Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4696)	5/3/2001 4:00:40 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6089

We just have different views abou it. No, we don't just have different views about it. Some things have a right and wrong answer. Criteria for spending public monies on compensation packages are entirely different from criteria for redistributing wealth among citizens. If you want to mush them together in your mind as well as your pocketbook just because the moneys are fungible, that's your prerogative, but fortunately those who are in the business of making those decisions know the difference. As for whether it's wise for San Francisco to include sex change operations in it's compensation package, I'm with Steven. This additional offering escalates coverage to a new level. Even worse, it does so disproportionately by providing mental health and cosmetic procedures for only a small portion of the employee base. I don't think that's smart. I agree with X that the amount of money is trivial since not many people will elect this surgery. As a San Francisco tax payer, I wouldn't be offended by it. But I think it's bad compensation policy. Karen P.S. Sorry, Poet, for disagreeing on your board. Since I'm not disagreeing with a liberal, maybe that's OK? <g>