OT: Public pay & benefits

[Coronita]

[quote=pri_dk]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449813071709510.html

Who knew he could write so well?[/quote]

I’m pretty sure it wasn’t his writing 🙂

[davelj]

Why don’t we add a large volunteer component to San Diego’s fire department?

Plenty of large cities have both a full-time (career) component alongside an even larger volunteer component. 73% of all fire fighters in the U.S. are volunteers. There’s no evidence to suggest that the volunteers perform any worse than the full-timers. Why don’t we do that here? That would solve a lot of comp-related issues going forward.

[davelj]

Why don’t we add a large volunteer component to San Diego’s fire department?

Plenty of large cities have both a full-time (career) component alongside an even larger volunteer component. 73% of all fire fighters in the U.S. are volunteers. There’s no evidence to suggest that the volunteers perform any worse than the full-timers. Why don’t we do that here? That would solve a lot of comp-related issues going forward.

[davelj]

Why don’t we add a large volunteer component to San Diego’s fire department?

Plenty of large cities have both a full-time (career) component alongside an even larger volunteer component. 73% of all fire fighters in the U.S. are volunteers. There’s no evidence to suggest that the volunteers perform any worse than the full-timers. Why don’t we do that here? That would solve a lot of comp-related issues going forward.

[davelj]

Why don’t we add a large volunteer component to San Diego’s fire department?

Plenty of large cities have both a full-time (career) component alongside an even larger volunteer component. 73% of all fire fighters in the U.S. are volunteers. There’s no evidence to suggest that the volunteers perform any worse than the full-timers. Why don’t we do that here? That would solve a lot of comp-related issues going forward.

[davelj]

Why don’t we add a large volunteer component to San Diego’s fire department?

Plenty of large cities have both a full-time (career) component alongside an even larger volunteer component. 73% of all fire fighters in the U.S. are volunteers. There’s no evidence to suggest that the volunteers perform any worse than the full-timers. Why don’t we do that here? That would solve a lot of comp-related issues going forward.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?[/quote]

Believe it or not, I actually agree 100% with your idea, dave.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?[/quote]

Believe it or not, I actually agree 100% with your idea, dave.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?[/quote]

Believe it or not, I actually agree 100% with your idea, dave.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?[/quote]

Believe it or not, I actually agree 100% with your idea, dave.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj]http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?[/quote]

Believe it or not, I actually agree 100% with your idea, dave.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.[/quote]

If they make more than public servants, I’m sure many people would be lining up to do their jobs, too, at a 20% discount. Are they seeing these pay cuts yet?

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?

And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”

Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.[/quote]

If they make more than public servants, I’m sure many people would be lining up to do their jobs, too, at a 20% discount. Are they seeing these pay cuts yet?

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?

And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”

Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.[/quote]

If they make more than public servants, I’m sure many people would be lining up to do their jobs, too, at a 20% discount. Are they seeing these pay cuts yet?

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?

And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”

Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.[/quote]

If they make more than public servants, I’m sure many people would be lining up to do their jobs, too, at a 20% discount. Are they seeing these pay cuts yet?

Bottom line, anyone who has not seen a pay cut these past few years is probably overpaid (others would do their jobs for significantly less). Whether or not that money coming out of my pocket is going to a public employer or a private employer doesn’t matter — I’m still overpaying. Why don’t *they* take a pay cut then, since they have such an issue with overcompensation?

And no, it’s not at all about the “free market.” As you know, people are essentially forced to use banks in order to conduct business these days. I don’t have a choice WRT overpaying their employees/executives. And let’s not forget the public money (TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS) being spent to prop them up and maintain their bonuses/compensation during this “Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression.”

Bottom line, we are ALL forced to pay for things we don’t like. If I had to choose between paying bankers or public servants, the choice would be easy — public servants actually enhance our quality of life while bankers suck the blood out of the productive economy.

[Author]

Posts