8
   

The GOP keeps asking, where's Obama's sequestration plan?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2013 11:15 pm
@georgeob1,
Not entirely false; unions have helped nonunion workers gain benefits, better pay, working hours, and safety.

It seems only conservatives are against unions; some mystery I can't seem to wrap around the idea of logic. Conservatives must not work for unions; none, and none benefited from unions.

The harm done to unions by Wisconsin is a FACT that boggles my mind. I'll never be able to reconcile the motives of conservatives who would suppress voters from voting in this country, don't want Americans to have health care, want to control women's sex organs, don't support minimum wages, don't want the rich to pay more taxes, but want to keep our defense budget - while we cut funding for our schools and infrastructure.

Complain that our educational system is too expensive, while the average teacher salary is in the mid-forty thousand range. All while class size continues to increase, and you complain our kids aren't getting the right kind of education.

Quote:
Class sizes are getting bigger, but does it really matter?
Updated 8/26/2010 10:57 AM | Comment | Recommend E-mail | Print |
By Steve Yeater for USA TODAY

One-on-one: Principal Tiffany Smith-Simmons works with Nathaniel Watson, 9, at Jefferson Elementary School. Such individual attention could become less common as Natomas Unified School District puts kids into classes of 30 instead of 20.

By Tamara Henry, The Hechinger Report
Two years of cuts in state support saddled the Natomas Unified School District in Sacramento this spring with what school board president B. Teri Burns calls "horribly painful" choices: fewer teachers and larger classes, or keeping teachers but cutting athletics, counseling and after-school programs.
Like many districts across the nation, Natomas chose to lay off teachers. So for every three classes of 20 students each that the schools had last year, this year they'll put 30 students in two classes. The teaching staff in this 10,000-student district will be cut by 100 to 340 next fall. No one's happy, Burns says


Show me the logic.

hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 28 Feb, 2013 11:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It seems only conservatives are against unions


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/02/business/economy/02economix-labor/02economix-labor-blog480.jpg

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149279/approval-labor-unions-holds-near-low.aspx

CI all too often gets away with floating bullshit on A2K.

A2K is not what it used to be.................
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:35 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It seems only conservatives are against unions


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/02/business/economy/02economix-labor/02economix-labor-blog480.jpg

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149279/approval-labor-unions-holds-near-low.aspx

CI all too often gets away with floating bullshit on A2K.

A2K is not what it used to be.................


Hmm:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/conservatives-remain-largest-ideological-group.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/-60f1jmap0mb6cyic5vrlq.gif

40% identify as Conservative, 42% have a negative view of unions... what was your counter-point to CI again?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:40 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You'll run into the same problem with the education market as you do with the health-care market: a lack of transparency and inability to properly judge competing products means that there is no true free market for consumers to choose from, at all. Sounds nice in theory, doesn't work in practice.

I think it's also worth pointing out that a wide variety of studies have shown that so-called 'charter' schools produce no better test scores or results for their students than public schools do - with the exception of the highest-end schools that cater to the very wealthy.

In the past, the 'options to send their kids to other schools' has been an argument forwarded by those who expressly wish to dismantle or defund the public school system. Right now, parents DO have an option with the schooling of their kids, in pretty much every state: they can send them to private school or they can home-school them. What they can't do is send them to a private school or home-school and refuse to pay taxes to support local schools. I don't have a problem with this at all, as these taxes (usually property taxes) are intended to support the community, not one's own children.

Cycloptichorn


You sound a bit like someone who doesn't pay property taxes.


Everyone pays property taxes. It's a component of the rent I pay to my landlord - remember, taxes are passed on by businesses, right? Per square foot of my living space, I probably pay more in property taxes living here in Berkeley than most.

I'm not against reforming or improving public schools, and I think there are a variety of ways to do this (which would probably cost less money overall), but I don't think siphoning money out of the public system by exempting people from property taxes is the way to go. If people want to send their kids to private schools, fine - but there shouldn't be any 'voucher' funding it from the coffers intended to fund community, public schools.

Quote:
Who is "the community" with respect to public schools if not the parents of the children who attend them?


The parents of the children who attend them and every single other person in the area surrounding the school, whose lives are immeasurably enriched and improved by the school's mission of raising the general level of education. It doesn't matter if you have kids in the public schools, you are still benefiting from those schools' existence and mission.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 11:19 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Public schools provide for the education of "all" children. Without them, our economy wouldn't be where it is today; the strongest economy in the world.

Try visiting a third world country where education is not free or not available.

It's easy to "see" why public education is so important.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 01:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Not entirely false; unions have helped nonunion workers gain benefits, better pay, working hours, and safety.
True enough, but that was a long time ago. Now all those advances are codified in our law and we no longer need unions to preserve them. In recent decades we have seen unions focusing very narrowly on their own interests to the exclusion of everyone else. They have been the major contributors to the competitive failure of most of our manufacturing, metals and textile industries, resisting innovation, productivity enhancing automation, and the associated adjustment to obsolete work rules in every instance. Unions are obsolete monopolies.

cicerone imposter wrote:
It seems only conservatives are against unions; some mystery I can't seem to wrap around the idea of logic. Conservatives must not work for unions; none, and none benefited from unions.
The evidence isn't with you here. Whenever union membership and dues paying is made voluntary, unions shrivel up and die. Their own membership deserts them en mass whenever it is given a choice. Without government sanctioned monopolies few unions would exist.

cicerone imposter wrote:
The harm done to unions by Wisconsin is a FACT that boggles my mind. I'll never be able to reconcile the motives of conservatives who would suppress voters from voting in this country, don't want Americans to have health care, want to control women's sex organs, don't support minimum wages, don't want the rich to pay more taxes, but want to keep our defense budget - while we cut funding for our schools and infrastructure.
Well you're partly right here. Wisconsin enacted legislation ending the forced collection of union dues by the state. This law gave the state employees, who are voters as well, the right to make their own choice in the matter. In addition the law required the unions to periodically recertify their role by majority votte of the emplouees involved. The result of this law was indeed seriously harmful to the state employees unions, given the free choice most of its members deserted the union. What does that tell you?

cicerone imposter wrote:
Complain that our educational system is too expensive, while the average teacher salary is in the mid-forty thousand range. All while class size continues to increase, and you complain our kids aren't getting the right kind of education.
One of the many problems in our school system is the bloated bureaucry that directs its increasingly intrusive currucula and inefficient management. A few years ago while I was living in Washington DC, then with the most expensive school system in the country, based on per capita costs, and one of the worst in terms of measured student performance, faced a "funding crisis" for which they proposed to lay off 1,000 teachers and increase class size. An investigation quickly revealed the administrative staff running the city's schools was significantly larger than the teaching staff; and the presence of significant fraud and embezzlement by the managers from school budgets. A year later the D.C. schools teachers union president was also convicted of embezzling over $1 million dollars (over a several year period) from the union local. Under questioning from a Congressional committee as to why the national union hadn't audited the books of the D.C. local for over twelve years, even though the charter called for annual audits, the president of the national union (AFT) testified that, "there is no legally enforcable requirement for these audits to be performed".
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 01:39 pm
@georgeob1,
Facts do not support your contention that unions aren't needed. Just look at the results as union membership shrank; the middle class income also shrank.

From Boston Globe.
Quote:
Middle class suffers ‘worst decade in modern history’

By Hope Yen | ASSOCIATED PRESS AUGUST 23, 2012

WASHINGTON — The middle class is receiving less of America’s total income — its smallest share in decades — as wages stagnate and wealth gets concentrated at the top.

A study released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center highlights diminished hopes, too, for the roughly 50 percent of adults defined as middle class, with household incomes from $39,000 to $118,000. The report describes this group as suffering its ‘‘worst decade in modern history,’’ having fallen backward in income for the first time since World War II.

Most middle-class Americans say they have been forced to reduce spending in the past year. And fewer believe that hard work will allow them to get ahead. Families are more likely to say their children’s economic future will be the same or worse than their own.

In all, 85 percent of the middle-class Americans surveyed say it is more difficult than a decade ago to maintain their standard of living. Some 62 percent say a lot of the blame lies with Congress. A slight majority say a lot lies with banks and other financial institutions.


‘‘The job market is changing, our living standards are falling in the middle, and middle-income parents are now afraid that their children will be worse off than they are,’’ said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin Madison economics professor.

‘The job market is changing, our living standards are falling in the middle . . . ’


He said that many middle-income families have taken a big hit in the past decade as health care costs increase, mid-wage jobs disappear,and college tuition rises. The more affluent families have fared better because they depend less on home values, which remain shriveled after the housing bust. Wealthier Americans are more likely to be invested in stocks.

‘‘No matter who is president, the climb back up for the middle class and the recovery will be slow and often painful,’’ Smeeding said.

The Census Bureau reported last year that income fell for the wealthiest — down 1.2 percent to $180,810 for the top 5 percent of households. But the bottom fifth of households — those making $20,000 or less — saw incomes decline 4 percent.

The new study says “middle class’’ makes up about 51 percent of US adults, down from 61 percent in 1971.

Since 2000, the median income for the middle class has fallen from $72,956 to $69,487.


This proves my point.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 02:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It proves nothing at all. Indeed the very causes of the middle class gap enumerated in the article involve factors either unrelated to unions or actually caused by them. It appears you were merely looking for something to paste here just to cover your ass.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 05:00 pm
@georgeob1,
You really didn't provide proof of why the drop in unions wasn't the cause of the middle class losing ground on income and benefits.

Using ad hominems will get you nowhere.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 05:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
"ad hominems " refers to the act of denigrating the speaker, not simply disagreeing or criticizing what is said.

You are correct I didn't accompany mt assertion with proof of the effect of labor unions on killing much of our manufacturing, metals and textile industries where most of the lost jobs occurred. However I have made reference to it many times here and assumed that repeating it was unnecessary. It is certainly a well-known fact.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 09:20 pm
@georgeob1,
Actually it means its your opinion with no facts to back you up.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 09:37 pm
@georgeob1,
What killed manufacturing in the US is not unions, but cheap labor costs in India and China.

You do understand the word "competition?"

You also understand the term "comparative advantage?"

I hope so.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 09:42 pm
@cicerone imposter,
From the trumpet.com.
Quote:
Outsourcing

Manufacturing loss is occurring because of globalization and outsourcing. Globalization is the increased mobility of goods, services, labor, technology and capital throughout the world; outsourcing is the performance of a production activity in another country that was previously done by a domestic firm or plant.


This is the main cause, not unions.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I agree. The jobs in question were outsourced to other countries where labor costs were cheaper and the labor force didn't resist modernization to lower the labor input and improve efficiency.

American labor movements resisted any changes in work rules that might raise productivity (requiring more workers on the job than needed) and also resisted automation that would have reduced the needed labor input but in many cases save the factory and remaining jobs.

The last strike by the UAW against General Motors illustrates the point. In 1994 GM wanted to spend $2 billion dollars automating two inefficient and old assembly plants in Flint Michigan, so that they could compete in cost and quality with modern Toyota plants in Kentucky. The upgrade would have enabled a 30% reduction in the workforce, but saved the remaining 70%. The UAW went on a well-timed strike just as the new models went into production and after four or five months GM abandoned their plans. Two years later both plants were shut down forever and the whole workforce was unemployed.

Michael Moore wrote a very deceptive book about the plant closings called "Roger and Me". He left out the part at the attempted modernization and the strike that followed, focusing only on the plant closures.

So yes it was globalization that cost us the jobs, but it was labor unions that resisted the efforts companies were making to keep their U.S. facilities competitive in the international markets, thereby killing the goose that laid their golden eggs.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:32 pm
US textile mills strarted moving south in the 20s, and greatly increased the movement after WWII. The move started well before automation was a factor (or even invented). There were a number of reasons for it--one being that they could pay **** wages to non-union workers in the south (and those wages were below subsistence level often) and they could get away with really shitty labor conditions (ever heard of brown lung, george)? They were completely ready to screw over their northern workers to do it. Then when globalization was introduced, they had no hesitation about screwing their southern replacement workers to move overseas and pay even shittier sub-subsistence wages and develop even more horrendous labor conditions. Which now the younger generation of Chinese workers are refusing to tolerate. And they are, guess what? unionizing.

If you really want an overall picture of how American busunesses have been messing over American workers for generations, and the reasons, which include far more than unions, here's an interesting historical lesson from John Kennedy, from 1952. He was there while it was going on, and he has a far more cokmprehensivce idea of it than you do, George:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/54jan/kennedy.htm

(yoou've gotta scroll down a ways to get the JFK article)

MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:39 pm
And our metals industries stuck with blas furnace technology fifteen or twenty years after new processes in the German and Austiran steel industries, which were unionized themselves, made American tech obsolete, another terminal case of executive complacence and inertia, like that which screwed GM _"We don't need to build an American entry-level car for young first-time buyers. Tell them to buy a used Buick")
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Fri 1 Mar, 2013 10:51 pm
@georgeob1,
It wasn't just the "union" that destroyed GM.

Quote:
This ‘elite group of accountant princes’ apparently liked the status quo - a lot. In John Delorean���s 1973 book about GM (he worked at the automaker), he chronicles how his attempts to create better-quality GM cars were hindered by management’s focus on the bottom line and preoccupation with not changing GM’s management system.
“They didn’t want to hear much of anything negative,” Thomas said, referring to GM management of a few years back.

The bean-counting, keep-the-status-quo system came back to hurt GM in the end. As The Examiner put it:

“This approach can only work for a limited amount of time, for it contains the seeds of its own destruction.”


Read more:http://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/general-motors-fail-article-1.374800#ixzz2MM3u4CHz
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2013 02:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Romney: ‘It kills me’ not to be in White House


Like all his "other" promises.....
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Mar, 2013 08:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Obama renews budget offer to cut social safety nets

I guess it's better late than never, but I doubt very much the GOP is going to compromise on their stand on tax increases.

It's already dead in the water.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Mar, 2013 08:45 am
The poor will be disproportionately hurt by the sequeseter. But the conservatives are cool with this, provided the rich are virtually untouched.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/us/politics/poor-face-most-pain-as-automatic-budget-cuts-take-effect.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130304&_r=0
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 07:39:18