RWers: Would you accept a GREAT paying govt job, despite principle?

[rightwinger]

I took a government job in 1978 for $12,900 a year

I retired as a millionaire

You're welcome, parasite.

I know....Is this a great country or what?

I started with the government as a 21 yr old engineer fresh out of college. Every other employer at the time was offering $14-16K a year and the Navy offered me a stinking $12,900. When I complained, the recruiter smiled and said "But you can get civil service retirement at 55 and never worry about having a job" I said I would rather have the money. But I took the offer and every other engineer asked "Why would you want to work for the government?"

Fast forward 17years and I am a mid level manager looking to hire computer scientists and network engineers to work for me. Right in the middle of the Dot Com boom. I was making a salary in the $70K range and was offering jobs in the $55-$65K range. They looked at me like I was crazy. They were making $90K-$100K with stock options. They asked me..."Why would I want to work for the government?"

Fast forward another 17years and I was eligible to retire. That Civil Service pension had a cash value of $1.5 million and I had a Thrift Savings with another couple hundred thousand in it. Those who had laughed at me for taking a government job had gone to work for companies like Kodak and Bell Labs. When the Dot Com bubble burst they were out of work for a year or more. Their stock options were not worth shit. They were looking to work into their 70s


That is why I wanted to work for the government

 

[DiamondDave]

I got a little story for ya.

Right after the Trayvon Martin shooting, naturally conservative hosts came running out of the talk radio box at full clip to comment on a breaking news story and offer their opinions as is their habit. Mike Gallagher came out unequivocally on the side of Martin's family against what George Zimmerman had done. But there was a problem that I suspect Gallagher didn't realize at the time. You see, Mike was on the wrong side of the issue as far as the conservative line was playing out. And within a short period of time (I think it was only a day or two), Mike reversed his position and became an ardent Zimmerman supporter. Now, Gallagher SAID that he learned 'facts' about the shooting of which he was previously unaware. Perhaps. There's no way to know for sure. But I STRONGLY suspect that he came to understand that he was going to be on the receiving end of a litany of criticism from conservatives INCLUDING his listeners. And, I actually heard his listeners baste him pretty good over a couple of days. Now, I can't prove it, but I would be willing to bet that Gallagher 'modified his beliefs' (did a 180) to make sure that his radio show wasn't rowing against the current considering that the overwhelming number of conservatives viewed the shooting as justified, even under the particular circumstances of an unarmed youth being stalked at night by an armed man. I think there's no doubt that Gallagher understood that if he continued to support Martin's family and took their side in the ensuing controversy, that stand had the potential to turn off his core audience and possibly even threaten the continued syndication of his show in several markets.

uh mustang, I worked with a lot of black folks that were pissed about the shooting, but after hearing more about it, some of them actually wanted to find out what happened...imagine that

so you think trevyon was just an innocent boy.....wow......how delusional can you be?

I don't know what you mean by innocent. Innocent of what?

But I can tell you what I'm convinced about. If the circumstances were exactly the same with the only exception being that Martin was a 17 yo white youth, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, and conservatives would never have rallied to Zimmerman's defense.

h-o-g-w-a-s-h

 

[koshergrl]

This is a question directed at far right wingers who oppose most govt spending, but, anyone can anwser the poll or post one. The quesiton is:

If you had a private sector job, but, the local, county, state or federal government offered you a full time job with GREAT pay (lets say 2-3X more than you make), with great benefits far better than what you get now, would you accept it? Or, would you stick to your small government principles and say that the job pays too good for a government worker, and you will not participate in furthering the problem?

Let the discussion begin hahaha!!!

The reality, however, is that a government worker's pay is usually considerably less than the pay for the equivalent private sector job. They just get better benefits.

But the benefits are slowly being eaten away.

Many gov't workers qualify for foodstamps.

But at the management level, there are a lot of high paying jobs that are completely unnecessary, and consist mostly of politicking...and the pay is completely outrageous at those levels. It's disgusting.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Why would you say that, I would say no. I'll leave it up to you to figuer out why.

i should have said this before i said what i said......i am assuming it would be a person not making 6 figures a year AND the Economy is not in the shitter.....if that was the case....if you were working a job making say 50 grand a year and the govt (especially Federal) gave you a chance to work a comparable job at more money and much better benefits......your going to take it...... if you say no i wouldn't...... i will say bullshit......

You neglected one scenario, I'm retired, not interested in working for anyone.

ok lets put that in there too then.....

 

[Katzndogz]

Government workers don't take those jobs because of the pay or benefits however generous they might be. They take those jobs because getting rid of them is almost impossible no matter how lazy or unproductive they are.

 

[PredFan]

This is a question directed at far right wingers who oppose most govt spending, but, anyone can anwser the poll or post one. The quesiton is:

If you had a private sector job, but, the local, county, state or federal government offered you a full time job with GREAT pay (lets say 2-3X more than you make), with great benefits far better than what you get now, would you accept it? Or, would you stick to your small government principles and say that the job pays too good for a government worker, and you will not participate in furthering the problem?

Let the discussion begin hahaha!!!

Your point is based on a false premise. High pay for government employees is not Big Government. Not surprising at all that a liberal doesn't know the difference.

 

[uscitizen]

I wouldn't - not because of "principles", but the sort of "government job" in my field doesn't interest me at all.

Republicans should understand that post. It contains items dear to their hearts.
Principle and interest.

 

[uscitizen]

uh mustang, I worked with a lot of black folks that were pissed about the shooting, but after hearing more about it, some of them actually wanted to find out what happened...imagine that

so you think trevyon was just an innocent boy.....wow......how delusional can you be?

I don't know what you mean by innocent. Innocent of what?

But I can tell you what I'm convinced about. If the circumstances were exactly the same with the only exception being that Martin was a 17 yo white youth, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, and conservatives would never have rallied to Zimmerman's defense.

h-o-g-w-a-s-h

Hogwash is good, dirty hogs are bad.

 

[rightwinger]

Government workers don't take those jobs because of the pay or benefits however generous they might be. They take those jobs because getting rid of them is almost impossible no matter how lazy or unproductive they are.

It is very difficult to get rid of an unproductive worker. The only way I saw to actually fire someone was if they lost their security clearance. In that case they were out the door in a matter of days.

 

[MarcATL]

I don't believe for a second they would turn it down.

They would justify it by whatever means and still look down on everyone ELSE that has a government job while having a government job.

I listen to talk radio, and up to this week I heard multiple callers self-professed Republicans and/or Conservatives say they've been on welfare, but turned around and bashed those on welfare saying they're abusing the system.

These people are uncanny.

 

[nodoginnafight]

This is a question directed at far right wingers who oppose most govt spending, but, anyone can anwser the poll or post one. The quesiton is:

If you had a private sector job, but, the local, county, state or federal government offered you a full time job with GREAT pay (lets say 2-3X more than you make), with great benefits far better than what you get now, would you accept it? Or, would you stick to your small government principles and say that the job pays too good for a government worker, and you will not participate in furthering the problem?

Let the discussion begin hahaha!!!

I'm not a "right winger" (even though I've been called that on these boards), but I think I'd take any good as long as it doesn't involve me compromising my principles. (Like murder for hire, or lying for hire, etc ...)

But earning a great salary and enjoying great benefits is not a bad thing. It's the American Dream. It's why we go to college and work hard to make ourselves valuable employees. So earning a great salary doesn't get in the way of my principles at all.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Government workers don't take those jobs because of the pay or benefits however generous they might be. They take those jobs because getting rid of them is almost impossible no matter how lazy or unproductive they are.

yea sure.....i guess all the Postal workers that were fired in my time there was just an imaginary thing.....once again Katz.....more bullshit....

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is a question directed at far right wingers who oppose most govt spending, but, anyone can anwser the poll or post one. The quesiton is:

If you had a private sector job, but, the local, county, state or federal government offered you a full time job with GREAT pay (lets say 2-3X more than you make), with great benefits far better than what you get now, would you accept it? Or, would you stick to your small government principles and say that the job pays too good for a government worker, and you will not participate in furthering the problem?

Let the discussion begin hahaha!!!

Currently my annual salary is more than any government official and I call the shots. I don't have to deal with government hacks, bureaucracy or red tape so I'll pass on the government job.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Government workers don't take those jobs because of the pay or benefits however generous they might be. They take those jobs because getting rid of them is almost impossible no matter how lazy or unproductive they are.

It is very difficult to get rid of an unproductive worker. The only way I saw to actually fire someone was if they lost their security clearance. In that case they were out the door in a matter of days.

in the PO if you could not handle doing a route you were given a choice.....become a clerk or resign....and as long as you were giving it your best,even if you were not as fast as the rest of us.....what can they do?.....you got out there and got it done,but you just were not as fast as the rest of us.....but i seen MANY carriers and clerks fired for stealing,falsifying paperwork,attendance.......the PO today is nothing like it was last Century as far as not being dismissed for doing stuff you are not supposed to be doing....

 

[koshergrl]

"Of the top three individual earners, the top two are from the Department of Human Services. Both DHS workers are classified as Principle Executives and earn $231,996 and $242,004, respectively. The third top earner, from the Department of Corrections, is classified as a Clinical Director and earns $229,332.
Workers who earn $100,000 or above total 949. Those earning at least $75,000 total 3,689. The mean salary for all 32,620 state workers is $51,442. The mean for all Oregon workers, public and private, is $41,430, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The state workers’ mean salary exceeds Oregon’s mean salary by $10,000, or 24 percent.
The top-earning agency is the Legislative Revenue Office, with an average salary of just under $100,000. The Legislative Fiscal Office and the Employment Relations Board followed closely, with an average salary of approximately $95,000. Comparatively, the Legislative Assembly earns the least with an average salary of $33,783.
"The top two service-type category earners are Agency Heads and Executive Services, with mean incomes of $115,778 and $93,622, respectively. Employees unrepresented by a union earn $44,530 on average. Union-represented employees earn $47,277, six percent more than their unrepresented counterparts.
As for total agency payroll, the Department of Human Services eclipses all others. DHS has a head count of 8,923 and total payroll of $426 million. The runner-up is the Department of Corrections, with a head count of 4,161 and total payroll of $222 million. Following closely in third place is the Department of Transportation, with a head count of 4,236 and total payroll of $219 million."

Oregon.gov Publishes State Workers? Salaries | The Oregon Catalyst

Over 200,000...for the life of me, I have no idea what the dhs director does. As far as I can tell, she talks to and listens to people, then goes and shmoozes with legislators.

Tough work. Judges make $100,000...that's the amount that we pay them to make them less susceptible to bribery.

Apparently dhs directors are more susceptible to bribery than judges. Go figure.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I took a government job in 1978 for $12,900 a year

I retired as a millionaire

You're welcome, parasite.

I know....Is this a great country or what?

I started with the government as a 21 yr old engineer fresh out of college. Every other employer at the time was offering $14-16K a year and the Navy offered me a stinking $12,900. When I complained, the recruiter smiled and said "But you can get civil service retirement at 55 and never worry about having a job" I said I would rather have the money. But I took the offer and every other engineer asked "Why would you want to work for the government?"

Fast forward 17years and I am a mid level manager looking to hire computer scientists and network engineers to work for me. Right in the middle of the Dot Com boom. I was making a salary in the $70K range and was offering jobs in the $55-$65K range. They looked at me like I was crazy. They were making $90K-$100K with stock options. They asked me..."Why would I want to work for the government?"

Fast forward another 17years and I was eligible to retire. That Civil Service pension had a cash value of $1.5 million and I had a Thrift Savings with another couple hundred thousand in it. Those who had laughed at me for taking a government job had gone to work for companies like Kodak and Bell Labs. When the Dot Com bubble burst they were out of work for a year or more. Their stock options were not worth shit. They were looking to work into their 70s


That is why I wanted to work for the government

You are a poster child for why anyone getting more from the government than he or she pays in taxes should be declared a ward of the state and should not be permitted to vote.

 

[initforme]

ahhh heck when it comes right down to it there arent any principles. You see, capitalism is simply and only about making the most money possible by any means(moral or immoral) as long as it is within the law. The system is one of worker versus employer, man vs man, do what you have to do to make sure the other guy is below you. Simply the way its designed. This is america. It is all about being one up on your neighbor. So if you could make more every person on this forum would take more principles be darned. Those principles are quickly swept under the rug so more green finds their pocketbook. Anything else is purely a lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, now you're lying again.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, you see, SOME government jobs are difficult, and very important to society. And, well, the government must compete as well for the best talent in the labor pool. And it is important to attract and retain good people in those important jobs, so, you see....sometimes, we must pay employees of our governments a good salary. Thats kinda how the free market works.

Name 10.

Hell, I will make it easy for you, name 1.

Difficult and very important to society?

Police Officer
Fireman
Teacher
Social Worker

If we want to talk about really difficult and important, we can talk about the thousands of scientists, mathematicians, doctors, and computer scientists in NASA, NSA, DARPA, DoD, DoE, and nearly every other government agency.

Seriously? Of all the jobs that you listed there only one is considered an exclusive function of the government, and that is only because they made it illegal for anyone else to do it. In fact, California use people who are actually in prison to fight fires, so the argument that firefighters have to be government workers is so stupid it doesn't even merit as an argument, yet it is still better than the arguments that teachers and social workers are proof that we need government employees.

Come to think of it, anybody who has enough money\, and actually cares about their security, doesn't rely on the police, they pay private security people for protection, and have them investigate crimes.

Nice attempt though, not that you will see how stupid it actually is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IN ORDER TO REMEDY HIS RECESSION, Reagan added government jobs - that's right, he increased the federal workforce - in order to boost employment and increase consumption

IN ORDER TO REMEDY HIS RECESSION, GW BUSH added government jobs - that's right, he increased the federal workforce - in order to boost employment and increase consumption.

IN ORDER TO REMEDY THE GREATEST RECESSION IN 70 YEARS, Obama was forced to decrease government jobs so that he would be prevented from boosting employment and increase consumption.

Reagan = increased federal workforce.

Bush I & II = increase federal workforce

Obama = decrease federal workforce.

Why don't Republicans know this?

I do not care that every president in history screwed up, that is not an argument to keep screwing up.