[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
So, while the unions are making concessions, we arrive at the point of, are the concessions enough? [/quote]

This is why playing the game of “who is making concessions?” is a bit of a red herring.

An analogy: If a Fat Cat CEO is making $5 million a year and then reduces his pay to “only” $2.5 million because the company’s facing hard times… well, s/he’s still (way) overpaid.

Likewise, on an aggregate basis, if certain groups of public employees are still earning in excess of what the market would bear (including ALL benefits and amortized over their actual working lives) in the absence of union pressure applied to the political class… then even after making some modest “concessions” they still may be overpaid. My point is that the value of “concessions” is meaningless outside of the context of TOTAL compensation and its relation to what the market would bear absent the wielding of political pressure.

The Fat Cats make too much. Likewise, as a group, so do many public employees.

[davelj]

[quote=ILoveRegulation]Radioactive plume predicted to hit Southern California late Friday.

I’m just shakin’ over this:

“Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.”

My interpretation: I’m more concerned about the effects on my health of that fat guy down the street farting up-wind from me.

[davelj]

[quote=ILoveRegulation]Radioactive plume predicted to hit Southern California late Friday.

I’m just shakin’ over this:

“Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.”

My interpretation: I’m more concerned about the effects on my health of that fat guy down the street farting up-wind from me.

[davelj]

[quote=ILoveRegulation]Radioactive plume predicted to hit Southern California late Friday.

I’m just shakin’ over this:

“Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.”

My interpretation: I’m more concerned about the effects on my health of that fat guy down the street farting up-wind from me.

[davelj]

[quote=ILoveRegulation]Radioactive plume predicted to hit Southern California late Friday.

I’m just shakin’ over this:

“Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.”

My interpretation: I’m more concerned about the effects on my health of that fat guy down the street farting up-wind from me.

[davelj]

[quote=ILoveRegulation]Radioactive plume predicted to hit Southern California late Friday.

I’m just shakin’ over this:

“Health and nuclear experts emphasize that radiation in the plume will be diluted as it travels and, at worst, would have extremely minor health consequences in the United States, even if hints of it are ultimately detectable. In a similar way, radiation from the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 spread around the globe and reached the West Coast of the United States in 10 days, its levels measurable but minuscule.”

My interpretation: I’m more concerned about the effects on my health of that fat guy down the street farting up-wind from me.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[davelj]

[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.

[Author]

Posts