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.
Now there's a scientific analysis. I guess we can take that to the bank.
I'll have to agree with you on this one. I have seen some people with rep points that way outnumber their posts who post nonsense and junk much of the time and if rep points really meant anything they should be posting sage advice like from King Solomon or David or other wise men/women of history. The fact is (and I don't think dman is one of them) there are "butt kissing clubs" on C-D where people get together and smooze about nothing but nonsense and have "star parties" repping each other to make sure their "little pals" have a lot of rep points and get stars. It's all crap and an abuse of the feedback system. Therefore I take the rep point thing on here with several grains of salt.
Considering you someone pointed out that DMAN71 and PDCNRET only post about cops and salary, I look at it this way and see Dman joined in August 2008 and has 690 rep points and pdcnret joined July 2007 and has 264 rep points.
This concludes more people on citydata agree with Dman72 and not Pcdnret that cops are overpaid.
Your analysis does not compute for three reasons:
1. Dman posts about more than police. I know, because I've repped him for several of those posts.
2. Rep from senior members with high rep, such as myself, is worth 5 points a pop.
3. Dman's rep is roughly 20% of his total number of posts. PD's rep is nearly 50% of his total number of posts. Therefore, PD has higher rep for his history than DMan. Granted, some of PD's rep comes from me, but still. If I didn't tell you that, you wouldn't know.
Which is all just a way of saying that you can't infer who makes a better argument about a particular topic by his or her rep points, or even percentage of rep to posts. Ye gods, if you could, I'd own most of the people in this subforum.
How about you give us the facts on why they are not paid too much?
The thing many posters on LI C-D have in common is "past negative interaction with high taxes on LI," not the police. It's the taxes, not the actual men and women in the police uniforms out there working for NCPD and SCPD. For example, do you think that any of us who are very vocal about high taxes look at the police drive by in their cruisers and think things like, "Gee I hope that $#^@#(*&% gets shot tonight." NO, never, God forbid!
Sorry, but there aren't any facts to support the claim that cops aren't paid too much. That, too, is an opinion. You can compare and contrast cops' salaries to other professions, to other cops across the region or the nation, or to whatever and draw conclusions about whether they're higher or lower -- and those will be the facts. Any other conclusions about whether they're too high, or too low, or justified or not are simply opinions.
As far as your second statement, that's exactly what the PBA is arguing in their PSA. It's their contention that it's not the individual income of the cops that's the issue -- it's the tax burden. Whether teachers make more or less than cops (or anyone else) is really immaterial. What matters most to the tax-paying public is how much it is costing for that service. And they know all too well that school taxes are significantly higher than taxes for other government services, including police.
Unfortunately, too many on these boards tend to sprinkle the high tax burden comments in and among their assertions that cops' jobs are easy, that cops don't do anything, that the requirements to be a cop don't justify the salaries, that there's no danger in their jobs, and on and on. Most, if not all, of these type statements are born of pure ignorance of what cops do and how they do it. Too many folks here are content to watch a few episodes of CSI or Law and Order and then figure that they know all there is to know about policing. Funny how I never felt compelled to tell an accountant how to do his job after reading a few issues of Money Magazine.
Sorry, but there aren't any facts to support the claim that cops aren't paid too much. That, too, is an opinion. You can compare and contrast cops' salaries to other professions, to other cops across the region or the nation, or to whatever and draw conclusions about whether they're higher or lower -- and those will be the facts. Any other conclusions about whether they're too high, or too low, or justified or not are simply opinions.
As far as your second statement, that's exactly what the PBA is arguing in their PSA. It's their contention that it's not the individual income of the cops that's the issue -- it's the tax burden. Whether teachers make more or less than cops (or anyone else) is really immaterial. What matters most to the tax-paying public is how much it is costing for that service. And they know all too well that school taxes are significantly higher than taxes for other government services, including police.
Unfortunately, too many on these boards tend to sprinkle the high tax burden comments in and among their assertions that cops' jobs are easy, that cops don't do anything, that the requirements to be a cop don't justify the salaries, that there's no danger in their jobs, and on and on. Most, if not all, of these type statements are born of pure ignorance of what cops do and how they do it. Too many folks here are content to watch a few episodes of CSI or Law and Order and then figure that they know all there is to know about policing. Funny how I never felt compelled to tell an accountant how to do his job after reading a few issues of Money Magazine.
There are very few college grads that make LI police type salaries. Police do in fact make more than teachers and that is most certainly a fact. If the PBA wants to state that teachers take up a higher percentage of taxes that is also a fact but meaningless relative to the argument of compensation levels.
I don't think a cops job is easy but at those compensation levels a large number of applicants certainly seem willing to take the risk. When the median police salary is $150K (OT/Holiday/Uniform) and a policeman can get to $108K in 8 years I think that is really beyond opinion.
There are very few college grads that make LI police type salaries. Police do in fact make more than teachers and that is most certainly a fact. If the PBA wants to state that teachers take up a higher percentage of taxes that is also a fact but meaningless relative to the argument of compensation levels.
I don't think a cops job is easy but at those compensation levels a large number of applicants certainly seem willing to take the risk. When the median police salary is $150K (OT/Holiday/Uniform) and a policeman can get to $108K in 8 years I think that is really beyond opinion.
So let me understand your post. It appears that you think that people with a college education should be paid more than cops -- a fairly elitist attitude. (You're probably not aware that the vast majority of cops on Long Island have college degrees. Which goes to my argument that too many on these forums have incomplete or inaccurate information regarding their police.) And you apparently don't care what the tax burden is -- you're bent out of shape over how much the individual cops are making. Why is that?
I'm not really sure what is really beyond opinion means. If you think that that the median police salary is too high, that is still your opinion...not a fact. And you are entitled to your opinion, just as everyone else is.
Using the logic the PBA expouses, we should not bother with a School district lawyer making 3 salaries and 2 pensions, because teachers salaries cost the taxpayer more than that one guy. Only a tad bit self serving.
By that logic we should pay teachers $10 an hour and give cops a raise..because hey, the schools are a higher percentage of your taxes.
I think any reasonable course of action should take the most egregious use of public funds into account in addition to the part that makes up the highest % of taxes. You could lower total comp for cops in Suffolk in Nassau by 20% and still have most if not all of the same people sigining up for the test and no issue filling spots.
Using the logic the PBA expouses, we should not bother with a School district lawyer making 3 salaries and 2 pensions, because teachers salaries cost the taxpayer more than that one guy. Only a tad bit self serving.
By that logic we should pay teachers $10 an hour and give cops a raise..because hey, the schools are a higher percentage of your taxes.
I think any reasonable course of action should take the most egregious use of public funds into account in addition to the part that makes up the highest % of taxes. You could lower total comp for cops in Suffolk in Nassau by 20% and still have most if not all of the same people sigining up for the test and no issue filling spots.
Opinions, opinions, opinions ...
And as for "...we should not bother with a School district lawyer making 3 salaries and 2 pensions." Most people already recognize that this situation is both illegal and unethical; and is therefore an inappropriate (and absurd) example for the point you were trying to make.
And as for "...we should not bother with a School district lawyer making 3 salaries and 2 pensions." Most people already recognize that this situation is both illegal and unethical; and is therefore an inappropriate (and absurd) example for the point you were trying to make.
Superintendant shouldn't be making 350K either.
But lowering that guys salary to 200K would only save each homeowner a few dollars, so why bother.
Because it's "inappropriate and absurd" that taxpayers are funding that kind of compensation level when you don't need to pay that much to get the job done.
But lowering that guys salary to 200K would only save each homeowner a few dollars, so why bother.
Because it's "inappropriate and absurd" that taxpayers are funding that kind of compensation level when you don't need to pay that much to get the job done.
And so it becomes apparent that it's not the tax burden that bothers you, it's the individual compensation.
I'm guessing that if we could lower the tax burden by half, yet increase the individual compensation of public employees by 25%, you still wouldn't be happy. Says a lot.
And so it becomes apparent that it's not the tax burden that bothers you, it's the individual compensation.
I'm guessing that if we could lower the tax burden by half, yet increase the individual compensation of public employees by 25%, you still wouldn't be happy. Says a lot.
It is the tax burden that bothers everyone, it's just funny that the guys who are basically second on the list of causes of high propety taxes..while being a very small group of very highly compensated individuals...think they can transfer all the blame on to someoone else. A pretty poorly thought out political maneuver on the PBA's part.
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.
Only a tad bit self serving. 
