6 ms·
> I think my favorite would be this one [3], where they assert that a $150,000 salary in San Francisco is excessive. When it's almost 19,000 public employee's
by rkk3 5y ago
> I think my favorite would be this one [3], where they assert that a $150,000 salary in San Francisco is excessive.
When it's almost 19,000 public employee's being paid over $150,000 in SF, that kind of does sound excessive especially in the context of a budget deficit.
> These public workers are in charge of essential duties. Suggesting that a firefighter or a teacher are "overpaid", is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent.
It-least in [3] they never use the word Teacher. They do claim the average Firefighter Comp is 191,000 in SF. Maybe it's not 191K but isn't there some number where people in charge essential duties can be "overpaid" ?
- kelseyfrog 5y ago> that kind of does sound excessive I don't know about you, but I'd have to compare it to cost of living references and public employee's per capita to begin to have an understanding. Even if I had that, there are many other factors I'd want to explore: what's the impact of CoL and commuting? What's the impact of employees not living in the jurisdictional area? What are the structural systems which function to determine salaries, both as an interaction with labor markets and those that have been institutionalized? If I was hired as a consultant to make judgements on SF public spending, in short, I'd do my due diligence.
- rkk3 5y agoIs this the bureaucracy defense? I need to be certified, have 30 years experience, and do a 10,000 page analysis before I can have a "legitimate" opinion.
- lotsofpulp 5y agoNo, but you presented a false dichotomy.
- rkk3 5y agoThey are saying my process isn't "rigorous" enough and needs to follow their complicated rules and ways of doing things, I don't think calling that bureaucratic is a false dichotomy.
- bobthepanda 5y agoNo, they're saying you're making purely gut judgements that are rash. For any employer, private or public, slashing salaries and benefits is a great way to start trending towards 100% turnover, which is a pretty negative outcome if you want to maintain any semblance of operation.
- rkk3 5y agoAll I said is that it might be excessive to pay 40% of public employee's individually [1] 40k more a year than the median household income [2] in the area. Don't equate that with arguing for Austerity. https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-trouble--19000-highly-compensated-city-employees-earned-150000-in-pay--perks/ https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-... [1] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/sanfranciscocitycalifornia [2]
- all2well 5y agoAre you not arguing that public sector employees in San Francisco should get a pay cut?
- czhu12 5y agoIs it not enough to just say that we should pay people market rates? If the true cost of a firefighter in California is indeed 190k then thats what they should be paid. If its lower then they are overpaid and if its higher than they are underpaid. This is not to say that firefighters are not essential workers, of course they are. We can make an argument that every firefighter should be paid 500k or 1 million. Heck, they save lives, so why not 10 million? Ultimately, the vast majority of people not in public sector work doesn't get to make these kinds of arguments, and are simply forced to take market rates.
- lupire 5y agoCA uses nearly unpaid prison labor for firefighting, making the huge salary for paid firefighters even stranger.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoKind of? Do you think the market for firefighters is a monopsony and if so, how does that shape the firefighter labor market?
- czhu12 5y agoMaybe so, but this is always going to be a problem with unionized government work. We can try to approximate a free market by reducing the power of public-sector unions. Ultimately it has to come down to tax payers to hold government accountable. More transparency is a step in that direction.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThese markets are monopsonies. The market rate is much lower than the actual value these jobs are worth. Even so, we do not have enough firefighters and teachers. This is a price signal that the current compensation is insufficient.
- austhrow743 5y agoNot enough firefighters in that there are open positions and no one is interested? Or open positions only for the already trained/experienced? If it’s the latter then that’s an argument that compensation is too high if anything. It should be rebalanced such that some of it is used for training. If the former then that’s just alien to me. Here in Australia firefighting is a prestigious job with a lot of competition. People volunteer to do it for free or do it part time while working another primary job, for years, in the hopes of being able to become a full time firey.
- atkailash 5y agoSo because of a budget crisis people should be paid an unloveable wage in that area? Which would exacerbate the crisis since they’d be forced to find cheaper housing elsewhere, thus less income to the city.
- nikanj 5y agoDo you think a firefighter and a teacher should be able to afford a house in the community they work in?
- rkk3 5y agoFirst I think it's important to differentiate afford to live & afford to buy a home are different things. Afford to live in the community is significantly more important but In general I think it is better if they can do both. However home's are assets & assets can have bubbles. I don't think the public should necessarily be paying wages such that someone can buy a home at any cost.
- beeboop 5y agoAre you in support of radically changing laws around home ownership, potentially to the point of abolishing housing as an investment vehicle? Because you need to either support that, or support people making wages enough to own a home even if that home is radically expensive due to other influences. Anything less is Scrooge levels of sociopathy.
- rkk3 5y agoI definitely am in favor of changing laws around making it easier to build & develop new-housing. I can't afford to purchase these radically inflated assets myself... but if you want to call me scrooge because I don't think owning a multi-million dollar house is a fundamental human right, go ahead.
- vineyardmike 5y agoNo one’s saying it’s a fundamental human right, just something a teach should be able to do if he/she teaches in an area that exclusively has multi-million dollar homes.
- rkk3 5y agoLike I said previously, Teachers salaries in SF aren't even at question in the cited article. A custodian employed by sf makes an average of 92k [1] vs an average teacher in SF makes 75.6k [2]. But I can still simultaneously believe teachers are underpaid and at the same think they aren't entitled to multi-million dollar homes. [1] https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-trouble--19000-highly-compensated-city-employees-earned-150000-in-pay--perks/ https://www.openthebooks.com/forbes-why-san-francisco-is-in-... [2] https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-school-teacher-salary/san-francisco-ca https://www.salary.com/research/salary/benchmark/public-scho...