patrick.net

control point says

indigenous says

But that is by force. You are describing a free market which this certainly

is not.

So you are saying that the seller of labor (the worker) in the market (which is open to all, btw - there is no barrier to cross from the private sector to the public sector) is offering his labor at price X, but the buyer of the labor, the government, is saying, "No thanks, but I will take it at 1.16X?"

I'm going to answer that Anecdotaly, that you will ignore, but it has been my empirical understanding.

The government wants a construction job done it will use prevailing wages as per Davis Bacon. This is usually at least 1.5 times on the salary, they do not audit for benefits.

I have a relative who makes 80,000 a year as a grade school teacher here in Calif now consider that she works 9 mo her salary is actually by the time spent working around 107,000 plus benefits that are much higher than a private sector worker would get for both retirement and health care. I think she teaches 2nd grade. Imo this jobs is not worth that kind of compensation. She does have a masters degree but in all honesty you don't need a higher level education to teach 2nd graders.

Much of this comes from collective bargaining for public employees in Calif of which they are all in the union.

I don't think public jobs are as promoted or as available as private sector jobs otherwise there would be no labor left in the private sector.

I know of a retired college professor who is retired on 250 k a year it is quite common for cops in Calif to retire on 200k a year

control point says

The PPA study does this. What it finds it that salaries are ~26% lower for public sector workers doing the same work as private sector employees. It does not include benefits, however. As we all know public benefits are more rich than private benefits.

If it did include benefits in its analysis - total compensation for doing the same work would be equal, public vs. private because we have a free labor market.

As indicated above I don't see that as being true.

Another factor in this may well be that the worker in some areas of the private sector does pay much more so the private sector attracts the talent. Since the worker know his comparative advantage he may say that he can get more money in a public sector job because of his sub par skills.

control point says

What this means is public workers are given more responsibilities, on the average, for a given educational level than their private counterparts. That is, the government does a better job of training its staff to accomplish work responsibilities. The private sector outsources that training to another party (University).

Compensation is higher for private workers at the top level of educational attainment because the supply of this expertise is low - it cannot be outsourced. The trend of public vs. private is downward sloping - the harder it is to outsource training for specific skills - the less likely it is that someone who does not have that outsourced training could do the job.

I have not seen this as true. Certainly at the lower levels. Are you saying a TSA worker is well trained? Perhaps on the specific task of groping passengers but no matter how you slice it that is not a high skill level. If left to the private sector the scanners would be dumped and replaced with highly trained profilers using facial recognition software who would be paid 10 times what a TSA worker is paid and the luggage would be passed through a vacuum chamber. And we would have more security at a lower cost employing far fewer people. So an individual caring a gun into the LA airport would be dropped before he fired one shot.

The overarching issue on this is that the public sector worker does not have answer to the market. Because of the unions it is very difficult to fire him. So the name of the game is to do less with more i.e. build empires that make you appear irreplaceable. In the private sector it is the opposite.

In your studies does it show productivity per worker? By definition a product is something that someone would pay money for. In the private sector if the organization fails to do this it goes bankrupt. In the public sector their is no feed back on what productivity is because all government services could be done by the private sector at a better value meaning lower cost and higher quality because the private sector has to find out what really is the product and produce better than the competition, of which even if the government knew what the product was they have no competition.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

Fuck you, find it yourself

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is, if I have to explain that to you then I can't explain that to you.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The individual prospers in small groups he is crushed by a centralized authority. Change is effected at the bottom.

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

No it isn't. Do you think an individual does better raised by a family or by a centralized orphanage? Does he learn more from a school with half a dozen students per class room or in an auditorium with 100s of students?

Does he do better in a local church or learning that their is no god from the tv?

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

Fuck you, find it yourself

Uh huh - getting a little frustrated because you can't back up anything you say?

indigenous says

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is, if I have to explain that to you then I can't explain that to you.

Sure it is a non sequitur. Glad you agree.indigenous says

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

No it isn't. Do you think an individual does better raised by a family or by a centralized orphanage? Does he learn more from a school with half a dozen students per class room or in an auditorium with 100s of students?

Does he do better in a local church or learning that their is no god from the tv?

LOL - glad you proved you're not a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

Homeboy says

Uh huh - getting a little frustrated because you can't back up anything you say?

no you are a dumb ass and I'm tired of wasting my time showing you stuff that you refuse to look at.

indigenous says

no you are a dumb ass and I'm tired of wasting my time showing you stuff that you refuse to look at.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I blame Regan for two things.
Bastardizing two great words.

First "Socialized Medicine" that was a kill shot to destroy any future argument for an efficient government based healthcare system.
Even Obama and Loony Sanders are too chicken shit to say Government ran Healthcare.

Second was conflate classic economics save, invest, earn interest on your money. With "Trickle Down Economics".
What in the fuck is an economy but money that trickles its way through the system in and out of yours or my pockets?

And where in the Fuck is your Tsunami Economics counter suggestion?

Ronald Reagan just appeared to me in my delusion.
He said my trickle down check is in the mail.