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.
Are you planning on coming out of retirement to start a second career as a comedian?
Even private sector snark is second rate. Meanwhile, between two people doing the same or substantially the same work (despite one of them having some inflated Madison Avenue job title), the one in the private sector is very apt to be paid more while the one in the federal sector works at a discount. It's been this way for years and years.
As of last November, 152.4 million people were working in civilian jobs, and another 1.4 million were active duty military. But the population was very close to 325 million. That suggests that about 53% of us are dependents. People tend to be dependents for their first 20 years or so, then they work for 40 years or so, and then they go back to being dependents for a final 20 years or so if they are lucky. That's reality.
As of last November, 152.4 million people were working in civilian jobs
(of varying and far too often inadequate wage and benefit levels),
and another 1.4 million were active duty military.
But the population was very close to 325 million.
That suggests that (NO LESS THAN) 53% of us are dependents.
People tend to be dependents for their first 20 years or so, then they work for 40 years or so,
and then they go back to being dependents for a final 20 years or so if they are lucky.
That's reality.
Reality is also the mass of humanity who will be 'dependents' even while working at something.
These underemployed and their unemployed fellows are far too great a portion of the whole than ever before.
And there is NO practical way to solve the problem that won't be "challenging" to existing views,
Quote:
...the one in the private sector is very apt to be paid more
while the one in the (various governments) sector works at a discount.
It's been this way for years and years.
Because of what had always been a greater degree of job stability and other benefits.
That was the trade off and it largely worked out well.
Last edited by MrRational; 01-03-2017 at 07:31 AM..
Even private sector snark is second rate. Meanwhile, between two people doing the same or substantially the same work (despite one of them having some inflated Madison Avenue job title), the one in the private sector is very apt to be paid more while the one in the federal sector works at a discount. It's been this way for years and years.
In this latest post, you left out the part referring to private sector employees producing less.
Here was your previous quote:
"They make up some of the shortfall in their superior and much-envied long-term benefits, but the fact remains that private sector workers in the same jobs tend to be low bang-for-the-buck sinkholes, costing more and producing less than their public sector counterparts."
I think you will find many of us in the private sector find that comment about private sector employees producing less as comical. Perhaps you can provide us the data to back up that claim.
Even private sector snark is second rate. Meanwhile, between two people doing the same or substantially the same work (despite one of them having some inflated Madison Avenue job title), the one in the private sector is very apt to be paid more while the one in the federal sector works at a discount. It's been this way for years and years.
Except that it isn't true. Total compensation for federal paper pushers, including their gold-plated pensions & Cadillac health-care, vastly exceeds total compensation in the private sector.
Let's take the California Highway Patrol -- not exactly a think tank. Minimum requirements are a high school diploma or a GED.
The average retirement age for CHP officers is 54.
CHP officers who retired in 1999 or later collect pensions averaging $96,270, according to CalPERS data.
A 54 year old person without a pension who wanted to buy an annuity to generate the same income for life would have to pay more than $2.6 million, according to Fidelity Investments.
Is UBI (Universal Basic Income) Inevitable? (Basically welfare-for-all). Given that more and more jobs are being automated, fewer well-paying jobs will be available. Self-driving systems will undoubtedly replace most driving jobs; and manual labor of all kinds will drop off. Even many white-collar jobs are being outsourced or computerized.
Does that mean that eventually, only a handful of people will need to work (maintaining and designing the systems), while the majority of society is basically on a generous welfare package? Or do the rules of economics say that something else will happen?
It won't be generous welfare since it's all greedy private industries controlling the profits and keeping it for the rich, unless the masses rise up and get a government that helps us when there is not much work to do.
It's going to depend on whether technology lives up to its hype. In particular, if self driving cars ever work in real world situations.
That for me would be the huge tipping point. In something like 20 states, the most numerous job title is truck driver.
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.
