Nationswide protests-will they spread?

[sdduuuude]

[quote=jpinpb]And with regard to public versus private money, Halliburton (private company) got a little bit of money from our taxpayers on a no-bid contract.

I think we can stop the private/public conversation now.[/quote]

It isn’t a public/private company conversation. It is a “Unions selling to government” vs. “unions selling to private corporation” discussion.

Also, a “unions selling to government” vs. “private companies selling to governmnent” (unions and companies both being private entities) discussion.

So, your comment suggests you haven’t really been paying attention. But, gosh. What a brilliant comment.

[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.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=UCGal]I’m not sure I agree with that but I *do* agree with a radical change to campaign finance. Limit personal contributions of actual humans to some fixed amount. Eliminate PACs and Super PACs. Eliminate Union financial contributions to political candidates and paid “issue” ads. Eliminate corporate contributions and paid issue ads. Corporations and unions can ask employees/members to contribute personally or volunteer personally, but not coerce. After all – we have free will – folks won’t contribute or volunteer if they don’t agree. No coercion of any kind allowed. (My company “suggests” that employees above a certain paygrade contribute to a PAC – I have yet to do it because I disagree with pretty much every candidate the PAC funds. If they ever even hinted it was required I’d make such a stink…)

And severely restrict lobbying. Shut down lobbyist-for-hire K street firms. Citizens (human beings) should be able to go make their case. Employees of a company should be able to go make a case for their industry. (In other words – it’s ok for a company to have a DIRECT employee who’s job it is to make the case for their industry.) But having 3rd party firms involved in it, providing access, etc, corrupts the system.

But I’m not in charge.[/quote]

The cost of lobbying (which includes campaign finance) is a big part of the inefficnecy of government. First we pay taxes, then we have to pay premiums on products and services so the companies who sell us stuff can afford to hire lobbyists to convince the government to create an environment that benefits them.

To me, if you limit the flow of cash through the government and limit their sphere of influence, you reduce the desire for all the companies to spend money on lobbying efforts.

Keep the money in the hands of the taxpayers in the first place and let the corporations market to the taxpayers to get their money rather than taking it from them and letting politicians and beaurocrats decide where it goes. Cut out the middle man.

This is much more efficient that trying to limit the lobbying effort, which only adds another costly layer of regulation and beurocracy.

From my perspective, Daryl Ratigan is just another lobbyist lobbying for another layer of control.

If the money and influence is running through the government, there will always be lobbyists.

[briansd1]

In public or private organizations, there’s always the problem of patronage.

I believe that it has to do with human nature.

In the past, in the Western world, the Church was a quasi state. People had to ingratiate themselves with the Church hiearchy in order to survive and prosper.

I don’t believe that we should allow any organization, public or private, to become too big.

[quote=sdduuuude] To me, if you limit the flow of cash through the government and limit their sphere of influence, you reduce the desire for all the companies to spend money on lobbying efforts.[/quote]

I hope you include the military in this. The military pays $500 for toilet seats and $2,000 for circuit boards.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=briansd1]In public or private organizations, there’s always the problem of patronage.

I believe that it has to do with human nature.

In the past, in the Western world, the Church was a quasi state. People had to ingratiate themselves with the Church hiearchy in order to survive and prosper.

I don’t believe that we should allow any organization, public or private, to become too big.

[quote=sdduuuude] To me, if you limit the flow of cash through the government and limit their sphere of influence, you reduce the desire for all the companies to spend money on lobbying efforts.[/quote]

I hope you include the military in this. The military pays $500 for toilet seats and $2,000 for circuit boards.[/quote]

I do. From the post prior.

[quote=sdduuuude] … is best done by reducing the amount of money flowing through the government, including defense.[/quote]

[CA renter]

[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.”

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

“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.”

http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/59-private-vs-public-schools.gs

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]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.”

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

“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.”

http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-school/defining-your-ideal/59-private-vs-public-schools.gs%5B/quote%5D

You have side-stepped the point by trying to make this a public school vs private school discussion, which it is not.

It is a discussion about public jobs (school is a fine example) being served by union labor (monopoly) vs. non-union individuals.

For the same government job, there is no difference in overhead/profitability whether it is served by a union worker or by a non-union individual.

If you insert a “teaching contractor corporation” in between the employee and the employer then – yes – you will be paying profit overhead.

However, the cost is simply higher when you have to pay higher union wages than if you paid the employee directly. Take both the union and the private corporation out of the picture and there is no overhead at all.

I don’t buy for a second that those at the top of union structures aren’t in it for personal profit. Somehow unions have people convinced that they are for the public good. They are truly in it for themselves and behave exactly like greedy corporations. I don’t blame them for trying. It’s the American way, but when they unecessarily increase taxes under the guise of being lowly public servants, it is unacceptable and now comes the time for government employers to just say no to union labor.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]You have side-stepped the point by trying to make this a public school vs private school discussion, which it is not.

It is a discussion about public jobs (school is a fine example) being served by union labor (monopoly) vs. non-union individuals.

For the same government job, there is no difference in overhead/profitability whether it is served by a union worker or by a non-union individual.

If you insert a “teaching contractor corporation” in between the employee and the employer then – yes – you will be paying profit overhead.

However, the cost is simply higher when you have to pay higher union wages than if you paid the employee directly. Take both the union and the private corporation out of the picture and there is no overhead at all.

I don’t buy for a second that those at the top of union structures aren’t in it for personal profit. Somehow unions have people convinced that they are for the public good. They are truly in it for themselves and behave exactly like greedy corporations. I don’t blame them for trying. It’s the American way, but when they unecessarily increase taxes under the guise of being lowly public servants, it is unacceptable and now comes the time for government employers to just say no to union labor.[/quote]

Okay, you’re trying to say that, given a particular position in government, having non-union members would be cheaper per position than having union members. I would agree with that to an extent; but how long do you think it would be before a “special interest” (corporation or union) got involved and tried to take over those jobs, negating any “savings” the govt might see?

The way I see it, we, as a society, can choose to have the profits derived from labor go to the workers (who create the profits in the first place) or to those who control access to money and power. When profits go to labor, they can be spent back into the economy as workers buy goods and services from others in their communities. When profits are concentrated into the hands of too few, those few will end up controlling all of the world’s resources — our land/housing supply, water, food, infrastructure and distribution channels, etc. and they will charge rent (fees, whatever you want to call it) for the use of these assets. The masses will not own anything, but will be forced to pay all of their earnings to those at the top who control (and own) access to all resources.

I believe an egalitarian system (this does NOT mean that everyone is paid the same, regardless of their abilities, BTW) allows a society to reach its greatest potential, economically and socially. I would rather see the wealth created by labor going to those who have earned it, rather than having it go to those who control the system. For this reason, I believe that the power of corporations and concentrated wealth must be countered by the power of individuals who work in concert. Without this balance, we will quickly slide into a situation where we will all be forced to work just to pay the wealthy “gatekeepers” all of our earnings in order to just survive. Because of the misinformation and brainwashing perpetrated by the few at the top, we are well on our way right now. I’d like to see that trend reverse, and unions are the only way to change it, IMHO.

[sdduuuude]

Thank you for acknowledging the point I have been trying to make.

Unions that serve big corporations … Well, I can’t say I like them, but I fully appreciate their efforts, as private entities, to get the highest wage they possibly can from big corporations.

But those same efforts directed towards the taxpayers really chaps my hide.

[quote=CA renter]The way I see it, we, as a society, can choose to have the profits derived from labor go to the workers (who create the profits in the first place) or to those who control access to money and power.[/quote]

That is all very happy when the “profit” is true profit going to a private corp. However, when you substitute “taxpayers money” for “profits” it loses it’s noble intent because the workers are no longer attacking the powers that be, but their friends, neighbors and the tax-paying class, which – if you believe Obama – isn’t the wealthy.

Finally, a parting thought regarding the private sector unions – Consider this. The pensions funds of all those union workers and millions of other non-union workers are invested heavily in the stocks of American corporations. So, those “profits” you are shifting to the workers come from a cross-section of society. Somehow, we focus on profit-taking by major stockholders and the high-ranking officers, but American corporations are really owned by every-day people because pension funds are major investors. It isn’t like stockholders are an elite society. Anyone can own stock in any publicly held corporation.

[briansd1]

Back to the Occupy Movement. I went with friend who is a university professor. We were joind by a husband and wife couple both of whom are PhDs in the bio industry. We stayed for about 3 hours.

Sure many of the folks who camp out day in and day out are young jobless people, a good proportion of whom are college educated.

But I believe that there is wide support from professionals who believe that, finally, American social consicience has awoken. This is an American phenomenon that has spread worldwide.

We need to energize young people to turn out and vote.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude]Thank you for acknowledging the point I have been trying to make.

Unions that serve big corporations … Well, I can’t say I like them, but I fully appreciate their efforts, as private entities, to get the highest wage they possibly can from big corporations.

But those same efforts directed towards the taxpayers really chaps my hide.

[quote=CA renter]The way I see it, we, as a society, can choose to have the profits derived from labor go to the workers (who create the profits in the first place) or to those who control access to money and power.[/quote]

That is all very happy when the “profit” is true profit going to a private corp. However, when you substitute “taxpayers money” for “profits” it loses it’s noble intent because the workers are no longer attacking the powers that be, but their friends, neighbors and the tax-paying class, which – if you believe Obama – isn’t the wealthy.

Finally, a parting thought regarding the private sector unions – Consider this. The pensions funds of all those union workers and millions of other non-union workers are invested heavily in the stocks of American corporations. So, those “profits” you are shifting to the workers come from a cross-section of society. Somehow, we focus on profit-taking by major stockholders and the high-ranking officers, but American corporations are really owned by every-day people because pension funds are major investors. It isn’t like stockholders are an elite society. Anyone can own stock in any publicly held corporation.[/quote]

Yes, pension funds own stocks, bonds, etc.; but I’d be willing to bet that, for most “average” Americans, they’d be far more harmed more by losing a job than by losing their 401K. Unfortunately, because of the relatively low wage inflation of the past ~30 years, most “average” Americans have very little in their 401Ks. They are far more dependent on wages than on investment income. Sure, everyone would like to be a “capitalist” and sit back while their money does the work for them…but we can’t all be capitalists. Somebody has to do the work that enables the capitalists to make money.

“In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.”

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Again, your argument assumes that costs would go down if govt employees weren’t unionized. I doubt that would happen…at least, not for very long. Someone else would come in to stake their claim to that money.

Contrary to what many people might think, union employess DO have competition. There are many, many services that were once performed by unionized public employees that are now being performed by non-union public employees or private companies. It’s not always worked out to the taxpayers’ benefit, either.

It’s easy to want to separate public and private enterprise and assume there is no connection, but that’s not how it works. The public and private sectors are completely intertwined. Each is burdened with the other, and each receives benefits from the other. Employment in both sectors affects us all, irrespective of whether or not we are public or private (or union, or non-union) employees.

[paramount]

Couldn’t the states step in and get rid of the fed if there really was a will to do that? (via Constitutional Amendment)

[KSMountain]

[quote=briansd1]I hope you include the military in this. The military pays $500 for toilet seats and $2,000 for circuit boards.[/quote]
That’s a cute apocryphal anecdote and all, but maybe you should consider a more nuanced viewpoint.

Are you familiar with the markup of things that go in a hospital room, because they have to meet higher standards? Do you have any friends with boats, who probably complain of the outrageous cost of anything nautical? Now imagine the inspection and certification requirements in an aviation environment, civilian, let alone military. Do you think for example that the crappy fire resistant seats in an airliner are cheap? I bet we’d be surprised at the price of even the stupid seat belt. Are you aware that the food carts that the stewardesses push are actually pretty sophisticated? They’ve been engineered to be strong but amazingly light, because light saves lots of money. How much do you think the stainless steel toilet seat for even a commercial airliner costs? I’ll bet it’s over $200.
Much more demanding are military circuit board requirements. What temperature range might the thing be exposed to: 0-100C? Worse (in space)? What g forces must it withstand? 8? 10? More? If this board fails, might it cause a missile to go astray or a $200 million satellite to be lost?

Just some food for thought.

[CA renter]

[quote=KSMountain][quote=briansd1]I hope you include the military in this. The military pays $500 for toilet seats and $2,000 for circuit boards.[/quote]
That’s a cute apocryphal anecdote and all, but maybe you should consider a more nuanced viewpoint.

Are you familiar with the markup of things that go in a hospital room, because they have to meet higher standards? Do you have any friends with boats, who probably complain of the outrageous cost of anything nautical? Now imagine the inspection and certification requirements in an aviation environment, civilian, let alone military. Do you think for example that the crappy fire resistant seats in an airliner are cheap? I bet we’d be surprised at the price of even the stupid seat belt. Are you aware that the food carts that the stewardesses push are actually pretty sophisticated? They’ve been engineered to be strong but amazingly light, because light saves lots of money. How much do you think the stainless steel toilet seat for even a commercial airliner costs? I’ll bet it’s over $200.
Much more demanding are military circuit board requirements. What temperature range might the thing be exposed to: 0-100C? Worse (in space)? What g forces must it withstand? 8? 10? More? If this board fails, might it cause a missile to go astray or a $200 million satellite to be lost?

Just some food for thought.[/quote]

Not only that, but it’s my understanding that the DOD hides expenses for “classified” goods and services by including these expenses in other, more “ordinary” expense categories.

[KSMountain]

[quote=paramount]Couldn’t the states step in and get rid of the fed if there really was a will to do that? (via Constitutional Amendment)[/quote]
Damn it’s hard to amend the U.S. Constitution. Even something as “obvious” and simple as the ERA has not passed after 88 years…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

It’s not like amending California’s constitution, which voters seem to do (and undo) just about every year…

[Author]

Posts