More on Wisconsin's labor issues, as seen on Facebook by Robert B:
Collective bargaining is not a right. It is a strong-arm technique utilized by unions to intimidate and force business owners to make concessions. There was a time when unethical business owners needed to be forced to act ethically [because civil laws were weak]. Those times are long past. Ever hear of OSHA?
Your grandfather, after a prolonged strike, ultimately had to cross the picket line and it ruined long term friendships and really hurt him personally. However, he ultimately felt the well being of his family outweighed the pressure from the union. Union leaders today now serve to garner the greatest income and benefits for themselves and members without consideration of the greater needs of the city, state, country, or other non-union neighbors. New hires are forced to join unions and pay union dues that fund lobbyists representing the extreme positions of the union. So your argument that unions stand for fairness is an anachronism that carries little weight in the United States today.
And finally, if I may share my experiences relating to my brief stint as a member of the AFL-CIO, the concept of a fair days pay for a fair days work did not exist in the mind of the union members I worked beside. They took their days pay but worked as little as they could get away with and constantly required supervision to do their fair day's work. It is time for the pendulum to come to rest in the middle where employees work hard to help maximize profitability of their employer and the employer demonstrates appreciation with a fair pay and benefits.
Businesses still have to be forced to act ethically, but Robert's point seems to be that civil laws already do the trick, and adding collective bargaining has swung the balance of political power too far in one direction. Private sector unions do not present the same problems as government unions; however, any unchecked power causes problems. When you add political kickbacks to unchecked power, the public at large usually suffers.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Wisconsin Showdown: Private Sector v. Gov Unions
People supporting Wisconsin's government workers don't seem to understand they are actually supporting fiscal suicide.
Part 1: Wisconsin is not proposing anything unusual. Almost half the states have already outlawed government unions (i.e., right-to-work states). In all right-to-work states, a family can buy a 4/2 house in a safe neighborhood for less than $180K (at least as of 2011).
While correlation does not equal causation, higher government employment costs generally require higher taxes. Higher taxes tend to favor government workers, not private sector workers. In an ideal system, the private sector does not work to provide an ever-increasing share of resources to government workers; instead, the private sector maximizes the income of non-government workers while minimizing inflation and government costs that do not benefit the public at large.
It appears, however, that government unions tend to do too well in compensation negotiations, especially with Democratic politicians, which means that wherever they exist, they have over-reached. Voters don't usually notice the government's generous compensation schemes until there's a recession, which suddenly exposes the actual costs of government. Indeed, recent data shows that public sector unions lack real checks and balances and tend to work against the interests of the public at large. (See Economist articles cited at the end of this post, showing government workers have negotiated trillions of dollars of benefits for themselves--yes, I said "trillions," with a "t.")
Generally, the more powerful government unions become, the easier it is for them to use non-unionized workers (the general public) to benefit unionized government workers. (Imagine a government-sponsored snowball gaining more and more traction, sucking up compliant politicians along the way.) During a recession, when revenues decline, states that have allowed government unions tend to drive out all but very high earners and union members. This is because politically-connected and politically-protected employees (government unions) and people with unique skills usually have high job security.
Thus, as long as recessions and layoffs exist, if someone wants to own a home in a state with government unions, s/he must either join a union; have sources of income unrelated to the job market (inheritance, a trust); or make a very high income in the private sector. Since not everyone can make a very high income in the private sector, government unions appear to drive out non-unionized middle class and poor residents. Furthermore, as we will see in the second part of this post, not only do government unions tend to work against the interests of the public at large, they drive out jobs and increase unemployment by imposing higher costs on corporations and businesses.
Do you support home ownership for the poor and middle class? Then you ought to figure out whose side you're on--the government unions, who drive up taxes and costs for everyone else, or the middle class and poor, who deserve a shot at buying a home even if they're not in a union.
________________
Part 2: Let's assume we have two states, X and Y. In state X, gov workers must negotiate benefits that are reasonable, because the absence of gov unions forces them to accept reasonable, predictable compensation. In Y, gov unions exist, and they demand and receive millions more annually than in state X. During a recession, State X can more easily cut costs than State Y, which must cut services and raise taxes to pay gov unions. State X's financial flexibility is directly related with its refusal to allow collective bargaining for its government workers.
You are someone who wants to buy a home, an entrepreneur, or a business that is considering expansion. You realize that State X can offer you lower taxes and costs and therefore a better environment to grow your employees and business b/c it has fewer long term fiscal obligations and more financial flexibility.
You also realize that State Y has no choice but to come after businesses and/or potential customers (i.e., taxpayers) to pay off gov unions during a recession. In other words, state Y must raise taxes if its gov unions refuse to agree to substantial pay and benefit cuts. State X, on the other hand, can ask the highest earning members of its government workers to accept lower benefits and salaries, thereby avoiding higher taxes, which reduces the burden on the private sector. State X's ability to demand that its highest earners in the gov workforce accept pay cuts also allows the state to avoid laying off its newer or lower-earning members. Avoiding layoffs allows State X to maintain its services, whereas State Y must cut services or create disincentives for private sector expansion.
Thus, we can see that gov unions are capable of driving investment and private sector jobs to states that lack gov unions, creating a death spiral for states with gov unions (absent a quick economic recovery). In short, if gov unions negotiate unreasonable compensation or refuse to reduce current and long-term compensation during a recession, the state's private sector has an incentive to disfavor expansion in the state.
Bonus: more here, from The Economist ("Three Trillion Dollar Hole," October 14, 2010) and also here, from The Economist ("A Gold-Plated Burden," October 14, 2010):
CHUCK REED is the Democratic mayor of San Jose, California. You might expect him to be an ally of public-sector workers, a powerful lobby in the Golden State. But last month, at a hearing on pension reform held by the Little Hoover Commission, which monitors the state’s government, Mr Reed lamented his crippling public-pensions bill. “City payments for retirement benefits have tripled over the last ten years even though our workforce has declined dramatically, and we have billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that the taxpayers must pay,” he said. Mr Reed estimated that the average cost to his city of employing a police officer or firefighter was $180,000 a year. Not only can such workers retire at 50, but some enjoy annual pension payments greater than their salaries. They are also entitled to cost-of-living increases of 3% a year, health and dental insurance for life and lump-sum payments for unused sick leave that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.
More here, on one particular difference between the private sector and government sector (data from 2008-2009).
22 states refuse to allow collective bargaining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Part 1: Wisconsin is not proposing anything unusual. Almost half the states have already outlawed government unions (i.e., right-to-work states). In all right-to-work states, a family can buy a 4/2 house in a safe neighborhood for less than $180K (at least as of 2011).
While correlation does not equal causation, higher government employment costs generally require higher taxes. Higher taxes tend to favor government workers, not private sector workers. In an ideal system, the private sector does not work to provide an ever-increasing share of resources to government workers; instead, the private sector maximizes the income of non-government workers while minimizing inflation and government costs that do not benefit the public at large.
It appears, however, that government unions tend to do too well in compensation negotiations, especially with Democratic politicians, which means that wherever they exist, they have over-reached. Voters don't usually notice the government's generous compensation schemes until there's a recession, which suddenly exposes the actual costs of government. Indeed, recent data shows that public sector unions lack real checks and balances and tend to work against the interests of the public at large. (See Economist articles cited at the end of this post, showing government workers have negotiated trillions of dollars of benefits for themselves--yes, I said "trillions," with a "t.")
Generally, the more powerful government unions become, the easier it is for them to use non-unionized workers (the general public) to benefit unionized government workers. (Imagine a government-sponsored snowball gaining more and more traction, sucking up compliant politicians along the way.) During a recession, when revenues decline, states that have allowed government unions tend to drive out all but very high earners and union members. This is because politically-connected and politically-protected employees (government unions) and people with unique skills usually have high job security.
Thus, as long as recessions and layoffs exist, if someone wants to own a home in a state with government unions, s/he must either join a union; have sources of income unrelated to the job market (inheritance, a trust); or make a very high income in the private sector. Since not everyone can make a very high income in the private sector, government unions appear to drive out non-unionized middle class and poor residents. Furthermore, as we will see in the second part of this post, not only do government unions tend to work against the interests of the public at large, they drive out jobs and increase unemployment by imposing higher costs on corporations and businesses.
Do you support home ownership for the poor and middle class? Then you ought to figure out whose side you're on--the government unions, who drive up taxes and costs for everyone else, or the middle class and poor, who deserve a shot at buying a home even if they're not in a union.
________________
Part 2: Let's assume we have two states, X and Y. In state X, gov workers must negotiate benefits that are reasonable, because the absence of gov unions forces them to accept reasonable, predictable compensation. In Y, gov unions exist, and they demand and receive millions more annually than in state X. During a recession, State X can more easily cut costs than State Y, which must cut services and raise taxes to pay gov unions. State X's financial flexibility is directly related with its refusal to allow collective bargaining for its government workers.
You are someone who wants to buy a home, an entrepreneur, or a business that is considering expansion. You realize that State X can offer you lower taxes and costs and therefore a better environment to grow your employees and business b/c it has fewer long term fiscal obligations and more financial flexibility.
You also realize that State Y has no choice but to come after businesses and/or potential customers (i.e., taxpayers) to pay off gov unions during a recession. In other words, state Y must raise taxes if its gov unions refuse to agree to substantial pay and benefit cuts. State X, on the other hand, can ask the highest earning members of its government workers to accept lower benefits and salaries, thereby avoiding higher taxes, which reduces the burden on the private sector. State X's ability to demand that its highest earners in the gov workforce accept pay cuts also allows the state to avoid laying off its newer or lower-earning members. Avoiding layoffs allows State X to maintain its services, whereas State Y must cut services or create disincentives for private sector expansion.
Thus, we can see that gov unions are capable of driving investment and private sector jobs to states that lack gov unions, creating a death spiral for states with gov unions (absent a quick economic recovery). In short, if gov unions negotiate unreasonable compensation or refuse to reduce current and long-term compensation during a recession, the state's private sector has an incentive to disfavor expansion in the state.
Bonus: more here, from The Economist ("Three Trillion Dollar Hole," October 14, 2010) and also here, from The Economist ("A Gold-Plated Burden," October 14, 2010):
CHUCK REED is the Democratic mayor of San Jose, California. You might expect him to be an ally of public-sector workers, a powerful lobby in the Golden State. But last month, at a hearing on pension reform held by the Little Hoover Commission, which monitors the state’s government, Mr Reed lamented his crippling public-pensions bill. “City payments for retirement benefits have tripled over the last ten years even though our workforce has declined dramatically, and we have billions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that the taxpayers must pay,” he said. Mr Reed estimated that the average cost to his city of employing a police officer or firefighter was $180,000 a year. Not only can such workers retire at 50, but some enjoy annual pension payments greater than their salaries. They are also entitled to cost-of-living increases of 3% a year, health and dental insurance for life and lump-sum payments for unused sick leave that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.
More here, on one particular difference between the private sector and government sector (data from 2008-2009).
22 states refuse to allow collective bargaining: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law
Was Emerson a Capitalist?
Ralph Waldo Emerson, from his 1844 lecture, "The Young American":
The philosopher and lover of man have much harm to say of trade; but the historian will see that trade was the principle of Liberty; that trade planted America and destroyed Feudalism; that it makes peace and keeps peace, and it will abolish slavery.
Was Mr. Emerson a proponent of the Keynesian school of economics? Keep reading.
Bonus: We devise sumptuary and relief laws, but the principle of population is always reducing wages to the lowest pittance on which human life can be sustained. We legislate against forestalling and monopoly; we would have a common granary for the poor; but the selfishness which hoards the corn for high prices, is the preventive of famine; and the law of self-preservation is surer policy than any legislation can be. We concoct eleemosynary systems, and it turns out that our charity increases pauperism. We inflate our paper currency, we repair commerce with unlimited credit, and are presently visited with unlimited bankruptcy.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Emerson was no Keynesian :-)
The philosopher and lover of man have much harm to say of trade; but the historian will see that trade was the principle of Liberty; that trade planted America and destroyed Feudalism; that it makes peace and keeps peace, and it will abolish slavery.
Was Mr. Emerson a proponent of the Keynesian school of economics? Keep reading.
Bonus: We devise sumptuary and relief laws, but the principle of population is always reducing wages to the lowest pittance on which human life can be sustained. We legislate against forestalling and monopoly; we would have a common granary for the poor; but the selfishness which hoards the corn for high prices, is the preventive of famine; and the law of self-preservation is surer policy than any legislation can be. We concoct eleemosynary systems, and it turns out that our charity increases pauperism. We inflate our paper currency, we repair commerce with unlimited credit, and are presently visited with unlimited bankruptcy.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Emerson was no Keynesian :-)
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Iron Man 2: the Real Tony Stark?
I just saw Iron Man 2 (3/5 stars). The first one was much better, but I liked seeing Oracle co-founder and CEO Larry Ellison make a brief appearance in the second film. I suppose if anyone is the real-life version of Tony Stark, it's Larry Ellison. Or does Steve Jobs have a better claim to the title of dashing, outspoken entrepreneur?
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any company or entity.
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any company or entity.
Race Relations
I see a lot of interesting debates on Facebook. This one's about race relations, which is always an interesting and controversial topic.
Controversial Person: For every race, tribe, color, and religious person, his/her fate starts and ends with jobs, the economy, adequate purchasing power, and a way to earn that purchasing power without being dependent on the kindness of persons who are of a different tribe, race, religion, or color. If a black man has to be dependent on a white man or welfare for his income, how far removed is he from slavery?
Cool Blue-Collar White Guy: This race subject has always bewildered me--shoot, most of the black people I know are more successful than I. I do not know what it is like to be a minority, however I grew up dirt poor and under-educated, and like most I did not go to the ends of the earth to get an education either....so my point is, it is up to the individual.
The Philosopher: I think it is a mistake to look at the African-American issue as a separate entity in the way Malcolm X makes it sound; it would be natural for him to mount his argument in the tone and rhetoric that he has - he is/was, after all, a black man himself. But the problem is a larger one – one that ‘I grew up dirt poor, under educated…’ comment of the comrade above illustrates rather well: it’s a problem of social construction as a whole. No doubt about it – race does matter, especially in a heterogeneous society like ours. But if you read books by intellectuals like Cornel West and/or Michael Eric Dyson, you’ll see how Malcolm’s message is put in perspective: we must (society at large, dominated by rich, white establishment) stop promoting the myth that a black man is either distant to a gang, or music or sports lifestyle. One may say those are merely stereotypes, but stereotypes, too, are constructed and have purpose. It’s the view of an African-American, permeating as a stereotype, that needs to be demolished (left behind – choose your own metaphor), which in turn will have the constructive and positive effect of better financial understanding, home ownership etc, etc… though not much mentioned, America very much operates on the basis of an unspoken caste system, and that unfortunately is true not just for African Americans, but whites and other races.
I also reject that success in a society is entirely dependent on the individual, but then I also disagree with a society that is merely concerned with equality of opportunity (and not equality of condition).
Cool Blue Collar White Guy: Books and scholars will not solve the problem. Friendships, Strong morals and family will. Furthermore I honestly believe the younger generations are doing this at a much greater rate than anytime in human history. I am 47 and can look you in the eye and honestly say that race or religion has not mattered to me.
Controversial Guy: @Philosopher: one reason African-Americans are stereotyped as athletes is because it is one area where they have been successful on their own and against the majority race.
@Blue Collar Guy: the last Fed Reserve study I read indicated that the only racial group (tracked by the Fed) that had a negative savings/wealth rate were African-Americans. Why is that? African immigrants from Africa tend to do very well in America and save money, so it's not a racial issue. One answer might be that African-Americans in this country have not found their niche outside of sports, which means that in every other category, they compete at a disadvantage with the majority race. As I've said before, never in the history of mankind (outside of apartheid or dictatorships) has the majority race ever allowed minority races to do well to an extent where they displace the majority race. The only way the minority races are able to succeed is by finding a place where they can outperform, based on merit, the majority race. For example, Christians wouldn't or couldn't handle money/interest in the old days, allowing others to handle that area for them. Muslims and Middle Easterners in America have done well because native born majority Americans have been unable to excel in math and science to the same extent as foreign Muslims, Hindus, Indians, Iranians, etc.
As a member of the majority race, Blue Collar Guy, you don't get to be automatically successful--but you get a default head start over racial minorities b/c the number of potentially available jobs is based on your skill set, not the color of your skin. With minority races, as I've posited here, the majority will never allow them to rise too high up in the ranks of government or union jobs and will defer charges of racism by hiring a few visible, compliant and perhaps not very exceptionally smart people (like Michael Steele, etc.). Having said that, so what? We can never dissolve all jobs based on political connections and limited accountability, i.e., union and government jobs, so all we can do is understand certain dynamics and work within those dynamics.
One contention is that political solutions to resolve racial wealth imbalances don't work (see President Johnson's War on Poverty), so we should look at solutions that allow minorities to gain independence and financial stability without relying on the kindness of the majority race. Assuming we want to assist minority communities specifically (rather than assisting all poor people regardless of race), any aid should come in the form of direct money into minority/poor communities, small business grants with someone vetting business plans, and assistance with teaching marketable skills (i.e., almost nothing that is taught in public schools today by unionized teachers).
There's another issue involved here. By attaching their fate to the majority race, minority races might be restricting women's mating choices. This is because only a limited percentage of minority men are allowed to get a part of the majority pie--in other words, the majority's pie will always be at least 51% in terms of gov and union jobs, and anything else that allows the majority to pass laws protecting themselves. This usually means the majority of minority men, at least those who cannot open their own businesses or find a niche, are unable to fully integrate into society on the same level as the majority race. It also means that the successful minority women who do successfully integrate and get a piece of the majority pie end up with fewer same-race men to marry who are on the same level, academically, financially, and geographically.
Cool Blue Collar White Guy: you know this feed is above my simple mind...I will just say that I have many "minority" friends and I am the minority in my neighborhood. I am cool with that...I know most my neighbors have my back, as I do them. I don't need my goverment to tell me whom to hire or to be friends with. That decision is best left with me. I have made the right choices. My "friends" list is a smorgasbord of personalities....all with their own qualities, and I dine there often :)
Controversial Person: For every race, tribe, color, and religious person, his/her fate starts and ends with jobs, the economy, adequate purchasing power, and a way to earn that purchasing power without being dependent on the kindness of persons who are of a different tribe, race, religion, or color. If a black man has to be dependent on a white man or welfare for his income, how far removed is he from slavery?
Cool Blue-Collar White Guy: This race subject has always bewildered me--shoot, most of the black people I know are more successful than I. I do not know what it is like to be a minority, however I grew up dirt poor and under-educated, and like most I did not go to the ends of the earth to get an education either....so my point is, it is up to the individual.
The Philosopher: I think it is a mistake to look at the African-American issue as a separate entity in the way Malcolm X makes it sound; it would be natural for him to mount his argument in the tone and rhetoric that he has - he is/was, after all, a black man himself. But the problem is a larger one – one that ‘I grew up dirt poor, under educated…’ comment of the comrade above illustrates rather well: it’s a problem of social construction as a whole. No doubt about it – race does matter, especially in a heterogeneous society like ours. But if you read books by intellectuals like Cornel West and/or Michael Eric Dyson, you’ll see how Malcolm’s message is put in perspective: we must (society at large, dominated by rich, white establishment) stop promoting the myth that a black man is either distant to a gang, or music or sports lifestyle. One may say those are merely stereotypes, but stereotypes, too, are constructed and have purpose. It’s the view of an African-American, permeating as a stereotype, that needs to be demolished (left behind – choose your own metaphor), which in turn will have the constructive and positive effect of better financial understanding, home ownership etc, etc… though not much mentioned, America very much operates on the basis of an unspoken caste system, and that unfortunately is true not just for African Americans, but whites and other races.
I also reject that success in a society is entirely dependent on the individual, but then I also disagree with a society that is merely concerned with equality of opportunity (and not equality of condition).
Cool Blue Collar White Guy: Books and scholars will not solve the problem. Friendships, Strong morals and family will. Furthermore I honestly believe the younger generations are doing this at a much greater rate than anytime in human history. I am 47 and can look you in the eye and honestly say that race or religion has not mattered to me.
Controversial Guy: @Philosopher: one reason African-Americans are stereotyped as athletes is because it is one area where they have been successful on their own and against the majority race.
@Blue Collar Guy: the last Fed Reserve study I read indicated that the only racial group (tracked by the Fed) that had a negative savings/wealth rate were African-Americans. Why is that? African immigrants from Africa tend to do very well in America and save money, so it's not a racial issue. One answer might be that African-Americans in this country have not found their niche outside of sports, which means that in every other category, they compete at a disadvantage with the majority race. As I've said before, never in the history of mankind (outside of apartheid or dictatorships) has the majority race ever allowed minority races to do well to an extent where they displace the majority race. The only way the minority races are able to succeed is by finding a place where they can outperform, based on merit, the majority race. For example, Christians wouldn't or couldn't handle money/interest in the old days, allowing others to handle that area for them. Muslims and Middle Easterners in America have done well because native born majority Americans have been unable to excel in math and science to the same extent as foreign Muslims, Hindus, Indians, Iranians, etc.
As a member of the majority race, Blue Collar Guy, you don't get to be automatically successful--but you get a default head start over racial minorities b/c the number of potentially available jobs is based on your skill set, not the color of your skin. With minority races, as I've posited here, the majority will never allow them to rise too high up in the ranks of government or union jobs and will defer charges of racism by hiring a few visible, compliant and perhaps not very exceptionally smart people (like Michael Steele, etc.). Having said that, so what? We can never dissolve all jobs based on political connections and limited accountability, i.e., union and government jobs, so all we can do is understand certain dynamics and work within those dynamics.
One contention is that political solutions to resolve racial wealth imbalances don't work (see President Johnson's War on Poverty), so we should look at solutions that allow minorities to gain independence and financial stability without relying on the kindness of the majority race. Assuming we want to assist minority communities specifically (rather than assisting all poor people regardless of race), any aid should come in the form of direct money into minority/poor communities, small business grants with someone vetting business plans, and assistance with teaching marketable skills (i.e., almost nothing that is taught in public schools today by unionized teachers).
There's another issue involved here. By attaching their fate to the majority race, minority races might be restricting women's mating choices. This is because only a limited percentage of minority men are allowed to get a part of the majority pie--in other words, the majority's pie will always be at least 51% in terms of gov and union jobs, and anything else that allows the majority to pass laws protecting themselves. This usually means the majority of minority men, at least those who cannot open their own businesses or find a niche, are unable to fully integrate into society on the same level as the majority race. It also means that the successful minority women who do successfully integrate and get a piece of the majority pie end up with fewer same-race men to marry who are on the same level, academically, financially, and geographically.
Cool Blue Collar White Guy: you know this feed is above my simple mind...I will just say that I have many "minority" friends and I am the minority in my neighborhood. I am cool with that...I know most my neighbors have my back, as I do them. I don't need my goverment to tell me whom to hire or to be friends with. That decision is best left with me. I have made the right choices. My "friends" list is a smorgasbord of personalities....all with their own qualities, and I dine there often :)
If our government is a reflection of the people why the disparity ? Or perceived disparity ? Shoot you have to be an attorney just to understand the tax code, let alone the civil rights stuff...and with 2300 pages of healthcare reform with more pork than a Jerry Springer show, I am definitely confused.
Controversial Guy: I totally agree with you when it comes to the ever-increasing laws and complexity of our political process. This phenomena makes it difficult for the average person/voter to stay interested. It has also led to dangerous apathy that will one day mutant into contempt, not just ridicule, name-calling, and Nazi references. We are not there yet, thank goodness. But if we do not move the debate back to realistic, fact-based, and data-driven solutions, we will get there soon enough.
Controversial Guy: I totally agree with you when it comes to the ever-increasing laws and complexity of our political process. This phenomena makes it difficult for the average person/voter to stay interested. It has also led to dangerous apathy that will one day mutant into contempt, not just ridicule, name-calling, and Nazi references. We are not there yet, thank goodness. But if we do not move the debate back to realistic, fact-based, and data-driven solutions, we will get there soon enough.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Do California Goverment Unions Hurt Taxpayers?
Most California local school workers--everyone from gardeners to teachers--are eligible for pensions after just 5 years, as well as lifetime medical benefits after 15 yrs. Meanwhile, most corporate employees must wait until 67 years old to get benefits that are worth much less than those provided to California government employees.
In S.F., without changes, around $500 million a year will be spent paying city employees who no longer work. That means the City will not have $500 million a year to spend on new jobs, welfare, parks and recreation, community programs, or attracting small businesses to S.F.
Using taxes to favor gov workers, especially people who no longer work, has severe consequences for any state that wants to remain competitive. For instance, in 2007, 6% of California's population moved out of state, according to the Pew Center. Many CEOs will not expand in California, citing ABC: "Anywhere But California."
At the end of the day, corporations must be responsive to you and me; otherwise, they will not be able to sell their products and will go bankrupt. Government unions, in contrast, do not need us. Given low voter turnout, unions can effectively deliver 20%+ of votes in local elections to the politician of their choice. Then, unions can use their politicians to increase their benefits on the back end--i.e., pensions, lifetime medical benefits, etc.--where the bill doesn't come due for many decades and becomes another politician's and perhaps even another generation's problem.
The backending of gov employee compensation destroys accountability, because it allows politicians to make ironclad promises that do not activate during their term. For gov unions, the advantage of back-ending gov employee compensation is twofold: first, voters do not see any immediate consequences and think everything is fine; and second, unions can continue to pursue a deliberate strategy of keeping younger, newer employees underpaid so they can use them as propaganda tools, even as their retirees receive unpredictably high and unsustainable compensation. Who suffers the most? Newer and younger people, whom politicians usually ignore because of their low voter turnout and naivete in supporting teachers, police officers, firefighters and other gov employees at any cost.
More on union influence here: http://volokh.com/2010/01/25/californias-public-employee-pension-problem/
Bonus: Will Wilkinson writes an excellent piece on government unions--see here ("Bad Bargain").
In S.F., without changes, around $500 million a year will be spent paying city employees who no longer work. That means the City will not have $500 million a year to spend on new jobs, welfare, parks and recreation, community programs, or attracting small businesses to S.F.
Using taxes to favor gov workers, especially people who no longer work, has severe consequences for any state that wants to remain competitive. For instance, in 2007, 6% of California's population moved out of state, according to the Pew Center. Many CEOs will not expand in California, citing ABC: "Anywhere But California."
At the end of the day, corporations must be responsive to you and me; otherwise, they will not be able to sell their products and will go bankrupt. Government unions, in contrast, do not need us. Given low voter turnout, unions can effectively deliver 20%+ of votes in local elections to the politician of their choice. Then, unions can use their politicians to increase their benefits on the back end--i.e., pensions, lifetime medical benefits, etc.--where the bill doesn't come due for many decades and becomes another politician's and perhaps even another generation's problem.
The backending of gov employee compensation destroys accountability, because it allows politicians to make ironclad promises that do not activate during their term. For gov unions, the advantage of back-ending gov employee compensation is twofold: first, voters do not see any immediate consequences and think everything is fine; and second, unions can continue to pursue a deliberate strategy of keeping younger, newer employees underpaid so they can use them as propaganda tools, even as their retirees receive unpredictably high and unsustainable compensation. Who suffers the most? Newer and younger people, whom politicians usually ignore because of their low voter turnout and naivete in supporting teachers, police officers, firefighters and other gov employees at any cost.
More on union influence here: http://volokh.com/2010/01/
Bonus: Will Wilkinson writes an excellent piece on government unions--see here ("Bad Bargain").
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Interesting Website on Captioning
The NIH has some excellent webpages. Here's one on captioning:
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/caption.asp
Please support online captioning so all of us, including the hearing-impaired, can participate on the internet. Thank you.
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/caption.asp
Please support online captioning so all of us, including the hearing-impaired, can participate on the internet. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)