OT: Public pay & benefits

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]I don’t know why all the negativity about a private security or firefighting squad.

Maybe the answer is a for-profit fire department in which folks pay monthly dues (kinda like insurance)…Of course there should be an option to “opt-out” of paying a portion of taxes to fund the public version…

As far as “you get what you pay for” in terms of police. I wonder with the true costs of having beat police versus funding the pensions. (don’t know)…I don’t know but, seems to me that I wouldn’t mind hiring blackwater to be my private security guard if it was affordable….Shoot first ask questions later…How’s that any different from what SDPD does currently? :)[/quote]

Flu,

They DID have private fire departments, and they were operated by the insurance companies. That’s what those seals are on some of the old buildings back east — fire insurance seals which meant the fire department could put out fires and rescue people from that building (and ONLY the buildings with seals/insurance protection). This model failed for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

What people don’t seem to understand is the history of why we have public saftey services, and why they are paid well. I’ve been over this before, but fire and police departments spend a tremendous amount of money on hiring and training personnel. Unlike other industries where one might learn more from universities, in public safety, **experience in the field** is what counts the most. That’s why they don’t require college degrees (though some positions do). Because of the expense and resources put into hiring and training their employees, and because of the fact that EXPERIENCE is what matters most in these positions, fire/police departments cannot handle high turnover rates.

During the housing bubble, fire and police departments had a very difficult time finding qualified recruits. When people could make $80K in a couple of months, why would they work for a living? All of a sudden, as soon as the economy turns, the sheeple start looking for a new scapegoat, and public safety personnel bear the brunt of their anger. Why aren’t we directing this anger where it belongs — at the financial sector and the people who drove this country into the ground (and caused the pension crisis)?

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]I don’t know why all the negativity about a private security or firefighting squad.

Maybe the answer is a for-profit fire department in which folks pay monthly dues (kinda like insurance)…Of course there should be an option to “opt-out” of paying a portion of taxes to fund the public version…

As far as “you get what you pay for” in terms of police. I wonder with the true costs of having beat police versus funding the pensions. (don’t know)…I don’t know but, seems to me that I wouldn’t mind hiring blackwater to be my private security guard if it was affordable….Shoot first ask questions later…How’s that any different from what SDPD does currently? :)[/quote]

Flu,

They DID have private fire departments, and they were operated by the insurance companies. That’s what those seals are on some of the old buildings back east — fire insurance seals which meant the fire department could put out fires and rescue people from that building (and ONLY the buildings with seals/insurance protection). This model failed for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

What people don’t seem to understand is the history of why we have public saftey services, and why they are paid well. I’ve been over this before, but fire and police departments spend a tremendous amount of money on hiring and training personnel. Unlike other industries where one might learn more from universities, in public safety, **experience in the field** is what counts the most. That’s why they don’t require college degrees (though some positions do). Because of the expense and resources put into hiring and training their employees, and because of the fact that EXPERIENCE is what matters most in these positions, fire/police departments cannot handle high turnover rates.

During the housing bubble, fire and police departments had a very difficult time finding qualified recruits. When people could make $80K in a couple of months, why would they work for a living? All of a sudden, as soon as the economy turns, the sheeple start looking for a new scapegoat, and public safety personnel bear the brunt of their anger. Why aren’t we directing this anger where it belongs — at the financial sector and the people who drove this country into the ground (and caused the pension crisis)?

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]I don’t know why all the negativity about a private security or firefighting squad.

Maybe the answer is a for-profit fire department in which folks pay monthly dues (kinda like insurance)…Of course there should be an option to “opt-out” of paying a portion of taxes to fund the public version…

As far as “you get what you pay for” in terms of police. I wonder with the true costs of having beat police versus funding the pensions. (don’t know)…I don’t know but, seems to me that I wouldn’t mind hiring blackwater to be my private security guard if it was affordable….Shoot first ask questions later…How’s that any different from what SDPD does currently? :)[/quote]

Flu,

They DID have private fire departments, and they were operated by the insurance companies. That’s what those seals are on some of the old buildings back east — fire insurance seals which meant the fire department could put out fires and rescue people from that building (and ONLY the buildings with seals/insurance protection). This model failed for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

What people don’t seem to understand is the history of why we have public saftey services, and why they are paid well. I’ve been over this before, but fire and police departments spend a tremendous amount of money on hiring and training personnel. Unlike other industries where one might learn more from universities, in public safety, **experience in the field** is what counts the most. That’s why they don’t require college degrees (though some positions do). Because of the expense and resources put into hiring and training their employees, and because of the fact that EXPERIENCE is what matters most in these positions, fire/police departments cannot handle high turnover rates.

During the housing bubble, fire and police departments had a very difficult time finding qualified recruits. When people could make $80K in a couple of months, why would they work for a living? All of a sudden, as soon as the economy turns, the sheeple start looking for a new scapegoat, and public safety personnel bear the brunt of their anger. Why aren’t we directing this anger where it belongs — at the financial sector and the people who drove this country into the ground (and caused the pension crisis)?

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]I don’t know why all the negativity about a private security or firefighting squad.

Maybe the answer is a for-profit fire department in which folks pay monthly dues (kinda like insurance)…Of course there should be an option to “opt-out” of paying a portion of taxes to fund the public version…

As far as “you get what you pay for” in terms of police. I wonder with the true costs of having beat police versus funding the pensions. (don’t know)…I don’t know but, seems to me that I wouldn’t mind hiring blackwater to be my private security guard if it was affordable….Shoot first ask questions later…How’s that any different from what SDPD does currently? :)[/quote]

Flu,

They DID have private fire departments, and they were operated by the insurance companies. That’s what those seals are on some of the old buildings back east — fire insurance seals which meant the fire department could put out fires and rescue people from that building (and ONLY the buildings with seals/insurance protection). This model failed for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

What people don’t seem to understand is the history of why we have public saftey services, and why they are paid well. I’ve been over this before, but fire and police departments spend a tremendous amount of money on hiring and training personnel. Unlike other industries where one might learn more from universities, in public safety, **experience in the field** is what counts the most. That’s why they don’t require college degrees (though some positions do). Because of the expense and resources put into hiring and training their employees, and because of the fact that EXPERIENCE is what matters most in these positions, fire/police departments cannot handle high turnover rates.

During the housing bubble, fire and police departments had a very difficult time finding qualified recruits. When people could make $80K in a couple of months, why would they work for a living? All of a sudden, as soon as the economy turns, the sheeple start looking for a new scapegoat, and public safety personnel bear the brunt of their anger. Why aren’t we directing this anger where it belongs — at the financial sector and the people who drove this country into the ground (and caused the pension crisis)?

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]I don’t know why all the negativity about a private security or firefighting squad.

Maybe the answer is a for-profit fire department in which folks pay monthly dues (kinda like insurance)…Of course there should be an option to “opt-out” of paying a portion of taxes to fund the public version…

As far as “you get what you pay for” in terms of police. I wonder with the true costs of having beat police versus funding the pensions. (don’t know)…I don’t know but, seems to me that I wouldn’t mind hiring blackwater to be my private security guard if it was affordable….Shoot first ask questions later…How’s that any different from what SDPD does currently? :)[/quote]

Flu,

They DID have private fire departments, and they were operated by the insurance companies. That’s what those seals are on some of the old buildings back east — fire insurance seals which meant the fire department could put out fires and rescue people from that building (and ONLY the buildings with seals/insurance protection). This model failed for reasons that should be painfully obvious.

What people don’t seem to understand is the history of why we have public saftey services, and why they are paid well. I’ve been over this before, but fire and police departments spend a tremendous amount of money on hiring and training personnel. Unlike other industries where one might learn more from universities, in public safety, **experience in the field** is what counts the most. That’s why they don’t require college degrees (though some positions do). Because of the expense and resources put into hiring and training their employees, and because of the fact that EXPERIENCE is what matters most in these positions, fire/police departments cannot handle high turnover rates.

During the housing bubble, fire and police departments had a very difficult time finding qualified recruits. When people could make $80K in a couple of months, why would they work for a living? All of a sudden, as soon as the economy turns, the sheeple start looking for a new scapegoat, and public safety personnel bear the brunt of their anger. Why aren’t we directing this anger where it belongs — at the financial sector and the people who drove this country into the ground (and caused the pension crisis)?

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).

[CA renter]

[quote=jficquette]80 cents on the dollar for pay and benefits??? That’s bullshit. It has to stop asap.

“In California, where an estimated 80 cents out of every government dollar goes to employee pay and benefits, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed a two-tier system of pensions that offers new state workers reduced benefits with tighter retirement formulas. He also wants state workers to kick in higher pension contributions to help deal with California’s staggering deficit.”

http://www.newmediajournal.us/government_politics/1006b.htm%5B/quote%5D

Exactly where do you think tax money is supposed to go? To trees? To rocks?

Everything the public sector provides (infrastructure, safety, education, etc.) is provided by PEOPLE. It shouldn’t be a surprise that most of the money goes toward salaries and benefits. What else should it go toward?

BTW, those salaries/benefits are recycled back into the economy as these employees spend their money. It is far better than “investments” by rich people that have a debt offset (require repayment PLUS interest/dividends).

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.

BTW: this was so fitting.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/06/despite-vote-taxpayers-will-pay-most-of-cost/

Despite vote, taxpayers will pay most of pension cost
Pension change is another Proposition D condition

I don’t know folks. But serving 8 years in city council and having almost $1million in retirement pension assuming again 30ish to 40ish.. Please tell me you think that isn’t outrageous… I mean, were are the arguments about these folks being “stressed out, and having a short life span because of stress on the job…”

Seriously, where do I sign up? Folks, after I sell my own company, will you folks please vote for me if i run for City Council, when I’m pseudo retired at 40???

San Diego…America’s Finest Pension….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.

BTW: this was so fitting.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/06/despite-vote-taxpayers-will-pay-most-of-cost/

Despite vote, taxpayers will pay most of pension cost
Pension change is another Proposition D condition

I don’t know folks. But serving 8 years in city council and having almost $1million in retirement pension assuming again 30ish to 40ish.. Please tell me you think that isn’t outrageous… I mean, were are the arguments about these folks being “stressed out, and having a short life span because of stress on the job…”

Seriously, where do I sign up? Folks, after I sell my own company, will you folks please vote for me if i run for City Council, when I’m pseudo retired at 40???

San Diego…America’s Finest Pension….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.

BTW: this was so fitting.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/06/despite-vote-taxpayers-will-pay-most-of-cost/

Despite vote, taxpayers will pay most of pension cost
Pension change is another Proposition D condition

I don’t know folks. But serving 8 years in city council and having almost $1million in retirement pension assuming again 30ish to 40ish.. Please tell me you think that isn’t outrageous… I mean, were are the arguments about these folks being “stressed out, and having a short life span because of stress on the job…”

Seriously, where do I sign up? Folks, after I sell my own company, will you folks please vote for me if i run for City Council, when I’m pseudo retired at 40???

San Diego…America’s Finest Pension….

[Coronita]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=EconProf]Folks, we gotta stop relying on special interest propaganda for our voting decisions and political stands. Because we see a newspaper photo of a fire or police person doing something heroic does not mean they automatically have a dangerous profession and should be paid oodles of money and retire at age 55 at 90% of last paycheck.
To see who is in far more dangerous occupations, and is NOT paid accordingly, google Most Dangerous Occupations. There you’ll see the real heroes: fishermen, tree trimers, taxi drivers, ironworkers, roofers. Their pay is not comensurate, and their bodies are used up and more deserving of a pension at 55, unlike the relatively sedentary police and fire personnel.
Piggs are supposed to be a skeptical bunch that digs for data. C’mon, we can do better![/quote]

Do those workers have the same liability as firefighters and cops? Does their work mean the difference between life and death for their customers?

After all, if we want to look at overcompensation, I’m sure we can come up with a whole host of occupations with far more egregious examples of “undeserved” compensation than what firefighters and cops get.[/quote]

Sorry but typical strawman argument. Yes their work is important, yes they are good guys/gals, and yes many other occupations are overpaid. But this is the public sector. These are not people that invested huge sums in higher education. These are not folks that take on entreprenuerial risk. I have met plenty with incomes of $150K per year and IMHO that is too much particularly when you factor in the pensions and other benefits.[/quote]

“Entrepreneurial risks” take by “highly educated” people are what got us into this mess in the first place. It’s not “greedy unions” that have caused the pension crisis; it’s all about financial bubbles, and the decisions made (by “highly educated” people) based on those bubbles, and the aftermath of those bubbles that have caused the pension crisis.

While you might value higher education and entrepreneurial risk, many of us value highly competent, well-trained law enforcement and safety personnel who lay the foundation for a civilized society…and create an environment in which those “highly-educated entrepreneurs” can take risks.

There are plenty of people with PhDs who don’t provide nearly the benefits to society that safety personnel do. I’m not sure why we should pay them more just because they spent a few more years in college (BTW, many police officers and firefighters have degrees).

You think that cops and firefighters are overpaid, while I think that middle-men (dealers and salespeople, administrators, etc.), athletes, entertainers, executives, “investors,” etc. are overpaid — a LOT more overpaid than any pubic saftey worker. Those safety personnel benefit society in a far greater way than the people in all those other positions.[/quote]

I think the argument goes though that those overpaid sales/etc/people however are not directly funded by the public tax dollars where if you don’t want to pay those exorbitant rates, you can simply opt out… (Yeah, I know about AIG/etc…That wasn’t right either…)….

I don’t think if folks would be complaining as much if there was a way to opt out and not pay taxes for those services. IF something as firefighting allowed for a private sector offering, I’m pretty sure cost would be fairly more competitive.

BTW: this was so fitting.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/oct/06/despite-vote-taxpayers-will-pay-most-of-cost/

Despite vote, taxpayers will pay most of pension cost
Pension change is another Proposition D condition

I don’t know folks. But serving 8 years in city council and having almost $1million in retirement pension assuming again 30ish to 40ish.. Please tell me you think that isn’t outrageous… I mean, were are the arguments about these folks being “stressed out, and having a short life span because of stress on the job…”

Seriously, where do I sign up? Folks, after I sell my own company, will you folks please vote for me if i run for City Council, when I’m pseudo retired at 40???

San Diego…America’s Finest Pension….

[Author]

Posts