I understand your argument. I never said that these positions weren’t valuable. My point is only that they pay what the market will bear. Unfortunately, these aren’t private sector positions, they are government positions; funded by taxes. The taxpayers can only afford to pay so much to fund these government operations.

I seriously doubt that anyone gets paid first in government; all the pay checks are issued at the same time. If you are trying to equate private sector executives (who are often owners) to government bureaucrats, then I am afraid you are comparing apples to oranges; many of these executives take no paycheck so the employees can be paid (not withstanding the ones who are less than honest-the ones we hear about on the news).

I’m not sure what you mean in your comment about distribution. I vehemently object to distribution of wealth; that is a part of the communist manifesto.

I again repeat my earlier statement that a person agrees to work for an employer for an agreed upon wage. If that wage becomes insufficient, then the employee must market the skill to another employer or re-negotiate the wage with the current employer. In our conversation, the employer is the Board of Education and they don’t have the luxury of negotiating wages because of either union contracts or other government restrictions on pay scales; therefore, if one finds their wage insufficient, then a new job would be in order, don’t you agree? It is not the concern of the employer of the employee’s financial situation, would you agree? If one spends money to get an education, it is for the purpose of obtaining a marketable skill and it is your responsibility to find a position that allows you to meet your monthly obligations-including student loans.

Then a person has a choice.

It is the employee’s option to work for a ‘living wage’ isn’t it? The employer offers a salary, if the employee accepts, then they have agreed, correct? It seems rather absurd for an employee to accept a salary from an employer, then cry foul.

If an employer has no applicants for jobs, then he has a choice to offer more money for the job, right?

I also think your statement regarding being able to support a family is very subjective. It is up to us to live within our means. It is not the government’s job to make it happen; contrary to what many might believe.

It is up to an employee to have a skill that can be negotiated into an acceptable salary. If the lifestyle creates a demand for more money, then one should attempt to move to the next level either with the same employer or a new one. If one has no marketable skill, then they are at the mercy of the marketplace, right? If the marketplace is not providing good jobs, then one may have to explore a new marketplace.

However, regarding government jobs. The governments can only take money from the public; i.e., taxes, fines, fees. They do not generate revenue like private sector employers do. The government at some point must live within it’s means; it either can’t take any more revenue, or the public mandates it’s limitations. Maybe if the government agency weren’t so top heavy with high salary administrators, then more could be spent on average employee’s salaries?

Of course, if union employees want a better pay scale, then they have their union negotiate. So it logically seems if your salary isn’t up to par, blame your union, not the employer.

My point is, don’t blame the employer.

They appear not willing to cut back and the taxpayer is not willing to be taxes more.

Standoff….

Where does this stop?