OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[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]
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?[/quote]

Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.

Just because housing prices are (statistically) in line with historical norms, if today’s economy is more shaky than it was historically, then housing prices should be **below** historical norms. And then there is the risk WRT interest rates and falling asset prices. IMHO, the worst time to buy is when we have low rates. The best thing for our economy would be higher rates, not lower ones.

I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. Our jobs are less stable, and costs are beginning to rise rapidly, with no wage increase in sight to offset them. Pensions have been decimated as well, meaning that people will have to allocate more of their income to savings instead of housing. I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.

As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.

Just because housing prices are (statistically) in line with historical norms, if today’s economy is more shaky than it was historically, then housing prices should be **below** historical norms. And then there is the risk WRT interest rates and falling asset prices. IMHO, the worst time to buy is when we have low rates. The best thing for our economy would be higher rates, not lower ones.

I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. Our jobs are less stable, and costs are beginning to rise rapidly, with no wage increase in sight to offset them. Pensions have been decimated as well, meaning that people will have to allocate more of their income to savings instead of housing. I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.

As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.

Just because housing prices are (statistically) in line with historical norms, if today’s economy is more shaky than it was historically, then housing prices should be **below** historical norms. And then there is the risk WRT interest rates and falling asset prices. IMHO, the worst time to buy is when we have low rates. The best thing for our economy would be higher rates, not lower ones.

I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. Our jobs are less stable, and costs are beginning to rise rapidly, with no wage increase in sight to offset them. Pensions have been decimated as well, meaning that people will have to allocate more of their income to savings instead of housing. I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.

As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.

Just because housing prices are (statistically) in line with historical norms, if today’s economy is more shaky than it was historically, then housing prices should be **below** historical norms. And then there is the risk WRT interest rates and falling asset prices. IMHO, the worst time to buy is when we have low rates. The best thing for our economy would be higher rates, not lower ones.

I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. Our jobs are less stable, and costs are beginning to rise rapidly, with no wage increase in sight to offset them. Pensions have been decimated as well, meaning that people will have to allocate more of their income to savings instead of housing. I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.

As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.

[CA renter]

[quote=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?[/quote]

Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. We still have massive amounts of speculation driving costs, which does not make for a healthy market, IMHO. Oil prices are too high, food prices are too high. HEALTHCARE costs are too high. Education costs are too high.

Just because housing prices are (statistically) in line with historical norms, if today’s economy is more shaky than it was historically, then housing prices should be **below** historical norms. And then there is the risk WRT interest rates and falling asset prices. IMHO, the worst time to buy is when we have low rates. The best thing for our economy would be higher rates, not lower ones.

I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. Our jobs are less stable, and costs are beginning to rise rapidly, with no wage increase in sight to offset them. Pensions have been decimated as well, meaning that people will have to allocate more of their income to savings instead of housing. I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.

As mentioned before, those without children will feel things very differently than people with families. Our costs are multiplied, so we feel price increases much sooner than those who only have to worry about one person — especially if that one person has an above-average income.

If you were trying to pay for food, healthcare, education/childcare, etc. for a family, transporation costs for two, etc. you’d understand why I’m saying that people are being **forced into debt** in order to survive.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.[/quote]

The share of votes is not distributed the same way in your example.

In a corporation, the BOD and executives tend to own very large shares of the company, and therefore, have much more power than individual shareholders.

Also, in the case of a corporation, the ones paying for the high compensation packages (customers and employees) tend to have almost no vote at all.

In the case of public employment, the taxpayers’ votes have the same weight as the union members’ votes. IMHO, that makes a big difference vs. what goes on in corporations.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.[/quote]

The share of votes is not distributed the same way in your example.

In a corporation, the BOD and executives tend to own very large shares of the company, and therefore, have much more power than individual shareholders.

Also, in the case of a corporation, the ones paying for the high compensation packages (customers and employees) tend to have almost no vote at all.

In the case of public employment, the taxpayers’ votes have the same weight as the union members’ votes. IMHO, that makes a big difference vs. what goes on in corporations.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.[/quote]

The share of votes is not distributed the same way in your example.

In a corporation, the BOD and executives tend to own very large shares of the company, and therefore, have much more power than individual shareholders.

Also, in the case of a corporation, the ones paying for the high compensation packages (customers and employees) tend to have almost no vote at all.

In the case of public employment, the taxpayers’ votes have the same weight as the union members’ votes. IMHO, that makes a big difference vs. what goes on in corporations.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]
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.
[/quote]

You simply cannot be this naive. Look, you’re the one who is always harping about excessive executive pay. And I happen to agree!! But if I were to point out that it’s the shareholders (re: voters) who vote for the directors (re: politicians) that set the CEO’s (re: public employee) pay, you’d rightfully say, “Well that’s a total racket because it’s almost impossible to get rid of a director (re: politician) once s/he’s on the board (re: in office). So, most directors (re: politicians) pander to the CEO (re: public employees). They’re BOTH rackets – cronyism to the Nth degree. Sure, there’s some theoretical power in the hands of voters (re: shareholders), but in practice it doesn’t really exist. So my only request here is to be consistent instead of picking and choosing which crony-based relationships support your personal world view.[/quote]

The share of votes is not distributed the same way in your example.

In a corporation, the BOD and executives tend to own very large shares of the company, and therefore, have much more power than individual shareholders.

Also, in the case of a corporation, the ones paying for the high compensation packages (customers and employees) tend to have almost no vote at all.

In the case of public employment, the taxpayers’ votes have the same weight as the union members’ votes. IMHO, that makes a big difference vs. what goes on in corporations.

[Author]

Posts