76% PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK

[jonesthecurl]

Not sure why this is a topic. I don't live paycheck-to-paycheck these days, but I've been around a long while. If this means simply that you can runout of money before you run out of month, that's how I lived most of my life, and it seems normal to me.

[patrickaa317]

Sorry, with the way you spouted off on the topic, I assumed you actually knew something about it. Thanks for the help with the research though.

Anyway. I didn't see anything there that supported your point. I did see one link that said average public sector salary is slightly higher than average private sector, but averages mean very little. The same article mentioned that, when you compare people with similar qualifications that the disparity actually reversed.

Seriously though, I was interested in more information about the topic, and all you could give was a smarmy, "lmgtfy". If there isn't actually evidence to back up the "facts" you spout (or at least, you have no idea where to find such evidence), try not to be so cock-sure of yourself. People will start to think you're just some teenager in a fly-over state.

I've read, heard, and seen plenty of information on this and I just don't have them memorized which is why I sent you a link to try to find that information on your own through various places. I could search the internet and post all kinds of articles, charts and graphs, all of which have their own pros and cons in how they are written or documented, you could pick a part these on either side. Someone once showed me a statistic that humans, on average, are born with one testicle. The point being, with birthrate of approximate 1 male (with two testicles) to 1 female (with no testicles), they average out to being born with one testicle (despite a small percentage that may actually fit this case).

If you were truly interested, I apologize for not holding your hand by posting evidence that is easily obtained through a bunch of google searches. The majority of this off topic area is spent where two or more people take one small part of another's post, rip it to shreds and try to discredit the person; rarely is anyone ever influenced enough to change their mind through this forum banter. Most people here have their mind made up on the majority of these types of things.

[Nobunaga]

How can anybody hope to eat and keep a roof over their heads in retirement if they are living paycheck to paycheck?

Well, a 401K contribution would be deducted from the paycheck, so there's that.

I intend to retire in splendor - living in a well air conditioned ranch (style home) in a good neighborhood, surrounded by golf courses and walking distance from a good bookstore.

[PLAYER57832]

Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Except that is about boosting aggregate demand rather than just showing off shiny GDP figures.

But yes, certainly the GDP is not a perfect barometer of economic development.

I see DK is at the bottom. You might also note that Denmark was found to be the country with the happiest overall population. Perhaps its not cooincidence at all? (in fact, it isn't..., but DK is also small and very homogeneous)

[Woodruff]

With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

I see your from Canada, not sure how the pay differences work between private and public sector there, I was referring to how things work here.

Honestly, I would argue the opposite, from my experience. As I have seen, the governmental jobs provide a job security aspect that makes up for the lower wage, which is why certain types of people tend to gravitate toward them.

When I came out of the military as a network administrator, my ability to get a six-figure job "on the outside" was tremendous, whereas within the GS-scale in the government, it simply wasn't going to happen. But the GS employee has a lot more stable job security than someone "on the outside", and so that's the difference-maker for some.

[Woodruff]

Despite numerous examples of how living paycheck to paycheck can be a good thing, overall I think it's a bad thing.

You should save at least something, even just 1% of your income for starters. The peace of mind that comes with knowing you can handle random blows as well as potentially help someone else in need is worth far more than the money itself.

I don't at all disagree with this, however THESE DAYS the problem is that by saving, you are actually losing money. Investments are the way to do it, but then you lose liquidity, which is the point of being able to handle those random blows that you mention. In the past, I would certainly have agreed with this entirely.

[Woodruff]

How can anybody hope to eat and keep a roof over their heads in retirement if they are living paycheck to paycheck?

Well...if a house payment is part of that paycheck-to-paycheck living, then hopefully the house would be paid off by retirement. So there's that. But in general, yes...you'd better have some significant savings in retirement unless you have two pensions or something along those lines (that's my general plan).

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Isn't America's military spending still counted as GDP "growth" and burger flippers counted as "manufacturing" jobs?

The numbers are so fudged and the formula's so abused, it's becoming ridiculous

yeah

GDP= all government expenditures + (export - import) + consumerspending + investments
==> This is why too few americans have savings(more spending) and why the government spends too much money. It makes things look better.

I would even assume, that in a consumption based economy, all things relative, an increase in % of people who spend all their $ every pay period would probably boost the economy and create more jobs, while a considerable decrease in the % would result in job losses and a weaker economy

You'd think that would be correct, but it's always failed in the longer term because people forget that you need savings in order to support sustainable growth in the economy. AAFitz doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a "ra-ra public works" kinda guy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe the big question at hand should be: should the government really be targeting GDP maximisation? The US is known to have a very big GDP/capita, higher than those in european countries, even countries like germany. Yet in some european countries the people(middle class and lower class) live better lives than they do in the US.

Keep in mind the Kuznets curve below and keep in mind that income here is actually GDP/capita

They shouldn't. Because GDP doesn't mean much. Since it looks good on paper and as rhetoric, then there's no surprise that it gets targeted often (e.g. public works programs, "creating jobs," etc.).

Except that is about boosting aggregate demand rather than just showing off shiny GDP figures.

But yes, certainly the GDP is not a perfect barometer of economic development.

Sure, kinda. That 'justification' fits into the rhetoric aspect. People think GDP means something and that increasing AD means that 'the economy' would grow. But it's just GDP.

[Timminz]

Sorry, with the way you spouted off on the topic, I assumed you actually knew something about it. Thanks for the help with the research though.

Anyway. I didn't see anything there that supported your point. I did see one link that said average public sector salary is slightly higher than average private sector, but averages mean very little. The same article mentioned that, when you compare people with similar qualifications that the disparity actually reversed.

Seriously though, I was interested in more information about the topic, and all you could give was a smarmy, "lmgtfy". If there isn't actually evidence to back up the "facts" you spout (or at least, you have no idea where to find such evidence), try not to be so cock-sure of yourself. People will start to think you're just some teenager in a fly-over state.

I've read, heard, and seen plenty of information on this and I just don't have them memorized which is why I sent you a link to try to find that information on your own through various places. I could search the internet and post all kinds of articles, charts and graphs, all of which have their own pros and cons in how they are written or documented, you could pick a part these on either side. Someone once showed me a statistic that humans, on average, are born with one testicle. The point being, with birthrate of approximate 1 male (with two testicles) to 1 female (with no testicles), they average out to being born with one testicle (despite a small percentage that may actually fit this case).

If you were truly interested, I apologize for not holding your hand by posting evidence that is easily obtained through a bunch of google searches. The majority of this off topic area is spent where two or more people take one small part of another's post, rip it to shreds and try to discredit the person; rarely is anyone ever influenced enough to change their mind through this forum banter. Most people here have their mind made up on the majority of these types of things.

The point about averages, is that the private sector has a whole lot of cashiers, and bag boys, and what-not, working for minimum wage, while the public sector has no need for that level of unskilled workers, so of course the average there will be higher. If you want to compare apples to apples (for example, people with similar qualifications, as I mentioned above), then please do. I am keen to hear it. On the other hand, if all you want to do is make an unverified claim, and just point to Google (which, by the way, contradicted you) when someone asks you for specifics, you can continue to be seen as the intellectual joke that you have made of yourself to be, on this forum.

That's all besides the point now, though. You were a dick. I was a dick back at you. In the end, I'm more correct than you are about this topic, and for that reason (unless you, or someone else, can show me otherwise), I am done with this conversation.

Thanks for trying. Unfortunately, your preconceived notions have betrayed you (just as you predicted they would). Better luck next time.

[waauw]

Sorry, with the way you spouted off on the topic, I assumed you actually knew something about it. Thanks for the help with the research though.

Anyway. I didn't see anything there that supported your point. I did see one link that said average public sector salary is slightly higher than average private sector, but averages mean very little. The same article mentioned that, when you compare people with similar qualifications that the disparity actually reversed.

Seriously though, I was interested in more information about the topic, and all you could give was a smarmy, "lmgtfy". If there isn't actually evidence to back up the "facts" you spout (or at least, you have no idea where to find such evidence), try not to be so cock-sure of yourself. People will start to think you're just some teenager in a fly-over state.

I've read, heard, and seen plenty of information on this and I just don't have them memorized which is why I sent you a link to try to find that information on your own through various places. I could search the internet and post all kinds of articles, charts and graphs, all of which have their own pros and cons in how they are written or documented, you could pick a part these on either side. Someone once showed me a statistic that humans, on average, are born with one testicle. The point being, with birthrate of approximate 1 male (with two testicles) to 1 female (with no testicles), they average out to being born with one testicle (despite a small percentage that may actually fit this case).

If you were truly interested, I apologize for not holding your hand by posting evidence that is easily obtained through a bunch of google searches. The majority of this off topic area is spent where two or more people take one small part of another's post, rip it to shreds and try to discredit the person; rarely is anyone ever influenced enough to change their mind through this forum banter. Most people here have their mind made up on the majority of these types of things.

The point about averages, is that the private sector has a whole lot of cashiers, and bag boys, and what-not, working for minimum wage, while the public sector has no need for that level of unskilled workers, so of course the average there will be higher.

As if governments don't have a lot of unskilled workers too. Do you honestly think it takes a lot of skill to perform some cityhall bureaucracy? Also, even though there are more low-wage workers in the private sector, there are also more high earners in the private sector.

The reason why average wages in public sectors are higher is the following:

Milton Friedman - Very few people spend other people's money as carefully they spend their own money

[patrickaa317]

With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

I see your from Canada, not sure how the pay differences work between private and public sector there, I was referring to how things work here.

Honestly, I would argue the opposite, from my experience. As I have seen, the governmental jobs provide a job security aspect that makes up for the lower wage, which is why certain types of people tend to gravitate toward them.

When I came out of the military as a network administrator, my ability to get a six-figure job "on the outside" was tremendous, whereas within the GS-scale in the government, it simply wasn't going to happen. But the GS employee has a lot more stable job security than someone "on the outside", and so that's the difference-maker for some.

Network admin is more of a skilled position than most public sector jobs (title clerks, city garbage haulers, maintenance crew, etc) so I can see some truth to your statement as most places I've obtained this information state that they more skill a position needs to more the gap between public and private diminishes, if not even revert the other way which is what you are stating.

[patrickaa317]

The point about averages, is that the private sector has a whole lot of cashiers, and bag boys, and what-not, working for minimum wage, while the public sector has no need for that level of unskilled workers, so of course the average there will be higher. If you want to compare apples to apples (for example, people with similar qualifications, as I mentioned above), then please do. I am keen to hear it. On the other hand, if all you want to do is make an unverified claim, and just point to Google (which, by the way, contradicted you) when someone asks you for specifics, you can continue to be seen as the intellectual joke that you have made of yourself to be, on this forum.

That's all besides the point now, though. You were a dick. I was a dick back at you. In the end, I'm more correct than you are about this topic, and for that reason (unless you, or someone else, can show me otherwise), I am done with this conversation.

Thanks for trying. Unfortunately, your preconceived notions have betrayed you (just as you predicted they would). Better luck next time.

the public sector doesn't pay minimum wage for any of their positions, no matter how unskilled or entry level they are. That's a big part of my point, they simply overpay their employees. The private sector cannot because they will be out of business. And I'm not sure what you mean about the public sector not having a need for that level of unskilled workers, apparently things up in Canada are quite different as there is a ton of unskilled people in the public sector here.

If your similar qualifications comparison was about a top executive and a top bureaucrat, your bucket of apples for comparison are definitely not all apples. Most of the sites from that google search that were contradictory to my point, were definitely biased '.org' sites.

And I love the 'i'm more correct than you' comment, that actually made me chuckle. I suppose next you'll mention that one of your parents can beat up one of my parents.

[Woodruff]

With the exception ... government workers where they...have a larger budget and simply overpay a majority of the workforce in comparison to the private sector

Which governments and fields, specifically, are you talking about here? From my point of view (recent graduate of a professional services-type field) government jobs pay significantly less than private sector jobs. The only way governments can compete for new hires, is to aim lower.

I see your from Canada, not sure how the pay differences work between private and public sector there, I was referring to how things work here.

Honestly, I would argue the opposite, from my experience. As I have seen, the governmental jobs provide a job security aspect that makes up for the lower wage, which is why certain types of people tend to gravitate toward them.

When I came out of the military as a network administrator, my ability to get a six-figure job "on the outside" was tremendous, whereas within the GS-scale in the government, it simply wasn't going to happen. But the GS employee has a lot more stable job security than someone "on the outside", and so that's the difference-maker for some.

Network admin is more of a skilled position than most public sector jobs (title clerks, city garbage haulers, maintenance crew, etc) so I can see some truth to your statement as most places I've obtained this information state that they more skill a position needs to more the gap between public and private diminishes, if not even revert the other way which is what you are stating.

That makes sense, I suppose. I hate these kinds of discussions...they always remind me how much money I could be making.

[Timminz]

And I love the 'i'm more correct than you' comment, that actually made me chuckle.

Prove me wrong.

[Timminz]

even though there are more low-wage workers in the private sector, there are also more high earners in the private sector.

Agreed. Though, considering how averages work, we need to consider the relative numbers. In the private sector, are there more people at the lowest end, or at the highest end, and how would that affect the averages?

[patrickaa317]

And I love the 'i'm more correct than you' comment, that actually made me chuckle.

Prove me wrong.

Our research has shown that public school teachers receive salaries about on par with private sector workers who score the same on the SAT and other standardized tests of cognitive skill. But fringe benefits — in particular, generous vacation time, pensions and retiree health plans — push total compensation for teachers roughly 50 percent above private sector levels.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/02/are-teachers-overpaid/teachers-earn-more-than-they-would-in-the-private-sector

According to the 2011 Robert Half Salary Guide, public accountants, those working in fields of auditing, taxes and management services, earned on average, between $46,250 and $72,500.
....
Those accountants working in private industry can earn a wide range of salary anywhere from $38,750 to $64,500. As with public accountants, according to the 2011 Robert Half Salary Guide, the salaries of private accountants are based on the size of the firm, with the smallest firms paying the least in salary ($38,750 to $50,500) and the biggest firms paying the highest salaries ($45,750 to $64,500).

http://www.ehow.com/info_8611963_public-private-accounting-salaries.html#ixzz2YVoxmndV

Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Federal employees earned $30,415 more than private sector jobs in 2000, but it has increased to $61,998 in 2009.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Public_v._private_sector_salaries



opinion based article from a '.org' website that has some validity to it, figured it summed up some thoughts pretty well:

It may be that state and local governments hire more educated people not because job duties demand more education, but rather simply because they can, as they have access to the public's money and, as such, government budgets are not so constrained as private firms' budgets. In the private sector, firms have strong incentives to keep costs down and pay no more for labor than they need to. The public sector, by contrast, is infamous for its lack of efficiency, and budgets are determined by political means, resulting in budgets that are usually much different-and more wasteful-than those determined by economic means (see the discussion of public-sector versus private-sector productivity below). This is why governments typically achieve significant cost savings by outsourcing the provision of services to the private sector. Thus, it may be that governments are paying higher wages to better-educated employees not because those employees' educational skills are required to perform their job duties, but rather because they are overqualified for their jobs.

It is worth noting that private sector compensation might also be skewed higher by a relatively small number of very high income earners, such as large corporation CEOs and senior officers, entertainers, and professional athletes, for which there is no equal in the public sector.

http://reason.org/news/show/public-sector-private-sector-salary

Now your turn to prove that you "are more correct than i am", on this issue.

[waauw]

even though there are more low-wage workers in the private sector, there are also more high earners in the private sector.

Agreed. Though, considering how averages work, we need to consider the relative numbers. In the private sector, are there more people at the lowest end, or at the highest end, and how would that affect the averages?

Even though a lot more low-wage workers, the high earners in the private sector can earn extremely high. The influence from someone who earns 10 million dollars a year is a lot bigger than the influence of someone who earns 800 dollars a year or whatever minimum wage in the USA is. That's the annoying thing about averages and why so many econometricians prefer medians.

[saxitoxin]

who earns 800 dollars a year or whatever minimum wage in the USA is

in San Francisco minimum wage is $22,000 for hourly and $44,000 for salaried employees

[BigBallinStalin]

RE: the govt. v. private sector wages debate,

by "income," are y'all including wage + all job-related/-granted benefits?

[waauw]

RE: the govt. v. private sector wages debate,

by "income," are y'all including wage + all job-related/-granted benefits?

yes because that's what governments also count as income

[Phatscotty]

How can anybody hope to eat and keep a roof over their heads in retirement if they are living paycheck to paycheck?

Well, a 401K contribution would be deducted from the paycheck, so there's that.

I intend to retire in splendor - living in a well air conditioned ranch (style home) in a good neighborhood, surrounded by golf courses and walking distance from a good bookstore.

Very good question. There was an article in USA today last week that stated 90% of Americans will not be able to retire on social security and savings alone. 38 million working households have zero saved for retirement, and over 35% of working people age 55-64 have zero saved.

[jj3044]

Anyone else find it funny that the largest disparity in the chart above was for public relations managers?

[thegreekdog]

I find it funny that a lot of people didn't bother to read Saxi's definition of what living paycheck to paycheck means (on the first page).