the High Life

[vander]

http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/living-the-high-life.html

[boutons_deux]

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105/_jcr_content/par/cn_contentwell/par-main/cn_pagination_contai/cn_image.size.top-one-percent.jpg

An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible.

Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.


http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105.print

===========

I disagree.

Power, financial/political/military, is never yielded, it's always taken by force.

The 1% understands that most of the 99% are disengaged, somnolent, dumbed-down, distracted by trivial bullshit, that they won't move, won't wake up to take back the overwhelming power that the 1% controls.

[RandomGuy]

http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/living-the-high-life.html

Federal employees have higher median income than the general population, because they have massively more education and experience than the general population.

The comparison is an "apples and oranges" type.

If you actually compare federal employees' wages to their real world counterparts with the same education and experience, the median pay for the federal workforce is below that of the private sector.

A few full time employees, such as janitors and so forth, come out well, because they actually get things like health care and pensions after a few years, but all in all the "astonishing facts" in that link are misleading at best, and outright lies at worst.


Here is the federal database of job openings in Washington DC:

http://www.usajobs.gov/JobSearch/Search/GetResults?location=district%20of%20columbia

Browse the pages yourself.

"Medical Director"

"Engineer"

"IT Systems Supervisor"

"Psychologist"

"Microbiologist"

"Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer"

These are NOT the median US job, these are all things that require college degrees in science/engineering/medical and almost always some years of experience.

The average/median US worker with a high school diploma and a little college would not be suited to such work.

[CosmicCowboy]

As someone who deals with federal civil servants on a weekly basis in purchasing/management at the local bases I can with certainty say that they are NOT more educated and qualified than their non-government counterparts.

[boutons_deux]

CC is probably dealing with the "retail" part of civil service, which is like dealing with retail people anywhere.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Their non-government counterparts aren't what he said. He was talking about the average American with little to no post high school education. The average American is borderline retarded.

[CosmicCowboy]

CC is probably dealing with the "retail" part of civil service, which is like dealing with retail people anywhere.

I'm not sure you would call them retail. They are responsible for spending your tax dollars to buy millions of dollars of supplies and services every year. I had one a few years back that wanted to buy 10 items. I told her the cost was $10 each. She asked me..."what is the total?" I said if you want 10 of them it's 10X10. She responded "I'm not very good at math...can you give me the total?"

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'm not sure you would call them retail. They are responsible for spending your tax dollars to buy millions of dollars of supplies and services every year. I had one a few years back that wanted to buy 10 items. I told her the cost was $10 each. She asked me..."what is the total?" I said if you want 10 of them it's 10X10. She responded "I'm not very good at math...can you give me the total?"
dear god

[Drachen]

Their non-government counterparts aren't what he said. He was talking about the average American with little to no post high school education. The average American is borderline retarded.

not according to your IQ chart in the other thread.

(Yes I am being facetious.)

[RandomGuy]

As someone who deals with federal civil servants on a weekly basis in purchasing/management at the local bases I can with certainty say that they are NOT more educated and qualified than their non-government counterparts.

As noted, the pay for similar jobs in private industry is almost invariably higher. For any given job, then it is simple market mechanisms that would predict that the most talented/smart people for any given job are not working for the government, beyond those idealists who consciously give up high-paying jobs to be a public servant.

If you want better government employees, raise their pay, and let the market work.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not sure you would call them retail. They are responsible for spending your tax dollars to buy millions of dollars of supplies and services every year. I had one a few years back that wanted to buy 10 items. I told her the cost was $10 each. She asked me..."what is the total?" I said if you want 10 of them it's 10X10. She responded "I'm not very good at math...can you give me the total?"

I would think that was less a matter of competance/intelligence, and more a matter of getting a specific answer to a specific question, rather than having anything inferred/ambiguous.

If you are used to bulk purchases where the per unit cost differs depending on the quantity purchased, does it not make sense to have the vendor be very specific about total costs, instead of letting some ambiguity or opportunity for misunderstanding (i.e. contract dispute), creep into the process?

[ChumpDumper]

I stopped at lewrockwell and personal anecdote, respectively.

[CosmicCowboy]

I would think that was less a matter of competance/intelligence, and more a matter of getting a specific answer to a specific question, rather than having anything inferred/ambiguous.

If you are used to bulk purchases where the per unit cost differs depending on the quantity purchased, does it not make sense to have the vendor be very specific about total costs, instead of letting some ambiguity or opportunity for misunderstanding (i.e. contract dispute), creep into the process?

Actually, it wasn't. She literally was not capable of multiplying 10X10 in her head.

[CosmicCowboy]

I would think that was less a matter of competance/intelligence, and more a matter of getting a specific answer to a specific question, rather than having anything inferred/ambiguous.

If you are used to bulk purchases where the per unit cost differs depending on the quantity purchased, does it not make sense to have the vendor be very specific about total costs, instead of letting some ambiguity or opportunity for misunderstanding (i.e. contract dispute), creep into the process?

Actually, the problem with the civil service I dealt with was that after the pendulum shift on affirmative action the Fed Government went on a crusade to "balance" the federal workforce and made skin color/ethnicity more important than competence as a hiring factor. These entry level hires maintained a body temperature of 98.2 and a higher GS rating year after year and eventually because of seniority got peter principled into jobs they were totally unsuited to do.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, it wasn't. She literally was not capable of multiplying 10X10 in her head.

"I'm not good at math, I can't multiply 10 * 10" sounds more like a polite way of saying "answer my question, because I am being a bit officious and want the question I asked answered the way I asked it".

I can believe that a lot more easily than someone in a purchasing department not being able to add a zero to 10, no offense.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, the problem with the civil service I dealt with was that after the pendulum shift on affirmative action the Fed Government went on a crusade to "balance" the federal workforce and made skin color/ethnicity more important than competence as a hiring factor. These entry level hires maintained a body temperature of 98.2 and a higher GS rating year after year and eventually because of seniority got peter principled into jobs they were totally unsuited to do.

That I can believe, but can't say how rampant it is without a bit more data.

(For those interested:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

[CosmicCowboy]

"I'm not good at math, I can't multiply 10 * 10" sounds more like a polite way of saying "answer my question, because I am being a bit officious and want the question I asked answered the way I asked it".

I can believe that a lot more easily than someone in a purchasing department not being able to add a zero to 10, no offense.

Suit yourself. I was the one talking to her and I KNOW what I was dealing with.

[boutons_deux]

Why don't right wingers/UCA complain about the low salaries in for-profit corps rather than what they slander as exorbitant salaries in govt?


1) UCA wants screw employees down while stuffing mgmt/investors pockets. Mission Accomplished (and Mission Continues indefinitely, aka, War On Employees).

2) UCA wants to kill govt and eliminate corporate taxes, shifting the tax burden off themselves, and reducing their cost (filling their pockets) of complying with eg EPA regs.

[Wild Cobra]

You know. I really resent this "1%" notion. Really now, 1 in a hundred people? Those with real power would be more like the 0.001%. Maybe the wealthy, the 0.01%. However, the 1%... ignorance is showing people...