OT: Public pay & benefits

[CA renter]

[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]

Exactly.

[EconProf]

Whoa. “You get what you pay for” is one of those cute-sounding phrases that is readily debunked.
It suggests the price or wage you pay is strictly correlated with the value of the purchase. It might be used by a union boss to convince a city council to raise firemen’s pay yet again, or a house buyer in 2006 to justify his purchase. (BTW, what is he saying now?).
The video is showing an extreme example of an overpaid fireman in CA that is based on reality. The generous pay and retirement benefits relative to the work performed are wildly above what a free market would yield. But they are the result of union power up against spineless politicians spending other people’s money who look only at the short run. Competitive private sector employers would push back and the resulting pay and benefits would be closer to free market realities. That is exactly why the video is so telling–it contrasts the private sector 50-year olds pay and benefits to those of an actual, albeit rare, public sector union guy.

[EconProf]

Whoa. “You get what you pay for” is one of those cute-sounding phrases that is readily debunked.
It suggests the price or wage you pay is strictly correlated with the value of the purchase. It might be used by a union boss to convince a city council to raise firemen’s pay yet again, or a house buyer in 2006 to justify his purchase. (BTW, what is he saying now?).
The video is showing an extreme example of an overpaid fireman in CA that is based on reality. The generous pay and retirement benefits relative to the work performed are wildly above what a free market would yield. But they are the result of union power up against spineless politicians spending other people’s money who look only at the short run. Competitive private sector employers would push back and the resulting pay and benefits would be closer to free market realities. That is exactly why the video is so telling–it contrasts the private sector 50-year olds pay and benefits to those of an actual, albeit rare, public sector union guy.

[EconProf]

Whoa. “You get what you pay for” is one of those cute-sounding phrases that is readily debunked.
It suggests the price or wage you pay is strictly correlated with the value of the purchase. It might be used by a union boss to convince a city council to raise firemen’s pay yet again, or a house buyer in 2006 to justify his purchase. (BTW, what is he saying now?).
The video is showing an extreme example of an overpaid fireman in CA that is based on reality. The generous pay and retirement benefits relative to the work performed are wildly above what a free market would yield. But they are the result of union power up against spineless politicians spending other people’s money who look only at the short run. Competitive private sector employers would push back and the resulting pay and benefits would be closer to free market realities. That is exactly why the video is so telling–it contrasts the private sector 50-year olds pay and benefits to those of an actual, albeit rare, public sector union guy.

[EconProf]

Whoa. “You get what you pay for” is one of those cute-sounding phrases that is readily debunked.
It suggests the price or wage you pay is strictly correlated with the value of the purchase. It might be used by a union boss to convince a city council to raise firemen’s pay yet again, or a house buyer in 2006 to justify his purchase. (BTW, what is he saying now?).
The video is showing an extreme example of an overpaid fireman in CA that is based on reality. The generous pay and retirement benefits relative to the work performed are wildly above what a free market would yield. But they are the result of union power up against spineless politicians spending other people’s money who look only at the short run. Competitive private sector employers would push back and the resulting pay and benefits would be closer to free market realities. That is exactly why the video is so telling–it contrasts the private sector 50-year olds pay and benefits to those of an actual, albeit rare, public sector union guy.

[EconProf]

Whoa. “You get what you pay for” is one of those cute-sounding phrases that is readily debunked.
It suggests the price or wage you pay is strictly correlated with the value of the purchase. It might be used by a union boss to convince a city council to raise firemen’s pay yet again, or a house buyer in 2006 to justify his purchase. (BTW, what is he saying now?).
The video is showing an extreme example of an overpaid fireman in CA that is based on reality. The generous pay and retirement benefits relative to the work performed are wildly above what a free market would yield. But they are the result of union power up against spineless politicians spending other people’s money who look only at the short run. Competitive private sector employers would push back and the resulting pay and benefits would be closer to free market realities. That is exactly why the video is so telling–it contrasts the private sector 50-year olds pay and benefits to those of an actual, albeit rare, public sector union guy.

[GH]

[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]

I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.

When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…

First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.

That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.

[GH]

[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]

I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.

When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…

First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.

That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.

[GH]

[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]

I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.

When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…

First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.

That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.

[GH]

[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]

I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.

When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…

First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.

That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.

[GH]

[quote=Aecetia]You get what you pay for. If you want to pay bargain basement wages, you will get marginally qualified employees. The less qualified, the more problems, and the more law suits for the municipalities who are for the most part self-insured.[/quote]

I think the problem is not if these are the very finest people in all creation, but IF we can afford them. If we based our purchases only on buying the finest quality at the highest price, we would all drive Rolls Royce cars and live in massive mansions, eating only the finest cuisine and flying first class.

When it comes to OUR purchase decisions, we are required to do none of the above or be faced with certain financial doom, yet when the decision is being made for us by others we are required to purchase only the very finest possible labor regardless of consequences and are told we get what we pay for…

First, my experience with government workers does not generally support the quality argument, and second, govt pay and benefits must be bought in line with what we CAN afford. As for the retirement problem, retirees must be held accountable for the failure of their investments going bad just like the rest of us did, when our 401k’s tanked.

That said, if we absolutely do need to downsize our government, we should start at the top where the pay is most egregious and the return on investment is the least. I have yet to hear of a single management type being laid off anywhere in California, even when police, fire etc are downsized.

[sdrealtor]

I dont agree with the finest people argument. A high school friend of mine is a pretty senior fire official back east. He was a full scholarship college athelete. They work in freezing cold weather, in much hotter high humidity weather, they do their work in much older mult-story buildings that are far more prone to collapse. In a nutshell they have much tougher jobs. They make much less and can only afford to live in strictly blue collar, lower middle class neighborhoods.

[sdrealtor]

I dont agree with the finest people argument. A high school friend of mine is a pretty senior fire official back east. He was a full scholarship college athelete. They work in freezing cold weather, in much hotter high humidity weather, they do their work in much older mult-story buildings that are far more prone to collapse. In a nutshell they have much tougher jobs. They make much less and can only afford to live in strictly blue collar, lower middle class neighborhoods.

[sdrealtor]

I dont agree with the finest people argument. A high school friend of mine is a pretty senior fire official back east. He was a full scholarship college athelete. They work in freezing cold weather, in much hotter high humidity weather, they do their work in much older mult-story buildings that are far more prone to collapse. In a nutshell they have much tougher jobs. They make much less and can only afford to live in strictly blue collar, lower middle class neighborhoods.

[sdrealtor]

I dont agree with the finest people argument. A high school friend of mine is a pretty senior fire official back east. He was a full scholarship college athelete. They work in freezing cold weather, in much hotter high humidity weather, they do their work in much older mult-story buildings that are far more prone to collapse. In a nutshell they have much tougher jobs. They make much less and can only afford to live in strictly blue collar, lower middle class neighborhoods.

[Author]

Posts