Battle of Madison

[droski]

You are simply not serious now. I mean, you can't be.

I'm not even talking about "casual employment" in this instance.

i can't be serious that the investor class wants low unemployment?

 

[sjt18]

you have the right to breathe, but it's not spelled out anywhere.

Non sequitur. But FTR, the right to live is spelled out.

We have the right to convene. We have the right to speak our minds. We have the right to join a group. We have the right to convince people to join in the fray. We can collectively walk off of a job, should we deem it necessary to be heard, to get our way or otherwise.

Agreed on every single point... but you do NOT have the right to tell someone they cannot replace you or threaten people who do. Your absolute right to do ALL of those things does NOT mean that the owner loses his property rights.

There need not be a justification. The corollary to your point would be that people have to, once employed, take what the owner offers, which is absurd.

No. They can do the things you mention above... in particular, they can walk... or better yet start their own company to compete with the other company. If their pay demands are legit then their company should flourish while the other folds.

I hire people. I am currently trying to get approval for higher wages. I believe we need it to attact and retain the quality of employee that we need. I firmly believe that we will become MORE profitable by getting smarter, more talented employees with better work ethics.

This is the RIGHT way for wages to go up. A shortage of quality laborers forces the price higher. Unions striking or negotiating more for less is NOT the right way.

It's not monopoly in the least. There are other workers available and that's a risk that strikers run.

In states that are not right to work states... companies can't just replace striking workers.

Your example of the auto companies assumes that nobody else can step into the void and make autos under the price of those outfits that fell victim to the unions, which has been proven absolutely untrue.

Right. Jobs were exported by the tens of thousands. New auto plants were built in right to work states where unions do NOT have an effective monopoly.

We've decided that collusion is unfair to the consumer and runs counter to our market principles. Striking is simply negotiation and is a part of market principles.

ONLY if the employer has a real option to choose other labor.

Precluding strikes, union or otherwise, is tantamount to muzzling workers or precluding a gathering, which is preposterous.

No. It really isn't. Do you do math in the grocery store? If the two lb bag costs $5 and the 5 lb bag costs $7... which do you buy?

Labor works the same way. You should rightly be able to command a higher salary because you provide more of a benefit. You should NOT be able to collude to shut someone's business down because you arbitrarily want more for the same or less work.

I'm all for canning unions because they have outlived their usefulness, but collective bargaining has to remain an absolute right in America because it's who we are.

That was sort of where I was going. If my idea were in place then there would be 2+ unions vying for the contract with Wisconsin. Both would have to negotiate price AND value. The winner would then have to attract the teachers needed to fulfill the contract. This would assure that the equillibrium was struck in that particular market.

My company is a subsidiary of a large national corporation. We operate in the world market. We do not have unions. We pay at to well above vs comparable companies. Our employees report being "happy" and cared for. Employees have literally run union organizers off the property without mgt involvement at all.

We try to pay for the type of employee we need to be successful. They don't and didn't have to collectively bargain for anything.

 

[volinbham]

iowahawk: Longhorns 17, Badgers 1



it's always a good read when Krugman is being ridiculed for being a fatuous blowhard.

interesting data

 

[sjt18]

@sjt -

I would cut the Defense and War budget by 60% minimum.

So, I've just raised you at minimum 400,000,000 and I would say it's been closer to 600,000,000,000.

Find your cuts, please.

Piece of cake. I would start by cutting the 250K federal employees that Obama has hired at an avg pay of $70K plus bennies worth at least $30k including retirment- $25,000,000,000 and freeze the pay of all other non-military employees for five years saving another $65,000,000,000+.

Dept of Education- $70 billion. Gone.

Obamacare- approximately $200-250 billion per year. Gone.

Making SSI and medicare fraud criminal and enforcing it- Approximately $50 billion.

Freeze transfer payments (welfare) at current levels while their long term viability is considered- $100 billion for SSI alone.

Issue vouchers in lieu of medicare/medicaid- That's about 100 million people @$4,500 with admin costs totaling $450,000,000,000. That's a savings of $300 billion all by itself without hurting svc.

There's $810 billion without trying very hard.

As an alternative, I would simply freeze total payroll and budgets while eliminating unnecessary expenditures of all types. I would rather eliminate functions altogether but if gov't "must" do the things it does then the managers in gov't can learn to do it like managers in the private sector do when times are tough. They can look for savings, right size payrolls, combine administrative functions, etc just like we've had to do over the past 2 years.

 

[BigPapaVol]

WHAT?????

Do you even know what it means?

:jawdrop:

You can't be serious asking me that silliness. I asked who is arguing for a meritocracy. You threw it out acting as if our sorry ass and rapidly further deteriorating government should get family wealth over the actual family, which is criminal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

In the immortal words of Yoda, "Much to learn you still have."

It's not your fault. It's structural.

I have "learned" all from your distorted, contorted view of reality that I need to learn. Your ideas that you think are so novel... have been tried... repeatedly. They always fail and ALWAYS result in a totalitarian state.

You have a great deal to learn... but are manifestly unteachable... or else a fraud.

 

[sjt18]

Banks were instructed by the FED not to loan, and companies have been hoarding, despite the feckless protests of the CATO Institute.

The CATO Institute is "feckless"?

Youdemonstrate no understanding of how wealth is created in a free economy on the micro much less macro level.

Banks were told to consider risk... that's the way business runs in the real world.

Companies have been "hoarding"? That's just plain stupid. Companies have held reserves to make sure they could survive the recession that Obama significantly extended through is moronic left wing economic policies.

Did you go out and spend your life's savings recently? Did you put everything you own at risk to do your part to infuse the market with capital?

Sell your house, sell everything you own, liquidate all of your assets, and invest them in penny stocks then tell us about it. Otherwise you are "hoarding".

We are in a critical crisis of Capitalism, and the current thrust has been a drive towards monopoly (the MandAs of the last three years), a drive to hoard and / or assauge investor class (see unemployment rates + dividends making a comeback), and a the age old contradiction of the war against labor (see WI).

And your big gov't ideals are a huge part of the problem and NO part of the solution. Your ideas about property, capital, and wealth... simply don't work.

There are problems. Your solutions qualify as causes.

Capital accumulation is at its sharpest crisis since the 1970s during the "profit crisis". Unfortunately for all of humanity we have very little wiggle room left.

What are you even talking about?

There is a very simple way to motivate investors to loosen reserves... stop threatening to "redistribute wealth", toss the socialized medicine non-sense, balance the budget and pay down the debt...

You need a healthy dose of Dick Armey.

 

[sjt18]

BTW gibbs. Assuming you have or will have kids... your will says that you are leaving all of your money to the IRS, right?

 

[BUBear]

BTW gibbs. Assuming you have or will have kids... your will says that you are leaving all of your money to the IRS, right?

Fat chance. Libs don't give their money away, they give other folks money away.

 

[NEO]

No one deserves to be a billionaire by the same logic.

In fact, no one deserves an inheritance as well!

Substantive Equality! :good!:

Dude, your kids are going to be so FUBAR by the time they hit 18. They will either be left wing communist and dream of a day the next Stalin rises to power or they are going to make Gordon Gekko look like Gandi. It's going to be one extreme or the other.

 

[IPorange]

Utgibbs has got to be a troll.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[BeecherVol]

Utgibbs has got to be a troll.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You lack a "real world, outside the back door, gorilla view."

GSM, woodshed.

 

[gsvol]

 

[utgibbs]

Dude, your kids are going to be so FUBAR by the time they hit 18. They will either be left wing communist and dream of a day the next Stalin rises to power or they are going to make Gordon Gekko look like Gandi. It's going to be one extreme or the other.

I love any good Gordon Gekko reference.

Droski said teachers didn't deserve their pensions. I merely carried his supposition further (and utvolpj took it all the way) and said no one deserves to be a billionaire / no one deserves an inheritance by the same logic. I didn't say it was my logic.

Also on the one hand, most of you subscribe to an anachronistic "social Darwinism" - I like to assume you actually mean a "meritocracy" rather than SD. Now, BPV says that's not true. Could someone please reconcile?

Utgibbs has got to be a troll.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Please explain. I'm interested to hear your opinion. PM me if you like.

 

[utgibbs]

You need a healthy dose of Dick Armey.

(I can't believe I'm about to write this)

Dick Armey needs a healthy dose of me.

(That sounds wrong on so many levels)

 

[utgibbs]

can't say i've seen anyone become a billionare by being paid by our taxpayers. i'm not shocked you can't see the difference though.

I can't believe I missed this before.

You are simply not being serious. :jawdrop:

Just one example - the Koch brothers get a one billion dollar subsidy from the taxpayer to turn food into fuel!

 

[utgibbs]

then please explain how inheritance is public money (like I asked before and you conveniently skipped). Did the state not already get their cut of the earned money? Are you suggesting all earned money must be returned to the state after death?

It's not earned money when it is inherited.

Again, YOU have taken droski's point to its logical conclusion. I just filled in the details of your contradictions.

I believe in a healthy estate tax, absolutely. In fact, it is absolutely the BEST tax when we create a system of justice behind the "veil of ignorance."

 

[BigPapaVol]

It's not earned money when it is inherited.

Again, YOU have taken droski's point to its logical conclusion. I just filled in the details of your contradictions.

I believe in a healthy estate tax, absolutely. In fact, it is absolutely the BEST tax when we create a system of justice behind the "veil of ignorance."

It is absolutely earned money when it's inherited. Whomever bequeathed it, earned it and the IRS took its cut then.

Your economic justice garbage is pathetic and it's why your called a silly troll and communist here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Live ammunition found outside Wisconsin Capitol building - NYPOST.com

 

[utgibbs]

It is absolutely earned money when it's inherited. Whomever bequeathed it, earned it and the IRS took its cut then.

Your economic justice garbage is pathetic and it's why your called a silly troll and communist here.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

An interesting, radical take on it, BPV.

Since when is justice "garbage"? Another interesting, radical take on it.

Please help me with your social philosophy too. Are you saying you do not want nor advocate for a meritocracy? Completely, or just by degrees?

 

[utgibbs]

Live ammunition found outside Wisconsin Capitol building - NYPOST.com

Probably planted by the Tea Party....

 

[utvolpj]

An interesting, radical take on it, BPV.

Since when was justice "garbage"? Another interesting, radical take on it.

it's not justice to steal money from a dead person while ignoring their wishes

 

[utgibbs]

it's not justice to steal money from a dead person while ignoring their wishes

And the contradictions keep on rolling.

I wonder how much court time is caught up in civil litigation regarding the handling of estates against the wishes of said dead person. Hmmmmm.

And if you truly believe in meritocracy, it is actually one of the first tenets of justice.

I want to know if people here believe in meritocracy or not.

 

[utvolpj]

And the contradictions keep on rolling.

I wonder how much court time is caught up in civil litigation regarding the handling of estates. Hmmmmm.

what's the contradiction? As BPV said, the person earned the money, paid the gov't their cut already and wants to dictate where it goes after they are done using it. Are you really saying it's not their money and must be returned upon death?

 

[utgibbs]

what's the contradiction? As BPV said, the person earned the money, paid the gov't their cut already and wants to dictate where it goes after they are done using it. Are you really saying it's not their money and must be returned upon death?

The contradictions are many, but I want to know if you believe or desire a meritocracy. From the numerous posts on here, I would assume most of you do, and yet BPV tells me you don't.

Let's answer this basic question before moving on to the contradictions.

[I've said teachers deserve their pension, and an estate tax as one of the most just levies, absolutely. Only the most mystified apologist would argue otherwise (and Warren Buffet has my back). However, I've never said people shouldn't get an inheritance. I just ask the question, if teachers who work 30 years for a pension don't deserve their pension, as droski intimates, why do you deserve an inheritance your forebears earned, and to which, you probably sucked up your fair share already anyway?]