- This topic has 1,770 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 6 months ago by
GH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 13, 2011 at 11:48 AM #696378May 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM #695192
paramount
Participant[quote=walterwhite]hey 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?[/quote]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. And many of these high paid lifeguards aren’t the ones that would directly save your life. These are mainly “bureaucrat lifeguards” if you will.
211k? And 90% retirement at 50, with lifetime medical and other bene’s as well. It ought to be a crime.
May 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM #695280Participant[quote=walterwhite]hey 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?[/quote]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. And many of these high paid lifeguards aren’t the ones that would directly save your life. These are mainly “bureaucrat lifeguards” if you will.
211k? And 90% retirement at 50, with lifetime medical and other bene’s as well. It ought to be a crime.
May 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM #695882Participant[quote=walterwhite]hey 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?[/quote]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. And many of these high paid lifeguards aren’t the ones that would directly save your life. These are mainly “bureaucrat lifeguards” if you will.
211k? And 90% retirement at 50, with lifetime medical and other bene’s as well. It ought to be a crime.
May 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM #696029Participant[quote=walterwhite]hey 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?[/quote]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. And many of these high paid lifeguards aren’t the ones that would directly save your life. These are mainly “bureaucrat lifeguards” if you will.
211k? And 90% retirement at 50, with lifetime medical and other bene’s as well. It ought to be a crime.
May 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM #696383Participant[quote=walterwhite]hey 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?[/quote]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. And many of these high paid lifeguards aren’t the ones that would directly save your life. These are mainly “bureaucrat lifeguards” if you will.
211k? And 90% retirement at 50, with lifetime medical and other bene’s as well. It ought to be a crime.
May 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM #695197Participant[quote=jstoesz]To get way way off topic, have you guys ever been to Idaho?[/quote]
This got off topic b/c CAR tried to redirect the debate in an irrelevant direction. This is about 2 things mainly:
1. The gov’t is extremely bloated and…
2. So are the majority of gov’t workers compensation (pay, benefits, everything…)
May 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM #695285Participant[quote=jstoesz]To get way way off topic, have you guys ever been to Idaho?[/quote]
This got off topic b/c CAR tried to redirect the debate in an irrelevant direction. This is about 2 things mainly:
1. The gov’t is extremely bloated and…
2. So are the majority of gov’t workers compensation (pay, benefits, everything…)
May 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM #695887Participant[quote=jstoesz]To get way way off topic, have you guys ever been to Idaho?[/quote]
This got off topic b/c CAR tried to redirect the debate in an irrelevant direction. This is about 2 things mainly:
1. The gov’t is extremely bloated and…
2. So are the majority of gov’t workers compensation (pay, benefits, everything…)
May 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM #696034Participant[quote=jstoesz]To get way way off topic, have you guys ever been to Idaho?[/quote]
This got off topic b/c CAR tried to redirect the debate in an irrelevant direction. This is about 2 things mainly:
1. The gov’t is extremely bloated and…
2. So are the majority of gov’t workers compensation (pay, benefits, everything…)
May 13, 2011 at 1:16 PM #696388Participant[quote=jstoesz]To get way way off topic, have you guys ever been to Idaho?[/quote]
This got off topic b/c CAR tried to redirect the debate in an irrelevant direction. This is about 2 things mainly:
1. The gov’t is extremely bloated and…
2. So are the majority of gov’t workers compensation (pay, benefits, everything…)
May 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM #695208briansd1
Guest[quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM #695295Guest[quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM #695897Guest[quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.
May 13, 2011 at 1:24 PM #696044Guest[quote=paramount]
I don’t think anybody is strongly arguing that lifeguards aren’t needed, although that is debatable. The main issue is the cost of these lifeguards – it’s beyond excessive. [/quote]I don’t really think that we need lifeguards. Swimmers beware.
I’ve been to many countries where there are no lifeguards on the beach.
Not a necessity. Much better things to spend money on, IMHO.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.