San Diego Fire Chief retires at 53 with $123K/yr pension for life…

[UCGal]

[quote=LarryTheRenter]A sole proprieter would have to have a 2 million dollar retirement fund which yields 6% per year which would get you the $10,000 per month..

So obviuosly the fireman/woman didnt kick in this much him/herself…it is the taxpayers that are getting bled.[/quote]

A sole proprietor often has equity in the business that they can sell/cash out when they retire.

I’ve seen it happen a lot. Build a business – sell it, retire on the proceeds.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=XBoxBoy][quote=SDEngineer]You could use this argument against every position in every company, public or private, and wind up proving that virtually everyone is overpaid.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t follow the logic of this argument. What I think you’re saying is that if you use the two criteria that I outlined:

1) Does this person bring enough added value to the organization to justify their pay.

2) Can this job be filled by an equally capable person for less pay and retirement.

everyone at every company is over paid.

Can you support that view with something? Or if I’ve misunderstood your argument, please clarify for me.

My personal experience at virtually every company I’ve worked at (or run) is that in the private sector you have to ask that question continually, or your company will not be competitive and will fail. (Hmmmm… maybe that explains why a lot of companies are failing lately)

While I’m not sure how you would prove the point that top managers are overcompensated, my experience is that most people running large organizations got there (and are making the 250k-350k salaries you mention or even more) not because no one else wanted or could do the job, but because they were good at working the politics and self promoting. Often the best in our companies do not receive the recognition or the pay they deserve while the manipulative do. Just my experience though.
[/quote]

It’s mostly based on #2, not #1 – because I think that previous arguments that were laid out support the fact that the chief in charge of a thousand person fire department probably does bring enough to the table to justify the pay – in fact, is (like many public employees) probably underpaid comparing what her skillset would command in the private sector (hence the retirement package). I think you’ll find that many who go into public service go in with eyes open KNOWING that they will be compensated less on an annual basis than they could make in the private sector, but accepting that as a tradeoff to a more secure job with a defined retirement plan.

I suspect your #2 point above however, could be used against most employees, public or private – it seems to me that for any reasonably well paying position that you could always find someone who would be willing and could do the job for less.

However, I do agree with your other point, that most top executives got where they did not because their skills are necessarily better, but because they were better at playing office politics – however, this just goes to #2 above again. Considering argument #1, I still believe that in their position, with their responsibilities, no matter how they got the job, their pay is fairly well deserved.

[ucodegen]

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Why are we comparing their salaries to other salaries that we generally consider excessive.. like CEOs..??
1) Public sector positions are virtually guaranteed for life, private sector jobs aren’t.
2) With a private sector job, a mistake can destroy the company. With a public sector job, a mistake means that taxes are likely to be raised.. Higher job risk on the private sector.
3) Public sector jobs ‘maintain’ a status quo (they are in a guaranteed market). Private sector jobs have to innovate and fight to get their niche in the market place.

People make a big deal on risks to the lives of police. The reality is that it is described as being hours of boredom broking by seconds of sheer terror. The whole working day of a police officer is not the sheer terror.. This is also why you see so many police cars in a chase.. most of them are bored and this is some excitement.

As for survivability, I would like to see references to the studies.. By the way, life expectancy for whites is 78 for white, 73 for black (a 5 year deviation right there and 7 was mentioned.. making it 70?.. which is after retirement anyway). White male is 75.7, white female is 80.8..

[ucodegen]

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Why are we comparing their salaries to other salaries that we generally consider excessive.. like CEOs..??
1) Public sector positions are virtually guaranteed for life, private sector jobs aren’t.
2) With a private sector job, a mistake can destroy the company. With a public sector job, a mistake means that taxes are likely to be raised.. Higher job risk on the private sector.
3) Public sector jobs ‘maintain’ a status quo (they are in a guaranteed market). Private sector jobs have to innovate and fight to get their niche in the market place.

People make a big deal on risks to the lives of police. The reality is that it is described as being hours of boredom broking by seconds of sheer terror. The whole working day of a police officer is not the sheer terror.. This is also why you see so many police cars in a chase.. most of them are bored and this is some excitement.

As for survivability, I would like to see references to the studies.. By the way, life expectancy for whites is 78 for white, 73 for black (a 5 year deviation right there and 7 was mentioned.. making it 70?.. which is after retirement anyway). White male is 75.7, white female is 80.8..

[ucodegen]

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Why are we comparing their salaries to other salaries that we generally consider excessive.. like CEOs..??
1) Public sector positions are virtually guaranteed for life, private sector jobs aren’t.
2) With a private sector job, a mistake can destroy the company. With a public sector job, a mistake means that taxes are likely to be raised.. Higher job risk on the private sector.
3) Public sector jobs ‘maintain’ a status quo (they are in a guaranteed market). Private sector jobs have to innovate and fight to get their niche in the market place.

People make a big deal on risks to the lives of police. The reality is that it is described as being hours of boredom broking by seconds of sheer terror. The whole working day of a police officer is not the sheer terror.. This is also why you see so many police cars in a chase.. most of them are bored and this is some excitement.

As for survivability, I would like to see references to the studies.. By the way, life expectancy for whites is 78 for white, 73 for black (a 5 year deviation right there and 7 was mentioned.. making it 70?.. which is after retirement anyway). White male is 75.7, white female is 80.8..

[ucodegen]

A CEO of a 1000 employee company (about the size of the San Diego firefighting force) probably would make at LEAST about 100K more per year than she did in terms of salary (and more likely, significantly more – and for what, in my opinion, is a lot less responsibility).

Why are we comparing their salaries to other salaries that we generally consider excessive.. like CEOs..??
1) Public sector positions are virtually guaranteed for life, private sector jobs aren’t.
2) With a private sector job, a mistake can destroy the company. With a public sector job, a mistake means that taxes are likely to be raised.. Higher job risk on the private sector.
3) Public sector jobs ‘maintain’ a status quo (they are in a guaranteed market). Private sector jobs have to innovate and fight to get their niche in the market place.

People make a big deal on risks to the lives of police. The reality is that it is described as being hours of boredom broking by seconds of sheer terror. The whole working day of a police officer is not the sheer terror.. This is also why you see so many police cars in a chase.. most of them are bored and this is some excitement.

As for survivability, I would like to see references to the studies.. By the way, life expectancy for whites is 78 for white, 73 for black (a 5 year deviation right there and 7 was mentioned.. making it 70?.. which is after retirement anyway). White male is 75.7, white female is 80.8..

[Author]

Posts