- This topic has 1,770 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 5 months ago by
GH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 12, 2011 at 10:17 PM #696273May 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM #695087
CA renter
ParticipantAgreed. It’s just funny how some people think that civilizations were built by “private enterprise” alone, with everyone looking out only for his/her individual best interests.
The bottom line is that the public-private model has the best track record, and recognizes the importance of the symbiotic relationship between public and private enterprise. “Capitalism for the wants,” and “socialism (or strict regulations) for the needs,” seems to work best for society, in general; and it has the best chance of success over the long haul, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM #695174ParticipantAgreed. It’s just funny how some people think that civilizations were built by “private enterprise” alone, with everyone looking out only for his/her individual best interests.
The bottom line is that the public-private model has the best track record, and recognizes the importance of the symbiotic relationship between public and private enterprise. “Capitalism for the wants,” and “socialism (or strict regulations) for the needs,” seems to work best for society, in general; and it has the best chance of success over the long haul, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM #695776ParticipantAgreed. It’s just funny how some people think that civilizations were built by “private enterprise” alone, with everyone looking out only for his/her individual best interests.
The bottom line is that the public-private model has the best track record, and recognizes the importance of the symbiotic relationship between public and private enterprise. “Capitalism for the wants,” and “socialism (or strict regulations) for the needs,” seems to work best for society, in general; and it has the best chance of success over the long haul, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM #695924ParticipantAgreed. It’s just funny how some people think that civilizations were built by “private enterprise” alone, with everyone looking out only for his/her individual best interests.
The bottom line is that the public-private model has the best track record, and recognizes the importance of the symbiotic relationship between public and private enterprise. “Capitalism for the wants,” and “socialism (or strict regulations) for the needs,” seems to work best for society, in general; and it has the best chance of success over the long haul, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 12:30 AM #696278ParticipantAgreed. It’s just funny how some people think that civilizations were built by “private enterprise” alone, with everyone looking out only for his/her individual best interests.
The bottom line is that the public-private model has the best track record, and recognizes the importance of the symbiotic relationship between public and private enterprise. “Capitalism for the wants,” and “socialism (or strict regulations) for the needs,” seems to work best for society, in general; and it has the best chance of success over the long haul, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 7:27 AM #695097scaredyclassic
Participanthey paramount, i wasnt arguing for top paid lifeguards. just saying if there were no lifeguards and no private do-gooders, i wouldnt have made it back to shore that fateful day on vacay. on the other hand, maybe i wasnt meant to be.
i think some pay in between get the cheapest hs kid you can find for 10 bucks an hour and 200k is probably good for beach lifeguards. it’s gotta be difficult. you want people who are dependable and professional. it’s probably a net gain for society, like highways, to have a system of lifeguards.
The value of a good lifeguard at the time of need is very high, probably equal to everything you and your family own at that time.
on the other hand, didn’t they run over some lady’s head driving on the beach?
May 13, 2011 at 7:27 AM #695184Participanthey paramount, i wasnt arguing for top paid lifeguards. just saying if there were no lifeguards and no private do-gooders, i wouldnt have made it back to shore that fateful day on vacay. on the other hand, maybe i wasnt meant to be.
i think some pay in between get the cheapest hs kid you can find for 10 bucks an hour and 200k is probably good for beach lifeguards. it’s gotta be difficult. you want people who are dependable and professional. it’s probably a net gain for society, like highways, to have a system of lifeguards.
The value of a good lifeguard at the time of need is very high, probably equal to everything you and your family own at that time.
on the other hand, didn’t they run over some lady’s head driving on the beach?
May 13, 2011 at 7:27 AM #695786Participanthey paramount, i wasnt arguing for top paid lifeguards. just saying if there were no lifeguards and no private do-gooders, i wouldnt have made it back to shore that fateful day on vacay. on the other hand, maybe i wasnt meant to be.
i think some pay in between get the cheapest hs kid you can find for 10 bucks an hour and 200k is probably good for beach lifeguards. it’s gotta be difficult. you want people who are dependable and professional. it’s probably a net gain for society, like highways, to have a system of lifeguards.
The value of a good lifeguard at the time of need is very high, probably equal to everything you and your family own at that time.
on the other hand, didn’t they run over some lady’s head driving on the beach?
May 13, 2011 at 7:27 AM #695934Participanthey paramount, i wasnt arguing for top paid lifeguards. just saying if there were no lifeguards and no private do-gooders, i wouldnt have made it back to shore that fateful day on vacay. on the other hand, maybe i wasnt meant to be.
i think some pay in between get the cheapest hs kid you can find for 10 bucks an hour and 200k is probably good for beach lifeguards. it’s gotta be difficult. you want people who are dependable and professional. it’s probably a net gain for society, like highways, to have a system of lifeguards.
The value of a good lifeguard at the time of need is very high, probably equal to everything you and your family own at that time.
on the other hand, didn’t they run over some lady’s head driving on the beach?
May 13, 2011 at 7:27 AM #696288Participanthey paramount, i wasnt arguing for top paid lifeguards. just saying if there were no lifeguards and no private do-gooders, i wouldnt have made it back to shore that fateful day on vacay. on the other hand, maybe i wasnt meant to be.
i think some pay in between get the cheapest hs kid you can find for 10 bucks an hour and 200k is probably good for beach lifeguards. it’s gotta be difficult. you want people who are dependable and professional. it’s probably a net gain for society, like highways, to have a system of lifeguards.
The value of a good lifeguard at the time of need is very high, probably equal to everything you and your family own at that time.
on the other hand, didn’t they run over some lady’s head driving on the beach?
May 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #695112all
ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
May 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #695199ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
May 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #695801ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
May 13, 2011 at 9:08 AM #695949ParticipantCAR, the problem is not that citizens are consuming the services, but the cost of the services as provided by the government. I don’t need a lifeguard. In my ten years in CA I entered the ocean twice, for the total of 30 seconds. The water is just too cold for me. On the other hand I consume services that some other citizens have no personal need for – like schools or libraries. So, I recognize that we as a bunch do have a need for all that – lifeguards, schools and libraries.
But, can we afford 13 facilitators for 200 actual lifeguards at the current price point? Do libraries need to be open between 8am and 1pm when most kids are in school and most parents at work? Do we need to spend $30MM/year on SDSU athletics program? Does an elementary school need a lit baseball field? There clearly is not enough money. We are being asked to pay more and I think it is fair that we want to audit the current practices before we pay up. The ‘violent’ reaction to news about compensation in public sector is a result of frustration, not ignorance.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.