Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I can agree to more flexibility in elected official pay. Provide room & board and travel expenses (coach only) and probably a stipend for other expenses and health care and such. Tie actual pay to the performance of congress and the economy.
Would this ever happen? I don't think it ever would.
Kan, my argument wasnt that at all, it was, "this guy has a better answer than that guy and would be at least a step in the right direction."
What were you referring to as madness? that the government is like a company or that Romney is a better option than Obama? either way, please voice your reasoning behind you calling whatever you did "madness"
Please visit my Trade Thread I'm always looking for something and usually have something up for trade.
6th Ed WDL: SM:25-1-10 I think I am actually decent at 6th DT:90-S---G+M++B++IPw40k09#++D++A+/hWD387R+++T(M)DM+ 8 good trades on here, 3 on bartertown
5000 points (red scorpions) 100% painted
Imperial Navy Strike force: 3000 points, all made from styrene sheet and cardboard cracker boxes...oh yea.
jordanis wrote: Kan, my argument wasnt that at all, it was, "this guy has a better answer than that guy and would be at least a step in the right direction."
What were you referring to as madness? that the government is like a company or that Romney is a better option than Obama? either way, please voice your reasoning behind you calling whatever you did "madness"
The ideas that "a government is like a company", "Romney is a better option than Obama", and that "this guy has a better answer than that guy and that would be at least a step in the right direction" all qualify under what I term to be 'madness'.
Steps have, in fact, been made in the right direction. They have been rebuffed at every turn by the Republican party in the spirit of "partisan politics". They have been stalemated by the simple fact that what would help the economy (corporations and those who are sponsored by them) has no interest in helping the economy by and large.
Ouze wrote: You know, I was thinking about this at lunch today. It's sort of interesting that they decided to pick "we built it" as their campaign motto. It's fascinating to me because it's sort of predicated on a lie; that anyone can stand alone in modern society and build something themselves; and how it was excerpted from a larger speech and stripped of all context. It's a good microcosm of sorts for how the GOP is today: long on soundbites, short on facts and context and; gak, at this point, honesty. It's a little reminiscent of 4 years ago, when the GOP rallied around a man named Joe (who wasn't named Joe) who was a plumber (but not actually a plumber) who wanted to buy his bosses business (he wasn't really) and didn't want his taxes raised (they weren't). Ah well, we get the government we deserve.
Well, considering that the Republican party (unlike Obama, oddly enough) haven't actually proposed a working budget despite the fact that they're trying to run off of their budget proposals, it's not really surprising is it?
Also, before the conservatives blather on, no, Paul Ryan's so-called "budget" wasn't a working budget. It was a wishy-washy piece of political trash, full of principle but entirely lacking in substance. You could not have actually run a government on the budget he proposed, it was too incomplete, and it wasn't ever actually intended to be a working budget anyway-- it was a political statement.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/04 01:31:50
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Would Shakespeare be mentally ill, or the character having a conversation with an objective/person not present? We don't have any evidence of Shakespeare himself doing any such thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 03:28:20
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
I think you missed the part where he was talking to an empty chair... and responding to it.
Ahem... Shakespeare much? I guess he was off the meds also?
What point exactly are you getting at here?
The whole reason you have monologues within plays like Shakespeare is that they are a visual/auditory medium as well as a literary medium.
The characters can certainly show you how they feel, but that does not necessarily advance the story. Sometimes a bit of exposition is necessary, such as the infamous
"Alas, poor Yorrick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination it is!
My gorge rises at it."
Hell, the same thing can be applied to Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson. If he just does it, it leaves one slightly confused or lost as to what is going on. But by explaining it...the genius is evident.
WarOne wrote: Not all of us have such a luxury as being as well off as dogma to not see jordanis' argument in a clearer picture.
People making less than a Senator (significant less especially) may argue that because the disparity is another highlight of the haves and have nots, streamlining government expenses should also include "bloated" incomes from working for the federal government, spotlighted by clearly visible public servants (Senators). So a Senator becomes a symbol of government excess because they make $175k+ a year, plus healthcare, plus expenses, plus what they make privately in whatever way they can.
I can see what jordanis wants to do and the intent, but I agree with dogma that it is not the senators themselves. Rather, it is the system itself that needs streamlining as a whole. But to replace what we have, we need a system that incorporates those who loses governmental jobs as well due to said streamlining.
Or if you want to talk about money and the problem with senators, then you need to look into the problem that no-one with a real chance at becoming a senator would even notice his salary. There's a minimum level of wealth and moneyed connections needed to become a senator, and that excludes 99% of people.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
And speaking of the mildly curious voters … Though many of them may enjoy and admire someone like George Clooney, they probably don’t relate to him. Clint, on the other hand, cuts through generations and fan bases. He’s about as close to universally liked as a celebrity can get. This is why Chrysler used his voice. Eastwood’s appearance will do nothing to amuse those who take their politics too seriously, but he certainly lightened up what is by nature an artificial and highly-scripted event. No, Eastwood didn’t lay out an eloquent, bullet-point argument against Barack Obama’s economic policies, what he did was convey a prevalent sentiment in nonpartisan language that a lot of people who don’t care much about politics can relate to.
This to...
What is most humorous is that by presenting in a seemingly unscripted manner, Eastwood masterfully uses his craft to interact with all voters in a playful, personal way and squarely hits his mark. His performance caught the liberal main stream media off guard because they didn’t understand the intent of his speech, and so in their haste to destroy all things Romney, they’ve dutifully trashed Eastwood’s appearance. What the liberal pundits do not realize (yet) is that by trashing Mr. Eastwood speech, they have simply helped to bring more attention to Eastwood’s message: Obama must go.
Hence why "Eastwooding" has remained one of the top twitter subjects. Weirdly so...
Hordini wrote: In what field? I'm not saying that certain fields don't have management positions that go way above $80,000, and maybe for CPAs $80,000 is low. But there are plenty of other fields where $80,000 is on the upper end.
And when we say government employees, are we talking about politicians, or regular (that is, unelected, civil service type) government employees. I thought we were talking about the latter, primarily.
In the little table I went and fished out last night, for 2011, the average among people classified as managers is $107,410. CEOs took home $176,550. Your average financial professional, so a guy just running spreadsheets and cost analysis and all that and not actually managing anyone, takes home $68,740.
To try and find someone with the ability and experience needed to run a large organisation like, say, a hospital, and pay them $80k is ludicrous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I can agree to more flexibility in elected official pay. Provide room & board and travel expenses (coach only) and probably a stipend for other expenses and health care and such. Tie actual pay to the performance of congress and the economy.
Would this ever happen? I don't think it ever would.
It'd be terrible. What incentive scheme is there if your pay or bonus is tied to things entirely outside of your control? So you put through reforms that cut staff and therefore save on payroll while maintaining services... and you don't get your bonus because guys three levels above you couldn't agree to get a budget passed? feth that.
If you want incentive schemes to work you need to tie them to things the person actually has under their control. So you give them KPIs on service delivery and on staff FTE numbers, and if they can achieve those they get their budget.
Not that incentive schemes have a particularly good record anyway, as good ones are really hard to set up - who decides what KPI standard is achievable, but also hard enough to justify a bonus? Then there's the problem of systems getting gamed by canny employees (go read about what Harvey Weinstein did to Disney for a classic example). There's also long term evidence mounting that people don't actually work any harder - it appears that people, and especially people who've worked hard enough to get into executive positions that justify an incentive based bonus scheme, actually just do their job as well as they can because of their professional ethic. Incentive schemes are more likely to screw with that than anything else.
Ahem... Shakespeare much? I guess he was off the meds also?
The ability to have someone engage in dialogue with an imaginary person and not look bonkers takes talent. Turns out Shakespeare had talent. Turns out Eastwood's writer didn't.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/04 05:27:48
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
whembly wrote: This is the effect I think Eastwood his having:
No. They're right that Eastwood is extremely popular and well respected, and so with even a half decent speach that's the effect it might have had (to the extent that any celebrity endorsement relly makes any kind of difference). But you don't just get to say that and then pretend his speach was great. It was incredibly awful. There's no pretending otherwise.
Hence why "Eastwooding" has remained one of the top twitter subjects. Weirdly so...
Well, yeah. I mean we just saw one of the most famous and popular celebrities in the world stand up and give one of the most awkward, and just plain bizarre speaches in modern memory. Of course its going to be an event.
The only thing that's weird is the effort of Republicans to pretend it was a good thing... they should instead be trying to shut it down, and move onto something that isn't so embarrassing for them.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Hordini wrote: In what field? I'm not saying that certain fields don't have management positions that go way above $80,000, and maybe for CPAs $80,000 is low. But there are plenty of other fields where $80,000 is on the upper end.
And when we say government employees, are we talking about politicians, or regular (that is, unelected, civil service type) government employees. I thought we were talking about the latter, primarily.
In the little table I went and fished out last night, for 2011, the average among people classified as managers is $107,410. CEOs took home $176,550. Your average financial professional, so a guy just running spreadsheets and cost analysis and all that and not actually managing anyone, takes home $68,740.
To try and find someone with the ability and experience needed to run a large organisation like, say, a hospital, and pay them $80k is ludicrous.
Again, in what field? Are we talking only CPA jobs in the US? If that's the case, then that makes a bit more sense, but if we're talking about management jobs in every industry and field, I'm skeptical. $107,410 and up would be considered a huge salary in many parts of the US. Whether or not $80,000 a year for a management position is ludicrous probably depends a lot on the area. I agree, for someone running a hospital it wouldn't be great, but there are a lot of management positions in between starting management and running an entire hospital.
Again, I'm not saying we should cap government salaries at $80,000 a year. I'm not saying someone running a hospital should only get $80,000 a year. What I'm saying is $80,000 a year is not a low level salary for management or otherwise. If we're only talking things like humongous corporations and large hospitals and entire government departments, then yes, it's low, but if we're just talking management in general, it's not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 06:52:21
Managers. I've said that in every post I've made on the subject.
"So you want to have massive organisations like the Department of Defence and Health run by people earning low level managment wages? Don't you think it is more than a little likely that you're going to end up with chronically underskilled managers in these rolls, and the waste in management will end up costing a lot more than the savings in management wages?"
"$80,000 is the kind of thing you get paid at the bottom end of management."
" the average among people classified as managers is $107,410"
Every post has been about management wages in the US.
Are we talking only CPA jobs in the US?
Nah, like I said in my post above finance professionals, qualified or not, averages $68,740.
If that's the case, then that makes a bit more sense, but if we're talking about management jobs in every industry and field, I'm skeptical. $107,410 and up would be considered a huge salary in many parts of the US. Whether or not $80,000 a year for a management position is ludicrous probably depends a lot on the area. I agree, for someone running a hospital it wouldn't be great, but there are a lot of management positions in between starting management and running an entire hospital.
There are lots of management positions in between. So you'd have the CEO on $176,550. And you'd have the Finance Manager on $120,450. And the Construction Manager on $93,490.
I think maybe you're thinking of maybe Restaurant Managers, or things like that?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I think maybe you're thinking of maybe Restaurant Managers, or things like that?
Well, I was including them with all the others, since they're managers and like you've said in every post on the subject you're talking about managers. So things like restaurant managers, store managers, educational administration jobs, government management jobs, corporate management, HR management, bank managers, non-profit managers, everything.
So are you saying you're talking about managers, except for the ones that don't count? If you're talking about just corporate management positions, then yes, I believe that their average salary could be $107,410 and up. But if you're including all managers, which when you say "Managers. I've said that in every post I've made on the subject," I'm assuming you are including all managers, I don't see how the average could be that high. After an admittedly brief google search I've found $85,000 as the median income for management jobs in the US, with a range of $44,000 to $123,000. So in that case, I'd consider $40k-ish to be low (which is about what was thinking), $120k+ to be high (which I think we agree on) and $80k-ish to be, like I said, not low.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 07:43:54
Hordini wrote: Well, I was including them with all the others, since they're managers and like you've said in every post on the subject you're talking about managers. So things like restaurant managers, store managers, educational administration jobs, government management jobs, corporate management, HR management, bank managers, non-profit managers, everything. So are you saying you're talking about managers, except for the ones that don't count?
How many people do you know who manage restaurants for the government?
I mean, we're talking about a low ball figure that was thrown out in a very silly hypothetical by someone who I don't think is even posting in this thread anymore. He wanted government wages capped at $80,000. I said that was a very low figure.
At what point did you think that included restaurant managers, or anything other than the types of white collar professional managers you get in government?
I mean seriously, why is this being talked about at all?
If you're talking about just corporate management positions, then yes, I believe that their average salary could be $107,410 and up.
You don't get to choose to believe it. It's published in Black & White, who took their figures from "National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States"
EDIT - And I just went to go find the CPA data on their website. Their search engine sucks all kinds of ass so I tried doing a run around through google, and found nothing on the CPA website but did come across the original data published on the United States Bureau of Labor website. Here it is;
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#51-0000
Interesting to note the expanded range from the figures published in my magazine, does include restaraunt managers and the like. And the average still comes to $107,410. Makes sense, there's a lot more mid and low level managers than there are restaurants.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 09:44:56
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Hordini wrote: Well, I was including them with all the others, since they're managers and like you've said in every post on the subject you're talking about managers. So things like restaurant managers, store managers, educational administration jobs, government management jobs, corporate management, HR management, bank managers, non-profit managers, everything. So are you saying you're talking about managers, except for the ones that don't count?
How many people do you know who manage restaurants for the government?
I mean, we're talking about a low ball figure that was thrown out in a very silly hypothetical by someone who I don't think is even posting in this thread anymore. He wanted government wages capped at $80,000. I said that was a very low figure.
At what point did you think that included restaurant managers, or anything other than the types of white collar professional managers you get in government?
At the point that you started making comparisons to managers who don't work for the government. When I asked you if you were talking about specific kinds of managers or positions, you just kept saying "managers" and never specified. If you were talking about "white collar government managers" you should have clarified that when I asked, instead of implying that I should just know what you think "managers" are and are not, up until the point you find out I was talking about all management type positions and not just the specific ones you were talking about.
It's being talked about because you said $80,000 was a low salary for a management position. I said it wasn't low for management. If you'd said "$80,000 is a low salary for white collar professional managers like you get in government" I would have said, "I agree." Which kind of goes hand in hand with why I said I didn't agree with the idea of an $80,000 salary cap.
Hordini wrote: If you're talking about just corporate management positions, then yes, I believe that their average salary could be $107,410 and up.
You don't get to choose to believe it. It's published in Black & White, based on "National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States"... whatever that is.
Of course I get to choose what I believe, we all do. I wasn't disagreeing it was published in black and white, I was asking for more clarification on what it was actually referring to.
Edit - Thanks for posting the link, that clarifies a lot. I still stand by my opinion that $80,000 isn't low, and there is a really broad range in salaries there, but you're right, going by the population it seems there are a lot of managers making a lot more money than what's on the really low (40-50k) range.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 09:56:54
Or if you want to talk about money and the problem with senators, then you need to look into the problem that no-one with a real chance at becoming a senator would even notice his salary. There's a minimum level of wealth and moneyed connections needed to become a senator, and that excludes 99% of people.
You get discussion points here in America about how unpopular giving more money to politicians and government are. Heck, even keeping their current pay is absurdly challenged at times. Any mention of what legislators make simply ignores how a legislator gets his position.
Now of course this particular article does not explicitly state my point but I believe it may or may not have nice pictures in it.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg defended the raises to more than 1,000 legislative employees. But he said he also recognizes they could hurt Democrats' effort to pass an initiative that would temporarily raise income and sales taxes.
The revelation led to widespread outrage because the raises were handed out as lawmakers were making deep budget cuts. Opponents already are using the raises as ammunition against the tax proposal.
Americans right now do not like the fact that any money not being used to benefit taxpayers directly in some way such as a water slide that dispenses free money for absolutely no reason(possibly a Democrat) or does not scale back the scope of government to the point of crippling gun control law enforcement (possibly a Republican) simply do not want to hear about how such money is used for other reasons.
Here you have a state senator who thinks other state senators should get part time jobs.
“If it’s not an adequate sum of money, then I would suggest that people have other jobs,” he said. “It’s very helpful, number one, you can earn more money, but more importantly to really connect with workers and business people to see what they go through on a day-to-day basis. So I don’t really think there is an argument to be made to increase the pay.”[/quote
d-usa wrote: Maybe they are worried that Clint Eastwood is going to show up to bother the empty chairs?
What? I can't ask him to do that to himself...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
That would be prety cool. Clint at the DNC with a empty seat by him. Obama on twitter told him "this seat is taking" reply showed he took it in good humor.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Exactly my point: Eastwood was dialoging with the empty chair just as we have seen in the works of Shakespeare. But nobody is derogatory and asks where Shakespeare's meds are. I guess that had something to do with the message.
Chaplain Levitcius wrote: Exactly my point: Eastwood was dialoging with the empty chair just as we have seen in the works of Shakespeare. But nobody is derogatory and asks where Shakespeare's meds are. I guess that had something to do with the message.
No one in Shakespeare talked to an empty chair. if you honestly don't know the difference between an aside or a soliloquy and talking to an empty chair then you don't' understand theater
H.B.M.C. wrote:
"Balance, playtesting - a casual gamer craves not these things!" - Yoda, a casual gamer.
Three things matter in marksmanship -
location, location, location
MagickalMemories wrote:How about making another fist?
One can be, "Da Fist uv Mork" and the second can be, "Da Uvver Fist uv Mork."
Make a third, and it can be, "Da Uvver Uvver Fist uv Mork"
Eric
5000 points 
Imperial Navy Strike force: 3000 points, all made from styrene sheet and cardboard cracker boxes...oh yea. 
