- This topic has 1,770 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
GH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 5, 2010 at 11:02 AM #613822October 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM #612806
DWCAP
Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
October 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM #612893Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
October 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM #613444Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
October 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM #613562Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
October 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM #613876Participant[quote=jficquette][quote=EconProf]Funny video!
Too bad its true for some firefighters.[/quote]Friends next door neighbor is about to retire at 52. Makes well over $100k. Has worked the last 20 years at the airport. The airport firehouse is for one purpose only, and that is to put out fires when planes crash. They do not have responsibility off the airport property.
How many planes have crashed in SD in the last 25 years???
It’s likely the guy will draw basically full pay longer after retirement then he worked to “earn” it. So instead of making “just” $125k or so you have to double it. $250k for 20 something years of service?[/quote]
Id like to see a full pay scale with defered compensation for the public unions. So often people get pissed off (rightly so) about some CEO making an ass load of money (say 100million or something). Cept, that isn’t (usually) yearly, that is in stock and only if he lasts the contract, and only if the stock price doesnt tank. How are all those citi/GM/Chrysler/CIT/AIG/…. share options from 2005 doing????? But, the full level of compensation, includiding stock options and such is usually accounted for.
I would like to see this for our public workers. Just as an example, lets say that they start at 25, retire at 50, and die at 75. So, for 25 years of service they will recieve 50 years of pay (26 of it at highest pay+inflation) plus medical dental vision, +whatever else they get (100% covered contributions (I gotta pay to get a match), DROP, tax benifits, loopholes around IRS law…..), with a guarentee of it being paid. What is that worth, and what is it compared to the private sector counterparts?
It just doenst seem right to say “these guys only make $XXXX”, without accounting for their benifits which no one else gets. It is frankly like looking at C level executives pay, without stock.
October 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM #612985EconProf
ParticipantFolks, 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!October 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM #613072ParticipantFolks, 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!October 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM #613623ParticipantFolks, 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!October 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM #613739ParticipantFolks, 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!October 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM #614051ParticipantFolks, 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!October 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM #613060CA renter
Participant[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.
October 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM #613147Participant[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.
October 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM #613698Participant[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.
October 5, 2010 at 10:33 PM #613814Participant[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.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.