The Boss;775102 wrote: But not paying attention isn't something that should be met with understanding and compassion.

I am confused by this, are you saying the Public shouldnt receive any compassion?

georgemc80;775107 wrote:I am confused by this, are you saying the Public shouldnt receive any compassion?

I'm saying elected officials should not receive anything but a hail of tomatoes and boos for making bad decisions. Not the other way around.

Don't pay attention to SQ, he's nothing more than a troll.

I Wear Pants;775184 wrote:Don't pay attention to SQ, he's nothing more than a troll.

Riiiight.

Best part of the article "Still, for some, statistics will never justify such compensation. "

Because no matter how many facts you throw at a person there are those who will continue to think what they think.

I Wear Pants;775200 wrote:Best part of the article "Still, for some, statistics will never justify such compensation. "

Because no matter how many facts you throw at a person there are those who will continue to think what they think.

Because how does a state in a financial crisis justify paying a fucking lifeguard 200 grand. Letting them retire when they're 50 with 90 percent of their pay. Madness. The public sector sucks my ass.

The Boss;775201 wrote:Because how does a state in a financial crisis justify paying a fucking lifeguard 200 grand. Letting them retire when they're 50 with 90 percent of their pay. Madness. The public sector sucks my ass.

Because it was 13 of them and only two earned $200,000 the others earned about $100k (this is taking into account all that goes into it). Plus they bring in more than a million dollars a year with their junior lifeguard program. Then you add in the medical and safety services they supply and add in the economic gain of having popular, safe beaches and it isn't really a bad deal. Plus it's not like these are lifeguards like we think of them at a community pool or just sitting around on the beach. These guys, especially the ones being payed $200k are more closely compared to police and fire department chiefs.

However I do agree that the pensions are unsustainable and need addressed.

I don't believe most police chiefs should make that much either. You make what you're worth to society, in most cases, the chief isn't worth any more than the officer--actually most of the time, probably less. BUT, that statement that you make what you're worth to society is muddied up by the insanity bin that is the public sector.

So when they make more a million dollars annually for the area and then also you have to add in the value of their medical and safety services provided and then also add in the value that having a popular and safe beach adds to that community (which is what their whole economy is based on) and it doesn't seem so absurd.

So you're telling me that in the private sector executives and managers make less than low level employees because they add less to the bottom line directy?

I Wear Pants;775224 wrote:So when they make more a million dollars annually for the area and then also you have to add in the value of their medical and safety services provided and then also add in the value that having a popular and safe beach adds to that community (which is what their whole economy is based on) and it doesn't seem so absurd.

So you're telling me that in the private sector executives and managers make less than low level employees because they add less to the bottom line directy?

No, but in the private sector executives and managers, 99.9% of the time, are worth more than the low level employees. But I take issue with a police chief being allocated 100 grand when really the safety of my community is in the hands of the officer, not the chief directly. The officer can handle his duties without the chief. The construction laborer can't handle his duties without the president estimating and winning contracts. There are no duties to be handled. I personally know a few contractors who do the estimating and the labor...

Also, tourism (beaches) are the biggest part of the economy in a place like Cancun, and most of the beaches there are swim at your own risk. You don't hear horror stories about people drowning every day because there was no lifeguard. How come that works? Ohhhhh, because it says at your own risk--so if you don't know what the hell you're doing maybe you should stay away form the ocean. If you do know, then you don't need someone watching you. I'm not at all a fan of saving stupid people from their own stupidity. Lifeguarding should hardly be more than a minimum wage job because you can always find a competent young person that is willing to sit there and watch the beach for that pay. You know CPR, how to swim well, take basic lifeguarding classes and know how to dial a telephone or use a radio. Guess what, BOOM, you're qualified. What training do these people need? Are they preforming surgery on the beach? No, they get someone out of the water and try to keep them breathing until the ambulance gets there. That's what happens in a situation where someone is drowning and there is a 100k/year lifeguard watching and that's what happens when there is an 8/hr lifeguard at your community pool watching.

This argument really shouldn't even be happening--we're talking about California here. A state that is the epitome of how to NOT be fiscally responsible. This is just one of a long list of examples of why they aren't.

So why do you have different value scales for the worth of a public and a private sector employee? It seems that you take into account indirect as well as direct benefits of an employee when your determining what you deem a private sector employee is worth but then you only take into account the direct benefit when considering public employees. Seems dumb.

georgemc80;775103 wrote:Fixed it for you


Envy is not my argument. Ignorance of the actual rigors of the job. This is not a NE Ohio lifeguard of swimming pool. My point wasn't jealousy, it was try the job, before you complain about the job's benefits. I was a lifeguard for a private resort in Virginia Beach. It was the most physically demanding and mentally exhausting job I ever had. The Pacific is much more difficult. Ive had more physically demanding jobs and more mentally exhausting jobs, but never both at the same time.

I don't know of a private resort in VaBeach that has their own lifeguards. All lifeguards here are public employees. Were you a lifeguard at a pool?

I remember a few years back when a group of college grads basically tried to bilk the unemployment system by working July as lifeguards, then claiming unemployment for the other 11 months.

College grads. Not only that, graduates of Temple. Of course, they were film majors, so they basically wasted their lives...

georgemc80;774989 wrote:I'm not gonna begrudge anyone that serves the public any money they can get. It even said these are the top level managers. "Swim at your own risk" is not a viable option for an area that relies heavily on the beach economy.

I don't understand why people don't mind their own business. If you want that money, grab a rescue tube and stand a tower.

Either way, I don't give a damn WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO!

"I'd say it's pretty clear that this is ridiculous when you look at the state of the economy and the government in California. These are the kinds of reasons they're in the mess they're in. "

This should be the end of the thread (without taking it to the politics forum). We're in a mess, and there are reasons. This is one of them.

I don't think the pay of "lifeguards" (put it in quotes because it's obvious that they are much more than red swimsuit wearers) in on California area is a reason we're in a mess. Well maybe their pension, but not their pay.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense Spending. That is why we're in a mess. Fix those and we're in a far better position.

I Wear Pants;775638 wrote:I don't think the pay of "lifeguards" (put it in quotes because it's obvious that they are much more than red swimsuit wearers) in on California area is a reason we're in a mess. Well maybe their pension, but not their pay.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense Spending. That is why we're in a mess. Fix those and we're in a far better position.

We're not talking about federal issues, we're talking about California.

The Boss;775229 wrote:so if you don't know what the hell you're doing maybe you should stay away form the ocean. If you do know, then you don't need someone watching you. I'm not at all a fan of saving stupid people from their own stupidity.

After reading this thread and a couple others you've babbled on, I hope you get in a car accident soon and everyone just drives by. No police, no ambulance, nobody shows up. "Fuck him, if he don't know how to drive, he shouldn't have been behind the wheel." They're called "accidents". Shit happens. Smh.

Um, that's not nearly the same scenario.

If I was stopped at a red light and got rear ended by a person completely oblivious to the light and they were doing 80, would I be a bad driver?

If you get caught in the undertow on a beach and swept out and you drown, you either should have recognized the danger or you weren't smart enough about the ocean to be aware of it. A CAR accident can be someone else's fault. If you were able to comprehend things that you read better, then you would notice that I said I'm not a fan of saving people from THEIR OWN stupidity. I'm a believer in accidents, but drowning is no accident unless something else happens to your body. You pass out and fall into a pool, you have a stroke while you're swimming, etc. If you need a lifeguard to tell you that the undertow can carry you out away form the beach, then you shouldn't be swimming in the ocean. Lifeguards are babysitters at swimming pools.

Perhaps if "you were able to comprehend things that you read better", you would notice I didn't say anything about an accident that was someone else's fault did I? You hit a tree because you took a corner too fast. You're fault. You're a dumbass. Just die because you're stupid ass was speeding a little bit. See how fucking stupid that sounds?

Yeah, dipshit, that would be my fault for making a stupid decision or not knowing what I was doing. Just as it would be the fault of someone who got swept out to sea by the undertow because they either made a bad decision or they didn't know what they were doing.

Right, so just because you're a dumbass is reason to just let someone die. Dipshit. Smh. If stupidity was a reason for a death sentence, you wouldn't be posting based on some other threads I've read.

Um no...not because you think I'm a dumbass, because they're a dumbass. You can't save everybody, survival of the fittest.

I could give a fuck less if you agree with me. I have nothing against lifeguards--they're good people to have around. I do have a problem with 6 figure lifeguards paid by the state. Especially when they aren't needed.

The Boss;775229 wrote:No, but in the private sector executives and managers, 99.9% of the time, are worth more than the low level employees. But I take issue with a police chief being allocated 100 grand when really the safety of my community is in the hands of the officer, not the chief directly. The officer can handle his duties without the chief. The construction laborer can't handle his duties without the president estimating and winning contracts. There are no duties to be handled. I personally know a few contractors who do the estimating and the labor...

The police chief is like a CEO. He/she runs the department and decides how many officers are patrolling the streets, when, where and how. Police and Fire chiefs are worth what they are paid. They are no different than CEO's.

dwccrew;775977 wrote:The police chief is like a CEO. He/she runs the department and decides how many officers are patrolling the streets, when, where and how. Police and Fire chiefs are worth what they are paid. They are no different than CEO's.

Sort of, they're like CEO's at big, publicly traded companies. I'm talking about small business, which is the real private sector. But the officer doesn't rely on the chief to find him work. He finds it himself or someone calls. The chief may make the decision on who is out when and make the schedule, whatever. But they're just a figure head. In my example the laborer does rely on his boss to find him work, if the boss doesn't, the guy is out of work. And like I said, I know plenty of guys that do the estimating and the work. This doesn't only apply to the construction field either, obviously.

I Wear Pants;775638 wrote:I don't think the pay of "lifeguards" (put it in quotes because it's obvious that they are much more than red swimsuit wearers) in on California area is a reason we're in a mess. Well maybe their pension, but not their pay.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense Spending. That is why we're in a mess. Fix those and we're in a far better position.

Oh to be so naive, I suppose when GM overpaid and underperformed it had nothing to do with our mess either being a private company - yet it was still the taxpayers that had to bail them out. What do you think is going to happen when states start to default on their pension obligations? And of course pay has everything to do with it, considering their PENSION IS BASED ON THEIR PAY.

I don't know what happened since 2007 that made public "servants" completely unaware of the maelstrom, but when you take any job you should investigate who is paying you and how they are going to do it. The gravy train for these employees have to end sometime.

"They are no different than CEO's. "

But there is a big difference in the way they are comped. Public "servants" get paid currently in 100% cash and a defined pension backed by the PBGC, and they have the most guaranteed funding of any employer since the underlying government entity can always tax more. Executives of private businesses, particularly public companies, typically take most of their comp in options/restricted stock and there is an element of risk to the comp - along with the risk that the business will continue to survive, unless of course it is GM or other company deemed too big to fail.

The comp/benefits of some of these people are downright insane, particular the pensions that kick in after just 30 years. That makes no economic sense at all in the 21st century.