:30 PM)…EVERYONE ran for the door. They said by 5 PM their offices were so empty not a mouse was creeping..
6) Those with 10+ years seniority had EIGHT to TWELVE weeks of paid vacation a year. Holy shit, they were ON PAID VACATION one day out of every four work days. No wonder our government moves with the speed of a creeping glacier
Almost every conversation was on how they could facilitate some kind of scam (double jobs, overtime..) to get highest possible salary at retirement, upon which retirement benefits are calculated.
I LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM #134878
stockstradr
ParticipantFive years ago I had no opinion on the efficiency or pay rates of CA government workers vs. private sector.
Then, thanks to introduction from a cousin, my wife and I became part of social circle made up of workers from San Diego and surrounding cities. (State, City, and County workers)
We noticed two categories:
A small minority were college-educated professionals who were UNDERpaid as gov. workers.
The remaining MAJORITY were UNeducated unprofessionals who drifted for years until “striking it rich” by squirming into cushy government jobs. They were way OVERpaid, particularly since such Bottom 20% Performers could hardly even get hired in Private Sector.
Many a weekend evening I shared beers with countless (often drunk) gov workers, who shared their honest assumptions about their gov job:
1) At work they did the Bare Minimum, knowing countless gov reg’s prevented their getting fired (except maybe if they killed a co-worker)…AND they had zero motivation because working hard doesn’t help a gov worker’s career. (Yes, government funding cuts were a risk for job cuts, but that was an unpredictable event so didn’t motivate a better job performance.)
2) To them it was ALL about doing time at the job until they could retire on a fat government pension, often achievable in merely 20 years – and typically paying out remainder-of-life benefits at 60% to 80% of salary! Holy crap; those are my tax dollars paying for THAT.
3) Many worked FOUR days a week MAX but were paid full time.
4) Health benefits were obviously BETTER than in private sector.
5) The second the clock struck their workday closing bell (usually 4:30 PM)…EVERYONE ran for the door. They said by 5 PM their offices were so empty not a mouse was creeping..
6) Those with 10+ years seniority had EIGHT to TWELVE weeks of paid vacation a year. Holy shit, they were ON PAID VACATION one day out of every four work days. No wonder our government moves with the speed of a creeping glacier
Almost every conversation was on how they could facilitate some kind of scam (double jobs, overtime..) to get highest possible salary at retirement, upon which retirement benefits are calculated.
I LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM #134934
stockstradr
ParticipantFive years ago I had no opinion on the efficiency or pay rates of CA government workers vs. private sector.
Then, thanks to introduction from a cousin, my wife and I became part of social circle made up of workers from San Diego and surrounding cities. (State, City, and County workers)
We noticed two categories:
A small minority were college-educated professionals who were UNDERpaid as gov. workers.
The remaining MAJORITY were UNeducated unprofessionals who drifted for years until “striking it rich” by squirming into cushy government jobs. They were way OVERpaid, particularly since such Bottom 20% Performers could hardly even get hired in Private Sector.
Many a weekend evening I shared beers with countless (often drunk) gov workers, who shared their honest assumptions about their gov job:
1) At work they did the Bare Minimum, knowing countless gov reg’s prevented their getting fired (except maybe if they killed a co-worker)…AND they had zero motivation because working hard doesn’t help a gov worker’s career. (Yes, government funding cuts were a risk for job cuts, but that was an unpredictable event so didn’t motivate a better job performance.)
2) To them it was ALL about doing time at the job until they could retire on a fat government pension, often achievable in merely 20 years – and typically paying out remainder-of-life benefits at 60% to 80% of salary! Holy crap; those are my tax dollars paying for THAT.
3) Many worked FOUR days a week MAX but were paid full time.
4) Health benefits were obviously BETTER than in private sector.
5) The second the clock struck their workday closing bell (usually 4:30 PM)…EVERYONE ran for the door. They said by 5 PM their offices were so empty not a mouse was creeping..
6) Those with 10+ years seniority had EIGHT to TWELVE weeks of paid vacation a year. Holy shit, they were ON PAID VACATION one day out of every four work days. No wonder our government moves with the speed of a creeping glacier
Almost every conversation was on how they could facilitate some kind of scam (double jobs, overtime..) to get highest possible salary at retirement, upon which retirement benefits are calculated.
I LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM #134975
stockstradr
ParticipantFive years ago I had no opinion on the efficiency or pay rates of CA government workers vs. private sector.
Then, thanks to introduction from a cousin, my wife and I became part of social circle made up of workers from San Diego and surrounding cities. (State, City, and County workers)
We noticed two categories:
A small minority were college-educated professionals who were UNDERpaid as gov. workers.
The remaining MAJORITY were UNeducated unprofessionals who drifted for years until “striking it rich” by squirming into cushy government jobs. They were way OVERpaid, particularly since such Bottom 20% Performers could hardly even get hired in Private Sector.
Many a weekend evening I shared beers with countless (often drunk) gov workers, who shared their honest assumptions about their gov job:
1) At work they did the Bare Minimum, knowing countless gov reg’s prevented their getting fired (except maybe if they killed a co-worker)…AND they had zero motivation because working hard doesn’t help a gov worker’s career. (Yes, government funding cuts were a risk for job cuts, but that was an unpredictable event so didn’t motivate a better job performance.)
2) To them it was ALL about doing time at the job until they could retire on a fat government pension, often achievable in merely 20 years – and typically paying out remainder-of-life benefits at 60% to 80% of salary! Holy crap; those are my tax dollars paying for THAT.
3) Many worked FOUR days a week MAX but were paid full time.
4) Health benefits were obviously BETTER than in private sector.
5) The second the clock struck their workday closing bell (usually 4:30 PM)…EVERYONE ran for the door. They said by 5 PM their offices were so empty not a mouse was creeping..
6) Those with 10+ years seniority had EIGHT to TWELVE weeks of paid vacation a year. Holy shit, they were ON PAID VACATION one day out of every four work days. No wonder our government moves with the speed of a creeping glacier
Almost every conversation was on how they could facilitate some kind of scam (double jobs, overtime..) to get highest possible salary at retirement, upon which retirement benefits are calculated.
I LAUGH at anyone who claims CA gov workers are as hard working as private sector. I do more work in my typical twelve-hour day than they do in a week.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM #134816
kewp
Participantyou sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
Positive. IT security is red-hot right now and when I put out some feelers over the last year the positions were all in that range.
I will admit that in my case, I’ve made pretty much the same in both areas. The potential for upwards mobility seems much more in the private sector, however. Plus one can’t ignore bennies like stock options, 401k, etc.
The big benefit for me in the public sector is I can work a 40 hour week and still have energy for some side projects. Which may make me rich one day, who knows.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM #134823
kewp
Participantyou sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
Positive. IT security is red-hot right now and when I put out some feelers over the last year the positions were all in that range.
I will admit that in my case, I’ve made pretty much the same in both areas. The potential for upwards mobility seems much more in the private sector, however. Plus one can’t ignore bennies like stock options, 401k, etc.
The big benefit for me in the public sector is I can work a 40 hour week and still have energy for some side projects. Which may make me rich one day, who knows.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM #134879
kewp
Participantyou sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
Positive. IT security is red-hot right now and when I put out some feelers over the last year the positions were all in that range.
I will admit that in my case, I’ve made pretty much the same in both areas. The potential for upwards mobility seems much more in the private sector, however. Plus one can’t ignore bennies like stock options, 401k, etc.
The big benefit for me in the public sector is I can work a 40 hour week and still have energy for some side projects. Which may make me rich one day, who knows.
-
January 11, 2008 at 7:48 PM #134920
kewp
Participantyou sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
Positive. IT security is red-hot right now and when I put out some feelers over the last year the positions were all in that range.
I will admit that in my case, I’ve made pretty much the same in both areas. The potential for upwards mobility seems much more in the private sector, however. Plus one can’t ignore bennies like stock options, 401k, etc.
The big benefit for me in the public sector is I can work a 40 hour week and still have energy for some side projects. Which may make me rich one day, who knows.
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM #134756
drunkle
Participantkewp:
“I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.”
you sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
my gut feeling is that in the past 10 years, public employment has surpassed private in terms of compensation and benefits… private was where you had a shot at making the big bucks, public was secure, but kinda meagre. not so much so, if cops and teachers are pulling 70k salaries… (numbers oft bandied about here in the past as examples of “median workers” who could afford their dream homes in santee)
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM #134764
drunkle
Participantkewp:
“I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.”
you sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
my gut feeling is that in the past 10 years, public employment has surpassed private in terms of compensation and benefits… private was where you had a shot at making the big bucks, public was secure, but kinda meagre. not so much so, if cops and teachers are pulling 70k salaries… (numbers oft bandied about here in the past as examples of “median workers” who could afford their dream homes in santee)
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM #134820
drunkle
Participantkewp:
“I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.”
you sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
my gut feeling is that in the past 10 years, public employment has surpassed private in terms of compensation and benefits… private was where you had a shot at making the big bucks, public was secure, but kinda meagre. not so much so, if cops and teachers are pulling 70k salaries… (numbers oft bandied about here in the past as examples of “median workers” who could afford their dream homes in santee)
-
January 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM #134861
drunkle
Participantkewp:
“I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.”
you sure about that? check the latest census numbers on median wage per industry…
my gut feeling is that in the past 10 years, public employment has surpassed private in terms of compensation and benefits… private was where you had a shot at making the big bucks, public was secure, but kinda meagre. not so much so, if cops and teachers are pulling 70k salaries… (numbers oft bandied about here in the past as examples of “median workers” who could afford their dream homes in santee)
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM #134460
kewp
Participant
I think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
Benefits are a wash. So far my healthcare has been pretty good, but the dental is weak (which of course is what I need the most help with). No 401k either. With the budget cuts, job security is out the window as well.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM #134468
kewp
Participant
I think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
Benefits are a wash. So far my healthcare has been pretty good, but the dental is weak (which of course is what I need the most help with). No 401k either. With the budget cuts, job security is out the window as well.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM #134521
kewp
Participant
I think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
Benefits are a wash. So far my healthcare has been pretty good, but the dental is weak (which of course is what I need the most help with). No 401k either. With the budget cuts, job security is out the window as well.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM #134563
kewp
Participant
I think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.I would make anywhere from 30%-100% more if I took an equivalent IT job in the private sector.
Benefits are a wash. So far my healthcare has been pretty good, but the dental is weak (which of course is what I need the most help with). No 401k either. With the budget cuts, job security is out the window as well.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM #134430
paramount
ParticipantI think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.
In Private industry we are forced to pay for these inflated benefits and salaries that most people in private industry could only dream of…
But as history shows, Police State’s are expensive to run.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM #134438
paramount
ParticipantI think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.
In Private industry we are forced to pay for these inflated benefits and salaries that most people in private industry could only dream of…
But as history shows, Police State’s are expensive to run.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM #134491
paramount
ParticipantI think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.
In Private industry we are forced to pay for these inflated benefits and salaries that most people in private industry could only dream of…
But as history shows, Police State’s are expensive to run.
-
January 11, 2008 at 11:18 AM #134533
paramount
ParticipantI think the average worker in California would be shocked by not only the salaries, but also the benefits the typical California State employee enjoys.
In Private industry we are forced to pay for these inflated benefits and salaries that most people in private industry could only dream of…
But as history shows, Police State’s are expensive to run.
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM #134373
cr
ParticipantWell, we may be broke, but at least we will be the leaders in stem cell research.
Here’s a crazy idea State of California – how about cutting pay and the number of fat cat bureaucrats sucking our state (and nation for that matter) dry?
When businesses are faced with slowing sales, what do they do?
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM #134382
cr
ParticipantWell, we may be broke, but at least we will be the leaders in stem cell research.
Here’s a crazy idea State of California – how about cutting pay and the number of fat cat bureaucrats sucking our state (and nation for that matter) dry?
When businesses are faced with slowing sales, what do they do?
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM #134436
cr
ParticipantWell, we may be broke, but at least we will be the leaders in stem cell research.
Here’s a crazy idea State of California – how about cutting pay and the number of fat cat bureaucrats sucking our state (and nation for that matter) dry?
When businesses are faced with slowing sales, what do they do?
-
January 11, 2008 at 10:12 AM #134478
cr
ParticipantWell, we may be broke, but at least we will be the leaders in stem cell research.
Here’s a crazy idea State of California – how about cutting pay and the number of fat cat bureaucrats sucking our state (and nation for that matter) dry?
When businesses are faced with slowing sales, what do they do?
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM #134348
Bugs
ParticipantChula Vista is cutting back services. City of San Diego is cutting back services, the County is cutting back services. Now the state is cutting back services.
Does anyone see a pattern here? The political acceptability of cutting back services is moving up the governmental pecking order.
Before you know it, we’ll get a Presidential line-item veto along with some serious campaign contribution reform for Congress.
Or not.
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM #134356
Bugs
ParticipantChula Vista is cutting back services. City of San Diego is cutting back services, the County is cutting back services. Now the state is cutting back services.
Does anyone see a pattern here? The political acceptability of cutting back services is moving up the governmental pecking order.
Before you know it, we’ll get a Presidential line-item veto along with some serious campaign contribution reform for Congress.
Or not.
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM #134411
Bugs
ParticipantChula Vista is cutting back services. City of San Diego is cutting back services, the County is cutting back services. Now the state is cutting back services.
Does anyone see a pattern here? The political acceptability of cutting back services is moving up the governmental pecking order.
Before you know it, we’ll get a Presidential line-item veto along with some serious campaign contribution reform for Congress.
Or not.
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM #134452
Bugs
ParticipantChula Vista is cutting back services. City of San Diego is cutting back services, the County is cutting back services. Now the state is cutting back services.
Does anyone see a pattern here? The political acceptability of cutting back services is moving up the governmental pecking order.
Before you know it, we’ll get a Presidential line-item veto along with some serious campaign contribution reform for Congress.
Or not.
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM #134329
kewp
ParticipantAnd here I thought I was being clever working for the UC system, thinking we would be sheltered from the housing meltdown.
We just got our budget dinged 10%. 🙁
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM #134336
kewp
ParticipantAnd here I thought I was being clever working for the UC system, thinking we would be sheltered from the housing meltdown.
We just got our budget dinged 10%. 🙁
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM #134391
kewp
ParticipantAnd here I thought I was being clever working for the UC system, thinking we would be sheltered from the housing meltdown.
We just got our budget dinged 10%. 🙁
-
January 11, 2008 at 9:11 AM #134432
kewp
ParticipantAnd here I thought I was being clever working for the UC system, thinking we would be sheltered from the housing meltdown.
We just got our budget dinged 10%. 🙁
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM #134312
bsrsharma
ParticipantUS’s triple-A credit rating ‘under threat’
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy……
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM #134321
bsrsharma
ParticipantUS’s triple-A credit rating ‘under threat’
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy……
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM #134376
bsrsharma
ParticipantUS’s triple-A credit rating ‘under threat’
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy……
-
January 11, 2008 at 8:56 AM #134417
bsrsharma
ParticipantUS’s triple-A credit rating ‘under threat’
The US is at risk of losing its top-notch triple-A credit rating within a decade unless it takes radical action to curb soaring healthcare and social security spending, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, said yesterday.
The warning over the future of the triple-A rating – granted to US government debt since it was first assessed in 1917 – reflects growing concerns over the country’s ability to retain its financial and economic supremacy……
-
-
October 25, 2007 at 9:25 AM #91724
bsrsharma
ParticipantThough that may sound large, for sake of comparison, Federal debt is about $30,000 per capita or $100,000 per household. State debt is to Federal debt what a cat is to a cow. If you include private sector debt too, our Gross National Debt may even become an elephant!
-
October 25, 2007 at 9:25 AM #91736
bsrsharma
ParticipantThough that may sound large, for sake of comparison, Federal debt is about $30,000 per capita or $100,000 per household. State debt is to Federal debt what a cat is to a cow. If you include private sector debt too, our Gross National Debt may even become an elephant!
-
-
October 25, 2007 at 1:13 AM #91705
pepsi
ParticipantJust did a quick search and our (CA) total debt is about 45 (end of 2006), plus 1.5B as mentioned in the article for 2007. That is about $1300 for each everyone of us (or about $3700 per household).
-
October 25, 2007 at 1:13 AM #91716
pepsi
ParticipantJust did a quick search and our (CA) total debt is about 45 (end of 2006), plus 1.5B as mentioned in the article for 2007. That is about $1300 for each everyone of us (or about $3700 per household).
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM #134855
no_such_reality
ParticipantSchwarzenegger Discipline Shattered by Subprime Slump
What discipline?
The revenues the Government has today compared to 2004 when he took office is up more than 30%. Spending has increased even more.
Bonds make expenses, expenses make deficits. Discipline isn’t proposing a new credit card for programs that don’t fit in the budget. When you do, you end up with a $14 Billion deficit when the payments are due.
The 2003 California State Budget was $98.9 Billion dollars.
The 2007 California State Budget was $143.4 Billion dollars.
That’s a 10% a compound annual growth rate.
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM #134865
jennyo
ParticipantNSR, you are correct in pointing out the ridiculousness of the notion that the current governor has exercised any kind of fiscal discipline. But the budget totals you are citing are not an apples-to-apples comparison. You are using the 2003 General Fund total, and the 2007 “all funds” total. The 2007 GF total is closer to $101 billion. There is always around $45 or so billion in special fund spending that is counted in the overall state budget, but does not come from the General Fund and your income, sales and corporation taxes. Instead it is funding from fees like the Motor Vehicle Account (supports DMV and CHP), professional licensing fees for doctors, nurses, and hair stylists, and transportation funds that come from the gas tax and other separate revenue sources that have restricted uses.
-
January 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM #134916
no_such_reality
ParticipantJennyo, that’s not correct. The 2007 General Fund is $145B. It is apples to apples.
Here’s the links to the 2003/2004 budget and 07/08 budget. I’m comparing the same budget line items.
Look at page 5, Budget total.
2007 Budget $145B.
2003 Budget $99B.
-
January 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM #134971
jennyo
ParticipantI actually work on that document, and if you look at page iv in the 2007-08 FBS, you see the General Fund column that totals $101 billion for GF, plus a prior year carryover balance of about $4 billion. To the right you will see other funding sources listed which add to “total expenditures” of $145 billion.
However, I was wrong in stating that the 2003-04 GF total was $99 billion, it was only $73 billion that year with a $1.4 billion prior year carryover. Like a lazy state worker, I did not look at the budget before responding to your post, so I apologize. You were comparing apples to apples, but not citing General Fund totals. I forgot how low it got that year. That was the last year that Davis was around, and that budget rips all the special funds to prop up General Fund programs.
Believe me, if there was $145 billion General Fund coming in annually, we would all be getting fat tax refunds, not closing state parks and letting inmates out of prison.
-
January 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM #135165
jennyo
ParticipantI actually work on that document, and if you look at page iv in the 2007-08 FBS, you see the General Fund column that totals $101 billion for GF, plus a prior year carryover balance of about $4 billion. To the right you will see other funding sources listed which add to “total expenditures” of $145 billion.
However, I was wrong in stating that the 2003-04 GF total was $99 billion, it was only $73 billion that year with a $1.4 billion prior year carryover. Like a lazy state worker, I did not look at the budget before responding to your post, so I apologize. You were comparing apples to apples, but not citing General Fund totals. I forgot how low it got that year. That was the last year that Davis was around, and that budget rips all the special funds to prop up General Fund programs.
Believe me, if there was $145 billion General Fund coming in annually, we would all be getting fat tax refunds, not closing state parks and letting inmates out of prison.
-
January 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM #135172
jennyo
ParticipantI actually work on that document, and if you look at page iv in the 2007-08 FBS, you see the General Fund column that totals $101 billion for GF, plus a prior year carryover balance of about $4 billion. To the right you will see other funding sources listed which add to “total expenditures” of $145 billion.
However, I was wrong in stating that the 2003-04 GF total was $99 billion, it was only $73 billion that year with a $1.4 billion prior year carryover. Like a lazy state worker, I did not look at the budget before responding to your post, so I apologize. You were comparing apples to apples, but not citing General Fund totals. I forgot how low it got that year. That was the last year that Davis was around, and that budget rips all the special funds to prop up General Fund programs.
Believe me, if there was $145 billion General Fund coming in annually, we would all be getting fat tax refunds, not closing state parks and letting inmates out of prison.
-
January 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM #135225
jennyo
ParticipantI actually work on that document, and if you look at page iv in the 2007-08 FBS, you see the General Fund column that totals $101 billion for GF, plus a prior year carryover balance of about $4 billion. To the right you will see other funding sources listed which add to “total expenditures” of $145 billion.
However, I was wrong in stating that the 2003-04 GF total was $99 billion, it was only $73 billion that year with a $1.4 billion prior year carryover. Like a lazy state worker, I did not look at the budget before responding to your post, so I apologize. You were comparing apples to apples, but not citing General Fund totals. I forgot how low it got that year. That was the last year that Davis was around, and that budget rips all the special funds to prop up General Fund programs.
Believe me, if there was $145 billion General Fund coming in annually, we would all be getting fat tax refunds, not closing state parks and letting inmates out of prison.
-
January 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM #135265
jennyo
ParticipantI actually work on that document, and if you look at page iv in the 2007-08 FBS, you see the General Fund column that totals $101 billion for GF, plus a prior year carryover balance of about $4 billion. To the right you will see other funding sources listed which add to “total expenditures” of $145 billion.
However, I was wrong in stating that the 2003-04 GF total was $99 billion, it was only $73 billion that year with a $1.4 billion prior year carryover. Like a lazy state worker, I did not look at the budget before responding to your post, so I apologize. You were comparing apples to apples, but not citing General Fund totals. I forgot how low it got that year. That was the last year that Davis was around, and that budget rips all the special funds to prop up General Fund programs.
Believe me, if there was $145 billion General Fund coming in annually, we would all be getting fat tax refunds, not closing state parks and letting inmates out of prison.
-
January 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM #135110
no_such_reality
ParticipantJennyo, that’s not correct. The 2007 General Fund is $145B. It is apples to apples.
Here’s the links to the 2003/2004 budget and 07/08 budget. I’m comparing the same budget line items.
Look at page 5, Budget total.
2007 Budget $145B.
2003 Budget $99B.
-
January 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM #135116
no_such_reality
ParticipantJennyo, that’s not correct. The 2007 General Fund is $145B. It is apples to apples.
Here’s the links to the 2003/2004 budget and 07/08 budget. I’m comparing the same budget line items.
Look at page 5, Budget total.
2007 Budget $145B.
2003 Budget $99B.
-
January 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM #135171
no_such_reality
ParticipantJennyo, that’s not correct. The 2007 General Fund is $145B. It is apples to apples.
Here’s the links to the 2003/2004 budget and 07/08 budget. I’m comparing the same budget line items.
Look at page 5, Budget total.
2007 Budget $145B.
2003 Budget $99B.
-
January 12, 2008 at 1:47 PM #135213
no_such_reality
ParticipantJennyo, that’s not correct. The 2007 General Fund is $145B. It is apples to apples.
Here’s the links to the 2003/2004 budget and 07/08 budget. I’m comparing the same budget line items.
Look at page 5, Budget total.
2007 Budget $145B.
2003 Budget $99B.
-
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM #135060
jennyo
ParticipantNSR, you are correct in pointing out the ridiculousness of the notion that the current governor has exercised any kind of fiscal discipline. But the budget totals you are citing are not an apples-to-apples comparison. You are using the 2003 General Fund total, and the 2007 “all funds” total. The 2007 GF total is closer to $101 billion. There is always around $45 or so billion in special fund spending that is counted in the overall state budget, but does not come from the General Fund and your income, sales and corporation taxes. Instead it is funding from fees like the Motor Vehicle Account (supports DMV and CHP), professional licensing fees for doctors, nurses, and hair stylists, and transportation funds that come from the gas tax and other separate revenue sources that have restricted uses.
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM #135067
jennyo
ParticipantNSR, you are correct in pointing out the ridiculousness of the notion that the current governor has exercised any kind of fiscal discipline. But the budget totals you are citing are not an apples-to-apples comparison. You are using the 2003 General Fund total, and the 2007 “all funds” total. The 2007 GF total is closer to $101 billion. There is always around $45 or so billion in special fund spending that is counted in the overall state budget, but does not come from the General Fund and your income, sales and corporation taxes. Instead it is funding from fees like the Motor Vehicle Account (supports DMV and CHP), professional licensing fees for doctors, nurses, and hair stylists, and transportation funds that come from the gas tax and other separate revenue sources that have restricted uses.
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM #135121
jennyo
ParticipantNSR, you are correct in pointing out the ridiculousness of the notion that the current governor has exercised any kind of fiscal discipline. But the budget totals you are citing are not an apples-to-apples comparison. You are using the 2003 General Fund total, and the 2007 “all funds” total. The 2007 GF total is closer to $101 billion. There is always around $45 or so billion in special fund spending that is counted in the overall state budget, but does not come from the General Fund and your income, sales and corporation taxes. Instead it is funding from fees like the Motor Vehicle Account (supports DMV and CHP), professional licensing fees for doctors, nurses, and hair stylists, and transportation funds that come from the gas tax and other separate revenue sources that have restricted uses.
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:32 AM #135164
jennyo
ParticipantNSR, you are correct in pointing out the ridiculousness of the notion that the current governor has exercised any kind of fiscal discipline. But the budget totals you are citing are not an apples-to-apples comparison. You are using the 2003 General Fund total, and the 2007 “all funds” total. The 2007 GF total is closer to $101 billion. There is always around $45 or so billion in special fund spending that is counted in the overall state budget, but does not come from the General Fund and your income, sales and corporation taxes. Instead it is funding from fees like the Motor Vehicle Account (supports DMV and CHP), professional licensing fees for doctors, nurses, and hair stylists, and transportation funds that come from the gas tax and other separate revenue sources that have restricted uses.
-
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM #135050
no_such_reality
ParticipantSchwarzenegger Discipline Shattered by Subprime Slump
What discipline?
The revenues the Government has today compared to 2004 when he took office is up more than 30%. Spending has increased even more.
Bonds make expenses, expenses make deficits. Discipline isn’t proposing a new credit card for programs that don’t fit in the budget. When you do, you end up with a $14 Billion deficit when the payments are due.
The 2003 California State Budget was $98.9 Billion dollars.
The 2007 California State Budget was $143.4 Billion dollars.
That’s a 10% a compound annual growth rate.
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM #135057
no_such_reality
ParticipantSchwarzenegger Discipline Shattered by Subprime Slump
What discipline?
The revenues the Government has today compared to 2004 when he took office is up more than 30%. Spending has increased even more.
Bonds make expenses, expenses make deficits. Discipline isn’t proposing a new credit card for programs that don’t fit in the budget. When you do, you end up with a $14 Billion deficit when the payments are due.
The 2003 California State Budget was $98.9 Billion dollars.
The 2007 California State Budget was $143.4 Billion dollars.
That’s a 10% a compound annual growth rate.
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM #135111
no_such_reality
ParticipantSchwarzenegger Discipline Shattered by Subprime Slump
What discipline?
The revenues the Government has today compared to 2004 when he took office is up more than 30%. Spending has increased even more.
Bonds make expenses, expenses make deficits. Discipline isn’t proposing a new credit card for programs that don’t fit in the budget. When you do, you end up with a $14 Billion deficit when the payments are due.
The 2003 California State Budget was $98.9 Billion dollars.
The 2007 California State Budget was $143.4 Billion dollars.
That’s a 10% a compound annual growth rate.
-
January 12, 2008 at 10:09 AM #135154
no_such_reality
ParticipantSchwarzenegger Discipline Shattered by Subprime Slump
What discipline?
The revenues the Government has today compared to 2004 when he took office is up more than 30%. Spending has increased even more.
Bonds make expenses, expenses make deficits. Discipline isn’t proposing a new credit card for programs that don’t fit in the budget. When you do, you end up with a $14 Billion deficit when the payments are due.
The 2003 California State Budget was $98.9 Billion dollars.
The 2007 California State Budget was $143.4 Billion dollars.
That’s a 10% a compound annual growth rate.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.