bloodyminded Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 With this issue, we have a great chance here at MLW to discuss workers' rights / unionism et. al. Probably the first good example of a new issue on this front since GM had financial problems a few years back. My problem with this issue is that, though it's painted in economic terms no good numbers have been provided. Further to that, the rationales given are peppered with emotionalism: - "We can't afford it !" (Why not ? On paper, we're richer as a whole than our parents or grandparents were) - "They don't deserve pensions !" - Plus, the reluctance to apply the same rules to American hero unions tips their hand. I'm open to looking at these things, but where oh where is the economic RATIONALE people ? Give me something to chew on. Furthermore, here are some things that make this topic less interesting and take focus away from the argument at hand: - posting videos of idiots right or left - sloganeering, comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, Laurel or Hardy - finding out how old Pinko is (66) or where Yukon Jack was born, or how astrologically lucky or hard-working he was to find his way through life. If you disagree, and think that those things are worth discussing, why not start a new thread so we can discuss the Wisconsin situation here ? Fair enough. As to your points, a couple stand out for me, and I'm aware you've been asking about them, to no avail, for several posts now: 1. Since we're repeatedly told that "its math, not ideology," I should think the math could be posted or linked, where it could then be analyzed and discussed; 2. The "hero" unions, yes. Teachers et al are fair game, but police and firefighters are not. Why? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) I haven't noticed that you have been prevented from discussing the pension situation. So go ahead make your case, Michael. Edited February 20, 2011 by pinko Quote
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 Underfunded pensions are a problem for management aren't they ? They're a problem of management on both sides. Quote
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 Does that also describe your European worker productivity assertion? I said European workers have a higher productivity than us. They do. I am writing from Canada. Not sure about you. And to repeat, I never made a claim that I had looked anything up as you did. So how about looking stuff up and telling us what you find? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 I said European workers have a higher productivity than us. They do. No they don't. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) There's no money. Have you ever receieved a paycheque from a bankrupt employer? They can either make concession now, or face a mass lay off. And then, in a short period of time after that, have their contracts renegotiated to the terms being presently offered. You seem to think there's a magic money tree, when even if no money exists, somebody gets paid. That's why public sector unions are a joke. They're not grounded in economic reality The employer in question is in the unique position to pass laws to increase income, so that comparison is inexact. There's no magic money tree, there's a taxation system though. To add: I'm going to have to start calling you if you use the word 'economic' from now on as I'm still waiting to see numbers from someone on the 'pro' side of this issue. Edited February 20, 2011 by Michael Hardner Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 "I'm going to have to start calling you if you use the word 'economic' from now on as I'm still waiting to see numbers from someone on the 'pro' side of this issue." Are you suggesting this isn't an economic issue? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 Fair enough. As to your points, a couple stand out for me, and I'm aware you've been asking about them, to no avail, for several posts now: 1. Since we're repeatedly told that "its math, not ideology," I should think the math could be posted or linked, where it could then be analyzed and discussed; 2. The "hero" unions, yes. Teachers et al are fair game, but police and firefighters are not. Why? 1. Yes, I have been wading through 20-30 pages now and though the word 'economic' is used frequently we haven't yet begun to have that discussion to my mind. I have plenty of questions. 2. Why are they not included you mean ? If this is about 'economics' then who knows. But it's not - it's politics. They want to cut taxes (to zero, I guess) and negotiated terms of employment are the next log for that bonfire. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
bloodyminded Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 "I'm going to have to start calling you if you use the word 'economic' from now on as I'm still waiting to see numbers from someone on the 'pro' side of this issue." Are you suggesting this isn't an economic issue? I think he's saying that as far as it's an economic issue, some economic evidence of assertions should be provided. Ie. if "it's just math," then we should be able to see some numbers. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 I haven't noticed that you have been prevented from discussing the pension situation. So go ahead make your case, Michael. I have made the case that teachers have been accepting more than fair wage increases, for example. ( I can't find stats for Wisconsin police. ) It was also pointed out that these low increases were accepted because of the benefits package. Then how is it fair when the employer will decide to legislate their end of their bargain to their terms ? Imagine if your employer did that. "I would quit" you say ? Ok. What if your employer was the only one in your field ? Now what ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 The employer in question is in the unique position to pass laws to increase income, so that comparison is inexact. There's no magic money tree, there's a taxation system though. Exactly! That's why public sector unions aren't grounded in economic reality. Private sector unions, and anyone else that actually creates it's own income can't shake down somebody else or some other instiution to subsidize their salary and benefits. Raising taxes isn't the answer. As we've seen the highest taxed states in the country have huge public sector pension and benefit problems too. I fail to see why somebody needs to pay higher property taxes on their homes, and in some cases risk losing their homes, all to fund some public worker that makes more money then them, and enjoys greater beneftis than them, and pays virtually nothing for them. Does that sound fair to you? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 They're a problem of management on both sides. Thanks for acknowledging that. Now, if they don't plan for their future obligations it is their problem isn't it ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 "Why are they not included you mean ? If this is about 'economics' then who knows. But it's not - it's politics. They want to cut taxes (to zero, I guess) and negotiated terms of employment are the next log for that bonfire." I mean the conditions offered by the Governor of Wisconsin have an economic impact on the public sector employees enrolled in the affected pension plans. Do you agree? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 No they don't. Again - no numbers. Sigh... Just to show you that I'm a good sport, I'll join your team for one post to help you catch up: FOCUS - productivity numbers Europe has trained since 1970, peaking at 90-95% of US productivity in 1995. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 "I'm going to have to start calling you if you use the word 'economic' from now on as I'm still waiting to see numbers from someone on the 'pro' side of this issue." Are you suggesting this isn't an economic issue? Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. It's put forward as one, but it speaks to the root of economics - human values, or lack thereof. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
pinko Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 "if they don't plan for their future obligations it is their problem isn't it ?" They? Who are you referring to? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 Exactly! That's why public sector unions aren't grounded in economic reality. Private sector unions, and anyone else that actually creates it's own income can't shake down somebody else or some other instiution to subsidize their salary and benefits. Raising taxes isn't the answer. As we've seen the highest taxed states in the country have huge public sector pension and benefit problems too. Ok. Now would be a great time to jump in with your numbers. I fail to see why somebody needs to pay higher property taxes on their homes, and in some cases risk losing their homes, all to fund some public worker that makes more money then them, and enjoys greater beneftis than them, and pays virtually nothing for them. Does that sound fair to you? Some public workers make a lot of money - that's a reality of the marketplace - and it has nothing to do with who has say over how the system works. If you want poor people to have more say than rich people, why not just tax the rich more ? Are you a populist or an elitist ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
GWiz Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) No they don't. Yes they do, in fact Canada has a higher GDP than the US as well... HOWEVER, because the US excludes virtually all "negatives" (unemployed, disabled, welfare, etc.) in their GDP calculations unlike Canada, Europe and most of the rest of the world, the US GDP will always show up as the highest... In one way it is true, US workers have the least benefits, like stat holidays and 0 mandatory paid vacations their "productivity" hrs worked minus paid unworked hours will be higher... Edited February 20, 2011 by GWiz Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 I mean the conditions offered by the Governor of Wisconsin have an economic impact on the public sector employees enrolled in the affected pension plans. Do you agree? Obviously. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 Yes they do, in fact Canada has a higher GDP than the US as well... No they don't. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 They? Who are you referring to? Those who have negotiated the contract - both parties. In this case, the employer is saying that they didn't plan for their obligations. For them to legislate themselves out of their problems is unfair. Maybe taxes should be raised ? Maybe contracts should be renegotiated ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Shady Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 Ok. Now would be a great time to jump in with your numbers. N.J. property taxes climb 70 percent in 11 years, remain highest in U.S. According to you, this should've solved the problem, right? Quote
GWiz Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 No they don't. Yes they do... Wanna do this all day? Quote There are none so blind, deaf and dumb as those that fail to recognize, understand, and promote TRUTH...- GWiz
Scotty Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 They're a problem of management on both sides. But wait a minute. You selected New Jersey as an example. I've posted a cite which shows that the workers of New Jersey have been dutifully making their contributions to their pension plans while the state has ignored its own obligations. Why do you then lay the blame on the workers as well as management? They've done their share. It's management which has failed its obligations. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Michael Hardner Posted February 20, 2011 Report Posted February 20, 2011 N.J. property taxes climb 70 percent in 11 years, remain highest in U.S. According to you, this should've solved the problem, right? Wait - are we switching to N.J. here ? What just happened ? Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.