4 ms·

It's hard for me to get bent out of shape about salaries for public employees. Most of them do shit work, at shit pay, for many years -- and if a few of them ac

It's hard for me to get bent out of shape about salaries for public employees. Most of them do shit work, at shit pay, for many years -- and if a few of them accrue enough overtime and holiday pay to make very good money in their last few years of employment, and therefore secure a good pension, then I'm not about to argue it should be taken away from them. Lord knows that if you broke down the budget of NYC (~ $85 billion annually) what these guys are making probably barely puts a dent in it. In general, I hate this crabs-in-a-bucket mentality to how we fund (or don't) public services and the social safety net. Every teacher, police officer, paramedic, and sanitation worker -- the people who keep society functional and healthy -- should be getting this kind of money! And if you look at it jealously because your private-sector job (perhaps as a NY Post hack?) would never get you nearly that much, then maybe you, too, should unionize and agitate for better pay. I mean, you should probably do that anyway, regardless of what teachers and cops get paid, but that's for another thread. If it costs the government more money to pay these salaries, with increased taxes to go along with that, then I'm fine with that. These services are available to anyone and everyone, for everyone's benefit. This (from my experience, especially but not only American) need to moan and complain about every dollar of tax paid, or (if you're rich enough) pay accountants and lawyers enormous sums so you don't have to pay any taxes at all -- is, frankly, unethical and contributes to the ongoing breakdown of American civil society that I have been watching for my entire life.

mac01021 9y ago
Don't you think, though, that there are probably hundreds of people who would be eagerly lining up to do that job for half the price? It's not clear how many of those are as qualified as the guys discussed in the article but, if there are any, isn't it the job of your town to get you the best deal it can when hiring a police force?
- gambiting 9y ago
  This could lead to an opposite problem - where I am from(Poland) police bribery is still an issue despite years of fighting against it, and I have no doubts one of the main reasons for it is the low pay of policemen. Someone with 10 years of experience in the force takes home about $800/month. So if they are offered $200 to forgive a fine, that's like a week-worth of money for doing less work.
  - mac01021 9y ago
    What would you guess is the median monthly income there, counting people of all professions?
    - quuquuquu 9y ago
      Median net worth (not net income, and not average) in Poland in 2016 was $9,484 USD. So, assuming a cop is at the 50th percentile of society, a $200 bribe would be 2% of his life savings.
- _petronius 9y ago
  No, I don't think it's anyone's job to simply "get the best deal", at least not from an ideal-social standpoint. I think employers (whether government or not) should adequately compensate their employees. And I think employees get a much fairer shake in negotiating that compensation when they have the backing of a union. What is "adequate" I can't say, but without knowing more I'm not prepared to simply swallow the line that $400k is somehow totally outrageous. A lot of less useful people make a lot more money for a lot less work and personal risk. Anyway, $400k was only the last year of salary this guy made. The article is suspiciously quiet about what his compensation was over the course of his whole career.
geebee 9y ago
The base salary mentioned here, 151k a year, doesn't bother me at all. I'm a little alarmed that enough overtime is available to make $156k more (do we have a bleary, edgy, sleep deprived guy with a badge and gun going into tense situations?). It doesn't bug me that cashing in unused vacation time can push this number up, as a one time deal. What does bug me is the line: "The salary cops make in their final year is often used to calculate pension size. Pension spiking is something the taxpayers should be angry about. The truly serious problem isn't that the guy made $442k one year (though this does raise some questions), but that this number will be used to calculate his pension for the rest of his life. I'd need to know what percentage of this $442 he'll be paid for the rest of his life, but if it's a high percentage, that is fleecing the taxpayer, even if he's been a great employee. There's a pretty big difference between "moan and complain about every dollar of tax paid" and objecting to pension spiking. You can feel that public employees should have good pay and good retirement while disagreeing that this kind of pension spiking is reasonable.

mac01021 9y ago

Don't you think, though, that there are probably hundreds of people who would be eagerly lining up to do that job for half the price? It's not clear how many of those are as qualified as the guys discussed in the article but, if there are any, isn't it the job of your town to get you the best deal it can when hiring a police force?

gambiting 9y ago
This could lead to an opposite problem - where I am from(Poland) police bribery is still an issue despite years of fighting against it, and I have no doubts one of the main reasons for it is the low pay of policemen. Someone with 10 years of experience in the force takes home about $800/month. So if they are offered $200 to forgive a fine, that's like a week-worth of money for doing less work.
- mac01021 9y ago
  What would you guess is the median monthly income there, counting people of all professions?
  - quuquuquu 9y ago
    Median net worth (not net income, and not average) in Poland in 2016 was $9,484 USD. So, assuming a cop is at the 50th percentile of society, a $200 bribe would be 2% of his life savings.
_petronius 9y ago
No, I don't think it's anyone's job to simply "get the best deal", at least not from an ideal-social standpoint. I think employers (whether government or not) should adequately compensate their employees. And I think employees get a much fairer shake in negotiating that compensation when they have the backing of a union. What is "adequate" I can't say, but without knowing more I'm not prepared to simply swallow the line that $400k is somehow totally outrageous. A lot of less useful people make a lot more money for a lot less work and personal risk. Anyway, $400k was only the last year of salary this guy made. The article is suspiciously quiet about what his compensation was over the course of his whole career.

geebee 9y ago

The base salary mentioned here, 151k a year, doesn't bother me at all. I'm a little alarmed that enough overtime is available to make $156k more (do we have a bleary, edgy, sleep deprived guy with a badge and gun going into tense situations?). It doesn't bug me that cashing in unused vacation time can push this number up, as a one time deal. What does bug me is the line: "The salary cops make in their final year is often used to calculate pension size. Pension spiking is something the taxpayers should be angry about. The truly serious problem isn't that the guy made $442k one year (though this does raise some questions), but that this number will be used to calculate his pension for the rest of his life. I'd need to know what percentage of this $442 he'll be paid for the rest of his life, but if it's a high percentage, that is fleecing the taxpayer, even if he's been a great employee. There's a pretty big difference between "moan and complain about every dollar of tax paid" and objecting to pension spiking. You can feel that public employees should have good pay and good retirement while disagreeing that this kind of pension spiking is reasonable.