Its not as significant as you would think. He was the favorite going in, as recalls usually fail (You need your base to come out twice.). That he was up for recall at all was more interesting.
Consider, for instance, that the exit polls for the recall vote show favor for Obama. With Absentees it will get tighter, most likely, but it is something to consider.
I counter with the fact that it is Wisconsin, which exists only to host the best football team evar, give Minnesotans who need booze on Sunday somewhere to go buy it, and forge sweet delicious cheese from the molten spew of the earth. Everything else that happens there is irrelevant - at best.
I cannot fathom why a state as liberal as Minnesota has such silly bible belt booze n' gamblin' (well, okay, I get that the tribes bribe the gak out of people to keep gambling rez only, but comeon) laws. It's silly as hell.
I thought this would be a useful outlier for the big game, but exit polls show Obama has actually picked up support since 2008. So either this state has a mighty strong Bradley effect going on, or man do I just not understand the voters up ins.
I think the failure of the recall has a lot to say about the real place of labour relations and unionism in US politics* but it really doesn't mean anything in terms of Obama's re-election. Statistically speaking, going back to 1972 there is little relationship between having a Republican governor and voting for the Republican presidential candidate (and of course, the same for the Democratic candidate. In fact, in 7 out of 10 elections the Democratic candidate actually did better in the states with Republican governors than in those with Democratic governors, and vice versa for the Republican candidate. Here's the table showing that, from fivethiryeight.com;
I guess, ultimately, people understand that state and federal politics are different, and that they're voting for people with individual strengths and weaknesses, and not just for whatever side of the blue/red divide people like to assume everyone must fit into.
*As in, you can declare war on unions and people will make a lot of noise about it, but some months down the track it won't really resonate that much in electorate. Unionism is even deader than people thought. Hopefully the left will take the sobering lesson from this and move on to fight battles on winnable grounds.
Mannahnin wrote:Calling fire fighters and police losers? Nice.
Calling public union losers-you betcha.
Calling all those fun filled happy town employees who meader around at the DMV, chewing cud and getting a pension based on their last year of inflated employment at a rate higher than most of the citizens of a state make yearly, you betcha.
Calling the massed bureaucracy that would make a Byzantine emperor cry a bunch of losers, you betcha.
Counting coup on the incestuous government unions voting politicians into office who then give them kick backs in massive benies, who then insure they remain in office thereafter, you betcha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh lookie now New York and cities in California are now puching back.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*This carefully crafted, Shakespearean monograph brought to you by Frazzled, who's vengeful spite for government union employees is restored every time he goes the DMV or tax assessor's office.
Mannahnin wrote:Calling fire fighters and police losers? Nice.
Calling public union losers-you betcha.
Calling all those fun filled happy town employees who meader around at the DMV, chewing cud and getting a pension based on their last year of inflated employment at a rate higher than most of the citizens of a state make yearly, you betcha.
Calling the massed bureaucracy that would make a Byzantine emperor cry a bunch of losers, you betcha.
Counting coup on the incestuous government unions voting politicians into office who then give them kick backs in massive benies, who then insure they remain in office thereafter, you betcha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh lookie now New York and cities in California are now puching back.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*This carefully crafted, Shakespearean monograph brought to you by Frazzled, who's vengeful spite for government union employees is restored every time he goes the DMV or tax assessor's office.
You have such a poor grasp on how Unions actually work it's shocking. Oh wait, it's not because you always made rude and uninformed posts like this.
Yes, yes it is, and from the grandson of one of the founders of the Merchant Marine Union no less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Calling fire fighters and police losers? Nice.
Calling public union losers-you betcha.
Calling all those fun filled happy town employees who meader around at the DMV, chewing cud and getting a pension based on their last year of inflated employment at a rate higher than most of the citizens of a state make yearly, you betcha.
Calling the massed bureaucracy that would make a Byzantine emperor cry a bunch of losers, you betcha.
Counting coup on the incestuous government unions voting politicians into office who then give them kick backs in massive benies, who then insure they remain in office thereafter, you betcha.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh lookie now New York and cities in California are now puching back.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*This carefully crafted, Shakespearean monograph brought to you by Frazzled, who's vengeful spite for government union employees is restored every time he goes the DMV or tax assessor's office.
You have such a poor grasp on how Unions actually work it's shocking. Oh wait, it's not because you always made rude and uninformed posts like this.
No I'm quite familiar with government unions, thanks. Evidently so are the voters in Wisconsin.
dogma wrote:Its not as significant as you would think. He was the favorite going in, as recalls usually fail (You need your base to come out twice.). That he was up for recall at all was more interesting.
According to NPR, he was the first governor to survive a recall election.
Alexzandvar wrote:You have such a poor grasp on how Unions actually work it's shocking. Oh wait, it's not because you always made rude and uninformed posts like this.
I don't think he made any comment about "how Unions actually work." But they're pretty easy to understand.
sebster wrote:Unionism is even deader than people thought. Hopefully the left will take the sobering lesson from this and move on to fight battles on winnable grounds.
Thanks to billions of lobbying dollars over the course of decades, there is basically no popular sense of how important labor institutions are to the commonwealth. The same forces that demolished labor have now turned their sites on the government itself. Unsurprisingly, the first target is the confluence of labor and government. It is pretty well obvious that this issue is not about budget deficits, its not about economic recovery, it's merely political positioning based on a "divide and conquer" premise. Walker's "divide and conquer" rhetoric will send a chill down the spine of anyone with meaningful knowledge of the struggle to unionize. What is going on in this case is politics for the sake of politics, and the people be damned.
sebster wrote:Unionism is even deader than people thought. Hopefully the left will take the sobering lesson from this and move on to fight battles on winnable grounds.
Thanks to billions of lobbying dollars over the course of decades, there is basically no popular sense of how important labor institutions are to the commonwealth. The same forces that demolished labor have now turned their sites on the government itself. Unsurprisingly, the first target is the confluence of labor and government. It is pretty well obvious that this issue is not about budget deficits, its not about economic recovery, it's merely political positioning based on a "divide and conquer" premise. Walker's "divide and conquer" rhetoric will send a chill down the spine of anyone with meaningful knowledge of the struggle to unionize. What is going on in this case is politics for the sake of politics, and the people be damned.
Evidently the actual citizens - the ones who have to pay for government worker-politican collusion and shared legal bribery - disaqgree with you.
pricate unions have a place. Public unions have no place and are the epitomy of everything that is wrong with the government now.
I'll meet you halfway manchu. You get to go after the ones in business and government who started the mortgage mess, and I get to go after the public union / state government benefit timebomb. Agreed?
To quote the immortal bard: break and attack!
Unions are important, not only for union members, but for the middle class in general, as other jobs tend to keep pace with union wages. What's more, having a strong middle class helps all parts of the economy, as more people have money to spend.
Redbeard wrote:Unions are important, not only for union members, but for the middle class in general, as other jobs tend to keep pace with union wages. What's more, having a strong middle class helps all parts of the economy, as more people have money to spend.
No. We're talking government unions here. Thats a massive difference. Government union wages and benefits now outpace their private counterparts. Their retirement packages are off the scale in comparison to anyone else and are absolute budget killers on a level beyond mortal man.
Frazzled wrote:I'll meet you halfway manchu. You get to go after the ones in business and government who started the mortgage mess, and I get to go after the public union / state government benefit timebomb.
I get to take on the most powerful people on Earth while you tilt at windmills? That doesn't seem fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Government union wages and benefits now outpace their private counterparts. Their retirement packages are off the scale in comparison to anyone else and are absolute budget killers on a level beyond mortal man.
It seems to me that workers protected by "public" unions have better wages and benefits than those protected by "private" ones because people like Walker have already broken the back of the "private" ones. That's why Walker is now going after the "public" ones.
Frazzled wrote:I'll meet you halfway manchu. You get to go after the ones in business and government who started the mortgage mess, and I get to go after the public union / state government benefit timebomb.
I get to take on the most powerful people on Earth while you tilt at windmills? That doesn't seem fair.
This is true. you have a chance against powerful people. I 've never seen a windmill taken out in a joust yet.
Having had to listen to those Recall Walker people for the last year, i am very glad to see that he won both for my political standings and because I dont feel that recall elections should be allowed.
Frazzled wrote:I'll meet you halfway manchu. You get to go after the ones in business and government who started the mortgage mess, and I get to go after the public union / state government benefit timebomb.
I get to take on the most powerful people on Earth while you tilt at windmills? That doesn't seem fair.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Government union wages and benefits now outpace their private counterparts. Their retirement packages are off the scale in comparison to anyone else and are absolute budget killers on a level beyond mortal man.
It seems to me that workers protected by "public" unions have better wages and benefits than those protected by "private" ones because people like Walker have already broken the back of the "private" ones. That's why Walker is now going after the "public" ones.
The difference of course is that the public unions suck off the taxpayers, and the people in charge of their salary are elected and given camapgin contributions by...them. Thats the classic definition of a kickback to a special interest. just like corporate welfare, we can no longer afford this largesse and corruption.
Frazzled wrote:You have a chance against powerful people.
Almost four years after Lehman collapsed, I think we can say that's not true. Or rather, what chance we had was squandered by the President and congressional Democrats.
Redbeard wrote:Unions are important, not only for union members, but for the middle class in general, as other jobs tend to keep pace with union wages. What's more, having a strong middle class helps all parts of the economy, as more people have money to spend.
No. We're talking government unions here. Thats a massive difference. Government union wages and benefits now outpace their private counterparts. Their retirement packages are off the scale in comparison to anyone else and are absolute budget killers on a level beyond mortal man.
Their private counterparts have been falling for decades, American private industry is now predominantly low wage ever since automation killed off high pay low skill manufacturing. The basis of your opinions is wildly off (again). Sure, government union benefits now outpace private, but that's because private benefits are in a race to the bottom as every mom and pop gets to start flipping burgers.
Frazzled wrote:Just like corporate welfare, we can no longer afford this largesse and corruption.
I dunno Frazzled. With corporate welfare, I hear of multi-million dollar bonuses and pensions and vacations to spas, etc. Seems to me cops, fire fighters, grade school teachers, and even your bette noir the DMV employee aren't living it up on taxpayer bucks (or any other bucks for that matter). Methinks the wiener doth protest too much.
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! Goverment unions poured millions in to punish a governor for daring to buck them and got curb stomped. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Government Unions...losers...is there a connection?
YES!
They poured in millions and yet their competition due to gakky Wisconsin election laws poured in SEVEN TIMES AS MUCH MONEY. The election was a forgone conclusion given how corrupt it was.
Frazzled wrote:You have a chance against powerful people.
Almost four years after Lehman collapsed, I think we can say that's not true. Or rather, what chance we had was squandered by the President and congressional Democrats.
Yep. Of course it was, they have to protect their own. Follow the trail and it goes back to a lot of Democrats and Republicans in high places, government mandated policy, lenders who were first pushed then got greedy, entire semi government agencies papering over what the real credit risk was, and bond holders willingly averting their eyes to the law of risk/reward.
Having said that, that aint whats holding down the global ecoomies now and what knocked Europe back into recession. But thats a separate thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Just like corporate welfare, we can no longer afford this largesse and corruption.
I dunno Frazzled. With corporate welfare, I hear of multi-million dollar bonuses and pensions and vacations to spas, etc. Seems to me cops, fire fighters, grade school teachers, and even your bette noir the DMV employee aren't living it up on taxpayer bucks (or any other bucks for that matter). Methinks the wiener doth protest too much.
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
Govenrment unions are a relatively new phenomena in the US, an experiment that has failed.
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
Govenrment unions are a relatively new phenomena in the US, an experiment that has failed.
Is that in a geological scale? Like, they aren't millions of years old? They don't seem that new from where I'm perched.
Firefighter Brian Endicott got an early taste of the pension battle brewing here when a man at the grocery store angrily pointed to the steaks in his cart.
"Who do you think you are, wasting taxpayers' money on a meal like this?" the man yelled at 46-year-old Mr. Endicott, who was shopping for dinner with three other firefighters from San Jose Fire Station No. 1.
Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
How much can the taxpayer afford for the man who will run into his burning house to save him, his family, and his wiener dogs?
If the multi-million dollar bonuses paid out by the banks were taxed at a fair rate, the firefighter might be able to afford a reasonable retirement.
They should strike, let's see how begruding the population becomes when there isn't anyone to stop them being shot or stop their house burning to the ground.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:They should strike, let's see how begruding the population becomes when there isn't anyone to stop them being shot or stop their house burning to the ground.
Will the state let me hire someone to protect my house against it burning into the ground? Or will they maintain that public fire departments are the only ones allowed?
If the former, then we'll get the answer to Redbeard's question:
Redbeard wrote:How much can the taxpayer afford for the man who will run into his burning house to save him, his family, and his wiener dogs?
Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
How much can the taxpayer afford for the man who will run into his burning house to save him, his family, and his wiener dogs?
If the multi-million dollar bonuses paid out by the banks were taxed at a fair rate, the firefighter might be able to afford a reasonable retirement.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:They should strike, let's see how begruding the population becomes when there isn't anyone to stop them being shot or stop their house burning to the ground.
Will the state let me hire someone to protect my house against it burning into the ground? Or will they maintain that public fire departments are the only ones allowed?
If the former, then we'll get the answer to Redbeard's question:
Redbeard wrote:How much can the taxpayer afford for the man who will run into his burning house to save him, his family, and his wiener dogs?
So, when you look to hire this private peacekeeper and life saver, presumably you'll factor in cost?
Because of all the dakka users hereabouts, I want you to save all the money you can in doing it.
Personally don't want competitive pricing to be the deciding factor for the guys being sent into battle with well armed drug cartels or wading into a burning warehouse of chemicals to stop a poisonous cloud descending on my town.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:They should strike, let's see how begruding the population becomes when there isn't anyone to stop them being shot or stop their house burning to the ground.
They can't strike in many states.
Remember, as the ancient Budha said: you will not be missed.
Police and firefighters are one thing frankly, the mouth breathers in the rest are something else entirely. Regardless, states can't afford them any more.
If you're concerned you can always permit police and firefighter unions.
I agree with Frazz like, I fething hate the Unions.
Mother fethers are like the mafia.
A once noble ideal, its gone totally on its head, and they don't exist now to protect the workers, they exist so that scumbag workers cant get fired, and they now abuse their employers!
Thatcher had the right idea.. stove their filthy heads in!
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, when you look to hire this private peacekeeper and life saver, presumably you'll factor in cost?
Does cost somehow not matter when we're talking about publicly provided firefighters? If it's all about the benefit, we should assign 3 firefighters to every street corner to maximize response time.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Because of all the dakka users hereabouts, I want you to save all the money you can in doing it.
I'm glad wishing for another user's death isn't against the rules. The OT would certainly be a less interesting place.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Personally don't want competitive pricing to be the deciding factor for the guys being sent into battle with well armed drug cartels or wading into a burning warehouse of chemicals to stop a poisonous cloud descending on my town.
Pricing is competitive whether it's in the public or private sectors. As long as there exists any private sector the public has to compete against it; whether it's for equipment, employees, or any other resources. The only difference is public sector employees are generally unconcerned with the cost. There's no reason to save money - the taxpayers will always* pick up the tab.
* And if someone ever tries to control costs, hold a recall election. The taxpayers will pay for that too.
I wish you could opt out, sign a waiver so I will never call the police or fire department and not pay as much tax! The firemen in Britain get paid 30k a year for masturbating, going to the gym, and putting a cordon in so they can all watch things burn down.
The Unions said that fire is dangerous, and fighting one is clearly a violation of their human rights.
mattyrm wrote: I agree with Frazz like, I fething hate the Unions.
Mother fethers are like the mafia.
A once noble ideal, its gone totally on its head, and they don't exist now to protect the workers, they exist so that scumbag workers cant get fired, and they now abuse their employers!
Thatcher had the right idea.. stove their filthy heads in!
Hows your economy going there Matty? Made any new well paying jobs since thatcher? Hows your industry going? How's that wealth gap these days? I love how Americans whine about unions when in 40 years virtually every bit of wealth made in this country has gone to the top 10%, people who aren't in unions. Certainly would appear at face value that enforced fair pay is more important than ever. Then again, that koolaid tasted pretty damn good and teachers and firefighters clearly live in opulence while the poor millionaires can't afford to have their taxes go up.
Frazzled wrote:Just like corporate welfare, we can no longer afford this largesse and corruption.
I dunno Frazzled. With corporate welfare, I hear of multi-million dollar bonuses and pensions and vacations to spas, etc. Seems to me cops, fire fighters, grade school teachers, and even your bette noir the DMV employee aren't living it up on taxpayer bucks (or any other bucks for that matter). Methinks the wiener doth protest too much.
A pity, too, because those people deserve it far more than the corporate douchebags who do little more than sit on their asses running their company in to the ground for a few years and then collect their massive executive severance packages and find higher paying jobs somewhere else.
i don't know I got confused. I thought he was in paradise (San Diego) at one point. Then the Queen called about a Falkands something something and he disappeared...
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Personally don't want competitive pricing to be the deciding factor for the guys being sent into battle with well armed drug cartels
Personally, I don't want competitive pricing to be the deciding factor for the guys being sent into battle with drug cartels who are overflowing with money and very, very willing to bribe.
Because if the police force becomes mercenary, then that means that they can be bought by the criminals who they are supposed to be catching.
Frazzled wrote:Just like corporate welfare, we can no longer afford this largesse and corruption.
I dunno Frazzled. With corporate welfare, I hear of multi-million dollar bonuses and pensions and vacations to spas, etc. Seems to me cops, fire fighters, grade school teachers, and even your bette noir the DMV employee aren't living it up on taxpayer bucks (or any other bucks for that matter). Methinks the wiener doth protest too much.
A pity, too, because those people deserve it far more than the corporate douchebags who do little more than sit on their asses running their company in to the ground for a few years and then collect their massive executive severance packages and find higher paying jobs somewhere else.
Thats your problem right there. You think people deserve things.
But if they did I would agree wiht you 10,000%.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Personally don't want competitive pricing to be the deciding factor for the guys being sent into battle with well armed drug cartels
Personally, I don't want competitive pricing to be the deciding factor for the guys being sent into battle with drug cartels who are overflowing with money and very, very willing to bribe.
Because if the police force becomes mercenary, then that means that they can be bought by the criminals who they are supposed to be catching.
Clearly I'm not a millionaire and as a result don't begrudge ordinary working people (I am one!) better conditions, my point is simply that over here it has gone too far the other way and unions have given public sector workers an excuse to flagrantly take the piss!
I showed you that panorama about teachers here right? 28 teachers fired in 30 years, and an estimated 16,000 bad teahcers in the system?!
Thanks to the unions, teachers can feth the students and not get fired.. I personally know a guy who boned a 16 year old student (legal age here, hence no prosectution) and didnt get fired. He just got moved schools.. and he lives with her now.. she's 18 and he is 33.
What's so awesome about that?
Your like me though Shuma, you polarise everything to make a point. I get it, but you fully understand where I am coming from. I want a harmonic balance between workers rights and employers rights. Not an utter inability to fire anyone in the public sector no matter what they do wrong.
Oh and I was in SD for a bit Frazz aye, we went home to see the family, but were back in Yorkshire now.
Your like me though Shuma, you polarise everything to make a point. I get it, but you fully understand where I am coming from. I want a harmonic balance between workers rights and employers rights. Not an utter inability to fire anyone in the public sector no matter what they do wrong.
Which isn't what the people you are siding with want. It's not what Walker wanted and it isn't what he did. You don't ensure fair pay and a measured working economy by defeating unions, they exist to prevent exactly what has occurred in this country over the last forty years, that being the death of affordable wages and the rise of an oligarchy. That's why we're on such starkly opposite sides. You don't seem to care who you're rubbing elbows with because you feel like taking a stand whereas I'm on an island hating everyone alone. There is certainly graft in the system, but it's hardly what is tanking our economy, it's not even a particularly large drop in the bucket. It's just a bs sideshow so that conservatives can pretend they're doing something to help while giving the keys away to the real villains.
Oddly enough, no. America's police force is pretty loyal to the common person's interest at the moment. If you had ever been to Mexico, you'd know the difference between a good police force and a corrupt one. The police here just want to enforce the law and protect people, for the most part. The police in Mexico... are often working for the drug cartels more than they are the government.
mattyrm wrote: Clearly I'm not a millionaire and as a result don't begrudge ordinary working people (I am one!) better conditions, my point is simply that over here it has gone too far the other way and unions have given public sector workers an excuse to flagrantly take the piss!
I showed you that panorama about teachers here right? 28 teachers fired in 30 years, and an estimated 16,000 bad teahcers in the system?!
Thanks to the unions, teachers can feth the students and not get fired.. I personally know a guy who boned a 16 year old student (legal age here, hence no prosectution) and didnt get fired. He just got moved schools.. and he lives with her now.. she's 18 and he is 33.
What's so awesome about that?
Your like me though Shuma, you polarise everything to make a point. I get it, but you fully understand where I am coming from. I want a harmonic balance between workers rights and employers rights. Not an utter inability to fire anyone in the public sector no matter what they do wrong.
Oh and I was in SD for a bit Frazz aye, we went home to see the family, but were back in Yorkshire now.
So are you on standby for the Olympics? And by that I mean have they carted a dreadnought main gun to a secret location, and have you loaded in the breech with a stilleto in your teeth and a bottle of Scotch in each hadn, ready to be literally fired at the scene.
"We've got Terrorists on the Thames?"
"Fire the Matty Gun!"
BWOOSH.
Your like me though Shuma, you polarise everything to make a point. I get it, but you fully understand where I am coming from. I want a harmonic balance between workers rights and employers rights. Not an utter inability to fire anyone in the public sector no matter what they do wrong.
Which isn't what the people you are siding with want. It's not what Walker wanted and it isn't what he did. That's why we're on such starkly opposite sides. You don't seem to care who you're rubbing elbows with because you feel like taking a stand.
I can see how the lines got blurred here, your talking US politics and I waded in with more regards to the UK and there is a big difference, our conservatives are slightly more left wing than your democrats!
My fault, I shouldn't have opened my trap, I was agreeing with Frazz regards my general sentiment towards unions but basing it off how things work here. I'm ignorant of the facts regarding the issue in the US other than what I have seen on TV shows..and Gov Walker I know next to feth all about as well, I just presumed it would be more or less the same (unions) regards workers rights and how local government basically cant fire even the most inept/criminally negligent staff member.
Firefighter Brian Endicott got an early taste of the pension battle brewing here when a man at the grocery store angrily pointed to the steaks in his cart.
"Who do you think you are, wasting taxpayers' money on a meal like this?" the man yelled at 46-year-old Mr. Endicott, who was shopping for dinner with three other firefighters from San Jose Fire Station No. 1.
Somehow, I think the American people might not be focused on the right problem ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577438452821346064.html They forgot to write down the firefighters reply which should have been suitably chastising. San Jose dug their own hole by offering 90% pensions. They did that willingly and not by union pressure. So in my mind, feth the city of San Jose.
mattyrm wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
My house has volunteer firefighters actually...
I wish you could opt out, sign a waiver so I will never call the police or fire department and not pay as much tax! The firemen in Britain get paid 30k a year for masturbating, going to the gym, and putting a cordon in so they can all watch things burn down.
The Unions said that fire is dangerous, and fighting one is clearly a violation of their human rights.
I want to believe you are joking, but have suspicions you may not be.
There ARE places you can opt out of certain services. A couple years ago I visited some family who live in Great Falls, MT. On the 4th of July a house up the street burned down, while the GFFD watched. The area they live in is surrounded by the city, but is unincorporated and they did not pay the dues the FD requires to provide service. It's sort of understandable on one hand and seems so utterly wrong on the other. There are similar situations that I know of in other places.
That said I'm fairly ambivalent about unions. On the one hand they provide a service for the working and middle class and exist to protect thier rights and wages. On the other some unions, especially the public ones, demand more and more when there is nothing to give and abuse the power they have. I'd wager that when the dockworkers for Toyota struck none of you noticed, but if all city services stopped for a day their would be marching in the streets. I'm pro union, I'm even pro public union; but collective bargaining between public unions and the populations they SERVE need to be reasonable and fiscally responsible. The truth is both side have ground to give and often those who are supposed to bargain in the best interest of their municipality fail to make an even token effort.
Public Safety unions operate differently than Public Worker unions, attacking Frazz for saying Government Unions are losers and attempting to link Police and Fire Fighters to the issue is disingenuous at best. The Legislation Walker presented exempted Public Safety Workers who retain collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin with the exception of Capitol and University police. The Unions he was referring to were the ones who protested and cried out for Walkers recall, most notably the AFL-CIO or more correctly the largest Union IN the AFL-CIO: The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Public Safety Unions are a part of the AFL-CIO and largely opposed Walker in the election, but they had nothing to lose. The losers here certainly weren't public safety workers. Should public safety workers ever decide to strike their unions will lose any public sympathy they have if the communities they serve experience crime waves or disasters that those workers are supposed to prevent and mitigate. It is also illegal in many places.
Even with the public unions, many public workers are underpaid.
I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers (and professors at private colleges) are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
Melissia wrote:Even with the public unions, many public workers are underpaid.
I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers (and professors at private colleges) are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
If that were the case they wouldn't be working there. To be logical one would have to assume a basic form of insanity on the part of those being underpaid.
Melissia wrote:Even with the public unions, many public workers are underpaid.
I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers (and professors at private colleges) are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
If that were the case they wouldn't be working there. To be logical one would have to assume a basic form of insanity on the part of those being underpaid.
That's a brutal oversimplification and you know it.
Melissia wrote:I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
I omitted the part about private colleges from quote, the table doesn't cover that. If you intended to include private vs. public professors in your calculation, let me know and I'll supplement this post.
Melissia wrote:Even with the public unions, many public workers are underpaid.
I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers (and professors at private colleges) are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
If that were the case they wouldn't be working there. To be logical one would have to assume a basic form of insanity on the part of those being underpaid.
That's a brutal oversimplification and you know it.
Of course it is, but its an oversimplified original statement. People work at a position because: 1) they like the salary and benefits; 2) they like the environment including security of a position; 3) there's no comparable position somewhere else that offers better factors.
Melissia wrote:Even with the public unions, many public workers are underpaid.
I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers (and professors at private colleges) are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
ChainswordHeretic wrote:Can we stop talking about police and firefighters, they were not part of the bill that passed, and have retained there colective bargining rights.
ChainswordHeretic wrote:Can we stop talking about police and firefighters, they were not part of the bill that passed, and have retained there colective bargining rights.
You're kidding
Walker's original reforms specifically exempted public safety unions. But his later budget allowed local governments, at their discretion, to impose some changes to their public unions - such as paying a greater portion of their health insurance, etc.
It's important to remember, as Democrats cope with their failure to topple Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in Tuesday's recall, that this was a fight they chose.
Unlike the vast majority of elections, which occur on a regular schedule, the recall was a fight the left picked on purpose. They picked it because they thought they could win. And they were wrong.
It wasn't even close. In the final tally, Walker led his Democratic opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, by 53 percent to 46 percent.
The idea behind the recall effort was to send a message: a warning to conservatives across the country that there was a line not to be crossed when it came to messing with the hard-earned gains of public worker unions. By losing, however, the consortium of unions, progressives and Democrats that worked so ardently to send Walker packing may have sent the opposite message. If Walker can survive, what's to stop any other right-leaning governor from pushing the envelope?
Tactically, I think the left had a good fight, at least initially. There was popular opposition to Walker's reforms. But then the recall process dragged on, well into the actual reforms that Walker pursued. When people saw the sky wasn't falling, they may have had a change of heart.
The union protestors acting like children certainly didn't help.
Tactically, I think the left had a good fight, at least initially. There was popular opposition to Walker's reforms. But then the recall process dragged on, well into the actual reforms that Walker pursued. When people saw the sky wasn't falling, they may have had a change of heart.
The union protestors acting like children certainly didn't help.
The sheer lopsided monetary contributions did more than any other factor to contribute to walker retaining his position. More then any personality conflicts, silly branding, or lack of a falling sky. It's likely that without a seven to one ratio of campaign funding when compared to his opponent he would have lost. He's not on a good track to maintaining his seat in the coming actual election, but who knows how strongly this dispirits the democratic voterbase. It could be a totally different race by then.
ChainswordHeretic wrote:Can we stop talking about police and firefighters, they were not part of the bill that passed, and have retained there colective bargining rights.
You're kidding
Walker's original reforms specifically exempted public safety unions. But his later budget allowed local governments, at their discretion, to impose some changes to their public unions - such as paying a greater portion of their health insurance, etc.
I was being facetious.
AustonT wrote:attempting to link Police and Fire Fighters to the issue is disingenuous at best. The Legislation Walker presented exempted Public Safety Workers who retain collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin with the exception of Capitol and University police.
Spending eight times as much money as the other guy = win.
Fun times for all, I wonder if I'll ever get rich enough to buy myself a governorship? Okay, not of Texas as the Texas governor is weak as hell, but maybe the Lt Gov.... I could use it to reform our mentally challenged board of education and kick out a the idiots in it and replace it with people who aren't trying to push through revisionist history. Seeing as our government doesn't give a damn about the BoE blatantly lying to our children, it might be one of the only ways to force a change.
Melissia wrote:Spending eight times as much money as the other guy = win.
I remember when liberals were upset about money in politics in '08...good times man, good times.
Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote:My reaction to this thread:
Yeah, "Please God no, don't let the people of Wisconsin (re)elect the Governor they want. They should have elected the guy I want."
Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
It was four to one, and that's about half of the disparity this time around (walker outspent his opponant about 7-1). Is uneven political spending on an accelerating curve? Is the 2020 election going to involve one of the candidates buying a car for everyone on earth? Nothing buys politics quite like loads and loads of money!
AustonT wrote:Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Who?
In 2008's presidential elections, the Dems spent about 57% of the money raised for the last election, while the Reps spent about 42%-- and that was the biggest difference I could find in recent history, the average being about 54-45 for one side or the other. And I don't think any time in recent history has the latter part of your statement been true. In 2008, a total of ~5.2 billion was spent, 3.0 by the dems while in 2004, a total of 4.2 billion was spent. And that was about the biggest difference I could find.
Unless you're referring to congressional or something?
AustonT wrote:Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Who?
In 2008's presidential elections, the Dems spent about 57% of the money raised for the last election, while the Reps spent about 42%-- and that was the biggest difference I could find in recent history, the average being about 54-45 for one side or the other. And I don't think any time in recent history has the latter part of your statement been true. In 2008, a total of ~5.2 billion was spent, 3.0 by the dems while in 2004, a total of 4.2 billion was spent. And that was about the biggest difference I could find.
Unless you're referring to congressional or something?
Of course, this is ignoring things like SuperPACs which in the 08 cycle were largely conservative tools and reeeaaallly helped to even out the actual dollars spent in advertising between the candidates. Those wacky PACS threw out an obscene amount of money.
AustonT wrote:Man who do I know that outspent his opponent 2:1 in an election and spent more than the combined amount of both candidates in the previous election cycle...
Who?
In 2008's presidential elections, the Dems spent about 57% of the money raised for the last election, while the Reps spent about 42%-- and that was the biggest difference I could find in recent history, the average being about 54-45 for one side or the other. And I don't think any time in recent history has the latter part of your statement been true. In 2008, a total of ~5.2 billion was spent, 3.0 by the dems while in 2004, a total of 4.2 billion was spent. And that was about the biggest difference I could find.
Unless you're referring to congressional or something?
Of course, this is ignoring things like SuperPACs which in the 08 cycle were largely conservative tools and reeeaaallly helped to even out the actual dollars spent in advertising between the candidates. Those wacky PACS threw out an obscene amount of money.
As of February 2012, according to Center for Responsive Politics, 313 groups organized as Super PACs had received $98,650,993 and spent $46,191,479. This means early in the 2012 election cycle, PACs had already greatly exceeded total receipts of 2008.
If all PACs spent "greatly" less than 46M in 2008 and not all PACs were aligned with McCain they didn't close the gap by much.
If all PACs spent "greatly" less than 46M in 2008 and not all PACs were aligned with McCain they didn't close the gap by much.
I was under the impression that PAC funding was difficult to accurately gauge.
Won't claim to be all knowing but I believe the issue with PACs is where it comes FROM not where it goes TO. IIRC the issue is they don't have to disclose their contributors.
biccat wrote:
According to NPR, he was the first governor to survive a recall election.
Since only 2 (3 if you count Mecham) governors have ever faced recall elections, as distinct from recall votes, I'm not sure that's terribly important.
Easy E wrote:I am expecting "Walker for President in 2016" anyday now.
Won't happen. His home state is too...we'll say conflicted regarding him vis. the present Democrat.
Manchu wrote:The same forces that demolished labor have now turned their sites on the government itself. Unsurprisingly, the first target is the confluence of labor and government.
Funny, because those forces have really only pushed more labor to the government. I make a very good living because of this, and many like me do the same. Of course, in the past I would have been employed by the state, rather than by an independent contractor (fun fact: Reagan had more employees than Obama), but the end result is a person drawing a cheque from the political process; whether local, state, or federal.
mattyrm wrote: I agree with Frazz like, I fething hate the Unions.
Mother fethers are like the mafia.
That's the point. Sort of like how you fight wars with armies, and not men. Or win elections with the body politic, and not voters.
Frazzled wrote:
My house has volunteer firefighters actually...
And if they're like most volunteers they suck at what they mean to do.
Also, going into mortal danger without monetary compensation breeds cowardice.
Redbeard wrote:Unions are important, not only for union members, but for the middle class in general, as other jobs tend to keep pace with union wages. What's more, having a strong middle class helps all parts of the economy, as more people have money to spend.
Not going to throw my politics in the ring here, just commenting on science and statistics. This graph is absolute bull
This is a correlation. It shows the relationship of two variables in relation to one independent variable. In this case, it is union membership and middle class income in relation to time.
Correlations do not prove there is any relationship between the two Y axis variables. Correlations just show that both variables are being influenced by a common variable.
Correlation example:The earth and the moon orbit the sun.
Correct, both do, so both share a common variable(orbit of the sun).
A REGRESSION is when one thing directly influences one other thing.
An incorrect regression to draw about my previous correlation would be this.-The moon causes the earth to orbit the sun. This is of course nonsense, as both are being influenced by the gravity of the sun, and the moon is locked in orbit around earth by the gravity of earth. The correlation provided no logical argument for the regression, and the regression is therefore non sequitur. Gravity is not even mentioned in the correlation.
Another quick one(made up) People who wear red hats are more likely to go swimming. If this was a true correlation, this by no means proves the regression-Wearing a red had will cause you to go swimming.
To say that union membership and middle class wages are both in decline is correct based on the graph. To say that over time union membership and middle class wages are decreasing is correct. To say that the decrease of middle class wages is caused by the decline in union membership is a completely false statement.
Close correlation still does not prove causation. It is arguable, but is not provable fact.
Yes, a regression can be presented as a hypothesis, but is by no means absolute truth.
Manchu wrote:Thanks to billions of lobbying dollars over the course of decades, there is basically no popular sense of how important labor institutions are to the commonwealth. The same forces that demolished labor have now turned their sites on the government itself. Unsurprisingly, the first target is the confluence of labor and government. It is pretty well obvious that this issue is not about budget deficits, its not about economic recovery, it's merely political positioning based on a "divide and conquer" premise. Walker's "divide and conquer" rhetoric will send a chill down the spine of anyone with meaningful knowledge of the struggle to unionize. What is going on in this case is politics for the sake of politics, and the people be damned.
I'm well aware of why Walker went on his attack on the unions, and know it had nothing to do with ensuring a balanced budget.
But ultimately you have to look at how much outrage over his attack on the unions was sustained - not much. Now you can claim that's because people have spent money to convince people that unions are bad, but you can only sell something people have some chance of buying (after all, there was plenty of money spent advertising New Coke). Convincing people that unions are corrupt and deal largely in luxurious deals for a connected purple circle, while delivering little to the general membership is not such a hard sell, because it's frequently true.
Now, there's always fertile ground in unfair working conditions, I'm not saying the left should surrender that issue at all. I'm saying it's adding a second part to that 'there's unfair working conditions and unions are part of the solution' is a much harder sell, in large part because unions haven't been a part of the solution in many industries for a long time. So maybe it is time to look at other possible solutions, industry committees, arbitration panels and the like.
Of course, I'm only speaking generally, and I realise the difficulty of actually uncoupling the political left from the unions, given how important union money is to the Democrats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:Unions are important, not only for union members, but for the middle class in general, as other jobs tend to keep pace with union wages. What's more, having a strong middle class helps all parts of the economy, as more people have money to spend.
That graph is very misleading, as it looks only at the US. Elsewhere in the world the same decline in union memberships have been exhibited, without the same decline in middle class incomes (which is a particularly American phenomenom). It's really not that different to the infamous pirates and world temperature graph.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Will the state let me hire someone to protect my house against it burning into the ground? Or will they maintain that public fire departments are the only ones allowed?
Are you actually, honestly arguing that private fire departments are a practical, sensible consideration. Have ever, ever read any history at all?
You're like this tiny little ball of ideology that exists in a complete vacuum of knowledge of how the world actually works.
Frazzled wrote:My house has volunteer firefighters actually...
I've been a volunteer firefighter, actually. And it's a good system when you're dealing with small scrub fires in open bushland, because it's the only system that's cost effective.
But when you increase the population density, and so increase the number of house fires, you really, really need people who know what the hell they're doing, because they do this for a living. And you need that core of professional fire fighters for when a scrub fire gets really big, and you need professional people on the ground controlling volunteer groups, calling in helicopter drops and aircraft drops.
So if you're making the argument that you could just do with volunteers and save some taxpayers dollars... just don't. It's a silly argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Remember, as the ancient Budha said: you will not be missed.
Police and firefighters are one thing frankly, the mouth breathers in the rest are something else entirely. Regardless, states can't afford them any more.
And here we see 'starve the beast' reaching it's final stage. It's all a complete lie, of course. As I've posted here before government spending is pretty much bang on it's historical average, at about 21%. It's just that government revenue is down, at about 18.5% compared to a historic average around 20.5%.
So yeah, you can afford all the government services you've always had, if you were willing to man up and pay the tax bill previous generation were willing to pay.
Frazzled wrote:
Evidently the actual citizens - the ones who have to pay for government worker-politican collusion and shared legal bribery - disaqgree with you.
Worker politician collusion!?! In my democracy?!? Never!
The entire system that we live in is based on collusion between workers and politicians.
biccat wrote:Pricing is competitive whether it's in the public or private sectors. As long as there exists any private sector the public has to compete against it; whether it's for equipment, employees, or any other resources. The only difference is public sector employees are generally unconcerned with the cost. There's no reason to save money - the taxpayers will always* pick up the tab.
This is, of course, a complete and utter load of nonsense. Governments that see costs drift out without any improvement in services are voted out, in exactly the same way as a board of directors will be. In both cases they look to control costs in their organisations using almost exactly the same mechanisms.
I know this because I happened to have worked in both corporate and government organisations, and used almost identical methods of control in each.
You don't know this because you just like to make up silliness that matches your ideology, and never bother to check if any of it actually reflects how the world works.
Frazzled wrote:People work at a position because: 1) they like the salary and benefits; 2) they like the environment including security of a position; 3) there's no comparable position somewhere else that offers better factors.
Its a big reason there's heavy burnout.
No, while those are reasons why someone might work at a position, but in this enlightened age you must plan for such conditions; which means you must want such conditions. Wanting being a thing connected to emotion, once must consider the emotional reasons someone would want a job. For example: prestige, honor, satisfaction, etc.
The followup will, of course, be that emotion doesn't matter; from the single most emotional man on this board.
dogma wrote:Sure it is. How do you think we know what the speed of light is?
You're basically taking the same line of argument that Young Earthers do, which reduces the concept of proof to nonexistence.
Hmmm... I really don't want to come in on the same side of the argument as the guy who got the meaning of regression wrong, but...
The point is that establishing causation needs more than a single point of evidence. For correlation to prove causation you would need to study other countries, and determine whether a correlation existed. So, look at the UK, Australia and some others, and see if declining union memberships led to similar falls in the middle class income share.
The problem is that while we've also had declining union memberships, we haven't had the same fall in middle class income share. Studies will show are middle classes were paid much less than yours back then, but have since caught up to be more or less where yours is today. The issue might just be that the US in the 1970s saw a unique, ahistoric height for middle class incomes, and that it is unlikely they'll be matched again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I'm wondering where people are prevented from hiring their own fire protection services.
They're prevented from doing so by common sense and reason. These are things that have rarely had any place in biccat's theories about the world and why it's unfair to rich people, so it's no surprise he missed it in his complaint.
sebster wrote:So yeah, you can afford all the government services you've always had, if you were willing to man up and pay the tax bill previous generation were willing to pay.
I wonder if I should sig this...
But basically, yes, this. The constant attack on the tax rate has lowered government income to the point where the difference between income and spending becomes noticeable
sebster wrote:
The point is that establishing causation needs more than a single point of evidence.
Sure, but the forum trope involves dropping the distinction between correlation and causation without really knowing what it means, which is what I was commenting on.
sebster wrote:
These are things that have rarely had any place in biccat's theories about the world...
Tyranny is any instance in which someone prevents you from doing what you want.
dogma wrote:Sure, but the forum trope involves dropping the distinction between correlation and causation without really knowing what it means, which is what I was commenting on.
Ah, fair enough then.
Tyranny is any instance in which someone prevents you from doing what you want.
Melissia wrote:Even with the public unions, many public workers are underpaid.
I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers (and professors at private colleges) are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
I have been a Wisconsin teacher in both the public and private sector (college level/adult education classes.). I make a third of what public school teachers make working in the private sector, have nowhere near the super sweet benefits public employees get and certainly not the sweet, sweet pension.
Wisconsin public employees (with the same education level and position as a private sector employee) have pension costs that are 4 times that of public sector employees and benefit costs that are now only 2 times that of public sector employees.
In the particular town I live in the average school teacher is paid around $40/hr (yes, they are one of the highest in the state.) We were able to get this figure when the school district punished 10 employees for falsely calling in sick to go throw their temper tantrum in Madison for a few days and we discovered the savings to the city for just 3 days of missed work for these folks.
Clearly the quoted statement is not entirely true.
sarcastro01 wrote:I have been a Wisconsin teacher in both the public and private sector (college level/adult education classes.). I make a third of what public school teachers make working in the private sector,
Yeah, I don't buy this.
US Department of Labor wrote:In 2006–07, faculty salaries averaged $84,249 in private independent institutions, $71,362 in public institutions, and $66,118 in religiously affiliated private colleges and universities.
[for 2007-2009]
Faculty salaries across all ranks averaged $77,009 at public institutions (a 3.1% one-year increase) while faculty at private/independent institutions received an average salary of $92,257 (up 4.0%). Faculty at the subset of church-related colleges and universities earned on average a much lower salary of $71,857 (a 3.9% one-year increase).
(As an aside, women who are full professors get paid a full 11% less than men of the same qualifications and experience in the education field, which rather disproves the idea that these institutions are somehow "liberal")
dogma wrote:I'm wondering where people are prevented from hiring their own fire protection services.
Not only can we not have private fire protection, we can't even have volunteer fire fighters. The issue has been raised many times, each time with the firefighters union objecting. Because if we use fire protection services other than the city services, some firefighters might be laid off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sarcastro01 wrote:
Melissia wrote:I mean hell, as notorious as teachers unions are, private school teachers (and professors at private colleges) are STILL paid more for a job that is generally considered easier and more pleasant than public schools/colleges.
Clearly the quoted statement is not entirely true.
See the link I posted on page 2 or so. In no category are public teachers paid less (overall) than their private counterparts.
Private teachers do get paid a little more in supplemental contracts ("compensation for extracurricular or additional activities such as coaching, student activity sponsorship, or teaching evening classes"), but not much.
Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
Govenrment unions are a relatively new phenomena in the US, an experiment that has failed.
According to this, there are 278,300 paid firefighters in the US...that's $83.4bn by my maths.
Then take into account rent, running costs, pensions etc...
Yeah, bs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
dogma wrote:I'm wondering where people are prevented from hiring their own fire protection services.
Not only can we not have private fire protection, we can't even have volunteer fire fighters. The issue has been raised many times, each time with the firefighters union objecting. Because if we use fire protection services other than the city services, some firefighters might be laid off.
You can have volunteer fire fighters if you like
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
(As an aside, women who are full professors get paid a full 11% less than men of the same qualifications and experience in the education field, which rather disproves the idea that these institutions are somehow "liberal")
What evidence do you have that ALL of the women doing those jobs are of equal merit to men?
That's an average, so some will be better, some will be worse.
biccat wrote:
Not only can we not have private fire protection, we can't even have volunteer fire fighters. The issue has been raised many times, each time with the firefighters union objecting. Because if we use fire protection services other than the city services, some firefighters might be laid off.
Well played on their part, then. One must protect one's living.
Testify wrote:
You can have volunteer fire fighters if you like
Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
Govenrment unions are a relatively new phenomena in the US, an experiment that has failed.
According to this, there are 278,300 paid firefighters in the US...that's $83.4bn by my maths.
Then take into account rent, running costs, pensions etc...
Yeah, bs.
You don't think to separate things do you. You don't need a union to have firefighters.
Again, as noted, this really isn't even about firefighters. Thats a smokescreen for government unions and bureaucrats whenever reducing the growth of spenidng comes up.
"We'll have to layoff cops!!"
"No. Just fire half the people who aren't cops."
"But..cops!"
Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
Govenrment unions are a relatively new phenomena in the US, an experiment that has failed.
According to this, there are 278,300 paid firefighters in the US...that's $83.4bn by my maths.
Then take into account rent, running costs, pensions etc...
Yeah, bs.
You don't think to separate things do you. You don't need a union to have firefighters.
Again, as noted, this really isn't even about firefighters. Thats a smokescreen for government unions and bureaucrats whenever reducing the growth of spenidng comes up.
"We'll have to layoff cops!!"
"No. Just fire half the people who aren't cops."
"But..cops!"
What?
If firefighters want to be in a union, why shouldn't they be? People in dangerous professions tend to unionise much more anyway (hence coal miners being highly unionised, in the UK anyway).
Frazzled wrote:
You must have missed the GSA fiasco and firefighters retiring on $300,000 a year. Hey I respect that and would get it if I could. but the taxpayer can't afford it.
Govenrment unions are a relatively new phenomena in the US, an experiment that has failed.
According to this, there are 278,300 paid firefighters in the US...that's $83.4bn by my maths.
Then take into account rent, running costs, pensions etc...
Yeah, bs.
You don't think to separate things do you. You don't need a union to have firefighters.
Again, as noted, this really isn't even about firefighters. Thats a smokescreen for government unions and bureaucrats whenever reducing the growth of spenidng comes up.
"We'll have to layoff cops!!"
"No. Just fire half the people who aren't cops."
"But..cops!"
What?
If firefighters want to be in a union, why shouldn't they be? People in dangerous professions tend to unionise much more anyway (hence coal miners being highly unionised, in the UK anyway).
because they work for the govenrment and get paid by the taxpayers. if even FDR was against it then there's something wrong with the idea.
I'm torn. While I'm generally pro-union I don't much care for Walker and his actions. I've always been of the opinion that unions are just as corrupt as management, but at least the Union makes the pretense of being on your side.
That said, I do love the cynicism and despair caused by this failed recall attempt.
Frazzled wrote:
because they work for the govenrment and get paid by the taxpayers. if even FDR was against it then there's something wrong with the idea.
So anyone who's an employee of the state is not entitled to any workplace rights whatsoever? Then no one would ever work for the state.
Testify wrote:What evidence do you have that ALL of the women doing those jobs are of equal merit to men?
That's an average, so some will be better, some will be worse.
What evidence do you have that women, on average, do jobs of less merit than men?
Testify wrote:What evidence do you have that ALL of the women doing those jobs are of equal merit to men?
That's an average, so some will be better, some will be worse.
What evidence do you have that women, on average, do jobs of less merit than men?
None.
Well I have evidence that they're paid 15% less...people who're paid less are probably doing a worse job.
People don't get paid according to how much their bosses like them.
Testify wrote:What evidence do you have that ALL of the women doing those jobs are of equal merit to men? That's an average, so some will be better, some will be worse.
What evidence do you have that women, on average, do jobs of less merit than men?
None.
Well I have evidence that they're paid 15% less...people who're paid less are probably doing a worse job. People don't get paid according to how much their bosses like them.
By that reasoning, the reason that we kept blacks as slaves is because blacks aren't good at anything other than slave labor.
IE, it's stupid reasoning, because payment rendered is not an actual indication of the value of one's contributions.
Frazzled wrote:
because they work for the govenrment and get paid by the taxpayers. if even FDR was against it then there's something wrong with the idea.
So anyone who's an employee of the state is not entitled to any workplace rights whatsoever? Then no one would ever work for the state.
They had a slew of workplace rights before and will after. Hell a government job and its benefits is an adjudicable legal right that non public employees don't have.
Testify wrote:What evidence do you have that ALL of the women doing those jobs are of equal merit to men?
That's an average, so some will be better, some will be worse.
What evidence do you have that women, on average, do jobs of less merit than men?
None.
Well I have evidence that they're paid 15% less...people who're paid less are probably doing a worse job.
People don't get paid according to how much their bosses like them.
Not only is that sexist, but it shows you have little to no grasp on how economics works or gender issues.
Hell, if compensation is the only indicator of value, then the Polio vaccine was utterly worthless (Jonas Salk, the scientist who developed it, shared it with the entire world free of charge).
dajobe wrote:Coal Miners Unions are like the Grey Knights of unions...
Nah, surely the Teamsters are the GKs of unions.
Not really. The GK book doesn't have obvious glaring weaknesses. Teamsters are frequently weak in many areas, national only has power because of the numbers they can claim to bring to bear. Teamsters was so bad at my Dad's shop they voted them out, getting 90% of a shop to vote out a well known union is no small feat. Apparently its been happening a lot of places.
Melissia wrote:By that reasoning, the reason that we kept blacks as slaves is because blacks aren't good at anything other than slave labor.
IE, it's stupid reasoning, because payment rendered is not an actual indication of the value of one's contributions.
In a free market economy it is.
Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive. You can argue for or against redistributive taxation on top of that, but if you're being paid less there's probably a reason for it.
Frazzled wrote:
They had a slew of workplace rights before and will after. Hell a government job and its benefits is an adjudicable legal right that non public employees don't have.
Right, and unions enforce those rights in the workplace.
Without a union, it's entirely possible (and this DOES happen) for your boss to ask you to break the law, or breach your contract, or act unethically. Without the legal help from a union, it's do as your bosses say or get the sack.
In my old workplace at a warehouse, I seriously doubt health and safety would have been so stringently enforced were it not for a strong union presence.
Testify wrote:
Right, and unions enforce those rights in the workplace.
Without a union, it's entirely possible (and this DOES happen) for your boss to ask you to break the law, or breach your contract, or act unethically. Without the legal help from a union, it's do as your bosses say or get the sack.
In my old workplace at a warehouse, I seriously doubt health and safety would have been so stringently enforced were it not for a strong union presence.
Bull gak, utter and complete bull gak. We are talking about public employees. If they are asked to break the law or act unethically they are protected by the Whistleblowers Act and REQUIRED TO report it. The governments treatment of public workers is in the public eye constantly, they do not require the protection of Unions. In this day and age youtube and the media are better advocates.
Frazzled wrote:
They had a slew of workplace rights before and will after. Hell a government job and its benefits is an adjudicable legal right that non public employees don't have.
Right, and unions enforce those rights in the workplace.
Without a union, it's entirely possible (and this DOES happen) for your boss to ask you to break the law, or breach your contract, or act unethically. Without the legal help from a union, it's do as your bosses say or get the sack.
In my old workplace at a warehouse, I seriously doubt health and safety would have been so stringently enforced were it not for a strong union presence.
Not even going to touch your first point with a 10' pole...
As to the second, there are a variety of non-union methods for dealing with both circumstances you describe.
For instance, I'm a non-union employee, working as a contractor to the Department of Justice. I'm not a government employee, mind, so I don't get any of their 'perks' or anything (I use that term loosely, mind). If my boss asked me to do something illegal, breach my contract or act unethically, there are hotlines I can use to report him. If he tries to fire me, there are documented policies on how and why that can happen. If he fires me for not doing something illegal, I can sue the crap outta the company for wrongful firing. If he's dumb enough to actually use email to ask, well, then there's really not much else I need to do.
And I worked in a warehouse also. If your workplace environment isn't up to snuff, or you feel it's not safe, you can go to OSHA, who are usually happy to send someone to check it out. I've found most companies, however, are quite happy to stick to safety standards, as it reduces the chances of them losing their pants in a lawsuit.
A real "free market economy" does not exist, and has never existed, and will never exist.
We certainly don't have one now.
Testify wrote:Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive.
Cleaners are far more productive than Bankers are, and their production is far more valuable to society than that of Bankers. That the value is not compensated as much doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Testify wrote:but if you're being paid less there's probably a reason for it.
Bigotry, misogynism, tradition, idiocy on the part of the employer, stupidity on the part of our culture, and other such wonderful reasons.
Melissia wrote:By that reasoning, the reason that we kept blacks as slaves is because blacks aren't good at anything other than slave labor.
IE, it's stupid reasoning, because payment rendered is not an actual indication of the value of one's contributions.
In a free market economy it is. Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive. You can argue for or against redistributive taxation on top of that, but if you're being paid less there's probably a reason for it.
Ahh, so having a trust fund in dividend giving investments and living off of monthly checks while playing Halo and sleeping all day makes your contribution worth more than a Soldiers because of the monetary evaluation of your income level. Brilliant. That is the smartest thing I have ever heard. Wealth is a direct result of the value of effort and all forms of paying work are equally legitimate in a function based on their compensation. I should go deal drugs, I'll be worth something to society. I'd better watch out though, I might have to work at a sweatshop and then I'd be unproductive aaaaaand poor.
A real "free market economy" does not exist, and has never existed, and will never exist.
We certainly don't have one now.
Testify wrote:Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive.
Cleaners are far more productive than Bankers are, and their production is far more valuable to society than that of Bankers. That the value is not compensated as much doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Testify wrote:but if you're being paid less there's probably a reason for it.
Bigotry, misogynism, tradition, idiocy on the part of the employer, stupidity on the part of our culture, and other such wonderful reasons.
Frazzled wrote:I see Melissia is the authority on value...why?
And you want to claim that the free market is an authority on value?
How can something that doesn't exist be an authority on anything?
Answer the question. How are you the authority on value?
In this instance. Cleaners require no advanced skillset. Capital outlay is moderate. Their product would not be considered a necessity. PLus they are evil according to tree huggers because they are inherently harmful to the environment.
Testify wrote:Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive.
Cleaners are far more productive than Bankers are, and their production is far more valuable to society than that of Bankers. That the value is not compensated as much doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Either you dont know what bankers do, or you are letting your dislike of money making capitalists cloud your reasoning. Without banking we would all have mattresses full of cash. Companies would not exist on the scale they do and we could not live at our current standard because banks finance many companies in the US and across the world. So while cleaners may provide a physical service, bankers do more for your everyday life even if they are sometimes "evil"
also, the reason some people get paid more than soldiers, is because of the education and qualifications required to do the higher paying jobs, while many lower jobs can be completed with less training and education, thus they are paid less unless there are other factors such as danger or something that will result in a pay increase, I am not insulting soldiers or other lower paying jobs, just saying why some jobs that you "sit around all day" pay more
Testify wrote:Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive.
Cleaners are far more productive than Bankers are, and their production is far more valuable to society than that of Bankers. That the value is not compensated as much doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Either you dont know what bankers do, or you are letting your dislike of money making capitalists cloud your reasoning. Without banking we would all have mattresses full of cash. Companies would not exist on the scale they do and we could not live at our current standard because banks finance many companies in the US and across the world. So while cleaners may provide a physical service, bankers do more for your everyday life even if they are sometimes "evil"
also, the reason some people get paid more than soldiers, is because of the education and qualifications required to do the higher paying jobs, while many lower jobs can be completed with less training and education, thus they are paid less unless there are other factors such as danger or something that will result in a pay increase, I am not insulting soldiers or other lower paying jobs, just saying why some jobs that you "sit around all day" pay more
That doesn't actually explain the degree in differentiation in personal recompense between someone like a soldier and someone like a hedge fund general manager. The general manager will, in theory, have more training. The difference in personal worth via experiential learning however is not a multiple in the tens of thousands like pay scale might suggest. The financial sectors capacity for aggregating wealth towards it's upper management without the accompanying increase in personal productivity or worth inherent to the individual being compensated has been visible for thousands of years. Pay scales and worth are not intrinsically linked, especially in a truly "free market" where non capitalist pressures can and 100% of the time will make the system inefficienct and corrupt. It's childish to think that the most pure and basic idea of capitalism, that being that the true market value of effort will be rewarded in line with that worth is truth. It's not. There are entire industries that are worthless to society (such as hedge funds investing in commodities) and others that are actively harmful in modern times (oil, food speculation), but due to the vagueries of financial law create incredible blossoms of wealth for a select few.
I am not going to argue, that some people do earn kind of ridiculous amounts of money, but that is their right to use their talents and acrue as much wealth as possible and i seriously doubt that a majority of the population could successfully be a hedge fund general manager.
I dont really feel that any industry is worthless though, even if they dont provide a physical service, they are still increasing the flow of capital in the nation and that money is spent in the system in one way or another thus contributing. and while the oil industy's practices may be questionable at times, they are providing a necessary good in todays society, and while we shouldnt(and cant) stay on oil forever, it is necessary at the moment
and no system is perfect, there will always be those who use and abuse the system to gain an advantage, that is human nature, whether it is capitalism, communism, socialism or whatever -ism you prefer
I dont really feel that any industry is worthless though, even if they dont provide a physical service, they are still increasing the flow of capital in the nation and that money is spent in the system in one way or another thus contributing.
Speculation doesn't increase the flow of capitol in many cases, it just redirects it. That's the problem with many of the industries under the umbrella of "international finance" in modern times. They don't produce, they simply rearrange. Financial services can be and and always have been very important, but the modern financial infrastructure is no longer based in directing the flow of any given nations citizen capitol towards mutually equitable ends. The finance sector exists to fund itself, and it's doing so to the point of being dystopian fiction.
and while the oil industy's practices may be questionable at times, they are providing a necessary good in todays society, and while we shouldnt(and cant) stay on oil forever, it is necessary at the moment
The oil industry is typically not speculating itself though it's benefited by speculation in my cases financially. Oil speculators exist in the financial sectors (mainly commodities investment) and are siphons on the oil sectors productivity and the efficiency of gasoline infrastructures in markets as a whole. They are detrimental to global economics at this point. The same can be said of food speculators. Given that the primary source of speculation are massive banking corporations it can be argued that the sector as a whole no longer has the health of the global economy in it's hive-mind. Given that it all but caused the last global crash (and that the total lost value of that crash is astronomically above the total value of these institutions) it should be plentifully obvious that the actual aggregate worth of many working in the banking industry is a vast negative to the market value of the global economy which would imply that they should be paid less then nothing.
Pretending that evaluation of pay is based on the loosely defined concept of "market worth" is silly.
and no system is perfect, there will always be those who use and abuse the system to gain an advantage, that is human nature, whether it is capitalism, communism, socialism or whatever -ism you prefer
Yes. My problem is with people who misidentify the culprits and decide to whine about firefighters.
Frazzled wrote:Answer the question. How are you the authority on value?
Because I exist and make value based decisions.
dajobe wrote:Either you dont know what bankers do
I understand what they do.
Bankers, effectively, produce nothing. They instead manipulate money in order to make more money for themselves and their clients. While bankers were the precursors to investors, they are not universally investors in the traditional sense (see: Angel Investors for a good concept example). Many of them are, but banking itself is not a requirement for it. That's like saying that torturers are a noble profession because they helped lead the way to a proper criminal justice system.
A lot of jobs that pay more don't pay more for any logical reason. Sports stars and actors, for example. Yes, I know why they make ludicrous amounts of money. But they ultimately produce nothing of any real value-- a minor distraction perhaps, but that's about it-- and yet those who provide services without which society would completely fall apart are paid very little. And how DARE these people try to unionize to get better compensation!
Frazzled wrote:Answer the question. How are you the authority on value?
Because I exist and make value based decisions.
dajobe wrote:Either you dont know what bankers do
I understand what they do.
Bankers, effectively, produce nothing. They instead manipulate money in order to make more money for themselves and their clients. While bankers were the precursors to investors, they are not universally investors in the traditional sense (see: Angel Investors for a good concept example). Many of them are, but banking itself is not a requirement for it. That's like saying that torturers are a noble profession because they helped lead the way to a proper criminal justice system.
A lot of jobs that pay more don't pay more for any logical reason. Sports stars and actors, for example. Yes, I know why they make ludicrous amounts of money. But they ultimately produce nothing of any real value-- a minor distraction perhaps, but that's about it-- and yet those who provide services without which society would completely fall apart are paid very little. And how DARE these people try to unionize to get better compensation!
Odds are, using banker as you define it as general "evil money guy":
The place you live in was financed by an evil banker.
The food you eat came from a farm with loans financed by an evil banker.
The computer you're using was built in a place acquired by loans from an evil banker and using vendor financing for the materials.
The electricity you're using came from a company using debt financed by an evil banker.
Evil Bankers. We're in your face, touching your minis!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Answer the question. How are you the authority on value?
Because I exist and make value based decisions.
dajobe wrote:Either you dont know what bankers do
I understand what they do.
Bankers, effectively, produce nothing. They instead manipulate money in order to make more money for themselves and their clients. While bankers were the precursors to investors, they are not universally investors in the traditional sense (see: Angel Investors for a good concept example). Many of them are, but banking itself is not a requirement for it. That's like saying that torturers are a noble profession because they helped lead the way to a proper criminal justice system.
A lot of jobs that pay more don't pay more for any logical reason. Sports stars and actors, for example. Yes, I know why they make ludicrous amounts of money. But they ultimately produce nothing of any real value-- a minor distraction perhaps, but that's about it-- and yet those who provide services without which society would completely fall apart are paid very little. And how DARE these people try to unionize to get better compensation!
My mother works as a teacher in a public school in one of the wealthiest counties in the United States of America. She makes about $40,000 a year. And she has a master degree, no benefits, and she hasn't gotten a raise in four years. She practically works 18 hours a day, six days a week, and then deals with all the snobbish parents asking her why their children didn't do their homework.
The argument about public employees is one of the dumbest ones in current US politics, because barring federal employees, the pay range is so spread that making any definitive statement about them is inherently a half-truth. Hell people were complaining when they heard the CEO of USPS is paid $300,000 a year. He's the head of USPS people, you know how much the CEO's at UPS and FedEx are making (and they have better benefits too!)?
In a free market economy it is.
Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive
Obviously your teachers didn't do a very good job teaching you, or you didn't pay attention. Productivity has nothing to do with how anyone is paid. Teachers probably do more work than most professions, and they're paid less because they aren't valued by society as highly as say, a software engineer. What someone is paid has nothing to do with the quality of their work, how much of it to do, or any sensible standard of measurement. Its based on the subjective perception of how valuable their job is. It doesn't help that in the current US market, teachers tend to be a dime a dozen.
LordofHats wrote:My mother works as a teacher in a public school in one of the wealthiest counties in the United States of America. She makes about $40,000 a year. And she has a master degree, no benefits, and she hasn't gotten a raise in four years. She practically works 18 hours a day, six days a week, and then deals with all the snobbish parents asking her why their children didn't do their homework.
The argument about public employees is one of the dumbest ones in current US politics, because barring federal employees, the pay range is so spread that making any definitive statement about them is inherently a half-truth. Hell people were complaining when they heard the CEO of USPS is paid $300,000 a year. He's the head of USPS people, you know how much the CEO's at UPS and FedEx are making (and they have better benefits too!)?
In a free market economy it is.
Cleaners are paid less than bankers because they are less productive
Obviously your teachers didn't do a very good job teaching you, or you didn't pay attention. Productivity has nothing to do with how anyone is paid. Teachers probably do more work than most professions, and they're paid less because they aren't valued by society as highly as say, a software engineer. What someone is paid has nothing to do with the quality of their work, how much of it to do, or any sensible standard of measurement. Its based on the subjective perception of how valuable their job is. It doesn't help that in the current US market, teachers tend to be a dime a dozen.
LordofHats wrote:
The argument about public employees is one of the dumbest ones in current US politics, because barring federal employees, the pay range is so spread that making any definitive statement about them is inherently a half-truth. Hell people were complaining when they heard the CEO of USPS is paid $300,000 a year. He's the head of USPS people, you know how much the CEO's at UPS and FedEx are making (and they have better benefits too!)?
10000 internets.
It actually makes me mad (and that is damn hard) thinking about it.
LordofHats wrote:
The argument about public employees is one of the dumbest ones in current US politics, because barring federal employees, the pay range is so spread that making any definitive statement about them is inherently a half-truth. Hell people were complaining when they heard the CEO of USPS is paid $300,000 a year. He's the head of USPS people, you know how much the CEO's at UPS and FedEx are making (and they have better benefits too!)?
10000 internets.
It actually makes me mad (and that is damn hard) thinking about it.
300k a year... damn. Talk about one of the cheapest CEOs in the US.
Frazzled wrote:
Why doesn't she quit and do something else?
You've been a banker for some time, that's all white space if you're applying to me. Worked in a warehouse: white space. Worked at McDonalds: white space.
There's a reason "entry level" means "Interned for 2-5 years."
LordofHats wrote:
The argument about public employees is one of the dumbest ones in current US politics, because barring federal employees, the pay range is so spread that making any definitive statement about them is inherently a half-truth. Hell people were complaining when they heard the CEO of USPS is paid $300,000 a year. He's the head of USPS people, you know how much the CEO's at UPS and FedEx are making (and they have better benefits too!)?
10000 internets.
It actually makes me mad (and that is damn hard) thinking about it.
300k a year... damn. Talk about one of the cheapest CEOs in the US.
Warren Buffet's Salary is 100k/yr I believe. It's under 200 regardless.
AustonT wrote:Bull gak, utter and complete bull gak. We are talking about public employees. If they are asked to break the law or act unethically they are protected by the Whistleblowers Act and REQUIRED TO report it. The governments treatment of public workers is in the public eye constantly, they do not require the protection of Unions. In this day and age youtube and the media are better advocates.
It's be really nice if it was as simple as putting up a youtube video of your boss ordering you to do something evil and then cackling as he stroked a cat, followed by some mass outrage and all the evil people getting fired quickly and promptly. But the real world is a lot messier than that and whistleblowing incidents will regularly take months, or possibly years to resolve, and without legal representation you're basically relying on the goodwill of higher ranking employees that you won't get screwed in the process. And without union representation legal protection for that length of time is beyond the budgets of most workers.
It's just... gak gets ugly, and it does so quickly. What you're arguing above would be lovely in an ideal world, but this is not that world. So instead it is very useful to have an organisation on your side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dajobe wrote:also, the reason some people get paid more than soldiers, is because of the education and qualifications required to do the higher paying jobs, while many lower jobs can be completed with less training and education, thus they are paid less unless there are other factors such as danger or something that will result in a pay increase, I am not insulting soldiers or other lower paying jobs, just saying why some jobs that you "sit around all day" pay more
It's a lot more complicated than that. Plenty of jobs have an inherent appeal just beyond the monetary compensation, for instance many nurses find it rewarding to help people, and many soldiers feel a level of pride from serving their country. This means that you get more supply for these jobs than would otherwise be the case at a given level of pay.
Which in turns means that the market can pay a little less for the necessary number of workers... which in turns means many of the jobs which directly help other people get paid a little less than they would if everyone was an unthinking automaton who just goes straight into whatever job that will pay him the most money.
Which, weirdly enough, means loads of people who've studied Microeconomic 101 and nothing more will foolishly, and somewhat rudely, declare that people in those kinds of jobs are delivering less valuable services because they're paid less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Besides without bankers, most cleaners wouldn't exist.
And without cleaners most bankers wouldn't exist.
That's kind of the thing with a modern economy, every career is dependant on the services provided by every other career. Which basically means trying to pick out a specific career and declaring how valuable it is by itself is basically a complete load of nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:Warren Buffet's Salary is 100k/yr I believe. It's under 200 regardless.
He takes that little as salary for tax reasons - because it's more tax effective to receive most of his remuneration in options and the like. Buffet's actual 2010 earnings were $62,855,038.
This is a lot more than the $300,000 you get for being CEO of UPS. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how anyone would even try to claim CEOs in government bodies are paid anything like CEOs in private companies.
AustonT wrote:Bull gak, utter and complete bull gak. We are talking about public employees. If they are asked to break the law or act unethically they are protected by the Whistleblowers Act and REQUIRED TO report it. The governments treatment of public workers is in the public eye constantly, they do not require the protection of Unions. In this day and age youtube and the media are better advocates.
It's be really nice if it was as simple as putting up a youtube video of your boss ordering you to do something evil and then cackling as he stroked a cat, followed by some mass outrage and all the evil people getting fired quickly and promptly. But the real world is a lot messier than that and whistleblowing incidents will regularly take months, or possibly years to resolve, and without legal representation you're basically relying on the goodwill of higher ranking employees that you won't get screwed in the process. And without union representation legal protection for that length of time is beyond the budgets of most workers.
And Union lawsuits and grievances provide instant gratification, right?
AustonT wrote:Warren Buffet's Salary is 100k/yr I believe. It's under 200 regardless.
He takes that little as salary for tax reasons - because it's more tax effective to receive most of his remuneration in options and the like. Buffet's actual 2010 earnings were $62,855,038.
This is a lot more than the $300,000 you get for being CEO of UPS. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how anyone would even try to claim CEOs in government bodies are paid anything like CEOs in private companies.
UPS and FedEx are both private companies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
sebster wrote:
AustonT wrote:Bull gak, utter and complete bull gak. We are talking about public employees. If they are asked to break the law or act unethically they are protected by the Whistleblowers Act and REQUIRED TO report it. The governments treatment of public workers is in the public eye constantly, they do not require the protection of Unions. In this day and age youtube and the media are better advocates.
It's be really nice if it was as simple as putting up a youtube video of your boss ordering you to do something evil and then cackling as he stroked a cat, followed by some mass outrage and all the evil people getting fired quickly and promptly. But the real world is a lot messier than that and whistleblowing incidents will regularly take months, or possibly years to resolve, and without legal representation you're basically relying on the goodwill of higher ranking employees that you won't get screwed in the process. And without union representation legal protection for that length of time is beyond the budgets of most workers.
And Union lawsuits and grievances provide instant gratification, right?
AustonT wrote:Warren Buffet's Salary is 100k/yr I believe. It's under 200 regardless.
He takes that little as salary for tax reasons - because it's more tax effective to receive most of his remuneration in options and the like. Buffet's actual 2010 earnings were $62,855,038.
This is a lot more than the $300,000 you get for being CEO of UPS. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea how anyone would even try to claim CEOs in government bodies are paid anything like CEOs in private companies.
AustonT wrote:And Union lawsuits and grievances provide instant gratification, right?
Yeah, because there's absolutley no possibility of moving towards a reasonable middle ground, away from militant unions but still having some level of protection for workers.
I mean, feth. Just stop the culture war silliness, there are positions other than 'boo for everything unions represent and could ever be' and 'yay for everything unions have ever done'.
AustonT wrote:UPS and FedEx are both private companies.
Sorry, missed the letter 'S'. Meant USPS. Which should have been very fething obvious in the context, given I was talking about a public sector company, and that the $300,000 for the CEO of USPS was already mentioned.
So really it becomes hard to see this as anything other than pedantry on your part, to avoid recognising you were wrong (in that Warren Buffet earns around 209 times more than the CEO of USPS).
AustonT wrote:And Union lawsuits and grievances provide instant gratification, right?
Yeah, because there's absolutley no possibility of moving towards a reasonable middle ground, away from militant unions but still having some level of protection for workers.
I mean, feth. Just stop the culture war silliness, there are positions other than 'boo for everything unions represent and could ever be' and 'yay for everything unions have ever done'.
Try reading what I said earlier in this thread about unions. Then you are also welcome to get the feth off your high horse you rode into this thread on.
sebster wrote:
AustonT wrote:UPS and FedEx are both private companies.
Sorry, missed the letter 'S'. Meant USPS. Which should have been very fething obvious in the context, given I was talking about a public sector company, and that the $300,000 for the CEO of USPS was already mentioned.
So really it becomes hard to see this as anything other than pedantry on your part, to avoid recognizing you were wrong (in that Warren Buffet earns around 209 times more than the CEO of USPS).
Berkshire Hathaway pays Warren Buffet 100 thousand US Dollars a year. That's a period at the end of my sentence in case the don't use those in Australia. It denotes the end of a sentence typically but here it emphasizes an unassailable point. What's pedantic is that you continue to stamp your feet and say "no,no,no" like a 5 year old. WB's income may be higher but it is not a salary, it should have been very fething obvious in the context, given we were talking about salary. You can circle the drain in your blackhole of bs but Warren Buffet's salary won't change.
AustonT wrote:Try reading what I said earlier in this thread about unions. Then you are also welcome to get the feth off your high horse you rode into this thread on.
You said this "The governments treatment of public workers is in the public eye constantly, they do not require the protection of Unions. In this day and age youtube and the media are better advocates."
I have been trying to point out to you that your opinion is dangerously naive, and that while unions may have betrayed their purpose in many places, the answer isn't to simply imagine we live in a world where employees are never given the shaft.
Berkshire Hathaway pays Warren Buffet 100 thousand US Dollars a year. That's a period at the end of my sentence in case the don't use those in Australia. It denotes the end of a sentence typically but here it emphasizes an unassailable point. What's pedantic is that you continue to stamp your feet and say "no,no,no" like a 5 year old. WB's income may be higher but it is not a salary, it should have been very fething obvious in the context, given we were talking about salary. You can circle the drain in your blackhole of bs but Warren Buffet's salary won't change.
But the only remuneration the CEO of USPS gets is salary. It is a make believe game of unicorns and pixies to pretending the only remuneration Buffet gets from Berkshire is in direct salary, when we know income derived from his holdings there produced a 2010 income in excess of $60 million dollars.
AustonT wrote:Try reading what I said earlier in this thread about unions. Then you are also welcome to get the feth off your high horse you rode into this thread on.
You said this "The governments treatment of public workers is in the public eye constantly, they do not require the protection of Unions. In this day and age youtube and the media are better advocates."
I have been trying to point out to you that your opinion is dangerously naive, and that while unions may have betrayed their purpose in many places, the answer isn't to simply imagine we live in a world where employees are never given the shaft.
AustonT wrote:I'm fairly ambivalent about unions. On the one hand they provide a service for the working and middle class and exist to protect thier rights and wages. On the other some unions, especially the public ones, demand more and more when there is nothing to give and abuse the power they have. I'd wager that when the dockworkers for Toyota struck none of you noticed, but if all city services stopped for a day their would be marching in the streets. I'm pro union, I'm even pro public union; but collective bargaining between public unions and the populations they SERVE need to be reasonable and fiscally responsible. The truth is both side have ground to give and often those who are supposed to bargain in the best interest of their municipality fail to make an even token effort.
sebster wrote:
Berkshire Hathaway pays Warren Buffet 100 thousand US Dollars a year. That's a period at the end of my sentence in case the don't use those in Australia. It denotes the end of a sentence typically but here it emphasizes an unassailable point. What's pedantic is that you continue to stamp your feet and say "no,no,no" like a 5 year old. WB's income may be higher but it is not a salary, it should have been very fething obvious in the context, given we were talking about salary. You can circle the drain in your blackhole of bs but Warren Buffet's salary won't change.
But the only remuneration the CEO of USPS gets is salary. It is a make believe game of unicorns and pixies to pretending the only remuneration Buffet gets from Berkshire is in direct salary, when we know income derived from his holdings there produced a 2010 income in excess of $60 million dollars.
Shame about those private holding not being income from his employer. Better luck next time.
On both counts please carry on.
Just out of curiousity, why is investment capital deemed more important than labor capital? Investment capital is actually an unlimited bucket, since someone can always simply make more money? No matter what anyone does, there can always be more money? I believe it is called the liquidity trap?
However, there is a cap on the number of laborers in the world. Currently around 7+ billion. Therefore, why is labor capital deemed inferior to investment capital if one is limited and the other is virtually unlimited at the macro-level?
I'm no economist, so can someone help me understand?
Also apropo of nothing....
What I never understand is if private workers are so bent out of shape about what the public workers gets as benefits; why don't they demand better benefits from their employers instead of trying to strip public workers down to their level?
Easy E wrote:What I never understand is if private workers are so bent out of shape about what the public workers gets as benefits; why don't they demand better benefits from their employers instead of trying to strip public workers down to their level?
I guess. It's a lot easier to send money around the globe than people. However, if no amount of zooming it around will make or reduce the amount of money, is that the only reason to have such a vast disparity in value between capital and labor?
How does outsourcing play into this dynamic, since you are essentially moving to where the labor is cheaper?
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:What I never understand is if private workers are so bent out of shape about what the public workers gets as benefits; why don't they demand better benefits from their employers instead of trying to strip public workers down to their level?
Because the market won't support it.
Any proof or is it just an article of faith?
Like I said, I'm not an economist, so if you can enlighten me with some case studies or research on it, I would be open to reviewing it. You never know, you might just get a convert.
I guess. It's a lot easier to send money around the globe than people. However, if no amount of zooming it around will make or reduce the amount of money, is that the only reason to have such a vast disparity in value between capital and labor?
How does outsourcing play into this dynamic, since you are essentially moving to where the labor is cheaper?
I'm not McCarty but I know a commie when I see one.
I guess. It's a lot easier to send money around the globe than people. However, if no amount of zooming it around will make or reduce the amount of money, is that the only reason to have such a vast disparity in value between capital and labor?
How does outsourcing play into this dynamic, since you are essentially moving to where the labor is cheaper?
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:What I never understand is if private workers are so bent out of shape about what the public workers gets as benefits; why don't they demand better benefits from their employers instead of trying to strip public workers down to their level?
Because the market won't support it.
Any proof or is it just an article of faith?
Like I said, I'm not an economist, so if you can enlighten me with some case studies or research on it, I would be open to reviewing it. You never know, you might just get a convert.
Simple math. it would have already happened.
Drones say that want more money.
Company says bleep off.
Either employees leave and Company is forced to raise its levels to get new employees, or the company can acquire new employees without increasing benefits (or ship job off to location where that is not market standard).
[quote=FrazzledSimple math. it would have already happened.
Drones say that want more money.
Company says bleep off.
Either employees leave and Company is forced to raise its levels to get new employees, or the company can acquire new employees without increasing benefits (or ship job off to location where that is not market standard).
Its not a closed system.
Yes. I see that it is not a closed system. If worker A in Detroit asks for x amount of money, the company says screw ALL of you and moves to Charleston where the worker B is ecstatic to make just a bit less than what the Detroit worker had been making. So competition is good for the business, but not the workers. The workers would benefit from cooperation, but is they are too fractured and focused on personal needs to cooperate. That is a brilliant and beautiful system for somebody.
That also leads back to why Liquidity is so much more valuable than labor due to liquidity, because in today's day and age Labor seems pretty liquid as well. Granted, I could see that changing as it becomes harder to find countries/workers willing to race each other to the bottom wages for jobs. That process could take a really long time though.
I guess that means it is the very liquidity of labor that can devalue labor, but liquidity in capital increases its value? Sorry if I am stating the obvious.
Easy E wrote:[quote=FrazzledSimple math. it would have already happened.
Drones say that want more money.
Company says bleep off.
Either employees leave and Company is forced to raise its levels to get new employees, or the company can acquire new employees without increasing benefits (or ship job off to location where that is not market standard).
Its not a closed system.
Yes. I see that it is not a closed system. If worker A in Detroit asks for x amount of money, the company says screw ALL of you and moves to Charleston where the worker B is ecstatic to make just a bit less than what the Detroit worker had been making. So competition is good for the business, but not the workers. The workers would benefit from cooperation, but is they are too fractured and focused on personal needs to cooperate. That is a brilliant and beautiful system for somebody.
That also leads back to why Liquidity is so much more valuable than labor due to liquidity, because in today's day and age Labor seems pretty liquid as well. Granted, I could see that changing as it becomes harder to find countries/workers willing to race each other to the bottom wages for jobs. That process could take a really long time though.
I guess that means it is the very liquidity of labor that can devalue labor, but liquidity in capital increases its value? Sorry if I am stating the obvious.
I think you'll find pragmatic economists agree regional labor is not especially liquid.
I'm not focused on the value between the two though. Thats a Commie BS argument. Labor is a cost, like inventory, or electricity.
Equal competition is good for workers too. Just think about all the people who acquired the jobs in the first place and have new jobs in the South, vs. the company going bankrupt.
Easy E wrote:Just out of curiousity, why is investment capital deemed more important than labor capital?
Because they can make more money off of it. "Importance" here is a rather loaded term.
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:What I never understand is if private workers are so bent out of shape about what the public workers gets as benefits; why don't they demand better benefits from their employers instead of trying to strip public workers down to their level?
Because the market won't support it.
Yeah, the market's kinda broken like that.
Of course, the reason why I say the market won't support it isn't likely the same reason why Fraz says.
Namely that the free market never did exist except in the minds of economists.
Easy E wrote:Just out of curiousity, why is investment capital deemed more important than labor capital?
Because they can make more money off of it. "Importance" here is a rather loaded term.
Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:What I never understand is if private workers are so bent out of shape about what the public workers gets as benefits; why don't they demand better benefits from their employers instead of trying to strip public workers down to their level?
Because the market won't support it.
Yeah, the market's kinda broken like that.
Of course, the reason why I say the market won't support it isn't likely the same reason why Fraz says.
Namely that the free market never did exist except in the minds of economists.
Well thats true. On the other hand what are you going to do? Central Planning? European socialism?
Like most things (except chocolate and wiener dogs), capitalism is the best of a bunch of bad choices.
Easy E wrote:
How does outsourcing play into this dynamic, since you are essentially moving to where the labor is cheaper?
Who do you think is moving? People like me move, we have the money, people like Joe the Plumber don't.
I was refering to the business/production will move to where the labor is cheapest. So, I can see how regionally, labor is inelastic as people get tied down with roots, mortgages, and other emotion based gak.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not focused on the value between the two though. Thats a Commie BS argument. Labor is a cost, like inventory, or electricity.
Equal competition is good for workers too. Just think about all the people who acquired the jobs in the first place and have new jobs in the South, vs. the company going bankrupt.
So acquiring capital isn't a cost, but acquiring labor is. Interesting. I should spend more time learning about economics.
Equal Competition? I'm not sure if there is such a thing except in the imagination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote:
dogma wrote:
Easy E wrote:
How does outsourcing play into this dynamic, since you are essentially moving to where the labor is cheaper?
Who do you think is moving? People like me move, we have the money, people like Joe the Plumber don't.
I was refering to the business/production will move to where the labor is cheapest. So, I can see how regionally, labor is inelastic as people get tied down with roots, mortgages, and other emotion based gak. On a Macro-level it might look different.
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not focused on the value between the two though. Thats a Commie BS argument. Labor is a cost, like inventory, or electricity.
Equal competition is good for workers too. Just think about all the people who acquired the jobs in the first place and have new jobs in the South, vs. the company going bankrupt.
So acquiring capital isn't a cost, but acquiring labor is. Interesting. I should spend more time learning about economics.
Equal Competition? I'm not sure if there is such a thing except in the imagination.
