Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
You also have no idea about what knife wounds are like… and no clue.. PS: the max blade length is about 3 inches.. longer is illegal.[/quote]
I don’t think that’s true in CA with regards to unconcealed knives. They must be worn at the waist, and sheathed. But other than bans in specific places (gov’t buildings I think is a 4″ limit, all prohibited in schools, k-12) and some municipalities, I don’t think there is any length limitation. (fishing and hunting knives?)
Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]Do you have any idea the hoops that you have to jump through to be an approved federal contractor? (I’ve been through that process, becoming an approved contractor for Apple is the only more tedious process I’ve ever seen.) I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s extraordinary when an federal employee leaves their position and immediately become direct contractor to the federal government without an intermediary. Beyond the hoops required to become an approved federal contractor, the federal government contracts out specific jobs/duties, not positions. They contract with XYZ Company to provide technical support for abc functions. Not 40 hours a week that meets a specific job description.[/quote]There is your problem right there. If it’s so top secret, why even outsource it in the first place. In the private sector, work you’re doing that’s important to your IP do not get outsourced. Only stuff that is not important to your core IP. If the stuff that the government is outsourcing is not important to its core secrecy, then why make all the hoops. If it is important, why outsource? The only reason I see why they have all the hoops is that big gov contracting companies can keep the monopoly on the position.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean by “top secret”. I don’t think there are any secrets involved, or for that matter, IP may not even be a big part of the issue. As I said, the federal government is not alone in this process. Most large enterprise organizatins have a contractor/vendor approval process. There is nothing secret about it. It is always a pain in the ass. The bigger the company, the bigger the pain.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=SK in CV][quote=AN]This isn’t privatization, this is government being lazy and and outsource the jobs to government contractors.[/quote]
With all due respect AN, this is exactly what privatization is. Instead of hiring people to do work, it’s outsourcing those jobs to private companies. And the $135K v $270K is almost exactly what you quoted the other day. 80 to 100% more for non-employee contractors.[/quote]
No it’s not. When people are making 80-100% more as a contractor, they are doing it as an independent, selling directly into the position.
The exact same thing occurs in private industry and frankly, it’s part of a gravy boat game. It’s a combination of factors. Lazy management, tight skill markets or good old nepotism.
That said, for privatization to work, the government would need to set up competition. No competition and you’re right back to Ma Bell in the 1970s. Or dealing with a local cable company today.[/quote]
Do you have any idea the hoops that you have to jump through to be an approved federal contractor? (I’ve been through that process, becoming an approved contractor for Apple is the only more tedious process I’ve ever seen.) I’m not saying it never happens, but it’s extraordinary when an federal employee leaves their position and immediately become direct contractor to the federal government without an intermediary. Beyond the hoops required to become an approved federal contractor, the federal government contracts out specific jobs/duties, not positions. They contract with XYZ Company to provide technical support for abc functions. Not 40 hours a week that meets a specific job description.
January 13, 2013 at 9:58 PM in reply to: Prop 30 money sold as funds for schools – watchdog reveals something else #757655Participant[quote=enron_by_the_sea]I don’t know the statistics, but at least one person I know is moving to Nevada.
He doesn’t need to work for a company. Has no family ties to this state. I can understand why moving to Nevada becomes attractive to him. Most people affected by prop 30 won’t move because they have a job, family, friends and roots that will keep them here.[/quote]
In the past, both in CA and in other states, the statistics have been that there has been no material change in the number of high income taxpayers when rates go up. Not zero. But no material change.
January 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM in reply to: Prop 30 money sold as funds for schools – watchdog reveals something else #757653Participant[quote=EconProf]You and a lot of others are leaving CA, ctr70. The sad thing is we are losing the middle class taxpayers, the wealthy taxpayers now subject to a 13% state tax rate (even on their 2012 income), and attracting the tax users. CA has 33% of the nation’s welfare recipients, yet only 12% of the population.
Keep us in touch with what you experience in WA as you settle in there.[/quote]Any evidence that wealthy taxpayers are leaving the state (the OP notwithstanding, who has never actually paid 10% of income in state tax, nor would he ever)? That has not happened when taxes increased in CA in the past, nor is there evidence it’s happened in other states that have raised their top marginal rates.
Participant[quote=AN]
I thought you’re referring to individual contractor and not contracting firm. For contracting firm, I agree, it’s the same for my industry. I used to work for a contracting firm and we get paid around $45-50/hr and they’re charging the client $135/hr.[/quote]There you go. $50 per hour/$135 per hour = 2.7. The person doing the work that the government paid $270K might have been earning $100K a year.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]The $200K and $400/hr is an outlier. But in the space I worked, the $150K/$210 per hour is not. It’s the norm. And the $210/hr will cost well in excess of $270K a year to the customer. I don’t know what space you work in, but it’s not the only one out there.[/quote]
$150k is not out of the norm but $210/hr is. $210/hr is over $400k/year. How can $150k/yr be average yet $210/yr is also average. Unless you’re talking about very specialize skills that doesn’t need full time support.
I know my space is not the only space out there. But I know enough software engineers across various industries to know what’s the average going rate. My space is one of the highest paying space for a software engineer and have the highest demand.[/quote]Because those numbers are talking about two different things. One is what the employee is paid, and the other is what the employer charges for the employee time. In professional services industries, employees never get paid what their employers charge for their services. It ranges anywhere from 2x your hourly pay to 5x your hourly pay. In IT consulting, that number is typically 2.5x. So if you’re paid $50 an hour, they charge $125/hr for your time. So to hire you out for a full year, it would cost the customer about $250K for the year. But that rarely happens. In contract IT consulting, 75% utilization is typical. (Unlike law or accounting, where >100% utilization isn’t uncommon, particularly for younger employees.)
Participant[quote=flu][quote=EconProf]Sorry to veer way off topic here, but I differ with flu’s approach to money entanglements with one’s offspring–or any relatives or friends for that matter. He described a scenario that may be economically optimal or tax-wise, but that interferes with the kids’ taking full control and responsibility for their own financial affairs. If the parents have taught deferred gratification lessons, required budgeting of their children, and not bought their affection with material goods, the kids will do just fine once on their own. And if they go through lean times in the process, all the better to learn from. Above all, they need the pride of accomplishment that comes from earning their way on their own. Parental help can rob them of that experience.
I admit I have been overly generous at times with my own kids, so I don’t always practice what I preach.
The financial advisor Dave Ramsey points out that once you loan money, give money, or form a partnership with a friend or relative, you change that relationship forever. At the outset, everything seems fine…but then things change, events intrude, outlooks start to differ as the future unfolds. Partnerships are especially treacherous, and are notorious for ending friendships and gaining an enemy.
In sum, give them the right financial tools while they are growing up, then get them out of the nest. If they come back, charge them rent, even if only a token amount.[/quote]I completely disagree here.. What I have learned is
1. A good % of americans are spoiled and self entitled….Those who try to take the higher ground by not giving their kids an sort of advantage is pretty much putting their kid at a disadvantage since, well, everyone else seems to try to put their kids at an advantage.
2. It has been proven that if you save and try to leave your money to the kids in the end that our government will just about make everything up to try to redistribute it to everyone else anyway (so that they can piss it away), because most every other person in this country have no sense of fiscal responsibility and expects everyone else to pay for things. So your only chance of making sure your money is spent responsibly is by taking matters into your own hands, teaching your kids about fiscal responsibility and having them work for the seed (unlike other families who would just piss it away).
This will be more so, because more people will end up being in the category of having less, so more of them will end up expecting more of the fiscal responsible people to pick up the tab…3. IF you kids ends up having an entitlement issue, he/she is no worse than the majority of others is this country. And your kid won’t need to worry about the small percentage of remaining people that would be more fiscal responsible them them…The government will take care of those people by penalizing them with ridiculous taxation rules to ensure everyone else is “made whole”.
4. The loan to kid is no different than IF the bank was to loan your kid any money. The only difference is you get your 3-4% interest versus the bank (which is a win for you), and your kid probably can avoid coming up with a 20% down and avoid bending over getting an FHA loan (which is a win for your kid), and his/her mortgage interest deduction he/she can still claim on schedule A (provided the government doesn’t try to take that one away, which it is as part of the wealth redistribution plan,again…)…
…In fact, since most FHA loans will probably default anyway (since many people who get them have bad credit or unable to otherwise afford a home), you’re actually doing the rest of us a favor by ensuring your kid isn’t one of them that gets an FHA loan and possibly later defaults, resulting in the rest of the taxpayers being on the hook for… So it’s a win for taxpayers too.
Come on… Look around at what’s going on. Do you really think the old way of thinking about saving and working “hard” is really going to work moving forward? Do you really think the government is gonna start “rewarding” people to be more fiscally responsible? Look around. Look in asia. Where the majority of the younger generation who “work hard” can’t even afford a simple basic home…because things are so out of wack… We’re headed down the same way….
The government is gonna encourage even more people to try to spend to oblivion. Home prices aren’t gonna crater. They’ll weaken the dollar and inflate everything else and keep rates low or lower to try to keep this shame system running…
Is it really “fair” your kid should try to come up with all that “fiscal independence” to come up with “hard earn” 20%+ down and compete with the likes of say Blackrock which directly or indirectly is using other people’s money or worse part of the taxpayer borrowed money to purchase SFH and directly competing with little guys/gals like your kid(s)?
Psss… No one is at the same playing field..Some people/organizations have “seed money”, they just like to pretend they don’t…The only difference is they have better connections than you do. Government and companies have the largest connections there is…[/quote]
I don’t normally include this much of prior posts in my comments, but i think both of these comments have a lot of merit. Getting involved with loans and business transactions with family is loaded with possible problems. But that doesn’t mean they should always be avoided. Sometimes they do work.
But your point #2 here flu is pretty much BS. It has never been proven, in fact there is no evidence that it’s been true at all for the last 10 years. I’m guessing that since your kid(s) were born, you have never been in a position where you and your wife would be subject to estate taxes, or if you were, it would mean that the vast majority of your combined net worth would still pass on to your kids, free of any estate taxes.
Participant[quote=AN]With regards to your $200k and $400/hr example, you and I both know that’s not the norm and we don’t know what is meant by computer engineer. IIRC, you brought this up before and it was some special system architect that is fetching that kind of pay, no? Your average “software/computer engineer” will not fetch anywhere near $400/hr. Using that example is as relevant as me using fresh grad fetching $40/hr. I have to use what the term is really used for in my industry, which means your peon developer.[/quote]
The $200K and $400/hr is an outlier. But in the space I worked, the $150K/$210 per hour is not. It’s the norm. And the $210/hr will cost well in excess of $270K a year to the customer. I don’t know what space you work in, but it’s not the only one out there.
Participant[quote=AN]I guess I wasn’t aware of outsourcing = privatizing. My definition of privatization is more of transferring the completely ownership to the private sector (for profit or non-profit). But I guess after looking into the term, it can mean either. So, I concede that if you’re talking about outsourcing, then yes, outsourcing will cost more. But if it’s transferring complete ownership, then that’s debatable.
You’re right, $135k vs $270k is almost exactly what I quoted. Although, that’s on the very high side. The $135k is also on a very high side to start with for just a software engineer, the $270k is very very high side. Also, wasn’t there some people who said government employees are underpaid because they have such wonderful fringe benefits? The $135k doesn’t bare out that claim.[/quote]
I was wondering whether that $135K was actually the cost of a federal employee doing the work rather than the salary. (those who aren’t as pedantic as I am might think they’re the same thing.) If so, that would make the actual salary probably around $100 to $110K, benefits would increase that to about $135K.
The term “computer engineer” can encompass a whole lot of different jobs. My last gig, I had 130 employees who could all be called “computer engineeers”, though not a single one of them could write code (that I’m aware of). And their average pay was right around $150K, average total cost per employee was $180K (average billing rate around $210/hr. But there were some that earned well over $200K and billed $400/hr. Sadly, we never did any federal govt work.
Participant[quote=AN]This isn’t privatization, this is government being lazy and and outsource the jobs to government contractors.[/quote]
With all due respect AN, this is exactly what privatization is. Instead of hiring people to do work, it’s outsourcing those jobs to private companies. And the $135K v $270K is almost exactly what you quoted the other day. 80 to 100% more for non-employee contractors.
January 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM in reply to: Obama re-elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it #757568Participant[quote=AN]Uh, unless math eludes me, life expectancy after retirement = total life expectancy – retirement age, no? If that’s the case, it’s it as simple as finding out what life expectancy is, then subtract the full retirement age?
Also, keep in mind medical advances has changed dramatically in the last 20 years. We’re talking about the ability to completely regrow human parts from you own stem cell and do the surgery. With your own DNA, the likely hood of rejection is minimal, if at all. Then, there’s also the fact that we’re pretty close to finding the cure to AIDS. We’re working hard to find a cure to cancer. Then there’s nano-tech that doesn’t exist 20 years ago and it will only get better 20 years from now. So, yes, I expect us to live much much longer.[/quote]
I don’t think it’s a math issue. It’s a logic issue. Life expectancy at retirement age is NOT total life expectancy less retirement age. Life expectancy at birth takes into account infants who die shortly after birth to those who die before they reach retirement age and every mortality in between. Their life expectancy is not material to this discussion since they will never collect any benefits. The only life expectancy that’s material to this discussion is how long people will live once they reach age 65 (or other retirement age).
January 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM in reply to: Obama re-elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it #757560Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]You totally missed my point. Total life expectancy is immaterial. Life expectancy at retirement age is what’s important. I think that number is 7 years higher now than it was when SS started.[/quote]Data?
Here’s the full retirement age for SS: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/agereduction.htm. Are you saying your generation total life expectancy is only a few months to <2 years higher than your parents', since according to SS's full retirement age, that's how much older you'd have to be to reach full retirement age. Yet, over the last 50 years, life expectance have gone up 9 years.[/quote]I may have overstated it.
I can't quickly come up with newer numbers, but direct from the SSA:
Life expectancy at age 65 in 1940 - Males 12.7 Females 14.7
Life expectancy at age 65 in 1990 - Males 15.3 Females 19.6
I doubt life expectancy has increased any faster over the last couple decades, so I'm guessing the increase overall is probably closer to 6 years now.
And you continue to ignore the important number. It is not total life expectancy. It is life expectancy AFTER retirement benefits begin.
January 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM in reply to: Obama re-elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it #757556Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]That life expectance has not significantly increased over the last few decades. Whether it will in the future remains to be seen.[/quote]
What would you consider significant? Over the last 2 decades, life expectancy went up 4% (3 years) and over the last 5 decades, life expectancy went up 12%. So, boomers in their 50s, if we see another 12% over the next 5 decades, their life expectancy would be 9 years longer. I don’t think we’re delaying SS full retirement age by 9 years.[/quote]You totally missed my point. Total life expectancy is immaterial. Life expectancy at retirement age is what’s important. I think that number is 7 years higher now than it was when SS started.
-
AuthorPosts
