Senate GOP seizes control in political coup

[Strix]

Why shouldn't the government pay them whatever it takes to retain the level of competence necessary to do the job in an adequate manner?

So, Berkut, what exactly are you looking for in a state paid job? I am interested in knowing what final result you are looking for?

[Sheilbh]

He certainly was not in favor of a welfare state.

That's not a fair criteria though.  In the 18th century no one was in favour of a welfare state except for Tom Paine

Incidentally New Labour claim Adam Smith as an intellectual fore-father.  Gordon Brown's favourite think-tanky people are the Smith Institute.

And why doesn't Adam Smith - or any Scottish Enlightenment hero - have a statue in Edinburgh yet?

[Strix]

My point was (and to slightly alter our words) that you need to pay whatever is required to retain the level of well qualified people necessary to do the job in an superior manner both today and in the future.

You want to avoid the situation where you can only attract people who meet bare minimum requirements, and to avoid paying so little that it discourages people from getting the necessary training leading to a shortage down the road.

Of course that's easier said that done...

And this is when the argument with Berkut began.

I pointed out in a previous thread the difference between working in a Union state versus a Non-Union state. How the Non-Union state paid low wages and had tremendous issues with vacancy and competency. While the Union state paid competitive wages that resulted in a motivated and skilled workforce.

Berkut's bias against Unions took over. He stated that all public employee union members were overpaid and inefficient without offering any evidence. His only reasoning was that because the vacancy/turnover rate was so low in the Union state than it must mean that the position is overpaid.

[DGuller]

And this is when the argument with Berkut began.

I pointed out in a previous thread the difference between working in a Union state versus a Non-Union state. How the Non-Union state paid low wages and had tremendous issues with vacancy and competency. While the Union state paid competitive wages that resulted in a motivated and skilled workforce.

Berkut's bias against Unions took over. He stated that all public employee union members were overpaid and inefficient without offering any evidence. His only reasoning was that because the vacancy/turnover rate was so low in the Union state than it must mean that the position is overpaid.

Actually, that was my argument.  Then again, it was an argument so obvious that it may well have been repeated by numerous posters with basic economic literacy.  When the vacancies and turnover are very low, and it takes years of waiting for job candidates to get an opening, the wages are not competitive.  They're much higher than competitive.  That's just Econ 101.  The laws of economics don't change based on the place of Strix's employment.

[Berkut]

Berkut's bias against Unions took over. He stated that all public employee union members were overpaid and inefficient without offering any evidence. His only reasoning was that because the vacancy/turnover rate was so low in the Union state than it must mean that the position is overpaid.

But that reasoning is in fact evidence Strix.

You cannot say that I offer no evidence, and then in the very next sentence repeat the evidence that I offered. That just doesn't make any sense, like the rest of your liberal union dogma.

[Berkut]

Why shouldn't the government pay them whatever it takes to retain the level of competence necessary to do the job in an adequate manner?

So, Berkut, what exactly are you looking for in a state paid job? I am interested in knowing what final result you are looking for?

DO you mean for myself, or how do I think the state should pay their employees in general?

If the latter, I think they should be compensated just like the private sector, with the state trying to find the lowest possible compensation that still results in a competent workforce. Just like everyone else does.

There is no credible reason why state employees need a union in order to get a fair deal. I've never once heard one, not from you, not from anyone.

[Admiral Yi]

Here. From his link (I didn't realize the text was online.):

The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods is, when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours.

That certainly seems like he's saying so.


Edit: As an equalizer, I presume.[/quot]

Very important qualifier later on:

There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of.

[jimmy olsen]

He certainly was not in favor of a welfare state.

That's not a fair criteria though.  In the 18th century no one was in favour of a welfare state except for Tom Paine

Really?

[Savonarola]

And why doesn't Adam Smith - or any Scottish Enlightenment hero - have a statue in Edinburgh yet?

I was amused to find that Robert Fergusson had a statue but not Adam Smith.  Even a civilization that loves money as much as the Scots honor their poets more than their economists.

[Strix]

DO you mean for myself, or how do I think the state should pay their employees in general?

If the latter, I think they should be compensated just like the private sector, with the state trying to find the lowest possible compensation that still results in a competent workforce. Just like everyone else does.

There is no credible reason why state employees need a union in order to get a fair deal. I've never once heard one, not from you, not from anyone.

Your bias against Unions prevents you from objectively looking at any evidence provided that doesn't coincide with your closed minded beliefs on the subject.

I am just curious as to what your criteria on public employee pay actually might be. All I have gotten is that you have some mystical turnover/vacancy ratio as a salary indicator.
I just find that curious because unless you work in the fast food/mall store industry most private sector jobs don't have a huge vacancy/turnover rate which would seem to indicate they are just as overpaid and inefficient as public sector jobs.  And do you apply the same standard to private sector unions as you do to public sector unions?

Economics classes are wonderful things. They sound great in theory but don't always stand up in practice. If they did than things like recessions would be easy to fix.

[Berkut]

DO you mean for myself, or how do I think the state should pay their employees in general?

If the latter, I think they should be compensated just like the private sector, with the state trying to find the lowest possible compensation that still results in a competent workforce. Just like everyone else does.

There is no credible reason why state employees need a union in order to get a fair deal. I've never once heard one, not from you, not from anyone.

Your bias against Unions prevents you from objectively looking at any evidence provided that doesn't coincide with your closed minded beliefs on the subject.

But I don't ahve a bias against unions, just grossly politicized unions that are a parasite on the state. Like yours.

I am just curious as to what your criteria on public employee pay actually might be. All I have gotten is that you have some mystical turnover/vacancy ratio as a salary indicator.

I guess this basic econmic stuff might be "mystical" if in fact you lack understanding of the principles. Everything seems magic to the ignorant.

But I think I already stated what I think it should be - it should be determined the same way pay is determined for everyone else - via the free market.

What reason do you have to claim that the free market in this case will fail and result in some kind of problem (beyond you not getting double the salary and benefits the union has gotten you by avoiding the free market) that only a union can fix?

I just find that curious because unless you work in the fast food/mall store industry most private sector jobs don't have a huge vacancy/turnover rate which would seem to indicate they are just as overpaid and inefficient as public sector jobs.

Not true at all, every job I have ever had has MUCH higher turnover than public jobs in the state of New York, and the stats (as ahve been pointed out several times) bear this out.

People leave my company all the time, not unusual at all to see people leave for better opportunities.

  And do you apply the same standard to private sector unions as you do to public sector unions?

What standards are those?

Certainly it is the case that public secotr unions are rather different from private sector.

Economics classes are wonderful things. They sound great in theory but don't always stand up in practice. If they did than things like recessions would be easy to fix.

And you say *I* dismiss things that don't fit into my "closed mind"?

You would be as anti-union as I am - probably more so - if you were not sucking at the liberal dem government teat, and you know it.

[grumbler]

Your bias against Unions prevents you from objectively looking at any evidence provided that doesn't coincide with your closed minded beliefs on the subject.

Just as your bias in favor of your own job interests prevent you from objectively looking at any evidence provided that doesn't coincide with your closed minded beliefs on the subject.

I am just curious as to what your criteria on public employee pay actually might be. All I have gotten is that you have some mystical turnover/vacancy ratio as a salary indicator.

Nothing mystical about turnover ratios as a measure of salary adequacy, as you would discover if you took that economics course you continue to scoff at.

I just find that curious because unless you work in the fast food/mall store industry most private sector jobs don't have a huge vacancy/turnover rate which would seem to indicate they are just as overpaid and inefficient as public sector jobs.  And do you apply the same standard to private sector unions as you do to public sector unions?

I just find this statement curious because jobs don't need a "huge" turnover rate to tell us anything about the adequacy of their compensation, which you would know if you took that economics course you scoff at.

Economics classes are wonderful things. They sound great in theory but don't always stand up in practice. If they did than things like recessions would be easy to fix.

Just like overpid public employees sound fine in theory, but not in practice! 

Overpaid public employees tend to throw out absurd suggestions that economic theory says that problems like the current recession would be "easy to fix."  That is because few overpaid public employees need to bother with economic theiry, being immune to it themselves.

edit:  Berkut got in a minute before I did.

[Faeelin]

Returning to New York... Jesus, it just gets better and better.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/10/2009-06-10_fiddled_with_blackberry_as_senate_burned.html

[Berkut]

Returning to New York... Jesus, it just gets better and better.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/10/2009-06-10_fiddled_with_blackberry_as_senate_burned.html

Wow, that actually sounds pretty awesome.

Galisano is my hero.

[Sheilbh]

Really?

Really what?