Sheogorath_The_Mad Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) d. Edited December 14, 2013 by Sheogorath_The_Mad Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 How long will it be until people realize that jobs are going to disappear faster than they can be created? We should be looking for shorter work weeks as a result of greater efficiency. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
On Guard for Thee Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 How long will it be until people realize that jobs are going to disappear faster than they can be created? We should be looking for shorter work weeks as a result of greater efficiency. It will take until the wealth gets shared a bit more equitably. It makes perfect sense to me for instance to let a robot tighten up the bolts on new chevy's while those that used to do that get a bit more time to spend with their families. Chevys still get made and sold, the work week gets shortened a bit, everybody wins. But that's not how it goes for the most part. ACME car company lays off a bunch of people, plugs in the robots, and a bunch of boring jerks in white shirts that sit at a board room table and really do nothing get richer. I am a little concerned about where that scenario is headed. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 It will take until the wealth gets shared a bit more equitably. It makes perfect sense to me for instance to let a robot tighten up the bolts on new chevy's while those that used to do that get a bit more time to spend with their families. Chevys still get made and sold, the work week gets shortened a bit, everybody wins. But that's not how it goes for the most part. ACME car company lays off a bunch of people, plugs in the robots, and a bunch of boring jerks in white shirts that sit at a board room table and really do nothing get richer. I am a little concerned about where that scenario is headed. Exactly so and it gets worse than that. Those same guys in white shirts might decide that instead of buying labour saving robots, it makes more sense to pay somebody in a developing nation 30 cents and hour to tighten those bolts. Enormous amounts of fossil fuels are burned moving raw materials to these nations and finished goods away because those people making 30 cents an hour could never afford to buy a car. Economists call this efficiency but I call it madness. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Shady Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 Nonsense, and obviously very self serving. The public has spoken, and they will no longer be taken to the cleaners by public employee unions. The bloated gravy train is over. Exactly. Public employees don't contribute enough to their pensions. That's the simple truth and math of the problem. It's a scam. And the scam only works if they're allowed to raid other people's wallets to make up for the shortfall. It's got to stop, and thank God it is. They need to contribute a greater amount to their penions. Otherwise it isn't a pension, it's welfare and a transfer of wealth from younger people that don't make as much money to older people who make a lot more. It's ridiculous Quote
Shady Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 How long will it be until people realize that jobs are going to disappear faster than they can be created? We should be looking for shorter work weeks as a result of greater efficiency. No thanks. We need not follow the France economic model of shorter work weeks and longer holidays, etc. Because what comes after that is bankrupcty. Quote
Argus Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 Exactly. Public employees don't contribute enough to their pensions. That's the simple truth and math of the problem. It's a scam. And the scam only works if they're allowed to raid other people's wallets to make up for the shortfall. It's got to stop, and thank God it is. They need to contribute a greater amount to their penions. Otherwise it isn't a pension, it's welfare and a transfer of wealth from younger people that don't make as much money to older people who make a lot more. It's ridiculous So many jealous little people out there... Pensions were negotiated with the employer. In most cases, the employees sacrificed larger salary increases in favour of better pensions. Now, as the pensions come due, you feel it entirely appropriate for the employer to change their mind and throw everything out. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
hitops Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Society costs money to run. It's that basic and that simple. If you starve society of funds you wind up with anarchy, and a 'every man for himself' society like they have in the US. Which has been by an enormous margin, the most prosperous, powerful and innovative society in history. Boy we sure don't want to end up like that! This society BTW is largely responsible for the prosperity we enjoy that allow us to have public pensions in the first place, not mention have made it possible for all of us to be here communicating over the internet. Oh the evils! You don't BTW actually mean society costs money to run. What you really mean is that certain groups in society should justifiably cost endless sums of money at the expense of others. Groups that you support of course. Here's another concept that's easy to understand. Government is how society runs itself. And government runs on money. You starve government of money you starve society of the means to operate properly for all members. Umm no. Both societies in the US and Canada ran for hundreds of years before federal government was anywhere close to the colossus it is today. Not only ran, but ran better than almost anywhere else. Edited December 14, 2013 by hitops Quote
hitops Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) So many jealous little people out there... Pensions were negotiated with the employer. In most cases, the employees sacrificed larger salary increases in favour of better pensions. Now, as the pensions come due, you feel it entirely appropriate for the employer to change their mind and throw everything out. So many economic illiterates out there.... Contracts are enforeable.....until you go insolvent. Then they are out the window. If you work for a bloated agency without a financial strategy connected to reality in some way, this is the risk you take. There is no reason Canada Post workers should be paid anymore than the value of the service they provide. That value by the way, is not the value according to your opinion. It's the value according to what people will pay for it. Just like the value everyone else commands in real life. Edited December 14, 2013 by hitops Quote
Bonam Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 So many jealous little people out there... Pensions were negotiated with the employer. In most cases, the employees sacrificed larger salary increases in favour of better pensions. Now, as the pensions come due, you feel it entirely appropriate for the employer to change their mind and throw everything out. The employer can and should only promise money that it has, and the employee should only accept a deal that is realistic rather than farcical. Both sides are at fault, the employer for promising that which it cannot guarantee it can give, and the employee (union) for buying into an obvious scam. In any negotiation, ever, ALWAYS take money now rather than money later. Money you get now is real money that you can save for yourself and pay for your own retirement with. Money later is an empty promise. If the employees made a choice to take fake pension scams over real salary increases, it was their own greed and stupidity that led them to where they are. Quote
waldo Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 The employer can and should only promise money that it has, and the employee should only accept a deal that is realistic rather than farcical. Both sides are at fault, the employer for promising that which it cannot guarantee it can give, and the employee (union) for buying into an obvious scam. until just a couple of years back, Canada Post (CP) had (regularly) been meeting its pension obligations. Clearly, technology has driven a business model 'adjustment' requirement. In your juxtaposition of CP management versus its employees, is failing to recognize and timely adjust to a technological shift... "farcical... an obvious scam"? I expect CP will simply realize a government sanctioned exemption on the timing of its upcoming pension payments... extending the payments to meet current financial realities - the end of home delivery being an example of one of those realities. In any case, as I understand, the existing pension plan has $19 billion in market assets..... hardly the vehicle of "an obvious scam". Or do you really see the pension being "wound down" in any foreseeable time frame? . Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 .... In most cases, the employees sacrificed larger salary increases in favour of better pensions. Nope....taxpayers now have access to the bloated salaries and benefits of public employees. They didn't sacrifice any such thing. So Sorry, but the party is over. See you in court..... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) The employer can and should only promise money that it has, and the employee should only accept a deal that is realistic rather than farcical. Both sides are at fault, the employer for promising that which it cannot guarantee it can give, and the employee (union) for buying into an obvious scam. In any negotiation, ever, ALWAYS take money now rather than money later. Money you get now is real money that you can save for yourself and pay for your own retirement with. Money later is an empty promise. If the employees made a choice to take fake pension scams over real salary increases, it was their own greed and stupidity that led them to where they are. Well said. The problem with public sector unions is that they have no tie to economic reality. In the real world, salaries and benefits are tied to the revenue of a particular business and/or industry. But in the public sector, they can just create their own revenue by taking more of it from other people. And some of these public pension scam supporters who think that because they negotiated terms of said pensions never have to adjust to new realities better have a talk with some of the public pension recipients of the Detroit civil service. Edited December 14, 2013 by Shady Quote
Shady Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Nope....taxpayers now have access to the bloated salaries and benefits of public employees. They didn't sacrifice any such thing. So Sorry, but the party is over. See you in court..... Exactly. The money party is over, and the public sector unions are going to have to deal more with economic reality now, instead of being shielded from it. I'd actually rather pay higher salaries to public sector employees now, and eliminate the legacy costs of them in the future. Edited December 14, 2013 by Shady Quote
Argus Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 Which has been by an enormous margin, the most prosperous, powerful and innovative society in history. Boy we sure don't want to end up like that! You could have said the same about Rome at one point. That doesn't mean anyone wants to live like that now. The US model for society is one ALL other western nations have moved away from as backward, crude, cruel and enriching the few at the expense of the many. You don't BTW actually mean society costs money to run. What you really mean is that certain groups in society should justifiably cost endless sums of money at the expense of others. Groups that you support of course. Groups? Yes, like uhm, ordinary people. Government provides services to ordinary people. That's basically it. It provides pensions and policing, medical care, border protection, public transportation, including highways, bridges, airports and ports, the military, fire and ambulances, etc. etc. etc. All of that is done by government, which is, after all, just the organization created by the people. And yes, the part you hate (because FOX told you to) it helps keep old people from freezing to death in the dark of the homes they can't afford to heat, feeds poor children in the mornings, provides public welfare for the destitute, services for the disabled, unemployment benefits, etc. etc. All that last stuff is stuff billionaires don't need, which is why they tell you that's unnecessary, and that you'd be better off without it. Both societies in the US and Canada ran for hundreds of years before federal government was anywhere close to the colossus it is today. Not only ran, but ran better than almost anywhere else. So you think we should go back to the days when there was no public pensions, no public welfare, no public healthcare, where if you couldn't feed yourself you died, where if you couldn't afford a doctor you went without, and nobody much cared? Sorry, most of us have put that dog-eat-dog society behind us and are happy to leave it there. Even though the billionaires keep telling us their our lives would be better without any safety nets, without any regulations to hamper corporate "efficiency" and without any taxes to make the "job creators" unhappy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) So many economic illiterates out there.... Contracts are enforeable.....until you go insolvent. Then they are out the window. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize what an economic genius I was talking to. Could you please cite me the bankruptcy proceedings where the government of Canada was declared insolvent? I must have missed that. Oh, and by the way, that has NOTHING to do with economics. You're talking about laws. You might want to remember that next time you start making weary pronouncements on other people's ignorance. There is no reason Canada Post workers should be paid anymore than the value of the service they provide. That value by the way, is not the value according to your opinion. It's the value according to what people will pay for it. You know, ten odd years ago, I knew a guy who worked at Purolator courier. So this information might be a bit dated. But they were unionized, and made pretty good money with decent benefits. I think Fedex pays decently too, and also has benefits. I know you want to think you could pay everyone (not including you of course) minimum wage and no benefits, but it's just not true. Except in the states. Saw an item on the news this morning that one third of bank tellers in the US collect food stamps. Edited December 14, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 In any negotiation, ever, ALWAYS take money now rather than money later. Money you get now is real money that you can save for yourself and pay for your own retirement with. Money later is an empty promise. If the employees made a choice to take fake pension scams over real salary increases, it was their own greed and stupidity that led them to where they are. As I have already said a few times, having become heavily involved in investing over the past couple of years I can attest to the fact the vast, vast majority of people have NO CLUE about how to invest for their retirement. Tossing everyone into that sort of free for all is just a guarantee the financial services industry will get even more bloated and wealthy, and we'll have a lot more old people eating dog food in their darkened apartments. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
cybercoma Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 But what will never be on the table is the fat salaries, stock options, and golden parachutes of the CEOs, right?huge wages and benefits are needed to attract and retain the best CEOs. That same logic isn't used by so-called conservatives when it comes to employees though. Quote
Argus Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 Well said. The problem with public sector unions is that they have no tie to economic reality. In the real world, salaries and benefits are tied to the revenue of a particular business and/or industry. Really? The banking industry in the US makes a lot of money, and certainly has the ability to pay good salaries. They just choose not to, and fight furiously to ensure no one dares think about unionizing. Wal-Mart makes huge profits. Its owners are obscenely wealthy. Yet they need to hold charity food drives for their poverty stricken employees. Do lawyers pay big salaries to their legal assistants? Nope. The fact is that if a corporation has a choice it will give no benefits, and pay the rock bottom minimum it can get away with. And I know you fully approve of that. Yet you're the first one to cry about unions asking for salaries which the employer claims is too much. The corporate propaganda mill in, keeping with their immense lobbying (bribery) is intent on lowering wages, benefits, and safety protection across the board for everyone, while they get fat and rich on their constantly downsized taxes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) huge wages and benefits are needed to attract and retain the best CEOs. That same logic isn't used by so-called conservatives when it comes to employees though. There's precious little evidence that any of these millionaire CEOs are the slightest bit better than their predecessors from the 1950s 60s, or 70s. And many a well-paid CEO has led his company into bankruptcy and ruin. They're also constantly being dumped for someone else (with a hefty, multimilliona dollar golden parachute, of course). Barrick Gold fired its last CEO in mid 2012 and hired a new guy, who they paid an $11 million signing bonus to. He'll make $17 million dollars this year. We had to secure him,” Mr. Munk told shareholders. “The right thing was to have this advanced investment … to secure the kind of access he could give us and the credibility he could provide us with in securing major capital.” Barrick's stock has been cut in half this year. It's at its lowest level in 20 years. Meanwhile, this guy http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/cmmssnr/ has about 40,000 employees and makes about $300,000 a year. Edited December 14, 2013 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) You could have said the same about Rome at one point. That doesn't mean anyone wants to live like that now. The US model for society is one ALL other western nations have moved away from as backward, crude, cruel and enriching the few at the expense of the many. Great...then get back on topic in Canada and stop worrying about the "US". How about Ontario ? So you think we should go back to the days when there was no public pensions, no public welfare, no public healthcare, where if you couldn't feed yourself you died, where if you couldn't afford a doctor you went without, and nobody much cared? Sorry, most of us have put that dog-eat-dog society behind us and are happy to leave it there. Even though the billionaires keep telling us their our lives would be better without any safety nets, without any regulations to hamper corporate "efficiency" and without any taxes to make the "job creators" unhappy. Nobody said to do away with public pensions, just the ridiculous unaffordable and unsustainable ones. And it's not just "billionaires" saying enough is enough. Go cry to the unions. Edited December 14, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 huge wages and benefits are needed to attract and retain the best CEOs. That same logic isn't used by so-called conservatives when it comes to employees though. It is in a perverse inverse way where low wages and no benefits are needed to attract and retain the industries that CEO's run. No environmental protection or human rights are also something these industries increasingly seem to need, I guess to pay the huge wages and benefits the CEO's get. Of course there's no labour like free labour so maybe the government could solicit and recruit volunteers to deliver the mail. Incorporate Mail on Wheels alongside Meals on Wheels. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 Of course there's no labour like free labour so maybe the government could solicit and recruit volunteers to deliver the mail. Incorporate Mail on Wheels alongside Meals on Wheels. Nothing beats free fish from the same endangered environment, right ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 huge wages and benefits are needed to attract and retain the best CEOs. That same logic isn't used by so-called conservatives when it comes to employees though. You're not making any sense. Conservatives don't decide what somebody gets paid. It's supply and demand. If there are only a handful of people that are qualiftied to do a job, than the salary demands for said job will be high. If there are many people that are qualifed, than the salary demands will be lower. It's basic economics, which apparently some people cannot seem to grasp. As for most public sector jobs, depending on the job, the salary will be different. Many public sector jobs aren't high skilled jobs, and the supply of qualifed people to do them is significantly higher than say a CEO of a world wide company. Use common sense. Quote
Shady Posted December 14, 2013 Report Posted December 14, 2013 It is in a perverse inverse way where low wages and no benefits are needed to attract and retain the industries that CEO's run. No environmental protection or human rights are also something these industries increasingly seem to need, I guess to pay the huge wages and benefits the CEO's get. Of course there's no labour like free labour so maybe the government could solicit and recruit volunteers to deliver the mail. Incorporate Mail on Wheels alongside Meals on Wheels. No, they could just contract the mail service out to Fedex or UPS that can deliver more efficiently with less cost, which can save money to stay in the taxpayers pocket. Quote
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.