Dems favorable rating free-falls

[Kulindahr]

Maybe not, Alfie.

The right-wing machine has piled so much anti-union propaganda at us since the Reagan era that many people have begun to believe the lies. Just recently, reports that union workers at GM were making $50+ per hour (or was it $70?)were exploded as myths, but no one listened, and fewer still cared.

A tantalizing fiction will always get more presstime than the boring truth.

It was $70+, and according to the local news station, it was shown to be true -- once benefits were counted.

BTW, my animosity toward the greedy unions doesn't come from anyone's propaganda, it comes from having lived among or known well a number of union people,

 

[Kulindahr]

Maybe its because Unions are legalized mafia.

Give me a break....

I hardly consider it "legalized mafia" when the bottle-counting kid at the grocery store gets injured... and only manages to keep his job because the union intervenes (Safeway) .... or when workers have to deal daily with risk of injury that could be nearly eliminated... until the union puts its foot down ....


At one end of the spectrum, unions deal in extortion, but at the other they're nigh unto essential in many places, and get things done for people that the government doesn't catch.
Yes, at times they deal in arm-twisting and coercion (Obama favors such...) in the workplace, and yes, it's not uncommon for unions to actually stand in the way of people being employed, but don't tar them all with the same brush.

The tipping point can be measured by the self-ownership principle: at the bottom, unions are a way for people to stand against the efforts of corporations to violate their self-ownership, treating them as slaves; at the top, unions work at violating the self-ownership of others.



Besides, it's government that's legalized mafia --

Q: What's the difference between the government and the Mafia?
A: The Mafia has a code of honor.

 

[Kulindahr]

Someone making $90 per hour makes over $172k a year, assuming I did the math correctly. Kulin, that figure doesn't pass the smell test. (Maybe we ought to ask Joe the Plumber.)

Either you're mistaken about the figures, or there are other, hidden expenses buried in that $90 per hour.

I know there are hidden items when a "helper" (not even identified as an apprentice) plumber is one of three guys getting an average of $300/hr, and none a full plumber. But I can't imagine what sort of items are in there, except padding to give the company owner a new boat or something.
When as a handyman I bill $18/hr, that includes all the goodies necessary for running power equipment, from gas to the trailer to haul the noisy toys -- but that's barely $2/hr in reality, so I can't for the life of me figure out what they're stuffing in to get the $130/hr the plumber charged my dad the one time (steak lunch? car wash?).



Oh -- $90/hr * 40hr/wk * 50wk/yr = $180k/yr.

 

[Kulindahr]

Alfie, I have a cite that will illustrate just how good those guys are at propaganda:

http://snipurl.com/qx5np

Well, U.S. News did their own analysis, and concluded that either with or without a public option, this 'reform' business will increase health costs. TIME mag printed the same conclusion, while U.S. News went further, concluding that the young especially will be affected.

A big point, one eloquently put forth by the Cato Institute, is that if there is a public option, people will seek more health care, which means costs will climb due to basic economic factors.


An interesting anecdote concerning the Cato assertion: a kid, maybe 14, here was biking along on one of those bikes that's 'way too small, so his knees were almost hitting his chin as he pedaled, and his knees didn't come close to full extension. A guy asked him if he knew that pedaling that way would ruin his knees, and the kid says, Yeah, but that's okay; Obamacare will pay for fixing it.

I don't know what's worse -- that kid, or the more numerous ones that don't even know there's a health care debate happening.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry I was mistaken. The mafia, as long as you don't cross them, takes much better care of their people than any union.

No disrespect to your arguments but every job ( back when I was dumb enough to work for others ) I had was better if there was no union. I got paid more and had better benefits. Competition for good workers among companies along with reasonable gov't regulation is enough to keep the workplace safe and fair. Union's are dinosaurs. I guess the only people they help are those who want to be paid more than their skills warrant and want to close out non-union people who could be more talented than them for getting the job.

So you approve of stores replacing people who get injured -- effectively firing you if you get hurt on the job?
You approve of employers keeping workplaces unsafe?

Out of the places I've worked, only two I can recall had a union. One arguably benefited from it, and one would have been better off without it, while another desperately needed a union.

Then there was the construction outfit where anyone who even mentioned the word union more than once would have been fired -- but we got breakfast daily, up to $10/meal (this was the early 80s), and lunch up to $12/meal, and if we worked long enough days that the boss decided to take the whole crew out for dinner, dinner up to $15/meal, and in warm weather there were coolers with a wild variety of cold drinks we could dive into all we wanted.

As for people wanting "to be paid more than their skills warrant", I know people who are busting their asses, using skills that put most people to shame -- and getting all of minimum wage for it. So do people who want to be paid for the effort and skills they're using just sit there and take it?

 

[Kulindahr]

Well yah. Hence the reason socialism is a disasterous failure. One financial liability is removed from the individual, the individual no longer gives a fuck. Why work when my bills already get paid, why take care of anything when the gov't pays to fix it.

Real question here Kuli is just how much pot does one have to smoke to still buy into socialist ideals? What is in some people's water? Is it a genetic flaw? A chemical in the brand of baby powder used on their butts? Please explain if you can...

The deal is that while some socialism may be a good thing, many people conclude that it's the way to handle everything.

Take the matter of having electrical lines running clear out into the remotest rural areas: that got accomplished by socialism. Consider the interstates that bind the U.S. together: those got built because of military socialism (you can still find and talk to people who remember and will tell you that it was the Interstate Defense Highway System). Fire departments are a manifestation of socialism -- heck, if you want to get picky, so are police departments.
Have you written to protest the existence of National Parks and national forests? What about public water supplies? or public sewers? What about public schools? All of those are, at least arguably, socialist.

Granted, some ought not be in government hands; for instance, water supplies, or even schools. Even sewage could be handled privately, for that matter, and so could highways. But the public has rightly concluded that there are just some things that won't get done, or not done well at all, and that that lack will harm others, unless we do them together. Thus taxes fund city streets -- even for Friedman it was a stretch to scheme out a way for those to be done privately!

The trouble arises when the system becomes anti-choice, and requires things like being connected to the public sewer system, if there are other ways to do it (here, it would be simple enough to have a tank that would be pumped out and hauled to the plant where manure from livestock ends up generating electricity and turned into fertilizer; human excrement is sterilized by that process just as well as anything else). We toss around the term "anti-choice", not realizing how ridiculous it is to use that for one very narrow part of life, when in reality both major parties are anti-choice on such an array of things that to list them all would be a major labor -- "DOMA" was anti-choice; DADT is anti-choice; zoning is anti-choice, mandatory (public) school attendance is anti-choice; compulsory Social Security participation is anti-choice.

And anti-choice is driven by the old "TOTBAL" syndrome: "There Ought To Be A Law!"... in which the search for someone who asks for a law to reign in his own behavior is worse than Diogenes with his lantern in daylight, walking the streets of Athens in search of an honest (some sources say "actual") man; the reason most people want laws is to require everyone to do things their way -- and have no choice.
In opposition to that, of course, is what good old Ben Franklin wanted on the national currency as a motto: "Mind Your Business". The "own" preceding "your" is implied, as is the converse: don't go about minding anyone else's business. "In God We Trust" was nice (not that God ever backed our currency), but it was just a sentiment, and one that helped feed a self-righteousness that has fed anti-choice; I'd vote with my own blood if there were no pen handy to get Franklin's motto on our money.

Which takes me to another suggestion: that the urge for socialism in the U.S. is ultimately driven by the strict Puritan heritage, which not only felt that a community should take care of its own, but which wanted to tell everyone in that community exactly how to live. The neo-Puritans abound in the Republican Party, but the heritage of doing good for/to others whether they like it or not (and jail them if they don't cooperate!) is just as alive and well among Democrats -- where it drives socialist urges.

BTW, as with the 'tragedy of the commons' phenomenon, it's only a few who would be like that kid, abusing the system by leaving his harm to others: one of his friends called him a "moron", and another called him a "lazy ass".
Another was bright enough to actually ask why pedaling like that was bad for his knees -- God, I love 'teachable moments'! -- so I explained (I would love to be there if he went home and said, "Mom, I need a new bike -- this one's bad for my knees").

 

[HenryReardon]

Kulin, the extreme right wing wants to eliminate public schools entirely.

Never mind that we'd end up with masses of illiterate people, who couldn't even be a cashier in a supermarket. It'd turn into a third-world country with a plantation economy.

What do you think the government schools are producing right now, except precisely that?

 

[HenryReardon]

In order to answer your question fairly, I'd have to better understand your point of view.

Do you propose giving everybody vouchers and closing the public schools, or eliminating all kinds of public funding?

1. You don't have to have a 'point of view' to understand that government schools are turning out functional illiterates.

2. If you must have public education, the only thing that will work is a voucher system - give the parents a voucher and let the schools compete for students.

 

[HenryReardon]

I have not ever been comfortable with the idea of vouchers, Henry, because the prospect of using government $$ to indoctrinate students with religious dogma repels me.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that all private schools are parochial.

There are plenty of non-sectarian private schools.

 

[grantt]

^ Well Said WillyWonka5. I love it when I hear of others who will not shop Walmart. I agree with you on unions, too. They cause more proplems than they are worth and they are often prone to corruption.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulin, the extreme right wing wants to eliminate public schools entirely.

Never mind that we'd end up with masses of illiterate people, who couldn't even be a cashier in a supermarket. It'd turn into a third-world country with a plantation economy.

Actually, odds are that we wouldn't -- we'd just have to take the time to make the transfer slowly, so other institutions could pick things up bit by bit.
Heck, my sister, as chief quality engineer at a circuit board plant, ended up starting a school to teach potential employees skills they'd need. Next thing she knew, the local high school wants to send over kids... It wouldn't be a far jump to companies running schools, along (of course) with churches, and other associations.

(If Oregon law weren't so oppressive, I'd likely be heading up a school for kids of professionals who don't like the public schools -- parents willing to pay enough to be sure the teacher:student ratio never got higher than 1:5.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Henry, all of it is conjecture until a given system has been tried. In the spirit of this theory, we must look at areas in the United States that have tried the voucher system, and examine it for success.

I have read that Milwaukee has had the voucher system for quite some time now. If my memory is correct, there has not been a significant difference one way or the other in the level of proficiency attained in the students.

I have not ever been comfortable with the idea of vouchers, Henry, because the prospect of using government $$ to indoctrinate students with religious dogma repels me.

Then do it the way an economist I read awhile back suggested: everyone has to pay X into some education in their areas; they just send it to a school/academy/learning center/etc. of their choice.

 

[Kulindahr]

You know I hear this argument and the first thing I ask is, "Why did you stay?" They are millions of employeers out there, exercise your free will and move. I once had a boss who was a bitch. I didn't like her attitude. Unlike others I didn't sit around there complaining for years. I got off my ass and got a better job. I worked at two different restaurants in college. I was making better tips at one so I quit the other and increased my hours at the good one. People need to advocate for themselves and choose to work with decent people rather than hire a legal mob to strong-arm thus creating an unnecessary divide between the management.
I am not pro-union, never will be.

Move... how? With what resources?
I think you'd end up with a country with an awful lot of people moving around like hobos back in the Depression time.

"Hire a legal mob"?

Let me enlighten you about unions:
The beginning premise here is "You own yourself". Now, you describe one option for exercising that self-ownership, above -- the lone wolf approach. But not everyone wants to be a lone wolf, and not everyone wants to leave others at the mercy of other predators in the economic jungle.
Another way of exercising your self-ownership is to band together with others, and say, "This is the way we require things to be done if you want us to work for you." If you get enough of you, then the employers have to meet your demands. If you don't, that means you really don't have a strong case. Either way, it's self-ownerships at work.
Just as an employer can say, "This is what I'll pay whoever works here", workers can say, "This is what we require in pay from whoever hires us". They're both a matter of freedom of choice, an exercise of self-ownership.

The system breaks down when one side can hold the other over a barrel -- and that's where unions get corrupt: if all the workers in a given industry, or a key portion of it, are in the union, and it they can set their terms and (this is key!) have the government behind them, then the union is no longer healthy, and not only is it not necessary, but its existence is detrimental. Indeed, if the government is to be allowed to break up companies which have too much market share, then they should be required to break up unions which have too much as well.

Banning unions would be on par with DOMA: an infringement of freedom of association.

 

[Kulindahr]

IMO Wal-Mart is a mob. They tell companies how they must operate internally if they want to sell at Wal-Mart. Its sick. Oh and all those Whole Foods protestors listen to this. In order for a company to sell at Whole Foods they must agree NOT to sell at Wal Mart. Another reason to shop at WF

I like it!
Competition.....

If free will is alien concept to you, God bless. If people don't like their situation they need to ask 1)What got me here? 2)How do I get out?

People can use their free will to answer 2) by saying,
"Let's form a union".

I don't agree with you that roads, schools, utilities and parks/forests are socialist. Yes taxpayers build them but they are public property. While non-taxpayers can use them we, the taxpayers, are not deprived of them. Therefore our wealth used to build these things was never actually redistributed to non-taxpayers. That whealth remains ours. I use the roads that I helped pay for. Food stamps, section 8 and the like uses taxpayer dollars to pay for resources that is given to the non-taxpayer and deprives the taxpayer of said resources. I can't live in someone else's section 8 apt., I can't eat the food someone buys with foodstamps and with medicaid I don't get to use the hospital services which my tax dollars are paying for.
To sum it up. Granted with roads, schools, utilities, national parks the gov't forces us to pay for something. But we are paying for something we get to use. Therefore we get what our whealth built. I don't get to use Joe Blow's food stamps, health care and housing. To me the latter is socialism. The former is community development. Basically if my tax dollars go to someone for something only he/she can use, I consider it socialism.

Interesting line, but it fails: people who don't pay for the roads and still use them are depriving us by wearing out those roads faster than otherwise. The result is that we don't "get what our wealth built" -- we get potholes that might not have happened, and we don't get bike lanes that might have happened.
With both roads and food stamps, non-payers are impinging on the total supply by obtaining some of it and thus depriving us. The deprivation is just in more noticeable form with the food, since we don't get a particular piece of the road for our own.
With housing, it's a little different, but still follows the pattern: the government takes taxes, which if divided evenly means X dollars for me for housing, but I only get to enjoy X-f (f for "freeloader") -- and in fact f approaches X in value, because what little I do get in terms of housing, from the government, is in the form of inspections and such, and I have to pay a fee for those! So while I don't get to use Mr. F's housing, he gets to use all my housing tax dollars.

While I think strictly user taxes should pay for these things I don't consider any of the above socialist. I'm content that I get to use what I pay for. The roads, schools, sewers, etc. would have to be built anyway, repaired anyway. The non-taxpayer isn't keeping me from using them and my whealth pays for my use. Now it would be more fair if only those who pay taxes get to use these community resources. However, user taxes are a big part of the funding for these things and everyone pays user taxes. The part that is paid for with income taxes is less fair but those dollars are still going toward something I can use. It seems to me these utilities and community resources belong to the taxpayer and we allow those who don't pay taxes access just to be nice.

The non-payer is preventing you from enjoying them to the fullest extent.

BTW, if the utilities and such are going to be owned by someone, why does the government need to be involved?

 

[Kulindahr]

An economist: oh, dear. Those guys live in ivory towers, Kulin. Milton Freedman publicly announced support for eliminating the requirement for licenses for brain surgeons.

But never mind. We have to examine the idea for success. As I said before, studies done in Milwaukee have suggested no change one way or the other in the scores of the students.

If there were an outfit on the order of United Laboratories certifying brain surgeons, I'd support doing away with licenses, too.
I agree with Milton that government licenses aren't necessary, and the market can do it better, but I differ in that I'd like to see the alternative institutions in place before we go cutting things loose -- he always seemed to be willing to just cut the cords and see where the wind took us; I want to know that someone is telling me that the vet working on my dog knows what she's doing... besides being cuter than heck (and her guy assistant is cuter....).

As for studies, what I've seen out this direction is that scores haven't changed overall, but that students at the bottom are getting more personal attention, and less is being spent per student for the same result. I like both of those trends, as well as the fact that there are indications that advanced students are learning more -- that latter is hard to measure, because it doesn't change the test scores.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's just the thing, Kulin—I don't want to see multitudes of people victimized by quacks.

I'd have to disagree with you on one key issue: I think it has to be government regulated, because private concerns are too easily corrupted by money. Attention is drawn to the recent mortgage crisis in general, and Bear & Sterns (sp?) and their ilk in particular; private concerns just can't be trusted to do "the right thing" because greed corrupts absolutely.

That's probably an issue about which we have a fundamental disagreement, but that's what this forum's all about, huh?

UL hasn't ever had a corruption problem. They've been so good at assessing quality that they've become trusted enough that if your product doesn't have the UL certification and another does, you may as well fold your business. These days they're OSHA-approved, but they were around before OSHA, and in many ways set -- and continue to set -- the standards for the government, not the other way around.
And they're for-profit.

The recent mortgage crisis is a good example of why there should be free-market outfits to do the supervising: everyone was trusting the government to do it, and look where it got us. If there'd been a UL-like outfit certifying investment instruments, all those derivatives and packaged loans wouldn't have flown, because the inspectors would have been saying, "We're not going to certify this; a certified loan package has to be made up of nothing but certified loans".
Instead we got a feeble effort by Bush to avert the crisis, a flat denial by the Democrats in charge of such things that there was any problem at all, and then aid for the banks but none for people, after the fact. That's what politicians do; they act only in their own interests, and it wasn't in any of their interests to avert a crisis -- but an outfit like Underwriters Laboratories has money on the line; if they blow it, it hurts, so they're on top of the situation, and if something's flawed, they say so -- before it ever gets near the public.

The key is third-party certification: UL isn't certifying their own products, because their product doesn't sit on a shelf -- their product is quality assessment of the quality of the things they assess. To stay in business, they have to do that very, very well -- while politicians only have to do "well enough", and bureaucrats don't even have to live up to that retarded standard. The people UL evaluates aren't the ones I trust; that outfit in Minnesota churning out angle brackets for electrical systems would make their product just good enough to maximize their profits -- but with UL in the picture, they have to make their products match up to the standards of a group of lab geeks who are out to prove that they're better than any other set of lab freaks at catching slips in quality.

So, no, I wouldn't trust banks to regulate themselves, either, but I would trust an outfit whose business was to make the best possible evaluation of financial products, and whose reputation -- and livelihood -- depends on getting it right.

 

[Kulindahr]

This card came to the rescue quite a few time in my tween days.

Heh -- I haven't seen one of those since I sold my collection for like $400.

 

[Kulindahr]

Now they ain't worth nothin ^^ so good for you! :-D

I made like $40 on the deal; I had a pretty good white/green deck, and a wide selection of mean cards in other colors.

Never missed it at all, either.