some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

[shiny!]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

delete post.

[Polish_Silver]

Federal employees Did strike during Reagan

Collective bargaining has never been allowed for federal empployees because nattional leadership knows that would be a total conflict of interest.

The air traffic controllers went on strike during Reagan and he busted thier butts with a battering ram!

[Polish_Silver]

Unions & Offsetting forces

hey became different than the party of FDR, Truman, Meany and Reuther. That party was allied with the fading industrial unions, which in turn were tethered to a real world of profit and loss.

A private sector union which went too far would put its company (or industry) out of business, which arguably happend for autos and steel in the US. So there is a feedback and corrective mechanism, albeit a rather painfull one.

However, a public sector union which went too far would put it's entire country out of business, which too some extent is happening in Greece et. al.

Having said that, Governments have to some extent treated workers unfairly. Specifically, in many southern states, negroe teachers were paid less than white teachers for many years, on the grounds that they lived in low rent areas. This went all the way to the supreme court and the negroe teachers won the case. It is a sub plot in the film "something the lord made".
I highly recommend the film as showing a highly talented and disciplined person overcoming a lot of obstacles.

[Polish_Silver]

Unions vs the Recession

I don't think anyone claimed that public sector unions caused the recession.

What I am worried about is that our public institutions may not be as efficient as they could be.

DCarrig, your graph showed almost 20 million state and local employees.
Is that number really justified?
And the piddling decrease since 2008, does it not follow 30 years of substantial increase?

Unions are almost extinct in the private sector. Why do they continue in the public sector?

Public employees are the only ones that still have defined benefit pensions.

In general, they have much greater job security than private sector workers.

In many places, their pay and benefits rival or exceed comparable private sector jobs.

In general, government does not have to compete by offering services at lower prices. So it's not surprising that over time government services would become overpriced.

Teacher unions have contributed to education problems in New York and probably other areas.
In New York the unions prevented firing incompetent teachers. They also prevented offering higher salaries to math teachers, or to those in difficult schools.

What incentive do the unions have to hold down wages, jettison incompetent employees, etc ?

Political elections just do not work very well for this.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

moral is bad at many schools because the teachers feel they have no one on their side.

Instead of layoffs, what if they reduced salaries?

In the face of decreasing revenue, it just seems one of the few logical alternatives.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

Let gov leave entrepreneurs and small biz alone. Let gov regulate FIRE. The rest is incidental

.

Public schools are the major cost of local government, and so are not "incidental." For the time being, we have a
declared "educational crisis", so performance and cost are valid issues.

[astonas]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

I know I'm slow to catch up on this thread, and I hope it's not too late to catch Sutter Cane, but for what it's worth...

Sorry to hear that you're reading and posting here a lot less. I hope you'll contribute more often.

+1 I've appreciated many of your carefully made points, Sutter. And you've helped reign me in on occasion as well, when I've become too... passionate, about a point or two. It would be a loss to all of us if you withdrew.

It could have been me. I've refered to them individually as

Demonrats and Repukelicans, and collectively as Republicrats. Nothing partisan intended - they're both destroying us.

From my posts two things should be clear: (a) I'm clearly conservative (Paleoconservative, that is), and (b) I'm no Republican. And at least one "liberal" on iTulip has managed to change my opinions on health care and public financing of elections. Facts did it, along with patience and the civilized delivery of his argument.

It is our ability to change our minds that makes us intelligent. The person who dies with the exact same perspective they had when they first left home has learned nothing during the rest of their life. I respect the person who changes his mind in the face of a clear and well-reasoned argument (regardless of the direction of the switch). And I admire the individual who wears that change as a badge of pride: they have learned that the setting aside of their ego is an achievement of note. I know, Raz, that you have also contributed knowledge and the benefit of your experience to the forums, and I have appreciated those as well.

And so, understand that it is with very sincere respect that I ask: Do you believe that your choice of words is enhancing, or detracting from, the tone of the discussion here?

For my part, I see ideas as things that one may attack, indeed, should attack, so that they may be tested. And individuals who appear to be irrational do sometimes (ok, fine, often) raise my ire. But I do try not to broadly attack large swathes of people. And while you are most likely referring specifically to the LEADERSHIP of the democratic and republican parties, there are many people in this country who do still identify themselves as "Democrats" or "Republicans" who are not necessarily to blame, but get tarred with the same brush with your admittedly clever wordplay.

Again, I personally have no issue whatsoever with you, Raz, and I enjoy your posts greatly. And I do believe you when you say that you had no partisan intent, I think that has been clear in your posts as well. I do hope, however, that we can help keep this a place where intelligent people of ALL stripes can come together. Even those who do remain affiliated with a party. I, for one, am certain that I still have things to learn from people like Sutter Cane.

One wise individual has a point in their signature that has helped me (who certainly can qualify as hotheaded on occasion) from time to time:

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

And while I know that I can get angry at the state of the world, I also know that I am not putting my best foot forward when I express that through hostile language. (Sadly, it hasn't always stopped me, but I do try.) ;)

[lektrode]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

I know I'm slow to catch up on this thread, and I hope it's not too late to catch Sutter Cane, but for what it's worth...

[COLOR=#000080]

+1 I've appreciated many of your carefully made points, Sutter. And you've helped reign me in on occasion as well, when I've become too... passionate, about a point or two. It would be a loss to all of us if you withdrew.

+1
and tho i appreciate mr raz 'taking a bullet' for me (intentionally/knowingly or not), it was clear that mr cane's comment was aimed straight at me (some people mistake my casual to the point of goofy - i like to think of it as comedic - along with heated to the point of inflammatory 'rhetorical commentary' on the political aspects of OUR economic situation - here in the - as EJ puts it - the politcal economy, that has been dumped upon us all.

it is/never has been my intention to insult anybody here personally, but i accept the fact that i get a bit too carried away at times (having ones income slashed by 75% will do that to a guy/person, esp when it occurred because of the political BS that infests OUR .gov at all levels - never mind when it happens as one approaches his mid50's and due to his geographical-political situation/location, cant do a whole lot about it, without sacrificing most everything one has worked - read: SWEAT for, over the past 20+ years (and NO, at some point, one _cant_ just start all over again or just up and move to where the 'grass is greener')

and altho i'm willing to apologize to those who's sensibilities i might have ruffled (quite unintentionally), i wont apologize just because someone makes such as personal-ad hominemly-intended statement that they dont like it 'round here as much and dont feel like this is their kind of sandbox, so might take their marbles and leave?
(and why, other than to communicate hostility, would they even go to the trouble of typing such?)

heh - i wouldve otherwise let that one go on by - like water off a ducks back, mate - since as has been suggested prev in other threads, if one's skin is so thin that they are personally insulted by something that wasnt intended to be personal or an insult, they mights well just skip over my posts or refrain from commenting on them

my motive for this thread in particular, is to pose the question:

Does The Gov Work For WE THE PEOPLE, or do we work for it? (its getting more difficult by the week to answer this one, and i dont intend to let this thread go quietly)

and yes, i too have had my mind changed by what i've read on the itulip - there are some VERY GOOD TEACHERS here, who know HOW to make a case, show the evidence AND make their point - without insulting the other side (dcarrigg amongst others and you know who you are, sides MR J of course)

other than the above, there's nothing i disagree with here, antonas - and i thank you for mentioning it
(and fully intend on picking back up with dc where we left off - its something about us new englanders i guess, we learn by discussing our differences - some might call it arguing ;)

as i've mentioned prev, most of the time i'm NOT angry when posting here, just that i find the dynamic intensly stimulating/interesting, so guess that kinda bubbles up as hostility from time to time = quite unintentional and i apologize for that. (to mr cane as well)

It is our ability to change our minds that makes us intelligent. The person who dies with the exact same perspective they had when they first left home has learned nothing during the rest of their life. I respect the person who changes his mind in the face of a clear and well-reasoned argument (regardless of the direction of the switch). And I admire the individual who wears that change as a badge of pride: they have learned that the setting aside of their ego is an achievement of note. I know, Raz, that you have also contributed knowledge and the benefit of your experience to the forums, and I have appreciated those as well.

And so, understand that it is with very sincere respect that I ask: Do you believe that your choice of words is enhancing, or detracting from, the tone of the discussion here?

For my part, I see ideas as things that one may attack, indeed, should attack, so that they may be tested. And individuals who appear to be irrational do sometimes (ok, fine, often) raise my ire. But I do try not to broadly attack large swathes of people. And while you are most likely referring specifically to the LEADERSHIP of the democratic and republican parties, there are many people in this country who do still identify themselves as "Democrats" or "Republicans" who are not necessarily to blame, but get tarred with the same brush with your admittedly clever wordplay.

Again, I personally have no issue whatsoever with you, Raz, and I enjoy your posts greatly. And I do believe you when you say that you had no partisan intent, I think that has been clear in your posts as well. I do hope, however, that we can help keep this a place where intelligent people of ALL stripes can come together. Even those who do remain affiliated with a party. I, for one, am certain that I still have things to learn from people like Sutter Cane.

One wise individual has a point in their signature that has helped me (who certainly can qualify as hotheaded on occasion) from time to time:

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

And while I know that I can get angry at the state of the world, I also know that I am not putting my best foot forward when I express that through hostile language. (Sadly, it hasn't always stopped me, but I do try.) ;)

again, a
+1
to that (ms shiny! ;)

[astonas]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

+1
and tho i appreciate mr raz 'taking a bullet' for me (intentionally/knowingly or not), it was clear that mr cane's comment was aimed straight at me (some people mistake my casual to the point of goofy - i like to think of it as comedic - along with heated to the point of inflammatory 'rhetorical commentary' on the political aspects of OUR economic situation - here in the - as EJ puts it - the politcal economy, that has been dumped upon us all.

it is/never has been my intention to insult anybody here personally, but i accept the fact that i get a bit too carried away at times (having ones income slashed by 75% will do that to a guy/person, esp when it occurred because of the political BS that infests OUR .gov at all levels - never mind when it happens as one approaches his mid50's and due to his geographical-political situation/location, cant do a whole lot about it, without sacrificing most everything one has worked - read: SWEAT for, over the past 20+ years (and NO, at some point, one _cant_ just start all over again or just up and move to where the 'grass is greener')

and altho i'm willing to apologize to those who's sensibilities i might have ruffled (quite unintentionally), i wont apologize just because someone makes such as personal-ad hominemly-intended statement that they dont like it 'round here as much and dont feel like this is their kind of sandbox, so might take their marbles and leave?
(and why, other than to communicate hostility, would they even go to the trouble of typing such?)

heh - i wouldve otherwise let that one go on by - like water off a ducks back, mate - since as has been suggested prev in other threads, if one's skin is so thin that they are personally insulted by something that wasnt intended to be personal or an insult, they mights well just skip over my posts or refrain from commenting on them

my motive for this thread in particular, is to pose the question:

Does The Gov Work For WE THE PEOPLE, or do we work for it? (its getting more difficult by the week to answer this one, and i dont intend to let this thread go quietly)

and yes, i too have had my mind changed by what i've read on the itulip - there are some VERY GOOD TEACHERS here, who know HOW to make a case, show the evidence AND make their point - without insulting the other side (dcarrigg amongst others and you know who you are, sides MR J of course)

other than the above, there's nothing i disagree with here, antonas - and i thank you for mentioning it
(and fully intend on picking back up with dc where we left off - its something about us new englanders i guess, we learn by discussing our differences - some might call it arguing ;)

as i've mentioned prev, most of the time i'm NOT angry when posting here, just that i find the dynamic intensly stimulating/interesting, so guess that kinda bubbles up as hostility from time to time = quite unintentional and i apologize for that. (to mr cane as well)



again, a
+1
to that (ms shiny! ;)

In that case, I believe I owe an apology to Raz. Sorry about that!

And 'lektrode, thanks for stepping up. My intent wasn't to demand an apology (I wasn't the offended party, and thus have no right to ask that) but to provide a gentle reminder to all that folks of all kinds like these forums, and that the conversation is best when everyone feels welcome to step in with their opinion. Since blanket statements against people who hold different views tend not to advance that goal, I pointed that out as an example. Things like word choice can matter; they can, for example, place the blame on the MEMBERS of a party, instead of the OFFICIALS of that party. I wasn't personally offended, but I think this is a pretty special forum, where people with a lot of different views can share ideas, and I was concerned it had taken a step away from being that place.

Anyway, enough harranguing from me. Even with the occasional flare-up this is still the most civil forum I've seen on the 'net. I know that it stays that way in part because we have good people on here who aren't afraid to call each other on civility fouls when things escalate, and I was taking my turn being the "bad cop," just as I've taken turns before as the offender. 'Nuff said.

Carry on, nothing to see here,

[Raz]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

[COLOR=#000080]

+1 I've appreciated many of your carefully made points, Sutter. And you've helped reign me in on occasion as well, when I've become too... passionate, about a point or two. It would be a loss to all of us if you withdrew.



And so, understand that it is with very sincere respect that I ask: Do you believe that your choice of words is enhancing, or detracting from, the tone of the discussion here?

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

I hope Sutter will continue to post to the forums. If I've offended him I'm sorry and I hope he'll take this as an apology.

Perhaps my choice of words displease some people and I should consider changes - but I'm not going to stop referring to the two major political parties as RepubliCrats.
At least not until one of them is radically reformed of the criminal corruption they both presently display.

The "wise individual" you referred to was Philo of Alexandria, and the precise quote is: "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle".

I too, wish that I had always been kind, but many times I've fallen short.

[lektrode]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

....can, for example, place the blame on the MEMBERS of a party, instead of the OFFICIALS of that party. I wasn't personally offended, but I think this is a pretty special forum, where people with a lot of different views can share ideas, and I was concerned it had taken a step away from being that place.

not by me, mr A
and i'm certainly not a 'party member' since i blame the officials of both parties for the mess THEY have created.
(most of) the rest of us are too stupid to give a damn beyond some/their fave knee-jerk emotional cause du jour that allows the officials to carve us up into segmented donor groups they can tap when they need a few more votes (squeeze the immigrants a little harder here, the gender-identity crowd a bit more there, throw in a few freebies to ones crony biz 'stakeholders' and VOILA!!

another 4 years of 'change'

sigh....

just a 3rd party wannabe voter
searching for a home

[lektrode]

Re: some goodnews for 'a change' WI Got It Right

yo dc.. howzit...
you sir, DO put out some of your Best Stuff when you get worked up = why eye like reading you (always a pleasure and always a true learning experience and i want to thank you personally for taking the time to bear with me - or at least put up with me, having a little fun with and hopefully not just making fun of me ;)

I'll give you this: The DMV worker and maintenance worker are probably union. The pot hole? If it's a main road it's more likely a contract with a private contractor. The cop is getting paid overtime for standing near it, though. The administrators and assistant administrators? They're non-union. Sorry, bub, but that's the reality of it.

It's not to excuse the DMV worker who can't use MS Word. It's not to excuse the maintenance worker that can't trim a tree on the sidewalk in 4 weeks. Unions actually do protect people who screw that up, and I've seen it first hand. I'm not here to apologize for everything they do. I'm here to point out that they are not what led us into this recession.

Prove me wrong.

+1
nope - cant - and nobody, certainly not me, is trying - however the issue is the price that the .gov (at all levels) is extracting for a dwindling level of 'benefit' (and those of us in the 49.1% (or is that the 51%, i keep forgetting) feel it acutely/painfully daily, esp while stuck in the trafficjams the gov seems to create on purpose, just to make it look like something is being done - ESPECIALLY yesterday, 15june, when some of us got to send in our quarterly 'contributions' - said with a smile, just because i could send it ;)

and i'll agree with you completely/unequivically that the public sector union people, thats them that actually does the work, the vast majority of them anyway, ARE NOT THE PROBLEM - or even The Cause of The Problem

but the administrators and the deputy administrators and the secratary to the assistant deputy administrators (and those in cahoots with the union upper echelon)???

now maybe we're getting somewhere - and your absolutely right - most of them are NOT union - now we get into what i refer to as the 'political class' - since most or a certainly a LOT of them are products of the patronage system that infests most of the (blue)states, that the political class always seems to be working to enlarge (since its always good to have 'friends in gov') - unless of course we're talking about... AHEM... places that dont allow it to get going in the first place with a different approach (by keeping as much private sector money in the hands of We The People, who i happen to have a lot more faith in believing they/we know better how to spend THEIR/OUR money than the entrenched unelected buracracy (dont forget the assistant deputy directors) do???

and the best way to do that is: minimizing the opportunity that broadbased/general-funded blackholes of accountability present to those artful in the act of giving away the treasury to buy the votes of certain segments of the electorate - but thats a diff topic too, i guess.

its my understanding that some places have almost as many/more administrative/backroom types in depts like .edu than teachers - how much sen$e does that make/take?... maybe once upon a time, before computers - the .gov needed an army of people to fillup file cabinets all day - but do we really need that many now (esp since the private sector has eliminated entire buildings/industries full of people pushing paper, and replaced them with diskdrives and networked PC's (and THEN came the wild wild web)?? - and still the buracracy seems to never stop growing (til just recently)?? (and excuse my purposeful mis-spelling of the B word, its easier to type and its the unintended outgrowth of the 'democracy' thats been foisted upon us the prev 50years or so, but thats a sorta diff topic, and/so i'll drop it there)

As per usual when I get into debates with my friends on the right, I think we are not as far off in worldview as you might expect. I agree with the spirit of this paragraph. But killing the American Federation of Teachers won't fix the problem. And I'll stand by that statement.

and i'll generally agree with that as well - not completely tho, as we've seen plenty of evidence to suggest that some within that org care more about their own power than the interests of their membership, never mind The Public, aka The Rest of US they are supposed to be 'serving' (you know, as public servants, not to belittle the term, i know of many that i would vouch for as being more concerned about the rest of us than anything any union would/could ever do for them - and that includes most individual teachers)

Prove me wrong. I will gladly convert.

Until then, I will consider splitting the populous amongst the private/public sector divide merely a tool of of FIRE to make us eat each other before them.

They're more than 20% of the economy now and they produce nothing. How big do they have to get?

wouldnt even try to prove you wrong on this one, especially, dc - but fair enough - sucking up 20% of the economy while 'producing nothing' makes me just as disgusted as it does you - never mind when they f__k up to the tune of TRILLIONS and then, with the proverbial gun to our head, expect to be bailed out at the brink of bankruptcy (privatizing the profit and socializing the risk) - then turn around less than a year later and pay themselves yet more BILLIONS for 'saving us' from a problem THEY THEMSELVES perpetrated?

but riddle me this big guy - who takes an even BIGGER CUT than them?(well... than the med ins and drug mob will be, anyway)

and well... so...
then bobs your uncle, i guess.

but this conversation MUST take place, as at 24% of GDP and rising(?) its getting too expensive (even IF i'll likely end up paying more for med ins than taxes this year - and i am NOT braggin, big guy ;)

the question/topic of this thread is: when does public sector growth and expense start choking the private sector's ability to produce the means to provide our common needs/goals?

methinks the NH former guv sunuku has a very good idea where that line is, as does guv walker's win in wisc show

and again - we'll see how ms warren does with this one in good ole taxachusetts (but if'n i was to bet on it, i'd have to have odds on brown prevailing)

[Polish_Silver]

Real Electoral reform

health care and public financing of elections.

I don't think public financing will be enough. We need to go to a proportional system for the US senate, and many other offices.

Right now, only the president is elected on a nationwide basis. All the others are responsible to regionial constituents. And a party must get 51% of the votes in a region to get one seat. That makes it effectively a two party system. Third parties can never get critical mass, they always face the "wasted vote" problem.
Yet nationwide, libertarians, socialists, greens, all have several %.

With a two party system, both candidates tack to the center, because that optimizes their vote count. Real reform and innovation never happen. With even a three party system, the dynamics change radically (Hotelling theory).

Solution: Each senate seat represents 1% of the vote. If libertarians get 5% of the votes, they get 5 seats.

States could adopt a similiar system in at least one house.

[c1ue]

Re: Real Electoral reform

Solution: Each senate seat represents 1% of the vote. If libertarians get 5% of the votes, they get 5 seats.

The problem with this solution is that you've just disenfranchised the entire central United States. Senators exist for a reason - to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority.

That's why there are 2 houses in Congress.

Yes, quite true the nature of Congress reduces the ability to do anything - but that was the goal: to make Congress a deliberative body.

The problem we have today isn't the structure of Congress per se, it is the actions of the players in it. Congress seemed to work more or less fine in the first 200 years of the US, after all.

[astonas]

Re: Real Electoral reform

The problem with this solution is that you've just disenfranchised the entire central United States. Senators exist for a reason - to counterbalance the tyranny of the majority.

That's why there are 2 houses in Congress.

Yes, quite true the nature of Congress reduces the ability to do anything - but that was the goal: to make Congress a deliberative body.

The problem we have today isn't the structure of Congress per se, it is the actions of the players in it. Congress seemed to work more or less fine in the first 200 years of the US, after all.

I agree with you concerning the origins of the 2 houses in congress. However, one has to ask: Isn't the "disenfranchisement" of the central US merely bringing their level of representation in line with what it should have been from the beginning, in a more fair system? There is no fundamental REASON why small states should have the excessive weight they carry today, other than they were able once upon a time to secure the insane overrepresentation from the larger states in a moment of historical weakness.

In other words, correcting a long-standing historical injustice is not, in and of itself, another injustice. For it to be considered such, there has to be a reason WHY their overrepresentation is beneficial to the nation as a whole. As for "tyranny of the majority" that is a double-edged sword. Right now we have a tyranny of the minority (especially in the Senate.) surely that is even worse. For my part, I am having trouble seeing a benefit to the overvaluation of the agricultural belt. It is why we have ridiculous ethanol subsidies, and other ludicrous agricultural policies. When I try to find a reason for maintaining the current balance of power, I keep repeatedly coming back to the idea that because they were able to get away with an unbalanced, destabilizing, concession once, they are supposed to keep it forever.

It just doesn't hold water.