Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617
Results 161 to 167 of 167

Thread: Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

  1. #161
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton Lum View Post
    All of which is to say you have no data,
    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
    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.
    Fairly nonsensical.

  2. #162
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    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?
    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.

  3. #163
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton Lum View Post
    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.
    You’re digressing.

  4. #164
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    10-21-18 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    10,217

    Re: Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    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.
    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.
    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
    *Adam Smith*

  5. #165
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,211

    Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Not at all...not in neither. Total labor costs is different than current worker compensation.
    Not when it comes to accounting and budgeting.

    Words actually matter especially when you are assigning a number to something.
    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.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 12-29-17 at 12:42 PM.

  6. #166
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    10-21-18 @ 04:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    10,217

    Re: Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Not when it comes to accounting and budgeting. .
    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.
    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.
    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
    *Adam Smith*

  7. #167
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    9,211

    Re: Detroit... 60 yeears of Democratic rule

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    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.
    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.

Page 17 of 17 FirstFirst ... 7151617

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •