Cite?
You seem to forget that government is not the same as private business. A business need be responsive to its shareholders to remain viable (and that does not mean business needs to be fair, open and honest in its practices), but government must be responsive to everyone, and without favor, regardless of how public employees are treated, individually and collectively.
The way to do that is to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes.
I wasn’t the one talking about the recession, dear. And I was talking about dealing with a deficit by increasing taxes, rather than further brutalizing working people. Try to keep up.
Good to see you showing your true colors, though.
I don’t think you understand how it works. Stimulating the economy is helpful until we make up much of the lost demand. The need for it doesn’t disappear the day the recession ends, the need disappears when the economy can support itself.
Yep. And, since we all know that Obama is a Keynesian…
::d&r::
The ability to retire with a half pension after just 20 years of service, or 100% after 30 or so. Not to mention the opportunity for those about to retire to rack up overtime in their last year or so and having their pension be based on that inflated figure. Tenure for teachers after just a couple of years. Hell, tenure in general.
Didn’t know you were Magellan. I’m not surprised you are able to list things you find unacceptable in union contracts - I was trying to see if s/he could.
But on the one hand, if unions and employers negotiate “insultation from being fired due to poor performance” into a work agreement, I am not sure it is up to me to argue they are ridiculous. Just like if Kevin Brown has it written into his contract that he gets use of the owner’s private jet to fly to road games, I don’t know if it is my place to call it ridiculous.
I also won’t call it ridiculous until I know the situation in the industry or employment concerned. They may be perfectly good reasons to include such employment protection.
And finally, while I can see the arguments against such job protection, I don’t find it any more ridiculous than termination at will, without recourse.
“Fair” doesn’t actually mean “equal in dollars,” though, does it?
“Fair,” doesn’t even mean “equal in percentage,” does it?
There’s no use of the word “equal” at all in defining “fair” as you used it, is there? At least “equal” in any mathematical sense?
Wait. I thought he was a Socialist? I am all confused now.
This is indicative of the attitude that got us into trouble in the first place. Yes, businesses need to be responsive to shareholders, but just because a government entity does not have “shareholders” does not mean that they should be just as responsive. They are being paid by the public and have an obligation to do the best job for them for the least amount of money. And from where do you get this notion that businesses don’t need to be fair? That’s ridiculous. Surely you’re aware that businesses can and do get sued if they are not fair. No?
Huh? Keynes and Keynesian economics never defined a recession as two consecutive quarters of of declining economic activity. That’s just a standard definition these days. So, the US is technically out of this definition of a recession, but the economy is far from it’s normal growth, employment and inflation levels.
With inflation at much lower than normal rates and unemployment at much higher than normal rates, why would you say this is the point where “Keynesians believe a big deficit is a bad idea?”
Equal to what?
But wait. I work, and I am tired of being brutalized by taxes. Increasing taxes is just further brutalizes me.
Are you against a progressive income tax? Do you think that the concept of trying to achieve equal pain for all taxed people is laudable?
See my response to Duckster.
You aren’t brutalized by taxes.
Not necessarily. Really rather depends where the tax increases fall, doesn’t it?
And believe me, I wish there was a way of imposing the costs of getting us out of this mess onto the people who got us into it Unfortunately there isn’t, so I will have to bear my undeserved share of the burden, while people like you get away with significantly less responsibility than they should.
Agreed – as long as the two sides reach their arrangement without coercion, I think you’re right.
But wait! I hear you think. A little helpless worker negotiating with a large company needs his job much more than the company needs him; therefore the transaction is coercive from the beginning.
No. The company doesn’t owe him a job. He’s not entitled to one. But the company is entitled to negotiate with other people freely, without being impeded.
So when a company is threatened with a strike, that’s all part of the game… no problems there. When a company seeks to break the strike by hiring other workers, that, too, is all a part of the game.
But when the striking workers use illegal and unethical means to discourage or impede the strikebreakers, that crosses the line. (No pun intended).
Huh? How responsible am I for this mess we’re in? How much responsibility do I have? Should I have?
Yes I am.