Page 7 of 8

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:48 am
by germloucks
Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Aug 8 2013, 06:50 PM) I agree, the benefits to government jobs are numerous... but pay is definitely not one of them (except for the more entry level jobs like HSharp points out - those tend to pay comparatively well plus have great benefits).

But you get beyond that and government pay quickly starts to pale in comparison to private sector. Made up, in part, by increased compensation in the health benefits department, but still less so overall.

Having a proper pension also reduces stress in a persons life, because not everyone is a risk taker, some people want the safe bet. Stress reduction leads to widespread benefits in everyone's lives up to and including a reduction in medical costs! Which directly impacts everyone's health insurance costs. Not only that but it leads to higher productivity at work. In fact, I've always been a proponent of restructuring Social Security as a proper pension fund with an investment arm so that it can generate greater returns on its investments than the paltry interest rates that .gov currently pays it. Plus it will be investing in the economy, which should help create more jobs (although may lead to inflation).

Pensions would be far easier to predict and fund if interest rates were allowed to float and be dictated by the market (as inflation would be less). I think people tend to forget that even a "low" 3% inflation means that prices double every 23.5 years, which may sound paltry, but that has a devastating effect on long term investments such as retirement.



@TakingArms - There is a reason that economics is a dismal science, there is no right or wrong or any way to actually PROVE anything. To address your earlier question, most of my economic reading came from textbooks while I was in school supplanted by reading articles written by economists. It has also been shaped by looking at the fiscal and monetary policies of various different administrations and coming to my own conclusion about them. I do not subscribe to any particular school of economics as I think it is foolhardy to pigeonhole myself into a school of thought.

When you talk about inflation, you always talk about the negative side but never mention the positive benefits of inflation. Almost any economist will agree with the logic that a little bit of inflation is the sign of a healthy economy. You look at inflation from this static simplistic view wherein investments are negatively affected by their value declining relative to the cost of buying things.

You forget to mention that inflation generally means there is more money in the money supply, and that although 1 dollar sitting in a box somewhere is becoming less valuable, the dollar you owe someone is also becoming less valuable. Also, wages increase over time as well too. Things cost more, but you are getting paid more as well.

Also the thing that you are missing is that investments are not static one-time things. They are made over time through monthly contributions, so the effect of inflation is averaged out what you put in. Over a 30 year period if you invest 300,000 dollars, not every dollar would be subject to the same loss of value, as the newer dollars invested are relative to the higher wages a person is earning. If you properly average out the inflation rate's effect on a long-term monthly contribution, (as in a retirement fund) which you dont do, you see that the interest you are earning outweighs the devaluing effect.

Additionally, if the value of the dollar remained static relative via the cost of items, the increasing population of people using a currency would naturally mean the currency was worth more anyway. Inflation is necessary, imo.

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 5:10 am
by ryujin
germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Aug 8 2013, 11:48 PM) Additionally, if the value of the dollar remained static relative via the cost of items, the increasing population of people using a currency would naturally mean the currency was worth more anyway. Inflation is necessary, imo.
You statement implies we should continue to reproduce at our current rate.
Even though every scientific study done of explosive population growths in controlled environments suggests an extreme reduction in population once the capacity of the environment is exceeded...
A change in beliefs is necessary, imo.

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:14 am
by Camaro
germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Aug 8 2013, 05:48 PM) When you talk about inflation, you always talk about the negative side but never mention the positive benefits of inflation. Almost any economist will agree with the logic that a little bit of inflation is the sign of a healthy economy. You look at inflation from this static simplistic view wherein investments are negatively affected by their value declining relative to the cost of buying things.

You forget to mention that inflation generally means there is more money in the money supply, and that although 1 dollar sitting in a box somewhere is becoming less valuable, the dollar you owe someone is also becoming less valuable. Also, wages increase over time as well too. Things cost more, but you are getting paid more as well.

Also the thing that you are missing is that investments are not static one-time things. They are made over time through monthly contributions, so the effect of inflation is averaged out what you put in. Over a 30 year period if you invest 300,000 dollars, not every dollar would be subject to the same loss of value, as the newer dollars invested are relative to the higher wages a person is earning. If you properly average out the inflation rate's effect on a long-term monthly contribution, (as in a retirement fund) which you dont do, you see that the interest you are earning outweighs the devaluing effect.

Additionally, if the value of the dollar remained static relative via the cost of items, the increasing population of people using a currency would naturally mean the currency was worth more anyway. Inflation is necessary, imo.
Inflation outpaces raises in income (income is typically lagging unless the unemployment rate falls very low), and outpaces interest in safe investments. It forces people to get into more risky investments and encourages debt (because inflation benefits the debtor). Debt, in turn, increases inflation. So what this leads to, is a system that encourages people to be perpetually indebted and serves to help transfer wealth to the rich (or corporations).

An increase in monetary supply doesn't have to devalue any money so long as the population is increasing in proportion. But an increase in the monetary supply is more than just printing dollars, it can be vastly expanded or contracted by changing the window rate.

All I am saying is that interest rates should be determined by the market, not some entity that is controlled by people whose best interest is to keep people indebted so they can make money off you, and other people whose best interest is to create inflation to ease the payment of government debts.

I know that lesser amounts paid in the past are worth more through investments over the years, but the problem is that these investments have to be somewhat riskier. In an economy allowed to regulate it's own interest rates, inflation would hover around 0% over the long run making setting contribution rates MUCH easier to predict.

I am not saying inflation itself is bad, nor is deflation bad (much of America's history has been marked with deflation in fact). But what IS bad is PERPETUAL inflation or perpetual deflation. I believe in a sound economy based off of production or services. Not one based in debt, smoke, and mirrors.

Most economists these days are Keynesian economists, so I would expect them to vehemently disagree with me.

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:45 am
by Raveen
HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Aug 8 2013, 04:37 PM) This is pretty silly, if you remove pensions it doesn't mean everyone will quit, well actually it will probably lead to mass strikes until pensions are put back in however there is always this scare of brain drain and losing employees but really a job is a job and many government jobs don't even require anything more then finishing high school, there won't be empty jobs because there will be many people willing to take them.
In the current climate that's probably true. A job's a job after all. But who do you want supplying essential public services, spending your taxes and protecting your safety in the long run? Do you want the best possible people or do you want the guys who are so lazy and incompetent that they can't get a job in the private sector which would pay substantially more with the same working conditions?

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:00 pm
by takingarms1
That's what I'm trying to say though... it's not the same working conditions, even without a pension. Government employers don't have a profit motive nor do they face the same pressures to lay people off in hard times so hours and stresses are far fewer in government jobs.

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:58 pm
by Camaro
TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Aug 9 2013, 02:00 AM) That's what I'm trying to say though... it's not the same working conditions, even without a pension. Government employers don't have a profit motive nor do they face the same pressures to lay people off in hard times so hours and stresses are far fewer in government jobs.
Sure they have a motive to lay off in hard times. The difference is that governments are budget based, and so lag the private sector. Just as they lag the private sector in hiring.

Perhaps you should read up on the dramatic layoffs that government had on all levels through the Great Recession.

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:24 pm
by takingarms1
you're right but it's a lot more rare for government to lay off than for private companies to do so. Companies go out of business or lay people off even in good economic times, especially if people aren't performing. The only times governments lay people off are downturns in the economy when budgets shrink due to shrinking tax receipts, and often times rather than laying people off governments will furlough people (basically just giving workers unpaid time off).

But you can't seriously argue that the vast majority of government jobs have far less pressure to perform and far more free time than private counterparts, apart from a few exceptions (like POTUS).

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:39 pm
by ryujin
TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Aug 9 2013, 10:24 AM) apart from a few exceptions (like POTUS).
lol look and dubya's first 6-9 months- he was off more than he was on

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 8:42 pm
by lexaal
Ryujin wrote:QUOTE (Ryujin @ Aug 9 2013, 09:39 PM) lol look and dubya's first 6-9 months- he was off more than he was on
Which actually was the best part of his term.

Posted: Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:34 am
by Raveen
TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Aug 9 2013, 03:24 PM) you're right but it's a lot more rare for government to lay off than for private companies to do so. Companies go out of business or lay people off even in good economic times, especially if people aren't performing. The only times governments lay people off are downturns in the economy when budgets shrink due to shrinking tax receipts, and often times rather than laying people off governments will furlough people (basically just giving workers unpaid time off).

But you can't seriously argue that the vast majority of government jobs have far less pressure to perform and far more free time than private counterparts, apart from a few exceptions (like POTUS).
The obvious reason that government lays off less than private sector is that the private sector tends to have far less statutory responsibilities. Yes I can be sacked and my budget reduced/removed, but there are parts of my job that are required by law so somebody will have to do them. Compared to a consultancy (trying to find the equivalent private sector job) where if the work stops you can sack someone without having to cover their work.

In my experience though, the public sector is nowhere near as flabby as public perception would make out. Certainly we've been having cuts and budget reductions for years, since long before the credit crunch. Local government has to be a master of doing more for less. Compared with jobs I've done in the private sector where I experienced great steaming lumps of waste and incompetence, but that was admittedly when I was working at RBS so may not be a fair comparison.

Purely anecdotal evidence I can't help but agree but I don't know what objective data there is to compare the two sectors.