Forums >Off the Beaten Path>On Wisconsin!
an amazing likeness
why should taxpayers suffer -- increased taxes or cutting other services -- for "the union"? The money train is over. We are all going to suffer.
The money train is over. We are all going to suffer.
One reason that we taxpayers should suffer is that we (in the person of our elected officials) entered into a legal, binding contract to fund pensions and health plans per the contract. We have legal and moral obligation to meet that commitment.
That does not mean we should blindly carry forward the same contractual obligations to the future, but we need buck up and pay for what our elected officials obligated us to, even as they (the elected) choose to underfund their contractual obligations. Despite the fact that we seem to steadily elect weasels who will not face the facts of the system they've built, we must not avoid our debts and obligations from past contracts.
We deserve to suffer for not being reasonable and wise stewards of the government budget. It is, after all, government of the people, by the people.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Feeling the growl again
Please do not misunderstand me. Especially with regards to pensions, we must live up to our obligations, I agree. This may be problematic as the politicians we have elected habitually raid the pension funds to fund other things, but it is not fair to pull the rug out from people, especially those close to retirement. My mother is a public school teacher, and hence in a union, and the legislature spent their pension fund years ago.
However, healthcare is a much shorter-term issue with regards to contracting and expectations.
I like the way my company handled rapidly escalating retiree healthcare costs. They called it an "unquantifiable liability" and basically decided a set amount they would plan on covering going forward (picking a retirement date in the future for when the change would take effect) and promised to cover that set amount. I am sure it will cost more than that but at least people know what to expect.
My comment was meant more to frame the question around why we focus on the perceived needs of the union vs the taxpayers paying the money. In the private sector I would frame a similar argument, why should we be catering to the union when it is the company and shareholders making the investment and bearing the risk.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Well there is certainly no medal for you. Boo.
I just calls'em as I sees'em.
As long as the feelings of entitlement persist, we can't get expenses back where they need to be. Nobody wants to give up anything and assumes the money for it is just hiding, the empty piggybank isn't real.
If you really want to see a thread explode, I could phrase this a different way. But without the context of a face-to-face discussion I fear that comment would be severely misconstrued.
I was thinking about this "entitlement" concept this morning. There's this sense that people in the private sector don't have it or have it to a lesser degree than public sector workers.
Having worked my whole career (except for one year) in the private sector, I'm not sure it's true. I think we all kind of get used to "things" and and plan our lives around those things. People in the private sector are just as liable to get pissed off (without actually feeling the need to quit) when things are taken away from them.
Take coffee, for example. At my prior employer, a large firm, we had these awesome presto-machines on every floor. Here, I have to make a pot every afternoon. Sadly, this actually pissed me off for a bit. It took a little time for me to realize that, if you want coffee, you make coffee.
And that's just coffee.
"If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus
Menace to Sobriety
When they pry it from my cold, dead fingers...............
Janie, today I quit my job. And then I told my boss to go f*** himself, and then I blackmailed him for almost sixty thousand dollars. Pass the asparagus.
And while there are teachers who make a (relative) boatload, by-and-large they have to wait many years to see that boatload salary. The teachers I know work weekdays from 7:30-6:00 (when you count class prep, extra help and grading papers).
I was thinking about this "entitlement" concept this morning. There's this sense that people in the private sector don't have it or have it to a lesser degree than public sector workers. Having worked my whole career (except for one year) in the private sector, I'm not sure it's true. I think we all kind of get used to "things" and and plan our lives around those things. People in the private sector are just as liable to get pissed off (without actually feeling the need to quit) when things are taken away from them. Take coffee, for example. At my prior employer, a large firm, we had these awesome presto-machines on every floor. Here, I have to make a pot every afternoon. Sadly, this actually pissed me off for a bit. It took a little time for me to realize that, if you want coffee, you make coffee. And that's just coffee.
It is called "hedonic adaptation". It's the reason why that shiny new thing is no longer all that interesting after a year. It's what effectively drove the technology bubble, and drove the housing bubble. You get a nice television set, but after a month you no longer see it as being all that great. You have adapted to having it in your life and it's something you take for granted.
At the risk of being redundant, it's not about the budget, it's about power.
Be safe. Be kind.
Yes, that piece says a lot more to me than the previously linked piece x10000.
I like Paul Krugman a lot and I'll admit it makes me a tad uncomfortable to disagree with a Nobel Prize winning economist, but...I still think unions do more harm than good. (Even after reading it the second time.)
Runners run
I'm still puzzling in my head about the article linked on the previous page. I realize that unions and pensions were ideas born in progressivism. In 1911 (not exactly). But in 2011, I have a hard time wrapping my feeble non-political mind around "don't mess with my pension" as a progressive thing. And I realize that union busting is totally something associated with conservativism. But in 2011, I have a hard time wrapping my feeble non-political mind around "hey, the pension concept might not be sustainable in the economics of the 21st century" as a conservative thing. But this is why I hate discussing politics. Apparently I are an idiot because I stumble over labels and "who does what". I see that the governor is not wanting to compromise and that seems sucky. But from that article, I didn't magically decide to be more sympathetic to "the cause", which I think it wanted me to be. But that's just me and I are an idiot.
I'm still puzzling in my head about the article linked on the previous page. I realize that unions and pensions were ideas born in progressivism. In 1911 (not exactly). But in 2011, I have a hard time wrapping my feeble non-political mind around "don't mess with my pension" as a progressive thing. And I realize that union busting is totally something associated with conservativism. But in 2011, I have a hard time wrapping my feeble non-political mind around "hey, the pension concept might not be sustainable in the economics of the 21st century" as a conservative thing.
But this is why I hate discussing politics. Apparently I are an idiot because I stumble over labels and "who does what".
I see that the governor is not wanting to compromise and that seems sucky. But from that article, I didn't magically decide to be more sympathetic to "the cause", which I think it wanted me to be. But that's just me and I are an idiot.
Pension =/= collective bargaining rights.
I don't think that article guaranteed you'd like it, and certainly not make you be more sympathetic. It's HuffPo, a.k.a. a partisan blog read by the choir. I linked to it because it expanded on some things that I've been saying. And I'm the choir.
You hate discussing politics? Coulda fooled me.
Call me Ray (not Ishmael)
I hate winkie smiley slightly more than I hate discussing politics.
I'm crushed.
Well, I will say that the comparison with Egypt is absolutely inapposite. Egypt's protesters were not unionized, nor were they organized under leadership with any power comparable to that of American union leadership. And forgive me, but they were more royally f***ked than Wisconsin's state employees.
Yes. Absolutely.