Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

Blkdirt Farmer said:

Detroit was the wealthiest city in the USA for decades. Then in 1962 they elected a liberal Democratic Mayor, and the people of Detroit have done so to this day.

Hard to argue the results of one party rule. A good example of how the train leaves the tracks when liberals with good intentions, ruin it for all in the city..

Detroit in RUINS! (Crowder goes Ghetto) - YouTube

Any one have an example of this with Republican rule of a city for over 50 years?

I would be curious to know..

Click to expand...

Detroit is what all America would look like if Obama and others like him held on to power for even half that long.

OpportunityCost said:

View attachment 67226610

Actually they don't.

Click to expand...

Can you cite where those numbers come from? When putting together all compensation people with an agenda tend throw in numbers to make their case look better. For example, to reach that 70 dollar + an hour you have to throw in total compensation cost paid. This results in retiree benefits being thrown into the mix with current workers.

So while the cost of retiree benefits is not part of the compensation for active employees, it is a labor cost borne by the automakers. And so auto companies calculate the entire expense of hourly employees — including retirees — and then divide that whole sum by the number of current employees. For GM, that comes to $69 an hour, according to Sapienza. Other figures from the Big Three have put that figure just north of $70 an hour. That's where Bachus got his number.

Click to expand...

Big Three hourly wages inflated | PolitiFact

In addition there are a lot of changes made for current workers that impact their current wages.

Neomalthusian said:

I don’t criticize one party, I criticize one interest group that typically controls one party and is especially detrimental where governments are deeply indebted and economies are struggling, because they add fuel to the fire.

Click to expand...

My point of this thread. Detroit would suffer as all inner cities have. The difference being the ability of the Unions to affect the political outcomes, and hence in Detroit's case, Democratic rule. Add to this the dramatic detrimental effect the Unions would have on the demise of the Auto makers, and you get the failure of a major American city and it's manufacturing base..

Thank you for your posting here. I enjoy reading a well thought out post on any topic...

VanceMack said:

So this all happened overnight, did it? And that explains 60 years of rat party 'leadership' failures with the entire collective sitting around with their collective thumbs up their asses doing nothing?

Yes...THATS why you blindly vote democrat. And thats what you get. And that cycle is repeated in every major city across the country.

Click to expand...

Most major cities have been ran by Democratic Party mayors. Most major cities tend to vote for the Democratic party. Conservatives obsession with Detroit is pretty much click-bait level thinking.

iliveonramen said:

Can you cite where those numbers come from? When putting together all compensation people with an agenda tend throw in numbers to make their case look better. For example, to reach that 70 dollar + an hour you have to throw in total compensation cost paid. This results in retiree benefits being thrown into the mix with current workers.


Big Three hourly wages inflated | PolitiFact

In addition there are a lot of changes made for current workers that impact their current wages.

Click to expand...

Not to throw cold water on your narrative, but retirement benefits are a cost borne by the company. Its a part of wages, like it or not.

OpportunityCost said:

Not to throw cold water on your narrative, but retirement benefits are a cost borne by the company. Its a part of wages, like it or not.

Click to expand...

Retirement costs for people currently retired is not compensation for people currently working. Counting payments to retirees as current compensation is disingenuous.

iliveonramen said:

Retirement costs for people currently retired is not compensation for people currently working. Counting payments to retirees as current compensation is disingenuous.

Click to expand...

Contributions to pension systems are literal payroll expenses that factor into to budgeting and staffing decisions. The worker doesn’t receive the benefit, but it is a cost of compensation.

Neomalthusian said:

Contributions to pension systems are literal payroll expenses that factor into to budgeting and staffing decisions. The worker doesn’t receive the benefit, but it is a cost of compensation.

Click to expand...

It's a labor cost. Saying person A makes twice what they really make is disingenuous. In what reality is average worker compensation # of workers / total labor costs including legacy costs?

Neomalthusian said:

I would tell you to do your own homework, but you already know. You always pull this little maneuver when a discussion isn't going the direction you want it to, you suddenly play completely dumb and demand "data" showing things that everyone, yourself included, obviously already knows. No one disputes the absolute political dominance of Democrats and unions in Detroit since the 1960s. Not even you.

Click to expand...

All of which is to say you have no data, and that all you do have is the mindless meme repetition of the corporate state which always blames the worker ultimately for the failures of america’s utterly corrupt economic and political systems in which they have no real voice. The notion that you have an oppositional two party political system is folly. That's why the power structure requires scape goating.

iliveonramen said:

It's a labor cost. Saying person A makes twice what they really make is disingenuous. In what reality is average worker compensation # of workers / total labor costs including legacy costs?

Click to expand...

Equally disingenuous is the repetitive lie that american corporations pay more in taxes than foreign corporations do, but this is Reality America; the truth is of no import at all.

Fenton Lum said:

All of which is to say you have no data,

Click to expand...

Why do you need “data” to understand Detroit’s history of union-dominated politics?

and that all you do have is the mindless meme repetition of the corporate state which always blames the worker

Click to expand...

Never have I blamed “the worker.” Why do you use “the worker” when what we’re talking about is unions? You’re joining haymarket in balking at things everyone knows and no one disputes.

The notion that you have an oppositional two party political system is folly. That's why the power structure requires scape goating.

Click to expand...

Fairly nonsensical.

iliveonramen said:

It's a labor cost. Saying person A makes twice what they really make is disingenuous. In what reality is average worker compensation # of workers / total labor costs including legacy costs?

Click to expand...

In the reality of accounting and budgeting.

Call it “labor cost” or “cost of compensation” or whatever, it’s a cost of compensation and therefore directly affects staffing decisions.

Fenton Lum said:

Equally disingenuous is the repetitive lie that american corporations pay more in taxes than foreign corporations do, but this is Reality America; the truth is of no import at all.

Click to expand...

You’re digressing.

Neomalthusian said:

In the reality of accounting and budgeting.

Call it “labor cost” or “cost of compensation” or whatever, it’s a cost of compensation and therefore directly affects staffing decisions.

Click to expand...

I was going to respond but figured...what's the point. This is the dumbest argument in the world. By all means, believe whatever you want.

iliveonramen said:

Not at all...not in neither. Total labor costs is different than current worker compensation.

Click to expand...

Not when it comes to accounting and budgeting.

Words actually matter especially when you are assigning a number to something.

Click to expand...

Yes they do, and you’re the one that’s missing the mark this time. These expenses are accounted for in one place and are an inextricable part of total compensation. I know the worker doesn’t get the money that goes out to current pensioners, but the cost is tied to that position. My employer contributes 22% of my gross wages to our state’s pension system, most of which is for the benefit of pensioners, which I am not and will never be. But that cost is part of my compensation. If the position were being created, the elected body that approves of the position being created will demand to know the total cost of compensation they’re approving. It all counts, even though some of it is for others’ benefit, not mine.

Retirees are paid by the pension fund, and the pension fund is paid by employers as a percentage of wages, which makes the cost of a position whatever it is that includes those additional payroll costs.

Lastly, GASB 68 requires full unfunded liability disclosure for current and future pensioners to be on the books (audited financial statements). Liabilities aren’t expenses, but reducing liabilities requires incurring expenses. Those expenses are incurred through current payrolls for current positions.

Neomalthusian said:

Not when it comes to accounting and budgeting. .

Click to expand...

Well we we're comparing worker compensation.

Yes they do, and you’re the one that’s missing the mark this time. These expenses are accounted for in one place and are an inextricable part of total compensation. I know the worker doesn’t get the money that goes out to current pensioners, but the cost is tied to that position. My employer contributes 22% of my gross wages to our state’s pension system, most of which is for the benefit of pensioners, which I am not and will never be. But that cost is part of my compensation. If the position were being created, the elected body that approves of the position being created will demand to know the total cost of compensation they’re approving. It all counts, even though some of it is for others’ benefit, not mine.

Retirees are paid by the pension fund, and the pension fund is paid by employers as a percentage of wages, which makes the cost of a position whatever it is that includes those additional payroll costs.

Lastly, GASB 68 requires full unfunded liability disclosure for current and future pensioners to be on the books (audited financial statements). Liabilities aren’t expenses, but reducing liabilities requires incurring expenses. Those expenses are incurred through current payrolls for current positions.

Click to expand...

Total compensation is what someone receives for their work...not a number assigned by accounting to each position. Accounting does a lot of things that are only relevant to accounting. Saying that Joe Developer makes 160k a year on some accounting report means nothing to Joe Developer who is actually making 80k but an additional 80k is tacked on because of retiree payments. Good lucking keeping Joe Developer employed there if the market rate for a developer. Your accounting department may consider that "compensation" but Joe and his bank account don't.

iliveonramen said:

Well we we're comparing worker compensation.

Total compensation is what someone receives for their work...not a number assigned by accounting to each position. Accounting does a lot of things that are only relevant to accounting. Saying that Joe Developer makes 160k a year on some accounting report means nothing to Joe Developer who is actually making 80k but an additional 80k is tacked on because of retiree payments. Good lucking keeping Joe Developer employed there if the market rate for a developer. Your accounting department may consider that "compensation" but Joe and his bank account don't.

Click to expand...

If we're comparing worker compensation, then the comparison just needs to be apples to apples. If you want to make the comparison on the basis of total employer costs, as long as you're consistent, then that comparison should include the total costs to the employer(s) for the position as a whole, which means including related costs even though they aren't money in the employee's pocket. It is often useful to compare compensation this way, given that managerial staffing decisions, budgeting and accounting et al. revolve around the actual total costs. If you wanted to exclude that and, say, only compare wages, you can do that too. But it should always be footnoted that there are other related costs and/or benefits that are not being factored into the comparison.