JayB Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 There are god knows how many government contracts fulfilled by non-union companies that submit low bids all of the time that manage to do so without shipping in freighterloads of impoverished thirld-worlders. Ditto for the vast majority of all production activity that occurs in the US in non-union environments. You see where all that's gotten us, so uh...yay? Yay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Actually - they'd be subject to all of the same health, safety, and engineering standards. Not very likely if your pals, the Koch brothers who want to eliminate 90% of laws and regulations, have their way. The only difference would be that it would cost the public less money to build the same bridge. how is subsidizing their fuel or letting them destroy the environment in the process going to save the public money? There are god knows how many government contracts fulfilled by non-union companies that submit low bids all of the time that manage to do so without shipping in freighterloads of impoverished thirld-worlders. Ditto for the vast majority of all production activity that occurs in the US in non-union environments. the environment that hasn't seen an increase in effective revenue for 30+ years? the ones that you try to incite to hatred against public workers for having benefits at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 (edited) Yay, more robots + same (or growing) population = more juggalos! Edited October 22, 2010 by prole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Actually - they'd be subject to all of the same health, safety, and engineering standards. Not very likely if your pals, the Koch brothers who want to eliminate 90% of laws and regulations, have their way. The only difference would be that it would cost the public less money to build the same bridge. how is subsidizing their fuel or letting them destroy the environment in the process going to save the public money? There are god knows how many government contracts fulfilled by non-union companies that submit low bids all of the time that manage to do so without shipping in freighterloads of impoverished thirld-worlders. Ditto for the vast majority of all production activity that occurs in the US in non-union environments. the environment that hasn't seen an increase in effective revenue for 30+ years? the ones that you try to incite to hatred against public workers for having benefits at all? All the more reason to make government expenditures more efficiency by delivering the same level of services and infrastructure development at a lower cost! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Cost efficiency in government is bad. Got it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 All the more reason to make government expenditures more efficiency by delivering the same level of services and infrastructure development at a lower cost! if the scheme involves not paying people a living wage, it is certainly not more efficient at anything except generating profit for a few. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Cost efficiency in government is bad. Got it! Pauperization is NOT efficient in government or elsewhere. Got it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Cost efficiency in government is bad. Got it! Pauperization is NOT efficient in government or elsewhere. Got it? Yes - show me a list of all of the folks in government that would be pauperized by converting their pension to a 401(K) and increasing their deductibles, co-pay's and premiums. Since they're so much more highly educated and trained than their private sector counterparts, they'll surely have no problem finding better paying work in the private sector if their total compensation drops below what they deem acceptable and/or "living." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted October 22, 2010 Author Share Posted October 22, 2010 Since they're so much more highly educated and trained than their private sector counterparts, they'll surely have no problem finding better paying work in the private sector if their total compensation drops below what they deem acceptable and/or "living." They can also always jump on the cattle cars of cheap migrant construction workers flocking to work on the Halliburton Highways once we get rid of those pesky "inefficiencies" that are holding back the good ol' American gogetum of the private sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Cost efficiency in government is bad. Got it! Pauperization is NOT efficient in government or elsewhere. Got it? Yes - show me a list of all of the folks in government that would be pauperized by converting their pension to a 401(K) and increasing their deductibles, co-pay's and premiums. we'll look into it as soon as those responsible for >90% of the revenue shortfall return the booty. Since they're so much more highly educated and trained than their private sector counterparts, they'll surely have no problem finding better paying work in the private sector if their total compensation drops below what they deem acceptable and/or "living." dude, go easy on the kool-Aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.