User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 68

  1. #31
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    My question came first. So I await your explanation. Until then, we're at an impasse.
    And my answer is that they are public employees and there is no Constitutional right (at the state or federal level) for such workers to collectively bargain. They were given that right through legislation, and it has been taken away through legislation.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    and it has been taken away through legislation.
    With deafening jeers from countless thousands of constituents. It remains a travesty, regardless of the legality of the action, which I will not argue about.

  3. #33
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    And my answer is that they are public employees and there is no Constitutional right (at the state or federal level) for such workers to collectively bargain. They were given that right through legislation, and it has been taken away through legislation.
    *sits back and waits to see how this holds up against the 5th and 14th amendments*

  4. #34
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    Do you have knowledge about the calculations themselves and why market fluctuation wasn't and isn't factored into the calculation?
    The idea is that in an inflationary environment, over the course of the contract, the government is a debtor to the pension fund. At the end of the contract, since the dollars being paid in are worth less, there's not as much of a hit. In a deflationary environment, because those dollars are increasing in value, it's putting the squeeze on the government. The thing is, when the government is involved, the "money supply" = revenue. When tax revenues increase, it's less expensive to pay off the pensions (either due to higher taxes or an expanding economy combined with a stable tax rate). When revenues decrease, due to tax cuts, a sluggish economy, or the combination of the two, pension plans become more expensive over the course of the contract.

    Why this wasn't factored in? It's because the dominant interests of the Republican Party want tax cuts without regard for any associated consequences. Why this works? That's a much simpler message than the complicated economic analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    In other words, they went after a huge source of the problem and acted to prevent the same thing from occurring in the future.
    No, they didn't. After the entire legislature gets recalled, and Walker's thrown on his ass, they'll just reinstate the collective bargaining. They just wanted the excuse to fire everyone, breach the contracts without recourse, and break the union. In essence, they have not been negotiating in good faith. Both shameless and shameful.

  5. #35
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Its up to you to demonstrate that they (and the states which have already done this) have exceeded their authority.
    Couldn't disagree more. The essence of a constitutional form of government is that the state must prove that it has the authority to act, rather than the people having to prove that it doesn't. That is because in a constitutional system, it is the people themselves who are sovereign.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Why this wasn't factored in? It's because the dominant interests of the Republican Party want tax cuts without regard for any associated consequences. Why this works? That's a much simpler message than the complicated economic analysis.
    I have identified the problem. Something simple is being construed as complicated.

  7. #37
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The idea is that in an inflationary environment, over the course of the contract, the government is a debtor to the pension fund. At the end of the contract, since the dollars being paid in are worth less, there's not as much of a hit. In a deflationary environment, because those dollars are increasing in value, it's putting the squeeze on the government. The thing is, when the government is involved, the "money supply" = revenue. When tax revenues increase, it's less expensive to pay off the pensions (either due to higher taxes or an expanding economy combined with a stable tax rate). When revenues decrease, due to tax cuts, a sluggish economy, or the combination of the two, pension plans become more expensive over the course of the contract.

    Why this wasn't factored in? It's because the dominant interests of the Republican Party want tax cuts without regard for any associated consequences. Why this works? That's a much simpler message than the complicated economic analysis.
    You haven't really answered my question or I'm missing something. So, I'm going to try again. When these pension funds were initially set up, why wasn't boom/bust factored into the calculations? It's not as if business cycles are new to economic theory.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    You haven't really answered my question or I'm missing something. So, I'm going to try again. When these pension funds were initially set up, why wasn't boom/bust factored into the calculations? It's not as if business cycles are new to economic theory.
    Hindsight. One of the more absurd points in this debate is the readiness for these labor unions to negotiate cuts to the various pension plans laid out years before. Instead, largely as a result of this bill, they may no longer negotiate at all.

  9. #39
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    You haven't really answered my question or I'm missing something. So, I'm going to try again. When these pension funds were initially set up, why wasn't boom/bust factored into the calculations? It's not as if business cycles are new to economic theory.
    I'm sure they were. They just didn't expect that there would be massive revenue drops through the GOP screwing with tax policy.

  10. #40
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Hindsight. One of the more absurd points in this debate is the readiness for these labor unions to negotiate cuts to the various pension plans laid out years before. Instead, largely as a result of this bill, they may no longer negotiate at all.
    It's beyond me to consider this as simple hindsight. There must have been reasons why the rates were preset. onemoretime appears to view it as some kind of political conspiracy. Can't buy that since government is actually disadvantaged by the calculation and I can't buy that the public sector negotiators were stupid enough to believe that it would last forever, considering business cycles. There had to have been a valid reason, considering how simple the fix is. The only pragmatic reason I can think of is that it attempted to ease the backend calculations to workers. I also wonder if the calculations and payouts are set in stone or just assumed to be so, since I don't have any access to the agreements themselves, hence the meat of what's been contractually agreed upon.

    As far as negotiations are concerned, hard lining on either side isn't really negotiating. And for the elected body to ham-fist their way through this, will pretty much ensure that future negotiations will be worse.

    And the reality of the current economic climate doesn't appear to matter to anyone which might be part of what you're alluding to. Actions driven by extreme ideology tends to floor me. Republicans with their cuts to the labour side only and support of supply side economics (ummm..no matter how many products business cranks out, if no one can afford to buy them, everyone is screwed) and labour with their overprotectiveness of luxurious benefits.

Similar Threads

  1. Avoiding people in public places
    By chatoyer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 03:01 PM
  2. Which sector do you work in?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 04:12 PM
  3. Title of this sector.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 05:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO