Open Your Pockets, Seattle...

[Fairweather]

Why should state and local employees enjoy any greater degree of job security or special protection from economic downturn than those in the private sector who pay their salaries?

 

I don't think they should! In fact, if you have a problem with it, I would recommend you work on (re)organizing private sector workers for greater job security, better wages, and benefits. It'd be rather more productive than beating up on unionized workers and crying like a child whose ice cream cone went plop and now wants someone elses.

 

How has that worked out for, oh, say, the United Auto Workers-- or, hmmm, I don't know; the textile industry? Better wipe my ice cream off of your shoe, junior--and shine mine while you're down there.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

this is not an answer or argument to your question Fairweather, but I have had several opportunities to take a "state job" that would promised "job security" or "good benefits"....but always at a lower rate than what the private sector had to offer. I have always taken the "risk" associated with the private sector jobs, because I enjoy the faster pace and higher pay associated.

 

its really more of an observation: in my experience state jobs afford more job security, but lower pay. some people seem to like that sort of job, and gravitate to the slower paced but perhaps more "guaranteed" state positions.

 

this is not an argument for or against either, nor do i know if it has anything to do with what prole and you were discussing.

 

I hear this argument a lot but haven't seen any legitimate numbers to support the premise.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Fairweather

[ClimbingPanther]

Unions are dying, as well they should. How long did you think we could compete in a free market with China & co. when our wages aren't competitive in their market? The result of free trade, coupled with a populace whose primary interest is paying the lowest price for a good/service, is the eventual equalization between the traders. Companies who overpay their workers will inevitably die or be forced to change their ways to remain competitive. Fortunately, government employees have no competition! Thank goodness antitrust legislation doesn't apply.

 

Oh, and if you think a toll booth attendant is needed to deal with the lawless cheaters/non-payers/counterfeiters, then you've never tried to cheat an automated toll system. What kind of a camera can you get for 66K a year these days?

[prole]

Why should state and local employees enjoy any greater degree of job security or special protection from economic downturn than those in the private sector who pay their salaries?

 

I don't think they should! In fact, if you have a problem with it, I would recommend you work on (re)organizing private sector workers for greater job security, better wages, and benefits. It'd be rather more productive than beating up on unionized workers and crying like a child whose ice cream cone went plop and now wants someone elses.

 

How has that worked out for, oh, say, the United Auto Workers-- or, hmmm, I don't know; the textile industry? Better wipe my ice cream off of your shoe, junior--and shine mine while you're down there.

 

Oh, I'd say it worked out pretty good for 2 or 3 generations of white American working class families that saw, yep you guessed it, greater job security, the ability for a single wage to support a household, and benefits. BTW, nice Joe Pesci imitation. Now get me a fuckin' Coke.

[Fairweather]

...until they got too greedy. I noticed you used past tense. Guess even you can see the writing on the wall...

Edited March 14, 2008 by Fairweather

[ClimbingPanther]

Oh, I'd say it worked out pretty good for 2 or 3 generations of white American working class families that saw, yep you guessed it, greater job security, the ability for a single wage to support a household, and benefits. BTW, nice Joe Pesci imitation. Now get me a fuckin' Coke.

 

Ah, the good ole days! Alas, where did they go? Prole, do you buy foreign goods? I sure hope not, as pro-American as you are. No, I didn't say pro-Union, because I'm not so sure that's what you are. An honest to goodness pro-middle-class-citizen-of-the-world would be all about equality, like supporting pay cuts and less benefits for decadent Americans while our Chinese friends get huge bonuses just so they can afford a bottle of Febreeze for their open toilets. Mmmmmm, equality. Sounds so good, but tastes like crap.

[JayB]

Why should state and local employees enjoy any greater degree of job security or special protection from economic downturn than those in the private sector who pay their salaries?

 

I don't think they should! In fact, if you have a problem with it, I would recommend you work on (re)organizing private sector workers for greater job security, better wages, and benefits. It'd be rather more productive than beating up on unionized workers and crying like a child whose ice cream cone went plop and now wants someone elses.

 

How has that worked out for, oh, say, the United Auto Workers-- or, hmmm, I don't know; the textile industry? Better wipe my ice cream off of your shoe, junior--and shine mine while you're down there.

 

A trip through any virtually any small town in the Northeast will drive home the same point. The number of vacant and decaying mills and factories lining the shores of virtually every river in the region is staggering.

 

Combine high fixed costs with low productivity and the outcome will be the same every time.

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

I hear this argument a lot but haven't seen any legitimate numbers to support the premise.

 

My job at a federal lab paid 20-30% under private sector with worse benefits. Which is why they had staff turnover >25% per annum

 

The least efficient sector of the economy I've found is small companys (<40 employees)

[JayB]

I think that you could pretty well answer the question by looking at job categories where the government is having difficulty filling vacancies or retaining staff. Those are pretty much the only categories where you could make a reasonable claim that the combination of total compensation plus intangibles that the private sector has to offer is more attractive than those offered by the government.

 

[Hugh Conway]

There's a booming market for Arabic language specialists?

 

I'm sure there are some overpaid, lazy, public sector workers. There's also Vegas doormen making $500k a year.

[grtmtnchic]

Unions are dying, as well they should.

 

The union I paid dues to for years was totally useless. When I actually needed them on 2 occasions they did NOTHING to help me. I was optimistic when I first joined, went to the meetings, tried to be involved, then I saw what a powerless, stupid, money-wasting thing it was. I was more powerful on my own than under the protection of a union when it came to employment issues.

[Hugh Conway]

Unions are dying, as well they should.

 

The union I paid dues to for years was totally useless. When I actually needed them on 2 occasions they did NOTHING to help me. I was optimistic when I first joined, went to the meetings, tried to be involved, then I saw what a powerless, stupid, money-wasting thing it was. I was more powerful on my own than under the protection of a union when it came to employment issues.

 

ClimbingPanther of course can't wait to become a member of the AMA - a Union in all but name.

[JayB]

Clearly whatever the government is offering in terms of compensation isn't sufficient to overcome the negative intangibles. Unlock the pay scale and the problem would dissappear.

 

How much are Vegas doormen costing the taxpayer? How about the many millions that each of the Back Street Boys cleared? What private sector employers choose to pay their employees has zero affect on the public sector's ability to provide public goods and services efficiently with the tax revenue that they collect for this purpose. Lance Bass gets twenty-million so no one should worry about how efficiently the Seattle School District spends uses tax revenues to educate its students?

[Hugh Conway]

How much are Vegas doormen costing the taxpayer?

 

About $200k a year in unpaid taxes.

 

"unlocking the payscale" only makes the problems disappear in a Cato Institute paper. If you want to sustain skilled employment you need to be willing to pay for people when times are poor.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Clearly whatever the government is offering in terms of compensation isn't sufficient to overcome the negative intangibles. Unlock the pay scale and the problem would dissappear.

 

How much are Vegas doormen costing the taxpayer? How about the many millions that each of the Back Street Boys cleared? What private sector employers choose to pay their employees has zero affect on the public sector's ability to provide public goods and services efficiently with the tax revenue that they collect for this purpose. Lance Bass gets twenty-million so no one should worry about how efficiently the Seattle School District spends uses tax revenues to educate its students?

 

I've had some experience w/ public sector jobs in IT. Basically the folks in those positions are paid less to do FAR less. Expectations are extremely low as is the output. The caliber of the applicant is lower than in the private sector, and even good folks stagnate in the public sector. Those jobs pay less, but the ROI is much worse on balance than in the private sector (of course YMMV). And there is little oversight, and nobody ever gets fired.

 

Some large companies are very similar to public sector jobs (except for better pay).

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

How much are Vegas doormen costing the taxpayer?

 

About $200k a year in unpaid taxes.

 

"unlocking the payscale" only makes the problems disappear in a Cato Institute paper. If you want to sustain skilled employment you need to be willing to pay for people when times are poor.

 

Sweet! Time for a career change.

[prole]

Why should state and local employees enjoy any greater degree of job security or special protection from economic downturn than those in the private sector who pay their salaries?

 

I don't think they should! In fact, if you have a problem with it, I would recommend you work on (re)organizing private sector workers for greater job security, better wages, and benefits. It'd be rather more productive than beating up on unionized workers and crying like a child whose ice cream cone went plop and now wants someone elses.

 

How has that worked out for, oh, say, the United Auto Workers-- or, hmmm, I don't know; the textile industry? Better wipe my ice cream off of your shoe, junior--and shine mine while you're down there.

 

A trip through any virtually any small town in the Northeast will drive home the same point. The number of vacant and decaying mills and factories lining the shores of virtually every river in the region is staggering.

 

Combine high fixed costs with low productivity and the outcome will be the same every time.

 

 

We've certainly passed through the looking-glass now. What exactly is the point here? Unions are to blame for capital's neverending quest find the cheapest possible labor for any given task and externalize as many social and environmental costs as possible? Workers are to blame for not wanting to return to 19th century working conditions and social arrangements found in Chinese sweatshops? Once again, I'm puzzled at your confusion as to why people aren't willing to commit social suicide for the free-market jihad or kamikaze themselves under the banner of stockholder well-being. What might American and European societies look like now if worker's combinations, unions, and other collective bargaining institutions had been absent the historical scene? Realizing of course that economic history isn't nearly so popular at Beacon Hill cocktail parties as Cato papers.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Workers are to blame for not wanting to return to 19th century working conditions and social arrangements found in Chinese sweatshops?

 

WTF? Stop the presses! I thought Marxism was supposed to prevent "19th century working conditions and social arrangements" and yet the ChiComms are tolerating, nay, encouraging this widespread practice in their cunt-ry?

[JayB]

Why should state and local employees enjoy any greater degree of job security or special protection from economic downturn than those in the private sector who pay their salaries?

 

I don't think they should! In fact, if you have a problem with it, I would recommend you work on (re)organizing private sector workers for greater job security, better wages, and benefits. It'd be rather more productive than beating up on unionized workers and crying like a child whose ice cream cone went plop and now wants someone elses.

 

How has that worked out for, oh, say, the United Auto Workers-- or, hmmm, I don't know; the textile industry? Better wipe my ice cream off of your shoe, junior--and shine mine while you're down there.

 

A trip through any virtually any small town in the Northeast will drive home the same point. The number of vacant and decaying mills and factories lining the shores of virtually every river in the region is staggering.

 

Combine high fixed costs with low productivity and the outcome will be the same every time.

 

 

We've certainly passed through the looking-glass now. What exactly is the point here? Unions are to blame for capital's neverending quest find the cheapest possible labor for any given task and externalize as many social and environmental costs as possible? Workers are to blame for not wanting to return to 19th century working conditions and social arrangements found in Chinese sweatshops? Once again, I'm puzzled at your confusion as to why people aren't willing to commit social suicide for the free-market jihad or kamikaze themselves under the banner of stockholder well-being. What might American and European societies look like now if worker's combinations, unions, and other collective bargaining institutions had been absent the historical scene? Realizing of course that economic history isn't nearly so popular at Beacon Hill cocktail parties as Cato papers.

 

They'd probably look quite a bit like the various Eastern Bloc societies that imploded, or the destinations that the Attlee and Mitterand experiments were heading towards before they pulled back from the brink.

 

There are unions out there - one at a paper mill in Maine that I am aware of, and there are doubtless others - that got the message and learned that the only way for them to sustain their wages and preserve their jobs was to increase productivity, cost containment, innovation, etc. If unions were sane, they'd be actively encouraging all of the above. Lacking any of these efforts, they relegate themselves to competing primarily on the basis of labor costs, which is a battle that they'll lose continuously until wages in trading partners increase to the point where the costs associated with transport, etc negate any comparative advantage that they have on the labor front.

 

The funny thing is that for a supposed friend of the downtrodden and wretched, you seem to begrudge these very (non-American) people the one opportunity they have to imnprove their standard of living, using the one of the few comparative advantages that they have at their disposal. The fact that manufacturers preferentially allocate production to those places where the labor costs are lowest does vastly more to alleviate global poverty than any aid program ever conceived ever could, and with considerably more speed and efficiency. Corporations seeking out the lowest labor costs transfers resources to the very areas where they're needed most, the kind of places where people sell their daughters into prostitution, or cripple their children so that they'll be able to beg more effectively. Working long hours in a factory sucks. Working long hours hunched over a rice patty and fending off starvation sucks even more. Attempting to lock capital and all of the competitive advantages in countries that are already wealthy when this means keeping a substantially larger number of people mired in desperate poverty is positively inhuman.

 

 

[JayB]

Why should state and local employees enjoy any greater degree of job security or special protection from economic downturn than those in the private sector who pay their salaries?

 

I don't think they should! In fact, if you have a problem with it, I would recommend you work on (re)organizing private sector workers for greater job security, better wages, and benefits. It'd be rather more productive than beating up on unionized workers and crying like a child whose ice cream cone went plop and now wants someone elses.

 

How has that worked out for, oh, say, the United Auto Workers-- or, hmmm, I don't know; the textile industry? Better wipe my ice cream off of your shoe, junior--and shine mine while you're down there.

 

A trip through any virtually any small town in the Northeast will drive home the same point. The number of vacant and decaying mills and factories lining the shores of virtually every river in the region is staggering.

 

Combine high fixed costs with low productivity and the outcome will be the same every time.

 

 

We've certainly passed through the looking-glass now. What exactly is the point here? Unions are to blame for capital's neverending quest find the cheapest possible labor for any given task and externalize as many social and environmental costs as possible? Workers are to blame for not wanting to return to 19th century working conditions and social arrangements found in Chinese sweatshops? Once again, I'm puzzled at your confusion as to why people aren't willing to commit social suicide for the free-market jihad or kamikaze themselves under the banner of stockholder well-being. What might American and European societies look like now if worker's combinations, unions, and other collective bargaining institutions had been absent the historical scene? Realizing of course that economic history isn't nearly so popular at Beacon Hill cocktail parties as Cato papers.

 

Never been to a cocktail party on Beacon Hill, but the notion that Cato (Institute) papers would be popular at them is quite amusing.

 

I don't even think that most of the denizens of Beacon Hill would take all that kindly to someone quoting Cato the Elder in their presence. Might make them rather uncomfortable. Ditto for "Cato's Letters" by Trenchard et al.