In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , krw
wrote:

BTW, how do we continue to pay the government employee, making
*twice* what the civvies make?

Most scientists and engineers in government service are making significantly
*less* than their counterparts in the private sector. The disparity is even
greater for managers.

You certainly have not taken into account their benefits. *I*
certainly don't get their health and retirement benefits, though
will be paying for them until I die, and after, if the Democrats
have their way.
Even taking the value of benefits into account, civil servants still don't
make anywhere near twice as much as their civilian counterparts (as you
claimed).

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/P...20/the_great_w
age_gap

The author of this article begins to display his massive ignorance as early as
about the fifth paragraph:

"Average compensation for federal civilian workers last year came to $106,579
— which Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute notes is "exactly twice the
average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector." Throw out the benefits
and the difference is less, but still a whopping 62 percent more for the
federal worker."

Even if the figures are correct, the comparison is at best meaningless,
because it's comparing the average of *all* government employment to the
average of *all* non-government employment. This is an apples-and-oranges
comparison, because it's not comparing similar jobs.

The lowest wages in the private sector are found in retail stores and
restaurants. Q: how many retail stores and restaurants does the Federal
government operate? A: zero.

The Federal workforce also contains disproportionate numbers of scientists,
engineers, and managers -- all of which pay more than average.

When you compare _similar_jobs_ between the Federal civil service and the
private sector, you find that wages are almost always higher -- and not by
just a little bit, either -- in the private sector. That's why the Federal
government has a hard time retaining its top people: business hires them away.
You just don't hear about businesses losing their top people to the Federal
government because the pay is better. It just doesn't happen.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , krw wrote:
In article Iy8Gg.661554$Fs1.374052@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , krw
wrote:

BTW, how do we continue to pay the government employee, making
*twice* what the civvies make?

Most scientists and engineers in government service are making
significantly
*less* than their counterparts in the private sector. The disparity is
even
greater for managers.

You are correct-

No, he is not.

not sure why previous poster misunderstood what I was
trying to say. We can't come close to matching what private-sector pays
qualified entry-level sysadmins and techies. One of many reasons Govt has
outsourced most of those jobs. Not cheaper for the taxpayers, but you can
get money for a service contract easier than you can get money for a warm
body.

Do the numbers. The private sector can't afford the medical nor
retirement benefits the public sector gets.

That simply isn't true.

If a corporation ran
the same sort of books the government did, the CEO would be
sleeping in the same bunk as Ken Lay.

No argument there -- but that's a separate issue from salaries.

BTW, did you read the article I linked?

See my response to your previous post -- the author of that article is
comparing apples and oranges.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Yes we at retail are under paid and you as consumers have the right to
good service but as long as you look for free returns and lowest price
then you will put up with what you have remember that. Also the next
time you open a box to see if all the parts are in it then take the one
behind it, leave parts all over the counter cause you couldn,t fiqure
it out and didn,t want to ask. Bring back the drill that was to small
to begin with but was 25.00 instead of 75.00 to do the drywall in your
basement then get huffy when you get a hassle to bring it back.
Claiming it didn,t do the job but the drywalls up, QUESSE WHO PAYS YOU
DO THERES LESS PROFIT TO PAY STAFF!!. I could tell you a hundred
stories but won,t change it cause you consumers think your always
right, you should hear what we think.
Doug Miller wrote:
In article , krw wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article , krw
wrote:

BTW, how do we continue to pay the government employee, making
*twice* what the civvies make?

Most scientists and engineers in government service are making significantly
*less* than their counterparts in the private sector. The disparity is even
greater for managers.

You certainly have not taken into account their benefits. *I*
certainly don't get their health and retirement benefits, though
will be paying for them until I die, and after, if the Democrats
have their way.
Even taking the value of benefits into account, civil servants still don't
make anywhere near twice as much as their civilian counterparts (as you
claimed).

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/P...20/the_great_w
age_gap

The author of this article begins to display his massive ignorance as early as
about the fifth paragraph:

"Average compensation for federal civilian workers last year came to $106,579
- which Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute notes is "exactly twice the
average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector." Throw out the benefits
and the difference is less, but still a whopping 62 percent more for the
federal worker."

Even if the figures are correct, the comparison is at best meaningless,
because it's comparing the average of *all* government employment to the
average of *all* non-government employment. This is an apples-and-oranges
comparison, because it's not comparing similar jobs.

The lowest wages in the private sector are found in retail stores and
restaurants. Q: how many retail stores and restaurants does the Federal
government operate? A: zero.

The Federal workforce also contains disproportionate numbers of scientists,
engineers, and managers -- all of which pay more than average.

When you compare _similar_jobs_ between the Federal civil service and the
private sector, you find that wages are almost always higher -- and not by
just a little bit, either -- in the private sector. That's why the Federal
government has a hard time retaining its top people: business hires them away.
You just don't hear about businesses losing their top people to the Federal
government because the pay is better. It just doesn't happen.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article ,
says...
In article , krw wrote:
In article Iy8Gg.661554$Fs1.374052@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , krw
wrote:

BTW, how do we continue to pay the government employee, making
*twice* what the civvies make?

Most scientists and engineers in government service are making
significantly
*less* than their counterparts in the private sector. The disparity is
even
greater for managers.

You are correct-

No, he is not.

not sure why previous poster misunderstood what I was
trying to say. We can't come close to matching what private-sector pays
qualified entry-level sysadmins and techies. One of many reasons Govt has
outsourced most of those jobs. Not cheaper for the taxpayers, but you can
get money for a service contract easier than you can get money for a warm
body.

Do the numbers. The private sector can't afford the medical nor
retirement benefits the public sector gets.

That simply isn't true.

It _IS_ true. I have a pretty good retirement package (and if I
started work 27 days later I wouldn't have half that), but nowhere
near what a government sector employee gets. My retirmeent is not
indexed to inflation. My medical benefits are fixed and not
indexed to any metric.

If a corporation ran
the same sort of books the government did, the CEO would be
sleeping in the same bunk as Ken Lay.

No argument there -- but that's a separate issue from salaries.

No it's not. Benefits are a big part of compensation.

BTW, did you read the article I linked?

See my response to your previous post -- the author of that article is
comparing apples and oranges.

Nope. Compensation is compensation. You can't just take one part
of the equation and ignore the rest.

--
Keith

Doug Miller wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article , krw

wrote:

BTW, how do we continue to pay the government employee, making
*twice* what the civvies make?

Most scientists and engineers in government service are making significantly
*less* than their counterparts in the private sector. The disparity is even
greater for managers.

You certainly have not taken into account their benefits. *I*
certainly don't get their health and retirement benefits, though
will be paying for them until I die, and after, if the Democrats
have their way.

Even taking the value of benefits into account, civil servants still don't
make anywhere near twice as much as their civilian counterparts (as you
claimed).

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/P...20/the_great_w
age_gap


The author of this article begins to display his massive ignorance as early as
about the fifth paragraph:

"Average compensation for federal civilian workers last year came to $106,579
— which Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute notes is "exactly twice the
average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector." Throw out the benefits
and the difference is less, but still a whopping 62 percent more for the
federal worker."

Even if the figures are correct, the comparison is at best meaningless,
because it's comparing the average of *all* government employment to the
average of *all* non-government employment. This is an apples-and-oranges
comparison, because it's not comparing similar jobs.

The lowest wages in the private sector are found in retail stores and
restaurants. Q: how many retail stores and restaurants does the Federal
government operate? A: zero.

The DoD operates an extensive network of retail stores and restaurants,
and even resorts.

The Federal workforce also contains disproportionate numbers of scientists,
engineers, and managers -- all of which pay more than average.

When you compare _similar_jobs_ between the Federal civil service and the
private sector, you find that wages are almost always higher -- and not by
just a little bit, either -- in the private sector. That's why the Federal
government has a hard time retaining its top people: business hires them away.
You just don't hear about businesses losing their top people to the Federal
government because the pay is better. It just doesn't happen.

You cannot really compare the job of a manager, for example, without
consideration of such intangibles as likelihood of job loss. A
government manager who fails to perform is in virtually no danger of
losing his job, and may even be promoted; a civilian manager who fails
to perform is very often let go.

The result is that untalented people are overpaid by the government
(which is why it attracts so many of that ilk), while talented people
are underpaid (and thus tend not to seek or retain government
positions). There are certainly exceptions, such as those who take a
government position out of idealism or a desire to serve their country,
but they are pretty rare. Most cabinet officers, for example, take a
severe pay cut during their government service; how much of that is
offset by the power and publicity of their position is a good question.
Federal attorneys and judges, for example, earn far less than they
could as private attorneys, and many of them leave when it is time to
put their kids through college.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"dicko" wrote in message

You aught to read the Vlasic Pickle story. About how Walmart put
Vlasic Pickle out of business.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

It'd be hilarious if it werent so serious.

dickm

Interesting story. Only thing is, Wal Mart did not do them in, they really
did themselves in. At some point, you just have to say, "sorry, no deal"

Indeed. the fraternal twin to the story above:
The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart
Every year, thousands of executives venture to Bentonville, Arkansas,
hoping to get their products onto the shelves of the world's biggest
retailer. But Jim Wier wanted Wal-Mart to stop selling his Snapper
mowers.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapper.html

In article , krw wrote:
In article Iy8Gg.661554$Fs1.374052@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

not sure why previous poster misunderstood what I was
trying to say. We can't come close to matching what private-sector pays
qualified entry-level sysadmins and techies. One of many reasons Govt has
outsourced most of those jobs. Not cheaper for the taxpayers, but you can
get money for a service contract easier than you can get money for a warm
body.

Do the numbers. The private sector can't afford the medical nor
retirement benefits the public sector gets. If a corporation ran
the same sort of books the government did, the CEO would be
sleeping in the same bunk as Ken Lay.

Retirement benefits? That's changing! Most Federal employees hired
after 1985 or so get to retire on Social Security at the same age as
private sector employees. And last time I checked, they had to pay part
of their health insurance premiums.

- Don Klipstein )

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:28:52 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article .com,
wrote in part:

As for their employees, they are free to find jobs elsewhere. With
unemployment under 5%, jobs are available for those that want them.

5% unemployment means that 5% of those who are either working or looking
for work are doing the latter. That 5% does not count those not looking
for work.

- Don Klipstein )

....and how many more who work, are paid off the books, but collect
unemployment?

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 08:36:09 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


wrote in message
...

"Steve B" wrote in message
news:u8xFg.1856$rT5.1055@fed1read01...

"Ed" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 11:08:34 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

(snip)
My favorite is hearing the announcements for HD bluelight specials of the
day announced in SPANISH.

WE'RE IN AMERICA. SPEAK ****ING ENGLISH OR GO BACK WHERE YOU CAME TO.

And this applies to all who pander to the invading slime.

Depends on where you are. In the southwest, there are plenty of 3rd and
4th generation Born In USA citizens who primarilly speak Spanish. Some
families can trace their presence back before the area WAS part of US.
Don't forget, lots of US territory used to belong to Spain or Mexico. Some
old land titles go back to Spanish land grants, not English or French
ones. The border moved, not the people or the culture. Yeah, they would
probably have an easier time if they assimilated fully into the Anglo
culture, but hey, they were there first.

So in other words- at least some of the people you bitch about ARE FROM
HERE. When did all your ancestors come over?

And no, I'm not a Spanish speaker. Wish I wasn't so lousy with languages-
it would make travel easier.

aem sends....


My grandparents came from Poland in 1912. They became naturalized citizens
by learning to read and write in English. They insisted their children
learn the language and customs of the US, and to be proud Americans, not
Polish-Americans.

Steve

The block I grew up on was a real melting pot, and basically we all
felt the same way as your grandparents did. I am Italian, my friends
were German/Italian, Polish, Black, Irish/French. But, we all
considered ourselves American.

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:09:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

sleeping in the same bunk as Ken Lay.

(BTW Ken Lay doesn't have a bunk assignment)


Retirement benefits? That's changing! Most Federal employees hired
after 1985 or so get to retire on Social Security at the same age as
private sector employees. And last time I checked, they had to pay part
of their health insurance premiums.

- Don Klipstein )

It was circa 1985. The old Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)
became Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). After a certain
date new employees were automatically enrolled into FERS. Old CSRS
people had a choice to stay in the CSRS.

Under CSRS a person contributed 7.5% of salary to the pension plan,
contributed to medial insurance, but no Social Security contributions.

In retirement a CSRS person stills pays towards medical insurance,
don't know about FERS.

FERS changes this. A person contributes 3.5 % to a pension, NOW pays
Social Security, but also now has a Thrift Savings plan to which they
can contribute. The government matches dollar for dollar, up to 10% in
the saviings.

FERS also has to work more years than CSRS (law enforcement cited 20
years vs 25 years).


Oren

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

But whether it's Wal-Mart, HD, Lowe's, or Joe's Building Supplies, I
think it's a disgrace that the wages for a 40-hour week (or perhaps even
a 50- or 60-hour week) are not enough to put a roof over the worker's
head, put food on his/her table, meet the costs of transportation at
least to and from work, and cover health-care costs --at least not in
any place reasonably fit for human habitation.

The way I hear it, the usual workweek at Wal-Mart is 28 hours. 28 hours
of pay per week - try living on that!

Now that you mention it, you're probably correct. Anything over 30 hours,
you have benefits....

"jtees4" wrote

The block I grew up on was a real melting pot, and basically we all
felt the same way as your grandparents did. I am Italian, my friends
were German/Italian, Polish, Black, Irish/French. But, we all
considered ourselves American.

I wonder what would have happened if your Grandpa or mine had gone down to
the DMV and insisted that he be given his driving test in his native
language.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote

Evidently, saying yes put them out of business, so saying no may have left
them better off. They may be a smaller business, but they would still be
there, making a profit and paying employees. Sorry, but they allowed
themselves to be pushed over the top. Maybe greed, maybe just inept
management, but in any case, NO was an alternative.

I was in business for ten years. I did good, and sold the business for a
good profit. Early on, I would take work just to keep the wheels rolling.
Basically swapping dollars to pay the help and pay the overhead.

Then one day, I just said no. I'm in business to make money not to break
even. If I'm just going to break even , I'll go back to my old job, work
only 40 hours a week, cut my Tylenol bill by 90%, and only think about work
eight hours a day. Paid vacation, uniforms, meals, health care, and
pension.

Then I started concentrating on "gravy jobs". *

* explanation of a gravy job -

I would make a metal gate from scratch for about $150 back then. My profit,
about $10 per hour worked - about 5 hours.

Then I got into service welding. I charged $75 per hour to go out and just
fix gates. (and other things)

Bottom line ........ I would work less hours and clear more money.

Vlasic should have made the decision to keep selling more quart and pint
jars for a better profit than making gallon jars. I read a lot of the
story, but can't remember what the profit for a gallon was vs. profit for a
quart.

One time, I was thinking of expanding my business. I had a backer for $250k
that was looking to shelter some shady money. When I crunched the numbers,
everything went up by 100 to 400% except my paycheck. The backer balked
when I demanded that my income should at least double.

Gross don't mean squat.

Net is where it's at.

Money comes in ..... money goes out ........ how much stays?

Yes, Ed, sometimes it is smart to just say NO!

Steve

It's like the old joke: we will make these for $10 and sell them for
$5. How will me make a profit? On volume!

They have no clue what customers want,
because they have no idea how many customers come into a store looking
for something they don't carry.

What really frosts me is HD's corporate policy of not taking
reservations for rental equipment--even if I offer to pay in advance.
This is so anti-customer. How is a contractor supposed to plan and
commit to a job if the equipment may not be available when needed? I
wrote to HD's president and got back a meaningless form letter.

You should have done what Andy Rooney would
have done: Go to corporate HQ and ask to speak
to Mr. Depot.





On 23 Aug 2006 08:09:15 -0700, wrote:

They have no clue what customers want,
because they have no idea how many customers come into a store looking
for something they don't carry.

What really frosts me is HD's corporate policy of not taking
reservations for rental equipment--even if I offer to pay in advance.
This is so anti-customer. How is a contractor supposed to plan and
commit to a job if the equipment may not be available when needed? I
wrote to HD's president and got back a meaningless form letter.

wrote:
They have no clue what customers want,

because they have no idea how many customers come into a store looking
for something they don't carry.


What really frosts me is HD's corporate policy of not taking
reservations for rental equipment--even if I offer to pay in advance.
This is so anti-customer. How is a contractor supposed to plan and
commit to a job if the equipment may not be available when needed? I
wrote to HD's president and got back a meaningless form letter.


Maybe go to a real contractor rental place that will work with you?

On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:52:37 GMT, frank1492
wrote:

You should have done what Andy Rooney would
have done: Go to corporate HQ and ask to speak
to Mr. Depot.





On 23 Aug 2006 08:09:15 -0700, wrote:

They have no clue what customers want,
because they have no idea how many customers come into a store looking
for something they don't carry.

What really frosts me is HD's corporate policy of not taking
reservations for rental equipment--even if I offer to pay in advance.
This is so anti-customer. How is a contractor supposed to plan and
commit to a job if the equipment may not be available when needed? I
wrote to HD's president and got back a meaningless form letter.

Sounds more like Michael Moore, but I guess he's too busy bashing Bush
these days to do something meaningful like he used to.

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:28:52 +0000 (UTC), with neither quill nor
qualm, (Don Klipstein) quickly quoth:

In article .com,
wrote in part:

As for their employees, they are free to find jobs elsewhere. With
unemployment under 5%, jobs are available for those that want them.

Atta Boy, Trader4. Your post echoes my sentiments and I, too, am a
WalMart shopper. I find lots of US-made items at Wally World and they
keep hundreds (if not thousands) of American companies in business.
Those companies can choose NOT to sell to Wally if they want. (I don't
want my products there at a 3% markup.


5% unemployment means that 5% of those who are either working or looking
for work are doing the latter. That 5% does not count those not looking
for work.

Those who aren't employed and aren't looking for work _aren't_
unemployed, Don. If they can live with that, why worry? It's their
choice.


--
The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
And then there are all the rest of us...
-----------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com -- Wisearse Website Design

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:23:41 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm,
(Doug Miller) quickly quoth:

In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

But whether it's Wal-Mart, HD, Lowe's, or Joe's Building Supplies, I
think it's a disgrace that the wages for a 40-hour week (or perhaps even
a 50- or 60-hour week) are not enough to put a roof over the worker's
head, put food on his/her table, meet the costs of transportation at
least to and from work, and cover health-care costs --at least not in
any place reasonably fit for human habitation.

(Would you be happier in a more Socialist country, Perce?)


Well, that's what happens to people that don't have a college education...

What everyone in this type of discussion seems to be forgetting is
that a minimum wage job -doesn't- stay there. Every employee who isn't
braindead (or attitudinally challenged) is given raises and ends up
making more money each few months or year. If they choose to go
elsewhere and start over at minimum wage, that's their option.

The vast majority of today's poor aren't tomorrow's poor. They usually
work up the ladder and make more money as they go.

Yes, HD and Wally World have problems, but I still like both stores.


--
The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
And then there are all the rest of us...
-----------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com -- Wisearse Website Design

On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:56:03 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, krw
quickly quoth:

BTW, how do we continue to pay the government employee, making
*twice* what the civvies make?

If you look carefully, you'll see lots of gov't employees bailing out
to come to the higher-paying jobs in the private sector.

But we see the local gov't paying far too much for work. Like $20+ an
hour to stand on the roadway with a SLOW/STOP sign and key in a radio
every once in awhile. Perhaps that's what you're referring to. City,
County, and State jobs are far higher-paid than they should be.


--
The Smart Person learns from his mistakes.
The Wise Person learns from the mistakes of others.
And then there are all the rest of us...
-----------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com -- Wisearse Website Design