Market Currents
The confrontation in Wisconsin is all about busting public employee unions and has nothing to do...
-
Monday, February 21, 2011, 4:29 PM ETThe confrontation in Wisconsin is all about busting public employee unions and has nothing to do with fixing a budget crisis in the state, Paul Krugman writes. Unions act as a "counterweight to the political power of big money," so big money wants them out of the way.
Other date
Latest Articles
This news story has 221 comments:
Yes. Collective bargaining by public employees - which not Roosevelt or Kennedy believed should be allowed - is under threat - the world is ending.
The fact is that they will still be able to bargain for wages - that continues
And the benefits are still going to be the richest or among the richest in the US
You don't hear about any of that.
And this is Union busting?
Pay them more - pay them all more
- just raise taxes on Public Employees - so you pay 10% more at every level and there is no tax deductible health care. States can impose their own special taxs.
- let them pick up their own dues
- make it a right to work state
- prohibit public employee unions from making campaign contributiuons.
Not fair? Not reasonable?
E
Pity. That's where the real savings would be gained in public employees pay and benefits. The teachers' yearly wage and benefits add up to $90K; the police and firefighters about $150K
I'm glad I'm not union. I have to help people who are union with paying for their court costs, and they can't get a job because they're behind on their dues, and they can't catch up on their dues because they don't have a job.
It also seems paradoxical that the union says they are willing to have the membership make financial sacrifice but they don't want the organizational rules changed. If the union cannot continue to deliver material benefit to the members then what good is it? Or if their value was so compelling why would they worry about anyone leaving? The members should also be wondering if they are getting thrown under the bus by union management so they can stay in power and control.
The WI union will have to give back a lot going forward to get their members to market benefits and help the state balance the budget. The same problem exists in a lot of other states and at the federal level.
On another note, is there such thing as "Nobel clawbacks"? Between Krugman and the POTUS, that's a nice chunk of change that can be used toward the deficit.
Sorry, no understand what you say very good.
can you tell I'm pissed?
we just saw the 2011 final our increase for health benefits or our empolyees ths year - 9% and the broker says we did well because our experience is better than average! double digits is what others are seeing. how does anyone afford this?
we did well! he said, with only a 9% increase courtesy of the local Blues Plan.
we won't offer it next year or double the deducible.
this is the reality. we are growing we are hiring but we cannot afford healthcare. just cannot afford it. we got no bailout. we made it through the recession. and on the other side we find this?
this action by the Wisconsin teachers and the rest of their ilk is an insult. pure and simple. and Obama - yest agian is failing to lead - pandering to the lunatic fringe - it is like having Rush Limbaugh in office.
when do we see real leadership Mr. President? stand up and do what's right. enough with the rhetoric.
E
As for grammer schools come on we spend $14k a year per student. This is just obseen. But yet each year kids get 3 months off because god forbid union teacher work year round like the vast majority do and the students in the future. Each year American students fall further and further behind the rest of the world in education. But this wont stop unions from useing the kids as hostiages everytime their contract is set to be renegotated. I really wish I had more options to send my kid to a school she might actually be challenged and learn something. A private school would far outperform what a public school can offer.
Try dismissing an incompetent union teacher. You can't do it.
These employees should be paid market rates and given respect but they need to come out of the union bubble.
Public unions are abhorrent to a free market and anathema to the concept of "public servant". The financial weight they utilize in elections particularly in states which have a "closed shop" - that is a monopoly for those economists i.e. Krugman distorts freedom of speech and choice of the individual members since they have no recourse.
I would suggest Mr. Krugman look at California as a worst case scenario of "public servant" unions run amok.
Yes - Mr. Krugman the issue in Wisconsin is about budgets as well as politics. But, this issue has been relatively muted until the long term efforts of public unionism has been dollarized so the public can see what they have to pay.
Mr. Krugman, let the public speak or are the East Coast liberals too abhorrent to popular elections and democracy - maybe they have a concern that their feathered nests are being jeopardized.
J. Renner
inquiring minds are reading snips from a Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions written August 16, 1937.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees...............
Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1937
Chris
Freeport, Maine
Sure it means that the employer’s representative and the union representatives will have to negotiate new collective agreements in the future but what is wrong with that or right with the notion that workers are not entitled to negotiate about their terms of employment? Remember, as well, that one of the main functions of a collective agreement is to establish a just process by which any day to day complaints that the employer or employees might have about the way work is being conducted can be resolved. How would such complaints be resolved in the absence of a collective agreement?
Undoubtedly some will argue that if a worker doesn’t like his or her terms of employment or the way those terms are being currently applied, then he or she should quite and get a job somewhere else. It can also be pointed out that many workers, including workers for governments elsewhere in the US, aren’t unionized or don’t have a collective agreement. Aren’t these, however, simply arguments in favour of the lowest common denominator and not ones proportion to show that the role of the government as an employer is improved if it is exempted from the laws relating to union certification applicable to private sector employers.
Some will argue that it is the role of Governments to provide services to the electorate at the least possible cost and that, if a special exception of Government as an employer from laws relating to union certification and collective bargaining help cut its labour costs, then so be it. Presumably the same argument can be made in favour of allowing Governments to unilaterally change the terms of other contracts (i.e. bonds, supplies construction etc.) if it found it advantageous to do so. Put that way, the inherent inequitable nature of this argument is clear.
Pathetic workers can not be fired, layoffs result in keeping employees based on seniority not worth.
Finally the government did change the terms of a contract they had with bond holders when Greedy Motors declared bankruptcy and the bond holders got screwed so the Unions could get a better deal.
I believe that was settled in the negotiations between Obamas auto czar and the unions. Its time that the unions woke up. The people are not taking this crap anymore. The me, me, me mentality of unions is bankrupting us and we aren't gonna take it any more.
The company could then pay the non union workers more. The union workers would get less compensation.
Or would that not work too well in Hoffa-land?
When the employer is under stress as in WI the union is an obstacle. In addition the local governments who are paying for salaries and benefits cannot control the people they are paying and those rates are determined at a higher level. Therefore the union has maximum leverage and the local governmental bodies have little to none. That model only invites abuse and an unchecked growth in wages and benefits.
From a larger point of view public unions are only paid votes for the democratic party so this only invites more abuse and graft in all branches of government which we do not need. If I vote for raises and benefits YOY I will likely get your votes and since unions are pro democrat they will be pushing their members to support the democrats.
And by the way the federal government has stepped all over contract law in the past 2 to 4 years so by your logic I guess it is open season on union contracts.
State govt is 3.5 billion in debt. Govt employee pension fund is 95% funded. Local govts (county, muni, etc) are about 45% funded by the state and balance is local property taxes, etc.
Requiring pension and health care to about 8% of employees' wage impacts about 30% of that contribution or 1 billion (still only 33% there).
Removing collective bargaining (except wage increases which are capped to the CPI anyways) will 1). force a lot of early retirements 2).Allow local govt to renegotiate local wages
Replacement workers are hired back at 15 per hour +/- and existing wages could be forced lower (no collective bargaining) to the same range. Now, state can cut all local govt contributions and State saves 25% of wages or the remaining 2.5 billion plus another 1 billion +/-. Or phase in over 5 years and accomplish the same objective.
In WI, most school and local govt budgets are about 80% wages and benefits.
Governor keeps delaying release of his actual budget proposal until the wage concession bill is passed. Presume, he doesn't want the unions to think about where the other 2.5 billion may come from.
IMHO
Governor IMHO has his eye on much larger cuts to employee's. I think he will cut all local funding (45% comes from state to county-muni) and removing collective bargaining will allow the local muni to reduce wages and keep personnel. Or, replace retiring workers at new, lower wages. Read my comment below.
What are they so scared of?
do you think Wisconsin can absorb the $120k non union teacher salary in my area ?
Why do public sector employees deserve anything more than what those in the private sector receive?
In reality, unions in the government are just a way for the government to legally pay for votes, nothing more.
What doesn't make sense to us, makes perfect sense in the underground Grand Lodge of Master Wizards.
Those who attend the annual Orange Grove meetings, secret handshakes, tribal neck clicks, $5000/hr professional escorts.
Soros at the altar, bleeding out a goat.
jealously is kicking in again
Unfortunately, there is no way to separate police from their union. It is a political patronage system with the weight of the Patriot Act behind it. Certainly not intended by the framers of our Constitution.
The prison guard pension contracts were inked under the tenure of the recalled Gray Davis who was using dot bomb bullshit such as Webvan and pets.com as his salary trajectory stat to guide off of, pure bubble bullshit.
We've been underwater ever since.
Organized labor is fine IMO in situations where the management and the employees have goals that often conflict. In the private sector I run my business to benefit myself. It is understandable that the employees might want to negotiate with myself on a one to one type environment. Government is supposedly existing to do the things that an individual can't do (yes I know thats long since passed us by). There is not supposed to be any profit motive in government.... so why do the workers need a union? And what have the unions accomplished? From this taxpayer's point of view the unions have bribed politicians (mainly Democrats, but not exclusively) through financing their campaigns... in return for pay raises, benefits, and work rules that DO NOT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC!!! The majority of government workers I have interacted with could not make it 20 weeks in the private sector - that doesn't mean all, it doesn't mean 95%. There are some well meaning people trying to "serve". But unfortunately these types of jobs and the security (a nice term for you can't fire the idiots) attracts the mediocre in larger numbers than the private sector does.
Now if the public sector unions want to acknowledge that 1. People must perform in their jobs.... and get evaluated.... and get fired for poor performance.... and get raises based on MERIT (ie no more "step" raises). 2. Allow membership to be up to the individual. Why should the government collect union dues? The government doesn't collect YMCA membership dues. and 3. Accept LOWER pay scales than their private sector counterparts - this is PUBLIC SERVICE, not public union enrichment. Then they can organize all they want. Since they aren't going to agree to any of this, I'd say the governor of Wisconsin is on the right track.
For years when I was young we listened to public employees lament that they earned so much less - and all they wanted was to be paid "close to what the private sector made". Now they earn much more..... and suddenly it doesn't matter what is happening in the private sector. Unfortunately, for far too many in government "service", its all about them and not at all about those they are supposedly serving.
Got it.
Why they do not go after the banks who got us into this mess.
If Big Labor is smart, it will diligently research exactly how much prominent zillionaires like the Koch brothers and various other Tea Party backers will be saving via the tax cuts they were gifted with a few weeks ago and compare these figures to how much Wisconsin "saves" by gutting the lives of public sector employees and their families.
They should also start stressing the concept that "austerity" is actually code for "keeping the status quo" and preventing any growth that might result in a return to the United States' implicit social contract, whereby every American shares in the fruits of our country's wealth and accomplishments.
Many centrists from both major parties believe that there should be NO very wealthy nor very poor people in America - that we should be a 100 percent bourgeois country and that our middle-classness is the very root of our now diminished prominence as the beacon of hope to the world's striving and oppressed.
How ironic that we can emotionally support such striving in other countries but now refuse to acknowledge just how far we've strayed from the ideals that once made us great.
I don't believe the union members were supporting the Tea Party so what is their loss?
And fat government wages and benefits are under scrutiny not because Tea Partiers showed up but because our government is drunk with spending at every level and millions of Americans are fed up and also scared that our government cannot help themselves and are out of control.
If there are no wealthy or no poor I submit we will all be poor since why should anyone try to be exceptional? And since I have traveled I can assert that our poor are rich compared to poor in other parts of the world. This economic model we have in the US is still the largest in the world and people keep moving here to take advantage of it. That is quite an endorsement.
I'm just an American - wanting to leave my children and grandchildren with at least the same opportunity to chase their dreams that I had..... no guarantee that they will achieve them.... but also not buried in a sea of debt that limits their opportunity, their choices, and their dreams.
What is happening in Wisconsin IMO is Americans taking back part of their country from the bureaucracy. Government workers have become an "elite" class of people in this country, being paid far better than those they supposedly serve - and serving in mediocrity far too often. Teachers used to be well respected, now they are just viewed as protected people, neglecting the futures of our children while protecting the worst in their profession.
To much bewilderment, this is about power plants and a vertical monopoly the Koch Brothers have their eye on in Wisconsin.
So in short:
1) Koch Brothers get their puppet Governor Walker in power
2) Governor Walker gins up a crisis
3) Democrats and Progressives take the bait and counter-protest on collective bargaining
4) Governor Walker will compromise on collective bargaining if the rest of the budget is passed as is
5) Bill passes, with trojan horse give-a-way to the Koch Brothers nested in
6) Koch Brothers will buy Wisconsin state-owned power plants for pennies on the dollar in closed unsolicitated bids for which there will be no oversight
7) Koch Brothers get the best vertical monopoly in a generation
I support the legislation in Wisconsin.
I also support ending the carried interest giveaway in the tax code.
I also support criminal prosecution for the Wall Street folks that committed fraud.
I also support balancing the budget every year except in cases of all out war. And that means cutting defense spending.... it means eliminating government agencies, it means less services in my community provided by the government, it means that I retire later and receive less in social security, it means Medicare/Medicaide limit the things the government will pay for. Some/all of those things will affect me now/later in life - thats tough.
Balance the damn budget!
He is also the same guy who in front of congress in early June of 2010 and made the lame statement that the rating agencies and specifically Moodys could not be faulted for the housing debacle. He owned a ton of Moodys. Obviously Buffet talks his own book.
Lets deal in facts.
www.bls.gov/news.relea...
Median earnings by a union worker in public or private industry is approximately $1,000 per week.
www.bls.gov/news.relea...
There are 400,000 unionized workers in Wisconsin. This amount of workers represents approximately 15% of the work force.
www.bls.gov/news.relea...
This document is indicating that there are approximately 249,000,000 people in the workforce in the US of which approximately 21,000,000 are public sector unionized workers. So approximately 8.4% of the workforce. Based on that we can likely assume that in Wisconsin there are approximately 8.4% public union workers and approximately 6.6% private union workers. Additionally this would mean that there are about 224,000 public unionized workers in Wisconsin at all levels. However, only approximately 1/3rd of these are state workers. The remainder are either federal or local employees and should not be included. Therefore approximately 75,000 workers.
Given that they earn approximately $1,000 per week this means approximately 75,000,000 in public salaries per week or approximately $3.9 billion in annual salaries. Benefits typically run about 30% worse case scenario so add another 1.1 billion in benefits. So we're talking $5 billion a year. Most articles I've read are indicating that his budget deficit is as much as $3 billion a year.
Lets assume that he gets them to take a 20% pay and benefit cut. Now every teacher, fireman, police officer, nurse is making 40K per year. Now, instead of a 3 billion deficit.. it's 2 billion.
Now what??
The math doesn't add up. You just took a massive chunk of the population, destroyed their livelihood, and didn't make a dent.
This is a tax issue. This a federal transfer issue (which technically opens up a slew of other issues). This is not a union issue.
I hope he wins to be honest. I'm kind of curious what a revolution looks like. From afar ofcourse.
That number of workers would indicate that nearly every able bodied man, women and child in America is working.
Sorry but your numbers are way off. The 2010 U.S. Census reported 308,745,538 US citizens.
But even if it were 240 million (lets assume that the government document and/or my math are wrong).. and 70 million didn't work, would it really change the calculation or the issue?
You'll find Federal workers earn the most
You'll find State workers earn the 2nd most
You'll find local workers/private union workers are close together.
That alone should tell you something.....
walker.wi.gov/journal_...
No, I want to fire them completely along with the entire DOE.
"Cultivating good managers who know the business they are in and making sure they can interact with employees and be a constructive leader/mentor is the answer, not intimidation tactics!"
Indeed. So you wouldn't mind arresting all the protesters in WI and firing all the teachers then. I don't like intimidation tactics either. Back aitcha.
The teachers in the school district earn about $54,000 on average (the administrators earn an average of 66 if I recall correctly). The starting salary for a teach here was raised recently to $39,500.
Now that means that the first year school teacher earned about 40% more than the average private sector worker in our county last year. And the "average" teacher earned double. Now our schools are ok, nothing great, but not terrible. Throw on top of that benefits which are worth about $15-$20K for a family of four and suddenly these folks are vastly outearning those they "serve".
They are currently working without a contract. They have threatened to strike. They signed their last contract just before the great recession hit.... meaning they got raises each of the last three years...... the school board voted to freeze salaries to help (note help, not solve) a budget deficit. Property taxes were raised each of the past three years to try to cover the school deficit. Teachers are demanding..... 5% raises each of the next three years!!!! Or they will strike.
Now do you see anything wrong with this picture?
Yes, I want our schools to have good teachers. Yes, I'm willing to often "contribute a little more" to help our children and our community. But I have to ask, where and when does it end? What world are these teachers living in? And I didn't notice it being "all about the children when the school district was cutting programs the past couple of years...... didn't notice the union saying "hey, we realize no one else is getting raises so keep ours and help keep some of these things your cutting from our children". Hmmm.
Thats just one local situation...... but I believe its all too familiar to those across the country. And that is why the majority of Americans believe the public unions are the enemy of fiscal responsibility, the teacher's union is the enemy of our children, and the bureaucracy in general just exists for its own selfish financial interests - not at all to "provide public service".
online.wsj.com/article...
The above article should highlight the fact that the "work rules" aren't aimed at serving the best interests of our children - but rather serving the teachers.
You mention working in different fields. One of the main arguments we hear from teachers is that they might be subject to a principle making decisions based on his/her own "judgement". Isn't that how the rest of us live? Did you have to live with the judgement of those you worked for when it came to compensation and job performance and assignments. Isn't that basically part of life?
I don't think the mobs are taking over - I see the union mobs trying to take over the democratic process in Wisconsin. There was an election in November. A man who ran promising to cut public spending, and in particular to cut public union pay and benefits won the governorship.... he also campaigned on restraining the public union's right to force people to join the union and to allow the union to negotiate wage increases above the level of inflation. I don't see that as being unreasonable. Why should you or I have to join an organization if we don't want to join? And why should "public servants", who already earn more than those they serve, be allowed to negotiate contracts that pay them even more?
And its not just Walker - he isn't acting alone. There were representatives elected to two legislative bodies in Wisconsin - the majority of whom ran on similar platforms to the governor. The people voted for whom they wanted and the actions they wanted. Fiscal responsibility won over "promises".
What is Walker "pulling"? Fulfilling his campaign promises? Imagine if Obama (whom I generally like and supported) had fulfilled his promise to do things differently when he became president. Maybe proposing a budget that reforms entitlements? Maybe standing up to crooks on Wall Street instead of bailing them out?
The people "pulling" something are the ones that ran like cowards to Illinois. The ones subverting democracy are the ones that were in power in Wisconsin for several years and brought about the fiscal mess the state faces.
The right way for the Democrats in Wisconsin to "right the wrong" would be to make their opinions heard in the debate in the legislature, educate the public, and win the next election. But I think that unions realize the real problem is that the public is becoming educated when it comes to teacher's unions, bureaucrats' pay scales and automatic raises, and the overwhelming union money directed to Democratic political campaigns. And they are saying enough.
Stop with the racist rant.
You are such a typical liberal.
Because your brain is incapable of writing an intelligent comment, you resort to name calling.
You are a pathetic troll. How much do you get paid to post here?
So as I understand it you believe Liberals are not capable of intelligent comment? What makes you any different than Gabe. Pot calling kettle black? Do not forget the racist rant of your own that offended Muslims. You are a hypocrite. The problem is your not smart enough to cover your tracks. Your emotions too often get the better of you and you can't control your bigoted self. I am sure most on this site know your true colors. Give it up.
My understanding is that Wisc. had an arbitration process similar to my state which allows the unions to basically drag everything out for 18 to 24 months. Since Wisc. has to balance its budget every year, without the pay reductions - residents will see reduced services and the unions will see members let go.
As to the bank bailouts. TARP was the beginning. But it also includes zero interest rates, allowing firms to claim they are banks, the "stress tests", etc, etc. I don't blame Obama for TARP. I do blame Obama for not prosecuting anyone. I do blame him for taking an 800 billion stimulus and basically telling Pelosi and Reid - go ahead and hand out political favors. I do blame him for picking the same tired folks like Geithner, Summers, Shapiro, etc that all had a hand in getting us into the gutter in the first place. I do blame him for not putting forth a single proposal after two years in terms of reforming our entitlement programs. I do blame him for making a speech in Arizona a few weeks ago calling for civility in public discourse and then two weeks later supporting demonstrators carrying signs saying the governor of Wisconsin is Hitler, Murbarak, Mussolinni, etc ,etc. I guess civility is only supposed to exist when Republicans are putting forth their arguments?
I'm frankly tired of all the politicians. I supported Obama because I believed he might dare to be different. Rahm Emmanuel??? Larry Summers? Mary Shapiro? Not different at all.
I supported the auto bailouts - if we are going to bail out anyone it should be those that help sustain our country and a manufacturing footprint is important. Who did Obama pick - Rattner - who was just seen "neither confirming nor denying guilt" and paying a multimillion fine for bribing the NY pension fund to give his fund money!
Sorry, but all that type of stuff has nothing to do with race. I think Obama had the same race in November 2010 as he did in November 2008. My opposition to him now is simply based on the two years he has spent not addressing our nation's problems and lessening the future of my children and grandchildren through worthless spending and government expansion.
Because Wlaker ran on cutting the teachers' compensation, the voters agreed with him as evidenced by him being elected, and he is following through on one of the promises he made. People have every right to unionize, just as the taxpayers whom are paying the unionized teachers' salaries have a right to elect an official that promises to cut their compensation being the voters feel that comp. is too high. You are arguing for democracy, but only when it suits you.
I don't believe that most people care if Obama is half black or half purple. People want results and there is no bigger pressure cooker than being the President of the US. Every President gets beat up eventually so it is no surprise he is taking heat. Does he deserve it?
I would say based on an incoherent foreign policy and a misplaced focus on health care versus jobs in his first two years he has shown he is a good talker but not a good manager.
"Rarely is there new wisdom. Frequently are there forgotten lessons. 'The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." --Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43BC) Go Marcus!
The idea of Rome giving foreign aid is actually hilarious. The manner by which Rome usually reduced its debt was to make war on some foreign land, tax, loot and pillage, and bring back lots of slaves.
message.snopes.com/sho...
"Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things - Bread and Circuses." Juvenal, in Satires.
So, now we have welfare checks, foodstamps and Survivor on Channel 3012.
We all have our opinions and our perception is our reality. There is no right or wrong just opposing conceptions that are anti and pro labor. I am a former businessman and former union negotiator. It may appear to outside concerns and is greatly perceived that the way the union works as outlined by yourself is logical and correct. Now from an insider view it is not the case. Yes, labor supports candidates and as do lobbyists. No different, one term tends to take a demeaning characterization as compared to the other. I 100% respect your view but it is not factual. The union dues that members pay goes into legal representation due to management CBA violation, as we can both agree that litigation cost $$$. Then there are administrative salaries for book keeping, accounting, benefits etc. The businesses that do not offer health benefits to their workforce I end up paying with my tax money thru social services. You see, we the wage earners are paying into the system regardless of what side of the ledger these expenses fall on.
I believe Zmartmoney has a good grasp on the incestous relationship between the democratic party and the unions. Your view tries to gloss over the practical side of this relationship which is votes for support. Unions and democrats are loyal to each other for a reason and that is they butter each others bread.
I have been in a union and also worked outside of a union. In many settings the union has effectively became a device for corporate management to manage the employees en masse versus individually. Over time however most industries that are heavily unionized have major financial issues and become insolvent as the extraction of value from the employer by the union overreaches and capital is moved away from that business/industry.
Public sector unions are a disaster as their premise is that the budget for raises and benefits is whatever they can extract from the tax base. And they want to negotiate not with the consitutents that make up their local tax base but at a state or federal level where they get the most leverage on career politicians and the impacted tax payers don't even know what is going on. We have come to the end apparently of that game because everyone knows what is going on now and people are in no mood to pay more taxes.
Given your view of how unions work it is a real mystery where the unions get the money to support candidates.
You need to understand that I am a lover not a fighter. But in response to where the proverbial union "warchest" of donation contributions for political expenditures comes from, the individual local unions contribute a portion of union dues to the AFL CIO office in Washington where the donations are used to lobby for safe work environments, domestic public projects and organizing. Just like the tobacco, oil, automobile, pharmaceutical industry organized labor lobbys for their interests. Many private corporations find working with unions quite helpful in deploying the workforce in an organized efficient fashion, having set guide lines and a rule book (CBA) designed to protect both worker and management. I can not say how public sector operates and wish not to attempt to defend or attack their positions. Concessions would be a much needed relief to the budget problem. I am here seeking Alpha but not many discussons on accumulating wealth just alot of bashing and inconsequencial rhetoric.
Keep love alive!!!
One of the disturbing parts of unions' political activities as compared to other interest groups is that people are not given the choice of whether they want to belong to a union or not in a union shop. That is very different than parties coming together for common interests and hiring a lobbyist or donating to political campaigns. In the latter case the contributor is choosing where to spend the money where in the case of unions the leadership decides where to spend it whether the members like it or not. The members are captive participants.
The public sector problem will get short term relief from concessions but make no mistake this is looked at as a temporary concession to be made up later through the union's asymmetrical negotiating position with taxpayers which is why they don't want to give up collective bargaining.
If you want some Alpha here is a tip. Don't buy companies that are heavily unionized because the return on capital will likely be low as will your return. In fact look for companies that compete in that space that are not unionized as they will probably win over the long run.
To some extent i concur with what you say, but i have large positions in ConEd, PSEG and GE all of which are unionized to the max . I have had and will continue to enjoy dividends and stability into the sunset.
I almost added a condition on that statement but didn't and you nailed it. The statement is generally true unless the company has an unassailable market position. Utility companies definitely fit that bill. Not sure about GE's unionization but I do know they were early leaders in moving jobs to Asia so perhaps they managed the costs by just chopping headcount. We really need those jobs back here in the US.
What is PSEG? I assume it is a utility but cannot tell.
I will complain about him. I believe he needs to quit opining on everything like it is gospel because although he knows a lot he does not know everything and he talks from his own perspective as if he has some unique claim on reality. The problem is that there are too many people who fawn all over him that take his opinion as gospel and don't challenge his thinking. Becky Quick and the gang on CNBC are ridiculous slobbering over him.
Here are 3 complaints I have right off the cuff:
1. Today on CNBC he makes the statement that US consumers would be better off without credit cards. Warren is a relative idiot when it comes to credit cards but that did not stop him. He obviously does not use one I suppose but he lives in Omaha and everyone knows him. Our lodging industry grew tremondously on the use of credit cards as well as our direct marketing industry. Internet commerce has exploded on credit cards. Think of people travelling and trying to pass off checks or merchants having to extend credit like they did back in the 70's. Banks are not interested in writing small dollar loans so the credit card takes care of all those loans without any paperwork. Everyone can debate proper usage but these little devices have changed commerce and peoples' lifestyles with the exception of Warren.
2. On June 2, 2010 WB testified in front of the Fin Crisis Inquiry Commission that nobody could have known that house prices could drop so therefore Moody's should not be held to blame for their role in the housing debacle. Hard to believe WB did not know as he thinks he knows everything else. Anyways Moody's sold their ratings to bond issuers and were a critical linchpin in undermining investors grasp of the credit risk. WB owned a lot of Moody's stock so he was only acting dumb for the benefit of his investment.
3. WB thinks everyone should pay more taxes but he has never felt any stress from day to day life making budget with no end in sight to the grind but if he wants to practice what he preaches he should write a multi billion check to the US Treasury so they can waste it for him. Instead he gave a lot of his fortune to the Gates Foundation for use around the world in getting rid of disease, etc. That was a tax free transaction and not even primarily for US citizens! Given all the capital gains he has accummulated over the years he likely has consistently paid a low effective tax rate while working families have paid in higher tax rates and a greater % of their wealth every year. He should be ashamed of himself.
This is not a union good and WB bad comment but rather I would say they both are making more noise then they are worth right now.
Yes, PSEG (PEG symbol) is the utility serving the New Jersey area. I in my former life spent 14 years with Coned and 8 years with PSEG, which is why i have the hands on view. Having sold my franchises I will be returning to ConEd until the time comes when i can live on a cruise ship everyday. We all have different appetites for risks, however on a side note, if you have a desire for steady dividends ( 6% to 7%) with solid companies that have guaranteed cash flow, captivated audiences and operated very well then the three i mentioned in my prior comment are great choices. These companies are recession proof and they hedge daily with future contracts on gas and oil. They are very good at what they do and I have a large amount of my eggs in their nests. If you have any investing suggestions i would appreciate a heads up. have a good one.
articles.sun-sentinel....
Union gets fired teachers rehired.
blog.heritage.org/2011.../
Cant fire the firemen either.
www.lvrj.com/news/fire...
It wouldn't be because these unions supported him during his election run? www.youtube.com/watch?...
While the teachers didn't support Walker.
It's a necessary thing to cut budget during tough times, and another altogether to use it as an excuse for political payback.
Political payback or politcal rebalancing. Is it not high time that our politicians are not elected by politcal groups with a financial self interest and instead get elected by we the people. Unions fight hard to elect politicians that will line the union members pockets each negotion and higher salaries leads to higher union dues. The fact that their salaries and benefits are so bloated compared to the public demonstates this very well.
No more 15 days sick leave, everyone will have the same medical plan including the management, retirement plans would be more realistic and in line with the general public. Unions will cost share on medical and pension, no protection by seniority (lazy's will face first layoff) less protection of the poor performers, Merit pay increase not automatic raises based on years worked.
What is getting everyone so upset with this solution. I see no ones life being ruined (maybe those who are pathetic performers) and claims that it will ruin lives is just hyper exaggeration by union fear mongers. If we have some leaches sucking at the tax payer teet its time for them to go.
The fear mongers are probably scared they can't get away with all the shenanigans at tax payer cost and they are the ones running scared. Its time to be responsible in your job...its not a game to be played with management.
I agree 100% with you regarding political groups having too great an influence in US elections. Unfortunately the way the Supreme Court has extended the Constitution to give rights to organisations that really should be limited to individuals we are going to need some serious legal change to make it happen.
It's very hard to see how that will occur.
Hope you do not select stocks based on the same logic.
NOT!
Here is an example, the Koch brother's lobbying group have a office a few blocks from Wisconsin's state capitol and are one of Walkers largest donors.
Interestingly, Walker's bill includes this: "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."
Word is that this was meant for Koch Industries.
omaha.com/article/2011...
"Similarly, Boston Scientific Corp., a medical device manufacturer, makes stents to keep blood vessels open, but cheaper stents or drug treatments might be substituted."
Here they are under investigation
topnews.us/content/214...
Buying Guidant came with a lot of law suits and they still bought them, that was dumb.
www.access-media.net/g...
I would say they have a very stupid managment team. Probably doctors that think they can run a business. It only works for so long.
Again I would stay away from this company. There are sooooo many other stocks to pick why put money in this that simply becomes dead money, producing nothing for you.
Thats the best advice I can give you. You have a choice, unlike most union workers who are forced to join and pay dues.
The visitor, Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity
What Mr. Phillips did not mention was that his Virginia-based nonprofit group, whose budget surged to $40 million in 2010 from $7 million three years ago, was created and financed in part by the secretive billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch.
I don't like any of the uber rich trying to influence politics but please don't make it sound like only one side is guilty in this filthy game. Dumbo and Jackass both are filthy dirty playing this game.
These guys want the US to look like a latin american country where 5% of the people own the majority of the country. This is front and center their primary desire. They're not looking for a better America... they just want to own it and run it.
I'm sorry... no one can defend this regardless of party affiliation.
The Governor was elected as part of the democratic process to govern. To discharge his duties he would have the latitude to propose and seek passage of any legislative measures to ensure that budgets are within its means.
State public employees have the right to vote him out in the next election, then seek to revoke the passed laws.
Would someone please enlighten me here? Remember, the Law is the Law. Everyone is equal before the Law. If you don't like a Law or part of the Law, seek to change it by the democratic process. Can't just take it into your own hands.
When I hear the statistics of how Detroit might have to close 50% of its schools (can you imagine 50%?) or how lives have been lost because they had to close firehouses and lay off policeman in cities all throughout this great country of ours, the frustration that is felt by so many especially when we see that corporate profits have soared, yet hiring has yet to recover even as taxes are kept low.
The impact of educational cuts will be felt in how our country competes in the world in the coming decades so those arguing that we shouldn't ask our children and grandchildren to pay for what we spend today is already doing that as we speak. Everything from whether your potholes are filled and how well snow is plowed on your streets and how well your bridges are maintained is on the line to how long you have to wait on the DMV is affected by all this. Whatever "savings" municipalities feel they are getting will not be worth the grief in lost services everyone will experience should this Wisconsin scenario spread on a national level. Why? Because in the hope that the private sector can flourish and is willing to bring back jobs, we are sacrificing the public sector and the quality of services you and me as common citizens should be receiving.
We, as a country, need not skew what true Capitalism is because to do so will weaken America instead of strengthening us and that is something we simply cannot do at this very juncture in time.
You ask "why are we so concerned with cutting government spending and the deficit at this juncture?"
Because we have a math problem. The government debt at the Federal and State levels is more than people can bear and it is only getting bigger. Some people know the numbers and many others can feel the pressure and know something is not right. This debt has to be paid with taxes or inflation or both. And this is in addition to the debt people hold on their personal household balance sheets. So everyone has had enough of an out of control government sector and by the way government spending "crowds out" private sector investment so this is a known economic phenomena that is always present.
To give an idea of the scope of the problem here is just the view at the Federal level. We have US economic output at around $14.6 Trillion in 2010 as measured by GDP. We already have $14 Trillion in outstanding Federal debt which is around $45K per person or $140K per household. Deficits are projected around $1.5 Trillion for 2011 and maybe $1.3 Trillion for 2012 and trending down hopefully to just a little over $500 Billion. But to use easy numbers let's just say that we put on another $3 Trillion of debt in the next two years which is not unreasonable given the spending levels and perhaps rising interest rates. That will put the Federal debt at $170K per household and that is only at the end of 2012! And this does not include state and local debt per household and ordinary debt from household decisions. And if Obamacare is more expensive than anticipated then look out!
We will not be able to tax enough to get out of this hole. We will have to use inflation as a policy instrument just to make sure we don't have to look at bankruptcy.
Any questions? Do you have $170K plus in your desk to send to the Federal government.
People are going to have to send there kids to private schools or set up schools as cooperatives like in Little House on the Prairie.
" Attacking the deficit problem at this juncture seems more like a smokescreen to reverse certain legislation for the benefit of certain industries instead of truly having the well-being of the American people in mind."
1.And just at what "juncture" would you propose to address the deficit problem?
2. Just what industries are you referring to?
3.What portion of the "American people" do you have in mind? May I assume only who belong to a union?
Speaking as a member of the Main Street crowd, seeing that tax incentives has been given to business big and small to spur job growth, let us see over the next year if jobs do grow or not. I'm not a fortune-teller but waiting a year or two to see how the economy pans out would not affect the deficit detrimentally.
The industries I speak of can be inferred from my first statement.
I make no mention of unions in my argument. Give-and-take is essential in any talks between labor and management but when voice is basically taken away from one side for the benefit of the other side, that is rarely a good thing. I understand the argument of waste that result from unions but I also understand that in America where free-speech is so essential in protecting those that normally have little voice in our society, organized "anything" is essential in how our country works. When you begin to take away anyone's or any group's ability to bargain, it is a recipe for disaster.
The problem with your comment is in the first line "numbers aside." The fact is numbers do not move aside. They are big immovable facts that in the end dictate what we will all pay and what we will receive. We are approaching that end now and we are not immune from those realities. It is a lack of leadership and political pandering that has not kept up back from the precipice and a spoiled electorate that wants everything and is not willing to look at the bill because they want someone else to pay it which is a fantasy.
Taxes are already high and can be tweaked but there is not the magnitude of money left in raising taxes to meet the appetite of big government and out of control government wages and benefits. And government rarely makes any investments with any returns for a variety of reasons so using the word "invest" is a real abuse of that word and smokescreen to the reality of it is just a lot of spending.
Creditors already own us and we are close to being the next Greece and Ireland and we will have terms dictated to us rather than us solving our own problems. All these rich contracts will then be ripped up and draconian cuts will happen. If we kept spending under control we would not have to face this eventuality. The only other choice is to inflate away the debt and that is what the Fed is doing now because we have no fiscal discipline.
Since at least 1980 Federal spending has increased every year without pause. That trend line should scare anyone.
Tax receipts bounce around a bit but have went from $500 Billion plus in 1980 to over $2 Trillion in 2010. Yes that would mean our Fed'l Government needs over $2 Trillion per year to run.
Receipts slowed in 2008 as the recession hit and really tanked in 2009 while at the same time our Federal spending increased by over 20%.
Add on deficits at the state and local level, long term structural obligations in benefits for government employees at all levels, and layer on high sales taxes and I would say the poor American worker is up to their eyeballs in tax obligations to fund all the above. And hopefully they have some money left for housing, food and save for retirement. But we know by the savings rate that they don't.
However the income side is more than just receipts being down as a result of the recession. The total percentage of GDP collected as taxes is at a very low level from any historical perspective - since the mid-1950's the US average has been pretty close to 19%. Right now it is running at a level below 15%.
One can argue about what the resolution of this should be, but increased taxes should not taken off the table as step towards sanity.
All true but a few important points:
1. Using GDP as the denominator is tricky as government is already in that number so if they are expanding by borrowing they are inflating the denominator and thereby supressing the %. There are problems with the other contributors to GDP as well. That is why I look at absolute dollar outlays as I would like to see ups and downs to reflect the economy and receipts but it is horrifying to see that they have never went down since at least 1980.
2. So GDP does not seem to me to provide a very good basis for estimating a potential tax base and especially on the margin.
3. The tricky part is that the US consumer in the end pays for all taxes and their income has been stagnant for quite a while so if you levy more taxes into the system and it trickles down to the consumer they have even less money to spend. While at the same time they are being hit with rising prices on energy and food.
4. Going after corporations just leads to capital flowing to areas of the world where the tax burden is less ceterus plurbis and lower employment in the US.
In summary taxes could be tweaked but likely not increased in huge numbers. We need spending reform to match receipts by putting variability into government spending and a better economy neither of which our elected officials have a good track record of delivering.
We are beyond letting the American people decide. That ship has sailed. Now the bondholders will decide and damn the Americans and their wants along with their currency.
As far as the tired argument about which services to cut, really who gives a shit? Our teachers suck. Cops just write tickets now to feed the cubicle farm people back at the statehouses. And firefighters work on their bench press record and cooking skills. Occasionally they fetch a cat out of a tree for an old lady.
My God, why are so many weak people addicted to federal and state governments? Start doing shit for yourselves. Give the taxpayer a break.
Everything else, if taken singly, is just more circus. If you don't cut spending but raise taxes businesses will leave and go to Ontario. If you cut spending and don't raise taxes the govt. will monetize the debt and tax you there too(inflation).
No.
Cut taxes and cut spending. Shrink the size of government by half. Provide a damn standing military for defense and the rest of govt. can get TF off my back.
Absolute dollar outlays need to be adjusted for inflation and population, as spending levels have built in inflators.
I am not suggesting going after corporations. Ultimately I feel corporations should not be taxed at all based on the simple principle that whatever you tax, you will get less of. Most countries tax individuals or consumption as a percentage of their revenues more than we do. And in the US we have record levels of income and wealth disparity. We could do with less of that.
Any time you have a budget increasing for over 30 + years without break you have a structural problem. You can understand how it happens but you cannot rationalize it.
When the Fed government borrows and makes transfer payments it only comes back if the receipient has enough income to generate a Federal tax obligation. Since 50% of the country does not pay taxes it is likely that these receipients are not paying any Federal tax. On the other side however when the receipient spends the money someone is receiving it and IF they are generating enough income then they would pay Federal income tax. This derivative tax benefit to the Federal tax coffers is hard to model. The net of all this is the % returned to the Federal government in the form of taxation is likely not signficant especially if the receipients are not paying any tax.
The income and wealth disparity needs another strategy and those are two different subjects. A high income person may not be wealthy but a low income person could be wealthy.
Going after wealth really gets into taking away capital or removing any government favorable treatments for capital. Going after the tax exempt status of muni bonds would be a start as the wealthy grow their wealth in those investments substantially........this will raise cost of capital for state and local governments. The wealthy also make LT investments in equities and avoid the marginal tax rate hit for selling under 12 months. You can see the results of this strategy in that they got hammered in the big market downturn pretty hard. This could be removed but capital will not flow to the more risky small startup companies.
Going after high income is just raising marginal rates and taking away exemptions and other deductions which the ATM does pretty well already.
Heavy taxation is also deflationary by the way. And these activities will also generate capital flow to other areas where the treatment is better.
No easy answers but it is obvious that government is out of control and dropping loads of debt and contractual obligations on the tax paying public.
As far as taxation of capital goes, it is pretty simple. In exchange for removal of taxes on businesses tax preferences for dividends and capital gains would be removed. Business would still attract capital because growth on retained earnings would explode. And earnings outside the US would return without penalty.
Small companies are a special case - currently almost all of these are structured in such a way that they don't get tax preferences anyway. They aren't public, so dividends and cap gains don't apply and profits are taxed as regular income to the proprietors.
Let's not mix apples and oranges. We were talking about government borrowing which is really the domain of the Fed Government. The taxes you mention do not go to the Federal government and they are making the massive transfer payments and supposed "investments" and sucking up the most resources. So the fact is outlays to the 50% of the population that do not pay taxes does not have any signficant direct feedback loop into the Federal tax coffers. This is pure charity as this part of our population is receiving benefits and putting zero into the system.
We have arrived at 50% of our population not paying any Federal tax from historical averages not paying in the 20 percentile range. And as low as the mid teens in the 1970's. This non participation really took off in the last decade.
The impact is not just the dollars. It has changed the relationship between the government and the citizens. Now 50% of our population has a strong interest to extract transfer payments and benefits than to worry about if the government should be doing it or if they should get motivated and support themselves. The budget is not their problem as they are only receipients of government spending. Add on government workers and everyone else at the trough and our government has turned into the biggest transfer payment sow in the world.
Your tax on capital gains is interesting. Returning foreign earnings would be huge as it would drive more jobs here.
The idea that not paying Federal income tax means you are not paying any taxes to the Federal Government is a meme that just doesn't work.
I missed your payroll tax callout. Yes that goes to the Fed but is paid by the employer unless self employed. And it is supposed to be decked against SSA, SSI and Medicare. Excise taxes are not much bigger than a rounding error in the big picture and are opaque.
Let's complete the loop. If 50% of the population are not paying taxes I would assume that a lot of them are not employed or are grossly underemployed. Hence payroll taxes are not really signficant or maybe even relevant and again are paid by their employer not them. So they are essentially paying no taxes to the Federal government and still receiving Federal transfer payments. You can argue that they bought some gas and had to pay a few shekels but that is opaque to them and a nit.
My point again is 50% of the population is not paying Federal income taxes therefore they have no skin in the game to control Federal spending and in fact it is in their best interests to increase it. Layer on all the government workers who are driving big benefit packages and salaries and this ship is sinking.
Spending is out of control and needs to be cut and it will be painful.
Federal government employees of course act in their own self interest but their pay/benefits are only about 10% of the Federal budget. The Federal budget is all about defense and transfer payments.
And in any case regardless of what you do with the application of income tax to the 50% that don't pay it now, the simple fact of the matter is that these are the people who are going to receive the majority of transfer payments. It isn't going to matter whether or not they pay any income tax; they are going to be the voters that will demand more in the way of government support and taxes on the top 50% to pay for it. It's going to get worse too because of the boomer retirement wave.
Like I said, this 50% doesn't pay taxes idea isn't going anywhere.
Great! Federal employees are only 10% so let's just move their salaries and benefits to be in line with the private sector and we can move on. That will be a nice chunk of change back in the Federal coffers. We could also leave SSA and defense "as is" and cut everything else and we would be in even better shape. And if we downsized defense a chunk happy days are here again. There would be a lot of empty buildings in DC as we close or downsize various agencies but traffic would sure lighten up.
My point which you are dodging is that our tax system has a moral hazard when 50% of the population does not participate in paying for our Federal government. And in fact the 50% is catered to with more promises and protection of those promises primarily by the Democratic transfer party in return for their votes. This is absolutely corrupt. Are these people all old and sick?
It does matter that everyone pays taxes to support the monster in Washington DC. Everyone needs skin in the game so we are all on the same page. That is what we are arguing about now. How can people use our government bodies to screw their fellow citizens and drop mountains of debt on them and future generations for their own personal greedy benefit? Because they don't have any skin in the game so they don't care.
We will not be able to control this debt load as it will control us. We will either have to go to bankruptcy, restructuring of the debt, inflation, recession or a combination of all of the above. Politics and polemics will not matter when the bill comes due and the inflation you see right now as the Fed pumps up the money supply is an early warning sign that debt and government obligations are too high for what is left of the tax paying public to carry them.
detnews.com/article/20...
I guess its finally time to get real.
If you are blinded by bias from either the Right or the Left, you may have trouble gauging what most Americans are feeling and saying about the Wisconsin confrontation and the fears that it could spread to other States.
The gist of my post is that the Tea Partiers have chosen exactly the wrong hero in Governor Walker and have badly miscalculated the mood of the country at large in provoking this particular showdown.
I believe it will hurt them badly.
We will have to see if events prove me right.
Meanwhile, I am the Messenger, not the Message.
They (the unions) had their run of about 50 years of ever increasing money sucked out of the taxpayers and finally the worm has turned.
Ask people who DON'T work for the government how they feel about paying higher taxes so that the unions can have FREE health care and pensions and not too many are in agreement with the giveaways.
You are underestimating the numbers of people fed up with government spending. This is much more than Tea Partiers banging a drum.
On another note, your quote- "If you are blinded by bias from either the Right or the Left, you may have trouble gauging what most Americans are feeling" speaks volumes.
We have been raised by the milk.
Now we are drunk by the milk.
1 - they've created an atmosphere of class warfare.
2 - They make it next to impossible to weed out the toxic individuals contributing little to nothing in the marketplace, be it manufacturing, education, government, etc.etc.etc.
3 - The UFT's favorite ploy is "the children will suffer". Suffer from what?? Thanks to the modern day UFT, the majority of our kids are "practically unemployable"; they can't read, write, divide, multiply, or even add single digit number sans calculator.
4 - They're also destroying America's GDP, as more and more $$ chase low cost producers, and tax environments around the world. ROI is important to investors, similar to one's blood flowing thru one's veins.
5 - Klugman is standing tall with his marxist comrades,shoulder to shoulder, in their attempt to tear down the pillars of free enterprise, and replace it with what has already destroyed our European neighbors.
"it won't work Paul, you rats are out in the open now, and will be caught in your own trap."
It is all for the children.................
cnsnews.com/news/artic...
Top 50% get in to Junior High.
Top 50% of those graduating Junior High get to go to High School.
Get real!
Never thought I would see this from you.
But I say we just move schooling to the internet and let them work at their own pace and close down a lot of the classroom chaos and excessive expense.
We want the results not all the heavy human and capital expense process.
So easy to argue that people aren't doing a decent job, isn't it, when you're not in the front lines along with them. That is the problem with this country where those elected too govern us seem to have no notion of how "the other half" lives. Take a page from the show "Undercover Boss" before they legislate.
offshore and gold, bitchez.......ends the argument RIGHT NOW....
As we watch the country go down the tubes because we don't believe we should be investing in anything that allows us to compete against the world or to build our future, we'll see where we sit a decade or two from now. Behind everyone else, I'm sure.
What investments would you like to see made?
I would rather see them work out agreements that make more sense moving forward. Reward good teachers. Remove bad ones. If they have defined benefit plans get rid of them. Let the union decide how it should invest retirement contributions. That's how they do it in Canada. Ensure they are required to maintain a level of training hours every year. Most professionals do.
Additionally reduce administration or mandate that a % of of all funds be spent on salaries and direct learning expenditures. Schools don't need high levels of administration.
With respect to students failing out or being dumb, this may be more the result of current middle class plight of 2 working parents who are too tired to involve themselves in their childrens lives at the end of the day.
Try to build the middle class society by making it possible for one parent to work and the other to stay home and care for children, or to donate time to society. Avoid letting the corporations dictate that 2 salaries are required to live properly.
I guess it boils down to: What do Americans want their society to look like?
How I wish we could return to the day of 1 working parent but for the average family, even 2 working parents are barely making ends meet.
For countries with the best educational system, having parents active in their childrens' education is so important. So is increasing the teacher-to-student ratio, but it looks like we're moving in the opposite direction in all things important for the education of our kids.
Spend a day in a big city public school and check it out. Education is there for the offering, but a large percentage of the students choose not to avail themselves to it.
To blame poor academic performance on society or 'corporations' is more ridiculous still.
If we leverage more technology in learning we can be a lot more effecient and lower costs so I think the technology investment is a slam dunk and you would see businesses open the checkbook for that kind of investment in a hurry.
We also need to think through all the redundant infrastructure in the US for education. Everyone wants a new school for X millions of dollars.
imagine detroit cuts its budget by 50% tommorow, and lays off half the teachers and closes half the schools. do you think those students TODAY, who are recieving 100% MORE , haha, are SMARTER than tommorows students, who will be recieving 50% less? ...........heres the answer....the students tommorow are just as stupid and mal-educated , as the same ones yesterday WHO WERE RECIEVING 100% more education dollars!!!!! ...if your mind/s can follow , the causal connection, paying the teachers more and more, has resulted in less and less. you do see where this is going? by upping your school/property taxes 100%!!!! you'd only have students that are as 'smart' as YESTERDAY!!!!!!!!, AND THEY"RE FKN STUPID NOW. how is doubling down going to make them smarter? if filling the retirement coffers of overweight socialist slobs is your metric, then everyone gets an "A".....
Love it.
So true.
No we aren't. The screaming apes in WI wearing read shirts and the holding Walker = Hitler signs are talking about MONEY, not education.
India raises smart kids not because of public education but because they actually think for themselves and figure shit out. They take apart cars(Tata motors) and rebuild them with their hands. Bloom energy is another example and so is BYD in China. These guys THINK they aren't "taught" a damn thing. They want to survive and are hungrier than us. Period.
If it was "for the kids" they should be supporting charter schools since the children perform better and get a better education. THAT is better for the kids. Instead the teachers unions fight against the charter schools. Why you ask, simple, its not for the kids its for the teachers.
www.washingtontimes.co.../
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Students in charter schools in urban areas were an exception; they did better in math than their public-school peers, and charter-school students were generally more satisfied with their schools, said the study."
Charter school students more satisfied is another keep point. How long does it take to turn around years of failure in the public schools. Give it some time since it is turning the tide. I noticed there was no mention of charter schools being worse.
School competition can only improve the situation.
The Department of Education, which commissioned the study. Hopefully there has no bias there. I noticed they did not mention any other area of study except math and reading. History, science writing, spelling etc.... not mentioned. I want to see the whole playing field not just the tight ends to evaluate the team.
A point that I thought was interesting is below and may really point to the fact that a large portion of the problem in the schools is the student desire to get an education.
"The study compared outcomes of students who attended the schools (lottery winners) and children who applied but were not admitted (lottery losers) and typically went back to their neighborhood schools."
The study only compared students who really, really wanted an opportunity for an education and I am sure that push comes from parents that get involved. The parents are part of the solution here not just the teachers. Another point would be how many lottery losers went to private schools. This study leaves some questions unanswered.
The teachers unions fight home schooling to, why?
Results from very poor schools are very good too. Look how many folk from India and Pakistan and many other poor countries, become engineers and doctors and come here for jobs. They came from schools with very little money. Our grandparents did too. So this issue is not about spending more money.
Students not motivated, teachers not meeting the needs of the students or both or probably a lot more reasons. How about return corporal punishment, might that help. I have no idea, but I can see the status quo is not working and throwing more money at it is NOT the solution or we would have seen tremendus improvement over the last 30 years but instead it has gotten worse.
Created a Fed Department of Education under Carter and scores been going down hill ever since. Maybe thats part of the problem, too much federal govt intervention. Let the states deal with it. At least then we would have 50 different methods working and maybe a solution would be found that every state could copy.
I guess bottom line, I think we should let the citizens of the states decide this not the unions or federal govt and certainly not Paul Krugman. See below
www.americanthinker.co...
I forgot to add I am glad there are some on here that can have a civil discussion without resorting to threats against each other. jeez some of these comments are unbelievable.
They referenced studies conducted by:
Stanford University Center for Research on Educational Outcomes
National Bureau of Economics
American Federation of Teachers
Carol Hoxby
National Assessment of Educational Progress
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
National Center for Education Statistics
Harvard Business School
United States Department of Education
Mathematica Inc.
and others.
So what do you get? A lot of engineers.
Having worked with Asians I can tell you that they are no smarter than the bright people I have worked with in various industries around the US. However they are very motivated and focused and that counts for a lot.
Indeed. This is "union 101" which means those phone calls are part of the in-house turfing brigade. Most of the people watching what's going on are being turned off by the goon squad, wondering where in the fuck these dolts have the time to take off 9 days for their little liberal mosh pit.