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.

Piston Honda wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What private sector job would be comparable with being a soldier?

Mall Cops.

Are you referring to the legendary Mall Ninja?

feeder wrote:In other news, water is wet and sky is blue.

Government is always better paid than private sector. To attract the best and brightest, presumably.

Not true. If I work as a technician for the police fixing their interceptors I will get paid SIGNIFICANTLY less than I would fixing cars at a dealership.

And "doctors" in the Army get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than they would in the civilian world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:What private sector job would be comparable with being an infantryman?

Fixed.

Security contractors. Again, WAAAAAAAAAY better pay.

DickBandit wrote:

feeder wrote:In other news, water is wet and sky is blue.

Government is always better paid than private sector. To attract the best and brightest, presumably.

Not true. If I work as a technician for the police fixing their interceptors I will get paid SIGNIFICANTLY less than I would fixing cars at a dealership.

And "doctors" in the Army get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than they would in the civilian world.

So what we're learning is that the government pays more to get the "best and brightest" of people without a college degree, but actually underpays professionals or highly educated people, thereby possibly eliminating the "best and brightest" from consideration.

Makes sense to me!

sourclams wrote:Over/undercompensation is relative to competition

Not when the entire system is flawed.

Like compensation for work in modern times.

Oh Hyperbole! Ye the center cannot hold! Let the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes commence!

The economy is growing. Unemployment/Underemployment is in decline. The US is dramatically outperforming socialist, spendthrift 'peripherals' like the PIIGS. We still spend 10-15% of our income on food and fuel versus Europe (15-20), Japan (20+), and Haiti (90+).

Regressive individuals who refuse to update their skill set or adapt to the market will do worse as those who evolve leave them in the dust.

80% of America is fine. Figure out how to get out of the minority.

sourclams wrote:The US is dramatically outperforming socialist

Amusingly, the reason for this has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism-- rather, the reason is that the US is not pushing so hard on the austerity measures as the European Union is.

sourclams wrote:Oh Hyperbole! Ye the center cannot hold! Let the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes commence!

The economy is growing. Unemployment/Underemployment is in decline. The US is dramatically outperforming socialist, spendthrift 'peripherals' like the PIIGS. We still spend 10-15% of our income on food and fuel versus Europe (15-20), Japan (20+), and Haiti (90+).

Regressive individuals who refuse to update their skill set or adapt to the market will do worse as those who evolve leave them in the dust.

80% of America is fine. Figure out how to get out of the minority.

There are no socialist nations in Europe other than possibly Belyrus.
Also this:
http://shockedinvestor.blogspot.com/2010/08/2010-percentage-of-income-spent-on-food.html
Americans spend 4.6% of their incomes on food, UK spends 5.25%, Germany and France aren't far behind.
But then your GDP/capita is higher so that's to be expected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also this:

Melissia wrote:

sourclams wrote:The US is dramatically outperforming socialist

Amusingly, the reason for this has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism-- rather, the reason is that the US is not pushing so hard on the austerity measures as the European Union is.

The collapse in demand caused by austerity is huge, also an increase in sales tax...sigh.

Piston Honda wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What private sector job would be comparable with being a soldier?

Mall Cops.

Kinda depends on what you do. Water purification soldiers have an obvious civilian equivalent, as do mechanics, and truck drivers. I assume you meant something more like a tank loader or infantry. I'm sure a recruiter has a super cool answer, it's total bs your equivalent is what you can lie your way into.

Lets see, I just did my taxes and I brought home ~$61,000.

I spend approximately $75 a week on food. That turns out to $75/wk * 52.177457 wks/yr = $3913.31/yr, which is ~6% of my income.

Seems the answer above is legit.

Zyllos wrote:Lets see, I just did my taxes and I brought home ~$61,000.

I spend approximately $75 a week on food. That turns out to $75/wk * 52.177457 wks/yr = $3913.31/yr, which is ~6% of my income.

Seems the answer above is legit.

Feth...$61k take home?

You must be single (insurance for the family is damn expensive).

DickBandit wrote:
And "doctors" in the Army get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than they would in the civilian world.

I'm not sure that's true once you factor in lifetime benefits and, most importantly, education grants.

dogma wrote:

DickBandit wrote:
And "doctors" in the Army get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than they would in the civilian world.

I'm not sure that's true once you factor in lifetime benefits and, most importantly, education grants.

In the UK, doctors are also employees of the state and they in turn are paid far, far less than they would in private practice.

biccat wrote:
So what we're learning is that the government pays more to get the "best and brightest" of people without a college degree, but actually underpays professionals or highly educated people, thereby possibly eliminating the "best and brightest" from consideration.

Assuming we're only talking about the federal government, many of the activities that might otherwise be nominally performed by the state have been semi-privatized. For example, one of the companies I work for derives all of its revenue from the government, or political campaigns. There are quite a few other companies just, or very much, like it. One high profile example is RAND.

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

DickBandit wrote:
And "doctors" in the Army get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than they would in the civilian world.

I'm not sure that's true once you factor in lifetime benefits and, most importantly, education grants.

In the UK, doctors are also employees of the state and they in turn are paid far, far less than they would in private practice.

A lot aren't actually.

GPs are private employees, for example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

DickBandit wrote:
And "doctors" in the Army get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than they would in the civilian world.

I'm not sure that's true once you factor in lifetime benefits and, most importantly, education grants.

In the UK, doctors are also employees of the state and they in turn are paid far, far less than they would in private practice.

A lot aren't actually.

GPs are private employees, for example.

Most consultants make a good scratch off NHS and do private work on the side.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Joey wrote:

dogma wrote:

DickBandit wrote:
And "doctors" in the Army get paid WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY less than they would in the civilian world.

I'm not sure that's true once you factor in lifetime benefits and, most importantly, education grants.

In the UK, doctors are also employees of the state and they in turn are paid far, far less than they would in private practice.

A lot aren't actually.

GPs are private employees, for example.

True but their salaries are still set by the state. I assume, anyway.

They negotiate contracts with the government. It's done collectively and each practice can make additional money though provision of different kinds of services. If the practiec is run well, the partners can pay themselves more from their profits.

biccat wrote:So what we're learning is that the government pays more to get the "best and brightest" of people without a college degree, but actually underpays professionals or highly educated people, thereby possibly eliminating the "best and brightest" from consideration.

Makes sense to me!

By learning, of course, you mean making things up inside your own head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:There are no socialist nations in Europe other than possibly Belyrus.
Also this:
http://shockedinvestor.blogspot.com/2010/08/2010-percentage-of-income-spent-on-food.html
Americans spend 4.6% of their incomes on food, UK spends 5.25%, Germany and France aren't far behind.
But then your GDP/capita is higher so that's to be expected.

Food in the US is cheaper, as well.

But it's misleading to look purely at GDP per capita, when income distributions in the US are so different to elsewhere. If you were to look at lower income brackets I'd be very surprised if the percentage of income spent on food in the US wasn't much higher than elsewhere, just because being in the bottom 20% in the US means a lot less money than in other developed countries.

The graph includes benefits as "pay" if I recall correctly. Most federal employees get paid less than their private sector counter parts, but the benefits are better.

It is a sign that you are getting older when you realize that making $xxx less a month is a good trade off if you can get good health insurance in exchange.

Of course my pay has been frozen for 2 years now, so I hope that I get at least a step increase this year.

d-usa wrote:The graph includes benefits as "pay" if I recall correctly. Most federal employees get paid less than their private sector counter parts, but the benefits are better.

The graph shows each component seperately. It shows pays for people high school diplomas or less and some college are straight up better than their private sector equivalents, and they get better benefits on top of that. But people with bachelor's receive the same pay, with better benefits, and after that the private sector is better off.

Blah, I was thinking of a separate chart I was looking at yesterday. Sorry about that.