Last night I was with a group of about 15 friends, and the topic came up of firemen's pay. One guy said a rookie fireman in Dallas (with a college degree) would start at $70K. (Don't know if that is accurate, but nobody said differently). He then added that it was not enough, and then the almost obligatory murmurs for policemen and teachers came in.
Being the weirdo that I am, I asked two questions:
1. How much should they get paid? Nobody had any idea of what they thought would be a fair wage for those jobs except "more than they're getting now? Just like "fair share", "fair wage" seems to be an undefinable amount. But you can still have your opinion.
2. Who should get less? The quick and universal answer here was "lawyers", althought there was no distinction bettween the different kinds of lawyers. No other occupation was offered
So what do you guys think are the answers for those questions? And why? Why not more - or less? Use $$ for your own area of the counrtry, as some places have much higher cost of livng than others.
Disclaimer: I have expressed no personal opinions above (other than weirdo, which I kind of like), so there is no need or basis to attack me.
I think congressmen and senators should get paid less. They decide their own raises...not their employers (us). I think they should get the median income for the country...free travel between their state/district and DC...and they should have genuinely nice dormatories built for them in the DC where they can live. If they choose to live elsewhere in the Capital, then they pay for it themselves (NO SUBSIDIES!).
Similarly for attorneys, I do believe they should be paid less, because they complicate the system and generate their own work. There is an inherent conflict of interest with them, since often delaying a settlement can mean more pay for them.
We need a simpler legal and tort system, so an average guy can navigate them.
70K for a fireman? Sounds pretty good to me. Frankly, fair pay is what the market bears.
Let your teacher friends see this article:
[quote]One of the ongoing controversies in the public schools is the issue of teacher salaries. Teachers largely claim they are too low while taxpayers are equally vehement that they are more than adequate. The arguments of both sides consist largely of rhetoric with a lack of specifics. Even teachers often don
Myself,
it has to depend on your local cost of living. 35000 dollars a year is fine in some places in Ohio. While in other areas you would be pressed to survive with that kind of pay. The avg. Firemen where I'm my area make about 35000 and teachers make 50000.
DT - interesting stuff on the teachers. I will show them. I know two teachers, one at each end of the spectrum - one retired, one just starting. Starting salaries here are $40K =/- $2K. The retired teacher was making inthe high 50's when she retired three years ago. I help both of them with their taxes, and I helped the retiree make her persion choices. The retiree's here can retire and then return to work full or part time and continue to get their retirement. My friend did this for two years, now works outside of teaching. Even though she makes less from her office job than she could teaching either full or part time, it is worth it to her to avoid the hassles with parents, kids, and especially administrators.
I think the retiree will have little quarrel with the article. Although it was a hassle, she did it for 35 years and will tell you she is better off financially for it. The rookie, OTOH, would like more money, because of two reasons: she wants it, and she could use it. Duh.
I guess we should define teachers for this discussion as those with 10 or more years experience. That would weed out those who are not committed to teaching as a career, I think. A lot of teachers leave after a few years for other careers. Money is a factor, but so also are work environments.
I'm pretty sure we will hear from a lot of people about teachers - just about everyone knows one or is related to one. I would really like to hear more about the firemen/policemen, and question #2.
DrTorch Wrote:I think congressmen and senators should get paid less.
I imagine we all agree on that.
Quote:Similarly for attorneys, I do believe they should be paid less, because they complicate the system and generate their own work. There is an inherent conflict of interest with them, since often delaying a settlement can mean more pay for them. We need a simpler legal and tort system, so an average guy can navigate them.
As OptimisticOwl mentioned, there are a bunch of different kinds of lawyers. I think your points have varying validity among them.
Quote:70K for a fireman? Sounds pretty good to me. Frankly, fair pay is what the market bears.
"What the market bears" is generally the case. Last I heard, there was a pretty long wait to get into Fire Academy here in Austin.
Remaining quotes are from the article, not DrTorch himself.
Quote:For example, one indication of the adequacy of salaries is the ability to attract applicants for jobs. Generally speaking, there are no shortages of potential teachers for most positions.
That may be true. However I think the theory is that higher pay would lead to better-qualified applicants who will stay longer.
Quote:Where shortages do exist, as is sometimes the case with math and science positions, it is the teachers, and their unions, that are to blame. They insist all teachers should be placed on the regular salary schedule without regard to competitive salaries elsewhere, where math and science majors can command higher salaries than, say, English and history majors.
Interesting point.
Quote:there were districts, in Westchester County for example, where half of the teachers earned more than $98,000 a year.
Anecdotal evidence. I suspect that living costs there are very high, and that they're not the ones clamoring for higher pay.
Quote:First prize went to Pennsylvania where the teachers received 62.5 percent more than the average employee.
Again the author conveniently emphasizes the maximum case.
[quote]The average teacher
Gravy Owl Wrote:[quote="DrTorch"]I think congressmen and senators should get paid less.
I imagine we all agree on that.
Quote:Similarly for attorneys, I do believe they should be paid less, because they complicate the system and generate their own work. There is an inherent conflict of interest with them, since often delaying a settlement can mean more pay for them. We need a simpler legal and tort system, so an average guy can navigate them.
As OptimisticOwl mentioned, there are a bunch of different kinds of lawyers. I think your points have varying validity among them.
Quote:70K for a fireman? Sounds pretty good to me. Frankly, fair pay is what the market bears.
"What the market bears" is generally the case. Last I heard, there was a pretty long wait to get into Fire Academy here in Austin.
Remaining quotes are from the article, not DrTorch himself.
Quote:For example, one indication of the adequacy of salaries is the ability to attract applicants for jobs. Generally speaking, there are no shortages of potential teachers for most positions.
That may be true. However I think the theory is that higher pay would lead to better-qualified applicants who will stay longer.
Quote:Where shortages do exist, as is sometimes the case with math and science positions, it is the teachers, and their unions, that are to blame. They insist all teachers should be placed on the regular salary schedule without regard to competitive salaries elsewhere, where math and science majors can command higher salaries than, say, English and history majors.
Interesting point.
Quote:there were districts, in Westchester County for example, where half of the teachers earned more than $98,000 a year.
Anecdotal evidence. I suspect that living costs there are very high, and that they're not the ones clamoring for higher pay.
Quote:First prize went to Pennsylvania where the teachers received 62.5 percent more than the average employee.
Again the author conveniently emphasizes the maximum case.
[quote]The average teacher
OptimisticOwl Wrote:I don't know that higher pay will neccesarily lead to better qualified teachers.
True, and I was careful to say "in theory."
Quote:As a corporate executive, I kind of resent being told I should make less... But i suspect you are casting too wide of a net. It is not the owner-operators you want, it is the salaried executives of the giant publicly traded companies... So be more definitive in your choice of "corporate executives". Just as every lawyer isn't overpaid and underworked, neither is every corporate exec - even most of the ones you really mean. But sure, some of those guys in charge at giant businesses make a heck of lot, and some of them seem way out of line to me.
Well I certainly didn't say that all executives are overpaid, just as you didn't say all lawyers are (just to be clear, I am neither). The unfathomable compensations are, I think, limited to the huge corporations. These are the guys that can give themselves million-dollar bonuses for putting thousands of people whom they've never met out of work. But even in my limited experience, I've worked for one at a small company whose sole goal was to have his ego stroked. If someone does more harm than good to the company, then even minimum wage would be overpayment.
In case that sounds too negative, I've also worked for (including currently) others who are much better. And some of the big-name people deserve what they make. For instance, although I despise what Microsoft has done to the industry, and he's wildly overrated as a technical thinker, Bill Gates was clearly brilliant as a businessman.
Quote:If competence increases with salary, as you suggest is the theoretical case for teachers...
Like I said, in theory. If that were always true in practice, then there would be no such thing as "overpaid."
I guess I am in the minority but I think Congressional pay sucks. It definitely does not attract too many people for the paycheck but more so for the power.
I will say they have one hell of a retirement and pension program that somewhat makes up for the poor pay.
Everyone who lost in their election this week is probably looking at instantly getting a pay raise so don't feel too bad for them. Most will go to work for lobbyist or special interest groups paying well over what they received while working for congress.
Gravy Owl Wrote:That also reminds me: I'll answer "corporate executives" to OptimisticOwl's question #2. It seems more about nepotism and cronyism than most, and the golden parachutes for failures are really sickening.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:As a corporate executive, I kind of resent being told I should make less. After all, I started or bought all my companies, I am 100% responsibile for every penny of debt of all them together, and I feel I earn every penny. In good times, I make a bunch, in bad times, I work for nothing.
Without me, dozens of people would need to find another job.
But i suspect you are casting too wide of a net. It is not the owner-operators you want, it is the salaried executives of the giant publicly traded companies - the Tycos and Enrons, not the little businesses with less than 20 employees as most of my businesses are/were.
I understand what you're saying Gravy Owl, and I kind of agree, but Optimistic Owl points out the challenge with this generalization.
Should the guy from XOM get a $400M retirement package? I've said before, any buffoon could have made money for XOM during his years. And wouldn't $100M have been pretty good? (And say put $300M toward research of alternative fuels?)
But, I don't resent the money that a Bill Gates makes. He was an entrepreneur...he took risks, and made good decisions. Even if his company is public now, Gates deserves to be rich.
In between would be a guy like Jack Welch...who drove an established company to greatness.
Even worse, I don't know how you distinguish among all of them in order to establish "legal" compensaton packages.
There is an interesting article in Fast Company, about the CEO from Whole Foods. I find it interesting how much he gets away with, that would label him as a "heartless conservative/Republican" if he wasn't so involved w/ more liberal politics/religiousity. One thing to note is that while he caps his salary at a pretty respectable limit...he has recoginized that it's "fair" that he RAISE that cap w/ the success of the company.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/84/wholefoods.html
DrTorch Wrote:There is an interesting article in Fast Company, about the CEO from Whole Foods. I find it interesting how much he gets away with, that would label him as a "heartless conservative/Republican" if he wasn't so involved w/ more liberal politics/religiousity.
I don't see the "heartless" angle, but that was an interesting article.
Gravy Owl Wrote:DrTorch Wrote:There is an interesting article in Fast Company, about the CEO from Whole Foods. I find it interesting how much he gets away with, that would label him as a "heartless conservative/Republican" if he wasn't so involved w/ more liberal politics/religiousity.
I don't see the "heartless" angle, but that was an interesting article.
"heartless" is just part the stereotype that some people use/buyinto when referring to conservatives or Republicans.
See also "mean-spiritied", "caring only for themselves (or alternatively, for profit), haters - and so forth.
Try using the term "compassionate conservative" around some people and see their reaction.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:"heartless" is just part the stereotype that some people use/buyinto when referring to conservatives or Republicans.
The way I read DrTorch's comment was that some of Mackey's actions as CEO might get him labelled as heartless. I didn't see any such actions. On the contrary, what struck me about the article was the apparent loyalty he had engendered among employees.
I also didn't see any indication of his political leaning except for animal rights. That's definitely a left-wing issue, but AFAICT he advocates a knowledge-and-market approach rather than government regulation.
I guess it can be read either way. I am used to "heartless conservative" being one phrase, kind of like "pesky Owls".
Gravy Owl Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:"heartless" is just part the stereotype that some people use/buyinto when referring to conservatives or Republicans.
The way I read DrTorch's comment was that some of Mackey's actions as CEO might get him labelled as heartless. I didn't see any such actions.
I didn't re-read this so I'm going from memory, but two stand out:
1. The hiring/dismissal of employees based on peer acceptance/review.
2. Not locating any Whole Foods grocery stores in inner-cities/poor neighborhoods.
Either of those draw ire from activists.
And I am going beyond the article for Whole Foods staking claim to areas typically ascribed to the political left.