Languish.org

Quote from: R NewsSenate GOP seizes control in political coup

By: Josh Robin

ALBANY, N.Y. -- With the help of two rogue Democrats, a group of state Republicans have seized control of the New York State Senate. Leadership in Albany has been thrown into question as a result.

Republicans in the State Senate say they have seized power from State Senate Majority leader Malcolm Smith, a Democrat, and installed a bipartisan majority.

Within an hour of the defection of Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, Republicans anointed Dean Skelos of Long Island as the new Majority Leader, and Espada as President Pro Temp.

Senate GOP seizes control in political coup
With the help of two rogue Democrats, a group of state Republicans have seized control of the New York State Senate. Leadership in Albany has been thrown into question as a result. Erin Billups has more from the Capitol.
   
Senate power fight
Republicans claim they are poised to take over control of the State Senate, in a move that left Democrats stunned this afternoon. Just before 4 p.m., the GOP called for a vote on new leadership. Capital Tonight host Brian Taffe breaks down what happened.
   
In a released statement, Monserrate said, "I am a life-long Democrat and remain a loyal Democrat. After today's proceedings, I am proud to form a bipartisan coalition that has elected the first Latino President Pro Tem of the New York State Senate, my colleague, the Honorable Pedro Espada Jr. We look forward to conferencing with fellow Democrats to ensure that real reforms become a reality in the State of New York."

Following the news, the Democrats walked out of the Senate Chamber and the power and television feed were cut.

In a statement, a spokesman for Senator Malcolm Smith said, "This was an illegal and unlawful attempt to gain control of the Senate and reverse the will of the people who voted for a Democratic Majority. Nothing has changed, Senator Malcolm A. Smith remains the duly elected Temporary President and Majority Leader. The real Senate Majority is anxious to get back to governing, and will take immediate steps to get us back to work."

Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos has also released a statement saying, "A new bipartisan coalition elected today, has delivered on the promises for reform that the Senate Democrat leadership failed to keep. The new rules adopted today will create a more open, bipartisan, transparent and member-driven body that will take dramatic new steps to end Albany dysfunction."

Ok, so it's not THAT Senate but still exciting to see. It will be interesting if this results in real bi-partisanship once the dust clears. If it's even legal.

What they don't mention is that the cable feed was cut because punches were starting to get thrown.

lol, that's funny.

Coups are always awesome. :D

I suspect that this will backfire on the GOP.

So these rogue democrats aren't changing parties?

So not really, because it's only a State Senate.

Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2009, 07:58:32 PM
So not really, because it's only a State Senate.

Albany's always been a pretty constant source of amusement. I should call my dad about this; he lives about 5 minutes away from the state building- it would be interesting to see what kind of ruckus is taking place up there. :D

:lmfao: It's like our little Banana Republic!

Of course, the state of New York is larger, richer, and has a higher GDP than any banana republic probably, but still...

Does anyone have any idea why they did this?

I think Patterson should order the National Guard to the Senate, so that they could restore democracy.

Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
Does anyone have any idea why they did this?

If they have the votes, why wouldn't they do that?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 08, 2009, 09:06:50 PM

Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
Does anyone have any idea why they did this?

If they have the votes, why wouldn't they do that?

Tim, I was asking why they switched their support.

Quote from: Strix on June 08, 2009, 07:18:52 PM
In a statement, a spokesman for Senator Malcolm Smith said, "This was an illegal and unlawful attempt to gain control of the Senate and reverse the will of the people who voted for a Democratic Majority.

:lol:

It's not particularily surprising that the sorts of ignorant clods who become state Senators don't really understand how democracy works.

Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2009, 09:20:13 PM

Tim, I was asking why they switched their support.

Mr. Espada presumably wanted to be the PPT. Dunno about the other guy.

How is this different than when the republicans had a senate majority (50-50 w/ Cheney being the tiebreaker) a few years ago and Jim Jeffords switched parties throwing it to the democrats?

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 09:25:04 PM
How is this different than when the republicans had a senate majority (50-50 w/ Cheney being the tiebreaker) a few years ago and Jim Jeffords switched parties throwing it to the democrats?

The difference is that these guys didn't switch parties.

This does seem banana-republicish.

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 09:30:21 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 09:25:04 PM
How is this different than when the republicans had a senate majority (50-50 w/ Cheney being the tiebreaker) a few years ago and Jim Jeffords switched parties throwing it to the democrats?

The difference is that these guys didn't switch parties.

This does seem banana-republicish.

Meh, here in Alaska the itty bitty senate of 20 some folks has been a led by bloc of the 8 Dems and 4-5 more moderate GOP over the rest of the Republicans for last few years.

edit, sorry now it's 10 Dems and 5 or 6 gop making up majority after last elections.

Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2009, 09:03:31 PM
I think Patterson should order the National Guard to the Senate, so that they could restore democracy.

Burn down the building with the doors barred and everyone inside.  It's the best way to save New York I can think of. <_<

Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 09:30:21 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 09:25:04 PM
How is this different than when the republicans had a senate majority (50-50 w/ Cheney being the tiebreaker) a few years ago and Jim Jeffords switched parties throwing it to the democrats?

The difference is that these guys didn't switch parties.

This does seem banana-republicish.

I don't think Jeffords actually switched either, I think he just dropped out of the Republicans and switched his leadership vote.

If two people that call themselves democrats lose faith in the current leadership, they are free to vote for new leadership. We don't have enforced party discipline in this country. Now if they switched because they were bribed, then I agree with you.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 09:39:45 PM

If two people that call themselves democrats lose faith in the current leadership, they are free to vote for new leadership. We don't have enforced party discipline in this country. Now if they switched because they were bribed, then I agree with you.

That'd be my view.  Their motivation matters.

Quote from: Berkut on June 08, 2009, 08:50:30 PM
:lmfao: It's like our little Banana Republic!

Of course, the state of New York is larger, richer, and has a higher GDP than any banana republic probably, but still...

Well I have heard people say parts of Central NY can be compared to a run down 3rd world country.   ;)

BTW, one of those two guys is currently indicted for assaulting his girlfriend with a broken bottle.  I wonder what would happen if he were to go to prison?  My guess is that Patterson is ringing the DA's phone off the hook trying to get them to expedite that case.

The two guys wanted power plain and simple. Disgusting display of ego. Both defectors were already under criminal investigation. They will either get arrested or voted out. I have little respect for state legislators. They are as dumb as me if not dumber.

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 09:39:45 PM
If two people that call themselves democrats lose faith in the current leadership, they are free to vote for new leadership. We don't have enforced party discipline in this country. Now if they switched because they were bribed, then I agree with you.

What do you consider a "bribe" in this case?

Quote from: DGuller on June 08, 2009, 09:46:41 PM
BTW, one of those two guys is currently indicted for assaulting his girlfriend with a broken bottle.  I wonder what would happen if he were to go to prison?  My guess is that Patterson is ringing the DA's phone off the hook trying to get them to expedite that case.

Well if the Republicans want him I suppose they can have guys like that.

Ah the coup of 19 Priarial of the Year CCXVII

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 08, 2009, 08:41:29 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 08, 2009, 07:58:32 PM
So not really, because it's only a State Senate.

Albany's always been a pretty constant source of amusement. I should call my dad about this; he lives about 5 minutes away from the state building- it would be interesting to see what kind of ruckus is taking place up there. :D

I suspect he will find that the state building have been surrounded by tanks with the govenor standing on top of one of them

Something like this:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zenker.se%2FSurprise%2Fjeltsin.jpg&hash=2aa3ed2f890a12a1e6af35cbc2f58ff365972169)

Interesting, amusing. I'm surprised that there were enough Repubs in the NY State Legislature to pull this off with only a couple of Dem defectors. I guess it just means that majority control has temporarily shifted away from the Dems? In name anyway? At least until the dust settles, or what ever.

Current update:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_C-7jylP6Cw0%2FSTcHszclJ2I%2FAAAAAAAABqY%2Fg07lmXmAUM4%2Fs400%2FWhite_house_Burning.jpg&hash=b66b1a2647fad2fb0be05f0babaebe096fa62dd9)

It seems that Golisano was behind the move.  He has been pressuring NYS government to reform. It appears he kicked it up a notch.

we need Frau Rocket to storm Albany again with her wheelchair panzers.

Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
Does anyone have any idea why they did this?

To make sure fags can't marry. Doh.

Quote from: Martinus on June 09, 2009, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
Does anyone have any idea why they did this?

To make sure fags can't marry. Doh.

Totally worth it then.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 08:14:33 AM
It seems that Golisano was behind the move.  He has been pressuring NYS government to reform. It appears he kicked it up a notch.

Golisano should have run for Governor on the GOP label when he had the chance. 

Quote from: Vince on June 09, 2009, 09:03:14 AM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 08:14:33 AM
It seems that Golisano was behind the move.  He has been pressuring NYS government to reform. It appears he kicked it up a notch.

Golisano should have run for Governor on the GOP label when he had the chance. 

I like the fact that he is willing to put his (considerable) money where his mouth is and try to effect some change. It probably won't work, since there are too many people too invested in the disaster of a system that New York State has become (just look at Strix and his love affair with unions and he is a die hard Conservative! as an example) to ever really have real change.

The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 09:38:02 AM

Quote from: Vince on June 09, 2009, 09:03:14 AM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 08:14:33 AM
It seems that Golisano was behind the move.  He has been pressuring NYS government to reform. It appears he kicked it up a notch.

Golisano should have run for Governor on the GOP label when he had the chance. 

I like the fact that he is willing to put his (considerable) money where his mouth is and try to effect some change. It probably won't work, since there are too many people too invested in the disaster of a system that New York State has become (just look at Strix and his love affair with unions and he is a die hard Conservative! as an example) to ever really have real change.

The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

That is such a cynical view of things!  Heh, but I feel the same for Massachusetts. Real reform is needed. Legislators and the Governor are even talking it well about reform, especially given the ex-speaker's indictment on serious charges, along with several business people and lobbyists. State needs ethics reform and reform in the way things are done with pensions, health care. Many of the State's Authorities, Mass Turnpike, MBTA (Transit system) are losing money, lots of it. I look at California and that seems the logical outcome of out of control State government. I would have hoped that things would be resolved before a State ever became that bad off, but it doesn't happen. Too many entrenched interests, too many players, too much money andtoo much going on to fix things.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 09:38:02 AM
The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

Speaking of New York City has there been any sort of resolution to disastrous MTA funding problem?

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 09:38:02 AM
I like the fact that he is willing to put his (considerable) money where his mouth is and try to effect some change. It probably won't work, since there are too many people too invested in the disaster of a system that New York State has become (just look at Strix and his love affair with unions and he is a die hard Conservative! as an example) to ever really have real change.

The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

I've always felt the two keys for improving the economy of Upstate NY are lowering taxes and breaking the National Grid monopoly.  Neither of which I see a bloody chance of happening.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 09:38:02 AM
I like the fact that he is willing to put his (considerable) money where his mouth is and try to effect some change. It probably won't work, since there are too many people too invested in the disaster of a system that New York State has become (just look at Strix and his love affair with unions and he is a die hard Conservative! as an example) to ever really have real change.

The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

Gotta love the Democrats!

Quote from: Vince on June 09, 2009, 10:41:09 AM
I've always felt the two keys for improving the economy of Upstate NY are lowering taxes and breaking the National Grid monopoly.  Neither of which I see a bloody chance of happening.

How about a huge surge in apple demand?

What's the National Grid?  Local utility?

Quote from: Martinus on June 09, 2009, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
Does anyone have any idea why they did this?

To make sure fags can't marry. Doh.

:rolleyes:

Ya know Marti, even I am getting tired of your effort to drag this into every topic. This had nothing to do with it.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 10:46:34 AM
Gotta love the Democrats!

And people like you who profit from their antics!

The Dem majority leader is claiming he gaveled the session closed before the vote, so he is still Majority Leader, and still in charge, and it is his call when the legislature goes back into session.

What a circus.

There does seem to be little doubt that the two Dems in question are complete scum. I wonder how much they deviate from the norm though in state politics?

Quote from: Faeelin on June 09, 2009, 11:09:47 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 09, 2009, 08:44:45 AM

Quote from: Faeelin on June 08, 2009, 08:52:19 PM
Does anyone have any idea why they did this?

To make sure fags can't marry. Doh.

:rolleyes:

Ya know Marti, even I am getting tired of your effort to drag this into every topic. This had nothing to do with it.

Actually, he may be the broken clock during one of those two times in a day.  One of the reasons I've read for one of the senators was that the move was in protest of gay marriage thing.

I don't fully understand. Aren't the senators there as individuals? Even in Sweden representatives get their seats as individuals and while the voters and their party can yell and curse they are free to vote anyway they want. I'm sure the guys in question are scum, but this move in itself doesn't seem scummish.

Quote from: derspiess on June 08, 2009, 10:25:43 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on June 08, 2009, 09:39:45 PM
If two people that call themselves democrats lose faith in the current leadership, they are free to vote for new leadership. We don't have enforced party discipline in this country. Now if they switched because they were bribed, then I agree with you.

What do you consider a "bribe" in this case?

Cash or something similar to cash (like a job for them, or a job for a family member). Then there are gray areas, such as committee assignments, campaign contributions, etc.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 11:08:04 AM
How about a huge surge in apple demand?

What's the National Grid?  Local utility?

Either that or they figure out a profitable way to export snow.   

Yeah National Grid (formerly Niagara Mohawk) is the utility company.

Quote from: DGuller on June 09, 2009, 11:30:44 AM
Actually, he may be the broken clock during one of those two times in a day.  One of the reasons I've read for one of the senators was that the move was in protest of gay marriage thing.

Can ya link me? Both of them were considered fairly likely to vote in favor of gay marriage. The real concern is now Diaz's "bwahaha, I'll caucus with the GOP" has significant weight.

Hahahaha! This is funny, if true.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/new-senate-president-wants-vote-on-same-sex-marriage/

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 09:38:02 AM
I like the fact that he is willing to put his (considerable) money where his mouth is and try to effect some change. It probably won't work, since there are too many people too invested in the disaster of a system that New York State has become (just look at Strix and his love affair with unions and he is a die hard Conservative! as an example) to ever really have real change.

The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

Gotta love the Democrats!

But isn't it your fault?

Quote from: Neil on June 09, 2009, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 09:38:02 AM
I like the fact that he is willing to put his (considerable) money where his mouth is and try to effect some change. It probably won't work, since there are too many people too invested in the disaster of a system that New York State has become (just look at Strix and his love affair with unions and he is a die hard Conservative! as an example) to ever really have real change.

The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

Gotta love the Democrats!

But isn't it your fault?

That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 09, 2009, 12:58:38 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 10:46:34 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 09:38:02 AM
I like the fact that he is willing to put his (considerable) money where his mouth is and try to effect some change. It probably won't work, since there are too many people too invested in the disaster of a system that New York State has become (just look at Strix and his love affair with unions and he is a die hard Conservative! as an example) to ever really have real change.

The future of New York is going to be as a pseudo European style socialist state, where upstate is a economic disaster supported by the engine of New York City - and when something happens that threatens that cash cow (like what is going on now) we will have crisis because we can't afford the spending promised during the last boom cycle.

Gotta love the Democrats!

But isn't it your fault?

That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Perhaps not, but as a unionized employee, you have conspired the destroy the state.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Destroy the only part of New York people actually want to live in?

Quote from: Neil on June 09, 2009, 01:25:01 PM
Perhaps not, but as a unionized employee, you have conspired the destroy the state.

If NY wasn't a closed shop or if I had started the Union than I might agree with you but since it is and I didn't than I will enjoy the benefits that I have no control over being paid for.

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:26:01 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Destroy the only part of New York people actually want to live in?

You are the Master of the Obvious. Of course I would want to destroy the only part of NY that Democrats want to live in.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:30:56 PM
You are the Master of the Obvious. Of course I would want to destroy the only part of NY that Democrats want to live in.

Republicans love long dark winters with ridiculous amounts of snow?

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:39:12 PM
Republicans love long dark winters with ridiculous amounts of snow?

They generally frown on fun so that counts New York City out as a viable option. :(

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:30:56 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:26:01 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Destroy the only part of New York people actually want to live in?

You are the Master of the Obvious. Of course I would want to destroy the only part of NY that Democrats want to live in.

So Republicans like living in run down areas?   :P

Quote from: Vince on June 09, 2009, 01:40:43 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:30:56 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:26:01 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Destroy the only part of New York people actually want to live in?

You are the Master of the Obvious. Of course I would want to destroy the only part of NY that Democrats want to live in.

So Republicans like living in run down areas?   :P

Yeah, because the state of New York would be so much better off if only NYC where not a part of it...why, we would be awesome, like Michigan!

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:39:12 PM


Republicans love long dark winters with ridiculous amounts of snow?

:yes:


We've planted our chief operative in the Yukon in order to imprison all the natives so that we can easily take it over.  :ph34r:

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:39:12 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:30:56 PM
You are the Master of the Obvious. Of course I would want to destroy the only part of NY that Democrats want to live in.

Republicans love long dark winters with ridiculous amounts of snow?

I know I do.  :)

Edit: and I didn't even see Sav's post. :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:26:01 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Destroy the only part of New York people actually want to live in?

Upstate New York is actually quite nice.

Quote from: Vince on June 09, 2009, 01:40:43 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:30:56 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:26:01 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Destroy the only part of New York people actually want to live in?

You are the Master of the Obvious. Of course I would want to destroy the only part of NY that Democrats want to live in.

So Republicans like living in run down areas?   :P

And NYC isn't?

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 01:41:58 PM

Quote from: Vince on June 09, 2009, 01:40:43 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:30:56 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 01:26:01 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
That I haven't been able to buy a surplus nuke and destroy the Democrats voting base aka New York City I take responsibility for. The rest is out of my hands.

Destroy the only part of New York people actually want to live in?

You are the Master of the Obvious. Of course I would want to destroy the only part of NY that Democrats want to live in.

So Republicans like living in run down areas?   :P

Yeah, because the state of New York would be so much better off if only NYC where not a part of it...why, we would be awesome, like Michigan!

We'd be better off with less NYC Democrats sucking the life from the State. We could always rebuild the city.  ;)

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:29:38 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 09, 2009, 01:25:01 PM
Perhaps not, but as a unionized employee, you have conspired the destroy the state.

If NY wasn't a closed shop or if I had started the Union than I might agree with you but since it is and I didn't than I will enjoy the benefits that I have no control over being paid for.

I don't think anyone is personally begrudging you those benefits.  Not on a personal level.

But if someone wanted to overpay me dramatically I'd be happy to take it but I wouldn't be sold bold as to say I've earned it and deserve it.

Hey Strix, what is your Berkut meter?

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 02:19:25 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 01:29:38 PM

Quote from: Neil on June 09, 2009, 01:25:01 PM
Perhaps not, but as a unionized employee, you have conspired the destroy the state.

If NY wasn't a closed shop or if I had started the Union than I might agree with you but since it is and I didn't than I will enjoy the benefits that I have no control over being paid for.

I don't think anyone is personally begrudging you those benefits.  Not on a personal level.

But if someone wanted to overpay me dramatically I'd be happy to take it but I wouldn't be sold bold as to say I've earned it and deserve it.

Hmm... :yeahright:

Expect more and more of these types of strong arm moves by the GOP. They know they've lost their base, they've lost connection with America, and in typical militarist fashion they are going to try to seize power from democratically elected leaders by bending the rules or using terror tactics - not bombs, or bullets, but words.

"Oh no, niggers are in charge! Quick, lets put white people in power before its too late!!!!"

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:23:48 PM
Expect more and more of these types of strong arm moves by the GOP. They know they've lost their base, they've lost connection with America, and in typical militarist fashion they are going to try to seize power from democratically elected leaders by bending the rules or using terror tactics - not bombs, or bullets, but words.

"Oh no, niggers are in charge! Quick, lets put white people in power before its too late!!!!"

Go back to that chat site, you are much better at that than this.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 09, 2009, 02:16:35 PM
Upstate New York is actually quite nice.

Well I can only go on all the people I meet in Austin from upstate New York.  They do not give exactly glowing reviews but hey they are the people who decided to leave so may not be the most objective sources.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:17:42 PM
And NYC isn't?

Seemed pretty nice when I was there.  It certainly looked 10x nicer than I expected given its reputation.

Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2009, 02:33:08 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 09, 2009, 02:16:35 PM
Upstate New York is actually quite nice.

Well I can only go on all the people I meet in Austin from upstate New York.  They do not give exactly glowing reviews but hey they are the people who decided to leave so may not be the most objective sources.

I don't know about job prospects, but I liked the weather and scenery when I lived there.

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 02:19:25 PM
But if someone wanted to overpay me dramatically I'd be happy to take it but I wouldn't be sold bold as to say I've earned it and deserve it.

If others who have never done my job are bold enough to suggest that I hadn't earned it or that those in my field don't deserve it than why not?

I laugh when people say I am overpaid and inefficient. I, quite literally, do the work of ten people. I supervise 70+ felons who are able to be released to society instead of housed in a prison because of my job. It costs about $30,000 or so a year to house a felon in NYS.  I save the State roughly two million just from supervision. My position replaces the 10+ correction's officers that would be required to supervise the 70+ inmates. My position pays about $75,000 a year once I reach my normal pay level. Correction's officers make roughly $36,000+. So, once again, my position saves the State another $360,000 a year. I am also required to supervise my 70+ felons under very strict supervision guidelines that are monitored on a monthly basis. I have certain numbers and deadlines that must be met, period.

So, yes, I will be so bold.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:20:35 PM
Hey Strix, what is your Berkut meter?

You wanted to know the number of parolee's under my supervision that were successfully discharged.

So really, they ought to be paying you $2,000,000/year. You are grossly underpaid.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:37:56 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:20:35 PM
Hey Strix, what is your Berkut meter?

You wanted to know the number of parolee's under my supervision that were successfully discharged.

Cool.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:39:00 PM
So really, they ought to be paying you $2,000,000/year. You are grossly underpaid.

Not quite but I do wonder sometimes where that extra $1,925,000 goes though.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:35:49 PM
I laugh when people say I am overpaid and inefficient. I, quite literally, do the work of ten people. I supervise 70+ felons who are able to be released to society instead of housed in a prison because of my job. It costs about $30,000 or so a year to house a felon in NYS.  I save the State roughly two million just from supervision. My position replaces the 10+ correction's officers that would be required to supervise the 70+ inmates. My position pays about $75,000 a year once I reach my normal pay level. Correction's officers make roughly $36,000+. So, once again, my position saves the State another $360,000 a year. I am also required to supervise my 70+ felons under very strict supervision guidelines that are monitored on a monthly basis. I have certain numbers and deadlines that must be met, period.

So, yes, I will be so bold.

Without a union though do you think that NYS could hire someone to do your job at a reduced rate and benefit?

Again this is not a personal attack.  I have no problem with you "deserving" that money, but you can make that kind of argument for lots of people.  Teachers and working with children, our most valuaable resource, so surely they "deserve" as much money as possible.  But it doesn't take away from the fact that teachers at most private schools do just as good a job and earn significantly less money as those in the public system.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:39:00 PM
So really, they ought to be paying you $2,000,000/year. You are grossly underpaid.

Not quite but I do wonder sometimes where that extra $1,925,000 goes though.

You could find out by taking a basic course in economics. I bet MCC has one you could enroll in.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:28:28 PM

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:23:48 PM
Expect more and more of these types of strong arm moves by the GOP. They know they've lost their base, they've lost connection with America, and in typical militarist fashion they are going to try to seize power from democratically elected leaders by bending the rules or using terror tactics - not bombs, or bullets, but words.

"Oh no, niggers are in charge! Quick, lets put white people in power before its too late!!!!"

Go back to that chat site, you are much better at that than this.

No sir, I do not wish to troll this board anymore. But I do think the GOP is going off the deep end and it concerns me greatly as an American. I live in a Republican household and some of the things I hear from my own family shock me.

Surely it is the same across the nation.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:42:15 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:39:00 PM
So really, they ought to be paying you $2,000,000/year. You are grossly underpaid.

Not quite but I do wonder sometimes where that extra $1,925,000 goes though.

You could find out by taking a basic course in economics. I bet MCC has one you could enroll in.

I think the answers would be more readily available from a political science class dealing with ethics.  :D

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:43:28 PM
No sir, I do not wish to troll this board anymore. But I do think the GOP is going off the deep end and it concerns me greatly as an American. I live in a Republican household and some of the things I hear from my own family shock me.

Surely it is the same across the nation.

Than get a job and move out you freeloading Democrat!

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:48:01 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:42:15 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:40:01 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:39:00 PM
So really, they ought to be paying you $2,000,000/year. You are grossly underpaid.

Not quite but I do wonder sometimes where that extra $1,925,000 goes though.

You could find out by taking a basic course in economics. I bet MCC has one you could enroll in.

I think the answers would be more readily available from a political science class dealing with ethics.  :D

No, the reason that people do not get paid based on some fanciful imagination about what they save their employers has little to do with politics or ethics.

The reason people get grossly over-payed when they work for public sector employees unions however....yeah, you are on the right track there...

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:48:50 PM

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:43:28 PM
No sir, I do not wish to troll this board anymore. But I do think the GOP is going off the deep end and it concerns me greatly as an American. I live in a Republican household and some of the things I hear from my own family shock me.

Surely it is the same across the nation.

Than get a job and move out you freeloading Democrat!

I can't work right now. I'm on disability.

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:48:50 PM

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:43:28 PM
No sir, I do not wish to troll this board anymore. But I do think the GOP is going off the deep end and it concerns me greatly as an American. I live in a Republican household and some of the things I hear from my own family shock me.

Surely it is the same across the nation.

Than get a job and move out you freeloading Democrat!

I can't work right now. I'm on disability.

You would fit right in in New York.

I could support you AND Strix!

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:52:58 PM
You would fit right in in New York.

I could support you AND Strix!

Well didn't the system support you? It is only fair and just that you have the opportunity to give back. :)

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:49:49 PM
No, the reason that people do not get paid based on some fanciful imagination about what they save their employers has little to do with politics or ethics.

The reason people get grossly over-payed when they work for public sector employees unions however....yeah, you are on the right track there...

:lmfao:

Beat that dead horse some more I think I saw it's tail twitch.

Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2009, 02:55:20 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:52:58 PM
You would fit right in in New York.

I could support you AND Strix!

Well didn't the system support you? It is only fair and just that you have the opportunity to give back. :)

It didn't support me nearly as well as it is supporting Strix though!

And besides, I am rather certain that I have paid much more into that fund than I have taken out.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:58:47 PM
It didn't support me nearly as well as it is supporting Strix though!

And besides, I am rather certain that I have paid much more into that fund than I have taken out.

Is it Strix's fault that you weren't better at getting yours? One can scarcely blame Strix for your principles and lack of foresight.

Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2009, 03:02:21 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 02:58:47 PM
It didn't support me nearly as well as it is supporting Strix though!

And besides, I am rather certain that I have paid much more into that fund than I have taken out.

Is it Strix's fault that you weren't better at getting yours? One can scarcely blame Strix for your principles and lack of foresight.

It is true :weep:

You know who is REALLY underpaid in New York?

lawyers.

Just think, for every client a lawyer keeps out of jail, they save the state at least a billion dollars!

They really need to pay PDs a LOT more!

Of course, the reverse of that is those damn DAs - they are a clear expense, what with their incredible cost to the state every time they convict someone. They should have to pay the state to do their job.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:06:00 PM
It is true :weep:

You know who is REALLY underpaid in New York?

lawyers.

Just think, for every client a lawyer keeps out of jail, they save the state at least a billion dollars!

They really need to pay PDs a LOT more!

Of course, the reverse of that is those damn DAs - they are a clear expense, what with their incredible cost to the state every time they convict someone. They should have to pay the state to do their job.

What are you smoking?

Point:

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:06:00 PM
It is true :weep:

You know who is REALLY underpaid in New York?

lawyers.

Just think, for every client a lawyer keeps out of jail, they save the state at least a billion dollars!

They really need to pay PDs a LOT more!

Of course, the reverse of that is those damn DAs - they are a clear expense, what with their incredible cost to the state every time they convict someone. They should have to pay the state to do their job.

Counterpoint:

I think the DAs deserve more money as they keep those criminals off the streets. While it might cost a lot to hold those criminals, just think about how much money it costs to have police officers catching repeat offenders.  With no one going to jail, we'd need a much larger police force for the equivalent of a catch and release program. DAs are your best friend.

PDs on the other hand are horrible. They help scum get away with their crimes, allowing those "criminals" to run rampant. They should pay the state for their jobs.

Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2009, 03:12:48 PM
PDs on the other hand are horrible. They help scum get away with their crimes, allowing those "criminals" to run rampant. They should pay the state for their jobs.

:yes:

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:09:27 PM
What are you smoking?

I think he's trying to point out the flaw in your "I save the state this much ergo it justifies my salary" argument.

I would never want to justify my salary, I might lose it if I tried.  :D

Quote from: lustindarkness on June 09, 2009, 03:18:58 PM
I would never want to justify my salary, I might lose it if I tried.  :D

You're saving the Iraqi mothers all the expenses of raising their children.

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 03:14:39 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:09:27 PM
What are you smoking?

I think he's trying to point out the flaw in your "I save the state this much ergo it justifies my salary" argument.

The problem is that there is no flaw. All the numbers are cold hard facts. Well, to be honest, I downplayed some of the numbers. The average cost to house an inmate in prison is roughly $40,000+ a year and only correction's officers just starting out make $36,000, so the numbers are higher all around. The number of officers I replace is probably low as well because it probably takes 3-4 officers a shift to watch 70+ inmates and they run three shifts.   

It suits Berkut's argument to suggest that I am being fanciful but the numbers are all there if he is willing to take his head out of the sand. 

I'm depressed because I've been looking for months and can't find any job...except one, and I refuse to take it. You all know what it is. :x

Quote from: DGuller on June 09, 2009, 03:20:37 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on June 09, 2009, 03:18:58 PM
I would never want to justify my salary, I might lose it if I tried.  :D

You're saving the Iraqi mothers all the expenses of raising their children.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you even know what Lusti does?

Randomness: All I've gotten from speaking with a few people up there is that those actually in Albany don't really give a damn because their broken EMS system is a bigger deal, and that according to Albany residents, Spitzer is "the Love Gov" and Corzine is "Governor Crash."

Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2009, 03:12:48 PM
Point:

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:06:00 PM
It is true :weep:

You know who is REALLY underpaid in New York?

lawyers.

Just think, for every client a lawyer keeps out of jail, they save the state at least a billion dollars!

They really need to pay PDs a LOT more!

Of course, the reverse of that is those damn DAs - they are a clear expense, what with their incredible cost to the state every time they convict someone. They should have to pay the state to do their job.

Counterpoint:

I think the DAs deserve more money as they keep those criminals off the streets. While it might cost a lot to hold those criminals, just think about how much money it costs to have police officers catching repeat offenders.  With no one going to jail, we'd need a much larger police force for the equivalent of a catch and release program. DAs are your best friend.

PDs on the other hand are horrible. They help scum get away with their crimes, allowing those "criminals" to run rampant. They should pay the state for their jobs.

Obviously the solution then is to get rid of the police.

You're totally missing Berkut's point Strix.  He's saying that it doesn't matter how much you save or cost the state nor the bottomline of the budget.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:21:51 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 03:14:39 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:09:27 PM
What are you smoking?

I think he's trying to point out the flaw in your "I save the state this much ergo it justifies my salary" argument.

The problem is that there is no flaw. All the numbers are cold hard facts. Well, to be honest, I downplayed some of the numbers. The average cost to house an inmate in prison is roughly $40,000+ a year and only correction's officers just starting out make $36,000, so the numbers are higher all around. The number of officers I replace is probably low as well because it probably takes 3-4 officers a shift to watch 70+ inmates and they run three shifts.   

It suits Berkut's argument to suggest that I am being fanciful but the numbers are all there if he is willing to take his head out of the sand.

But Strix a street sweeper earns minimum wage, but if we had no street sweepers our cities would become ugly and filled with trash, leading to plummeting property values.  That would cost the city billions.  Does that mean we need to dramatically increase the wages of street sweepers?

You can come up with all kinds of examples and counter examples.  Like Berkut suggested, directly I only cost the government money.  So should they cut my salary?

The only proper way to determine salaries is by reference to the free market.  On an open market what does a position with this kind of experience and training receive.  Yes it means sometimes you get "undeserving" people earning huge sums (I know rig pigs with no education and experience doubling my salary), while other "deserving" people earning peanuts.  But there's no other way to do it.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:21:51 PM
It suits Berkut's argument to suggest that I am being fanciful but the numbers are all there if he is willing to take his head out of the sand. 

The fallaciousness of your argument has nothing to do with the numbers, hence my suggestion that you go take a basic course in economics, which would clear it right up for you.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on June 09, 2009, 03:27:35 PM
You're totally missing Berkut's point Strix.  He's saying that it doesn't matter how much you save or cost the state, your job should be based on the value of it as it benefits society more or less, not the bottomline of the budget.

At the risk of trying to speak for Berkut (:berkut:) I don't think he means that at all.

Strix's job should be based on the free market, not on any artsy-fartsy evaluation of "value" or "worth".  If the State needs to pay $70k to get people to work in that job, then fine.  But if they can get away with paying $45k, then thats all they should pay.

More or less what I meant, I just screwed it up by typing it fast. :blush:

*fixed the prior post.

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on June 09, 2009, 03:27:35 PM
You're totally missing Berkut's point Strix.  He's saying that it doesn't matter how much you save or cost the state, your job should be based on the value of it as it benefits society more or less, not the bottomline of the budget.

Well no, his job is worth whatever it takes to attract people with the requisite skills to the position in a free labor market.

Somewhat less than $75,000/year plus insanely amazing (and expensive) benefits. His "true" salary is probably at somewhere in the range of 50-100% more than his base salary, if you consider his actual cost to the state over his lifetime. Possibly much more, I haven't done the numbers.

But he can "retire" after 20 years at 50% salary for the rest of his life, for example. How much is that worth?

Quote from: citizen k on June 09, 2009, 03:25:57 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 09, 2009, 03:20:37 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on June 09, 2009, 03:18:58 PM
I would never want to justify my salary, I might lose it if I tried.  :D

You're saving the Iraqi mothers all the expenses of raising their children.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you even know what Lusti does?

I'll answer for him, no.  :D

Actually, my civilian job is not known here and does need to be either. I can say i do serve the american people to the best of my abilities (not much abilities, I know).

Yeap, market drives the salary of jobs, even I understand that.

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 03:30:28 PM

Quote from: Judas Iscariot on June 09, 2009, 03:27:35 PM
You're totally missing Berkut's point Strix.  He's saying that it doesn't matter how much you save or cost the state, your job should be based on the value of it as it benefits society more or less, not the bottomline of the budget.

At the risk of trying to speak for Berkut (:berkut:) I don't think he means that at all.

Strix's job should be based on the free market, not on any artsy-fartsy evaluation of "value" or "worth".  If the State needs to pay $70k to get people to work in that job, then fine.  But if they can get away with paying $45k, then thats all they should pay.

Indeed.

but what is best about Strix is not that he is astoundingly over-paid - that is hardly unusual for a state employee in New York (and remember, his true salary is a LOT more than $75/year). It is that he is this supposed conservative guy who has this cherry job given him by the very socialist system he claims to despise...and yet he cannot bring himself to just admit that in fact he is the recipient of a system he would bitterly oppose if it wasn't directly benefiting him, so he has become this total pro-union tool.

Which really is just damn hilarious. It would be like grallon suddenly defending venture capitalism while still insisting that he hates the entire capitalist system because his uncle left him a bunch of money in stocks or something.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:21:51 PM
The average cost to house an inmate in prison is roughly $40,000+ a year

Boy, it looks like it's time for another edition of "How Much Money Are We Flushing Down The Goddamn Toilet With The War On Drugs?"

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 03:28:22 PM
But Strix a street sweeper earns minimum wage, but if we had no street sweepers our cities would become ugly and filled with trash, leading to plummeting property values.  That would cost the city billions.  Does that mean we need to dramatically increase the wages of street sweepers?

You can come up with all kinds of examples and counter examples.  Like Berkut suggested, directly I only cost the government money.  So should they cut my salary?

The only proper way to determine salaries is by reference to the free market.  On an open market what does a position with this kind of experience and training receive.  Yes it means sometimes you get "undeserving" people earning huge sums (I know rig pigs with no education and experience doubling my salary), while other "deserving" people earning peanuts.  But there's no other way to do it.

I understand what you are saying. The problem is that Berkut doesn't believe that any job is valid if it's tainted by a union. That any union worker is automatically overpaid and inefficient at best. He does not believe that a free market exists in the same place as a union.

So, there is really no point discussing the issue with him because his bias prevents him from honestly addressing any discussion.

Do I feel I am overpaid? No. Why not? I pointed out the budget savings that my job provides. I also am required to have the experience, training, skill, and knowledge of a law enforcement officer, social worker, substance abuse provider, and a lawyer not to mention other various little odds and ends. In comparison to what those other professions earn in my location my pay is about right.

Quote from: ulmont on June 09, 2009, 03:37:50 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:21:51 PM
The average cost to house an inmate in prison is roughly $40,000+ a year

Boy, it looks like it's time for another edition of "How Much Money Are We Flushing Down The Goddamn Toilet With The War On Drugs?"

Actually, if we let all those drug offenders go, then Strix would not ahve nearly as many people to babysit, and hence we would end up LOSING money, since he saves us vast piles of cash per person.

Clearly this is a terrible idea.

you: fail at new York State Republican Union Employee Economics.

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:50:43 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 02:48:50 PM

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 02:43:28 PM
No sir, I do not wish to troll this board anymore. But I do think the GOP is going off the deep end and it concerns me greatly as an American. I live in a Republican household and some of the things I hear from my own family shock me.

Surely it is the same across the nation.

Than get a job and move out you freeloading Democrat!

I can't work right now. I'm on disability.

How can you be so disabled that you can't approve people's cheques?

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:38:18 PM
In comparison to what those other professions earn in my location my pay is about right.

None of which are subject to market forces either.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:31:49 PM
But he can "retire" after 20 years at 50% salary for the rest of his life, for example. How much is that worth?

No, I can't. Please do some research before discussing something.

Multi-classing never makes you as efficient as someone who went with just one of the classes you multi-ed in. :nerd:

I would like to point one thing out:

I am not that different from Strix. If I had an in to a cushy state job where I would be incredibly overpaid and get amazingly generous benefits, I would jump on it in a heartbeat, even if it meant I had to knock on people doors at night.

However, I would not suddenly become a pro-union talking head. I would cheerfully acknowledge that my job was over-compensated, and would even vote for politicians who favored cutting my salary (well, as long as it was cutting state employee salaries in general, as opposed to mine in particular....).

 :lol: The only thing New York's politicians can agree upon:  :berkut:  Cut his salary now!

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 03:40:58 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:38:18 PM
In comparison to what those other professions earn in my location my pay is about right.

None of which are subject to market forces either.

Ok, so any job outside of the private sector is over paid than? I believe that's what you are trying to say.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:38:18 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 03:28:22 PM
But Strix a street sweeper earns minimum wage, but if we had no street sweepers our cities would become ugly and filled with trash, leading to plummeting property values.  That would cost the city billions.  Does that mean we need to dramatically increase the wages of street sweepers?

You can come up with all kinds of examples and counter examples.  Like Berkut suggested, directly I only cost the government money.  So should they cut my salary?

The only proper way to determine salaries is by reference to the free market.  On an open market what does a position with this kind of experience and training receive.  Yes it means sometimes you get "undeserving" people earning huge sums (I know rig pigs with no education and experience doubling my salary), while other "deserving" people earning peanuts.  But there's no other way to do it.

I understand what you are saying. The problem is that Berkut doesn't believe that any job is valid if it's tainted by a union.

LOL, wow, that is one fucking whopper of a strawman there Strix!

Now, I say YOUR job is over-aid, and the data makes it clear that I am right. I have said nothing about EVERY union job, and I call you a liar until you can show me making any kind of claim like that.

QuoteThat any union worker is automatically overpaid and inefficient at best. He does not believe that a free market exists in the same place as a union.

Again, I do not believe a free market exists in the same place as the state of New Yorks employees union, and the data proves that is the case.

Quote

So, there is really no point discussing the issue with him because his bias prevents him from honestly addressing any discussion.

Yeah, there are some honesty issues here for sure. You are lying out of your ass.

Quote
Do I feel I am overpaid? No. Why not? I pointed out the budget savings that my job provides.

Which has nothing to do with what you are paid, as that class in basic econ would teach you.

Quote
I also am required to have the experience, training, skill, and knowledge of a law enforcement officer, social worker, substance abuse provider, and a lawyer not to mention other various little odds and ends. In comparison to what those other professions earn in my location my pay is about right.

You do not need a law degree to do your job, nor do you need any more skills than those possessed by all the other people doing your job. This is like the study that showed that housewives should make a million a year because they have to be able to multi-task, just like a CEO!

In comparison to what other people doing exactly what you do make in non-union locations, you are vastly over-paid.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 03:40:58 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:38:18 PM
In comparison to what those other professions earn in my location my pay is about right.

None of which are subject to market forces either.

Well it depends on whether those other professions are public or private sector.

And it does go to how setting public sector salaries is actually very tricky.  In a lot of fields the skills you pick up in public service are not at all easily transferred to the private sector.  Strix's job in particular (I know since Mrs. B has a roughly similar job).  So it's hard to make comparisons.   However that does not mean the gov't should take such a hard line on salaries to take them right above the point where people would quit and take up a career in fast food and no more.  That would be highly detrimental to the public service - but only in the long run.

It's also tough because the direct comparisons are usually between other government jobs in other jurisdictions, but those are similarily somewhat removed from the private sector.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:44:07 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 03:40:58 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:38:18 PM
In comparison to what those other professions earn in my location my pay is about right.

None of which are subject to market forces either.

Ok, so any job outside of the private sector is over paid than? I believe that's what you are trying to say.

I am pretty sure that isn't what he is saying.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:44:07 PM
Ok, so any job outside of the private sector is over paid than? I believe that's what you are trying to say.

I think Berkut takes the term "public servant" a little too literally. ;)

Honestly, I'm seeing a trend: according to Berkut, our economic situation should be easily solved by any idiot who's inclined to his point of view. According to Berkut, any idiot inclined to his point of view should see the wisdom of littering the road behind us with corpses of companies and labor groups. Berkut also seems to have very definite ideas of what salary employees should receive for doing what job.

I'm curious how well Berkut would fare looking for a new job in the current labor market. :menace:

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 03:48:04 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 03:40:58 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:38:18 PM
In comparison to what those other professions earn in my location my pay is about right.

None of which are subject to market forces either.

Well it depends on whether those other professions are public or private sector.

And it does go to how setting public sector salaries is actually very tricky.  In a lot of fields the skills you pick up in public service are not at all easily transferred to the private sector.  Strix's job in particular (I know since Mrs. B has a roughly similar job).  So it's hard to make comparisons.   However that does not mean the gov't should take such a hard line on salaries to take them right above the point where people would quit and take up a career in fast food and no more.  That would be highly detrimental to the public service - but only in the long run.

It's also tough because the direct comparisons are usually between other government jobs in other jurisdictions, but those are similarily somewhat removed from the private sector.

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?

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:44:07 PM
Ok, so any job outside of the private sector is over paid than? I believe that's what you are trying to say.

Not necessarily.  You need to look at vacancies and turnover to determine if public sector jobs are overpaid or not.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 03:49:32 PM

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 03:44:07 PM
Ok, so any job outside of the private sector is over paid than? I believe that's what you are trying to say.

I think Berkut takes the term "public servant" a little too literally. ;)

Honestly, I'm seeing a trend: according to Berkut, our economic situation should be easily solved by any idiot who's inclined to his point of view. According to Berkut, any idiot inclined to his point of view should see the wisdom of littering the road behind us with corpses of companies and labor groups. Berkut also seems to have very definite ideas of what salary employees should receive for doing what job.

I'm curious how well Berkut would fare looking for a new job in the current labor market. :menace:

Wow, that is some serious projecting you are doing there, or something.

I have no idea that a parole officer should make - I just know it should be based on what the market will pay them, rather than what they can blackmail some politician into paying them.

I imagine I would do about as well as other people with my expertise do in the current labor market, where I to be laid off - why would I do any worse or better?

I have no idea what you are babbling on about in regards to labor groups and corpses. Is this about my lack of interest in Obama using my money to bail out unions?

Quote from: lustindarkness on June 09, 2009, 03:34:20 PM


I'll answer for him, no.  :D

Actually, my civilian job is not known here and does need to be either. I can say i do serve the american people to the best of my abilities (not much abilities, I know).

gigolo!

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:26:32 PM
Obviously the solution then is to get rid of the police.

:w00t:

I knew there was a reason that I don't dislike you. :hug:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opednews.com%2Fpopulum%2Fuploaded%2F1979-flyer--hat-tip-to-maggie-s--2795-20081115-182.jpg&hash=3f0d24e3857b246c1b5190b24eedc0709d52bdd5)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 03:51:36 PM
Not necessarily.  You need to look at vacancies and turnover to determine if public sector jobs are overpaid or not.

Also required education and experience. Jobs doing order entry on cushy Windows computers that one can understand after a single several-week crash course in MS Office shouldn't necessarily be the same earnings potential as where someone needs to have 3 years experience running AS/400 systems and a BS in computer science, for example.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 03:56:19 PM
Also required education and experience. Jobs doing order entry on cushy Windows computers that one can understand after a single several-week crash course in MS Office shouldn't necessarily be the same earnings potential as where someone needs to have 3 years experience running AS/400 systems and a BS in computer science, for example.

Considering that one can find bachelor degrees in cracker jack boxes these days...

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 03:56:19 PM
Also required education and experience. Jobs doing order entry on cushy Windows computers that one can understand after a single several-week crash course in MS Office shouldn't necessarily be the same earnings potential as where someone needs to have 3 years experience running AS/400 systems and a BS in computer science, for example.

That sounds like a Gosplan approach.  Let the market price that education and experience.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:52:16 PM
Wow, that is some serious projecting you are doing there, or something.

I have no idea that a parole officer should make - I just know it should be based on what the market will pay them, rather than what they can blackmail some politician into paying them.

I imagine I would do about as well as other people with my expertise do in the current labor market, where I to be laid off - why would I do any worse or better?

I have no idea what you are babbling on about in regards to labor groups and corpses. Is this about my lack of interest in Obama using my money to bail out unions?

1. Projecting? You're the one assuming every union employee is paid massively above the norm. Why don't you go looking up some numbers before you start making those kinds of claims.

2. As much as you bitch about "entitlement cultures," you certainly act like you're owed something; the comment was because you can't seem to grasp the fact that employees need to be competitive with others in their qualifications range. You'd hardline and then wonder why every time your resume went either to the bottom of the pile or straight to the trash can.

3. I said nothing about the feds specifically. I'm talking about the way you've been taking a massive dump on anyone in the public sector and any government aid program that's been mentioned over the past several months. The troll is getting old. You're so far anti-government as to be borderline anarchist. We get it.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:49:59 PM

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 03:48:04 PM
Well it depends on whether those other professions are public or private sector.

And it does go to how setting public sector salaries is actually very tricky.  In a lot of fields the skills you pick up in public service are not at all easily transferred to the private sector.  Strix's job in particular (I know since Mrs. B has a roughly similar job).  So it's hard to make comparisons.   However that does not mean the gov't should take such a hard line on salaries to take them right above the point where people would quit and take up a career in fast food and no more.  That would be highly detrimental to the public service - but only in the long run.

It's also tough because the direct comparisons are usually between other government jobs in other jurisdictions, but those are similarily somewhat removed from the private sector.

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?

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... :lol:

Ok, so pay the government workers efficiency wages.  That's still a free market concept.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 04:04:43 PM
1. Projecting? You're the one assuming every union employee is paid massively above the norm. Why don't you go looking up some numbers before you start making those kinds of claims.

UAW workers used to be paid $23/hour + another $17/hour in fringes.  West coast longshoremen make something like 180/year.  Unionized airline pilots make like 200/year.

Quote from: DGuller on June 09, 2009, 04:09:43 PM
Ok, so pay the government workers efficiency wages.  That's still a free market concept.

Not sure of that pearticualr terms, but yes I've been saying all along (and as a public servant) that public servant wages need to be closely associated with the free market.

Quote from: garbon on June 09, 2009, 03:58:17 PM
Considering that one can find bachelor degrees in cracker jack boxes these days...

Nothing to do with the availability. They might be in cracker jack boxes, but even assuming it's just from a cheap public four-year, that cracker jack box has cost an average of $6,500. In the case of a private four-year, that box of useless junk costs an average of $25K to someone who graduated in the past year or so.

I'm a little leery of letting the market set the value without oversight. Did everybody forget those empty houses all over the place already? Apples and oranges? OK, let's bring up another example of publicly traded companies where market deregulation bit us in the ass. The market is an entity unto itself, but it's the same kind of entity as your average cornfield- the only way it has value is if it is properly watched over and tended.

For those of you saying to let the market set the price, that only works when all the actors are being scrupulous. Where there's a buck to be made, you can't count on anyone to be that virtuous.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 04:10:32 PM
UAW workers used to be paid $23/hour + another $17/hour in fringes.  West coast longshoremen make something like 180/year.  Unionized airline pilots make like 200/year.

Yeah. I remember; I was one of the ones who actually posted the breakdowns, at which point we found the difference was in healthcare and retirement costs, and that once we discounted VEBA, there was only a dollar or two discrepancy.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 04:15:42 PM
For those of you saying to let the market set the price, that only works when all the actors are being scrupulous. Where there's a buck to be made, you can't count on anyone to be that virtuous.

So you're saying that free market doesn't work when people are trying to maximize profits?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 04:18:25 PM
Yeah. I remember; I was one of the ones who actually posted the breakdowns, at which point we found the difference was in healthcare and retirement costs, and that once we discounted VEBA, there was only a dollar or two discrepancy.

What do you mean by discount VEBA, pretend it doesn't exist?

Plus there's the "job bank."

@DG: Not at all. I'm saying that free market doesn't work when an influential actor is unethical, and from the daily laundry list of BS that's been going on on this side of the pond, I don't think it's reasonable to assume all of those influential forces and actors will be ethical.

@Yi: VEBA is employee-contribution and voluntary. The CBA basically covers the employee's contribution, but considering the ones with higher earnings are more likely to buy in, I think it's reasonable to assume that it washes out when it comes to the take-home pay.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 04:34:47 PM
@Yi: VEBA is employee-contribution and voluntary. The CBA basically covers the employee's contribution, but considering the ones with higher earnings are more likely to buy in, I think it's reasonable to assume that it washes out when it comes to the take-home pay.

You've lost me.  I thought VEBA was the pension plan.  No?  What's CBA?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 04:15:42 PM
Nothing to do with the availability. They might be in cracker jack boxes, but even assuming it's just from a cheap public four-year, that cracker jack box has cost an average of $6,500. In the case of a private four-year, that box of useless junk costs an average of $25K to someone who graduated in the past year or so.

Okay? :huh:

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 04:15:42 PM
I'm a little leery of letting the market set the value without oversight.

:bleeding:

QuoteThe market is an entity unto itself, but it's the same kind of entity as your average cornfield- the only way it has value is if it is properly watched over and tended.

:bleeding:

QuoteFor those of you saying to let the market set the price, that only works when all the actors are being scrupulous.

:bleeding:

QuoteWhere there's a buck to be made, you can't count on anyone to be that virtuous.

:frusty:

Let the invisible hand guide us through these tough times. Down with Keynesian economics!

Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

Oh ? On what do you base your statement?

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 05:46:28 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

Oh ? On what do you base your statement?

I read books. Ones written by Adam Smith.   :P

Like?

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 05:50:15 PM
Like?

The Theory of Moral Sentiments, for example? It is remarkably unlike what we think of as the selfish core of free-market economics. And written before The Wealth of Nations as I recall. "Laissez Faire" was invented by a small group of kooky Frenchmen. Smith was dismissive of them.

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 05:50:15 PM
Like?

Wealth of Nations?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 04:10:32 PM
Unionized airline pilots make like 200/year.

And non-unionized airline pilots make $8k a year and crash their planes in order to escape the agony that is their lives.

The system works.

And what exactly in these books leads you to this conclusion, ulmont?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 09, 2009, 04:04:43 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:52:16 PM
Wow, that is some serious projecting you are doing there, or something.

I have no idea that a parole officer should make - I just know it should be based on what the market will pay them, rather than what they can blackmail some politician into paying them.

I imagine I would do about as well as other people with my expertise do in the current labor market, where I to be laid off - why would I do any worse or better?

I have no idea what you are babbling on about in regards to labor groups and corpses. Is this about my lack of interest in Obama using my money to bail out unions?

1. Projecting? You're the one assuming every union employee is paid massively above the norm. Why don't you go looking up some numbers before you start making those kinds of claims.

I think you are lying. Where have I ever claimed that "every union employee is paid massively above the norm". I don't think you can find any quote from me saying any such thing.

Quote

2. As much as you bitch about "entitlement cultures," you certainly act like you're owed something; the comment was because you can't seem to grasp the fact that employees need to be competitive with others in their qualifications range. You'd hardline and then wonder why every time your resume went either to the bottom of the pile or straight to the trash can.

Again, when have I ever acted as if I am owed anything? What does the word "hardline" mean as a verb? My resume, such times that I have been looking for a job, has never gone to the bottom of the pile or to the trash can that I am aware of - of course, I am not sure what my resume has to do with this debate however.

And of course salaries must be competitive - that is my point, and I won't give it up to you.

Quote

3. I said nothing about the feds specifically. I'm talking about the way you've been taking a massive dump on anyone in the public sector and any government aid program that's been mentioned over the past several months. The troll is getting old. You're so far anti-government as to be borderline anarchist. We get it.

Wow, you don't pay much attention, do you? Who in the public sector have I taken a massive dump on? Can you name all these people? And *any* government aid program? Really? Can you back that one up?

I suspect you cannot anymore than you can back up the lie that that I said every union employee is paid masively above the norm.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

The idea that unless you are in favor of centrally planned government you are some kind of pseudo-anarchist is a "convenient truth" of the left.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 07:02:50 PM
Who in the public sector have I taken a massive dump on? Can you name all these people?

Well, there's Strix... :unsure:

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 07:05:28 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

The idea that unless you are in favor of centrally planned government you are some kind of pseudo-anarchist is a "convenient truth" of the left.

True, but it's also a convenient way to claim Adam Smith as a member of the economic right and use his name as support for such. Smith actually supported progressive taxation, various kinds of tariffs, government intervention on behalf of the poor and other things. I think reading selected quotes from WoN without taking the rest of Smith's philosophy for human interaction into account is a mistake. His primary societal value seems to be what he calls Sympathy. Not selfishness or hard-core-noninterventionism.

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 07:13:54 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 07:02:50 PM
Who in the public sector have I taken a massive dump on? Can you name all these people?

Well, there's Strix... :unsure:

Indeed, but he brings that on himself.

What I was responding to was this claim though:

QuoteI'm talking about the way you've been taking a massive dump on anyone in the public sector

A rather odd statement to make, since I don't think I've slammed anyone in the public sector other than Strix, much less "anyone".

Of course, we already know who is losing this argument  - the side that has to resort to the ad hom rather than counter actual points.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 07:17:43 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 07:05:28 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 05:42:09 PM
Contrary to popular myth, Adam Smith was not anything close to laissez faire.

The idea that unless you are in favor of centrally planned government you are some kind of pseudo-anarchist is a "convenient truth" of the left.

True, but it's also a convenient way to claim Adam Smith as a member of the economic right and use his name as support for such. Smith actually supported progressive taxation, various kinds of tariffs, government intervention on behalf of the poor and other things. I think reading selected quotes from WoN without taking the rest of Smith's philosophy for human interaction into account is a mistake. His primary societal value seems to be what he calls Sympathy. Not selfishness or hard-core-noninterventionism.

Well Smith lived in the actual real world, so had actual real world (hence nuanced) views about things.

Saying that the government should not meddle in the market in general is hardly saying that they should never do so, although of course those who want the government to run the market argue that any dissent  is in fact "anarchist". It is short hand for actual thinking and considered thought, I suspect.

Quote from: Jaron on June 09, 2009, 06:24:25 PM
And what exactly in these books leads you to this conclusion, ulmont?

Well, for starters, read this chapter:  http://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smWN13.html#B.IV,%20Ch.2,%20Of%20Restraints%20upon%20the%20Importation%20from%20Foreign%20Countries

Smith starts off by going through the distorting effects of tariffs, but then explicitly supports two different kinds of tariffs:

1) To support industries necessary for defense (shipbuilding, in his example).  The logic could be (and has been) used to support farm subsidies for self-sufficiency, or a green energy program, etc.
2) To equalize the playing field where industries are taxed domestically.  This is the general thrust of calls for "fair trade" treaties to ensure that labor and environmental costs are accounted for in comparing the price of domestic goods and foreign goods.

Quote from: ulmont on June 09, 2009, 07:25:10 PM
2) To equalize the playing field where industries are taxed domestically.  This is the general thrust of calls for "fair trade" treaties to ensure that labor and environmental costs are accounted for in comparing the price of domestic goods and foreign goods.

QuoteThe second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the home market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it. In Great Britain, when any such tax is laid upon the produce of domestic industry, it is usual at the same time, in order to stop the clamorous complaints of our merchants and manufacturers that they will be undersold at home, to lay a much heavier duty upon the importation of all foreign goods of the same kind.

You're misreading Smith's position.  He's talking about the case when certain domestic industries are taxed higher than other domestic industries.  He gives some examples later on, like salt.  His argument for the tariff in that case is to duplicate for the imported goods the distorting effect already residing in the excise tax.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 09:37:36 PM

Quote from: ulmont on June 09, 2009, 07:25:10 PM
2) To equalize the playing field where industries are taxed domestically.  This is the general thrust of calls for "fair trade" treaties to ensure that labor and environmental costs are accounted for in comparing the price of domestic goods and foreign goods.

QuoteThe second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry is, when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter. In this case, it seems reasonable that an equal tax should be imposed upon the like produce of the former. This would not give the monopoly of the home market to domestic industry, nor turn towards a particular employment a greater share of the stock and labour of the country than what would naturally go to it. It would only hinder any part of what would naturally go to it from being turned away by the tax into a less natural direction, and would leave the competition between foreign and domestic industry, after the tax, as nearly as possible upon the same footing as before it. In Great Britain, when any such tax is laid upon the produce of domestic industry, it is usual at the same time, in order to stop the clamorous complaints of our merchants and manufacturers that they will be undersold at home, to lay a much heavier duty upon the importation of all foreign goods of the same kind.

You're misreading Smith's position.  He's talking about the case when certain domestic industries are taxed higher than other domestic industries.  He gives some examples later on, like salt.  His argument for the tariff in that case is to duplicate for the imported goods the distorting effect already residing in the excise tax.

He supported tariffs as a form of trade retribution, yes. We learned our lesson in the '30s about that one though. Hopefully.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 09:57:33 PM
He supported tariffs as a form of trade retribution, yes. We learned our lesson in the '30s about that one though. Hopefully.

He did?

I believe so. It's been a while since I read it though.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 10:00:45 PM
I believe so. It's been a while since I read it though.

Well ulmont just linked a chapter of his book in which he writes there are two cases in which tariffs are not dumbassed, and retaliating was not one of the cases he mentioned.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 09, 2009, 10:02:37 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 10:00:45 PM
I believe so. It's been a while since I read it though.

Well ulmont just linked a chapter of his book in which he writes there are two cases in which tariffs are not dumbassed, and retaliating was not one of the cases he mentioned.

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

Quote from: Wealth of Nations
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.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 07:17:43 PM
True, but it's also a convenient way to claim Adam Smith as a member of the economic right and use his name as support for such. Smith actually supported progressive taxation, various kinds of tariffs, government intervention on behalf of the poor and other things. I think reading selected quotes from WoN without taking the rest of Smith's philosophy for human interaction into account is a mistake. His primary societal value seems to be what he calls Sympathy. Not selfishness or hard-core-noninterventionism.

Smith's economic ideas were very much those of most proponents of the "economic right" today.  Smith supported only retaliatory tariffs, for instance, and insisted that free trade was preferable in all other circumstances.  Smith favored government intervention in favor of the poor only insofar as it was eliminating "unnatural legislation" (or something to that effect).  He certainly was not in favor of a welfare state.

Smith's concept of  sympathy was that people provided it out of self-interest, not some external moral force.  People were happier, he said, when they did not have to see misery in others.

So, you may complain that Smith seems to support those with whom you disagree, but you cannot re-invent him as a supporter of your own views... at least, not and have any credibility in the effort.

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:49:59 PM
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?

Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2009, 10:12:34 PMHe 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 :wub:

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? :(

Quote from: Barrister on June 09, 2009, 04:05:06 PM
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... :lol:

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.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 10:55:08 PM
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.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 10:55:08 PM

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.

Quote from: Strix on June 09, 2009, 10:47:27 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2009, 03:49:59 PM
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.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2009, 10:11:32 PM
Here. From his link (I didn't realize the text was online.):

Quote from: Wealth of Nations
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:

QuoteThere 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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2009, 10:49:36 PM

Quote from: grumbler on June 09, 2009, 10:12:34 PMHe 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 :wub:

Really?

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 09, 2009, 10:49:36 PM
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.

:scots:

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 12:14:57 AM
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.

Quote from: Strix on June 10, 2009, 10:56:08 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 12:14:57 AM
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.

Quote

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?

Quote
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.

Quote
  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.

Quote
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"? :lmfao:

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.

Quote from: Strix on June 10, 2009, 10:56:08 AM
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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteEconomics 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!  :lol:

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. :(

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

Quote from: Faeelin on June 10, 2009, 12:45:36 PM
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. :wub:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 10, 2009, 04:43:28 AMReally?

Really what?

I don't know guys, but I think Massachusetts has you guys beat. The last three of our House Speakers have either been indicted or convicted of crimes, or of ethics charges. Though I'm not about to say that what you have going on in NY is anything better!   :huh:

Now if only the Red Sox can beat the Yankees this year!

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

It's clear that you do have a bias. Do you even know what Union I belong to? Can you name some Unions that you don't find objectionable?

Quote from: BerkutI 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?

Do you think of basic economics as "mystical"? I wonder because you're the only one referring to it in those terms. I pointed out that theory doesn't always work in practice. Nothing mystical about that concept.

I already pointed out in a previous thread discussing this that the free market in this case has failed and that NC was a prime example. You ignored that discussion because your bias against Unions prevented you from considering anything being discussed. Your only answer was that Unions=Non Free Market and your only attempt at evidence was vacancy/turnover rates which is not evidence because there are many factors which are related to them in relation to the job being discussed that have nothing to do with the free market.

Quote from: BerkutNot 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.

Do you even know the turnover/vacancy rate for public jobs in NY? Can you provide evidence to this fact of yours? And since we have no idea where you have worked or where you work now that statement is meaningless. You could be a short order cook at Charlie Brown's for all we know.

Quote from: BerkutWhat standards are those? Certainly it is the case that public secotr unions are rather different from private sector.

That's what I was asking you. Please answer the question. What standards do you apply and are they different?

Quote from: BerkutAnd you say *I* dismiss things that don't fit into my "closed mind"? :lmfao:

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.

I cannot control the government I work for beyond my single vote. I also cannot control the fact that my profession doesn't exist in the private sector. Therefore I have no choice but to work for either Federal or State government. I cannot control that NY is a union state that requires you pay union dues regardless of how you feel. So, I am unclear how having all these factors outside my control equates to sucking at the teat.

Than again, perhaps you're advocating that all criminals should be let free from prisons and supervision because no one is really bad they are just misunderstood, and letting them go won't hurt society. I am confused as to what you think will happen if the prisons and parole jobs are eliminated.

Shit, Strix just destroyed my argument by pointing out that I want to free criminals. Damn, I just cannot compete with that guy!

Okay, one more story which, if it turns out to be true, would be fucking awesome on so many levels.

http://www.cityhallnews.com/news/132/ARTICLE/1972/2009-06-09.html#

This is one hell of a news week. We have an old nazi asshat committing suicide by cop in the holocaust museum, some old granny getting tasered after daring the cop to do it, a guy in India cooks himself off on a train cable and now a Republican conspiracy to allow gays to marry.  :huh:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 10, 2009, 05:32:05 PM
This is one hell of a news week. We have an old nazi asshat committing suicide by cop in the holocaust museum, some old granny getting tasered after daring the cop to do it, a guy in India cooks himself off on a train cable and now a Republican conspiracy to allow gays to marry.  :huh:

Being cold blooded, it makes perfect sense. The strongest opponents of gay marriage in NY aren't people who are gonna be voting Republican anytime soon.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 10, 2009, 12:53:59 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 10, 2009, 04:43:28 AMReally?

Really what?

Tom Paine was in favor of a welfare state?

Quote from: Berkut on June 10, 2009, 01:25:30 PM
Shit, Strix just destroyed my argument by pointing out that I want to free criminals. Damn, I just cannot compete with that guy!

I think it was more your inability to give actual evidence and answer questions.  :lol:

Judge rules in favor of the Republicans.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/11/2009-06-11_judge_rules_against_democrats_in_albany_gop_holds_session_without_them.html

Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 11, 2009, 11:34:15 AM
Judge rules in favor of the Republicans.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/11/2009-06-11_judge_rules_against_democrats_in_albany_gop_holds_session_without_them.html

Yay!

I guess some courts are not yet above the purse strings of the GOP.

Quote from: Jaron on June 11, 2009, 02:56:39 PM
I guess some courts are not yet above the purse strings of the GOP.

Golisano has a very Dooney & Bourke!