New York Transit Strike by Hero

I*t strikes me that a large portion of the staff we are talking about is surly and incompetent. I don't really feel a need to give them a pay increase.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:20 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

I suggest "Howard Dean's" approach

Here's why.

Three years ago, at the previous contract negotiations the MTA cried poor and the transit workers conceded to no pay increases and some give backs. Shortly after the contract was signed an external audit showed that the MTA had a billion dollar surplus. That was three years ago.

Currently the MTA's balance sheet still shows a billion dollar surplus. In fact, leading up to the contract talks with the union, they were advertsing 1/2 fares for the entire Christmas Season.

So the Transit workers haven't gotten a raise in three years. And it appeared that the MTA was in a giving mood. So, initially they asked for 4% a year over the next three years. If you consider the last three years with no raises, their request really amounts to 2% a year over six years.

These people have a tough job and have a history of being lied to by the MTA. The city government is lining up against them (I think the contigency plan was purposefully made to be inconvenient so people would be angry with the union). I almost see the transit workers as fellow browncoats. Sticking their necks out for a slightly better life (believe me 2% doesn't go far in NYC).

Keep Flyin'

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 6:13 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Currently the MTA's balance sheet still shows a billion dollar surplus. In fact, leading up to the contract talks with the union, they were advertsing 1/2 fares for the entire Christmas Season.

Too much money. How about it goes to lower fares, improve infrastructure, improve security against terrorism, or something useful.

The workers already make far more then the average person they serve (and thats before overtime), they don't need a pay raise.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:52 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
Hero wrote:
Wednesday, December 21, 2005 06:13
Quote:

Too much money. How about it goes to lower fares, improve infrastructure, improve security against terrorism, or something useful.

They could lower the fares. But the MTA has a budget which covers all those other things.

Quote:
The workers already make far more then the average person they serve (and thats before overtime), they don't need a pay raise.

According to the following link the average NYC worker makes $48,050. The average bus driver makes around $44,650. I didn't notice a wage for for train operators, they probably make more than the bus drivers but station attendenants and janitors make a lot less.

http://nyjobsource.com/salary/transportation.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:43 PM

DC4BS

You know, I spent a year and a half sleeping on my sisters couch in order to pay off debts and finaly save enough to get out of New York. Just imagine 19 months with _NO_ privacy whatsoever excluding bathroom breaks.

Everything I had that didn't fit into 2 suitcases was in storage. All in all, WELL worth the price.

It's stuff like this that makes me appreciate so much that I no longer (and will _NEVER_ again) pay way too much taxes to live in that city.

Well, maybe if I can have my own helicopter to get around in I'd THINK about it. Nah... Not even then.

------------------------------------------
dc4bs

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:01 AM

Maybe it's time to think about an automated approach to public transit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I noticed the people who think that union workers should be paid less, rather than non-union workers being paid more. It's a race to the bottom of the barrel they are promoting.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:36 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I personally have never seen a very convincing argument for why a bus driver should make more then $40,000 a year.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:47 PM

I guess if it costs $40,000 a year to live there then you have to pay that even to drive busses.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 7:01 PM

Quote:

I guess if it costs $40,000 a year to live there then you have to pay that even to drive busses.

Fletch, I have to agree with Finn here. A job is not a welfare program. No one cares what your expenses care. No one should. They are absolutely right not to care. When I go across the street to the general store in my town of 200 people, I pick up a loaf of bread and pay the grocer a buck and change. This is a price determined by supply and demand. I don't go to him and say "John, what do you need today?" and he doesn't say "I need five bucks because I gotta get a gallon of milk and some cheeze."

So if the employees aren't willing to work for the wages offered, then another solution needs to be arrived at. I would agree that the last solution should be to raise the wages, particularly because that's the people's money they're spending.

I disagree with Hero on the importing of mexican labor. Our economy should be self sufficient, if possible, I think this is a last resort solution.

I think we should import this labor from 158th street. There's a whole bunch of people already in new york who know how to driver a car or a truck and know new york like the back of their hands and are unemployed. Teaching them how to drive a bus can't be that hard.

Here are some other more radical suggestions:

I was serious about automation. Miami tried this and it seemed to work just fine.

Privatize the whole sector. I think this would improve things immensely. Don't even contract it. People pay fares, they can pay them to private companies that provide the service. Before I get too much guff for this, a small reminder that my intense hatred of Bush doesn't make me any less of a right wing extremist.

A job is worth money either because it's needed or wanted and has a value determined by supply and demand, or it has a value connected with its ability to generate wealth. If a company hires a computer programmer whose unique skills add a million a year to profits, it's reasonable for him to ask for half a million in salary. It's not reasonable for the janitor to do the same, because the janitor could be replaced by any random guy off the street. Most of these jobs do not require rare skills and could be learned in a short period of time. Organized labor is organized job security, and organized job security is just an inherently bad idea. Your skill base is your job security. Organized job security therefore serves only one purpose, which is to grant jobs to those who do not have the skills to compete otherwise.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 6:23 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
and he doesn't say "I need five bucks because I gotta get a gallon of milk and some cheeze

If it is the only store in town he says "It's now $2.75 a loaf because transport costs have gone up. So what are you going to do about it?" You have a very naive view of economics.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 6:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
So if the employees aren't willing to work for the wages offered, then ... last solution should be to raise the wages, particularly because that's the people's money they're spending.

Isn't a strike one way to affect supply and demand? What is your issue with that? Or do you think it should only go one way - ie the seller/employer gets to dictate conditions and there should be NO free-market haggling?

And I would disagree with your whole 'privatize' concept. For example, you apply it to schools. At the same time you claim the main US competition is Korea and Japan. Yet both have completely public school systems. Somehow they have achieved a level of success with public schooling you claim only private systems can reach. Simple facts contradict your dogma.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 6:45 AM

Ok let's look at that. Let's say I raise the property taxes on your general store. Does the price of your loaf of bread go up? I suspect it will. If your loaf costs you a buck something in change then it cost your groucer maybe 50c the rest going to pay taxes, labour, operating costs and hopefully make a modest profit. That is what a general store is for, to make a living for the folks that run it. If their costs go up all other things being equal, then the cost to you goes up. It's not a matter of you asking what he needs, he factors that into his costs and his markup.

Now here's the thing. Let's suppose he discovers he has termites. He hasn't enough saved to move the store, the bank is not interested. The only way he can stay in business and cover that cost is to raise prices on that $1 something loaf to $2. Do you pay that price hike for the convenience of having a store across the street or do you jump in your truck and go to the Walmart in the next town? If you pay the $2, then you have in effect just subsidized that general store because you paid more than the going market rate for the convenience of having a store across the street. If you go to Walmart then you just killed your local general store because he will go out of business. Probably doesnt effect you. Old Mrs Jones who lives next door and who can't drive 10 miles to Walmart is probably screwed.

Anyway, enough of your bogus analogies.

Over in the UK we had a politician called Norman Tebbitt who once said a very profound thing. If you need a job, get on your bike and look for one -- which means in effect, be willing to relocate to find work. If the cost of living, housing, food etc in NYC is high, that is a cost of doing business for anyone that lives there, just like the up front costs of your general store. Like your store very few people work as a charity for others, they expect to make at least some modest "profit" off of their labours. So the question becomes the same as your store example if the workers costs go up can that cost be bourne by the consumer or will people let that guy go. You assume that it's ok to let that guy go because there will always be others willing to take his place, is that really the case though? If the basic cost of living is high that cost effects all other canidates likely to apply for that job. If what you offer doesn't meet their needs why would they work for you? Why wouldn't they go someplace else for a job like Norman suggested?

As for privitization. That's a great way to see costs rise. At the moment you have a public monopoly, what you will replace it with is a private monopoly who will then screw more money from the commuter. This in turn will eventually get passed on as wage inflation to other consumers in the city.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 8:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch2,

I tend to agree with your arguments, and I would add this:

People whine about government waste as a servie provider. What they don't grasp is it THE most cost-effective service provider, and government employment boosts the economy.

Why? Large organizations have both built-in waste and savings, just by being large. So large businesses and large public agencies are about the same in that regard. But business spends more to do the 'business' functions that government doesn't do (CEO's, managers etc). On top of that business charges more for the same service in order to make a profit. Finally, they pay workers less so there is less money to go around in the economy.

As a real-life example look at private health care. It is a massive cost driving down auto manufacturers in the US. Other countries with public health care spend far less per capita, cover everyone (1/3 the US population is not covered) AND keep their industries competitive and unburdened. Simply by having government provide health care service.

Education is the same type of situation. Every other country provides public education (and sets a national curriculum). And they are outcompeting the US public/private system (under local/state control).

This is not to say that every public agency is a model of perfection. When I worked in a massive county hospital (for 7 years, so I have a lot of experience behind my opinion) everyone busted their butts, and at below-average wages. OTOH, King-Drew in Los Angeles is a nightmare of inefficiency, corruption and low morale. Some schools in the LA Unified School District are chaotic with stressed teachers and children, others run well with high levels of satisfaction.

Now, since workers are in the public sector under the same rules and with the same union-won rights, school-to-school and hospital-to-hospital differences must be due to administrators. That is something that does need to be adequately addressed.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 11:14 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I guess if it costs $40,000 a year to live there then you have to pay that even to drive busses.

I guess that depends a lot on where you're living in New York. It could cost several million a year to live in New York, or it could cost less then $40,000 a year. It just depends on what part of New York you want to live in, and whether or not you can afford it. I don't suspect that many bus drivers live in the fancier parts of New York, nor do I suspect that many bus drivers anywhere in the country live in particular wealth. It's not generally considered a high paying job, because any idiot can do it. And since 40 grand a year puts New York Bus drivers in the top 25 percentile of country, I would say that the cost of living is already figured in. I just don't see any reason why driving a bus should pay much more then that, but if New York tax payers want to pay them more, then so be it. That's up to New Yorkers.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 1:10 PM

Rue, don't be an asshole.

I think it's safe to assume us on the right have actually studied economics, probably all of us, and people on the left often have no concept of it. It wasn't just a rude thing to say, it was a moronic thing to say. Clearly if he charge too much for bread, we would go elsewhere. We do actually have cars.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 1:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And yet you have no answer to any of the economic facts I cited. So, personal name-calling aside (which, unlike you, I did not do, I merely said your opinions were naive) why do you think public/socialized services are cheaper and better when governments commit to providing them?

PS - not everyone has cars, as evacuations of both NO and Texas proved. But rather than be picky about that point, we could talk about vertical integration. And the reason why the price of an ordinary loaf of bread, or gallon of gas, or pretty much any other mass-market item, is driven by multinationals and is similar whether you live in Brooklyn, or Manhattan, or Grand Junction.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 1:23 PM

You were being a dick. Don't defend it.

I'm not up for this at the moment and have nothing to gain by convincing you.

The govt. spends way more than private companies generally, and all services except the post office are subsidized.

That Japan and Korea can make a public school is no indication that our system works. I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said we couldn't do it. Because look, we can't.

We're not anywhere close to an agreement here, and I'm not going to argue the point any further, as I'm not likely to get anywhere. You like mommy govt. fine. I don't.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 1:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
The govt. spends way more than private companies generally, and all services except the post office are subsidized.

Where is your data to back that up? Aside from a hand-waving comparison of students in choosy private schools who really do get to cherry-pick v public schools.

And it's not that Japan and Korea can make public education work. It's that every other modern country makes both public education and public health work. Public services are not intrinsically built to fail, as you seem to think. They are built to work. The issue is why do they not work in the US where they are underfunded and put in competition with for-profit business which does skim off the most profitable elements and leaves the rest.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 3:02 PM

Almost no one has either education or healthcare at a level that even remotely passes as acceptable. I think you're way off base on this issue. Our schools are way over-funded, and with almost no private interest and competition, they're the soviet union of schools.

Public services fail because there is no competition, and no top down design system ever succeeds. Only through open natural selection through competition can progress be obtained.

Furthermore, I think it's very safe to say that I believe this on a level that Christian believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that you appear to believe in top down state-funded institutions to a similar degree. If I felt up to it I could really argue this one but I really don't. If you want to call that a victory, go ahead.

But usually I don't disagree with you that much, and since this is a very clear left-right split issue, the only way either of us will resolve this is by pull the other over to their side of the political spectrum, which is exceedingly unlikely.

I think if I ran the zoo, public schools would most likely be sold off and privatized and subjected to open competition, and if you ran the zoo I suspect all public funding for private institutions would stop, or the private ones might be shut down. Since this is probably in the ballpark of reality, it would really be best if we agree to disagree, and expect to respect that we're going to apply any potential solutions we come up with in completely different venues, me privately, you publicly.

If we have more to say on the subject it should probably address those things which could be done either way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 7:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT- I think I understand your mistrust of large uniform institutions. As I understand it, you apply that same deep distrust to monopolies. You prefer that small entities exist in a millieu of competition because it fosters innovation and efficiency. However, you seem to be ignoring the reality that we are no longer a nation of shopkeepers and family farmers haggling over the price of tomatoes. The price of goods is controlled by corporations, which are a collective interest. In order to allow actual negotiations between parties of approximately equal strength, corporations must be faced by other collectives: unions, consumer organizations, governments, and stockholder groups (including pension fund managers). Unless/ until we are in a situation where the rule by coporations has been broken, eliminating these other collectives will only ensure total dominance by monopolies.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 4:32 AM

Quote:
DT- I think I understand your mistrust of large uniform institutions. As I understand it, you apply that same deep distrust to monopolies. You prefer that small entities exist in a millieu of competition because it fosters innovation and efficiency. However, you seem to be ignoring the reality that we are no longer a nation of shopkeepers and family farmers haggling over the price of tomatoes. The price of goods is controlled by corporations, which are a collective interest. In order to allow actual negotiations between parties of approximately equal strength, corporations must be faced by other collectives: unions, consumer organizations, governments, and stockholder groups (including pension fund managers). Unless/ until we are in a situation where the rule by coporations has been broken, eliminating these other collectives will only ensure total dominance by monopolies

Signym,

Yeah, you got my perspective exactly. But I don't think the world has changed. When I haggle over the price of tomatoes, I think we very much do still live in that world. Collectives seek to corrupt the free market, therefore, I oppose them. We aren't under a 'rule by corporations' collectively, we are under a 'rule by special interests.' The difference can be subtle, but is very important. Some of the special interests are corporations, some of them are govt. agencies, some are religious organizations and others are think tanks. But the fact that some corporations are among the conspirators doesn't mean that corporation rule. This is a drastic mischaracterization. It's about equivalent to saying during Bush's first term, blacks ruled America.

What we have here is a machine, which was once a socialist, and if I call it socialist now I seem to get a lot of rotten tomatoes thrown at me. But the principle remains the same:

Groups of people in govt. seek permanent control through the use of a corporation, and simultaneous, corrupt heads of corporations seek to rob the public till. Often this same circle is the head of the corporation and also the govt. force, like in the case of Halliburton, where Dick Cheney, corporate head, made a deal with Bill Clinton, govt. head, to get Halliburton permanently installed not just in our military industrial complex, but in the military itself. Then you have Dick Cheney, govt. head, turning around and strengthing ties with Halliburton, and David Lesat, corp. head, who used to be Cheney's 2nd. Clearly were dealing with a very close knit group of people here.

But this analysis is missing a key part. There is another side to this gay marriage. A group of people in govt, such as Dick Cheney and PNAC, the group he is still a member of, have a long term agenda. Members of PNAC made up this agenda when they were in the SWP, and still socialists, under the direction of Max Shachtman and others. Part of this plan was set out then re: corporations and their uses to a socialist agenda, and it goes about like this:

1. If you create a govt. agency, and then you lose control of govt. by losing an election to the opposition, then that opposition leader can take out your agency head and it replace it with his own, and then he owns and controls what you created, and will undoubtedly alter its course from the agenda you set out.

2. Instead if you have your agency as a corporation, if you lose power in govt., your opponent will not be able to replace its head and gain control.

3. But if you have open bidding and contracts where anyone might get in, your opponent, should he come to power, can simply switch contracts to another firm.

4. So the corporation would need to become and entrenched monopoly in order for the plan to work.

This was clearly spelled out then, and it's how the govt. side of this plan works. The opposition here, of course, is not democrats or republicans, but an outsider like Russ Feingold or Chuck Hagel, someone not in the same circle. Any examination at all reveals that the Bush admin and Clinton admin are in the same circle.

True monopoply only arises with govt. intervention to create it. Duplication of services law creates the time warner monopoly, now threatened by satelite and internet download, etc. Behind any monopoly you will generally find a govt. regulation creating and protecting that monopoly.

I will grant that we've also had a terrible lapse of anti-trust, where people are clearly buying out competitors, usually with not only no govt. intervention to stop it, but with govt. blessing either because of corruption or because that merger helps to fill some social monopolistic agenda like I just described.

All that said, unions and lobbies generally do not work to free an industry, they work to also seek a monopolistic control. One such group in particular is one of the greatest disasters to our free market, which is the AMA. The keeping out of competition to keep prices absurdly high is really the major flaw in our medical system, if we could correct that, by deregulating the AMA, FDA and its ties to this new pharmagovernment complex, which, yes, does include a few large corporations like Pfizer and Merck. When they merge it will be Hallimedicine. But still, the biggest threat until quite recently has been, and may still be, the AMA. Hallimedicine and the pharmagovernment complex also concern me greatly.

But I'm not granting that the labor collectives are a boon to the free market, I feel certain they are creating monopolies, not destroying them, and I'd like to see them go. If the people, collectively, feel that employers do not treat workers well enough, then they should elect politicians with better labor laws. I'm not completely against the idea of collective bargaining, but when such organizations start, and begin collecting dues, they're not only a tax on the extant already strained free market, by their inevitable attempts to control the availability of labor, they are a threat to the free market as a whole.

Doctors for example, roll high because they have a union which has successfully locked out everyone else. If an effective deregulation were set in place, their salaries would sink to a realistic market level, and judging by the rest of the world, that would be about 80% below where they are right now. And yet, people would still be doctors.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 9:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi DT,

We do focus on the same things - the Bush administration's corruption, the disaster that is Iraq, the bankrupting of the US, the rise of China, inefficiency of the medical system etc. And we both conclude there is a crisis around the corner. Yet we propose diametrically opposite solutions. With these complex problems there is plenty of room for disagreement between honest good intentions. So I hope you read my posts in that light, as I read yours.

The main thing I got out of your post to SignyM is that cooperative groups will invariably overpower individuals. It reads like a mathematical certainty.

Given that, and given that it is human nature to form, live in, and maintain cooperative groups, I think your efforts to reverse the trend are doomed. Especially b/c even if the US had an internal revolution and broke these groups up, it would face a globe of well-organized large groups. (Two comments: I never, and I do mean never, make any claims about 'human nature' except that particular one. Secondly and off topic, I read you more as a libertarian than republican.)

While businesses/corporations/consortiums/monopolies have the power of concentrated capital (it's a dogmatic phrase that describes the facts), theoretically democracies/unions/consumergroups (which are supposed to represent the interests of individuals) have the power of organized agreement.

Unfortunately, a phrase my sister coined many years ago seems more and more true - 'one dollar, one vote'. That is why wealthy entities become the government (even in a democracy).

I see the problem this way: how do you keep business interests from controlling every part of society?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 9:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT- Wow. Lots of highly textured soy protein in your post! Needs digestion! But I agree with more in your post than you might imagine, especially (paraphrased) behind every monopoly is a government that created it.

I will reply in depth after Xmas. But when you have a kid you just gotta do Xmas, know what I mean? Let me lob this out for your consideration. I can think of a couple of examples where a monopoly was challenged by simple refusal to play the game: Free Software and the Orange Revolution. Is that paradigm meaningful in this case?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:05 PM

Signym,

Yuschenko screwed the orange revolution.
Or were you talking about something else?

Rue,

Quote:

how do you keep business interests from controlling every part of society?

You prevent monopoly, and stifle an abundance of cooperation that would lead to conspiracy.

Collectively, the businesses of the world want society to run smoothly and for people to have money to buy things, virtually everything else there's going to be some disagreement on. Govt. needs to intervene to see that everything does run smoothly, and that no one is destroying the earth or abusing its people.

But govt., from a old-style right wing perspective, should refrain from doing anything directly when it is possible to put rules in place to enable the people to do this themselves.

Govt.'s job is to protect the rights of the people. The American people in this case, because it is the American govt. In so doing, it must do certain things, like defend the borders and protect the environment, because if it doesn't, then it's core task is impossible. But this is all it must do. It doesn't need to provide healthcare, because that's a service that can be done by people. For something like that, it just needs to set up rules for the people who do provide healthcare to prevent abuse.

I want to take a step aside for a moment to say why protection, military or environmental, is categorically different from providing a service for which people may pay:

It isn't doing something, it's ensuring that no one does anything. It's preventing societies destruction. Arguably another job that fits this description is law enforcement. Firefighting is more a grey area, but I can see that as an extension. Even disaster relief, but when you get as far away from the original protection idea as to get to disaster reconstruction, you're in to an area defined by people doing things. This is where, in my right wing view, govt. ends and the people, in the form of corporations, take over the task.

Once tasks are defined, as different from protections, and tasks are done by people who aren't govt., there are certain tasks which a society may wish to guarantee for the creation of successful citizens. These include at least education, probably healthcare, and possibly housing, utilities and food.

The responsibility of the govt. towards these services it wants to have are:

a) to pay for them when the people can't. This means picking up the tab for certain populations, for schools, this is going to be a lot higher a portion, less for medicial, and even less for the others.
b) to ensure that they are done reasonably well, particularly if the govt. is to pay for them under certain circumstances.
c) to ensure that in paying for them, the govt. is not people ripped off, as the govt. is spending the people's money, it has a responsibility to spend it well.

If I put Bush through the ringer on this one, it's probably point c that he falls most resoundingly short on, he has no sense of fiscal discipline at all. I was pleasantly surprised this week when first Jack Cafferty who does CNN in the money came out with an onslaught against Bush, and then someone told me Barrons did, I haven't seen it yet.

Quote:

Secondly and off topic, I read you more as a libertarian than republican.

And if Republican long term continues to mean GWB, then I agree. But I still have hope that this is an 8-year nightmare, and maybe we can even cut it short. I was all for kicking out this incumbant for the '04 election, but no one was interested. I think that the kicking out of johnson midway in '68 for the democrats was blamed for the following resounding defeat and no one wants to do it again.

I'm very republican if you take a pre-reagan view, and even with reagan and Bush despite the rise of neocon influence, I'm still more republican than any other stripe anywhere from 1824 with the nat reps, to 2000. But I have to confess the recent turn of events has me a little worried. I thought Bush Sr. was more of a return to traditional republicanism from the minor deviations of Reagan, but 'W.' is a drastic departure from limited govt., fiscal discipline, internationalism, laissez-faire and pro-business and the free market. The last part, I want to make clear, Bush cares only about his immediate friends and co-conspirators on corporate side. George W. Bush clearly doesn't give a damn what happens to GM. It's not that he doesn't care about black people, or that he doesn't care about poor people, it's that he doesn't care about people he doesn't know. Or that didn't contribute to his campaign. Or he doesn't care about people at all.

But I'm encouraged by the number of republican senators who seem appalled. The GOP elephant has been taken ill with global socialism. The patient isn't dead, it's still worth fighting to save.

I ran into a great quote, shoot me if it was here, but I think maybe it was in a wikipedia entry:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 8:26 PM

Rue,
Nothing on this earth can waste money the way a government can waste money, that isn't a matter of dogma but a statement of fact. The problem with government financed programs is that they are not allowed to fail, they are just given more and more money to keep them afloat. Failure is good, failure allows the kind of changes that improve efficiency, it is the life blood of any evolutionary system.

Private services in a functional market will be more efficient. I would characterise the problems with current private systems as follows.

1) Is it really a functional market or is it a restricted market or a cartel, in which case market forces are corrupted to no longer work in the consumers benefit.

2) Are the profits taken by the service provider greater than the savings we get from the improved efficiency?

3) Given that we do not subject a whole range of government services to the trials of the market because we decide that quality of service trumps lowest possible price (defence being an example) should we consider other government functions like healthcare and education to be of the same Market excluded class.

My problem with the current situation is that things like defense get money thrown at them and wasted because certain elements in government choose to give them a walk. Those same people are happy to leave healthcare and education to the whims of "free" markets or local government. If defence is so important the Federal government has to spend trillions (and probably waste billions) on it then aren't health and education also such critical functions that they should be treated the same? Or looked at another way, shouldn't sacred cows like defence and welfare be subject to the same market conditions as health and education?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 25, 2005 6:07 PM

Fletch,

I feel certain that govt. would f^&k up anything it touched, and I agree that defense spending is out of control, way out of control, but I don't think it's safe to privatize. I don't think that anyone thinks defense is 'more important' or 'too important.' It's that private interests effecting our military policy is an amazingly bad idea. Just look at oil and halliburton in Iraq.

The two things I can think of to do right off the bat:

1. Split it in two. Two budgets. One relating only to measures within the US to defend the US from actual threats; the other for foreign wars, etc.

2. Be honest about taxes. The portion of tax on the bill that goes to foreign wars is War Tax, and the part that goes to defending America as defense tax.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 12:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT and Fletch,

I hope you don't mind a composite response.

I just read an interesting phrase called 'free market fundamentalism'. I think it captures an underlying assumption you both have, as evidenced by the phrases "Nothing on this earth can waste money the way a government can waste money ..." and "I feel certain that govt. would f^&k up anything it touched ..."

So I'll use health care as an example to dispute your claims, since there is a lot of data available on the internet.

There is no doubt that the US has the most expensive healthcare system in the world (both per capita and percent GDP). In addition, US healthcare expenses have risen by double-digits (year on year) unlike other healthcare systems. (This information is available pretty much everywhere so I won't link it.)

In the US in 2004, 68.1% of people had private health insurance, 27.2% had government health insurance, and 15.1% had no insurance at all. (US Census Bureau) Of those WITH insurance, approximately 1 in 5 are underinsured. CDC http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051237.htm

That means that a devastating illness or injury would likely result in bankruptcy. And in fact, half of all bankruptcy filings are due to medical bills, and 3/4 of those had health insurance. That amounts to 1 million bankruptcy filings per year due to medical bills. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html

So roughly 1 in 3 Americans have no or inadequate health insurance. To highlight how unusual this is, the US is the only developed nation besides S Africa that does not ensure all citizens have health care.

A recent study (no longer available for free) found that 1 in every 5 private insurance dollars was spent on administration alone (no figures were given for the proportion of dollars that went toward profit.)

So far it sums up like this: the US pays far more for medical care and gets far less coverage than other countries.

What does all the money spent get the US consumer? The fact that so many are uninsured/underinsured impacts population statistics.

Disability-adjusted life expectancies are: Denmark 69.4 years, US 70.0, Germany 70.4, Finland 70.5, Luxembourg 71.1, Norway/UK 71.7, Canada 72.0, Switzerland 72.5, Italy 72.7, Sweden 73.0, Australia 73.2, France 73.1, Japan 74.5. Out of developed countries, the US ranks 24th in life expectancy.

Infant mortality is: US 7.2, Italy 6.1, UK 5.9, Australia/Canada/Denmark 5.2, Luxembourg 5.1, Germany 4.9, Switzerland 4.7, France 4.6, Japan/Norway 4.0, Finland 3.9, Sweden 3.5. (WHO The World Health Report 2000)

And now I have to get on with real life. I hope to post more on this topic later.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 12:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nothing on this earth can waste money the way a government can waste money

Have you ever worked for government? I've worked for small pharma R&D, a state university biomedical research lab, a private consulting lab, and a government agency. In the realm of research, if you know anyhting about state university labs you know they run on a dime and a prayer. Comparing research, the university where I worked did more important research ("metabolic syndrome"in trauma/ surgery patients) on less $$ than the pharma. In terms of analytical srvices, as supervisor I need to come up with cost figures for our operations and we cost less (internally) for our own analyses than we would have to pay to send it out. So overall I saw less 'waste' in government. And all I need to do is point to Enron to know that a corporation can waste its entire assets right down the toilet. The ingredients for massive waste are simply a large organization w/ no oversight. Government accounting is supposed to eb "transparent". Unless you automatically assume that ANY government mission is a de facto "waste", then your statement is overly broad and not accurate.

Oh, and Hero- striking is simply the worker's equivalent of moving a factory overseas. Apparently you like non-equivalent bargaining.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 3:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Here are a few more sources and statistics:

Multinational Comparisons of Health System Data, 2002 (Anderson et al, Johns Hopkins University) is a great source on the internet for many healthcare comparative statistics. Newer studies can be located by googling on: oecd "health care".

For example from a 2005 report: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/47/35624825.pdf
"In 2003, Japan enjoyed the highest life expectancy, with 81.8 years for the whole
population, followed by Iceland, Spain, Switzerland, Australia and Sweden."

"There are also notable differences in life expectancy between OECD countries with similar income per capita. For instance, Japan and Spain have higher life expectancies than would be predicted by their GDP per capita alone, while the United States and Hungary have lower life expectancies than predicted based on income."

"In 2003, OECD countries devoted, on average, 8.8% of their GDP to health spending. However, spending varies considerably across countries ... 15% in the United States ... followed by Switzerland and Germany spent 11.5% and 11.1% of their GDP on health ..." (Remember though, 1/3 of the US is uninsured/underinsured, while everyone is insured in Switzerland and Germany.)

Japan has 23.1 MRIs /1M people, the US has 8.1, Japan has 84 CT sanners /1M the US 14.

Anyway, without belabouring the point, in the US 27.2% of the population is covered by government, and in the rest of the countries it is 100%. And it seems government insurance delivers overall better health, and is cheaper.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 6:50 PM

Read what I actually wrote not what you think I wrote.

Nothing on this earth can waste money the way a government can waste money.

That's because a government can throw almost unlimited resources at a problem rather than have it fail. That is a big problem. I'm not talking R&D I'm talking big programs, ones where failure means political heads will roll. If they don't work you dont see the political advocate of the strategy resign, you see more money thrown at the problem until statistics look up and political reputations are saved.

Now on the issue of healthcare. To my mind it's a simple enough question, do you view it as an essential service like defense and therefore make it a government function, accepting that waste may be the price to ensure quality of service, or do you decide that efficiency is everything in which case maket forces can be used to your advantage?

It's a big question. If you look back before WW2 even defence was not a sacred cow program. The much vaulted "peace dividend" we had in the early 1990's was the way it was in America after a war. There was mass demobilization and cost cutting in defence. In fact if you read "Federalist" you will see the founders believed a strong standing army in peacetime was a danger to liberty.

What happened is that certain people in Washington argued that a strong standing defence was an essential service of government and that it's maintainence was so essential to national survival that almost any cost was acceptable. I find that argument odd. The 1918 flu pandemic killed more Americans than WW1, if defence of the people is a function of government then that should include healthcare as well. If you say that defence of the people is NOT a function of government then why is the defence budget so large?

Anyway, I have things to do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, since I killed two threads I may as well kill another!

Yes, it all depends on what you think a government SHOULD do vis a vis the economic system. But this decision can't be made solely on the basis of internal preference because eventually it will affect how that nation fits into the world economy.

So... Some nations supply the world with oil or other raw goods. Others grind their population down to less than survival wages as long as the fearless leader gets a cut from the corporations and banks. Others compete on the basis of increasing productivity. Still others provide high-end intellectual property. Others- notably the USA- are the consumers. Obviously, all economies are mixed to a certain extent.

Those nations that compete on the basis of high productivity are what is considered the "developed" nations: USA, Canda, Europe and Britain, Japan, and with China making a HUGE bid for inclusion into the upper echelon. The nations who ultimately "win" this competition are those with the highest productivity. High and increasing productivity depends on several essential elements:

dependable transportation and communication systems
a high degree of mechanization along with
a dependable energy system,
an educated, healthy, and motivated workforce
available capital
a milieu that encourages reinvestment and research

To the extent that "the government" can more efficiently provide services in a coordinated fashion (health care, education, roads, loans, etc), removing the burden of providing such services from the "bottom line" of individual corporations - that nation will be a relative success in the world market. The question in this capitalist system ultimately becomes whether productivity increases more quickly in a totally free market or whether it increases more quickly in a "directed" or semi-planned economy. Economies of scale (and the inevitable formation of monopolies from initially free-market systems) seem to argue that large coordinated enterprises are more efficient than smaller competing ones. The success of the Chinese seems to indicate the same thing: a semi-planned economy is more efficient and will utlimately overtake a totally free-market system. Less competitive/ efficient economies will ultimately suffer a degraded living standard.

Now, that doesn't mean to say that I'm in favor of this whole monopolist-government pas de deux. But I'm trying to be a realist here, and staying within the constraints of "the system" as it is, I expect the prize will go to some sort of semi-planned state.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2006 11:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Fletch2,

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

To the extent that most developed countries run huge government health programs that they "do not allow to fail", those programs run better and more cheaply than in the US. The populations are healthier. And healthcare is a smaller total economic drag on those economies.

I could have picked education, public transportation, retirement, or infrastructure as examples of the superiority of government programs over public/private or private ones. Superiority in terms of both results and total cost.

So I would appreciate it if you could explain in other terms the essense of your argument. It does not seem to address this point. Thanks.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2006 11:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I know what Fletch is saying. What he is saying is that if you are a business (or individual) that makes unwise economic choices (or meets unassailable adversity) then you'll go bankrupt. OTOH, if you are a government all you need to do is raise taxes.

However, that's not entirely true. If you're a BIG enough business (like UAL or GM/ Chrysler/Ford, or Savings & Loan sector) and look ready to fail, government will bail you out. If you're a BIG ENOUGH business, government will enact laws to enhance your profits. And, if you are a local or state government, there are limits in the amount of taxes you can collect.

National government are another story. The USA government for example has the power of the printing presses- it can literally make (print, strike) more money to back it's finances. However, even THAT has its limits. If the world eventually decides that there is too much circulating currency which isn't backed by production, then the value of the currecny falls on the world market.

So Fletch is correct in some senses. However, governments have both economic (market forces) and political constraints on their activities.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2006 12:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I see that we are in parallel and not discussing the same things.

So, to try to tie them together - assume that all government needs is to raise taxes or print money to feed its monopolies. Then these monopolies lack feedback and should be models of waste. You have mentioned some feedback on government. But why do government monopolies reliably outperform ('faster, better, cheaper') public/private or private ones?

Perhaps there are other factors.

I would argue that the private sector has uncalculated factors that reduce cost efficiency. Size alone has plusses and minuses. The larger a business becomes, the more 'economies of scale' exist. If size alone benefits the consumer (indirectly), then the most beneficial business is the largest one possible - a monopoly. But we know that monopolies come with a severe drawback, which is lack of competition. So, is the best business model one of many small (inefficient) businesses competing, or one large (monopolistic) one?

On the drawback side, size generates more hierarchical layers, which is waste. Another drawback is that in private enterprise, size creates more highly paid CEOs, CFOs, boards, managers etc. Equivocally, size accumulates more capital which equals more power. (Whether for good or bad, the potential is there.)

And when it comes to private v public, in private business profit is part of the cost, so by definition one pays more than one gets in value.

So I see that there are unacknowledged costs to private monopolies.

And public/private monopolies contain the worst of both worlds.

Public monopolies have unacknowledged advantages. One is that they are NOT profit driven. There is no mandated difference between price and value. It helps with paperwork - government monopolies don't use as much resources on duplicative paperwork. (And I do mean monopolies, not public/private hybids.) Government hierarchies pay going wages, rather than exhorbitant ones.

These together - the unacknowledged negatives of private business with the unacknowledged positives of government programs, seem to reliably tip the results in favor of government monopolies.

I'd like to address the feedback for government monopolies, but, time is a wastin'.

Later then. Ciao.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 1, 2006 5:17 PM

With regards to big enough businesses not being allowed to fail by governments GM, UAL etc. The point is that they SHOULD be allowed to fail, only through them failing and new operations taking over their economic niche can change and evolution take place.

When the government bailed out the airlines post 9/11 they said it was because of the adverse reaction to the terrorist attacks, completely ignoring that these companies had been getting into more and more trouble since deregulation. To turn a profit these companies needs to cut costs and probably raise prices, both of which are hard to do if you have overcapacity in the sector. If UAL went to the wall then the Continentals and South Westerns who have made the structural changes nescessary would take up the slack, the 2nd and 3rd sickest airlines would get an economic boost and could survive. Ticket prices will probably go up (prices in Markets go up as well as down in response to supply and demand.)

If as was argued cheap airline tickets are essential to the US economy then rather than gifting a private company public money the government should nationalize it.

As to monopoly's vs competition you are right, monopolies have economies of scale, what they don't have is innovation. AT&T once had a telephone monopoly today we have competition and quality has gone up and cost down. Cellphone companies are currently very competative and innovative in their business models.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2006 6:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have a question for anyone.

It was Bell Labs that invented the transistor (which garnered the three co-inventors the Nobel prize). It was Shewhart of Bell Labs who invented 'quality control'. Edith Flanigen (Union Carbide) discovered over 200 synthetic zeolites (important catalysts for the petro-chemical industry). Nylon and Teflon were synthesized by Dupont.

But now the Japanese auto industry designs and builds hybrid vehicles (a technology now liscensed by Ford in order to enter the market).

American industry - even a large monopolistic company like Bell Telephone - USED to be the beacon of invention and innovation. It was what the Japanese aspired to. Today America is far behind the curve.

What is the difference between American industry of 50 years ago and today?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2006 9:56 AM

Short-termism.

50 years ago the stock exchange was geared towards long term trends, people bought stocks and tended to hold on to them as long as they got reasonable return on that investment. Today you make money on stocks by speculating -- gambling in other words--- hoping that you dump your holding while the price is high and before the other guy does the same. Thus it AT&T has a worse than expected quarter their shares fall far more than the news warrents because everyone is trying to dump shares before the other guy does.

What does this mean? Well suppose developing the transistor cost $300M in modern money (it didn't but bare with me) that would hit the bottom line that year and cause a tumble in AT&T stock. Now we know that research paid off for them, but you can never know that for sure. The absolute safe thing to do is to wait until someone else innovates and then do "me too" products. We see that in everything from consumer goods to feature films. Let someone else take the risks and develop the market and just hope you can grab enough pie to stay in business.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2006 1:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But large business has the resources for really LARGE discoveries (Bell Labs for example also invented photovoltaics). Small business doesn't generally have the capital for 'blue-sky' research.

So if small business can't, and large business can but is philosophically disinclined, where should innovation come from?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 2, 2006 1:44 PM

Well most of it is from public funded government research, either defence or medical.

I read somewhere last week that a major AIDS researcher said that the big Pharmacorps where waiting on government labs and charity to find a cure (which they would then exploit) rather than sink the billions into finding a cure themselves. The money is in management of disease not in the cure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 1:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Doesn't all this seem a bit one-sided to you?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 3, 2006 5:27 PM

That presumes that the world is "fair" when it is not. Companies have in the past trailblazed new fronteers, if you look back a generation or so companies like Rolls Royce, De Havilland, GE and Westinghouse all developed big technologies and did their own Blue Sky research.

We could argue that the rise in importance of the stock market and of corporate capitalism kills this kind of development but if you look at the other side of the equation, the development and productization of new ideas things are considerably better.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 8:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
this kind of development but if you look at the other side of the equation, the development and productization of new ideas things are considerably better.

I think what you're saying is "blue-sky" research is falling off in the corporate world but product development and availablity is better?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 4, 2006 11:52 AM

Yes, sorry, that is what I'm saying.... I'm a lil burnt out right now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 5, 2006 8:29 PM