OT- CONTEST!!! Guess public sector household earnings

[Anonymous]

“Do some research” is another way of saying “I don’t have any evidence, but I’ll just tell you it exists anyway.”

Since you are so skilled at it (and the rest of us are inept), please show us some “research” that demonstrates how companies like Qualcomm, Intuit, Apple, Microsoft, Genentech, etc. get their capital, R&D, or ANY significant funds from “taxpayers in almost every case.”

Sorry you have to do it yourself. But I’m certain that none of us feel like spending hours googling for some fact that doesn’t exist in the desperate hope of finding something that supports your point of view.

[Aecetia]

[quote=sdrealtor]Good point. Nowhere is nepotism more prevalent than in government jobs. Don’t believe it? Watch all the job changes and appointments as playoffs when a new politician takes office.[/quote]

Excellent point sdr and absolutely correct. We see it with the D.A., the Sheriff, etc. If they cannot force people that supported the other guy or gal out when they take office, then they transfer them to a dead end job where they will never get promoted. It is as full of cronyism as a D.C. lobbyist.

[sdrealtor]

Why doesnt taking a job at a software start up with an unproven record in hopes that it hits big time instead of working in county IT department not count? The employee working for the county has security, a stable job with little to no risk of a layoff, regular promotions if they just keep their head down, do their job and keep their mouth shut they have a nice pension at the end of the rainbow. On the other hand, the one that goes to work at the start up will most likely be on the streets looking for a new job in 6 to 24 months. Why is that not taking a risk and shouldnt that person be rewarded if the help one of the few winners succeed?

[sdrealtor]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=sdrealtor]Good point. Nowhere is nepotism more prevalent than in government jobs. Don’t believe it? Watch all the job changes and appointments as playoffs when a new politician takes office.[/quote]

Excellent point sdr and absolutely correct. We see it with the D.A., the Sheriff, etc. If they cannot force people that supported the other guy or gal out when they take office, then they transfer them to a dead end job where they will never get promoted. It is as full of cronyism as a D.C. lobbyist.[/quote]

From the sad but true department, some of the most coveted positions back in Philly are the bridge toll collectors. You know those jobs that employ our best and brightest coin collectors and change givers. Most make 6 figure incomes and all the jobs are notoriously given as political payoffs.

[Aecetia]

Amazing. I did not think you had to have human collectors. I think most of the South Bay is unmanned or unwomanned and they just use cameras to collect the scofflaws who do not pay, but I could be mistaken.

[sdrealtor]

Times have surely changed and I suspect there are less of these jobs with the Fastrac system making them even more coveted and tougher to get. I just crossed the Golden Gate a few times over the holidays and I paid a live collector each time so I’m sure those jobs stille xist in this country for “our best and brightest” coin collectors and change givers. Thank heavens for that!

[briansd1]

You mention Philly, sdrealtor. As a part-time resident, I love it. Center City is nice because I like the city feel with people walking around on the streets.

But the infrastructure sucks compared to other rising cities of the world.

Philly is run-down and full of lazy government employees. I got 2 $50 tickets twice for unbundled trash. But it wasn’t me. In fact, I’m the one who picks up all the trash and tidy up in front of the houses.

I got the fines because I marked my recycle bin with my house number, so the idiot enforcement officer just picked my address. Guess what? My bin in now unmarked. It’s not worth my time to go the hearing.

BTW, you can use any recycle bin if you mark it “recycle”. But if you want an official recycle bin you have to drive 20 miles out of town to get it. Oh, you need a PA ID because a utility bill can’t do. Of course, since I don’t have a PA ID, I wasted my time.

Septa is run like crap without much automation. You buy the ticket on the train and they still use paper punch tickets. For all we know the ticket controllers could pocket the money. From an audit standpoint, it’s scary.

Smart phones now be used as credit card readers. Most airlines now only take credit cards on board.

Go to any of the big cities in developing countries around the world and they have new automated systems. As an American, I’m really embarrassed that our top cities are falling so far behind.

Japan is a country with a notoriously heavy bureaucracy and nepotism runs rampant also. But at least they have modern public services.

[sdrealtor]

Could pocket the money? Dont even think about our best and brightest ticket punchers thinking about doing that!

I tried to warn you. Philly is perfect example of what happens when unions and government run a city with nepotism, corruption and greed. Most people who could afford it have fled to the suburbs long ago. Its nice to come into town for a show and dinner but living there is a nightmare not to mention the wage tax for drawing a paycheck in the city.

[an]

[quote=Aecetia]Amazing. I did not think you had to have human collectors. I think most of the South Bay is unmanned or unwomanned and they just use cameras to collect the scofflaws who do not pay, but I could be mistaken.[/quote]
I was in Florida last year at Disney World and they still have manned/womanned toll booth. Maybe it’s a east coast/west coast difference.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]”Do some research” is another way of saying “I don’t have any evidence, but I’ll just tell you it exists anyway.”

Since you are so skilled at it (and the rest of us are inept), please show us some “research” that demonstrates how companies like Qualcomm, Intuit, Apple, Microsoft, Genentech, etc. get their capital, R&D, or ANY significant funds from “taxpayers in almost every case.”

Sorry you have to do it yourself. But I’m certain that none of us feel like spending hours googling for some fact that doesn’t exist in the desperate hope of finding something that supports your point of view.[/quote]

“The US government spends more than other countries on military R&D, although the proportion has fallen from around 30% in the 1980s to under 20%[1]. Government funding for medical research amounts to approximately 36% in the U.S. The government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities. Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology) government provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research. In commercial research and development, all but the most research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities rather than “blue-sky” ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion).”

“An additional advantage to government sponsored research is that the results are publicly shared, whereas with privately funded research the ideas are controlled by a single group. Consequently, government sponsored research can result in mass collaborative projects that are beyond the scope of isolated private researchers.

“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

—————–

“The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…” With an annual budget of about $6.9 billion (FY 2010), we are the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America’s colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.”

“We are tasked with keeping the United States at the leading edge of discovery in areas from astronomy to geology to zoology. So, in addition to funding research in the traditional academic areas, the agency also supports “high-risk, high pay-off” ideas, novel collaborations and numerous projects that may seem like science fiction today, but which the public will take for granted tomorrow. And in every case, we ensure that research is fully integrated with education so that today’s revolutionary work will also be training tomorrow’s top scientists and engineers.”

http://www.nsf.gov/about/glance.jsp
———————

“The content and examples provided here illustrate some of the economic benefits the nation reaps when companies are created as a result of discoveries in federally funded university laboratories. While there are countless companies that have made use of the fruits of academic research, the roots of the companies highlighted here can be traced directly to seminal research conducted at a university and sponsored by a federal agency.

Were it not for the federally supported research, these companies – their products and services, and the jobs and economic growth that have resulted – likely would not exist.”

“Universities conduct the majority of basic research in the United States— 55 percent in 2008. Business and industry conduct less than 20 percent of basic research in the United States.”

“The federal government is the primary source of funding for basic research conducted in the United States, providing some 60 percent of funding. The second largest source of basic research funding is the academic institutions themselves.”

http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/
—————–

Medical research [Note: this is for ALL R&D, not just basic research. – CAR]

“Biomedical research and development (R&D) is a large enterprise in the United States. In fiscal year (FY) 1999, the last year for which comprehensive survey data are available, federal spending on health R&D was $15.7 billion—21 percent of all federal expenditures on R&D that year (NIH, 2004a). Those figures are much larger in 2004, if only because the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—which supports roughly 83 percent of federally funded biomedical research—doubled between FY 1998 and FY 2003 and currently stands at more than $28.0 billion. The other major funders of biomedical research are the for-profit pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical equipment industries, which have outspent NIH in recent years.”

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11089&page=37
—————–

“Founded in 1887, the National Institutes of Health today is one of the world’s foremost medical research centers, and the Federal focal point for medical research in the United States. The NIH, comprising 27 separate Institutes and Centers, is one of eight health agencies of the Public Health Service which, in turn, is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.”

http://www.nih.gov/about/FAQ.htm#NIH
——————

“Details about where the agreed upon $38 billion in cuts will come from are still emerging, but one of the hardest hit agencies will likely be the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest investor in biomedical research.”

“Funding “basic science” doesn’t sound appealing in lean-budget times, but cutting research in times of economic woe is counterproductive. Nearly 90 percent of the NIH research budget gets distributed across the country, employing scientists and lab technicians. And miracle cures don’t spring fully formed from the R&D departments at Pfizer and Merck. Jon Retzlaff, director of government affairs at the American Association for Cancer Research, explains that basic science takes too long for pharmaceutical companies because “their investors don’t have that timeline. They take something very promising and then try to take that to the finish line. [The NIH] is really the foundation of everything that the pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies are able to do.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/159847/next-round-budget-talks-big-cuts-health-research-are-coming

——————-

No need to spend hours searching for facts that “don’t exist.” Just Google “funding sources for basic (scientific) research.” It’s pretty simple for those of us who “get all our information from Rolling Stone articles.”

Your turn, “Mr. Financial Genius Who Doesn’t Like to do Research, but Likes to Attack Those Who Bring Facts Instead of Emotional Propaganda.”

[CA renter]

More, from 2007. Again, this includes all R&D, not just “basic” research.

“B Distinguishing between research and development is
important in evaluating the effectiveness of the government’s
R&D spending and the benefits it may provide.
Research (particularly basic research) may be
conducted without a specific commercial purpose in
mind, but it may nevertheless have large “spillovers” in
the economy because the knowledge it produces may
be useful not only to researchers in other fields but
also to businesses seeking to develop new products and
production processes. Development occurs closer to a
product’s introduction so that its benefits go more
directly to innovating firms and their customers. The
federal government funds about half of all research in
the United States but only 17 percent of development. [That’s left to the “private” market, so they can earn a (govt-subsidized!) profit from it. – CAR]
Since the early 1980s, federal spending for research
has grown more steadily and more quickly than federal
spending for development.
B Federal funding of research—particularly of basic
research—is generally viewed favorably because of its
large potential for spillovers and the corresponding
economic benefits. Nonetheless, the economic returns
to basic research are difficult to measure because the
progress that results from research may be hard to
identify or to value and the interval between the
research and its application to a product or process is
sometimes long.”

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8221/06-18-Research.pdf

[CA renter]

“Basic Research: A Declining National Commitment
In 2006 the total expenditure for R&D conducted in the U.S. was about $340B in current dollars. Of this total, basic research accounts for about 18% ($62B), applied research about 22% ($75B), and development about 60% ($204B).[8] Over the past decades the U.S. institutions contributing to the output of basic research have shifted dramatically.[9] Although industrial contributions to national R&D now far outpace Federal R&D support, only about 3.8% of industry-performed R&D can be classified as ‘basic’, with the remainder devoted to applied R&D. For industry-funded and performed R&D, the basic percentage is about the same for 2006, 3.7%. This percentage of basic research performed by industry has hovered slightly below 4% of all industry-performed R&D for most years since the late 1990s.[10] In 2006, industry funded 17% of U.S. basic research, and performed 15% of it.

The Federal Government is the second largest source of R&D funding (28%) following industry. Federal expenditures vary greatly from agency to agency in terms of amounts, directions, and objectives, depending upon the mission of the particular agency.[11] Federal funding is the primary source of basic research support in the U.S. (over 59% in 2006[12]), of which about 56% is carried out by academic institutions. U.S. basic research is also funded by foundations (about 10%), universities and colleges (about 10%), and state and local governments (about 3.5% through funding of academic basic research).[13] Federal obligations for academic research (both basic and applied) and especially in the current support for National Institutes of Health (NIH) (whose budget had previously doubled between the years 1998 to 2003) declined in real terms between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to decline further in 2006 and 2007. This is the first multiyear decline in Federal obligations for academic research since 1982.[14] The intent of Federal policy is to increase support for physical sciences research in future years.[15]”

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm

[CA renter]

[quote=Aecetia][quote=sdrealtor]Good point. Nowhere is nepotism more prevalent than in government jobs. Don’t believe it? Watch all the job changes and appointments as playoffs when a new politician takes office.[/quote]

Excellent point sdr and absolutely correct. We see it with the D.A., the Sheriff, etc. If they cannot force people that supported the other guy or gal out when they take office, then they transfer them to a dead end job where they will never get promoted. It is as full of cronyism as a D.C. lobbyist.[/quote]

Yes, there is corruption and nepotism at the political level. I’m referring to “boots on the ground” positions. These positions are open to everyone. I know a number of people who could NOT be hired because of their relationship to upper-level management (anti-nepotism rules and/or it was simply frowned upon and everyone knew the union guys wouldn’t like it — that’s one of many positives about unions: they can hold their “bosses” accountable and not worry as much about repercussions).

[Anonymous]

Car, those (ridiculously long) posts are referring to University research.

None of this money goes to any corporations. Sure, some corporations benefit from the science, but – except for a handful of small programs (e.g. Solyndra) – there are NO significant direct financial payments from the government to corporations for their R&D or capital investments.

“Do some more research,” and find us some corporate financial statements of local technology companies (publicly available balance sheets & income statements) that show any substantial entries of the form “payment from government.”

Good luck.

[CA renter]

[quote=pri_dk]Car, those (ridiculously long) posts are referring to University research.

None of this money goes to any corporations. Sure, some corporations benefit from the science, but – except for a handful of small programs (e.g. Solyndra) – there are NO significant direct financial payments from the government to corporations for their R&D or capital investments.

“Do some more research,” and find us some corporate financial statements of local technology companies (publicly available balance sheets & income statements) that show any substantial entries of the form “payment from government.”

Good luck.[/quote]

When you want to learn something, sometimes you have to READ.

Those numbers do not just include universities (you’re referring to grant money?); they include government grants to private and public people/entities, research done by government agencies, etc. Money spent by state universities and state spending on basic research is separate.

If you can’t understand how massive government spending on basic research subsidizes “private” companies, I can’t help you. It is fascinating, though, how you like to claim that I’m the one who doesn’t understand economics. Funny.

[Author]

Posts