Is this the beginning of the end for the working class?

[Coleman]

If you are a carpenter who swings a hammer on a new house.....you got killed in the recession.  If you are a plumber or electrician who works on existing homes, you have more work than you know what to do with.

+1

[Coleman]

I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand.  If Walmart is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there.  Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.

If you're so upset that Walmart's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.

You act as if this is occurring in a true free market, where Wal-Mart does not benefit from government subsidies.

[Pakuni]

Quite frankly, it should be outlawed.  I'm fine with private unions, but public unions are a poison to this country.  When you have governors in states negotiating the benefits, wages, etc of state employees while at the same time begging those very state employees to fund your campaign and vote for you, there is a quid pro quo going on.  It means the governor is promising benefits, pensions, etc that cannot be paid or afforded and won't manifest themselves until years after he\she is out of office, but the bill still has to be paid.

Its is killing the financial pinnings of this country and if I had to guess, at some point there will be blood in the streets as a result.  All those promised benefits, impossible to pay.  Financially impossible.  A lot of people promised those dollars are going to be very upset....I get it, but the sad thing is they never should have been promised some of these insane perks to begin with.  They were, of course, because they got their guy in office who returned the solid to them.

So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).

The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.

I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?

Public unions should not be negotiating with the executive who needs them to get into office in the first place.

And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.

[Pakuni]

You act as if this is occurring in a true free market, where Wal-Mart does not benefit from government subsidies.

Yep.
I'm fine with Walmart paying its employees whatever they want.
I'm not fine with Walmart and its executives benefiting through tax breaks and subsidies to the tune of literally billions of dollars a year.

[tower912]

Golden parachutes for incompetent CEO's is a much bigger travesty than pensions for the average worker. 

[Spotcheck Billy]

nm

[tower912]

Chico's, I repeat my challenge to you from a few years ago.   Forsake your 1%'er job.   Become a public school teacher in an inner city, walk a beat, drag a hose down a smoky hallway, become a civil engineer.    Live on that salary.   And then live on that pension in 20 years.    Pretty simple.   

[Coleman]

wtf is a pension and how can I get one?! I'm not that sure my 401K, which is almost exclusively my $ contributions (teachers, see Roth IRA), will not provide $55K/year

Then you're doing something wrong.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).

The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.

I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?

And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.

Pakuni,
In Connecticut in addition to the state administered teacher's pension, most school districts also offer a 403b plan, the 401k of the public sector world.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand.  If Walmart/Target is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there.  Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.

If you're so upset that Walmart's/Target's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.

Fixed.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni,
In Connecticut in addition to the state administered teacher's pension, most school districts also offer a 403b plan, the 401k of the public sector world.

But to my understanding, the employers make no distribution to the plan and administrative fees are taken out of the employees' accounts, not subsidized my the state.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

But to my understanding, the employers make no distribution to the plan and administrative fees are taken out of the employees' accounts, not subsidized my the state.

Correct!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Detroit anyone?

California poster child

[Aughnanure]

I find it curious that so few people understand the simple concept of supply and demand.  If Walmart is such a travesty to society (which apparently it isn't because those jobs are critical to society despite the fact that they're detrimental to society), the answer is simple --- don't shop there.  Nobody is being forced to spend their money there just like nobody is forcing people to work there.

If you're so upset that Walmart's employees earn so little money, then start your own business and poach their employees so you can pay them "living wage" jobs.

I find it utterly despicable that you think paying people a livable wage is some sort egregious overreach. It's sick you think there are full-time workers and their families out there who deserve to live on less than $18 a year. They literally lean on US the taxpayers to supplement their employees but you just keep on making excuses for them. But yes, keep blaming the poor people and not those who take advantage of their market powers and political influences to line their pockets. The lack of empathy you espouse is sad.

[Spotcheck Billy]

But to my understanding, the employers make no distribution to the plan and administrative fees are taken out of the employees' accounts, not subsidized my the state.

so just like many a 401K, sure some employers might dollar match a small % but I haven't seen any that pay the admin fees for the employee

[Aughnanure]

So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).

The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.

I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?

And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.

Nope. No one wants to talk about the role executive and management levels play in this. Blaming poor and middle class people is just so much easier.

[Aughnanure]

Golden parachutes for incompetent CEO's is a much bigger travesty than pensions for the average worker. 

They shouldn't even be mentioned in the same paragraph.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I agree with you, but unions aren't the only ones doing the "quid pro quo" you speak of.

Major corporations donate millions so they can get lots of goodies from Congress. It happens everywhere.

I am uncomfortable allowing executives to continue doing this while outlawing working and middle class workers from doing the same.

Probably because corporations employee many people, provide many goods and services which pay taxes to those communities, state, etc....I don't disagree with your general premise, but the difference is vast in my opinion.  My corporation doesn't tell me how to vote, doesn't have rallies on how to vote, doesn't take dues from me to get candidates elected, and most importantly doesn't put me as a taxpayer on the hook to pay off pensions for other employees so they can retire at age 50 and earn $100K a year the next 35 years.  I don't disagree with you that people as individuals should have more power to connect, the reality is they never will.

Sure, corporations can get sweetheart deals to remain in a location, or expand their business to hire more employees, or what have you....usually to benefit not only those corporations, but also those municipalities, states, etc.   I fail to see the same equivalency.  A state or city needs workers one way or another, the state or city isn't relocating to another state.  The perks promised lead to votes, which in turn leads to more promises and more of a quid pro quo.  I need help on how the two compare in terms of leading to votes and empowerment which ultimately leads to financial liabilities that are burying everyone.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Hmmm. Estimated, eh? Funny how this is always refuted by looking at what actually happens when it is raised

I know you like it, cause it fits your purist logic...but try using actual history.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w4509.pdf?new_window=1
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-05/washington-shows-highest-minimum-wage-state-beats-u-s-with-jobs.html

I know it's crazy, but there are studies that show the opposite.  Maybe we should just accept that fact that you will find studies that support your position and I'll find those that support mine.  I included the CBO because they are supposed to be non-partisan.

In the meantime, if studies show no impact to jobs when they are raised, why not take the minimum wage up to $50 an hour...how about $300 an hour...since there is not impact.   

[Coleman]

Probably because corporations employee many people, provide many goods and services which pay taxes to those communities, state, etc....I don't disagree with your general premise, but the difference is vast in my opinion.  My corporation doesn't tell me how to vote, doesn't have rallies on how to vote, doesn't take dues from me to get candidates elected, and most importantly doesn't put me as a taxpayer on the hook to pay off pensions for other employees so they can retire at age 50 and earn $100K a year the next 35 years.  I don't disagree with you that people as individuals should have more power to connect, the reality is they never will.

Sure, corporations can get sweetheart deals to remain in a location, or expand their business to hire more employees, or what have you....usually to benefit not only those corporations, but also those municipalities, states, etc.   I fail to see the same equivalency.  A state or city needs workers one way or another, the state or city isn't relocating to another state.  The perks promised lead to votes, which in turn leads to more promises and more of a quid pro quo.  I need help on how the two compare in terms of leading to votes and empowerment which ultimately leads to financial liabilities that are burying everyone.

I'll be more specific.

The Koch brothers have the money and power to literally buy members of Congress for things that directly benefit them.

But workers should not be able to organize to collectively match their power?

Again, neither is ideal in a perfect democracy. But if you outlaw unions, without addressing the other side, you are left with an oligarchy.

[Badgerhater]

Housing starts are maybe 5% of his business.

Most of it is simple repairs and maybe some remodeling.

Construction and plumbing are not analogous. Same goes with electricians. I never was talking about construction. I said "the trades."

Tradesmen working on existing homes are making a killing. For the same reason car mechanics make a killing when people don't buy new cars.

Precisely,  who else is going to fix stuff for people with liberal arts degrees?  (NOTE:  Has an MU liberal arts degree, but worked the trades before doing so).

[mu03eng]

I find it utterly despicable that you think paying people a livable wage is some sort egregious overreach. It's sick you think there are full-time workers and their families out there who deserve to live on less than $18 a year. They literally lean on US the taxpayers to supplement their employees but you just keep on making excuses for them. But yes, keep blaming the poor people and not those who take advantage of their market powers and political influences to line their pockets. The lack of empathy you espouse is sad.

Care at all to address the following:  Are those jobs the only ones those employees can work, if so why are those the only jobs they can get?

[ChicosBailBonds]

So much drama.
Suggesting that the average public union worker receives "insane" perks is, um, insane.
There are absolutely instances in which benefits promised are a travesty, but this usually involves only the people at the very top of the food chain (i.e. school superintendents, judges, former directors), and is in no way reflective of the average worker.
Here in Illinois, the median teacher pension is $55k a year.
Remember, these are people with no Social Security and no access to an employer backed 401k. This is all they get. Are you really suggesting that a person living on $55,000 a year in 2014 is somehow funding a lavish lifestyle on the public's dime? That that's an "insane" perk?
And it's not as if this is free money. They're contributing a solid chunk of their annual incomes toward these benefits (here in Illinois it's 9 percent a year).

The problem in most states - Illinois being the shining example - isn't that the benefits promised were excessive or unaffordable in most instances. They're not.
The problem is that for decades, while public workers have been making their required contributions to the system, the politicians haven't. They've consistently diverted funding earmarked for the pension system to pay for other pet projects, creating the massive funding shortfalls we have today. The problem is less about too much going out as it is too little going in.
And then they get yahoos on the Internet shouting about how it's all the teachers' and unions' fault. Those greedy SOBs should spend retirement dining on cat food and be happy about it.

I'm curious, why are you upset that public school teachers have the right to support a political candidates who they believe will act in their interests (aka taking part in the political system - gasp!), and yet I've yet to see you rage about entities like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and individual corporations spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars every two years supporting candidates who will make decisions on their interests, many of which involve how our tax dollars are spent, collected and allocated.
It's OK for management to take part in the system, but labor better stay out?

And, by and large, they don't. Do you think Jerry Brown negotiates the teacher contracts in your suburban school district or something?
The reality is, those contracts are negotiated by locally elected school boards, members of which very rarely spend a lot of money running for office and even less rarely get financial support from the teacher unions with which they negotiate. And if people in those school districts believe their elected representatives are paying teachers too much or entitling them to insane benefits, they're free to vote them out of office. It's not hard to bump out an incumbent on the local level.

I figured this would get you out of your cave...good to see you again.

I'm happy to substitute out Jerry Brown with local school board, city counsel, etc...it's the same principle.  It shouldn't be happening, at the gov't level of any kind....liabilities are staggering...into the multiple trillions.



"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."

"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations,"

"The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

-FDR

[Benny B]

I find it utterly despicable that you think paying people a livable wage is some sort egregious overreach. It's sick you think there are full-time workers and their families out there who deserve to live on less than $18 a year. They literally lean on US the taxpayers to supplement their employees but you just keep on making excuses for them. But yes, keep blaming the poor people and not those who take advantage of their market powers and political influences to line their pockets. The lack of empathy you espouse is sad.

Your ideologically-charged rantings are just as ludicrous as what you think I'm espousing.  I'm simply demonstrating the lunacy of your argument where in one breath you imply Walmart is critical to society and in the next you lambast their business model.  If you want to tell someone how to run their business, buy a majority stake in the company.  If you don't agree with the model or their policies, fine - that's your right.  Truth be told, neither do I (nor do I shop there). But people have been moving to this country for centuries so they didn't have to be told what to do on the whims of a nutjob (or nutjobs).  All I'm saying is don't be a nutjob.

You need to realize that your gripe isn't with capitalism, or Walmart, or subsidies, or republicans... your gripe is with human nature and consumer behavior.  If that's what you want to change, start at the bottom, not the top.  You can't melt an iceberg by throwing salt on the surface.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I believe in capitalism, however sometimes I do have to wonder how much is enough?

You have some people who are trying HARD, and can barely eat/survive. You have some other people mere miles or maybe even blocks away who have so much money they couldn't spend it all in 10 lifetimes.

I know it's not the first time in history it's happened, but it's just weird if you strip away all of our notions and look at the actual results of how we live.

If aliens came, how would we explain it? Would they "get it"?