Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 1, 2008 - 9:17pm.
Bush is a royal screw up. His general incompetence/lack of curiosity is scary.
Republicans deserve to be punished hard for nominating Bush twice for the presidency. I gave up in 2000 trying to convince Republicans to support McCain over Bush.
Republicans openly support the big and small business alike. There are no hidden agendas.
Democrats are worse. They pretend to champion the little guy. They collect tons of money from the same Wall Street interests that ran this country down. You won't have any Democrat asking how Obama is shattering fund raising records.
The achiles heels for the Democrats are illegal immigrants, public employees, entitlements.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
The Democrats support for public schools and opposition to school choice/vouchers is the singular reason for home price appreciation price war that have destroyed this country. The damage from this misguided policies exceeds any damage Bush could do.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 1, 2008 - 9:17pm.
Bush is a royal screw up. His general incompetence/lack of curiosity is scary.
Republicans deserve to be punished hard for nominating Bush twice for the presidency. I gave up in 2000 trying to convince Republicans to support McCain over Bush.
Republicans openly support the big and small business alike. There are no hidden agendas.
Democrats are worse. They pretend to champion the little guy. They collect tons of money from the same Wall Street interests that ran this country down. You won't have any Democrat asking how Obama is shattering fund raising records.
The achiles heels for the Democrats are illegal immigrants, public employees, entitlements.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
The Democrats support for public schools and opposition to school choice/vouchers is the singular reason for home price appreciation price war that have destroyed this country. The damage from this misguided policies exceeds any damage Bush could do.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
I work for the UC system.
Salaries are *nowhere near* competitive to private sector gigs. I get 2-3 calls a month from recruiters offering me junior positions for 20-30% more than I'm making now. My friends that are sales engineers make more than twice what I do. On top of that we have a wage freeze due to the budget crisis.
We don't have a 401k, bonuses, or stock options. You will also usually have the same job for life, as its almost impossible to get promoted.
The benefits package, including medical, dental, vision and a pension plan, are necessary to attract and retain competent employees. Which is actually very challenging even in the current environment.
There is no free lunch. Everyone that works in public service is entitled to be taken care of during their retirement. We've earned it.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
I work for the UC system.
Salaries are *nowhere near* competitive to private sector gigs. I get 2-3 calls a month from recruiters offering me junior positions for 20-30% more than I'm making now. My friends that are sales engineers make more than twice what I do. On top of that we have a wage freeze due to the budget crisis.
We don't have a 401k, bonuses, or stock options. You will also usually have the same job for life, as its almost impossible to get promoted.
The benefits package, including medical, dental, vision and a pension plan, are necessary to attract and retain competent employees. Which is actually very challenging even in the current environment.
There is no free lunch. Everyone that works in public service is entitled to be taken care of during their retirement. We've earned it.
Kewp, I hate to bring this up question (because frankly I do like you)
....But, I recall a few months (maybe a year ago) you mentioned that you wanted to be working in the public sector because
(1) you felt the job was more stable than the private sector.
(2) the hours were better
As such, I recall you mentioned a few times, that was why you wanted to stay in the public sector instead of the private sector. You had said a few times when this economy tanks, all these private sector employees that are your counterparts will be losing their jobs left and right, and that being in the public sector, your job will stable and weather the economic downturn, and as a result you accepted the apparent disparity in compensation between being in the public sector versus your private sector counterparts.
Perhaps I'm reading your above comment incorrectly though. It seems like you're suggesting though that public sector's benefits should be beefed up,despite this economic climate, because it was never on par was the private sector.
That's sort of what I'm confused about..Because I thought the entire point of folks joining the public sector versus private was out of personal choice. Acknowledgement that working in the public sector, compensation was not going to be on par versus private, but the position was going to be more "stable". In good times, that sort of works against public sector employees, in bad times the reverse (ideally) is true.
Anyway, it just seems like this entire public versus private sector choice is like everything else in life...Risk versus Reward. People that do things that take on more risk generally are compensated more for taking on that risk. People that take the safer approach aren't going to be compensated equally as more risky approaches. If that wasn't the case, there would be little motivation for someone to unnecessarily assume more risk to get the same result.
Don't get me wrong. I think that public sector positions should have decent benefits package, as if they are entirely crappy, you won't find anyone working in those positions. But to me, it's stretch to ever expect them to be on par with the private sector. If the discrepancy is so bothersome, there's no reason why one couldn't work in the private sector and assume more risk. I guess I just am not following the rationale for why public sector employee "package" you think should be on par with the private sector. Arguably, your job offers more security than the private sector. And asking for a compensation that is on par with the private sector to me seems like asking for a cookie and eating it too. The reverse is also true. All those private sector tech workers that have lost or are about too lose their jobs really can't complain they have no job security...Because they chose to assume more risk by not working in a public sector, more secure job...
Of course, if you now feel that public sector tech jobs are just as insecure as private sector tech jobs... Well, that's an entirely different line of thinking. (Frankly, that is my line of thinking...That when the economy is *that* bad, it doesn't really matter if you're a tech worker in public or private..everyone's impacted. So you might as well take the one that has more risk and potentially a better comp package..But that's just again my personal choice).
BTW: a lot of us private sector folks, worrying about wage freezes are the last things on our mind.
Kewp, I hate to bring this up question (because frankly I do like you)
....But, I recall a few months (maybe a year ago) you mentioned that you wanted to be working in the public sector because
(1) you felt the job was more stable than the private sector.
(2) the hours were better
Perhaps I'm reading your above comment incorrectly though. It seems like you're suggesting though that public sector's benefits should be beefed up,despite this economic climate, because it was never on par was the private sector.
I work for the UC for a number of reasons. The stability and hours are part of but definitely not all of it. Something that is great about University work is that I can leave it at the office at the end of the day and then spend my extra cycles making money day trading after-hours. I also have a fun job and get to use technology (e.g. Gentoo Linux) that I probably couldn't get away with in a stricter environment.
I'm not at all suggesting that I should be paid twice as much (though it would be nice!). My point is that the pension plan is part of the benefits package. It's necessary to attract and retain good people.
Remember I was responding to the post above complaining about pampering public sector employees with pensions. Well, I'll tell you what, I certainly don't feel pampered living in SD on my current salary. Given that we don't have a 401k how are state workers supposed to secure their retirements? Have a "Carousel" like in Logan's Run?
Basically I'm saying from the other side of the fence, I think things are fine how they are. I make my choices, you made yours, don't hate on me because thanks to Bush your 401k is now a 201k.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 2, 2008 - 12:45am.
My primary gripe with public sector employees
1. salary for university presidents
2. policemen/firefighters abusing overtime rules
3. salaries for prison guards
I would like pensions replaced with lump sum payments for employees while they retire.
health care benefits for retirees has to go. Governments cannot afford it. Plus why provide it when you have Medicare ?
Sales Engineers make more money than development engineers. They get fired quite often too.
My 401k match works out to an average of $2000-$3000 per year. I have had generous 401k matches. I know people who get nothing in the way of company matches from 401k plans. I have made a grand total of 10k on employee stock purchase plans/stock options over the past 7-8 years.
Stock options in public companies are dead given the new accounting rules for stock options. You can try a startup.
The investment options for a lot of govt employee 403b) plans suck. The union reps who negotiate these options are either idiots or being bribed by salespeople who sell these useless financial products. These are the kind of things that make my blood boil. On one hand government employees complain that they are underpaid.
I studied at a UC campus. The good thing about UC job is that you can leave @ 5 pm. There is something to be said about it. There is some fat on UC campuses. It is not too bad.
promotion in the corporate world is a double edged sword. plenty of middle managers have been axed in corporate downsizing of the past 20 years.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 2, 2008 - 12:54am.
what fat_lazy_union_worker does not realize is his salary, health insurance, pension, retiree health is being paid by the taxpayers. taxpayers are being squeezed. rising home and stock values cushioned the blow for the past 20+ years. With asset values declining the pain is being felt.
your average small business owner is unable to provide health insurance to their employees. it is a matter of time that the large companies start cutting back.
it is hard to have a 30-35 year career in corporate America. There will be a lot of changes.
pension in private sector is dead. Any company that provides pension is at a competitive disadvantage - GM, Ford, Chrysler. Motorola, IBM, HP ended their pension programs. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft never had pensions. Retiree healthcare is over.
It is hard to expect to keep benefits in the long run that have disappeared for the private sector.
Submitted by CA renter on November 2, 2008 - 3:02am.
It is hard to expect to keep benefits in the long run that have disappeared for the private sector.
-------------------
...because private sector employees **chose** to let those benefits go.
It was all part of the Great Brainwashing Experiment over the past few decades.
1. Convince everyone that union workers are lazy, incompetent and overpaid. Convince the sheeple that unions are ~~BAD!!!~~
2. Convince the sheeple that they, too, can be rich and famous, if only they try. We can -- each and every one of us -- be rich beyond our wildest dreams if we all work 60+ hour weeks and forego any personal time or enjoyment of life.
3. Convince the sheeple that we all need college degrees, even if we just flip burgers for a living. Denigrate blue-collar work and all that "dirty" sort of stuff. We can all become wealthy if we just sell debt and other financial "products" back-and-forth to one another. As long as we're putting in 60+ hours, we've earned it!!!
4. Convince the sheeple that once they become wealthy, they will not like progressive taxation, so they are trained to vote for politicians who represent the rich (can be either Democrats or Republican, but most are Repubs). They can be further convinced by voting for issues related to marriage rights and abortion and flag burning -- emotional things that are meant to distract the masses so the wealthy can plunder our resources even more and create laws which funnel more money to their own.
5. Convince the sheeple that competing with third-world wages will make them rich...somehow.
Sure hope Americans wake up soon, and start focusing on what really matters -- jobs (union jobs), and money flows. We desperately need to address the wealth disparity in this country -- before it's too late. We can't do this without unions, IMHO. Hopefully, it's not too late.
My primary gripe with public sector employees
1. salary for university presidents
2. policemen/firefighters abusing overtime rules
3. salaries for prison guards
You should check out the UC salaries sometime. There are a hundred or so doctors in our medical center that make more than our president.
Ever wonder why healthcare costs are so high? Well, now you know.
Fraud should be punished. I'm salaried and don't get paid when I work overtime (which I do often), so I have sympathy for those that abuse the system. No matter how dangerous their job is.
I don't know about prison guards, but I have noticed at the VA that there are armed guards seemly in every corner and hallway courtesy of the patriot act. This is tremendously wasteful.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 2, 2008 - 12:02pm.
CARenter make good points.
What choice does the United Auto Workers have ? They have driven a hard good bargain for their employees in the short run. In the long run their benefit packages are unsustainable. Do not give me this protectionism excuse. GM and Ford makes $15-20 billion in profits every year on their overseas operations which are being used to subsidize their inefficient domestic operations - UAW workforce and stupid management. When Chinese/Indian car makers target their sales in foreign countries and those profits evaporate. Look for complete meltdown of the auto industry.
" Convince everyone that union workers are lazy, incompetent and overpaid. Convince the sheeple that unions are ~~BAD!!!~~"
Unions do protect seniority over competence. It has the effect of keeping incompetent people on the payroll. Let us deal with it.
" Convince the sheeple that they, too, can be rich and famous, if only they try. We can -- each and every one of us -- be rich beyond our wildest dreams if we all work 60+ hour weeks and forego any personal time or enjoyment of life."
You get paid for what you produce. You cannot work inefficiently for 35 hours and expect all the perks of a millionaire. A lot of people take jobs that pay lesser. lazy_union_guy is a good example. He chooses the lower pay of UC job in return for fixed working hours and more security.
" Convince the sheeple that we all need college degrees, even if we just flip burgers for a living. Denigrate blue-collar work and all that "dirty" sort of stuff. We can all become wealthy if we just sell debt and other financial "products" back-and-forth to one another. As long as we're putting in 60+ hours, we've earned it!!! "
I will say this - a good high school education is absolute pre-requiste for survival in this world. Anyone who can crunch a few numbers would have not bought a home during this bubble. For a lot of people vocational education is more relevant than college education.
" Convince the sheeple that competing with third-world wages will make them rich...somehow."
Whether you like it or not you have to deal with China and India. They are big. They have 2.5 billion people. At least 20% of the population is smart. I may add - the use of the word "Third World" reflects a bias.
" Sure hope Americans wake up soon, and start focusing on what really matters -- jobs (union jobs), and money flows. We desperately need to address the wealth disparity in this country -- before it's too late. We can't do this without unions, IMHO. Hopefully, it's not too late."
I agree with what you say except for the unions. The end result of the union agenda is to divide the country into two halves - unions (govt employees, service workers, licensed professionals) and non-unions workforce. Look for two sets of benefits.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 2, 2008 - 12:06pm.
AMA is the biggest union in the country. They control their numbers to inflate their salaries.
I like healthcare costs to be priced at what can be afforded by the population. I see no reason why health care has to be priced at ridiculous costs. I see some complex procedures being expensive. $10,000 for delivering a baby is ridiculous. I like to see health insurance for truly catastrophic events.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 2, 2008 - 12:13pm.
Unions have been successful in Western Europe. They have more homogeneous societies, lesser standard of living (at least from material). They have far lesser technological innovation.
Submitted by peterb on November 2, 2008 - 12:18pm.
There's a depression coming and it's gaining momentum. Nobody in politics can stop it. Never could. It's the market at work, made uglier by a lot of BS govt intervention. But at least the guys in DC and Wall Street will be ok.
what fat_lazy_union_worker does not realize is his salary, health insurance, pension, retiree health is being paid by the taxpayers. taxpayers are being squeezed. rising home and stock values cushioned the blow for the past 20+ years. With asset values declining the pain is being felt.
your average small business owner is unable to provide health insurance to their employees. it is a matter of time that the large companies start cutting back.
it is hard to have a 30-35 year career in corporate America. There will be a lot of changes.
pension in private sector is dead. Any company that provides pension is at a competitive disadvantage - GM, Ford, Chrysler. Motorola, IBM, HP ended their pension programs. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft never had pensions. Retiree healthcare is over.
It is hard to expect to keep benefits in the long run that have disappeared for the private sector.
I think you misread my point. I work in the private sector. And what I was referring was Kewp's response as to sugar coating the public sectoring with greater pensions,etc. So I'm not following how you think my salary, health benefits, pension (which I don't have one), is being paid for by the taxpayer.
Kewp, I hate to bring this up question (because frankly I do like you)
....But, I recall a few months (maybe a year ago) you mentioned that you wanted to be working in the public sector because
(1) you felt the job was more stable than the private sector.
(2) the hours were better
Perhaps I'm reading your above comment incorrectly though. It seems like you're suggesting though that public sector's benefits should be beefed up,despite this economic climate, because it was never on par was the private sector.
I work for the UC for a number of reasons. The stability and hours are part of but definitely not all of it. Something that is great about University work is that I can leave it at the office at the end of the day and then spend my extra cycles making money day trading after-hours. I also have a fun job and get to use technology (e.g. Gentoo Linux) that I probably couldn't get away with in a stricter environment.
I'm not at all suggesting that I should be paid twice as much (though it would be nice!). My point is that the pension plan is part of the benefits package. It's necessary to attract and retain good people.
Remember I was responding to the post above complaining about pampering public sector employees with pensions. Well, I'll tell you what, I certainly don't feel pampered living in SD on my current salary. Given that we don't have a 401k how are state workers supposed to secure their retirements? Have a "Carousel" like in Logan's Run?
Basically I'm saying from the other side of the fence, I think things are fine how they are. I make my choices, you made yours, don't hate on me because thanks to Bush your 401k is now a 201k.
Oh, I don't hate you. I guess I misread what you were trying to say. I wasn't suggesting public workers are getting pampered. It seemed to suggest that you were suggesting they should. Anway, I'm pretty much in agreement with what you're saying here. And no, I don't hate anyone for those 201k's. Like i said, that's a personal decision. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some people who are blaming their losses right now on the government, like that MM lady facing forclosure. Maybe I should chain myself to the fidelity building.
Submitted by CA renter on November 2, 2008 - 4:48pm.
wannabe2077 said:
Whether you like it or not you have to deal with China and India. They are big. They have 2.5 billion people. At least 20% of the population is smart. I may add - the use of the word "Third World" reflects a bias.
-----------------
Definition:
Third World. Third World is one of many terms used to describe the poorer countries of the world. Other terms include Southern Countries or the South, underdeveloped countries, less developed countries(LDCs), countries in a process of development, newly developed countries.
This term also includes a group of countries in Asia called the NICs - Newly Industrialised Countries who seemed during the 1980s and the early 1990s to be developing particularly quickly.
You are right. After looking it up on different sites, it seems the term has fallen out of favor, and I apologize if it was offensive. That was definitely not my point.
Whatever we call it, I am referring to the following graphs and charts (sorry, was not able to copy it over):
Nobody is disputing the enormity of these populations, nor the intelligence, etc. It is simply very destructive to our economy to try to compete.
While those populations may be large, Americans are still the greatest consumers of the world. That comes about because of our (relatively) higher wages. We cannot continue to pay "American" prices if we are going to earn "developing world" wages. The spread between the two was enabled by our ever-growing debt expansion, and global corporations are the beneficiaries. This is the ultimate cause of our financial destruction (which we are now witnessing), IMHO.
Submitted by CA renter on November 2, 2008 - 5:01pm.
wannabe said:
I agree with what you say except for the unions. The end result of the union agenda is to divide the country into two halves - unions (govt employees, service workers, licensed professionals) and non-unions workforce. Look for two sets of benefits.
-----------------------
This is part of the brainwashing!!!
Workers should NOT be divided at all! That's exactly what has caused the demise of the once-proud, exceedingly innovative and productive U.S. worker -- and the resultant middle-class.
Instead of tearing down the unions, we should be working on bringing all workers into the unions. We should strive to work UP to those wages and benefits for all workers, not tear them down.
FWIW, the private sector employees absolutely BENEFIT from unions because their employers have to compete with the union employers. The private sector workers should be demanding more, or they should be working for the public sector. It creates more competition/demand for workers, improving EVERYONE's circumstances.
If it's so much better in the public sector, wouldn't it be filled with all our best and brightest employees?
BTW, I agree with you to a point about the seniority protections in unionized workplaces. While it does serve a purpose (helps avoid age discrimination and favoritism), it should be secondary to aptitude/ability. In reality, this really isn't an issue unless you are staying in one particular position. Oftentimes, it is the younger people who move up the ladder more quickly if they are ambitious.
Also, I think the demise of the U.S. auto industry is more due to mismanagement then union pensions, etc.
If they had done a better job in development -- and improved their quality and efficiency -- the unions would not be an issue, IMHO. Their experiment with poorer quality cars (to increase turnover) during the 80s was their death knell.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 2, 2008 - 8:03pm.
i agree for some private sector workers the public sector unions improves pay/working conditions.
union organizers have targetted low to mid-range skilled workforces in infrastructure, government. they have little luck in any competitive industry.
unions have zero luck with fast food, restaurant workers. Tell me how much is McDonald's worker going to make if he/she is unionized. please pick a hourly wage.
I agree that the auto industry's management is lot to be desired. they agreed to pay the unions benefits that are not sustainable. Ever wonder why big three invested more in SUVs over compact cars ?
Which smart management graduate would want to work for the auto industry ? Would you ?
Unions delay the inevitable when they demand unsustainable benefits. I have seen it with the airline pilots and auto workers. You will see it with rest of the auto workers and government workers tomorrow.
Submitted by wannabe2077 on November 2, 2008 - 8:22pm.
We are the world's largest consumers because we have the largest economy. We used to be industrial superpower. We are still a technological superpower. US Dollar is the reserve currency of the world. It helps we can borrow indiscriminately to finance our consumption. Upto a degree our military might helps us get foreigners to finance this consumption. Not competing in the world market will accelerate our demise.
You are not paying "American prices" for lot of manufactured goods - clothing, shoes, consumer electronics, computers, some foodstuffs. Hint - these sectors have no unions. Most of the selling price of apparel goes to real estate costs for these malls, non-unionized retail worker(hourly wage - $8-10) and unionized port worker (some of whom make $100,000+ for operating forklifts). The third world worker makes squat.
A lot of expensive stuff for families has these items - taxes, healthcare, education, housing. They have a lot of unions and licensed people to pay for. A lot of Workers in these sectors are overpaid. No one is suggesting that these workers work for third world wages. But the current pay/benefit structure is unsustainable. Is it too hard to comprehend ?
Submitted by CA renter on November 2, 2008 - 10:27pm.
Agree with what kewp said...
--------------
wannabe,
We agree to disagree about the reasons behind our credit bubble, price movements, wealth disparity, and the loss of the U.S. middle-class.
Perhaps we cannot tax our way to prosperity, but we cannot continue funneling money to the top 5% without some serious social and economic consequences.
Personally, I'd rather see labor getting the bulk of this country's wealth, rather than the capitalists. It is labor who creates the wealth in the first place.
Submitted by ralphfurley on November 3, 2008 - 7:22am.
wannabe2077 wrote:
The Democrats support for public schools and opposition to school choice/vouchers is the singular reason for home price appreciation price war that have destroyed this country. The damage from this misguided policies exceeds any damage Bush could do.
School vouchers could have saved this country from economic collapse?
Preemptively attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 911 didn't help us financially. It sure didn't help me at least.
But school vouchers being the singular reason? Come on. NINJA loans, funny financing, deregulation, 1977 Community Reinvestment act... no? School vouchers?
Submitted by CDMA ENG on November 3, 2008 - 7:33am.
wannabe2077 wrote:
what fat_lazy_union_worker does not realize is his salary, health insurance, pension, retiree health is being paid by the taxpayers. taxpayers are being squeezed. rising home and stock values cushioned the blow for the past 20+ years. With asset values declining the pain is being felt.
As for the union influence on the auto industry, do any of you commenting on this work in that industry or have relatives that do? I can tell you growing up in the Midwest with my father heavily involved in that industry his whole life that there is absolutely no question at all that the unions have ruined the us automakers. Study the Monday car syndrome on the web. We actaully had one of these, it is true.
Analyze which car makers have done the best and you will see that they are union free companies. You can argue that it was bad decision making by management but they were being held hostage. Also study the foreign manufacturers like Mercedes that make some of their cars in the US and some overseas. You will see that the US made ones especially in Alabama ( spartanburg, not exactly sure what city their SUV plant is in ) have had the worst quality ratings, and low and behold, it is a unionized plant.
Unions had their purpose originally but have morphed into another self entitlement skit for lazy americans. Terrible quality at a higher price, some business model. Whenever given a choice of doing business with a unionized and non unionized company, I always give my business to the non-unionized one even if it means paying more to do so. The UPS strike was a perfect example, they caused me some serious problems, now I use their competition and gladly pay more for more reliability.
Oh, I don't hate you. I guess I misread what you were trying to say. I wasn't suggesting public workers are getting pampered. It seemed to suggest that you were suggesting they should.
In a nutshell, my point is that the pension plan helps to balance out the lower salaries, lack of 401k/bonuses and other problems of the public sector.
Don't you mean Obamasian Theory.
http://www.businessweek.com/investor/con...
Somehow, 'Epic Fail' isn't enough to describe the Bush presidency.
Bush is a royal screw up. His general incompetence/lack of curiosity is scary.
Republicans deserve to be punished hard for nominating Bush twice for the presidency. I gave up in 2000 trying to convince Republicans to support McCain over Bush.
Republicans openly support the big and small business alike. There are no hidden agendas.
Democrats are worse. They pretend to champion the little guy. They collect tons of money from the same Wall Street interests that ran this country down. You won't have any Democrat asking how Obama is shattering fund raising records.
The achiles heels for the Democrats are illegal immigrants, public employees, entitlements.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
The Democrats support for public schools and opposition to school choice/vouchers is the singular reason for home price appreciation price war that have destroyed this country. The damage from this misguided policies exceeds any damage Bush could do.
Bush is a royal screw up. His general incompetence/lack of curiosity is scary.
Republicans deserve to be punished hard for nominating Bush twice for the presidency. I gave up in 2000 trying to convince Republicans to support McCain over Bush.
Republicans openly support the big and small business alike. There are no hidden agendas.
Democrats are worse. They pretend to champion the little guy. They collect tons of money from the same Wall Street interests that ran this country down. You won't have any Democrat asking how Obama is shattering fund raising records.
The achiles heels for the Democrats are illegal immigrants, public employees, entitlements.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
The Democrats support for public schools and opposition to school choice/vouchers is the singular reason for home price appreciation price war that have destroyed this country. The damage from this misguided policies exceeds any damage Bush could do.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
I work for the UC system.
Salaries are *nowhere near* competitive to private sector gigs. I get 2-3 calls a month from recruiters offering me junior positions for 20-30% more than I'm making now. My friends that are sales engineers make more than twice what I do. On top of that we have a wage freeze due to the budget crisis.
We don't have a 401k, bonuses, or stock options. You will also usually have the same job for life, as its almost impossible to get promoted.
The benefits package, including medical, dental, vision and a pension plan, are necessary to attract and retain competent employees. Which is actually very challenging even in the current environment.
There is no free lunch. Everyone that works in public service is entitled to be taken care of during their retirement. We've earned it.
It is ridicuous to pamper government employees with pensions etc. when people in the private sector are being creamed.
I work for the UC system.
Salaries are *nowhere near* competitive to private sector gigs. I get 2-3 calls a month from recruiters offering me junior positions for 20-30% more than I'm making now. My friends that are sales engineers make more than twice what I do. On top of that we have a wage freeze due to the budget crisis.
We don't have a 401k, bonuses, or stock options. You will also usually have the same job for life, as its almost impossible to get promoted.
The benefits package, including medical, dental, vision and a pension plan, are necessary to attract and retain competent employees. Which is actually very challenging even in the current environment.
There is no free lunch. Everyone that works in public service is entitled to be taken care of during their retirement. We've earned it.
Kewp, I hate to bring this up question (because frankly I do like you)
....But, I recall a few months (maybe a year ago) you mentioned that you wanted to be working in the public sector because
(1) you felt the job was more stable than the private sector.
(2) the hours were better
As such, I recall you mentioned a few times, that was why you wanted to stay in the public sector instead of the private sector. You had said a few times when this economy tanks, all these private sector employees that are your counterparts will be losing their jobs left and right, and that being in the public sector, your job will stable and weather the economic downturn, and as a result you accepted the apparent disparity in compensation between being in the public sector versus your private sector counterparts.
Perhaps I'm reading your above comment incorrectly though. It seems like you're suggesting though that public sector's benefits should be beefed up,despite this economic climate, because it was never on par was the private sector.
That's sort of what I'm confused about..Because I thought the entire point of folks joining the public sector versus private was out of personal choice. Acknowledgement that working in the public sector, compensation was not going to be on par versus private, but the position was going to be more "stable". In good times, that sort of works against public sector employees, in bad times the reverse (ideally) is true.
Anyway, it just seems like this entire public versus private sector choice is like everything else in life...Risk versus Reward. People that do things that take on more risk generally are compensated more for taking on that risk. People that take the safer approach aren't going to be compensated equally as more risky approaches. If that wasn't the case, there would be little motivation for someone to unnecessarily assume more risk to get the same result.
Don't get me wrong. I think that public sector positions should have decent benefits package, as if they are entirely crappy, you won't find anyone working in those positions. But to me, it's stretch to ever expect them to be on par with the private sector. If the discrepancy is so bothersome, there's no reason why one couldn't work in the private sector and assume more risk. I guess I just am not following the rationale for why public sector employee "package" you think should be on par with the private sector. Arguably, your job offers more security than the private sector. And asking for a compensation that is on par with the private sector to me seems like asking for a cookie and eating it too. The reverse is also true. All those private sector tech workers that have lost or are about too lose their jobs really can't complain they have no job security...Because they chose to assume more risk by not working in a public sector, more secure job...
Of course, if you now feel that public sector tech jobs are just as insecure as private sector tech jobs... Well, that's an entirely different line of thinking. (Frankly, that is my line of thinking...That when the economy is *that* bad, it doesn't really matter if you're a tech worker in public or private..everyone's impacted. So you might as well take the one that has more risk and potentially a better comp package..But that's just again my personal choice).
BTW: a lot of us private sector folks, worrying about wage freezes are the last things on our mind.
Kewp, I hate to bring this up question (because frankly I do like you)
....But, I recall a few months (maybe a year ago) you mentioned that you wanted to be working in the public sector because
(1) you felt the job was more stable than the private sector.
(2) the hours were better
Perhaps I'm reading your above comment incorrectly though. It seems like you're suggesting though that public sector's benefits should be beefed up,despite this economic climate, because it was never on par was the private sector.
I work for the UC for a number of reasons. The stability and hours are part of but definitely not all of it. Something that is great about University work is that I can leave it at the office at the end of the day and then spend my extra cycles making money day trading after-hours. I also have a fun job and get to use technology (e.g. Gentoo Linux) that I probably couldn't get away with in a stricter environment.
I'm not at all suggesting that I should be paid twice as much (though it would be nice!). My point is that the pension plan is part of the benefits package. It's necessary to attract and retain good people.
Remember I was responding to the post above complaining about pampering public sector employees with pensions. Well, I'll tell you what, I certainly don't feel pampered living in SD on my current salary. Given that we don't have a 401k how are state workers supposed to secure their retirements? Have a "Carousel" like in Logan's Run?
Basically I'm saying from the other side of the fence, I think things are fine how they are. I make my choices, you made yours, don't hate on me because thanks to Bush your 401k is now a 201k.
My primary gripe with public sector employees
1. salary for university presidents
2. policemen/firefighters abusing overtime rules
3. salaries for prison guards
I would like pensions replaced with lump sum payments for employees while they retire.
health care benefits for retirees has to go. Governments cannot afford it. Plus why provide it when you have Medicare ?
Sales Engineers make more money than development engineers. They get fired quite often too.
My 401k match works out to an average of $2000-$3000 per year. I have had generous 401k matches. I know people who get nothing in the way of company matches from 401k plans. I have made a grand total of 10k on employee stock purchase plans/stock options over the past 7-8 years.
Stock options in public companies are dead given the new accounting rules for stock options. You can try a startup.
The investment options for a lot of govt employee 403b) plans suck. The union reps who negotiate these options are either idiots or being bribed by salespeople who sell these useless financial products. These are the kind of things that make my blood boil. On one hand government employees complain that they are underpaid.
I studied at a UC campus. The good thing about UC job is that you can leave @ 5 pm. There is something to be said about it. There is some fat on UC campuses. It is not too bad.
promotion in the corporate world is a double edged sword. plenty of middle managers have been axed in corporate downsizing of the past 20 years.
what fat_lazy_union_worker does not realize is his salary, health insurance, pension, retiree health is being paid by the taxpayers. taxpayers are being squeezed. rising home and stock values cushioned the blow for the past 20+ years. With asset values declining the pain is being felt.
your average small business owner is unable to provide health insurance to their employees. it is a matter of time that the large companies start cutting back.
it is hard to have a 30-35 year career in corporate America. There will be a lot of changes.
pension in private sector is dead. Any company that provides pension is at a competitive disadvantage - GM, Ford, Chrysler. Motorola, IBM, HP ended their pension programs. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft never had pensions. Retiree healthcare is over.
It is hard to expect to keep benefits in the long run that have disappeared for the private sector.
It is hard to expect to keep benefits in the long run that have disappeared for the private sector.
-------------------
...because private sector employees **chose** to let those benefits go.
It was all part of the Great Brainwashing Experiment over the past few decades.
1. Convince everyone that union workers are lazy, incompetent and overpaid. Convince the sheeple that unions are ~~BAD!!!~~
2. Convince the sheeple that they, too, can be rich and famous, if only they try. We can -- each and every one of us -- be rich beyond our wildest dreams if we all work 60+ hour weeks and forego any personal time or enjoyment of life.
3. Convince the sheeple that we all need college degrees, even if we just flip burgers for a living. Denigrate blue-collar work and all that "dirty" sort of stuff. We can all become wealthy if we just sell debt and other financial "products" back-and-forth to one another. As long as we're putting in 60+ hours, we've earned it!!!
4. Convince the sheeple that once they become wealthy, they will not like progressive taxation, so they are trained to vote for politicians who represent the rich (can be either Democrats or Republican, but most are Repubs). They can be further convinced by voting for issues related to marriage rights and abortion and flag burning -- emotional things that are meant to distract the masses so the wealthy can plunder our resources even more and create laws which funnel more money to their own.
5. Convince the sheeple that competing with third-world wages will make them rich...somehow.
Sure hope Americans wake up soon, and start focusing on what really matters -- jobs (union jobs), and money flows. We desperately need to address the wealth disparity in this country -- before it's too late. We can't do this without unions, IMHO. Hopefully, it's not too late.
My primary gripe with public sector employees
1. salary for university presidents
2. policemen/firefighters abusing overtime rules
3. salaries for prison guards
You should check out the UC salaries sometime. There are a hundred or so doctors in our medical center that make more than our president.
Ever wonder why healthcare costs are so high? Well, now you know.
Fraud should be punished. I'm salaried and don't get paid when I work overtime (which I do often), so I have sympathy for those that abuse the system. No matter how dangerous their job is.
I don't know about prison guards, but I have noticed at the VA that there are armed guards seemly in every corner and hallway courtesy of the patriot act. This is tremendously wasteful.
CARenter make good points.
What choice does the United Auto Workers have ? They have driven a hard good bargain for their employees in the short run. In the long run their benefit packages are unsustainable. Do not give me this protectionism excuse. GM and Ford makes $15-20 billion in profits every year on their overseas operations which are being used to subsidize their inefficient domestic operations - UAW workforce and stupid management. When Chinese/Indian car makers target their sales in foreign countries and those profits evaporate. Look for complete meltdown of the auto industry.
" Convince everyone that union workers are lazy, incompetent and overpaid. Convince the sheeple that unions are ~~BAD!!!~~"
Unions do protect seniority over competence. It has the effect of keeping incompetent people on the payroll. Let us deal with it.
" Convince the sheeple that they, too, can be rich and famous, if only they try. We can -- each and every one of us -- be rich beyond our wildest dreams if we all work 60+ hour weeks and forego any personal time or enjoyment of life."
You get paid for what you produce. You cannot work inefficiently for 35 hours and expect all the perks of a millionaire. A lot of people take jobs that pay lesser. lazy_union_guy is a good example. He chooses the lower pay of UC job in return for fixed working hours and more security.
" Convince the sheeple that we all need college degrees, even if we just flip burgers for a living. Denigrate blue-collar work and all that "dirty" sort of stuff. We can all become wealthy if we just sell debt and other financial "products" back-and-forth to one another. As long as we're putting in 60+ hours, we've earned it!!! "
I will say this - a good high school education is absolute pre-requiste for survival in this world. Anyone who can crunch a few numbers would have not bought a home during this bubble. For a lot of people vocational education is more relevant than college education.
" Convince the sheeple that competing with third-world wages will make them rich...somehow."
Whether you like it or not you have to deal with China and India. They are big. They have 2.5 billion people. At least 20% of the population is smart. I may add - the use of the word "Third World" reflects a bias.
" Sure hope Americans wake up soon, and start focusing on what really matters -- jobs (union jobs), and money flows. We desperately need to address the wealth disparity in this country -- before it's too late. We can't do this without unions, IMHO. Hopefully, it's not too late."
I agree with what you say except for the unions. The end result of the union agenda is to divide the country into two halves - unions (govt employees, service workers, licensed professionals) and non-unions workforce. Look for two sets of benefits.
AMA is the biggest union in the country. They control their numbers to inflate their salaries.
I like healthcare costs to be priced at what can be afforded by the population. I see no reason why health care has to be priced at ridiculous costs. I see some complex procedures being expensive. $10,000 for delivering a baby is ridiculous. I like to see health insurance for truly catastrophic events.
Unions have been successful in Western Europe. They have more homogeneous societies, lesser standard of living (at least from material). They have far lesser technological innovation.
There's a depression coming and it's gaining momentum. Nobody in politics can stop it. Never could. It's the market at work, made uglier by a lot of BS govt intervention. But at least the guys in DC and Wall Street will be ok.
what fat_lazy_union_worker does not realize is his salary, health insurance, pension, retiree health is being paid by the taxpayers. taxpayers are being squeezed. rising home and stock values cushioned the blow for the past 20+ years. With asset values declining the pain is being felt.
your average small business owner is unable to provide health insurance to their employees. it is a matter of time that the large companies start cutting back.
it is hard to have a 30-35 year career in corporate America. There will be a lot of changes.
pension in private sector is dead. Any company that provides pension is at a competitive disadvantage - GM, Ford, Chrysler. Motorola, IBM, HP ended their pension programs. Intel, Cisco, Microsoft never had pensions. Retiree healthcare is over.
It is hard to expect to keep benefits in the long run that have disappeared for the private sector.
I think you misread my point. I work in the private sector. And what I was referring was Kewp's response as to sugar coating the public sectoring with greater pensions,etc. So I'm not following how you think my salary, health benefits, pension (which I don't have one), is being paid for by the taxpayer.
Kewp, I hate to bring this up question (because frankly I do like you)
....But, I recall a few months (maybe a year ago) you mentioned that you wanted to be working in the public sector because
(1) you felt the job was more stable than the private sector.
(2) the hours were better
Perhaps I'm reading your above comment incorrectly though. It seems like you're suggesting though that public sector's benefits should be beefed up,despite this economic climate, because it was never on par was the private sector.
I work for the UC for a number of reasons. The stability and hours are part of but definitely not all of it. Something that is great about University work is that I can leave it at the office at the end of the day and then spend my extra cycles making money day trading after-hours. I also have a fun job and get to use technology (e.g. Gentoo Linux) that I probably couldn't get away with in a stricter environment.
I'm not at all suggesting that I should be paid twice as much (though it would be nice!). My point is that the pension plan is part of the benefits package. It's necessary to attract and retain good people.
Remember I was responding to the post above complaining about pampering public sector employees with pensions. Well, I'll tell you what, I certainly don't feel pampered living in SD on my current salary. Given that we don't have a 401k how are state workers supposed to secure their retirements? Have a "Carousel" like in Logan's Run?
Basically I'm saying from the other side of the fence, I think things are fine how they are. I make my choices, you made yours, don't hate on me because thanks to Bush your 401k is now a 201k.
Oh, I don't hate you. I guess I misread what you were trying to say. I wasn't suggesting public workers are getting pampered. It seemed to suggest that you were suggesting they should. Anway, I'm pretty much in agreement with what you're saying here. And no, I don't hate anyone for those 201k's. Like i said, that's a personal decision. Of course, I'm sure you'll find some people who are blaming their losses right now on the government, like that MM lady facing forclosure. Maybe I should chain myself to the fidelity building.
wannabe2077 said:
Whether you like it or not you have to deal with China and India. They are big. They have 2.5 billion people. At least 20% of the population is smart. I may add - the use of the word "Third World" reflects a bias.
-----------------
Definition:
Third World. Third World is one of many terms used to describe the poorer countries of the world. Other terms include Southern Countries or the South, underdeveloped countries, less developed countries(LDCs), countries in a process of development, newly developed countries.
This term also includes a group of countries in Asia called the NICs - Newly Industrialised Countries who seemed during the 1980s and the early 1990s to be developing particularly quickly.
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/faculties/interfacu...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are right. After looking it up on different sites, it seems the term has fallen out of favor, and I apologize if it was offensive. That was definitely not my point.
Whatever we call it, I am referring to the following graphs and charts (sorry, was not able to copy it over):
http://www.independent.org/publications/...
We simply cannot compete with those wages.
Nobody is disputing the enormity of these populations, nor the intelligence, etc. It is simply very destructive to our economy to try to compete.
While those populations may be large, Americans are still the greatest consumers of the world. That comes about because of our (relatively) higher wages. We cannot continue to pay "American" prices if we are going to earn "developing world" wages. The spread between the two was enabled by our ever-growing debt expansion, and global corporations are the beneficiaries. This is the ultimate cause of our financial destruction (which we are now witnessing), IMHO.
wannabe said:
I agree with what you say except for the unions. The end result of the union agenda is to divide the country into two halves - unions (govt employees, service workers, licensed professionals) and non-unions workforce. Look for two sets of benefits.
-----------------------
This is part of the brainwashing!!!
Workers should NOT be divided at all! That's exactly what has caused the demise of the once-proud, exceedingly innovative and productive U.S. worker -- and the resultant middle-class.
Instead of tearing down the unions, we should be working on bringing all workers into the unions. We should strive to work UP to those wages and benefits for all workers, not tear them down.
FWIW, the private sector employees absolutely BENEFIT from unions because their employers have to compete with the union employers. The private sector workers should be demanding more, or they should be working for the public sector. It creates more competition/demand for workers, improving EVERYONE's circumstances.
If it's so much better in the public sector, wouldn't it be filled with all our best and brightest employees?
BTW, I agree with you to a point about the seniority protections in unionized workplaces. While it does serve a purpose (helps avoid age discrimination and favoritism), it should be secondary to aptitude/ability. In reality, this really isn't an issue unless you are staying in one particular position. Oftentimes, it is the younger people who move up the ladder more quickly if they are ambitious.
Also, I think the demise of the U.S. auto industry is more due to mismanagement then union pensions, etc.
If they had done a better job in development -- and improved their quality and efficiency -- the unions would not be an issue, IMHO. Their experiment with poorer quality cars (to increase turnover) during the 80s was their death knell.
You can't tax a nation into prosperity.
If Obama wins America will have to learn that the hard way.
i agree for some private sector workers the public sector unions improves pay/working conditions.
union organizers have targetted low to mid-range skilled workforces in infrastructure, government. they have little luck in any competitive industry.
unions have zero luck with fast food, restaurant workers. Tell me how much is McDonald's worker going to make if he/she is unionized. please pick a hourly wage.
I agree that the auto industry's management is lot to be desired. they agreed to pay the unions benefits that are not sustainable. Ever wonder why big three invested more in SUVs over compact cars ?
Which smart management graduate would want to work for the auto industry ? Would you ?
Unions delay the inevitable when they demand unsustainable benefits. I have seen it with the airline pilots and auto workers. You will see it with rest of the auto workers and government workers tomorrow.
We are the world's largest consumers because we have the largest economy. We used to be industrial superpower. We are still a technological superpower. US Dollar is the reserve currency of the world. It helps we can borrow indiscriminately to finance our consumption. Upto a degree our military might helps us get foreigners to finance this consumption. Not competing in the world market will accelerate our demise.
You are not paying "American prices" for lot of manufactured goods - clothing, shoes, consumer electronics, computers, some foodstuffs. Hint - these sectors have no unions. Most of the selling price of apparel goes to real estate costs for these malls, non-unionized retail worker(hourly wage - $8-10) and unionized port worker (some of whom make $100,000+ for operating forklifts). The third world worker makes squat.
A lot of expensive stuff for families has these items - taxes, healthcare, education, housing. They have a lot of unions and licensed people to pay for. A lot of Workers in these sectors are overpaid. No one is suggesting that these workers work for third world wages. But the current pay/benefit structure is unsustainable. Is it too hard to comprehend ?
If Obama wins America will have to learn that the hard way.
50% of our nations wealth is in the hands of 5% of the population.
I believe when that equity is freed up we are going to see the most prosperity in our nations history.
What folks like you are going to learn that hard way is that trickle-up economics don't work.
Agree with what kewp said...
--------------
wannabe,
We agree to disagree about the reasons behind our credit bubble, price movements, wealth disparity, and the loss of the U.S. middle-class.
Perhaps we cannot tax our way to prosperity, but we cannot continue funneling money to the top 5% without some serious social and economic consequences.
Personally, I'd rather see labor getting the bulk of this country's wealth, rather than the capitalists. It is labor who creates the wealth in the first place.
The Democrats support for public schools and opposition to school choice/vouchers is the singular reason for home price appreciation price war that have destroyed this country. The damage from this misguided policies exceeds any damage Bush could do.
School vouchers could have saved this country from economic collapse?
Preemptively attacking a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 911 didn't help us financially. It sure didn't help me at least.
But school vouchers being the singular reason? Come on. NINJA loans, funny financing, deregulation, 1977 Community Reinvestment act... no? School vouchers?
what fat_lazy_union_worker does not realize is his salary, health insurance, pension, retiree health is being paid by the taxpayers. taxpayers are being squeezed. rising home and stock values cushioned the blow for the past 20+ years. With asset values declining the pain is being felt.
FLU...
"Identify!"
:P
Oink, CE
As for the union influence on the auto industry, do any of you commenting on this work in that industry or have relatives that do? I can tell you growing up in the Midwest with my father heavily involved in that industry his whole life that there is absolutely no question at all that the unions have ruined the us automakers. Study the Monday car syndrome on the web. We actaully had one of these, it is true.
Analyze which car makers have done the best and you will see that they are union free companies. You can argue that it was bad decision making by management but they were being held hostage. Also study the foreign manufacturers like Mercedes that make some of their cars in the US and some overseas. You will see that the US made ones especially in Alabama ( spartanburg, not exactly sure what city their SUV plant is in ) have had the worst quality ratings, and low and behold, it is a unionized plant.
Unions had their purpose originally but have morphed into another self entitlement skit for lazy americans. Terrible quality at a higher price, some business model. Whenever given a choice of doing business with a unionized and non unionized company, I always give my business to the non-unionized one even if it means paying more to do so. The UPS strike was a perfect example, they caused me some serious problems, now I use their competition and gladly pay more for more reliability.
Oh, I don't hate you. I guess I misread what you were trying to say. I wasn't suggesting public workers are getting pampered. It seemed to suggest that you were suggesting they should.
In a nutshell, my point is that the pension plan helps to balance out the lower salaries, lack of 401k/bonuses and other problems of the public sector.