- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,415
- Reaction score
- 47,413
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Horrific comparison.
but spot on
i challenge you to disprove his point
Horrific comparison.
but spot on
i challenge you to disprove his point
Those are companies that people CHOOSE to invest in. These investors can opt to spend their money or not, or to sell their investment at any time. That's not the same as the government where people have no choice but to give them their money in the form of taxes.
but spot on
i challenge you to disprove his point
One is where shareholders voluntarily invest their own money knowing the inherent risk, while the other is not.
this comparison is more than validYour problem with public sector negotiation is "the people negotiating with them are spending Other People's Money".
This situation is also true of public companies, which is part of the private sector.
It doesn't change the fact that managers negotiate with other people's money.
If you don't like how your tax money is spent, you can hire new managers/politicians. If that is not enough, you can move to another state or country. Everytime you pay tax, you understand the risk that your money will be squandered by politicians. Conservatives especially seem to complain of this non-stop. If you don't want to pay tax, you can again vote with your feet.
Spot on????????? The public sector is completely different than a public company. What are you thinking? Spot on. Right. What IS his point? That they both use money? One is taxpayer money. The other is investor money. Come onnnnn....pick another door.
If you don't like how your tax money is spent, you can hire new managers/politicians. If that is not enough, you can move to another state or country. Everytime you pay tax, you understand the risk that your money will be squandered by politicians. Conservatives especially seem to complain of this non-stop. If you don't want to pay tax, you can again vote with your feet.
you are responding to something other than which was stated:
Your problem with public sector negotiation is "the people negotiating with them are spending Other People's Money".
This situation is also true of public companies, which is part of the private sector.
you said it yourself
one spends the shareholder dollars and the other obligates the taxpayer dollars
i thank you for making my own argument against you
Her statement was true in a literal sense. However on a philosophical level the two situations really aren't comparable. In the first situation the money is forcibly taken, while in the second instance the money is willingly given. If we're debating the merits of the existence of private sector unions vs. those in the public sector than this is a pretty important distinction.
nope
in both instances, the dollars are willingly given
by the designated representatives to the contract negotiations
in the instance of the private sector company and the public sector taxpayer, they are represented in negotiations
the contract is hammered out and executed by both parties, each having received authority to bargain on behalf of their representative constituency
the problem develops when one of the parties sends to the negotiation table representatives who are not up to the task
often, that is management ... whether it is corporate management or government management ... it is the sending of the incompetents to engage in contract negotiations that produces these negative outcomes
so, rather than eliminating the unions, instead select better representatives to sit at the negotiating table
I don't disagree with this. What are the names of the people negotiating these golden compensation/benefits packages? They seem to remain nameless.
nope
in both instances, the dollars are willingly given
by the designated representatives to the contract negotiations
in the instance of the private sector company and the public sector taxpayer, they are represented in negotiations
the contract is hammered out and executed by both parties, each having received authority to bargain on behalf of their representative constituency
the problem develops when one of the parties sends to the negotiation table representatives who are not up to the task
often, that is management ... whether it is corporate management or government management ... it is the sending of the incompetents to engage in contract negotiations that produces these negative outcomes
so, rather than eliminating the unions, instead select better representatives to sit at the negotiating table
yepAgain, easier said that done. I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that elected politicians represent a wide variety of constituents who all want different things. And it's not like we have a lot of competent negotiators to choose from in the first place. I didn't vote for George Bush or the Iraq War, and on the face of it, it really wasn't that great of an investment. Should I really still be held responsible for the selection of an incompetent head of state?
yep
it is true that we DESERVE the politicians we elect
Her statement was true in a literal sense. However on a philosophical level the two situations really aren't comparable. In the first situation the money is forcibly taken, while in the second instance the money is willingly given. If we're debating the merits of the existence of private sector unions vs. those in the public sector then this is a pretty important distinction.
This isn't totally true either. Once the shares are bought, shareholders are stuck with the company, when their interest is negatively affected, they have no recourse except to sell their shares at a loss. This agent-principal problem is widely studied in economics. It is not an exclusively public sector problem.
It doesn't change the fact that managers negotiate with other people's money.
If you don't like how your tax money is spent, you can hire new managers/politicians. If that is not enough, you can move to another state or country. Everytime you pay tax, you understand the risk that your money will be squandered by politicians. Conservatives especially seem to complain of this non-stop. If you don't want to pay tax, you can again vote with your feet.
I believe collective bargaining is an aspect of the right to assemble in the first amendment.
Also, there is little correlation between public sector unionization and state budget deficit, so the politician giving away the store argument does not sway me much.
It is definitely true that, to some degree, public sector unions are being scapegoated by the governor for Wisconsin's budget shortfalls.
I believe in this case, it is an easy excuse for them to do what they want to ideological as opposed to financial reasons.