Languish.org

Like the look of Scott Walker.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2015, 02:30:00 PM
Like the look of Scott Walker.

I like him too but it's so early yet, since there will be so many changes with these guys. He could wind up being at the bottom of the list after a while, but he seems a tough, savvy and confident politician and he's survived some bruising elections and recall votes in Wisconsin.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2015, 02:30:00 PM
Like the look of Scott Walker.

And to think, I had thought you actually possessed elements of being human.

Are you sure you're English, and not just some goofball Arizona Republican that got on the wrong plane somewhere as an infant?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 11, 2015, 02:46:18 PM
And to think, I had thought you actually possessed elements of being human.

Again, as in I think he looks like a strong candidate for the Republicans.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 11, 2015, 02:49:42 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 11, 2015, 02:46:18 PM
And to think, I had thought you actually possessed elements of being human.

Again, as in I think he looks like a strong candidate for the Republicans.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F41.media.tumblr.com%2Fb05f1707db3256cd66b738b31e668086%2Ftumblr_ndwxihvdnx1rdxu6co1_500.jpg&hash=f4d729f8b2f8b3049074da59ec28771012d9bbff)

I kind of agree with Shielbh.  Walker is about as vetted as you can be and has done some great things (from a GOP perspective) in Wisconsin.  He sure gave those union thugs a what-for.

What has Walker done that is so evil?  The robot, not the servant of the Empire.

Quote from: Habbaku on February 11, 2015, 03:21:04 PM
What has Walker done that is so evil?  The robot, not the servant of the Empire.

He once said the Green Bay Packers were only 'sort of' his favorite team.  Actually never mind he could never have been elected in Wisconsin if he said that.

Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2015, 03:17:19 PM
I kind of agree with Shielbh.  Walker is about as vetted as you can be and has done some great things (from a GOP perspective) in Wisconsin.

If I were a Democratic strategerist, Scott Walker would be my biggest worry getting any traction.
If I were a Republican strategerist, Jim Webb would be my biggest worry getting any traction. 

QuoteHe sure gave those union thugs a what-for.

:lol:

I have never thought of a teacher as a "thug".  Maybe he means that some of them were black. :hmm:

The main thing Walker has done is survive. That dude had the kitchen sink thrown at him and he's still around.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 11, 2015, 03:32:17 PM
Jim Webb

:wub:

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 03:35:39 PM
I have never thought of a teacher as a "thug".

You never met some of my gym teachers.

QuoteMaybe he means that some of them were black

LOL this is Wisconsin we are talking about here.

Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2015, 03:38:42 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 03:35:39 PM
I have never thought of a teacher as a "thug".

You never met some of my gym teachers.

QuoteMaybe he means that some of them were black

LOL this is Wisconsin we are talking about here.

Mexican, then?  :P

Quote from: Valmy on February 11, 2015, 03:38:42 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 03:35:39 PM
I have never thought of a teacher as a "thug".

You never met some of my gym teachers.

QuoteMaybe he means that some of them were black

LOL this is Wisconsin we are talking about here.

"Thug" has become the term in right wing circles for black person.  For instance President Obama is often described as a "thug".

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 05:34:40 PM
"Thug" has become the term in right wing circles for black person.

"Union Thug" is a completely different thing.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FW_w8Mgwdk5U%2F0.jpg&hash=5558bf2130404b3cf3737c3be1df3401637caf7b)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consumerwatchdog.org%2Fimages%2Fblog%2F4530210%2Fseiu.protest2.250.jpg&hash=04ccf3c90f36f197002de3bef2bd44523c68b11e)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.frontpagemag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Funion-thug.jpg&hash=a780796d69a7075bfe7c4819f178a9fc24728618)

QuoteFor instance President Obama is often described as a "thug".

Nah, he's Urkel.

Fox News, Obama Doctrine......... :lol:

Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2015, 05:41:04 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 11, 2015, 05:34:40 PM
"Thug" has become the term in right wing circles for black person.

"Union Thug" is a completely different thing.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FW_w8Mgwdk5U%2F0.jpg&hash=5558bf2130404b3cf3737c3be1df3401637caf7b)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.consumerwatchdog.org%2Fimages%2Fblog%2F4530210%2Fseiu.protest2.250.jpg&hash=04ccf3c90f36f197002de3bef2bd44523c68b11e)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.frontpagemag.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Funion-thug.jpg&hash=a780796d69a7075bfe7c4819f178a9fc24728618)

QuoteFor instance President Obama is often described as a "thug".

Nah, he's Urkel.

Oh, like the Protestant Irish?  I don't think any of the members of the Teacher's union Anti-catholic murderers.

Most teacher's unions are anti-catholic. They don't like the competition.  :P

I do remember Scott Walker's henchmen suggesting they stir up trouble and then blame it on the Unions.

QuoteCarlos Lam, a Republican activist and Indiana deputy prosecutor, has resigned amid revelations that he sent an email calling for a fake attack on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker designed to discredit union protesters.

Walker, a Republican, was the target of protests for his efforts to roll back many union collective bargaining rights in his state. In a Feb. 19 email uncovered by the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Lam apparently told Walker he had a "good opportunity" to win public sympathy with a "'false flag' operation."

"If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions," read the email. It went on to say that the effort "would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions."

Lam initially denied having sent the email, which The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (WCIJ) discovered "among tens of thousands" released in conjunction with an open-records lawsuit settlement. He told WCIJ he had been shopping for a minivan with his family when it was sent, and suggested his email account had been infiltrated by his political enemies.

"I am flabbergasted and would never advocate for something like this, and would like everyone to be sure that that's just not me," he said when read the email over the phone Tuesday. He added, speaking of the call for a fake attack on Walker, "jeez, that's taking it a little bit to the extreme. Jeez!"

Lam resigned as deputy prosecutor on Thursday morning, however, reportedly telling his boss he had indeed sent the email.

Last month, another Indiana official -- Deputy Attorney General Jeff Cox - lost his job for calling on law enforcement to "use live ammunition" on Wisconsin protesters.

Also in February, Walker was the victim of a prank call by a liberal journalistpretending to be billionaire conservative activist David Koch. When the journalist suggested planting people among the protesters to stir up trouble, Walker responded that "we thought about that" but added that he had decided against it.

"My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused is that that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has gotta settle to avoid all these problems," Walker said on the call, which was secretly recorded and released on the internet.

Walker press secretary Cullen Werwie told WCIJ that Walker's office did not see Lam's email and said no one had contacted him.

"Certainly we do not support the actions suggested in (the) email. Governor Walker has said time and again that the protesters have every right to have their voice heard, and for the most part the protests have been peaceful. We are hopeful that the tradition will continue," said Werwie.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 11, 2015, 03:32:17 PM
Jim Webb

:wub:

Quote from: derspiess on February 11, 2015, 03:17:19 PM
I kind of agree with Shielbh.  Walker is about as vetted as you can be and has done some great things (from a GOP perspective) in Wisconsin.  He sure gave those union thugs a what-for.

I think you'd agree with me a lot on GOP/righty politics in general :blush: :P

QuoteIf I were a Republican strategerist, Jim Webb would be my biggest worry getting any traction. 

Yep and :mmm: :wub:

If I were a young politically minded American I'd volunteer for Webb. At least until Biden strips down and gets into the ring :w00t:

Coming from a state like Massachusetts where we have such corrupt, expensive, and inefficient government, scandal ridden as well (going through a few scandals now), I like Walker's approach to try and root out some of the mess and problems and save tax money in the process.

KRonn, you say that like there is some kind of implied connection between powerful public sector unions and corruption.

That is just silly talk.

How does one explain corruption in states without these nefarious and fiendish "public sector unions", then?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 11:25:18 AM
How does one explain corruption in states without these nefarious and fiendish "public sector unions", then?

Louisiana going to Louisiana.

Quote from: KRonn on February 12, 2015, 11:04:11 AM
Coming from a state like Massachusetts where we have such corrupt, expensive, and inefficient government, scandal ridden as well (going through a few scandals now), I like Walker's approach to try and root out some of the mess and problems and save tax money in the process.

Your assumption is that Walker is trying to root out corruption, rather than replace union thugs with corporatist thugs.  I'm not sure why you would go with such a questionable assumption.  :hmm:

Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2015, 11:26:11 AM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 11:25:18 AM
How does one explain corruption in states without these nefarious and fiendish "public sector unions", then?

Louisiana going to Louisiana.

Somehow the feds missed the whole "public sector union" connection in their prosecution of Governor McDonnell of Virginia, and how teachers (probably black ones, no less) forced him to take all those gifts from Mr. Vitamin Guy. 

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 11:19:49 AM
KRonn, you say that like there is some kind of implied connection between powerful public sector unions and corruption.

That is just silly talk.

Really, what was I thinking. But that's just part of it. Unions are ok but they could use reforms, which is what I praise Walker for doing. Much of the corruption in MA is apart from the unions - it's the leaders and management and legislators.

Mass's latest scandal is its head of the  MBTA, who just resigned after the abysmal showing of the mass transit system during this winter. That's aside from numerous other major issues at the MBTA. Before that we had DFS problems with so many kids dying or not able to be found, plus other problems. Before that we had the Parole board scandals which landed a few people in jail. Our current Speaker is an un-indicted co-conspirator in those scandals. He's also the one who had put through term limits on the Speaker position after the previous three were either jailed or ousted and fined by the Feds, one losing his law license. Now this Speaker rammed through a change to his term limits so he could be Speaker for life. Also at the same time tried to push through a 70k pay hike for legislators but which had to be shelved as citizens actually finally spoke out against it. This was all just this past week or two when most of us were worrying about the glacial winter. Then we had massive problems at Welfare. The State's Inspector General and State Auditor in two separate investigations found so much fraud, waste and abuse that the director had to resign, and Dems and Repubs called for reform, though I don't think they reformed too much once things quieted down.

All these in just the last few years. There's more but you get the general idea. And Mass probably isn't the most corrupt state compared to states like New York and Rhode Island, but that's probably a distinction without a difference.

Oh, boy another Union bashing episode.

Public sector unions are bargaining against the taxpayer.
Highly immoral.

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 02:26:59 PM
Public sector unions are bargaining against the taxpayer.
Highly immoral.

It would be best for the taxpayer if the public sector employees worked for free.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 02:26:59 PM
Public sector unions are bargaining against the taxpayer.
Highly immoral.

It would be best for the taxpayer if the public sector employees worked for free.

Don't ridiculize my point by taking it to the other extreme.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 02:30:12 PM
It would be best for the taxpayer if the public sector employees worked for free.

It might, but since they won't, we should aim for the next best outcome.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 02:30:12 PM

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 02:26:59 PM
Public sector unions are bargaining against the taxpayer.
Highly immoral.

It would be best for the taxpayer if the public sector employees worked for free.

No, actually it would not, since presumably they are actually doing valuable work, and people who work for free rarely work very hard or competently.

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 02:34:35 PM
Don't ridiculize my point by taking it to the other extreme.

When someone is hired for any position, isn't there implicitly a bargain going on between the employer and the employee?  "We'll pay you so much for this work."  How is bargaining automatically immoral?

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 02:37:33 PM
No, actually it would not, since presumably they are actually doing valuable work, and people who work for free rarely work very hard or competently.

That's true, but since bargaining with taxpayers is immoral I don't see any other way to restore morality to government.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
When someone is hired for any position, isn't there implicitly a bargain going on between the employer and the employee?  "We'll pay you so much for this work."  How is bargaining automatically immoral?

Bargaining is not inherently immoral.  What is inherently immoral is bribing the people who have been elected to bargain on behalf of the general population.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 02:41:15 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 02:38:39 PM
When someone is hired for any position, isn't there implicitly a bargain going on between the employer and the employee?  "We'll pay you so much for this work."  How is bargaining automatically immoral?

Bargaining is not inherently immoral.  What is inherently immoral is bribing the people who have been elected to bargain on behalf of the general population.

Sounds to me like it's the bribing part that's a problem, not the bargaining part then.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 02:43:00 PM
Sounds to me like it's the bribing part that's a problem, not the bargaining part then.

Out of the bribing flows the closed shop, which is a also a problem.

If one teacher says i'll take this job but you can't fire me if I suck, that's fine.  You don't hire them.  If a bunch of teachers say that it's still fine.  If a teachers union says that, and you're not allowed to hire a nonunion teacher, that can be a problem.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 02:47:40 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 02:43:00 PM
Sounds to me like it's the bribing part that's a problem, not the bargaining part then.

Out of the bribing flows the closed shop, which is a also a problem.

If one teacher says i'll take this job but you can't fire me if I suck, that's fine.  You don't hire them.  If a bunch of teachers say that it's still fine.  If a teachers union says that, and you're not allowed to hire a nonunion teacher, that can be a problem.

We're probably not going to see eye to eye on closed shop. I concede that it can be problematic in certain contexts, but I don't have a philosophical problem with the concept.

Bribing is bad, agreed.

Bargaining is fine, I believe we agree on that too.

Closed shop... I agree with "it can be a problem" but I suspect we may draw lines for that in very different places.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 02:47:40 PM

Out of the bribing flows the closed shop, which is a also a problem.

I think we can all agree that bribery is a problem, closed shop can be a problem.  Both of these are far from bargaining being the problem.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 03:08:13 PM
I think we can all agree that bribery is a problem, closed shop can be a problem.

I'm quite sure a number of posters would write these off as GOP spin.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:10:19 PM
I'm quite sure a number of posters would write these off as GOP spin.

Bribery being bad is spin, or are you talking about specific instances of bribery?

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 03:11:36 PM
Bribery being bad is spin, or are you talking about specific instances of bribery?

To be clear, by bribery I mean campaign contributions.

And I'm positive that many posters will not agree that a closed shop is bad.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 02:47:40 PM
If one teacher says i'll take this job but you can't fire me if I suck, that's fine.  You don't hire them.  If a bunch of teachers say that it's still fine.  If a teachers union says that, and you're not allowed to hire a nonunion teacher, that can be a problem.

Yeah, it's always the teachers.  Or the nurses.  Or the laborers.  It's never the cops or the firefighters or anybody else who traditionally votes conservative as a bloc.   Amazing how that shit works. 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:17:11 PM
Yeah, it's always the teachers.  Or the nurses.  Or the laborers.  It's never the cops or the firefighters or anybody else who traditionally votes conservative as a bloc.   Amazing how that shit works.

Therefore what?  They both suck, or they're both great, or you only dislike Republican unions?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:17:11 PM
Yeah, it's always the teachers.  Or the nurses.  Or the laborers.  It's never the cops or the firefighters or anybody else who traditionally votes conservative as a bloc.   Amazing how that shit works.

Therefore what?  They both suck, or they're both great, or you only dislike Republican unions?

If we're going to make efforts to eliminate unions, then eliminate them all--not just the ones with negros and women in them.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:14:49 PM

To be clear, by bribery I mean campaign contributions.

And I'm positive that many posters will not agree that a closed shop is bad.

I agree that campaign contributions by non-citizens are bribery, and should be stopped.  Closed shop is a more contentious issue.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:24:44 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:17:11 PM
Yeah, it's always the teachers.  Or the nurses.  Or the laborers.  It's never the cops or the firefighters or anybody else who traditionally votes conservative as a bloc.   Amazing how that shit works.

Therefore what?  They both suck, or they're both great, or you only dislike Republican unions?

If we're going to make efforts to eliminate unions, then eliminate them all--not just the ones with negros and women in them.

In a shocking turn of events, Seedy plays the race card in a discussion that previously had nothing to do with race until he joined.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:14:49 PM
To be clear, by bribery I mean campaign contributions.

Thanks for clarifying. How do you feel about corporations and private citizens with great wealth (and relevant legal and financial interests) giving campaign contributions with the expectation of being able to influence policy? Is that bad also, or is it only bad when unions do it?

QuoteAnd I'm positive that many posters will not agree that a closed shop is bad.

Like me. There's a big distance between "it can be a problem" to "it's bad."

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:24:44 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:17:11 PM
Yeah, it's always the teachers.  Or the nurses.  Or the laborers.  It's never the cops or the firefighters or anybody else who traditionally votes conservative as a bloc.   Amazing how that shit works.

Therefore what?  They both suck, or they're both great, or you only dislike Republican unions?

If we're going to make efforts to eliminate unions, then eliminate them all--not just the ones with negros and women in them.

This is a great idea. Unions have outlived their ufulness.
They were pivotal in reaching today's working conditions, but have degenerate in a pool of corruption.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 03:40:12 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:14:49 PM
To be clear, by bribery I mean campaign contributions.

Thanks for clarifying. How do you feel about corporations and private citizens with great wealth (and relevant legal and financial interests) giving campaign contributions with the expectation of being able to influence policy? Is that bad also, or is it only bad when unions do it?

QuoteAnd I'm positive that many posters will not agree that a closed shop is bad.

Like me. There's a big distance between "it can be a problem" to "it's bad."

Its only bad when unions do it.
Unions do not create taxable wealth or employment.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 03:40:12 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:14:49 PM
To be clear, by bribery I mean campaign contributions.

Thanks for clarifying. How do you feel about corporations and private citizens with great wealth (and relevant legal and financial interests) giving campaign contributions with the expectation of being able to influence policy? Is that bad also, or is it only bad when unions do it?

I don't think it is bad per se, but it is certainly problematic in the manner it is happening today.

However, the issue with public sector unions is not the same thing at all. They are a special case since there is such a obvious "quid pro quo" in that the very people responsible for negotiating the employment agreement with the public sector unions are in fact the exact same people who are getting elected (and largely beholden to these powerful public sector unions), so there is a problematic and significant conflict of interest. And the results pretty much speak for themselves. States with large and powerful public sector unions get into a position where it is nearly impossible to be elected without the support of those unions, and the price for that support is a abandonment of any actual attempt to rationally negotiate on behalf of the non-union citizens when it comes to labor agreements.

You don't get any actual effective resistance then until the state becomes nearly bankrupt trying to service the ridiculously over market priced benefits given to those union members.

I am with you on the need to deal with the fact that now we have a "democracy" where the politicians are only tangentially (if at all) beholden to those who elect them (as opposed to those who fund them), but that is a very different issue.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:24:44 PM
If we're going to make efforts to eliminate unions, then eliminate them all--not just the ones with negros and women in them.

I've got no problem with this.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 03:36:39 PM
In a shocking turn of events, Seedy plays the race card in a discussion that previously had nothing to do with race until he joined.

In a shocking turn of events, Berkut does his White Guy's Rolleyes "only racists bring up race!" shtick.

Teaching and nursing are professions heavily weighed by gender and race, while public sector government is the largest employer of the African American workforce after health and education.  And why?  Because these sectors were the first and best defenses from discrimination in hiring practices.   Funny how these are the same ones that Scott Walker, the GOP and union-haters are targeting for elimination.  It's all about race and gender, asshole.

So go fuck yourself you nasty fuck, you piece of shit Employer Rights assfuck cocksucker.  You fucking hate unions so fucking much, eliminate the cops and firefighters unions, too.  You know, the ones that vote GOP.

Ii don't see why there is any real distinction between corporation and public (or private for that matter) union campaign contribution.  They both expect obvious and clear quid pro quo for their contribution, and it erodes the ability of citizens to influence their politicians.  Do you think an oil company is making a political contribution because they like the politician's stand on non-oil related items?  The big difference between the two is that in the past unions were the big contributors but that isn't nearly as true now.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:51:56 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:24:44 PM
If we're going to make efforts to eliminate unions, then eliminate them all--not just the ones with negros and women in them.

I've got no problem with this.

Eliminate the concept of corporations as well.  Then we're all back to a level playing field, circa 1601.

I just had a great idea to reform democracy.
Actually, several ideas.
I'm fucking brilliant!

1- Only people that is not on welfare can vote. Accepting goverment welfare means forfeiting your right to vote for as long as your are on the dole. This eliminate buying votes with welfare, so poor people stop selling their votes to whoever promise them mo' money.

2- People can own several votes depending on wealth. So if we agree a poor persone not on welfare is worth 100,000, a person who's wealth is worth 1 million can vote 10 times, or cast 10 different votes, and so on. This will means that people who create the most wealth and contribute the most in taxes gets to bigger voice in how to run the nation.

3- Instead of basing the number of vote in the amount of owned wealth, base the number of votes in the ammount of money contributed to the state. This way the people that pays the most taxes get a bigger voice.


I am a fucking genious, and Jacob is going to have a heart attack! :lol:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:58:49 PM
Eliminate the concept of corporations as well.  Then we're all back to a level playing field, circa 1601.

Stupid Dutch East India Company.

Yeah, the elected politicians are involved in the negotiations the working conditions with public sector unions that may have contributed to their election.

But they're also involved in the setting up of legislation governing the businesses that may have contributed to their election, or the individuals who have extensive commercial interests that legislation can impact.

I don't really see how the employer-employee relationship is more egregious than any of the other ones.

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 03:59:16 PM
I just had a great idea to reform democracy.
Actually, several ideas.
I'm fucking brilliant!

1- Only people that is not on welfare can vote. Accepting goverment welfare means forfeiting your right to vote for as long as your are on the dole. This eliminate buying votes with welfare, so poor people stop selling their votes to whoever promise them mo' money.

2- People can own several votes depending on wealth. So if we agree a poor persone not on welfare is worth 100,000, a person who's wealth is worth 1 million can vote 10 times, or cast 10 different votes, and so on. This will means that people who create the most wealth and contribute the most in taxes gets to bigger voice in how to run the nation.

3- Instead of basing the number of vote in the amount of owned wealth, base the number of votes in the ammount of money contributed to the state. This way the people that pays the most taxes get a bigger voice.


I am a fucking genious, and Jacob is going to have a heart attack! :lol:

I think we already tried this plan back in 1788.  Alexander Hamilton approves.

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 03:59:16 PM
I just had a great idea to reform democracy.
Actually, several ideas.
I'm fucking brilliant!

1- Only people that is not on welfare can vote. Accepting goverment welfare means forfeiting your right to vote for as long as your are on the dole. This eliminate buying votes with welfare, so poor people stop selling their votes to whoever promise them mo' money.

2- People can own several votes depending on wealth. So if we agree a poor persone not on welfare is worth 100,000, a person who's wealth is worth 1 million can vote 10 times, or cast 10 different votes, and so on. This will means that people who create the most wealth and contribute the most in taxes gets to bigger voice in how to run the nation.

3- Instead of basing the number of vote in the amount of owned wealth, base the number of votes in the ammount of money contributed to the state. This way the people that pays the most taxes get a bigger voice.


I am a fucking genious, and Jacob is going to have a heart attack! :lol:

Bill Gates, Dictator for life of Washington State!

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 03:59:16 PM
I just had a great idea to reform democracy.
Actually, several ideas.
I'm fucking brilliant!

1- Only people that is not on welfare can vote. Accepting goverment welfare means forfeiting your right to vote for as long as your are on the dole. This eliminate buying votes with welfare, so poor people stop selling their votes to whoever promise them mo' money.

2- People can own several votes depending on wealth. So if we agree a poor persone not on welfare is worth 100,000, a person who's wealth is worth 1 million can vote 10 times, or cast 10 different votes, and so on. This will means that people who create the most wealth and contribute the most in taxes gets to bigger voice in how to run the nation.

3- Instead of basing the number of vote in the amount of owned wealth, base the number of votes in the ammount of money contributed to the state. This way the people that pays the most taxes get a bigger voice.


I am a fucking genious, and Jacob is going to have a heart attack! :lol:

So you want to make it so rich people can buy influence directly and legally. They'll then create a regulatory environment that benefits them, so they'll get richer (and can buy more influence) while the poor stay poor or get poorer (with no way to influence their conditions).

That's what you call genius?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:54:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 03:36:39 PM
In a shocking turn of events, Seedy plays the race card in a discussion that previously had nothing to do with race until he joined.

In a shocking turn of events, Berkut does his White Guy's Rolleyes "only racists bring up race!" shtick.

Teaching and nursing are professions heavily weighed by gender and race, while public sector government is the largest employer of the African American workforce after health and education.  And why?  Because these sectors were the first and best defenses from discrimination in hiring practices.   Funny how these are the same ones that Scott Walker, the GOP and union-haters are targeting for elimination.  It's all about race and gender, asshole.

So go fuck yourself you nasty fuck, you piece of shit Employer Rights assfuck cocksucker.  You fucking hate unions so fucking much, eliminate the cops and firefighters unions, too.  You know, the ones that vote GOP.

Perfectly happy eliminating them as well. The race distinction is 100% yours, not mine.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:02:33 PM

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 03:59:16 PM
I just had a great idea to reform democracy.
Actually, several ideas.
I'm fucking brilliant!

1- Only people that is not on welfare can vote. Accepting goverment welfare means forfeiting your right to vote for as long as your are on the dole. This eliminate buying votes with welfare, so poor people stop selling their votes to whoever promise them mo' money.

2- People can own several votes depending on wealth. So if we agree a poor persone not on welfare is worth 100,000, a person who's wealth is worth 1 million can vote 10 times, or cast 10 different votes, and so on. This will means that people who create the most wealth and contribute the most in taxes gets to bigger voice in how to run the nation.

3- Instead of basing the number of vote in the amount of owned wealth, base the number of votes in the ammount of money contributed to the state. This way the people that pays the most taxes get a bigger voice.


I am a fucking genious, and Jacob is going to have a heart attack! :lol:

Bill Gates, Dictator for life of Washington State!

Oh, he is a damm liberal!

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 04:03:35 PM
So you want to make it so rich people can buy influence directly and legally. They'll then create a regulatory environment that benefits them, so they'll get richer (and can buy more influence) while the poor stay poor or get poorer (with no way to influence their conditions).

That's what you call genius?

That's different.  Rich people deserve public money since they create jobs and stuff.

Though we keep getting richer and richer rich people and they are not creating richer and richer jobs for us to do.  Jerks.

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 04:04:28 PM
Oh, he is a damm liberal!

Is he?  Damn liberals can succeed in business.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 04:00:18 PM
Yeah, the elected politicians are involved in the negotiations the working conditions with public sector unions that may have contributed to their election.

But they're also involved in the setting up of legislation governing the businesses that may have contributed to their election, or the individuals who have extensive commercial interests that legislation can impact.

I don't really see how the employer-employee relationship is more egregious than any of the other ones.

The results speak for themselves.

Trying to throw in other problems seems dishonest to me - like we cannot try to solve problem A, because problem B exists. And we can't solve B because of C, etc., etc., etc.

So let's just not do anything about anything.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 03:22:01 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 03:17:11 PM
Yeah, it's always the teachers.  Or the nurses.  Or the laborers.  It's never the cops or the firefighters or anybody else who traditionally votes conservative as a bloc.   Amazing how that shit works.

Therefore what?  They both suck, or they're both great, or you only dislike Republican unions?

Therefore the arguments against unions get downgraded to pretexts.  Enforcement is legitimate only when it is not selective.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 03:57:21 PM
Ii don't see why there is any real distinction between corporation and public (or private for that matter) union campaign contribution.  They both expect obvious and clear quid pro quo for their contribution, and it erodes the ability of citizens to influence their politicians.  Do you think an oil company is making a political contribution because they like the politician's stand on non-oil related items?  The big difference between the two is that in the past unions were the big contributors but that isn't nearly as true now.

I would agree if the only type of corporate lobbying were over the price of an F-35.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 04:03:35 PM

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 03:59:16 PM
I just had a great idea to reform democracy.
Actually, several ideas.
I'm fucking brilliant!

1- Only people that is not on welfare can vote. Accepting goverment welfare means forfeiting your right to vote for as long as your are on the dole. This eliminate buying votes with welfare, so poor people stop selling their votes to whoever promise them mo' money.

2- People can own several votes depending on wealth. So if we agree a poor persone not on welfare is worth 100,000, a person who's wealth is worth 1 million can vote 10 times, or cast 10 different votes, and so on. This will means that people who create the most wealth and contribute the most in taxes gets to bigger voice in how to run the nation.

3- Instead of basing the number of vote in the amount of owned wealth, base the number of votes in the ammount of money contributed to the state. This way the people that pays the most taxes get a bigger voice.


I am a fucking genious, and Jacob is going to have a heart attack! :lol:

So you want to make it so rich people can buy influence directly and legally. They'll then create a regulatory environment that benefits them, so they'll get richer (and can buy more influence) while the poor stay poor or get poorer (with no way to influence their conditions).

That's what you call genius?

When you put it that way...
I see your point. Dictatorship of the rich is as bad as the dictatorship of the poor.
How can we limit the damage that buying votes with welfare creates, the route to Greece, without falling under a financial oligarchy.

The only claim that it is selective has been made by Seedy though - nobody arguing against public sector unions has actually made the distinction Seedy as invented.

I don't think anyone has said these problems only apply to Seedys raceions.

Quote from: Siege on February 12, 2015, 04:07:47 PM
How can we limit the damage that buying votes with welfare creates, the route to Greece, without falling under a financial oligarchy.

Get people off welfare.

Of course I don't think welfare recipients vote in large numbers.  The elderly, with their social security and so forth, do vote and you better not touch their benefits.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 03:47:58 PM
However, the issue with public sector unions is not the same thing at all. They are a special case since there is such a obvious "quid pro quo" in that the very people responsible for negotiating the employment agreement with the public sector unions are in fact the exact same people who are getting elected (and largely beholden to these powerful public sector unions), so there is a problematic and significant conflict of interest. And the results pretty much speak for themselves. States with large and powerful public sector unions get into a position where it is nearly impossible to be elected without the support of those unions, and the price for that support is a abandonment of any actual attempt to rationally negotiate on behalf of the non-union citizens when it comes to labor agreements.

How is such a conflict of interest any different from, say, easing regulations affecting your corporate campaign donors?

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:06:04 PM
The results speak for themselves.

Trying to throw in other problems seems dishonest to me - like we cannot try to solve problem A, because problem B exists. And we can't solve B because of C, etc., etc., etc.

So let's just not do anything about anything.

Well... yeah, the results do speak for themselves. The thing is, there are places where there are public sector unions with little corruption and those results speak for themselves as well.

In my personal view, the private and corporate influence on politics in the US appears to foster plenty of corruption as well.

Thus I conclude that the problem in the US is campaign finance rather than public sector unions per se. Public sector unions are, I'm sure, part of a messed up system, but the messed up thing is that giving money to politicians with the expectation of political quid pro quo is an overt and expected part of the process in the US.

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:09:50 PM
How is such a conflict of interest any different from, say, easing regulations affecting your corporate campaign donors?

It is not different at all.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:08:36 PM
The only claim that it is selective has been made by Seedy though - nobody arguing against public sector unions has actually made the distinction Seedy as invented.

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:07:24 PM
I would agree if the only type of corporate lobbying were over the price of an F-35.

I didn't mention corporate lobbying, just campaign contributions.  That is another can of worms.

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:11:40 PM
:huh: Scott Walker did.  Well, he didn't argue it, he just did it.

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

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:13:11 PM
I didn't mention corporate lobbying, just campaign contributions.  That is another can of worms.

Their impossible to separate in my mind.  Substitute contributions if you like.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:17:04 PM
Their impossible to separate in my mind.  Substitute contributions if you like.

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

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:09:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 03:47:58 PM
However, the issue with public sector unions is not the same thing at all. They are a special case since there is such a obvious "quid pro quo" in that the very people responsible for negotiating the employment agreement with the public sector unions are in fact the exact same people who are getting elected (and largely beholden to these powerful public sector unions), so there is a problematic and significant conflict of interest. And the results pretty much speak for themselves. States with large and powerful public sector unions get into a position where it is nearly impossible to be elected without the support of those unions, and the price for that support is a abandonment of any actual attempt to rationally negotiate on behalf of the non-union citizens when it comes to labor agreements.

How is such a conflict of interest any different from, say, easing regulations affecting your corporate campaign donors?

I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit. Whether it is the same or different isn't relevant to the point that public sector unions are a perversion of market economies combined with democratic principles. If in fact there are other problems that need to be addressed, then fine, those other problems ought to be addressed as well. And like I've said (and you've studiously ignored) I am fully supportive of attempts to reduce the influence of money in politics. I am perfectly consistent on these issues.

Public sector unions have been terrible for states where they have become powerful, and are clearly distortions of the labor market.

Whether or not the entiore scope of the rest of politics works perfectly has no bearing on this issue.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
So what is different about F-35s and anything else a corporation might want from a government?

Because other things like the regulatory environment don't involve a pure transfer of wealth to the corporation.  Just to take one example, more stringent pollution regulations impact employment, investment, energy prices, etc.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:23:01 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:09:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 03:47:58 PM
However, the issue with public sector unions is not the same thing at all. They are a special case since there is such a obvious "quid pro quo" in that the very people responsible for negotiating the employment agreement with the public sector unions are in fact the exact same people who are getting elected (and largely beholden to these powerful public sector unions), so there is a problematic and significant conflict of interest. And the results pretty much speak for themselves. States with large and powerful public sector unions get into a position where it is nearly impossible to be elected without the support of those unions, and the price for that support is a abandonment of any actual attempt to rationally negotiate on behalf of the non-union citizens when it comes to labor agreements.

How is such a conflict of interest any different from, say, easing regulations affecting your corporate campaign donors?

I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit. Whether it is the same or different isn't relevant to the point that public sector unions are a perversion of market economies combined with democratic principles. If in fact there are other problems that need to be addressed, then fine, those other problems ought to be addressed as well. And like I've said (and you've studiously ignored) I am fully supportive of attempts to reduce the influence of money in politics. I am perfectly consistent on these issues.

Public sector unions have been terrible for states where they have become powerful, and are clearly distortions of the labor market.

Whether or not the entiore scope of the rest of politics works perfectly has no bearing on this issue.

I was just trying to see what exactly is so special about public employee unions that isn't so special about other forms of influence.  I don't know whether their sameness or lack of it is relevant or not, but I am trying to understand why you made such a distinction.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 04:10:03 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:06:04 PM
The results speak for themselves.

Trying to throw in other problems seems dishonest to me - like we cannot try to solve problem A, because problem B exists. And we can't solve B because of C, etc., etc., etc.

So let's just not do anything about anything.

Well... yeah, the results do speak for themselves. The thing is, there are places where there are public sector unions with little corruption and those results speak for themselves as well.

In my personal view, the private and corporate influence on politics in the US appears to foster plenty of corruption as well.

Thus I conclude that the problem in the US is campaign finance rather than public sector unions per se. Public sector unions are, I'm sure, part of a messed up system, but the messed up thing is that giving money to politicians with the expectation of political quid pro quo is an overt and expected part of the process in the US.

Public sector union are not even about money, necessarily - they are voting blocs as well, and even absent the money, it is fucked up that people are basically selling their votes in return for more money in their paycheck. At least, it is fucked up for everyone who is not in the union.

Those are the results I am talking about - how some segment of the population basically is agreeing to vote into power people who will agree to siphon money from another segment to them in return for their votes in a perversion of the labor market.

And there is no actual problem that these unions are needed to address, other than the problem of public employees wanting much more money than they could get in a fair labor market. It isn't like there has ever been any evidence that public employees are somehow unfairly dealt with by their bosses or exploited in some fashion.

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:26:09 PM
I was just trying to see what exactly is so special about public employee unions that isn't so special about other forms of influence.  I don't know whether their sameness or lack of it is relevant or not, but I am trying to understand why you made such a distinction.

Well corrupt public employee unions impacts services people rely on and really impacts local governments. Corruption in Northrup Grumman is not quite so direct.

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:26:09 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:23:01 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:09:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 03:47:58 PM
However, the issue with public sector unions is not the same thing at all. They are a special case since there is such a obvious "quid pro quo" in that the very people responsible for negotiating the employment agreement with the public sector unions are in fact the exact same people who are getting elected (and largely beholden to these powerful public sector unions), so there is a problematic and significant conflict of interest. And the results pretty much speak for themselves. States with large and powerful public sector unions get into a position where it is nearly impossible to be elected without the support of those unions, and the price for that support is a abandonment of any actual attempt to rationally negotiate on behalf of the non-union citizens when it comes to labor agreements.

How is such a conflict of interest any different from, say, easing regulations affecting your corporate campaign donors?

I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit. Whether it is the same or different isn't relevant to the point that public sector unions are a perversion of market economies combined with democratic principles. If in fact there are other problems that need to be addressed, then fine, those other problems ought to be addressed as well. And like I've said (and you've studiously ignored) I am fully supportive of attempts to reduce the influence of money in politics. I am perfectly consistent on these issues.

Public sector unions have been terrible for states where they have become powerful, and are clearly distortions of the labor market.

Whether or not the entiore scope of the rest of politics works perfectly has no bearing on this issue.

I was just trying to see what exactly is so special about public employee unions that isn't so special about other forms of influence.  I don't know whether their sameness or lack of it is relevant or not, but I am trying to understand why you made such a distinction.

The problem here is that I've made no such distinction, and it is bizarre that you keep insisting that I have. Kind of suggests that perhaps your motives are not really about the distinction at all.

I've said it like five times now - I fully support efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. In fact, overall, I think it is a much more dangerous (and topically relevant) issue than public sector unions.

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:11:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:08:36 PM
The only claim that it is selective has been made by Seedy though - nobody arguing against public sector unions has actually made the distinction Seedy as invented.

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

So?

What a shock, a politician took action on the issue that he cares about, and not on the issues he doesn't care about.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:25:20 PM
Because other things like the regulatory environment don't involve a pure transfer of wealth to the corporation.  Just to take one example, more stringent pollution regulations impact employment, investment, energy prices, etc.

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

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:32:27 PM
I'm still not seeing the difference.  Does it really matter if lobbying/contributions will get a company X dollars more through a better price for an F-35 or through changed taxation/regulation, when that taxation/regulation change would cost the government just as much as the F-35?  If there is a difference, which is the superior form of lobbying/contribution?

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

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:23:01 PM
I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:16:19 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:11:40 PM
:huh: Scott Walker did.  Well, he didn't argue it, he just did it.

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

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:35:17 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:32:27 PM
I'm still not seeing the difference.  Does it really matter if lobbying/contributions will get a company X dollars more through a better price for an F-35 or through changed taxation/regulation, when that taxation/regulation change would cost the government just as much as the F-35?  If there is a difference, which is the superior form of lobbying/contribution?

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

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:36:00 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:23:01 PM
I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:25:20 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
So what is different about F-35s and anything else a corporation might want from a government?

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

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

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

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:38:56 PM

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

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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:35:17 PM
Well yeah, I think there's a huge difference between saying give me more of your money and saying don't take as much of my money.

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

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 04:38:48 PM
Yes, let's all race to the bottom.  It's only fair, after all: if the private sector has been so successful in eroding benefits, eliminating pensions and suppressing wages of the American worker, then it's only right that the government does it to their employees, too.  God bless America.

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:40:42 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:25:20 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
So what is different about F-35s and anything else a corporation might want from a government?

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

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

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

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:40:42 PM

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

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

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

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

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 04:43:22 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:40:42 PM

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

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

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

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 04:40:59 PM
You get to keep the dollar saved regardless of the tax rate.  :lol:

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:36:00 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote


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

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

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

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:40:42 PM
Of course they do.  If the fund managers get to treat carried interest as capital gains and then get cuts in capital gain taxes, it is a transfer of wealth.  If the oil cos get depletion allowances it is a transfer of wealth.  If Defense Co A gets congress to override the Pentagon and fund their pet project it is a transfer of wealth.

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

No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:51:28 PM
Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Which another person would do anyway if they were given the money or never had it taken from them.

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:51:28 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:29:02 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:26:09 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:23:01 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 12, 2015, 04:09:50 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 03:47:58 PM
However, the issue with public sector unions is not the same thing at all. They are a special case since there is such a obvious "quid pro quo" in that the very people responsible for negotiating the employment agreement with the public sector unions are in fact the exact same people who are getting elected (and largely beholden to these powerful public sector unions), so there is a problematic and significant conflict of interest. And the results pretty much speak for themselves. States with large and powerful public sector unions get into a position where it is nearly impossible to be elected without the support of those unions, and the price for that support is a abandonment of any actual attempt to rationally negotiate on behalf of the non-union citizens when it comes to labor agreements.

How is such a conflict of interest any different from, say, easing regulations affecting your corporate campaign donors?

I think conflating the two is frankly bullshit. Whether it is the same or different isn't relevant to the point that public sector unions are a perversion of market economies combined with democratic principles. If in fact there are other problems that need to be addressed, then fine, those other problems ought to be addressed as well. And like I've said (and you've studiously ignored) I am fully supportive of attempts to reduce the influence of money in politics. I am perfectly consistent on these issues.

Public sector unions have been terrible for states where they have become powerful, and are clearly distortions of the labor market.

Whether or not the entiore scope of the rest of politics works perfectly has no bearing on this issue.

I was just trying to see what exactly is so special about public employee unions that isn't so special about other forms of influence.  I don't know whether their sameness or lack of it is relevant or not, but I am trying to understand why you made such a distinction.

The problem here is that I've made no such distinction, and it is bizarre that you keep insisting that I have. Kind of suggests that perhaps your motives are not really about the distinction at all.

I've said it like five times now - I fully support efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. In fact, overall, I think it is a much more dangerous (and topically relevant) issue than public sector unions.

You should really stop questioning my motivation.  You've been 0:100+ so far in our Languish history, and you're not getting any more insightful.

I even bolded the part of the quote I was referring to, so it really is bizarre for you to claim that you didn't make that distinction.  I'm not going to question your motivation for your bizarre behavior, though.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:47:44 PMA private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

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

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

But isn't the contrary true as well? Very few private sector employees face the risk of having their employment or the terms of it changed by legislation every 4 years or so.

I don't think the issue is public sector unions I think it's the structures and incentives of the public sector. I think it's more to do with producer capture than, say, corrupt deals and public sector union donations.

I've obviously no issues with public sector unions. But I don't believe in closed shops, they should be banned in general.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:43:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

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

No, they just made it a hell of a lot worse - the problem has always been around, and existed before it was exacerbated immensely.

Like I said, if we want to talk about reversing the current problem of campaign finance, I suspect I am considerably more "radical" in my views on that issue than almost anyone on Languish. I consider it to be the #1 most critical problem facing America today. It is a bigger issue than terrorists, Russia, welfare, healthcare, public sector unions, everything.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2015, 04:54:22 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:47:44 PMA private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

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

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

But isn't the contrary true as well? Very few private sector employees face the risk of having their employment or the terms of it changed by legislation every 4 years or so.

Are you kidding me? I face the risk of my employment terms being changed a hell of lot more often than every four years. And again, results speak for themselves - public sector jobs are considered to be in almost all cases the safest, lowest risk, lowest demand jobs to be had...if you can get one.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:53:43 PM
Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

If you had been paying attention you might have noticed I specified existing teacher.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:53:43 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:51:28 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

Which is why teacher pay should be tightly tied to teacher performance.

Oh wait, we can't do that - the public sector unions won't allow it.

Never mind!

Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:56:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:53:43 PM
Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

If you had been paying attention you might have noticed I specified existing teacher.

Uhm what I said holds true for someone staying in a job as well.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Please not with standardized tests.  :P

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

"My snot-nosed, precious little angel--who can do no wrong--that won't do any homework or study on his own, because we let him stay plugged into his XBox all night and smoke weed all weekend long, needs to pass this test or you're fired."

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 05:01:32 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Please not with standardized tests.  :P

Exactly. The mantra of "teacher performance" has led to the plague of teachers teaching "test solving" instead of the subject, and shun weaker students. I do hope Berkut has a better idea than that.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2015, 04:54:22 PM
But isn't the contrary true as well? Very few private sector employees face the risk of having their employment or the terms of it changed by legislation every 4 years or so.

I face the risk of having the terms of my employment changed every day.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:43:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

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

And it has been solved in other countries as well.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:53:43 PM
Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

Yep. Teachers are the same as anyone else.

There's a great conundrum in the UK over London state schools. They're the best in the country at the hardest subjects (this is a recent development over the last 20 years or so) - especially for poorer children. There's various possible structural reasons and cultural ones and funding issues but none of them seem to truly explain it (which is a shame as it makes it difficult to replicate).

One potential part of this is that it's very easy to attract good young teachers who want to live in London. So there's the Teach First program which basically has people from the best universities in the country get paid to teach for a year before going off into high-flying city jobs etc. But a substantial number discover they love teaching and stay. I've got a couple of friends from top ten universities who teach in once run-down state schools through this. Trouble is, of course, that's impossible to replicate in Barnsley.

But to be teachers are like everyone else and to get good ones then short of a city people want to live in, attractive pensions, decent benefits and pay are a good way to go about it. The Guardian always cite Finland in this where teachers salaries are roughly competitive with other professionals.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:03:17 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2015, 04:54:22 PM
But isn't the contrary true as well? Very few private sector employees face the risk of having their employment or the terms of it changed by legislation every 4 years or so.

I face the risk of having the terms of my employment changed every day.

I guess your life sucks then. I have 3-months' notice.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:03:43 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:43:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

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

And it has been solved in other countries as well.

Yeah, but Americans are exceptional.  :mad:

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Why would I do that?

You are the one that brought up teacher performance and how paying them more will get better teachers. I am agree with you, but noting that public sector unions are vehemently opposed to getting better teachers, they just want the more money part.

I don't even really blame them for that - it is their purpose, after all. As the head of the NYC teachers union pointed out, he doesn't represent kids, he represents teachers.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 05:04:34 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:03:17 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2015, 04:54:22 PM
But isn't the contrary true as well? Very few private sector employees face the risk of having their employment or the terms of it changed by legislation every 4 years or so.

I face the risk of having the terms of my employment changed every day.

I guess your life sucks then. I have 3-months' notice.

That's fucking America, man.  Nothing says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" like living with the constant specter of losing one's job at a moment's notice.  And we like it like that, because anything else is pure communism.

We have the idea in Sweden as well that somehow teaching is fundamentally different from every other fucking job on the planet.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 05:05:08 PM

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Why would I do that?

You are the one that brought up teacher performance and how paying them more will get better teachers. I am agree with you, but noting that public sector unions are vehemently opposed to getting better teachers, they just want the more money part.

I don't even really blame them for that - it is their purpose, after all. As the head of the NYC teachers union pointed out, he doesn't represent kids, he represents teachers.

Where the fuck did I bring up teacher performance? Show me the fucking post.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:56:17 PM
Are you kidding me? I face the risk of my employment terms being changed a hell of lot more often than every four years.

True. I always forget America doesn't really do employment protection like contracts or notice periods.

QuoteAnd again, results speak for themselves - public sector jobs are considered to be in almost all cases the safest, lowest risk, lowest demand jobs to be had...if you can get one.

Which is necessarily true:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic5.businessinsider.com%2Fimage%2F4fd255f269bedd474e000007%2Fimage.png&hash=ca130ba0ed50940785346afc363cf1243ba7ce68)

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2015, 05:06:44 PM
We have the idea in Sweden as well that somehow teaching is fundamentally different from every other fucking job on the planet.

We have a circular problem in the US, where we need to pay teachers better, but the teachers we have are providing a service that's genuinely not that valuable.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 05:05:08 PM
You are the one that brought up teacher performance and how paying them more will get better teachers. I am agree with you, but noting that public sector unions are vehemently opposed to getting better teachers, they just want the more money part.

Although this is obviously very local as well the Obama administration has done quite a lot on this. His Education Secretary is Arne Duncan after all.

QuoteI don't even really blame them for that - it is their purpose, after all. As the head of the NYC teachers union pointed out, he doesn't represent kids, he represents teachers.

Exactly. A Health Secretary who doesn't get heckled by the Royal College of Nursing or a Home Secretary who doesn't get heckled by the Police Federation are clearly not doing their jobs properly.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 05:05:08 PM
Why would I do that?

You are the one that brought up teacher performance and how paying them more will get better teachers. I am agree with you, but noting that public sector unions are vehemently opposed to getting better teachers, they just want the more money part.

I don't even really blame them for that - it is their purpose, after all. As the head of the NYC teachers union pointed out, he doesn't represent kids, he represents teachers.

Yeah, it's surprising how ridiculous the teacher contract is in some instances.  To some extent it isn't even an issue of getting better teachers or even identifying the bad ones, but getting rid of the bad ones.  It might not be current, but I remember from a few years ago a report on teachers who were removed from their position due to gross incompetence, and because of the contract they couldn't be fired.  They had a room or building somewhere where they just had these teachers sit there, draw salary and not do anything.

Ah, there's a wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassignment_centers) about it.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 05:06:49 PM
Where the fuck did I bring up teacher performance? Show me the fucking post.

To be fair, while Berkut does often read people's posts in a way that fits his preconceived notions rather than communicated ideas, and that is in the rare case when he even properly comprehends the written post, you did say that better pay would attract better people here: 

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:53:43 PM
Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

Using "better people" does imply that you have a measure of performance in mind, otherwise how do you define better?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

I disagree.  My guess is very few impartial observers see public benefit in carried interest treatment, depletion allowances, or spending on unnecessary defense procurement

QuoteRaising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Sure there is a public benefit - increased compensation attracts higher quality applicants for an important public function and the teacher will have more income to spend on other goods over his or her lifetime.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 05:19:12 PM
I disagree.  My guess is very few impartial observers see public benefit in carried interest treatment, depletion allowances, or spending on unnecessary defense procurement

Increased risk-taking, increased exploration and drilling, increased military capability.

QuoteSure there is a public benefit - increased compensation attracts higher quality applicants for an important public function and the teacher will have more income to spend on other goods over his or her lifetime.

A specific person having more income, and the taxpaying public conversely less, is not a public benefit.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:23:36 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 05:19:12 PM
I disagree.  My guess is very few impartial observers see public benefit in carried interest treatment, depletion allowances, or spending on unnecessary defense procurement

Increased risk-taking, increased exploration and drilling, increased military capability.

QuoteSure there is a public benefit - increased compensation attracts higher quality applicants for an important public function and the teacher will have more income to spend on other goods over his or her lifetime.

A specific person having more income, and the taxpaying public conversely less, is not a public benefit.

But public education being of a higher quality is very much a public benefit.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 05:08:42 PM

Quote from: The Brain on February 12, 2015, 05:06:44 PM
We have the idea in Sweden as well that somehow teaching is fundamentally different from every other fucking job on the planet.

We have a circular problem in the US, where we need to pay teachers better, but the teachers we have are providing a service that's genuinely not that valuable.

Same in Sweden. They need to increase their productivity, but since they are selected from the retarded they don't understand the concept.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:25:23 PM
But public education being of a higher quality is very much a public benefit.

Sure.  So the ensuing question is: does raising an existing teacher's salary increase the quality of public education?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:27:34 PM
Sure.  So the ensuing question is: does raising an existing teacher's salary increase the quality of public education?

If the teacher is currently underpaid, yes.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:27:34 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:25:23 PM
But public education being of a higher quality is very much a public benefit.

Sure.  So the ensuing question is: does raising an existing teacher's salary increase the quality of public education?

I'd think so, at least if we apply basic economic theory.

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:32:32 PM
I'd think so, at least if we apply basic economic theory.

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

I agree this will hold true if we offer new teachers a higher salary.  I just don't see the improvement that comes from offering a current teacher, one who is not looking to quit, more money.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:32:32 PM
As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

But see, as everybody knows, teachers don't do it for the money, they do it for the love of teaching.  Therefore, they really don't need any money at all.  They should just be happy with teaching and all the happiness teaching provides.

Well, there would still be the limitation that the system itself limits the effectiveness that teachers can actually reach. Schools make good teachers into bad ones.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:47:44 PM
A private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

I don't understand what this is saying.

QuoteAnd that is what public sector unions are - in fact, that is largely the *only* reason they exist at all, since the idea that there is some innate power disparity absent their existence has never been shown to actually exist anyway.

Of course there is a disparity.  The state as employer is in a position to say take it or leave it with respect to wage increases or any other issues.  For certain jobs where there are state licensing requirements there is even more disparity. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:37:33 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:32:32 PM
I'd think so, at least if we apply basic economic theory.

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

I agree this will hold true if we offer new teachers a higher salary.  I just don't see the improvement that comes from offering a current teacher, one who is not looking to quit, more money.

Why would new teachers apply if they see existing teachers underpaid and being treated like shit?

How can you tell if a current teacher is looking to quit or not and thus determine the appropriate level of compensation?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 05:48:36 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:47:44 PM
A private union cannot promise someone a job if and only if they agree to a sweetheart deal that ignores the financial reality of the business when they get the job and are put in charge of negotiating with the union.

I don't understand what this is saying.

QuoteAnd that is what public sector unions are - in fact, that is largely the *only* reason they exist at all, since the idea that there is some innate power disparity absent their existence has never been shown to actually exist anyway.

Of course there is a disparity.  The state as employer is in a position to say take it or leave it with respect to wage increases or any other issues.  For certain jobs where there are state licensing requirements there is even more disparity.

Most people can't vote for their bosses. So there is that.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:50:32 PM
Why would new teachers apply if they see existing teachers underpaid and being treated like shit?

You're assuming everyone has to be paid the same, which is a union thing, not a state of nature thing.  Also, we were talking about raising pay to attract more talent, not whether current teachers are underpaid and/or being treated like shit.

QuoteHow can you tell if a current teacher is looking to quit or not and thus determine the appropriate level of compensation?

You can look at retention rates for indications.  Or ask them.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 05:51:58 PM
Most people can't vote for their bosses. So there is that.

Or have their bosses voted on by everyone else.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:23:36 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 05:19:12 PM
I disagree.  My guess is very few impartial observers see public benefit in carried interest treatment, depletion allowances, or spending on unnecessary defense procurement

Increased risk-taking, increased exploration and drilling, increased military capability.

Even if some of those benefits exist, how are they NET benefits?
If you take a million dollars from the taxpayer and give it to companies that sell doodads, then sure enough you are likely to see more doodad production.  But you will be hard pressed to explain why that is a net economic benefit.
You have to prepared to defend the economic case for public subsidy.

QuoteA specific person having more income, and the taxpaying public conversely less, is not a public benefit.

If Ricardian Equivalence holds strictly, then yes, otherwise not necessarily.

But one can also make the same subsidy argument you make above.  Education is a public good.  Pay teachers more, you will get better teachers, and higher education quality.

Is that going to be true?  Maybe.  At least as true as the proposition that subsidizing defense contractors gives better defense, or giving favorable tax treatment to private equity leads to superior capital allocation or subsidizing oil companies is a superior energy policy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 05:37:33 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 05:32:32 PM
I'd think so, at least if we apply basic economic theory.

As teachers are seen to be better compensated, more and better quality applicants will be attracted to do the job. This will lead to an improvement in the quality of education.

Is there some reason to think that this dynamic is different when it comes to teachers rather than any other job?

I agree this will hold true if we offer new teachers a higher salary.  I just don't see the improvement that comes from offering a current teacher, one who is not looking to quit, more money.

Efficiency wages?

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2015, 05:56:40 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 05:51:58 PM
Most people can't vote for their bosses. So there is that.

Or have their bosses voted on by everyone else.

Bingo.
The employees of IBM don't vote for management.  But management is going to make comp decisions based on company interest.  So if the company thinks that getting quality people or upping training and comp will improve revenue sufficiently, they will do it.

Now take the Department of Ed.  Now you've got 3 constituent groups.
1) the teachers - they want comp to go up regardless.
2) taxpayers with kids in the school - they will want comp to go up if there is a net public benefit in better education.
3) taxpayers without kids or with kids in private schools - they want comp to down no matter what.

Thing is group 3 is probably going to be a lot bigger than group 1, so there is a natural bias to drive down comp demands.  Collective bargaining can counteract that tendency

OTOH it is also true that to the extent the teachers are cohesive and can "bribe" officials, they may be able get around this bargaining problem and exploit their position.  But although unionization makes that easier to do, that is still a problem with or without unionization, and will be even more so given all massive loopholes that have been driven through the campaign finance rules.  I.e. you can have a "union" or equivalent that just exists to advocate, lobby and finance elections, even absent bargaining rights, and have much of the same problem.

I'll say it again: you can't fix the problem of institutionalized legalized bribery without doing something to address the bribery.  Trying to put a gag on group X and say well we've solved part of the problem because now its harder from them to say what they want for their bribe is a joke.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 05:57:30 PM
Even if some of those benefits exist, how are they NET benefits?
If you take a million dollars from the taxpayer and give it to companies that sell doodads, then sure enough you are likely to see more doodad production.  But you will be hard pressed to explain why that is a net economic benefit.
You have to prepared to defend the economic case for public subsidy.

The externalities argument made for depletion is oil independence.

To be clear, I'm not saying I personally support the various things you mentioned.  If you want an accounting, you've convinced me on carried interest, I'm OK with depletion allowances (maybe partially because Obama has been pretty dishonest in peddling a rollback), and I didn't like the Osprey.

I'm not voting for Scotty.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 06:17:04 PM
OTOH it is also true that to the extent the teachers are cohesive and can "bribe" officials, they may be able get around this bargaining problem and exploit their position.  But although unionization makes that easier to do, that is still a problem with or without unionization, and will be even more so given all massive loopholes that have been driven through the campaign finance rules.  I.e. you can have a "union" or equivalent that just exists to advocate, lobby and finance elections, even absent bargaining rights, and have much of the same problem.

While it is metaphysically possible for nonunion teachers to collectively bribe state legislatures, the fact remains teachers in right to work states get paid substantially less than their union counterparts.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 05:39:04 PM
But see, as everybody knows, teachers don't do it for the money, they do it for the love of teaching.  Therefore, they really don't need any money at all.  They should just be happy with teaching and all the happiness teaching provides.

No shit.  If they're gonna talk the talk and post all that self-indulgent shit on Facebook, then walk the walk.  IM A TEECHR I MAKE MOAR

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 06:40:52 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 06:17:04 PM
OTOH it is also true that to the extent the teachers are cohesive and can "bribe" officials, they may be able get around this bargaining problem and exploit their position.  But although unionization makes that easier to do, that is still a problem with or without unionization, and will be even more so given all massive loopholes that have been driven through the campaign finance rules.  I.e. you can have a "union" or equivalent that just exists to advocate, lobby and finance elections, even absent bargaining rights, and have much of the same problem.

While it is metaphysically possible for nonunion teachers to collectively bribe state legislatures, the fact remains teachers in right to work states get paid substantially less than their union counterparts.

So you think the problem is some teachers are getting paid too much?

Quote from: derspiess on February 12, 2015, 06:45:57 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 05:39:04 PM
But see, as everybody knows, teachers don't do it for the money, they do it for the love of teaching.  Therefore, they really don't need any money at all.  They should just be happy with teaching and all the happiness teaching provides.

No shit.  If they're gonna talk the talk and post all that self-indulgent shit on Facebook, then walk the walk.  IM A TEECHR I MAKE MOAR

Alrighty then.  You tell 'em, derfetus.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 06:47:01 PM
So you think the problem is some teachers are getting paid too much?

Absolutely.

Quote from: KRonn on February 12, 2015, 02:11:57 PM

All these in just the last few years. There's more but you get the general idea. And Mass probably isn't the most corrupt state compared to states like New York and Rhode Island, but that's probably a distinction without a difference.

Lies! :angry:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGaivhvC.png&hash=6f344e688159bab78cbec42727beaba10e06ced4) (http://imgur.com/GaivhvC)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 06:48:24 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 06:47:01 PM
So you think the problem is some teachers are getting paid too much?

Absolutely.

:rolleyes:

And people wonder why American students don't score well compared to other nations.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 06:48:24 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 06:47:01 PM
So you think the problem is some teachers are getting paid too much?

Absolutely.

What are the kind of teacher salaries you think are unreasonable?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 06:48:24 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 06:47:01 PM
So you think the problem is some teachers are getting paid too much?

Absolutely.

Who else gets paid too much, Yi? 
I mean, other than everybody--as we all know your preferred economic model is "slave wages = good for executives and shareholders"--but as far as actual professions go, who else gets paid "too much"?

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 06:51:11 PM
What are the kind of teacher salaries you think are unreasonable?

I'll make you a deal.  I'll post my answer below, spoilered, and then after you tell me what *you* think would be a reasonable teacher salary, take a look.

[spoiler]Starting at maybe 30-35, averaging around 50, maxing around 70, administrators maybe get 90-100.[/spoiler]

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 06:53:51 PM
Who else gets paid too much, Yi? 
I mean, other than everybody--as we all know your preferred economic model is "slave wages = good for executives and shareholders"--but as far as actual professions go, who else gets paid "too much"?

West Coast longshoremen.

I have no idea what reasonable teacher salaries ought to be in the US.

Looking at some stats they appear to range - on average - from just shy of 40K in South Dakota to in the 70s in New York, Massachusetts and that vicinity.

Whether that is reasonable or not rather depends on local cost of living etc, so I can't say how fair that is.

Let's say you are right, and the average should be $50K per year and we cut New York teachers' salaries to that... what problem have we solved?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 07:01:24 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 06:53:51 PM
Who else gets paid too much, Yi? 
I mean, other than everybody--as we all know your preferred economic model is "slave wages = good for executives and shareholders"--but as far as actual professions go, who else gets paid "too much"?

West Coast longshoremen.

Dunno about the situation in the US, but I can definitely see your argument in Vancouver. That's some good money right there, AFAIK.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 07:05:10 PM
Let's say you are right, and the average should be $50K per year and we cut New York teachers' salaries to that... what problem have we solved?

State and local budget problems.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 07:07:37 PM

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 07:05:10 PM
Let's say you are right, and the average should be $50K per year and we cut New York teachers' salaries to that... what problem have we solved?

State and local budget problems.

But we were discussing the public good of better public education and thus better education outcomes.

Solving state and local budget problems can be done in other ways than degrading public education and jeopardizing important public goods.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 07:15:43 PM
But we were discussing the public good of better public education and thus better education outcomes.

Solving state and local budget problems can be done in other ways than degrading public education and jeopardizing important public goods.

We were discussing better education in the context of a rationale for raising teacher pay.  It's emphatically possible for people to be perfectly satisfied with their current position on the quality/price matrix, or in fact to think that it's too high.

Budgets can be fixed in other ways, but education does account for 80% of the average state budget.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 07:18:47 PM
We were discussing better education in the context of a rationale for raising teacher pay.  It's emphatically possible for people to be perfectly satisfied with their current position on the quality/price matrix, or in fact to think that it's too high.

Sure. But that doesn't counter the argument that better pay can be argued to improve educational outcomes, and thus provide a public good.

QuoteBudgets can be fixed in other ways, but education does account for 80% of the average state budget.

Holy shit! 80%? For real? :o

I'm looking at our provincial budget in BC and Education is $5 Billion out of a little under $45 Billion total - so a bit more than 10%.  For Ontario education is $23 Billion out of 123 Billion, so roughly 20%. 80% seems crazy to me.

I guess the differences between the average state budget in the US and Canadian provincial budgets are significant.

What are the main things, other than education, that the US states are responsible for?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 11:56:29 AM
Somehow the feds missed the whole "public sector union" connection in their prosecution of Governor McDonnell of Virginia, and how teachers (probably black ones, no less) forced him to take all those gifts from Mr. Vitamin Guy. 

The funny thing is that McDonnal was actually an excellent governor.  I was a big fan of his until the whole crook thing emerged.  :lol:

He couldn't carry Webb's jockstrap, of course.  If Jim Webb decides to run, I think I will dust off my 2000 McCain notes and go ahead and volunteer for his campaign. 

That seems extraordinarily high. Who pays for the police and prisons in states? Are they sub-state? Don't the states also have a role in healthcare and unemployment? Does that include higher education?

Jacob:  Highways, state police, courts, state parks.

Shelf:  Includes state universities.  Unemployment is off-budget I think.  Healthcare spending by the state is only at the margins.

I did some googling, at it seems California is at about 50%, New York maybe 30%, Iowa 34%, Idaho at about 55%.

Now, I didn't dig deep into things and am not 100% of of the websites (i.e. some of the numbers could be off), but it doesn't quite get to 80%. Big chunks of the state budget for sure, though.

Kay.

Damn this thread grew quickly; exec.sum. please.



Also on what page did the insults start flying?  :)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 07:41:14 PM
Kay.

Indeed. That was just an info-thing, not an argument. Your point still holds, IMO, that education is frequently a huge part of State budgets.

In Washington, a teacher's union-sponsored ballot initiative to hire 15,000 new teachers in order to reduce class sizes was passed in November. The measure allocated precisely $0 to pay for this. So the measure is essentially going to force the state to gut numerous other services (including higher education) in order to fund a measure that has, at best, marginal benefits for everyone save the union. Nothing is likely to be done about it, because of the stranglehold that the union has on the Democrats in the state. While ultimately the responsibility resides with the idiocy of the voters, this is a pretty clear example of the teacher's union attempting to cannibalize state resources solely for its own ends. Of course corporations would do the same, but their impact doesn't seem to be as pervasive as the state level.

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2015, 09:51:17 PM
In Washington, a teacher's union-sponsored ballot initiative to hire 15,000 new teachers in order to reduce class sizes was passed in November. The measure allocated precisely $0 to pay for this. So the measure is essentially going to force the state to gut numerous other services (including higher education) in order to fund a measure that has, at best, marginal benefits for everyone save the union. Nothing is likely to be done about it, because of the stranglehold that the union has on the Democrats in the state. While ultimately the responsibility resides with the idiocy of the voters, this is a pretty clear example of the teacher's union attempting to cannibalize state resources solely for its own ends. Of course corporations would do the same, but their impact doesn't seem to be as pervasive as the state level.

What are the class size they're aiming for?

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2015, 09:52:31 PM
What are the class size they're aiming for?

~15 in grade school, ~25 in middle/high school, I think.

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2015, 09:51:17 PM
in order to fund a measure that has, at best, marginal benefits for everyone save the union.

One would think that the parents of students in overcrowded classrooms would see, at best, marginal benefits.

Quote from: Sheilbh on February 12, 2015, 07:33:56 PMWho pays for the police and prisons in states?

The cops just take money out of peoples' cars, remember.  :P

Quote from: Kleves on February 12, 2015, 09:54:48 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 12, 2015, 09:52:31 PM
What are the class size they're aiming for?

~15 in grade school, ~25 in middle/high school, I think.

I'd say 20 and 25 would be ideal.

I really doubt class size has any real correlation to education quality. If anything, I'd say larger class sizes would encourage more critical thinking skills.

Google found this.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com%2Fa-teachers-worth-around-the-world_50290acb9ee8f_w587.jpg&hash=5aaeb64a40c0fc741aa4c0c281932a4a48db6b95)

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 10:33:18 PM
I really doubt class size has any real correlation to education quality.

Being able to manage 20 little shits instead 40 little shits impacts a teacher's ability to teach effectively, and a student's ability to pay attention effectively.  That's just basic crowd control math.

QuoteIf anything, I'd say larger class sizes would encourage more critical thinking skills.

In what, survival skills?  :lol:

So did we come to a consensus that it's evil if a public service union gives money to a candidate but totally different if a business gives donations so it can continue it's contracts with the government?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 10:33:18 PM
I really doubt class size has any real correlation to education quality. If anything, I'd say larger class sizes would encourage more critical thinking skills.

My experience is the opposite, but what do I know?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 10:33:18 PM
I really doubt class size has any real correlation to education quality. If anything, I'd say larger class sizes would encourage more critical thinking skills.

Seriously, this is the zaniest thing I have read here in weeks.  :lol:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 11:06:25 PM
In what, survival skills?  :lol:

You could critically assess if someone is going to shiv you.

Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2015, 07:42:24 PM
Damn this thread grew quickly; exec.sum. please.

Corporations not only are people, they are good people.

Unions are evil.

Teachers are lazy and should be happy with whatever they are paid, since noone talented and able to get a job in another industry would even consider teaching.

There was also a bunch of ignorant claims.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2015, 11:47:31 PM
So did we come to a consensus that it's evil if a public service union gives money to a candidate but totally different if a business gives donations so it can continue it's contracts with the government?

They're both bad.

Quote from: grumbler on February 13, 2015, 12:17:52 AM
My experience is the opposite, but what do I know?

Well convince me then. I've looked up lots of studies that show both results, and nearly all of them are conducted or paid for my some group with a conflict of interest. And the stats don't show much difference either way when comparing internationally (which has its obvious deficiency of course).

I'm guessing it matters most with the very young kids, grade K-4 or so. But hell I had classes with 400 or more students in them in college and it was fine.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2015, 01:49:57 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2015, 11:47:31 PM
So did we come to a consensus that it's evil if a public service union gives money to a candidate but totally different if a business gives donations so it can continue it's contracts with the government?

They're both bad.

Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

Did MiM just really equate college lecture aulas with elementary and high school classrooms?  :hmm:

Look, I'll explain where this comes from. My family is mostly teachers. It's like the family business. When I go to Thanksgiving dinner the teachers at the table outnumber everyone else. One of my uncles is a university academic provost and another is the president of one of the most important higher ed lobbying organizations in the country. I have to hear this shit hashed out constantly.

Ten years ago, the only thing everyone at the table agreed about was that class sizes needed to be smaller. Now, there are three things they all agree on. Standardized tests are shit, NCLB is shit, and class size is unimportant. Unless you've got the behavioral problem kids. Why they all changed their minds, I don't know. Interestingly, they are still somewhat divided about Common Core. The skeptics on that tend to be the ones who teach younger kids.

Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2015, 01:28:18 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2015, 07:42:24 PM
Damn this thread grew quickly; exec.sum. please.

Corporations not only are people, they are good people.

Unions are evil.

Teachers are lazy and should be happy with whatever they are paid, since noone talented and able to get a job in another industry would even consider teaching.

There was also a bunch of ignorant claims.

Marty, hanks for saving me some time. :cheers:

So what's with all the LanguishLove for Jim Webb, other than the time he acted like a dick toward Dubya?

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 02:36:56 AM
Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Quote from: grumbler on February 12, 2015, 07:32:58 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2015, 11:56:29 AM
Somehow the feds missed the whole "public sector union" connection in their prosecution of Governor McDonnell of Virginia, and how teachers (probably black ones, no less) forced him to take all those gifts from Mr. Vitamin Guy. 

The funny thing is that McDonnal was actually an excellent governor.  I was a big fan of his until the whole crook thing emerged.  :lol:

Well, I suppose you wouldn't have needed a transvaginal probe.   What at your age and all.

QuoteHe couldn't carry Webb's jockstrap, of course.  If Jim Webb decides to run, I think I will dust off my 2000 McCain notes and go ahead and volunteer for his campaign.

http://webb2016.com/

Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2015, 01:24:15 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 12, 2015, 10:33:18 PM
I really doubt class size has any real correlation to education quality. If anything, I'd say larger class sizes would encourage more critical thinking skills.

Seriously, this is the zaniest thing I have read here in weeks.  :lol:

So what is your answer to the data he posted?  I mean obviously having class sizes over 40 is probably not good but there might be diminishing returns in there someplace.

Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2015, 09:36:52 AM
So what's with all the LanguishLove for Jim Webb, other than the time he acted like a dick toward Dubya?

When did he act "like a dick toward Dubya"?  Did he interrupt Dubya during a Presidential address to Congress?  Did he stick his finger in Dubya's face at an airport?  Did he complain about Dubya's "Kenyan anti-colonial behavior", by chance?

Quote from: mongers on February 13, 2015, 07:30:23 AM

Quote from: Martinus on February 13, 2015, 01:28:18 AM

Quote from: mongers on February 12, 2015, 07:42:24 PM
Damn this thread grew quickly; exec.sum. please.

Corporations not only are people, they are good people.

Unions are evil.

Teachers are lazy and should be happy with whatever they are paid, since noone talented and able to get a job in another industry would even consider teaching.

There was also a bunch of ignorant claims.

Marty, hanks for saving me some time. :cheers:

Needless to say those are crazy distortions.  Marty does not understand the situation creating the problems so naturally he is just filling in the blanks with his pre-conceived notions.

And claiming buying off politicians and dangerous corruption is bad is not the same as saying Corporations and Unions are all evil or good.  It is a condemnation of the system that forces them into doing that.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2015, 09:52:47 AM

Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2015, 09:36:52 AM
So what's with all the LanguishLove for Jim Webb, other than the time he acted like a dick toward Dubya?

When did he act "like a dick toward Dubya"?  Did he interrupt Dubya during a Presidential address to Congress?  Did he stick his finger in Dubya's face at an airport?  Did he complain about Dubya's "Kenyan anti-colonial behavior", by chance?

I guess that is on way to avoid the question. :mellow:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2015, 09:52:47 AM
When did he act "like a dick toward Dubya"?  Did he interrupt Dubya during a Presidential address to Congress?  Did he stick his finger in Dubya's face at an airport?  Did he complain about Dubya's "Kenyan anti-colonial behavior", by chance?

He addressed him as George instead of Mr. President at a White House reception.

It looks like Webb said he wanted to get his son out of Iraq.  Which it seems is a dick thing to say.  Must have been the way he said it?

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 09:54:38 AM
I guess that is on way to avoid the question. :mellow:

Go fuck yourself, you fucking fuck.  Yi gets to asks questions as answers to questions all the fucking time.  Who the fuck are you, Yi's copyright attorney?  You can answer that with a question if you want, it's a free country.

Just curious why did Webb decide to not run again for the Senate?  Electing people whose experience in high office consists of a single term in the Senate has not been working out so good.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 13, 2015, 09:56:42 AM
He addressed him as George instead of Mr. President at a White House reception.

Haven't found anything in reference to calling the President by his first name at a reception, but I did find this:

QuoteAt a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.
"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.
"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.
"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"
"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112801582.html

I haven't found anything else, but please post if you do.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2015, 10:03:25 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 09:54:38 AM
I guess that is on way to avoid the question. :mellow:

Go fuck yourself, you fucking fuck.  Yi gets to asks questions as answers to questions all the fucking time.  Who the fuck are you, Yi's copyright attorney?  You can answer that with a question if you want, it's a free country.

I was simply interested in an actual answer. I guess asking you to explain your emotional attachment is a bridge too far.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2015, 10:09:37 AM
I haven't found anything else, but please post if you do.

Yeah that is all I found.  They kissed and made up later with a heartwarming photo op when his kid got back from Iraq as well.

First I had heard of the incident, but then I really don't know much about Webb or his career.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 09:58:07 AM
It looks like Webb said he wanted to get his son out of Iraq.  Which it seems is a dick thing to say.  Must have been the way he said it?

You're omitting a couple details.

QuoteOn November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb did not choose to wait in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." The Hill cited an anonymous source who claimed that Webb was so angered by the exchange that he confessed he was tempted to "slug" the president. Webb later remarked in an interview, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."

Obviously there's nothing wrong with him not wanting his picture taken with Dubya, and also nothing wrong with him telling Dubya he wants his son to come home.  But he didn't have to be a dick about it.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 10:09:40 AM
I was simply interested in an actual answer. I guess asking you to explain your emotional attachment is a bridge too far.

When you get cunty, you get nothing.

Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2015, 10:11:33 AM
Obviously there's nothing wrong with him not wanting his picture taken with Dubya, and also nothing wrong with him telling Dubya he wants his son to come home.  But he didn't have to be a dick about it.

As I speculated it probably had something to do with how he said it. 

That era must have been hard for Bush, he loved the glad-handing social aspect of being a politician.  He was always socializing and hanging out with the Democrats when he was governor.

Just imagine the howling from Seedy if a GOP senator had said that to and about Obama  OMG TYPICAL RACIST TEABAGGER WANTS TO BEAT A BLACK MAN

Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 13, 2015, 10:12:11 AM

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 10:09:40 AM
I was simply interested in an actual answer. I guess asking you to explain your emotional attachment is a bridge too far.

When you get cunty, you get nothing.

Pretty sure you went there first.

The Dubya incident aside, Webb seems like an okay guy.  He's a decorated combat Marine who served in Vietnam and was a Reagan Democrat, serving in the administration during the 80s.  I'd just like to know what Languish loves about him so much, other than him not being a Republican.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/23/really-jim-webb-for-president/

QuoteFour reasons why Jim Webb for president makes no sense

It's a real testament to the fact that we're grasping desperately for non-Hillary Clinton Democratic presidential candidates when Washington starts getting a little buzzy about Jim Webb running for president.

No, that's not to take anything away from Webb's service — including as a war hero, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and one-term senator from Virginia. It's just that there wouldn't seem to be a more unlikely presidential hopeful than Jim Webb.

To wit:

1) He retired after one term in the Senate and didn't seem to particularly enjoy being in public life. Larry Sabato said it particularly well after Webb's retirement announcement a few years back: "He has been an excellent United States senator, but he is a terrible politician. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, he doesn't enjoy glad-handing — my sense of Webb is that he's had enough of public life for a while."

Think again, Larry!

2) Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton. That's fine, except that he was Reagan's Navy secretary and also something of a Blue Dog Democrat during his service in the Senate. Even on foreign policy, he was often toward the middle of the Senate.

Much like ex-Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D), that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

3) He has negative charisma. The Fix believes that presidential races have a charisma threshold, by which we mean that candidates need to be at least somewhat compelling to a national audience to achieve viability. Tim Pawlenty (R), for instance, struggled with this. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has a similar problem.

Webb would probably make Pawlenty look like Herman Cain. He's just very dour. We wonder who would get excited about him, in the absence of some galvanizing force that suddenly makes him the perfect candidate for that political moment in time.

4) He has baggage. Yes, Webb won his 2006 bout with Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), but it wasn't pretty. And some liberals balked pretty loudly when Webb's name surfaced as a potential vice presidential pick for President Obama in 2008.

Among the hits that would resurface in a presidential campaign:

Webb has spoken fondly of his Confederate roots and defended the Southern states' decision to secede, even citing the "Nazification of the Confederacy."

He said in 2004 that John Kerry deserved to be condemned for his actions in opposition to the Vietnam War.

Webb's writings and comments have been criticized by the left for being insensitive to women.

Does this sound to anyone like the profile of the guy who might defeat Hillary Clinton — or even compete with her — in 2016?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2015, 03:33:07 AM
Look, I'll explain where this comes from. My family is mostly teachers. It's like the family business. When I go to Thanksgiving dinner the teachers at the table outnumber everyone else. One of my uncles is a university academic provost and another is the president of one of the most important higher ed lobbying organizations in the country. I have to hear this shit hashed out constantly.

Ten years ago, the only thing everyone at the table agreed about was that class sizes needed to be smaller. Now, there are three things they all agree on. Standardized tests are shit, NCLB is shit, and class size is unimportant. Unless you've got the behavioral problem kids. Why they all changed their minds, I don't know. Interestingly, they are still somewhat divided about Common Core. The skeptics on that tend to be the ones who teach younger kids.

I've taught classes with 40 kids and classes with 20 kids, the former is a nightmare to manage and effectively teach.

Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2015, 10:11:33 AM
You're omitting a couple details.

I posted the link.  You want details?  You post, parse and edit the whole fucking article. 

QuoteOn November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb did not choose to wait in the line to have his picture taken with the president, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." The Hill cited an anonymous source who claimed that Webb was so angered by the exchange that he confessed he was tempted to "slug" the president. Webb later remarked in an interview, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."

QuoteObviously there's nothing wrong with him not wanting his picture taken with Dubya, and also nothing wrong with him telling Dubya he wants his son to come home.  But he didn't have to be a dick about it.

Doesn't sound like being a dick about it at all.  "Anonymous Source" always seems to get the best quotes, though.

Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2015, 10:13:08 AM
Just imagine the howling from Seedy if a GOP senator had said that to and about Obama  OMG TYPICAL RACIST TEABAGGER WANTS TO BEAT A BLACK MAN

Considering they readily admit that Negros don't know their proper place, I don't see your point, other than the one on the top of your hood.  Creepy Ass Cracker.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgen%2F103683%2Fthumbs%2Fs-JOE-WILSON-large.jpg&hash=60fec99ecf5d0b54dcc81d9bdcf3ff2540ea9bce)

(https://www.collegerecruiter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jan-Brewer-pointing-finger-at-Barack-Obama.jpg)

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 10:16:42 AM

Quote
Webb has spoken fondly of his Confederate roots and defended the Southern states' decision to secede, even citing the "Nazification of the Confederacy."

Lettow for President?  No thanks.

Yep, lack of civility swings both ways.  Rude Republicans deserve to be called out just the same as rude Democrats.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 10:16:42 AM
It's a real testament to the fact that we're grasping desperately for non-Hillary Clinton Democratic presidential candidates when Washington starts getting a little buzzy about Jim Webb running for president.

I would think that a bona fide primary challenge would help her candidacy.  Hell, even the talking heads are saying she has to run as a challenger, with a challenger's mindset.

And we've seen what happens with pre-ordained party coronations.  /dontmesswithtexashehhehheh

Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 13, 2015, 10:17:34 AM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2015, 03:33:07 AM
Look, I'll explain where this comes from. My family is mostly teachers. It's like the family business. When I go to Thanksgiving dinner the teachers at the table outnumber everyone else. One of my uncles is a university academic provost and another is the president of one of the most important higher ed lobbying organizations in the country. I have to hear this shit hashed out constantly.

Ten years ago, the only thing everyone at the table agreed about was that class sizes needed to be smaller. Now, there are three things they all agree on. Standardized tests are shit, NCLB is shit, and class size is unimportant. Unless you've got the behavioral problem kids. Why they all changed their minds, I don't know. Interestingly, they are still somewhat divided about Common Core. The skeptics on that tend to be the ones who teach younger kids.

I've taught classes with 40 kids and classes with 20 kids, the former is a nightmare to manage and effectively teach.

Like all things, the answer is both simple and complex.

Of course smaller class sizes are, all other things being equal, better for everyone. That is the simple answer.

That doesn't mean that shrinking class sizes is the right thing to do though, since that has costs, and it may very well be the case that the costs are better spent elsewhere.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:53:43 PM

Quote from: frunk on February 12, 2015, 04:51:28 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 12, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
No they don't.  Everything you've mentioned has economic consequences that to an impartial observer could be net positives. 

Raising an existing teacher's pension provides no comparable public benefit.

Teacher with pension will be able to afford a nicer house, pay more property taxes, buy stuff, pay more sales tax.

Not to mention a better pay for a teacher would lead to better people wanting to do teaching. The "lowest possible cost" approach to human-based economy is rarely a public benefit. :|

Here you go Marty - you brought up teacher wages, not I.

I have no particular opinion about what teachers ought to be paid, other than that they should be paid as much as we can afford to pay them, and that should be determined without public sector unions having outsized influence in the negotiations based on their political power to influence the election of the very people who are the ones who determine what they should be paid.

I live in a state where teachers make well above the national average. I also live in a state where public education is consistently *much* better than the national average. So to that extent, I don't mind that teachers are relatively very well paid. Indeed, overall I think the state of New York does a pretty decent job of driving quality education in those areas where it is possible.

There are things I very much do NOT like about how things work though. The fact that in some areas it is basically *impossible* to fire bad teachers because they have tenure is ridiculous. People like Marty counter any effort to hold teachers accountable for their performance by arguing that you cannot objectively measure teacher performance?

What kind of bullshit response is that? We measure people performance in every job everywhere all the time. We don't demand that there be some perfectly objective means of doing so either. I am confident that teachers by an large know how to teach, and I am also confident that administrators, by and large, know how to evaluate teachers. I am *also* confident that teachers are not special creatures such that they are somehow immune to getting bad ones in place that need to be weeded out.

What bugs the shit out of me is the union lines of

1. Teachers are not paid enough! Pay them more to get better teachers! Don't you care about your children!?!?!?!!
2. What? Performance based compensation? Absolutely not! There is no way you can evaluate teachers and link their pay to performance! No sir! You must pay them buckets, and do so based solely on longevity in the job! BTW, we need to make tenure mandatory after X years.

Now, I can't blame unions for arguing this - it is the ultimate sweetheart deal for teachers. We want to be able to guarantee that we cannot be fired, we want great pay based not on performance but rather on longevity in the job, AND lets throw in a deal where we cannot be fired. Who wouldn't want that deal?

But this is an arrangement so obviously NOT in the interests of anyone but teachers that it cannot possibly come to pass, IMO, except by negotiation where both parties are negotiating on behalf of the teachers, rather than anyone representing the other interests in the school system, which are clearly NOT served by such a one sided arrangement.

Now, my objections to public sector unions extend well beyond teachers, of course. I don't even know how it became all about teachers. If nothing else, I am fortuante to live in a part of the country where the overall outcome in regards to education is largely positive, at least in "narrow" sense of the overall, meaning I get pretty excellent public schools in the area where my kids go to school. It costs a lot though, but frankly, I am happy to pay it if the alternative is shitty schools. But I wonder how much the union setup with tenure and such makes it incredibly difficult to allow urban and rural areas in upstate New York match the quality of education we take for granted in the suburban school districts.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 10:16:42 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/23/really-jim-webb-for-president/

QuoteFour reasons why Jim Webb for president makes no sense

It's a real testament to the fact that we're grasping desperately for non-Hillary Clinton Democratic presidential candidates when Washington starts getting a little buzzy about Jim Webb running for president.

No, that's not to take anything away from Webb's service — including as a war hero, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and one-term senator from Virginia. It's just that there wouldn't seem to be a more unlikely presidential hopeful than Jim Webb.

To wit:

1) He retired after one term in the Senate and didn't seem to particularly enjoy being in public life. Larry Sabato said it particularly well after Webb's retirement announcement a few years back: "He has been an excellent United States senator, but he is a terrible politician. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, he doesn't enjoy glad-handing — my sense of Webb is that he's had enough of public life for a while."

Think again, Larry!

2) Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton. That's fine, except that he was Reagan's Navy secretary and also something of a Blue Dog Democrat during his service in the Senate. Even on foreign policy, he was often toward the middle of the Senate.

Much like ex-Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D), that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

3) He has negative charisma. The Fix believes that presidential races have a charisma threshold, by which we mean that candidates need to be at least somewhat compelling to a national audience to achieve viability. Tim Pawlenty (R), for instance, struggled with this. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has a similar problem.

Webb would probably make Pawlenty look like Herman Cain. He's just very dour. We wonder who would get excited about him, in the absence of some galvanizing force that suddenly makes him the perfect candidate for that political moment in time.

4) He has baggage. Yes, Webb won his 2006 bout with Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), but it wasn't pretty. And some liberals balked pretty loudly when Webb's name surfaced as a potential vice presidential pick for President Obama in 2008.

Among the hits that would resurface in a presidential campaign:

Webb has spoken fondly of his Confederate roots and defended the Southern states' decision to secede, even citing the "Nazification of the Confederacy."

He said in 2004 that John Kerry deserved to be condemned for his actions in opposition to the Vietnam War.

Webb's writings and comments have been criticized by the left for being insensitive to women.

Does this sound to anyone like the profile of the guy who might defeat Hillary Clinton — or even compete with her — in 2016?

It's an advantage. Politics is a job like the police. If the person actually wants to do it, he'd probably be terrible at it. The best people for the job are the ones who don't want it.

If the world ever runs short of grindstones, this thread will still keep axes sharp.

On the off chance that someone thought otherwise, I am *not* even remotely a fan of Walker.

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 09:46:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 02:36:56 AM
Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

Quote from: derspiess on February 13, 2015, 10:13:08 AM
Just imagine the howling from Seedy if a GOP senator had said that to and about Obama  OMG TYPICAL RACIST TEABAGGER WANTS TO BEAT A BLACK MAN

I am imaging it.  Then I remember I don't have to.  Pete Sessions told Obama that he couldn't even stand to look at him.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 07:32:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 09:46:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 02:36:56 AM
Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

People shouldn't be allow to organise as they're not as human as corporations are.

Quote from: garbon on February 13, 2015, 10:16:42 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/23/really-jim-webb-for-president/

QuoteFour reasons why Jim Webb for president makes no sense

It's a real testament to the fact that we're grasping desperately for non-Hillary Clinton Democratic presidential candidates when Washington starts getting a little buzzy about Jim Webb running for president.

No, that's not to take anything away from Webb's service — including as a war hero, Navy secretary under Ronald Reagan and one-term senator from Virginia. It's just that there wouldn't seem to be a more unlikely presidential hopeful than Jim Webb.

To wit:

1) He retired after one term in the Senate and didn't seem to particularly enjoy being in public life. Larry Sabato said it particularly well after Webb's retirement announcement a few years back: "He has been an excellent United States senator, but he is a terrible politician. He doesn't suffer fools gladly, he doesn't enjoy glad-handing — my sense of Webb is that he's had enough of public life for a while."

Think again, Larry!

2) Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton. That's fine, except that he was Reagan's Navy secretary and also something of a Blue Dog Democrat during his service in the Senate. Even on foreign policy, he was often toward the middle of the Senate.

Much like ex-Montana governor Brian Schweitzer (D), that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

3) He has negative charisma. The Fix believes that presidential races have a charisma threshold, by which we mean that candidates need to be at least somewhat compelling to a national audience to achieve viability. Tim Pawlenty (R), for instance, struggled with this. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has a similar problem.

Webb would probably make Pawlenty look like Herman Cain. He's just very dour. We wonder who would get excited about him, in the absence of some galvanizing force that suddenly makes him the perfect candidate for that political moment in time.

4) He has baggage. Yes, Webb won his 2006 bout with Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), but it wasn't pretty. And some liberals balked pretty loudly when Webb's name surfaced as a potential vice presidential pick for President Obama in 2008.

Among the hits that would resurface in a presidential campaign:

Webb has spoken fondly of his Confederate roots and defended the Southern states' decision to secede, even citing the "Nazification of the Confederacy."

He said in 2004 that John Kerry deserved to be condemned for his actions in opposition to the Vietnam War.

Webb's writings and comments have been criticized by the left for being insensitive to women.

Does this sound to anyone like the profile of the guy who might defeat Hillary Clinton — or even compete with her — in 2016?

This is about as stupid a blog piece as I have seen in a while. The whole attraction of Webb is that he isn't into politics because he needs the ego-stroking or dick-sucking.  He wants to get things done, and thought he did get them done as a senator (IIRC, it had been more than 30 years since a freshman Senator got as much sponsored legislation passed as Webb did).  Why is it "senseless" to want to elect a politician that gets things done?  Why is it "senseless" that Webb run for president because some guy on the internet has tried to niche him where it makes zero sense. The whole "Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton" followed by "that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party" just makes me conclude that this anonymous Post blogger is a moron, because he is the guy who invented this "odd profile" that drives the conclusion that Webb's candidacy "makes no sense"!  :lol:

Webb isn't a pretty-boy ass-kisser.  He says what he thinks even when it isn't popular.  He can take politics and fund-raising or leave it.  He doesn't hew an ideological line, preferring the centrist approach of voting for policies based on their inherent value rather than based on what the Party says.  He isn't willing to do anything to get elected. Those are what make him different and attractive as a candidate.  Add in the bonus fact that moronic WaPo bloggers think that his candidacy "makes no sense" and you have the hat trick.

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2015, 10:33:17 AM
Webb isn't a pretty-boy ass-kisser.  He says what he thinks even when it isn't popular.  He can take politics and fund-raising or leave it.  He doesn't hew an ideological line, preferring the centrist approach of voting for policies based on their inherent value rather than based on what the Party says.  He isn't willing to do anything to get elected. Those are what make him different and attractive as a candidate. 

Well thank you for explaining what Seedy wouldn't (or perhaps couldn't). For myself, that doesn't make him sound like an attractive candidate as it sounds like he'd be another President without juice.

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 02:37:33 PMNo, actually it would not, since presumably they are actually doing valuable work, and people who work for free rarely work very hard or competently.

I work for the government pal, and I damn sure won't have someone saying I do valuable work. I'm a tax leach, sucking away yours and your family's wealth to laze about all day. Deal with it.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 13, 2015, 06:00:34 PM
It's an advantage. Politics is a job like the police. If the person actually wants to do it, he'd probably be terrible at it. The best people for the job are the ones who don't want it.

I would think those would also be people that would have a hard time getting other politicians to agree with their plans as they don't play at politics.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 12, 2015, 04:43:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:39:52 PM
The problem is that "legalized bribery" is a problem that fundamentally can never really be solved.

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

The idea that the legal regime we were under before Citizens United in anyway limited the influence of money in politics is probably the dumbest thing you've ever posted.

Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2015, 04:59:03 PM
Define "teacher performance" in a way that is easily measurable.

Most principals are experienced teachers. In a normal company you might be given an evaluation form as a manager, but that's just a template. Your performance review of your employees is based on your direct experience with their work and your expertise as their direct supervisor. Hell, here in the Federal government when I give employees a performance review there is a "grading system", but it's based 100% solely on the concept that as their manager I know how best to evaluate their work. The form is just to make sure I cover certain areas in my evaluation. [Of course it being government, an employee can formally "contest" a poor performance evaluation through an internal judicial process, which I doubt exists in most corporations.]

The idea that we have to create some mathematical metric using test scores as input to evaluate teachers is questionable. We don't evaluate people that way in most of the private sector. Some top executives are largely judged based on by-the-book numbers performance, but front line workers almost never are. Instead it's trusted that their managers know a good employee and know how to evaluate them as a good employee, and the converse. So yeah, principals (and vice principals in larger schools) should just evaluate teachers like any other employee (even government ones) gets evaluated by their direct manager.

Do individual evaluations expose perhaps some unfair treatment? Yes. But the effects of that are pretty manageable and a lot better than stupid metrics which don't work at all.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 06:47:01 PMSo you think the problem is some teachers are getting paid too much?

My prior post mentioned that part of the trade off in government employ was lucrative benefits but lower wage (this was based on 1930s actuarial beliefs that most people wouldn't live so long, and thus the cost of benefits was more manageable--admittedly we need to rethink all of that today.) But it should be noted that in most States at present, government employs earn at State average wage and sometimes higher. During the first few years of the Great Recession, State employees often continued to get raises while some States suffered their worst unemployment rates since the Great Depression. Right now State employees are essentially getting better pay and better benefits than what the market provides.

We also have the example of private schools and charter schools, both of which are largely free market in their labor practices. Teacher pay at those is almost universally lower than public schools. So I do question that the market rate for a teacher is higher than what it is currently, with a nod to the fact that some States do have extremely poor pay for teachers but most do not.

Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2015, 04:10:03 PM

Quote from: Berkut on February 12, 2015, 04:06:04 PM
The results speak for themselves.

Trying to throw in other problems seems dishonest to me - like we cannot try to solve problem A, because problem B exists. And we can't solve B because of C, etc., etc., etc.

So let's just not do anything about anything.

Well... yeah, the results do speak for themselves. The thing is, there are places where there are public sector unions with little corruption and those results speak for themselves as well.

In my personal view, the private and corporate influence on politics in the US appears to foster plenty of corruption as well.

Thus I conclude that the problem in the US is campaign finance rather than public sector unions per se. Public sector unions are, I'm sure, part of a messed up system, but the messed up thing is that giving money to politicians with the expectation of political quid pro quo is an overt and expected part of the process in the US.

The issue of public sector unions influencing politicians through campaign donations and voting en bloc is frankly a stupid one, and I'm sad to see Languish (Berkut gets the blame for framing it this way) go down such a stupid line of discussion.

Public sector unions are pernicious because they provide essential government services. When they threaten to not work, laws no longer get enforced, rail lines shut down, street light stop getting repaired, benefit checks stop getting processed, dangerous icy and snow covered roads stop getting plowed and children stop getting educated. These people are entrusted as civil servants to work for the public good, back in the 1930s we established that this means they will receive lucrative benefits but will probably not receive top level wages, because it was felt that lucrative benefits were more affordable for a State than paying high dollar for every clerk and road worker. Also very importantly, the first string of strong pro-labor Democrat Presidents were all vehemently against public sector unions, and they were in fact illegal for the very fact that they recognized that these employees by and large are government. Legislators and chief executives promote policies and pass laws and send down orders, but it's the bureaucracy that actually does the work of government. The bureaucracy is not elected, and if it also unaccountable to elected officials (which they would be, guys like FDR realized, if they were allowed to unionize) then they represent a "fourth branch" of government that can usurp the democratic power of the people into their own hands.

Once public sector unions became legal and popular they've largely destroyed any State in which they hold significant power. In Illinois they have made it largely impossible for any Governor to do anything to address what will frankly be a State-bankruptcy eventually. They won't allow benefits to be cut and they won't accept paying a higher share of costs for them, all they will accept is more, more, more. This means an elected official cannot control tax policy--a union does, and because States are easily abandoned, you've seen tax flight from Illinois resulting in a "death spiral" for the State's economy in which ever higher taxes are needed to service soaring benefit costs, but the higher the taxes are the more the wealthy who pay most of the taxes simply re-domicile to a different State. It's exactly what happened with Detroit, except it's happening to one of America's largest States and it is 100% because of public sector unions.

When it comes to paying for government workers, that must be an issue of policy. Benefits should not be viewed as a U.S. Treasury Bond, that you have an inalienable right to receive without alteration. That isn't sound policy. When you allow public sector unions to become entrenched, you can no longer make regular policy decisions in relation to the compensation of your work force. Instead you're left with very hard choices: shut down parts of government, or raise taxes to levels that cause tax flight and economic stagnation.

I agree, that does make way more sense than what Berkut wrote.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 14, 2015, 11:16:34 AM

Do individual evaluations expose perhaps some unfair treatment? Yes. But the effects of that are pretty manageable and a lot better than stupid metrics which don't work at all.

More importantly it is vastly better than just saying "ZOMG WE CANNOT POSSIBLY EVALUATE TEACHER PERFORMANCE! GIVE THEM ALL RAISES AND TENURE NO MATTER WHAT!"

What is interesting about this debate is the claim that we cannot possibly talk about public sector union influence on politicians without discussing campaign finance in general.

That is an interesting position. The claim by the resident Dem tribe members is that this is clearly a matter of principle...not at all just partisan politics trying to protect their own interests...

What is odd though is that we have had threads specifically about campaign finance reform. But DG and friends didn't show up in those demanding that we include a discussion of public sector union influence as well, and we could not possibly look at one without the other. In fact they were very content to join me in railing against the currently broken system and the need to fix it.

Conversely, in those threads I was in fact perfectly happy to talk about (and vehemently support) campaign finance reform without any need to insist that we cannot do so without dragging in the issue of public sector unions. In this thread I am quite content to talk about the need for public sector unions to be neutered without need to drag in campaign finance reform.

This is the difference between operating on principles as opposed to being driven by political allegiance first and principles a very, VERY distant second...if at all.

Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2015, 01:02:42 PM
I agree, that does make way more sense than what Berkut wrote.

LOL. You are taking your douchebaggery to new and exciting levels.


edit: I was just thinking how funny this kind if strictly nasty personal comment is from you - it works right in line with your general outlook that principles are completely secondary to winning the fight, no matter how petty and trivial it is...

Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 10:54:44 AMWell thank you for explaining what Seedy wouldn't (or perhaps couldn't).

Too much typing beyond profanties.  Deal.

QuoteFor myself, that doesn't make him sound like an attractive candidate as it sounds like he'd be another President without juice.

Yeah, unfortunate nature of guys like Webb (see: McCain, 2000) is they make as many enemies as friends.  Would be nice to see him get traction in the early primaries, but I dont see that happening.

Quote from: garbon on February 14, 2015, 10:54:44 AM
Well thank you for explaining what Seedy wouldn't (or perhaps couldn't). For myself, that doesn't make him sound like an attractive candidate as it sounds like he'd be another President without juice.

We've always had presidents without juice (barring TR, I suppose).  Webb would be different in that he'd also be without owners.  But, as you note, that doesn't make him an attractive candidate to some.  Diff'rent strokes, I guess.

Quote from: grumbler on February 14, 2015, 10:33:17 AM


This is about as stupid a blog piece as I have seen in a while. The whole attraction of Webb is that he isn't into politics because he needs the ego-stroking or dick-sucking.  He wants to get things done, and thought he did get them done as a senator (IIRC, it had been more than 30 years since a freshman Senator got as much sponsored legislation passed as Webb did).  Why is it "senseless" to want to elect a politician that gets things done?  Why is it "senseless" that Webb run for president because some guy on the internet has tried to niche him where it makes zero sense. The whole "Webb's niche in the race would apparently be as a more populist, dovish alternative to Hillary Clinton" followed by "that's an odd profile for a guy who is supposed to be winning votes from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party" just makes me conclude that this anonymous Post blogger is a moron, because he is the guy who invented this "odd profile" that drives the conclusion that Webb's candidacy "makes no sense"!  :lol:

Webb isn't a pretty-boy ass-kisser.  He says what he thinks even when it isn't popular.  He can take politics and fund-raising or leave it.  He doesn't hew an ideological line, preferring the centrist approach of voting for policies based on their inherent value rather than based on what the Party says.  He isn't willing to do anything to get elected. Those are what make him different and attractive as a candidate.  Add in the bonus fact that moronic WaPo bloggers think that his candidacy "makes no sense" and you have the hat trick.

Oh, My!  This is reminds we when you guys went ga-ga over Fred Thompson.  "He's different!  He's not actually a politician!  He's non-partisan.  He'll save us."  Now he tricks old people out of their property.  Guess what.  Jim Webb is a politician.  He likes to get his dick sucked just like anyone else.  He has an ideology, and being centrist doesn't mean you are bereft of ideology.  If he's not willing to do anything to get elected then he won't be elected.  That's why Fred Thompson didn't go anywhere, he wasn't willing to put the work into it.  It's grueling work to run for President.  It's like 18 hours a day of public speaking and traveling for two years.

Quote from: Berkut on February 14, 2015, 01:12:29 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2015, 01:02:42 PM
I agree, that does make way more sense than what Berkut wrote.

LOL. You are taking your douchebaggery to new and exciting levels.


edit: I was just thinking how funny this kind if strictly nasty personal comment is from you - it works right in line with your general outlook that principles are completely secondary to winning the fight, no matter how petty and trivial it is...

:lol: Your level of intentional projection is on the level of Vladimir Putin.  I did get a little nasty, but not before you were acting like your typical prick self and questioned my motivation for trying to clarify what you wrote and then denied you wrote.  You should know by now that I often do respond in kind, except that my responses, unlike your initial offenses, actually do contain a large grain of truth in them.

New Berkut gets subsumed by Old Berkut when the topic of Unions come up.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 07:32:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 09:46:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 02:36:56 AM
Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

No, corruption is a form of corruption.

That's not helpful in the slightest.

Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2015, 07:09:09 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 07:32:40 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2015, 09:46:10 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2015, 02:36:56 AM
Freedom is a bitch ain't it?

So is corruption.

Except freedom to organize is not a form of corruption.

No, corruption is a form of corruption.

Illogical Raz gets subsumed by Irrational Raz when the topic of Unions comes up.

I have no idea what you are getting at.  The ability to organize is not a form of corruption.  Corruption is Corruption is true but tautological.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
I have no idea what you are getting at.  The ability to organize is not a form of corruption.  Corruption is Corruption is true but tautological.

Well, what you're doing after that is kinda iffy.  You may organize all you want, but to be an effective labor union, you have to be able to conspire against the public (which is one definition of corruption).  Labor unions can't work very well if they can't threaten their members to keep in line, threaten potential scabs to stay out, or enjoy legal protection that would accomplish both these things in a more civilized manner.  These evils may be countering other evils, which is why a simplistic "good" or "bad" judgment is indeed simplistic, but that shouldn't be swept under the rug either.

Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2015, 02:04:13 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
I have no idea what you are getting at.  The ability to organize is not a form of corruption.  Corruption is Corruption is true but tautological.

Well, what you're doing after that is kinda iffy.  You may organize all you want, but to be an effective labor union, you have to be able to conspire against the public (which is one definition of corruption).  Labor unions can't work very well if they can't threaten their members to keep in line, threaten potential scabs to stay out, or enjoy legal protection that would accomplish both these things in a more civilized manner.  These evils may be countering other evils, which is why a simplistic "good" or "bad" judgment is indeed simplistic, but that shouldn't be swept under the rug either.

Explain "conspire against the public".

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 02:53:43 PM
Explain "conspire against the public".

Collusion between economic actors that benefits them individually, but is a net cost to the public as a whole.

So pretty much anyone who does business with the government.  Essentially what I'm hearing is that it's bad because we the tax payer has to pay for it.  It's less bad if it someone else has to pay for it.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 04:37:58 PM
So pretty much anyone who does business with the government.  Essentially what I'm hearing is that it's bad because we the tax payer has to pay for it.  It's less bad if it someone else has to pay for it.

No people who give money to politicians in exchange for favors and benefits is bad.  Since that is one of the primary functions of public sector unions that is what makes them bad.

Or at least it would if the situation were not a bit more complicated than it is.  Lots of other interests do this and it is just how the game is played.  But it sucks.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 04:37:58 PM
So pretty much anyone who does business with the government.

:huh: How does that follow?

Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2015, 05:01:50 PM
:huh: How does that follow?

You need to explain the concept of a net benefit.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2015, 05:05:39 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2015, 05:01:50 PM
:huh: How does that follow?

You need to explain the concept of a net benefit.

Yes.  Have him explain.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 05:11:39 PM
Yes.  Have him explain.

No.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2015, 05:05:39 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2015, 05:01:50 PM
:huh: How does that follow?

You need to explain the concept of a net benefit.

To you, or to Raz?

Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2015, 05:12:38 PM
To you, or to Raz?

Don't be a retard.

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2015, 04:42:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 04:37:58 PM
So pretty much anyone who does business with the government.  Essentially what I'm hearing is that it's bad because we the tax payer has to pay for it.  It's less bad if it someone else has to pay for it.

No people who give money to politicians in exchange for favors and benefits is bad.  Since that is one of the primary functions of public sector unions that is what makes them bad.

Or at least it would if the situation were not a bit more complicated than it is.  Lots of other interests do this and it is just how the game is played.  But it sucks.

This makes everyone who gives any money to the political campaign bad.  Everyone is expecting something, even if it's hope for change in policy.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 15, 2015, 05:14:22 PM

Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2015, 05:12:38 PM
To you, or to Raz?

Don't be a retard.

:huh: I honestly have no idea whether you were asking me a question, or whether you were asking a rhetorical question to take a shot at Raz.  That's the danger with single fragmented sentences, sometimes the context isn't very clear.

Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2015, 05:18:01 PM
:huh: I honestly have no idea whether you were asking me a question, or whether you were asking a rhetorical question to take a shot at Raz.  That's the danger with single fragmented sentences, sometimes the context isn't very clear.

Explain it to Raz.

 :hmm: Maybe later.

I thought you said you weren't going to make him explain it to me.

Pretend I am a retard.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 05:15:26 PM
This makes everyone who gives any money to the political campaign bad.  Everyone is expecting something, even if it's hope for change in policy.

It could indeed, if they donate so much to the point the politician is beholden to them and not the voters.  But, as I said in the very post you are quoting, it is not necessarily the donors who are bad it is the system that creates this state of affairs.  Not necessarily their fault for playing the game to the best benefit of their members.  It is complicated.

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2015, 05:27:53 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 05:15:26 PM
This makes everyone who gives any money to the political campaign bad.  Everyone is expecting something, even if it's hope for change in policy.

It could indeed, if they donate so much to the point the politician is beholden to them and not the voters.  But, as I said in the very post you are quoting, it is not necessarily the donors who are bad it is the system that creates this state of affairs.  Not necessarily their fault for playing the game to the best benefit of their members.  It is complicated.

Even if we had the government fiance electoral campaigns,  Organizations will have more clout if they can command the votes of their members.  There is a false dichotomy in your thinking I believe.  Union members are voters.  So it's not a situation of, "Unions wins the public loses!".

Quote from: Valmy on February 15, 2015, 05:27:53 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 05:15:26 PM
This makes everyone who gives any money to the political campaign bad.  Everyone is expecting something, even if it's hope for change in policy.

It could indeed, if they donate so much to the point the politician is beholden to them and not the voters.  But, as I said in the very post you are quoting, it is not necessarily the donors who are bad it is the system that creates this state of affairs.  Not necessarily their fault for playing the game to the best benefit of their members.  It is complicated.

I'd argue that any donation is bad given that it does create at least the perception of special interests.  Now, whether that bad is worst than the bads needed to overcome that bad is the debate.  For instance, disclosure laws help ameliorate this bad, but have their own "bad" in terms of violations of privacy.  It's a balancing act, much to the frustration of those who see everything in terms of black and Raz.

In general, I think the bad elements of public-employee unions outweigh the good elements, but I don't think that that is true for all unions.  I've been in union jobs and non-union jobs, and can't honestly say that I've ever thought that the job I was in at the time should have been part of the other category.

You are getting kind of weird here Grumbler.  You are mentioning me in like every third post.

Quote from: Razgovory on February 15, 2015, 08:15:12 PM
You are getting kind of weird here Grumbler.  You are mentioning me in like every third post.

You are making like every third post, so it isn't so weird.  :P