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.
This is unusual. In most states the highest paid government employee is the head coach of the state university's football or basketball team. I'm not saying this woman isn't overpaid, but at least she provides a public service for her pay.
Not when she's retired. So she deserves this huge salary because of the work she does, but deserves the same salary because of the work she doesn't do? Doesn't make sense....
Well, every conservative on this thread ignored my point. I'm sure it afforded you much entertainment.
For the record, I believe this is an incredibly bloated salary and I'd be screaming loud and long along with every other taxpayer if I lived there.
That said ...
I still haven't seen anyone explain to me this:
It's OK that in private enterprise, every CEO, no matter how inept and no matter how badly the company is doing, is somehow still worthy of an obscene salary. It's a tough job, not everyone can do it, etc. etc. This is the position I've seen explained over and over here on C-D.
And at the same time, this public enterprise CEO is not worthy of a huge salary even though it's a tough job, not everyone can do it, etc. etc.
Please refrain from restating the obvious about who's paying the tab. I'm asking why it's OK in principle for one and not the other.
And no, I'm not saying that this public employee should have that kind of money. I'm actually saying that most CEOs don't deserve it either, in principal.
I didn't realize it would be that hard to understand my amusement and my question.
It's OK that in private enterprise, every CEO, no matter how inept and no matter how badly the company is doing, is somehow still worthy of an obscene salary. It's a tough job, not everyone can do it, etc. etc. This is the position I've seen explained over and over here on C-D.
And at the same time, this public enterprise CEO is not worthy of a huge salary even though it's a tough job, not everyone can do it, etc. etc.
Please refrain from restating the obvious about who's paying the tab. I'm asking why it's OK in principle for one and not the other.
Who's paying the tab IS what makes it OK in principle for one and not the other. Duh.
Who's paying the tab IS what makes it OK in principle for one and not the other. Duh.
Consumers and taxpayers do cross.
Whether I am paying redicuolous bank fees that were born out of CEO collusion or an overpaid Government administrator its still money oput of my pocket which I am getting very small ROI.
Whether I am paying redicuolous bank fees that were born out of CEO collusion or an overpaid Government administrator its still money oput of my pocket which I am getting very small ROI.
And yes I undertsand taxes are forced upon us.
Customers don't dictate CEO pay, shareholders do that.
You understand taxes are forced upon us, ok, but you don't seem to understand that bank fees are not.
Whether I am paying redicuolous bank fees that were born out of CEO collusion or an overpaid Government administrator its still money oput of my pocket which I am getting very small ROI.
And yes I undertsand taxes are forced upon us.
Regarding the bank fees though you are free to move your money somewhere else and not pay the fees.
With the overpaid government official, you have no choice in the matter and have to pay regardless.
With private industry you have a choice to pay the money or not.
With government you have no choice..you pay whether you like it or not.
Don't like those bank fees..then move your money to a credit union.
Don't like that government official's pension..you'd have to move because as long as you lived there you have no choice but to pay it.
Who's paying the tab IS what makes it OK in principle for one and not the other. Duh.
No, duh.
That's a matter of expense and taxpayer preference. Not a principle. But I understand that most righties want to have things both ways, most of the time. [Fill in the blank] is OK for some, but not for others.
That's a matter of expense and taxpayer preference. Not a principle. But I understand that most righties want to have things both ways, most of the time. [Fill in the blank] is OK for some, but not for others.
Still stumbling and bumbling around trying to make a point that honestly doesn't exist.
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.
