|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: ScavengerType]
#14177131 - 03/24/11 04:57 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ScavengerType said: I gave you guys a source for it yes and it was a higher tax rate not higher amount of taxes. It was an observation made by Warren Buffet. He was seen saying it on real time with Bill Maher, I can't find it on youtube but you might be able to find it on the HBO site. I couldn't send you a workable link if I wanted because I'm Canadian and I can't access the american site.
While I'm glad HBO is holding fast against Canadian intrusion into our homeland's resources, I'm not sure what your difficulties have to do with anything.
Quote:
CPI indexed inflation is a measurement of the buying power of money over time, when talking about income it is important to look in terms of CPI inflation instead of monetary inflation as far too many statisticians commonly do.
What are you defining "monetary inflation" to be such that it is different from "CPI indexed inflation"?
Far as I can see, when people speak of inflation in the US, to the extent they speak of a specific methodology or metric of measuring such they imply the CPI changes. What am I missing here? What is this "monetary inflation" you claim is used by "far too many statisticians" over "CPI indexed inflation"?
Quote:
Sure the income of the lowest bunch may be stagnant when you look at it in terms of the commodities that money can buy, the wages are lower.
Not what I said. What I asked was is it even possible for the low income groups to have matched the increased income of the rich, adjusted for taxes, due to government tax reductions? You imply the disparities amongst your undefined "rich" and "poor" classes result from inequtiable policy changes and concessions to the rich, but I wonder if your standard of equal changes in after tax earning relative to a given year's values is even possible? If you don't pay any taxes, fantastic tax breaks are not going to improve your income. If you pay very little taxes, say $300 on $25,000 a year income, there's no way even slashing your tax rates by 50% can produce the proportion of savings the rich would see from even a measly %15 reduction, relative to income.
Take this example, even with a relatively low-value definition of "rich" wage earners at $200,000 gross, and a relatively high (middle class) "poor" of $25,000 gross, and without yearly wage increases or inflation factored in:
- Low wage ($25,000/year; 1.2% net tax; cut by 50%):
Old wage after taxes: 24,700; New Wage: 24,850; Proportionate increase: 0.607% increase (100.607% of old after-tax-income after 50% tax cut)
- High Wage: ($200,000/ year; 35% net tax; cut by 15% to 29.75%):
Old wage after taxes: $130,000; New Wage after taxes: $140,500; Proportionate increase: 8.077% increase net after-tax-income (108.077% of old income after tax)
- Income-Relative Change in Net Income (Rich/Poor): 13.3 or 13,300%
Low Wage: 0.607%; High Wage 8.08%; Ratio of High Income/Low Income after-tax-income increases relative to income: 8.08% increase in income/ 0.607% increase in income= 13.3 rich/poor increase, (13,300% rich/poor) - Note this is without a yearly growth in dollars earned: if such had been factored in, the disparity would have been even more dramatic
OMG! The high wage earners are being treated so much better! Look, they got 13 times more money, even relative to their already-high income levels! Obviously the government must have favored the rich and gave them all sorts of loopholes, or they wouldn't have gotten 13 times more tax breaks/ savings (or "profits/gains" in the vernacular of some of the posters here)!
Only, guess what: actually the low income people got a whopping 50% tax cut relative to the rich's comparatively meager 15% decrease.
My question to you, which you've not answered and have ignored, was would it even have been possible for the poor class to have seen a proportionate increase in net income due to tax reduction- no matter how low the tax rate for them was cut? You seem to be making a misleading argument here: that the fact the rich gained a lot more money proportionately over those years was a result of favoritism. What I'm asking was would it even have been possible in theory for the poor to match those increases- even with the exact same growth in wages, yearly, no matter how radically their taxes were slashed?
Quote:
The problem is that the richest are getting tax cuts and the poor are getting nothing and then when the budget is short it's the poor who have to pay the price
The implicit presuppositionn here would have to be that the rich and poor should see similar levels of relative increase in income due to government action, or else it isn't fair- correct? I see no other way your argument could make sense.
The problem is that you've not justified this presupposition. As the example above demonstrates, even when huge reductions in tax are given to the poor and much weaker reductions given to the rich, the rich will, obviously, still save much more even adjusted to their income as the poor aren't paying any taxes to begin with.
Why exactly should government action result in rich and poor seing proportionate changes in income level after tax? Why is to deviate from this unfair? You frequently charecterize reductions in tax as "gains" for the rich and so forth which must use the old tax levels as the refrence point: presuming they were somehow fair by default and that deviation from them does not reflect equitable adjustments but rather concessions. Given that you don't feel this way about the poor, and constantly aruge that they should be making more than they are, how do you justify this lopsided analysis: treating the rich's taxes as justified by default and a boon to them if reduced, yet the poor inherently underpaid and unassisted by the government?
Plaintly: what calculus do you use to make these calls? To me, it all looks very arbitrary and backward: you simply have the idea that the poor are repressed by govenrment and underpaid and fanangle the data into this wordview. As the above example demonstrates: the argument syou use to finesse some evidence for this position seem to be faulty oftentimes. Just how do you objectively determine what is fair or not?
(Personally, I consider what the person voluntarily agrees to be paid through voluntary contract to be fair by default: only not being so when inequitable pressures are wielded against one of the parties. In rejecting this definition, you seem to loose any obvious objective standard, which is why I'm asking you what that standard is)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: sexondrugs]
#14177407 - 03/24/11 05:39 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sexondrugs said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Who are they going to lose faculty to? Nobody else has any money either.
Many of the good UW faculty will go to other universities. Many other top public university systems are in somewhat better shape because they have higher tuition models and private universities are in decent shape because they have much higher tuition models are well endowed.
I don't know why you believe that. many private university endowments took the same hit as every other investor and public universities all over are pinched, including NY where I live. And who has money to pay tuition? Markets, baby, markets. And there is not one thing in this bill that prevents Wisconsin from aggressively pursuing fine professors. Unions actually hamper quality teaching by stifling turnover.Quote:
Quote:
What are we talking about, teachers or professors? No matter. The fact that they are mobile specifically argues AGAINST any exigent circumstances allowing unionization at all. Free negotiation by individual professors and no interference from unions on firings will improve Wisconsin's prospects regarding retaining the teachers the state wants to retain (NOT the ones the union wants them to retain). Then there is compulsory union membership, which I find abhorrent in all applications.
Professor = easy to gauge productivity, lots of mobility = competitive labor market
Teacher = lack of mobility because of state certifications, non-transferable skills, and difficulty gauging individual effectiveness=non-competitive labor market
There is no lack of teacher mobility even within the state. There are hundreds of school districts in Wisconsin, each of whom can pursue teachers they want with whatever money they want to offer. Once again, there is nothing about unions that is relevant to your point. Non-competitive labor market exists as a result of unions. If you care about teacher quality you should vehemently oppose teacher unions which exist to protect the inept.Quote:
UW – Madison faculty are not unionized because they don’t need to be. They can move and find another job if they find things unfavorable. It is also relatively easy to verify the productivity of a faculty member. Because of state teacher certification requirements teachers are not mobile. Moreover it is generally difficult to gauge their effectiveness. For these reasons they need a union.
Your reasons are fictions. They are 100% mobile within the several hundred school districts within the state. They could also get certified in another state. You do know that is possible, right?Quote:
Quote:
And yes, the pay concessions demanded of the unions is most definitely inadequate. Face it, revenue is down all over. Down for governments and down for taxpayers. It's time it went down for government employees. There's no money in the till.
We could raise some more revenue and retain our excellent government, excellent schools, and excellent universities. This would be my choice – to pay more and have what we have now.
What you mean "we" Kemosabe? Methinks it isn't your money you are spending.
--------------------
|
ChuangTzu
starvingphysicist



Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 3,060
Last seen: 10 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: zappaisgod]
#14177557 - 03/24/11 06:04 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: What you mean "we" Kemosabe? Methinks it isn't your money you are spending.
Haha. That reminds me of something that Milton Friedman once said about spending your own money on yourself vs. spending other people's money on other people:
The Four Ways to Spend Money
Other People's Money
For entertainment purposes only, I'm too lazy to paraphrase.
|
sexondrugs
Stranger

Registered: 03/15/11
Posts: 20
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: ChuangTzu]
#14178684 - 03/24/11 09:18 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:Who are they going to lose faculty to? Nobody else has any money either....many private university endowments took the same hit as every other investor and public universities all over are pinched, including NY where I live.
We are talking about institutions with billions in endowments. No doubt they took a hit in 2008, but they are recovering nicely.
Quote:
And who has money to pay tuition?
For a variety of reasons demand for college education from top universities is inelastic. Tuition at UW is at least 3k lower than at UT - Austin, UCLA, Cal, and U. Mich. There is lots of room for it to go up, but UW administrators are constrained by the legislature from raising tuition, despite the fact that the state only accounts for 25% of the UW's budget. If the UW tuition was 16k per year (double what it is now) there would still be students lined up wanting to come.
Quote:
Markets, baby, markets. And there is not one thing in this bill that prevents Wisconsin from aggressively pursuing fine professors. Unions actually hamper quality teaching by stifling turnover.
The thing that would keep the UW from pursuing faculty are the 13% budget cut that it is being asked to take.
Quote:
There is no lack of teacher mobility even within the state. There are hundreds of school districts in Wisconsin, each of whom can pursue teachers they want with whatever money they want to offer
Schools in Wisconsin are funded by property taxes and the state in a complicated formula that I don't understand that is supposed to equalize spending across districts. According to SW the reason for the budget repair bill is to provide municipalities with the tools that they need to deal with the cuts he was handing them in the form of the state portion of school funding. These cuts total nearly one billion. Not does the Walker budget cut nearly one billion from state contributions from to school districts, it also restricts these districts from raising property taxes to offset the state cuts. For these reasons, movement within the state isn't going to allow a teacher to capture a dramatically higher level of compensation.
Quote:
What you mean "we" Kemosabe? Methinks it isn't your money you are spending.
Well I live in WI, own a home, and pay property taxes and state income taxes, not to mention fees for things like my auto registration, license renewal, ect. I am willing to pay more to keep quality public services and schools.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: sexondrugs]
#14178867 - 03/24/11 09:48 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I am willing to pay more to keep quality public services and schools.
Feel free to donate directly. Nobody is stopping you from paying more, put your money where your mouth is and do it.
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: DieCommie]
#14179097 - 03/24/11 10:24 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
yeah, that's just a dishonest argument (just like Scavenger Types argument that if tax cuts give the rich a proportionately larger savings relative to income that it means they were unfairly helped rather than the poor not paying any taxes to begin with).
As you said: nobody cares whether individuals wish to pay more. Just like with the healthcare debate, the argument is whether we want the government using violent force to take the money involuntarily.
Discussing what you prefer or would be willing to do is a seperate issue.
|
sexondrugs
Stranger

Registered: 03/15/11
Posts: 20
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: DieCommie]
#14179267 - 03/24/11 11:02 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:Feel free to donate directly. Nobody is stopping you from paying more, put your money where your mouth is and do it.
Ever hear of the free rider problem? Everyone donating on their own doesn't work for many government provided goods.
Quote:
johnm214 said:Discussing what you prefer or would be willing to do is a seperate issue.
I bring it up for two reasons. First, this SW has refused to look at any revenue enhancement at the state level. Secondly, the budget severely restricts the ability of municipalities to raise property taxes. Even if everyone in my community wanted to pay higher taxes and all elected officials were on board, property taxes couldn't go up under the SW budget. There is a real loss of local control. ___________
On Wisconsin - Seems like the repair bill isn't going to go into effect unless they re-vote, in which case there will likely be amendments. As of today the injunction against publishing the law remains and an appeals court has referred the case to the State Supreme Court. There is an election April 5 that will likely result in a 4-3 liberal majority. They will likely decide to not take the case or rule in favor of the Dane County DA, who is seeking to have the law thrown out.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: sexondrugs]
#14180385 - 03/25/11 04:16 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> Ever hear of the free rider problem? Everyone donating on their own doesn't work for many government provided goods.
Then perhaps it is not the place of government to be providing these goods.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: Seuss]
#14180409 - 03/25/11 04:39 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > Ever hear of the free rider problem? Everyone donating on their own doesn't work for many government provided goods.
Then perhaps it is not the place of government to be providing these goods.
Private roads/pds/fds/militaries have poor histories.
Not saying they're insurmountable issues per se
But the free rider issue is base diffusion of responsibility type psychology, it happens in churches and the like as well. There's never been a very large or complex nation where all needed taxation was volunteered, has there?
Side question:
What is the actual legal standard for a finding of "price fixing" in the US?
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
Edited by JohnnyConverse (03/25/11 04:54 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: JohnnyConverse]
#14180520 - 03/25/11 05:39 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
> Private roads/pds/fds/militaries have poor histories.
I believe most things should be left up to the states to decide. For example, "Private" roads should be maintained by the individual states. How they decide to pay for them should be up to them. Only interstates should be maintained by the federal government. If the federal government stopped funding all the BS that it has no place funding, the federal tax rates could be lowered allowing states to raise their rates with no difference seen by the taxpayer.
> But the free rider issue is base diffusion of responsibility type psychology, it happens in churches and the like as well.
Ah, that explains why the Catholic church is so poor. 
> What is the actual legal standard for a finding of "price fixing" in the US?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00000001----000-.html:
Quote:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: Seuss]
#14180687 - 03/25/11 07:14 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So what is the stated reason for exempting labor unions from this law? Please don't glibly say "corruption" or something other one word sound byte - why did lawmakers choose to exempt wage earners in a union from anti-trust law? And why has the almost unacountable supreme court defended that precedent, almost to the point of repugnance? And why do many other nations and codes of and calls for human rights attempt to enshrine the right to collective bargaining?
Is it just because large swaths of the world are liberal pussies?
And how does the local federal/dichotomy you bring up address the free rider problem? It's simply a unique wrinkle to the regional administration of the United States - your less federal system still certainly requires taxation...you can't simply handwave the fact that many problems of state require collectivism to solve efficiently, those solutions cost money, and that money is not handed over as needed through patriotism.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
sexondrugs
Stranger

Registered: 03/15/11
Posts: 20
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: JohnnyConverse]
#14180966 - 03/25/11 08:50 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JohnnyConverse said:So what is the stated reason for exempting labor unions from this law? Please don't glibly say "corruption" or something other one word sound byte - why did lawmakers choose to exempt wage earners in a union from anti-trust law?
The exemption is legislated (Clayton Antitrust Act), not something that was decided by the courts.
Quote:
And why has the almost unacountable supreme court defended that precedent, almost to the point of repugnance?
I don't think it is a court issue as the union collective bargaining exemption was legislated (separation of powers) and there are no constitutional issues.
Sex
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: sexondrugs]
#14181107 - 03/25/11 09:38 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sexondrugs said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:Who are they going to lose faculty to? Nobody else has any money either....many private university endowments took the same hit as every other investor and public universities all over are pinched, including NY where I live.
We are talking about institutions with billions in endowments. No doubt they took a hit in 2008, but they are recovering nicely.
ORLY? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/education/28endow.html
Quote:
Published: January 28, 2010
Reflecting the difficult financial environment for higher education, university endowments lost an average of 18.7 percent in the last fiscal year, the worst returns since the Great Depression, according to a study of hundreds of public and private institutions.
Quote:
Quote:
And who has money to pay tuition?
For a variety of reasons demand for college education from top universities is inelastic. Tuition at UW is at least 3k lower than at UT - Austin, UCLA, Cal, and U. Mich. There is lots of room for it to go up, but UW administrators are constrained by the legislature from raising tuition, despite the fact that the state only accounts for 25% of the UW's budget. If the UW tuition was 16k per year (double what it is now) there would still be students lined up wanting to come.
Well now I don't necessarily know the accuracy of that statement, nor do I think it is even knowable, but don't you think the legislature should just let them raise tuition? As in let the willing payers who receive the service actually be the people who pay for the service? What a fucking concept!Quote:
Quote:
Markets, baby, markets. And there is not one thing in this bill that prevents Wisconsin from aggressively pursuing fine professors. Unions actually hamper quality teaching by stifling turnover.
The thing that would keep the UW from pursuing faculty are the 13% budget cut that it is being asked to take.
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/li-officials-blast-cuomo-s-suny-cuts-1.2654879 "The college was particularly hard hit, with officials there decrying what they say is a 30 percent cut in direct state aid; Cuomo's proposal amounts to a 10 percent reduction overall." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/california-schools-face-1_n_807378.html "The proposal would diminish money allocated for community colleges by $400 million, Cal State by $500 million and the University of California by $500 million -- making this the first time in the university's history when the bulk of funding will have to come from students ($2.8 billion, as opposed to $2.6 billion from the state)."
Like I said, their competition seems to be reeling just as much if not more. Times are tough all over. Tax revenues are down because the income of taxpayers is down. Why you think these poindexter pets should be insulated from that is beyond me.
Quote:
Quote:
There is no lack of teacher mobility even within the state. There are hundreds of school districts in Wisconsin, each of whom can pursue teachers they want with whatever money they want to offer
Schools in Wisconsin are funded by property taxes and the state in a complicated formula that I don't understand that is supposed to equalize spending across districts. According to SW the reason for the budget repair bill is to provide municipalities with the tools that they need to deal with the cuts he was handing them in the form of the state portion of school funding. These cuts total nearly one billion. Not does the Walker budget cut nearly one billion from state contributions from to school districts, it also restricts these districts from raising property taxes to offset the state cuts. For these reasons, movement within the state isn't going to allow a teacher to capture a dramatically higher level of compensation.
Who said they should capture a higher level of compensation? All I said is that there is a market for their services that they can move within.Quote:
Quote:
What you mean "we" Kemosabe? Methinks it isn't your money you are spending.
Well I live in WI, own a home, and pay property taxes and state income taxes, not to mention fees for things like my auto registration, license renewal, ect. I am willing to pay more to keep quality public services and schools.
Feel free to donate as much as you like. Nobody is stopping you.
You seem to be arguing that Wisconsin can't afford to cut UW pay because they would lose their profs to better placed systems. But those wealthy competitors do not really exist in any numbers. Most universities are hurting, badly. The problem with UWs budget seems to be more related to the artificially low tuition rates they charge. Talk about free-riders. That would be the students. Further, that has no relationship to unionism. Here's another group of free-riders. Union management. They do nothing, extract dues and line their pockets with what is left over from making political donations to irresponsible Democrats, who then sell the majority of their constituents out in return for campaign cash. This bill is in actuality so weak that it doesn't even stop that, just allows the workers to elect to do it themselves.
--------------------
|
JohnnyConverse
Stranger

Registered: 04/10/09
Posts: 268
|
Re: What exactly is collective bargaining, what exactly does the proposed law in WI intend to do? [Re: sexondrugs]
#14182991 - 03/25/11 06:12 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sexondrugs said:
Quote:
JohnnyConverse said:So what is the stated reason for exempting labor unions from this law? Please don't glibly say "corruption" or something other one word sound byte - why did lawmakers choose to exempt wage earners in a union from anti-trust law?
The exemption is legislated (Clayton Antitrust Act), not something that was decided by the courts.
Quote:
And why has the almost unacountable supreme court defended that precedent, almost to the point of repugnance?
I don't think it is a court issue as the union collective bargaining exemption was legislated (separation of powers) and there are no constitutional issues.
Sex
They've dealt with many union cases over the years. Free association if nothing else has provided an in to put it in their purvey.
-------------------- I wasn't an activist until I got put in jail. I sat there in jail seeing what was really going on in America and something changed. Now when people say, "Tommy what was jail like?" I say "You'll see" -- Tommy Chong
|
|