The Glade 4.0

This. I've never seen evidence that any advertised federal job gets an insane number of applicants (maybe that's the case right now, but is probably the case everywhere at the moment). If Fed jobs got more applicants than regular jobs, it would indicate that the salary is too high. I have not seen this.

Yes, one person making a statement about a fact is anecdotal. That is essentially the definition of an anecdote.

On the other hand, you have statistical analysis. In the hierarchy of evidence, anecdotes lose. Period. There is no debate about that.



Why would I feel differently? The BLS put forth the numbers USA Today based their story on, the paper didn't come up with their own data.

Therefore, we have:

Government entity 1 makes a statement.
Government entity 2 publishes statistical data.

The latter, by its own nature, is to be held as more valid than the former according to the traditional hierarchies of proof.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Welcome to "how to use statistics, 101."

That's the primary purpose of statistics, to support your already decided and inflexible view. You select those statistics that support your point, and discard and discredit those that do not.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

DFK!, a "spokesperson" speaks for the group, by definition. It's not anecdotal in the least.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Did that spokesperson present evidence of their claims? No.

Allow me to ask you something: if I represent NOAA and state that it snowed in Ohio yesterday, would you believe me? I mean, I represent them. I'm the spokesperson.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

If your claim is that USA Today didn't vet their source you should take it up with them, but they did identify the source as an official spokesperson.

If you want to discredit the legitimacy of the article the whole discussion is rather moot.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I want to do neither of those things. Am I speaking in tongues or something? I'm apparently not being clear.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Sure you are. You want evidence that supports your argument accepted at face value and you want to discredit any evidence presented in the article that weakens your position.

It's very clear.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, I want to follow the hierarchy of proof. I don't appreciate the insult.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Benefits - California State Service Style

http://www.dpa.ca.gov/benefits/index.htm

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

This isn't Hellfire, the rules here are stricter, so we should be able to find out if my statement was a factual characterization of your position or an insult.

I'd like a moderator to decide.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I'm not a moderator but I play one on TV, and I stayed at a Holiday Inn express last night. Ok technically I am a moderator but this is just my opinion:

I dont think that was a factual characterization, no. I think you imply he only discounts things against his argument for the sole reason that they are... well, against his argument I dont think that's the case.

For the general disagreement as I understand it, you both make good points. The article used Bureau of Labor Statistics to compare salaries. That to me is simply solid data, open to interpretation. Federal employees make more on average than private sector. The question is, why is that the case?



Now I'd say those are good arguments, and may in fact be true, but what I think people are saying here is: show your work. Complexity of work is pretty subjective, but age should be easy to show if you have the data. I think it's valid to want to see that before accepting it.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Here's a site that seems to argue the same thing, based on Oregon numbers:

http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/Artic ... d=00006781

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

So this begs the question, what happens to older private sector employees? They don't disappear.

_________________

We retire on our hard earned savings.

_________________

Earlier than government employees?

_________________

Probably. Compare early retirement options under a pension to success with private investing. I'm guessing more guys hit it big with their investments and retire early than opt to take a hit on their pension by not working their full term.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The "work" was performed by USA Today. They made assertions and provided supporting evidence. The article doesn't detail any particular methodology, it presents various facts and sources.

US Today vetted the article and and by doing so became responsible as the source of authority for it 'in toto'. If there are inaccuracies in the article, USA Today is responsible for any correction or retraction and "Retractions always negate the author's previous public support for the original statement."

Right or wrong, the article is a complete package. To assume that some particular fact presented in the article is accurate and another inaccurate is cherry picking. It creates a totally separate assertion at odds with the article and the burden of proof is then on the one making that assertion.

It's fine and dandy, but if you make a new assertion then you have to show your work. If you then insist on shifting the burden instead of supporting your new assertion "You want evidence that supports your argument accepted at face value and you want to discredit any evidence presented in the article that weakens your position".

And then to suggest it's an insult when people identify your behavior, well, it's just faux-indignation. If you don't want to be seen there, don't go there.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Or your banked sick days for huge pay outs

Now the argument that state employees are at their jobs longer opens up another can of worms, that being that you cant be fired regardless of your performance.

Dr Ray Stantz elaborates: "Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college! You don't know what it's like out there! I've *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*. "

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Dash, what makes you think state employees can't be fired?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Last I saw, less than 40% of the work force had over $10k saved up for retirement. So this seems more than a little unlikely versus a pension fund which is taken from you automatically.

_________________

Well I'm mostly speaking tongue in cheek, sorry for that. That's the stereotype, that state employees cant, or have a much higher threshold if you want to get fired. I have a cousin that works in the VA affairs dept and he jokes about it. To be fair though, I see plenty of cases of how hard it is to fire someone in the private sector too in a large company.

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

Here's that article -

http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/09/pf/reti ... onfidence/

They don't break that number out by age though, just identified interviewing "1,153 U.S. workers and retirees, age 25 and older". I know that for myself, saving for retirement before my kids were independent was almost impossible. I contributed to a 401k as much as I could under the circumstances, but the bulk of my retirement was built in the last 5 years or so. I'm lucky that my pay also increased significantly in that time too, but compound interest will never help me the way it could have if I had saved more earlier.

You can have kids or money. Pick one.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

No, and no. Facts stand on their own, and indicating that one doesn't carry the weight of the other isn't "cherry picking," it's applying proper scrutiny. There is a hierarchy of proof that exists, and you're not following it.



That really isn't the case at all. Anecdotal statements simply do not carry the weight that a retrospective statistical analysis does, unless that analysis is demonstrably invalidated by bias, chance, or confounding. That isn't my opinion, I'm not cherry-picking, I'm telling you the facts of how studies work.



Yes, it's an insult to indicate I'm being dishonest. The moderator, who you requested, has said he thinks you're incorrect in having made that statement; and yet you're sticking with the insult of calling me dishonest through implication.

Prove dishonesty. Prove that anecdotal evidence carries as much or more weight than statistical analysis. Otherwise, retract your statement about my ethics.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

That would indicate that people in the private sector are more likely to continue working as they age since there is no pension to fall back on.

This data is... interesting.

To recap:
Public employees make more on average
Public employees are older on average
Public employees have better benefits on average
Public employees have better retirement benefits via pension on average

Right?

_________________