[sdduuuude]

[quote=KSMountain]Apart from the financial aspect, I personally feel Police and Engineers are both *indispensable* in our current society. Not sure how you would rank one versus the other. I guess I might say the average police officer provides more benefits to society than the average engineer, but I’m not sure.[/quote]

Salary is not determined by your value to society. Like all markets, it is a function of supply and demand.

Demand for labor is driven by the importance of the job, and the capacity required.

Supply is determined by the difficulty of the job and the enjoyability of the job. Less enjoyable jobs have a lower labor supply – fewer people want to do it.

Lets say a city needs someone to keep their finger in the dike to keep it from flooding the city. Well, the demand for that position is 1. And, although it is an indispensable position, it does not require a remarkable amount of skill or training. Nor is it a very unpleasant job.

Thus, the number of people willing and able to do it is rather high. Thus, I doubt it would be a highly paid position, though clearly it is critical to society.

As I mention above, these wages are not set by market forces or supply and demand, but by union thuggery. As such, I suspect they are too high, regardless of their importantce.

In other words – if the city had offered a lower salary with a lower pension, would some other qualified candidate have taken the job? If the answer is “yes” then they overpaid. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, it is never posed this way.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=KSMountain]Apart from the financial aspect, I personally feel Police and Engineers are both *indispensable* in our current society. Not sure how you would rank one versus the other. I guess I might say the average police officer provides more benefits to society than the average engineer, but I’m not sure.[/quote]

Salary is not determined by your value to society. Like all markets, it is a function of supply and demand.

Demand for labor is driven by the importance of the job, and the capacity required.

Supply is determined by the difficulty of the job and the enjoyability of the job. Less enjoyable jobs have a lower labor supply – fewer people want to do it.

Lets say a city needs someone to keep their finger in the dike to keep it from flooding the city. Well, the demand for that position is 1. And, although it is an indispensable position, it does not require a remarkable amount of skill or training. Nor is it a very unpleasant job.

Thus, the number of people willing and able to do it is rather high. Thus, I doubt it would be a highly paid position, though clearly it is critical to society.

As I mention above, these wages are not set by market forces or supply and demand, but by union thuggery. As such, I suspect they are too high, regardless of their importantce.

In other words – if the city had offered a lower salary with a lower pension, would some other qualified candidate have taken the job? If the answer is “yes” then they overpaid. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, it is never posed this way.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=KSMountain]Apart from the financial aspect, I personally feel Police and Engineers are both *indispensable* in our current society. Not sure how you would rank one versus the other. I guess I might say the average police officer provides more benefits to society than the average engineer, but I’m not sure.[/quote]

Salary is not determined by your value to society. Like all markets, it is a function of supply and demand.

Demand for labor is driven by the importance of the job, and the capacity required.

Supply is determined by the difficulty of the job and the enjoyability of the job. Less enjoyable jobs have a lower labor supply – fewer people want to do it.

Lets say a city needs someone to keep their finger in the dike to keep it from flooding the city. Well, the demand for that position is 1. And, although it is an indispensable position, it does not require a remarkable amount of skill or training. Nor is it a very unpleasant job.

Thus, the number of people willing and able to do it is rather high. Thus, I doubt it would be a highly paid position, though clearly it is critical to society.

As I mention above, these wages are not set by market forces or supply and demand, but by union thuggery. As such, I suspect they are too high, regardless of their importantce.

In other words – if the city had offered a lower salary with a lower pension, would some other qualified candidate have taken the job? If the answer is “yes” then they overpaid. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, it is never posed this way.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=KSMountain]Apart from the financial aspect, I personally feel Police and Engineers are both *indispensable* in our current society. Not sure how you would rank one versus the other. I guess I might say the average police officer provides more benefits to society than the average engineer, but I’m not sure.[/quote]

Salary is not determined by your value to society. Like all markets, it is a function of supply and demand.

Demand for labor is driven by the importance of the job, and the capacity required.

Supply is determined by the difficulty of the job and the enjoyability of the job. Less enjoyable jobs have a lower labor supply – fewer people want to do it.

Lets say a city needs someone to keep their finger in the dike to keep it from flooding the city. Well, the demand for that position is 1. And, although it is an indispensable position, it does not require a remarkable amount of skill or training. Nor is it a very unpleasant job.

Thus, the number of people willing and able to do it is rather high. Thus, I doubt it would be a highly paid position, though clearly it is critical to society.

As I mention above, these wages are not set by market forces or supply and demand, but by union thuggery. As such, I suspect they are too high, regardless of their importantce.

In other words – if the city had offered a lower salary with a lower pension, would some other qualified candidate have taken the job? If the answer is “yes” then they overpaid. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, it is never posed this way.

[sdduuuude]

My concern isn’t so much with how much they make – it is the method used to determine how much they make. The city officials buy votes by upping union salaries, giving in to union bosses who are effectively thugs asking for protection money. There are likely significant kick-backs as well for the city officials.

This gives the union workers the ability to say “Hey – I didn’t choose my salary. That’s just what the city gives me.”

It also ends up unbalanced – where the higher-up union workers get treated well while the lower echelons get screwed.

So, yes firefighters and police deserve to get paid well, but they don’t deserve to have their salary set by under-the-table deals between city officials.

I can understand how a non-union city worker could get tired of hearing about overpriced city workers.

[sdduuuude]

My concern isn’t so much with how much they make – it is the method used to determine how much they make. The city officials buy votes by upping union salaries, giving in to union bosses who are effectively thugs asking for protection money. There are likely significant kick-backs as well for the city officials.

This gives the union workers the ability to say “Hey – I didn’t choose my salary. That’s just what the city gives me.”

It also ends up unbalanced – where the higher-up union workers get treated well while the lower echelons get screwed.

So, yes firefighters and police deserve to get paid well, but they don’t deserve to have their salary set by under-the-table deals between city officials.

I can understand how a non-union city worker could get tired of hearing about overpriced city workers.

[sdduuuude]

My concern isn’t so much with how much they make – it is the method used to determine how much they make. The city officials buy votes by upping union salaries, giving in to union bosses who are effectively thugs asking for protection money. There are likely significant kick-backs as well for the city officials.

This gives the union workers the ability to say “Hey – I didn’t choose my salary. That’s just what the city gives me.”

It also ends up unbalanced – where the higher-up union workers get treated well while the lower echelons get screwed.

So, yes firefighters and police deserve to get paid well, but they don’t deserve to have their salary set by under-the-table deals between city officials.

I can understand how a non-union city worker could get tired of hearing about overpriced city workers.

[sdduuuude]

My concern isn’t so much with how much they make – it is the method used to determine how much they make. The city officials buy votes by upping union salaries, giving in to union bosses who are effectively thugs asking for protection money. There are likely significant kick-backs as well for the city officials.

This gives the union workers the ability to say “Hey – I didn’t choose my salary. That’s just what the city gives me.”

It also ends up unbalanced – where the higher-up union workers get treated well while the lower echelons get screwed.

So, yes firefighters and police deserve to get paid well, but they don’t deserve to have their salary set by under-the-table deals between city officials.

I can understand how a non-union city worker could get tired of hearing about overpriced city workers.

[sdduuuude]

My concern isn’t so much with how much they make – it is the method used to determine how much they make. The city officials buy votes by upping union salaries, giving in to union bosses who are effectively thugs asking for protection money. There are likely significant kick-backs as well for the city officials.

This gives the union workers the ability to say “Hey – I didn’t choose my salary. That’s just what the city gives me.”

It also ends up unbalanced – where the higher-up union workers get treated well while the lower echelons get screwed.

So, yes firefighters and police deserve to get paid well, but they don’t deserve to have their salary set by under-the-table deals between city officials.

I can understand how a non-union city worker could get tired of hearing about overpriced city workers.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]CRE investors don’t stop paying simply because the price of the underlying collateral declines. They stop paying when the cash flow from the property declines to the extent that the debt can’t be serviced (which generally also coincides with a drop in the property’s value). [/quote]

For a residence, I consider “cash flow from the property” to be equal to what it would cost the owner to rent the same house. I see no difference.

You say the homeowners should use income from other resources to cover the mortgage on a property that is not longer servicing the debt based on equivalent rent.

Shouldn’t businesses then use revenue from other cash-flow positive properties, (or personal income in the case of individuals) to do the same – which is what you are saying with the REITs. Why is that different from any regular RE investor?

You are trying to split hairs and it isn’t making sense, as far as I can see.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]CRE investors don’t stop paying simply because the price of the underlying collateral declines. They stop paying when the cash flow from the property declines to the extent that the debt can’t be serviced (which generally also coincides with a drop in the property’s value). [/quote]

For a residence, I consider “cash flow from the property” to be equal to what it would cost the owner to rent the same house. I see no difference.

You say the homeowners should use income from other resources to cover the mortgage on a property that is not longer servicing the debt based on equivalent rent.

Shouldn’t businesses then use revenue from other cash-flow positive properties, (or personal income in the case of individuals) to do the same – which is what you are saying with the REITs. Why is that different from any regular RE investor?

You are trying to split hairs and it isn’t making sense, as far as I can see.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]CRE investors don’t stop paying simply because the price of the underlying collateral declines. They stop paying when the cash flow from the property declines to the extent that the debt can’t be serviced (which generally also coincides with a drop in the property’s value). [/quote]

For a residence, I consider “cash flow from the property” to be equal to what it would cost the owner to rent the same house. I see no difference.

You say the homeowners should use income from other resources to cover the mortgage on a property that is not longer servicing the debt based on equivalent rent.

Shouldn’t businesses then use revenue from other cash-flow positive properties, (or personal income in the case of individuals) to do the same – which is what you are saying with the REITs. Why is that different from any regular RE investor?

You are trying to split hairs and it isn’t making sense, as far as I can see.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]CRE investors don’t stop paying simply because the price of the underlying collateral declines. They stop paying when the cash flow from the property declines to the extent that the debt can’t be serviced (which generally also coincides with a drop in the property’s value). [/quote]

For a residence, I consider “cash flow from the property” to be equal to what it would cost the owner to rent the same house. I see no difference.

You say the homeowners should use income from other resources to cover the mortgage on a property that is not longer servicing the debt based on equivalent rent.

Shouldn’t businesses then use revenue from other cash-flow positive properties, (or personal income in the case of individuals) to do the same – which is what you are saying with the REITs. Why is that different from any regular RE investor?

You are trying to split hairs and it isn’t making sense, as far as I can see.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=davelj]CRE investors don’t stop paying simply because the price of the underlying collateral declines. They stop paying when the cash flow from the property declines to the extent that the debt can’t be serviced (which generally also coincides with a drop in the property’s value). [/quote]

For a residence, I consider “cash flow from the property” to be equal to what it would cost the owner to rent the same house. I see no difference.

You say the homeowners should use income from other resources to cover the mortgage on a property that is not longer servicing the debt based on equivalent rent.

Shouldn’t businesses then use revenue from other cash-flow positive properties, (or personal income in the case of individuals) to do the same – which is what you are saying with the REITs. Why is that different from any regular RE investor?

You are trying to split hairs and it isn’t making sense, as far as I can see.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=Arraya]Which, I would bet, is the reason strategic defaulters are of a dramatically higher percentage, in the upper socioeconomic strata. They are better as estimating these things and probably less prone to self-interested propaganda.[/quote]

I think the definition of “strategic default” is the reason why it is more common in “upper socioeconomic strata.”

To be a strategic default, you have to be able to afford paying the mortgage on an under-water property. Most in the lower strata are unable to do so, and thus their defaults are not considered “strategic.”

[Author]

Posts