Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 Feb '10 09:42
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100131/od_notw/nwx100131xml

    News of the Weird: Just as the economy sputters, federal executives' salaries soar

    Chuck Shepherd Chuck Shepherd – Sun Jan 31, 12:00 am ET

    What Recession? A December USA Today analysis revealed that during the first 18 months of the recent recession, beginning December 2007, the number of federal employees with six-figure salaries shot up from 14 percent of the federal workforce to 19 percent. Defense Department civilian executives earning more than $150,000 went from 1,868 to more than 10,000, and the Department of Transportation, which had only one person earning $170,000 in December 2007, now has 1,690. The average federal salary is $71,206, compared with the private sector's $40,331. [USA Today, 12-10-09]

    ...
  2. 15 Feb '10 12:33
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100131/od_notw/nwx100131xml

    News of the Weird: Just as the economy sputters, federal executives' salaries soar

    Chuck Shepherd Chuck Shepherd – Sun Jan 31, 12:00 am ET

    What Recession? A December USA Today analysis revealed that during the first 18 months of the recent recession, beginning December 2007, the number of fe ...[text shortened]... l salary is $71,206, compared with the private sector's $40,331. [USA Today, 12-10-09]

    ...
    But federal executives are our friends as opposed to the big bad banking CEO's.
  3. 15 Feb '10 13:53
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    What Recession?
    The figures given are clearly carefully chosen to show the point of view of the writer.
    What are the actual stats? What is the average increase in wages as a percentage?
    What is the current inflation rate in the US?

    Without further information the figures given could easily be explained by inflation.
    With inflation, salaries can go up even in a recession.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    15 Feb '10 14:06
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The figures given are clearly carefully chosen to show the point of view of the writer.
    Yes. I was particularly struck by "...the number of federal employees with six-figure salaries shot up from 14 percent of the federal workforce to 19 percent" which is such a clumsy and contorted - and unconventional - way of stating something that is surely quite straight forward. I can picture the writer having a giggle about his own mischief.
  5. 16 Feb '10 13:28 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20100131/od_notw/nwx100131xml

    News of the Weird: Just as the economy sputters, federal executives' salaries soar

    Chuck Shepherd Chuck Shepherd – Sun Jan 31, 12:00 am ET

    What Recession? A December USA Today analysis revealed that during the first 18 months of the recent recession, beginning December 2007, the number of fe ...[text shortened]... l salary is $71,206, compared with the private sector's $40,331. [USA Today, 12-10-09]

    ...
    If we want to have a government that actually works effectively, you need to be willing to offer salaries that are high enough to attract competitive talent.
  6. 16 Feb '10 21:22
    not really. there are thousands of people collecting unemployment (and given up collecting unemployment) that could be hired for the same jobs at much cheaper rates.
  7. 16 Feb '10 22:19
    Do you want a government that works effectively? Or do you want the government to be run by a lot of people who have no idea what they're doing? You get what you pay for.
  8. 16 Feb '10 22:31
    knowing what you're doing is not a prerequisite in government.

    i misspoked earlier; i should have said MILLIONS in unemployment.

    given that, why do we need to be paying raises to govt employees? we could halve their salaries and still come out ahead!
  9. Subscriber Wajoma
    Die Cheeseburger
    16 Feb '10 22:33
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    Do you want a government that works effectively? Or do you want the government to be run by a lot of people who have no idea what they're doing? You get what you pay for.
    Pay them to do nothing, once they start getting bright ideas that's when you're in trouble, that's when it really starts costing, install pokie machines in the debating chamber a game console at every desk, they can play counter strike against each other all day.
  10. 16 Feb '10 22:34
    or pachinko!
  11. 16 Feb '10 22:55
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    knowing what you're doing is not a prerequisite in government.

    If "knowing what you are doing" isn't a prerequisite, then Congress needs to drop everything else it's doing and pass legislation to make "knowing what you are doing" the most important part of the job description for every federal employee.

    Then we need to offer extremely high salaries to the people we put in charge of "making sure everyone knows what they're doing" - and then make sure to hire the people who the very best in the world at doing this and pay them what they're worth.
  12. 17 Feb '10 00:02
    that'd just be an excuse to escalate costs. we don't need the best in the world. we just need good enough. and the smarts to concentrate the money on the part that's repeatable, e.g., computerized productivity tools.
  13. 17 Feb '10 16:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    that'd just be an excuse to escalate costs. we don't need the best in the world. we just need good enough. and the smarts to concentrate the money on the part that's repeatable, e.g., computerized productivity tools.
    Being that it's mainly conservatives that complain all the time about "government doing a lousy job" - perhaps they need to step up to the plate and offer a plan creating a "government that does an excellent job".

    Perhaps we don't need to find the best people in the world, but we do need to find people who are better at doing their jobs then the ones we have.

    Obviously, if there are ways of using computers to make things more efficient, they should be used. On the other hand, anyone who's even been stuck in the maze of an automated phone system while waiting for a real live intelligent human being to take your call understands the downside of replacing human functions with computers.