Sheilbh's Scott Walker Lovefest and Union Bashing Megathread

[The Minsky Moment]

I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit.

And I think that not conflating the two is frankly bullshit.
It is frankly bullshit because it involves playing ostrich about where the problem really lies.

I.e. is the problem that:
1) people who happen to work for public entities have the same basic rights to collective bargaining as people who work for private entities, or
2) that our system of democracy has put into place a legalized system for bribing public officials, so long as the right magic words and forms are used.

I happen to think 2 is the problem. And by addressing the public worker issue by tinkering with bargaining rights as opposed to #2 one does nothing useful to counteract that problem.

I also happen to think that 1 *in itself* is not a problem.  The principle of collective bargaining rests on the notion that workers should be on a level playing field with employers and have the same rights to organize themselves.  That principle makes sense whether the employer collectivity is in the form of a private corporate charter or a public corporate body.  It only becomes a problem when or if the union tries to subvert the process by exploiting the campaign finance rules.  The problem is the bribery not the collective right to organize.  Dealing with the problem by eliminating collective bargaining but leaving the system of legalized bribery in place is perverse.

[Martinus]

I find it mindboggling anyone would argue trade union contributions are somehow different from contributions from corporations or rich individuals. 

[CountDeMoney]

Scott Walker did.  Well, he didn't argue it, he just did it.

I agree.  It undercuts his claim to be working on principles.

Yes, let's all race to the bottom.  It's only fair, after all: if the private sector has been so successful in eroding benefits, eliminating pensions and suppressing wages of the American worker, then it's only right that the government does it to their employees, too.  God bless America.

[Martinus]

I'm still not seeing the difference.  Does it really matter if lobbying/contributions will get a company X dollars more through a better price for an F-35 or through changed taxation/regulation, when that taxation/regulation change would cost the government just as much as the F-35?  If there is a difference, which is the superior form of lobbying/contribution?

Well yeah, I think there's a huge difference between saying give me more of your money and saying don't take as much of my money.

That's retarded. Tax planning features prominently in every corporation's earning strategy. What makes a dollar made different from a dollar saved?

[Berkut]

I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit.

And I think that not conflating the two is frankly bullshit.
It is frankly bullshit because it involves playing ostrich about where the problem really lies.

I.e. is the problem that:
1) people who happen to work for public entities have the same basic rights to collective bargaining as people who work for private entities, or
2) that our system of democracy has put into place a legalized system for bribing public officials, so long as the right magic words and forms are used.

I happen to think 2 is the problem. And by addressing the public worker issue by tinkering with bargaining rights as opposed to #2 one does nothing useful to counteract that problem.

I also happen to think that 1 *in itself* is not a problem.  The principle of collective bargaining rests on the notion that workers should be on a level playing field with employers and have the same rights to organize themselves.  That principle makes sense whether the employer collectivity is in the form of a private corporate charter or a public corporate body.  It only becomes a problem when or if the union tries to subvert the process by exploiting the campaign finance rules.  The problem is the bribery not the collective right to organize.  Dealing with the problem by eliminating collective bargaining but leaving the system of legalized bribery in place is perverse.

The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved. We could make it a lot better than it is, and should do so, but there will always be, and always has been, the problem of how to keep politicians from being unfairly influenced by those with power and wealth.

The problem of politicians not negotiatiing with public employees in good faith because those employees have the pwoer to elect them is not nearly as intractable.

[The Minsky Moment]

So what is different about F-35s and anything else a corporation might want from a government?

Because other things like the regulatory environment don't involve a pure transfer of wealth to the corporation. 

Of course they do.  If the fund managers get to treat carried interest as capital gains and then get cuts in capital gain taxes, it is a transfer of wealth.  If the oil cos get depletion allowances it is a transfer of wealth.  If Defense Co A gets congress to override the Pentagon and fund their pet project it is a transfer of wealth.

Companies don't spend on lobbying and campaigns because it makes them feel good.  They are looking for old-fashioned ROI.

[MadImmortalMan]

That's retarded. Tax planning features prominently in every corporation's earning strategy. What makes a dollar made different from a dollar saved?

You get to keep the dollar saved regardless of the tax rate. 

[frunk]

Well yeah, I think there's a huge difference between saying give me more of your money and saying don't take as much of my money.

If I owe you $20 I don't particularly care if you say "here, take $10 but you still owe me $20" or "you only owe me $10".  The only time I might care is if I had cash flow issues, but I don't think most of these corporations are lobbying because of that.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, let's all race to the bottom.  It's only fair, after all: if the private sector has been so successful in eroding benefits, eliminating pensions and suppressing wages of the American worker, then it's only right that the government does it to their employees, too.  God bless America.

Figured you'd have to wig out at some point.

[Martinus]

So what is different about F-35s and anything else a corporation might want from a government?

Because other things like the regulatory environment don't involve a pure transfer of wealth to the corporation. 

Of course they do.  If the fund managers get to treat carried interest as capital gains and then get cuts in capital gain taxes, it is a transfer of wealth.  If the oil cos get depletion allowances it is a transfer of wealth.  If Defense Co A gets congress to override the Pentagon and fund their pet project it is a transfer of wealth.

Companies don't spend on lobbying and campaigns because it makes them feel good.  They are looking for old-fashioned ROI.

It always strikes me as funny the biggest libertarians are usually the people who never came close to corporate tax planning.

[MadImmortalMan]

Companies don't spend on lobbying and campaigns because it makes them feel good.  They are looking for old-fashioned ROI.

And the politicians are looking for cushy jobs once they leave office. Maybe we should ban that.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

Of course it can be solved.  It almost was solved.  Then a few people appointed to judicial office un-solved it.

[Martinus]

Companies don't spend on lobbying and campaigns because it makes them feel good.  They are looking for old-fashioned ROI.

And the politicians are looking for cushy jobs once they leave office. Maybe we should ban that.

I think the only system that makes sense is sortition with a short office term.

[frunk]

You get to keep the dollar saved regardless of the tax rate. 

I stipulated that the net money involved was the same in both scenarios, so that equality would take into account any taxation on the money earned from the F-35 sale.

[Berkut]

I also happen to think that 1 *in itself* is not a problem.  The principle of collective bargaining rests on the notion that workers should be on a level playing field with employers and have the same rights to organize themselves. 

The problem with public sector unions is that they are NOT operating on a level playing field, they aren't even operating on the same field as private employment at all.

A private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

And that is what public sector unions are - in fact, that is largely the *only* reason they exist at all, since the idea that there is some innate power disparity absent their existence has never been shown to actually exist anyway. You do not need a union to make sure that public employees are not being unfairly exploited.

You cannot compare private and public unions, because private and public employment are radically different creatures.

That principle makes sense whether the employer collectivity is in the form of a private corporate charter or a public corporate body.

No, actually it doesn't at all. The mechanisms for negotiation are completely different, as is the actual means by which it is even decided what public jobs are needed to begin with.

It only becomes a problem when or if the union tries to subvert the process by exploiting the campaign finance rules.

No, it becomes a problem when the public union tries to subvert the democratic process by using their collective support as a means of gaining financial renumeration in return which has no bearing on their actual labor market value. This could be done via campaign finance, but is just as problematic when it is simply a matter of large public sector unions promising voting blocks.

The problem is the bribery not the collective right to organize.  Dealing with the problem by eliminating collective bargaining but leaving the system of legalized bribery in place is perverse.

I disagree, since there isn't actually any practical need for collective bargaining by public sector employees to begin with - it is a fictional problem used to justify their distortion of the democratic system.