| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 12:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
There’s certainly more wrong with Techno’s site than the Tedford posting. Tedford was fired how long ago, and he shows up multiple times? There are no details about sources of income, or exact job titles. It appears that many of the postings are of doctors, or consultants, who have multiple pay sources. some doctors make a lot of money—perhaps too much. Republicans seem to work hard to make sure they keep more of that money.
I noticed that Techno didn’t try to explain or stand behind his first biased citation—just grabbed another. Techno, you appear to have absolutely no understanding about the math and rigor required to make comparisons. California’s salaries—and costs of living—are higher than most other states. You can well criticize that, but better you might try to understand it. To try to make comparisons, you need to find a way to normalize the data to account for those differences. Anyone doing research that is subject to peer review will do that, and explain their rationale clearly.
The same goes for comparing public and private sector pay. You need to compare comparable jobs. For example, highway engineers working for state and local governments, and those working for contractors that perform such work. Same thing with clerical staff, software engineers, and so forth. Rigor is required.
Before I retired, I was well versed in the salaries of engineers, hazmat specialists and environmental planners in the private sector, state and Federal governments. Those in the private sector made substantially more—but when benefits were factored in, it was pretty much a wash. That is not accidental, salaries at many agencies are set according to pretty rigorous salary comparison studies that take those things into account.
You can argue that it is more expensive to live in California, and salaries are higher, and you’d be right. To try to make a case that salaries, private or public, are unreasonably higher even taking that into consideration, you’d have to do a lot more work. .
I can certainly cite examples where local governments, or the Federal government overpay and underpay in my opinion. But we know that isolated anecdotes do not establish trends.
You can try again, but you’ve got two strikes already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu May 09, 2019 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| California to ban chlorpyrifos after EPA under Trump backs off. How nutty, protecting farm workers and the environment. Obviously not something the Trump administration would do if it cost a fat cat a penny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 10:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
mac said: | Quote: | | I noticed that Techno didn’t try to explain or stand behind his first biased citation—just grabbed another. Techno, you appear to have absolutely no understanding about the math and rigor required to make comparisons. California’s salaries—and costs of living—are higher than most other states. You can well criticize that, but better you might try to understand it. To try to make comparisons, you need to find a way to normalize the data to account for those differences. Anyone doing research that is subject to peer review will do that, and explain their rationale clearly. |
I find it really interesting that when I post a couple of stories about public vs private pay in California, Mac criticizes me for my lack of understanding when the only thing I said was that state educational pay wasn't included in the studies. Mac has got to be one of the biggest haters in the country, personalizing just about everything that he disagrees with, just like Baja. Certainly, he can criticize the articles and their writers all he wants, but demeaning comments about the posters just flushes his credibility down the toilet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Tue May 14, 2019 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| techno900 wrote: | mac said: | Quote: | | I noticed that Techno didn’t try to explain or stand behind his first biased citation—just grabbed another. Techno, you appear to have absolutely no understanding about the math and rigor required to make comparisons. California’s salaries—and costs of living—are higher than most other states. You can well criticize that, but better you might try to understand it. To try to make comparisons, you need to find a way to normalize the data to account for those differences. Anyone doing research that is subject to peer review will do that, and explain their rationale clearly. |
I find it really interesting that when I post a couple of stories about public vs private pay in California, Mac criticizes me for my lack of understanding when the only thing I said was that state educational pay wasn't included in the studies. Mac has got to be one of the biggest haters in the country, personalizing just about everything that he disagrees with, just like Baja. Certainly, he can criticize the articles and their writers all he wants, but demeaning comments about the posters just flushes his credibility down the toilet. |
Let me get this straight now. Techno starts a post solely to belittle California. He has touted the advantages of charter schools and school choice, despite the fact that research shows that students of charter schools perform, on the whole, no better than students of public schools-despite leaving the hard to educate behind. He has identified himself as a school teacher in, I believe South Carolina. Let's see what charter schools have achieved in South Carolina:
| Quote: | The state is now home to some of the nation's best and worst schools, split largely by race and income, and this gap is getting wider.
“We have two South Carolinas," as Ted Pitts, head of the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, put it.
One in eight public schools is now intensely segregated with 90 percent or more minority students. That's partly because about 36,000 children, mostly white, abandon the public schools each year for private ones. Those schools take in more than $200 million annually in tuition and contributions.
White flight robs local public schools of diversity and resources. It makes already-shrinking rural schools even smaller. And the smallest schools cost taxpayers more per student to operate.
|
https://data.postandcourier.com/saga/minimally-adequate/page/2
To the current point, techno posts something absolutely out of context about salaries in California. In doing so, he doesn't demonstrate the most rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis. And he is upset by push back?
Don't be such a snowflake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mac, your mind must be on drugs. You make no sense. You just said: | Quote: | | Let me get this straight now. Techno starts a post solely to belittle California. |
My posts just pointed out that the public sector in Calif. get's paid twice what the private sector gets paid. Does this belittle Calif.? Is that your opinion, because I didn't express one.
You said: | Quote: | | He has touted the advantages of charter schools and school choice, despite the fact that research shows that students of charter schools perform, on the whole, no better than students of public schools-despite leaving the hard to educate behind. |
What does that have to do with public sector pay in Calif. Mac, you are desperate to win a debate even though you know nothing about debating and staying on topic. It's clear when you are cornered, you deflect to other issues to save face, but as I said before, your credibility is in the toilet and it's now in the sewer.
And by the way, I don't live in South Carolina.
Mac also said: | Quote: | | To the current point, techno posts something absolutely out of context about salaries in California. In doing so, he doesn't demonstrate the most rudimentary understanding of statistical analysis. |
Bitch to the authors about the context of the story, bitching to me shows your complete ignorance about debate. So far, I haven't argued either pro or con about the apparent disparity in public vs private pay in California, I just pointed out that some folks think there seems to be an imbalance. Good or bad? Make up your own mind. If you are a public employee - Hallelujah! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Talk about deflection. I commented that comparisons in pay must be rigorous. Cherry-picked arguments from right-wing outfits don’t qualify. Techno’s source is funded by the Koch’s and affiliated with ALEC—impossible to get more biased.
Use of such a site to claim that public sector pay is higher than private sector—without checking or thinking—is what is deplorable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Finally on topic. It took a while, and you are welcome to criticize the sources I posted, but you haven't shown that they are incorrect. Now is the time to show your: "math and rigor required to make comparisons" if you wish to further argue your point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
