12 ms·

To be fair, in SF for example the median income is $96,000. And I think that's take-home salary, so the median cost to the employer with benefits is well over $

by cactus2093 7y ago

To be fair, in SF for example the median income is $96,000. And I think that's take-home salary, so the median cost to the employer with benefits is well over $100k. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable that important city workers should make at least the area median wage. Having all of the local government employees be the lowest paid people in the city doesn't seem like a good thing. It is also kind of shocking to see how many employees actually work for city and state governments. And of course government workers have a strong reputation for not being incentivized to work very hard or do more than the bare minimum. I would think the bigger opportunity would be to reduce the size of local government payroll rather than lower everyone's salaries. Related thought - I wonder, why aren't city and state governments more at the forefront of automating menial work away, given the perpetual costs of each worker on the pension system? It seems they'd have a lot to gain from it.

notauser554 7y ago
"And of course government workers have a strong reputation for not being incentivized to work very hard or do more than the bare minimum." This reminds me of my friend who got an engineering job for the government after university. He was motivated at the start, going above and beyond to make sure his projects were completed on time and in good order. One day his boss called him in and asked him to change his schedule. The boss said he was making his co-workers feel bad. So the new schedule was to be take a 2 hour lunch and do something else for 2 hours, like play video games, to align his work output with the rest of the department.
alkibiades 7y ago
so why should people in texas pay for the stupid budget decisions of san francisco when they didn’t waste their money? it’s moral hazard
- sanp 7y ago
  And why should NY or CA residents fund most of the federal budget?
  - danielrpa 7y ago
    Because they are richer. This is the very same principle employed by both states for their internal taxation - the idea that the more you make, the less you get from your taxes relatively speaking ("the rich" pay higher tax rates in both states). It's just progressive taxes applied to the entire country, where NY and CA are "the rich" among the states.
    - eskaytwo 7y ago
      But if the Republican approach is a regressive tax (eg the big tax cut favouring the big end of town) then shouldn’t CA/NY also receive similar treatment? That’s essentially the discrepancy going on here.
      - danielrpa 7y ago
        I'm just saying that if CA/NY believe in "from each according to its ability, to each according to their needs", as they appear to given their tax laws and public policies, people should be fine with them being donor states. After all, a staunchly republican poor individual in CA/NY still gets the same benefits as a poor democrat, because need (not opinions) dictates how much you get. Of course, Texas isn't exactly poor, my point is more relevant to states like South Carolina, Louisiana etc.
- hjonb 7y ago
  They aren't paying for pensions. They are paying for a massive lack of tax revenue due to COVID. Funny I never hear the argument from red states "We don't want your federal money for all the poor, sick, disabled, in our state!" considering CA and NY pay WAY WAY more out than they get back in federal money
  - hiram112 7y ago
    These red state takers idea has propagated throughout social media, and become a talking point used anytime some fiscal argument breaks out between left and right. And it's mostly absurd, because it just looks at net transfers between the states and Feds without realizing who is actually benefitting from that money. How many small family farms do you think are left in much of the Midwest, who are living high on the hog with government subsidies, as the left likes to imagine? Is it a transfer to Iowa or Nebraska when the federal government pays out a few billion in farm subsidies, which then goes straight into the pocket of fund managers in Manhattan, sovereign wealth funds, or megacorps who actually own the farms How bout when Wall Street got bailed out in 2009 to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? Do we count that as a subsidy to New York, Jersey, and Connecticut? Even if the money was paid back, there's no way to calculate the trillions of dollars citizens of other states lost due to perpetually low interest rates or propping up houses in coastal areas at the expense of people living in low COL areas. There's a dozen other ways we can measure these types of back door transfers, and I guarantee you, it ends up that those blue coastal states are getting a lot of extra subsidies that the silly stats that you guys use ignore.
- adrr 7y ago
  Texas is a taker state so California has been paying to support texas for a very long time. Why the moral hazard now? I’ll be fine if we distribute federal expenditures based on tax collections by state. Means California could lower taxes. https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/ https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/
  - diebeforei485 7y ago
    Texas was and still is a net contributor to the union. California is no longer a net contributor to the union[1], since SALT reform. 1. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mcconnells-offensive-comments-on-states-receiving-federal-aid/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mc...
    - adrr 7y ago
      I don't think you understand that article or how the new tax bill ripped off a million Californians by making them pay tens of thousands extra in taxes. I paid an extra $30k in taxes this year because of that bill. Only being able to deduct $10k taxes made Californias pay more federal taxes. We didn't get anything in return. Thanks for making my point how California pays for everyone else but get nothing in return. Also for 4 of the 5 top employers in Texas are oil companies. Oil production is subsidized by the feds. Texas is a taker. They also will all go bankrupt unless bailed out with California tax money.
      - diebeforei485 7y ago
        Any tax break being taken away makes people feel like they're paying "extra" with nothing new in return. There is no reason for people in other states to subsidize your California state tax payments with a federal tax break.
      - alkibiades 6y ago
        why should you have gotten a federal tax break in the first place just because your state decided to have high taxes? maybe think before electing politicians who raise them if youre upset
dantheman 7y ago
It's great for city workers to make a great wage - just pay for it. Stop pulling shenanigans with pension systems. We just had 11 years of unprecedented growth and pension systems only got worse - expanding benefits and maintaining impossible growth targets. City and state governments don't pay the bills - that's the problems. Any cuts they make will hurt them in elections, so they just kick the can down the road to the next government.
- lsh123 7y ago
  And another important component is unions. Politician wants to get elected. Unions can help. So politician have to pay back unions later. Can’t break this cycle unless public worker unions are banned.

notauser554 7y ago

"And of course government workers have a strong reputation for not being incentivized to work very hard or do more than the bare minimum." This reminds me of my friend who got an engineering job for the government after university. He was motivated at the start, going above and beyond to make sure his projects were completed on time and in good order. One day his boss called him in and asked him to change his schedule. The boss said he was making his co-workers feel bad. So the new schedule was to be take a 2 hour lunch and do something else for 2 hours, like play video games, to align his work output with the rest of the department.

alkibiades 7y ago

so why should people in texas pay for the stupid budget decisions of san francisco when they didn’t waste their money? it’s moral hazard

sanp 7y ago
And why should NY or CA residents fund most of the federal budget?
- danielrpa 7y ago
  Because they are richer. This is the very same principle employed by both states for their internal taxation - the idea that the more you make, the less you get from your taxes relatively speaking ("the rich" pay higher tax rates in both states). It's just progressive taxes applied to the entire country, where NY and CA are "the rich" among the states.
  - eskaytwo 7y ago
    But if the Republican approach is a regressive tax (eg the big tax cut favouring the big end of town) then shouldn’t CA/NY also receive similar treatment? That’s essentially the discrepancy going on here.
    - danielrpa 7y ago
      I'm just saying that if CA/NY believe in "from each according to its ability, to each according to their needs", as they appear to given their tax laws and public policies, people should be fine with them being donor states. After all, a staunchly republican poor individual in CA/NY still gets the same benefits as a poor democrat, because need (not opinions) dictates how much you get. Of course, Texas isn't exactly poor, my point is more relevant to states like South Carolina, Louisiana etc.
hjonb 7y ago
They aren't paying for pensions. They are paying for a massive lack of tax revenue due to COVID. Funny I never hear the argument from red states "We don't want your federal money for all the poor, sick, disabled, in our state!" considering CA and NY pay WAY WAY more out than they get back in federal money
- hiram112 7y ago
  These red state takers idea has propagated throughout social media, and become a talking point used anytime some fiscal argument breaks out between left and right. And it's mostly absurd, because it just looks at net transfers between the states and Feds without realizing who is actually benefitting from that money. How many small family farms do you think are left in much of the Midwest, who are living high on the hog with government subsidies, as the left likes to imagine? Is it a transfer to Iowa or Nebraska when the federal government pays out a few billion in farm subsidies, which then goes straight into the pocket of fund managers in Manhattan, sovereign wealth funds, or megacorps who actually own the farms How bout when Wall Street got bailed out in 2009 to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars? Do we count that as a subsidy to New York, Jersey, and Connecticut? Even if the money was paid back, there's no way to calculate the trillions of dollars citizens of other states lost due to perpetually low interest rates or propping up houses in coastal areas at the expense of people living in low COL areas. There's a dozen other ways we can measure these types of back door transfers, and I guarantee you, it ends up that those blue coastal states are getting a lot of extra subsidies that the silly stats that you guys use ignore.
adrr 7y ago
Texas is a taker state so California has been paying to support texas for a very long time. Why the moral hazard now? I’ll be fine if we distribute federal expenditures based on tax collections by state. Means California could lower taxes. https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/ https://amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/361668/
- diebeforei485 7y ago
  Texas was and still is a net contributor to the union. California is no longer a net contributor to the union[1], since SALT reform. 1. https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mcconnells-offensive-comments-on-states-receiving-federal-aid/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/04/23/newsom-responds-to-mc...
  - adrr 7y ago
    I don't think you understand that article or how the new tax bill ripped off a million Californians by making them pay tens of thousands extra in taxes. I paid an extra $30k in taxes this year because of that bill. Only being able to deduct $10k taxes made Californias pay more federal taxes. We didn't get anything in return. Thanks for making my point how California pays for everyone else but get nothing in return. Also for 4 of the 5 top employers in Texas are oil companies. Oil production is subsidized by the feds. Texas is a taker. They also will all go bankrupt unless bailed out with California tax money.
    - diebeforei485 7y ago
      Any tax break being taken away makes people feel like they're paying "extra" with nothing new in return. There is no reason for people in other states to subsidize your California state tax payments with a federal tax break.
    - alkibiades 6y ago
      why should you have gotten a federal tax break in the first place just because your state decided to have high taxes? maybe think before electing politicians who raise them if youre upset

dantheman 7y ago

It's great for city workers to make a great wage - just pay for it. Stop pulling shenanigans with pension systems. We just had 11 years of unprecedented growth and pension systems only got worse - expanding benefits and maintaining impossible growth targets. City and state governments don't pay the bills - that's the problems. Any cuts they make will hurt them in elections, so they just kick the can down the road to the next government.

lsh123 7y ago
And another important component is unions. Politician wants to get elected. Unions can help. So politician have to pay back unions later. Can’t break this cycle unless public worker unions are banned.