Governor Walker of Wisconsin survived his recall election.

[Phox]

Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math..  that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)

It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster.  Not a scary monster.  Just a monster.

Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things. 

Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.

Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster? 

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?

And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment. 

[Disco Pickle]

Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math..  that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)

It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster.  Not a scary monster.  Just a monster.

Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things. 

Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.

Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster? 

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?

And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees.  The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.

What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.

I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words?  probably not, but that was the jest of it.)

[Phox]

Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math..  that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)

It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster.  Not a scary monster.  Just a monster.

Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things. 

Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.

Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster? 

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?

And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees.  The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.

What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.

I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words?  probably not, but that was the jest of it.)

Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?

[Disco Pickle]

As a side note, your

(you know, to keep up with inflation)

point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.

The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector.  The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.

[Phox]

As a side note, your

(you know, to keep up with inflation)

point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.

The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector.  The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.

Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.

[Disco Pickle]

Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math..  that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)

It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster.  Not a scary monster.  Just a monster.

Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things. 

Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.

Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster? 

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?

And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees.  The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.

What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.

I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words?  probably not, but that was the jest of it.)

Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?

based on the bit of reading I've been able to do, I think it will be ineffectual in actually addressing the problem in the long term, and stinks of political posturing that plays on the ignorance people to really understand where there core of the problem lies. 

Both sides have money stained hands.   I expected nothing less.  I'd like to hear reasoned solutions that don't stink of politics. 

[Cain]

Union rights are essentially a matter of liberty: free association, freedom of speech, free assembly and control of one's own labour power.

If libertarianism were an ideology which valued freedom, this would make Walker's victory a very painful event, one they would feel conflicted about at best.

Pickles doesn't seem very conflicted to me.  Instead, he seems positively gleeful at this outcome.

Of course, this is to be expected.  Actually Existing Libertarianism isn't even a political ideology, let alone one which which values freedom.  It's a smoke screen for Republican politics with a hefty amount of apologia for the rich and powerful.  This is why you'll find the vast majority of actually existing libertarians, Pickles included, tend towards Republican politics, even where those politics (religious bigotry, authoritarian policing) rub against their supposed principles.

And no doubt, once Pickles alcohol content is sufficiently high enough, he will prove just how right I am by yet again spazzing out with a bunch of hilariously overwrought cliches and libertarian slurs.

No wonder Kevin Carson, IOZ and a number of others prefer to call themselves anarchists, when the only other option is association with the likes of you.

[Disco Pickle]

As a side note, your

(you know, to keep up with inflation)

point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.

The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector.  The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.

Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.

"required" by who? 

And the public sector dictates rates of inflation through monetary policy at the federal level.  Of course they would mandate that their salaries increase at the same rate.  It makes sure they can keep up with the amount of money they dump into the system.

[Cain]

Pickles, I'm sure you have a valuable contribution on the bell curve and how it proves unions are evil.

I would like to hear it.

[Disco Pickle]

Union rights are essentially a matter of liberty: free association, freedom of speech, free assembly and control of one's own labour power.

If libertarianism were an ideology which valued freedom, this would make Walker's victory a very painful event, one they would feel conflicted about at best.

Pickles doesn't seem very conflicted to me.  Instead, he seems positively gleeful at this outcome.

Of course, this is to be expected.  Actually Existing Libertarianism isn't even a political ideology, let alone one which which values freedom.  It's a smoke screen for Republican politics with a hefty amount of apologia for the rich and powerful.  This is why you'll find the vast majority of actually existing libertarians, Pickles included, tend towards Republican politics, even where those politics (religious bigotry, authoritarian policing) rub against their supposed principles.

And no doubt, once Pickles alcohol content is sufficiently high enough, he will prove just how right I am by yet again spazzing out with a bunch of hilariously overwrought cliches and libertarian slurs.

No wonder Kevin Carson, IOZ and a number of others prefer to call themselves anarchists, when the only other option is association with the likes of you.

I'd like to address each of these point by point.

Union rights are essentially a matter of liberty: free association, freedom of speech, free assembly and control of one's own labour power.

First, I've never once, anywhere ITT thread, or on this board, decried unions as inherently bad.  They are not.  Freedom of association, speech, and assembly are all in this countries constitution.  Control of one's own labor power falls under all three I believe, as you can labor with any of them. 

If libertarianism were an ideology which valued freedom, this would make Walker's victory a very painful event, one they would feel conflicted about at best.

Walker's victory over a recall showed that not everyone in the state agreed with him.  I suppose those people exercising their liberty to vote should be discounted because you don't agree with them.  Freedom means that even people who you might not agree with, and who may, in fact, be completely misinformed and WRONG, still have the freedom to be wrong and vote for something that is wrong.  Checks and balances, and all that.  Why am I preaching this shit to you of all people again?

Pickles doesn't seem very conflicted to me.  Instead, he seems positively gleeful at this outcome.

I've stated, several times now, that based on new information I am falling on the side of restricting collective bargaining rights for these areas is not the solution and will not address the problem.  That other areas should be the focus and this was just posturing.

Of course, this is to be expected.  Actually Existing Libertarianism isn't even a political ideology, let alone one which which values freedom.  It's a smoke screen for Republican politics with a hefty amount of apologia for the rich and powerful.  This is why you'll find the vast majority of actually existing libertarians, Pickles included, tend towards Republican politics, even where those politics (religious bigotry, authoritarian policing) rub against their supposed principles. 

I can't disagree with much of the first part of that statement.  It's clearly the case almost anywhere you go these days.  It's similar to populist politics being a smokescreen for Democrat politics, with a healthy amount of apologia for the rich and powerful. 

I part hard ways with the politically religious and authoritarians though.  I do find myself sometimes conflicted when riots break out that threaten the lively hood of the silent people that do not get involved and who's lively hood is directly effected by those riots.  I think we covered some of that in the London threads.

And no doubt, once Pickles alcohol content is sufficiently high enough, he will prove just how right I am by yet again spazzing out with a bunch of hilariously overwrought cliches and libertarian slurs.

I haven't had even a beer tonight Cain.  I've been going in early, working on a very large and expensive project all week.  I don't have the luxury. 

I don't hold it against you for thinking a leopard will always show up to a party spotted.  I've clearly made that impression here. 

I'll work on it.

[Phox]

As a side note, your

(you know, to keep up with inflation)

point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.

The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector.  The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.

Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.

"required" by who? 

And the public sector dictates rates of inflation through monetary policy at the federal level.  Of course they would mandate that their salaries increase at the same rate.  It makes sure they can keep up with the amount of money they dump into the system.

Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math..  that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)

It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster.  Not a scary monster.  Just a monster.

Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things. 

Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.

Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster? 

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?

And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees.  The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.

What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.

I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words?  probably not, but that was the jest of it.)

Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?

based on the bit of reading I've been able to do, I think it will be ineffectual in actually addressing the problem in the long term, and stinks of political posturing that plays on the ignorance people to really understand where there core of the problem lies. 

Both sides have money stained hands.   I expected nothing less.  I'd like to hear reasoned solutions that don't stink of politics. 

Now that you've said this, would you be for or against reversing these cuts? And I'll take answers for both the current situation and in a hypothetical when an effective alternative is in place.

[Disco Pickle]

Pickles, I'm sure you have a valuable contribution on the bell curve and how it proves unions are evil.

I would like to hear it.

Funny thing, I've been giving a lot of thought the last few months to that post that got me so much shit, and that ONE in particular because there really was a point to that one, but I didn't have the statistics to back it up and so flounced.  I'd like to revisit it with some proper research, not just reactive Hurrrr.

If it's just going to be fodder and distract from this one, I'd rather take the time to make it a thread of it's own. 

[Disco Pickle]

As a side note, your

(you know, to keep up with inflation)

point is something at the heart of a majority of the things I talk about on this board, but it never gets the attention it deserves because "LOL LIBERTARD" reins supreme.

The only people keeping their wages up with the rate of inflation are people who go to work in the public sector.  The private sector has stagnated since artificial inflation of the cost to borrow money was institutionalized.

Well, yeah, but that has to do with the fact that the public sector actually is required to keep up with inflation, while the private sector is not. I don't see your point, here.

"required" by who? 

And the public sector dictates rates of inflation through monetary policy at the federal level.  Of course they would mandate that their salaries increase at the same rate.  It makes sure they can keep up with the amount of money they dump into the system.

Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math..  that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)

It's not THAT, DP, so much as the fact that you demonstrated what kind of person you are, a while back, and that nobody's really invested in spending much effort talking to...Well, a monster.  Not a scary monster.  Just a monster.

Because people can't step back, evaluate, and make course corrections in the way they interact with the world and the people in it, especially when it's a group of people they respect but disagree with on some things. 

Granted, most people don't, at least in my experience.

Why do you bother then if I'm such a monster? 

I didn't want a tangent on this thread, BTW.  I was hoping to argue merits.  Clearly I'm too monstrous for that.

Let me get this straight, Pickles. You are saying that public sector unions deserve to have their bargaining rights stripped away because their membership is decreasing and yet, they continue to get pay raises (you know, to keep up with inflation), but because there are not as many paying in, it increases the state's deficit? And your justification for this is that private sector workers don't enjoy all of the same benefits as public sector employees? Am I understanding you correctly?

And before you go off on another tangent, a simple yes or no, with a brief clarifying explanation will do for the moment.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  If you'll read the last part of that long post, I clearly said that's not the solution, and is not the primary drive of the costs of paying pensions and benefits to public sector employees.  The NYTimes article was the basis of that statement, with a promise to do more reading and not put all of my eggs in that basket.

What I said was that something has to break, and right now it's the state's budgets that effect the entire population of the state, while union workers account for less that 15% of the state's total work population.

I was actually soliciting thoughtful, informed alternatives to how to solve the problem of a minority of workers dictating what the majority of the employed and non-employed in that state has to do to pay that minority. (in fewer words?  probably not, but that was the jest of it.)

Okay. Do you think that the cuts to public sector unions in Wisconsin was a good/neutral/acceptable move?

based on the bit of reading I've been able to do, I think it will be ineffectual in actually addressing the problem in the long term, and stinks of political posturing that plays on the ignorance people to really understand where there core of the problem lies. 

Both sides have money stained hands.   I expected nothing less.  I'd like to hear reasoned solutions that don't stink of politics. 

Now that you've said this, would you be for or against reversing these cuts? And I'll take answers for both the current situation and in a hypothetical when an effective alternative is in place.

Sure, reverse them.  They did it with the last administration, I'm sure it will happen again and it won't either solve, or make the problem worse anyway, as far as I'm able to tell.  It will make one side happy, and another side mad, and solve absolutely nothing. 

I say let them have at it.  If anything we, the rest of us, could use a lesson in what not to do.

[Disco Pickle]

Well, many things, but let's start with the standards of human decency. That's a nice non-controversial answer, innit?

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Missed that part.

So ok, the only people who get to benefit from wages that increase on a mandatory basis based on the rate of inflation are public sector employees, who's state governments directly benefit from the rate of inflation caused by the monetary policy enacted at the federal level.   That's a standard of human decency, for a minority of workers in any state's population, that the majority will never receive? 

It's not the 1%, but it's certainly more like the 25%.

You'll have to be more specific about this part:

And then we get to the conspiracy theory territory. Nice.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Oh, Dipshit Pickle.  Do you ever learn?

Nope.  It's cuz you gots Religion Calvinizm.

He's one of Teh Eleckt. 

No, not calvinism.  He's got a baaad case of Libertard.

Ugh. Worse than I thought. 

Aaaand your failure to contribute anything of value to a thread in AI is right around .975, you and the parrot below you. (no, I didn't do the damn math..  that's just silly on a forum that likes to embellish and talk in absolutes anyway)

I should be fair and say that I actually do like your contributions Freeky, when you can be bothered to, and not just repeat the same damn thing you always say to me in any thread I post in.   And you're a reasonable conversationalist, IMO, when you're inclined.

Anna I completely ignore.  She won't even start a thread unless she knows it will get a bunch of "HELL YEAH YOU'RE RIGHT" righteous indignation to help affirm her world view.

Srsly, do a count of the threads she's started and note their content. 

Back to the topic, if anyone cares to continue:

I did find an interesting piece in the NYTimes (I won't quote it here, don't want to get the board in trouble):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/business/11pension.html?pagewanted=all

About a 1/3rd of the way down, independent analysts have found that collective bargaining isn't the at the core of the problem they thought they'd find.  NY state actually pays out more than 100% of a retirees working pay (because they pay out Social Security as well, something Wisconsin doesn't)

Also, these funds are heavily invested in and in fact banking their ability to pay on bull markets, pretty much all of the time.  We've been very clearly in a bear for some years, and more will come with more frequency.  (It's no small bit of irony that the same people who decry wall street stock gains have their union retirement funds invested in wall street stocks, and who's survival completely depends on the profits made on wall street, but that's my little aside jab and can be fodder for another thread)

A little further down, his research points to ultra low interest rates as being a severe problem in considering a payout of 58% of a public sector workers pay (artificially low interest rates and the real associated problems are something I've definitely talked about on this board, being a dumb ass dick pickle who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, that's what we talk about)

Another finding was that public sector employees are allowed to retire earlier than private sector and receive a pension that's guaranteed.  In the case of Wisconsin, at 57 with full pension as long as they have 30 years.  (Police and Fire can retire at 53 with only 25 years...  I noted what you said about them LMNO, and I agree.)

Private sector employees do not have anything even resembling this anymore. 

The last two paragraphs basically sum up the problem.

I'll do some more reading but on the surface I can, in confidence, agree that stripping the bargaining rights for those benefits will not solve the problem in the long run, and just plays on people on both side's general ignorance about why these things cost so much.

TL;