Government workers are the richest folks? Maybe so.

[Purron]

Quote:
Originally Posted by haha
And that is why you guys defend it so vigorously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

I think we should draft haha and FinanceDude to work for the Treasury Department to help clean this mess up. They clearly know what's wrong with our goverment

[Canadian Grunt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purron Quote: Originally Posted by haha And that is why you guys defend it so vigorously. I think we should draft haha and FinanceDude to work for the Treasury Department to help clean this mess up. They clearly know what's wrong with our goverment

Right, rely on the sacrifices of your military and law enforcement people to protect your 1st amendment rights and the right of free enterprise and then grieve their retirement benefits after they fulfill their obligations to society based on their contracts for employment.

Don’t complain about someone else’s package when you can seek the same benefits or apply for a better job on the street.

There seems to be a high discontent with civil service. Do you use hospitals, like security, peace, social networks, and value an educated society? All these things take civil service.

If you want corruption within the police service, insecurity, rampant poverty, and a lack of education and social structure then look no further than Afghanistan. Is that the type of country you aspire to?

If you don’t secure the future of police personnel in retirement you open the system to corruption. Same ideology goes for every other civil service job. Afghanistan is a great model of what happens when the civil service is broken.

A little time spent in foreign countries (not package tours to the nice places of the world) will cure many of their discontent with their current countries systems. Be thankful for what you have not what others have.

[Bimmerbill]

Well, I agree that there is rising discontent with the public sector benefit package. I don't know if its jealousy, envy, or just plain financial concern that seems to rile up people over the fed pension plan.
I'm not sure how many people would quit the public sector and go private if the benefit package were cut. I think I would, especially if the federal pension was modified. But, I'm in the IT industry where salaries are typically much higher. Sure, I'd have to work longer hours etc, but could probably get a 25-50% raise (at least).

[freebird5825]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Grunt Right, rely on the sacrifices of your military and law enforcement people to protect your 1st amendment rights and the right of free enterprise and then grieve their retirement benefits after they fulfill their obligations to society based on their contracts for employment. Don’t complain about someone else’s package when you can seek the same benefits or apply for a better job on the street. There seems to be a high discontent with civil service. Do you use hospitals, like security, peace, social networks, and value an educated society? All these things take civil service. If you want corruption within the police service, insecurity, rampant poverty, and a lack of education and social structure then look no further than Afghanistan. Is that the type of country you aspire to? If you don’t secure the future of police personnel in retirement you open the system to corruption. Same ideology goes for every other civil service job. Afghanistan is a great model of what happens when the civil service is broken. A little time spent in foreign countries (not package tours to the nice places of the world) will cure many of their discontent with their current countries systems. Be thankful for what you have not what others have.

THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE!!!

are we related? j/k

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bimmerbill Well, I agree that there is rising discontent with the public sector benefit package. I don't know if its jealousy, envy, or just plain financial concern that seems to rile up people over the fed pension plan. I'm not sure how many people would quit the public sector and go private if the benefit package were cut. I think I would, especially if the federal pension was modified. But, I'm in the IT industry where salaries are typically much higher. Sure, I'd have to work longer hours etc, but could probably get a 25-50% raise (at least).

I think the difference between private and public sector is a wash when you throw benefits at it. We have a local proposal to build a new elementary school for 500 kids. One of the School Board guys gave me in the info:

They would need 3 kindergarten teachers for the new school, who would be paid $60,000 a year plus health care for their entire family for $25 a month. Their max pension after 25 years of service is the average of their last 5 years salary at a 80% rate. The average salary of the principals in out school district is $117,000 a year plus full benefits.

I don't see how $60,000 a year is low pay, maybe someone could help me out with that. I will agree that compared to this, police officers and firefighters are woefully underpaid........

Our police chief only makes $87,000, $30,000 a year less than the principals. Plus, he gets to be on call 24 hours a day, but he does get a "car allowance"......

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bimmerbill Well, I agree that there is rising discontent with the public sector benefit package. I don't know if its jealousy, envy, or just plain financial concern that seems to rile up people over the fed pension plan. I'm not sure how many people would quit the public sector and go private if the benefit package were cut. I think I would, especially if the federal pension was modified. But, I'm in the IT industry where salaries are typically much higher. Sure, I'd have to work longer hours etc, but could probably get a 25-50% raise (at least).

It's the excesses of many school districts in the USA that spills over to the public govt workers in general, which is unfair to be lumped in.

[freebird5825]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude I don't see how $60,000 a year is low pay, maybe someone could help me out with that. I will agree that compared to this, police officers and firefighters are woefully underpaid........

there is no good formula for compensation for the dangers that police and firefighters face...

how about the volunteer firefighters in small towns like mine? these folks work for FREE, and are on call 24/7. the next time you see a fund raiser by your local vol fire dept, bring a nice big fat check. the equipment and training it pays for could save your life.

but at least the school district is paying for teachers. my school district just HAD to put Astroturf on the HS football field. my taxes are still through the roof. argh...

[Canadian Grunt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude I think the difference between private and public sector is a wash when you throw benefits at it. We have a local proposal to build a new elementary school for 500 kids. One of the School Board guys gave me in the info: They would need 3 kindergarten teachers for the new school, who would be paid $60,000 a year plus health care for their entire family for $25 a month. Their max pension after 25 years of service is the average of their last 5 years salary at a 80% rate. The average salary of the principals in out school district is $117,000 a year plus full benefits. I don't see how $60,000 a year is low pay, maybe someone could help me out with that. I will agree that compared to this, police officers and firefighters are woefully underpaid........ Our police chief only makes $87,000, $30,000 a year less than the principals. Plus, he gets to be on call 24 hours a day, but he does get a "car allowance"......

Ever work with kids? Spend a few days in a classroom and you will get a better idea of a good teachers worth.

Don't forget these kids are your countries future so you get what you pay for. Based on their education they will be making decisions when you are retired. I would hope you would want an enlightened population deciding your future fate, and would not hesitate to pay for their education.

[militaryman]

The annuity for Feds now is dramatically less than it was 25ish years ago. (CSRS to FERS change) But at least it is something.

The government is open to all. Come and join us if you want to work hard and make a difference. (we do not need slackers)

The Gov. SHOULD be a gold standard for industry as to the direction industry should be providing for Health Care Benefits Annuity Pensions, and Leave. The government SHOULD have very attractive compensation in order to attract the BEST and Brightest.

Who do you want handling your Social Security and Medicare claims and funds . Who do you want doing your IRS audit? Do you want a low wage disgruntled public servant? Who do you want going to war for you? Someone worried about the family making it back home on food stamps?

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by freebird5825 there is no good formula for compensation for the dangers that police and firefighters face... how about the volunteer firefighters in small towns like mine? these folks work for FREE, and are on call 24/7. the next time you see a fund raiser by your local vol fire dept, bring a nice big fat check. the equipment and training it pays for could save your life. but at least the school district is paying for teachers. my school district just HAD to put Astroturf on the HS football field. my taxes are still through the roof. argh...

My next door neighbor is a volunteer firefighter. They don't do it for free, but the amount they are paid is trivial. I give him money for all the fundraisers they do........

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Grunt Ever work with kids? Spend a few days in a classroom and you will get a better idea of a good teachers worth.

Both my parents are retired teachers, so you can skip the lecture...............

Quote:

Don't forget these kids are your countries future so you get what you pay for. Based on their education they will be making decisions when you are retired. I would hope you would want an enlightened population deciding your future fate, and would not hesitate to pay for their education.

I take it you are a teacher. That was YOUR career choice, but it seems bitter to take issue if some of us don't think that teachers are underpaid........

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by militaryman The Gov. SHOULD be a gold standard for industry as to the direction industry should be providing for Health Care Benefits Annuity Pensions, and Leave. The government SHOULD have very attractive compensation in order to attract the BEST and Brightest.

So, you would like the govt to pay the same pay scale as private industry? If they did, the benefit package would change suibstantially, and you would start paying $400-$500 a month for health care, or more, and your pension would be gone. be careful what you wish for.......

Quote:

Who do you want doing your IRS audit? Do you want a low wage disgruntled public servant?

I don't think the IRS i already full, they don't need any more employees like you described above.........

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by militaryman The Gov. SHOULD be a gold standard for industry as to the direction industry should be providing for Health Care Benefits Annuity Pensions, and Leave. The government SHOULD have very attractive compensation in order to attract the BEST and Brightest.

The problem is defining the "gold standard." My feeling is that systems that result in golden handcuffs for senior employees that want to leave and barriers to entry for new employees that want to join are bad.

Example: A veteran teacher is burned out (and it shows in performance) but stays with the teaching gig because he/she has too much time invested to give up on getting the pension and retiree health benefits. At the same time, a middle aged math major in private industry is willing to take the classes to get a teaching certificate and very much wants to teach math in underserved areas can't do so. The starting pay is pathetically low and only made worthwhile by staying 25 or more years to qualify for a nice pension and retiree health benefits. End result = burned out teacher stays and new, highly qualified and motivated teacher can't make the career switch into teaching.

The world economy has changed. Locking folks into pension plans and health care that depend on longevity with one employer, private or public, is no longer the way to go. We need portable pension plans and national health care that is not linked to employers so that folks are free to change careers synching employee talent and desires with employer needs.

Gov't needs to provide flexible benefits, less dependent on longevity and which allow graceful career changes, as an example to all of how retirement funding and medical benefits should be handled for EVERYONE.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet The problem is defining the "gold standard." My feeling is that systems that result in golden handcuffs for senior employees that want to leave and barriers to entry for new employees that want to join are bad. Example: A veteran teacher is burned out (and it shows in performance) but stays with the teaching gig because he/she has too much time invested to give up on getting the pension and retiree health benefits. At the same time, a middle aged math major in private industry is willing to take the classes to get a teaching certificate and very much wants to teach math in underserved areas can't do so. The starting pay is pathetically low and only made worthwhile by staying 25 or more years to qualify for a nice pension and retiree health benefits. End result = burned out teacher stays and new, highly qualified and motivated teacher can't make the career switch into teaching. The world economy has changed. Locking folks into pension plans and health care that depend on longevity with one employer, private or public, is no longer the way to go. We need portable pension plans and national health care that is not linked to employers so that folks are free to change careers synching employee talent and desires with employer needs. Gov't needs to provide flexible benefits, less dependent on longevity and which allow graceful career changes, as an example to all of how retirement funding and medical benefits should be handled for EVERYONE.

Nice post, spot on. My parents never complained about anything related to teaching. They both went and got master's degrees to futher their education. Although they both paid their union dues for 30 years, they never boycotted anything or refused to work. The students who had my mom and dad were lucky to have people who cared so much.

One of the main reasons my mom quit teaching after she got tired of going into her own pocket to feed suburban kids breakfast..........

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude Nice post, spot on. My parents never complained about anything related to teaching. They both went and got master's degrees to futher their education. Although they both paid their union dues for 30 years, they never boycotted anything or refused to work. The students who had my mom and dad were lucky to have people who cared so much. One of the main reasons my mom quit teaching after she got tired of going into her own pocket to feed suburban kids breakfast..........

Lots of teachers, like your folks, don't get burned out and do a good job right up to the end..... But some do burn out and it's sad the comp system locks them in. Leaving before snagging the brass ring of full pension and retiree health benefits means they put in the years of low starting salary without waiting to collect the offsetting benefits.

Even sader is that the typical comp system in public education locks out older folks who want to make a career change into teaching. The MegaCorp I retired from has downsized significantly in the past few years. Being in a highly technical industry, this meant lots of quantitative orientated folks hitting the streets. I was aware of a number who checked out the possibility of going into teaching math or science by taking a year off to get a MAT but changed their minds. They discovered they didn't have time to put in enough years to collect the backend loaded benefits that make the low starting pay worthwhile.

[Bimmerbill]

Well, fed benefits are not that great (dental, vision are lousey). I am primarily working here for the pension. Still, my pension will be 25% of my salary at retirement, hardly stellar, but I'll take it.

If I retire at 56, I'll pay 5% per year under age 62 in early retirement penalties. Plus, my pension won't receive any COLA until age 62, and even then its COLA -1% (lite cola).

My brother works for Waste Management, and his benefits are much better. He doesn't get a pension tho.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goonie I certainly didn't do it to irritate or agitate or misconstrue anything. My apologies if that's the way it came across.

Okay, fair enough -- sorry if my knee jerked a little; it just felt like I was being quoted as someone on one "extreme" side of an issue that calls for reason and introspection.

Anyway, in the bulk of your post there I do agree to a point. It *would* be nice to bring all those lost "private sector" benefits back. But how do we do that in an era of cheap international competition and a lack of job security? The public sector often doesn't feel any competitive pressures so it doesn't have to *whack* people and benefits in order to pacify shareholders about the bad quarter they are about to post. The power to tax without competition is far greater than the power to raise prices in a competitive business environment.

I just don't see how we can make it be 1955 again in the private sector, no matter how much many of us would like to see it. That was largely an artificial post-WW2 construct when the other developed economies had their infrastructures trashed by war and the emerging markets hadn't begun to "emerge" yet in terms of industry. Unions are, at best, a partial answer, and in the extreme they could wind up killing a business that can't compete with cheap foreign competition. So even unions need to know when to back off -- at least in the private sector. (Public sector unions, on the other hand, seem to have no such check in many cases other than the potential for public backlash if they get too grabby, as they aren't going to cause their employer to go 'out of business' in a competitive market environment.)

I think the matter of CEO pay which has been brought up is an important *symbolic* issue, but in the end executive pay is often a drop in the bucket compared to all payroll expenses of a corporation.

[stoopwallace]

duh Stoop, read the thread before posting -- NYT train operators repost

[Canadian Grunt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude [/font][/color] Both my parents are retired teachers, so you can skip the lecture............... [color=black][font=Verdana] I take it you are a teacher. That was YOUR career choice, but it seems bitter to take issue if some of us don't think that teachers are underpaid........

actually, no...I was in the military and had the oportunity to explore some foreign lands where education wasn't readily available. You couldn't pay me to live in those places. You asked for someone to explain why they shoud get a decent wage so I did.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadian Grunt actually, no...I was in the military and had the oportunity to explore some foreign lands where education wasn't readily available. You couldn't pay me to live in those places. You asked for someone to explain why they shoud get a decent wage so I did.

Tough to compare "exotic lands" to the USA. Heck, a LOT of the world is emerging or still 3rd World.

All I was trying to say was there are reasons that the pay scale is very different between private and public sectors.......