[Robustus]

Originally Posted by quixotic59

Salaries in Investment Banking (with bonus)
Job Level Salary RangeTypical All-in Comp Prerequisite(degree/yrs experience)
First Year Analyst $90K - 150K$125K Bachelor's
Third Year Analyst $120K - 350K$165K Bachelor's
First Year Associate $150K - 250K$180K MBA
Third Year Associate $300 - 500K$350K MBA
Vice President $350K - 1MM$700K 3-6 years
Director / Principal $400K - 1.5MM$900K 5-10 years
Managing Director / Partner $500K - 20 MM$1.5 MM 7-10 years
Department head $800K - 70MM$3.5MM 10+ years

Right, public sector salaries are way out of line.

For comparison, in NYC a teacher must work at least 22 years and have at least a Master's degree plus 30 credits beyond to hit the top salary of $100,000.
In Las Vegas, the last time we checked top salary was in the neighborhood of $70,000 with similar requirements (Did have a bit of trouble deciphering the pay scales).

Also remember that many of the banking salaries were saved using TARP funds.

And how many people are employed in investment banking versus public sector employees? I agree that such pay is often egregious, but using an outlier field to make your general point is statistical poor form.

Also, please index your teacher argument to fully include benefits (including days/weeks/months off) and boil it all down to an hourly wage that compares with median private sector hourly.

[nevadaned]

If you help make a company a billion dollars a year, heck, I'd pay pay them $50 million. It's chicken feed! The government spends just a little bit ; ) more than they take in. Just a little difference there.

[quixotic59]

Originally Posted by Robustus

And how many people are employed in investment banking versus public sector employees? I agree that such pay is often egregious, but using an outlier field to make your general point is statistical poor form.

Also, please index your teacher argument to fully include benefits (including days/weeks/months off) and boil it all down to an hourly wage that compares with median private sector hourly.

In NYC, banking is far from an outlier, so therefore it is a statistically valid comparison. The number of employees has no significance when comparing individual's earnings. It would only matter if you were comparing aggregate costs. Also, if you are suggesting that the banking industry is being completely forthcoming in their numbers, I find that a tad naive.

Originally Posted by nevadaned

If you help make a company a billion dollars a year, heck, I'd pay pay them $50 million. It's chicken feed! The government spends just a little bit ; ) more than they take in. Just a little difference there.

SO you are saying that using unscrupulous means for profit is more worthy of compensation than public service such as teaching, policing, fire management, etc?

The problem with these comparisons is also that public service is not a for profit enterprise. People impose a double standard by saying market forces matter in private business but not in the public sector. An employee takes a job expecting to be compensated for their service, private or public. The contracts are negotiated beforehand, agreed to and legally binding. Contracts exist for a purpose.
It is the "manager's" responsibility to make sure contracts that are agreed upon can be met, not the employee's. As long as the employee provides the agreed upon service, they are compensated according to the agreement.
The current argument to violate public service contracts is like saying if you bought a car, but your income went down, you should be allowed to keep the car and pay a lower price for it.

[nevadaned]

Who said unscrupulous? Where are you reading?

[yellowsnow]

They make a LOT of money. There's no doubt many are overpaid and unless they have unbelievable bennies, I think that's a bit overvalued.

I think there are a lot of qualified people who would do these jobs for less. We are wasting a lot of money here.

Salaries need to be more in line with what the average worker makes. This is Las Vegas, not New York City. Or even Minneapolis. We just don't have jobs that pay a decent salary. I know many educated people scrambling for 10 or 12 dollars an hour.

In this economy, we could be getting a lot more for our money.

[SUPERCHIC]

Originally Posted by von949

You sound like a person that does not vote.

I don;t vote -

[SUPERCHIC]

Teachers are also underpaid

[Everdeen]

Originally Posted by Robustus

Also, please index your teacher argument to fully include benefits (including days/weeks/months off) and boil it all down to an hourly wage that compares with median private sector hourly.

First, teachers do not get paid beyond their contracted day. 7 hours 11 minutes times 186 days.


Then we also need to include all the extra time that teachers donate to their employer without compensation. I donate an extra 40% per week to my employer.

In addition, we need to include all the money that teachers spend on their students and their classroom.

One of the teachers at my school started the adoption process on one of her students that neglected. Should we factor in that?

[quixotic59]

Originally Posted by nevadaned

Who said unscrupulous? Where are you reading?

I said it. I know it's incovenient to address it. However, the term "honest living" exists to describe just that. The article today regarding Goldman Sachs just confirms what many of us suspected to be true but couldn't prove. Civil servants EARN their salaries by providing tangible services.

Originally Posted by Everdeen

First, teachers do not get paid beyond their contracted day. 7 hours 11 minutes times 186 days.


Then we also need to include all the extra time that teachers donate to their employer without compensation. I donate an extra 40% per week to my employer.

In addition, we need to include all the money that teachers spend on their students and their classroom.

One of the teachers at my school started the adoption process on one of her students that neglected. Should we factor in that?

Again, the truth is inconvenient. When the discussion regarding salaries is reduced to pure numbers it is easier to divert attention from the truth.
Sadly, myself included, teachers do not keep acccurate records of the time they put in on job related tasks outside of their normal business hours. Being, for the most part, untrained in business, many teachers do not realize we would do much better as private consultants. Imagine having to negotiate individually with every teacher in a city and having that many individual contracts. Also, it would give some individuals the power to negotiate even higher salaries. Everyone, due to their poor background in history, forgot that collective bargaining was implemented to protect taxpayers.
Also, everyone conveniently ignores the fact that we do not get "paid vacation" during the summer, our salaries are just paid out over the year. Actually, we wait to receive our pay all ssummer for work we did the other months of the year. How many people in private industry do that?
In the end, the discussion reduces to the personal level by the rallying cry, "my taxes pay your salary, so i have a say in what you make".
Actually, that say is done by using the process of voting for your "business managers" (politicians). Beyond that, no, the taxpayer has no say in how public servants are paid, just as they have no say in how high property taxes are, sales tax, water tax, parking tickets, tolls, etc.
But you can't argue with City Hall, so it's easier to insult honest hard working people, instead.

[quixotic59]

FYI:

Collective bargaining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia