- This topic has 261 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 17, 2012 at 2:09 PM #736140January 17, 2012 at 3:40 PM #736146
CA renter
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Sorry was away for the weekend up the coast. The numbers were $111 and $143 for a total of $254k. To me that is a lot of money for a household to make. These are not people living in a high end NCC community but rather a very modest working class one. Maybe I’m outta touch but a household with two “line workers” making that much seems like a lot. Frankly a lot of the guesses close to and above 300k shocked me.
I also think looking at current pension numbers is a fallacy. It’s not what they are collecting now but what we are committed to and have guaranteed in the future. If I’m selling a luxury retirement lifestyle I’d target public sector workers as there is going to be a lot of them in another 20 to 30 years. I always heard the arguments around here that real estate was getting so expensive our children wouldn’t be able to afford that. I never bought into that because I knew the market would eventually correct itself. This public sector compensation, benefit and pension mess truly worries me because there is no way for the market it to correct itself. We have committed to something I don’t know how we will ever pay for and there is no way around it.[/quote]
This is one definition for “line worker”
Every time you turn on your lights, call someone on the phone, watch cable television, or access the Internet, you are connecting to complex networks of lines and cables that provide you with electricity and connect you with the outside world. Line installers and repairers, also known as line workers or linemen, are the people who install and maintain these networks.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos195.htm
This is another definition:
Noun 1. An employee who works on an assembly line.[Wordnet].
It doesn’t sound like the couple in your example do either of these jobs. Would you care to elaborate, or is this where you look down your nose because you believe public employees are somehow beneath realtors?
January 17, 2012 at 9:03 PM #736171sdrealtor
ParticipantA line worker is one who works in production or at a staff level position. Not a management position responsible for a dept or with employees below them they are reponsible for. Its not a derogatory description and so nice of you to try to make it sound so. If anything its a very clinical term.
While you are here CAR instead of being noticably absent from this thread do you think a $250K household income is a normal reasonable income for a couple of young 30ish public sector employees? Additionally as you often claim public sector workers are underpaid relative to the private sector do you think they’d be making over 300K in the private sector as non-business owners or SR management? You do realize that income puts them in the top 1 or 2 % of wage earners in the country and thats without considering the generous retirement contributions made on their behalf.
January 17, 2012 at 11:16 PM #736181an
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]A line worker is one who works in production or at a staff level position. Not a management position responsible for a dept or with employees below them they are reponsible for. Its not a derogatory description and so nice of you to try to make it sound so. If anything its a very clinical term.
While you are here CAR instead of being noticably absent from this thread do you think a $250K household income is a normal reasonable income for a couple of young 30ish public sector employees? Additionally as you often claim public sector workers are underpaid relative to the private sector do you think they’d be making over 300K in the private sector as non-business owners or SR management? You do realize that income puts them in the top 1 or 2 % of wage earners in the country and thats without considering the generous retirement contributions made on their behalf.[/quote]
I’d love to see data to back up the claim that public employees make much less than private employees for the same position. Base on my anecdotal, I don’t see it. When I graduated many years ago, classmates who got into SPAWAR were getting paid just as much as those who got jobs in the private sector. AFAIK, nurses at VA hospital is making about the same as nurses at Scripps. Nurses at UCSD is making more than nurses at Scripps. Nurses at Scripps are making more than nurses at Sharp.January 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM #736182briansd1
Guest[quote=pri_dk][quote=UCGal]This book is full of data… that may not fit your anti-pension mind sets.[/quote]
The debate really is not about pensions (defined benefit retirement plans) vs. other “retirement” plans.
The debate is about public expenditures and public spending priorities, specifically compensation of public employees.[/quote]
pri_dk is right. The debate is about how public money is being spent. A larger and larger portion of tax dollars is being spent on public employee compensation. That’s simply unsustainable.
Tax money should to go to services.
Localities are seeing 30%, 40%, 60% and more of their general funds go to pensions.
Yes, UCGal is corret. Private companies have been cutting and eliminating pensions. But that’s a separate issue.
January 18, 2012 at 12:33 AM #736185jstoesz
ParticipantI have asked this before and I will ask it again, because so far I have gotten no answer from you. What is your affiliation with public-sector workers? Your answers are shallow and tiresome and they reek of self interest!
I just met up with an old friend who graduated with the civil engineering degree. He lost his job recently in the private sector, and just got a job in the public sector. Guess what he’s making more then he did in the private sector, a lot more. He rides around a few days a week in a large 40k 4 x 4 Ford that’s brand-new, thanks Katrina for your levee caused freak out And that’s just salary I’m not talking pension here! Wake up CAR we’re getting fleeced, at least my buddy knows that he is riding the gravy train. That’s all I ask of public sector employees, a little gratitude!
January 18, 2012 at 12:51 AM #736184Participant[quote=sdrealtor]A line worker is one who works in production or at a staff level position. Not a management position responsible for a dept or with employees below them they are reponsible for. Its not a derogatory description and so nice of you to try to make it sound so. If anything its a very clinical term.
While you are here CAR instead of being noticably absent from this thread do you think a $250K household income is a normal reasonable income for a couple of young 30ish public sector employees? Additionally as you often claim public sector workers are underpaid relative to the private sector do you think they’d be making over 300K in the private sector as non-business owners or SR management? You do realize that income puts them in the top 1 or 2 % of wage earners in the country and thats without considering the generous retirement contributions made on their behalf.[/quote]
Firstly, I’ve never heard the term “line worker” defined that way, nor have I found that definition for the term in the short amout of time I’ve just spent trying to find that definition or one similar to it. Based on your definition, almost everyone is a “line worker,” including teachers and professors; engineers employed by a company; doctors and nurses employed by a hospital or HMO, etc; athletes who are employed by a team; actors who work for a studio/employer; fund managers who work for a financial firm; etc. That’s a pretty broad description. I don’t think that’s what you meant when you said, “line worker.” Based on many of your previous comments about public sector workers, I believe you meant to imply that public sector workers are somehow unskilled and/or uneducated. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Regarding your claim that I said public workers were underpaid, please link to the post where I claimed that public sector workers were underpaid relative to private sector workers.
What I did say was that the standards for public employment are usually higher than for similar jobs in the private sector.
Perhaps you were thinking of this study:
“In this report we use publicly available data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, along with an established methodology used by researchers since the 1970s, to compare worker earnings across and between private, state, and local sectors. We analyze differences in pay between each sector as reported for the last several
decades, up to and including the latest estimates. We also estimate the variation of these trends across some of the largest states.”“Public and private workforces differ in important • ways. For instance, jobs in the public sector require much more education on average than those in the private sector. Employees in state and local sectors are twice as likely as their private sector counterparts to have a college or advanced degree.
Wages and salaries of state and local employees are • lower than those for private sector workers with comparable earnings determinants (e.g., education). State employees typically earn 11 percent less; local workers earn 12 percent less.”………….
I’ve also said that private sector workers have lost ground because they’ve been apathetic about protecting their interests and they’ve bought into the lies that “unions are bad,” and “globalization is good.” The consequences are obvious. Never wavered on that one — it’s why private sector workers are now so easily manipulated against public sector workers.
It’s not a coincidence, either. The people who “outsourced” all the private sector jobs are the very ones who are behind the attacks on public sector workers. Intelligent people will research this in an effort to understand WHY they are being manipulated (again), and who stands to benefit from it. These attacks on workers are NOT driven by taxpayer advocates, the entities behind the attacks are seeking to privatize public resources and revenue streams. Public unions are the last obstacle they need to overcome in order to attain their goals.
January 18, 2012 at 12:53 AM #736186Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk][quote=UCGal]This book is full of data… that may not fit your anti-pension mind sets.[/quote]
The debate really is not about pensions (defined benefit retirement plans) vs. other “retirement” plans.
The debate is about public expenditures and public spending priorities, specifically compensation of public employees.[/quote]
pri_dk is right. The debate is about how public money is being spent. A larger and larger portion of tax dollars is being spent on public employee compensation. That’s simply unsustainable.
Tax money should to go to services.
Localities are seeing 30%, 40%, 60% and more of their general funds go to pensions.
Yes, UCGal is corret. Private companies have been cutting and eliminating pensions. But that’s a separate issue.[/quote]
Um, Brian…what do you think “services” are? Do you not realize that in a service industry (as almost all govt entities are), the vast majority of your expenditures are spent on compensation?
January 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM #736187Participant[quote=sdrealtor]While you are here CAR instead of being noticably absent from this thread do you think a $250K household income is a normal reasonable income for a couple of young 30ish public sector employees? Additionally as you often claim public sector workers are underpaid relative to the private sector do you think they’d be making over 300K in the private sector as non-business owners or SR management? You do realize that income puts them in the top 1 or 2 % of wage earners in the country and thats without considering the generous retirement contributions made on their behalf.[/quote]
I can’t tell you if it’s a “normal, reasonable income” or not. There is not enough information.
What I DO know is that many young couples (especially DINKS) can make that money — both in the private and public sectors. It depends entirely on what they do for a living and how much time they dedicate to their jobs.
January 18, 2012 at 1:38 AM #736188Participant[quote=jstoesz]I have asked this before and I will ask it again, because so far I have gotten no answer from you. What is your affiliation with public-sector workers? Your answers are shallow and tiresome and they reek of self interest!
I just met up with an old friend who graduated with the civil engineering degree. He lost his job recently in the private sector, and just got a job in the public sector. Guess what he’s making more then he did in the private sector, a lot more. He rides around a few days a week in a large 40k 4 x 4 Ford that’s brand-new, thanks Katrina for your levee caused freak out And that’s just salary I’m not talking pension here! Wake up CAR we’re getting fleeced, at least my buddy knows that he is riding the gravy train. That’s all I ask of public sector employees, a little gratitude![/quote]
Quite frankly, it’s none of your business (and I don’t mean that in an unkind way). I always make a point of addressing the topic rather than making personal attacks. You can review my posts over many years and see that I never make a personal attack unless someone else initiates it. Even then, I try to refrain from doing so until the other person has so hopelessly gone off-topic and begun to rant emotionally that I sometimes end up in the gutter with him (so far, it’s never been a female poster).
Perhaps it would be more productive if you could explain why you think my points are “shallow” or “tiresome.” At least then we could have a more productive discussion instead of engaging in childish emotional rants and personal attacks.
The reason I’m defending (public AND private) unions is because I believe that unions protect workers from corporate/financial interests who constantly strive to take an ever-growing share of the value created by workers. If you don’t believe me, check out what happened in the private sector after the demise of the unions:
“A huge share of the nation’s economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.”
I’ll say it again (and again, and again…because once we cross the line, there is no going back), the people who are behind the attacks on public unions are the very same ones who are behind this growing wealth disparity. They are NOT looking out for Joe Sixpack’s best interests, and they are NOT taxpayer advocates.
Do your research!
January 18, 2012 at 7:23 AM #736196Anonymous
GuestThe debate isn’t about unions. Don’t change the subject.
It’s about public spending priorities. Tax dollars.
Brian is right. Money should go to infrastructure and services – current services.
We are quickly reaching the point where the majority of public funds will be going toward retirement payouts. Already, in places like San Jose and Vallejo, the majority of their city budgets go to public services provided in the past.
If you live in Vallejo and your house is on fire, you’d better have a time machine, because the firefighter you are paying retired 5 years ago.
Throughout California, more and more money is going to retired teachers, and current classrooms are overcrowding.
And in the future, it will get worse. The trend, and projections, are extremely ominous.
January 18, 2012 at 7:48 AM #736198GuestOf course we cannot come to any final conclusions using sdr’s data point, not without knowing more specifics about the individuals and their jobs (and I don’t want to know more.)
(BTW, “line worker” is a very common term – what a ridiculous nitpick…)
But there is an interesting fact relevant to the number. These folks are making above $250K, the income used in the recent tax and healthcare debates as the threshold for “rich people.”
Accounting for the cost of benefits, their total compensation is probably around $300K – well above the “rich” threshold.
According to many of Obama’s policy positions, these people should pay more taxes, because right now they aren’t paying their “fair share.” (And, BTW, I have supported these positions all along.)
So, for those us that are left-leaning on tax policy, we have to acknowledge that our position is that these people are in fact doing quite well, and should pay more in taxes. The rules should apply to everyone.
So I agree that sdr’s little anecdote makes a point:
People can become “rich” working “line” jobs in the public sector.
That is a red flag, to be sure.
January 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM #736202blahblahblah
ParticipantBeing rich and having a large income are two different things.
January 18, 2012 at 8:36 AM #736203GuestTry explaining that to the IRS.
January 18, 2012 at 8:42 AM #736205ParticipantTotally ran with something completely out of context on the “line worker” issue. Iw as refer to two specific people and know the jobs they hold and their education. They are anything but unskilled or uneducated. Quite to the contrary. Somehow you ran with that as an indictment that i said public workers in egeneral were unskilled or uneducated. I said nothing of the sort.
A couple years ago you would claim prices were so high no one could afford them. Here we have two very typical public sector workers in this area with a household income over 250K. Not executives, not business owners, not hi lievel managers but college educated rather youngish pretty ordinary folks making that money. So maybe I just dont get it. Maybe all your public sector friends who you said were just scraping buy are actually the fabulous wealthy ones around here?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.