Well, I would.
I cannot think of a single example of conservative responsibilty taking. They must exist, I’m sure.
“Mistakes were made”
- Ronald Reagan
Well, sorta kinda.
Maybe so, but changing the rules after someone has been in the system and making plans for a certain pension is not a good way to resolve this. If it only effected new employees, I could stomach that. Otherwise, it’s king of like agreeing to work for a certain salary and then being short-changed when your paycheck arrives.
They’re very big on other people taking responsibility, though. After all, conservatives are always right and other people are always wrong. Those wrong people refuse to own up, which is just infuriating.
Oh, great. Nuns From Outer Space.
They probably really would have Eyes in the Back of Their Heads.
No they are not. You’re wrong. In fact, the numbers Terr cites are perfectly rational. I don’t think Terr understands they’re BOTH rational, though, just as I don’t think you do, but you two misunderstand different sides of the equation.
If paying union dues is voluntary, it’s rational to not pay them, because your individual decision to not pay them makes little difference. But if put to a vote just among themselves, the teachers would, without any doubt whatsoever, vote to impose union dues by an overwhelming majority, because it is rational to do so; the decision to make everyone pay eliminates the free rider problem.
This is really, really basic economics. Like, second-year stuff, at most. Prisoner’s Dilemma stuff. What is perfectly rational to do if you are acting as an individual can be the exact opposite of what is perfectly rational to do if you know you are acting as a collective.
If the ability to act as a collective was taken away from the teachers, it was inevitable most would choose to abandon paying union dues; it makes no sense, when they are forced to act individually, to do otherwise. But if they were allowed to make a decision as a group, they’d vote to impose union dues, I would bet by a margin of five to one, at least. Both decisions are perfectly sensible.
Trading Sammy Sosa.
I might agree with that on the payout, but do you think the contribution amount can never be changed for the entire time the employee works there? Does that apply to taxes also?
Can they decide on progressive taxation, appropriation of privately owned property in the public interest, government regulations on industry to prevent environmental degradation, the terms of their manager’s contract, the system through which their representatives in government are elected, whether corporations are people and whether campaign donations are speech and to contribute towards the purchase and operation of a worker owned factory?
Edit:
Also relevant would be hyperbolic discounting and the tragedy of the commons (which Der Trihs was alluding to, in a way).
Including decisions on whether or not to need major health care, too? :D:
No, the “freedom” they bleat about is the freedom to make the rest of us pay for it instead of themselves. Just as the “freedom” they bleat about in almost any area is essentially the freedom to impose on the rest of us. But they still claim it’s taking responsibility, when it’s really avoiding it.
Forcing the employee to increase his contribution amount for the same benefit equates to a cut in pay, so I would expect the employee to have a big gripe about that.
Taxes are beyond the responsibility of the employer.