MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Did you attend public school in Alberta? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 I hope Mr. Walker is successful, but I hope he recognizes all public sector unions must be broken. Well no, it is about whether you believe in the good of the nanny-State or you don't. A union willing to discuss financials means going into the books wielding a scalpel where only a machete will do. Collective Bargaining rights??? Annual recert votes??? Individual opting out??? What has that got to do with state financials??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 This mess in Wisconsin is indicative of a greater philosophical debate whose time has apparently come. ... The entire premise of continual raises in the public sector is unsustainable, especially when the public sector is dead flat broke. You speak of philosophy, but at the end it's about something being broke, really. Give us the numbers to chew on then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 How about doctors and lawyers inflating their value right out of sight, to the detriment of all of society. Or police officers in Wisconsin... possibly. We need those numbers first. Maybe they've had no pension or salary increases in ten years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) My favourite part of the Walker prank phone call was when the fake Koch suggested planting trouble-makers in the crowd. "We thought of that." he says. How do you ever recover from that politically? You don't..Or you should'nt...This mindset is right out of On The Waterfront... Either the state Attorny General or Vice AG of Indiana said today that lethal force should be used to stop demonstrations... Speaking of backwards thinking... Sarah would so proud... Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 The way out of debt is to shrink government to a sustainable size, and to end government interference in the economy so that the private sector can grow, and more wealth can be created across a greater swath of the population. Then why is Canadian health care cheaper per capita, and covers more people ? The answer: the middleman. Another question: what is a sustainable size ? Has Wisconsin's budget been increasing steadily ? Why or why not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 And what are you talking about, "not in practice"...the society in which we currently live is nowhere near a free market...no society is. Given how dire the current situation is with the mixed economy we've tried for decades now, I think it's time we give freedom a go. Pliny would be your friend. The 'defense and roads only' idea for government is one he's argued for here in the past. ( Actually, I'm probably not doing his argument justice but it goes along those lines, I'm pretty sure.) Seek him out. As for me - I think the Industrial Revolution would be a good reason to not go that way. There was an exploration in wealth and opulence, but not for those displayed by the advent of machines. They got poorhouses if they were lucky. See Dickens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) My favourite part of the Walker prank phone call was when the fake Koch suggested planting trouble-makers in the crowd. "We thought of that." he says. How do you ever recover from that politically? Here no... In the US, who knows... They're a different breed... In fact recently, a differeent before unknown species... Baseball bats in the Governors office indeed... Edited February 24, 2011 by GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 60% of their entire budget goes to pay wages and, benefits and pensions. Hey ! Some numbers ! What does that compare to... Illinois ? California ? Ontario ? Holland ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Of course I am...very few people aren't in today's economy. But I don't worry about it as some failing of virtue, I recognize debt has become a necessary evil for most people in the face of an ever-rising cost of living that comes with over-reaching government. How can you criticize government for over reaching when you're living the exact same way ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Bullshite... Wages and benefit plans have stagnated and/or regressed since 1980... Ironically,since the election of neoliberal economic proponents Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (Mulroney in '84)... Both, like Reagan, total demagogues...they all talked a good game when it came to free markets, but were just as Statist as anyone on the left...they were neo-cons...just as in favour of big government, only they wanted the money spent in other areas like military, and corporate handouts to their cronies. Unionization rates have dropped in that same period of time,meanwhile,we've seen most of the jobs that used to be the backbone of our economy shifted overseas to low wage juridictions...And,at the same time,record corporate profits... Again, I have no problem with private sector unions, I could care less what they do or don't do so long as they stay out of my wallet. And of course labour's been driven overseas...there governments have enough sense to recognize that laws like that of the minimum wage law are anti-competition...and do nothing but keep unemployment higher than it would otherwise be. Anyone running a business will look for ways to keep overhead low...that's just common sense...no one starts a business because they're feeling generous...they're in it to make money. Not shocking to see how the two are related at all... I wonder why You keep blathering about the public sector yet don't seem to be capable of understanding the relationship between the lessening of the importance of organized labour,as it relates to a whole host of areas of the workplace,and a lower standard of living for all... I doubt you even understand what you just wrote here. What are you talking about "the lessening of the importance of organized labour"? In a free market workers don't need to organize because companies would be on their own with no government safety net to mitigate the risks incurred by poor business practices. Organized labour is only important now where governments and corporations have worked in collusion to screw over the little guy. In a free market that relationship is gone, putting the power back into the hands of consumers, and workers alike. The lower standard of living persists under a system of central planning because today our society runs via a large, inefficient bureaucracy that costs so much to operate that it forces people to give far too much of what they earn versus how much they have to pay for goods and services to companies already in bed with their friends in Ottawa. The "standard of living" is a measure of our relative wealth. When you remove government/corporate collusion you remove the barriers to lower costs that come in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and public sector collective bargaining. Once you get rid of all that, our standard of living rises as we get to keep all that we earn, and goods and services become much, much cheaper. Not to mention our non-centrally planned economy would have a non-diluted currency(ies) giving each of us more in the way of purchasing power. I'm not shocked you live in conlibertervative Alberta...I'm surprised your not a WRAPper..RTW is in thier labour platform... I'm in Alberta because, even though it's nowhere near free enough, it's still better than most other regions. I don't support the Wildrose Alliance because they're not willing to cut the size of our provincial government enough. They're not ready to embrace freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 If an employer, government or otherwise was sound in their practices and how they treated their workers, there would be no need for unions. If we lived in a free market economy no one would want unions except for those who are asking for wages/benefits higher than what their skills/labour were actually worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 In fact, with regard to New Jersey and its public sector pensions, the big issue is that the employees have been making their contributions for years while the New Jersey government failed to do so. It not only didn't pay ANYTHING into the pension plan but it was using the contributions from the employees to pay pensioners! So after paying essentially NOTHING for their public employee pensions you're going to tell me they had to increase taxes ten years in a row because of employee pensions and benefits?! New Jersey public workers have a defined benefit pension plan. The reason New Jersey wasn't able to make payments is because they didn't have the money. And the reason why employees were making their payments, is because they essentially pay almost nothing. So it really isn't very difficult to pay almost nothing, and expect the tax payer to pick up the rest of the 95% of the tab. Also. New Jersey public workers paid ZERO dollars for full medical benfits. Once again, allowing the tax payer to pick up the tab. Well, that schemed has finally ended. As well as the massive property tax increases year after year. In which 75% of property taxes in New Jersey go to public sector pay and benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Both, like Reagan, total demagogues...they all talked a good game when it came to free markets, but were just as Statist as anyone on the left...they were neo-cons...just as in favour of big government, only they wanted the money spent in other areas like military, and corporate handouts to their cronies. Again, I have no problem with private sector unions, I could care less what they do or don't do so long as they stay out of my wallet. And of course labour's been driven overseas...there governments have enough sense to recognize that laws like that of the minimum wage law are anti-competition...and do nothing but keep unemployment higher than it would otherwise be. Anyone running a business will look for ways to keep overhead low...that's just common sense...no one starts a business because they're feeling generous...they're in it to make money. I doubt you even understand what you just wrote here. What are you talking about "the lessening of the importance of organized labour"? In a free market workers don't need to organize because companies would be on their own with no government safety net to mitigate the risks incurred by poor business practices. Organized labour is only important now where governments and corporations have worked in collusion to screw over the little guy. In a free market that relationship is gone, putting the power back into the hands of consumers, and workers alike. The lower standard of living persists under a system of central planning because today our society runs via a large, inefficient bureaucracy that costs so much to operate that it forces people to give far too much of what they earn versus how much they have to pay for goods and services to companies already in bed with their friends in Ottawa. The "standard of living" is a measure of our relative wealth. When you remove government/corporate collusion you remove the barriers to lower costs that come in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and public sector collective bargaining. Once you get rid of all that, our standard of living rises as we get to keep all that we earn, and goods and services become much, much cheaper. Not to mention our non-centrally planned economy would have a non-diluted currency(ies) giving each of us more in the way of purchasing power. I'm in Alberta because, even though it's nowhere near free enough, it's still better than most other regions. I don't support the Wildrose Alliance because they're not willing to cut the size of our provincial government enough. They're not ready to embrace freedom. PRICELESS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 This is definately NOT just about breaking public sector unions at all... Your opinion is all speculation. Still wearing your tinfoil hat huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Both, like Reagan, total demagogues...they all talked a good game when it came to free markets, but were just as Statist as anyone on the left...they were neo-cons...just as in favour of big government, only they wanted the money spent in other areas like military, and corporate handouts to their cronies. Again, I have no problem with private sector unions, I could care less what they do or don't do so long as they stay out of my wallet. And of course labour's been driven overseas...there governments have enough sense to recognize that laws like that of the minimum wage law are anti-competition...and do nothing but keep unemployment higher than it would otherwise be. Anyone running a business will look for ways to keep overhead low...that's just common sense...no one starts a business because they're feeling generous...they're in it to make money. I doubt you even understand what you just wrote here. What are you talking about "the lessening of the importance of organized labour"? In a free market workers don't need to organize because companies would be on their own with no government safety net to mitigate the risks incurred by poor business practices. Organized labour is only important now where governments and corporations have worked in collusion to screw over the little guy. In a free market that relationship is gone, putting the power back into the hands of consumers, and workers alike. The lower standard of living persists under a system of central planning because today our society runs via a large, inefficient bureaucracy that costs so much to operate that it forces people to give far too much of what they earn versus how much they have to pay for goods and services to companies already in bed with their friends in Ottawa. The "standard of living" is a measure of our relative wealth. When you remove government/corporate collusion you remove the barriers to lower costs that come in the form of subsidies, bailouts, and public sector collective bargaining. Once you get rid of all that, our standard of living rises as we get to keep all that we earn, and goods and services become much, much cheaper. Not to mention our non-centrally planned economy would have a non-diluted currency(ies) giving each of us more in the way of purchasing power. I'm in Alberta because, even though it's nowhere near free enough, it's still better than most other regions. I don't support the Wildrose Alliance because they're not willing to cut the size of our provincial government enough. They're not ready to embrace freedom. I really cannot go into every single point in this NCC/Fraser Institute sponsored diatribe... Suffice to say that Uncle Milty Friedman and Friedrich Von Hayek would be so proud... The extreme Capitalist scenario you are proposing would have the vast majority of this planet living like Medieval animals... It's as horrific nightmare as any Marxist global control scenario I can think up... Sorry...I don't buy your version of "freedom"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Your opinion is all speculation. Still wearing your tinfoil hat huh? I'm assumig you missed what the Ohio governor said yesterday? Tinfoil hat,indeed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 New Jersey public workers have a defined benefit pension plan. The reason New Jersey wasn't able to make payments is because they didn't have the money.... Correct again...time to convert them all to defined contribution plans....just like everybody else. What part of "There is no more money" do they not understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Collective Bargaining rights??? Annual recert votes??? Individual opting out??? What has that got to do with state financials??? Because unions want it both ways. They say they're for collective bargaining. But when they haven't been able to get what they want in Wisconsin, what have they done? Have they negotiated? Nope. They've gone to the legislature and received what they wanted from them. And now they have the nerve to complain when the other side takes a page out of their book. And is using the legislature to get what they want? Too bad so sad. It's time they contributed to their pensions and benefits at the same level everyone else does. They can retain their bargaining for salary only. There's absolutely nothing wrong with those terms. If they don't like it. Find another job. Nobody's forcing them to work there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 How about doctors and lawyers inflating their value right out of sight, to the detriment of all of society. Middle class people can't even afford doctors and lawyers any more, and even paying health insurance is eating up an ever increasing share of people's pay checks. But strangely, the same people who want to crush unions will fight to the death for the rights of doctors and lawyers to earn millions, no matter how that hurts society. In a free market if a doctor or lawyer were charging more than a competitor for inferior service they'd lose customers. The reason doctors and lawyers become less affordable is because either the government subsidizes or favours them in a way that skews their true market value, or it has grown to a size that requires people give far too much of what they earn to sustain and thus have less discretionary income to spend on medical and/or legal fees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 What part of "There is no more money" do they not understand? You know, I've been trying to figure that out myself. It's not rocket science. For some reason, some people just don't understand the pyramid scheme of public sector defined benefit pension plans. Union members get back ten times what they contribute. The math doesn't add up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 (edited) Because unions want it both ways. They say they're for collective bargaining. But when they haven't been able to get what they want in Wisconsin, what have they done? Have they negotiated? Nope. They've gone to the legislature and received what they wanted from them. And now they have the nerve to complain when the other side takes a page out of their book. And is using the legislature to get what they want? Too bad so sad. It's time they contributed to their pensions and benefits at the same level everyone else does. They can retain their bargaining for salary only. There's absolutely nothing wrong with those terms. If they don't like it. Find another job. Nobody's forcing them to work there. Wrongo Professor... The union has said that it would negotiate on financials... The Governor (backed by the Koch's and their free market aparatchiks) said no way...No negotiating... And,lets face the real facts... This is about getting RTW legislation into a Free Collective Bargaining State throught the back door,using public sector unions as a test case... What has losing collective bargaining rights,individual opting out,and,annual recert votesd got to do with financial problems?? Edited February 24, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 And yet, no matter how poor Americans become, laboring under huge debt loads, and taxes (which are increasingly going to corporations as welfare) the same people who want to do away with unions will applaud insurance companies, pharmaceuticals and health care corporations charging ever increasing amounts for basic heath care. Well I certainly don't applaud that...and I recognize that the only reason insurance companies, BigPharma, and medical corporations can get away with charging more is because they live in a system of mitigated risk...knowing if they drive customers away the government will have their back. The presence of government in the economy skews the real value of everything, and so costs sky-rocket while our income is further and further reduced by onerous taxation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 What fantasies have you been reading? In that kind of environment companies will be able to offer just about anything to workers desperately scrambling for enough to feed their families. No benefits, forced overtime, and dangerous working conditions will all become standard part of the work environment. Scrooge would be delighted. "Are there no prisons!? Are there no work houses!?" You're not thinking this through... In a free market where all companies are in a sink-or-swim environment, it would be detrimental to treat workers poorly because a competitor could enter the market place at any time and become more competitive by attracting all of the best workers with better pay, better benefits. In the interest of competition, and not going bankrupt, companies would be interested in attracting the best workers and thus creating arduous conditions for employees would not be good for their bottom line. Forget fantasies, you've been reading too much Dickens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MapleLeafAlliance Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Funny how the United States had a budgetary surplus under Clinton. Then Bush came in and cut taxes. Suddenly there was a big budget deficit! And you've had one ever since, as every Republican politician cries "Vote for me and I'll cut taxes!" Anyone want to laugh? This is from 2000 President Clinton today projected that the United States will have a $1.9 trillion budget surplus over the next decade. He said the increase in the expected surplus means the government will be debt-free by 2010. ABC That's great...Clinton had a budgetary surplus...what difference did that make if the US was still massively in debt? It's all just twisting semantics to make Clinton appear somehow better at managing the economy...which is a farce. He was just as much a big-government advocate as every President going back many decades has been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.