Judge complaining about not getting a raise.

[General Zod]

I'd like to point out that $165k is hardly an exorbitant salary for a judge. Most of my friends who are corporate lawyers and a couple of years out of law school make around $130k, and they'll probably hit $200k before they are 30.

Whoopdedoo. The chairman of Hydro One or the IESO make a million & change a year while the chairmen of pretty much every Bay Street company will probably make at least 10 times that. A police officer will top out at around $100k after a couple decades of service while a private investigator can pull in several times that after a few years. Again, they ain't doing the same job, why should they get paid the same? People aren't going into civil service to get rich.

Also, unless you're a complete moron with money or live in an exorbitantly expensive location, $165k is enough to live a very comfortable life. $165k is well over twice my current wage and with what I'm making right now and I can easily raise a family and have a stay at home wife in the biggest city in Canada on my salary.

That really depends on the city though doesn't it? San Francisco's housing costs are exorbiant, for example, and from what I've dug up a family of four making $110k per year is eligible for housing assistance. . .that doesn't really sound promising for a judge on $165k per year if they're trying to raise a family as well.

[Nephtys]

This all sounds like a hell of a lot of disdain for Judges because they make six figures. To actually get there though, you're going through a hell of a lot of school for it. So why make the pay noticibly lower than any most other jobs they could get with the same level of preparation?

If anything, wouldn't you want the most talented people to be Judges, instead of going into business law to earn a higher wage? Not adjusting pay for 10 years seems a little silly as well, as well as they are paid.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

An independent judiciary is the idea that a judge should not have to worry about making unpopular decisions. I just want to make sure you're not an idiot who thinks that judges should be fired at will.

I think he knows what an independent judiciary is, Gussington. I also don't recall him saying they should be fired at will. He's merely saying they shouldn't have some absolute independence because that's impractical. He's saying there must be some way to remove them if they are incompetent.

[Bob Gaussington]

An independent judiciary is the idea that a judge should not have to worry about making unpopular decisions. I just want to make sure you're not an idiot who thinks that judges should be fired at will.

I think he knows what an independent judiciary is, Gussington. I also don't recall him saying they should be fired at will. He's merely saying they shouldn't have some absolute independence because that's impractical. He's saying there must be some way to remove them if they are incompetent.

I was unclear what exactly he was saying. I'm still not entirely clear as to his position. I gave the ways in which a judge may be removed, yet it seems Wong wants something more. Or not.

[Darth Wong]

An independent judiciary is the idea that a judge should not have to worry about making unpopular decisions. I just want to make sure you're not an idiot who thinks that judges should be fired at will.

I think he knows what an independent judiciary is, Gussington. I also don't recall him saying they should be fired at will. He's merely saying they shouldn't have some absolute independence because that's impractical. He's saying there must be some way to remove them if they are incompetent.

I was unclear what exactly he was saying. I'm still not entirely clear as to his position. I gave the ways in which a judge may be removed, yet it seems Wong wants something more. Or not.

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? I said that "ironclad job protection" is a terrible idea. You somehow interpreted that as "your boss should be able to fire you for looking at him funny", and you claim that my position is impossible to understand. Perhaps you're just not very good at this whole "understanding" thing.

[The Kernel]

I'd like to point out that $165k is hardly an exorbitant salary for a judge. Most of my friends who are corporate lawyers and a couple of years out of law school make around $130k, and they'll probably hit $200k before they are 30.

Whoopdedoo. The chairman of Hydro One or the IESO make a million & change a year while the chairmen of pretty much every Bay Street company will probably make at least 10 times that. A police officer will top out at around $100k after a couple decades of service while a private investigator can pull in several times that after a few years. Again, they ain't doing the same job, why should they get paid the same? People aren't going into civil service to get rich.

Also, unless you're a complete moron with money or live in an exorbitantly expensive location, $165k is enough to live a very comfortable life. $165k is well over twice my current wage and with what I'm making right now and I can easily raise a family and have a stay at home wife in the biggest city in Canada on my salary.

In case you didn't realize this, I brought up the example of lawyers because judges ARE lawyers. I think it's a little more relevant than the salary of a police office or a Chairman.

And $165k may be a lot where you are from, but where I live it's just enough to afford the mortgage payments on a condo.

[Dargos]

I think the reason these "high-level" public servents get such large pay checks is to make them "in-theory" less likely give into being bribed.

10 years is a really freaking long time to go without any type of raise.

[Lonestar]

HDS is knee-jerking in his usual immature way, but there is a kernel of truth to what he's saying. Civil servants shouldn't be treated like shit, but they should not have ironclad job security either. Why should they enjoy such special protection?

Indeed, after all, one has to ensure that the Civil Servants maintain a loyalty to the current administration. As for Judges that have gone nuts, they should be removed it they make outlandish decisions like " States can secede" and "The Feds are obligated to uphold treaties with the Indians".

Sincerely,
Andrew Jackson.






And yeah, it is way too hard to fire a civil servant. Part of the reason why, in my (extremely)biased view contractors are good. One call to the contracting company and they are out of the office quick. Otherwise you can sit there and steal oxygen for 20 years and get a penison.

[brianeyci]

One thing I do not like is whenever I mention "people make a lot of money so they should shut up" other people say "so tell me exactly how much is too much money." It's as if they think criticism is a step function, 1 or 0, you have a right to whine about money or you don't have a right, rather than some people have more right to complain than others. What I'm trying to say is, if you make a lot of money, and think you should get a raise, don't expect people making far less to listen or understand. When people mention the minimum wage, it's not saying that everybody above the minimum wage doesn't have a right to a raise and everybody below or near it does. It's saying: shut the fuck up because you make a lot more than most people, and if you don't like your job and it's not enough money get another job like the rest of the country's peons.

[Teleros]

Indeed, after all, one has to ensure that the Civil Servants maintain a loyalty to the current administration.

Or at least are equally disloyal to every administration .

And yeah, it is way too hard to fire a civil servant. Part of the reason why, in my (extremely)biased view contractors are good. One call to the contracting company and they are out of the office quick. Otherwise you can sit there and steal oxygen for 20 years and get a penison.

Which then leads to politicised civil servants eager to please their current masters rather than be the good little cogs in the machine.

[Lonestar]

Which then leads to politicised civil servants eager to please their current masters rather than be the good little cogs in the machine.

Not really. Part of the problem is that we've had civil servants working for the past 20, 30, even 40 years who are just now retiring. As a result, (besides contracting out the obvious stuff, like IT related jobs) some federal agencies have found it easier to contract it out than hire someone who may treat their job like a welfare check to be drawn every two weeks(because of job security).

And most civil servants are so far below the administration's radar(any administrations) that to say "it's been politicised" is laughable. Yeah, the higher you go the more politics you have to play, but if you think the hiring Agency gives a good Goddamn about whether or not a GS-7 is against Roe vs. Wade you got another think coming.

[Darth Wong]

Which then leads to politicised civil servants eager to please their current masters rather than be the good little cogs in the machine.

Honestly, this whole tangent strikes me as ridiculous. I can understand the security concerns with impoverished civil servants who have high-level security access, but even a generous salary doesn't make people immune to bribes, as many politicians have shown us. At the end of the day, the problem is not how much people are getting paid, but whether anybody is watching the hiring and firing practices of the managers. Paying people more does not ensure that they are not politicized, nor does granting anything but absolutely ironclad job security (which would be a really dumb idea).

[Xon]

As for the mailmen, they have very cushy wages. They make as much money as my dad did when he was working as an engineer. So yes, the bastards should be grateful and just STFU.

Considering the term "going postal" and how it came about, I'm not terribly suprised. Really freaking bad work conditions will send any one batty

[Darth Wong]

As for the mailmen, they have very cushy wages. They make as much money as my dad did when he was working as an engineer. So yes, the bastards should be grateful and just STFU.

Considering the term "going postal" and how it came about, I'm not terribly suprised. Really freaking bad work conditions will send any one batty

Given the few people I've known who worked in that business, their working conditions were not bad at all. I knew guys who would be done their day's work by noon, and then go home (while getting paid for the whole day). How is that "really freaking bad"?

I'd say the opposite is true; they "go postal" because their working conditions are too good, so when they get fired, they know they'll never get another job like that and it feels like their world is falling apart.

[Teleros]

Of course it doesn't, but I think it can help reduce it. Not that I'm advocating ironclad job security - I'm not - but you can definitely make a case for the idea of greater job security helping. If the Conservatives winning the next election means I'll be out of my cushy public sector job, you can see why I might not vote for them, or drag my heels over implementing a policy.

[aerius]

I'd say the opposite is true; they "go postal" because their working conditions are too good, so when they get fired, they know they'll never get another job like that and it feels like their world is falling apart.

It's not a coincidence that the shootings usually happen after the worker gets reprimanded or fired.

[General Zod]

It's saying: shut the fuck up because you make a lot more than most people, and if you don't like your job and it's not enough money get another job like the rest of the country's peons.

If anything people making minimum wage have even less room to bitch about raises than people making six figures. Their skills don't take a lot of effort to train someone to do and they're replaced easily if they screw up. If they don't like making shit for wages then they need to get themselves a better education instead of wondering why they can't make a high salary.

[brianeyci]

It's saying: shut the fuck up because you make a lot more than most people, and if you don't like your job and it's not enough money get another job like the rest of the country's peons.

If anything people making minimum wage have even less room to bitch about raises than people making six figures. Their skills don't take a lot of effort to train someone to do and they're replaced easily if they screw up. If they don't like making shit for wages then they need to get themselves a better education instead of wondering why they can't make a high salary.

Only in la la land. People who don't make not a lot of money (doesn't have to be minimum wage since nobody makes minimum wage except McDonalds or childcare workers) can be highly educated. I worked in places with people with masters degrees and not just in English either, in the sciences and they made eight bucks an hour. Higher education doesn't necessarily translate into more money. A more intelligent person doesn't translate into more money either -- there's examples of intelligent people on this board who struggle to survive. People who make less money have all the right to bitch and people who have more money have less right to bitch. If you want to bring in the whole education should equal more money, that's a whole separate issue than whether taxpayers should foot the bill for a raise.

[General Zod]

Only in la la land. People who don't make not a lot of money (doesn't have to be minimum wage since nobody makes minimum wage except McDonalds or childcare workers) can be highly educated. I worked in places with people with masters degrees and not just in English either, in the sciences and they made eight bucks an hour. Higher education doesn't necessarily translate into more money. A more intelligent person doesn't translate into more money either -- there's examples of intelligent people on this board who struggle to survive. People who make less money have all the right to bitch and people who have more money have less right to bitch. If you want to bring in the whole education should equal more money, that's a whole separate issue than whether taxpayers should foot the bill for a raise.

Which brings us back to the original problem. How much more money gives someone less of a right to bitch? It's stupid because using your reasoning anyone who's making more money than someone else has less of a right to complain than the person who makes less. So far I'm only seeing a circular justification. "They make more money than joe blow, therefore they have less of a right to bitch. . .because they make more money".

[brianeyci]

Which brings us back to the original problem. How much more money gives someone less of a right to bitch? It's stupid because using your reasoning anyone who's making more money than someone else has less of a right to complain than the person who makes less. So far I'm only seeing a circular justification. "They make more money than joe blow, therefore they have less of a right to bitch. . .because they make more money".

The only people who have a legitimate bitching are people who struggle for day to day living, or people who are not adequately compensated for their education. Judges do not belong to either category. Is judging a science? Is it mathematics? I do not think so. I'm sure DW would make a great judge but be satisfied with only 135k because of all the prestige of being a judge and the service to the country.

It's as if the only functions you know are step functions. You make more money you have less of a right to bitch you make less you have more. You seem not to accept this, by saying it's the fault of people who make less money that they don't have an education, and bring up minimum wage lazy fucks. It may be true for minimum wage that you can go from eight bucks to ten bucks with a bit of training, but it's sure not true you can go from eight to a hundred and thirty-five thousand with education and training. Judges are lucky to be where they are.

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.

[aerius]

Which brings us back to the original problem. How much more money gives someone less of a right to bitch? It's stupid because using your reasoning anyone who's making more money than someone else has less of a right to complain than the person who makes less. So far I'm only seeing a circular justification. "They make more money than joe blow, therefore they have less of a right to bitch. . .because they make more money".

There is no hard & fast number. But as a general rule, when a person makes enough money to easily afford a home, a nice car or 2, raise a family, put the kids through college, and have a chunk left over for luxuries, he's not going to get any sympathy when he whines & cries about not making enough money. The guy's set for life, and if he still wants to bitch about it then I'm going to say the same thing to him that I'd say to some teen who's whining cause he didn't get a BMW for his birthday, and that would be "quit bellyaching you spoiled little shit!"

[General Zod]

The only people who have a legitimate bitching are people who struggle for day to day living, or people who are not adequately compensated for their education. Judges do not belong to either category. Is judging a science? Is it mathematics? I do not think so. I'm sure DW would make a great judge but be satisfied with only 135k because of all the prestige of being a judge and the service to the country.

Someone living in a city with exorbiant housing costs yet making $135k per year could very well be struggling to get by. See my example earlier about San Francisco housing costs.

It's as if the only functions you know are step functions. You make more money you have less of a right to bitch you make less you have more. You seem not to accept this, by saying it's the fault of people who make less money that they don't have an education, and bring up minimum wage lazy fucks. It may be true for minimum wage that you can go from eight bucks to ten bucks with a bit of training, but it's sure not true you can go from eight to a hundred and thirty-five thousand with education and training. Judges are lucky to be where they are.

You seem to keep flip-flopping, or at least being rather inconsistent on the issue. One of your positions is that people who make far more than the average joe shouldn't bitch, then the other is that they have less of a right to bitch about not getting raises. The way I see it is you simply either have a right to bitch about not getting a periodic raise or you don't, the actual wage regardless. As far as going to a hundred and thirty five thousand, $100k+ are typically reserved for employees with considerable experience and time spent at their position. Entry level professionals with good educations can make anywhere from $50k to $90k depending on the careers.

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".

[General Zod]

Which brings us back to the original problem. How much more money gives someone less of a right to bitch? It's stupid because using your reasoning anyone who's making more money than someone else has less of a right to complain than the person who makes less. So far I'm only seeing a circular justification. "They make more money than joe blow, therefore they have less of a right to bitch. . .because they make more money".

There is no hard & fast number. But as a general rule, when a person makes enough money to easily afford a home, a nice car or 2, raise a family, put the kids through college, and have a chunk left over for luxuries, he's not going to get any sympathy when he whines & cries about not making enough money. The guy's set for life, and if he still wants to bitch about it then I'm going to say the same thing to him that I'd say to some teen who's whining cause he didn't get a BMW for his birthday, and that would be "quit bellyaching you spoiled little shit!"

That I'm willing to agree with. Since housing costs vary so much someone who's earning $135k in Denver could live lavishly while someone earning $135k in New York City could be barely earning enough to afford a decent sized condo. It's not as if you can just factor in the wage on its own and say they're earning too much.

[brianeyci]

Someone living in a city with exorbiant housing costs yet making $135k per year could very well be struggling to get by. See my example earlier about San Francisco housing costs.

Very well, but this is balanced by earlier posts about the benefits of working for the government and the prestige and power of being a judge. Until I see proof that these housing costs is the real reason why judges want raises, and not because they want a BMW, then too bad. You can struggle to live in Toronto with 135k too, if you live in Rosedale.

You seem to keep flip-flopping, or at least being rather inconsistent on the issue. One of your positions is that people who make far more than the average joe shouldn't bitch, then the other is that they have less of a right to bitch about not getting raises. The way I see it is you simply either have a right to bitch about not getting a periodic raise or you don't, the actual wage regardless. As far as going to a hundred and thirty five thousand, $100k+ are typically reserved for employees with considerable experience and time spent at their position. Entry level professionals with good educations can make anywhere from $50k to $90k depending on the careers.

You have a right to bitch or you don't? Wrong. You are the one creating an imaginary line even though you don't realize it then, a bunch of people who have a right to bitch and a bunch of people who don't therefore creating an amount of money x which is the cutoff. If many people bitch, and you make a lot of money, your bitching is worth far less than the people at the bottom. You haven't had a raise in ten years? Minimum wage workers haven't had a raise in ten years. That's what people mean when they bring up the minimum wage, not that they make too much money but that they should stfu about not making enough.

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".

Wrong. Judges bitch, judges have to show why their bitching is legitimate. I see no minimum wage workers or poor people bitching here. Poor people actually suck it up and work and don't have a chance to bitch. You're trying to turn the burden of proof to my side when it's your side to prove judges bitching is legitimate.

Why do you side with the person making 135k? Don't you laugh when you hear such a person complain about cost of living? Do you make 135k, would you have trouble living on 135k. I don't see why you're taking their side at all. Do you or do you not laugh when a NBA star says he needs more money to feed his children.

[General Zod]

You have a right to bitch or you don't? Wrong. You are the one creating an imaginary line even though you don't realize it then, a bunch of people who have a right to bitch and a bunch of people who don't therefore creating an amount of money x which is the cutoff. If many people bitch, and you make a lot of money, your bitching is worth far less than the people at the bottom. You haven't had a raise in ten years? Minimum wage workers haven't had a raise in ten years. That's what people mean when they bring up the minimum wage, not that they make too much money but that they should stfu about not making enough.

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.

Wrong. Judges bitch, judges have to show why their bitching is legitimate. I see no minimum wage workers or poor people bitching here. Poor people actually suck it up and work and don't have a chance to bitch. You're trying to turn the burden of proof to my side when it's your side to prove judges bitching is legitimate.

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.

Why do you side with the person making 135k? Don't you laugh when you hear such a person complain about cost of living? Do you make 135k, would you have trouble living on 135k. I don't see why you're taking their side at all. Do you or do you not laugh when a NBA star says he needs more money to feed his children.

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?