Detroit City Unions: free 13th month

Bloomberg

How would you like a "FREE" 13th month pay check? You know - for doing nothing. Well, not nothing. Of those few students that are "Graduating" from Detroit City Highschools, 47% are functionally illiterate. That's something. Is it worth a free 13th month pay check? Apparently so. We live in a "Democracy" and "The People" have spoken. Never mind 99.9999% of those people have no idea what a Bond is let alone how 'public servants' are paid for.

See, this is how you get elected in an immoral society. You pander to your champaign donors, which sickeningly are Unionised public servants. Yeah, you promise "FREE" stuff - like a 13th month pay check to all those PUBLIC 'servants'. And, given the Unions ran all the Private companies out of the City, all that's left to Unionise are the Public servants. Well, people don't pay Union dues to Union Bosses for the shits and giggles - they want their 13th month check! Isn't that wonderfully ironic? The ONLY group of people that have the legal obligation to use force against you, are only ones left who can unionise - and they do, AND YOU vote for them!

LOL!!

That's right, as Detroit rots from the inside out, sells off houses in packets of 250 to rich Chinese who just want the land investment [or maybe Joe looking to speculate on the misery of the poor and flip their houses back to them]; and (attempts) to sell more 30 year T-Bonds on their illiterate children they 'serve' as 'public servants' - they're demanding a 13th month pay check!

Welcome to Democracy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Brazil has a mandatory 13th salary, half given in November and half in December. Worker earns it over 12 months, but as many spend all their pay checks quickly, this is a good system that helps them meet their extra expenses at Christmas time. I admit it seemed strange to me when I first learned I had to pay it to hired hand taking care of my cattle as I was at farm only two week ends per month. He earned the local equivalent of about $100/ month for 44hour work week, and that was "too much" pay according to other absentee land owners - their worker were starting to ask for higher salaries.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are these private or public workers?

Why should Private workers (many barely making ends meet on minimum wage) be forced to pay Public workers (many on 2-4X the salary with pensions, healthcare, vacation days, short work days, etc....) be given an extra month's pay while many of the Private workers have none of those things?

As for Private workers, they can negotiate any payment methods they like. It's their labor. However, I don't understand why they'd suddenly see an increase in expenses at Christmas time? Particularly the poor - who, of anyone, should prudently buy their gifts in January the year before during clearance sales.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AFAIK, all workers get the 13th salary but maids that only work two days per week probably do not. For them you don't even need to contribute to the Brazilian version of Social Security.

You have very false ideas. For example in the last decade a program called "Bolsa Familia" has lifted about 20 million out of deep poverty (if measured by their near zero cash income) into the lower middle class. It gives about the equivalent of $100/ child /month (up to limit of three, I think) to families that keep the child in school until age 18, and can prove they got all their required (free) vaccinations. Prior to it, most, nearly all, rural children went to work in the fields with their father or at home with mom by age 12 or so, with little reading skills and only simple math abilities.

Now that these assisted families have some cash, they buy goods in town which with multiplier effect operating, and the reduced cost health services (all free to user, but not the government) have about paid for the program currently. The big pay off comes when the rural kids move to a major city, get a salary and pay taxes on it.

Program was either started or greatly expanded by prior two term President Lula. A remarkable man - sort of a Brazilian version of Lincoln, but without well educated Lincoln's stepmother. (Both Lula's parents are illiterate.) Lula got his first pair of second hand shoes at age 12! Lost some fingers to a machine in a car factory and eventually became the leader of the autoworkers union. - He stood up to the military dictatorship and went to jail for that, but the workers refused to work until he was released. When his second term was nearing an end, many in congress wanted to terminate the two term limit, but he said NO. He left office with about an 85% approval rating and named whom he wanted to be next president - a lady who had never held office, our current president, as the people would have voted for a dog if Lula told them too.
Lula was intelligent, a naturally gifted orator, and knew the true cost of poverty first hand. - Did much to end it in Brazil.

America badly needs a Lula instead of servants of the already rich. Obama is trying, but may not have the "put it all on the line" drive that comes from being really poor - not eating some days etc.

 

Don't try to explain the benefits of increase pay to him, your probably a communist in his eyes now.

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with 'my ideas'? You'll have to be specific.

Also, where does the $100 come from? Why weren't children attending school? Why weren't they receiving vaccinations?

Modern Brazil didn't just pop into existence. They emerged from a Dictatorship which itself emerged from Colonization and Slave-Trade which has a direct link to outright decimation of the indigenous culture by Religious Fundamentalists.



From my POV, it seems that decades of life in a Progressive State-Run Economy (again, modern Fascism) where redistribution of wealth pretty much redistributed right into the hands of ruling top 1% (as is happening here in the USA) have pretty much destroyed most South American economies - including Brazil's. Yes, recently, Brazil has started shipping off produce and agriculture (mainly meat and soy) and mineral wealth to the Chinese who refine these into highend products (which are then shipped back to Brazil as iPads etc...). This trade is of great benefit to BOTH nations, however, more so to the Chinese who are developing a modern economy (but, again, free trade does offer benefits BOTH people - and so Brazil has an extra $100 to help out the poor farming children, for now).

You seem to suggest this is squarely a product of the President of Brazil. THAT is a bad sign. Any economic system/social system that rests on the shoulder's a single person, it precarious at best.



I'd argue starting from such a LOW economic footing as Brazil was at (and China), that doing just about anything is probably going to help the poorest in the short term. But, not in the long term. In the long term, if everything went Brazil's way, according 'to plan' and they somehow managed to create a society like the Modern West/Japan/ours, - then even a PhD wouldn't help them get a job.

That's the problem with Centralization - the Government/Central Bankers can never know if I want that coffee cup, and how much so if they did. It's impossible information. The ONLY way to know is to allow me to fairly free trade for it. Hence, China build's 20 more Ghost Cities in 2013 and massive marble floored train-stations larger than the Great Pyramids that will NEVER pay themselves off. Ever. They THINK they know what to build, but they don't. This will become evident in the future as these massive building projects are underused or outright abandoned (Detroit was called the Paris of the West just 60 years ago - things that are not sustainable will not be sustained). But, sure, life is a LOT better than under total Progressive Socialism; like 20 years ago. I suppose Progressive Fascism does a better job than Progressive Socialism. However, it's not sustainable in the long term.

My opinion is that with free-market currencies and a LOT of deregulation to allow for a private market to develop fair regulation, then we'd have a more robust fairer monetary and economic system. Not the one we have now where the deck is stacked in favor of the richest players who outright control the currencies/everything. So, you may see gains made today in Brazil, but, in the future those will be reversed - just as happened to Eng, Japan, the USA and most of Europe. It's an inevitability of the monetary system we're using.


Given the unfair starting place, say following colonization, there is a question of how to get to a free market. But, it should be the goal.

 

From government collected taxes. Brazil has still great disparity in wealth distribution. Children were needed in the fields as soon as they could kill weeds with a hoe. etc. just to have the family survive. Some got some of their vaccinations, but now all do get all. Probably mainly because of ignorant parents not thinking they were useful. Many rural people still have more faith in the various teas they make, but their children are learning better now.

Yes concentration of wealth makes a desirable life style for most impossible, but there are other choices that increase the wealth of all while making it more equally distributed, as is the case in Scandinavian governments.

GWB did exactly the wrong thing with his tax reforms. That plus lack of SEC regulation, needless wars, feeding the growing military industrial complex Ike warned about plus the wave of Baby Boomers, then known with certainty to be switching from largest ever set of tax payers to collectors of Social Security about now even when GWB still had two more years as POTUS, was why I could predict with complete (and continuing) confidence that there would be a "run on the dollar on or before Halloween 2014," more than 7 years ago.

Lula was not only an amazing man to over come his birth status, a great orator and very intelligent, he was also dam lucky. When he came to office China's growing demand tripled the price of most of Brazil' exports, plus PetroBrass learned it had hit the largest new oil field in decades.

I also agree that China will buy low value added goods and sell high value added goods back to Brazil. More than five years ago I made posts telling that after the run on the dollar US and EU would be in world's worst ever, longest lasting depression, but China and its suppliers would at worst have a couple of years of recession. In those old posts, I described Brazil as becoming an "economic colony" of Asia, mainly China and still think that will be true in less than a decade but better than the martial law suppressing food riots and city burning I foresee for the USA where there is about one hand gun for every adult male.

You seem to have much more faith than I do about the good effects of less government regulation. - I think intelligent regulation (including quite progress tax rates) like in Scandinavia is the only hope, the only way, to sustain a mass marketing society, benefiting many. The only other stable form of society is the feudal system with masses poor farmers, and some skilled artisans in the towns serving the elite few.

 

Why should labor be biased against versus any other service or commodity sold in the markets? Why not raise the price of coffee to a minimum amount? Or corn? Why do you think selling labor at a minimum amount is 'good' but not a potato? What makes 'labor' special?

Also, why not question the 'pay'? Why is it you think a State run fiat currency is 'fair'? Wouldn't it be more fair to allow people to chose their own currencies (which could also be the State's fiat - so long as it wasn't unfairly valued by income tax).

 

Detroit was destroyed by unions, big load of money was dumped into their government for nothing, and now they want to get free money for nothing???

 

Gee I don't know, ooh wait its because labor is a the means of living for most people! Corn, coffee, this things are not going to suffer, curl up and die if they are not paid too. Workers, human beings, not financed will live short, sad, painful lives.

I don't understand what your getting at. Our you saying the state should just throw food, clothing and housing at these people instead of money?

 

Oh come on. So you have no answer (other than an emotive plea)?

How many US 'workers' do you know that have starved to death in the USA (outside of drug or physically abused individuals). I'm talking, just an average out of work normal American? You'd be lucky to find 1 in 100 million. The fact is people are dying of obesity, not of starvation.

Regardless, the ONLY way to answer this question is with data. We both understand that an emotive response is very likely to lead to the wrong answer.

Are the Effects of Minimum Wage Increases Always Small?
New Evidence from a Case Study of New York State:
Summery: When New York State increased the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.75 per hour, in 2004–06, there was a “20.2 to 21.8 percent reduction in the employment of younger less-educated individuals,” with the greatest impact on 16-to-24 year olds.

Forbes:
Today black teen unemployment is more than 40 percent; nearly double that for white teens. In 2007, prior to the Great Recession, the black teen unemployment rate was about 29 percent. There is no doubt the increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour contributed to the higher unemployment rate. If Congress passes a new minimum wage law that makes it illegal for employers to pay less than $9 per hour, and for workers to accept less than that amount, we can expect further erosion of the market for unskilled workers, especially black teens.

Thanks entirely to a massive resource windfall / sell-off to the Chinese (whom are now buying up lots of actual farm land as well) Australian politicians were able to sell a once-off high minimum wage hike >$15.00, but see how much more things cost in AU here

Consumer Prices in Australia are 51.53% higher than in United States
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Australia are 58.41% higher than in United States
Rent Prices in Australia are 74.49% higher than in United States
Restaurant Prices in Australia are 49.53% higher than in United States
Groceries Prices in Australia are 39.19% higher than in United States
Local Purchasing Power in Australia is 22.80% lower than in United States

Keep in mind, Australia, presently has a 'strong' economy and yet:
Those who earn minimum wage (young, unskilled workers 15 to 19) see an unemployment rate was 16.5%. Most Union workers make more than minimum wage, and so they love a high minimum wage, it means less competition for them. So, not only do the youngest get left OFF the ladder, they have to pay a LOT more just to get the basics. Inflation is massive in Australia and it's only going to get worse.

No, I'm saying that without the State manipulating the money, the nation would be MUCH more prosperous and there'd be little need of any assistance because people would be much more wealthier. Competing currencies is one method for ensuring fairness for the lower class (which is why we're not likely to see it - in anything, just the opposite. The people who pay for and pretty much own the US Government despise the very thought of allowing the so-called "Free" public having control over their/our money).

So, we need to eliminate regulation and allow the free-markets to evolve the same sorts of regulations - eliminating the millions of unfair unneeded laws the prevent free competition. Free money is a crucial part of allowing the markets to function fairly.

 

Let's unpack what you and I are really saying here. Government is a group of people. It only differentiates itself from other groups of people in that it is OBLIGATED to initiate force against the other groups of people. These other groups can only, within the Law, trade with others in society.

So, what I'm saying is I have much more faith in freedom and less faith in violence. If money were a vote (and it really is), you could say I believe in democracy and not in dictatorship. Thus, I believe that less government regulation would allow for the development and evolution of 'regulation' from within the private sphere - IF those regulations where something people truly wanted.

Why the either/or?

What are the differences between the way Scandinavian economies "run" and Japan and Korea? Are any notable differences in the actual 'running' of these economies? Because they seem pretty similar if you ask me and yet Japan and Korea have economies that can not absorb all these highly skilled workers, thus people don't get good jobs, don't get married, don't have families and are deeply indebt (in the case of Japan and soon so too Korea). Koreans probably push their students harder than any other society - and it's isn't going to reverse this trend. We don't need 100s of millions more workers - skilled or otherwise.

The reason why I think we should deregulate is to open up the market. Most regulations are there to prevent competition - not protect the consumer (who can generally figure things out themselevs quick enough, see: Zune.)

 

Are you implying that if they were not getting paid they would not starve to death?

No the problem here is we are arguing about very different things: I'm arguing a worker needs to be paid a "livable" wage, what ever that is I have not specified but at least a wage (as Billy alludes to) that gives the worker a chance to crawling up the social ladder or his/her children having that chance, through hard work of course. What your arguing for... I don't know.

 

Have you ANY support for that claim? The patent office does prevent competition for some years in the long term interest of increasing competition. (Encourages disclosure, so later others can use the discovery to compete with firm that bore the expense of the development)* For example only the developer can make and sell new drug, but later generic version can be sold more cheaply as they are "free loading" on the developer's investment with no development cost to recover.

I guess you could claim that that without EPA regulation, cheaper white toilet paper would be on the market competing as the maker dumps the bleach into the local creek. I guess you could also claim that the snake oil sales of the universal cure for all cancers are being suppressed by FDA regulation, but what example can you give that socially useful competitors are being suppressed by regulation?

Would you put your money in a bank with no regulation of how it was used or get on airplanes if the FAA were abolished and all were free to fly any where at any time or launch their hot air balloons or pilotless drones when and where they liked?

* Coke Cola is one company that chose not to disclose how to make coke to the patent office so no one could sell it more cheaply. I.e. the Patent office encourages delayed competition.

Again: Have you ANY support for that seems to be very silly claim?

 

Public sector unions are a money laundering scam for the democratic party. These union wages are paid for by the tax payer. The union members use this tax payer money to pay union dues. This then goes to democratic candidates, The politicians get a cut of the tax money. The more they get the public sector unions the bigger the cut. I think public sectors unions should not be allowed to give campaign contributions, except at the member level.

The first Obama stimulus, geared to fixing the infrastructure (shovel ready jobs) never made it there. This was a scam. Most of the money was used to sure up union pensions, so democratic candidates could get kickbacks from the money laundering scam. The Republican won't fall for this scam again, which is why Obama will not get another stimulus slush fund.

 

Public pensions involve far too much money for the Republicans to avoid trying to steal it.

 

Yes.
The Journal of Economic Growth titled Federal Regulation and Aggregate Economic Growth.Here's the summery: Without Federal Regulation, America Could Have a $53.9 Trillion GDP

Federal regulations added over the past fifty years have reduced real output growth by about two percentage points on average [annually] over the period 1949-2005. That reduction in the growth rate has led to an accumulated reduction in GDP of about $38.8 trillion as of the end of 2011. That is, GDP at the end of 2011 would have been $53.9 trillion instead of $15.1 trillion if regulation had remained at its 1949 level.

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) recent print edition contains 174,545 pages. The print edition takes up 238 volumes, and the index alone runs 1,242 pages. As a result, the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually than it would have gotten in the absence of six decades of accumulated regulations�a median household income of $330,000 instead of the $53,000 we get now.

Add to the State and Local regulations; examples: Requiring a Taxi Licences (limited by the State not the market), requiring a liquor licence (limited by the State, not the market), there's a State licensed Veterinarian being sued for offering advise over the internet; which ignores the insanity you need a licence to heal a mouse, but can buy a trap to kill one from a grocery store. There is no aspect of your life that is not in one way regulated by the State. From your toilet to your money itself.

Yes, we could legally deal with pouring bleach in a creek better and cheaper with courts and enforcement of private property laws. It's actually quit simple. Don't you agree? If you damage someone's property (pour bleach onto it) you pay to clean said property. The truth is, the State will pass a law that protects the bleach pourer.

You do know the US Federal Government is the World's Largest Polluter in the History of Humanity?!?!

Yes, we can deal with snake oil sales men - it's called contract fraud. If you promise something does X and it doesn't, you get sued. If X damages someone's body (property) you go to court and maybe jail. Jesus, look at Iraq. The United Nations recently stated the DNA of the entire population has been destroyed and due to depleted radioactive uranium contaminating the soil and water - many areas are permanently uninhabitable by this dust, pretty much forever! And for what? Daring to sell Oil in currencies not controlled/regulated by the US Government/USD. The State is filled with Psychopaths. Talking about one river in Ohio that caught on fire 80 years ago is NOTHING in comparison to how the US Government pollutes the planet.

The fact is we do not NEED the EPA or the FDA. And worse, still, by resorting to force, we lose out on $40 Trillion PER YEAR in prosperity. Instead of colonies on other planets, we get State certified "High" schooled students graduating from Public Schools with a 47% functional illiteracy rate.

Now I have a question. Why is it you think the ONLY possible way to organize ourselves to fly is through direct threat of violence? You really don't think there's ANY other way to form a group a humans that can offer this service through voluntary means? I'm not asking your to come up with a method, just to stop and ask if you think it's even possible to use voluntarism? Do you really think we humans, by our nature, MUST forever resort to threat of force? That this is as good as we are going to get as a species?



Aside: What of the Japanese versus Scandinavian economies? I fail to see how the two are different in terms of high regulation. Sure, the Japanese is a larger economy, but it doesn't 'seem' to be doing better. Maybe it is? Also, anecdotally, I know a number of PhD's in Stockholm unhappy that they can not find a good paying job. It's pretty much the same story all over the entire world. Graduate students are used like near-slave labour with promises of a good academic job that never materializes.

 

Show me a normal American not abused or strung out on drugs, who has starved to death in the last two decades.

What do you mean a Liveable wage?

Why should anyone be paid anything other than what they can free negotiate to be paid?

Think of it like this: We live in a Republic. Thus, if you really think people truly support this "Liveable" wage, then why not start up a business that pays people that wage? Then make it clear to the public you pay that wage. A much higher wage than the other stores. Of course, everything will cost more, but that's OK. Then watch as the majority of consumers come to your store. Because, if people really do support a "Liveable" wage - then in a true free-market which is free they will democratically/use their money to pay for things at that store at that price.

By resorting the violence of the State to 'enforce' a 'Liveable' wage, what you're really saying when is you don't believe in the very people who make up that State (democratic or otherwise) to freely choose to support a higher wage.


Not that it matters, all that happens is the poorest unskilled labour are left without a job as they watch everything around them doubling in price.


IMO the best way to deal with the wage problem is to deregulate market so that people can get out there and offer services and products in true competition, transition away from Public Schooling which is the primary reason why we have too many workers (driving the price of labor down) and bring in currency competition (which means ending income tax) which will allow the latest technology to offer the FREE public the choice of various currencies that suite their needs. The State could still offer USD, but this currency would be in direct competition with the free market (and would probably make good toilet paper in relatively short order).

 

If the public has agreed to pay pensions, then the public will have to meet it's obligations that it agreed to. What will happen, is the paper used to pay those obligations will be greatly undervalued. This is what we're doing right now.

As I see it, the GOP in general seems to want to protect the currency and reduce or outright default on public obligations. The Democrats OTOH are happy to devalue the currency and meet the 'letter of the Law' obligations (you'll be paid your $100,000 a year pension) but not the spirit (that $100,000 would probably better serve you as toilet paper as it doesn't buy anything with the paper it's printed on).


I have no problem siding with the Democrats IF we END Income Tax and bring in other currencies to trade in otherwise, the fact that the State can employ direct force against the public, it's nor moral that Public Unions relied on this use of force to extract sweetheart pensions etc... from the public it supposedly "serves" and they will have to take a haircut. The last 5 years have watched the private / the people suffer (and we will suffer for a lot longer) as the public / State has had life really good.

 

First, your "As a result, {of federal regulations} the average American household receives about $277,000 less annually" is the silliest statement I have read at Sciforms." - It toally neglects the huge cost no uniform national regulation would create. Without nationally uniform rules on production mass production benefits disappear and 90% of Americans would be forced to grow their own food* and live with a 1900s income and few safe drugs** for better health. Certainly airplanes could not fly across states.

* No trucks legally crossing many states with different safety test and construction rules and weight limits to deliver Idaho potatoes or citrus fruits nation wide. Trucks must be mass produced under one set of rules for the nation - don't call them Federal rules if you like - Call them "state truck convention rules" if you like, but it would be hard to get all states to agree on one set - Why do Kansas's trucks need the same more expensive, heat tolerant brakes as West Virginia requires?
** There are less than 10% of the number of qualified people to staff 50 different state FDAs keeping snake oil cancer cures off the market. etc. After 4 or 5 years at cost of about half a millions each they could be trained so then safe drugs would only cost 50 times more with 50 times the salaries to be paid.

Two points in reply:
(1) Yes the GDP could be higher if there were no federal regulation on actions that damage the well being of Americans - much of China's rapid GDP growth is partly due to their greater tolerance for even lethal "damage" to their population, much as was the case in the US ~100 years ago.

(2) If each state made the regulation laws, defined what was a pound, etc. instead of the NBS, and they differed, then that would impose a great cost on Americans. Each airplane made by Boeing would need to pass 50 different state regulations for certification as "airworthy" etc. and be produced, if at all in very small volume and need to fly around the states with more stringent regulations. There is great economy in mass production under one set of federal rules, which would be lost - much more than the loss your reference cites as due to the very existence of regulation of business.

I don't think even you would like to return to 50 different legal regulations of air traffic, cars CO2 emission /mile or on how much bleach can be dumped into the local streams, etc.
I. e. to the "robber barons" USA era when there was little federal regulation.