Lifeguard Pay Is Mad
Life is priceless, I know, but could lifeguards manage to save lives for a little less? (Or are they like supermodel Linda Evangelista, who, back in the day, sniffed that she doesn't get out of bed for less than $10K a day?)
Via Cato's Dan Mitchell, David Spady writes at Townhall:
Like many communities across California, the city of Newport Beach is facing the harsh realities of budgeting with less revenue after housing values and the stock market plummeted. Now the city's full-time lifeguard force has finally come under scrutiny. Next week the city council will decide if cuts are needed to the full-time lifeguard force where last year the top earner received $211,000 in pay and benefits, including a $400 sun protection allowance. In 2010 all but one of the city's full-time lifeguard staff had annual compensation packages worth over $120,000.Not bad pay for a lifeguard - but what makes these jobs most attractive is the generous retirements. These lifeguards can retire at age 50 with full medical benefits for life. One recently retired lifeguard, age 51, receives a government retirement of over $108,000 per year--for the rest of his life. He will make well over $3 million in retirement if he lives to age 80. According to the City Manager, a new full-time guard costs less to hire than what is spent on this one retiree. The city now spends more taxpayer dollars on retired lifeguards than it does on those who are working.
Reports of excessive pay and generous pensions have fueled a debate across the nation over union influence on government spending. Government unions were able to take full advantage of the good old days when surpluses were plentiful and the economic future was bright. They effectively demanded politicians agree to contracts for higher union wages and benefits. Creating a situation that was simply not sustainable over the long-term.
You should move to Switzerland. You know how many life guards I've run into in the two years I've lived here? 0.
That's right. Zero, null, zilch. We go swimming all the time. We've gone to awesome water parks as well. Occasionally you'll see someone with a t-shirt labeled "Badmeister" who checks the water chemicals and yells at the obnoxious teenage boys.
The assumption is that you're either smart enough to not get yourself into trouble, or your parents are watching you.
I'm certainly not opposed to a well trained life guard, but it's not like the Swiss are drowning in droves.
Suzanne Lucas at May 10, 2011 7:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/10/lifeguard_pay_i.html#comment-2122785">comment from Suzanne LucasThe U.S. didn't use to be so stupid. And thanks for the relocation suggestion, but my boyfriend lives in Los Angeles in the Fairfax district, and I get carsick from my own driving if I take more than six curves in the road.
Amy Alkon at May 10, 2011 7:41 AM
What is the need for lifeguards anyway?
I have not seen lifeguards anywhere in India and it is not like people drown everyday in the coastal areas and it is the same case even in island states like Mauritius and the Caribbean where everyone lives near a beach.
Besides, if people want specific facilities, they can pay for it(like paying to go to a private beach/resort which has lifeguards) instead of expecting the government to provide each and every damn thing.
Same thing goes for druggies too...if they get hooked on to drugs and screw their own life, they can pay to get it back on track instead of expecting the responsible people to subsidize their miserable existence
Redrajesh at May 10, 2011 7:44 AM
Public sector unions must be broken. Period. All of them. We can no longer afford to allow the able-bodied to retire on full pay, and there is no way that the market rate for those with the skills of lifeguards approaches 100k a year. This sort of compensation is ludicrous.
Christopher at May 10, 2011 7:56 AM
Right, Christopher?? I remember being a life guard back in the late 70s, early 80s, we had to take all these courses and we were paid maybe $1.00 above minimum wage! No retirement, minimal health bennies (and only while on duty!). And yeah, being in New England, it's a seasonal job, but still! The life guards at the Y didn't get paid much more than we did, and they were employed year-round. Indoor pools, ya know. Even so, we all knew that this wasn't the type of job we'd have for the rest of our lives, nevermind retire from!
Flynne at May 10, 2011 8:09 AM
er, Christopher, it's likely that all these lifeguards are full EMT's... so essentially they should be paid what an EMT should be paid...
That said, WTF is it with being able to retire when you are 50? The fed limit is 65, so that's what it should be in the public sector. End of story. AND it should go up when the fed limit goes up.
These lifeguards have very specialized skils for ocean rescue, essentially on par with firemen, so they should be comp'd that way. Personally, I think they should be run out of the same house, and consolidated. That way any number of lifeguards that are actually on the beach is less, because they call for backup from the firehouse right there when they go in to get someone...
'course that leads us to wonder about firefighter pay too...
SwissArmyD at May 10, 2011 8:11 AM
C'mon, Amy-- It's Newport Beach. Second highest per capita income of cities in the United States with a population over 50,000-- second only to Greenwich, Connecticut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_places_in_the_United_States#100_highest-income_places_with_a_population_of_at_least_50.2C000
This is the kind of community where people will drive a new Maserati to the global warming benefit banquet. If they want to highly compensate their lifeguards, let'em, as long as the State of California doesn't pay the bill.
Stupid rich people are the free market answer to income redistribution.
Dale at May 10, 2011 9:07 AM
'course that leads us to wonder about firefighter pay too...
Indeed it does. I know average pay for firefighters in the SF suburb of Belmont (or maybe San Carlos) is 133k a year (which is why the city was in discussions to eliminate the fire department and contract with another city to provide those services.
I respect that these people have difficult and at times dangerous jobs, but their pay and especially, benefits, seem way out of line for what they provide. One especially neat trick these public sector workers do is work at one department until they get 100% pension, then retire, and transfer to another department, essentially doubling their income (and burden on the taxpayers). If they start young enough, they can end up retiring twice, and get paid two public pensions for the rest of their lives. I can't blame them, because this is what the system allows legally - but it needs to stop.
Christopher at May 10, 2011 9:22 AM
I thought lifeguards were usually college kids on vacation.
NicoleK at May 10, 2011 9:36 AM
Wait, Suzanne's also in Switzerland? This board seems to have an unusually large concentration of Helvetians. So... which side of la barrière roschti are you on?
... I think Genève plage has lifeguards. I remember as a child being emerdéded by them.
NicoleK at May 10, 2011 9:38 AM
enmerdéded. I need to correct my franglais. I wish this board had an edit feature.
NicoleK at May 10, 2011 9:40 AM
heh, to answer NicoleK, I just checked and INDEED they are part of the Fire Department, which makes the union angle clear...
SwissArmyD at May 10, 2011 10:08 AM
Holy shit, my high school boyfriend made about $8 an hour as a lifeguard in Florida back in the 90s. Looks like he picked the wrong state in which to guard lives.
mse at May 10, 2011 10:14 AM
From the LA Times: "Typically, permanent guards are emergency medical technicians, Jacobsen said, and some have thousands of hours of experience. Seasonal guards, many of whom are also very experienced, are required to have 55 hours of first-aid training and 48 hours of ocean lifeguard training."
According to the article, there are only 13 permanent lifeguards in Newport Beach. The others are seasonal and don't make $100,000+ per year.
The city is proposing to cut that number to 8.
Predictably, opponents have pulled out the "people will die" counterargument.
And everyone is ignoring the real problem ... the pension obligation.
Conan the Grammarian at May 10, 2011 10:32 AM
Pay and benefits and especially pensions for nearly all uniformed public employees--and I guess lifeguards fall into this category--are time-bombs for taxpayers.
Federal military employees, and state and local police officers and firefighters get pensions and lifetime medical care, sometimes after just 20 years of service. Many such employees can "double-dip" and draw two pensions, from taxpayers.
You want to balance the budget, state, local or federal? Then everybody has to take some cuts.
BOTU at May 10, 2011 10:34 AM
I'm pretty sure that emergency medical *helicopter pilots* mostly get paid less than this...(googles)..yep.
For example, here's someone looking for an air-ambulance pilot with BOTH helicopter and fixed-wing experience; minimum of 1000 hours in each category required. Salary range $55-60K.
http://www.jsfirm.com/companydetail.asp_Q_jobid_E_39642_A_Dual+Rated+Pilot+%28helicopter+and+fixed+wing%29
david foster at May 10, 2011 10:45 AM
may be true DavidF, but that's in Augusta georgia, and I don't see anything in specs requiring they also be EMT's... I'd bet firemen in Augusta also don't make as much as in Newport Beach.
SwissArmyD at May 10, 2011 10:51 AM
US Army pay for an E-3 in Fallujah is over $25,000 a year, PLUS they're fed, housed, and get firearms for shooting people.
So they've got that going for them, which is nice.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 10, 2011 11:25 AM
Free ammunition, too, which isn't cheap.
On the other hand, they can find out their 12 month tour is really 15 months, sorry guys. That contract they signed can be amended at the convenience of the government.
Most of you would not take it.
MarkD at May 10, 2011 12:12 PM
Which is considerably cheaper than Newport Beach, California.
I'd have to look it up, but I believe $55,000-$60,000 a year in Augusta is slightly better pay than $100,000 in Newport Beach.
Conan the Grammarian at May 10, 2011 12:44 PM
I have a suggestion on how to reduce these expenses; recruit the Eastern European young hotties that we have serving as lifeguards up in Wisconsin Dells at the waterparks. I think they pay them something like $10 and then deduct a chunk out of their pay for living quarters. And they're happy to be here, rather than back in the Motherland...
Oh, and as to wondering WHY we have lifeguards at all? Duh!!! Aren't you paying attention? We don't actually take care of our own kids, let alone watch them in hazardous settings. That's for someone else to be held responsible for.
Juliana at May 10, 2011 2:11 PM
I suspect that this is where Lena has gone.
To check out the lifeguard's package!
Radwaste at May 10, 2011 2:47 PM
"Predictably, opponents have pulled out the "people will die" counterargument."
A tiny number of people may indeed die, and we seriously need to all just 'get over it' already. Very few people want to openly say this, but not every expense can actually be justified 'even if it saves just one life'. Yes, human life has a price tag after all. It must, because resources are finite. Like those new laws that require rear-facing cameras in every car .. will cost the economy probably hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe save three lives a year, or something.
Lobster at May 10, 2011 4:45 PM
"One recently retired lifeguard, age 51, receives a government retirement of over $108,000 per year--for the rest of his life. He will make well over $3 million in retirement if he lives to age 80."
If this guy's smart, he won't be counting on getting the whole $3 mil. Money's running out for this sort of stuff fast enough. One of these days, the private sector people working well into their 60s and beyond to support these "public servants" are going to say "Enough!"
Or the city will just go bankrupt.
Either way, if you're looking for sustainability, government pensions are not the place you'll find it.
Not Sure at May 10, 2011 5:37 PM
I'm in the military. Have been for 12 years. If they bring back the 15 year cut rate retirement options, I'll take it when it comes.
It'd be nice to see my kids grow up the rest of the way, since I missed so much of the first half thanks to these wars.
However, that said, while I won't feel bad about drawing some retirement when I move into the private sector, I am certainly not going to whither up and die because my retirement pay would have to be cut to meet the budgetary needs of my country.
I've told my colleagues to prepare for cuts across the board, we've already taken hits to our pay. I lost over $100 when they cut BAH. Saved the government a big sum all total, I won't be surprised when more cuts come, and you know something...I'm prepared for it.
Anyone that doesn't bring an umbrella when the stormclouds gather, deserves to get wet.
Robert at May 11, 2011 5:24 AM
Y'all need to do what we do downunder and turn lifeguards into sex gods. Then they do it all for free just for the status and the chicks. $211,000? Insane.
Chunks at May 11, 2011 5:51 AM
"This is the kind of community where people will drive a new Maserati to the global warming benefit banquet."
Sublime.
I am stealing it.
Spartee at May 11, 2011 6:41 AM
Ludicrously overpaid jobs like this happen for several reasons. The first and biggest is that government departments don't view money like normal people do. For most people or businesses, being under budget is a very good thing. However, if a government department comes out significantly under budget for the year, they see it as an absolute disaster. To them it just means they'll get less money next year. They'll likely also get audited to ensure that they're doing their jobs. Padding pay is one way they get rid of excess money.
This phenomenon isn't limited to just jobs like lifeguards. Some government departments will deliberately make new job positions with bullshit names that are little more than seat-warmers, just to get rid of excess money. In fact, some government departments will attempt to be over-budget so that they will get assigned more money the next year. For the same reasons, government departments will fight budget cuts tooth and nail.
The other reason these lifeguards get such ludicrously high pay and benefits is to make the government look good in legal terms. In other words, spending so much allows them to say, "We spend X money on our lifeguards, so you know our beaches are going to be safe." So either they hire more lifeguards than necessary, or they dramatically overpay the ones they have. Again, this isn't limited to just lifeguards.
I'm not saying that a lifeguard's job isn't hard or that they aren't necessary. I just think we really need to re-examine how government handles money in general, and something like this just emphasizes the larger, underlying problems. There's a reason we're so deep in debt, and it's because silly things like this are much more common than you think.
Sarah at May 11, 2011 10:32 AM
Leave a comment