Jump to content

Dino Rossi


Hugh Conway

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 254
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think that what tweaks people out is to see COLA in place while private folks are getting hours cut or pay reduced in these nasty economic times. That said, the topic is being used to bash public employees in general. I mean Christmas! -- teachers? I know, let's say that kids are the highest priority but stuff 32 of them in a classroom with 10% of those with special needs, pay mediocre salaries, and expect the teachers to swim upsteam against everything from non-functional families to NCLB.

 

It's going to be interesting (read grim) now that the public has reversed the candy/soda tax (I mean really? Candy and Soda repeal?) and voted down the income tax.

 

I think the single most effective means of getting the public to accept higher taxes would be a sustained demonstration that the additional tax revenues will be used effectively.

 

In practice that means insuring that the the principal beneficiaries of the additional revenue in the hands of the public sector are those who receive public services, rather than those who deliver them.

 

The ongoing spectacle of ever-increasing pay and benefit costs for public sector employees, that neither abates when time are tough, nor result in increased services is not helping the "progressive" agenda gain any traction, to say the least.

 

It'll be interesting to see how long public sector unions can hold the line on the "cut services first" approach to balancing budgets. It's clear that avoiding structural reforms to unsustainable and archaic pay, benefit, and retirement costs is priority number one, and they've managed to avoid making any structural concessions thus far, but it's not clear how long that can continue. The next budget cycle should be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ongoing spectacle of ever-increasing pay and benefit costs for public sector employees, that neither abates when time are tough, nor result in increased services is not helping the "progressive" agenda gain any traction, to say the least.

:confused: If these things are necessary in the uber important financial sector, why not government or anywhere else?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayB believes that gambling with people's pension is much more valuable to society than ferrying people back and forth from work.

 

If the public sector exists to serve the public, and not vice versa, then the only relevant question when determining compensation is "how much will it cost to staff the position with a qualified person?"

 

The larger metaphysical question of what job X is really "worth" relative to Y in some equally arbitrary perspective is completely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the public sector exists to serve the public, and not vice versa, then the only relevant question when determining compensation is "how much will it cost to staff the position with a qualified person?"

 

The larger metaphysical question of what job X is really "worth" relative to Y in some equally arbitrary perspective is completely irrelevant.

 

I guess that depends if your timeframe is "before I'm out of office" "before I'm in a really powerful voting block" or "if it's sustainable"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger metaphysical question of what job X is really "worth" relative to Y in some equally arbitrary perspective is completely irrelevant.

 

As always Jay, thanks for the reminder that your insights are always value-free.

 

So – when you are spending your own money, how often do you pay more than the asking price when you go to the grocery store, gas station, etcm or pay your heating/water/trash/etc bill because you feel that the asking price isn’t commensurate with the true social value of the good or service that you are getting in exchange for your money?

 

Other than transactions where tips are customary – I can answer for you, and the answer is never.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayB believes that gambling with people's pension is much more valuable to society than ferrying people back and forth from work.

 

If the public sector exists to serve the public, and not vice versa, then the only relevant question when determining compensation is "how much will it cost to staff the position with a qualified person?"

 

The larger metaphysical question of what job X is really "worth" relative to Y in some equally arbitrary perspective is completely irrelevant.

 

nice dodge! JayB still won't discuss the banksters making their get away with the loot. Don't worry pal, I'll keep reminding you, and each time you dodge the issue I'll make a mention of it. M'kay?

 

good to know that a living wage is a metaphysical issue :grlaf: Perhaps it's just a matter of being better at communicating it to the pesky peons. :shock:

 

if the employee needs food stamps to make ends meet or to go to the emergency room for regular health care, we don't care because although we are paying the bill, we don't know about it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayB is the ultimate dead-ender: for him there is no environmental or social cost to doing business. His model is completely unsustainable not only because ecosystems can't take much more abuse and critical resources are declining as demand keeps increasing, but because people have never stood quietly for very long when subjected to systematic neglect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plutonomy

Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority.

 

This buzz word was initially coined by analysts at Citigroup in 2005 to describe the incredible growth of the U.S. economy during that period despite increasing interest rates, commodity prices and an inflated national debt. Citigroup analysts argued that as such an economy continues to grow in the face of contradictory elements, the more important the society's ultra rich become to maintaining such growth. The analysts also believed that in addition to the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and China are also becoming plutonomies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayB is the ultimate dead-ender: for him there is no environmental or social cost to doing business. His model is completely unsustainable not only because ecosystems can't take much more abuse and critical resources are declining as demand keeps increasing, but because people have never stood quietly for very long when subjected to systematic neglect.

 

WTF does that have to do with using public money to pay more than necessary to staff positions with qualified people?

 

Much less the fact that you are, like it or not, much less inclined to do so when you are spending your own money.

 

Ever head to the back of the restaurant and hand the dishwasher $100 to compensate for his less than living wage on top of what you paid for the meal? Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So – when you are spending your own money, how often do you pay more than the asking price when you go to the grocery store, gas station, etcm or pay your heating/water/trash/etc bill because you feel that the asking price isn’t commensurate with the true social value of the good or service that you are getting in exchange for your money?

 

I don't know what you are intending to say here but I, for one, often pay more than "low bid" when faced with an offer for someone to provide work that I think will be sub-quality, workers who I don't like or, in fact, work that for some tangential and maybe even political reason or another is something I cannot support. Maybe you have no such concerns for quality or values. I do.

 

If your point is that we should run our government like McDonalds, I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JayB is the ultimate dead-ender: for him there is no environmental or social cost to doing business. His model is completely unsustainable not only because ecosystems can't take much more abuse and critical resources are declining as demand keeps increasing, but because people have never stood quietly for very long when subjected to systematic neglect.

 

WTF does that have to do with using public money to pay more than necessary to staff positions with qualified people?

 

Having employees implies paying them enough so they can support their families and so they contribute to their communities, unless one is a social Darwinist like you. Your socio-economic model harks back to the age of the robber barons on a global scale, nothing more.

 

Much less the fact that you are, like it or not, much less inclined to do so when you are spending your own money.

 

I am proud to pay taxes toward services, but I do pay more than my fair share thanks to anti-tax demagogues who cheered those that nickeled and dimed us to death. Shame on you.

 

Ever head to the back of the restaurant and hand the dishwasher $100 to compensate for his less than living wage on top of what you paid for the meal? Why not?

 

What a stupid comment! I pay taxes to help those who need services because their employers doesn't pay them enough, either because the boss really can't afford it or because the boss is greedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So – when you are spending your own money, how often do you pay more than the asking price when you go to the grocery store, gas station, etcm or pay your heating/water/trash/etc bill because you feel that the asking price isn’t commensurate with the true social value of the good or service that you are getting in exchange for your money?

 

I don't know what you are intending to say here but I, for one, often pay more than "low bid" when faced with an offer for someone to provide work that I think will be sub-quality, workers who I don't like or, in fact, work that for some tangential and maybe even political reason or another is something I cannot support. Maybe you have no such concerns for quality or values. I do.

 

If your point is that we should run our government like McDonalds, I disagree.

 

I personally shop on the basis of value, not price. I'm not in the habit of paying more than the asking price for the things that I do buy, though. When was the last time when you made a purchase and actually paid more than the asking price, and what percentage of your total spending does that constitute?

 

I'm of the opinion that the public sector exists to deliver services that no other entity in society can as efficiently as possible. That is, the public sector exists to promote the well being of the citizenry, rather than the opposite. In practice, that means spending what it necessary to staff positions in the public sector with people who are qualified to do the job, and nothing more.

 

When push comes to shove, what's more important? The interests of the people who rely on transportation services that are paid for by the public, or the private interests of those who are paid to deliver those services with public funds? In reality, where tax dollars are finite, it's one or the other? Which is it? Ditto for police, fire, etc, etc, etc, etc. How about public sector comp vs medicaid? Et.....cetera. It's quite clear that public sector employees as a whole prefer cutting services to cutting costs, or improving efficiencies - how about you?

 

Its' worth adding that under a regime where public sector positions were staffed on the basis of what was required to fill the positions, there'd be absolutely nothing preventing self-styled progressives from making voluntary donations to close the gap between what public sector employees were paid and what they deemed the said employees to be worth. Think every bus driver should clear over $100K? Knock yourselves out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If a job that is currently being done can be done more efficiently by a chimp, a robot, a felony sex-offender, a child, an indentured servant, a prisoner, a mental defective, a retiree, or a slave it should be. It's like an iron law. And even if we're not sure that it could be done more efficiently another way, we should do it anyway. The worker that was previously doing that job will now be free to be unemployed. Yes, it's a curious way to bring an economy based on consumption out of recession, but hey, we've been trying to bust unions for so long it's kinda hard to shift gears now!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...