|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, March 05, 2011 :::
I probably won't watch the video or read the second half of this very thoroughly, but I'm siding with Jon Stewart on the main point of contention: if a teacher currently makes $60k + health insurance + pension and a new law will cause that teacher to make $60k + 7/8ths of the same health insurance package + 94% of the same pension, that's a pay cut. I'm not sure how that can be disputed.
On the other hand, Stewart is quoted as sayingSarcastically: “We the taxpayers have a right to cut teachers salaries and benefits. They work for us.”
“I wonder how how those same people who would have the government limit teacher pay and benefits would feel about the government limiting CEO pay at taxpayer bailed out firms.” It depends. If the government is going to keep an ownership stake in the company (either explicitly or through the likelihood of future bailouts), the government as part-owner should have a say in CEO pay. If reducing CEO pay would not reduce CEO quality by much, it would be a sensible thing to do.
The government as regulator should not limit either CEO pay or teacher pay. Private schools should be allowed to pay teachers whatever they like (though, of course, many of them actually do pay less than the government-owned schools for teachers of no lower quality). It's not necessarily inconsistent to think that some government employees are overpaid and others are not, but it's also not inconsistent to think that the government should concern itself with whether its own employees are overpaid but not with whether other employees are overpaid.
::: posted by Steven at 1:33 PM
|
|
|
|
