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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.:gwh:

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.

yea those corporate big shots are real concerned with the welfare of their employees and their customers. They come first before anyone else. That's why before there were unions employees earned great wages and worked reasonable hours and enjoyed vacation and sick leave and a five day work week. Those unions had to come along a muck it all up eh? You know it's all in the history books if you care to read all about it. Oh this is the 21st century that could never happen again. Think so?

I worked for the Federal Govt and when I started in the 1970s all my friends made fun of me.If you worked for any Govt you were looked down upon and during good economic times you couldn't give a Govt job away. All these folks complaining about Govt jobs being too plush I'll bet would never have worked in those jobs a few years ago. My friends all made way more than I did and enjoyed a better life because of it. The only thing I had over them was the pension. People seem to think that if you are a public servant that is exactly the way you should be treated, as a servant.

You can't make a generalization that govt workers are overpaid anymore that everyone at Smith Barney is overpaid. Maybe the brokers are but is the mail clerk too? There are many people who work in specialized positions the Gov't can't fill because no one will work for the wages they pay.

As far as Wisconsin is concerned the state was scheduled to have a budget surplus until the new Gov gave it away in tax breaks to the rich and corporations. In New Jersey the former governor raided the pension plan funds and never replaced the money and the state government hasn't made a pension contribution in years. It's like the old story of setting someone up to fail and when they fail you just blame them.

The fact is in this country people mostly suck it all up and take it in the shorts. If this was Europe there would be a national Strike over this.

The folks on the ultra right better tread carefully cause if they push too much they may learn the hard way they have awoken the proverbial sleeping giant.

This has not been mentioned at all so far as I know, but consider this: the SCOTUS Citizens United ruling last year allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money for political advertising.

If unions cease to exist (elimination of collective bargaining agreements), that leaves who for political spending...? Payback, anyone...?:popcorn:

On a side note, where is the voluntary giving up of salaries/perks/bonuses by management (both public and private sector)when "times are tough"? You never hear upper management/owners/legislators called "greedy" now do you? Only the workers. "We have to tighten our belts" never seems to include those @ the very top (in either the public or private sector)...

Proportionately, as a share of total payroll, executive compensation is relatively small, but as a message to send to your workers, it's abysmal leadership to continue to take home large paychecks and perks while demanding your workers give various things up . Just terrible leadership.

(For the record, my political beliefs run the gamut. I own a (very!!!!!) small business, and being a pipe & cigar enthusiast, despise anti-smoking policies/propaganda/activism etc. :D I'm also not a fan of being told I shouldn't use animal products or drive a car or shoot fireworks shows or fly airplanes or... [you get the idea]):beer1:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PA23-250

On a side note, where is the voluntary giving up of salaries/perks/bonuses by management (both public and private sector)when "times are tough"?

---

I remember Mr. Blankfein taking a 98% pay hit in 2008 and living only on a base salary :) And at the same time his company was making great profits (supposedly they didn't need any bailout and only took a small piece to show solidarity with everybody else, and then returned it back at the first opportunity along with a pretty nice profit).

I don't know much about all the politics involved in the issue, but perhaps someone can explain how it's ok for the non-government employees to retire and try to survive on Social Security, to which they contribute during their working life, but government employees need a private pension plan paid for by others.

And when some one tries to comment on how hard government employees work and how dangerous their jobs are, think about for a minute on our soldiers, on how much they get paid and what their retirement benefits will be.

I don't know that this has anything to do with 'the problem' but ..... I remember the press,during the Viet Nam war, saying 'you can't have guns and butter'. Saying that to say that the $ that were going to prosecute the war precluded any possibility of LBJ's 'Great Society' or his 'war on poverty' being successful. I've found it odd that I've not seen that admonition coming from the pundits of the press these past ten years.

A few nights ago there was a documentary on Ronald Reagan on TV. In the final segment a reporter from back in the '80s said that "our grandchildren would be paying" for the enormous deficits caused by the Reagan arms race and tax cuts for the wealthy .... sound familiar ?

Ten years later we had a surplus and ten years subsequent to that "our grandchildren will be paying" is what I'm hearing again. Having been around for this a couple of times in the past 60 years I knew the house of cards would come tumbling down eventually. I just hoped it would last another 15 to 20 years. By then I won't be around to see it anyway. What was that curse ....'may you live in interesting times.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaja

I don't know much about all the politics involved in the issue, but perhaps someone can explain how it's ok for the non-government employees to retire and try to survive on Social Security, to which they contribute during their working life, but government employees need a private pension plan paid for by others.

And when some one tries to comment on how hard government employees work and how dangerous their jobs are, think about for a minute on our soldiers, on how much they get paid and what their retirement benefits will be.

---

Where is it that Government pensions are paid for by others? I've been contributing roughly 9% of my paycheck for the past 22 years into the pension fund.

As for the military, granted the base pay leaves something to be desired, but housing and medical care are paid for. Also, after 20 years, military personnel can retire with a pension and will have medical care. I am a Reservist (made a trip to Iraq) with a number of active duty friends that look forward to retirement. Best check your facts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I remember Mr. Blankfein taking a 98% pay hit in 2008 and living only on a base salary :) And at the same time his company was making great profits (supposedly they didn't need any bailout and only took a small piece to show solidarity with everybody else, and then returned it back at the first opportunity along with a pretty nice profit).

---

Unfortunately, he is just one small example. Many took token salaries of $1 a year, but kept their stock options (worth millions each). Nice gesture, certainly, but not totally the same. And in any case, they had a lot more in the bank than the average worker, so they could afford to do it and still keep their standard of living.

Many average workers have been barely hanging on for a long time, what w/ flatlined wages in real terms, combined w/ rising health care/college costs. For a while both adults (as opposed to just one) worked to make up for the shortfall. Then people worked longer hours to make more money. Then even that wasn't enough, so a lot of people turned to credit w/ disastrous results.

For a lot of average workers, it's not a question of buying Mcmansions & Escalades on credit--they've simply been barely hanging on w/ basic expenses & were forced to use their houses as ATMs to maintain a basic middle class standard of living. THe media however equates them all w/ people buying plasma TVs & exotic vacations using their overinflated home values as collateral. Not that such people don't exist (go to any shopping mall in the CONUS & you can probably found such posers!:D) Most however did not do this.

OT, I know, but I'm sick of hearing those soundbites repeated as fact nightly on all major TV networks...:gaah:

Interesting to see people from other states comment on this. My dad has a contract with the department of motor vehicles. He had to take 8 furlough days because the state can't afford to pay its employees. Sure it sucks to have benefits lessened but less benefits or no job. Not that much is changing in this bill.
I agree it is horrible what this shows the children. I f I can't have my way then I am gonna take my toy and leave. The teachers walk out and the Democratic senators actually fled the state. In my opinion they should all lose their jobs if you cant show up to work no matter how difficult it may be you don't deserve the job. How many of us would still have a job if our boss asked us to do something we did not want to and we said no and did not come in the next day, or 4?

My company has taken benefits and pay and stopped paying our lunch break. So i work the same hrs a day but for less. I am glad I have a job and that my company is still in business because there are a lot of business in my industry going belly up.

Mostly I am upset that the elected Democratic senators Walked out before a vote that they can not win no matter what, they are out voted period. But if we do not have 19 to vote the vote can't happen so instead of voting and trying to fix things they stall everything this would have been over days ago if they DID THERE JOB.

They have the state patrol on alert to bring them to their job if they are found in the state, how pathetic.

I am not saying it is all ok and the bill is perfect but everyone should do the job they chose. No one forces these people to teach or to be a politician. You choose your lot in life if you don't like it make it change.

If your elected republicans were smart (and underhanded) they would pass a resolution affirming something emotional like that the state of Wisconsin supports raising healthy children.

Then, in the next election cycle they could say "senator x doesn't support healthy children", because senator x didn't vote yes on the resolution.

FWIW, I'm one of those retired active duty guys and trust me the pension is not huge. In fact it's not enough to live off of even if you were very, very conservative. Compared to what a one term congressman who has an 11% approval rating for a couple years will draw for the rest of his life, what I pull is totally chump change and Florida is full of retired NYPD and Fire Dept guys who pull retirements about 5 times the size of mine and all they have to do all day is fish, hang out at the beach and sling BS about how great NYC is. If they like it so much I wish they'd go back. And oh by the way, that free medical care for me and my family for the rest of my life that they promised me in 1980, that's not true either. If you want the same coverage you had in the military it costs a lot of money and of course goes up periodically. Just got a thing in the mail the other day saying federal income tax witholding for retirement checks will be going up too (what you're surprised we pay taxes?) Don't get me wrong, I don't regret spending 25 years in the military (in fact, I'd do another 25 if I could) I just wanted to keep the discussion grounded in fact. It wasn't a posh lifestyle when I was in the military in fact it was damn hard and damn uncomfortable most of the time, but I loved every damn second of it and would go back in a heartbeat. As strange as that sounds, if you've ever been in the military, you'll understand and if I have to explain it you probably never will. My point remains that the benefits I was promised in 1980, the benefits I actually recieved when I retired in 2005 and indeed the benefits folks retiring now are receiving are all very different animals and it doesn't get any better with time. The military has been the first target for budget cuts since day one and that's not likely to change anytime soon. Ain't no active duty GIs getting rich and those of us drawing a pension are making even less. Calling us retired isn't really fair. First I'm to young to be retired and second, I can't afford it.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LAsoxfan

Where is it that Government pensions are paid for by others? I've been contributing roughly 9% of my paycheck for the past 22 years into the pension fund.

---

That's exactly the solution to the problem, you put aside 9% or as much as you want of your paycheck, save it/invest it any way you want, and leave the taxpayers out of funding your pension.

One thing I find interesting in this situation is that people say, "They have it so much better than I do". And the answer seems to be to drag them down to my level. Why isn't the question, Why don't I get what they have?

Just a thought,

Tim

That was todays protest sorta thousand more joined in support of the bill. No one is trying to drag them down. If your wife spent 1,000 dollars a day and it was out of your budget would you say how can I spend that much also or would you cut her spending? Without this legislature some of them are going to lose there jobs there is just not enough money to support their current situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 32t

One thing I find interesting in this situation is that people say, "They have it so much better than I do". And the answer seems to be to drag them down to my level. Why isn't the question, Why don't I get what they have?

Just a thought,

Tim

---

You are correct, sir! Until people start thinking this way & demanding to be treated better, this race to the bottom will continue. In many ways, lots of American workers today are their own worst enemies. If one group gets a pay raise, other people should be happy because it raises the bar for everybody. Instead, they snipe about how that group "doesn't deserve it".

Keep in mind, corporate profits in most sectors are just about as high as they've ever been, so it's not like companies can't afford it... It would be good for the economy too as more dollars would be in circulation again. Then we could improve our falling apart infrastructure, etc.

Instead, most people would rather watch "American idol" (I deliberately used lower case for the 2nd word!) & complain instead of getting off their behinds & doing something about it...:soapbox:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by knightwolf

That was todays protest sorta thousand more joined in support of the bill. No one is trying to drag them down. If your wife spent 1,000 dollars a day and it was out of your budget would you say how can I spend that much also or would you cut her spending? Without this legislature some of them are going to lose there jobs there is just not enough money to support their current situation.

---

I think what 32t was saying was more related to the private sector. Most big companies today are not hurting in the least for cash. Governments are a different matter, but again, if we had more (good paying) jobs in the private sector, there would be more tax revenue, so...

Keep in mind, most of the unions agreed to the planned pay/benefit cuts. THey may have been vocal in their dislike of the way they were handled, but they're not out there simply because of cuts. The key thing is that the governor is trying to bust their unions altogether. That's what everyone is (rightly) worked up about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PA23-250

You are correct, sir! Until people start thinking this way & demanding to be treated better, this race to the bottom will continue. In many ways, lots of American workers today are their own worst enemies. If one group gets a pay raise, other people should be happy because it raises the bar for everybody. Instead, they snipe about how that group "doesn't deserve it".

---

These are my thoughts.:rock:

nightwolf,

15 years ago my proprety taxes in Wisc were $100 now they are $2,200 So I am a part of this. I feel your pain. I have thought of selling.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PA23-250

You are correct, sir! Until people start thinking this way & demanding to be treated better, this race to the bottom will continue. In many ways, lots of American workers today are their own worst enemies. If one group gets a pay raise, other people should be happy because it raises the bar for everybody. Instead, they snipe about how that group "doesn't deserve it".

Keep in mind, corporate profits in most sectors are just about as high as they've ever been, so it's not like companies can't afford it... It would be good for the economy too as more dollars would be in circulation again. Then we could improve our falling apart infrastructure, etc.

Instead, most people would rather watch "American idol" (I deliberately used lower case for the 2nd word!) & complain instead of getting off their behinds & doing something about it...:soapbox:

---

Here's the only problem I see with what you've said: Public workers get pay raises at the expense of taxpayers. I guess I don't understand why the average tax payer would be happy with public workers "raising the bar for everybody" when the money is coming out of the pocket of the tax payer.

Chris L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Here's the only problem I see with what you've said: Public workers get pay raises at the expense of taxpayers. I guess I don't understand why the average tax payer would be happy with public workers "raising the bar for everybody" when the money is coming out of the pocket of the tax payer.

Chris L

---

This wouldnt be a problem if the taxpayers manufacturing jobs hadnt gone overseas. Also before the legislature asks them to pony up the concessions maybe the legislature should make some concessions of their own for the sake of the public pocket book, lead by example.

I don't think the problem is in the manufacturing jobs. The fact of the matter is that these jobs do not require as high qualifications as they may have in the past, therefore they correspond to a lower standard of living and end up in countries where people are more willing to accept such a standard.
It's analogous to the industrial revolution, when a machine can make something much faster and much better than a human with rudimentary tools, these old jobs become redundant.

Then with globalization americans also face more competition, so it seems reasonable that in the bigger pool you may end up being a smaller frog.

Of course, there's also the problem of businesses externalizing costs and selling it to politicians for money and to the joe-six-pack as anti-regulation and pro-business. And government waste appears to be only wasteful when it doesn't benefit the person making such determination.

The nature of free market is that it is conductive to creating big economic disparities. And, sadly, a lot of voters are pretty easy to manipulate with ideological propaganda, and don't understand that at the end of the day the more important thing in their life is the nature of the society they live in.

The american political system though is designed from day one to be based on elitism. But there is also the feedback from those not in power, who are the vast majority. As long as they are wiling to accept the way they are being ruled, that's how it ends up being (the congress reelection rates are around 90%, same as always). Unfortunately it seems to be often producing the worst of both worlds - corrupt establishment and incompetent populists.

It's always interesting to look at the polls who ask the quality questions without trying to bias them with ideology, e.g. what do they think is the level of economic disparity and what do they think it should be. Vastly different results than if you ask about tax cuts.

On the TV news tonight I was told that the average public/government employee in Wisc is paid 4.something percent less than the private sector. As a national average it is around 7% less. Gotta do more research but food for thought.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

(the congress reelection rates are around 90%, same as always).

---

No, they're less than 80%, which is lower than in the recent past (facts are stubborn things!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

Unfortunately it seems to be often producing the worst of both worlds - corrupt establishment and incompetent populists.

---

Voters need to be edumacated more better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

No, they're less than 80%, which is lower than in the recent past (facts are stubborn things!)

---

Right, shall I quote from your fact checked post?

Quote:

---

only 9% of those who ran for reelection lost

---

So (elementary school math),

Code:

---

reelection rate = 100%-9% = 91%

---

If somebody isn't even running for reelection by definition they can neither lose nor win, so those must not be counted as either.
Here are the historical rates:
Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets


I don't know if edumcation is the answer. It certainly can improve things, but only if it teaches the edumcated how to do basic logic, simple math, as well as what the meaning of 'is' is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

If somebody isn't even running for reelection by definition they can neither lose nor win, so those must not be counted as either.

---

I guess you're right if you want to stick to the wrong wording you used to convey your idea. Still, the retention rate was less than 80%, which is what you were talking about. If the public was so disgusted with Congress that none of them ran for reelection, would you say the reelection rate was 100% :nono: Sometimes I wonder what goes on upstairs in that hoglahoo mind of yours

Anyway, my point is if you edumacate the people to vote for more better representatives then you have less childrens in Congress playing games and breaking toys

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 32t

On the TV news tonight I was told that the average public/government employee in Wisc is paid 4.something percent less than the private sector. As a national average it is around 7% less. Gotta do more research but food for thought.

Tim

---

I doubt they're factoring in benefits, etc. Take home pay is only piece of the puzzle. When I worked a municipal job I had free healthcare, paid holidays including the government holidays that no one in the private sector gets off, two weeks paid vacation, roughly the same amount of paid sick days, automatic guaranteed "cost of living" increases, taxpayer contributions to my retirement fund, free access to higher education class opportunities while on the clock. It all added up to much more than what my actual hourly wage was (which was also easily equal to the private sector).

One more than one occasion while I worked there an employee would leave for what they thought were greener pastures in the private sector. In most of those cases, those employees would come back asking for their job back.

Chris L

That is exactly correct it is the benefits that are costing so much the legislation adjusts those areas to closer to private sector jobs. And the reason for removing collective bargaining is to fix it long term not just untill the next contract when they would just get it all back and more.

On another note Gov. Walker was just on the local news stating There will be layoffs starting on Monday if this bill is not voted on. Up to 1500 workers. He is not kidding money needs to be saved. You wanna have your cake and eat it to but the budget does not allow for it.

Money does need to be saved and unnecessary costs eliminated. Why in MN if one were to eliminate all (100%) of state emmployees you'd save a whopping 4% of the budget. Were those employees needed or not, you could save on a grand scale by getting rid of them, union or no union.

Eliminating unions is a poor choice as it completely emasultes (defeminizes?) the work force who have to deal with those in power. Don't forget that the individual without collective bargaining now must deal with those who make laws and regulatlion and can call the police forces out to bust uncooperative heads. Remember too that when the labor contracts were approved, they were approved by that same government which now decries the wages and benefits that were negotiated and accepted.

When I retire, I will have a pension that I contributed to. That plus Social Security, to which I also contributed, may be enough to live on. I will have to pay my own health insurance, probably several thousand dollars a year and I will have to pay tax upon tax to very hungry governments who wish to absorb moneys much and greatly.

The government (choose your level) has enormous power and will prevail. Why my house belongs to the government; I only rent it. Oh, I've fully paid for it, but if I stop paying property taxes, it will be seized and I'll have to find a cardboard box and a comfortable bridge.

One other thing, the same government which approved those labor contracts is the same government, through its poor and short-sighted planning, that got us into the financial fixes where we now find ourselves.

There really is no hope be you liberal or conservative :aargh: them what gots, gets.

How would like to have your local utility farmed out to Joe Schmo for no apparent reason other than the Guvmint said it was going to be good for you.

Check this please...Courtesy of UrbanSurvival.com

Say, I assume you have figured out that republicorp gov. Scott Walker not only created the showdown with the unions in WisconSIN, but now we're learning of a backdoor bill in the legislature which (in its 144 pages, would allow the state - without review - to sell or farm out operations of state utilities to big corporations like the one owned by the Koch brothers.

My friend Howard sent this:
Here's the language from the bill. Note that it exempts the sales or operating contracts from any consideration whether the sales will be in the public interest or even economically justified.

[COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]"16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b)."
[/COLOR]
Sell power plants and such on the cheap? Oh sure! You bet'cha, I'll make enough leveraged investments by ways of...er... campaign contributions, eh? WTF people? Is anyone awake in WisconnedSIN? Where's the recall election to toss out Walker and his double-dealing ilk?

I would shy away from the big cities when the federal paper starts bouncing. I don't think we have even gotten started yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bladerunner

"16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b)."

Sell power plants and such on the cheap? Oh sure! You bet'cha, I'll make enough leveraged investments by ways of...er... campaign contributions, eh? WTF people? Is anyone awake in WisconnedSIN? Where's the recall election to toss out Walker and his double-dealing ilk?

---

That's a way to introduce private sector initiative and competition and keep costs and government size down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaja

That's a way to introduce private sector initiative and competition and keep costs and government size down

---

Yeah. The very same thing was done for home ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PA23-250

Keep in mind, most of the unions agreed to the planned pay/benefit cuts. THey may have been vocal in their dislike of the way they were handled, but they're not out there simply because of cuts. The key thing is that the governor is trying to bust their unions altogether. That's what everyone is (rightly) worked up about.

---

Kasich did say he would get revenge on the unions for supporting Strickland.....