College tuition too high...

[arcsine]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

That sounds like about a $35k-$40k a year position to be honest (and I don't know the specifics, just going off of your description).

Fine. You are welcome to your opinion. But I have to ask a question that may be best suited to another thread.

Certainly, most management, financial or legal professions having little direct benefit to production of a good or service yet all are well compensated in general. So what is our criteria for making an evaluation in the relative worth of a persons vocation? Is it that we value what we do ourselves in specificity or field? That they know how to manipulate the fiscal markets? They have advanced degrees? (Thus cannot be true as witnessed by this thread.).

I am naive in thinking that worth should somehow we connected to the tangible product being supplied.

The question is "What IS a valued occupation?"

[Aurel]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I really don't see how continuing to work past a certain age could be considered greedy. Why would one stop in their peak earning years when they have much to contribute? Also, how much is enough? If the same folks miscalculate and retire too early and run out of money, then what? Will you want to take care of them? There is no reason that a person cannot work and contribute to society until they are no longer physically or metally able. As far as younger folks that cost less...it is almost impossible to find one that will work the 70 hr workweek that their older counterparts will...much less have the skills. besides, who would take care of their adult children that just can't seem to manage on their own...LOL?

Spoken like a true oldster...LOL
I can tell you that in Universities, there are many old tenured professors who do not contribute anything to research anymore, and who hang to $250k/yr jobs, just doing their minimal teaching requirement. And the worst part is they can stay there as long as they want, there is no set retirement age. That is a good example of greedy.

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by djmcmath

I've heard some talk that this isn't isolated to California -- other colleges are also paying their "executives" enormous salaries with expensive benefits as well. My opinion is that it's heinous for the top of the pay scale to be that absurdly out of line with the people who are doing the work.

Interesting. How is that different from the corporate world and the 7-9 figure salaries/bonuses paid in the private sector?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by arcsine

Fine. You are welcome to your opinion. But I have to ask a question that may be best suited to another thread.

Certainly, most management, financial or legal professions having little direct benefit to production of a good or service yet all are well compensated in general. So what is our criteria for making an evaluation in the relative worth of a persons vocation? Is it that we value what we do ourselves in specificity or field? That they know how to manipulate the fiscal markets? They have advanced degrees? (Thus cannot be true as witnessed by this thread.).

I am naive in thinking that worth should somehow we connected to the tangible product being supplied.

The question is "What IS a valued occupation?"

Yes, you are naive. It is not about how hard you work or what tangible product you provide, but rather, competition for labor. If they can find someone to do your job for $40K, then they will not pay you $60K (unless you are union labor..then they will pay you $100K)...even if you are making $500K for them..because they can have another guy make the same $500K for them for $20K less. The same is true for you. If you could make $20K more elsewhere, then you would likely go there. In the open market, scarcity is what typicallly drives up salaries. Professions with high entry requirements like advanced degrees (doctors, lawyers, engineers) will almost always pay significantly better than positions with lesser of generalist degrees...especialy if the education systems makes entry into the field difficult (like med school entry, bar exam, or other certification).

[Aurel]

Originally Posted by arcsine

Fine. You are welcome to your opinion. But I have to ask a question that may be best suited to another thread.

Certainly, most management, financial or legal professions having little direct benefit to production of a good or service yet all are well compensated in general. So what is our criteria for making an evaluation in the relative worth of a persons vocation? Is it that we value what we do ourselves in specificity or field? That they know how to manipulate the fiscal markets? They have advanced degrees? (Thus cannot be true as witnessed by this thread.).

I am naive in thinking that worth should somehow we connected to the tangible product being supplied.

The question is "What IS a valued occupation?"

That is a very valid question, arcsine. And I would say, the answer to this question explains many of the issues this country faces. Management pays a lot more than execution. Therefore, everyone wants to be a manager, get an MBA and give the orders. Problem is, everything becomes top heavy, and you get the problem discussed in this thread. Technical jobs, and even engineering jobs, are undervalued. Why is it that most engineering jobs reach their peak at less that $100k/yr, when managing can net you twice that? It forces good engineers to go into management, and it causes a lack of good engineers.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Aurel

Spoken like a true oldster...LOL
I can tell you that in Universities, there are many old tenured professors who do not contribute anything to research anymore, and who hang to $250k/yr jobs, just doing their minimal teaching requirement. And the worst part is they can stay there as long as they want, there is no set retirement age. That is a good example of greedy.

But I am not an "oldster." I don't qualify to retire or draw Social Security yet. Sounds to me like tenure is the problem, not age. If a person does not perform according to salary, their salary should be reduced or they should be fired.

[Aurel]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Interesting. How is that different from the corporate world and the 7-9 figure salaries/bonuses paid in the private sector?

Simple answer: in the corporate world, the salaries and pensions of the executives are not paid by the state, but by the profit that the corporation makes.

[Aurel]

Originally Posted by fintstone

But I am not an "oldster." I don't qualify to retire or draw Social Security yet. Sounds to me like tenure is the problem, not age. If a person does not perform according to salary, their salary should be reduced or they should be fired.

I agree with you. Tenure is the problem.

[Crowbob]

I am of the opinion academia and bureaucracy are similar in that neither creates wealth to any great degree. What passes as 'research' is laughable in most instances. Likewise, bureaucrats spend almost 100% of their working hours satisfying bureaucratic 'policies' and 'procedures' most of which are mandated by administrative fiat and have nothing to do with accomplishing their professed 'missions', the intrinsic 'value' of those missions being dubious at best. The same can be said for the legal 'professions' which protect themselves by fear, intimidation and threat of costly entanglement in increasingly undecipherable 'law' which they themselves promulgate. By extension, investment and other brokerage firms, including private investors, siphon off the top by manipulating 'commissions' just as the real estate industry does. At some point, it all became an abstraction backed only by numbers and words on paper (or bits of 'ones' and 'zeroes' in a virtual cyberuniverse) imploding upon itself. This is where we are today. The modern American mantra is "I am worthy because this here (word or bit) says I am."

[silverwhaletail]

Originally Posted by 9dreizig

California needs to go bankrupt or it will never be fixed.

Bankruptcy won't help. Californians are just prone to irresponsible behavior in all areas of their lives.

I came to California in 1990 because police officer pay was 1/3 higher in CA than anywhere else and because of the great pension which was 2% @ 50. (2 % of salary for every year worked, up to a maximum of 75%)

So 1999 comes along and a thing called SB 400 is introduced in the state legislature. The bill seeks to change the existing retirement formula for police/fire from 2% @ 50 to 3% @ 50 and raise the cap to 90%.

I laughed and told myself, "fat chance of that ever happening."

SB 400 sailed through the Senate on a 39-to-0 vote and passed the Assembly 70-to-7. Gray Davis signed it into law.

The moral of the story is that Californians are liberals. Look at the State Senate vote and the State Assembly vote on SB 400. Governors are irrelevant in California.

This is a one party state. Democrats rule the day here. Bankruptcy will not fix anything. As soon as the bankruptcy ends, the state legislature will simply go back to business as usual. How do you not understand that???

Are you guys advocating that the senate, assembly and governorship be turned over to the courts indefinitely???

California voters are California voters. It will always be like this. If you don't like it, then leave.

But leave those of us looking forward to 100K pensions alone. (3 years and 9 months to go)

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Aurel

Spoken like a true oldster...LOL
I can tell you that in Universities, there are many old tenured professors who do not contribute anything to research anymore, and who hang to $250k/yr jobs, just doing their minimal teaching requirement. And the worst part is they can stay there as long as they want, there is no set retirement age. ...

exactly - back in ye olden days we used to call them "deadwood" - later on we realized WHY they were dead... they were burned out from over-work

I have several friends on the faculty of various universities, and not one of them is happy

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by Crowbob

I am of the opinion academia and bureaucracy are similar in that neither creates wealth to any great degree. What passes as 'research' is laughable in most instances. ...

this is particularly stupid

what is your claim to the expertise to be able to evaluate this???

[dmcummins]

Originally Posted by RWebb

exactly - back in ye olden days we used to call them "deadwood" - later on we realized WHY they were dead... they were burned out from over-work

I have several friends on the faculty of various universities, and not one of them is happy

Then why are they still there? My wife is an adjunct professor at a local college. She makes just enough to fund our IRA's. She likes it, but she only works 3 hour's a week and gets summers off. Many of the full timers seam to never leave there also. Position's open when someone dies. Its kind of sad that they have no other life.

[Crowbob]

Which part, Webby, academia and bureaucracy not creating wealth or the laughable research? My claim to expertise is: I claim expertise. I further claim it as my opinion, as stated, sir.

NEXT!

[RWebb]

it's as worthless as your other opinions