Well done. *promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Saturday, November 5th, 2011 10:20am PDT - promote requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

this is incredibly inspiring. this needs to happen more often, everywhere.

Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

>> ^silvercord:

Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.


subsidizing big business friends that don't need the subsidy or tax break may be the place to look for that

I am in agreement with that, however it won't solve the entire problem. Collective bargaining, when applied to the the sector of public service, will always end badly. At the risk of repeating myself, there simply isn't enough money. FDR saw this in his letter to the National Federation of Federal Employees in which, among other things, he stated, "The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service . . "

We can leave things as they are and just not pay people the pensions we've promised to them, or we can correct the error now. There is an alternative to the government fixing it now. The people certainly will at the polls. You may find this article regarding what is happening in California enlightening. Brown has his tit in a wringer because the people of CA will correct these issues if he doesn't. My guess is that the people of Wisconsin will come to the same conclusion eventually when the "where's my pension you promised me?," lawsuits begin.



>> ^packo:

>> ^silvercord:
Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

subsidizing big business friends that don't need the subsidy or tax break may be the place to look for that

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.

Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.

Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."


Ann "Mad Dog" Coulter

Look for the Union Fable

>> ^silvercord:

Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.


"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.

If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.

You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.

If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

Looks like the propaganda machine can't leave this one alone Yogi

Corporations = seek profit (not debatable).
Unions are a counter to the result of this motivation (loss of rights in favor of profit).

Simple.

Anyone that supports unchecked profit has their heads buried a little to deep in the think tank and not in reality. That doesn't mean I'm for or against unions, I'm simply saying that if unions aren't around there needs to be an alternative that does the same. In China there is some god-awful abuse of the workers, and recently I've heard of cases where unpaid or laid off workers mob/kill the person in charge to vent their frustrations. I think unions are a better alternative to that because they promote discussion rather than killing.

They used the human mic. I Love It!

It's quite a leap from me saying that unions comprised of government employees are ultimately economically unfeasible to interpreting that as a desire to destroy unions and stifle debate. Debate all you want. The writing is on the wall for all of our government employees. All the states are in trouble. I just picked California as an example. As far as that goes, I am glad you agree that they have made their system F.U.B.A.R. Unfortunately, they aren't the only ones.

Here is another example: the United States Postal Service. A package sent to me this last week by the USPS cost $8.40. I returned the exact same package to the same sender by UPS for $7.07. Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements. The post office is now discussing closing up to 3,700 branches. Those workers are going to be out of a job; real people, with real lives and real families. So it causes me to think: I wonder if they would rather have a job with retirement that looks similar to the rest of the country's private sector retirements, or be promised a larger retirement and end up with neither a job nor a retirement.

What is important is this: some of the unions made up of government employees are fighting to save a future comprised of an empty bag. The money they are fighting to set back for their members isn't going to be able to be paid. The discussion isn't whether or not we are for or against unions. Unions have done much good for the working conditions in the US. Right now that is beside the point. The discussion is this: how are we going to arrange ourselves together to make this whole unworkable system work. I'm beginning to believe that we don't have the capacity any longer to do so. >> ^Yogi:

>> ^silvercord:
Being an old hippie, I understand this. But I also understand that the state has made promises it cannot keep. Same thing is happening in California under Jerry Brown. He has proposed to cut state union pensions in order to rectify the matter. There is no magic wand to pay those pensions. The money is simply not there.

"Old Hippie"? With the Doctrine that you are espousing here, I'd call you anything but an old hippie. Just because California fucked up it's pensions doesn't mean there shouldn't be public sector unions.
If you don't agree just look at what QM posted and go by the sift rule that everything and anything he says is fucking the opposite.
You can't consider yourself on the left and disapprove of unions period. You can disagree with what the unions are fighting for or how much power they have but not that they exist.
If you want to destroy a union you're not on the left, you don't have the peoples best interest in mind and you wish to stifle debate.

Just for the record, I'm discussing government unions; not corporate unions. Sorry if there was some confusion in my posts. >> ^ghark:

Looks like the propaganda machine can't leave this one alone Yogi
Corporations = seek profit (not debatable).
Unions are a counter to the result of this motivation (loss of rights in favor of profit).
Simple.
Anyone that supports unchecked profit has their heads buried a little to deep in the think tank and not in reality. That doesn't mean I'm for or against unions, I'm simply saying that if unions aren't around there needs to be an alternative that does the same. In China there is some god-awful abuse of the workers, and recently I've heard of cases where unpaid or laid off workers mob/kill the person in charge to vent their frustrations. I think unions are a better alternative to that because they promote discussion rather than killing.

@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa

Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.

>> ^ghark:

@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa
Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.


That's basically my point, this country has plenty of money, it just does it's that people are greedy as fuck so they're going to say that only THIS slice of the pie is available for you guys to fight over, sorry. It's just not true, public service unions have nothing to do with the crisis, when you look at the fact that we're in two Wars and spend double what the entire world spends on the armed forces.

All this right wing nonsense about the unregulated free market being our savior is just downright laughable. Especially when you consider the content of this very video.

These people aren't greedy, they are passionately recognizing that the interests of the people of the state are not being represented or sought by the government of that state.

To bring up the tired old neo-classical bullshit about "efficiency" is absolutely uncalled for.

Entertain the following scenario: The most efficient market processes are adapted, do we now live in a utopia? Or do we realize a society where joblessness is at all time highs, corporate profits are through the roof, and a crumbling social infrastructure and middle class threatens nations' abilities to pay their debts.
Sound familiar?

I would suggest that the neo-classical free(est) market mantra is about efficiency only, and ignores the human side of economics. Economics should not rule us, it should serve us. This is currently not the case, and the 99% are waking up to this nightmare.

Finally, I would note that judging by the unfolding ecological crisis, and the crippling of economies by outdated, overpriced, low EROEI energy sources, the movement to change economic theory and purpose will only grow stronger. If occupy falters now, it won't be long before it bubbles to the surface once again (without vast changes to our democracy and economic practices). Don't be fooled by the mainstream media, history doesn't always repeat itself, the youth and disenfranchised will be the vanguard and protectorate of a new era. It would seem to be inevitable.

First, I haven't advocated "getting rid of unions." Those are your words, not mine. I am merely agreeing with FDR that collective bargaining in the public sector is untenable. He made that assertion years ago and looking around today, he was right. But people didn't want to listen, and now we're here in the middle of some horrible mismanagement by the government. Unions aren't going away, but they aren't about to get the benefits outlined in their contracts either. It's pretty much over. Why? Because we've played about as many shell games with the money that we can play.

Second, this, in part, is what I think the government needs to do. Before handing out any more bailouts, it need to pass some good legislation regarding the ratio of pay between corporate officers and the common worker. The jerks we've elected are in collusion in this process, and they stand back acting like 'who struck John' when corporate boards continue to do what corporate boards do. What the hell did they think was going to happen? When you consider the men who are crashing the world, the pathology isn't limited to 'evil' corporations.

Third, therefore, there needs to be an adjustment to the 'bad legislation' as you put it. The government needs to set some limits on its ability to negotiate contracts on behalf of its citizens. Should pensions and benefit packages in the public sector exceed the average pension and benefits of its private citizenry? That kind of self regulation begins in Congress. Those vultures need to get the House in order. They've awarded themselves more perks than Maxwell House Coffee.

Lastly, I think I can help in some small way. Maybe we all can. As for my part, I joined "Create Jobs for USA," which is an effort by Starbucks, et al, to help people who are out of work get back to it. There are lots of opportunity to help people who are hurting. I hope we don't miss that in all the noise.





>> ^ghark:

@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa
Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^ghark:
@silvercord - your argument about the postal service is invalid - the issue is not with the unions, it is with poor legislation that shouldn't have been passed. I agree with you that the system isn't working, but getting rid of Unions would be about the same as putting a bandaid onto the sinking titanic, I hope you packed a life jacket and some hot cocoa
Oh, and America is a very wealthy country, you seem to suggest that you are running out of money to fund these public services - that is a complete fallacy, the issue is that the money is maldistributed.

That's basically my point, this country has plenty of money, it just does it's that people are greedy as fuck so they're going to say that only THIS slice of the pie is available for you guys to fight over, sorry. It's just not true, public service unions have nothing to do with the crisis, when you look at the fact that we're in two Wars and spend double what the entire world spends on the armed forces.



What I'm suggesting is that we're running out of shells in which the government can move the money around. It just keeps taking from here and paying out over there; the biggest Ponzi scheme on the planet. I reference the Social Security program as one shining example of this dynamic. There should be scads of money there for our retirement. But they took it. They put it somewhere else. That's what they do.

The wars you rightly mentioned and the mismanagement of the people's money has put us, as of this writing, in roughly $15 trillion dollars of debt. There are many people who aren't about to vote one more dime to feed this pig until the pig can find some limits on its own piggery. And they'd better find a way to limit the spending of those they subsidize and bail out, as well. They also need to hurry.

And you're right. This country still has plenty of money. Our average income is only exceeded by Norway and Switzerland. In the eyes of the vast majority of those living on this planet, we are the one percent. So we'd better get it together . . . together.

>> ^quantumushroom:

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.
Government unions have nothing in common with private sector unions because they don't have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table. To the contrary, the "bosses" of government employees are co-conspirators with them in bilking the taxpayers.
Far from being careful stewards of the taxpayers' money, politicians are on the same side of the bargaining table as government employees -- against the taxpayers, who aren't allowed to be part of the negotiation. This is why the head of New York's largest public union in the mid-'70s, Victor Gotbaum, gloated, "We have the ability to elect our own boss."

Ann "Mad Dog" Coulter

Look for the Union Fable


As a public employee, I can assure you that no one I've ever worked alongside with or even met on the job thinks that our bosses want anything other than to make us work as hard as possible for the least amount of money possible. Not to mention the fact that, ultimately, our bosses are our citizens, and they've never wanted anything else either, especially in the current climate where attacking unions and blaming all of society's problems on them is the most popular thing to do for any elected official.

My co-conspirator bosses here in Oregon are now charging me $45 per month until I can get my waist down to 34 inches (regardless of my height). That's for the health insurance that costs me $900 per month already. And here I had spend a year trying to convince them to let me stand while I work.

If we didn't have the ability to threaten a strike this year, I'd be making 25% less wages as well, starting in January.

My favorite part of your post is that you're quoting Coulter in a time when literally every politician, including my Democratic governor, is sanctioning attacks on public employee unions across the board.

A public union employee, a Tea Party activist, and the CEO of a multinational corporation sit down at a table that has a plate with 12 cookies on it. The CEO immediately takes 11 of the cookies, then he turns to the Tea Partier and says, ‘Watch out for that union guy. He's gonna take your cookie.’

I'm not sure where that link was supposed to go, but that situation doesn't support the argument you're trying to make. It's not that the Post Office's pension plan is so unbelievably generous that it's bankrupting the company, it's that Republicans passed a law that requires the Post Office to pre-pay pension benefits 75 years in advance. That is clearly crazy, unnecessary, and is somewhat obviously meant to tank the Post Office's budget.

Try this link out for more info.

Oh, and UPS is unionized too you know.

>> ^silvercord:

Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm not sure where that link was supposed to go, but that situation doesn't support the argument you're trying to make. It's not that the Post Office's pension plan is so unbelievably generous that it's bankrupting the company, it's that Republicans passed a law that requires the Post Office to pre-pay pension benefits 75 years in advance. That is clearly crazy, unnecessary, and is somewhat obviously meant to tank the Post Office's budget.
Try this link out for more info.
Oh, and UPS is unionized too you know.
>> ^silvercord:
Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements.


good post, but there's a little bit of irony here, your link leads to a 404

Here is that link again. I don't know why it crashed earlier.

It absolutely supports the argument for the very reason that UPS is unionized. Corporations exist to turn a profit. Many of them can support union employees. The government, on the other hand, does not exist to make money. It simply cannot fund the same types of benefits the private sector does. >> ^NetRunner:

I'm not sure where that link was supposed to go, but that situation doesn't support the argument you're trying to make. It's not that the Post Office's pension plan is so unbelievably generous that it's bankrupting the company, it's that Republicans passed a law that requires the Post Office to pre-pay pension benefits 75 years in advance. That is clearly crazy, unnecessary, and is somewhat obviously meant to tank the Post Office's budget.
Try this link out for more info.
Oh, and UPS is unionized too you know.
>> ^silvercord:
Yet UPS realized a 62% increase in profits last year while the Post Office went into the tank. Why did it tank? The US Postal Service would have shown a net profit of $76 million in April had it not been for the $458 million charge for future retiree health benefits (RHBTF) imposed by Congress. In other words, the USPS would have made money if it weren't for the fact that it is paying into a retirement fund that is so onerous that it is going to break the bank before it can pay many of those retirements.

I am in a government Union job and I wholeheartedly disagree.
As it is, there is not enough time in the day to get the work done. The work never ends and has major deadlines. I work my day by starting 20 minutes early, I skip both my 15 min breaks and eat at my desk while working or skip my lunch entirely. I am often asked to work overtime and asked not to claim overtime. My Director asks that we record that overtime and take time off where we can - Time that never comes because the work never lets up.

Don't get me wrong though. I like my job so I enjoy working through my breaks. In a creative job, I can't turn it on and off according to a clock. Knowing it is a union job helps give us a little power to push back at times and say, "No - You're overloading us. If there is that much work that isn't getting done, it's time to ad a new designer to the team."

Our union has also allowed us to come to work and get parking as a benefit. I work at a large college and I shouldn't have to pay the college to come to work each day.

It doesn't matter who you are - you should have the right to stand up and say, "Hey, that's not fair"


>> ^quantumushroom:

...government employees should never, ever be allowed to organize. The need for a union comes down to this question: Do you have a boss who wants you to work harder for less money? In the private sector, the answer is yes. In the public sector, the answer is a big, fat NO.

>> ^Sagemind:
It doesn't matter who you are - you should have the right to stand up and say, "Hey, that's not fair"


Exactly, telling people they can't form a union, even public employees, is basically saying that they can't form a group to express their concerns or complaints. I realize that unions have a become a different beast over the years but that doesn't mean the negatives of unions outweigh the positives.

This is America. We are a society whose most valuable principle is that voicing your complaints is always something we have the right to do. In fact, most people will tell you that it's a responsibility, and that if you don't do it, you don't deserve the privilege.

subsidizing big business friends that don't need the subsidy or tax break may be the place to look for that

Places like Illinois, California, Wisconsin, and New Jersey are not facing fiscal black-holes because they are paying too much in subsidies to ‘big business friends’. The main problem is that they have promised government workers a gold-plated lifestyle when they only had a copper-plated budget. You could end every ‘big business’ tax break, subsidy, and kickback tomorrow and it would not even make a dent in the budget shortfalls of states like Illinois. The problem is government over-spending. Here it is in black and white. This isn’t ‘left or right’. This isn’t ‘liberal or conservative’. This is just the brutal, harsh, cold reality…

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Illinois_state_budget#Public_Employees

You will notice that Illinois’ budget is NOT dominated by a big line item of ‘subsidies to big business’. The budget is dominated by government spending on unions, union benefits, and entitlements. The only way to ‘fix’ such a budget is to cut the spending. Really. Because for every 12 people living in Illinois, there is one full-time salaried government worker pulling a higher wage, more benefits, and a better retirement than the people paying for him. Such a system is economically impossible to support. And there is plenty of evidence that such systems will ALWAYS collapse because of ineffiency. Greece, Italy, Portugal – entire nations are collapsing because of exactly the same problem. And that problem is the poison of Keynesian economics propping up an impossibly lavish public sector.

That's basically my point, this country has plenty of money, it just does it's that people are greedy as **** so they're going to say that only THIS slice of the pie is available for you guys

You are talking as if the public sector is NOT getting its ‘piece of the pie’…

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/09/14/study-finds-public-employee-compensation-better-than-private-sector.html

http://www.aei.org/docLib/AEI-Working-Paper-on-Federal-Pay-May-2011.pdf

It's just not true, public service unions have nothing to do with the crisis, when you look at the fact that we're in two Wars and spend double what the entire world spends on the armed forces

To say public unions have 'nothing' to do with the economic shortfalls is just factually incorrect. The links above prove it. Illinois has entire sections of its budget dominated by union issues, and union contracts repeatedly block any attempts at reform.

But regardless... Sure. Cut federal defense spending. And while we are at it, we should also cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and every other program. Cut them all. Slash them by 33% across the board. No exceptions. No mercy. But anyone that thinks that the only place we need to cut is ‘defense’ and that’ll fix it all it living in a dream world.

For example – how is cutting defense spending going to help Illinois? Or California? Or New Jersey? Or let’s take it national. Greece’s defense spending was a measley 3.4%. Explain how they would solve their massive budget shortfall by cutting defense. Or the US… Even if you cut US defense spending to zero, our current deficit is over 1.4 trillion. Defense to zero? 700 billion. Only HALF of just the deficit. It doesn’t even touch the 14 trillion in debt the nation already has. Or the further SEVENTY trillion in debt we have to cover all the 'unfunded liabilites' of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

At some point all the prog-libs out there are going to have to accept the facts. You can’t close the massive budget shortfalls that cities, states, and nations have with defense cuts. The problem is not defense. It is not ‘big business’. The problem is that governments are overspending on unsustainable public employee packages and entitlements that have no reasonable expecation of ever being paid for.

>> ^silvercord:

Here is that link again. I don't know why it crashed earlier.
It absolutely supports the argument for the very reason that UPS is unionized. Corporations exist to turn a profit. Many of them can support union employees. The government, on the other hand, does not exist to make money. It simply cannot fund the same types of benefits the private sector does.

The title of the article you're linking:

USPS made $76M profit in April (before $458M retiree health charge turned it into a loss)

Part of the issue that I didn't even delve into before is that USPS isn't really a good example of a public sector organization to begin with. It's not taxpayer funded, and hasn't been for 30 years. It's a lot closer to Fannie and Freddie than it is to the fire department.

But even setting that aside there's no causal link between unionization and the USPS financial problems, even according to the article you linked. Hell, they point out that wage and benefit costs have dropped.

So why tout the USPS's problems as another strike against public sector unions, its problems have nothing to do with unions, and would be profitable if it weren't for the stupid pre-paid benefits rule?

But that's just nitpicking, really. The real problem with the argument you're making is that it assumes that unions universally make unreasonable demands, and then usually get those unreasonable demands met.

Public sector benefits aren't generous because unions have fleeced the American people, they're generous because the private sector has drastically curtailed benefits (and unions!), while the public sector has been much more gradual in reducing them. Even still, public sector jobs generally pay people less than the private sector would offer them at their education and experience, even after you factor in benefits.

And even if that were not the case, and this was a matter of unions asking for too much, it is still a negotiation. Government employers can negotiate benefit cuts and wage cuts -- and in fact in most places the unions have agreed to rather sharp cuts during the recession!

Taking away the ability for public sector workers to organize is a political maneuver, not a budget concern. The idea on offer is to use a temporary crisis to put in place a permanent change in policy, in order to further their longer-range ideological and political goals.

>> ^ghark:

good post, but there's a little bit of irony here, your link leads to a 404


Heh, you're right. Fixed.

Well, at least you're honest.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I'm very upset that I chose profit and performance-rewards when it came to my own employment path. I didn't choose to be a social worker, because everyone knows that's a shit job with shit pay. But now that all my free market bullshit is blowing up in my face, because I'm at the bottom of the pyramid that I bought into, I'm going to do the most pathetic cowardly thing that I can:

I'm going to advocate that anyone who chose to help their fellow man, and take the slow, plodding, mediocre route to success be publicly exposed for their shameful weakness. Then my friends and I are going to steal our future from them instead of working for it ourselves like we always said we were going to do. Here's the thing, I could have joined the public sector and sacrificed some pay for more security. But those people all smelled, and worked in dingy offices with people who had real problems. How was I supposed to know they were making the wise decision!?!?

Well not anymore. Even though social programs fix more problems than they cause, it's time for them to go. Sure, I could work against the culture that pays their elite 500 times more than the average person makes, but that would actually take innovation and intelligence. Besides, I'm willing to overlook those people, because they share my greedy, corporate, business-reptile mentality.

No, it's the people with master's degrees who make thirty-thousand dollars a year that I'm after. Anyone who's willing to accept punishment like that has already made themselves easy prey. And how! All we have to do is present enough "evidence" accumulated by bogus, business advocacy groups to convince the rest of the tired and desperate people out there that there's a really really easy solution to their problems that involves no hard work whatsoever! We just cut all the funding to anything that involves helping people besides ourselves and all of our problems will simply go away! Well... except for the hippies.

Bad form Ry. False attributions with no statement of clarification? M'eh - what else to expect from a prog-lib when faced by facts, I suppose. When facts shatter the illusion, the only shelter is to shovel out another layer of lies. Hope you like it under there.

public sector jobs generally pay people less than the private sector would offer them at their education and experience, even after you factor in benefits

See above links. The poor, underpaid public worker slaving away for less money than his private sector equivalent is a myth. The current reality is that public sector workers earn MORE than private sector equivalents - and it is not by a small amount either.

Yeeeeeah,

Except the link that you posted doesn't compare wages by "equivalents". It compares what public employees make with the entire private sector. Well, serving big macs and pumping gas are certainly important jobs, but the jobs in the public sector are more specialized, and so they mostly require educated people.

The "study" that you linked to was created by an organization of business people who's whole purpose is to show exactly what they wanted. That is: to imply that public sector employees make more money. When you compare for equivalent jobs, and add education into the mix, there's no study you can site that shows that public employees earn more. Except for maybe custodians, and good for them, they deserve it. Most private employers I know would rather bitch about immigration during the day, and pay people an illegal wage to clean up their shit at night when no one is looking.

And the second "study" you link to, also created by a partisan, republican think-tank to present their opinions as facts, is exactly the same. One of the most interesting things completely left out of the equation is that they're including the benefits of public employees who are already retired, and who accumulated those benefits on a scale that is drastically different from the one used for employees today. Here, in Oregon, those people with tier one P.E.R.S (public employee retirement system) benefits are retiring right now, or have already retired. The "public" have decided over the last decade or so, that since those people worked their entire lives on a promise of those benefits, it would be dishonest to take them away and treat those employees entire lives of service as garbage. Maybe you feel differently. Either way, employees are paid on, and accrue benefits on, a scale that offers much, much less than the old. That's what should be taken into account regarding current wages in any study of current pay, but it's not. And there are a million non-partisan peer responses out there that show that for all the education data they use, their conclusions are false. Look them up yourself if you're so interested in facts.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages to make life easier for yourself without actually having to do hard work for it is this: In the AEI study, which looks more credible than the first (but should still be seen as inflated at best, considering the authors) the amount the taxpayers could save by screwing over fellow citizens is... :

77 Billion dollars?

Seriously? As you said above: "700 billion. Only HALF of just the deficit... anyone that thinks that the only place we need to cut is ‘defense’ and that’ll fix it all it living in a dream world."

So that's your big plan? Slash and burn our social programs, putting millions of people out of work, paying the essential workers minimum wage, and leaving all the people who rely on those programs in the dark, causing an unemployment crisis unseen in the history of our country, to save less money than we spent on the recent conflict in Libya that we didn't even fight in?

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock of shit.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself. You're risking real people's lives by playing the game you're playing. And all for an insignificant fraction of the budget you're claiming. The attack on unions goes not only against your own interests, but against the first and most important amendment to our constitution. If people want to speak up for their rights, and negotiate their terms, well, get used to it. That's what we do here in America, public employees or not. Benjamin Franklin was a public employee, who you have limited his right to express his opinions and negotiate?

If you have a problem with the things people ask for, figure out a solution and deal with it yourself. Stop trying to get the ignorant and greedy to form a big enough group that you can legislate away the rights of your neighbors.

Jesus Christ, you wanna talk wage disparity? Why don't you try looking somewhere where the wage disparity, even with the biggest pile of evidence you can accumulate, amounts at a few thousand dollars per person at best. And spare us all your "search for the truth." Don't like the way unions work? Let them go on strike. Let them strike until they give up and are forced to accept the truth. Don't try to act like you still want everything to get done, but for less money by simply legislating people's rights away. When you do that, you'll see this country crumble before your eyes.

Stop attacking the little people to get what you want. Focus on the ones pulling your own strings.

I hate to wrap up, but my eleven-month-old is crying. I tried to tell him to go get a job if he wants some food, but all he does is whine when I do that. And if I keep typing anyway, pretty soon I'll be hearing from you about how I "might" be abandoning my children and sleeping with the guy in the next tent over.

Better read again, because the articles do discuss equivalent jobs. But – because I anticipate (and compensate) for your laziness in advance…

http://blog.american.com/2011/07/the-value-of-public-sector-job-security/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/group-says-ill-state-workers-paid-more-than-private-sector-peers/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/downloads/2011/09/BRT-Public-Sector-Comp-Study.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-05/news/fl-jscol-pensions-salaries-public-smith-1005-20111005_1_private-sector-government-workers-salaries
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf

I implore that just once you attempt to penetrate the callus of propaganda that buries your free-thought. Public workers are not underpaid. They are – in fact – paid notably more than private sector equivalents.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages

So the public should have to pay for the bad deals made in bad faith by unelected union scalps collaborating with politicians behind closed doors to arrange unrealistic benefits packages in exchange for power, labor dues, and votes? Nope. Not buying it. The public had no say in these deals, and therefore the public has no obligation to pick up the tab when those lousy deals made by crooks go belly up. Public workers should get mad at thier union mafiosos and the lefties that connive with them - not the private-sector citizens who had nothing to do with it.

77 Billion dollars?

That’s just for federal employees. It deals in no way with the many other areas where the Federal government vastly overspends – defense included.

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock

The 77 billion is just one example out of literally thousands of areas where government overspending is indeed bringing the country to its knees. But – I never said that alone was the reason for the federal government’s budget failures. On the federal level the blame lies almost entirely on entitlement spending – of which federal employees are a significant portion but certainly not all. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the primary offenders there. However, you are ignoring the Illinois example. Illinois’ budget woes are almost entirely due to paying its employee burden of wages, benefits, retirement, and health care. They offer gold plated packages, but don’t have two pennies to rub together.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself

Back atcha, Clyde. A real American wouldn't have anything to do with the commie BS crap you are cheerleading. The fault of everything you’re whining about lies at the feet of the liberals who ran these unions and governments into the ground. And you have the temerity, audacity, and gall to complain about grown-ups and other good folks that have to come in and clean up the filthy mess made by your philosophies? Leftists deserve to be pilloried, tarred and feathered, and then run out of the country on a rail for their bullcrap policies because it is leftists that have ruined these people’s lives. It is leftists who end up crushing the ‘little people’ all in the name of big government socialist policies. Leftists do more to squash human dignity and push more people into poverty, ruin, and oppression than any other philosophy in history. For leftists to gripe about conservatives who have to fix stupid liberal screw-ups in order to save the system from collapse is pretty rich. What's your solution? Oh yeah - tax and spend. The same level of stupid that got us here in the first place. The solution is conservatism which means cutting back - and yes that means on stupid contracts made with evil unions that put unrealistic burdens on the private sector.

No...

Post as many links as you want. An endless supply of horseshit doesn't support your point at all.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ohio-public-employees-overcompensated-senate-bill-5/

Here, you can do some reading for a change. Because you obviously didn't read any part of the actual studies that the "articles" in your links refer to.

Arbitrarily adding on dollars to the wage amount to account for job security? Counting the money that public employees pay into their benefits as part of the benefits package? Completely making shit up out of thin air to satisfy your corporate agenda? They actually state right in their abstract that job security is worth "17 percent of pay", let's forget for a second that that statement doesn't mean anything. If they're implying what I think they're implying, then McDonald's workers are making millions. It's practically impossible to get fired from McDonald's. So why doesn't the study account for all those extra millionaires, hmmm?
Give me a fucking break.

And you're right that the aei study "mentions" education. I thought we were having a conversation about actual facts, not whether or not the word was included in the paper. You're dead wrong in that it uses comparable education levels to determine its conclusions. Making up a number to increase the appearance of public employee pay is not a comparison. Neither is only taking into account firms with one thousand or more people. Just because it says the word education in the paper does not mean it conforms to any scientific standard at all.

Oh, now now it's the union bosses who make "shady" deals behind closed doors. Well, I might agree with you there, but what happened to "the myth of the underpaid public employee"? And what about the fact that it's the politician who makes the deal in the end? If you're talking about thousands of areas where the government overspends, then why do you only focus on "entitlement programs" here on the Sift? You must be rallying about that other stuff on facebook eh?

And speaking of entitlement programs, when did the idea of "helping people" become "communism"? I wasn't aware that Jesus was a commie, but I sure was under the impression that governments existed to help all the members of a society, not just the ones with stock portfolios.

It's not un-American to want to help people. I think you might be the only person under that impression. But it sure is un-American to try and legislate away the right of a group of people to free speech. If you don't like what someone has to say, or if you don't like them sticking up for themselves, there are ways you can deal with them without taking away their rights.

And it's certainly looked down upon, (if not illegal) to make a contract with someone, and then back out because you can't cover your end of the bargain. And you're damn straight the taxpayers have to answer for the decisions of the people they elect to office. It's called accountability, in case you're wondering:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=accountability

Glorious win.