sleeper;731510 wrote:You clearly don't understand how labor economics function(or honestly any sense of economics judging by your posts). If you can't get the wage you feel you deserve from being a firefighter, then clearly the market for firefighters is either A) over saturated(thus producing lower salaries), or B)the tax payers in that locality do not want to pay extra for a strong firefighting unit. In situation A, you shouldn't have become a firefighter, you can flip burgers like the people that thought you could screw in a widget for $27/hour(or go back to school). In situation B, you can find another department/city that will pay you the wage you feel you deserve.

This is reality, I'm sorry that you are now just realizing this. People in the private sector have to deal with this all the time, why should you be any different?

Glory Days;731514 wrote:A.) oversaturated lowering salaries? You need a certain number or police and fire fighters.
B. tax payers choosing to pay for better services? You must have lived a sheltered life in the suburbs didn’t you.

Why should the public sector be any different? Maybe because comparing public and private sectors is like apples and oranges.

dwccrew;731388 wrote:Police officers and firefighters (to a lesser extent) can make communities safer and more desireable to live in. This would help attract businesses and residents to move into the community and increase tax revenue, thus increasing budgets.

gut;731520 wrote:Not to mention police officers who do their job well to reduce crime then reduces the need for as many officers, so through attrition more money to go around under the same budget.

sleeper;731519 wrote: As far as your second point, the tax payers ultimately vote in politicians to determine their views. If a politician runs on the platform that he wants to build a safer neighborhood by raising taxes to support a better firefighting force, then the voters can decide if that's what they want. If taxpayers don't want to a high quality firefighting force, then they can vote in politicians that follow their own personal views. This is how democracy works.

Why should comparing public and private sector jobs be any different? Right now, yes they are different because you have unions controlling the labor supply and paying artificially high prices to their client base. The taxpayers are fed up with this and have voted their representatives into office to make the public sector like the private sector.

Glory Days;731332 wrote:You missed the point. good workers in the private sector increase a compay's profit allowing them to get paid more. that cant happen in the public sector.

that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by,

Swamp Fox;731569 wrote:I wanted to commend you, ernest_t on your very nice summation of Senate Bill 5 and the reasons why I, and I am going to assume many,many others will have for voting for repealing this noxious bill that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by, while protecting the people he needs to pay back for their election support. I urge everybody to sign the petition and vote to repeal this horrific bill. Hopefully the movement is in full forward mode.

Glory Days;731531 wrote:What I meant was how is a poor community supposed to pay for a good fire department?
How are unions controlling the labor supply?
You do realize fire fighters get paid differently from city to city right? its not like cities are forced to pay higher wages to fire fighters because other cities pay their fire fighters more.

Writerbuckeye;731566 wrote:A poor community may not be able to pay more for a good fire department, so they'll pay less...just like some companies pay less because they aren't run well (or for some other reason).

Different wages in different cities for firemen is no different than companies paying different wages, or charitable groups, or foundations, or school systems, etc.

It's the way most of the real world works.

queencitybuckeye;731583 wrote:Some positions, yes, many not. Does our receptionist contribute measurably to the bottom line? Not really, even though she does a great job (in my subjective opinion).

Glory Days;731614 wrote:yeah, and she may not get the same raise as the people who make the money for the company, but when business is good, she benefits too.

sleeper;731616 wrote:Oh boo hoo. We should just pay everyone $100,000 a year. If we can't afford it, just tax the rich because they don't need $100 million dollars even if they worked for it.

sleeper;731612 wrote:1) A poor community can pay for a good fire department if they choose to give their funding to that department(via elections) instead of something else.
2) Unions control the labor supply by controlling the amount of people working, the hours that they work, and the wages that they are paid. Do I really need to explain collective bargaining to you? If the fireman don't like what they are being paid, the Union steps in and fixes everything, good for the fireman, bad for the taxpayers.
3) Yes, I do realize firefighters get paid differently city to city. So if you are getting paid a lower salary in one city, you can move to another city that pays a wage you feel you deserve. This is how the real world works. It sucks, and it's not easy, but I'm sorry, that's reality. Also, cities are forced to pay higher wages because of the unions, why not let a firefighters salary be determined by the market, like everything else?

sleeper;731616 wrote:Oh boo hoo. We should just pay everyone $100,000 a year. If we can't afford it, just tax the rich because they don't need $100 million dollars even if they worked for it. Do you cry this much in real life? Unbelievable.

Glory Days;731623 wrote:So you dont think the receptionist who works for a succesful company should get paid more than one at an unsuccessfull company? because thats what happens in the real world.

believer;731625 wrote:Then she's an idiot for not seeking the better paying job at the successful company. Whatever the market will bear.

Glory Days;731621 wrote:Ok, you say let the market determine firefighters pay? How would a poor community keep with up with the market when they cant afford it? Just don’t hire firefighters? Well that would go against every city’s duties to its citizens.

And you say cities are forced to pay higher wages because of unions? How so, do you know any non union fire department you can compare it to? Plus, cities like Columbus, pay fire fighters less than the cities around it. How is Columbus being forced to pay higher wages when they already pay less than the market?

Glory Days;731623 wrote:Do miss this many points in real life? So you dont think the receptionist who works for a succesful company should get paid more than one at an unsuccessfull company? because thats what happens in the real world.

Glory Days;731630 wrote:so if a city cant afford to pay what the market pays for fire fighters, they should just burn to the ground?

Swamp Fox;731569 wrote:this noxious bill that is designed to put most of the financial burden on the average everyday Americans trying to get by,

Glory Days;731630 wrote:so if a city cant afford to pay what the market pays for fire fighters, they should just burn to the ground?

dwccrew;731643 wrote:What other choice do they have? If the money isn't there, how can they pay?

Tobias Fünke;731707 wrote:They raise the taxes, which creates an incentive to leave. A vicious cycle of money, capital, and jobs leaving the area starts to happen (e.g. Detroit, Cleveland).