Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

Most states have balanced budget requirments in their constitution. So, when recessions happen, cuts have to happen to pass a budget. When services are cut, they are most likely to disproportionately effect the poor (when they need them the most).

That's just how it is and how it has always been during every recession I have been alive for.

I was speaking more to your description of the benefits of working Americans as "inflated," which seemed to be doing all the work of your "argument." Incidentally, the "working Americans" about which I spoke and the "poor Americans" about which you speak are one in the same. We aren't talking about different groups of people here. Cutting the benefits of government employees is an example of cutting spending "most likely to disproportionately affect the poor."

 

[ezekial45]

New Pennsylvania poll: Obama 48% Romney 36%

Whoever says PA is battleground should be locked up in rural PA for the rest of their lives

How much is PA worth in Electoral votes?

 

[ToxicAdam]

I was speaking more to your description of the benefits of working Americans as "inflated," which seemed to be doing all the work of your "argument." Incidentally, the "working Americans" about which I spoke and the "poor Americans" about which you speak are one in the same. We aren't talking about different groups of people here. Cutting the benefits of government employees is an example of cutting spending "most likely to disproportionately affect the poor."

Of course they are inflated. These were contracts and benefit promises made back when regional economies were different and revenue streams were greater. Especially in places that relied heavily on manufacturing.

There is a gulf of difference between the working poor and the poor (those that can not work or are competitively crippled by factors such as not having a high school diploma). You know the difference, quit trying to be coy.

Speaking of education, the median wage of high school educated, state employees exceeds that of those in the private sector. That's even BEFORE you factor in benefits. Then those comparisons become even more stark.

 

[The Librarian]

How much is PA worth in Electoral votes?

Here.

 

[ToxicAdam]

So is Obama at a crest before economic worries bring him down a bit? Is that what to take from this?

Buried in that link is that almost 1/3 of the respondents were non-registered voters. Which I think speaks to how important it is for the Democrats/Obama to get the vote out and get more people registered.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Speaking of education, the median wage of high school educated, state employees exceeds that of those in the private sector. That's even BEFORE you factor in benefits. Then those comparisons become even more stark.

I've always seen this as the private market for low-skilled labor being deflated and the public sector jobs providing a measure of stability to lower income earners.

 

[Chumly]

Protecting a segment of middle class population and their inflated benefits is actually robbing from the poor. Especially as demographics and economic conditions dramatically change over the decades.

Your right the top 1 percent hold significantly more money than 20 years ago so the middle class should bend over because times have changed.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

New Pennsylvania poll: Obama 48% Romney 36%

Whoever says PA is battleground should be locked up in rural PA for the rest of their lives

GAF Tells me that if a Republican wins the election as they did in 2010 there are severe consequences for the President there. I don't believe this poll

 

[Byakuya769]

Of course they are inflated. These were contracts and benefit promises made back when regional economies were different and revenue streams were greater. Especially in places that relied heavily on manufacturing.

There is a gulf of difference between the working poor and the poor (those that can not work or are competitively crippled by factors such as not having a high school diploma). You know the difference, quit trying to be coy.

Speaking of education, the median wage of high school educated, state employees exceeds that of those in the private sector. That's even BEFORE you factor in benefits. Then those comparisons become even more stark.

Are the government employees overpaid or are the private sector ones underpaid?

 

[empty vessel]

Of course they are inflated. These were contracts and benefit promises made back when regional economies were different and revenue streams were greater. Especially in places that relied heavily on manufacturing.

Er, the economy has only grown since these contracts were made. A lot. In other words, governments have grown bigger, not smaller. Revenue streams were most definitely not greater.

There is a gulf of difference between the working poor and the poor (those that can not work or are competitively crippled by factors such as not having a high school diploma). You know the difference, quit trying to be coy.

No, the difference isn't that great at all. And I'm somewhat agape that you're trying to leverage the plight of the poor in defense of government spending cuts on benefits. As if you care. But, all of this is moot because, as you well know, and as I have already said, that there was a choice to be made between the wretchedly poor and the working poor is a false dichotomy. As I have already said, the state budget shortfalls caused by Wall Street could have been easily filled via federal government spending. No cuts needed.

Speaking of education, the median wage of high school educated, state employees exceeds that of those in the private sector. That's even BEFORE you factor in benefits. Then those comparisons become even more stark.

Ah, so you are trying to cut the benefits of the working poor. So what was all that tripe about "robbing from the poor" while you're complaining about the salaries and benefits of people without college degrees--i.e., the working poor. Or do you think that janitor in Wisconsin making $27,000 per year is rolling in it?

Also, are you making an argument that private sector wages and benefits are deflated?

You see what I did there?

 

[Angry Fork]

I get so fucking stressed over politics, I'm tired of the liberal incremental steps slow policy change bullshit so much. I wish so bad there were more mainstream far left groups that advocate more radical approaches because this democracy shit does not work when so much of the country are blabbering idiots. Some people are too stupid to vote and imo some freedoms should be sacrificed for the sake of reason.

All I see in comments about the walker shit on other sites is people saying 'yes now unions won't be able to give people 50$ per hour unemployment with free healthcare', and I know they're trolling but some people fucking think like this. They think unions are all about protecting bad workers, they vote against their own interests, they think by paying for all it means they lose something and it drives me mad. The stress of the country moving further and further right is just intolerable, I don't know how leftists dealt with the Reagan administration he started all this religious bootstrap don't help anyone else out bullshit.

If anything leftists can secretly hope Romney and republicans win everything if only to bring about another depression and allow people to snap out of their apathy and recognize austerity doesn't work, but if it's another 50/50 game where Obama wins and some dems/republicans win then we're just going to slowly drudge through more center-right/right mediocrity and unnecessary bullshit.

 

[The Librarian]

Are the government employees overpaid or are the private sector ones underpaid?

A good percentage of corporate profits come from wage and benefit cuts.

 

[Dude Abides]

isnt popular gov cuomo against public unions?

After Tier 6 passed and the CSEA and PEF deals Cuomo's gone as far as he's going to go.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Er, the economy has only grown since these contracts were made. A lot. In other words, governments have grown bigger, not smaller. Revenue streams were most definitely not greater.

You're taking macro information and trying to pass it off as pertinent data. Atlanta and Detroit have taken decidely different turns in economic realities over the past two decades. Dayton and Charlotte. Erie and Scottsdale.

No, the difference isn't that great at all. And I'm somewhat agape that you're trying to leverage the plight of the poor in defense of government spending cuts on benefits. As if you care. But, all of this is moot because, as you well know, and as I have already said, that there was a choice to be made between the wretchedly poor and the working poor is a false dichotomy.

Of course I care about people who really need help. Those that are truly destitute.

As I have already said, the state budget shortfalls caused by Wall Street could have been easily filled via federal government spending. No cuts needed.

Ahhh .. there IT is! Wash, rinse, repeat. Good work, jaydubya.

Ah, so you are trying to cut the benefits of the working poor.

You say cuts, I say normalizing. Whatever.

So what was all that tripe about "robbing from the poor" while you're complaining about the salaries and benefits of people without college degrees--i.e., the working poor. Or do you think that janitor in Wisconsin making $27,000 per year is rolling in it?

I have no problem with the janitor in Wisconsin making 27k. It is his benefit package that is grossly out of wack with reality.

In fact, the Democrat candidate Tom Barrett agrees with me and had a plan to 'rightsize' the workers if elected in 2010.

Also, are you making an argument that private sector wages and benefits are deflated?

No, just that economic realities change and people need to set aside their greed and stubborness and accept some small cuts in their life. Entitled people are the worst kind of people.

 

[The Librarian]

Unions in Wisconsin were willing to accept wage and benefit cuts but Walker refused.

 

[eznark]

eznark is just making safe bets.

lol, I told this board in 2007 that Scott Walker would be a transformative Wisconsin governor. Safe bet my ass! I think it was actually in a conversation with jehuty, even! (He scoffed and probably called me names)

I also called Ron Johnson and all but one of the recall election so far (I may end up with two wrong if Wanggaard challenges and wins), Prosser's margin, and just about everything since 2010. Wither in the shining light of my predictive prowess.

Jerk.

What really has me interested is how many seats will be picked up in the senate and house by either party. For whatever reason Eznark seems to be mostly right with his predictions so i'd like to hear what he has to say about this. Eznark in fact has sound judgement save for the fact that he roots for the Brewers lol and the Packers lol.

Obama will win without problem (unless things get real crazy). Look at the Walker election. It's simply not enough to run against someone, people need a reason to vote for you. Romney will never give anyone that. Add in a statistically significant Gary Johnson campaign (c'mon 6%!!) and Obama is safe.

I honestly don't know about the senate seats save a few. Mourdoch will win going away, whichever guy emerges from the WI GOP primary will win by 4-6 (if Thompson he'll win by 8) but the others I haven't started paying attention to.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I like how when an executive has bonuses written into his contract it's a sacred pact but when talking about a union contract it's all, "times change, fuckers!"

 

[eznark]

I like how when an executive has bonuses written into his contract it's a sacred pact but when talking about a union contract it's all, "times change, fuckers!"

That's not true. The changes only take affect on the next contract after the bill passes. They are not retroactive. In fact, a number of municipalities in Wisconsin quickly passed new CBA's with public employee unions so that they could maintain their pre Act 10 benefits for another few years before the bill was passed.

 

[Chichikov]

No, just that economic realities change and people need to set aside their greed and stubborness and accept some small cuts in their life. Entitled people are the worst kind of people.

Wait, did you really use the terms "greedy" and "entitled" for people who are making 31k a year washing floors?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Wait, did you really use the terms "greedy" and "entitled" for people who are making 31k a year washing floors?

A child can be greedy and entitled. It has nothing to do with what your income is.

 

[Chumly]

Wait, did you really use the terms "greedy" and "entitled" for people who are making 31k a year washing floors?

Exactly it's a freaking joke. Like I said bend over the middle class AND poor because those "job creators" deserve to hoard the money. Republicans dont demand anything from them "because times have changed".

 

[Angry Fork]

No, just that economic realities change and people need to set aside their greed and stubborness and accept some small cuts in their life. Entitled people are the worst kind of people.

How about we do this to all who can actually afford it? Anyone who has an apartment that costs more than 500k or a house that cost a million or more should be taxed dramatically because they're not in such need of resources and don't ever have to worry about living month to month. Then when the economy isn't a shit hole anymore people can discuss lowering the taxes again, although I would disagree with that.

I just don't understand blaming workers and ordinary people for problems rich people can fix at the drop of a hat. Allowing rich people to bask in 'their success' by living in gross excess just for the sake of preserving some obscure capitalist dream is NOT more important than making sure everyone else isn't being shitted on as a result.

 

[Kosmo]

Unions in Wisconsin were willing to accept wage and benefit cuts but Walker refused.

Because it's the fact that there are public sector unions in the first place that are the problem. Walker isn't a dummy, he knows how unions work. They will concede only when pushed to the very brink of fiscal crisis and then when things improve they will want back everything they conceded and then some.

It's not a "projected value." It's "this is what we owe." That's simply how a defined benefit plan works. If you're suggesting we should move from defined benefit to defined contribution, well maybe. That shifts risk from the employer to the employee, though. And the employees are still owed under the old plan.

Lookup odious debt - this is essentially what many of these public sector union contracts are.

 

[RustyNails]

A child can be greedy and entitled. It has nothing to do with what your income is.

If I make less than 30K per year then I have the right to be a greedy fuck. Who says I dont?

 

[Chichikov]

A child can be greedy and entitled. It has nothing to do with what your income is.

So you're thinking that someone that complains about a pay cut from a 31k a year salary is entitled and greedy?
Like, for real?

I'm seriously asking.

p.s.
Don't make me pull out dictionary definitions, only douchebags do that...

 

[RustyNails]

Exactly it's a freaking joke. Like I said bend over the middle class AND poor because those "job creators" deserve to hoard the money. Republicans dont demand anything from them "because times have changed".

If we give money to rich, they will work harder. If we take money from the poor, they will work harder.

-Cornerstone of conservative philosophy.

 

[eznark]

Gary Johnson on the show that Jon Stewart stole from Craig Kilbourn

http://thehill.com/video/campaign/2...amned-running-to-win-as-third-party-candidate

Seriously, the guy is adorable.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

It's certainly possible. Who knows. If nothing else it would have been a lot tighter, that's for sure -- which can make all the difference when we're talking about something like a US Presidential Election that can come down to only a couple points. This one is no doubt going to be just that way. Kiss the 2008 Democratic voter advantage goodbye, the GOP has money and enthusiasm on their side in a way that hasn't really been seen before.

I don't understand that number. I get $17.9 million.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Lookup odious debt - this is essentially what many of these public sector union contracts are.

I want to post the definition in the thread for those of you (rightfully) disinclined to follow any links posted by Kosmo.

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory that holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, should not be enforceable. Such debts are, thus, considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

I mean, really?

Really?

 

[RDreamer]

Because it's the fact that there are public sector unions in the first place that are the problem. Walker isn't a dummy, he knows how unions work. They will concede only when pushed to the very brink of fiscal crisis and then when things improve they will want back everything they conceded and then some.

Th... this is a bad thing? They should just concede everything forever? Even when times are good workers should still just get shit on? I... I really don't get it. Of course they're going to ask for more when there's more to go around. Why shouldn't they?

 

[ToxicAdam]

So you're thinking that someone that complains about a pay cut from a 31k a year salary is entitled and greedy?
.

I think someone that wouldn't accept small cuts in benefits or retirement package because their employer is structurally and deeply in debt is greedy. I don't fault them for that, it's human nature.

But maybe my vision is just clouded by witnessing dozens, if not hundreds of businesses die out in the midwest over these very things.

Lets be clear here .. the outlier of whom we are talking about is the janitor making 27k a year. Not the majority, not even the many.

But you generalized it.

I was very succinct.

 

[The Librarian]

Because it's the fact that there are public sector unions in the first place that are the problem. Walker isn't a dummy, he knows how unions work. They will concede only when pushed to the very brink of fiscal crisis and then when things improve they will want back everything they conceded and then some.

So even when times are good they shouldn't come back and ask for more? How does that not work? So employees should accept cuts to their benefits forever?

Okay, Kosmo.

 

[RDreamer]

I think someone that wouldn't accept small cuts in benefits or retirement package because their employer is structurally and deeply in debt is greedy. I don't fault them for that, it's human nature.

I've seen companies that wouldn't accept tiny cuts in profits because their employees were deeply in debt and needed the hours and the pay to sustain any semblance of their life.

To me this shit goes both ways. Yes a union can be greedy and stupid as fuck, but so can a corporation/business. In my eyes I'd rather have them both duking it out than one or the other. And now in the political world with things like citizens united we definitely need strong unions there, too.

 

[Kosmo]

Th... this is a bad thing? They should just concede everything forever? Even when times are good workers should still just get shit on? I... I really don't get it. Of course they're going to ask for more when there's more to go around. Why shouldn't they?

You are a public sector worker - you produce NOTHING (I'm not arguing against private unions here). So when the economy improves and more money comes into the State coffers through zero work of your own, we should not be allowing those public unions to say "Hey, more money, is coming in, more for us and increases in our pensions!" Then the economy tanks and the very public that is suffering is now stuck holding the bag to pay for your benefits and pension that you were only able to force the State into because of absolutely nothing you actually did, other than threaten to strike and shut down government.

So even when times are good they shouldn't come back and ask for more? How does that not work? So employees should accept cuts to their benefits forever?

They can ask, but they shouldn't even be allowed to exist in the first place.

I've seen companies that wouldn't accept tiny cuts in profits because their employees were deeply in debt and needed the hours and the pay to sustain any semblance of their life.

To me this shit goes both ways. Yes a union can be greedy and stupid as fuck, but so can a corporation/business. In my eyes I'd rather have them both duking it out than one or the other. And now in the political world with things like citizens united we definitely need strong unions there, too.

Again, in the private sector, this is perfectly fine. In the public sector, there is no profit.

 

[The Librarian]

You are a public sector worker - you produce NOTHING (I'm not arguing against private unions here).

I produce nothing. Okay.

 

[el retorno]

I mean, really?

Really?

Lol, he doesn't like it so of course that's what he thinks it is.

 

[Kosmo]

I produce nothing. Okay.

Well, what do you produce that produces a profit?

 

[ToxicAdam]

Seems short-sighted, right? But then, unless they're in the accounting dept, how is the employee supposed to know that the employer is going to go under without them accepting cuts? If people in general just take the employer's word for it and meekly take cuts, it becomes a winning strategy to pretend that you're going under whenever you want to reduce employee compensation.

Look, this isn't the NBA where 90% of the owners cry poor and then hide the books when it comes time to negotiate. The budgets are all laid out for everyone to see and the debt is real. The pension crisis is real and it's coming.

 

[Dude Abides]

I suppose on the odious debt theory we can stop paying veterans benefits to Iraq war vets and try to hold GWB, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Powell personally liable.

 

[Kevitivity]

Are the government employees overpaid or are the private sector ones underpaid?

Since government jobs aren't free market jobs, I'm inclined to believe government employees are over paid.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, what do you produce that produces a profit?

Focusing on profit as a necessity in the definition of productivity is backwards. Profit is what enables productivity, not the other way around. Productivity is what matters, regardless of how it's funded, weather its through revenue generated from a private market or money collected from public taxation. Both public and private workers are providing services. Money as a whole exists only to enable productivity. Alone on a desert island a potato is worth more then a ten dollar bill.

 

[Kosmo]

I suppose on the odious debt theory we can stop paying veterans benefits to Iraq war vets and try to hold GWB, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and Powell personally liable.

Were inflated benefits negotiated as a condition of entering the Iraq war? Horrendous analogy.

Let's say Walker was the Anti-Walker and was able to get a new contract signed with the unions that immediately guaranteed every public sector employee a $1M per year pension. Should the taxpayers of the State be liable for that? If not, then your issue only appear to be with the scale of the benefit to consider it odious.

Focusing on profit as a necessity in the definition of productivity is backwards. Profit is what enables productivity, not the other way around. Productivity is what matters, regardless of how it's funded, weather its through revenue generated from a private market or money collected from public taxation. Both public and private workers are providing services.

Of course they provide "services", but only one cannot be funded without the other. Since we're talking about debt and pension funding, I thought we were talking about producing money to actually pay for those things.

 

[Chichikov]

I think someone that wouldn't accept small cuts in benefits or retirement package because their employer is structurally and deeply in debt is greedy. I don't fault them for that, it's human nature.

But maybe my vision is just clouded by witnessing dozens, if not hundreds of businesses die out in the midwest over these very things.

Lets be clear here .. the outlier of whom we are talking about is the janitor making 27k a year. Not the majority, not even the many.

You talked about public sector workers without high-school degree making (in some cases) more than their private sector counterparts.

How is that janitor (which I took from the article you quoted) an outlier?

Also, by that logic, if the government is running a deficit you can't resist any spending cut or revenue increase without being greedy.

But maybe my vision is just clouded by witnessing dozens, if not hundreds of businesses die out in the midwest over these very things.

Wait what?
I thought we were talking about public sector unions.

(also, I would like to see the data of the hundreds of business that died because of organized labor, but we can take it to another thread).

 

[Frank the Great]

Since government jobs aren't free market jobs, I'm inclined to believe government employees are over paid.

there are no free market jobs.

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

I don't know if we can go with international law here Kosmo. Wouldn't that supersede the Constitution of the United States. Next thing you will be telling me that we need to uphold the Geneva Convention and prosecute the Bush administration for war crimes relating to torture.

But in all seriousness, EV and Cyan are correct in that benefits in public employees contracts are just delayed compensation. It is still the agreed amount owed to those employees. It was also a way for politicians to give raises to them without increasing current taxes. They assumed that the economy would grow which increases tax revenue which covers the benefits. No growth puts a damper on all of this.

And acting like these benefit plans are the root of all the budget problems is ludicrous. These plans can be measured, and their costs accounted for. You know what we have a hard time measuring? The growth in medical costs which is what is really driving budget shortfalls. But it's easier for Republicans to blame unions and solve budgets that way, instead of fixing the growth in healthcare which benefits the elderly. And who do the elderly vote for the most?

 

[Dude Abides]

Were inflated benefits negotiated as a condition of entering the Iraq war? Horrendous analogy.

The whole odious debt analogy is absurd to begin with. I'm just running with it.

 

[Kosmo]

I don't know if we can go with international law here Kosmo.

I said "essentially" odious debt (i.e. analogous to).

And acting like these benefit plans are the root of all the budget problems is ludicrous. These plans can be measured, and their costs accounted for. You know what we have a hard time measuring? The growth in medical costs which is what is really driving budget shortfalls. But it's easier for Republicans to blame unions and solve budgets that way, instead of fixing the growth in healthcare which benefits the elderly. And who do the elderly vote for the most?

Unfortunately, they aren't accounted for.

 

[The Technomancer]

Of course they provide "services", but only one cannot be funded without the other. Since we're talking about debt and pension funding, I thought we were talking about producing money to actually pay for those things.

And the money is raised through taxation which is essentially paying the government for the services it provides.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Well, what do you produce that produces a profit?

Were inflated benefits negotiated as a condition of entering the Iraq war? Horrendous analogy.

thegovernmentisnotaprofitmakingentity

idon'tthinkyouunderstandhowanalogieswork

ican'tbebotheredtoaddspacestotyperesponsestoyourpablum

 

[Kosmo]

And the money is raised through taxation which is essentially paying the government for the services it provides.

As I said, they produce NOTHING. Much of what government provides (and wastes), people would gladly forego.