Zippin Pippin likely to cost half-million more than anticipated

I guess Degado had more fun than me this summer, he got more laps on Diamondback than I did ;).

Aamilj said:
This is the reason that multiple levels of our government from Federal, to State, to local are bankrupt.

No, local and state governments are broke because their constituents are unemployed and broke, and therefore have no income to pay taxes on.

And also because the spigot known as the Federal government has cut back on the amount of funding it's providing the states.

State and local governments set budgets based upon projections that turned out to be too rosy. A lot like the rollercoaster cost projection was a bit too rosy. That is the thing about government. It is typically incapable of saving for the inevitable rainy day. And it never seems to shy away unreasonable and inaccurate cost projections...particularly if faulty projections can be used to ask the taxpayer for more money.

Funny thing is...the States and municipalities (see North Dakota, Wyoming) that did save for a rainy day are getting through the recession just fine. Even with the Federal government pissing away trillions, there were/are small pockets of inspiration to be found. Typically these entities kept taxes low and spending in check. It is cliche...but seems (?) to work whenever it is rarely tried... It at least seems to work a lot better than taxing and spending to prosperity (see California, New York).

Have you ever worked for a municipality? I'm guessing not. I've worked for several. They don't spend just high just for giggles and then ask what happened. I worked for two cities that were actually very proactive in trying to head off cuts to service, anticipating reduced tax revenue. You know what that requires? Most of the time, getting the voters to approve tax increases. They vote it down, lose a fire station in their neighborhood, and then cry foul. You seem a little disconnected from the reality that cost incurred by a municipality is generally proportional to the number of people who live in it, and that doesn't change, even if the tax revenue does.

And ND and Wyoming? Really? You're making a point with two of the three least populated states?

I know a lot of people who work in the public sector who work quite hard (and many others who I wouldn't hire for ANY job). It does concern me somewhat, greatly here in FL specifically, that people are getting elected based heavily on decrying all governments efforts as futile and wasteful. THAT is a platform? Are we really that pessimistic?

Must seem like magic to way too many voters that we end up with trash pickup and clean water and libraries at all...

There's also a certain irony that people want to run something that they don't think is necessary. Agreed that it's strange that it's a platform people are actually running on.

The other strange reality is that there has actually been job growth in the private sector, but it's the loss of government jobs that offset those gains. How about that for more irony... government gets both the blame for being bloated and the blame for unemployment when it has to cut jobs by reducing its bloat.

As long as the American public wishes to over simplify the world, this is what we're stuck with. And Sarah Palin.

Jeff said:
And Sarah Palin.

"Maverick" never sounded so good! ;)

And Maverick.

(Hey, it's actually relevant this time!)

ETA: Dangit, spanked by gator!

The Federal Government has not shrunk, unless one counts temporary Census jobs...which is disingenuous.

State and local governments have had to cut. Where I live the firemen union refused to take pay cuts, so layoffs occurred. They were warned, and refused to budge. Most were over 100k jobs when overtime was included. There are plenty of folks that would be willing to do that job for less, especially since we have about 1 fire a month here. But that is impossible because of union contracts. This is just the fire department.

Union's greatest influence is in the public sector. While the taxpayer is expected to weather the declining incomes/job market of the recession, public sector unions expect the private sector to fund their negotiated raises, guaranteed pensions etc. While some may see it appropriate to belittle the American Taxpayer for saying enough is enough...I see it 180 degrees opposite.

Public sector jobs now pay better and have better benefits than the private sector, yet the public sector seems baffled that those that are doing worse off than them do not want their taxes raised to pay for a lifestyle that is disproportionally favors public sector. This is most obvious when you start talking guaranteed pensions. This is an amazing benefit that has been phased out in the private sector because it was unsustainable. Yet Government at all levels still offer guaranteed pensions at an enormous cost to the taxpayer, who is told to "save for a rainy day." Moment to note that the same type of government oversight that leads to $500 k government rollercoaster costsover-runs...is the same optimistic accounting that has most State Public Pension Funds under-funded. Will they cut the benifits to the public employees, or will they bitch and moan that the taxpayer needs to foot the bill to make-up the difference?

Why in the heck do government employees expect higher pay AND a guaranteed pension? How did it get to this point? Back when the private sector payed more, pensions might have seemed a good recruitment strategy...but those days are long gone. Yet do our government employees/unions budge? Do they offer to go the 401k route that most in the private sector utilize? Hell no... They just bitch about the tax-payer revolting against their "necessary" services. Moment to note that fire response times have improved since layoffs occurred

P.S. Is Texas a big state?

Have you ever worked in the public sector? And if so, doing what? Because I've done it for closing in on a decade now. Say and think what you want, but if what I did didn't pay what I make, or have the benefits that I have, I wouldn't subject myself every day to coming in and dealing with what I deal with, and neither would most other people in the public sector.

It isn't always the case, but in my experience, public sector jobs tend to pay more because you tend to deal with all of the issues that the private sector does and then some.

Not that that matters anyway in regards to the Zippin Pippin and it's $500k overbudget issues.

I was a private contractor for the public sector for a few years, and most of the public sector employees I worked with making 3 and 4 times my salary did next to nothing for 8 hours a day, while my (and my contracted coworkers') workload was consistently full.

Jeff said:
As long as the American public wishes to over simplify the world, this is what we're stuck with. And Sarah Palin.

At least she likes getting Mavericky, which I have to assume means she likes riding Maverick, which means she likes roller coasters, which means if she gets elected she will definitely find a home for Big Dipper:)

Tekwardo said:
It isn't always the case, but in my experience, public sector jobs tend to pay more because you tend to deal with all of the issues that the private sector does and then some.

Curious - what are the "and then some" issues that the public sector deals with that the private sector does not?

The "then some" is that you as a manager or elected official in government are afraid to do anything in fear of getting sued, because you don't have money to defend yourself. If you do something someone doesn't like, you have some schmuck showing up at a council meeting and complaining about you by name.

And I'd love to know where these awesome local government jobs are, let alone pensions, because it was the crappy pay that caused me to bail.

People in the private sector get sued as well. Sometimes the company helps pay their defense costs; sometimes it doesn't. Nothing unique to the public sector.

Customers and clients complain all the time about private sector employees. Typically by name. Again, nothing unique to the public sector. And unless you are an elected official, those folks complaining about you by name at council meetings have almost zero ability to get you fired. Not true with customers and clients who complain about you.

and most of the public sector employees I worked with making 3 and 4 times my salary did next to nothing for 8 hours a day

I don't doubt that that happens at all, but it happens in the private sector as well. The point I was trying to make was that Aamilj seems to imply that all public sector jobs are overpaid and underworked. I suggest anyone that thinks that go work for their local or state run welfare programs and tell me that you're overpaid and underworked.

what are the "and then some" issues

Though it can and does happen in the private sector, public employees are basically employed until the next fiscal year's budget is confirmed, or the next regime in government is elected in.

Plus, if I make an honest mistake with one of my client's cases, not only can I lose my job (and be sued by a client), I can also face fines and jail time, even if what I did wasn't found to be done on purpose.

And outside of office politics, your job often depends on actual politics. Then add in the fact that because I'm a public employee and represent my agence regardless of if I'm off or on the clock, I'm legally tied down by what types of "extracurricular" activities I can and can't participate in. If I were in the private sector and broke that type of rule, I'd get fired. In the public sector, I'd also face fines and possible other discipline.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks,clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid moreon average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector,according to Bureau of Labor Statistics[url][url] data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension andother benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs.$9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

First off, that only applies to Federal workers, and in many cases, I agree that there are quite a few Federal jobs that are over paid, but we're talking Public Sector here, not just Federal Jobs (BTW, if I had the same position as a federal job instead of county or state, I'd make about $10k more, but such is life). Second, I wish I had a public sector job making what you quoted was the private sector's average.

^You and me both, Clint - c'mon, papa needs a Federal job! ;)