- This topic has 545 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2011 at 5:09 PM #678772March 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM #677647
davelj
Participant[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.
Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)
[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.
[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.
March 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM #677703Participant[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.
Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)
[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.
[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.
March 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM #678306Participant[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.
Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)
[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.
[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.
March 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM #678438Participant[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.
Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)
[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.
[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.
March 16, 2011 at 5:23 PM #678781Participant[quote=CA renter]
Housing is still overpriced, even though it is more sane than at the peak of the bubble. [/quote]Actually, on a price per square foot basis (as opposed to a “per house” basis), housing is below the long-term median. Recall that the average home had less than 1200 square feet in 1960 – today it’s more than twice that level. There are even – dare I say – bargains (!) in the under-$400K homes (even!) here in San Diego. But perhaps they’re not of the size or in a neighborhood of the ethnic or socioeconomic makeup that you prefer (or feel you deserve)…
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Oil prices were well within the inflation-adjusted range of the past 50 years until shortly prior to the various uprisings in the Middle East. I agree that oil prices are high, but that has little to do with debt. Likewise, food prices. You can blame the emerging economies, not debt, for that. The fact that health care costs are too high has nothing to do with debt – that’s the result of our own shitty health care system which we continue to coddle. Europe has lots of debt and their health care costs are not increasing like ours are.
Now, I’ll agree with you that debt has had a major influence on education costs. Undoubtedly, if we weren’t offering student loans to everyone who could fog a mirror, costs would be much lower. So, THAT is definitely debt-induced inflation – I’m with you there. But – even so – there are plenty of less expensive alternatives like sending kids to community college for two years and then sending them to the best state school they can get into. My point being that if parents feel like they’re spending too much on college educations – it’s because at some level they’re CHOOSING to do so, not because less expensive alternatives don’t exist. (I have no sympathy for people who think they’re being “forced” into debt because Muffy has to attend Amherst.)
[quote=CA renter]
I’m willing to bet that most people feel less secure in their financial position today than they did in 1995. [/quote]Perhaps true. But perhaps they were mistaken in feeling that way in the first place and only now are they realizing what a precarious position they were in to begin with.
[quote=CA renter]
I do not think that housing prices are anywhere near sustainable over the long run, especially in the higher-mid range and up.[/quote]Ah yes… the higher mid-range and up… the only range you would consider good enough for yourself, I suppose?
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
Zero sympathy here. Having kids is a choice. If you can’t afford to take care of them in the manner to which you think they should be accustomed… perhaps having kids was a poor decision on your part. Or perhaps you should live in a less expensive locale. But don’t blame “debt” in the general sense.
March 16, 2011 at 5:37 PM #677652Participant[quote=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]
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
OK, now you’re just making things up. In the average S&P 500 corporation, management and directors own less than 3% of the outstanding shares! To use specific banking examples, management and directors of BofA and Citigroup own less than 1/2 of 1% of the company. It’s miniscule. The largest single institutional owner (re: voters) typically owns many multiples of what the insiders own. So, you’re simply wrong here.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Please. They’d have a vote if they bought some shares… they choose not to. Which is fine, but… that’s their choice.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]It’s crony-ism. Not materially different from publicly-traded corporations. You just won’t admit it because it conflicts with your worldview. At least shareholders can sell their shares. In California, you’d have to move… but you’d likely be moving to another state with the same issues.
March 16, 2011 at 5:37 PM #677708Participant[quote=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]
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
OK, now you’re just making things up. In the average S&P 500 corporation, management and directors own less than 3% of the outstanding shares! To use specific banking examples, management and directors of BofA and Citigroup own less than 1/2 of 1% of the company. It’s miniscule. The largest single institutional owner (re: voters) typically owns many multiples of what the insiders own. So, you’re simply wrong here.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Please. They’d have a vote if they bought some shares… they choose not to. Which is fine, but… that’s their choice.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]It’s crony-ism. Not materially different from publicly-traded corporations. You just won’t admit it because it conflicts with your worldview. At least shareholders can sell their shares. In California, you’d have to move… but you’d likely be moving to another state with the same issues.
March 16, 2011 at 5:37 PM #678311Participant[quote=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]
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
OK, now you’re just making things up. In the average S&P 500 corporation, management and directors own less than 3% of the outstanding shares! To use specific banking examples, management and directors of BofA and Citigroup own less than 1/2 of 1% of the company. It’s miniscule. The largest single institutional owner (re: voters) typically owns many multiples of what the insiders own. So, you’re simply wrong here.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Please. They’d have a vote if they bought some shares… they choose not to. Which is fine, but… that’s their choice.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]It’s crony-ism. Not materially different from publicly-traded corporations. You just won’t admit it because it conflicts with your worldview. At least shareholders can sell their shares. In California, you’d have to move… but you’d likely be moving to another state with the same issues.
March 16, 2011 at 5:37 PM #678443Participant[quote=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]
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
OK, now you’re just making things up. In the average S&P 500 corporation, management and directors own less than 3% of the outstanding shares! To use specific banking examples, management and directors of BofA and Citigroup own less than 1/2 of 1% of the company. It’s miniscule. The largest single institutional owner (re: voters) typically owns many multiples of what the insiders own. So, you’re simply wrong here.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Please. They’d have a vote if they bought some shares… they choose not to. Which is fine, but… that’s their choice.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]It’s crony-ism. Not materially different from publicly-traded corporations. You just won’t admit it because it conflicts with your worldview. At least shareholders can sell their shares. In California, you’d have to move… but you’d likely be moving to another state with the same issues.
March 16, 2011 at 5:37 PM #678786Participant[quote=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]
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]
OK, now you’re just making things up. In the average S&P 500 corporation, management and directors own less than 3% of the outstanding shares! To use specific banking examples, management and directors of BofA and Citigroup own less than 1/2 of 1% of the company. It’s miniscule. The largest single institutional owner (re: voters) typically owns many multiples of what the insiders own. So, you’re simply wrong here.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]Please. They’d have a vote if they bought some shares… they choose not to. Which is fine, but… that’s their choice.
[quote=CA renter]
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.[/quote]It’s crony-ism. Not materially different from publicly-traded corporations. You just won’t admit it because it conflicts with your worldview. At least shareholders can sell their shares. In California, you’d have to move… but you’d likely be moving to another state with the same issues.
March 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM #677657Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[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.
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.[/quote]
CAR: I’m sorry, but in California that simply isn’t true. The unions, from CCPOA (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn) to CTA (California Teacher’s Assn), wield tremendous influence and control large voting blocs. They are vocal, as Dave pointed out, plus tremendously well-organized and well-financed.
To say that the unions have been making concessions is simply not true in California. To the contrary, they are seeing ever larger increases in salaries and benefits packages, as well as engaging in neat little tricks like pension “spiking”, whereby they boost their pensions by padding their salaries in their final year or few final few years.
Below are references to this practice, along with the $500Bn pension “time bomb” (unfunded liability), along with the practice of pension spiking and the average cost of a California corrections officer.
California’s $500Bn Pension “time bomb” (LA Times):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Pension “spiking” (from Calpensions):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Cost of California corrections officers:
http://www.ehow.com/info_7760526_do-californias-correctional-officers-earn.html
(note that, on average, they make nearly $24k more, per year, ($67k versus $42k), than their counterparts in other states, which is why the cost per inmate is so high in California).In this state, the politicians are absolutely sitting on the same side of the table as the unions and we can clearly see the result. To argue that concessions have been made is demonstrably false. The taxpayers of this state are getting hosed. Now, and in the future (through unaffordable and unsustainable guarantees).
March 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM #677713Participant[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.
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.[/quote]
CAR: I’m sorry, but in California that simply isn’t true. The unions, from CCPOA (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn) to CTA (California Teacher’s Assn), wield tremendous influence and control large voting blocs. They are vocal, as Dave pointed out, plus tremendously well-organized and well-financed.
To say that the unions have been making concessions is simply not true in California. To the contrary, they are seeing ever larger increases in salaries and benefits packages, as well as engaging in neat little tricks like pension “spiking”, whereby they boost their pensions by padding their salaries in their final year or few final few years.
Below are references to this practice, along with the $500Bn pension “time bomb” (unfunded liability), along with the practice of pension spiking and the average cost of a California corrections officer.
California’s $500Bn Pension “time bomb” (LA Times):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Pension “spiking” (from Calpensions):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Cost of California corrections officers:
http://www.ehow.com/info_7760526_do-californias-correctional-officers-earn.html
(note that, on average, they make nearly $24k more, per year, ($67k versus $42k), than their counterparts in other states, which is why the cost per inmate is so high in California).In this state, the politicians are absolutely sitting on the same side of the table as the unions and we can clearly see the result. To argue that concessions have been made is demonstrably false. The taxpayers of this state are getting hosed. Now, and in the future (through unaffordable and unsustainable guarantees).
March 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM #678315Participant[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.
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.[/quote]
CAR: I’m sorry, but in California that simply isn’t true. The unions, from CCPOA (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn) to CTA (California Teacher’s Assn), wield tremendous influence and control large voting blocs. They are vocal, as Dave pointed out, plus tremendously well-organized and well-financed.
To say that the unions have been making concessions is simply not true in California. To the contrary, they are seeing ever larger increases in salaries and benefits packages, as well as engaging in neat little tricks like pension “spiking”, whereby they boost their pensions by padding their salaries in their final year or few final few years.
Below are references to this practice, along with the $500Bn pension “time bomb” (unfunded liability), along with the practice of pension spiking and the average cost of a California corrections officer.
California’s $500Bn Pension “time bomb” (LA Times):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Pension “spiking” (from Calpensions):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Cost of California corrections officers:
http://www.ehow.com/info_7760526_do-californias-correctional-officers-earn.html
(note that, on average, they make nearly $24k more, per year, ($67k versus $42k), than their counterparts in other states, which is why the cost per inmate is so high in California).In this state, the politicians are absolutely sitting on the same side of the table as the unions and we can clearly see the result. To argue that concessions have been made is demonstrably false. The taxpayers of this state are getting hosed. Now, and in the future (through unaffordable and unsustainable guarantees).
March 16, 2011 at 6:01 PM #678448Participant[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.
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.[/quote]
CAR: I’m sorry, but in California that simply isn’t true. The unions, from CCPOA (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn) to CTA (California Teacher’s Assn), wield tremendous influence and control large voting blocs. They are vocal, as Dave pointed out, plus tremendously well-organized and well-financed.
To say that the unions have been making concessions is simply not true in California. To the contrary, they are seeing ever larger increases in salaries and benefits packages, as well as engaging in neat little tricks like pension “spiking”, whereby they boost their pensions by padding their salaries in their final year or few final few years.
Below are references to this practice, along with the $500Bn pension “time bomb” (unfunded liability), along with the practice of pension spiking and the average cost of a California corrections officer.
California’s $500Bn Pension “time bomb” (LA Times):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Pension “spiking” (from Calpensions):
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06Cost of California corrections officers:
http://www.ehow.com/info_7760526_do-californias-correctional-officers-earn.html
(note that, on average, they make nearly $24k more, per year, ($67k versus $42k), than their counterparts in other states, which is why the cost per inmate is so high in California).In this state, the politicians are absolutely sitting on the same side of the table as the unions and we can clearly see the result. To argue that concessions have been made is demonstrably false. The taxpayers of this state are getting hosed. Now, and in the future (through unaffordable and unsustainable guarantees).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.