Civility in Political Discourse.

[spidergoat]

The CATO Institute is a lobbying arm of the Koch brothers. Try sending your kid to a private school, will it cost more or less than a public education?

 

[siphra]

The CATO Institute is a lobbying arm of the Koch brothers. Try sending your kid to a private school, will it cost more or less than a public education?

Not liking a source is fine, however it is not a counter to the figures presented. Do you have a source that shows different numbers? I doubt it, I chose CATO because it was the last source i checked, the other were all in agreement. But if you have another source, that shows public sector employees making less money than the private sector, please present the evidence. Otherwise, you have not countered anything, you have simply said 'I don't like your source, therefore I will ignore your data.' This is not a way to debate an issue.

 

[spidergoat]

You might want to use such figures to negotiate lower salaries, but the fact remains these are the salaries they negotiated for, and the Republicans are trying to steal their pensions.

 

[quadraphonics]

Actually, Libertarians are the ones who don't want anyone to be enslaved to anything, not other people, not jobs, not government.

And also the ones with the least idea of how to accomplish that end.

Why is it that leftists assign the idea that a union == freedom?

The idea is that "right to organize" == freedom. Shouldn't be particularly controversial, even for a libertarian.

Now, if you're actually a pygmy fascist who calls himself a "libertarian" for PR reasons, then I can see where that might stymy you.

More importantly, why do we allow public sector employees to be paid more than the people writing the checks.

Because they do work that is, on average, more demanding and advanced than the average work done by the population as a whole.

These numbers:

Average income in the US (2008) : $49,777 (Wiki)
Average income public sector (2008) : $67,000+ (CATO)
Average income private sector (2008): $59,000+ (CATO)

Are essentially meaningless, because they make no effort to control for what type of work is being done. The fact is that those public sector employees would be making even more in the private sector. And those lesser-paid private sector employees? There's a reason that they don't just get government jobs in order to make more - and it's not that they're ideological libertarians who oppose working for the government on principle. It's that they aren't qualified for the work in question.

There's nothing at odds with free market remuneration in that data - except that the public employees make less than they would in a perfectly free market.

So, you think it's ok that the people that get funded by private sector work, make more than they do?

Do you think it's okay that the CEO of a corporation - funded by private sector work - makes more than his employees?

Don't get me wrong, some jobs are worth the extra cash... i.e. teachers. However, a vast majority of these public sector jobs are not just teachers, and police, and fire.

Indeed, they're much more highly-skilled, demanding jobs like nuclear physicists, medical researchers, etc. Who do you think is designing all those nuclear weapons, the "private sector?"

Explain how you feel the people who are paying the bills should make less than the people they are paying at the end of the day?

Explain to me why the CEO of my company should make more than the people who are paying him, at the end of the day?

What SHOULD happen is the following: Mandatory law decreasing ALL state/(I would love to see it federally too) pay scales to the average income of the people of the state.

If you do that in a non-idiotic way (i.e., equalizing each job for its private-sector equivalent), it would work out to a pay raise for the public sector.

If, on the other hand, you want to pay a bunch of nuclear physicists and medical researchers the same as janitors and construction workers, then you probably need a refresher course on the 'free market.'

 

[spidergoat]

"Wisconsin public-sector workers face an annual compensation penalty of 11%. Adjusting for the slightly fewer hours worked per week on average, these public workers still face a compensation penalty of 5% for choosing to work in the public sector."

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapsho..._servants_already_face_a_compensation_penalty

 

[quadraphonics]

Not liking a source is fine, however it is not a counter to the figures presented. Do you have a source that shows different numbers?

Those figures aren't incorrect (CATO is a paid propaganda outfit, not a pack of idiots) - they're misleading, on purpose. They suggest that public sector employees are overpaid, in the hopes that naive young libertarians like you will pick up on that meme and run with it. Meanwhile, any sane person with a smidgen of understanding of economics knows that they're almost meaningless for such comparisons, because they haven't controlled for the types of work being done.

So all that really happens is that any naive, young libertarian who does run with their suggestion just embarasses himself by exposing his total ignorance of basic economics, and willingness to be taken in by cheap charlatans. The unfortunate part of that being that naive, young libertarians are typically really, really, really insecure and pigheaded to begin with, and so will respond to the hilarious failure of their advocacy by doubling down on their committment to libertarianism as espoused by CATO crypto-fascists.

 

[siphra]

You might want to use such figures to negotiate lower salaries, but the fact remains these are the salaries they negotiated for, and the Republicans are trying to steal their pensions.

Negotiated in good faith? I doubt it, most unions use shutdown threats to get what they want. And politicians are too corrupt to care, as long as they secure the votes.

And also the ones with the least idea of how to accomplish that end.

LOL, right, ummm, I suggest you actually read something other than the party line dictates that your group puts out. I won't doubt that most Libertarian voters have no idea, but the same is true with ANY political group.

The idea is that "right to organize" == freedom. Shouldn't be particularly controversial, even for a libertarian.

Now, if you're actually a pygmy fascist who calls himself a "libertarian" for PR reasons, then I can see where that might stymy you.

I see, and this right to organize includes the use of bully practices and the courts to force buisness to its knees?

Because they do work that is, on average, more demanding and advanced than the average work done by the population as a whole.

Bullsh*t. Complete BS. On a level per level comparison the work is approximately equal, and yet, not counting the extreme ends, the average private sector worker makes less than the average public.

These numbers:

Are essentially meaningless, because they make no effort to control for what type of work is being done. The fact is that those public sector employees would be making even more in the private sector. And those lesser-paid private sector employees? There's a reason that they don't just get government jobs in order to make more - and it's not that they're ideological libertarians who oppose working for the government on principle. It's that they aren't qualified for the work in question.

There's nothing at odds with free market remuneration in that data - except that the public employees make less than they would in a perfectly free market.

No, once again your trying to defend the idea that public sector work is 'more difficult' or 'more important'. Which it is not, were it not for the private sector, there would be no public sector.

Do you think it's okay that the CEO of a corporation - funded by private sector work - makes more than his employees?

In a word: YES. I suggest you actually look at how most CEOs get paid. Many (not all) are paid less per area of responsibility than the bottom employee is. The fact is they are running the entire show, not just pushing a mop or broom, and comparing the two jobs is communist BS.

Indeed, they're much more highly-skilled, demanding jobs like nuclear physicists, medical researchers, etc. Who do you think is designing all those nuclear weapons, the "private sector?"

Actually, for the most part it is private companies, with extensive government contracts. As a Chem-E I tried to get into the Chem weapons processing facility, which is a private owned buisness in AZ, they break down captured, and old Chemical weapons, not manufacture new ones for the record.

Explain to me why the CEO of my company should make more than the people who are paying him, at the end of the day?

See my above post, but in short the way it works in a capitalist economy is people are paid what they are worth for the services they offer as a whole to the economy. That is a good CEO is worth more than a janitor because he raises the profit of all persons involved in the creation of the company. I am sorry if you don't think this is fair, it is, and point of fact it is the most fair system out there.

If you do that in a non-idiotic way (i.e., equalizing each job for its private-sector equivalent), it would work out to a pay raise for the public sector.

If, on the other hand, you want to pay a bunch of nuclear physicists and medical researchers the same as janitors and construction workers, then you probably need a refresher course on the 'free market.'

Says the guy critical of CEOs income?

 

[spidergoat]

Negotiated in good faith? I doubt it, most unions use shutdown threats to get what they want. And politicians are too corrupt to care, as long as they secure the votes.

This is how any corporation negotiates a salary too. If you don't want their offer, you are free not to work there. If you don't want to pay teachers what they think they should earn, you can hire other ones.

 

[iceaura]

It's truly amazing how so many of you from the left feel the need to invent right wing conspiracies rather than admit that there could be a nut job among you. Such a blind spot to evil in your midst is far from reassuring.

There are lots of lefty nutjobs. It's just that they don't normally talk like rightwing Teabagger talk radio djs and spokesmen.

Did you actually read the email sent? There is no question the sender was a leftist.

I'm not seeing any evidence of leftist political views in those emails. Where is it?

Now fellers, madanthony may just be right about this person being a leftwing nutter

Sure. Some jack pine commie with a family history of personality disorders, from the Wisonsin Death Trip area, who's been listening to rightwing talk radio all his life and got his rhetoric from KKK/Teabagger covens (considerable overlap, in rural Wisconsin). Easily possible.

Those guys don't hang out with schoolteachers much, though.

 

[joepistole]

I find it telling that the best the right wing can do is to cite anonymous emails posted by right wing radio stations as evidence of wrong doing by the left? Republicans/Tea Partiers have been desperately trying to portray the protestors in Wisconsin as violent thugs but as yet for all of the accusations have no proof. Unfortunately for Republicans/Tea Partiers our school teachers, nurses and other public servants are just not the violent kind of folk they want them to be.

Unfortunately making stuff up is a well known and well practiced habit of the Republican/Tea Party faction. When facts are not on their side, they just make stuff up...sad but true. And we already know that Republicans/Tea Partiers thought about planting thugs in the crows to incite violence. If they are willing to go that far and we know they are, then it is not a big step for them to make up stuff like anonymous emails.

 

[quinnsong]

The bottom line is this Corpoorate America is an extremely well organized and powerful force and for the working class to have any political power and economic power we need to organize! Unions have already done that and what is sad is that so many working people have been co-opted by right wing (corporate lackeys) ideology that they present a divided front (pro or Anti union). A house divided cannot stand! Corporare America understands this, the working class needs to start!

 

[joepistole]

The bottom line is this Corpoorate America is an extremely well organized and powerful force and for the working class to have any political power and economic power we need to organize! Unions have already done that and what is sad is that so many working people have been co-opted by right wing (corporate lackeys) ideology that they present a divided front (pro or Anti union). A house divided cannot stand! Corporare America understands this, the working class needs to start!

Very true quinnsong, it speaks to the power of money and advertising. Republicans/Tea Partiers would be nothing without the 24 hour radio talk support and Faux News spreading their nonsense. The leaders and financiers of this movement are very clever and powerful people.

 

[quadraphonics]

Negotiated in good faith? I doubt it, most unions use shutdown threats to get what they want.

How's that incompatible with "good faith?" Management uses the threat of firing to get what it wants. What's the difference?

LOL, right, ummm, I suggest you actually read something other than the party line dictates that your group puts out.

I'm not in a "party" or "group."

I won't doubt that most Libertarian voters have no idea, but the same is true with ANY political group.

The point is that Libertarian leadership similarly lacks any such ideas - but they seem to have a very clear, consistent program of pushing extreme right-wing corporatist measures.

I see, and this right to organize includes the use of bully practices and the courts to force buisness to its knees?

You have yet to offer an example of any "bully practice" that is even on a par with the usual techniques that management uses to "negotiate." As far as the courts go... what is the objection? That... organized labor uses legal means of redress and settlement? That's supposed to be somehow "unfair" or what?

On a level per level comparison the work is approximately equal,

No, it isn't. And you haven't offered any evidence to say that it is - try addressing the exact figures that spidergoat already produced. Not that you can - but you should at least try, if you want to pretend to be doing anything more than blowing hot air.

And even if the level per level comparison came out as "approximately equal," that would still not be sufficient to justify your argument, which is based on the overall average salaries. To get to there, you'd also have to establish that the composition of the private sector and public sector are comparable (similar percentage of janitors, secretaries, managers, technicians, etc.). And you won't be able to establish that, because it isn't the case. The public sector is skewed towards higher-level work. That's why the average salary is greater.

No, once again your trying to defend the idea that public sector work is 'more difficult' or 'more important'.

What I said was "more demanding" and "more advanced." And it is. That's why it pays better - those pay rates are, approximately, free-market salaries. Actually, they're below free market salary - people accept a pay cut because they think the work is important, or value other perks not found in private industry.

I haven't said anything about "more important," although I'd note that much of it is plainly indispensible.

Which it is not, were it not for the private sector, there would be no public sector.

Nor vice-versa.

In a word: YES. I suggest you actually look at how most CEOs get paid. Many (not all) are paid less per area of responsibility than the bottom employee is. The fact is they are running the entire show, not just pushing a mop or broom, and comparing the two jobs is communist BS.

So you agree that those charged with more demanding work, and greater responsibility, deserve greater compensation. Why does this not apply to workers in the public sector?

Actually, for the most part it is private companies, with extensive government contracts.

The missiles, maybe - but not the weapons themselves. That work is strictly contained in National Labs, with good reason.

See also: a great deal of basic research.

See my above post, but in short the way it works in a capitalist economy is people are paid what they are worth for the services they offer as a whole to the economy.

And so the public sector workers, whose work is, on average, more worthwhile than the average private sector worker, are paid more. Where is the problem?

Do you not get that you've failed to establish that public and private sector jobs are equally valuable in the first place?

Or that free, fair negotiations (including the right to assemble and so bargain collectively) are the only means of determining what such a worth actually is? I.e., you're arguing that people need to be paid according to free market rates, and then turning around and suggesting that we systematically undermine labor's bargaining position (thereby skewing market rates massively in favor of management, and away from the free market).

That is a good CEO is worth more than a janitor because he raises the profit of all persons involved in the creation of the company.

And a good nuclear weapons engineer is likewise worth more than a janitor. And so the government pays him more.

I am sorry if you don't think this is fair, it is, and point of fact it is the most fair system out there.

I do think it's fair. I'm trying to figure out why you think the public sector needs to be somehow exempted from this arrangement.

Says the guy critical of CEOs income?

I haven't said anything about CEO income, as such (critical or otherwise). I've simply asked why it's okay to compensate CEO's for more demanding work, but not public sector employees.

 

[siphra]

This is how any corporation negotiates a salary too. If you don't want their offer, you are free not to work there. If you don't want to pay teachers what they think they should earn, you can hire other ones.

The difference is, and this is important: If you refuse to negotiate with the union, they can sue to force you into a bad contract. I was a teamster I watched it happen.

How's that incompatible with "good faith?" Management uses the threat of firing to get what it wants. What's the difference?

That is managements job, to increase productivity, and produce profits. If one doesn't do their job, then they need to go. See above comment to see the main difference.

I'm not in a "party" or "group."



The point is that Libertarian leadership similarly lacks any such ideas - but they seem to have a very clear, consistent program of pushing extreme right-wing corporatist measures.

I suggest you actually read libertarian ideology before calling us Republicans.

You have yet to offer an example of any "bully practice" that is even on a par with the usual techniques that management uses to "negotiate." As far as the courts go... what is the objection? That... organized labor uses legal means of redress and settlement? That's supposed to be somehow "unfair" or what?



No, it isn't. And you haven't offered any evidence to say that it is - try addressing the exact figures that spidergoat already produced. Not that you can - but you should at least try, if you want to pretend to be doing anything more than blowing hot air.

I must have missed his figures, will look back for them.

And even if the level per level comparison came out as "approximately equal," that would still not be sufficient to justify your argument, which is based on the overall average salaries. To get to there, you'd also have to establish that the composition of the private sector and public sector are comparable (similar percentage of janitors, secretaries, managers, technicians, etc.). And you won't be able to establish that, because it isn't the case. The public sector is skewed towards higher-level work. That's why the average salary is greater.

I had the figures, and will look for them again, and yes they are, but on a fair field, aside from the extreme end of corporate CEOs they out pace the private sector on a job for job payscale.

What I said was "more demanding" and "more advanced." And it is. That's why it pays better - those pay rates are, approximately, free-market salaries. Actually, they're below free market salary - people accept a pay cut because they think the work is important, or value other perks not found in private industry.

I haven't said anything about "more important," although I'd note that much of it is plainly indispensible.



Nor vice-versa.



So you agree that those charged with more demanding work, and greater responsibility, deserve greater compensation. Why does this not apply to workers in the public sector?

Their jobs are not (Generally) more demanding. And they are not generally more responsible, look at the actual jobs done vs. payscale. Tomorrow If I have a chance I will post just some examples.

The missiles, maybe - but not the weapons themselves. That work is strictly contained in National Labs, with good reason.

See also: a great deal of basic research.

Um, no, working with engineers and not being the only one in the family I assure you they are not done by the government itself largly. Private companies own many of the contracts (not all.) But everything from explosives to the SBO used on stealth planes is produced by private companies.

And so the public sector workers, whose work is, on average, more worthwhile than the average private sector worker, are paid more. Where is the problem?

You must be assuming the average public sector worker is police, or fire, or teachers. Sorry they are not. The average is a paper pusher in an office. But of course the media tells you about all the police getting hurt by the cuts.

Do you not get that you've failed to establish that public and private sector jobs are equally valuable in the first place?

Or that free, fair negotiations (including the right to assemble and so bargain collectively) are the only means of determining what such a worth actually is? I.e., you're arguing that people need to be paid according to free market rates, and then turning around and suggesting that we systematically undermine labor's bargaining position (thereby skewing market rates massively in favor of management, and away from the free market).

And a good nuclear weapons engineer is likewise worth more than a janitor. And so the government pays him more.

I do think it's fair. I'm trying to figure out why you think the public sector needs to be somehow exempted from this arrangement.
.

How about letting the non public sector voters decide what the public sector gets? Now that seems fair.

 

[pjdude1219]

Negotiated in good faith? I doubt it, most unions use shutdown threats to get what they want. And politicians are too corrupt to care, as long as they secure the votes.

So in other words because they use the only method they have to force the issue their evil?? congrats on showing your ideological extremism

LOL, right, ummm, I suggest you actually read something other than the party line dictates that your group puts out. I won't doubt that most Libertarian voters have no idea, but the same is true with ANY political group.

Libertarianism is a sham to allow the powerful to do as they wish

I see, and this right to organize includes the use of bully practices and the courts to force buisness to its knees?

oh boy someone got face deep into the propaganda cookie jar. Unions don't bring buisnesses to their knees. they do prevent companies from treating their employees like slaves

Bullsh*t. Complete BS. On a level per level comparison the work is approximately equal, and yet, not counting the extreme ends, the average private sector worker makes less than the average public.

the bullshit here is your argument. the private sector makes more than the equivlent in the public. that's why the military as some problems keeping highly educated and trained people.

 

[siphra]

So in other words because they use the only method they have to force the issue their evil?? congrats on showing your ideological extremism



Libertarianism is a sham to allow the powerful to do as they wish



oh boy someone got face deep into the propaganda cookie jar. Unions don't bring buisnesses to their knees. they do prevent companies from treating their employees like slaves

Actually I have watched unions destroy companies, as a teamster the company I worked for was literally bankrupted by union 'negotiation'. So from personal experience as a union member, you are wrong.

the bullshit here is your argument. the private sector makes more than the equivlent in the public. that's why the military as some problems keeping highly educated and trained people.

I gave numbers, you can choose to ignore them, but unless you can cite different numbers from a source, your not prooving my argument to be BS, your taking the standard pro-union, pro-public sector view and offering no evidence for your case. I have in a previous post asked for counter numbers.

 

[spidergoat]

That's what the corporation probably wanted you to think, but unions are not interested in destroying their own jobs. You can be sure the corporation is organized, it's only fair that the workers organize too, that's democracy in the workplace.

 

[pjdude1219]

Actually I have watched unions destroy companies, as a teamster the company I worked for was literally bankrupted by union 'negotiation'. So from personal experience as a union member, you are wrong.

I have heard right winger make claims like this before only to have it been showed that is wasn't true so forgive me if I don't believe you.

I gave numbers, you can choose to ignore them, but unless you can cite different numbers from a source, your not prooving my argument to be BS, your taking the standard pro-union, pro-public sector view and offering no evidence for your case. I have in a previous post asked for counter numbers.

I'm not going to argue with your numbers though the lack of context to them suggest mendacity to me.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

That's what the corporation probably wanted you to think, but unions are not interested in destroying their own jobs. You can be sure the corporation is organized, it's only fair that the workers organize too, that's democracy in the workplace.

Really?

unions are not interested in destroying their own jobs.

Then why have so many companies gone out of business because of Union contract demands?

Why are the biggest Unions to day, and the vast majority of union members, public sector employees? Government employees?

Why have so many companies because of union demands, moved to other countries?

Yes, the workers are interested in not losing their jobs, but the unions?

As to the workers, even the union leadership in their own speeches, at their own conventions, in their own seminars admitted, it isn't about the worker, the Children, the Family, it is all about political power, Democrat Political Power, in incestuous, sweetheart, kickback, and bribery deals to funnel money to the Democrats and into their own pockets.

If it is about the workers, explain the salaries of the Union Bosses?

 

[pjdude1219]

Then why have so many companies gone out of business because of Union contract demands?

they haven't I challenge you to find one provable incidence of this.

Why are the biggest Unions to day, and the vast majority of union members, public sector employees? Government employees?

because they are the most insulated again st people like you attacks against unions

Why have so many companies because of union demands, moved to other countries?

they haven't

Yes, the workers are interested in not losing their jobs, but the unions?

As to the workers, even the union leadership in their own speeches, at their own conventions, in their own seminars admitted, it isn't about the worker, the Children, the Family, it is all about political power, Democrat Political Power, in incestuous, sweetheart, kickback, and bribery deals to funnel money to the Democrats and into their own pockets.

they don't. it all in the fairy tales in your head.

If it is about the workers, explain the salaries of the Union Bosses?

???