patrick.net

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Then the rule of law came about which started the manipulation of the law by using force to get what you wanted.

You don't believe anyone used force to get what he wanted before there were laws? For that matter, do you believe there was ever a time without any laws? Even animals have rules that are followed and ways to enforce them.

L

The rule of law is to facilitate trade. When it is abused, like it has been for the past 6 or so years (big fucking time), it is corrupt and unjust which is why people are so upset. You mention Warren Buffet above he would have lost a HUGE portion of his wealth if not for TARP, it is funny he looks like a grandpa out of central casting, clever disguise.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

See the paragraph above and then add in "we are the government we are going to help you"

That doesn't shed any light on what your specific point is and how it relates to the subject at hand. In fact it's even MORE vague.

The way that government co-opts especially in the beltway is with the carrot and the stick.

You give up your choice of healthcare and we will subsidize your insurance.

You stay unemployed and we well give you a 99 week vacation. You vote for this legislation and we will give you a campaign contribution.

You vote for this war and we will protect you from this enemy (straw enemy).

We will protect you from yourself by making sure you wear a seat belt, don't drink more than one beer and drive, don't use your cell phone while driving, make sure you don't have anything remotely dangerous on an airplane by onerous methods and not profile because it offends too many of our voters. Of course those expensive scanners are sold to the taxpayer by Michael Chertoff (former homeland security secretary)
All the while the real crimes solved is in the single digit percentages. But we will catch the drug impaired ones like nobodies business, more people in the US are locked up for drug abuse than any country in the world, by quantity.

You send your kids to this school and it is free of course but will drug them feed the pablum we call an education. He will be very "orientated" but incompetent at real skills. Of course the unions will see to it that system will not change at an expense that is literally bankrupting the country,

You trade in your guns and freedom and we will give you a nice gift certificate. Because they should only be used for hunting, not self defense.

You get to vote for the guy who is going to help you the most. Of course most congressman become millionaires after they are elected They legally profit from insider trading. 60 minutes did a story on this.

Close to half of jobs are government jobs, so the government can help you. At the federal level they make twice as much as their private sector equivalents. This script is something that permeates tv shows where the public servant is always always portrayed as noble and selfless and ethical beyond measure, or course a character in the private sector is portrayed as a derelict.

indigenous says

Close to half of jobs are government jobs, so the government can help you. At
the federal level they make twice as much as their private sector equivalents.

If you were a free market guy you would realize this is impossible. If the price of Public Labor was held artificially higher than private labor (for equivalent work) then we would have an increase demand from job seekers for public sector work and decreased demand from job seekers for private work.

Therefore - there would be a leftward shift of the supply of labor curve of private employees. Provided demand for private work is held constant - the price of that labor would increase to equal public cost.

The oversupply of public workers would drive wages down in the public sector.

In short, in a free labor market prices would equalize.

What would Hayek say?

He would probably say that there must not be an equality of work in the public vs private sector. That is, even though a bachelor's degreed public worker makes more on average than a public bachelor's degreed private worker, there must be another factor that makes the guy in the public job more desirable - otherwise there would be a private worker that would readily take his job for lower wage.

Or do we not see wage arbitrage across borders? No reason this would not happen in the US between public and private if wages we held higher for either artifically.

control point says

The oversupply of public workers would drive wages down in the public sector.

Eventually it will but for now Bernanke/Yellen are able to artificially keep the public employee wages high but that is temporary.

But that is by force. You are describing a free market which this certainly is not.

indigenous says

But that is by force. You are describing a free market which this certainly
is not.

So you are saying that the seller of labor (the worker) in the market (which is open to all, btw - there is no barrier to cross from the private sector to the public sector) is offering his labor at price X, but the buyer of the labor, the government, is saying, "No thanks, but I will take it at 1.16X?"

What you see in the CBO report tells you what is happening. That reports shows higher compensation for all level of education in the public sector EXCEPT doctorate's of professional degrees. What the CBO does not accomplish is showing the difference in compensation between job titles or descriptions, public vs. private.

The PPA study does this. What it finds it that salaries are ~26% lower for public sector workers doing the same work as private sector employees. It does not include benefits, however. As we all know public benefits are more rich than private benefits.

If it did include benefits in its analysis - total compensation for doing the same work would be equal, public vs. private because we have a free labor market.

This is what Hayek would tell you.

What this means is public workers are given more responsibilities, on the average, for a given educational level than their private counterparts. That is, the government does a better job of training its staff to accomplish work responsibilities. The private sector outsources that training to another party (University).

Compensation is higher for private workers at the top level of educational attainment because the supply of this expertise is low - it cannot be outsourced. The trend of public vs. private is downward sloping - the harder it is to outsource training for specific skills - the less likely it is that someone who does not have that outsourced training could do the job.

A mall security guard does not equal a border patrol agent, as far as job responsibilities. In the CBO comparison, they would be compared.

In America, the complaints about public worker compensation are thinly disquised jealosy and envy but more importantly the gripes are a distraction from asking the real question - why the pay is lower in the private sector. And the answer is paltry unionization, globalization/offshoring/outsourcing, lack of willingess to invest in training, etc.

indigenous says

Sure we are

Nope.

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

indigenous says

The individual prospers in small groups he is crushed by a centralized authority. Change is effected at the bottom.

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

Reality says

Then you were just making a fool of yourself by citing (purported) income inequality as evidence of wealth inequality.

I didn't do that. I posted data showing BOTH. Now, would you kindly stop saying over and over that income and wealth are different, because we already know that. Thanks.

control point says

indigenous says

But that is by force. You are describing a free market which this certainly

is not.

So you are saying that the seller of labor (the worker) in the market (which is open to all, btw - there is no barrier to cross from the private sector to the public sector) is offering his labor at price X, but the buyer of the labor, the government, is saying, "No thanks, but I will take it at 1.16X?"

I'm going to answer that Anecdotaly, that you will ignore, but it has been my empirical understanding.

The government wants a construction job done it will use prevailing wages as per Davis Bacon. This is usually at least 1.5 times on the salary, they do not audit for benefits.

I have a relative who makes 80,000 a year as a grade school teacher here in Calif now consider that she works 9 mo her salary is actually by the time spent working around 107,000 plus benefits that are much higher than a private sector worker would get for both retirement and health care. I think she teaches 2nd grade. Imo this jobs is not worth that kind of compensation. She does have a masters degree but in all honesty you don't need a higher level education to teach 2nd graders.

Much of this comes from collective bargaining for public employees in Calif of which they are all in the union.

I don't think public jobs are as promoted or as available as private sector jobs otherwise there would be no labor left in the private sector.

I know of a retired college professor who is retired on 250 k a year it is quite common for cops in Calif to retire on 200k a year

control point says

The PPA study does this. What it finds it that salaries are ~26% lower for public sector workers doing the same work as private sector employees. It does not include benefits, however. As we all know public benefits are more rich than private benefits.

If it did include benefits in its analysis - total compensation for doing the same work would be equal, public vs. private because we have a free labor market.

As indicated above I don't see that as being true.

Another factor in this may well be that the worker in some areas of the private sector does pay much more so the private sector attracts the talent. Since the worker know his comparative advantage he may say that he can get more money in a public sector job because of his sub par skills.

control point says

What this means is public workers are given more responsibilities, on the average, for a given educational level than their private counterparts. That is, the government does a better job of training its staff to accomplish work responsibilities. The private sector outsources that training to another party (University).

Compensation is higher for private workers at the top level of educational attainment because the supply of this expertise is low - it cannot be outsourced. The trend of public vs. private is downward sloping - the harder it is to outsource training for specific skills - the less likely it is that someone who does not have that outsourced training could do the job.

I have not seen this as true. Certainly at the lower levels. Are you saying a TSA worker is well trained? Perhaps on the specific task of groping passengers but no matter how you slice it that is not a high skill level. If left to the private sector the scanners would be dumped and replaced with highly trained profilers using facial recognition software who would be paid 10 times what a TSA worker is paid and the luggage would be passed through a vacuum chamber. And we would have more security at a lower cost employing far fewer people. So an individual caring a gun into the LA airport would be dropped before he fired one shot.

The overarching issue on this is that the public sector worker does not have answer to the market. Because of the unions it is very difficult to fire him. So the name of the game is to do less with more i.e. build empires that make you appear irreplaceable. In the private sector it is the opposite.

In your studies does it show productivity per worker? By definition a product is something that someone would pay money for. In the private sector if the organization fails to do this it goes bankrupt. In the public sector their is no feed back on what productivity is because all government services could be done by the private sector at a better value meaning lower cost and higher quality because the private sector has to find out what really is the product and produce better than the competition, of which even if the government knew what the product was they have no competition.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

Fuck you, find it yourself

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

It is muy sequitur because 1/3 of the US budget goes or went to defense. If the US did not have to spend this they would have 1/3 more money to spend on the poor.

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is, if I have to explain that to you then I can't explain that to you.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The individual prospers in small groups he is crushed by a centralized authority. Change is effected at the bottom.

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

No it isn't. Do you think an individual does better raised by a family or by a centralized orphanage? Does he learn more from a school with half a dozen students per class room or in an auditorium with 100s of students?

Does he do better in a local church or learning that their is no god from the tv?

indigenous says

Homeboy says

indigenous says

The data is easily found

Then find it.

Fuck you, find it yourself

Uh huh - getting a little frustrated because you can't back up anything you say?

indigenous says

Now you seem to be making excuses for why the U.S. doesn't help their poor. Does this mean you concede that the poor in the U.S. are worse off than the poor in other developed countries?

I'm thinking the poor would be worse off if their country was occupied or defeated by a better financed army. Most of Europe does not have any military.

Non sequitur.

Sure it is, if I have to explain that to you then I can't explain that to you.

Sure it is a non sequitur. Glad you agree.indigenous says

You are a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

No it isn't. Do you think an individual does better raised by a family or by a centralized orphanage? Does he learn more from a school with half a dozen students per class room or in an auditorium with 100s of students?

Does he do better in a local church or learning that their is no god from the tv?

LOL - glad you proved you're not a fountain of meaningless platitudes.

Homeboy says

Uh huh - getting a little frustrated because you can't back up anything you say?

no you are a dumb ass and I'm tired of wasting my time showing you stuff that you refuse to look at.

indigenous says

no you are a dumb ass and I'm tired of wasting my time showing you stuff that you refuse to look at.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

I blame Regan for two things.
Bastardizing two great words.

First "Socialized Medicine" that was a kill shot to destroy any future argument for an efficient government based healthcare system.
Even Obama and Loony Sanders are too chicken shit to say Government ran Healthcare.

Second was conflate classic economics save, invest, earn interest on your money. With "Trickle Down Economics".
What in the fuck is an economy but money that trickles its way through the system in and out of yours or my pockets?

And where in the Fuck is your Tsunami Economics counter suggestion?

Ronald Reagan just appeared to me in my delusion.
He said my trickle down check is in the mail.