colorado springs: fucked

[rockfist]

My brother and sister in law are teachers. You get more days off per year than any other profession. I have a ridiculously generous vacation package of five weeks, but it is not even close to theirs, granted you don't get to choose your days off, but you sure can plan around them. When you say you are underpaid, you might be, but surely this vacation is worth something.

You say "vacation", but the reality is that WHEN a teacher gets that time off, it is really UNPAID vacation. A teacher's 9-month salary is spread out over 12 months typically, so that they can have a consistent income (rather than being thoroughly without income over the summer). What isn't taken into account is that the good teachers work through the summer, as well, preparing lesson plans and taking courses (that they typically pay for out of pocket) that will make them better teachers, among other things.

I don't disagree with what you've wrote here. I am just saying that if I only worked nine months of the year at my job I would not get paid as much as someone who worked 12 months...but I don't even really have that option in my profession you either work 12 months or you are unemployed.

So what you're saying is that it's better to keep the sort of teacher who is willing to accept 9 months of pay per year than it is to actually attract high-quality teachers? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

No I am not saying that.

[PLAYER57832]

Fair Pay

People deserve to be paid what they are worth on the market. Nothing more, nothing less. A doctor is worth more than a bagger at a supermarket. It may suck, but it is what it is. If there were no taxes, companies would still pay less for certain employees than for others. That being typed, I do agree with what you've said before - that some people are overcompensated.

Shortened edit:
Doctors, attorneys, etc ought to be paid more than stock clerks. I don't see that as unfair at all. The problem is when you have people working hard at their jobs, working fulltime and not getting enough for the basics of life in this country. Even when it comes to CEO pay, its not the huge paychecks, per se that bother me. It is HOW they get those paychecks. Too often, the way to get wealth in this country is by cutting corners that hurt ALL of us.

This is absolutely true in the case of pollution. I realize it is no longer "the thing" to talk about effects of DDT and lead, but we actually got off relatively easy with them, "easy", though no gas company, no paint company, no one is really being held accountable for the medical care, the lost wages, etc from kids being exposed to lead.

That being typed, I do not think anyone deserves to be paid to have a decent house. The other stuff (food, clothing, transportation, medical care) I do agree with. While there are many people who do not make enough to afford these things, charities do help with this (as does free college educations, job training, etc.). To the extent people cannot afford these things, the government does help... and we all know that companies and individuals pay taxes.

I really cannot believe you, consumate Liberaterian that you say you are, is giving companies such a huge "pass" here. What you are saying is that companies can pay people low and make more profit because we taxpayers and some various charities are willing to step forward. REALLY?

Sorry, but I believe that is plain wrong. Profit is only profit AFTER you pay your suppliers and employees. The market can never be the judge of what is appropriate at the bottom end of wages, because there will ALWAYS be someone hard enough up to take whatever wages an employer offers. "The market" is OK with having kids weaving rugs in Bangledesh for meager rations. Granted, I am not suggesting US corporation are like that. Yet, setting aside the true idiots, look at how many employers are perfectly happy to hire illegal aliens or who simply justify it by saying that they "cannot afford" to do otherwise, or who are perfectly OK with cutting whatever other corners they can. AND, most of that does not happen to doctors and attorneys. The abuses happen more to fast food workers, laborers in non-union factories, stock clerks, etc. THEY have to put up with conditions most "executives" would be shocked about. I realize that housing prices are outrageous in some areas, but saying its OK for someone to pump gas for you, but then they have to live 100 miles away.. is just not right. Sorry, but its not.
(several people my dad spoke to in CA worked 2-3 jobs and faced 2 1/2 hour commutes .. that might be acceptable if you are an executive who wants to live in a fancy country estate, but when its someone simply trying to raise kids... we ALL suffer).

I understand that paying people more means the cost of goods go up. And sure, that was a very big reason why GM went under. However, let's look at the other side. Walmart gets to have cheap goods because it doesn't pay employees. We save when we buy products, but ultimately pay a lot more in taxes. Further, those employees don't have the disposable income that they should have and therefore are not able to buy more than most necessities. This doesn't hurt Walmart much, because that is precisely what they sell. Of course, that Walmart now undersells my small local market -- means that tax source for my town is soon going to leave, a major employer of kids and others who need the work is going away. Those wages were not much more than Walmart, but unlike Walmart, most of those people were not going to stay there. Kids who needed jobs to support themselves fully are trained and promoted in ways Walmart does not. My neighbor has been working for 15 years as a clerk.

When you add in the bit about shipping jobs overseas and plants overseas to avoid pollution limits, etc, then the question is whether ANYONE really and truly has the right to say a short term profit is really more important than the societal costs. Businesses too often are simply allowed to ignore those costs. Government's job is to control them.

[MeDeFe]

player, I'm actually not at all getting at what you're saying. Maybe tangentially, but certainly not in depth. You're doing an analysis of the situation as it is and arguing from there with a strong focus on societal effects. My discussion with tgd is focused on somewhat more theoretical aspects of the system as it could/should be, while we may include real-world examples we do not rely on them for our part.

So you basically say that the system sucks, fails to accurately determine what someone should get paid, and in some cases rewards people who lower the overall value of the system. And yet you defend it as the one that should be in use. You are weird.

Hmm... I have to think about that because you may be right. Although, in my defense, without government involvement, those CEOs who made a whole boatload of money and whose companies failed would be currently unemployed... which, we both would say would be the optimal situation.

In any event, even if we agree that productivity should be the measure of a salary, productivity will never alone measure salaries. It hasn't since the cavemen days and it won't in the future (unless Star Trek comes to pass).

Speaking of our discussion, tgd, have you thought more about it?

If those CEOs were now unemployed... I'm not sure they would care. They made, as you say, a whole boatload of money, and brought it to safety, they're set for life if they want. I'm not even convinced they would be unemployed, didn't several investment banks again pay out huge bonuses for '09 with the reasoning that they had to or the best and brightest heads in the business would go to other firms? The same best and brightest heads that had previously crashed the financial markets.

As for "not gonna happen", 200 years ago it was inconceivable that women would ever have the same (political and economic) rights as men. Today more than half the population of the world thinks that that's how things should be. Let's not be overly pessimistic about what's possible and what isn't.

But in any case, I already pointed out that productivity becomes very hard to measure as soon as a person isn't producing something that is tangible and somehow useful or has a directly measurable effect (such as software code that makes a process run more efficiently). Let's say the materials used for a painting cost 50$ and it was finished within 3 days, but the painting itself sold for 50,000$. So what is it worth, and what's the artist's worth? I don't think you can measure that by any definition of productivity.

[Phatscotty]

Abolish the department of education altogether. We did great in education for 150+ years without it, and MISERABLE educational results with it

[PLAYER57832]

player, I'm actually not at all getting at what you're saying. Maybe tangentially, but certainly not in depth. You're doing an analysis of the situation as it is and arguing from there with a strong focus on societal effects. My discussion with tgd is focused on somewhat more theoretical aspects of the system as it could/should be, while we may include real-world examples we do not rely on them for our part.

Yes, my answer was mostly to greekdog in response to my previous post. Sorry for the confusion. It was also too long.

What I meant when I said you got to part of it is that you talked about the fact that pay is not really based on production (of any kind) and further you mentioned wider societal effects.

[HapSmo19]

Yes, my answer was mostly to greekdog in response to my previous post... It was also too long.

as usual

[jay_a2j]

what the hell do the taxes they have already been paying go for???

Abortions, saving wild life, the fight against "global warming", and a number of other crap things that liberals promote.

[Woodruff]

what the hell do the taxes they have already been paying go for???

Abortions, saving wild life, the fight against "global warming", and a number of other crap things that liberals promote.

If saving wildlife and the fight against global warming are crap things to you, then I am beginning to see the depth of your insanity. As to abortions, liberals as a group do not "promote" them in any way. But don't let integrity get in your way.

[Phatscotty]

what the hell do the taxes they have already been paying go for???

Abortions, saving wild life, the fight against "global warming", and a number of other crap things that liberals promote.

If saving wildlife and the fight against global warming are crap things to you, then I am beginning to see the depth of your insanity. As to abortions, liberals as a group do not "promote" them in any way. But don't let integrity get in your way.

I want to see their budget. Does the author of the thread have the budget information so we can get a look at his concerns?

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, my answer was mostly to greekdog in response to my previous post... It was also too long.

as usual

Condensed version:
Paying taxes does not gaurantee you are really paying for the services you use. Politicians are pressured to give what everyone wants AND to make sure as few as possible have to pay for it. (at least as few people who "count" as possible). Those taking the worst hit are the upper middle to moderately upper income folks. The bottom most cannot pay more. The upper most refuse... and get whatever they wish.


Market forces cannot set bottom rung wages.. it is a race to the bottom and we all lose, even most of those at the top.

When short term ecomics are allowed to override long-term harm, it is a problem. All economics is short term when compared to our lives and our children's lives. Harm is also implied when we ship jobs to a country that definitely does not have our interest at heart with no or little caution. Sure a few people are getting wealthy, but look at the overall impact.

[thegreekdog]

Player... I think our arguments are based on philosophical differences as much as anything else. I also think we tend to agree with each other, although our solutions are perhaps different.

MeDeFe... I think the issue of making productivity the basis for salary (as opposed to something else) is best solved by something like communism. However, it is also arguable whether communism would truly work. From my limited classroom-type learning on the subject, it appears that communism, which presumably seeks to reward productivity (the worker being the most productive), ends up creating less productivity. I'm not sure how this particular phenomenon is solved, or whether it is actually true (or whether on the third hand, the reason communism has not worked is because it's never really been implemented). Companies that have paid CEOs salaries unrelated to performance have failed in the marketplace, clearly. They have been bailed out by taxpayers in some cases. In other cases, perhaps they will learn from their failures. In any event, a big hubbub was made about the Goldman Sachs CEO receiving a $9 million bonus in 2009, so we can add that fuel to the fire (assuming, of course, that Goldman Sachs did not do well).

[Phatscotty]

Player... I think our arguments are based on philosophical differences as much as anything else. I also think we tend to agree with each other, although our solutions are perhaps different.

MeDeFe... I think the issue of making productivity the basis for salary (as opposed to something else) is best solved by something like communism. However, it is also arguable whether communism would truly work. From my limited classroom-type learning on the subject, it appears that communism, which presumably seeks to reward productivity (the worker being the most productive), ends up creating less productivity. I'm not sure how this particular phenomenon is solved, or whether it is actually true (or whether on the third hand, the reason communism has not worked is because it's never really been implemented). Companies that have paid CEOs salaries unrelated to performance have failed in the marketplace, clearly. They have been bailed out by taxpayers in some cases. In other cases, perhaps they will learn from their failures. In any event, a big hubbub was made about the Goldman Sachs CEO receiving a $9 million bonus in 2009, so we can add that fuel to the fire (assuming, of course, that Goldman Sachs did not do well).

I'm taking issue with your bold. perhaps you would entertain reviewing that statement from a different angle. If, as is true, the bank ends up with all the houses in the end.....One might say the CEO was a genius....

It is my sturdy opinion the bankers and CEO's knew EXACTLY what they were doing

[MeDeFe]

MeDeFe... I think the issue of making productivity the basis for salary (as opposed to something else) is best solved by something like communism. However, it is also arguable whether communism would truly work. From my limited classroom-type learning on the subject, it appears that communism, which presumably seeks to reward productivity (the worker being the most productive), ends up creating less productivity. I'm not sure how this particular phenomenon is solved, or whether it is actually true (or whether on the third hand, the reason communism has not worked is because it's never really been implemented). Companies that have paid CEOs salaries unrelated to performance have failed in the marketplace, clearly. They have been bailed out by taxpayers in some cases. In other cases, perhaps they will learn from their failures. In any event, a big hubbub was made about the Goldman Sachs CEO receiving a $9 million bonus in 2009, so we can add that fuel to the fire (assuming, of course, that Goldman Sachs did not do well).

tgd, I've already stated that productivity is far too hard to measure in a variety of fields to be a reliable measure for what pay a person should receive, in any case, we still haven't defined productivity beyond the tentative "contributes to GDP".
I only brought up productivity in the first place because that would have been the obvious way out for you to take when I pointed out the circularity of "wage according to worth on the marketplace". You still have that circularity to deal with, and it seems we both agree that productivity in whatever form is not going to cut it on its own.

The ball's in your court, make a suggestion for how to deal with the circularity.

[PLAYER57832]

Player... I think our arguments are based on philosophical differences as much as anything else. I also think we tend to agree with each other, although our solutions are perhaps different.

It is a fundamental philosophical difference, yes. But also the fact that I am trained in Natural resources. Economics places no more importance on those mechanics than anything else, many economists don't even attempt to udnerstand resource sustainability (this is changing). They also tend to ignore that other countries operate fundamentally differently than us.

I think the issue of making productivity the basis for salary (as opposed to something else) is best solved by something like communism. However, it is also arguable whether communism would truly work.

I may be nitpicking, but communism is NOT a "productivity" based system. In communism, it is more or less assumed that everyone will work, due in part to non-economic reasons, and that all should therefore share equally. Those who work less have reasons for working less.

Our system is not either, but its not just the difficulty of assessing productivity that makes it impossible. Its also that many people value things outside strict pay. How do you place value on working in a nicer office? Or being able to take your lunch break in a park instead of a dull lunch room? .. Never mind your co-workers. Yet, in reality those types of things make a HUGE difference on whether someone likes their job, is satisfied or not.

This is one reason why I don't even try to really and truly argue that "plumbers are overpaid and teachers underpaid" or any such thing (even if it were true, which I am not sure it is). I DO say that the bottom rungs simply cannot be set by market forces. Those are set by what society will and will not accept for its population. The top rungs, similarly, tend to have blinders about the rest of the world and often need to be pushed to see the obligations they have to society. The new show "undercover boss" (or something like that) is a case in point.

[thegreekdog]

MeDeFe... I think the issue of making productivity the basis for salary (as opposed to something else) is best solved by something like communism. However, it is also arguable whether communism would truly work. From my limited classroom-type learning on the subject, it appears that communism, which presumably seeks to reward productivity (the worker being the most productive), ends up creating less productivity. I'm not sure how this particular phenomenon is solved, or whether it is actually true (or whether on the third hand, the reason communism has not worked is because it's never really been implemented). Companies that have paid CEOs salaries unrelated to performance have failed in the marketplace, clearly. They have been bailed out by taxpayers in some cases. In other cases, perhaps they will learn from their failures. In any event, a big hubbub was made about the Goldman Sachs CEO receiving a $9 million bonus in 2009, so we can add that fuel to the fire (assuming, of course, that Goldman Sachs did not do well).

tgd, I've already stated that productivity is far too hard to measure in a variety of fields to be a reliable measure for what pay a person should receive, in any case, we still haven't defined productivity beyond the tentative "contributes to GDP".
I only brought up productivity in the first place because that would have been the obvious way out for you to take when I pointed out the circularity of "wage according to worth on the marketplace". You still have that circularity to deal with, and it seems we both agree that productivity in whatever form is not going to cut it on its own.

The ball's in your court, make a suggestion for how to deal with the circularity.

I thought I was clear that I didn't have a suggestion for how to deal with the circularity.

[thegreekdog]

Let's see if I can sort of explain what I think are the deciding factors in salaries for various professions. I believe there are a combination of factors that go into why each profession is paid what they are paid. These are in no particular order.

(1) Tax attorney -

Pluses - experience (which will likely be in a lot of these), level of education, high number of hours, high amount of stress, value (in dollars) to clients, rarity of attorneys proficient in tax

Minuses - experience, level of education

(2) Insurance defense attorney -

Pluses - experience, level of education, high number of hours, high amount of stress, value (in dollars) to clients (lower than tax attorney)

Minuses - experience, level of eduction, probably the most common type of attorney

(3) Plumber

Pluses - hours, expertise, unions

Minuses - education

(4) Teacher

Pluses - experience, level of education, union

Minuses - public perception, lack of funds for salaries

(5) Professor

Pluses - experience, level of education, abundance of funds for salary

Minuses - none

(6) Soldier

Pluses - experience, education, risk

Minuses - education, lack of funds for salaries

In any event, take a look at these five very simplistic and likely incorrect analyses, and then take a look at the professions. My initial reaction is that society overvalues some professions over others because of the complexities of society (I know, tautological, but bear with me). Society values a professor or a tax attorney more than a teacher or soldier because of a number of issues, most of which have to do with how society operates... these are societal constructs. In other words, this is not something that can be torn down and rebuilt in a year. So, if the society as we knew it ended today, I'm fairly certain the highest valued commodity, in terms of an "employee," would be a soldier, not a tax attorney or professor.

That explains nothing, although when I started this post, I thought it would.

[PLAYER57832]

I like that you pointed out how jobs change value over time.

Still, even being simplistic, ignoring the other factors is the biggest problem. Many of those other factors are what really and truly determine if someone takes a job or not.


1. access. Almost anyone can find a military recruiter. Most people don't even know what an "actuary" is until they get to College and if you live in a big city you may have no idea of what is involved in "forestry".

2. Location. I hate cities. Fine to visit, but I would rather take a small salary and live where I can hike, have a garden, etc. Many people are the opposite.

3. Conditions-- Some of the above, but more so. I may enjoy working in an office with a river view more than I value a few extra dollars. Some people value a few less hours so they have more time for family. Others want the cash. ETC. You did mention "safety", but how that is percieved varies with individuals. I consider breathing smog a serious safety issue, but most people in cities don't really.

4. Benefits. Sure, medical insurance, but also other things like company picnics and parties, reduced tuition for kids, extra time off, flexible schedules, ability to work from home... etc. For some it may be as simple as a company that allows plants on your desk (or music, etc.) versus one that does not.

In truth, money often has far less to do with why people choose jobs than

[Snorri1234]

Let's see if I can sort of explain what I think are the deciding factors in salaries for various professions. I believe there are a combination of factors that go into why each profession is paid what they are paid. These are in no particular order.

(1) Tax attorney -

Pluses - experience (which will likely be in a lot of these), level of education, high number of hours, high amount of stress, value (in dollars) to clients, rarity of attorneys proficient in tax

Minuses - experience, level of education

(2) Insurance defense attorney -

Pluses - experience, level of education, high number of hours, high amount of stress, value (in dollars) to clients (lower than tax attorney)

Minuses - experience, level of eduction, probably the most common type of attorney

(3) Plumber

Pluses - hours, expertise, unions

Minuses - education

(4) Teacher

Pluses - experience, level of education, union

Minuses - public perception, lack of funds for salaries

(5) Professor

Pluses - experience, level of education, abundance of funds for salary

Minuses - none

(6) Soldier

Pluses - experience, education, risk

Minuses - education, lack of funds for salaries

Why aren't teacher or soldier getting high amounts of stress?

[thegreekdog]

Let's see if I can sort of explain what I think are the deciding factors in salaries for various professions. I believe there are a combination of factors that go into why each profession is paid what they are paid. These are in no particular order.

(1) Tax attorney -

Pluses - experience (which will likely be in a lot of these), level of education, high number of hours, high amount of stress, value (in dollars) to clients, rarity of attorneys proficient in tax

Minuses - experience, level of education

(2) Insurance defense attorney -

Pluses - experience, level of education, high number of hours, high amount of stress, value (in dollars) to clients (lower than tax attorney)

Minuses - experience, level of eduction, probably the most common type of attorney

(3) Plumber

Pluses - hours, expertise, unions

Minuses - education

(4) Teacher

Pluses - experience, level of education, union

Minuses - public perception, lack of funds for salaries

(5) Professor

Pluses - experience, level of education, abundance of funds for salary

Minuses - none

(6) Soldier

Pluses - experience, education, risk

Minuses - education, lack of funds for salaries

Why aren't teacher or soldier getting high amounts of stress?

Clearly it's because I think those aren't stressful jobs.

Alternatively, it could be because I forgot to include those things.

[Woodruff]

Why aren't teacher or soldier getting high amounts of stress?

Oh, thanks a lot. My stress levels went up just reading that!

[Phatscotty]

Maybe Colorado Springs is not Fucked?

Colorado Springs Tea Party?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOjhrtFwiBI