Mythbusting attacks against public workers

[j_b]

Here comes the goon squad. Per usual, no argument whatsoever regarding the discussion.

[mattp]

Most of the money has been borrowed and spent because of your wars, your healthcare policy that results in skyrocketing costs, your corporate welfare policies, and your casino economy tanking, so spare us the pablum about borrow and spend, mkay?

 

You and your type are so busy talking that you don't read at all - do ya. Your false attacks are just that. It may make you feel intelligent, but for everyone reading- it has the opposite effect.

 

On this point, Bill, I think he is right. There was no cry about deficit spending when the Bush administration started two wars, both of which were a bad idea, and simultaneously initiated massive tax cuts.

 

As to the topic of this thread: I don't want do get heavily involved in the discussion because it will only become a mud festival but I can tell you that I work in a State agency and there is a higher level of dedication in my office than any private entity I have worked at in the past and, at the same time, salaries and wages are lower than in the private sector and the work demands are not less.

[Nitrox]

Here comes the goon squad. Per usual, no argument whatsoever regarding the discussion.

 

So predictable.

 

[JayB]

back on track for ya

 

what the hell

 

Clearly you are a regressive and don't appreciate the magnitude of the Keynesian stimulus effects that paying the manager of a city of 37K $800,000 a year has on the local economy/population.

 

well, hopefully olyclimber is joking because there is a big difference between the manager of a city and “public employees”. As fas as you are concerned you do not get the benefit of the doubt because you have been told many times that cherry picking data won’t do. Nobody ever said that some excesses weren’t taking place (like everywhere) but a fraction of public employees getting too much has never meant that “public employees” as a whole earn too much and shouldn’t get their pensions.

 

The funniest bit is that it sounds as though that final salary could entitle the guy to ~$600K/year worth of inflation-indexed pension money.

 

from the article above: “even if employee pensions didn't cost the state a cent — an impossibility — the savings would fill only 11% of the general fund deficit hole.”

 

Your cherry picking of data woin’t do. Stop cheating.

 

 

-All the more reason to cut employee compensation to whatever is necessary to bring revenues and expenditures into line and fill the "general fund deficit hole." Unemployment in California is over 12%. The U6 is probably at least 1.5 times as high, if not higher. If they can get better total comp in the private sector - they are welcome to leave. The vast majority won't, because they can't.

 

-Plenty of cherries to pick in the database of public employee compensation in California. Bumper crop. Fire up a database of your choosing and let's have a look.

[JayB]

Most of the money has been borrowed and spent because of your wars, your healthcare policy that results in skyrocketing costs, your corporate welfare policies, and your casino economy tanking, so spare us the pablum about borrow and spend, mkay?

 

You and your type are so busy talking that you don't read at all - do ya. Your false attacks are just that. It may make you feel intelligent, but for everyone reading- it has the opposite effect.

 

On this point, Bill, I think he is right. There was no cry about deficit spending when the Bush administration started two wars, both of which were a bad idea, and simultaneously initiated massive tax cuts.

 

As to the topic of this thread: I don't want do get heavily involved in the discussion because it will only become a mud festival but I can tell you that I work in a State agency and there is a higher level of dedication in my office than any private entity I have worked at in the past and, at the same time, salaries and wages are lower than in the private sector and the work demands are not less.

 

I hope that you don't take this as "mud," Matt - but it's not clear what public employee compensation at the city, county, and state level - and the impossibility of financing them at current levels - have to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Bush Tax Cuts.

 

If neither the wars nor the tax cuts would have happened, they'd still be impossible to finance via revenue generated by state and local taxes.

[j_b]

-Plenty of cherries to pick in the database of public employee compensation in California. Bumper crop. Fire up a database of your choosing and let's have a look.

 

Nobody is going to contest that some high level banana republic bureaucrat, like his counterpart in the private sector, has run up the tab in what was the greatest free for all (to date) before the great reckoning of 'limits to growth'. It still doesn't mean that the average public employee is anything more than the victim of your return to the Robber Barron stage of Western civilization.

[j_b]

I hope that you don't take this as "mud," Matt - but it's not clear what public employee compensation at the city, county, and state level - and the impossibility of financing them at current levels - have to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Bush Tax Cuts.

 

because you are a deficit "chicken hawk" who didn't have any issue with running up debt for wars of aggression, until main street needed to be bailed out because of your "free market" free for all.

 

If neither the wars nor the tax cuts would have happened, they'd still be impossible to finance via revenue generated by state and local taxes.

 

The average public employee has nothing to do with the crisis and deficit your 'no regulation of business' ideology created.

[Fairweather]

...the Bush administration started two wars, both of which were a bad idea...

 

Sure, Matt. Bush started the war in Afghanistan like FDR started the war in the Pacific. You libs get nuttier with each passing year. Fortunately, a few of us still remember 9/11/01.

[j_b]

Despite all the diversions and non-sequitur, let's not forget that "public employees" had very little to do with the fiscal crisis engineered by the "let's drown government in a bathtub" crowd.

 

The Laissez faire/"libertarian" ideology of "market is god" has led us where we are.

[JayB]

I hope that you don't take this as "mud," Matt - but it's not clear what public employee compensation at the city, county, and state level - and the impossibility of financing them at current levels - have to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Bush Tax Cuts.

 

because you are a deficit "chicken hawk" who didn't have any issue with running up debt for wars of aggression, until main street needed to be bailed out because of your "free market" free for all.

 

If neither the wars nor the tax cuts would have happened, they'd still be impossible to finance via revenue generated by state and local taxes.

 

The average public employee has nothing to do with the crisis and deficit your 'no regulation of business' ideology created.

 

 

The average private sector employee is no more likely to have had any more significant role in catalyzing the economic contraction either. They're losing their jobs, paying more for their health care and benefits, absorbing portfolio losses, etc, etc, etc irrespective of their personal virtues. That's the reality.

 

I have never argued that public sector employees should have it worse than their private sector counterparts, nor should they have to endure sacrifices any greater than those in the private sector. I have argued that they shouldn't have it better, much less be insulated from the real costs of financing their own health benefits and retirement.

 

Unionized public sector employees have had a good ride. It's over. Their compensation demands can no longer be fully funded, because they have outstripped the private sector's capacity to finance them. The pain has already been present in the private sector for quite some time. Now it's coming to the public sector.

 

 

 

 

 

The unions could ameliorate the impact by opting for pay and benefit cuts instead of layoffs and service reductions, but they have demonstrated that they are primarily concerned with optimizing the private benefits that they derive from public employment, rather than delivering the greatest quantity of services to the public as efficiently as possible.

 

 

 

“I’ll never forget what one union rep said to me through this process—we went to them and asked them if they could help us out with costs, and he said, ‘The last employee standing will have every benefit we’ve ever worked so hard to get.’” She declined to name the union or the representative.

 

http://www.publicola.net/2010/07/14/king-county-council-shifting-gears-with-labor-policy-to-deal-with-the-deficit/

[billcoe]

On this point, Bill, I think he is right. There was no cry about deficit spending when the Bush administration started two wars, both of which were a bad idea, and simultaneously initiated massive tax cuts.

 

Maybe these are YOUR wars and BUSH was your boy Matt. I voted for Kerry and was outraged when Geo W Bush et al choose to commit our country to war in Iraq. For jb to indicate otherwise is just stupidity on his part. Show me a post of mine where I ever supported starting these wars or supported the Bush administration borrowing this country into hell. I will say that after we had been years in Iraq, AFTER we'd spent the countries treasure and AFTER they'd spent about 750,000,000 on the new embassy there, it did not make sense to me that we would just get up and walk away leaving the country to fall apart.

 

As far as your group being dedicated and underpaid Matt, it warms my heart with gladness to hear the first part. You sound blessed with a good group. However, I have never heard of any Federal Worker being underpaid, although it may be true with a person here or a group there (lawyers, for instance) in fact study after study indicates the reverse. Furthermore, the Federal government appears to me to be much like an ever expanding and out of control unstoppable entity hell bent on getting bigger at the expense of our freedoms. States and local governments vary radically per each location, and they are dwarfed by the Feds power and reach as well.

 

We, as a country, MUST get the massive federal government, our trade account balance, and our budget under control, (military spending is a huge part of this) IMO there is no bigger issue for us.

[Nitrox]

But JayB, when a public employee's union gets a public official elected they deserve to get a pay raise, don't they?

 

 

[AlpineK]

...the Bush administration started two wars, both of which were a bad idea...

 

Sure, Matt. Bush started the war in Afghanistan like FDR started the war in the Pacific. You libs get nuttier with each passing year. Fortunately, a few of us still remember 9/11/01.

 

Foulweather thinks events that precipitated the Iraq and Afgan wars are the equivalent of the events precipitating WW2.

 

The US government submitted false information on WMD as proof we were justified in invading a fucked up regime in modern times. In the old days we didn't enter war until after the two fucked up regimes of Japan and Germany invaded surrounding countries and nearby countries begged us for help.

 

Sure turning planes into bombs is a good reason to send out a strategic strike to get the main asshole in charge, but invading a country and then not capturing the bad apple.

[j_b]

For 30+ years, JayB and his regressive friends have robbed private sector employees of their jobs, living wages and benefits. Now that private sector employees have hit bottom and they have nothing left to give up, he thinks it's good logic to say "why should public sector employees get any better, they too aren't entitled to a living wage".

[j_b]

Despite all the diversions and non-sequitur, let's not forget that "public employees" had very little to do with the fiscal crisis engineered by the "let's drown government in a bathtub" crowd.

 

The Laissez faire/"libertarian" ideology of "market is god" has led us where we are.

 

BUMP

[Fairweather]

...the Bush administration started two wars, both of which were a bad idea...

 

Sure, Matt. Bush started the war in Afghanistan like FDR started the war in the Pacific. You libs get nuttier with each passing year. Fortunately, a few of us still remember 9/11/01.

 

Foulweather thinks events that precipitated the Iraq and Afgan wars are the equivalent of the events precipitating WW2.

 

The US government submitted false information on WMD as proof we were justified in invading a fucked up regime in modern times. In the old days we didn't enter war until after the two fucked up regimes of Japan and Germany invaded surrounding countries and nearby countries begged us for help.

 

Sure turning planes into bombs is a good reason to send out a strategic strike to get the main asshole in charge, but invading a country and then not capturing the bad apple.

 

Of course. My bad. We should have just gone after the emperor and those Shinto radicals...

 

See Hull Memorandum/note...

 

Stalin invaded Poland on the same day as Germany. They each got about half...

 

Germany declared war on us...

 

Geeez, Feck. Lay off the weed for at least a full day now and then.

[kevbone]

Fortunately, a few of us still remember 9/11/01.

 

Oh please oh please oh please.......tell me what 9/11 has to do with Afghanistan? Or Iraq....or any occupation/war the US is engaged in.

 

[billcoe]

For 30+ years, JayB and his regressive friends have robbed private sector employees of their jobs, living wages and benefits. Now that private sector employees have hit bottom and they have nothing left to give up, he thinks it's good logic to say "why should public sector employees get any better, they too aren't entitled to a living wage".

 

Money sucking parasites, such as yourself, certainly would feel that way. However, there are more public sector jobs than ever and they are better paid than ever. It's fucking out of control. We need to reduce the size of government, not enlarge it. That includes the military AND this massive bureaucracy. That unwarranted attack on Jayb is obviously just more pettiness, stupidity and smallness of mind on your part in a way to throw off the important issues and so that you can remain a parasite.

 

Seriously, what positive things have YOU ever done for the country? Bitching about things that don't matter on a climbing bulletin board are excluded in case you think this matters at all: which it don't. You ever create one job? Create anything of value? Do anything?

[JayB]

For 30+ years, JayB and his regressive friends have robbed private sector employees of their jobs, living wages and benefits. Now that private sector employees have hit bottom and they have nothing left to give up, he thinks it's good logic to say "why should public sector employees get any better, they too aren't entitled to a living wage".

 

Thankfully regressives have private sector unions to do the heavy lifting for us:

 

 

The empirical record is quite clear. If you want to destroy jobs, the best way to do so is to demand wages that exceed marginal productivity. Couple that with rigid work rules, etc and the fuse is lit - it's only a matter of time until the enterprise goes under, re-locates, or uses machines to supplant workers that cost more than they produce. Want to destroy jobs in the private sector? Unionize them.

 

 

[ivan]

unions are clearly bad - otherwise walmart would have them!

[j_b]

Corporations relocate places where wages are low and workers aren't unionized of course and it's all the union's fault. Gotta love the Heritage Foundation propaganda and those who take that crapola seriously.

[rob]

For 30+ years, JayB and his regressive friends have robbed private sector employees of their jobs, living wages and benefits. Now that private sector employees have hit bottom and they have nothing left to give up, he thinks it's good logic to say "why should public sector employees get any better, they too aren't entitled to a living wage".

 

Really, JayB? You've been working on this for 30+ years??? That's some serious dedication.

[JayB]

Corporations relocate places where wages are low and workers aren't unionized of course and it's all the union's fault. Gotta love the Heritage Foundation propaganda and those who take that crapola seriously.

 

They migrate to places where they don't have to pay workers wages that exceed the value of their marginal output.

 

If you want to build a high end Mercedes, Germany is probably the cheapest place in the world to do that.

 

[j_b]

What JayB is trying to say is they go to places where they can pay their employees as little as they can to generate the highest profit possible for themselves.

[Nitrox]

What JayB is trying to say is they go to places where they can pay their employees as little as they can to generate the highest profit possible for themselves.

 

Well no shit, what a revelation. Why don't you just come out and admit you're a communist?