Knightfox

It's only common for government jobs and isn't universal there either. Many government jobs in the US receive multiple different types of leave concurrently. So for example you might accrue 12 hrs of vacation leave per month, 8 hrs of sick leave, and have a floating holiday of 8 hrs per year. If you reach a certain cap (say 100 hrs) the vacation leave rolls over into sick leave.

If you quit your job they have to pay out the vacation leave but not sick leave.

The result is that many government employees, with long careers, historically have tons of sick leave they aren't using (as in several hundred hours). When someone has a life event it's not uncommon for coworkers to donate some of their leave to the person (think having a baby or a cancer diagnosis).

You can of course take more leave then you have sick days with FMLA, but they will be unpaid (by your job, you may qualify for something like short term disability, idk). Sick leave that you have when you become eligible for pension retirement typically can apply to your retirement (potentially allowing you to retire earlier), but you still have to qualify for retirement first.

If you're 3 years from retiring and you can't qualify for early retirement with your leave, then you might have hundreds of hours you're not going to be able to use.

I took some time in thinking about your response, I want you to know that. That said, "There’s lots of places in the US where cops are paid significantly above median wages for the region as their base pay," doesn't mean much in the context of my original statement. My original statement said very much the same in fact. Cops, on paper, get paid above average and have tons of opportunity for overtime. What your response misses is the danger associated and the expectation of overtime.

It's one thing when you can have unlimited overtime and another when you are expected to take unlimited overtime. There is also a disconnect when that overtime comes with an expectation of being shot and killed. With those expectations it's no surprise that police are the largest portion of a city government. If you have a group of people that you expect to work long hours, work extra overtime, meet the municipality's needs, and potentially die in their duty, then they should command a large portion of the budget.

If you don't want to pay people to do these things then you can't be upset that they don't do those things. You get the cops that you pay for. I'll be the first to say Fuck the Police, but I'll also be the first to say we get the Police we pay for.

Care to elaborate? I won't argue that funding for the department isn't a problem, but at least in my own anecdotal relation of an individual experience that seems to be the problem.

You're right though, being a police officer comes with an expectation that doesn't match your pay. If you're on the subway, there is a police officer in uniform standing nearby, and a guy attacks you, the expectation is that the cop would save you. However, in 2011 Maksin Gelman had a stabbing spree in NYC that culminated in an attack on Joseph Lozito. The attack occurred on a subway, with Lozito being stabbed in the head and face while police watched from the conductor's booth. It wasn't until Lozito had wrestled his assailant to the ground and detained him that the police helped him.

Lozito sued the NYPD for not helping him and the judge decided that it wasn't the police's duty to save his life. On the day of the assault the police didn't even perform first aid on Lozito, it was another subway goer that save his life.

EDIT: I'll be the first one to say fuck the police, but if you want actually good police then the first step is to pay them to match what you expect of them or else you'll end up with a bunch of gun toting assholes who won't do shit.

Of the responses I have gotten I feel like you have the closest response to the truth. Having good cops comes down to trust. If we had a police force of non-opportunistic saints who will go through anything to do the right thing then we might have something which meets the public's expectation of the police. Short of that they are people who put their own lives and well being above that of the public. Police aren't out there to save you, they aren't really out there to stop crimes. They are out there to charge people with committing crimes. I feel like some understanding should be out there for the public though, police aren't there to save you, they are there to charge people for having committed a crime. Ideally they will stop a crime as it is occurring or by their presence prevent a crime from occurring, but if you think the Police are there to save you then you're wrong.

That's the average scenario. That's the Uvalde cop looking on as a school shooting occurs. The idea of a cop running into a school shooting is the "BEST" scenario.

Unfortunately the norm for police is far less than that, because the pay doesn't incentivize better people to want to be police. It comes down to those the factors: pay, work life balance, and danger. Pick 2 of 3, low danger, high wages, or good work life balance.

Yeah, but that comes back to the same point where pay incentivizes bad cops. It's not quite that clear cut, but it's not far from the truth. I don't begrudge someone working a second job, and assuming we're talking about good cops not getting kickbacks, police shouldn't have to work two jobs to make ends meet.

I see why you thought that's what I meant, but immediately following that I list several other potential solutions to overall bad policing. You can certainly defund the police, aka stop outfitting them with weapons of war, but it will not solve the fundamental problem of hiring bad candidates to make bad cops.

This may not apply everywhere in the US, but my understanding is that most cops aren't paid terribly well. Perhaps it's ok if compared to a standard job, but when you account for the danger, required over time, and work schedule it becomes very not worth it.

A buddy of mine is a true believer type, he signed up to be a cop, went through a year of training and another year paired with another cop. PreCovid starting pay was $40k, 12 hr work schedule and every 28 days it flipped (so 28 days day shift followed by 28 days of night shift). One day he gets a call and his boss had switched him to a different district with 3x the commute without any communication. Finally a buddy of his caught a bullet in the head (and lived) from some guy who was on drugs and stole a car. He said he thought about it and for the money it wasn't worth the emotional cost.

Strangely the problem with underfunding cops is who the fuck wants to be a cop? Yeah, after 25 years and multiple promotions you might make an ok or even good salary, but being a new cop is absolutely shit. In a system where the pay isn't good, the hours are shit, and the risk to your life is high, who wants to be a cop?

The answer is either self sacrificing good guys or people who get a power trip on carrying a gun and using it. Add to it that this system is perpetuated by the type of people who pursue the job you end up with a whole department full of the type who hire these types.

So while you can defund the police, you can send them through training, you can institute new policy, but if you don't attract a better quality of person then you're gonna have the same problem over and over again.

Theoretically you could make the hours better (but that will require hiring more police to cover the same amount), you could reduce the danger (similar to London banning guns so beat cops don't carry them either), or you can pay them more.

... So was my great grandfather, but he was an old school Southern Democrat, he even voted straight ticket. I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't be fond of modern Democrats.

People forget that the Democrats of the early 1900s aren't the same as today. Remember that Republicans are the party of Lincoln, but I wouldn't be surprised if modern Republicans wanted to bring back slavery.

Hey, I'm not saying this technology doesn't have a use, and maybe if it's stupidly expensive it will be heavily subsidized. The point I'm making is that it "likely" isn't the solution to world wide water scarcity.

Another user commented that desalination is a grift, it's not, the market forces just aren't there yet to push its large scale implementation world wide. However, the idea that an upcoming technology may theoretically scale up and be the same economic scale is historically unlikely.

Historically the trajectory of this sort of technology is that it will define technology for the next 20 years (Nobel Peace Prize or more), or it will be bought up and buried by a big corporation (goodwill isn't typically good for capitalism), or it won't scale up as predicted and will be a major nothing burger.