OT: Public pay & benefits

[scaredyclassic]

Do lifeguards produce income? Tourists come to the beaches in numbers they might not without lifeguards. Don’t they produce as much revenue for the state in a productive sense as say a private sector tattoo artist? For tourism you probably want really good pro lifeguards. Liability? Deaths? They probably save more actual lives than firemen…

Just the job seems kinda fun. It’s probably kinda nervecwracking.

If it were privatized you’d have a big staff cheap high turnover lots of insurance and if deaths exceeded income you’d just go bankrupt. But maybe the wrongful death costs would be cheaper than the pro lifeguards. Or maybe it’s best to just have no lifeguards and let the strong survive.

But then I’d be dead. I was fished out of the pacific in the mid 70s got pulled way way out by the undertow.

Scary to think back on it.

[paramount]

[quote=walterwhite]Do lifeguards produce income? Tourists come to the beaches in numbers they might not without lifeguards. Don’t they produce as much revenue for the state in a productive sense as say a private sector tattoo artist? For tourism you probably want really good pro lifeguards. Liability? Deaths? They probably save more actual lives than firemen…

Just the job seems kinda fun. It’s probably kinda nervecwracking.

If it were privatized you’d have a big staff cheap high turnover lots of insurance and if deaths exceeded income you’d just go bankrupt. But maybe the wrongful death costs would be cheaper than the pro lifeguards. Or maybe it’s best to just have no lifeguards and let the strong survive.

But then I’d be dead. I was fished out of the pacific in the mid 70s got pulled way way out by the undertow.

Scary to think back on it.[/quote]

See what I mean…it is hopeless.

[paramount]

[quote=walterwhite]Do lifeguards produce income? Tourists come to the beaches in numbers they might not without lifeguards. Don’t they produce as much revenue for the state in a productive sense as say a private sector tattoo artist? For tourism you probably want really good pro lifeguards. Liability? Deaths? They probably save more actual lives than firemen…

Just the job seems kinda fun. It’s probably kinda nervecwracking.

If it were privatized you’d have a big staff cheap high turnover lots of insurance and if deaths exceeded income you’d just go bankrupt. But maybe the wrongful death costs would be cheaper than the pro lifeguards. Or maybe it’s best to just have no lifeguards and let the strong survive.

But then I’d be dead. I was fished out of the pacific in the mid 70s got pulled way way out by the undertow.

Scary to think back on it.[/quote]

See what I mean…it is hopeless.

[paramount]

[quote=walterwhite]Do lifeguards produce income? Tourists come to the beaches in numbers they might not without lifeguards. Don’t they produce as much revenue for the state in a productive sense as say a private sector tattoo artist? For tourism you probably want really good pro lifeguards. Liability? Deaths? They probably save more actual lives than firemen…

Just the job seems kinda fun. It’s probably kinda nervecwracking.

If it were privatized you’d have a big staff cheap high turnover lots of insurance and if deaths exceeded income you’d just go bankrupt. But maybe the wrongful death costs would be cheaper than the pro lifeguards. Or maybe it’s best to just have no lifeguards and let the strong survive.

But then I’d be dead. I was fished out of the pacific in the mid 70s got pulled way way out by the undertow.

Scary to think back on it.[/quote]

See what I mean…it is hopeless.

[paramount]

[quote=walterwhite]Do lifeguards produce income? Tourists come to the beaches in numbers they might not without lifeguards. Don’t they produce as much revenue for the state in a productive sense as say a private sector tattoo artist? For tourism you probably want really good pro lifeguards. Liability? Deaths? They probably save more actual lives than firemen…

Just the job seems kinda fun. It’s probably kinda nervecwracking.

If it were privatized you’d have a big staff cheap high turnover lots of insurance and if deaths exceeded income you’d just go bankrupt. But maybe the wrongful death costs would be cheaper than the pro lifeguards. Or maybe it’s best to just have no lifeguards and let the strong survive.

But then I’d be dead. I was fished out of the pacific in the mid 70s got pulled way way out by the undertow.

Scary to think back on it.[/quote]

See what I mean…it is hopeless.

[paramount]

[quote=walterwhite]Do lifeguards produce income? Tourists come to the beaches in numbers they might not without lifeguards. Don’t they produce as much revenue for the state in a productive sense as say a private sector tattoo artist? For tourism you probably want really good pro lifeguards. Liability? Deaths? They probably save more actual lives than firemen…

Just the job seems kinda fun. It’s probably kinda nervecwracking.

If it were privatized you’d have a big staff cheap high turnover lots of insurance and if deaths exceeded income you’d just go bankrupt. But maybe the wrongful death costs would be cheaper than the pro lifeguards. Or maybe it’s best to just have no lifeguards and let the strong survive.

But then I’d be dead. I was fished out of the pacific in the mid 70s got pulled way way out by the undertow.

Scary to think back on it.[/quote]

See what I mean…it is hopeless.

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]paramount,

I am reminded of a great quote.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

Alexis De Tocqueville, 1835

I think in CA we have reached a tipping point. I believe that the majority of californians whether directly (employed by the state or family employed by the state) or indirectly (goods or services paid for by people on the public dole weather) out numbers those with no ties to public money. So there is no hope for us. Those who do not receive benefits will leave while those who do will stay, increasing their majority.

Maybe this is too doom and gloom, but I am thinking it is true…certainly some cities, SF comes to mind, fit into this category.[/quote]

Name one entity with no ties to public money. Whether they are personally employed by the govt, of if they are employed by “private” govt contractors, of if they are employed by a private company that sells to any govt entity or govt employee, or if they use the public infrastructure (roadways, energy, sea lanes guarded by the military, legal infrastructure, social infrastructure, etc.), I’ve never met a single person who didn’t rely in some way on the government.

I’ve heard that Idaho has a rather large contingent of libertarians who believe they are living without benefit of govt money. They don’t account for the fact that they are safe from invading nations and gangs of thieves, and they apparently don’t count the roads to get into their communities, etc., but they are “independent”. They also don’t account for all the innovative products and medicines that were developed either in part or whole because of government funding. See, they’re living “off the sweat of their own brow,” according to them.

Why not move there and leave the rest of us alone? You don’t like our “socialist” system, and we don’t want any part of the libertarian “Utopia.” Nevermind the fact that this libertarian paradise has never existed in reality, and that there has never been a country with our demographics that has ever succeeded without a strong government…leave those of us who want to live in a civilized society, and go form your own Darwinian-libertarian society. Why aren’t all the libertarians forming their own state/country?

[jpinpb]

There just needs balance. Too much government is not good either.

[jpinpb]

There just needs balance. Too much government is not good either.

[jpinpb]

There just needs balance. Too much government is not good either.

[jpinpb]

There just needs balance. Too much government is not good either.

[Author]

Posts