Are Unions breaking the States budget??

The government doesn't necessarily negotiate for the benefit of the taxpayers, at least not directly. They negotiate for the benefit of the city (or county, or state), which results in negotiating for the benefit of taxpayers. If that makes sense. It's the same basic concept as electing representatives to work toward your interest in government in general...they aren't necessarily working for you personally, but in what will end up best for their entire constituency.

The city (as any other employer) wants to get the most they can out of the union for the least money and conditions possible. The union wants to get the best deal it can for its members while giving up the least money and conditions possible. They usually meet somewhere in the middle, with both sides utterly unhappy about something but ecstatic about something else. Basic bargaining, really.

The assumption is that as the taxpayers' elected representatives, the city government will be working on behalf of said taxpayers. Otherwise our whole system of government doesn't work.

 

The idea of collective bargaining is a false one. A bargain is between someone who has a good or service to offer and the person actually paying for it. Politicians "bargaining" with unions is nothing more than a money laundry. I know of no request by local, state or federal agencies who have offered a referendum asking for the right to "bargain" with anyone.

Your post is correct in so far as it stands, but goes much further. ALL government.... local, state and federal "invest" taxpayer money for political ends, whereas private sector people invest money for economic ends.

Detroit has fully embraced every single social, economic and union policy put in place by Liberals/progressives (communists,) and it's not difficult to see the outcome. The old idea of public workers was that, although the pay was less than the private sector, they had (for the most part) a job for life, since government will never go away and, in fact, is needed for a variety of reasons. However, when you have tens of thousands of state workers making more than the private sector workers, eventually you run out of other peoples money.

"The amount of positive economic activity in any given area is inversely proportional to the number of liberals in charge." Jim Quinn Warroom.com

 

REPLY: Actually, the Bush Jr. tax rate reductions didn't go into effect until 2003. By 2005, employment was at 100%; consumer confidence was at an all time high, GDP went up almost two points and money going into government coffers went up by about 50%.

Don't fall for the Libs falsehood that tax rate reductions "cost" anything, as they ALWAYS pay for themselves by increased revenue going to the government. It worked when Queen Elizabeth the 1st did it, and John Kennedy, Reagan and Bush Jr.

Economics is really more simple than you imagine; whenever you lower the cost of something, more people engage in that activity as their money is treated more fairly, IE: stores don't have a sale to lose money, as it will result in more people shopping. Lower the price of a sports ticket, and more people will be there to watch.

It's time for the Fair Tax (NOT a flat tax,) and everyone will pay their fair share.

 

Can you link us to an actual mainstream article stating %100 employment? Ya, but as we can all see it was a house cards and everyone is now paying for that, like the FDIC was left bailing out the depositors of the failed 'Savings % Loan' fiasco of the '90's.

 

Nope. But I can link you to a number of resources stating that the US unemployment rate in 2005 was at just over 5%.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
http://www.thinkandask.com/2005/20050723bls.html
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbyyear.asp
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Probably I don't need to continue, right?

zappafan, I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that collective bargaining does not exist? That when union leaders bargain on behalf of all of their members and referents it is something other than collective bargaining? I'm also not sure what relevance Detroit has on the discussion, other than being the birthplace of the UAW. But we're talking about public-sector unions here, not the auto industry.

Also, you say my post is correct "as far as it stands". What more do you want from a post? Did you expect it to mean something more than what it says? I never claimed it was the end-all, be-all statement on public union bargaining.

 

Right! This only the second time IIRC, that Canada has a lower unemployment rate than the US, %7.5 ATM. I'm going to put on some Frank Zappa now, 'Shut up an Play yer Guitar now'.

No offense to zapafan1, you just reminded me of one of my favourite albums by him.

 

Yeah got a few of my family members who got less SS and disability and not to mention medicine that they wont no longer help pay for. And now with more then 1 type of medicine costing over 800 for just 1 type is way to much. So many of my family has to do without on some meds which ain't right.

 

Bush Sr called Reaganonics "voodoo economics"

Bush Jr increased Government more than others. His growth was at the same time greedy Democratic Senators were pushing for Fannie Mae to be a growth vehicle. The market corrected in the 80's for overinvestment in real estate by banks. The market corrected in 2008 due to oversight removed from banks again.

 

I have facts, it is called California.

Unions with deadbeats that cannot be fired while earning 2-8X pension are killing our economy.

 

Ya, somethings gotta give here, no extra revenue coming in and expenditures going through the roof because some 7K baby boomers turn 65 each and every day.

The financial model of ever increasing population to provide jobs is busted. What is it now for the US, some 150K jobs created/month to keep even? Back in 1980, Quebec's premiere, an economist, said that unemployment would be %20 with the efficiencies of 1980's manufacturing tech without growth.

Sorry, nothing to do with unions but the bigger picture is there. Oil has sustained our economies but will run out, the tank is only so big. Get green now!

 

You can't seriously think that is the only factor, can you?

 

You do realize that companies are vacating states that have large Unions enmasse now.

"Green Jobs" do not exist from "green projects."

 

Heh, I thought about a caveat for you as I typed. I am not anti-union, I would gladly join a union if it protected MY job, not only the BA.

Yes the current situation of more pension plans funded that wages is killing the California economy.

 

Drill Baby Drill !


(It is over regulated and no NEW refineries have been built since 1976)

I don't want the thread deleted so I am off to Home Depot.

 

The problem there is that oil is a world commodity, and you can only produce %3 of the world market which is nothing compared to your current usage, that's why 'drill baby drill' can't ever work unless you invade Canada and take it, even then it ain't enough.

Besides, green tech can be ramped up way quicker than building new oil rigs/nuclear/refineries. NIMBY comes to mind. I'd rather have a wind turbine than a oil rig in my back yard anyday.

 

That's the latest buzz, but I don't think Obama will agree to cuts in SS benefits, at least not to current beneficiaries.

I think this is a rather shrewed strategy by the president.
By putting Medicare and Social Security "on the table", he's forcing republicans to show their hand.
If they still refuse to negotiate on other issues such as tax rates for the wealthy, subsidies to corporations such as oil,
closing tax loopholes and measures to raise government revenue, then he has demonstrated in a more concrete way what the republican policies are.

I think it is more likely that Obama will seek ways to make these programs work more efficiently and to install measures that will further reduce fraud.

 

Because the sales are not there yet. Innovation is the key here, why buy the old tech when a better/cheaper product can be built right here. It's only the economies of scale that are hindering this and why the gov. has to invest first to get them off the ground.

Heck, I believe I read that a 1 sq. mile of turbines(or was is 10) offshore could power all of Ca's needs, including electric cars. Gas is going to be at $10 in the near future which means more inflation and less to live on for us peons.

 

Companies are leaving the States, period. Other countries have less environmental regulation, lower standards of living, lower wages, non-existent benefits, virtually no work rules, and a seemingly endless supply of people willing to work for pocket change for a 12-hour day because it's better than nothing. Is this happening in states with a strong union presence faster than others? Yup. Because unions are guaranteed a wage, whereas in right-to-work (a misnomer if there ever was one) states you aren't guaranteed anything, including a job.

Green Energy is creating 20,000 new Green Jobs for Michigan
Bringing Green Manufacturing to Detroit
Mich. looks to lead on green manufacturing
Renewable Energy Mandate Helps Green Manufacturing Jobs in Michigan
LG Chem battery plant hiring in Holland, Michigan
Green Manufacturing Practices In America Can Help Profits, Will Help Planet

Unfortunately, most of that was under our former governor. This new one seems to think that expanding corporate tax cuts while simultaneously cutting jobless and other welfare benefits is how we're going to rescue the state. Which means people are leaving in droves...but moreso since he took office than before.

 

Why invade Canada when there's more oil and gas reserves in America than all of the middle east, combined? For the past 30 years many have offered the possibility that oil is not a fossil fuel, and more now than ever that seems to be the case. Ultra deep wells.... over 40,000 feet, have discovered oil sources, when plant matter/vegetation hasn't been found deeper than 10,000 feet. So, if the Earth produces oil from ethane gas, water, heat and pressure, peak oil is a long, long way off.

Wind and solar? ..... on average, an oil rig occupies a 25 by 25 foot area. To equal the energy produced by one oil rig it would take 40,000 square acres of solar panels or wind generators. Do you honestly think the enviro-whackos would allow that?

 

They are not "subsidies" to oil or anyone else.... don't drink the kool-aid. They are capitol investment rebates, which most all companies are eligible for. Look.... Walmart gets an average return on investment of about 3 to 4 cents per dollar invested. Oil companies get about 8 cents, so don't fall for the large pre-tax income numbers. Local, state and federal governments make over three times that from taxes on energy products... so who's really gouging?

 

But, as you stated before, private union members realize that a company has to be profitable to succeed. So unions might take pay cuts when times are bad, then renegotiate better pay when times are better. They know the alternative would be layoffs or the company goes out of business. With the government and unions, that issue is not there.

And I don't think all politicians are working for the benefit of the city/state...

 

No, I'm saying that the idea of "bargaining" is not that at all if those who pay for it (the taxpayer) isn't at the table doing the bargaining on their own behalf.... they are out of the loop. That is why any bargaining with public sector unions should be done at a local level, where the people who actually pay the bills are at the table.

I mentioned Detroit because last year there were more than two public union workers for each private sector worker. That is unsustainable, and a sure way to state bankruptcy. How can such an "economy" remain in existence when the public union worker makes at least 50% more than the private sector worker? Please realize that government, whether local, state or federal, might produce wealth, but it produces no revenue whatsoever.

Perhaps I should have said "I agree with much of what you posted."
Kapish?

 

The ONLY reason those green industries are, for now, doing well is because they are getting government subsidies. Just like the ethanol industry would fall apart (and rightfully so) if they didn't get government/taxpayer handouts.
Ethanol is a disaster in every way: it pollutes more, damages engines, and you get less mileage because it has about one third of the BTU's of gasoline.

Help the planet??? Surely you don't still believe in the HCGW crap, do you?

 

OT, but can't resist... I hope they don't regulate it like the gubment is handling the debt ceiling, or we gonna be paying $100 per gallon of gas. :-D:-D

 

100% employment is 6% unemployment. Here's some links:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

http://www.nidataplus.com/lfeus1.htm

Please note that the unemployment numbers fell when Reagan and Bush's tax rate reductions went into full effect. Reagan had to make up for Carter, and Bush Jr. "inherited" a mild recession.. there was no Clinton "surplus."

Geez..... I got trapped into getting off topic, too.

 

zappafan, I'm afraid I simply do not know how to discuss this with you. You seem to be drinking some pretty good kool-aid of your own as far as conspiracy theories go, unfortunately.

How is it remotely practical for the taxpayer to sit down to bargain? That is why the taxpayers elect government officials...pretty much the entire reason our system of government exists. Those elected are supposed to represent the interests of those who elected them.

Incidentally, that is exactly the way it works in a union. Elected officials negotiate a contract. When an agreement is made between union representation and employer representation, the proposed agreement is brought before the membership for a vote. It doesn't always pass, as every member is free to express his or her concerns with the deal brokered, and if they are persuasive enough the contract is not ratified. Both parties then go back to the table to see if something can be arranged to accommodate those additional matters.

By the way, do you have documentation on two points you made about Detroit in 2010? One being that union workers outnumbered non-union workers 2:1. The other being that public union workers made at least 50% more than private sector workers. I'm curious. I looked and couldn't find a thing other than some numbers from 2002.

What I did find was this:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm

Granted, that is nationwide and not Detroit-specific. But I am somewhat familiar with labour politics in Michigan, and I've never heard anything like the claims you are making.

 

In whose world is 6% unemployment equal to 100% employment? Neither of the links you provide here even remotely suggest that is true. Let me explain something: The unemployment rate does not take into consideration those who are not seeking work for whatever reason, nor does it count those who are not receiving unemployment benefits.

Full employment is defined as 96% of the total working-age population being employed. This does take into consideration that there are some people who are not working by choice, and wouldn't be employed anyway. For instance, housewives.

Even "full employment" is not defined as "100% employment", because everyone knows better.

 

AND, the Moon Landing was FAKED and the government is hiding Alien Flying Saucers. rolleyes :-D

 

People blame unions for government overspending for the same reason people blame guns for all the killing in this country. It's easier than tackling the real issues and they get to pretend they are 'doing something about it'.

 

Just to be clear, are you saying there is no waste in government employee unions? Unions are an easy target, as are guns. But, do you actually believe there is no overspending by gubment union employees? :confused

 

I really don't know the answer I'm not an economist,I'm also not an expert on American economic history,nor do I want to be.:-D

I know enough to know that its impossible to take one factor in an economic system such as tax cuts for the rich and say 'its a good thing for boosting the economy' There are just too many factors involved,you may think this is my liberal brain talking but nothing could be further from the truth,even if I saw numbers that looked as if it were true they can't be trusted because as I've already stated the world market is in constant flux and there are a million other factors to take into consideration. If it were as simple as you say Zappa every economist would be in agreement with regard tax rates which would mean the rich would never pay taxes at all "If the statement were true" and every country on the planet would be simultaneously living in economic bliss.

We unfortunately live in reality and in reality this isn't the case,all countries/parties tax at different rates,economists can't seem to agree even when they are unbiased by politics and therefore it can't be a true statement or philosophy.

Whenever anyone says they have a magic bullet such as tax cuts for the rich or even tax cuts for the poor which will magically make the economy 'one of the most complex things man has ever encountered' grow I'd be incredibly wary to question their motivation for thinking that.

My definite last post on political economics...

 

I keep reading the title to this and my bad eyes keep seeing "Are Unicorns breaking the States budget??", even though I know the title and I've commented in this thread. Am I feeling OK? At any rate I don't think that Unicorns or even the people who believe in them have anything to do with it. :heli

 

No. When you say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people", are you saying no one has ever been killed with a gun?

 

Well, now you are being silly. Is there government union waste, and overspending? Look at California and Wisconsin. Do guns kill people? Hey your analogy, yes, they can, but my guns must be defective, they don't even fire towards my noisy neighbors.

People use tools to do a job. Some people us a gun to commit a crime. Are you saying no government has ever been corrupt? Hmm, a bit OT, but has our government killed anyone? (Think Somali pirates, and bin laden....) Do you wish to continue on this in my opinion, illogical path?

And please don't put words in my mouth. You said "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" not me. Please keep your statements accurate.

And I am way off topic, sorry to the OP!

 

These are the questions you asked:

My answer to both was "no". If I was not clear before, I apologize.:-o As for the second statement, I was being silly, hence the 'winky' smiley. I'm more than a bit shocked by your reaction and accusation of dishonorable intent.:confused

 

How old are you? ..... 15? Or did you go to a public school? The 6% number has been used for at least 40 years. 6% is considered 100% employment because there are always sick, or injured, or people who are moving from one locale to another. By the way, there are 6 different ways "they" figure the unemployment rate. The example you give, above, would be the U6 figures, which, thanks to the Commie administration, currently stands at about 16%

 

If you owe the bank say.... $50K, and you make $30K a year, do you have a surplus on your debt?
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

 

.... you should have stopped after your first sentence. I was discussing American economics and history, not the other Marxist/socialist countries, which they all are.

 

I see that this particular forum system doesn't like the way I replied, so I'm writing this down here.

 

Could you please point to where I made the rules infraction? Being a new member, I didn't know there were restrictions on free speech, and I just looked, but I still can't find in the Bill of rights where someone has a right to NOT be offended. If you can find that, also, I'd sure appreciate it.

 

Zappafan...I'm afraid I can no longer dignify any of your accusations with a response. Accusing me of being an ignorant child has decimated any minor credibility you may have had as a debate partner. I am not offended, but you make me tired. Obviously no one can ever have a valid point that differs from your own, and that is sad to me.

I am sorry your personal union experience has been bad. Mine, from the time my father was one of the founding members of the local City union when I was six, has been nothing but what it should have been...hard work, loyalty, defense when necessary, working on behalf of the members, and giving all people who work under the agreements (not just members...our membership is currently approximately 1/8 of our roster) the job security, wages and benefits they need to make a decent living wage. As an officer for the last nine years (I will be running for my fourth three-year term this fall), I have played a part in that, a fact of which I am incredibly proud. I have seen our membership swell, our members flourish, and the majority of our members able to afford health insurance...some of them for the first time in their adult lives.

Of course, in your world, my being an officer in my Local immediately makes anything I might say suspect, right? After all, I am only 15. rolleyes But you were right about one thing...I did go to public school. Hundreds of thousands of people do. Some of them go on to run major corporations and governments.

 

My sincere apology for 'accusing' you of anything less than honorable.

 

OK, I am confused now, what were we talking about? :-D:-D

 

I read until it started to go south! Unions were in my opinion one of the very best things that helped our country grow, the protection and wages they afforded encouraged our fore fathers to work hard. Yes they were very good but I believe they have past their time! Much of the opinions believe collective bargaining etc is how the got where they are. Being a former union member I feel they got where they are by strength in numbers, if they did not get what they wanted they would cal a strike or slow down. I was on strike for sixteen weeks, yes we got what we wanted but would never ever recoup our loses. The only ones that came out ahead was the union bosses. The main questions I pose is why should the entire non union population pay the bill for people getting more then they do? What entitles these people to feed off the backs of the general population? My daughter is a union teacher making just under $100K, she has a summer position where she coupes another $40K. No joke she cries poverty that there is just not enough to go around, needless to say my blood boils listening to her. Most every town worker is unionized, we have all seen road crews with one working and four to five supervising this is unions face personified. I have a Chrysler dealer as a close friend, one afternoon he took me under a new car on a lift and asked what I though of the colored dots stuck to all the components, I shrugged and asked what they were. He being a major dealer had been invited to the factory, while he was there he noticed and asked about the dots. He was told in no uncertain words that many of the line crews were so drugged up that the dots got things in place, he said it was quality control guys that rechecked everything before rolling of the line, this was several years back at that time the line crews were making over $30 an hour in a nice well protected union job. I firmly say yes unions are helping to KILL this nation and should be abolished, very few non union people can or will argue otherwise. In reality the general population stand little chance of getting rid of unions, they are the largest political block along side of the legal profession. We the regular people pay the bill and are held hostage with little to no light at the end of the tunnel. Think about this the job creation thing done by the administration, yes it did make for more jobs! But by law all federal, state and local government must use union labor. The bill only strengthen the union political block, did -0- for the general population! It is high time to get rid of all unions! They should not get more out of life then those that are forced to pay for their benefits and saleries and more than likely work harder and longer.