1. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    18 Dec '13 13:47
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]It is quite typical that workers on government jobs are paid 50% t0 100% more than their private sector counterparts.

    Really? That's certainly not the case around these parts. Where did you get that figure?[/b]
    Probably from the Cato Institute?
  2. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    227331
    18 Dec '13 16:22
    Originally posted by Teinosuke


    It would never occur to me to think about whether a job was a government job or a private job when I applied for it. I'd be thinking about whether it suited my skills and qualifications and whether I thought the job itself would be personally fulfilling and socially useful.
    For me a job doesn't need to be fulfilling. For me it is what you do outside the job on your time off.
  3. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    227331
    18 Dec '13 16:221 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So now being a professor is "no job at all"?
    your speaking out of your other end.
  4. Joined
    13 Mar '07
    Moves
    48661
    18 Dec '13 17:00
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    For me a job doesn't need to be fulfilling. For me it is what you do outside the job on your time off.
    Well, what I do outside the job is important too, but one way or another you're going to spend a lot of time at the office. I'm quite glad that I have the kind of job where I feel I'm making just a bit of a positive impact on other people, influencing the lives of my students, helping them to work out what kind of adults they want to be.

    And it doesn't make a damn shred of difference to that aim whether I happen to be working at a state-financed or a private institution!
  5. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Dec '13 18:20

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  6. Joined
    14 Mar '04
    Moves
    175676
    18 Dec '13 18:48
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Till something "better" came along?
  7. Account suspended
    Joined
    08 Jun '07
    Moves
    2120
    18 Dec '13 18:59

    This post is unavailable.

    Please refer to our posting guidelines.

  8. Joined
    24 Jun '04
    Moves
    9995
    25 Dec '13 00:31
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You missed the key item in the timeline, Nixon's blow up of the Gold Standard. And the subsequent floating dollar theory originated by Friedman and followed since by the Fed. Progressive taxation has little to nothing to do with paying down the dept up until Ike. Hardly anyone paid the highest marginal rates, so not much revenue was generated.
    Even if only half of the top marginal tax rate was actually paid by the rich, that's still high compared to half of a lower rate. And yes, progressive taxation had everything to do with the national debt being paid off successfully in the right direction under Truman, then less so but still solidly under Ike and JFK, then stalling in the 1970s, then worsening greatly under both Reagan and George W. Bush. For the latter two Republican presidents, increased neoconservative military spending was another factor in increasing the national debt.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree