Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
ParticipantGood Ol’ Beef.
As my dad says, “Cows are machines that turn grass into steak. You could never build that.”
Participant[quote=pri_dk]From the article:
It makes more sense to give every retired public safety officer a million dollar annuity — it would be money-saving.I think a clever way to frame the issue would be to put an initiative on the ballot that replaced public-safety pensions with a one-time, million dollar payout at retirement.
In other words, a cop retires at 50, he gets a million dollar check, and no pension.
A million dollars may sound like an outrageous amount.
Except that the pensions they are getting today are worth 2-3 times that much.
So here’s the tagline for the initiative:
A million dollars for our heroes!
Now, who would not want to give our heroes the million they deserve?[/quote]
That’s pure genious.
Participant[quote=CA renter]IMHO, the benefits received from the government (clean air, water, safe food supply, medical R&D/technology, physical infrastructure, military protection, social/safety services, etc., etc.) are FAR, FAR greater per dollar spent than what we get from most private sector companies.[/quote]
Was hoping to sidestep the obvious communist/capitalist argument here, and will continue to do so though you seem to keep going back to it.
It appears that you think arguing against public employee unions is support for capitalism. It isn’t. It is support for more efficient governmnent spending.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=CA renter]
There is always a certain amount of money flowing through the economy at any given point in time. I would like to see more of that money going to the productive workers, rather than the “capitalists,” because the workers are the ones who enable that money to exist in the first place.[/quote]Theoretically, the financial system is an efficient way of allocating capital to productive uses. For that service, they get a return.
The problem now is that the banks are the friction within our economic system.[/quote]
Holy crap. I actually agree with brian. Only have to add They are ONE of the frictions within our economic system.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Again, your argument assumes that costs would go down if govt employees weren’t unionized. I doubt that would happen…at least, not for very long. Someone else would come in to stake their claim to that money.[/quote]
Not a very compelling argument. Could equally say that we may as well let Haliburton get all that contract money because if we didn’t then someone else would just come and grab it.[/quote]
Just stating what I believe to be likely outcomes.
We can choose to spend money back into the economy, and into the hands of the productive workers who form the foundation of the economic pyramid, or we can choose to allow a handful of people to hoard and control access to the world’s assets and resources — making the structure of the pyramid top-heavy and unstable.
The world is full of sociopathic megalomaniacs who seek out and take advantages of weaknesses in the system so that they can gain control of others. As you know, the consequences of this are rarely positive.
The ONLY way to prevent these people from getting into power is to keep the majority of power in the hands of the greatest possible number of people. Since money represents power, we must ensure that money is “spread out” (yep, I said it) and that the people always have the ability to rise up against the handful of people who are always looking for ways to “take over the world.”
Institutions (and individuals with massive amounts of wealth) will always have more power than ordinary workers, which is why workers need to work in unison to keep them in check.[/quote]
So, people have to union together to ensure that they take more taxpayer money than corporations do. Got it.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Again, your argument assumes that costs would go down if govt employees weren’t unionized. I doubt that would happen…at least, not for very long. Someone else would come in to stake their claim to that money.[/quote]
Not a very compelling argument. Could equally say that we may as well let Haliburton get all that contract money because if we didn’t then someone else would just come and grab it.
ParticipantThank you for acknowledging the point I have been trying to make.
Unions that serve big corporations … Well, I can’t say I like them, but I fully appreciate their efforts, as private entities, to get the highest wage they possibly can from big corporations.
But those same efforts directed towards the taxpayers really chaps my hide.
[quote=CA renter]The way I see it, we, as a society, can choose to have the profits derived from labor go to the workers (who create the profits in the first place) or to those who control access to money and power.[/quote]
That is all very happy when the “profit” is true profit going to a private corp. However, when you substitute “taxpayers money” for “profits” it loses it’s noble intent because the workers are no longer attacking the powers that be, but their friends, neighbors and the tax-paying class, which – if you believe Obama – isn’t the wealthy.
Finally, a parting thought regarding the private sector unions – Consider this. The pensions funds of all those union workers and millions of other non-union workers are invested heavily in the stocks of American corporations. So, those “profits” you are shifting to the workers come from a cross-section of society. Somehow, we focus on profit-taking by major stockholders and the high-ranking officers, but American corporations are really owned by every-day people because pension funds are major investors. It isn’t like stockholders are an elite society. Anyone can own stock in any publicly held corporation.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Just because the *employees* are paid more, it doesn’t necessarily mean that taxpayers are paying more for the services. Because they are public employees, there is no profit overhead.
Union employment usually means that the “profits” are spread out more among the employees, as opposed to being concentrated into a few hands at the top. This is far more beneficial to an economy, IMHO, because it keeps money **without a debt offset** circulating through the economy, as opposed to that money being used to hoard resources…causing workers to pay more for things (and having to “rent” as opposed to “own” assets), and getting into debt to do it. This *creates* better-paying jobs and provides for a much more stable economy.
—————–Cost of private vs. public schools [don’t have time right now, but will try to dig deeper into the numbers to make sure that the public school costs include capital expenditures and pensions, etc.]:
“In 2007–08, current expenditures per student in fall enrollment were $10,297 in unadjusted dollars. In 2007–08, some 55 percent of students in public schools were transported at public expense at a cost of $854 per pupil transported, also in unadjusted dollars.”
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
“According to the National Association of Independent Schools, the median tuition for their member private day schools in 2008-2009 in the United States was $17,441.”
You have side-stepped the point by trying to make this a public school vs private school discussion, which it is not.
It is a discussion about public jobs (school is a fine example) being served by union labor (monopoly) vs. non-union individuals.
For the same government job, there is no difference in overhead/profitability whether it is served by a union worker or by a non-union individual.
If you insert a “teaching contractor corporation” in between the employee and the employer then – yes – you will be paying profit overhead.
However, the cost is simply higher when you have to pay higher union wages than if you paid the employee directly. Take both the union and the private corporation out of the picture and there is no overhead at all.
I don’t buy for a second that those at the top of union structures aren’t in it for personal profit. Somehow unions have people convinced that they are for the public good. They are truly in it for themselves and behave exactly like greedy corporations. I don’t blame them for trying. It’s the American way, but when they unecessarily increase taxes under the guise of being lowly public servants, it is unacceptable and now comes the time for government employers to just say no to union labor.
Participant[quote=ctr70]Like I said before we should be “occupying” city halls [/quote]
OCH. Solidarity, brother.
ParticipantI consider myself a realistic idealist. I believe, in reality, that if all the government funding dried up for everything, people would step in and help in some way for those things that are most important to them.
I suspect those things are education, police, courts, the military, and maybe welfare for those who are truly messed up.
And, if I’m wrong, then whatever it is that doesn’t get private support – be it schools, or scholarships or the military – then they shouldn’t have been funded in the first place.
Thanks, zk. Twice in one day I have had reasonable discussions with people on Piggington. I’m so happy.
Participant[quote=briansd1]In public or private organizations, there’s always the problem of patronage.
I believe that it has to do with human nature.
In the past, in the Western world, the Church was a quasi state. People had to ingratiate themselves with the Church hiearchy in order to survive and prosper.
I don’t believe that we should allow any organization, public or private, to become too big.
[quote=sdduuuude] To me, if you limit the flow of cash through the government and limit their sphere of influence, you reduce the desire for all the companies to spend money on lobbying efforts.[/quote]
I hope you include the military in this. The military pays $500 for toilet seats and $2,000 for circuit boards.[/quote]
I do. From the post prior.
[quote=sdduuuude] … is best done by reducing the amount of money flowing through the government, including defense.[/quote]
Participant[quote=UCGal]I’m not sure I agree with that but I *do* agree with a radical change to campaign finance. Limit personal contributions of actual humans to some fixed amount. Eliminate PACs and Super PACs. Eliminate Union financial contributions to political candidates and paid “issue” ads. Eliminate corporate contributions and paid issue ads. Corporations and unions can ask employees/members to contribute personally or volunteer personally, but not coerce. After all – we have free will – folks won’t contribute or volunteer if they don’t agree. No coercion of any kind allowed. (My company “suggests” that employees above a certain paygrade contribute to a PAC – I have yet to do it because I disagree with pretty much every candidate the PAC funds. If they ever even hinted it was required I’d make such a stink…)
And severely restrict lobbying. Shut down lobbyist-for-hire K street firms. Citizens (human beings) should be able to go make their case. Employees of a company should be able to go make a case for their industry. (In other words – it’s ok for a company to have a DIRECT employee who’s job it is to make the case for their industry.) But having 3rd party firms involved in it, providing access, etc, corrupts the system.
But I’m not in charge.[/quote]
The cost of lobbying (which includes campaign finance) is a big part of the inefficnecy of government. First we pay taxes, then we have to pay premiums on products and services so the companies who sell us stuff can afford to hire lobbyists to convince the government to create an environment that benefits them.
To me, if you limit the flow of cash through the government and limit their sphere of influence, you reduce the desire for all the companies to spend money on lobbying efforts.
Keep the money in the hands of the taxpayers in the first place and let the corporations market to the taxpayers to get their money rather than taking it from them and letting politicians and beaurocrats decide where it goes. Cut out the middle man.
This is much more efficient that trying to limit the lobbying effort, which only adds another costly layer of regulation and beurocracy.
From my perspective, Daryl Ratigan is just another lobbyist lobbying for another layer of control.
If the money and influence is running through the government, there will always be lobbyists.
Participant[quote=CA renter]PRIVATE entities who do business with the government use their money and/or voting power to put people in office who are willing to keep the monopoly in place…at the taxpayers’ expense. Not only that, but EVERYONE who has any power at all, even if they don’t do business directly with the government — all corporations, banks, business associations, etc. — use their money/voting power to extract money from taxpayers. It can be in the form of tax credits, incentives, new infrastructure which benefits the corporations, special trade and tax policies, etc. There are so many ways that PRIVATE entities use the government/taxpayers to benefit their bottom line.[/quote]
That all makes sense, yes. Plus, industries bond together to influence en masse.
There are two issues, though: 1) Influencing politics and 2) Extracting the money.
I’ll give you the idea that corps and unions have similar influence over the politics.
The difference between a public union and a private enterprise serving the gov is that the private companies have to compete with other private companies for the money. The unions don’t. And, as you pointed out, the result is union jobs pay more. More than they would if all the jobs were non-union jobs. Which means they are using their monopoly power to gouge the tax payers. I don’t see how you can argue that point at all.
[quote=CA renter]It’s naive to think that public employee unions are the problem. At least the money that goes to public employees is spent back into the local economy where the tax money came from. That’s much less likely to be the case where private corporations/entities are concerned.[/quote]
I’m not saying public employee unions are THE problem (you’ll get no push-back from me on the fact that companies extract too much money from the taxpayers) But, they are definitely a problem.
I was just trying to make a distinction between public employee and private employee unions. Someone earlier was going off on unions and GM and all that. If unions extract money from GM and it makes their cars more expensive, that’s one thing. When they extract money from the public sector, that’s another.
[quote=CA renter]These public union positions provide decent-paying jobs that keep demand levels up for local businesses.[/quote]
Unions don’t provide jobs. They cost jobs. Unions will always give up jobs for higher wages, empirically speaking. It’s what they do.
If the jobs were non-union jobs, they would still be jobs. And, because union jobs cost taxpayers more, there is less money available for other jobs. So, you can have 10 union jobs or 11 non-union jobs for the same tax revenue. I would choose 11. That’s my whole point.
[quote=CA renter]They also help private sector workers because private employers have to compete with public employers for employees; and private, non-union positions pay better wages/benefits as a result.[/quote]
But because the union jobs cost more, it means fewer jobs, and more people looking. I consider this a wash.
[quote=CA renter]Keep in mind, the unions cannot control who gets into office, nor the decisions they make, any more than a private entity can. They have no more power over politicians than private entities do.[/quote]
I’ll give you that one. However, they do have more control over the price of the work. Unions don’t serve the public sector and they aren’t public entities. They are private entities, just like corporateions and they serve themselves, just like corporations. But, unlike corporations who compete for govermnent funds, they have monopoly power. It’s not a good thing.
[quote=CA renter]Now, if you want to argue that ALL money and influence (including offers of jobs in the private sector, etc.) should be kept out of politics, we’d be 100% in agreement.[/quote]
Sure. This is best done by reducing the amount of money flowing through the government, including defense. Keep that to a bare minimum and all these lobbying efforts dry up.
P.S. It’s nice to have a reasonable discussion – thanks.
By the way, this is a big step for me – arguing whether govt job should be union or non-union. Normally I would just say get rid of them and convert them all to the private sector.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]And with regard to public versus private money, Halliburton (private company) got a little bit of money from our taxpayers on a no-bid contract.
I think we can stop the private/public conversation now.[/quote]
It isn’t a public/private company conversation. It is a “Unions selling to government” vs. “unions selling to private corporation” discussion.
Also, a “unions selling to government” vs. “private companies selling to governmnent” (unions and companies both being private entities) discussion.
So, your comment suggests you haven’t really been paying attention. But, gosh. What a brilliant comment.
-
AuthorPosts
