It is ironic that the firefighters chose this week, among all weeks, to launch their citizen-based astroturf front group, Friends of Davis Firefighters. This is the week that the city manager unveiled the daunting city budget, that shows mainly bad news.
Some of the bad news is, of course, of the city’s own doing. While the city manager projects a $6 million ongoing structural deficit by 2018, half of that, $3 million, is self-inflicted – coming from the rising costs of water due to water rate hikes. It is of some irony that during the course of the Measure I campaign, no one effectively raised the fact that this project and its accompanying rate hikes would explode the city’s general fund deficit.
That said, the bulk of the city’s problem appears to have been caused by policies in the past where the city attempted to balance the budget by simply failing to put money into infrastructure improvement such as road maintenance. Short term, that strategy may have allowed the council to “balance” funds in the current budget, but failing to pay for maintenance now means exponential growth in costs.
While former Councilmember Stephen Souza can claim this is a statewide problem caused by the decline of state and local grants, the Vanguard showed that over the last decade, funding was sporadic at best and ended up at an average around $800,000 per year – far less than what we need.
The $6 million budget deficit actually represents a low number. Councilmember Brett Lee was none too happy that interim public works director Bob Clarke only got the council halfway to fixing the road maintenance budget. It is easy to foresee deficits looming near $10 million if council decides to fully engage in the problem.
It is against this bleak fiscal picture, where the council must decide between types of services and roll the dice on asking the public to dip into their increasingly tapped out pocket books, that the firefighters emerge this week with a professionally-organized full-on public relations campaign.
The firefighters already seem to have a sense of entitlement. On average, their bargaining unit is not only the highest paid in the city, but cutbacks to personnel without cutting staffing needs have put thousands in overtime pay into their pockets, on top of their enhanced retirement of 3% at the age of 50.
While everyone but the intransigent DCEA (Davis City Employees Association) and the firefighters accepted the city’s bargaining agreement, the city is already paying tens of thousands each month in additional pay and benefits due to the unwillingness of the well-paid firefighters, making over $150,000 in total compensation, to take the same deal that everyone else has taken.
In the meantime, the rules do not apply to the firefighters – every other department has been forced in these hard times to cut back on services. The firefighters, instead of offering up solutions, have fought hard to preserve the status quo.
When Friends of Davis Firefighters released their clunky press release with three quotes from various Davis citizens, it was not hard to figure out where the effort was coming from. The fingerprints of the organization bear the name Bobby Weist, whether it is the domain name that is registered in his name or the P.O. Box that traces back to the union.
Incredibly, however, Bobby Weist still insisted to Davis Enterprise reporter Lauren Keene that this was a grassroots effort and the union was simply acting in a support capacity.
Bobby Weist told the Davis Enterprise – which had also done the research and reported on it – “that the union is not a part of the community group, which he said the firefighters learned of as they walked precincts in anticipation of a March council discussion of the staffing issue.”
“They’re basically running the show,” Mr. Weist told the paper. “Because we have mutual goals, we’re happy to offer them some resources to get their information out. We’re grateful that there’s a grassroots group of folks out there that supports what we support.”
While the Enterprise has often looked the other way at such deception, it is to the credit of Ms. Keene that she laid out the full facts, allowing the public to reach their own conclusion.
The idea that this is a citizen-based movement is ludicrous. They learned of it as they walked precincts? That statement defies any logic, as there were almost no members of the public even aware of this issue at that point in time. As they walked precincts, they were only able to draw a handful of people to a community meeting, and yet there was this large and broad-based community group organizing?
And where were its members at the March 5 meeting? If they were organized at that point, why would they not come forward to make a statement at a meeting that very well could have resolved this issue?
The truth is that Bobby Weist must think we are all stupid and that he can blatantly lie and we will swallow the ridiculous claims uncritically.
The truth is that the union is behind this effort, just as they are behind the very professionally accomplished 16-second YouTube video meant to rally support for their cause.
The problem is that, while the firefighters are trying to scare the public, the facts are not on their side. So yesterday, when we did the math, their case falls apart.
The centerpiece of the claim is, of course, the 4500 calls. That sounds impressive until you recognize that over the course of a 365-day year, that means an average of 12.3 calls per day, which means 4.1 calls per fire station.
That, of course, leads the inquisitive person, who has actually bothered to do the math, to ask what exactly the firefighters are doing in between those 4.1 calls per day.
Worse than that, only a handful of those calls involved structure fires, the type that the firefighters are trying to scare people about.
The plan that former Interim Chief Scott Kenley put together actually improves response time on most calls. Right now, if you have a call in the city, a fire engine fully loaded with four firefighters will have to respond. If that call comes from the central fire station, then one of the other two fire stations moves to the center to backfill.
That leaves essentially half the town with a far longer response time. Under the proposed model, the central fire station would have two stand-alone units – an engine and a rescue apparatus. Utilizing that, the city can avoid the merry-go-round of backfilling and enable the fire engines to respond to an emergency on the east or west side of town far quicker.
Moreover, as a former UC Davis student firefighter and current firefighter in another jurisdiction points out, the two in, two out rule only applies to a structure fire with no known victim. But as the individual notes, even with a three-person fire engine, the crew doesn’t simply arrive on scene and enter the building.
The individual writes, “When firefighters show up to a house fire we do not just run in with hoses flowing. Without a known rescue, there is usually a 2-5 minute set up time. During this period we are generally pulling hoses to the point of entry, preparing tools to force entry, setting up ladders, connecting to a fire hydrant, and putting on our SCBA (air tank) while the company officer sizes up the scene and walks around the building looking for secondary exits, room of origin, and safety concerns.”
“Only once most of these tasks are completed does the team enter the structure,” they write. “Even a known rescue does not speed this process much because at the end of the day we need to account for our safety and go home safe.”
In their opinion, the four-person argument is a red herring.
They argue, “By the time the above tasks are completed it is reasonable to expect a second engine or truck company will have arrived thus nullifying ‘2 in 2 out’ before the first due engine was ready to go in anyway.”
But the public has no way to assess these arguments, and so they may take them on face value.
The council has not helped themselves. This could have been resolved quickly and quietly in late January, but for the fact that the council did not want to deliberate past 10:30.
On March 5, facing some heat, the council decided to tie the discussion in with the budget. The city manager obliged, counting the reduction in staff as a $444,000 budget savings that lowers the current budget deficit.
However, the council gambled in doing this and we see what that gamble is: the firefighters are going to put tens of thousands into attempting to mobilize the public by scaring the hell out of them. We will see how well the council stands up to the heat in the coming months.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David, if it’s a case that some of our council members don’t seem to have the backbone to do the right thing and go to 3 person crews we need to organize as a community and let the council know that they’ll suffer our raff if they once again cave into the firefighters union. Rich Rifkin laid it out so nicely yesterday, the facts are on the the side of staff reduction. All the firefighters have is fear mongering. It amazes me that there are always a few sheep who will fall for their antics. Why, as a community, do we put up with these union tactics when applicants would be lined up for firefighter jobs at a much reduced compensation? It’s not like their jobs would be that hard to fill.
Based on my conservations, as I said yesterday, there are three solid known votes for staff reductions, so while I believe they erred strategically in March, I think the end result will be staff reduction.
I realize this is an emotional, personal issue for me. I lived in South Davis and a few years ago, the Davis firefighters saved my family’s home, lives, and the life of my dog. Priceless. So I say find the money in the budget somewhere else & leave the firefighters alone. Thank you, Davis firefighters.
nothing in the chief’s plan will prevent the firefighters from saving people’s homes and lives in the future either, so unless you think that your personal situation amounts to a blank check, the question is how to provide those services within current budgetary constraints.
[quote]So I say find the money in the budget somewhere else & leave the firefighters alone.[/quote]
JimmysDaughter, do you currently live in Davis? Don’t you think that firefighters being paid a much more reasonable salary would’ve done the same job? The bottom line is the city can no longer afford paying these bloated salaries.
Jimmy’s Daughter, I empathize with your feelings, but can’t help but wonder whether the two Davis workers in the “somewhere else” that gets cut to add the one firefighter (per shift) will take their receipt of a pink slip personally. Six families with lost income is a high price to pay.
A high price that becomes even higher if the Chief assertion that 3-3-3-2 is just as good as 4-4-4.
JimmysDaughter
While I appreciate your personal gratitude to the firefighters, there are two broader issues here besides the economic.
First is, would the same outcome for your family have been achieved with the 3 rather than 4 on an engine model ?. The single study posted on the previous thread suggests a slight reduction in time from identification of need to task completion with the four on a truck model. What is not clear is whether that has real world value or is only an observation in an experimental model. Longitudinal studies would be needed to answer this question. There does not seem to be an abundance of those readily available.
The second issues involves the overall safety of the community and this would seem to hinge, by the numbers of medical vs structural fire calls on the availability of a very flexible, mobile force which would favor the model proposed by Interim Chief Kenley.
It seems to me that the firefighters have chosen to pass up a number of opportunities to work cooperatively to implement the optimal design for the safety of the citizens and firefighters within a currently appropriate cost structure.. They have chosen instead to cast this as a “with us or against us” issue. I am quite sure is not true for most of us who value their service, and would appreciate it if they would reciprocate with a respectful attitude towards those who provide other services which while possibly not as dramatic and emotionally laden, are of equal value.
There should be a clear delineation between the firefighters union their political tactics and then the actual employees doing the work. There should also be a separation between our appreciation for the work that the firefighters do and the debate over what we are paying them.
I agree 100% Frankly.
“That, of course, leads the inquisitive person, who has actually bothered to do the math, to ask what exactly the firefighters are doing in between those 4.1 calls per day.”
Cheap shot D.G. An inquisitive person would actually ask. Although I have never been a professional firefighter long ago i was a volunteer so I have a little perspective. First, since they work long shifts and might be on duty for days at a time, they rest and they eat, so they can be ready when a call comes in. They also reset their equipment and they train. Your rhetorical question says more about your level of contempt than anything about your interest in understanding the dynamics of being a public safety employee of the fire department.
[quote]they rest and they eat, so they can be ready when a call comes in. [/quote]
I think we all rest and eat before we have have to work, the difference is we aren’t getting paid to rest and eat.
Yes but when your alarm goes off you have more than six minutes to respond.
[quote]Yes but when your alarm goes off you have more than six minutes to respond. [/quote]
So what? They have to be ready in 6 minutes for one of their 4 calls a day. It’s not like firefighters are hard to replace. I mean what does it take, 2 years of J.C.? If they don’t like the conditions or taking a paycut then let’s bring some in who’ll appreciate the job.
David wrote:
> That, of course, leads the inquisitive person,
> who has actually bothered to do the math, to ask
> what exactly the firefighters are doing in between
> those 4.1 calls per day.
Then Mr. Toad wrote:
> Cheap shot D.G.
It is only a “cheap shot” if you want to deny the fact that firefighters get paid a lot of money and have a lot of free time (that is why we often have over 1,000 applications for a single position). They not only get paid to shop, eat, sleep and watch sports, but most of them (in unions in California Urban Areas) get paid more per hour than 90% of the people in the country while they are shopping, sleeping, eating and watching sports…
> Although I have never been a professional firefighter
> long ago i was a volunteer so I have a little perspective.
I have never been a professional firefighter but I am friends with dozens of them and I am currently a volunteer firefighter (and volunteer search and rescue team member).
> First, since they work long shifts and might be on duty
> for days at a time, they rest and they eat, so they can
> be ready when a call comes in.
I think that Mr. Toad works in education and I ask “If our current model of paying firefighters is so good why not pay teachers $175K a year and have them work 24 hour shifts at a drop in tutoring center taking 4.5 student “calls” in a day?” We will want to make sure that the union is strong so the drop in tutoring center teachers can ask for raises and fight any reductions in their 4 members per shift despite the fact that they are paid twice as much and work half as much as others in their profession.
[i]”A high price that becomes even higher if the Chief assertion that 3-3-3-2 is [b]just as good[/b] as 4-4-4.”[/i]
The assertion is not that 3332 is just as good. It is superior to 444. And residents who live in southeast Davis, near El Macero, will be the greatest beneficiaries with a change to 3332. When Engine 33 is relocated to cover for Engine 31, the eastern third of Davis and the outlying communities (Willowbank, El Macero, etc.) are made highly vulnerable.
The same problem with 444 brings harm to far West Davis, as well, when Engine 32 is moved downtown. However, the saving grace for far West Davis with 444 is that, because of the boundary drop, Engine 34 might be able to cover that territory.
The truth is that 444 is never better than 3332. Never. It can be as good in some cases. But it is never better. Most of the time 444 is much worse for medical calls and car accidents. And most of the time it is vastly superior with fire calls. It never puts public safety in danger compared with 444. However, 444 puts the people of Davis who need fires put out or need emergency medical aid every single day.
And yet … our idiotic council (there he goes again with the name calling!) is still not doing anything.
[i]”There should be a clear delineation between the firefighters union their political tactics and then the actual employees doing the work.”[/i]
I understand what you are saying–that no matter their politics, the job they do is vital, they put their lives on the line for us, and we need to appreciate them for that. I agree.
That said, it’s not the case that Bobbie Weist is a lone wolf and the others in his union have no idea what is going on or don’t support him. I have spoken with a handful (I think 5, maybe 6) retired firefighters who were on the force while Bobbie was running the union (which he still does, of course). And even though all of those people told me there is a profound division in the DFD between a few who hate Weist and the majority who like him) they all, to a man (or woman, but I did not actually speak to any women ff’s) have profound admiration for Weist’s abilities as a union leader and of course his success in that role, which has greatly enriched all of them.
The point here is that Weist, as the union leader, has the full backing of the Davis firefighters, and, as such, his tactics are their tactics. If he is ruthless or less than honest, the others give him their full support.
… And, I should add, I might not like it, but that is the job of a union–to fight tooth and nail for its members. Our great problem in Davis has always been that a majority of our city council members have never seen their job as acting as a counter-force to the demands of the union. And some, including some now on the council, have prioritized their own political futures over the public interest, causing them to do things like give unsustainable raises, unsustainable benefits, and inefficient staffing schemes. … And the people of Davis respond by re-electing those sorts of members of the council, or moving them up the chain to higher offices.
[quote]Don’t you think that firefighters being paid a much more reasonable salary would’ve done the same job? The bottom line is the city can no longer afford paying these bloated salaries. [/quote]
“A much more reasonable salary” might also be interpreted as ” a much lower salary”. This would seem to me to encourage a “race to the bottom” mindset. Taking my field as an example, yes, it is very expensive to have a highly trained, $250,000 + physician doing your Cesarean section delivery when a doctor making 1/2 that much could probably do most deliveries as well. However, from many years of experience, I can tell you that the additional pay will be worth every penny if it is you, your wife or daughter, who encounters the unusual, but life threatening emergency during what starts out as a routine event.
There needs to be a balance between the amount paid and both the actual job done, and the safety provided against the statistically unlikely, but possible catastrophic event. I think it is this balance that some of our council members are grappling with. At this point in time, for me, the bulk of the evidence is on the side of the Kenley plan. However, I remain open to evidence from the other side if any were forthcoming.
“If our current model of paying firefighters is so good why not pay teachers $175K a year and have them work 24 hour shifts at a drop in tutoring center taking 4.5 student “calls” in a day?”
This is an absurd analogy.
If you want to challenge what they are making go ahead, its your best argument, but, this nonsense about what they are doing when not saving lives undermines the credibility of your arguments. There is currently an honest debate about who is covering what and what is the right size for the force. There is another debate about how the City should go about deciding what is in the best interests of the community while protecting the safety of individuals. Staying with the issues has the best chance of being taken seriously by the decision makers. The name calling, insults and attacks on the professionalism of the Davis firefighters and city council members only makes you seem bitter, resentful or ill informed.
How do we establish a reasonable salary for every job? If we look to the job market, it is clear that firefighters are overpaid. Even in good economic times there are 1000 qualified applications for each new job. Having government set the compensation, we end up with politicians pandering to labor unions and over-compensating.
Correct me if I am wrong medwoman and Mr. Toad, but you two seem to be defending the compensation we pay the firefighters, and the compensation we pay city employees in general. How do you know the compensation is not too high? What are you suggesting as a way to balance our city budget while continuing to maintain these compensation levels? Or are you, like the firefighters union, conent to demand what you want without any participation for helping to solve the budget problems?
[quote]Or are you, like the firefighters union, conent to demand what you want without any participation for helping to solve the budget problems? [/quote]
Apparently so.
As a general rule, since the medical field is the most screwed up and bankrupt area of our economy, I do not see it as a model for organizing other areas.
While everyone but the intransigent DCEA (Davis City Employees Association) and the firefighters accepted the city’s bargaining agreement, the city is already paying tens of thousands each month in additional pay and benefits due to the unwillingness of the well-paid firefighters, making over $150,000 in total compensation, to take the same deal that everyone else has taken.
Just a quick thought about the ‘intransigent’ DCEA. If you do the math, besides the 9 eliminated, excuse me laid off positions that according to the city manager, funded the the cuts agreed to by the other groups, folks should ask how many other positions have been vacated through retirements, people leaving for other employment etc., that have not been filled. This is not just in the DCEA bargaining group, however citizens need to be aware that some of these cuts and open positions from the DCEA are not general funded, and are therefore affecting your services. You have had changes in your water and waste water service already, (Enterprise funded).
Fortunately as predicted from Manteca employees and citizens we certainly are topping off in management positions. Who are these people?
BTW, some divisions in Public Works have already been slashed almost in 1/2. Your streets are not the only infrastructure thats suffering.
[i]”… making [b]over $150,000[/b] in total compensation, to take the same deal that everyone else has taken.”[/i]
We have 27 firefighters and 9 fire captains, plus a handful of higher ups who make a lot more.
Of the 27 firefighters (only 1 of them is FF1, the lower status), the average total comp last year (2011-12) was [b]$170,000.[/b] I don’t know what the number will be for 2012-13, but I know they got a pay raise, I know they got a big cafeteria raise, I know the cost of their OPEB increased substantially, I know that the cost to the City for their PERS pensions went up, and I know that some other aspects of total comp increased as well. So this year it is definitely over $170,000 for those below the level of captain.
I calculated (for my column on fire staffing) that the average amount of total comp in 2013-14 will be $190,000; and because of that, the City of Davis would save $570,000 a year by going from the inferior 444 staffing to the superior 3332 staffing, assuming that in the next 2 years 3 positions will not be filled as ff’s retire.
You likely have read that the change from 444 to 3332 would only save $360,000. That number assumes that we make all of our savings from overtime, and in the future, as ff’s retire, we replace them, even though that would cost us much more money than maintaining our current standard of 3 ff’s for each 1 on-duty position.
Now we have 36 ff’s (counting the 9 captains) for 12 on-duty positions. If we go to 11 on-duty, we would only need 33 ff’s (9 captains + 24 ff’s).
I can assure you of this: If we make the staffing change from 444 to 3332, before 2014, we will be down to 33 ff’s (9 captains + 24 ff’s); and by doing so, we will save roughly $210,000 more per year.
[i]”Taking my field as an example, yes, it is very expensive to have a highly trained, $250,000 + physician doing your Cesarean section delivery when a doctor making 1/2 that much could probably do most deliveries as well.”[/i]
One of the biggest flaws with our medical practice today in the U.S. is the ridiculously high number of Cesarean-sections being performed. More C–sections don’t equate to better patient care. In fact, it is just the opposite. Children and mothers are harmed by unnecessary C-sections. But doctors and some hospitals, naturally, are motivated by money. If the reimbursement rates are high enough, obstetricians will perform more C-sections. If the reimbursement rate does not make it worthwhile, the C-section rate falls. The variation among various states is quite large ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/c-section-rate-variation-hospitals_n_2819024.html[/url]), and that difference can be accounted for by the size of malpractice awards. In states where it pays millions to win a lawsuit when a baby is born with a deformity completely unrelated to natural childbirth practice, the C-section rate goes up. The reverse happens in states which temper such awards.
The real difference is seen with medical practice in different countries. Modern nations, like the Netherlands, have much lower C-section rates than we have, and much better outcomes for it. Backward countries, like Mexico, have much higher rates than we have. And they are the worse for it.
[img]http://motherbabynetwork.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/1-us-c-sec-rates-1970-2009.jpg[/img]
There is much I agree with but I think the council needs to work through how to change things. I think that all the demonization only serves to make the opposition look vindictive and petty.
Frankly
[quote]conent to demand what you want without any participation for helping to solve the budget problems?[/quote]
I find this the height of irony given that I have previously posted, on a number of occasions, my preferred way of societal compensation. In my opinion, since everyone has only one thing that is of equal value, their time,
everyone who is making any positive contribution to the society should be compensated by the hour with the same living wage. Those who wish to earn more could put in more hours. Those who choose to live more frugally could earn less and enjoy their spare time. It would not matter what I “demand”, I will never see this is my lifetime.
As for all who commented about the disparity in medical compensation and our ridiculously expensive medical care, I could not agree more. And I imagine that my solution would go far beyond what any of you would suggest. I would do away with fee for service medicine entirely and compensate doctors at the same rate as everyone else. I would do away with law suits for poor outcomes beyond what was needed to redress the injury incurred. I would establish a single party payer system,which would apply to all medically necessary care. All purely elective and cosmetic cases would be paid for by the individual who could earn the additional money by putting in more hours at their job. I would allow the government to bargain for the best pharmaceutical rates, do away with the current hospital billing systems and yes, I would reduce the rate of Cesareans drastically.
Mr.Toad said . . .
[i]”There is much I agree with but I think the council needs to work through how to change things. I think that [b]all the demonization only serves to make the opposition look vindictive and petty.[/b]”[/i]
I agree with you 100% Toad. To torture the medical metaphor, there is no question that Rich Rifkin has immense credibility and gravitas on this issue, but his bedside manner is sorely lacking.
[quote]everyone who is making any positive contribution to the society should be compensated by the hour with the same living wage. [/quote]
Perhaps all that is needed to transition to this clearly superior wage system is an example set by a few enlightened individuals. I assume you have refused to be compensated at a rate above the living wage level? Or perhaps you are donating this excess amount to the needy?
Medwoman might agree that people should go into medicine, or other fields, because that’s the work they really want to do, and NOT because it’s highly paid.
It’s too bad money equates with respect and power, rather than talent.
Were that not the case, people might be willing to give up some of their higher earnings.
JR
“Perhaps all that is needed to transition to this clearly superior wage system is an example set by a few enlightened individuals. I assume you have refused to be compensated at a rateove the living wage level? Or perhaps you are donating this excess amount to the needy”
If this were true, it would already be the case as there are many, many examples of individuals, certain orders of nuns come to mind, who do exactly this.
During their years of training, doctors do in effect “refuse to be compensated at above the living wage level”. For the first eight years of training,
we pay for the privilege of being educated as does everyone who goes to college. For the next four to eight years, we were compensated at $30 -40,000 per year for 90 – 100 hour work weeks ( now down to 80). Because of my personal circumstances, I then chose an economically secure route which has left me, and those dependent upon me, just that, secure. Of my colleagues, a few have become wealthy, most are comfortable,
and a few have chosen to serve their communities to the level of providing “a living wage” for themselves and their families.
My preference for our society would be , as eagle eye has stated, that people choose their field of work based on their interests and abilities, and that no one who is making a positive contribution ever be hungry, or homeless, uneducated, or in jail because of a lack of money. I am strongly supportive of individual initiative and ambition. I would strongly support additional pay for additional hours spent working and respect and acknowledgement for outstanding achievement and contribution.
medwoman, I appreciate you putting your ideas out there related to compensation. You wear your liberal egalitarian views on your sleeve, and I find that refreshing.
But your ideas to pay everyone the same hourly rate are lacking in any assessment of consequence. Why would a person spend 12-15 years learning how to be a doctor if they could earn the same hourly rate coming out of high school? Why even finish high school? Why take on the risk of starting a business if you would only make the same as your employees? How would these distortions in pay relative to ability, effort and market demand impact the economy? For example, if farmers stop farming because there is not enough reward for their efforts, we would see food shortages. We would also have fewer doctors and face a shortage of medical services.
I think this idea of same rate of pay is in the Marxism camp. But, even Marx changed his tune as he noted the success of the West and the high standards of living generated through Democratic free market capitalism.
I have much greater faith in a free market mechanism to set the value of labor and skills than I do having some government official do the same. We have only to note the current situation where politicians have over-compensated public-sector union employees to the point that cities are going bankrupt as evidence that your ideas would not work, and have not worked in any case where they have been attempted.
Doctors are products of our medical system. They go through the most rigorous selection and training of any profession. We could reduce medical costs by training many more doctors as China does and Cuba does where becoming a doctor is the equivalent of getting a B.A. degree here. Still, currently our doctors have much better training than our teachers or our firefighters. You want to improve teaching increase the requirements to get into teaching schools. Of course you would need to pay the teachers more than you do now. As they say you get what you pay for.
Frankly
[quote]But your ideas to pay everyone the same hourly rate are lacking in any assessment of consequence. Why would a person spend 12-15 years learning how to be a doctor if they could earn the same hourly rate coming out of high school? [/quote]
I am so glad you asked this important question. My answer is, for the love of what we do. I can only speak for myself, but at the time I applied to medical school, I had no idea how much money doctors made. I had never asked, or looked it up. What I knew was that this was the right path for my life. I did not have any idea, even until I was in my first job as an attending physician what my earning potential was and was frankly shocked when I learned that one of my colleagues was at that time making over $200,000 yearly. Being able to provide for my family was important to me, gaining wealth was simply not.
I believe that our children value what we teach them to value. In this country, we have taught them that success is measured in dollars controlled ( you will note that I did not say dollars earned ). I do not believe that we have to continue to honor and value wealth above all else. This is a choice we make. I have, and we could, choose otherwise as a community and as a nation. We could value contribution over possessions, cooperation over competition, compassion over disdain or anger or fear. The choice is ours.
We may have to set up some “reeducation” camps during the transition to the utopian stage. As Stalin and Lenin knew, you can’t make an omelette without cracking some eggs.
Well, we have a long history in this country of cracking eggs to make omelettes. It is just that the eggs that got cracked for the most part were those of a darker hue than the dominant white shelled variety.
As a pacifist, I would never promote forcible re education of any type. And so, as I posted earlier, I will not see this in my lifetime. But I will never give up on the idea that people can change, one person, one family at a time.
While having nothing at all to do with the dialogue above, I just wanted to say if you’re brave enough to venture out of doors Picnic Day be sure to visit the UC Davis fire station on campus nest to West Entry Parking. They’re hosting an open house and it’s a great opportunity for the citizens of Davis to intoduce themselves to Davis’s other fire department. 🙂
While having nothing at all to do with the dialogue above, I just wanted to say if you’re brave enough to venture out of doors Picnic Day be sure to visit the UC Davis fire station on campus nest to West Entry Parking. They’re hosting an open house and it’s a great opportunity for the citizens of Davis to introduce themselves to Davis’s other fire department. 🙂
Good reminder,and perhaps a good way of getting back on track with the discussion topic.
medwoman: [i] My answer is, for the love of what we do.[/i]
Sometimes work is just work. It would be wonderful if there were just the right amount of people with just the right amount of skills and job-love to do all the jobs that we needed done so that your vision of economic wonderland would materialize. The reality is that the majority of workers in this country and all other countries work because they have to earn money to pay for life necessities. If they want more than life necessities they have to work harder, and/or acquire more skills that they can exchange for greater compensation.
I think you might not understand this concept of value exchange. Even in your nirvana vision, people with do this. Some creative, skilled or industrious person would create something of value that another person wanted, and there would be motivation to exchange something of equal value. A person having an abundance of energy, creativity and skills could earn greater wealth. However, she would also benefit society by producing these products and services of value.
It is possible that that person would just go on creating those items out of love for the job. But it is also probable that a material percentage of otherwise capable people would not unless there was a material upside. So, your nirvana vision is destined to fail as there is a spiral down in production and value.
Welcome to Cuba!
Frankly, if you look at life as an either/or proposition then your “destined to fail” prediction is probably correct. However, life isn’t solely either/or. It is often both/and. As a result we get a composite workforce that has lots of various motivations. As a result we aren’t destined to be manning the boats anytime soon.
Matt – I agree, but I was responding to medwoman’s idealistic vision.
Of course, as with just about everything we can debate, the best solution is one that requires balance and constant adjustment. The challenge is to create a system that takes care of people that need taking care of without causing this number to inflate.
Ironically, by protecting the compensation of the firefighters, it reduces the amount of money we would otherwise have to take care of people.
In general, if I have to chose between government-set compensation and market-set compensation, I will always chose market. Bankrupt cities are the evidence that government-set compensation is a bad idea. What current evidence exists that market-set compensation is a bad idea (other than the problem of envy)?
Frankly said . . .
[i]”Ironically, by protecting the compensation of the firefighters, it reduces the amount of money we would otherwise have to take care of people.”[/i]
Understood. I actually don’t think it is ironic. I believe that the Council in making the recent decision(s) that Rich Rifkin has excoriated, is playing exactly that card, with the full expectation that the other employee groups will take the firefighters to task for their belief that they are “better.”