OT: Public pay & benefits

[briansd1]

[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.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]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.[/quote]

Yeah. I have to say that having lifeguards are a luxury, IMO. I agree w/brian on this. Many countries do not have lifeguards. You are on your own. Swim or sink. I don’t remember seeing any lifeguards at any of the beaches I was at in Italy. Of course, there are no big waves there.

But if we insist on having lifeguards and paying them these wages, perhaps we can do what NJ does and start charging to go on the beach.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]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.[/quote]

Yeah. I have to say that having lifeguards are a luxury, IMO. I agree w/brian on this. Many countries do not have lifeguards. You are on your own. Swim or sink. I don’t remember seeing any lifeguards at any of the beaches I was at in Italy. Of course, there are no big waves there.

But if we insist on having lifeguards and paying them these wages, perhaps we can do what NJ does and start charging to go on the beach.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]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.[/quote]

Yeah. I have to say that having lifeguards are a luxury, IMO. I agree w/brian on this. Many countries do not have lifeguards. You are on your own. Swim or sink. I don’t remember seeing any lifeguards at any of the beaches I was at in Italy. Of course, there are no big waves there.

But if we insist on having lifeguards and paying them these wages, perhaps we can do what NJ does and start charging to go on the beach.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]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.[/quote]

Yeah. I have to say that having lifeguards are a luxury, IMO. I agree w/brian on this. Many countries do not have lifeguards. You are on your own. Swim or sink. I don’t remember seeing any lifeguards at any of the beaches I was at in Italy. Of course, there are no big waves there.

But if we insist on having lifeguards and paying them these wages, perhaps we can do what NJ does and start charging to go on the beach.

[jpinpb]

[quote=briansd1]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.[/quote]

Yeah. I have to say that having lifeguards are a luxury, IMO. I agree w/brian on this. Many countries do not have lifeguards. You are on your own. Swim or sink. I don’t remember seeing any lifeguards at any of the beaches I was at in Italy. Of course, there are no big waves there.

But if we insist on having lifeguards and paying them these wages, perhaps we can do what NJ does and start charging to go on the beach.

[scaredyclassic]

Undertow can be strong. Even strong swimmers get pulled out. There will definitely be more deaths. Many will be young people, lives not really worth much in damages. I’d say on balance probably cheaper to let people die. Still, glad I got that one save back in 1977. I would not let my kids swim in the oceAn even though the older one is a superstring swim team type swimmer, not without a lifeguard. Too risky in calif, beware the undertow.

[scaredyclassic]

Undertow can be strong. Even strong swimmers get pulled out. There will definitely be more deaths. Many will be young people, lives not really worth much in damages. I’d say on balance probably cheaper to let people die. Still, glad I got that one save back in 1977. I would not let my kids swim in the oceAn even though the older one is a superstring swim team type swimmer, not without a lifeguard. Too risky in calif, beware the undertow.

[scaredyclassic]

Undertow can be strong. Even strong swimmers get pulled out. There will definitely be more deaths. Many will be young people, lives not really worth much in damages. I’d say on balance probably cheaper to let people die. Still, glad I got that one save back in 1977. I would not let my kids swim in the oceAn even though the older one is a superstring swim team type swimmer, not without a lifeguard. Too risky in calif, beware the undertow.

[scaredyclassic]

Undertow can be strong. Even strong swimmers get pulled out. There will definitely be more deaths. Many will be young people, lives not really worth much in damages. I’d say on balance probably cheaper to let people die. Still, glad I got that one save back in 1977. I would not let my kids swim in the oceAn even though the older one is a superstring swim team type swimmer, not without a lifeguard. Too risky in calif, beware the undertow.

[scaredyclassic]

Undertow can be strong. Even strong swimmers get pulled out. There will definitely be more deaths. Many will be young people, lives not really worth much in damages. I’d say on balance probably cheaper to let people die. Still, glad I got that one save back in 1977. I would not let my kids swim in the oceAn even though the older one is a superstring swim team type swimmer, not without a lifeguard. Too risky in calif, beware the undertow.

[CA renter]

[quote=captcha]CAR, 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.[/quote]

No disagreement at all with what you’ve said, captcha. I’ve long been a taxpayer and consumer advocate, and know for a fact that the government is not always efficient, and that fraud (especially where real estate and development are concerned — it is huge) absorbs a too-large portion of our public budget. I also think the government, like the private sector, tends to be too top-heavy, likely a result of society’s tendency to admire “capitalists” (people who make their money via deal-making and speculating) while looking down our noses at workers. Everyone wants to be the chief, and if there aren’t enough chief positions, we’ll make some more. It’s rampant in both the public and private sectors.

Again, my argument is directed against those who are short on facts, have little to no understanding about how the government works, what public workers do, how public pensions and benefits work, or why these things exist in the first place. These people tend to spout off with their vitriolic tirades, making one false accusation after another (again, total lack of facts), and state things in a way that purports what their saying to be factual. Even after facts are brought to the table, you’ll see these same people, yet again, making the same false statements in another thread. It gets old.

I prefer to focus on the *cause* of our problems, which is the way our form of capitalism works, and the fact that the FIRE sector makes up such a large portion of our economy. The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=captcha]CAR, 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.[/quote]

No disagreement at all with what you’ve said, captcha. I’ve long been a taxpayer and consumer advocate, and know for a fact that the government is not always efficient, and that fraud (especially where real estate and development are concerned — it is huge) absorbs a too-large portion of our public budget. I also think the government, like the private sector, tends to be too top-heavy, likely a result of society’s tendency to admire “capitalists” (people who make their money via deal-making and speculating) while looking down our noses at workers. Everyone wants to be the chief, and if there aren’t enough chief positions, we’ll make some more. It’s rampant in both the public and private sectors.

Again, my argument is directed against those who are short on facts, have little to no understanding about how the government works, what public workers do, how public pensions and benefits work, or why these things exist in the first place. These people tend to spout off with their vitriolic tirades, making one false accusation after another (again, total lack of facts), and state things in a way that purports what their saying to be factual. Even after facts are brought to the table, you’ll see these same people, yet again, making the same false statements in another thread. It gets old.

I prefer to focus on the *cause* of our problems, which is the way our form of capitalism works, and the fact that the FIRE sector makes up such a large portion of our economy. The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=captcha]CAR, 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.[/quote]

No disagreement at all with what you’ve said, captcha. I’ve long been a taxpayer and consumer advocate, and know for a fact that the government is not always efficient, and that fraud (especially where real estate and development are concerned — it is huge) absorbs a too-large portion of our public budget. I also think the government, like the private sector, tends to be too top-heavy, likely a result of society’s tendency to admire “capitalists” (people who make their money via deal-making and speculating) while looking down our noses at workers. Everyone wants to be the chief, and if there aren’t enough chief positions, we’ll make some more. It’s rampant in both the public and private sectors.

Again, my argument is directed against those who are short on facts, have little to no understanding about how the government works, what public workers do, how public pensions and benefits work, or why these things exist in the first place. These people tend to spout off with their vitriolic tirades, making one false accusation after another (again, total lack of facts), and state things in a way that purports what their saying to be factual. Even after facts are brought to the table, you’ll see these same people, yet again, making the same false statements in another thread. It gets old.

I prefer to focus on the *cause* of our problems, which is the way our form of capitalism works, and the fact that the FIRE sector makes up such a large portion of our economy. The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.

[CA renter]

[quote=captcha]CAR, 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.[/quote]

No disagreement at all with what you’ve said, captcha. I’ve long been a taxpayer and consumer advocate, and know for a fact that the government is not always efficient, and that fraud (especially where real estate and development are concerned — it is huge) absorbs a too-large portion of our public budget. I also think the government, like the private sector, tends to be too top-heavy, likely a result of society’s tendency to admire “capitalists” (people who make their money via deal-making and speculating) while looking down our noses at workers. Everyone wants to be the chief, and if there aren’t enough chief positions, we’ll make some more. It’s rampant in both the public and private sectors.

Again, my argument is directed against those who are short on facts, have little to no understanding about how the government works, what public workers do, how public pensions and benefits work, or why these things exist in the first place. These people tend to spout off with their vitriolic tirades, making one false accusation after another (again, total lack of facts), and state things in a way that purports what their saying to be factual. Even after facts are brought to the table, you’ll see these same people, yet again, making the same false statements in another thread. It gets old.

I prefer to focus on the *cause* of our problems, which is the way our form of capitalism works, and the fact that the FIRE sector makes up such a large portion of our economy. The “pension crisis” is a *symptom* of the crisis; it is not, in any way, a cause of our current economic problems.

[Author]

Posts