Judge complaining about not getting a raise.

[the wicked prince]

I've also read bad things about the New York state judicial system

[brianeyci]

I never said to divide people into groups along the lines of having a right to bitch or not shitbrick. I'm saying people as a collective either have that right, or not at all. Separating it into degrees is silly.

Doesn't matter if you say it or not, that's what you mean even if you don't know it. Group A has a right to bitch, group B does not, what is a sufficient condition to identify these two groups, the amount of money they make. While if you think of it the way I do, some people have more right to bitch than others, then you take into consideration mitigating factors. Or are you saying all people have a right to bitch. I grow tired of saying "people have a right to bitch but don't expect people making less to understand or listen if you make 135k" and putting in a whole bunch of qualifiers. Either prove that judges don't make enough objectively, or stfu.

I believe the only claim I've been making is that someone who hasn't had a raise in nearly ten years deserves one regardless of their income. Then again I seem to recall people making huge stinks over the pay at places like Walmart, which does pay considerably less than $135k per year.

Who cares. Walmart is a red herring. A person who hasn't had a raise in ten years -- now who is focusing only on one part of the argument. Do you even bother to accept the other parts of the argument, that is benefits and security worth millions in the long run, and taxes being raised to pay for judges' salary increases. No, you focus on only one thing, ten years, ten years, ten years. As if it means they have more right to a raise than other people who haven't had an increase in ten years . One hundred and thirty five thousand dollars is enough money to live on in the majority of America, and the judges are not saying they're being put out of house and home. They're saying, we deserve more money, just because... other people make more money. Or at least you are. That's kind of silly.

Because I'm trying to factor in more than a round dollar figure fucknugget. A judge contributes far more to society than some NBA player ever will, thus they should, in theory, deserve a greater salary. The more someone contributes the greater they should be entitled to get paid. Or do you not believe people with degrees and a considerable education contribute more than someone with merely a high school diploma?

Burden of proof is on you pal, to say that judges are not making enough to live on. If they do they shouldn't complain about cost of living which you expanded to this whole "education means more money." Education means more money is a whole separate topic than whether or not you should raise taxes. Do you or do you not agree that some judges are fucknuggets (see Stofsk) and that DW would make a good judge despite his "inferior" education. The whole education issue is one big red herring a separate topic about whether judges get enough money to live on and hence have a legitimate claim.

[General Zod]

Or are you saying all people have a right to bitch.

Did I not use small enough words when I said it the last time?

Who cares. Walmart is a red herring. A person who hasn't had a raise in ten years -- now who is focusing only on one part of the argument. Do you even bother to accept the other parts of the argument, that is benefits and security worth millions in the long run, and taxes being raised to pay for judges' salary increases. No, you focus on only one thing, ten years, ten years, ten years.

If the other arguments were in any way related to what I've been saying I would have addressed them. But they aren't, so I haven't.

As if it means they have more right to a raise than other people who haven't had an increase in ten years . One hundred and thirty five thousand dollars is enough money to live on in the majority of America, and the judges are not saying they're being put out of house and home. They're saying, we deserve more money, just because... other people make more money. Or at least you are. That's kind of silly.

Try not to project your own arguments onto other people dumbass. Quote where I said this or shut the fuck up.

Burden of proof is on you pal, to say that judges are not making enough to live on.

I never claimed that they weren't fucknugget. So stop strawmanning me.

If they do they shouldn't complain about cost of living which you expanded to this whole "education means more money." Education means more money is a whole separate topic than whether or not you should raise taxes. Do you or do you not agree that some judges are fucknuggets (see Stofsk) and that DW would make a good judge despite his "inferior" education.

Since neither of those arguments were related to my points whatsoever I didn't bother addressing them. I'm also not sure how you're thinking DW's education would be inferior considering he has a degree from a certified university.

The whole education issue is one big red herring a separate topic about whether judges get enough money to live on and hence have a legitimate claim.

You're the only one focusing on whether or not judges have enough money to live on, as if that's the only thing that goes into consideration for pay raises. On the other hand some of us have a better grasp of how economics actually work.

[brianeyci]

Boo hoo the you don't understand economics bullshit, the whining conservative call of the loser. People who want to decrease the gap between the rich and the poor do understand economics, they just don't buy into everything economists say like yes men.

Here's a hint: according to economics and the invisible hand, nobody has the right to complain about insufficient pay, because the market corrects itself.

Maybe if you had proof that the judges were being put out of house and home because they didn't have enough money, then you'd have a point, but this is what I see: people wanting raises, and the newspaper article citing the National Center for State Courts saying they're 37th on the list of highly paid judges after adjusting for cost of living factors, and that somehow this is justification for a pay raise. What bullshit, if you pick 50 jurisdictions of course there will be a 1 and a 50. Nothing there is substantive at all, and all I see is whining, especially when I hear of judges going on strike or unionizing. Nor is passage of time an automatic justification for a pay raise, especially for someone making that much money. I'm taking the side of the poor you take the side of the rich whiny fucks, maybe you should think about that. Nobody here is saying 135k is too much money, you're the one who started the strawmanning insisting that I provide some number for too much money when I never said they made too much money.

[General Zod]

Maybe if you had proof that the judges were being put out of house and home because they didn't have enough money, then you'd have a point, but this is what I see:

Why exactly would that be related to my point at all? You know, the one being that civil servants who haven't had a raise in ten+ years probably deserve one? It's not as if I'm saying they deserve an exorbiant raise or anything. Besides which that would apply equally for anyone in any skilled job.

Nor is passage of time an automatic justification for a pay raise, especially for someone making that much money. I'm taking the side of the poor you take the side of the rich whiny fucks, maybe you should think about that.

I seem to recall the only thing this was about was whether or not highly skilled employees deserved a raise after nearly ten years. It had all of jack shit to do with taking sides with rich or poor people, that's all you. Oh yes, and did I mention that in many many contracts employees are slated for a periodic salary review at regular intervals? This means that yes, passage of time is in fact automatic justification for a pay raise. Not the only factor, but one of them.

Nobody here is saying 135k is too much money, you're the one who started the strawmanning insisting that I provide some number for too much money when I never said they made too much money.

Strawmanning you for saying they made too much money? You mean this quote?

By the way don't ask me how much money is too much money again. I grow tired of repeating that nobody is creating an imaginary cutoff where you should not get raises. "How much money is too much money" is often repeated by conservative morons whenever anybody discusses closing the gap between the rich and the poor. Which raising taxes to support judges would. Where do you think judges will get their raise from.


It's a perfectly valid argument. If you want to say that someone shouldn't be bitching about how much they earn then it's your job to explain why they're earning "too much".

Funnily you seem to be under the impression that I'm only discussing supporting the judges salary increase when I specifically included all civil servants on the 2nd frakking page.

[brianeyci]

I do not care what you want General Zing, you could want raises for all civil servants until your heart's content, I did not reply to that. You replied to me to object to me calling judges whiners, I didn't reply to you. Let's see what I have.

• Judges make 11th most of all judges in the country.
• Judges want to go on strike and unionize.
• Judges make 135k, so unless there's proof that isn't enough money to live on, it's whining.
• The government has other priorities to spend its money and time, like raising the minimum wage or using income subsidy to bring up the poor, which was the whole point of bringing up minimum wage and poor people.
• Judges have perks that no amount of money can buy explained by Glocksman and Aerius.

What do you have?

• Judges should make more money since they're highly educated.
• Judges should make more money since they haven't had a raise in ten years.

None of which has any bearing on the discussion at all. Judges are not claiming their education is being marginalized, at least not in the newspaper article, and worth of education is a whole separate topic. The newspaper article does not cite any contract breaches. And even if there were some, legalism is a poor argument to make. By the way do you want to see where you begged the question again, deliberately strawmanning my position.

Care to point out the magical line separating where someone is and isn't permitted to bitch about not getting a raise?

Nobody said there was a magical line. Nobody said that 135k is too much money. And yet you continue to ask this question. It's as if you think that a judge making 135k has an equally valid claim to raising their wage as a single mother trying to make ends meet since you say there are no gradients, either someone has a right to bitch or they don't, and we cannot judge them for it. Well too fucking bad, if someone makes 135k I'm gonna call them a whiner unless they give evidence that 135k isn't enough to live on. Yes I'm harping on the live on because cost of living is in the newspaper article as justification for the judges whining and not education or cross profession salaries. You have nothing General Zip, you're looking for a fight where there is none, were hoping for someone who thought 135k was too much money. More likely you bring up the retarded question "how much money is too much money" whenever anybody scoffs at rich people, exactly the kind of mentality I hate. I don't hate rich people, I only hate whining rich people, even if the whiners have earned it.

[brianeyci]

Oh and if you want a reply to your retarded idea all civil servants should get raises you got it Zod, you want to pick a fight you got it. It's a fundamentally stupid idea. Civil servants, judges, politicians, anybody who works for the government should represent the very best of our society. That means, lead by example. A local politician said he donated away his pay raise because he couldn't stand to walk down the street of his poor riding with the gap between the rich and the poor widening and take a pay increase. This argument would apply to judges as well. They should just suck it up and stop whining. No doubt you would ask this local politician "how much is too much" like a stupid person does when faced by do unto others. Judges as part of the government should not expect to be treated like private citizens, if they must take pay cuts for ten years to serve their jurisdiction which has deficits then so be it, especially if the majority of people they represent live with far less. Of course you probably won't accept this argument.

[Darth Wong]

Why exactly would that be related to my point at all? You know, the one being that civil servants who haven't had a raise in ten+ years probably deserve one?

That's the kind of reasoning one is forced to resort to when attempting to produce an objective argument regarding salaries which are set by government policy. With no real frame of reference to use, you can only use previous salaries paid to the same employees. What's worse, you don't even seem to realize how absurd this kind of reasoning is.

"I'm underpaid because I was paid the exact right amount 10 years ago, and there's been inflation since then!"

[The Kernel]

Why exactly would that be related to my point at all? You know, the one being that civil servants who haven't had a raise in ten+ years probably deserve one?

That's the kind of reasoning one is forced to resort to when attempting to produce an objective argument regarding salaries which are set by government policy. With no real frame of reference to use, you can only use previous salaries paid to the same employees. What's worse, you don't even seem to realize how absurd this kind of reasoning is.

"I'm underpaid because I was paid the exact right amount 10 years ago, and there's been inflation since then!"

What else would you suggest? Market value for people with their skills doesn't help since it's probably quite a bit more than even the adjusted wage.

[Darth Wong]

Why exactly would that be related to my point at all? You know, the one being that civil servants who haven't had a raise in ten+ years probably deserve one?

That's the kind of reasoning one is forced to resort to when attempting to produce an objective argument regarding salaries which are set by government policy. With no real frame of reference to use, you can only use previous salaries paid to the same employees. What's worse, you don't even seem to realize how absurd this kind of reasoning is.

"I'm underpaid because I was paid the exact right amount 10 years ago, and there's been inflation since then!"

What else would you suggest? Market value for people with their skills doesn't help since it's probably quite a bit more than even the adjusted wage.

It may well be. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that someone is necessarily underpaid just because he's not being paid more than he was 10 years ago.

[The Kernel]

It may well be. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that someone is necessarily underpaid just because he's not being paid more than he was 10 years ago.

10 years is a loooong time to go without a raise. At current inflation rates, that means you are making something like 40% less in adjusted dollars.

You'd have to be pretty damn overpaid to not be considered underpaid after having 40% of your salary taken away.

[Darth Wong]

It may well be. I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to say that someone is necessarily underpaid just because he's not being paid more than he was 10 years ago.

10 years is a loooong time to go without a raise. At current inflation rates, that means you are making something like 40% less in adjusted dollars.

You'd have to be pretty damn overpaid to not be considered underpaid after having 40% of your salary taken away.

So? The point stands; unless you can establish that they were not being overpaid before, you cannot establish that they are being underpaid now just by pointing out that they haven't had a raise in a long time. Do I need to spell this out in equation form or something?

[The Kernel]

Yeah I got it, you are technically correct. But it's still worth pointing out that if you don't receive a raise in 10 years, in the vast majority of cases you have every right to complain. The corner case of you being overpaid by such a huge margin is technically possible, but not very likely especially in public service.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah I got it, you are technically correct. But it's still worth pointing out that if you don't receive a raise in 10 years, in the vast majority of cases you have every right to complain. The corner case of you being overpaid by such a huge margin is technically possible, but not very likely especially in public service.

But this takes us to the real meat of the matter: how do you establish whether someone is underpaid or overpaid? Simply assuming that they were paid at a fairly reasonable rate 10 years ago is no more reasonable than simply assuming that they are being paid at a reasonable rate today.

[The Kernel]

Yeah I got it, you are technically correct. But it's still worth pointing out that if you don't receive a raise in 10 years, in the vast majority of cases you have every right to complain. The corner case of you being overpaid by such a huge margin is technically possible, but not very likely especially in public service.

But this takes us to the real meat of the matter: how do you establish whether someone is underpaid or overpaid? Simply assuming that they were paid at a fairly reasonable rate 10 years ago is no more reasonable than simply assuming that they are being paid at a reasonable rate today.

With private sector jobs it is a cinch, you just hit up salary.com. After all, how do you think HR departments set salary in the first place?

Public sector jobs are tougher. With judges that's a relatively easy matter, you can look at what someone with their skill set can make in the private sector and deduct a fair bit for the added job security (and a bit more because you expect to take a pay cut as a judge)--however some jobs (like say postal worker) are a bigger can of worms. I think you can get some fair estimates though by finding equivalents in the private sector and knocking off 10%-30% depending on the profession in order to get a fair wage.

[brianeyci]

Since when is working in the public service a death sentence.

Judges have power and prestige that no money can buy, not even the top earning millionarie hotshot lawyers in the best firms compare. Why is this point continually ignored, are people deliberately ignoring it to turn this into only about the money. Do I need to remind people that someone in this thread said they could plan their life 30 years ahead with a public sector job, 30 years through peak oil, the collapse of the world economy, environmental disaster, and that such job security is worth millions. With that much on the line it's entirely possible that they're being overpaid in today's dollars, but all this doesn't matter, burden of proof is on the judges to say they don't have enough money and if everybody in the public sector has to tighten their belts so should they. Saying "all public sector employees should be paid more" ignores the reality governments no longer have breathing room to raise salaries as they did before.

Mike brought up an interesting point--it may be impossible to be objective with this topic, raising salaries of public servants, without a standard. I admit it, I'm biased, I will support the poor people and demand a higher standard of evidence from someone making 135k than a single mother trying to support two children on 25k. What, am I doing something wrong here. The more you make the more evidence you'll need for a raise in my eyes.

[The Kernel]

Judges have power and prestige that no money can buy, not even the top earning millionarie hotshot lawyers in the best firms compare. Why is this point continually ignored, are people deliberately ignoring it to turn this into only about the money. Do I need to remind people that someone in this thread said they could plan their life 30 years ahead with a public sector job, 30 years through peak oil, the collapse of the world economy, environmental disaster, and that such job security is worth millions. With that much on the line it's entirely possible that they're being overpaid in today's dollars, but all this doesn't matter, burden of proof is on the judges to say they don't have enough money and if everybody in the public sector has to tighten their belts so should they. Saying "all public sector employees should be paid more" ignores the reality governments no longer have breathing room to raise salaries as they did before.

All of this is fairly irrelevant I think when you consider that no matter what, once you set a fair salary an employee is entitled to an annual raise to at least keep pace with inflation.

Mike brought up an interesting point--it may be impossible to be objective with this topic, raising salaries of public servants, without a standard. I admit it, I'm biased, I will support the poor people and demand a higher standard of evidence from someone making 135k than a single mother trying to support two children on 25k. What, am I doing something wrong here. The more you make the more evidence you'll need for a raise in my eyes.

BULLSHIT. You should be paid what the market demands for your skill set, why the hell do you think people bother learning skills and getting an education in the first place? So morons like you can say "well you make over six figures so don't fucking complain!" and vilify those of us who happen to have experience and skills that are valuable?

Do you know why people are paid high salaries? Because they are capable of producing even MORE income for the company they work for. I don't see anything wrong or evil about this way of doing things.

[brianeyci]

All of this is fairly irrelevant I think when you consider that no matter what, once you set a fair salary an employee is entitled to an annual raise to at least keep pace with inflation.

In the private sector, not the public sector. Policy changes, and with it salaries of public sector employees. Plus, I see no shortage of hotshot lawyers who have the skillsets to become a judge.

BULLSHIT. You should be paid what the market demands for your skill set, why the hell do you think people bother learning skills and getting an education in the first place? So morons like you can say "well you make over six figures so don't fucking complain!" and vilify those of us who happen to have experience and skills that are valuable?

Do you know why people are paid high salaries? Because they are capable of producing even MORE income for the company they work for. I don't see anything wrong or evil about this way of doing things.

Then these whiners can get a job in the private sector and stop whining. The public sector serves the will of the public, so if joe blow thinks that teachers, judges, politicians should get less money, or not get a raise, that is it and the system should be like that. Not to mention it's already been mentioned in this thread the mechanisms for determining market value are supressed or absent in the public sector, so your rationale goes down the shitter. Unless there is a manpower shortage, the public good is served by having as low a salary as possible, less taxes, and hotshot lawyer can take the bench if old fart doesn't want to.

[Darth Wong]

That's the key point, really: if public-sector jobs are so underpaid, why are we always hearing public servants threatening to leave for the private sector rather than actually doing so?

In a private-sector company, you know you're not paying enough for the job when you can't get or keep people. You don't just jack up salaries continuously in a pre-emptive attempt to make sure you will never run into that situation. Why should the public sector be any different? Why should we keep hearing about the theory that they won't be able to get or keep personnel, rather than hearing about this actually happening and then saying "OK, I guess we better pay them more"?

Supply/demand is something that's supposed to happen naturally, not something you use as a theoretical justification.

[The Kernel]

In the private sector, not the public sector. Policy changes, and with it salaries of public sector employees. Plus, I see no shortage of hotshot lawyers who have the skillsets to become a judge.

Because you will get less and less qualified applicants you moron. I'll grant that most lawyers probably don't become judges for the money, but if you keep salaries down you are going to severely retard the quality of your applicants.

Then these whiners can get a job in the private sector and stop whining. The public sector serves the will of the public, so if joe blow thinks that teachers, judges, politicians should get less money, or not get a raise, that is it and the system should be like that.

So in other words you think public servants should actually get poorer because of the political realities involved in giving them a pay bump that has nothing to do with them. You think you'd feel the same if it was a bunch of public workers making $11 an hour for the last 10 years? Somehow I suspect not.

Not to mention it's already been mentioned in this thread the mechanisms for determining market value are supressed or absent in the public sector, so your rationale goes down the shitter.

Sorry genius, but it's not that hard to figure out what a public servant should be making. And guess what? Sometimes they'll actually make more than their private sector counterparts if the government wants to attract decent talent.

Unless there is a manpower shortage, the public good is served by having as low a salary as possible, less taxes, and hotshot lawyer can take the bench if old fart doesn't want to.

Not all employees are created equal you retard. If you keep salaries low, the only thing you are going to get is shitty quality of workers. I see this all the time in private sector companies; they try to save a few bucks by shaving salaries down and all they end up with is morons who can't do the job correctly.

I'm guessing with this "all judges are created equal" policy of yours that you probably don't have a lot of experience in industries where things like "skills" and "talent" matter, so let me be the one to assure you that in the real world we don't keep salaries at the lowest level possible because it actually matters to have smart and capable people on your team.

[Darth Wong]

let me be the one to assure you that in the real world we don't keep salaries at the lowest level possible because it actually matters to have smart and capable people on your team.

I don't know what the fuck "real world" you live in, but I'm guessing it's rich people whose salaries, like those of CEOs, often take the form of a nice gift from one set of friends to another. Let me assure you that most companies do keep almost all employee salaries at the lowest level possible in order to get and retain qualified staff.

[The Kernel]

That's the key point, really: if public-sector jobs are so underpaid, why are we always hearing public servants threatening to leave for the private sector rather than actually doing so?

Are you sure they don't? In the case of jobs like teachers and postal workers I can understand why (the private sector equivalents aren't exactly great options), but for many of the others I don't see why the employees wouldn't start leaving with better offers elsewhere.

In a private-sector company, you know you're not paying enough for the job when you can't get or keep people. You don't just jack up salaries continuously in a pre-emptive attempt to make sure you will never run into that situation. Why should the public sector be any different? Why should we keep hearing about the theory that they won't be able to get or keep personnel, rather than hearing about this actually happening and then saying "OK, I guess we better pay them more"?

Supply/demand is something that's supposed to happen naturally, not something you use as a theoretical justification.

Do you know that they aren't losing good people? I don't have any data to support that.

And besides, keeping salaries up isn't just about retention, it's actually mostly about attracting NEW people to the positions. If you have low salaries than talented people are going to stay away from public sector jobs.

[The Kernel]

let me be the one to assure you that in the real world we don't keep salaries at the lowest level possible because it actually matters to have smart and capable people on your team.

I don't know what the fuck "real world" you live in, but I'm guessing it's rich people whose salaries, like those of CEOs, often take the form of a nice gift from one set of friends to another. Let me assure you that most companies do keep almost all employee salaries at the lowest level possible in order to get and retain qualified staff.

I don't know what kind of "real world" YOU live in, but where I'm from this is how things are done, and it has nothing to do with nepotism. At larger companies I've seen this done less for certain departments because they actually want a certain amount of lower talent employees (so the promotions aren't cutthroat) but at small companies you want the best people possible for highly skilled positions.

[Darth Wong]

Burden of proof falls upon the person who says something is happening. If they are indeed unable to get and keep qualified people, then by all means, increase salary. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the idea that the supply/demand curve can be used as a theoretical justification for jacking up salaries and benefits even if this is not happening. That's what we see with CEOs, and is one of the reasons that CEO compensation has ballooned out of control in the last 20 years with no corresponding increase in apparent CEO effectiveness.

I don't know what kind of "real world" YOU live in, but where I'm from this is how things are done, and it has nothing to do with nepotism. At larger companies I've seen this done less for certain departments because they actually want a certain amount of lower talent employees (so the promotions aren't cutthroat) but at small companies you want the best people possible for highly skilled positions.

And where is that, exactly? I've worked at plenty of companies, ranging from small tool and die shops to monsters like IBM and Kimberly-Clark, and I've never seen one that throws money at people in order to make sure they'll never leave. They pay you the minimum they think they need to pay you in order to keep you onboard.

[brianeyci]

Heh heh heh what a joke The Kernel.

Earlier in the post Glocksman posted a lawyer leaving a top law firm (probably paying millions in stock options and benefits given the amounts people are throwing around here 200k after a couple years) for a position as a DC judge. So it looks like you're trying to fabricate something that doesn't exist. Power means just as much as money to some highly qualified people, or why did a woman at head of a multi-billion dollar company leave for a shot at Prime Minister in Canada. If power makes up for money, why give extra money when we don't have to. No lack of qualified applicants, then this whole line of reasoning is crap.