Sean O'Keefe Departs

I'm sure it happens all the time. But what makes yoy think that an
overpaid employee will automatically be less greedy?

Eric

If a public employee is overpaid, a private employer isn't going to offer him a
better salary, he'll just shake his head at the waste of tax dollars. I'm not
talking about the lowly unionized public servant who shuffles papers, I talking
about managers who get paid much less than their corporate counterparts for
doing a similar service.

Well when one argues that a private scetor salary should necessarily
nmatch a public fund salary you run the risk of making the public funded
segment too powerful.

Who argued that? I did not. I said government salaries should be compedative
with those offered by the private sector. That means if the private sector
offers X dollars, so too should the government for a similar position. What the
private sector offers is determined by market forces and a consideration for
how valuable a particular employee might be for getting a specific job done.
You can't legislate salaries for the private sector, what you can do is set
government salaries so that the private sector can't steal public employees
away and leave job vacancies that need to be filled by their departure, this
also means that the government would have to spend alot more on training,
because once their trained its off they go to "XYZ Incorporated".

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: I'm sure it happens all the time. But what makes yoy think that an
: overpaid employee will automatically be less greedy?
:

: If a public employee is overpaid, a private employer isn't going to offer him a
: better salary, he'll just shake his head at the waste of tax dollars. I'm not
: talking about the lowly unionized public servant who shuffles papers, I talking
: about managers who get paid much less than their corporate counterparts for
: doing a similar service.

But the corporate counterparts, though unfair, are the root of capitalism.
Do you want to impose some sort of salary cap or salary regulation, maybe
even by the same government person that is being paid less?!

Capitalism, as bad as it is, is still the best system. I can't believe I'm
lecturing you about this. Geez, don't you righties fear falling into
socilaism or even communsim due to taking your thoughts of fairness a
little too far?!

Eric

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: Well when one argues that a private scetor salary should necessarily
: nmatch a public fund salary you run the risk of making the public funded
: segment too powerful.

: Who argued that? I did not. I said government salaries should be compedative
: with those offered by the private sector. That means if the private sector
: offers X dollars, so too should the government for a similar position. What the
: private sector offers is determined by market forces and a consideration for
: how valuable a particular employee might be for getting a specific job done.
: You can't legislate salaries for the private sector, what you can do is set
: government salaries so that the private sector can't steal public employees
: away and leave job vacancies that need to be filled by their departure, this
: also means that the government would have to spend alot more on training,
: because once their trained its off they go to "XYZ Incorporated".

The only way to match GS salaries with private ones of the same stripe is
to allow the GSers salaries to be subjected to market forces. And there
you start to get into the trouble again.

I think that the GSers get a better retirement deal and other bennies. If
you don't like the GS salary go private sector. You have a choice Tom.

Eric

Tkalbfus1 wrote:

But do we really want
NASA managers that accept the job so that other organizations will
notice him
for his accomplishments there, or do we want people that take the job
who want
it for its own sake?


We definitely want someone who will take the job for it's own sake. We
also want someone who will take it for everything BUT the money.
That's called dedication and excellence. That's what makes an
organization really good. That's called HAPPY WITH YOUR WORK. Take a
look at all the best leaders in every area- the top- if you look and
ask around- even if there is exhorbitant pay- that wasn't what they
really cared about.

The only way to match GS salaries with private ones of the same stripe is
to allow the GSers salaries to be subjected to market forces. And there
you start to get into the trouble again.

They are subject to market forces, the labor market specifically. Those that
can command a higher salary than government service will offer will go to the
private sector instead and the government will lose their services.

If someone improves himself while in government service, then he'll receive
offers from the private sector that are way better than what he gets in
government service, hence the government will have difficulty retaining the
service of its most valuable employees, since they are unable to offer a salary
that will convince him to stay. Those that stay are less valuable employees who
have yet to prove themselves adequately to command the private sector. This
tendency not to reward employees most valuable to the organization will tend to
result in their leaving government service.

The US Government cannot pretend not to be part of a labor market they are a
part of. Government must compete with private companies for the most valuable
workers in the labor market. If they can't offer the same salaries as private
companies, they will tend to lose out to those companies, all to the detriment
of government services.

Half a million dollars is not an awful lot of money to a government that spends
trillions annually, perhaps offering top salaries to top people will make the
overall organization more efficient.

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: But the corporate counterparts, though unfair, are the root of capitalism.
: Do you want to impose some sort of salary cap or salary regulation, maybe
: even by the same government person that is being paid less?!
:

: No no no no! Don't you read what I write? I never said impose a salary cap! Who
: do you think we are, the Soviet Union?

I'm wondering what you want?! Heck, too many Republicans would simply like
the Democrats to dry up and blow away, leaving a one-party system. My
first thought is that a one party system is exactly what the former USSR
was run by. What kept them in check was us. Who would then keep us in
check?

: The US Government doesn't run private
: corporations. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE US GOVERNMENT SHOULD NATIONALIZE US
: COMPANIES IN ORDER TO IMPOSE SALARY CAPS ON THEIR CEOS!

Good, you had me worried there for a minute.

: That sort of thinking is similar to Mr. Incredible uprooting a tree and shaking
: it in order to get the cat down from its upper branches.

Sorry I haven't seen that film yet.

: Where do you get this Bizarro way of thinking. I repeat, US Government Salaries
: should be compedative with the Private sector. The US Controls what it pays its
: own workers. You don't have to upend the capitalist system to give government
: workers a decent salary comparible to their private sector counterparts.

Okay, then how do you propose the government pay its employees to make
their salaries comparable to that of the private sector?

Eric

: Tom

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: Capitalism, as bad as it is, is still the best system. I can't believe I'm
: lecturing you about this. Geez, don't you righties fear falling into
: socilaism or even communsim due to taking your thoughts of fairness a
: little too far?!
:

: And as usual, you lefties have their ears full of wax. You hear only what you
: want to hear.

Perhaps. But I think it may be another case of "do what I say but not what
I do."

I and use Q-Tips.

Eric

Tkalbfus1 ) wrote:
: The only way to match GS salaries with private ones of the same stripe is
: to allow the GSers salaries to be subjected to market forces. And there
: you start to get into the trouble again.

: They are subject to market forces, the labor market specifically. Those that
: can command a higher salary than government service will offer will go to the
: private sector instead and the government will lose their services.

: If someone improves himself while in government service, then he'll receive
: offers from the private sector that are way better than what he gets in
: government service, hence the government will have difficulty retaining the
: service of its most valuable employees, since they are unable to offer a salary
: that will convince him to stay. Those that stay are less valuable employees who
: have yet to prove themselves adequately to command the private sector. This
: tendency not to reward employees most valuable to the organization will tend to
: result in their leaving government service.

But not until they get some sort of retirement benefit, in theory at
least. This then leads to the double-dippers, etc.

But you must understand that most private industry pays big bucks to those
that have the experience that they gain from government service, again in
theory.

: The US Government cannot pretend not to be part of a labor market they are a
: part of. Government must compete with private companies for the most valuable
: workers in the labor market. If they can't offer the same salaries as private
: companies, they will tend to lose out to those companies, all to the detriment
: of government services.

Not always true. Civil sevants don't serve in government just for the
money. Look at the military. Do you want them paid like mercenaries?

: Half a million dollars is not an awful lot of money to a government that spends
: trillions annually, perhaps offering top salaries to top people will make the
: overall organization more efficient.

Where does it end though? I mean serving in the government used to be its
own reward. If it no longer is, then I blame the administration for not
making it so. In fact, the average Bush adminstration employee appears to
be just passing threw on their pay to larger paycheks in the private
sector. Where is the service as its own reward initiative? Why is it
geared to be get as much money as you can, in the first place? THESE are
the kinds of issues that we must investigate.

Do you think soldier's pay is good or do you think that the average
soldier could do better doing a job in the private sector?

Eric

Perhaps. But I think it may be another case of "do what I say but not what
I do."

I and use Q-Tips.

Eric

Does that mean that NASA should send the NASA Administrator to Mars, or that he
should be on every shuttle flight?

Should the NASA Administrator be right up their with the Astronauts, putting
his life in danger with the rest of them?

Do you want the NASA Administrator on the International Space Station along
with his Russian Counterpart?

That would be doing as I do, wouldn't it?