Would you consider Boston the "most intellectual" city on the East Coast?! (salary, moving to)

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Private upside is larger because of profit motive, ie you can make more money if you're elite at your trade. There is no such thing as an elite fed employee. They cannot be objectively measured (how much to pay them, how well they perform, etc). Federal employees will take an upper middle class lifestyle with very few real responsibilities over the potential to get wildly rich and have to be constantly working to maybe (but probably not) keep it. The highest of the private workers drives the averages way up. So you are actually way off. That study, for the flaws you point out, also works the other way. It would also include Mark Zuckerberg's salary in that total. Surprised you missed that.

I already know you are a big government guy, so we don't need to get into that discussion. But you make it sound like federal employees are poor. Not true. Don't really have anything else to add though. So take this for what it's worth to ya!

I never said they are poor, they just are not very well compensated compared to their education, experience, and skill set. And of course there are elite government employees, see the engineers in NASA and many many of the biologists for the wide variety of scientific agencies, never mind lawyers, etc etc. Basically every professional category in government work has their share of elites.


I didn't miss things like Zuckerberg's salary, because we're talking medians, not means. If that Cato study looked to means and non medians, it's even less than useless. One offs here and there don't do much of anything to a median, which is the "average" that social studies use.


You obviously don't know people that work in government and give their lives to public service for the betterment of society, and you surely don't appreciate them. No one is getting rich, many work very long hours, and they don't get the bonuses or flexibility of private sector workers, and yes, they get measured in their jobs just like everyone else. Wildly rich government employees, that's a hoot.


It's hilarious to listen to the types that want to cut salaries for professional government employees, yet then they complain about the quality of government systems. Well, if you keep putting into pay grades and hurdles to deter the best and brightest from entering government service, of course you're going to hurt the quality of government services people receive. That's a conservative idiotic mindset, cut resources and then complain about results.

[Infinite_heights77]

To judge any city as intellectual just doesn't make sense.

Well, I concur with your sentiments metal, but we live in a society that judges, judges and is extremely "judgemental about the s*&t you attempting to pass judgment about! Smh! I fully understand what you're saying though, but I come across such individuals on a daily who share this thought-process.

Originally Posted by metalmancpa

To judge any city as intellectual just doesn't make sense. I've lived in Boston my entire life. I think the election showed (or at least reflected) that the educated liberal base resides in the bigger cities around the country. But is Boston intellectual? No more so than any other major city IMO. Just because a lot of great hospitals are in Boston doesn't make it the smartest place as an example.

[Infinite_heights77]

It's hilarious to listen to the types that want to cut salaries for professional government employees, yet then they complain about the quality of government systems.

*Hahahahahahahaha! Stunning truth to your words. This is a very interesting statement and potential topic that could breathe life unto its own.

Originally Posted by timberline742

I never said they are poor, they just are not very well compensated compared to their education, experience, and skill set. And of course there are elite government employees, see the engineers in NASA and many many of the biologists for the wide variety of scientific agencies, never mind lawyers, etc etc. Basically every professional category in government work has their share of elites.


I didn't miss things like Zuckerberg's salary, because we're talking medians, not means. If that Cato study looked to means and non medians, it's even less than useless. One offs here and there don't do much of anything to a median, which is the "average" that social studies use.


You obviously don't know people that work in government and give their lives to public service for the betterment of society, and you surely don't appreciate them. No one is getting rich, many work very long hours, and they don't get the bonuses or flexibility of private sector workers, and yes, they get measured in their jobs just like everyone else. Wildly rich government employees, that's a hoot.


It's hilarious to listen to the types that want to cut salaries for professional government employees, yet then they complain about the quality of government systems. Well, if you keep putting into pay grades and hurdles to deter the best and brightest from entering government service, of course you're going to hurt the quality of government services people receive. That's a conservative idiotic mindset, cut resources and then complain about results.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Disagreed utterly and completely on all accounts, especially the "low pay" part.

Here, from a "friendly" source: Federal Employees Earn 50% More Than The Private Workforce | HuffPost

Ridiculous this is being defended.

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

Private upside is larger because of profit motive, ie you can make more money if you're elite at your trade. There is no such thing as an elite fed employee. They cannot be objectively measured (how much to pay them, how well they perform, etc). Federal employees will take an upper middle class lifestyle with very few real responsibilities over the potential to get wildly rich and have to be constantly working to maybe (but probably not) keep it. The highest of the private workers drives the averages way up. So you are actually way off. That study, for the flaws you point out, also works the other way. It would also include Mark Zuckerberg's salary in that total. Surprised you missed that.

I already know you are a big government guy, so we don't need to get into that discussion. But you make it sound like federal employees are poor. Not true. Don't really have anything else to add though. So take this for what it's worth to ya!

Apples to apples I believe for comparable position, comparable education/experience and everything else; from what I last heard the private sector pays 30-50% more. The tradeoff is fewer benefits and stability.


What is this experience you have with the feds, where you were led to believe this about very few responsibilities and everything else you claim?

[chicagoliz]

Initially, I want to point out that "most educated" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "most intellectual."

I've lived in D.C., Philly, and Boston. I have spent lots of time in NYC. I know many people in all four cities.
The answer to the initial question is yes.

(Which does not mean that there aren't lots of intellectually curious, articulate and thoughtful people in the other cities. Even beyond those not mentioned.)

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Apples to apples I believe for comparable position, comparable education/experience and everything else; from what I last heard the private sector pays 30-50% more. The tradeoff is fewer benefits and stability.


What is this experience you have with the feds, where you were led to believe this about very few responsibilities and everything else you claim?

Turned down a fed gov job out of college. Went through all the interviews and everything. Very vague job details. Starting salary was 50k. Glad I didn't take the bait, even though moving to Boston and starting at 23k was the best I could do otherwise.

[Infinite_heights77]

Initially, I want to point out that "most educated" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "most intellectual."

*Great point!

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

Initially, I want to point out that "most educated" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "most intellectual."

I've lived in D.C., Philly, and Boston. I have spent lots of time in NYC. I know many people in all four cities.
The answer to the initial question is yes.

(Which does not mean that there aren't lots of intellectually curious, articulate and thoughtful people in the other cities. Even beyond those not mentioned.)

[Infinite_heights77]

I guess, Baltimore is questionable?!!! Lol!

Originally Posted by chicagoliz

Initially, I want to point out that "most educated" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "most intellectual."

I've lived in D.C., Philly, and Boston. I have spent lots of time in NYC. I know many people in all four cities.
The answer to the initial question is yes.

(Which does not mean that there aren't lots of intellectually curious, articulate and thoughtful people in the other cities. Even beyond those not mentioned.)

[bjimmy24]

Describing cities as "intellectual" is pretty wild. There aren't all that many individual people who are actually intellectual. Thus I think this whole thread is misplaced.

[9162]

I used to travel all over the country on business, and my experience has been, without a doubt, Boston has the most sophisticated population of any city, east or west coast.