[quote=phaster][quote=CA renter]Many have defined benefits, and DB plans were the norm a few decades ago…you know, when the middle class and the economy were at their strongest.[/quote]
That era back in the 1950’s and 1960’s was IMHO an anomaly in world history, because the USA was the only super power in terms of military and manufacturing.
Consider that Japan and Germany back then had no manufacturing base, so DB were a way to instill worker loyalty (or said another way, DB came about because of a good economy, DB for the “middle class” didn’t create a good economy).
Now with workers in the USA having to compete with workers in not only Germany and Japan, one also has to contend with workers in China, Brazil, etc., so it makes sense that pensions in the private sector for USA workers are no long possible (its the double edge sword of a capitalistic economy). In other words it was inevitable that living standards of people around the world would rise, but since the USA was no longer the only game in town for manufacturing, the standard of living for those with more brawn than brain would fall.
Was reading someone mentioned the dangers of the military industrial complex, actually the concept should be updated IMHO.
Specifically what was once the danger of nepotism w/ the military and their contractors, is paralleled all around the nation (not just here in CA WRT pensions), I just think its going to hit SD first because it has all the right conditions for an economic implosion of biblical proportions!!
The entrenched problem is the “political-legal welfare system” which is the tendency of politicians to pander to public employee unions for political support in a bid to get into or retain an office. The “Quid pro quo” in this instance is a literal “sweet heart deal” payoff when it comes time labor talks. In economic terms, the idea of a public employees union is bad because the interests of politicians and public employees is the same (they are seeking shelter form the “real world” where global competition is now the norm, and DP in the private sector are history)
FDR long ago recognized the problem w/ public employee unions when he said:
“The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.”
From what I understand of economic, unions in the private sector work because there is alternatives which over the long run makes the product better and lowers the cost (i.e. products like cars and computers).
Now consider what has happened to public services here in SD, have the roads been kept up or are they in disrepair? WRT public schools, what I’ve read is the traditional “factory” one size all school is giving way to new “organic” centers of learning, like high tech high in point loma, albert einstein charter school in golden hill, etc.
[quote=CA renter]The worst employees tend to leave before benefits vest to any large extent. That doesn’t mean that some dead wood isn’t hanging around after too many years — and I absolutely support making it easier to fire truly bad employees.[/quote]
could not agree more, and think this concept should be extended to entrenched politicians (both on the left and right) because it seem they enable lots of the problems:
You are totally wrong about politicians and unions being on the same side of the table. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some politicians are labor-friendly, and others have a vitriolic hatred for unions. I have personal experience with contract negotiations, and there is NO truth to your statement that politicians automatically pander to unions.
Unions are no different from any other group that supports politicians who will further their particular interests. That goes for public contractors (or those who hope to be public contractors); businesses who want special infrastructure that will benefit their businesses or who want special tax breaks or financial incentives; “taxpayer advocates” who are looking to reduce taxes for special interests (think Prop 13); interest groups who push for things that will place a heavier burden on public agencies without a commensurate benefit to the population at large (immigration reformers; citizens who want special projects, infrastructure, tax breaks/credits; landowners who want roads, bridges and other infrastructure specifically built to increase the value of their holdings, etc.). The list goes on and on. Every one of these groups cost taxpayers money. Every single one. Again, public employees are one piece of the puzzle (and a very small one in some instances).
And unions work because they allow employees to bargain collectively. Public unions benefit private employees, too, because private employers have to compete for the same pool of candidates.
Right now, corporate tax revenues, as a percentage of GDP, are near an all-time low, and profits are at an all time high. At the same time, labor participation rates, and all other metrics used to determine the well-being of labor are at or near all-time lows. Coincidence? Not at all. Again, we desperately need unions for ALL workers, and very politically active ones at that.
Regarding the charter movement? That began in public schools, and it was supported by unions.
The charter school idea in the United States was originated in 1974 by Ray Budde,[10] a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, embraced the concept in 1988, when he called for the reform of the public schools by establishing “charter schools” or “schools of choice.”[11] Gloria Ladson-Billings called him “the first person to publicly propose charter schools”.[12] At the time, a few schools already existed that were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles, such as H-B Woodlawn.
But before you get too excited about charter schools, most of which are now publicly-funded private schools, you should look at how they compare to traditional public schools.
