tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post114238396072847624..comments2023-11-05T04:36:14.223-08:00Comments on The Mess That Greenspan Made: Keep Working Or ...Timhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16530974968126497397noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142613978170302962006-03-17T08:46:00.000-08:002006-03-17T08:46:00.000-08:00Perhaps another way of looking at it is that gover...Perhaps another way of looking at it is that government pay scales are less biased by whichever metrics of perceived contribution to business. (Which is not to say everybody gets the same, but the spreads in comparable "grade levels" across job descriptions is not as large.) Industry, with its larger volatility, has to pay more to certain worker groups who would otherwise easily jump ship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142613629731316922006-03-17T08:40:00.000-08:002006-03-17T08:40:00.000-08:00anonymous @ March 15, 2006 6:12 PM: What I have he...anonymous @ March 15, 2006 6:12 PM: What I have heard mostly rumorwise is that governments (state, federal and local) <EM>tend to</EM> pay more for job categories like administration, clerical, business services (unless outsourced) etc. but less for those that we could euphemistically call "value-producing", e.g. everybody who in the private sector would actually create the things that bring in the profits, as opposed to "just" administering and supporting the process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142556226567941352006-03-16T16:43:00.000-08:002006-03-16T16:43:00.000-08:00For Tim and others- where is this thing that says ...For Tim and others- where is this thing that says one only has to work 5 years for the g'vt? For the pension and whatnot, yes, you have to work 5 years and not collect until 62, but I don't see where the health insurance benefits kick in after only 5 years...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142550411068070192006-03-16T15:06:00.000-08:002006-03-16T15:06:00.000-08:00"Gov't employees take a cut compared to private se...<I>"Gov't employees take a cut compared to private sector in salaries in exchange for the increased benefits."</I><BR/><BR/>Cite, please. This quote is used to justify all kinds of financial chicanery.<BR/><BR/>dbAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142535513866203812006-03-16T10:58:00.000-08:002006-03-16T10:58:00.000-08:00I also work for the feds, and although my pay is p...I also work for the feds, and although my pay is pretty good because I am a GS-13 engineer (mid 90's) who works pretty hard... we have to pay SS, really do not have a retirement (we can put 15% into the savings plan and take a gamble on the market). And I agree, I really do not feel that secure. I doubt I will get a penny of SS when I get ready to retire in 15.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142488076522503592006-03-15T21:47:00.000-08:002006-03-15T21:47:00.000-08:00If I worked for the US government, I would not fee...If I worked for the US government, I would not feel as secure as I would if I were employed by legitimate market forces. With the huge budget deficits, the massive government spending, and looming demographic challenges, it seems to me that government is as big as it possibly can get without causing a revolt... how do 22 million people recieve lavish benefits if the private sector is impoverished? They cannot. You are a fool if you think the government will take care of you, even if you worked for them all your life.ageznahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07601846708001768538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142475154932523272006-03-15T18:12:00.000-08:002006-03-15T18:12:00.000-08:00not sure where you guys came up with the idea that...not sure where you guys came up with the idea that govt workers make less than private sector (except CEOs, VPs, etc.) i make over 100K working for the govt. 80-90 would be my pay range in the private sector.<BR/><BR/>it's a joke, but it's easier work, you can't get fired, automatic cost of living increases, rock solid stability, large pension, near $0 cost health care, blah blah blah...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142458536053437462006-03-15T13:35:00.000-08:002006-03-15T13:35:00.000-08:00The first thing to ask with Us health care is why ...The first thing to ask with Us health care is why we spend over 16% of GNP while they average 9%? Then why do they have lower infant mortality, higher life expectancies and better overall health, eg, fewer years in bad health?<BR/><BR/>These questions are not in themselves an appeal for a single payer plan, though they do give it strength. They are fundamental questions on structure.<BR/><BR/>One issue is administration or bureaucracy. We pay somewhere between a quarter and a third of the health care dollar on this. They pay quite a bit less. The difference right here is several hundred billion.<BR/><BR/>Why can't a private system be as efficient? Would things like standardized records and forms help? Are there other ways to audit.<BR/><BR/>Then how do we decide to allocate resources? It seems our doctors are rushed and order treatments and test. Would a more rational analysis of patient need and desire result in greater efficiency?<BR/><BR/>Possibly. My hunch is yes. Then there are treatments thrown at people really sick, are many of them futile gestures?<BR/><BR/>Do we support a market. If yes, how do we oppose a system which at every level has devised feudal and mercentile protections. The Republican approach would use catastrophic insurance and 2 or 3 thousand dollar deductables, but lets say 150 million save 500 a piece, that's 75 billion out of 2 trillion. Helpful, but not system saving.<BR/><BR/>Of course every small piece...<BR/><BR/>Dare we propose a true market, in which doctors and medicines and procedures and hospitals are rated? And perhaps having insurance pay a fixed costs for not only specific treatments (exam, drug) but generalized courses of treatment such as responsdes to a specific cancer, then letting the patient pay or recieve the difference between the insurance rate and that of the provider?<BR/><BR/>Lots of ideas. One thing I can say is that focus on short term costs is hurting us. We see this with the poor who fill emergency rooms and wait until crisis is severe. Even when insured they are given the most cumbersome bureacracies that even the educated middle class can't navigate. So we get hundred thousand and bigger bills. Casr workers who really knew their needs encouraged them for their treatments, explained doctors opinions and navigated them through before problems became crisis could be of use to everyone, but especially the needy. <BR/><BR/>There are lots of ideas that could save a bit here and there. For example trying to build in market incentives that rewarded providers for long term health rather than the number of procedures used could help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142442541260728912006-03-15T09:09:00.000-08:002006-03-15T09:09:00.000-08:00But at the end of the day, providing above-average...But at the end of the day, providing above-average benefits works only for marginal players. It appears to me that over the next few decades, a large part of the "problem" is demographic -- the boomer "pig" squeezing its way through the retirement "python". The issue of adequate medical care, at least for some time, may be capacity, not allocation (cost).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142441739859377132006-03-15T08:55:00.000-08:002006-03-15T08:55:00.000-08:00Gubmnt workers have it good. Not overly compensate...Gubmnt workers have it good. Not overly compensated while they're working so they don't develop a lifestyle they really can't afford, then guaranteed income and medical benefits in retirement.<BR/><BR/>Doesn't sound good at 25, but it does at 65.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11719208.post-1142437729799109992006-03-15T07:48:00.000-08:002006-03-15T07:48:00.000-08:00I think he has the minimum amount of flair. He ha...I think he has the minimum amount of flair. He has a bad attitude, more flair old man!<BR/><BR/>BTW, the problem is not with the benefits that government has. Gov't employees take a cut compared to private sector in salaries in exchange for the increased benefits. The real problem is that the social contract in this country has broken down. The average worker has experienced the "boiled frog syndrome" where compensation has slowly been eaten away by the rise in healthcare and the outright cooking of the books that the FED Department of Labor has engaged in by distorting unemployment #'s and CPI over the last couple of decades. This distortion of statististic has hidden how bad off everyone has been and it has only gotten worse. <BR/><BR/>Don't believe me? Follow this link and the link in the article. Very sobering indeed!<BR/><BR/>http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P146055.aspAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com