Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
62 user(s) are online (59 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 62

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5556
Offline
Quote:

JC_DowntownRegular wrote:
You have just set firefighting back about 100 years. Fire departments originated with fire insurance companies. I'll spare you a history lesson. Go look it up.


Just so. I have a photo from my grandfathers village in Ukraine of him with the Jewish Fire Brigade. Each group in town had their own brigade.

One of the spots where the Libertarians run off the rails with this privatization stuff is public services. If there was actually a free market in sewers or fire protection he'd be onto something. But this is all stuff economists would describe as markets with a "high barrier to entry". Even something like broadband which should be competitive ends up being a duopoly where they'll compete on anything but price. The market in commercial sanitation is notorious for corruption and price fixing.

As for enforcement of that fire insurance, I've got news, there's tons of uninsured and unlicensed drivers all over our roads and if they hit you you're screwed. So the always helpful insurance companies sell a product called "uninsured driver insurance".

Posted on: 2010/6/5 2:19
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#79
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/27 17:35
Last Login :
2013/11/1 19:33
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 127
Offline
where did I suggest "Fire Insurance" or premiums ? issue is not history lesson, stick to the point, a separate accountable entity like MUA or JCIA which will promote fire safety & resistance standards using science & technology, whose focus is prevention and NOT putting out the fire!!! there are robots who can with the ability to fly and do the job for a fraction of cost !!! the world is moving in a different direction...

Posted on: 2010/6/5 2:04
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38
Last Login :
2012/7/18 2:23
From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 381
Offline
Quote:

riazw wrote:

There are options like how we buy AAA Emergency Road Service for cars; building Owners should be able to purchase it directly "Fire Emergency Service". If they don't have one, let the building owners who call for help pay for it; The city should NOT be in this business at all.


You have just set firefighting back about 100 years. Fire departments originated with fire insurance companies. I'll spare you a history lesson. Go look it up.

Just imagine the premiums these insurance companies would set.

Posted on: 2010/6/4 22:10
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#77
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/27 17:35
Last Login :
2013/11/1 19:33
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 127
Offline
"neighbor's LAPSE" is a management issue; The insurer had let it lapse; the city which oversees, let it lapse; like tax sale, have a sale on this one also and the people supposed to make compliance work as part of the govt, do their job, failure to do so, let them ALL pay a penalty!!! I cant drive car, if I dont have a Car insurance; dont provide Gas & Electricity, if they dont have the Fire Services Coverage... End of the day, CITY should not be in the business of collecting garbage, putting off fire, parking, water, sewer etc., City residents should be paying for only what they use not for what is offered!!! Is that libertarianism?

Sure.. JCIA, MUA, Parking Authority have problems; the problems are not because of tax payers, it is because of the people the tax payers elected and their greed to stay in power!!! These people have setup a system, 'in the name of Governance' they can prosper by collecting more and more tax money but not by giving up even 1% of luxury that they have acquired from tax payers(even in hard times)!!

These are interesting times and so the challenges, if we don't adapt CHANGE, we'll be left alone with a big premium to pay at a later stage; we need new line of lateral thinking to solve our problems; 'TAX INCREASE' every year is not a solution!!!

Posted on: 2010/6/4 19:16
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5556
Offline
Quote:

riazw wrote:
There are options like how we buy AAA Emergency Road Service for cars; building Owners should be able to purchase it directly "Fire Emergency Service". If they don't have one, let the building owners who call for help pay for it; The city should NOT be in this business at all. The city should rather govern & monitor them by legislation not in the business of managing or running the fire houses! They already have separate entities like JCIA, Water & Sewer, JCBOE etc., why not FIRE Dept; make them accountable for income & expense. When the consumer has the FEAR, that FIRE will cost him a lot, he will be more careful than when it is FREE !!!


The problem with your classic "libertarian" position is what about when your neighbor has let his "fire dept insurance" lapse? Or if you want to charge after the fact like an ambulance svc what if he tries to put it out with a hose rather than call it in? Both put your home at risk.

Don't get me started about a FD Authority! The JCIA, & MUA are less accountable not more! The Parking Authority managed to run in the red and it was just business as usual, not heads rolling right and left.

Posted on: 2010/6/4 17:59
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#75
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/5/27 17:35
Last Login :
2013/11/1 19:33
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 127
Offline
What is surprising is, we are arguing to STOP the fire; not looking at Science & technology, to prevent FIRE from starting or delaying the fire spread; there are interesting materials that science can offer; the city should have a plan to encourage tax payers by giving them tax credits to build fire-safe buildings not just fire alarms and sprinklers; they must know what triggers fire (most of the cases, electricity, I guess); any safety built around the triggering components should be able to contain based on sensor technology; all these initiatives will not eliminate the fire department but still we can optimize the size considerably. I understand 'force majeure' and other man made disaster events, we can have funds for it or even some kind of insurance to look into it; this kind of transition will be a long way to go, but we need to start now...

There are options like how we buy AAA Emergency Road Service for cars; building Owners should be able to purchase it directly "Fire Emergency Service". If they don't have one, let the building owners who call for help pay for it; The city should NOT be in this business at all. The city should rather govern & monitor them by legislation not in the business of managing or running the fire houses! They already have separate entities like JCIA, Water & Sewer, JCBOE etc., why not FIRE Dept; make them accountable for income & expense. When the consumer has the FEAR, that FIRE will cost him a lot, he will be more careful than when it is FREE !!!

Posted on: 2010/6/4 16:23
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/7/27 20:48
Last Login :
2020/12/15 0:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 248
Offline
Quote:

Slacky wrote:

Quote:
Probably because he is talking about more than one average.


That's just supposition, and pretty desperate too. There's nothing to indicate that in what Fulop says, in fact to the contrary he states "for each person".

Quote:
Let's move on.


I'll move on when I'm proved wrong or you stop trying to prove me wrong.

I'm not against Fulop, as I said before I'd take him over Healy any day. That doesn't mean I'm going to take everything he says as gospel or keep quiet when I think he is wrong.

What is really worrying is that you will argue so long and hard, changing your argument again and again until you decide it's time to "move on". It's like you want him to be right because you think he is a good man, not because you think he is right.


If you dont want to move on, I will. I don't see any point in arguing the details any more. I have changed my argument because there is more than one way that you can be wrong and probably only one way you can be right. I have changed my mind, after thinking about this, on the major point that Fulop was actually talking about but I think the other points I made are still valid.

If I thought Fulop was wrong, I would say so. Good will only goes so far and doesn't change him from being wrong to being right. I have only spoken briefly to Steve on a few occasions and haven't formed that much of an opinion about the man. There is at least one issue where I think he is more wrong-headed than you are about this (but that is for another time). His actions would lead me to believe he is a good man but not knowing you, I would say the same about you in the absence of any information to the contrary.

If I wanted to criticize Steve's statement I would say his language was not very precise. I wouldn't use a word like "astronomical" to describe a number that didnt end with a lot of zeros, if I was actually referring to a number between 0 and 1. Yes, there is some supposition about the way he is using the word average. I think it is more likely that he is using it consistently with what I describe than the way you describe it.

Let's say for arguments sake that you are right and somehow the actual average is $120,001. To me it doesn't make that much difference than if the figure was $155,999. Obviously neither is correct or close to being correct and it doesnt really alter Steve's point. The fact that somebody interpreted this as meaning the average fireman makes $156k is not Steve's fault. That person did not take the time and trouble to read that Fulop was only referring to supervisor salaries and that person may make all their election choices on incomplete and incorrect information. Not much Fulop or you or I can do about that.

Posted on: 2010/6/4 1:07
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38
Last Login :
2012/7/18 2:23
From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 381
Offline
Quote:

tinker wrote:

According to this article, http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/ firefighters aren't even in the top 10 with a death rate of 18.3/100k. Taxi driving is more dangerous and farming is twice so. Where's their golden parachutes? Being an electrician is nearly twice as dangerous as being a firefighter, and they do it to keep our lights on without the adulation firefighters nurture. Where's the early retirement with big bucks for the guy that goes up a pole in a thunderstorm to get your beer cold?


Firefighter fatalities are low because FF's use the risk management process to determine the safest and most efficient way to do their jobs in quite the hazardous environments. They really don't just go charging in blindly into an incident.

Anyhow, the latest top dangerous jobs I just looked at puts firefighters within the top 20. And by electrician, do you mean power line installer, because these are two very different jobs.

Now let's get back on topic.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 22:21
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38
Last Login :
2012/7/18 2:23
From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 381
Offline
Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:
Why would I volunteer, I have a job and I do not want to be a fireman. Thus, those who do want to be, this is a great way to start your career. Uh, Mr JCKId or should we call you..Mr. Fire Chief..wink wink....most towns, cities, municipalities are volunteer based...and all I am suggesting is 25 percent. Heck, maybe 15 to 25 percent. But the tax paying citizens are looking to save their money for better use such as improving schools and other various projects while still conserving a JCFD that is reliable, run efficiently and continous to provide for the safety of its citizens..this does not mean they deserve to be overpaid in a system that is politically unstable.


You wouldn't volunteer, your neighbors wouldn't volunteer, and your neighbors' neighbors wouldn't volunteer. There is no volunteer base to even consider this. And by the way, volunteer FF's all have jobs. Do you think they sit around the station all day and wait to be toned out? They have to leave their paying jobs to volunteer. I don't see anyone in this town leaving their paying job to volunteer to fight a fire or respond to some other incident.

Where will you get the money to run the volunteer fire department? Do you have $300-$500K to buy a new type 1 structural engine? Do you have the money to equip that one engine? Let's make the department 25% volunteer based (that's about 125 FF's and officers). So the 25% you let go will not return because they will not do the job for free and get paying jobs in other municipalities and cities. Now you need 125 new FF's. Where will you get the money to 1) outfit these new volunteers with PPE and 2) train them? Where will you get the money for the insurance?

Posted on: 2010/6/3 22:03
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/6/20 3:19
Last Login :
2015/6/28 12:09
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 155
Offline
Quote:

Slacky wrote:
Quote:

SLyng wrote:

An average is a number. A number can fall between two other numbers (whether those numbers are averages, medians, modes or whatever). Whether you like the fact that he's using an average and relating it to a range is another issue, it doesn't make was he's saying illegitimate.


No, it does make it illegitimate. He's not relating the average to a range, if so where is the average? An average is a single number, it's not a matter of me liking or disliking it, expressing a single number as a range is incorrect and misleading.

If Elmo has 3 firemen, and he pays Big Bird one bean, Cookie Monster two beans and Oscar three beans then, the average wage is two beans not one to three beans.


Quote:
Here's an example for you (sorry, no elmo pictures to make this easy) -- 5 salaries that I just made up:
120k
125k
128k
135k
156k
.... The AVERAGE is 132.8k, which is between the range of 120-156...(you know, like exactly what Fulup says in his quote)

Whoa! Revolutionary math!


It certainly is revolutionary math to express a very precise number as a range.
Now we're going to use our imaginations. Imagine Elmo writing a letter to the Sesame Journal complaining that Mr Hooper is charging an astronomical price for a box of Monsterberry Crunch. Imagine the price was $5 but Elmo decides to express that very precise number as between $1 and $10, now try to imagine why he would do that.


Quote:
As for your correction of semantics - good for you.


It's not semantics, it's math and I resent the fact that you're implying I'm playing with words to make my numbers fit. If we're talking salary then those are the numbers we are dealing with, we do not include the two beans Big Bird got as a bonus for saving Bert and Ernie from a house fire or the half a banana Oscar found in the bottom of his garbage can.

Quote:
You state: "Fulop clearly states 'an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000'."

Unfortunately, that's not what Fulup said. This is what he said:
"...an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

Nowhere in that quote does he say that 120 & 156 are averages -- he says the average falls between those numbers. See my example above for how that math might work...

I'd suggest before you try to rip someone for not understanding the math and/or misquoting you - maybe you want to make sure you're actually quoting things correctly and understand the math. Now, how about we discuss the merits of what each is saying rather than try to hijack the thread with a math lesson.


You do not know what a misquote is, neither are you capable of understanding a quote in relation to an argument. I quoted Fulop correctly and in relation to the fact that he was talking about Salary, not bonuses or overtime. I don't see what your wider quote proves in that or any respect other than to give you an opportunity to once again state, for the third time in a single post, that one number falls between two other numbers.
Please try to be more concise.

This post was brought to you by the letter F - M and the number 120,000 - 156,000.


Man, just keep digging that hole.... You are really only making things much worse for yourself. And no, you apparently do not understand math or statistics.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 20:36
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#70
Newbie
Newbie


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/2/4 22:40
Last Login :
2011/6/28 2:49
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2
Offline
Quote:

jerseymom wrote:
Facts & figures

?In 2008, 79,700 firefighters were injured in the line of duty. 36,595 of these injuries occurred on the fireground.


I would take that with a grain of salt. I was once a bystander at a manhattan fire scene. A small fire, quickly controlled, but with the usual massive force, and many dozen firefighters standing around for the most part. I was right by the EMS truck, saw no one treated, yet the next day over a dozen injuries were reported in the paper. ????

Clearly they have an interest in high injury numbers as it helps at contract negotiation time. I'd also like to know how many of those deaths are from coronaries precipitated at the scene, those get counted too.

According to this article, http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/ firefighters aren't even in the top 10 with a death rate of 18.3/100k. Taxi driving is more dangerous and farming is twice so. Where's their golden parachutes? Being an electrician is nearly twice as dangerous as being a firefighter, and they do it to keep our lights on without the adulation firefighters nurture. Where's the early retirement with big bucks for the guy that goes up a pole in a thunderstorm to get your beer cold?

I'm as glad we have firemen and cops as the next guy, but the hype that makes any discussion of their contracts emotional and explosive isn't helping the broke cities across the country that got that way in part by bending over for their municipal unions.

As for the "average" debate, what crap. Even if all but 1 made the $120k lower number, the fact that more than 1 in 4 is over that number is ridiculous. Most holders of Masters and even many MD's don't make that.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 20:16
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#69
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/22 14:29
Last Login :
2010/9/2 6:41
Group:
Banned
Posts: 102
Offline
Quote:

sinik wrote:
Yeah, like it equally implies they could all be on the lower figure.


And does that make it correct? No.
It's the higher figure people are going to get steamed up about, that's the figure that's going to get repeated, as it is in this post -

Quote:

jcboyz wrote:
FULOP WILL BE THE NEXT MAYOR!!!!! 156K for a Fireman is ridiculous!


Quote:
Probably because he is talking about more than one average.


That's just supposition, and pretty desperate too. There's nothing to indicate that in what Fulop says, in fact to the contrary he states "for each person".

Quote:
Let's move on.


I'll move on when I'm proved wrong or you stop trying to prove me wrong.

I'm not against Fulop, as I said before I'd take him over Healy any day. That doesn't mean I'm going to take everything he says as gospel or keep quiet when I think he is wrong.

What is really worrying is that you will argue so long and hard, changing your argument again and again until you decide it's time to "move on". It's like you want him to be right because you think he is a good man, not because you think he is right.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 19:29
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/7/27 20:48
Last Login :
2020/12/15 0:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 248
Offline
Quote:

Slacky wrote:

It goes without saying that the average will fall between the highest and lowest figure, but it is misleading to state that the average is between 120,000 and 156,000 because it implies that they could all be on that higher figure.


Yeah, like it equally implies they could all be on the lower figure.




Quote:

If you're going to state an average, then why not present an average?


Probably because he is talking about more than one average.
Unlikely he saw all the figures just the average figure for each grade (and yes there was only one person in the top grade, so that's not an average, but all the other grades had more than one person in them). There is an average salary for each level. Not all people at the same level get the same pay. All the salary averages of the different supervisor positions fall within the stated range.

Let's move on.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 17:47
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/9 19:50
Last Login :
1/29 1:10
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2170
Offline
Facts & figures

?Most of the career firefighters (74%) are in communities that protect 25,000 or more people.

?Most of the volunteer firefighters (94%) are in departments that protect fewer than 25,000 people, and more than half are located in small, rural departments protecting fewer than 2,500 people.

?In 2008, a total of 104 firefighters were fatally injured while on duty. Of these, 42 were career, 54 were volunteer, and 8 were no-municipal (those not employed by local, public fire departments).

?In 2008, 79,700 firefighters were injured in the line of duty. 36,595 of these injuries occurred on the fireground.

?There were an estimated 14,950 collisions involving fire department emergency vehicles while responding to or returning from incidents. These collisions resulted in 670 firefighter injuries.

SOURCE

Posted on: 2010/6/3 17:20
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#66
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/22 14:29
Last Login :
2010/9/2 6:41
Group:
Banned
Posts: 102
Offline
Quote:

tamard wrote:
Quote:


Slacky wrote:
But there are no firemen earning $156K, there's one guy at that rate overseeing 600 men and women and the only reason jcboyz thinks there are firemen earning that much money is because Fulop is, by mistake or by design, misrepresenting the facts.

$120,000-$156,000 is not an average.


Slacky, you are sort of right even by the narrowest of margins. As of 2009 numbers, there was only 1 man making $164,775 and 9 men making $155,172....

You can search the 2009 PUBLIC numbers for yourself. http://www.nj.com/news/bythenumbers/


Thank you.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 17:20
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#65
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/22 14:29
Last Login :
2010/9/2 6:41
Group:
Banned
Posts: 102
Offline
Quote:

SLyng wrote:


Exactly right. Which is what I tried to explain to Slacky in my prior post.

For those new to statistics:
-Take all salaries of supervisors, add them together, divide by the number of data points -- That's your average.
-Take those salaries, arrange them from top to bottom, the high and the low are your range.
-The average (by definition) falls in that range.

What Fulup said in his actual quote (please, Slacky, Re-read his quote, not your bastardization of it) was not controversial, it was just a statement of fact and simple mathematics.


Show me where I bastardized the quote, because I cut and pasted it every time I used it. This is the second time you've accused me of doing this.

Here, I'll bastardize the quote right now to make it correct.

Original -
"In the Jersey City Fire Department, an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

Corrected -
"In the Jersey City Fire Department, an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with a salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

Or -

"In the Jersey City Fire Department, an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary of 135,000* for each person."

In the first I removed the word average because there is no average there, in the second I made up an average where the wasn't one.
It goes without saying that the average will fall between the highest and lowest figure, but it is misleading to state that the average is between 120,000 and 156,000 because it implies that they could all be on that higher figure.

If this was an exam or a work project, and you had to work out the average salary of the Fire Dept supervisors and you stated that it was between 120,000 and 156,000 would you expect to pass or for your boss to be happy?

If you're going to state an average, then why not present an average?

For those of you new to statistics that want to work out your own average salary, take your salary and divide it by one.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 17:18
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/7/30 20:03
Last Login :
2020/12/4 19:30
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 353
Offline
Why would I volunteer, I have a job and I do not want to be a fireman. Thus, those who do want to be, this is a great way to start your career. Uh, Mr JCKId or should we call you..Mr. Fire Chief..wink wink....most towns, cities, municipalities are volunteer based...and all I am suggesting is 25 percent. Heck, maybe 15 to 25 percent. But the tax paying citizens are looking to save their money for better use such as improving schools and other various projects while still conserving a JCFD that is reliable, run efficiently and continous to provide for the safety of its citizens..this does not mean they deserve to be overpaid in a system that is politically unstable.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 16:39
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#63
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/9/7 20:59
Last Login :
2017/3/15 17:02
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 128
Offline
Quote:


Slacky wrote:
But there are no firemen earning $156K, there's one guy at that rate overseeing 600 men and women and the only reason jcboyz thinks there are firemen earning that much money is because Fulop is, by mistake or by design, misrepresenting the facts.

$120,000-$156,000 is not an average.


Slacky, you are sort of right even by the narrowest of margins. As of 2009 numbers, there was only 1 man making $164,775 and 9 men making $155,172....

You can search the 2009 PUBLIC numbers for yourself. http://www.nj.com/news/bythenumbers/

Posted on: 2010/6/3 15:39
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/28 14:30
Last Login :
2011/6/3 23:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 306
Offline
Quote:

81905 wrote:
Sweet Jesus this is so easy to figure out. READ his quote real slow people.......

Fulop said, "one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

1/3 of the FD are SUPERVISORS with an average salery between 120K and 156K.

So, the average of those 1/3 are sitting somewhere between those two gsizable salaries. I assume Fulop had the payrolls on a sheet when he did this and didn't just dream them up.

What is so damn crazy about this statment unless it was blatanly false?


Exactly right. Which is what I tried to explain to Slacky in my prior post.

For those new to statistics:
-Take all salaries of supervisors, add them together, divide by the number of data points -- That's your average.
-Take those salaries, arrange them from top to bottom, the high and the low are your range.
-The average (by definition) falls in that range.

What Fulup said in his actual quote (please, Slacky, Re-read his quote, not your bastardization of it) was not controversial, it was just a statement of fact and simple mathematics.

Posted on: 2010/6/3 15:00
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/12/7 2:49
Last Login :
2015/11/10 19:14
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 351
Offline
Sweet Jesus this is so easy to figure out. READ his quote real slow people.......

Fulop said, "one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

1/3 of the FD are SUPERVISORS with an average salery between 120K and 156K.

So, the average of those 1/3 are sitting somewhere between those two gsizable salaries. I assume Fulop had the payrolls on a sheet when he did this and didn't just dream them up.

What is so damn crazy about this statment unless it was blatanly false?

Posted on: 2010/6/2 23:25
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/10/20 17:38
Last Login :
2012/7/18 2:23
From Not in JC anymore
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 381
Offline
Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:

Scale down the JCFD. 25 percent volunteer. Reduce top level employees ..5 to 8 captains to a fire person. Increase service time required to 30 years before retirement, reduce benefit payout by 25-40 percent. Mandatory 3 percent investment into 403b/457b's to build up retirement savings of fire persons. Not going to be easy, but ya got to start somewhere. You are going to have to give packages to move the unnessary overpaid JCFD to 'early retirement'. Gonna cost something.


Can we drop this notion of a volunteer fire department be it a full volunteer, partial volunteer, or completely separate from JCFD? Go back to my previous posts as to why this is not a feasible solution.

Now with respect to overhead, let's talk about something called span of control. One person can supervise 3 to 7 resources, with 5 being the ideal number. (That would be 3-7 fire persons to a fire person not the other way around as you describe). An engine/truck crew of 4 FF's, needs 1 captain. I'm simplifying the shifts, but multiply by 3 shifts a day (12 FF's and 3 captains). Add an additional shift for 7-day coverage (16 FF's and 4 captains. Multiply that by the 16 Engines and 8 Trucks and 1 Rescue and you have 400 FF's and 100 captains. Add 1 battalion chief for each of the 4 battalions (actually managing 4-8 resources per battalion), multiply that by 3 shifts and you have 12 BC's. JC actually has 22 BC's. Is this a little top heavy? Probably. Can we get by with maybe 16? Probably. Do we need to cut captains? No.

And FF and LE have shorter in service time to retire because their jobs are harder on then mentally, physically, and emotionally than your typical job.

Look, does JC need a change? Yes, and I have firmly believed that since I have moved here. Is this the right fight for change? Probably not.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 23:16
- Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#59
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/22 14:29
Last Login :
2010/9/2 6:41
Group:
Banned
Posts: 102
Offline
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
It's not nearly as complex (or nefarious) as you are making it out to be. The "average" refers to the average salaries of four different titles - hence the range. Captain is $120k, Battalion Chief is $130 something; Deputy chief is in the low 150s and the chief is $156k.


No it is exactly as nefarious, especially if your figures are right.
If we're talking, as Fulop states, a third of the 550 strong Fire Dept, there are 183 people in supervisory positions. Only two of them are at the higher end of the scale. Leaving aside the idiocy of averaging two pay rates that only one person has, that leaves 181 earning between $120,000 to $130,000.
For sake of argument, if we take the worst case scenario of there being only one captain and 180 Battalion Chiefs it still only results in an average of $130,196.72, and yet the $156,000 pay rate is given equal prominence and we get posts like this -

Quote:

jcboyz wrote:
FULOP WILL BE THE NEXT MAYOR!!!!! 156K for a Fireman is ridiculous!


But there are no firemen earning $156K, there's one guy at that rate overseeing 600 men and women and the only reason jcboyz thinks there are firemen earning that much money is because Fulop is, by mistake or by design, misrepresenting the facts.

$120,000-$156,000 is not an average.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 22:26
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#58
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/1/14 22:17
Last Login :
2012/4/4 15:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 127
Offline
Quote:

DouglasReynholm wrote:

Scale down the JCFD. 25 percent volunteer.


Are you going to volunteer??

Posted on: 2010/6/2 21:36
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/10/19 1:18
Last Login :
2020/9/25 20:40
From somewhere else
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1578
Offline
It's not nearly as complex (or nefarious) as you are making it out to be. The "average" refers to the average salaries of four different titles - hence the range. Captain is $120k, Battalion Chief is $130 something; Deputy chief is in the low 150s and the chief is $156k.


Quote:

Slacky wrote:
Quote:

SLyng wrote:

An average is a number. A number can fall between two other numbers (whether those numbers are averages, medians, modes or whatever). Whether you like the fact that he's using an average and relating it to a range is another issue, it doesn't make was he's saying illegitimate.


No, it does make it illegitimate. He's not relating the average to a range, if so where is the average? An average is a single number, it's not a matter of me liking or disliking it, expressing a single number as a range is incorrect and misleading.

If Elmo has 3 firemen, and he pays Big Bird one bean, Cookie Monster two beans and Oscar three beans then, the average wage is two beans not one to three beans.


Quote:
Here's an example for you (sorry, no elmo pictures to make this easy) -- 5 salaries that I just made up:
120k
125k
128k
135k
156k
.... The AVERAGE is 132.8k, which is between the range of 120-156...(you know, like exactly what Fulup says in his quote)

Whoa! Revolutionary math!


It certainly is revolutionary math to express a very precise number as a range.
Now we're going to use our imaginations. Imagine Elmo writing a letter to the Sesame Journal complaining that Mr Hooper is charging an astronomical price for a box of Monsterberry Crunch. Imagine the price was $5 but Elmo decides to express that very precise number as between $1 and $10, now try to imagine why he would do that.


Quote:
As for your correction of semantics - good for you.


It's not semantics, it's math and I resent the fact that you're implying I'm playing with words to make my numbers fit. If we're talking salary then those are the numbers we are dealing with, we do not include the two beans Big Bird got as a bonus for saving Bert and Ernie from a house fire or the half a banana Oscar found in the bottom of his garbage can.

Quote:
You state: "Fulop clearly states 'an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000'."

Unfortunately, that's not what Fulup said. This is what he said:
"...an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

Nowhere in that quote does he say that 120 & 156 are averages -- he says the average falls between those numbers. See my example above for how that math might work...

I'd suggest before you try to rip someone for not understanding the math and/or misquoting you - maybe you want to make sure you're actually quoting things correctly and understand the math. Now, how about we discuss the merits of what each is saying rather than try to hijack the thread with a math lesson.


You do not know what a misquote is, neither are you capable of understanding a quote in relation to an argument. I quoted Fulop correctly and in relation to the fact that he was talking about Salary, not bonuses or overtime. I don't see what your wider quote proves in that or any respect other than to give you an opportunity to once again state, for the third time in a single post, that one number falls between two other numbers.
Please try to be more concise.

This post was brought to you by the letter F - M and the number 120,000 - 156,000.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 21:30
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2010/1/22 15:49
Last Login :
2016/10/21 16:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 162
Offline
Jesus, this conversation got way off course.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 19:38
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/7/27 20:48
Last Login :
2020/12/15 0:46
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 248
Offline
Quote:

Slacky wrote:
Quote:

sinik wrote:
Given the nature of pay structures it is extremely unlikely that one person gets $156,000 and the rest all get $120,000. You are being at least as disingenuous as what you are accusing Fulop of.

If pay is variable due to factors such as bonus, overtime then it would be correct to talk in terms of average incomes (and I admit I don't know if supervisors are entitied to either). If pay raises are not awarded equally at the same time of year (e.g are awarded on anniversary of service or some other interval), being just as pedantic as you are, then it would be correct to talk in terms of average salaries.

Based on this I am not quite ready to cite Fulop for duplicity or incompetence and call for his resignation


Oh dear. You need to go back to school, son.

Firstly, I never said one person got $156,000 and the rest got $120,000, I said "there may well be one employee on $156,000 with the majority closer to the $120,000". One would think you'd have absorbed that seeing as you read my post and quoted it.


There is what you say and what I think you mean. What you actually said, if taken literally, is that perhaps 49.999999% of salaries are closer to $156,000 and that 50.000001% of salaries are closer to $120,000 in other words the average salary could be just higher than the mid-point (forgetting about the different possible types of averages: mean, median, mode).
Is that what you meant to communicate? Didn't think so. You meant to communicate that the actual average could be strongly skewed one way, which, "given the nature of pay structures" is extremely unlikely. OK?


Quote:

I'd imagine the Fire Service has a hierarchy and that the pay reflects that. Maybe you know better, but I doubt it based on your post.


Yep, most likely there are different pay grades (and that is not a single figure, that is an actual range for each grade) and people in each pay grade can have different salaries depending on things like length of service, performance reviews etc. Don't know about the fire service, but that's how it works most places. Most likely, all the salaries in each pay grade are averaged first and then a total average is calculated. I imagine that is what Fulop means by talking about average salaries unless he had all the figures for every single persons salary (doubtful).

Quote:

Secondly, Fulop clearly states "an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000". A salary is defined as a fixed compensation periodically paid to a person for regular work or services. Salary does not include bonuses or overtime.


Yep, people don't always use "salary" and "income" literally and perhaps we should haul Steve over the coals if in fact he was meaning income instead of salary. Of course if he did mean salary and not income and there are overtime payments to all or some of these supervisors, well then the situation would be a whole lot worse, wouldn't it?

Quote:

Thirdly, a pay rise in the middle of the year, or at any other time, would result in the salary of that year being calculated as the initial salary plus the pay rise proportional to the time it was paid within that year.


Unless the calculation was done for a previous year rather than a projection of the current year,
it would include estimates and averages.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 19:25
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/11/28 3:26
Last Login :
2014/10/27 13:13
From The fog.
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 979
Offline
There is a range of averages. Fulop was talking about several levels of supervisors - captains, lieutenants, chiefs, etc. Each level has a different average salary. Those averages fall into the range that Fulop referenced.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 18:33
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#53
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2007/7/22 14:29
Last Login :
2010/9/2 6:41
Group:
Banned
Posts: 102
Offline
Quote:

SLyng wrote:

An average is a number. A number can fall between two other numbers (whether those numbers are averages, medians, modes or whatever). Whether you like the fact that he's using an average and relating it to a range is another issue, it doesn't make was he's saying illegitimate.


No, it does make it illegitimate. He's not relating the average to a range, if so where is the average? An average is a single number, it's not a matter of me liking or disliking it, expressing a single number as a range is incorrect and misleading.

If Elmo has 3 firemen, and he pays Big Bird one bean, Cookie Monster two beans and Oscar three beans then, the average wage is two beans not one to three beans.


Quote:
Here's an example for you (sorry, no elmo pictures to make this easy) -- 5 salaries that I just made up:
120k
125k
128k
135k
156k
.... The AVERAGE is 132.8k, which is between the range of 120-156...(you know, like exactly what Fulup says in his quote)

Whoa! Revolutionary math!


It certainly is revolutionary math to express a very precise number as a range.
Now we're going to use our imaginations. Imagine Elmo writing a letter to the Sesame Journal complaining that Mr Hooper is charging an astronomical price for a box of Monsterberry Crunch. Imagine the price was $5 but Elmo decides to express that very precise number as between $1 and $10, now try to imagine why he would do that.


Quote:
As for your correction of semantics - good for you.


It's not semantics, it's math and I resent the fact that you're implying I'm playing with words to make my numbers fit. If we're talking salary then those are the numbers we are dealing with, we do not include the two beans Big Bird got as a bonus for saving Bert and Ernie from a house fire or the half a banana Oscar found in the bottom of his garbage can.

Quote:
You state: "Fulop clearly states 'an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000'."

Unfortunately, that's not what Fulup said. This is what he said:
"...an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

Nowhere in that quote does he say that 120 & 156 are averages -- he says the average falls between those numbers. See my example above for how that math might work...

I'd suggest before you try to rip someone for not understanding the math and/or misquoting you - maybe you want to make sure you're actually quoting things correctly and understand the math. Now, how about we discuss the merits of what each is saying rather than try to hijack the thread with a math lesson.


You do not know what a misquote is, neither are you capable of understanding a quote in relation to an argument. I quoted Fulop correctly and in relation to the fact that he was talking about Salary, not bonuses or overtime. I don't see what your wider quote proves in that or any respect other than to give you an opportunity to once again state, for the third time in a single post, that one number falls between two other numbers.
Please try to be more concise.

This post was brought to you by the letter F - M and the number 120,000 - 156,000.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 18:26
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#52
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/2/22 2:42
Last Login :
2011/7/30 19:58
From Italian Village
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 114
Offline
Quote:
So, I do like the fact that more and more of the educated JC tax payers are showing up to fight this sytem. One doesn't have to look to far to find a smart activist who has the best interests of JC at heart. I also like many of the neighborhood and activist groups that have sprung up to make JC into a great place. Bike JC is one such group. More and more small business owners are throwing thier hat into the ring to better this place as well. Other than that this city is still in its infancy in my opinion and we all know we can't just abandon a baby.


Quote:
by downright "Fulop is the only politician it seems that actually has a clue. I just can't see how much longer he is gonna stick around trying to get Jersey City turned around. Just about a lost cause."


I agree with 81905. And downright, don't give up hope! I love what Fulop is doing. Even if he was wrong, at least he is bringing attention to this. I never even thought, or questioned before what a fireman made. I think they should get paid well, but not that well. It is obvious to me, that with the help of people like Fulop that corruption, and cronyism will be exposed and not tolerated. As in all politics, there will always be corruption, but the information is so much more available and viral these days, that I think the hacks' days are numbered here in JC. Educated people (if you want to call them yuppies, go ahead) are learning by the day that cities are far more sustainable than the McMansion ideals of the suburbs. You will see more and more caring individuals, business owners, entrepreneurs and the likes deciding to move in, or stay in JC. Because of this, and technology, more people will question what the hell is going on and local politics will be more and more important to the daily lives of these individuals. I promise you. Stay where you are people. Don't move out, and don't give up. Oh, and if you need a career, hurry and make some phone calls and join the FDJC and cash in on those numbers before they diminish!

Posted on: 2010/6/2 17:43
 Top 


Re: Letter from fire chief: Mr. Fulop, you haven't a clue
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/11/28 14:30
Last Login :
2011/6/3 23:45
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 306
Offline
Quote:

Slacky wrote:
Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Fulop Letter: Chief presents a false choice...

In the Jersey City Fire Department, an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person.


That's not an average, that's a range. An average is a single value that is meant to typify a list of values, not two values representing the lowest and highest values.
Given the nature of pay structures, there may well be one employee on $156,000 with the majority closer to the $120,000 mark, but here the highest number is presented in equal measure.

You may think I'm a pedant but this sort of thing is typical of politicians skewing facts to suit their arguments. Otherwise it's an honest mistake, in which case I'd question Fulop's capability.


An average is a number. A number can fall between two other numbers (whether those numbers are averages, medians, modes or whatever). Whether you like the fact that he's using an average and relating it to a range is another issue, it doesn't make was he's saying illegitimate.

Here's an example for you (sorry, no elmo pictures to make this easy) -- 5 salaries that I just made up:
120k
125k
128k
135k
156k
.... The AVERAGE is 132.8k, which is between the range of 120-156...(you know, like exactly what Fulup says in his quote)

Whoa! Revolutionary math!

As for your correction of semantics - good for you. However let me correct a misquote in your response. You state: "Fulop clearly states 'an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000'."

Unfortunately, that's not what Fulup said. This is what he said:
"...an astronomical one-third of the Fire Department are supervisors with an average salary between $120,000 and $156,000 for each person."

Nowhere in that quote does he say that 120 & 156 are averages -- he says the average falls between those numbers. See my example above for how that math might work...

I'd suggest before you try to rip someone for not understanding the math and/or misquoting you - maybe you want to make sure you're actually quoting things correctly and understand the math. Now, how about we discuss the merits of what each is saying rather than try to hijack the thread with a math lesson.

Posted on: 2010/6/2 17:10
 Top 




(1) 2 3 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017