 
     |
| For A Better America (Page 2/10) |
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 20, 05:20 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fats:
Everyone working for the Federal Government in any aspect elected, or hired should be paid the average of what all non-Government workers in the country make (not in their field, everyone from ditch diggers to Doctors.)
NO.
Insurance for all of them from the top to the bottom should be Medicare/Medicaid (I never know which is which.)
YES.
Brad |
|
|
|
|
|
TK
|
JUN 20, 07:21 PM
|
|
|
Other than some of the analogies and metaphors being a stretch, I can't say I disagree with too much. None of the problems are insurmountable, they just have to take action. Therein lies the problem. How do we get a large group of people to actually sit down and take action.
|
|
|
motoracer838
|
JUN 20, 08:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Government exists to protect the rights of all people.
. |
|
Somebody needs to turn on the tv, or what have you been smoking???
Joe
|
|
|
|
Fats
|
JUN 20, 09:28 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally quoted by rinselberg:
NO.
|
|
Any reasons as to why you disagree or is this just a NO and run?
Brad
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JUN 20, 09:57 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fats:
Any reasons as to why you disagree or is this just a NO and run?
Brad |
|
Government employees should not receive privileges that put them above the private sector, but at the same time, no one should be penalized for choosing to work for a government agency instead of the private sector.
So I am on board with what you said about Medicare (and by logical extension, Obamacare). But it doesn't make any sense to me that a person who seeks employment from a government agency should have to consider some average salary (averaged from all trades and professions) instead of a competitive, market-determined salary that is appropriate for their individual skills and education, and proportioned to the particular responsibilities that they would be expected to discharge in their prospective position with the government. That would be penalizing a person for considering government instead of the private sector. It would also be without precedent---and completely impractical.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-20-2013).]
|
|
|
|
Fats
|
JUN 20, 10:14 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Government employees should not receive privileges that put them above the private sector, but at the same time, no one should be penalized for choosing to work for a government agency instead of the private sector.
So I am on board with what you said about Medicare (and by logical extension, Obamacare).
|
|
I don't think that is a logical extension since the "affordable healthcare act" (Obamacare) is not medical coverage, but an act.
| quote |
But it doesn't make any sense to me that a person who seeks employment from a government agency should have to consider some average salary (averaged from all trades and professions) instead of a competitive, market-determined salary that is appropriate for their individual skills and education, and proportioned to the particular responsibilities that they would be expected to discharge in their prospective position with the government. That would be penalizing a person for considering government instead of the private sector. It would also be unheard of and completely impractical.
|
|
Average doesn't penalize people. Average is better than half (on average) of America is doing at any given time. The better the economy does, the more workers would get paid. Every Government worker would have a legitimate reason to help a person get off of Welfare, teach students better so that they make more money, keep areas from degrading and losing money. It would basically be incentive to do better on a mass scale, and to get rid of the non-performers in the Government sector.
I forgot to add earlier, all Military personal should get 1.5 times the average non-Government workers income, and 2 times for Hazard pay.
Some things that used to be unheard of are common place today. I for one have no problem seeing a girl in a tight pair of jeans, 30 years ago seeing that would be unheard of. Today you don't see a girl without skin tight jeans. 
Brad
|
|
|
|
NoMoreRicers
|
JUN 20, 10:18 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Government employees should not receive privileges that put them above the private sector, but at the same time, no one should be penalized for choosing to work for a government agency instead of the private sector.
So I am on board with what you said about Medicare (and by logical extension, Obamacare). But it doesn't make any sense to me that a person who seeks employment from a government agency should have to consider some average salary (averaged from all trades and professions) instead of a competitive, market-determined salary that is appropriate for their individual skills and education, and proportioned to the particular responsibilities that they would be expected to discharge in their prospective position with the government. That would be penalizing a person for considering government instead of the private sector. It would also be without precedent---and completely impractical.
|
|
Government salaries are NOT market-determined. Tragedy of the Commons.
|
|
|
|
Fats
|
JUN 20, 10:36 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NoMoreRicers:
Government salaries are NOT market-determined. Tragedy of the Commons. |
|
I took it to mean that he thought that Government employee's salaries should be based on markets. Which could work, but the majority of Government workers don't really have other markets to base their pay on. For instance, what market matches a worker at the Social Security office? What market could we use to base the pay of a Congressman? Some Government jobs are like no other. Heck, teachers would even be difficult to do this to, since the vast majority of them are Government workers.
Brad
|
|
|
|
NoMoreRicers
|
JUN 20, 10:47 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Fats:
What market could we use to base the pay of a Congressman?
Brad |
|
There isn't one. Therefore it would be determined arbitrarily and probably very high. Whether it was the president that determined it or people voted on it, it's still the Tragedy of the Commons because they aren't paying the salary. Well maybe 2e-8 percent. Not enough to alter their decision.
EDIT: Fixed my horrible grammar.[This message has been edited by NoMoreRicers (edited 06-20-2013).]
|
|
|
|
Formula88
|
JUN 20, 11:28 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NoMoreRicers:
Government salaries are NOT market-determined. Tragedy of the Commons. |
|
They should be in line with private sector jobs because you want to be able to get qualified people to take the jobs. They shouldn't pay markedly more, or less, than a comparable private sector job, IMO.
(this is for Civil Service jobs that have a comparable private sector counterpart. Political jobs, such as Congress, are another matter.)[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-20-2013).]
|
|
|
|