http://www.khou.com/news/local/Houston- ... 68841.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;VMI77 wrote:I agree completely...notice I put "free market" in quotes. My point was simply that the pay isn't a mystery and is known beforehand and qualified people still choose the job. If there were not enough qualified people to do the job then either the pay would have to be increased or the qualifications lowered. It appears that at the current levels of qualification there are sufficient people choosing to do the job, and that suggests that the level of pay must be either too high or about right, and not too low.gringo pistolero wrote:We're supposed to have a free market but then the unions get involved and the market is no longer free. We often end up with people who are paid more than the fair market value of their work, but believe they are underpaid because they drank the koolaid. Look at teachers for a good example.VMI77 wrote:And as far as being paid enough.....we're supposed to have a "free market," and imperfections granted, if the pay wasn't enough to attract enough qualified people to do the job then pay would have to increase.
Many people think private schools do a better job educating children than public schools. They vote with their wallet when they pay the tuition. But if you look at salaries, private school teachers often get paid less than public school teachers. And why do public school teachers get paid more? It's the unions.
The civic association used to contract with the constables office for a deputy to patrol the area, but now that it's gone with Seal security, it has three to four officers patrolling the streets at any given time, and at half the cost. Also cut in half: the number of monthly burglaries.
The free market works when we let it.
