"A poor person never gave me a job!"

[TimG]

You do know the public sector and the third sector serve a purpose, right? Their purpose even contributes to the economy most of the time.

Which is why their benefit and pay packages should be no more and no less than the private sector norms for the same type of job. Edited September 10, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Who cares what they do with their paycheque, it's just tax money taken from the people who actually create wealth.

I hate to break it to you, but we need public sector jobs. The way you're acting you seem to think that the money spent on public sector jobs is just money wasted. You seem to think it's the same thing as shovelling cash right into a fire. I hope you realize that's wrong.

[Bonam]

On both of these points, there has aleady been discussion (Steve Jobs, apprentice programs) and good points made to the contrary.

Steve Jobs is a single anecdotal case, not a point. As you yourself have many times admonished, generalizing from a single anecdote is not often very insightful.

A more relevant piece of information may be that a disproportionately large number of founders of new businesses and CEOs of major companies alike hold degrees in engineering or related fields, about 1/4 of all such leading positions I believe. In fact, I think the stats show that someone with an engineering degree is actually statistically the most likely to become a CEO, more likely than an MBA, business major, accounting degree, and certainly more than BAs. I can't quite find the article that said that but I remember reading it, will provide link if I find it.

And not only that, I'd bet those are the CEOs that are actually running companies that innovate and create value, rather than the MBAs that run companies in the bloated financial sector.

Edited September 10, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

We need people who can speak clearly, write, and "provide knowledge" with a deep understanding of various specific fields related to our economy. Whether it's tourism, forestry, business, transportation, software, robotics, economics, etc, it is a lot easier to train a specialist in one of these fields to communicate effectively than to train a generalist arts major to be knowledgeable about these fields.

We need entrepreneurs who can create jobs, and most new businesses are founded on innovation, by people who can use both the creative side of their mind to come up with new ideas, but have the technical know-how to put their ideas into practice.

I seriously doubt most new businesses are founded on innovation. Do you have any kind of evidence for that? I would assume the vast majority of new businesses sell well understood and somewhat commoditized products and services.

[CPCFTW]

I hate to break it to you, but we need public sector jobs. The way you're acting you seem to think that the money spent on public sector jobs is just money wasted. You seem to think it's the same thing as shovelling cash right into a fire. I hope you realize that's wrong.

Sure we do (albeit we should have far fewer), but do we need them to be overpaid BAs? Hate to break it to you, but nope.

Edited September 10, 2012 by CPCFTW

[dre]

Sure we do (albeit we should have far fewer), but do we need them to be overpaid BAs? Hate to break it to you, but nope.

No but we need workers to be able to bargain collectively because thats a fundamental human right in any society that allows freedom of association.

But governments in general need to bargain harder. Part of the problem is that when times are good employers DONT bargain hard. This isnt just an issue for government, its an issue in the private sector as well. All these CBA's and contracts that people whine about have the employers signature at the bottom.

[Bonam]

I seriously doubt most new businesses are founded on innovation. Do you have any kind of evidence for that? I would assume the vast majority of new businesses sell well understood and somewhat commoditized products and services.

A new business has to have something new to offer or it's not gonna be able to take any market share away from established competitors. Now sure, as populations grow and new neighborhoods come into existence, people are gonna build new corner stores, barber shops, etc, and those are new businesses of course. But I guess I was referring to new businesses that have a shot at growth. To expand, you must do something new, or do something old better or cheaper than before. Either way, it's innovation.

[TimG]

No but we need workers to be able to bargain collectively because thats a fundamental human right in any society that allows freedom of association.

There is no fundamental right to keep your job if don't show up to work. There is no fundamental human right to use intimidation with the threat of violence to prevent others from going to work for your employer when you decide that you don't want them to.

[Bonam]

No but we need workers to be able to bargain collectively because thats a fundamental human right in any society that allows freedom of association.

I'm not so sure. I think there is a vast difference between "freedom of association" and having giant labour conglomerates in control of nearly all employment in the public sector.

But governments in general need to bargain harder. Part of the problem is that when times are good employers DONT bargain hard.

That's because it's hard to bargain hard when the guy across the table can cease all operation of your business by going on strike if he doesn't like what you're saying. The only time employers have a strong bargaining position against a union is in times of dire economic crisis, when the employer can truthfully tell the union that if they don't compromise, that the company will collapse and they'll all lose their jobs. The rest of the time, when times are good and the union knows that the business will remain viable, they feel free to push the employer as much as they can, and the employer bargains from a position of weakness.

[dre]

A new business has to have something new to offer or it's not gonna be able to take any market share away from established competitors. Now sure, as populations grow and new neighborhoods come into existence, people are gonna build new corner stores, barber shops, etc, and those are new businesses of course. But I guess I was referring to new businesses that have a shot at growth. To expand, you must do something new, or do something old better or cheaper than before. Either way, it's innovation.

Thats not true. There is a shitload of businesses that enter the market to sell existing goods and services in a pretty generic way. As long as they execute and market well they can grow. They just see any area where the market is not saturated, and they provide products or services that have been around forever.

Like I said... if you look at the total number of new business startups, Im pretty sure you will see that only a very small minority of them really do anything innovative. Very few of them actually invent a new product/service, new method of delivery, or new method of marketing.

To expand, you must do something new, or do something old better or cheaper than before. Either way, it's innovation.

No you just have to execute and competently run and market your business. Thats not innovation. Being more efficient isnt neccessarily innovation either unless that efficiency is the result of a new method or process that you invented.

[dre]

There is no fundamental right to keep your job if don't show up to work. There is no fundamental human right to use intimidation with the threat of violence to prevent others from going to work for your employer when you decide that you don't want them to.

Thats really special, but doesnt have anything to do with the post you quoted.

[Bonam]

Thats not true. There is a shitload of businesses that enter the market to sell existing goods and services in a pretty generic way. As long as they execute and market well they can grow. They just see any area where the market is not saturated, and they provide products or services that have been around forever.

Like I said... if you look at the total number of new business startups, Im pretty sure you will see that only a very small minority of them really do anything innovative. Very few of them actually invent a new product/service, new method of delivery, or new method of marketing.

No you just have to execute and competently run and market your business. Thats not innovation. Being more efficient isnt neccessarily innovation either unless that efficiency is the result of a new method or process that you invented.

I would be curious to see some data on the subject.

[jacee]

You do know the public sector and the third sector serve a purpose, right? Their purpose even contributes to the economy most of the time. Not only does the work they do help with the economy, but you act like they take their paychecks and bury them in their backyards.

Shhhhhh ... don't tell them that we're sitting on a huge stash of dead money that should be circulating and creating jobs! Oh no wait! That's all the 'smart guys' in the private sector!

Edited September 10, 2012 by jacee

[dre]

I would be curious to see some data on the subject.

Yeah me too. I had a quick look but didnt find any. And Im probably being unfairly nitpickish by narrowing in on your "most" statement. Your point still stands that innovation and creativity are extremely important. Even for all the cookie-cutter businesses I mentioned, someone at some point had to innovate in order for those products and services to become commoditized.

[Bonam]

Yeah me too. I had a quick look but didnt find any. And Im probably being unfairly nitpickish by narrowing in on your "most" statement. Your point still stands that innovation and creativity are extremely important. Even for all the cookie-cutter businesses I mentioned, someone at some point had to innovate in order for those products and services to become commoditized.

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement on this particular point, then.

[Michael Hardner]

Steve Jobs is a single anecdotal case, not a point. As you yourself have many times admonished, generalizing from a single anecdote is not often very insightful.

I wasn't trying to say that Arts grads were all Steve Jobs types, but that general education has benefits over specific training. The response to my point was that we need people who can work for others.

A more relevant piece of information may be that a disproportionately large number of founders of new businesses and CEOs of major companies alike hold degrees in engineering or related fields, about 1/4 of all such leading positions I believe.

In fact, I think the stats show that someone with an engineering degree is actually statistically the most likely to become a CEO, more likely than an MBA, business major, accounting degree, and certainly more than BAs. I can't quite find the article that said that but I remember reading it, will provide link if I find it.

Source ?

Executives tend to have MBAs, as far as my experience goes.

[cybercoma]

Sure we do (albeit we should have far fewer), but do we need them to be overpaid BAs? Hate to break it to you, but nope.

Nice sidestep. Keep ignoring the glaring problem with your argument.

[cybercoma]

There is no fundamental right to keep your job if don't show up to work. There is no fundamental human right to use intimidation with the threat of violence to prevent others from going to work for your employer when you decide that you don't want them to.

What does any of that have to do with collective bargaining?

[cybercoma]

I'm not so sure. I think there is a vast difference between "freedom of association" and having giant labour conglomerates in control of nearly all employment in the public sector.

The government controls employment in the public sector, period. They add and cut jobs as they see fit and change budgets all the time. Who are you trying to fool here?

[cybercoma]

Shhhhhh ... don't tell them that we're sitting on a huge stash of dead money that should be circulating and creating jobs! Oh no wait! That's all the 'smart guys' in the private sector!

Exactly. When working families earn money, they spend money. When the multi-millionaires make their money they sit on it. Study after study is showing that these corporate tax cuts are not making it back into the economy or creating jobs. Put money into the hands of people that are going to demand goods and services. That's what creates jobs.

[Black Dog]

If we're also going to consider the benefit to the economy, then that opens a whole new can of worms.

I don't have any source for this, but I would bet dollars to donuts that arts grads are significantly more likely to be working in the public sector vs private sector than are graduates of other disciplines.

So we subsidize these degrees so that we can then pay them more taxpayer money to push papers around and play office.

Arts degrees are a huge drain on the economy IMO.

Like that leech Stephen Harper. Economics? Pffft! What's that about? Couldn't he get a real degree like computer sciences or, uh, plumbing?

[bleeding heart]

Like that leech Stephen Harper. Economics? Pffft! What's that about? Couldn't he get a real degree like computer sciences or, uh, plumbing?

Right! The "dismal science," square in the realm of the Humanities.

Stupid lefties.

[blueblood]

Exactly. When working families earn money, they spend money. When the multi-millionaires make their money they sit on it. Study after study is showing that these corporate tax cuts are not making it back into the economy or creating jobs. Put money into the hands of people that are going to demand goods and services. That's what creates jobs.

That's rich, you said that overpaid public sector employees are not burying their money in the ground, yet you complain about millionaires sitting on heir money.

The standard of living a millionaire and taxes they pay is not sitting on their money. The salaries they pay is not sitting on their money. Do you pay anyone a salary? Business inputs are not sitting on their money. The rapid development of asia and latin america out of poverty is not sitting on their money, You can't have an economy based on consumption, it's a house of cards and doesn't work. That's what the public sector does, it does not produce any wealth only redistributes it for consumption.

This post is why academics shouldn't be running things, lots of education, but little smarts.

[TimG]

What does any of that have to do with collective bargaining?

Ok. If they have nothing to do with collective bargaining then lets get rid of laws that prohibit employers from firing employees who do not show up to work because they are 'on strike' as well as laws that prohibit employers from hiring replacement workers or allow people block access to a work site.

[Black Dog]

That's rich, you said that overpaid public sector employees are not burying their money in the ground, yet you complain about millionaires sitting on heir money.

The standard of living a millionaire and taxes they pay is not sitting on their money. The salaries they pay is not sitting on their money. Do you pay anyone a salary? Business inputs are not sitting on their money. The rapid development of asia and latin america out of poverty is not sitting on their money, You can't have an economy based on consumption, it's a house of cards and doesn't work. That's what the public sector does, it does not produce any wealth only redistributes it for consumption.

This post is why academics shouldn't be running things, lots of education, but little smarts.

I would suggest to you that, without the public sector, there would be no millionaires. Or rather there'd be a few, but they would be perched on piles of skulls.