The Top Paid Government Employees

I have a question for Gandler and Mission…. do you guys think anyone other than the two of you read your novel length posts? I would really like ANY forum member who does to tell me so so I can eat crow.

Come on guys…. I’m serious…. if you can focus on a point and make a point in a few sentences it makes it worthwhile to the forum.

Kind of like this post….

Quote: SOOPOO

I have a question for Gandler and Mission…. do you guys think anyone other than the two of you read your novel length posts? I would really like ANY forum member who does to tell me so so I can eat crow.

Come on guys…. I’m serious…. if you can focus on a point and make a point in a few sentences it makes it worthwhile to the forum.

Kind of like this post….

Probably not, but I don't really care all that much. If people think a few sentences consisting of blanket statements and opinions that are only minimally supported, if they are even supported at all, constitute a conversation, then they can have it.

Quote: SOOPOO

I have a question for Gandler and Mission…. do you guys think anyone other than the two of you read your novel length posts? I would really like ANY forum member who does to tell me so so I can eat crow.

Come on guys…. I’m serious…. if you can focus on a point and make a point in a few sentences it makes it worthwhile to the forum.

Kind of like this post….

Well since we are replying to and addressing each other, it really does not matter what other people think.

In any case we have done a relatively good job staying on topic this thread, so if people don't like the subject they can simply not read or block the thread. I believe in substantiating my posts with scenarios, experiences, and examples to make my point (or at least attempt to). Even though I am happy to admit my initial argument was not well thought out and more a shock response. I would rather type 1 long post a day that addresses and responded to many points, than a bunch of short back and forth posts. People are free to disagree with this approach (would you rather have 10 pages of quick back and forth, or the occasional organized long response post?) I think it is more effective to communicate with less posts that cover more ground.

I did my best to edit your post while attempting the same message.

Quote: Gandler

It does not matter what people think.

if people don't like the subject they can avoid or block the thread. I believe in substantiating my posts with scenarios and experiences. I am happy to admit my initial argument was not well thought out and more a shock response. I would rather type 1 long post a day, than a bunch of short back and forth posts.

People are free to disagree with this approach, but I think it is more effective to communicate with fewer posts .

Actually, I wouldn't fair well under the eye of an English teacher. It's just that all my errors usually don't involve length.

Quote: rxwine

Actually, I wouldn't fair well under the eye of an English teacher. It's just that all my errors usually don't involve length.

You might not fare well, either.

Apologies, but I had to take that one. When it comes to presenting strong counterpoints succinctly, you’re legitimately one of the best at it I’ve seen on the forum medium.

Quote: Mission146

They'd have to be paid by the school in any case, you just would call them a contractor as opposed to an employee. It's just a rose of a different name.

Not directly. For example the Military Academy coaches are paid by a league fund that exists from league revenue (ticket sales, league donors, mech, etc...) They are not paid by the School directly or indirectly. There is no reason this cannot happen at the State level.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344641/Football-coaches-Army-Navy-Air-Force-academies-earn-EIGHT-TIMES-U-S-Defense-Secretary.html

"So Army and Air Force recently did what some companies do for financial reasons: They outsourced operations, following the lead of Navy, which had operated in similar fashion for decades.

Since 2009, each got federal legislation that ratified or authorized its athletics business operations to be separate, private entities. By doing business this way, they can get around federal government restrictions in order to earn and spend more like normal athletics departments, reducing their need for academy financial support. "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/11/08/secret-services-hidden-sports-finances-army-navy-and-air-force/820114001/

Really the big difference is Football players on Military Academy teams get paid (not much, whatever cadet salary is) and are employees (with benefits), which is not the same for any other college (where you can lose your scholarship if your are injured playing and have no healthcare).

Quote: Mission146

(Above section clipped, relevance)

I don't have a meaningful objection to any of that. I'm not even going to argue that youth football is, "Worth the risk," other than to say that it's up to each individual parent to decide that.

This study, however, looks at youths aged 14, or younger:

https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=sports-injury-statistics-90-P02787

As you probably would have expected, football is the #1 sport by which these children suffer injuries...however, you might be surprised to find that basketball and bicycling are really close. These are ranked by emergency room visits and also seem to include non-team activities.

One unsurprising thing about this study is that the most popular activities yield the most emergency room visits. For instance, skateboarding resulted in 66,000 emergency room visits for the year studied, but I would imagine that significantly more kids played basketball, baseball or football than skateboarded.

With that, I think the injury argument is valid, but creates a slippery slope. At what point would a person point to number of participants v. number of serious injuries and say, "Any more than this number is unacceptable and any fewer is acceptable."?

According to this study:

https://www.frplegal.com/child-injury/an-in-depth-review-on-youth-sports-injuries-statistics-in-2019/

Basketball actually results in more injuries than football in 2019, though basketball is not typically thought of as a particularly dangerous sport. I would say that the reason for that is it is not considered a contact sport, but when there is contact (or, more to the point, a fall) players have no protection.

This study:

https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/blog/a-closer-look-at-youth-sports-injuries/

Focuses on team sports and says football has the most injuries by that standard. With that, let's compare the number of injuries for each sport on a per participant basis using the above-linked study:

Football: 444281/1057382 = 0.42017076137

Basketball: (88927+70700)/550305 = 0.29007005206

Soccer: (190436+145215)/450234 = 0.7455034493

The most dangerous injury (short of death) that is frequent and can have long-term effects is the concussion. With that, let's compare the concussion rate for soccer v. football:

Football: 122372/1057382 = 0.11573111704

Soccer: (62285+26143)/450234 = 0.1964045363

That makes sense because, in soccer, you have the potential for direct head-to-head (or other body parts to head) contact and falls are unprotected.

With that, soccer is a more dangerous sport (on a per athlete basis) than football, but then perhaps you would advocate for them to also get rid of soccer. If you did, then I suppose basketball would need to be the next sport on the chopping block followed by volleyball.

Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to the notion of soccer players wearing helmets, or perhaps you could ban use of the head for youth soccer.

I don't deny that soccer is dangerous. Soccer is one of many sports I played as a kid, and I hated drills that involved hitting the ball with your head. And, this is fair because head injuries are what I am most worried about. Other injuries are less severe. Head trauma effects you for a lifetime.

While I think its valid to compare ER and general injury reports, I think the focus should be on head trauma. Breaking a bone, can effect you for life (not as likely), but losing your brain is a far more substantial risk.

I have been to far too many High School Football games, there was always an ambulance (sometimes multiple) right next to the field. Almost every game, there was at least one injury, often head related. They would take them off the field, and usually within a few moments be up and make a show about refusing treatment and getting back in the game (which is not concussion protocol and should not be allowed especially at a High School level).

Quote: Mission146

Again, there are no, "League funds," by which coaches would be paid...at least, not without doing our original idea by which you have a league with teams that can use the University name and mascot, but otherwise have nothing to do with it. If you don't want them to appear on the Government employee lists, then all that need happen is the school pay coaching staff as contractors, rather than employees.

But, there can be as cited above.

Quote: Mission146

My main point is college football is Government in name only---particularly for those programs that operate profitably. Certainly, private Universities with football teams wouldn't be classified as Government revenue. This all stemmed from my original point that I don't look at the IRS on a profit/loss basis.

If you wanted to get into a Government entity that is engaged in voluntary transactions that DOES operate on a profit/loss basis, then State Lotteries would have been a much better comparison.

I actually thought about State Lotteries, and this is a good comparison. This is something that makes the State money. And, it may shock you, but I don't always agree with it. I think it preys on the most vulnerable people, and as it is the State they can have odds that would never be allowed in a casino regulated by the State. This is an issue that is certainly consent based, but has ethical questions. Its certainly profit and consent, but it comes at a cost to society. I have mixed feelings on the lottery (and it varies by State of course because there are vast differences in how States run it and what is allowed etc...).

But, lets roll with the Lottery. Let's say the PA Lottery Authority (no clue the actual name), has a gamemaker (a job title I completely made up, no clue if this is real) that designs scratch cards that are absurdly successful, many times more profitable than any other gamemaker. Is it fair for PA to pay him more? Let's say he got an offer from a private gaming company, and they want to retain him, should they be able to offer him a raise to make it competitive for him to stay? Or should he be stuck in the State grind of paygrade (job title) and years of service?

Quote: Mission146

Cool, let me know how that goes.

I will.

Quote: rxwine

I did my best to edit your post while attempting the same message.

Fair play, I think that is a good edit. I will admit, I have a habit of repeating the same message, sometimes this is intentional (to ensure my point is clear), sometimes this is habit.

i generally do not read any post over one paragraph. I enjoy reading missions post and generally respect his objectivity. but I do skip his long ones.

Quote: DRich

i generally do not read any post over one paragraph. I enjoy reading missions post and generally respect his objectivity. but I do skip his long ones.

Thank you for saying so, other than the skipping part.

Quote: Gandler

Not directly. For example the Military Academy coaches are paid by a league fund that exists from league revenue (ticket sales, league donors, mech, etc...) They are not paid by the School directly or indirectly. There is no reason this cannot happen at the State level.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344641/Football-coaches-Army-Navy-Air-Force-academies-earn-EIGHT-TIMES-U-S-Defense-Secretary.html

"So Army and Air Force recently did what some companies do for financial reasons: They outsourced operations, following the lead of Navy, which had operated in similar fashion for decades.

Since 2009, each got federal legislation that ratified or authorized its athletics business operations to be separate, private entities. By doing business this way, they can get around federal government restrictions in order to earn and spend more like normal athletics departments, reducing their need for academy financial support. "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2017/11/08/secret-services-hidden-sports-finances-army-navy-and-air-force/820114001/

Really the big difference is Football players on Military Academy teams get paid (not much, whatever cadet salary is) and are employees (with benefits), which is not the same for any other college (where you can lose your scholarship if your are injured playing and have no healthcare).

I don't have a problem with any of that, except I'm not sure if the players being compensated directly would run afoul of something that exists now if we are talking about players enrolled in the school---which it probably would. Either way, I don't have an issue with it being separate from the school other than to use the school name and mascot.

Quote:

I don't deny that soccer is dangerous. Soccer is one of many sports I played as a kid, and I hated drills that involved hitting the ball with your head. And, this is fair because head injuries are what I am most worried about. Other injuries are less severe. Head trauma effects you for a lifetime.

While I think its valid to compare ER and general injury reports, I think the focus should be on head trauma. Breaking a bone, can effect you for life (not as likely), but losing your brain is a far more substantial risk.

I have been to far too many High School Football games, there was always an ambulance (sometimes multiple) right next to the field. Almost every game, there was at least one injury, often head related. They would take them off the field, and usually within a few moments be up and make a show about refusing treatment and getting back in the game (which is not concussion protocol and should not be allowed especially at a High School level).

On a per player basis, the head trauma is worse in soccer than it is football. All things considered, someone playing soccer on a team is more likely to be concussed than someone playing team football. Soccer has more injuries (per player) and more concussions per player. You're pretty much going to see a lot of concussions in any sport with the possibility for frequent unprotected blows to the head which, I assume, is why concussions were the most frequent volleyball injury. Of course, the concussion rate for volleyball (0.03 per athelete) was lower than the other sports.

Quote:

But, there can be as cited above.

I'm fine with it, but seems a lot of work just for the purpose of someone no longer being classified as a Government employee. Making him an independent contractor would accomplish the same thing.

Quote:

I actually thought about State Lotteries, and this is a good comparison. This is something that makes the State money. And, it may shock you, but I don't always agree with it. I think it preys on the most vulnerable people, and as it is the State they can have odds that would never be allowed in a casino regulated by the State. This is an issue that is certainly consent based, but has ethical questions. Its certainly profit and consent, but it comes at a cost to society. I have mixed feelings on the lottery (and it varies by State of course because there are vast differences in how States run it and what is allowed etc...).

But, lets roll with the Lottery. Let's say the PA Lottery Authority (no clue the actual name), has a gamemaker (a job title I completely made up, no clue if this is real) that designs scratch cards that are absurdly successful, many times more profitable than any other gamemaker. Is it fair for PA to pay him more? Let's say he got an offer from a private gaming company, and they want to retain him, should they be able to offer him a raise to make it competitive for him to stay? Or should he be stuck in the State grind of paygrade (job title) and years of service?

As a practical matter, the actual creation of the games (at least Instant Tickets) already is contracted out to other companies.

That's usually handled by either Scientific Games Corporation (yes, same as the SG slot machines and such) and a company called Pollard Banknote.

I was thinking more along the lines of if a lottery representative came up with just a bang-up marketing campaign, or something, whereby increases in revenue could be almost directly linked to that marketing campaign. Anyway, I don't know how PA Government salaries work, but no, I would have no objection to PA paying extra to retain that person as long as they are legally able to do so----or give that person an, "In name only," promotion that would make them a higher pay grade.