Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... and earn a salary well under my 24 years of education, pay my taxes, etc.
Statistics show that is nonsense, that every recent study shows that public employees with benefits included, are earning more than their private sector counterparts.
The quit rate of government employees is miniscule, proof positive that they know they have a better deal than the rest of us in the private sector.
Quote:
How does that compare to the CEO sleaze listed upthread. They destroy the companies they work for, and gut the American economy in the process and earn obscene fortunes in the process.
I can choose not to purchase the products of companies overpaying their executives - but I AM forced to pay ever higher taxes to sustain public employee salaries.
Quote:
I have never met a government employee who does anything like that. Most work very hard for modest pay. I know hundreds of them, and they are pretty impressive in my agency at least.
And NYC has over 300,000 public employees in a city of 8 million people, an obscene amount, and we have all heard about how public employee pensions are bankrupting cities.
The camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California’s largest public-employee union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory,” she says matter-of-factly to the elected officials outside the shot. “Come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll get you out of office.’
The video has become a sensation among California taxpayer groups for its vivid depiction of the audacious power that public-sector unions wield in their state. The unions’ political triumphs have molded a California in which government workers thrive at the expense of a struggling private sector. The state’s public school teachers are the highest-paid in the nation. Its prison guards can easily earn six-figure salaries. State workers routinely retire at 55 with pensions higher than their base pay for most of their working life. Meanwhile, what was once the most prosperous state now suffers from an unemployment rate far steeper than the nation’s and a flood of firms and jobs escaping high taxes and stifling regulations. This toxic combination—high public-sector employee costs and sagging economic fortunes—has produced recurring budget crises in Sacramento and in virtually every municipality in the state.
How public employees became members of the elite class in a declining California offers a cautionary tale to the rest of the country, where the same process is happening in slower motion. The story starts half a century ago, when California public workers won bargaining rights and quickly learned how to elect their own bosses—that is, sympathetic politicians who would grant them outsize pay and benefits in exchange for their support. Over time, the unions have turned the state’s politics completely in their favor. The result: unaffordable benefits for civil servants; fiscal chaos in Sacramento and in cities and towns across the state; and angry taxpayers finally confronting the unionized masters of California’s unsustainable government."
looks like government workers don't want to be out in the cold workforce after all, even with all their talk about the improving job situation.
Notice none of the public employees ever threaten to quit their jobs - they simply demand more and more benefits and raises.
To a normal person, if the job environment you're working at sucks, you quit or open your own business - but when pressure starts mounting on the compensation and benefits of public workers, they never threaten to quit. They KNOW they are highly privileged elites in a better situation than their skills would entail, so they may scream all day at rallies - but never threaten to leave. They know what the reaction of us taxpayers would be: "GOOD RIDDANCE!"
Notice none of the public employees ever threaten to quit their jobs - they simply demand more and more benefits and raises.
To a normal person, if the job environment you're working at sucks, you quit or open your own business - but when pressure starts mounting on the compensation and benefits of public workers, they never threaten to quit. They KNOW they are highly privileged elites in a better situation than their skills would entail, so they may scream all day at rallies - but never threaten to leave. They know what the reaction of us taxpayers would be: "GOOD RIDDANCE!"
Isn't that what a private sector employer would say, as well?
If you were to cut 1 million**[see note] government jobs (and decrease taxes by that same amount) you would free up enough money in the private sector to create 2 million new jobs (enough for all the out of work government workers, plus enough jobs for another million unemployed).
I figure that government waste and inefficiency would account for 1.5 million. I add another 0.5 million to account for the high annual raises and high benefits of government employees.
Because the gov employees don't really generate tax revenue (it comes out of the government expense in paying them), their tax revenues are ZERO. However, all the new private sector jobs will be creating jobs from 2 million jobs. That means LOTS MORE tax revenue than was previously being created.
In other words you will have cut government expense and increased government revenue. No "safety net" programs will need to be cut. No one is affected in a negative way, with the exception of the government workers whose benefits are a little less. But in reality their benefits will probably increase due to a healthier private investment economy. How is that bad?
Does anyone agree or disagree with my figures? I admit it's a ballpark figure but I think it is fairly accurate.
EDIT **Note that this figure incorporates the "aggregate private" contract jobs which are actually paid by taxes.
Don't know much about government or contracting, do you?
Contracts generally COST MORE than government employees over time.
Might want to actually do some valid research before spewing off opinions as facts.
I'm in a class this week doing CBAs on contracts for government entities. Frequently, not always, the contract costs exceed the cost of in-house work.
You still require oversight of the contract, as well.
How about those millions (and I believe I head the word billions) of contract overruns and false billings just in the middle east.
Don't know much about government or contracting, do you?
Contracts generally COST MORE than government employees over time.
Might want to actually do some valid research before spewing off opinions as facts.
I'm in a class this week doing CBAs on contracts for government entities. Frequently, not always, the contract costs exceed the cost of in-house work.
You still require oversight of the contract, as well.
How about those millions (and I believe I head the word billions) of contract overruns and false billings just in the middle east.
Considering the amount of money we're throwing away over there what's a few million here and there?
[it's not like we need it here...LOL]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
