• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tennessee Trumps Wiconsin: Kills Teacher Collective Bargaining. Dead.

Misterveritis said:
I thought I wrote the government forces me to labor for the benefit of others...
Click to expand...
Yeah, you did and I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about. The government doesn't force ME to labor for the benefit of others or anyone else I know, so what is the government forcing you to do?
 
zimmer said:
Hooray!
Step by step, state by state... The ball of sobriety is rolling.
Along the way we need to eliminate the DoE.

.
Click to expand...

Its so sad. Our wages have stagnated for decades, so in our dismay, we pull down those who are still considered successful out of jealousy.

The best answer is to aggressively pursue policies that improve worker wages and not pull everyone else down into the pit with us.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Its so sad. Our wages have stagnated for decades, so in our dismay, we pull down those who are still considered successful out of jealousy.

The best answer is to aggressively pursue policies that improve worker wages and not pull everyone else down into the pit with us.
Click to expand...

as Lincoln put it: you do not help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-giver.
 
Misterveritis said:
Please help me with this. Where can I find this authority in the US Constitution? Which section? Which paragraph? Which sentence?
I think we should return to Constitutional government.
Click to expand...

If your contention is that the fed shouldnt be funding education, we agree....you are a latecomer on the "end federal funding of education and shut down the DoE" train. I dont see that it is dangerous...but I do see it is ineffective and inefficient. Its foolish to tax US citizens and send 80-90 billion to the fed education program, only to have thgem dole out dollars back to the states. Cut out the fed, reduce taxes, and allow the states to tax and provide services as their citizens dictate.
 
cpwill said:
as Lincoln put it: you do not help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-giver.
Click to expand...

Yet we are doing so by trying to destroy public unions.
 
megaprogman said:
Yet we are doing so by trying to destroy public unions.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. by trying to lessen the power of public sector unions we are attempting to make government bureaucracies less costly and more responsive - which boosts the private sector along with making those governmental functions more efficient. the Union is not the wage-giver in this question, the taxpayer is; and it is he whom the union would tear at.
 
cpwill said:
this is incorrect. by trying to lessen the power of public sector unions we are attempting to make government bureaucracies less costly and more responsive - which boosts the private sector along with making those governmental functions more efficient. the Union is not the wage-giver in this question, the taxpayer is; and it is he whom the union would tear at.
Click to expand...

Yes, the taxpayer is the wage giver and as I pointed out, their wages have been stagnating for a while now. This is why we should pursue policies that give normal folks a higher wage.
 
megaprogman said:
Yes, the taxpayer is the wage giver and as I pointed out, their wages have been stagnating for a while now. This is why we should pursue policies that give normal folks a higher wage.
Click to expand...

....with some quibbles over the first part, agreeing with the second.

however, the second requires reducing the cost of governance while increasing its' efficiency. and both those items require reducing the power of public sector unions.
 
cpwill said:
....with some quibbles over the first part, agreeing with the second.

however, the second requires reducing the cost of governance while increasing its' efficiency. and both those items require reducing the power of public sector unions.
Click to expand...

It depends on which economic theory one subscribes to. You state your position as if it were fact.

Personally, I disagree. I think unions are a part of that solution, as well as, fair trade instead of free trade type trade deals with other countries, to reduce safe havens for bringing down worker wages by using inhumane conditions.
 
Last edited:
Not sure why corporal punishment is being brought up in this thread. We used it because we didn't know of any other efficient way to punish children. I have never hit my kid once in his life and he turned out just fine. Psychological tactics work much better for getting the point across. But I digress...

The reason why teachers unions are hated is because of teacher tenure. The crappiest of teachers are still entitled to remain on the payroll and the only thing schools can do is shuffle them around with the hope that one of them will get a clue when they land in a new school. The only thing the GOP had to do was make a law to strike down the teacher tenure stipulation so that schools could be empowered to truly fire them. That would solve a big chunk of the problems.

The answer was not to strip them of all collective bargaining power, but to reform them. Destroying them is not reform and it's only going to create more problems. The GOP just disincentivized people to become teachers in TN, and for current teachers to stay in TN. What is the deal with the GOP's war on public education? Is there some purpose to making America more ignorant? Hmm, gee I wonder. :roll:
 
megaprogman said:
It depends on which economic theory one subscribes to. You state your position as if it were fact.
Click to expand...

the notion that we can boost the economy through boosting government spending has been tried not once, but many times, and been found wanting each time. at some point, repeated testing gives you a degree of certainty in a hypothesis.

Personally, I disagree. I think unions are a part of that solution, as well as, fair trade instead of free trade type trade deals with other countries, to reduce safe havens for bringing down worker wages by using inhumane conditions.
Click to expand...

private sector unions artificially increase the price of specific forms of labor. this decreases the demand for that form of labor, and decreases the demand for labor in general.

in the public sector, however, unions artificially increase price and demand for their specific form of labor, because the people who make the hiring decisions do not respond to market pressure to allocate resources effeciently, but rather political pressure to get reelected. in this country our teachers are not worried about machinery cutting off limbs in unlit smoky factories where they labor for 16 hours a day - public sector unions are a different animal from their private sector counterparts
 
cpwill said:
the notion that we can boost the economy through boosting government spending has been tried not once, but many times, and been found wanting each time. at some point, repeated testing gives you a degree of certainty in a hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Untrue statement. There are numerous examples in this country and in Europe where is has been shown to do good.

cpwill said:
private sector unions artificially increase the price of specific forms of labor. this decreases the demand for that form of labor, and decreases the demand for labor in general.

in the public sector, however, unions artificially increase price and demand for their specific form of labor, because the people who make the hiring decisions do not respond to market pressure to allocate resources effeciently, but rather political pressure to get reelected. in this country our teachers are not worried about machinery cutting off limbs in unlit smoky factories where they labor for 16 hours a day - public sector unions are a different animal from their private sector counterparts
Click to expand...

So in other words, you want to keep wages low in order to boost them. I see the absurdity in your stance. The term artificial is a misnomer. If unions change the supply/demand equation, then they do that. However, its just a change in the make up of the market, which is fundamental to capitalism.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
This is why it is so important to understand the basics. Unions make deals with politicians to increase their pay and benefits. We call these politicians democrats. The union members are paid with tax payer dollars. Union members pay mandatory dues to union thugs, I mean leaders. The unions then use the taxpayer dollars to help politicians get elected. We call those politicians democrats. The democrats make deals with the unions to increase their pay and benefits. The union members are paid with taxpayer dollars...
So eliminating the unions is like cleaning the rats nest out from under your house.
Click to expand...

So Republicans have never made deals with anyone? You have an interesting view of history.
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you think unions and union movements were so important to the Soviet Union, and democrats alike? Isn't because they stand against merit and achievement?
Click to expand...

You're aware that unions were illegal in Communist countries, right? In fact, it was one of these illegal unions (Solidarity in Poland) that helped start the ball rolling on the collapse of Communism.

FAIL.
 
megaprogman said:
Untrue statement. There are numerous examples in this country and in Europe where is has been shown to do good.
Click to expand...

this is incorrect. If you look at every major attempt at fiscal stimulus in the 30 nations of the OECD since 1970, those predicated on increasing government expenditures were the ones that failed.

in particular, it's worth noting that in nations with higher debt, the multiplier actually ranges between zero and negative.

So in other words, you want to keep wages low in order to boost them.
Click to expand...

no, i want actual market efficiency to increase growth which drives up wages. artificially increasing somethings' price does not help the market as a whole, it just helps (so long as the government props that item) that particular sector. i want real growth, not a series of bubbles, and not a net-loss redistribution from one sector of the economy to another.

I see the absurdity in your stance.
Click to expand...

i see wishful thinking and a failure to appreciate unintended consequences in yours

The term artificial is a misnomer.
Click to expand...

not at all. Unions move the price of their labor from where it would naturally fall. like any price floor, it detracts from demand.

If unions change the supply/demand equation, then they do that. However, its just a change in the make up of the market, which is fundamental to capitalism.
Click to expand...

yeah. so did encouraging subprime mortgages. remind me again how well that turned out?
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
Teachers aren't people?
Click to expand...

teachers are public servants, and education administrators are government bureaucrats. taking from everyone to reward government employees is not a model for helping the populace as a whole, especially when government functions are made less responsive and responsible to that populace.
 
cpwill said:
teachers are public servants, and education administrators are government bureaucrats. taking from everyone to reward government employees is not a model for helping the populace as a whole, especially when government functions are made less responsive and responsible to that populace.
Click to expand...

You have a point, and I would definitely admit that at times the union bureaucracy is more self-serving than anything else.

In essence, the system does indeed need to be reformed. However, it seems to me that killing the union is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's bound to have unintended negative consequences, as essentially it takes power from the union and puts it in the hands of government officials, who also have a tendency to be corruptible.
 
cpwill said:
this is incorrect. If you look at every major attempt at fiscal stimulus in the 30 nations of the OECD since 1970, those predicated on increasing government expenditures were the ones that failed.

in particular, it's worth noting that in nations with higher debt, the multiplier actually ranges between zero and negative.
Click to expand...

Looking up your source, their bias is pretty evident. Do you have evidence from a neutral source?

For example, here is a counter analysis from a different source that contradicts your claims.

Economic Scene - Success of Stimulus Bill Is Noteworthy as Another Is Weighed - NYTimes.com

cpwill said:
no, i want actual market efficiency to increase growth which drives up wages. artificially increasing somethings' price does not help the market as a whole, it just helps (so long as the government props that item) that particular sector. i want real growth, not a series of bubbles, and not a net-loss redistribution from one sector of the economy to another.
Click to expand...

Which it has failed to do since the late 70s. The last time we have substantial increases in middle class wages was during a more progressive era.

cpwill said:
i see wishful thinking and a failure to appreciate unintended consequences in yours
Click to expand...

I am sure you do, but do you have an actual complaint?

cpwill said:
not at all. Unions move the price of their labor from where it would naturally fall. like any price floor, it detracts from demand.
Click to expand...

All unionization does is change the relationship between labor and management, since there is no natural type of relationship, your statement cannot have a basis in fact.

cpwill said:
yeah. so did encouraging subprime mortgages. remind me again how well that turned out?
Click to expand...

You, of course, act as if it was the only or even the major factor in the housing crisis. Nice try.
 
Last edited:
theplaydrive said:
Yeah, you did and I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about. The government doesn't force ME to labor for the benefit of others or anyone else I know, so what is the government forcing you to do?
Click to expand...
Are you forced to turn over about 40% of the wealth you create to government? I am. If I refuse I will go to jail. And you would too.
 
Misterveritis said:
Are you forced to turn over about 40% of the wealth you create to government? I am. If I refuse I will go to jail. And you would too.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that the "government forces me to labor for the benefit of others" = "i have to pay taxes". That's ridiculous - taxes aren't a charity, they are paid in exchange for labor and services. Welcome to civilization. What a ridiculous thing to say.
 
theplaydrive said:
So you're saying that the "government forces me to labor for the benefit of others" = "i have to pay taxes". That's ridiculous - taxes aren't a charity, they are paid in exchange for labor and services. Welcome to civilization. What a ridiculous thing to say.
Click to expand...
If you choose to wear your chains proudly I shall happily allow it. But don't thing that because you wear your chains easily that I intend to remain chained. When the government returns to its Constitutional limits I will happily pay an appropriate amount of my wealth in taxes. Until then, do not expect me to go quietly into the night.
 
rocket88 said:
In essence, the system does indeed need to be reformed. However, it seems to me that killing the union is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Click to expand...

no need to kill unions and i'm unaware of anyone who argues that we need to. the market provides a perfect disciplining mechanism for those portions that need reform - any union that overburdens its' business to the point where it becomes uncompetitive will suffer job losses when that business goes under.

assuming, of course, that the Obama Administration doesn't steal said business from the bondholders, prop it up for a year, and then give it to said union.

however, this mechanism does not exist inside of government - where abuse tends to grow over time rather than be killed off by competition. government functions more like evolution in reverse - the more bloated you become, the more you receive. Public Sector unions are thus rewarded for abusing their employer (us) to a degree never imagined by their private sector counterparts.

It's bound to have unintended negative consequences, as essentially it takes power from the union and puts it in the hands of government officials, who also have a tendency to be corruptible.
Click to expand...

all humans are corruptible. however, elected officials have a discipline mechanism to punish failure - they can be easily fired by their constituents. so, given that both officials and unions will be corruptible, I'd prefer the actor whose incentives are to provide the greatest education for the least cost possible and who has a discipline mechanism to force him from failure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom