Why government workers are fairly paid

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The examples given discussed contracting functions to private enterprise and how much of a sacred cow defense spending is. I really didn't see any example of overpaid public workers. Indeed, most of what I have seen is how much private industry is firmly attached to the government teat.

Regards,

D-ray

Not to mention that most of the high tech weapons procurements are done on a cost-plus basis, a method that does not reward efficiency. In fact, the more you spend (i.e., the less efficient you are), the more you get paid (other than when the Government succeeds is disallowing costs, an exceedingly rare event).

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

The examples given discussed contracting functions to private enterprise and how much of a sacred cow defense spending is. I really didn't see any example of overpaid public workers. Indeed, most of what I have seen is how much private industry is firmly attached to the government teat.

Regards,

D-ray

Attached so well they look like a growth. I did a lot of consulting work with many of those Gummint Kontractors at one time. As a friend described what we do "We are Bullshit artists" and he was pretty well spot on. Basically we would write things up so that a sow's ear looked like a silk purse.

What was real fun were the pricing sessions - hoo boy.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Do you have data to back that up? I tend to doubt it. There are plenty of intelligent people with a strong sense of service. Think the service academies get the dregs. They produce government workers. Many schools of education are selective in their entrance requirements. There are plenty of wannabe cops working for private security companies, because the standards for getting into the academy are high.

I realize there are people that work just for a sense of service, but there are also many that just want the benefits of government employment. Given the monopoly that government has over their created functions, it is difficult to find comparisons with private enterprise. The Postal Service might be an apt comparison. Could the Postal Service exist without their mandated monopoly over mail?

If you want to believe that government services are superfluous, I can see why you would want part time or volunteer workers. I would rather have competent workers who bring credentials and develop experience and expertise in their jobs. Wouldn't you rather have an experienced food inspector, building inspector, fire marshall, law enforcement officer, air traffic controller, and yes, regulator?

"Experienced" also implies entrenched, complacent, and careerist inspired motivations. How does one eliminate a bureaucracy once it is created?

BTW, it's not valid to compare people who for wages with people who work for wages? Or it's not valid to compare the salaries of people whose companies trade in paper with the salaries who run a state-wide or nation-wide (actually world-wide) operation? It's not valid to point out that the compensation in the private sector is extremely top-heavy, particularly compared with the compensation of people who work for us?

Regards,

D-Ray

Unless one owns stock in a company why would one care what the CEO earns? The citizen has an interest in minimizing the cost of government because it has a direct monetary cost and it restricts liberty.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Perhaps you should volunteer your time? After all you are incompetent and grossly overcompensated, and I personally regard your occupation to be trivial and unnecessary, whatever it is. Am I correct in this assumption?


Dave

The difference is that if I'm incompetent and overcompensated, my clients would decline my services. Hence, I'd either need to lower my rates or increase my competence. In an entrenched government bureaucracy, there are no such limits. Mr. Bureaucrat gets his money regardless of his competence; moreover, since government holds a monopoly, there is no alternative for the service.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I realize there are people that work just for a sense of service, but there are also many that just want the benefits of government employment. Given the monopoly that government has over their created functions, it is difficult to find comparisons with private enterprise. The Postal Service might be an apt comparison. Could the Postal Service exist without their mandated monopoly over mail?

I'm not sure they have a "mandated monopoly over mail" (i.e., FedEx and UPS will take your $.44 letters for $10).

"Experienced" also implies entrenched, complacent, and careerist inspired motivations.

Experience to me implies capability. Is your own experience in your job a detriment to performance?

Unless one owns stock in a company why would one care what the CEO earns? The citizen has an interest in minimizing the cost of government because it has a direct monetary cost and it restricts liberty.

Keep in mind that most middle class (or higher) people are stockholders (often through mutual funds). In fact, over half of all American households own equities in some form. (http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_08_equity_owners.pdf )

If I were king, I would prefer that the CEO's of McDonalds, Walmart, etc. made less and their employees made more. This would lessen the need for public assistance for such people (a concern to everyone, including Republicans).

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I realize there are people that work just for a sense of service, but there are also many that just want the benefits of government employment. Given the monopoly that government has over their created functions, it is difficult to find comparisons with private enterprise. The Postal Service might be an apt comparison. Could the Postal Service exist without their mandated monopoly over mail?



"Experienced" also implies entrenched, complacent, and careerist inspired motivations. How does one eliminate a bureaucracy once it is created?



Unless one owns stock in a company why would one care what the CEO earns? The citizen has an interest in minimizing the cost of government because it has a direct monetary cost and it restricts liberty.

The postal service is also burdened with a hell of large payment it has to make to Washington. Priority Mail is as good as FedEx at less than half the price. Not only that with USPS I am notified when the mail is in, FedEx drops it on the front porch or by the garage door and runs.

And there are no entrenced people in private corporations, boy you must have worked at different companies than I have seen here.

No stock in the company but as my wife says (loudly) when she is picking up her prescriptions "Whose golden parachute am I paying for this time?"

Gotta run New Tricks is coming on.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

That is an excellent argument for shutting down Wall Street since they contribute nada, nothing, nowt.

"Meanwhile over at the casino" was a line in a complex analysis math text I used in college. Sandwiched between meteorology, protein folding, and the behavior of sub-atomic particles was stock market behavior. I'd argue that, like a lot of bureaucracies, Wall Street was once useful, but has become too complex and, dare I say, bureaucratic. There are too many people there that have a straw in the till.

[finnbow]

Here's an interesting counterpoint with regard to teachers' pay in which it argues that teachers are paid far too little.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Here's an interesting counterpoint with regard to teachers' pay in which it argues that teachers are paid far too little.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01eggers.html

Weren't teachers paid even less, say, fifty years ago? I think they did a better job then than they do today. We've been tossing money towards education for decades and yet have not seen a demonstrable increase in the end product, namely, student achievement. Is it lack of family? Lack of quality teachers? Or perhaps, just bad students? It seems, that despite all the obstacles that recent Southeast Asian immigrants endure, they quickly do well in school and move up the socio-economic scale.

The article, in advocating higher incomes for teacher in order to attract the more qualified, supports my previous assertion that government employs the less qualified.

I suspect a correlation between the changing cultural demographics and student achievement being more significant than teacher salaries and/or teaching abilities.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Weren't teachers paid even less, say, fifty years ago? I think they did a better job then than they do today. We've been tossing money towards education for decades and yet have not seen a demonstrable increase in the end product, namely, student achievement. Is it lack of family? Lack of quality teachers? Or perhaps, just bad students? It seems, that despite all the obstacles that recent Southeast Asian immigrants endure, they quickly do well in school and move up the socio-economic scale.

The article, in advocating higher incomes for teacher in order to attract the more qualified, supports my previous assertion that government employs the less qualified.

I suspect a correlation between the changing cultural demographics and student achievement being more significant than teacher salaries and/or teaching abilities.

You may be right in your first paragraph, but the bolded excerpt begs a question. Does the government employ the less qualified because they pay too little for the highly qualified to be interested? That seemed to be the crux of the author's argument.