|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 29, 2010 11:23:52 GMT -5
the following quotes from U.S. Senate Candidate Scott Brown remind me why numbers and statistics are not necessarily any more hard-and-fast than social hypotheses. Apparently a sizeable section of the "American Public" (whatever that means) have fed into the below misconceptions to the point that they support freezing federal wages. Any thoughts? see the entire Washington Post article here voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/11/obama_announces_pay_freeze_for.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert: Obama announces 2-year pay freeze for federal workers By Ed O'Keefe, Perry Bacon and Joe Davidson Updated 1:15 p.m. ET Bowing to growing budget concerns and months of Republican political pressure on federal pay and benefits, President Obama today announced he would stop pay increases for most of the two million people who work for the federal government. The freeze applies to all Executive Branch workers -- including civilian employees of the Defense Department, but does not apply to military personnel, government contractors, postal workers, members of Congress, Congressional staffers, or federal court judges and workers. "Getting this deficit under control is going to require some broad sacrifices and that sacrifice must be shared by the employees of the federal government," Obama said in a speech Monday afternoon explaining the decision. He added, "I did not reach this decision easily, this is not a line item on a federal ledger, these are people's lives." The freeze would take effect on Jan. 1, pending Congressional approval by the end of this year. The 2012 pay freeze will be proposed as part of fiscal 2012 budget proposals to be unveiled early next year. The pay change will not impact bonuses for federal workers or when a federal worker is promoted to a new level of pay, meaning federal workers promoted in the next two years will receive a new level of pay, but not receive any additional annual raises. Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said she disagreed with Obama's decision. The union "is mindful of our nation's economic circumstances, but we are very disappointed with the White House's position and intend to explore all of our options, including working with Congress to overturn it," Kelley said. The union represents more than 150,000 federal employees nationwide. John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, blasted the announcement, calling it "a superficial, panicked reaction to the deficit commission report." "This pay freeze amounts to nothing more than political public relations," Gage said in a statement, suggesting government nurses, border patrol agents and other personnel are being unfairly targeted for Democratic election losses. The decision will save the government about $2 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011 and $28 billion over the next five years, the White House said. The long-term savings come from lowering the government's base compensation over the next two years. Obama made the announcement Monday because Tuesday is the deadline to set federal locality pay, or variations the government makes in pay and benefits based on geographic location, officials said. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), whose district is home to thousands of federal workers, said he was pleased Obama instituted only a two-year freeze instead of the three years proposed by the Bipartisan Deficit Commission. But Obama also should have cut pay for some military personnel, Hoyer said in a statement. "There has been parity between civilian and military pay raises for 22 of the past 28 years in which raises were authorized, and hundreds of thousands of federal civilian employees work alongside military employees in the Department of Defense and other agencies," Hoyer said, noting that the first American casualty in the Afghanistan conflict was a civilian CIA agent. Jeffrey Zients, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the freeze is "The first of many difficult steps ahead." "Clearly this is a difficult decision," Zients told reporters ahead of Obama's official announcement. "Federal employees are hard-working and dedicated and essential to delivering services to the American people. Today the president is clearly asking them to make a sacrifice." Obama has already frozen the salaries of top White House officials and top political appointees. But freezing the salaries of all civilian workers is a much bolder step that will result in a big economic hit to the Washington region, which is home to more than 600,000 federal workers and their families. Officials said the decision was not in response to Republican and fiscal conservative critics who have argued that federal employees are better paid than private sector counterparts. "This is in the context of difficult decisions that we need to make as part of deficit reduction," Zients said. In a statement, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), presumptive chairman of the House committee overseeing federal personnel issues, called Obama's decision "long overdue." He called on the president to institute other government spending cuts proposed in the GOP's campaign "Pledge to America". In addition to cuts outlined in the Pledge, Republican lawmakers have introduced several proposals to cut federal pay and benefits and curtail the size of the federal workforce, including cuts to the government payroll through attrition or firing federal workers who fail to pay taxes. During an October interview just weeks before the midterm elections, Obama signaled a willingness to consider pay and hiring freezes as a way to rein in government spending. The administration had examined pay levels, "and the data we get back indicates that high-skilled workers in government are slightly underpaid. Lower-skilled workers are slightly overpaid relative to the private sector," Obama said. "And that's not surprising," he added, "because it's a unionized workforce" in government, while the private sector typically is not. "Government should have to tighten its belt as well. We need to do it in an intelligent way," Obama said in October. "We need to make sure we do things smarter, rather than just lopping something off arbitrarily without having thought it through." |
|
|
|
Post by Cambist on Nov 29, 2010 12:19:03 GMT -5
Government workers, when you average in benefits and salaries, probably do make more than private workers.
Consider the difference in the two workforce employees:
1. Level of Education
2. Length of tenure
3. Specialized jobs
4. Level of Responsibility
I don't hear anyone complaining about the head Administrator of NASA only making $180,000 (or something like that). If he was in the private sector, he'd probably be making a few million, right?
Also, I want the most educated, least politically motivated public bureaucrats working on my behalf to insure that my food, water, pharmaceuticals, air transportation, etc...is safe and regulated.
The private sector has argued that Wall Street should be able to pay it's employees what it wants, even with federal bail out money, because it retains the talent.
Same argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 29, 2010 12:44:15 GMT -5
This is why numbers are almost meaningless to me. Apparently, raw figures show that Government employees make, on average, $80k while private employees make, on average $40k.
The government employee data includes the white collar workers, agency administrators, politicians, public officials, state university presidents and everyone whose salary is drawn on the US treasury. On the other hand, the $40k figure is derived from the entire gamut of private workers including the (literal) millions of minimum wage earners, self-employed entrepreneurs, seasonal employees and so on. It is also not clear from this slipshod research whether these figures control for part-time and full-time employment and for employees (like myself) who are employed in both sectors or who earn wages from multiple employers within the same sector. This "study" looking the way it does is nothing short of propaganda, IMO.
Here's some more numbers for your behind. There is not ONE government employee (with transferrable skills, education, etc.) who earns up to his potential were he in the private sector. Yeah, I might get guap in government...but it's not wall street guap or large firm guap. What is more, in HR terms, most people look at "government" as a one conglomeration with millions of employees, where your Fortune 5's are considered for the distinct organizations that they are. Comparing how much every worker in every one of the United States' 100+ independent agencies makes to how much every worker in, say, Google or Lucent, or Rubbermaid makes is comparing apples to stereo speakers.
|
|
|
|
Post by viciousq on Nov 29, 2010 15:12:05 GMT -5
You do realize that those government workers include the Military who is put in harms way on a daily basis. Why should their pay be frozen when inflation and the cost of living is not going down?
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 29, 2010 15:19:52 GMT -5
the Military isn't included in this freeze. However, civilians working for military agencies (including Defense) are affected. Imagine the morale shift when your coworker (perhaps subordinate)w/military experience gets his annual raise and you do not. Interestingly, this economy has a lot of professionals by the balls. I don't expect to see a mass exodus out of government as a result of this. Maybe certain very high level people may do more private contracting than usual...but then again, those are the folks who get so many kickbacks that they don't depend on raises and bonuses anyway.
To answer your 2nd question though, why should ANYBODY have their pay frozen when the cost of living is not going down? Think of the thousands of CIVILIAN employees who are daily put in harm's way. Intelligence folks, embassy folks, etc. This entire idea is really shameful.
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 29, 2010 21:16:28 GMT -5
"The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds."the full article www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-11-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm Freeze 'em. The other option is to cut jobs which we know the government has in gross excess, particularly at the upper ranks. The layers of staff are ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 30, 2010 9:39:58 GMT -5
The other option...is to leave hard working peoples' jobs alone and cut frivolous spending in other parts of government. The most resonant statement I've heard concerning this topic is that "lower paid private workers should not have to pay lavish government salaries." Excuse me, Federal Employees pay taxes too! And if the figures are to be believed, we pay more taxes than private workers. And on what planet are government salaries lavish?
As for 91's article, the professionals earning $150k+ in federal government are actually UNDER paid given the commensurate salaries of their counterparts in private industry. The government has actively recruited highly skilled people to take pay cuts by transitioning into public service. People don't wake up and start making that sort of money. They made much more when they worked for Fortune 5's. ALL of our taxes went to golden parachutes and bailouts for companies so that they could pay out executive bonuses to the tune of $65M, but the people who actually work to keep you safe...that's who you want to punish. I just hope at the end of this continuing budget resolution federal workers don't go on strike. Just 8 hours of a federal shut-down would ruin everyone's entire 2011.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 30, 2010 9:51:13 GMT -5
Let's crunch some more "numbers"
The USAtoday article notes that the Department of Defense has 994 civilian employees making $170k+. Assuming this is true, bear in mind that DOD has 700k civilian employees throughout the world. This number represents 1/100 % of their workforce. What percent of Time Warner's workforce makes the same amount?
It goes on to say that workers who have been in FedGov for 15-25 years have experienced salary hikes of 25%. Cost of living increases have only risen 9% since 2005, so to what do we attribute this increase in pay? (somebody hit a drumroll for me) Promotions! Yes. If a person works at Microsoft for 22 years, by what percent do you expect their pay to increase? The current propaganda is designed to make it appear that a government employee is just collecting progressively more money each year for performing the same job. Know what else? Even if the pay increases are frozen, folks will still transition in and out of government. Folks will still be promoted. And these fuzzy "numbers" will continue to be skewable.
I want very badly to ignore USAToday's last point about physicians thriving in government, but I won't on the off-chance that some of you don't see how ridiculous it is. The most a science professional (of any kind) can make in FedGov is $179,000. That amount is a pittance compared to the mere mid-range salary of recent-grad private practice physicians. Let's not even discuss the 15-25 year veterans of the field. Doctors who perform services in the nation's prisons (where security is notoriously deficient) don't deserve to make 60% of what their private practice colleagues make? How is that adding "sanity to Washington"?
|
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Nov 30, 2010 14:19:39 GMT -5
This is why numbers are almost meaningless to me. Apparently, raw figures show that Government employees make, on average, $80k while private employees make, on average $40k. The government employee data includes the white collar workers, agency administrators, politicians, public officials, state university presidents and everyone whose salary is drawn on the US treasury. On the other hand, the $40k figure is derived from the entire gamut of private workers including the (literal) millions of minimum wage earners, self-employed entrepreneurs, seasonal employees and so on. It is also not clear from this slipshod research whether these figures control for part-time and full-time employment and for employees (like myself) who are employed in both sectors or who earn wages from multiple employers within the same sector. This "study" looking the way it does is nothing short of propaganda, IMO. Here's some more numbers for your behind. There is not ONE government employee (with transferrable skills, education, etc.) who earns up to his potential were he in the private sector. Yeah, I might get guap in government...but it's not wall street guap or large firm guap. What is more, in HR terms, most people look at "government" as a one conglomeration with millions of employees, where your Fortune 5's are considered for the distinct organizations that they are. Comparing how much every worker in every one of the United States' 100+ independent agencies makes to how much every worker in, say, Google or Lucent, or Rubbermaid makes is comparing apples to stereo speakers. I see what you're saying with regards to private sector but are you arguing that many in the public sector, the directly tax funded, are NOT overpaid? Obama can influence government spend. He does not have authority to set CEO or executive salaries (except as tried with the bail out because again, that was directly taxpayer funded). And with regards to the USAToday article, we know it takes only a few highly compensated employees to offset many lower wage earners. I think the explosion of "overhead" is still a valid concern. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 30, 2010 14:57:08 GMT -5
It's not the amount of each salary paid, it's the amount of salaries they're paying. Discounting the benes (vacation, health care, job security), if anything costs us, it's the salaries of those people who are there only to support the untold layers of unnecessary management and unnecessary organizations and sub organizations and sub-sub organizations that support them.
The win-win situation is to say, "we'll freeze salaries" when in reality what they're saying is "we'll freeze salaries and avoid firing people we don't actually need". The salary levels in government really aren't outrageous (even if they have climbed substantially), what is outrageous is how many people we have on pay roll to do the jobs that they're doing. It is THE model of inefficiency. Anyone who has had any experience contracting with the government knows this... it is why contractors exist.
All that said, if any government workers feel undervalued, they can trade their job security and vacations for the higher risk higher reward private sector jobs. No one is forcing them to work for the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 30, 2010 15:00:23 GMT -5
It's not the amount of each salary paid, it's the amount of salaries they're paying. Discounting the benes (vacation, health care, job security), if anything costs us, it's the salaries of those people who are there only to support the untold layers of unnecessary management and unnecessary organizations and sub organizations and sub-sub organizations that support them.
The win-win situation is to say, "we'll freeze salaries" when in reality what they're saying is "we'll freeze salaries and avoid firing people we don't actually need". The salary levels in government really aren't outrageous (even if they have climbed substantially), what is outrageous is how many people we have on pay roll to do the jobs that they're doing. It is THE model of inefficiency. Anyone who has had any experience contracting with the government knows this... it is why contractors exist.
All that said, if any government workers feel undervalued, they can trade their job security and vacations for the higher risk higher reward private sector jobs. No one is forcing them to work for the government. except maybe the economy...I'm not aware of any private firms hiring at the rate of government agencies. "Trading in" one's federal job for an industry one is much more than a notion. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Nov 30, 2010 16:13:53 GMT -5
...are you arguing that many in the public sector, the directly tax funded, are NOT overpaid? Not at all. I'm arguing that: (1) the most overpaid government officials are NOT being affected by the freeze (2) the reasons being cited as support for the freeze are backed up by deceptive interpretations of workforce data designed to sway the public into having contempt for federal workers, where no such propaganda is necessary (c.f. the media-driven "welfare queen" archetype that fooled plenty of democrats into feeding into GOP slashing of essential benefits) If it were a matter of the President simply opting not to increase our wage (and perhaps even citing spending concerns), I'd have no problem. There's no need to paint your friendly neighborhood policy analyst (or prison doctor or ALJ or contract officer or janitor) as some fat cat looking to take food off the common man's table. I also don't appreciate the idea that federal employees should be honored to have our wages frozen as a show of solidarity to our brothers in the private sector. I live in America too. I pay taxes. My home has depreciated. My loans have been sold at higher interest rates. My belt has been plenty tightened already. What is more, apples-to-apples, my private sector brethren already make MUCH more than me. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Nov 30, 2010 17:48:24 GMT -5
It's not the amount of each salary paid, it's the amount of salaries they're paying. Discounting the benes (vacation, health care, job security), if anything costs us, it's the salaries of those people who are there only to support the untold layers of unnecessary management and unnecessary organizations and sub organizations and sub-sub organizations that support them.
The win-win situation is to say, "we'll freeze salaries" when in reality what they're saying is "we'll freeze salaries and avoid firing people we don't actually need". The salary levels in government really aren't outrageous (even if they have climbed substantially), what is outrageous is how many people we have on pay roll to do the jobs that they're doing. It is THE model of inefficiency. Anyone who has had any experience contracting with the government knows this... it is why contractors exist.
All that said, if any government workers feel undervalued, they can trade their job security and vacations for the higher risk higher reward private sector jobs. No one is forcing them to work for the government. except maybe the economy...I'm not aware of any private firms hiring at the rate of government agencies. "Trading in" one's federal job for an industry one is much more than a notion.
I would point out however, that the implication that government jobs are some 2nd tier consolation prize is not valid (i.e. I work for the government because there's nowhere else to work). For many people the government was the 1st prize, the 1st choice. For some it means job security, for some it means certain benefits. And for many (if not most) getting the government job was always a stepping stone; a way to get the experience and access to networks, that they will capitalize on later on in the private sector.
In the meantime they enjoy a robust holiday schedule, a host of benefits, and most have job security (even if they shouldn't). It seems odd that there should be empathy over a salary freeze, while we acknowledge the private sector is going through job cuts. There are few people who have had their jobs cut that wouldn't kill for one of those undervalued, salaray frozen, government jobs right now. |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 1, 2010 10:46:58 GMT -5
^^ agreed. As a government employee, I neither feel undervalued nor consoled. I wanted this job and I got it. I win. I get that. I also have no complaints concerning the government opting not to give us an automatic increase (to which we were not necessarily entitled in the first place). What is more, I don't want or need anyone's empathy on the subject. What I don't care for, however, is the derision in which my colleagues and I are being held. I'm annoyed at the demagoguery tactics that the political machine (incl. the media) is using to amass public support for this move and I'm appalled at how many "smart" people are letting them do it. Suddenly it's government employees' fault that the economy is a shambles? Do you believe for a second that this "freeze" is going to bring the economy right-side up? Are you wanting to see government employees suffer because you perceive that they haven't suffered to the same extent as private workers? Your allowing those liars to make you hate me is not going to bring your job back.
To illustrate, would people make the same argument about teachers' hiring freeze? i.e. I don't know what they're crying for. They get a robust holiday schedule, they get hired right out of college with no experience, they get summers off! I mean, where do they get off expecting sympathy? They should be thankful they're only getting freezes. The rest of us are out here experiencing cuts! If they're not happy, they should quit and go work at target! Of course they wouldn't. When we understand why, then we get to the bottom of my consternation.
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 1, 2010 13:43:33 GMT -5
^^ agreed. As a government employee, I neither feel undervalued nor consoled. I wanted this job and I got it. I win. I get that. I also have no complaints concerning the government opting not to give us an automatic increase (to which we were not necessarily entitled in the first place). What is more, I don't want or need anyone's empathy on the subject. What I don't care for, however, is the derision in which my colleagues and I are being held. I'm annoyed at the demagoguery tactics that the political machine (incl. the media) is using to amass public support for this move and I'm appalled at how many "smart" people are letting them do it. Suddenly it's government employees' fault that the economy is a shambles? Do you believe for a second that this "freeze" is going to bring the economy right-side up? Are you wanting to see government employees suffer because you perceive that they haven't suffered to the same extent as private workers? Your allowing those liars to make you hate me is not going to bring your job back. To illustrate, would people make the same argument about teachers' hiring freeze? i.e. I don't know what they're crying for. They get a robust holiday schedule, they get hired right out of college with no experience, they get summers off! I mean, where do they get off expecting sympathy? They should be thankful they're only getting freezes. The rest of us are out here experiencing cuts! If they're not happy, they should quit and go work at target! Of course they wouldn't. When we understand why, then we get to the bottom of my consternation.
www.jsonline.com/news/education/42716407.html
www.ajc.com/news/government-waste/ajc-special-school-central-533227.html
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20070813/ai_n19498710/
and have for years...
even when the economy was good...
In any event I agree with you that you aren't overpaid, you're overstaffed. So I wonder if we are arguing over "where to put the racing stripe on the Porsche" or is this really a substantive disagreement. If you acknowledge that there is waste, but it's proximal cause is inefficiency and not over payment, it seems akin to arguing, "hey we're embezzlers not thieves". It's true that one is not the other, but it's also true that either one is a problem and likely to draw animus that demands remedy. So I guess I'm asking what is the point? You just want to make sure you're criticized for the right crime? |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 1, 2010 14:01:21 GMT -5
The derision to which you feel yourself being subjected is an inherent component of your job. You are a de facto political topic whether you like it or not; any tax funded job, agency, bureau, program, or venture is. That is simply the nature of the beast. Your illlustration I think drives this point home the best. People complain about teachers ALL the time...
www.jsonline.com/news/education/42716407.html
www.ajc.com/news/government-waste/ajc-special-school-central-533227.html
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20070813/ai_n19498710/
and have for years...
even when the economy was good...
In any event I agree with you that you aren't overpaid, you're overstaffed. So I wonder if we are arguing over "where to put the racing stripe on the Porsche" or is this really a substantive disagreement. If you acknowledge that there is waste, but it's proximal cause is inefficiency and not over payment, it seems akin to arguing, "hey we're embezzlers not thieves". It's true that one is not the other, but it's also true that either one is a problem and likely to draw animus that demands remedy. So I guess I'm asking what is the point? You just want to make sure you're criticized for the right crime? I'll definitely take a look @ those articles when I have a chance. I actually drew my teacher analogy from conversations I've had with the "smart" people to whom I referred earlier. They are either supportive or indifferent of the deceptive data being spewed on this issue but consider the plight of teachers to be a different situation (again, the freeze itself is not the issue). I haven't ever heard a smart person decry teachers' complaints. However, I haven't been a professional that long and I haven't been consuming mainstream political media that long, so... As for the racing stripe issue, your point is very well taken. My concern is this: the government is committing a decent amount of waste with its intensely overstaffed model. This needs to be addressed. If they are going to address it, then address it. Don't do something almost unrelated to fixing the problem (i.e. making a big public display of freezing salaries saving a nearly negligible amount of money erstwhile demonizing innocent citizens) as though it were actually a remedy--and keep doing the very things that are contributing to the deficit. If the remedy is to cut jobs, and that's actually the best plan, then chop-chop. I have no problem with efficiency for the greater good. Let me clear my throat: even if MY own position is made redundant (word to DJ Kool). I have a problem with patently refusing to fix a problem with a fairly obvious solution and placing blame on the employees in order to garner support for the government's half-century long inertia. To your last point, incidentally, I don't think government WORKERS are guilty of any crime at all. They/we occupy positions that were made available by the United States. We're not wasting the taxpayers' money, the government is wasting the taxpayers' money. So I suppose instead of "criticize me for the right crime," I'm really saying "criticize the right person for the crime...and it ain't me." We didn't start the fire, but its been burnin since the world's been turnin (word to Billy Joel). |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 1, 2010 14:26:58 GMT -5
I'll definitely take a look @ those articles when I have a chance. I actually drew my teacher analogy from conversations I've had with the "smart" people to whom I referred earlier. They are either supportive or indifferent of the deceptive data being spewed on this issue but consider the plight of teachers to be a different situation (again, the freeze itself is not the issue). I haven't ever heard a smart person decry teachers' complaints. However, I haven't been a professional that long and I haven't been consuming mainstream political media that long, so...
...and no I'm not joking (sadly). Anyway the point of all this was to say that, IMO, when people have some skin in the game (i.e. paying taxes) they all become experts on what everyone else should be doing and seemingly NO enterprise is worthy of their tax dollars... (except the ones that benefit them)Academically, your position is sound. Realistically (read: Politically) it is a purely academic argument (shout out to Hall and Oates for saying "you're out of touch"). Let me grab something that you said:If they are going to address it, then address it. Don't do something almost unrelated to fixing the problem as though it were actually a remedy--and keep doing the very things that are contributing to the deficit.This statement encapsulates the ENTIRE argument surrounding Earmarks. They're contributory to the overall problem, but they're not the problem themselves. But "smart" people have decided that it is evil enough, and so it has become the cause de jure for Tea Baggers, meanwhile the main contributories to debt (wars, tax cuts, corporations dodging taxes) aren't even discussed. This is the nature of the beast. This is how it operates. Politicians and operatives keep people trained on the smoke hoping they don't see the fire. Like a moth to flame burned by the fire, my love is blind can't you see my desire? This really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about but there never really is a bad time to shout out Janet Jackson. To those who already hated the government and blame the gov't for their own personal predicament you're an accessory. You ought to feel like, somebody's watchhhhhhhhhing youuuuuuuuuuuuu (shout out to Rockwell)
#iTried |
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Dec 1, 2010 14:34:07 GMT -5
I just had to shout you out for going from DJ Kool to Billy Joel in one post. *nods head* Well done, grasshopper. #thatisall The derision to which you feel yourself being subjected is an inherent component of your job. You are a de facto political topic whether you like it or not; any tax funded job, agency, bureau, program, or venture is. That is simply the nature of the beast. Your illlustration I think drives this point home the best. People complain about teachers ALL the time...
www.jsonline.com/news/education/42716407.html
www.ajc.com/news/government-waste/ajc-special-school-central-533227.html
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_20070813/ai_n19498710/
and have for years...
even when the economy was good...
In any event I agree with you that you aren't overpaid, you're overstaffed. So I wonder if we are arguing over "where to put the racing stripe on the Porsche" or is this really a substantive disagreement. If you acknowledge that there is waste, but it's proximal cause is inefficiency and not over payment, it seems akin to arguing, "hey we're embezzlers not thieves". It's true that one is not the other, but it's also true that either one is a problem and likely to draw animus that demands remedy. So I guess I'm asking what is the point? You just want to make sure you're criticized for the right crime? I'll definitely take a look @ those articles when I have a chance. I actually drew my teacher analogy from conversations I've had with the "smart" people to whom I referred earlier. They are either supportive or indifferent of the deceptive data being spewed on this issue but consider the plight of teachers to be a different situation (again, the freeze itself is not the issue). I haven't ever heard a smart person decry teachers' complaints. However, I haven't been a professional that long and I haven't been consuming mainstream political media that long, so... As for the racing stripe issue, your point is very well taken. My concern is this: the government is committing a decent amount of waste with its intensely overstaffed model. This needs to be addressed. If they are going to address it, then address it. Don't do something almost unrelated to fixing the problem (i.e. making a big public display of freezing salaries saving a nearly negligible amount of money erstwhile demonizing innocent citizens) as though it were actually a remedy--and keep doing the very things that are contributing to the deficit. If the remedy is to cut jobs, and that's actually the best plan, then chop-chop. I have no problem with efficiency for the greater good. Let me clear my throat: even if MY own position is made redundant (word to DJ Kool). I have a problem with patently refusing to fix a problem with a fairly obvious solution and placing blame on the employees in order to garner support for the government's half-century long inertia. To your last point, incidentally, I don't think government WORKERS are guilty of any crime at all. They/we occupy positions that were made available by the United States. We're not wasting the taxpayers' money, the government is wasting the taxpayers' money. So I suppose instead of "criticize me for the right crime," I'm really saying "criticize the right person for the crime...and it ain't me." We didn't start the fire, but its been burnin since the world's been turnin (word to Billy Joel). |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 1, 2010 14:36:10 GMT -5
I just had to shout you out for going from DJ Kool to Billy Joel in one post. *nods head* Well done, grasshopper. #thatisall I'll definitely take a look @ those articles when I have a chance. I actually drew my teacher analogy from conversations I've had with the "smart" people to whom I referred earlier. They are either supportive or indifferent of the deceptive data being spewed on this issue but consider the plight of teachers to be a different situation (again, the freeze itself is not the issue). I haven't ever heard a smart person decry teachers' complaints. However, I haven't been a professional that long and I haven't been consuming mainstream political media that long, so... As for the racing stripe issue, your point is very well taken. My concern is this: the government is committing a decent amount of waste with its intensely overstaffed model. This needs to be addressed. If they are going to address it, then address it. Don't do something almost unrelated to fixing the problem (i.e. making a big public display of freezing salaries saving a nearly negligible amount of money erstwhile demonizing innocent citizens) as though it were actually a remedy--and keep doing the very things that are contributing to the deficit. If the remedy is to cut jobs, and that's actually the best plan, then chop-chop. I have no problem with efficiency for the greater good. Let me clear my throat: even if MY own position is made redundant (word to DJ Kool). I have a problem with patently refusing to fix a problem with a fairly obvious solution and placing blame on the employees in order to garner support for the government's half-century long inertia. To your last point, incidentally, I don't think government WORKERS are guilty of any crime at all. They/we occupy positions that were made available by the United States. We're not wasting the taxpayers' money, the government is wasting the taxpayers' money. So I suppose instead of "criticize me for the right crime," I'm really saying "criticize the right person for the crime...and it ain't me." We didn't start the fire, but its been burnin since the world's been turnin (word to Billy Joel).  |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 1, 2010 14:41:50 GMT -5
speaking of your Hall and Oates reference, I just wanted to throw out that I'm perhaps not out of touch so much as I'm not yet jaded by the system and still idealistic about the role I can play in changing it. You gonna take that away from me? Huh? Is you?
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 1, 2010 14:50:12 GMT -5
speaking of your Hall and Oates reference, I just wanted to throw out that I'm perhaps not out of touch so much as I'm not yet jaded by the system and still idealistic about the role I can play in changing it. You gonna take that away from me? Huh? Is you?
#itsAlliHad |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 1, 2010 14:53:51 GMT -5
that you failed to shout out Drake in "thank me...later" means that I have to rebuke that entire last post
#thanks4playing
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 1, 2010 14:56:04 GMT -5
That you would shout out Drake (as though that is something you meant to do) shows me that we're not really on the same page at all. I think we finished here.
#CheckPlease
|
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 1, 2010 15:21:16 GMT -5
That you would shout out Drake (as though that is something you meant to do) shows me that we're not really on the same page at all. I think we [are] finished here.
#CheckPlease It was established quite yesterday that until you get your syntax in check (and perhaps even thereafter), our pages will be nowhere near each other. |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 1, 2010 16:06:50 GMT -5
That you would shout out Drake (as though that is something you meant to do) shows me that we're not really on the same page at all. I think we [are] finished here.
#CheckPlease It was established quite yesterday that until you get your syntax in check (and perhaps even thereafter), our pages will be nowhere near each other. |
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Dec 1, 2010 17:09:07 GMT -5
Eh...not so much...they all kind of fall into the same/similar genres... But DJ Kool to Billy Joel?  c'mon son I just had to shout you out for going from DJ Kool to Billy Joel in one post. *nods head* Well done, grasshopper. #thatisall |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 1, 2010 17:13:01 GMT -5
I feel like you're siding with Leja just because...
... I'm not feeling the Coleman at all.  Eh...not so much...they all kind of fall into the same/similar genres... But DJ Kool to Billy Joel? c'mon son What about my use of Hall and Oates, Janet Jackson, and Rockwell in my response? Doesn't that deserve some recognition?
|
|
|
|
Post by QUIET As Kept on Dec 2, 2010 15:53:08 GMT -5
Now see...if I was being all #nocoleman I would have just said "get your musical weight up mr 'producer'...you need more relevant songs from different genres"...but instead I gave you the nice version. *walks off mumbling about ninjas always being ungrateful* (also, pls note the correct use of the hashtag above...ie, no capital letters #thatisall) I feel like you're siding with Leja just because...
... I'm not feeling the Coleman at all. Eh...not so much...they all kind of fall into the same/similar genres... But DJ Kool to Billy Joel? c'mon son |
|
|
|
Post by LejaOMG on Dec 2, 2010 16:02:28 GMT -5
#niiice #realniiice
|
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Dec 2, 2010 16:32:30 GMT -5
Now see...if I was being all #nocoleman I would have just said "get your musical weight up mr 'producer'...you need more relevant songs from different genres"...but instead I gave you the nice version. *walks off mumbling about ninjas always being ungrateful* (also, pls note the correct use of the hashtag above...ie, no capital letters #thatisall) I feel like you're siding with Leja just because...
... I'm not feeling the Coleman at all. |
|
c'mon son