4 ms·

If two people are making $150000 each, that's a household with $300000 in income. That's not bad for a stable government job. Also, I don't see why it's unfair

If two people are making $150000 each, that's a household with $300000 in income. That's not bad for a stable government job. Also, I don't see why it's unfair to call a teacher or firefighter overpaid. If you work for a private business, nobody else knows or cares about your salary. But when you work for government, every taxpayer has a right to complain. Especially for taxpayers who make less than the government position.

unethical_ban 5y ago
>Especially for taxpayers who make less than the government position. Why?
Bud 5y ago
Having a "right to complain" doesn't mean that it's accurate, fair, just, or a good idea to complain.
- chmod600 5y ago
  So what's the "dangerous precedent" then?
- SllX 5y ago
  Every dollar paid to the government in taxes is a dollar someone else earned. People are going to complain about that, and it is entirely fair and just to do so. Whether it’s a good idea boils down to where your own politics are, so that’s always going to be subjective.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    Implying they could have earned that money without the existence of government. Government is an essential service.
    - SllX 5y ago
      It’s not implying anything. That is literally how taxes work. See income taxes: A compensatory agreement between employer and employee is I pay you $X for work. The government then levies a percentage of that money for itself. You can see that on your paystub. You’re not paid $X and an amount equal to a percentage of $X is then donated to the government, that percentage comes directly from your compensation. It’s a revenue stream for governments, sure, but how much revenue a government needs is determined by what policies a government has in place, their obligations to pay employees and officers, and what additional services the government offers. The politics is all around that stuff, but a tax is still a taking of the money that someone else earned to pay for all that, including to pay public employees.
    - chii 5y ago
      > without the existence of government. paying less taxes doesn't imply that the gov't ceases to exist. The gov't has no competition, so every entity within the gov't has every incentive to increase their own revenue by maximally expending tax dollars. It is up to the people paying taxes to reduce it, as a counter-balancing force, and hold the spending efficiency to a good standard.
  - johnhowardstein 5y ago
    All that legal tender is thanks to the government.
    - SllX 5y ago
      Sure, legal tender demands a government by definition, it’s right there in the word “legal”. Money, or rather currency doesn’t. That’s also irrelevant because that doesn’t address what a tax is, or how it ended up in a government’s treasury, or why it is there in the first place.
    - specialist 5y ago
      Correct. Government spending (investment) is a loan we repay thru taxes.
scrollaway 5y ago
> Also, I don't see why it's unfair to call a teacher or firefighter overpaid. Education should be extremely well compensated. There's a host of reasons why it's a good idea to pay teachers the way doctors, lawyers and engineers are paid; but it all comes down to wanting the best and brightest working in education, because kids getting a shitty education decreases the country's ability to produce bright people, whereas kids getting a good education increases the country's overall intelligence. Instead, those people work on ads. Idiocracy thought it'd be the cosmetics industry. Turns out…
- chmod600 5y ago
  Someone might also reasonably feel that more money for teachers does not, by itself improve outcomes. It's certainly possible for bad teachers to be paid a lot, which some people might call "being overpaid" even if there exists some other teacher that is making more money and is perhaps underpaid. Or, someone might reasonably think that teachers play only one part in educational outcomes, and that investing more in teaching quality isn't an efficient use of resources. Or maybe both those people are wrong. But it's hardly dangerous to entertain the complaints of the people paying the bills.
- czhu12 5y ago
  You're arguing for higher standards for teachers, which would naturally increase the market rate compensation. I don't think thats whats happening. We can have a discussion about increasing the minimum training for teachers to be additional years + a PhD. I'm sure this would naturally increase the quality of teaching and also increase the market rate for teachers since there are less people who are qualified. We can also discuss raising salaries if the school simply cannot find enough teachers. It doesn't make as much sense to say we should simply increase the pay of teachers if there is a huge backlog of qualified applicants. I believe SF is having a teacher shortage, so for that reason, it makes sense to increase teacher pay. But I think too often people make moralistic arguments for government pay but free market arguments for everyone else.
  - johnhowardstein 5y ago
    Mostly because government pay trails free market rates. So the moralistic arguments come in to play because they're so underpaid.
johnhowardstein 5y ago
Very well then. I will complain. These people are underpaid. We have every right to expect the best in these positions, why are we not paying for it?

unethical_ban 5y ago

>Especially for taxpayers who make less than the government position. Why?

Bud 5y ago

Having a "right to complain" doesn't mean that it's accurate, fair, just, or a good idea to complain.

chmod600 5y ago
So what's the "dangerous precedent" then?
SllX 5y ago
Every dollar paid to the government in taxes is a dollar someone else earned. People are going to complain about that, and it is entirely fair and just to do so. Whether it’s a good idea boils down to where your own politics are, so that’s always going to be subjective.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Implying they could have earned that money without the existence of government. Government is an essential service.
  - SllX 5y ago
    It’s not implying anything. That is literally how taxes work. See income taxes: A compensatory agreement between employer and employee is I pay you $X for work. The government then levies a percentage of that money for itself. You can see that on your paystub. You’re not paid $X and an amount equal to a percentage of $X is then donated to the government, that percentage comes directly from your compensation. It’s a revenue stream for governments, sure, but how much revenue a government needs is determined by what policies a government has in place, their obligations to pay employees and officers, and what additional services the government offers. The politics is all around that stuff, but a tax is still a taking of the money that someone else earned to pay for all that, including to pay public employees.
  - chii 5y ago
    > without the existence of government. paying less taxes doesn't imply that the gov't ceases to exist. The gov't has no competition, so every entity within the gov't has every incentive to increase their own revenue by maximally expending tax dollars. It is up to the people paying taxes to reduce it, as a counter-balancing force, and hold the spending efficiency to a good standard.
- johnhowardstein 5y ago
  All that legal tender is thanks to the government.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Sure, legal tender demands a government by definition, it’s right there in the word “legal”. Money, or rather currency doesn’t. That’s also irrelevant because that doesn’t address what a tax is, or how it ended up in a government’s treasury, or why it is there in the first place.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Correct. Government spending (investment) is a loan we repay thru taxes.

scrollaway 5y ago

> Also, I don't see why it's unfair to call a teacher or firefighter overpaid. Education should be extremely well compensated. There's a host of reasons why it's a good idea to pay teachers the way doctors, lawyers and engineers are paid; but it all comes down to wanting the best and brightest working in education, because kids getting a shitty education decreases the country's ability to produce bright people, whereas kids getting a good education increases the country's overall intelligence. Instead, those people work on ads. Idiocracy thought it'd be the cosmetics industry. Turns out…

chmod600 5y ago
Someone might also reasonably feel that more money for teachers does not, by itself improve outcomes. It's certainly possible for bad teachers to be paid a lot, which some people might call "being overpaid" even if there exists some other teacher that is making more money and is perhaps underpaid. Or, someone might reasonably think that teachers play only one part in educational outcomes, and that investing more in teaching quality isn't an efficient use of resources. Or maybe both those people are wrong. But it's hardly dangerous to entertain the complaints of the people paying the bills.
czhu12 5y ago
You're arguing for higher standards for teachers, which would naturally increase the market rate compensation. I don't think thats whats happening. We can have a discussion about increasing the minimum training for teachers to be additional years + a PhD. I'm sure this would naturally increase the quality of teaching and also increase the market rate for teachers since there are less people who are qualified. We can also discuss raising salaries if the school simply cannot find enough teachers. It doesn't make as much sense to say we should simply increase the pay of teachers if there is a huge backlog of qualified applicants. I believe SF is having a teacher shortage, so for that reason, it makes sense to increase teacher pay. But I think too often people make moralistic arguments for government pay but free market arguments for everyone else.
- johnhowardstein 5y ago
  Mostly because government pay trails free market rates. So the moralistic arguments come in to play because they're so underpaid.

johnhowardstein 5y ago

Very well then. I will complain. These people are underpaid. We have every right to expect the best in these positions, why are we not paying for it?