[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]PRIVATE entities who do business with the government use their money and/or voting power to put people in office who are willing to keep the monopoly in place…at the taxpayers’ expense. Not only that, but EVERYONE who has any power at all, even if they don’t do business directly with the government — all corporations, banks, business associations, etc. — use their money/voting power to extract money from taxpayers. It can be in the form of tax credits, incentives, new infrastructure which benefits the corporations, special trade and tax policies, etc. There are so many ways that PRIVATE entities use the government/taxpayers to benefit their bottom line.[/quote]
That all makes sense, yes. Plus, industries bond together to influence en masse.
There are two issues, though: 1) Influencing politics and 2) Extracting the money.
I’ll give you the idea that corps and unions have similar influence over the politics.
The difference between a public union and a private enterprise serving the gov is that the private companies have to compete with other private companies for the money. The unions don’t. And, as you pointed out, the result is union jobs pay more. More than they would if all the jobs were non-union jobs. Which means they are using their monopoly power to gouge the tax payers. I don’t see how you can argue that point at all.
[quote=CA renter]It’s naive to think that public employee unions are the problem. At least the money that goes to public employees is spent back into the local economy where the tax money came from. That’s much less likely to be the case where private corporations/entities are concerned.[/quote]
I’m not saying public employee unions are THE problem (you’ll get no push-back from me on the fact that companies extract too much money from the taxpayers) But, they are definitely a problem.
I was just trying to make a distinction between public employee and private employee unions. Someone earlier was going off on unions and GM and all that. If unions extract money from GM and it makes their cars more expensive, that’s one thing. When they extract money from the public sector, that’s another.
[quote=CA renter]These public union positions provide decent-paying jobs that keep demand levels up for local businesses.[/quote]
Unions don’t provide jobs. They cost jobs. Unions will always give up jobs for higher wages, empirically speaking. It’s what they do.
If the jobs were non-union jobs, they would still be jobs. And, because union jobs cost taxpayers more, there is less money available for other jobs. So, you can have 10 union jobs or 11 non-union jobs for the same tax revenue. I would choose 11. That’s my whole point.
[quote=CA renter]They also help private sector workers because private employers have to compete with public employers for employees; and private, non-union positions pay better wages/benefits as a result.[/quote]
But because the union jobs cost more, it means fewer jobs, and more people looking. I consider this a wash.
[quote=CA renter]Keep in mind, the unions cannot control who gets into office, nor the decisions they make, any more than a private entity can. They have no more power over politicians than private entities do.[/quote]
I’ll give you that one. However, they do have more control over the price of the work. Unions don’t serve the public sector and they aren’t public entities. They are private entities, just like corporateions and they serve themselves, just like corporations. But, unlike corporations who compete for govermnent funds, they have monopoly power. It’s not a good thing.
[quote=CA renter]Now, if you want to argue that ALL money and influence (including offers of jobs in the private sector, etc.) should be kept out of politics, we’d be 100% in agreement.[/quote]
Sure. This is best done by reducing the amount of money flowing through the government, including defense. Keep that to a bare minimum and all these lobbying efforts dry up.
P.S. It’s nice to have a reasonable discussion – thanks.
By the way, this is a big step for me – arguing whether govt job should be union or non-union. Normally I would just say get rid of them and convert them all to the private sector.[/quote]
Just because the *employees* are paid more, it doesn’t necessarily mean that taxpayers are paying more for the services. Because they are public employees, there is no profit overhead.
Union employment usually means that the “profits” are spread out more among the employees, as opposed to being concentrated into a few hands at the top. This is far more beneficial to an economy, IMHO, because it keeps money **without a debt offset** circulating through the economy, as opposed to that money being used to hoard resources…causing workers to pay more for things (and having to “rent” as opposed to “own” assets), and getting into debt to do it. This *creates* better-paying jobs and provides for a much more stable economy.
—————–
Cost of private vs. public schools [don’t have time right now, but will try to dig deeper into the numbers to make sure that the public school costs include capital expenditures and pensions, etc.]:
“In 2007–08, current expenditures per student in fall enrollment were $10,297 in unadjusted dollars. In 2007–08, some 55 percent of students in public schools were transported at public expense at a cost of $854 per pupil transported, also in unadjusted dollars.”
“According to the National Association of Independent Schools, the median tuition for their member private day schools in 2008-2009 in the United States was $17,441.”
