Have these scientists presented evidence to the contrary and had them rejected? Also, you should be aware of the fact that you're an expert in one field does not make you an expert in another. In a recent high-profile study, some highly respected physicists skeptical of climate change took the time to actully study it. They all changed their opinion afterward. And that study was funded by the Koch brothers, so you know damn well that's not the answer you were looking for. And you've still yet to answer my question: if these scientists have evidence contrary to climate change, why aren't they presenting it?
You might want to work on your reading comprehension, as I said "climate science or something applicable". Scientists cross disciplines all the time. I worked with a guy with an engineering PhD who spent most of his time pointing out flaws in geodetics research papers. But if you're going to make extrodinary claims (like saying 99% of the scientific community is wrong), you need extrodinary evidence. And if your evidence is extrodinary, then it means you would have studied the subject extensively. And if you haven't studied the subject, then the scientific community has no reason to listen to you.
Unless you've got a PhD in climate science or something applicable, then you're making an appeal to authority on the matter. What have these 16 scientists contributed to climate science that makes their voices outweigh those of the rest of the scientific community?
The difference in cost of living for SoCal vs. rural PA is absolutely comparable to the difference between PDX and OKC. You can get a nice house here for $100k, vs the $300k it costs in PDX to live in a neighborhood where you won't get shot. The difference in climate (and thus climate control costs) is also comparable, as is the relative distance from food distribution centers and the amount of extra fuel required to get to work.
They're close enough to true. It illustrates the point just fine even if the numbers are off by a factor of 3.
But the point is not properly illustrated if it's off by a factor of 3... $120k vs $333k is still a big difference and something to consider when taking a job, but it doesn't $80k/yr from an extravagant lifestyle to an impoverished existence. It's also important to note that utilities and such make up the difference... I moved from Portland, OR to Oklahoma City, OK, and have found that the $500 less I spend on mortgage is overshadowed by the cost of gas (have to drive farther), heating and AC, and food prices.
getting harder and harder to justify staying in the public sector
As someone working paying taxes in the private sector to pay public sector salaries, two points: glad to hear it and welcome to my world.
That's a very ignorant stance. First off, I pay taxes, same as you. SSI, Medicare, income taxes, the whole deal. Second, by paying low wages you sqeeze all of the talented workers out and leave only incompetent employees. Then you force agencies to hire contractors. Guess what? Contractors cost twice as much, because you're paying the same pay or higher, and then the contracting company has to get its cut. The right way to handle government bloat is to stop punishing efficiency, allow managers to fire permanent workers who don't do their job, and audit contractor agreements. Employee pay is a drop in the bucket compared to that.
Total myth that federal workers make less than private sector employees. Federal salaries are public data, and I know IT people who work in the govt, hence I know what they make. I was looking for a job last year and know the range that private sector companies pay - it's lower than the govt range. (I was looking in the same area as the govt IT people I know, and I have approx. the same amount of experience as them.)
Here's a question for you - if private sector employees really do make $10K more than you, and have less responsibilities, why don't you apply for one of those jobs? You'd be happier (since you say you are pissed off). But the answer must be... that that higher-paying job with fewer responsibilities in the private sector doesn't exist.
If you're not making shit up, then why don't you apply for a federal job, since it pays so much more? The truth is that only people who have been feds for 30+ years get the top range of their salary band. I make the absolute minimum for my pay band, and most of my peers aren't much better off. And since they no longer give step increases in the FV system, I'll never get anywhere near that top range.
as for why I stay, well, there's a number of reasons, and most of them don't have anything to do with money. I took a $17k pay cut to become a fed, and have turned down several offers for more money. I like the challenge of my job. I like my coworkers. And I also need to wait another year before my 401k is vested.
Exactly. In Hollywood, CA, you are paying $1million USD for mortgage a one bedroom living space, where in rural PA, you could pay $40k USD for a 4 bedroom, 3 story house.
Raise? What raise? The OP states that wages are just now getting back to 2008 levels. That means, of course, that between then and now they actually WENT DOWN! Did that happen to the public sector? No? Everybody I know has seen wages fall or at best stagnant for at least the last four years. If your pay freeze hasn't been at least that long, you have nothing to complain about.
But go ahead and explore your options in the private sector. I think you'll be shocked at what passes for "benefits" on this side of the line.
Actually I worked in the private sector until 2010, and took a 20% pay cut for those very same benefits as well as the annual raises I was expecting. The benefits have been good, but not good enough to outweigh the lack of raises for 2 years.
But you probably get a pension which is worth at least 20k a year....
Many "highly compensated" developers in the private sector don't even get matching 401ks anymore, so you can estimate salary - $17,000 (max 401k contribution).
Nope. After 1980-some-odd all federal employees get a 401k with 3% matching. There's a modest pension if you stick it out 30 years, but you gotta make it the full term.
Arg.. Just pisses me off even more about the federal pay freeze. I'm a lead developer and project manager making $10k less than the average developer, who has no management responsibilities. It's getting harder and harder to justify staying in the public sector..
For all that complexity, their office lacks an often-overlooked but very important productivity optimization: 4 walls, a ceiling, and a door for each employee (or at least those that need to concentrate from time to time).
It is interesting how Ruppert Murdoch has managed so effectively to squeeze Christianity completely out of the modern republican party and transform it into a captured market. Business and theology students will be studying this in coming centuries.
What's worse, he's actually squeezed out Christian values, all the while convincing people that their anti-social beliefs make them good Christians.
There's a big difference in the constituents these days.. Fox news has made being a sociopath a social norm. How do you think your average person would have reacted to the statement "anyone who has cancer and can't afford the treatment should just die" 20 years ago? Because right now there's a pretty decent chance they'd just say "yep! damn freeloaders".
As an evolutionary biologist it is my sworn duty to make fun of helpless species that evolved to fill an ecological niche in the absence of predators. Like Walmart shoppers.
No one can be stupid enough to think that immigration is typically a result of a country "sending" their citizens to another country.
Can they? Can a person be so stupid while simultaneously existing long enough to learn how to walk and talk?
Here's what I'm thinking.. When that rabid 10% of the population that thinks bombing abortion clinics is a perfectly acceptable family pastime gets their way and stops showing up to vote, the tea baggers will have lost enough of their base that we can elect people who at least have some semblance of intelligence.
"completely disregards science in favor of what someone wrote on paper 1500-2000 years ago. " Hm, such as what, exactly ?
They believe that unborn fetuses are unborn babies, and not body parts of the mother like science has shown them to be. Just because they have different genes doesn't make them not a body part! In fact, they're an edible body part, complete with all the nutrients a human body needs. Until they're born, they're fair game for anything the mother wants to do to them, including eating them.
This is actually a spot where the science isn't really in dispute, it's the sentiment that differs. Personally I think our (few remaining) lawmakers on the left should offer a compromise to the fundies: we'll give them an anti-abortion amendment in return for socialized health care and a minimum wage that can support a family.
As a non-education government employee, I can tell you that public employees generally do not take politics into consideration when it comes to the budget. If you're wondering why we tend to vote Democrat, it's largely because it's the party that doesn't slash our budget without taking the time time to figure out what we actually do. Believe it or not, we feel pride in serving the public, even if a large portion of the public (i.e. teabaggers) doesn't appreciate it.
Well, the very fact that the person is no longer able to choose not to give makes it an act void of compassion. In case you're too dense to understand what I'm saying, the fact that the money was taken from me before I could make the decision to give it away means that I no longer have the opportunity to display compassion, and neither do you. The TEA partiers actually appear to value compassionate acts at a much higher level than you do simply because they are willing to allow people to be compassionate.
Yeah, I'm more concerned with actually feeding the poor than making you tea baggers feel good about yourselves for donating a couple cans of food. You only have the things you have because society says you have them. The poor won't just starve to death without a fight. And when the angry, hungry mobs finally turn to violence, I hope they hit your house first.
Slashdot Mirror
Have these scientists presented evidence to the contrary and had them rejected? Also, you should be aware of the fact that you're an expert in one field does not make you an expert in another. In a recent high-profile study, some highly respected physicists skeptical of climate change took the time to actully study it. They all changed their opinion afterward. And that study was funded by the Koch brothers, so you know damn well that's not the answer you were looking for. And you've still yet to answer my question: if these scientists have evidence contrary to climate change, why aren't they presenting it?
You might want to work on your reading comprehension, as I said "climate science or something applicable". Scientists cross disciplines all the time. I worked with a guy with an engineering PhD who spent most of his time pointing out flaws in geodetics research papers. But if you're going to make extrodinary claims (like saying 99% of the scientific community is wrong), you need extrodinary evidence. And if your evidence is extrodinary, then it means you would have studied the subject extensively. And if you haven't studied the subject, then the scientific community has no reason to listen to you.
American here. I prefer my lack of privacy to your lack of toilet seats. I prefer to sit, not hover.
Unless you've got a PhD in climate science or something applicable, then you're making an appeal to authority on the matter. What have these 16 scientists contributed to climate science that makes their voices outweigh those of the rest of the scientific community?
The text itself is open source. I think the images are copyrighted though.
The difference in cost of living for SoCal vs. rural PA is absolutely comparable to the difference between PDX and OKC. You can get a nice house here for $100k, vs the $300k it costs in PDX to live in a neighborhood where you won't get shot. The difference in climate (and thus climate control costs) is also comparable, as is the relative distance from food distribution centers and the amount of extra fuel required to get to work.
They're close enough to true. It illustrates the point just fine even if the numbers are off by a factor of 3.
But the point is not properly illustrated if it's off by a factor of 3... $120k vs $333k is still a big difference and something to consider when taking a job, but it doesn't $80k/yr from an extravagant lifestyle to an impoverished existence. It's also important to note that utilities and such make up the difference... I moved from Portland, OR to Oklahoma City, OK, and have found that the $500 less I spend on mortgage is overshadowed by the cost of gas (have to drive farther), heating and AC, and food prices.
getting harder and harder to justify staying in the public sector
As someone working paying taxes in the private sector to pay public sector salaries, two points: glad to hear it and welcome to my world.
That's a very ignorant stance. First off, I pay taxes, same as you. SSI, Medicare, income taxes, the whole deal. Second, by paying low wages you sqeeze all of the talented workers out and leave only incompetent employees. Then you force agencies to hire contractors. Guess what? Contractors cost twice as much, because you're paying the same pay or higher, and then the contracting company has to get its cut. The right way to handle government bloat is to stop punishing efficiency, allow managers to fire permanent workers who don't do their job, and audit contractor agreements. Employee pay is a drop in the bucket compared to that.
Total myth that federal workers make less than private sector employees. Federal salaries are public data, and I know IT people who work in the govt, hence I know what they make. I was looking for a job last year and know the range that private sector companies pay - it's lower than the govt range. (I was looking in the same area as the govt IT people I know, and I have approx. the same amount of experience as them.)
Here's a question for you - if private sector employees really do make $10K more than you, and have less responsibilities, why don't you apply for one of those jobs? You'd be happier (since you say you are pissed off). But the answer must be... that that higher-paying job with fewer responsibilities in the private sector doesn't exist.
If you're not making shit up, then why don't you apply for a federal job, since it pays so much more? The truth is that only people who have been feds for 30+ years get the top range of their salary band. I make the absolute minimum for my pay band, and most of my peers aren't much better off. And since they no longer give step increases in the FV system, I'll never get anywhere near that top range.
as for why I stay, well, there's a number of reasons, and most of them don't have anything to do with money. I took a $17k pay cut to become a fed, and have turned down several offers for more money. I like the challenge of my job. I like my coworkers. And I also need to wait another year before my 401k is vested.
Exactly. In Hollywood, CA, you are paying $1million USD for mortgage a one bedroom living space, where in rural PA, you could pay $40k USD for a 4 bedroom, 3 story house.
I don't think either of those things are true.
Raise? What raise? The OP states that wages are just now getting back to 2008 levels. That means, of course, that between then and now they actually WENT DOWN! Did that happen to the public sector? No? Everybody I know has seen wages fall or at best stagnant for at least the last four years. If your pay freeze hasn't been at least that long, you have nothing to complain about.
But go ahead and explore your options in the private sector. I think you'll be shocked at what passes for "benefits" on this side of the line.
Actually I worked in the private sector until 2010, and took a 20% pay cut for those very same benefits as well as the annual raises I was expecting. The benefits have been good, but not good enough to outweigh the lack of raises for 2 years.
But you probably get a pension which is worth at least 20k a year....
Many "highly compensated" developers in the private sector don't even get matching 401ks anymore, so you can estimate salary - $17,000 (max 401k contribution).
Nope. After 1980-some-odd all federal employees get a 401k with 3% matching. There's a modest pension if you stick it out 30 years, but you gotta make it the full term.
Arg.. Just pisses me off even more about the federal pay freeze. I'm a lead developer and project manager making $10k less than the average developer, who has no management responsibilities. It's getting harder and harder to justify staying in the public sector..
For all that complexity, their office lacks an often-overlooked but very important productivity optimization: 4 walls, a ceiling, and a door for each employee (or at least those that need to concentrate from time to time).
It is interesting how Ruppert Murdoch has managed so effectively to squeeze Christianity completely out of the modern republican party and transform it into a captured market. Business and theology students will be studying this in coming centuries.
What's worse, he's actually squeezed out Christian values, all the while convincing people that their anti-social beliefs make them good Christians.
There's a big difference in the constituents these days.. Fox news has made being a sociopath a social norm. How do you think your average person would have reacted to the statement "anyone who has cancer and can't afford the treatment should just die" 20 years ago? Because right now there's a pretty decent chance they'd just say "yep! damn freeloaders".
Ah, I initially missed the word "dairy". It's really not a very good comparison, though.. Walmart does very little squeezing of teats.
I answer your question with another: is a farmer a predator of dairy cows?
Yes?
As an evolutionary biologist it is my sworn duty to make fun of helpless species that evolved to fill an ecological niche in the absence of predators. Like Walmart shoppers.
Isn't Walmart the predator in that instance?
No one can be stupid enough to think that immigration is typically a result of a country "sending" their citizens to another country. Can they? Can a person be so stupid while simultaneously existing long enough to learn how to walk and talk?
You're not familiar with Australia, are you?
Does not change the fact that he's wrong
It kinda does.
Here's what I'm thinking.. When that rabid 10% of the population that thinks bombing abortion clinics is a perfectly acceptable family pastime gets their way and stops showing up to vote, the tea baggers will have lost enough of their base that we can elect people who at least have some semblance of intelligence.
"completely disregards science in favor of what someone wrote on paper 1500-2000 years ago. " Hm, such as what, exactly ?
They believe that unborn fetuses are unborn babies, and not body parts of the mother like science has shown them to be. Just because they have different genes doesn't make them not a body part! In fact, they're an edible body part, complete with all the nutrients a human body needs. Until they're born, they're fair game for anything the mother wants to do to them, including eating them.
This is actually a spot where the science isn't really in dispute, it's the sentiment that differs. Personally I think our (few remaining) lawmakers on the left should offer a compromise to the fundies: we'll give them an anti-abortion amendment in return for socialized health care and a minimum wage that can support a family.
As a non-education government employee, I can tell you that public employees generally do not take politics into consideration when it comes to the budget. If you're wondering why we tend to vote Democrat, it's largely because it's the party that doesn't slash our budget without taking the time time to figure out what we actually do. Believe it or not, we feel pride in serving the public, even if a large portion of the public (i.e. teabaggers) doesn't appreciate it.
Well, the very fact that the person is no longer able to choose not to give makes it an act void of compassion. In case you're too dense to understand what I'm saying, the fact that the money was taken from me before I could make the decision to give it away means that I no longer have the opportunity to display compassion, and neither do you. The TEA partiers actually appear to value compassionate acts at a much higher level than you do simply because they are willing to allow people to be compassionate.
Yeah, I'm more concerned with actually feeding the poor than making you tea baggers feel good about yourselves for donating a couple cans of food. You only have the things you have because society says you have them. The poor won't just starve to death without a fight. And when the angry, hungry mobs finally turn to violence, I hope they hit your house first.