Thread: Protesting in Wisconsin....Just the beginning?

The tumult being seen across the globe stems from economic hardship.

I'm finding the protests in Wisconsin very interesting to watch. I think protests such as these are the tip of the iceberg in this country for the simple fact that IMO, what is happening in Wisconsin is quite simply reaction and protest by government and government related workers vs. the plight and hardship the rest of the citizenry has been experiencing for some time now.

I worked in a municipal job from 1997-2001 in Minnesota and to be honest, I was actually a bit ashamed at the level of generous benefits we received, high wages and laissez fair management. At that time, we received free health care (no copays, no premium payments), generous vacation, paid holidays, sick leave paid days, the list when on and on.

I can understand that the workers benefiting directly from jobs in Wisconsin that would be affected by changes in Wisconsin law are upset. I just wonder if such jobs were compared to similar private sector jobs if the public jobs are at this time many many levels "above" the private sector in bennies, etc.

In my home state of Minnesota fairly recently Northwest Airlines insisted that if the unions did not make significant concessions in negotiations, Northwest could not survive....Unless I'm mistaken, the unions did not agree and Northwest did not survive.

In the city I grew up in, Duluth, MN, city workers were known to have one of the best and most generous retirement packages anywhere. Free healthcare for life, etc. The city of Duluth has been fighting for years saying that the city will soon be bankrupt if concessions or modifications are not made to the retirement plan. The retirees, many of whom I understand are no longer residents of the state have very fiercely resounded a collective "we don't care" attitude.

I sure don't have the answers. My point is I think we're going to see a lot of government workers across the country become very vocal in protest against cuts to their benefits, wages, bargaining, etc. I do wonder if such protests will have a backlash, however, with the majority of the citizenry that works for and tries to find employment in the private sector; I wonder if the protests in that regard will fall on deaf or at the least, unsympathetic ears.

Chris L

Originally Posted by ChrisL

I wonder if the protests in that regard will fall on deaf or at the least, unsympathetic ears.

I think that will be the case. I've seen it twice locally... Once was when the state workers went on strike, and the other time was when a local teacher's union went on strike. In both cases, people that weren't somehow connected to those on strike were generally unsupportive.

It's hard to get the public to be sympathetic when your salary and benefits package is well above the median for the area that you're in.

On the other hand if you believe that a contract is something that is legally binding and in the supremacy of the law, it is the collective responsibility of all who voted for the politicians signing the other end of those contracts.

The question then is how much you would be willing to turn a blind eye on principles for the sake of economic benefit. And yeah, one solution is to bankrupt the state, the municipality, the company or whatever and then all those obligations are wiped off in a perfectly legal way. Would anybody learn from something that harsh - I wouldn't hold my breath.

It's not dissimilar with the national budget either - cut the spending to match the revenue and the unemployment will skyrocket with all the consequences, keep borrowing and you get the protests due to it's unsustainability. The problem is chronic (lower taxes, high spending, and continued borrowing before there was a recession), and the hard part is transitioning from one state of dynamic equilibrium to another one.

Everybody wants somebody else to be the party that is going to foot the bill, and those who are in stronger position aren't shy to leverage it. Hopefully at some point when things get much worse, but before a civil war the rational thinking will prevail over the irresponsible politicizing.

Originally Posted by gugi

Everybody wants somebody else to be the party that is going to foot the bill, and those who are in stronger position aren't shy to leverage it. Hopefully at some point when things get much worse, but before a civil war the rational thinking will prevail over the irresponsible politicizing.

In the mean-time, stockpile food, water, and ammunition.

Originally Posted by Utopian

In the mean-time, stockpile food, water, and ammunition.

Or just ammunition. I am pretty sure that will be the new currency.

Do you think there are any rational solutions to these types of problems, Ivan? I'd be interested to hear any that you may have.

Chris L

What a lot of people miss when they get upset about what public sector employees make is that those salaries are relative to the areas they live in. I'll use public safety as an example, since that's my background. In Los Angeles, for example, a police officer with an AA/AS degree will start at $47,000. In some parts of the country, this may be a huge salary. Here in Southern CA, this is sufficient if you're single, or have a spouse that works, but there's no way you'll raise a family on this. Another thing that a lot of folks miss is that public safety employees get a lot of the benefits they do to compensate for the fact that they work in a dangerous environment, the hours and days off suck for the most part, and chances are when they retire, they'll do so without all of their body parts working as they did when hired (After 22 years, I've got knee, back and neck problems that aren't going away anytime soon).

My wife has taught for the L.A. Unified School District for over 20 years and the only increases in salary she's received are cost of living or those she received because she took additional classes (at her expense). I can't recall the last contract raise she had. This is the same school district that pumps class sizes to 35+ students and yet is about to issue 4,000 or so preliminary layoff notices. The other thing that goes under the radar regarding teachers is the incredible amounts of their own time and money that they spend to accomplish their job. My wife probably spends 3 hours a day, more on weekends, grading papers, planning lessons (for five different classes, no less), etc. I can't tell you the amount of money she spends to make sure her class is properly equipped. And yet we have politicians and members of the public that think teachers pay and benefits should be cut. Really??

It's amazing the number of folks that bitch and complain about public employees salaries, but I don't see them lining up to do those jobs.

If I had to offer one solution, it would be for governments to cut truly unnecessary spending. Does Los Angeles need a Dept of Cultural Affairs? NO! Does it need a Department on Disability? NO! Does the City Council (all 12 of them) need take home cars? NO!

Before the public demands that governments balance the budget on the backs of it's employees, they should demand the government take a good look at wasteful spending practices.

This really isn't or shouldn't be a political issue or a matter of respect for teachers. When all the layers of the onion are peeled it comes down to economics, simple pencil and paper math. Having been a high school English teacher, I know the hours the people put in and the sacrafices they make. It's a tall job and my hat is truly off to anyone who does it.

All of that said, the core issue here is basic math. The states simply cannot afford the sweetheart deals that these unions have set up for these people. What the teachers and all the people screaming about their "entitlements" don't seem to understand is that yes, they may have to pay for some health care or pay into a retirement fund but they will still have jobs. If we do nothing, the states and in time the federal government ends up bankrupt and can afford to pay no one.

Now being a Southerner, I've never been big on labor unions but it seems to me that the Governors of Wisconsin and Ohio are simply doing what they were elected to do, straighten out this unsustainable mess. I'm encouraged when politicians not only do what they say but have the stones to make some long overdue business decisions. Unpopular though they might be with some, these guys are simply doing what employers in the private sector do all the time. Basically, here's what I can afford to pay you and here's the benefits package. If you can't live with that, get to steppin'. Nothing unfair or illegal there.

My final point is probably what bothers me the most about these protests. Just about every sound bite I've heard from these "teachers" has been laced with some of the most appallingly stupid remarks I've ever heard in my life (i.e. this is just like what happened in Egypt, Governor=Hitler, I want what I'm entitled to, etc.) Worse yet teachers walking off the job shutting down the schools for multiple days and, my personal favorite, BRINGING THEIR STUDENTS TO THE PROTESTS. I mean honestly, what kind of example are they really setting for their students? When life doesn't give you exactly what you want or feel entitled to, simply walk off the job to rabble rouse in the streets and throw a fit like a five year old in Walmart. If my kids were being bused out to this crap in lieu of going to school, I'm pretty sure my foot would be straight up someone's backside. The kids should not be used as a rent a crowd for stuff like this and most of these folks seem a whole lot more concerned with their "entitlements" than the best interests of their students. Firing these idiots would be no huge loss, says I. I'm sure there are people who would be more than happy to take their jobs even with the reduced benefits. The military has consistently cut benefits over the last 20 years, there were no angry mobs in the streets, no one refused to deploy because their raise wasn't big enough. Whether they agreed or not, they did their job. If the cuts were too objectionable they simply left the service at their earliest opportunity. Then again, GIs typically are not statist socialist Democrats and we had no union with enough money to have bleeding heart politicians in their hip pockets. Speaking of which, I think the next sweetheart deal that needs to be addressed is the retirement package and benefits extended to elected officals.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Do you think there are any rational solutions to these types of problems, Ivan? I'd be interested to hear any that you may have.

Chris L

Well, I think it is possible in principle, but the reality is governed by politics and in the current political climate it most certainly isn't.

As we saw recently it's very easy to be a fiscal conservative when you don't have to address any single consequence of such policies.
Or, as we've seen for years, it's very easy to sign off on anything, as long as the bill isn't due before you've left the job.

The reality is that most of the budgets are entitlements, i.e. things that were already promised and signed off in the past. It seems to me that changing existing contracts is not going to be very easy thing (remember the bonuses in the many companies that didn't go bankrupt because the government bailed them out), and that's just the reality of leaving the subsequent generations pay for your irresponsible behavior come true. However current contracts will have to come with much more spartan benefits, higher retirement ages etc. That could probably naturally shrink the size of government since such government jobs would be less desirable. And if people really value various government services they have to accept that those don't come for cheap or for free, but cost money, therefore higher taxes.

So ideally I'd imagine a transition to something of the spend-only-what-you-have variety, and then to spend-less-so-that-you-can-pay-off-the-debt, the transition being necessary only to gradually train people into accepting lower quality lifestyle.

But this doesn't seem politically feasible at least not in USA 2011. There is too much populism, and the american culture is conductive to beliefs in economic BS such as 'open system', 'unlimited wealth'...

The problem I see is that the cost of changing the political climate into something more pragmatic is expending tools like the current low cost of borrowing and then you're much worse off than if you had made the same decision but without the need of a wake up call.

It's like needing a wakeup call to start living within your means, but the wake up call that can do it is a delinquency and costs you a 30% interest rate on the debt plus your house.

So, I really don't think any good solution is possible, but I hope that it doesn't have to end up through the worst possible scenario. After all that Ben Franklin quote about liberty and security is just a pretty phrase, the choices most people make should be the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Do you think there are any rational solutions to these types of problems, Ivan? I'd be interested to hear any that you may have.
Chris L

The one and only answer is human population control. Take Egypt: 80 million people living off the Nile: non sustainable. Most Arab countries have a population that exceeds many times the amount of food you can reasonably produce in the desert. That means food has to be imported. Importing bulk produce is expensive, with a lower value of the dollar the oil revenues apparantly are no longer enough to foot the bill.

The new Tunisian and Egyptian governments will have a hard time to improve conditions for their people.

Corruption of course is another problem in those countries that cannot be eradicated at the stroke of a pen.