brianeyci wrote:
I am perfectly willing to be educated and accept evidence which says that raising the salaries of public sector employees to match inflation is necessary to retain qualified applicants. Have you posted such evidence? Of course not. Maybe there's a textbook out there that says, rubbing your ass gives me rabies.
Not just keeping pace with inflation but to offer
competitive salaries in general. But since you apparently need education on this subject, fine I'll enlighten you:
This is what's known as a Bell Curve in case you are a moron. The point you see in the center is the average salary paid for a given position (50th percentile) while you see sharp drop offs below and above this line. This one is generic, but one only needs to visit salary.com to get one specific to a given industry/position (I can't hotlink specific graphs and I don't have a space to upload them currently).
You know why less people are employed at the lower rate on that curve? Because the number of people willing to work for that salary drops sharply. Worse yet, if you plug in specifics about your education and work experience the bell curve
shifts to the left, which proves EXACTLY what I was saying about qualified people being unwilling to work for lower salaries.
Go on, have fun plugging in statistics and seeing what happens. You will ALWAYS find the averages drifting upwards the more qualifications you plug in, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that more qualified people are harder to hire at lower salary. So sorry, but you've just lost the entire argument. Next time try to pick a position that is not so thoroughly laughable.
You are one fucking dumb shit. Do you have any mathematical training at all? A counter example is a way of showing that a condition, higher pay for better employees, is not a sufficient condition, and therefore you must provide more evidence. That is what the counter example means, not that it is statistically significant. In other words, put your money where your mouth is and show me this manpower and skilled applicant shortage for judges.
Once again, one example is not statistically useful. How many times before this sinks in moron?
This is also pretty hilarious coming from you asshole, when you brought up your personal experiences regarding your work in different places. Pot calling kettle black anybody.
Yeah I did, and I didn't use them to conclusively make broad statements about ANYTHING (and I certainly didn't try to use them as a statistic), I used them as a point of reference. Furthermore, my personal experiences are far more widespread than a single datapoint as they include my experience with the thousands of people I've worked with and for over the years.
You apparently do not know that there are hundreds of thousands of tenured professors in universities with outstanding academic qualifications who would be willing to become judges at the salary of 135k. You say that's not enough, you give the evidence. You have a problem with that my friend.
You think that all it takes to be a judge is
academic qualifications? You're dumber than I thought.
By this evidence, we should cede to teacher's unions all demands because they get disgruntled, and there are recruiting problems for teaching. You are one big asshole, dropping in on a thread late with some persecution complex (we didn't get education to be sneered at by the likes of you har har!) who doesn't see the bigger picture. Grow a brain.
I knew strongly unionized industries would come up from you (being a dishonest shitstain and all who purposefully lets the point sail over your tiny little brain), and guess what? It
doesn't fucking help your case. In a vacuum an auto worker might be a semi-skilled position that doesn't deserve the salaries of the UAW, but because the UAW exists, the union and labor contracts factor heavily into market salaries for these positions.
It's just like any other requirement for a job, it's a market force which has to be taken into account when assessing salary. The fact that it is artificial and unhealthy for many reasons does not change this ONE IOTA.
