OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]

The people responsible for the War in Iraq… and those responsible for the financial crisis…. It’s kinda too late for retribution. Let’s move on.
[/quote]

Your kind of assuming that we don’t have a ruling class that transcends political parties, which goes against anthropological research of pretty much all societies in modern civilization. I would disagree with this assessment. I think decisions to change policy is less to do with a new party and more of a decided change of plans(often time more rhetorical than anything else) by the ruling class which is filtered through a political narrative. Not to say there is not massive disagreements behind the scenes but I don’t think we are privy to the real discussions. We seem to get a Vaudeville-esque version for political consumption.

Jared Diamond, scientist and author, most recently of “Collapse: How societies chose to fail or succeed”, said that one of the ways societies fail is if the “ruling class” is disconnected from their decisions. I would say our “ruling class” is completely disconnected.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical!

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical!

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical!

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical!

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical!

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.
[/quote]

I’m curious. What are you not able to purchase today for what you deem to be a reasonable price that you would like to be able to purchase?

To use the example at the root of this blog, if you’re willing to stay put for several years, buying a house right now, given current interest rates, is quite reasonable. In fact, historically, the monthly cost of owning a house is below the historical median. So, I will assume that housing is not the issue it was for you (and me and most others here at the Pigg) five years ago.

I agree that we have too much debt. But I’d also point out that not all debt is bad and, in fact, a decent portion of it is reasonable give the intended uses. (Although I’ll agree that a lot of consumer debt – particularly revolving credit card and HELOC debt – is not good.) But, when you state that, “They [The Powers that Be?] have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive,” this seems more than a bit extreme. Who, exactly, can’t “survive” because they’re unwilling to take on debt?

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.
[/quote]

I’m curious. What are you not able to purchase today for what you deem to be a reasonable price that you would like to be able to purchase?

To use the example at the root of this blog, if you’re willing to stay put for several years, buying a house right now, given current interest rates, is quite reasonable. In fact, historically, the monthly cost of owning a house is below the historical median. So, I will assume that housing is not the issue it was for you (and me and most others here at the Pigg) five years ago.

I agree that we have too much debt. But I’d also point out that not all debt is bad and, in fact, a decent portion of it is reasonable give the intended uses. (Although I’ll agree that a lot of consumer debt – particularly revolving credit card and HELOC debt – is not good.) But, when you state that, “They [The Powers that Be?] have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive,” this seems more than a bit extreme. Who, exactly, can’t “survive” because they’re unwilling to take on debt?

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.
[/quote]

I’m curious. What are you not able to purchase today for what you deem to be a reasonable price that you would like to be able to purchase?

To use the example at the root of this blog, if you’re willing to stay put for several years, buying a house right now, given current interest rates, is quite reasonable. In fact, historically, the monthly cost of owning a house is below the historical median. So, I will assume that housing is not the issue it was for you (and me and most others here at the Pigg) five years ago.

I agree that we have too much debt. But I’d also point out that not all debt is bad and, in fact, a decent portion of it is reasonable give the intended uses. (Although I’ll agree that a lot of consumer debt – particularly revolving credit card and HELOC debt – is not good.) But, when you state that, “They [The Powers that Be?] have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive,” this seems more than a bit extreme. Who, exactly, can’t “survive” because they’re unwilling to take on debt?

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.
[/quote]

I’m curious. What are you not able to purchase today for what you deem to be a reasonable price that you would like to be able to purchase?

To use the example at the root of this blog, if you’re willing to stay put for several years, buying a house right now, given current interest rates, is quite reasonable. In fact, historically, the monthly cost of owning a house is below the historical median. So, I will assume that housing is not the issue it was for you (and me and most others here at the Pigg) five years ago.

I agree that we have too much debt. But I’d also point out that not all debt is bad and, in fact, a decent portion of it is reasonable give the intended uses. (Although I’ll agree that a lot of consumer debt – particularly revolving credit card and HELOC debt – is not good.) But, when you state that, “They [The Powers that Be?] have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive,” this seems more than a bit extreme. Who, exactly, can’t “survive” because they’re unwilling to take on debt?

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
When you’re talking about debt used for consumption, all they’ve done is pulled demand forward, and made it more expensive to pay for things. They have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive. Those of us who try to live without debt are forced to pay higher prices because we’re competing with idiots who don’t understand that buying a hamburger today for $1.00 means paying $1.25 in the future, while still needing to buy more burgers in the meantime.
[/quote]

I’m curious. What are you not able to purchase today for what you deem to be a reasonable price that you would like to be able to purchase?

To use the example at the root of this blog, if you’re willing to stay put for several years, buying a house right now, given current interest rates, is quite reasonable. In fact, historically, the monthly cost of owning a house is below the historical median. So, I will assume that housing is not the issue it was for you (and me and most others here at the Pigg) five years ago.

I agree that we have too much debt. But I’d also point out that not all debt is bad and, in fact, a decent portion of it is reasonable give the intended uses. (Although I’ll agree that a lot of consumer debt – particularly revolving credit card and HELOC debt – is not good.) But, when you state that, “They [The Powers that Be?] have done us NO favors by forcing people into debt in order to survive,” this seems more than a bit extreme. Who, exactly, can’t “survive” because they’re unwilling to take on debt?

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical![/quote]

The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.

I’ve said it over and over before, but unions have been making concessions for YEARS now (decades) because they were NOT “on the same side of the table” as those with whom they are negotiating. Most public employees no longer get retirement healthcare. Most of them pay more for their healthcare plans than their counterparts did 20+ years ago. In recent years, many of them have taken pay cuts and increased employee contribution amounts to their healthcare and pension plans. And all of this was happening even before all the anti-union hysteria the MSM is shoving down our throats.

The politicians might not like to tick off the unions, but they certainly don’t want to tick off the voters, either. They have to walk a fine line. Needless to say, if enough voters determine that they don’t like what the politicians are doing, they will be voted out. That’s not at all being “on the same side of the table” as the unions.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical![/quote]

The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.

I’ve said it over and over before, but unions have been making concessions for YEARS now (decades) because they were NOT “on the same side of the table” as those with whom they are negotiating. Most public employees no longer get retirement healthcare. Most of them pay more for their healthcare plans than their counterparts did 20+ years ago. In recent years, many of them have taken pay cuts and increased employee contribution amounts to their healthcare and pension plans. And all of this was happening even before all the anti-union hysteria the MSM is shoving down our throats.

The politicians might not like to tick off the unions, but they certainly don’t want to tick off the voters, either. They have to walk a fine line. Needless to say, if enough voters determine that they don’t like what the politicians are doing, they will be voted out. That’s not at all being “on the same side of the table” as the unions.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical![/quote]

The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.

I’ve said it over and over before, but unions have been making concessions for YEARS now (decades) because they were NOT “on the same side of the table” as those with whom they are negotiating. Most public employees no longer get retirement healthcare. Most of them pay more for their healthcare plans than their counterparts did 20+ years ago. In recent years, many of them have taken pay cuts and increased employee contribution amounts to their healthcare and pension plans. And all of this was happening even before all the anti-union hysteria the MSM is shoving down our throats.

The politicians might not like to tick off the unions, but they certainly don’t want to tick off the voters, either. They have to walk a fine line. Needless to say, if enough voters determine that they don’t like what the politicians are doing, they will be voted out. That’s not at all being “on the same side of the table” as the unions.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
Why are these pensions guaranteed? Because that is what was agreed upon decades ago. Because that is what drew these employees to these jobs. Govt workers earned their benefits and negotiated for them in good faith. They’ve all given up other things (money, vacation, stipends, etc.) in exchange for their retirement benefits because they negotiate for their entire compensation package when they determine what to get and give up.
[/quote]

Here’s the problem with your argument: Government workers did NOT “negotiate” for these benefits in good faith. They “negotiated” for these benefits with politicians who were sitting on the SAME SIDE OF THE TABLE. Which is exactly why so many states don’t allow for collective bargaining among municipal employees – they understand this. They also understand that even in the absence of collective bargaining, the politicians making these decisions will STILL be unduly influenced by the public employees’ representatives because they represent a huge and vocal voting bloc.

It’s kind of like saying that corporate boards of directors negotiate in good faith with the CEOs of their companies. It’s a joke. The board determines the CEO’s pay, but the CEO has enormous influence over the board’s pay – they’re all in bed together. So, it’s just a matter of trying to minimize how bad the outcome is going to be. But, despite how flawed that arrangement is… at least it’s in the PRIVATE sector. Certainly we shouldn’t be imposing a similar flawed dynamic on the taxpayers, no?

But “good faith” negotiations? That’s hysterical![/quote]

The VOTERS determine who takes political office, not the unions. I can assure you that there are a number of politicians who do not feel at all like they are “on the same side of the table” as the rank-and-file union members.

I’ve said it over and over before, but unions have been making concessions for YEARS now (decades) because they were NOT “on the same side of the table” as those with whom they are negotiating. Most public employees no longer get retirement healthcare. Most of them pay more for their healthcare plans than their counterparts did 20+ years ago. In recent years, many of them have taken pay cuts and increased employee contribution amounts to their healthcare and pension plans. And all of this was happening even before all the anti-union hysteria the MSM is shoving down our throats.

The politicians might not like to tick off the unions, but they certainly don’t want to tick off the voters, either. They have to walk a fine line. Needless to say, if enough voters determine that they don’t like what the politicians are doing, they will be voted out. That’s not at all being “on the same side of the table” as the unions.

[Author]

Posts