patrick.net

Vicente says

If $50K in Madison, WI is your “living wage”, you’ll need $59K to live in Phoenix Arizona.

I have a funny feeling that housing expenses alone would be much higher in Phoenix, AZ than in Madison, WI. Does anyone actually live in Wisconsin?

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

And why is unemployment higher in Arizona?

I wonder if illegal immigration, which is much higher in AZ than Wisconsin, might have a little something to do with it?

Why would illegal immigration have anything to do with it?

I thought you made it clear it was crushing UNIONS that were the difference in making a great economy. If we tar & feather them surely the Horn of Plenty will shower us with good things.

Thus Arizona should have low unemployment and higher salaries, and lower cost of living. Yet it does not.

Obviously your simple relationship, is wrong, once you start having to reach for other factors to explain it's plain failure.

Also ran into this little factoid:

Winsconsin SAT scores 2nd in the nation

http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/08/25/state-sat-scores-2009.aspx

I have to wonder about the people running down Wisconsin teachers as lazy Union turds just killing time between vacations and deliberately getting sick so they can use up all the healthcare. I suspect the ones saying this were the ones flunked out of school. Or perhaps never finished college because they were asked to leave like gov walker.

Next up on Fox News.... Outrage of the day! We have "heard it said" that Wisconsin female teachers get taxpayer-funded first class flights to EVERY spring break in Cancun, doing drugs and molesting our boys until they get knocked up, and return to Wisconsin to get taxpayer-funded abortions.

shrekgrinch says

By historians and economists. I am not going to be your Google Bitch because YOU remain stubbornly uneducated of both. Perhaps if you had an open mind

I love it. Shrek can write novels on here but can't take the time to do a simple google search to find any of the "widely documented" evidence.

Vicente says

Next up on Fox News…. Outrage of the day! We have “heard it said” that Wisconsin female teachers get taxpayer-funded first class flights to EVERY spring break in Cancun, doing drugs and molesting our boys until they get knocked up, and return to Wisconsin to get taxpayer-funded abortions.

I shoulda been a teacher. ;)

RayAmerica says

Pretty amazing that the same school district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin where the PRIVATE average income is only $19,000, public school teachers make with benefits, over $100,000. Talk about greed! I guess that’s what you get with collective bargaining.
http://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03/average-mps-teacher-compensation-tops-100kyear/

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

ChrisLA says

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

It's not about MONEY, the unions and Democrats both made it clear they would compromise on money. GOP changed it's tune and said that wasn't enough, they wanted the unions crushed. It's funny people are so quick to engage in "class envy" when it comes to teachers making "too much", however if you talk about taxing a billionaire hedge fund manager at more than 15% they cry CLASS WARFARE HOW DARE YOU! Divide & conquer, working according to plan.

Vicente says

ChrisLA says

Some unions should be a lot more reasonable with taxpayer money. This is kind of a lot.

It’s not about MONEY, the unions and Democrats both made it clear they would compromise on money. GOP changed it’s tune and said that wasn’t enough, they wanted the unions crushed. It’s funny people are so quick to engage in “class envy” when it comes to teachers making “too much”, however if you talk about taxing a billionaire hedge fund manager at more than 15% they cry CLASS WARFARE HOW DARE YOU! Divide & conquer, working according to plan.

I think the taxes on them should be raised too. Vincente we both know that in US whoever can get the money rolling to politicians gets the worlds best policy kickbacks. Very wealthy people pay very little taxes compared to their income, labor unions get treated very well (not all, but many are treated like better citizens).

I simply do not agree with the way our system works. I really do not believe any "Group" of people should be able to influence politicians with money. Unions or Corporations. Because as a taxpayer who is a non union worker or part of the too big to fail club I'm only stuck in the middle with no voice.

As far as collective bargaining goes. Years ago when I just graduated high school I applied to work at Vons. Its a major grocery store chain. I worked part time, about half my paycheck went to pay the union dues for the first month. I didn't care to be a part of the union, it was a very temporary affair for me. And yet I had to, I couldn't decline if I worked there. I really did not like that.

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group... given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don't see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

ChrisLA says

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group… given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don’t see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

And yet plainly it IS class warfare. Unions are a vanishing species. Domestic & FOREIGN Corporations have been recently made "people" and have ever-expanding influence. And your move is... to assign false moral equivalence and stand idly by, while we complete our transition to an outright plutocracy. Much like the Native Americans fighting amongst themselves while a tide sweeps over them.

It's clear that states with better unions, even non-union workers make more too. So if you are looking for a "zero sum" case where they are enriching themselves and therefore impoverishing everyone else, it's yet to be clearly made.

Vicente says

Also ran into this little factoid:
Winsconsin SAT scores 2nd in the nation

Another interesting little factoid: Millwaukee public schools graduate a whopping 68%. They sure are getting their money's worth from those $100K collective bargaining teachers!

OH man this is awesome! Prank caller pretending to be billionaire David Koch, calling Governor Walker to check in on how his stooge is handling his Wisconsin "crush the union" project. Clicka-da-pic:

Not just a spectacular imitation of a lackey reporting to his boss, it's also real:

WP: Governor Walker's office confirms prank Koch call

Vicente says

ChrisLA says

Some things unions ask for are reasonable, but just like any other group… given a chance many people become opportunistic. So I don’t see this as a class warfare. I just see this as fixing some level of opportunism and corruption which is very widespread anywhere where money is available.

And yet plainly it IS class warfare. Unions are a vanishing species. Domestic & FOREIGN Corporations have been recently made “people” and have ever-expanding influence. And your move is… to assign false moral equivalence and stand idly by, while we complete our transition to an outright plutocracy. Much like the Native Americans fighting amongst themselves while a tide sweeps over them.
It’s clear that states with better unions, even non-union workers make more too. So if you are looking for a “zero sum” case where they are enriching themselves and therefore impoverishing everyone else, it’s yet to be clearly made.

It is plutocracy, and it has always been. It's a capitalistic society, capitalism leads to plutocracy.

I know what you are saying. And I do not disagree with a lot of that. I'm just not easy about how everything is turning out lately. Both political sides have valid arguments for and against.

In Democratic society it should be a democratic vote on the budget and spending. Instead the only democratic part of it is voting for the candidate given to us by whatever party. Which means bribes, donations, etc...

And because of that I do not have a clear choice here:
Unions aren't exactly there because they have everyone else's interest at heart. I don't agree with the fact that they can bribe and bargain much better deals than an average person on the street can afford, while an average person does pay for their deals.

And large corporate interest couldn't care less if we all starved on the streets either as long as their profit margins are up. They get the same advantages with government and lobbying.

And another thing I don't understand is why would Republicans stage class warfare? I don't see any benefit to them out of it. Maybe this is simply being misinterpreted.

And because I cannot logically see a clear right side, there is too much unknown here, I can only stand by.

I really cannot justify collective bargaining by one group, while not providing it to the other. Until government is completely transparent and everything is democratically voted on (not by just the elected representatives) we'll have corruption and lobbying by special interest which I still disagree with. (I know I'm digressing a bit)

Vicente says

My favorite bit was just the ending (2nd recording). Walker was not a busy servant of the people, he was willing to jawbone with Boss Hogg all day, Until Boss was the one who said he was done.

Koch: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding. [* Ethical violation much? *] Thanks for all the support…it’s all about getting our freedoms back…

Koch: Absolutely. And, you know, we have a little bit of a vested interest as well. [Laughs]

Walker: [Blah] Thanks a million!

Koch: Bye-bye!

Walker: Bye.

elliemae says

shrekgrinch says

And they are a minority..a minority of envied ‘rich’ people in an era of very hard financial times.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/12435289/i-team-public-trust-water-authority-salaries?redirected=true
On the right, about 1/3 of the way down, there’s a box with links to the salaries of different agencies of public workers in the Vegas area. It’s outrageous.
Being a social worker, I know many public workers who aren’t able to quit because they’ll never be paid even close to what they’re earning now. They have a union contract. I believe that unions were necessary at one point, but that now it’s a way to ensure that the workers will make a hell of a lot more than the private sector.
Legal secretaries who make $128k? Social Workers who make $85k (after 20 years, but in the private sector it would be about half of that). This is one of the reasons that the public sectors are in the red and are full of layers of people who should have retired or been fired long ago…
The construction industry is a bit different - there’s a union, but because the workers are independent contractors, at least the union offered some benefits. But in Clark County now, unions don’t mean shit for the workers, only for the union reps.

Elliemae,

You illustrate well the false argument against the unions and the decently paid public workers.

Since unions in private corporations are almost completely extinct, busted, and workers are bullied into not being able to organize, workers in the private sector have no rights or bargaining power. The private sector unions were destroyed a long time ago and since then wages have remained stagnant and declined (in real dollars) in the private sector. Coincidence? I think not.

Those of us who aren't public employees who have the protections our fathers and mothers once had in the private sector are being manipulated into being jealous of and hateful toward public workers who are organized and actually have decent work conditions and make livable wages.

It's not that unions are bad for labor or business. Unions are bad for capitalists (those with all the money and resources). If the private sector had strong unions we workers would have similar wages and benefits that the public sector enjoys.

The super rich want us workers to fight one another and to be jealous of one another. This is a false argument. The super rich want you to hate unions and hate public workers for making a decent living and having real benefits because they don't want to pay the workers in their own private corporations an actual living wage with benefits and healthy work environments. The super rich want sweat shops. They've made that clear by exporting all of our manufacturing to sweat shops overseas.

Really, if the majority of Americans, those of us who must work for a living, were to organize, the rich wouldn't have been able to amass such glutonous disparities of wealth.

We who aren't in public jobs with strong union representation should be fighting tooth and nail to preserve the power of those unions and emulating the way public workers have organized themselves.

No, those of us in "employment at will" states and jobs (in California) are jealous of those who have rights, real living wages, and real benefits at the public sector.

Guess what? We could have that too if we organized and demanded that we be paid what we are actually worth since productivity has exponentially increased over the past 30 years while wages have been stagnant or declining for all but the top level of management.

Stop bitching about what others have and start organizing and demanding what they have for ourselves! It's time we seize the opportunity to turn this around before the last workers who actually have living wages, full worker rights, and healthy work environments are crushed into the dust bin of history.

This generation is too young and uneducated to remember the lessons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries when rober barons killed workers over organizing so that they could have a 5 day work week and actually be paid in real dollars instead of company "scrip" that would only be good at company stores so that workers were shackled to their jobs in order to survive.

No instead we listen to the propaganda of the super rich on the right and blame others who have organized themselves properly and protected their rights for not having what they have.

That's sad...

Thanks Simcha, and good job breaking it down.

I think it's irrational. This may seem off the subject, but I recall many years ago when I was about 30, and a friend of my sister's, a person who was very together in many ways, was telling me how she really couldn't even talk to my sister at that time because my sister was very happy in her relationship (to a guy that she has now long since been married to). The reason was that my sister's friend was not then in a good situation with her love life.

I thought that was so strange. I still do really. She loved my sister, and was happy for her, but at the same time was so emotionally challenged by the happiness my sister had that she didn't have. Ultimately it would have made her happier (at least in a way) if my sister broke up with her boyfriend and became unhappy like she was.

This must be a variation on the concept "misery loves company."

How is it that people think that salaries (in real dollars) go up or go down ? Do they think it happens for everyone all at once ?

Logically if you understand that everyone's pay can't go up at once then you should be willing and even happy to see the pay of others (especially if it's in your profession), go up. The only chance you have of your profession getting paid better is for some to start being payed better, others then follow and so on.

Of course what's going on here is the opposite. It's one more group's pay being reduced. Hey , maybe eventually everyone will be paid equally bad, and then we can start the next step down...

I know this is unique in that it's we the tax payers who indirectly pay the salaries of public workers. But I don't see people doing a deep analysis of how much of state's deficits are directly related to public workers salaries. Do you all remember that back in the 80s when "shrinking federal government" was the big GOP mantra, and that part of how that was (not) done, was by shifting more responsibilities to states ?

In the short term, maybe there needs to be some minor adjustments in benefits for state workers. But that is no excuse for trying to long term set the workers back by taking away union rights.

Zlxr says

just like they helped themselves to our Social Security Money.

That money's still there. It's a current and future obligation of the US taxpayer, and, in the words of the Heritage Foundation:

the top 20 percent pay 86.3% of all Federal income taxes

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/seven-myths-about-taxing-the-rich

So, basically, the top 20% of the country owes the bottom 90% TWO TRILLION DOLLARS -- ~80% of the current $2.6T FICA surplus.

The middle class will only lose this two trillion if they buy into the bullshit that this money is "gone" and the rich are now too broke to pay it back.

I'm just glad I don't have much money lost to FICA for my age [in fact, my mom has been drawing more than I'm putting in now, so I'm kinda golden]. I fully expect the PTB to screw the middle class out of their social security savings.

Anytime you have to spend like 6 paragraphs explaining why a framing is false (like above), you're not going to win the argument : )

Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th

North Carolina – 49th

Georgia – 48th

Texas – 47th

Virginia – 44th

Meanwhile ground zero of the union battle, Wisconsin, is ranked 2nd in the country.

http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-2011-2#ixzz1EqY2s793

Having worked for both public & private agencies, I think there's good & bad on both sides. But I do believe that the workers at some of these agencies are overpaid. Public agencies often pay lots more than the private sector - and I get that - but the reality is that many of the people in the article I mentioned are overpaid and underqualified.

In Clark County Nevada, it's not what you know, it's who you blow to get the best jobs. It's always been that way.

But there are arguments for, and against, unions. I've not had good experiences - but then again, I was in Vegas at the time.

Vicente says

shrekgrinch says

Lincoln ended up doing far, far worse things regarding blatant defiance of the Constitution..so you sure you want to continue on with the Lincoln Analogy with regards to this topic?

Hello Ray….errr Shrek,
I wasn’t speaking of those things. Specifically breaking quorum, is that always when people “Unite Against the Democratic Process” even if they happen to be Republicans?

It seems that you're attempting to trap some conservatives and/or Republicans in hypocrisy by pointing out what Lincoln did and expecting them to defend him - because he was a Republican. But they're not playing with you - at least two of them are saying that they think Lincoln was even worse than that. I'll add to it: He was in my opinion wrong to jump out of a window and deny quorum. I would not go so far as to say he was a "traitor" to the US Constitution for that incident (what you first tried to get people to admit), but I would agree that he contributed to denying his state's "constitutional process," assuming that when their constitution was written, denying quorum was never intended to be a legitimate political tool.

Vicente says

Only five states do not allow collective bargaining for educators, effectively banning teachers unions. Those states and their SAT/ACT rankings are as follows:

Check your link again....

First, using 2007 data vs. 1999 data, GA is 26 and VA is 25.

Second, this appears to NOT be a ranking of the states' SAT/ACT scores or averages, but a ranking of the states based on the % of students who score in the top 20 percentile of these tests. This is very different than more general "SAT/ACT rankings." It is also less meaningful.

Even Shep Smith on Fox News, has to admit:

THERE IS NO BUDGET CRISIS
THE KOCH BROTHERS SUPPORTED WALKER TO GET HIM TO BUST LABOR UNIONS

It's all about exterminating unions. 7 of the top 10 donors to political campaigns go to Republicans. The Koch Brothers want to ensure they eliminate the other 3 which go to Democrats, so they can turn the USA firmly into a corporotocracy with the Koch Brothers of course at the top of the heap and their stooges in all the places of power that matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuuUV94bOW0

Paralithodes says

Democrats were looking to possibly eliminate the filibuster and it was all over the news… something seemingly quiet and not covered as much now.

With the Republicans controlling the House it makes no tactical sense for the Democrats to eliminate the extra-constitutional Senate filibuster rules. The Republicans can just stop Senate legislation in the House now.

I assume you believe that the Republicans were totally right and justified in their talk of a “nuclear option?”

Of course. The rules can be changed. What matters is how the electorate views the evolution.

Such is politics.

Welcome to your future America!

Troy says

the top 20 percent pay 86.3% of all Federal income taxes
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/08/seven-myths-about-taxing-the-rich
So, basically, the top 20% of the country owes the bottom 90% TWO TRILLION DOLLARS — ~80% of the current $2.6T FICA surplus.

Only earnings up to $106,800 get taxed at 4.2% for the employee and at 6.25% for the employer.

Therefore the idea that the super rich fund Social Security is a completely false idea. Those of us who are the vast majority who make under $106,800 fund Social Security. The super rich only fund it up to $106,800 of their annual income. The rest of the millions and the billions that Thurston and Lovey make contribute nothing to the Social Security Fund. Income taxes do not fund Social Security. Social Security taxes get collected and paid by the employer unless you are self employed. It doesn't get reported on your Federal Income Tax Forms because it's not Federal Income Tax.

So, to sum up, multi-millionaires and billionaires are not providing most of the funding for Social Security because they are taxed only up to $106,800 of their income like anyone else. There are way more workers than there are stinking super rich people who don't draw a salary. Therefore we workers pay the most into Social Security as a whole. And Social Security Taxes are not part of your Federal Income Tax so none of Federal Income Tax makes it into Social Security Funds.

Also, the dumb shit tea baggers got so excited about the last "Tax Compromise" (sell out of the middle class) made by President Obama and the Legislature to make sure that the super rich keep all of their tax cuts while being excited that they saw a mere pitance more in their paychecks because their end of the Social Security Tax was reduced from 6.25% to 4.2%. What these dumb shit tea baggers don't understand is that what this means is that the pitance that they got from the 2% reduction in Social Security Tax will contribute to Social Security's demise in the long run by starving the Fund of revenue as the Baby Boomers start sucking it dry as they retire. This was an incredibly stupid idea that almost no one squaked about because most people weren't paying any attention and were so focused on preserving tax cuts for the super rich.

So thanks to President Obama's capitulation to the evil conservatives and Republicans we could see a faster possible demise of the entire Social Security Program. Basically we allowed these jerks to start to make a crack in our only stable pension plan as workers. How long will it be before the evil corporate whores who are in the legislature completely destroy Social Security by privatizing it or gutting it like a fish?

Pay attention, those of you who must work for a living. The super rich are taking the food out of your children and grandchildren's mouths to pay for their largesse and excess. They won't rest until they can tap into our only stable pension plan and rob us blind by gutting the Social Security Fund to fund the Stock Market which is actually just a tool they use to funnel all of the country's resources to the top 1 - 0.5% richest people in our country.

simchaland says

Therefore the idea that the super rich fund Social Security is a completely false idea.

My point with that was "our social security money" was in fact lent to Uncle Sam, and to pay us back, Uncle Sam has to tax the general economy, and since the rich pay the bulk of income taxes, the rich are on the hook for most of the $2.6T that Uncle Sam owes FICA payers, 1985-now.

that they got from the 2% reduction in Social Security Tax will contribute to Social Security’s demise in the long run by starving the Fund of revenue as the Baby Boomers start sucking it dry as they retire

The general fund is just printing more bonds credit to the SSTF to cover this 2% cut. This is mostly equivalent to a simple income tax cut, but didn't stress the bond market since the SSTF is already chock full of these printed promises to repay.

It doesn't alter the standing of the FICA surplus, though theoretically it might dilute it a bit. But over $1T of the FICA surplus is actually accumulated interest -- not FICA contributions -- so this latest BS is similar to that.

They won’t rest until they can tap into our only stable pension plan and rob us blind by gutting the Social Security Fund to fund the Stock Market

Pretty much, yes. Social security contributions are an $800B/yr flow that Wall Street would love to get its hooks into.

nastyorcjealousmonster says

simchaland says

You illustrate well the false argument against the unions and the decently paid public workers.

They make more than private sector employees do.

That was precisely my point, oh jealous one. If workers in private industry would do less bitching about the world and more organizing and taking responsibility for demanding their rights, real living wages, and real benefits then workers in private industry wouldn't have any cause to begrudge a work force that has taken responsibility for demanding their rights, real living wages, and real benefits.

nastyorcjealousmonster says

When looking at TOTAL COMPENSATION, union workers ‘make’ WAY MORE than the non-unionized workers do. And that is what generates resentment…because the union thugs ARE ‘richer’ than everyone else.

And what do the idiots who are jealous decide to do about it? They decide that they should try to dismantle and destroy the living wages, rights, and real benefits of the public employees like the evil private corporate slave drivers have done to them. You have been fooled into believing that union workers are "thugs" when in fact it is the corporate overlords who have taken away their workers' rights, living wages, and real benefits who are the real thugs.

nastyorcjealousmonster says

Do you people get up every morning, look in a mirror and chant, “I will do my absolute best to avoid any critical thinking today. I will only acknowledge that which fits with my fantasy ideology and ignore any other hard facts that calls it into question. I will vilify and harass anyone else who attempts to force me from this path. [repeat chant 50 or so times]”? Because it sure seems like it.

I'm not going to dignify that with a real response. If you want to insult each other, I'm game. But let's do it somewhere else. I'm sure that Patrick would appreciate it if we don't do it here.

nastyorcjealousmonster says

simchaland says

It’s not that unions are bad for labor or business. Unions are bad for capitalists (those with all the money and resources). If the private sector had strong unions we workers would have similar wages and benefits that the public sector enjoys.

No, they just are bad for ‘competitive business’, employees and for consumers. What would happen if your utopia where every business is unionized where to come true, eh? Who would pay the extra costs? The consumer would. The workers who would never be getting jobs because employers would not be able to hire more pay the price (but who cares about them, right?). The businesses that have to compete in the world against other businesses (which is most of them, these days) would be severely impacted.

This is a myth perpetuated by the corporate overlords to fool people like you into accepting inadequate compensation, little or no benefits, and waving your rights in order to have the "privilege" of having a job at their sweat shops.

nastyorcjealousmonster says

Oh yeah, bring it on! Bring on 10%+ permanent unemployment and even larger permanent underemployed class. It will hit the younger generation the most…since they won’t get the entry level jobs they need to move up the career ladder. What is the average unemployment rate for young people Europe-wide now? 30% or so?

This isn't supported by macro-economic facts and figures. Europe is being hit with the same nasty economic climate that is destroying American jobs. If you want to continue to believe the myth that the corporate overlords are perpetuating, then that's your business. Don't expect me to play along...

nastyorcjealousmonster says

If you want to live in that world, move your ass out of America. Nobody is stopping you. Just don’t stay and piss all over it for the rest of us who don’t want to live in that world, ok?

Ah, the whole, "This is America. Love it or leave it." epithet.

The United States Constitution sets up a government that is elected by us to represent our wishes, desires, and interests. It is a mechanism to manage change. I and others want to make changes to improve the United States and make living here better for all of us.

Just because some people like being wage slaves to super rich corporate overlords doesn't mean that all of us want to live like that. This is a country that was founded on principals of liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for all, not just the privileged few. It's never been quite the reality of the USA but it is where we all would like to go.

If you don't like liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness, continue to vote for the same knuckleheads who work against your interests by taking away your basic rights, removing the possibility that you could earn a living wage in compensation for your dedicated hard work, and ensuring that you stay at the very bottom rung of society by dismantling the public education system so that you remain ignorant and easily manipulated.

Is it possible that shrek is Ann Coulter ?

marcus says

Is it possible that shrek is Ann Coulter ?

I'm still stuck on the "shrekgingrich." Can't get past it.

Vicente you may like this article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/looting-main-street-20100331

you may not like this one:
http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=2815

Final Score from Madison, Wisconsin:

Governor Scott Walker - 1

Anarchists (Dem. Senators) - 0

The sun is rising once again in America.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20110225/D9LJQ7700.html

Goliath is the likely winner.

I like the kid with the sling, no matter how poor the odds.

Wow, Chris, those are some cool articles. The Birmingham one is frightening.

ChrisLA says

You may not like this one:

http://www.championnews.net/article.php?sid=2815

Well on the surface no. However I don't know the particulars, does lady #1 also serve on boards or in other capacities? How many people actually work 45 years in the same job? I don't know, but it seems likely to be rare to me. And even if I take it on face value I say OK let's fix those particular highlighted bad examples at the negotiating table and move on. It is frequently the case that someone can dig up a seeming out of proportion military or other pension. Is this the rule or the exception? Since the article doesn't say I assume they cherrypicked the worst.

If we were to judge entire systems based on particularly bad-looking data points, nothing would survive. If we look at the top 10 worst examples in the banking sector, then all bankers would be hanging from lamp posts right now, and yet they survive.

Let me take a personal example, Mish one time published a table of OUTRAGEOUS compensation for California university employees. He was pretty pointed how DARE they give X dollars to mere teachers? Seemed pretty bad on the surface. It piqued my interest and I was out sick, so I sat and researched the names he gave. The majority of them were doctors pulling in outside money as well as base. One in particular was a cardiac surgeon for infants, who not only taught he did research. The remainder were coaches who well.. we all seem to overlook paying them a million dollars. When I pointed out that his top 10 was really a bad set of picks, he didn't retract or revise, he blasted me for daring to question him and moved on.

Coaches always get a pass. I know that they're valuable, but...

our tax dollars at work.

Instead of asking themselves what happened to their own pensions and benefits, Americans are envious of those remaining persons who have them. All this rhetoric is based on "deserving." Astoundingly enough the outsized compensation in higher brackets in private sector just doesn't get to them, because they meet teachers in the supermarket not CEO's. It's easier to be jealous of the person next door who bought a new car, than it is the people who can buy a new mansion every month.

elliemae says

Wow, Chris, those are some cool articles. The Birmingham one is frightening.

Rolling Stone magazine has been writing about that for a while. It's really heartbreaking and frightening for me as well to see this kind of abuse of the main street.

I originally saw another article on patrick.net about bail outs which linked to that one.

Are These People Overpaid?

As for the push to limit the rights and funds enjoyed by unionized public workers, Silva said, "People hate to see someone doing better than they are."
............

Yeah, it's becoming increasingly clear to me, the basic American response here is not "how can I achieve THAT?". It's "how can I beat THEM down to my current level?". The American worker these days is as thoroughly cowed as any Foxconn worker in China.

Who are the thugs?

Wisconsin Assemply Passes Bill Stripping Union Rights From Public Workers

Some very relevant quotes from the article:

"...Unions have said they would be willing to accept a provision that would increase workers' contributions to their pensions and health care, provided they could still bargain collectively. But Walker has refused to compromise..."

So, the union workers were willing to make substantive concessions. Walker refused to talk to them and work on a compromise.

"...After more than 60 hours in which Democrats threw out dozens of amendments and delivered rambling speeches, Republicans halted debate early Friday. In a matter of seconds, they had approved the bill. Only a few Democrats realized what was going on and managed to vote before the roll was closed.

The Democrats rose from their seats and rushed at the Republicans shouting, "Shame!" as the Republicans exited the chamber..."

The Republicans passed this bill through an underhanded semi-legal process that stealthily called the vote without allowing the Democrats know that the debate was halted and that the vote was starting. Then they leave without speaking to any of their colleagues.

"...Republicans refused to speak to reporters, though Majority Leader Scott Suder did issue a written statement..."

The Republicans show their disdain for their constituents by refusing to speak to them and only begrudgingly releasing a "written statement" rather than face the "angry rabble" whom they just railroaded.

"...Frustrated by the delay, Senate Republican Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, Jeff Fitzgerald's brother, ordered state troopers to find the missing Democrats, but they came up empty. Wisconsin law doesn't allow police to arrest the lawmakers, but Fitzgerald said he hoped the show of authority would have pressured them to return..."

So the Republican Machine tried to force police officers to arrest the lawmakers who left the state in protest. This "request" is AGAINST THE LAW and tantimount to enforcing a police state. And the Republican Majority Leader "hoped that the show of authority would have pressured them to return."

This sounds like the methods that the thugs of the Fascist Era in Europe used to come into power and destroy the democratic goverments of their respective countries (Germany, Spain, Italy...)

The Conservatives shamelessly display the very definition of the word "thug." Thugs use illegal brutal tactics to acheive their goals through abusive means. See above.

Meanwhile, focus on the other side, "Unions have said they would be willing to accept a provision that would increase workers' contributions to their pensions and health care, provided they could still bargain collectively." The unions and their workers were willing to compromise through a legal and civil process. This sounds like the very antithesis of the meaning of the word "thug."

I just thought I'd clarify things for us.

* Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
* The strongest bond of human sympathy outside the family relation should be one uniting working people of all nations and tongues and kindreds.
* All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms is treason. If a man tells you he trusts America, yet fears labor, he is a fool. There is no America without labor, and to fleece the one is to rob the other.
-Abraham Lincoln