More European awesomeness

[kiryan]

Dem,

There is a growing backlash in the US against overpaid government workers. It seems unfair that a small percentgage of public sector workers receive better compensation than the rest of us would get for similar work in the private sector. I think that perhaps the issue doesn't resonate with Europeans like yourself because in many European countries the public sector is actually larger than the private sector. So it isn't like a few people are winning a lottery at the expense of everyone else. Everyone else is in on it too.

To be fair we should also probably consider that makign 250k in some countries in europe at a tax rate of 60 or 70% is probably the same as making 120k in the US and paying a 35% tax rate.

also, while "everyone" may be in on it, Germany isn't very happy at having to bail out the lazy greeks and the overly zealous Irish.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

I don't care what the specific salary is. How would your butcher deal with having his earnings drop by half?

See, that's part of the problem. A butcher making 25k and losing half his income is devastating. Poverty-level disaster. Going from 430k or whatever it was to 260k is not. For a job that, in my opinion, doesn't deserve that high of a salary. If I'm making 300k here in the US and all of a sudden I take a 50% cut, that isn't devastating. I might have to do some hard adapting, but it's not devastating, just disruptive, like you said. I won't have to sell my home unless I, moronically, bought a house I can't afford (at either salary). I.e. tough shit. Also remember, these guys took, in theory, 3 years of "certification". We're not talking graduate school credit values here, major debt, etc. If they were making now 160k euros I would never have posted this.

I can't understand why your complaining about unions and strikes? Just because they are making more money as an aircontroller in spain then they are in the US. Your complaining that they arent allowed to go on strike because of their pay? Hell in norway they have twice the pay for the same job as they do in sweden, but they arent living and working in sweden now are they? and the aircontrollers in spain arent living and working in the states right?

Dem, you missed the point again. I don't care what they are making here in the US, or in Norway. That has zero to do with this thread, or the strike. I care that they are making now 260k euros and went on strike (as air traffic controllers, not as newspaper vendors), causing massive disruptions to anyone traveling on business, pleasure or emergencies. I am NOT criticizing their "right" to go on strike (mostly), but their CHOICE to go on strike.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

You know, this lead my to think about something else, somewhat related.

If I were making 200k, and had mandatory retirement in 20 years, I'd feel BLESSED to be making that much money. Yes, I'd be more stressed (possibly), but I CHOSE to go into that field. If all of a sudden I had to drop down to 100k, I would STILL (in theory) be happy to be making 100k and only have to work for 20 years. (plus benefits, etc.)

Right now I'm making around half that, no benefits. I CHOSE doing this profession, enjoy doing it, and yes, it comes with some stress (parents, 200 kids every day, etc etc). Not as much stress (possibly) as the controllers have, of course, in theory. But then again, I worry about money mostly, making sure my family has x-necessities and some luxuries. They don't have to worry about money or their families' financial well-being.

If my salary were cut in half I'd be poor. I would immediately drop my job and find ANYTHING that would pay more. Banking, translating, court interpreting, whatever. But I would never think to go on strike. Why are people defending them going on strike?


Dunno, I had something else I was gonna say and now I totally forgot it. Major fail. Will try to remember, haha sorry.

[kiryan]

couldn't agree more.

briefly thought about changing careers when laurel gets out of college.

[Sarvis]

You know, this lead my to think about something else, somewhat related.

If I were making 200k, and had mandatory retirement in 20 years, I'd feel BLESSED to be making that much money. Yes, I'd be more stressed (possibly), but I CHOSE to go into that field. If all of a sudden I had to drop down to 100k, I would STILL (in theory) be happy to be making 100k and only have to work for 20 years. (plus benefits, etc.)

Right now I'm making around half that, no benefits. I CHOSE doing this profession, enjoy doing it, and yes, it comes with some stress (parents, 200 kids every day, etc etc). Not as much stress (possibly) as the controllers have, of course, in theory. But then again, I worry about money mostly, making sure my family has x-necessities and some luxuries. They don't have to worry about money or their families' financial well-being.

If my salary were cut in half I'd be poor. I would immediately drop my job and find ANYTHING that would pay more. Banking, translating, court interpreting, whatever. But I would never think to go on strike. Why are people defending them going on strike?


Dunno, I had something else I was gonna say and now I totally forgot it. Major fail. Will try to remember, haha sorry.

The guy making 25k:
If I were making 50k, and had mandatory retirement in 20 years, I'd feel BLESSED to be making that much money.

The guy making 12k:
If I were making 25k, and had mandatory retirement in 20 years, I'd feel BLESSED to be making that much money.

I think most people would protest if their boss walked into their place of employment and said we're cutting your salary in half.

I alluded to it earlier, but you laud CEOs making millions each year because the market must think they are worth that much. Now that someone is fighting to make the same amount they made yesterday you are showing that you don't really care what the market thinks, you just care that they are organized. As if the very idea of people working together offends you somehow.

[kiryan]

Lets be clear here...

the market does not determine an air traffic controller salary. The union does, the government restrictions on supply and demand do. Anytime a union is involved, supply and demand go out the window. Anytime government is the employer, profit/loss is immaterial because it can just take more money from the people.

the CEO's salary is determined by the market for the most part. Companys that overpay their CEOs do suffer. I do think compensation committees are probably too chummy or incestuous and have a vested interest in pushing up salaries, and golden parachutes are too golden, but they are ultimately constrained by how much the company makes... unlike the government who can just raise taxes.

Also realize that market does not mean anomalies never form, it just means they will correct themselves. an overpaid air traffic controller in a union position working for the government may never correct itself as long as you can still raise taxes.

[Adriorn Darkcloak]

I think most people would protest if their boss walked into their place of employment and said we're cutting your salary in half.

I alluded to it earlier, but you laud CEOs making millions each year because the market must think they are worth that much. Now that someone is fighting to make the same amount they made yesterday you are showing that you don't really care what the market thinks, you just care that they are organized. As if the very idea of people working together offends you somehow.

My brother-in-law is currently at 45% of his salary due to his architecture firm's suffering due to the economy. He loves the company and is still there. Why? Because even with the nearly 50% pay cut, he's still okay financially, enough to support his family. Like him, many, many many others in the country today. (No striking btw)


I never mentioned CEOs or people making millions, nor the market I think. Nor did I laud CEOs making millions. That statement you made is false, unless I forgot something. And the "idea of people working together" I have no idea what that refers to or means or has to do with anything (NOTE: a nice way of pointing out a lack of information or clarity, without insulting!)

However, since you brought up CEOs... If a bunch of CEOs suddenly went on strike (lol) because their pay got cut from 1 million to 500k, I'd be posting that article in a heartbeat, just like I posted this one. Because, once again, this is about greedy people throwing a tantrum because their over-inflated salaries got cut. This isn't about coal miners suffering 80 hr weeks 2 miles underground. Those deserve pity, and a right to strike if they're getting fucked. Air traffic controllers using some automated systems do not, and should not. That's my point.

[kiryan]

I went 6 months without a job taking about a 75% pay cut by living on unemployment and didn't change my lifestyle habits at all other than not buying big ticket items I wanted to buy and borrowing a little on my home equity line of credit.

I was actually a little disappointed to get a job offer. I did turn down a job offer that was less than I was required to accept. Seriously, 99 weeks of unemployment? now it looks like 150 some? If you can live on it, why would you go back to work? I really really would've gone the full 99 weeks if I hadn't found such a cool company to work for. There just wasn't enough incentive for me to work. As a matter of fact, if I had remained unemployed for longer, I would've signed up for free children's healthcare and if I didn't have so much food stored, I would've gotten food stamps.

Really, you can live pretty damn well on unemployment. even with six kids.

[dem]

Where do u live? Im moving over tomorrow! Cuz compared to beeing unemployed in sweden that sounds like heaven! Hope you have low taxes like they have in the states to!

[Corth]

Not the worst idea.. Get rid of immigration barriers and let all the deadbeats migrate to the most socialist countries. :)

[kiryan]

Free market competition at its best!

[Teflor Lyorian]

The more socialistic and quote liberal unquote a nation is, the more unfriendly it is to immigration.

[Corth]

We are all Europe now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-0 ... ssett.html

Democrats are going to suffocate this country unless they quit pandering to public unions for fundraising and votes.

[Sarvis]

We are all Europe now.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-0 ... ssett.html

Greed at it's best, you mean. If these workers had been taught ideals other than greed, they would not protest for more money.

What's that old slogan? "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

But all anyone cares about now is how much they get paid.

[Corth]

I have no problem with anyone wanting more money. I sometimes have a problem with giving it to them. :)

[Sarvis]

I have no problem with anyone wanting more money. I sometimes have a problem with giving it to them. :)

But you do seem to have a problem with them putting people in danger in order to get more money, correct?

[Corth]

As a taxpayer, I would like my government to fire any public employee who refuses to do his job correctly.

[Sarvis]

As a taxpayer, I would like my government to fire any public employee who refuses to do his job correctly.

Not what I asked, and you know it.

[Corth]

It's my answer - take it however you like.

I would probably consider endangering the public as a breach of a public employee's professional responsibilities.

[Sarvis]

It's my answer - take it however you like.

I would probably consider endangering the public as a breach of a public employee's professional responsibilities.

What if it were a private contractor that endangered people through negligence because he could make more money that way? In fact, don't you bring cases against companies all the time for that reason?

[Corth]

Where are you going with this exactly, and how does it relate to the topic we are discussing? This is where we started:
"Democrats are going to suffocate this country unless they quit pandering to public unions for fundraising and votes."

[Sarvis]

Where are you going with this exactly, and how does it relate to the topic we are discussing? This is where we started:
"Democrats are going to suffocate this country unless they quit pandering to public unions for fundraising and votes."

Trying to get you to make the connection that Unions became necessary because companies/governments mistreated their workers in the name of greed. Then the unions became a problem because they are also greedy.

You keep holding up Greed as a virtue, but this is where it gets us. If our society's highest ideals were Honor, Duty or even Community then these drivers would have done their jobs instead of attempting to get more money.

[Corth]

Well, I guess it took an awful lot for you to at least say the unions are a problem. Ironically enough I disagree. I think the politicians (mostly democrats) who agree to outrageous union demands are the problem. But I guess at that point we have to agree to disagree.

[Sarvis]

Well, I guess it took an awful lot for you to at least say the unions are a problem. Ironically enough I disagree. I think the politicians (mostly democrats) who agree to outrageous union demands are the problem. But I guess at that point we have to agree to disagree.

The unions are more of a symptom. By the way, the "politicians" are just trying to ensure they make more money in the future by pandering to the unions. Again, Greed is at fault here.

[kiryan]

The problem with unions is the extortion they engage in and their lack of balance.

Also, Is every union employee a Democrat? No, so why do the unions exlusively support Democratic candidates? Why are mandatory union dues taken out of your paycheck to support these candidates... Why do you literally pay a fee to the union to have a job you interviewed and qualified for free of discrimination. Why does the union get a cut of that and you are prevented by law from opting out.

[Corth]

Well, I guess it took an awful lot for you to at least say the unions are a problem. Ironically enough I disagree. I think the politicians (mostly democrats) who agree to outrageous union demands are the problem. But I guess at that point we have to agree to disagree.

The unions are more of a symptom. By the way, the "politicians" are just trying to ensure they make more money in the future by pandering to the unions. Again, Greed is at fault here.

If the politicians are not doing their job (promoting the interests of their constituents), then they should be fired too. Checks and balances.

[Sarvis]

Well, I guess it took an awful lot for you to at least say the unions are a problem. Ironically enough I disagree. I think the politicians (mostly democrats) who agree to outrageous union demands are the problem. But I guess at that point we have to agree to disagree.

The unions are more of a symptom. By the way, the "politicians" are just trying to ensure they make more money in the future by pandering to the unions. Again, Greed is at fault here.

If the politicians are not doing their job (promoting the interests of their constituents), then they should be fired too. Checks and balances.

The only checks and balances are... well, checks. Piss off the powerful unions and instead of their campaign donations going to the politician, they will go to an opponent or to negative ads against him.

I was just reading "In Defense of Food" and it talks about how politicians who originally wrote nutrition guidelines lost their next election because the meat/dairy industries were pissed off about the whole "eat less meat" thing.

Money talks a lot louder than what anyone actually does for their constituents.

[kiryan]

Are the unions spending their own money? or are they spending money they have agreed wtih an employer to confiscate from their employees / members? Are all union members and employees in union reprsented positiosn Democrats? Why do all the contributions go to Democratic candidates?

Your story about "In Defense of Food" sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Anytime the government gets involved in our personal lives by taking our tax money to publish propaganda to influence our decisions, they need to be kicked out of office. Especially if they're picking winners and losers.

[Sarvis]

Are the unions spending their own money? or are they spending money they have agreed wtih an employer to confiscate from their employees / members? Are all union members and employees in union reprsented positiosn Democrats? Why do all the contributions go to Democratic candidates?

Your story about "In Defense of Food" sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Anytime the government gets involved in our personal lives by taking our tax money to publish propaganda to influence our decisions, they need to be kicked out of office. Especially if they're picking winners and losers.

We'll chalk that one up to philosphical differences. Keep in mind, however, that the government was not legislating anything... they were just publishing some information.

[kiryan]

Just publishing information that is touted and trusted as fact and espoused by our nation's educators....

I had an argument with Sok's sister over "exercise". She strenuously objected to my claims that "grocery shopping" and "vaccumming" were considered light exercise, 2 of which = 1 strenuous exercise (per federal guidelines published i want to say 8 years ago). She studied education and she was taught 20 minutes with heart rate > some formula (I was too in high school). Anything else was not "exercise".

Both positions are US government positions... if they can arbitrarily set the former, why can't they arbitrarily change it to the latter? That is my problem with government publishing this stuff... there is no consensus, there is your experts and mine and depending on who has control, they publishing an opinion and it results in massive changes throughout the US.

Was the science sound for the recomendation reducing milk/meat? Was it universally accepted or was it pushed by some one who has a narrow view of what is the best nutrition? I can't tell ou how irritated I get when my kids try and tell me that eating the fat on a piece of steak is bad (my kids are ultra skinny). Just blindly repeating what some politician decided was true with no consideration of whether this wisdom applied in their specific circumstance. They've also learned that McDonald's food is bad. I wonder who taught them that (yes it was their school).

[Teflor Lyorian]

The problem is not that unions are greedy. The problem is that our system has not accounted for the disproportionate amount of power unions wield politically. I blame the people and Federal government.