In light of shrinking transit funding across the nation and a stagnant economy it isn’t surprising to see tension between voters, rider and unionized transit operators as agencies are trying to increase revenue and cut costs. EngineerScotty on Portland Transport touches on this topic from a Portland perspective, where tensions have been high. What I found particularly interesting is the dichotomy of progressives vs unions.
Dueling progressives at ten paces
This argument turned heated in the prior thread. One commenter, a long-time transit activist in town, wrote:
The real reason the bus measure lost (but not in Multnomah county where 9 of the 11 MLR stations are located) is TriMet’s too generous benefits package for its union workers. Riders are paying more and getting less, are Ops and Mechanics ready to share the pain?Which prompted the following response from another frequent commenter, who is employed as a TriMet bus driver:
More after the jump.
I never thought I would see the day when [first poster] would support the cascade policy institute in its quest to deny American citizens livable wage jobs with real benefits.Both posters have extensive progressive credentials; neither would ever be confused with a conservative. Nor would the first poster, a dedicated transit supporter, have anything to do with a right-wing (and frequently anti-transit) organization such as Cascade Policy Insitute. But the second poster’s frustration is perfectly understandable–he sees his livelihood as under attack, and not just from the usual suspects on the political right, but from groups on the left as well, who long had been allied with labor.
This is a particularly nasty fault line in progressive politics in the US–there seems to be a growing rift between many social service advocates and public employee unions. I can think of quite a few well-known transit bloggers and writers, dedicated progressives all of them–who loathe their local transit union. (One of these activists made an interesting observation–the cities with the best transit tend to have the strongest transit unions; whereas the cities which only run low-quality social service transit are more likely to have outsourced their operations, often to non-union operators). And as more and more private-sector jobs are outsourced and more private-sector unions busted, public employee unions are finding themselves more and more isolated–whereas in the past, the passengers on the bus were often union workers as well; a larger share of bus and train passengers are non-union white-collar or service workers.
A similar situation plays out in public education–where one finds progressive community activists increasingly willing to take on education unions. The solidarity which once existed between labor and social service is rapidly eroding as the two groups are more and more forced to compete for crumbs of an ever-shrinking pie–a state of affairs which weakens both of them (and only benefits interests who are opposed to both quality transit and a robust labor market). Unfortunately, I suspect this will worsen before it gets better.
The ATU, which represent King County Metro employees has, like many other government unions, agreed to COLA concessions. This is a good olive branch, that will for now help to keep progressives and unions together, especially with relation to getting more funding down in Olympia. More importantly though, it shows the public that drivers are feeling the pain just like everyone else while breaking the narrative that any new funding will just go into the pockets of drivers.
I had a similar discussion about this with my mom the other day. It was about the state government in general but she brought up ferry worker benefits as an example.
She voted strictly anti-tax, and her entire reasoning was “the agencies in this state abuse the money we give them, so why should I give them any more?” This is how most voters think; ‘If I cut their budgets, they’ll have to cut wasteful spending”. Logically this doesn’t make sense. You’re more likely to decrease service quality than actually change the way the agencies do business, but a lot of people don’t think logically.
This same logic obviously applies to transit agencies. When you have news organizations running news stories about Metro drivers making six-figure salaries due to overtime, and the majority of the public is struggling to get by, you aren’t going to make friends. I am a firm transit supporter, and I believe unions do a lot of good, but I can’t say I support them wholeheartedly. It isn’t fair to the public to allow massive service cuts to occur while your drivers continue to make the same money doing what they’re doing. ATU 587 making the COLA concession was an excellent start however.
One of the very basic questions I have about the ‘Great Recession’, and economic downturns in general, is …
Where is the money?
Or, more specifically, why isn’t private capital being invested?
We might criticize government spending as a way to stimulate the economey, but why aren’t we criticize private investors for not stepping up and putting money back into the economy? They were investing before the collapse.
NOT EVERYONE LOST MONEY.
It’s not exactly that money was destroyed. It’s that the speed at which it changed hands slowed down. So, in a typical go-go economy, a particular $1 bill may change hands several times a month. At the end of the year, there could be 50 people reporting on their tax return having seen that $1 bill during the course of the year. In the recession, everyone’s spending slows down, so maybe that bill gets passed around only once per month, and only 24 people can report having seen it in their income that year.
So, more specifically responding to your question on private capital investment: the capitalists are mostly waiting on their accounts payable to get paid by their customers so that they can make payroll twice a month and not have to layoff people they wish they could pay.
In other words, when you have spare cash in pocket, you’re willing to take the risk of investing it. There’s simply a lot fewer people in that position now.
However, they were investing before the boom days, so the question is, where is it stuck? And how do you get it ‘unstuck’?
Essentially, an ‘Economy’ is ‘money going round-and-round’, so who’s got the exceptionally sticky fingers.
What stimulates them to put it back in the pot? (without feeding a “speculator’s merry-go-round”)
Infrastructure investment is a place that the government certainly has a place, if not directly, then setting up the playing field for the benefit of the population at large. (i.e. regulations, tax breaks, taxes, etc.)
In short, the banks. They have no incentive to make 30 (or even 5-15 year) mortgage loans at 4%. They know that given historical trends for inflation and interest rates that’s going to be a losing investment over time. Yes, refi applications have been at record levels. But the banks aren’t completing those transactions (I’ve tried twice). They either come up with silly reasons to deny a loan [20% loan to value ratio on just the land] or try the classic bait and switch at signing time of telling you they’ll only complete the loan if you agree to way higher loan fees.
As odd as it may seem… higher interest rates. True, that supports or raises the value of the dollar relative to other currency which tends to hurt exports but increases foreign investment. We’re not an export driven economy. There’s lots of reasons to avoid huge trade deficits but cheap goods, especially combined with a revitalized housing market (even secondary mortgages) really get things rolling. At least construction and remodel jobs can’t be outsourced. In short, the artificially low interest rates (negative on some overnight loans to banks from the fed) have created demand but they’ve shut off supply. Supply and demand only works if the two are allowed to reach equilibrium.
And in fact “money” is being printed like mad and the Fed is starting with QE2 (not the ship ;-). It didn’t work the first time and it’s doubtful the sequel will do much better. The Fed has typically been able to tinker with interest rates to smother an over heated economy (inflation) or squirt lighter fluid on a smoldering one. But when they essentially lowered interest rates to zero they ran out of options. Knowing that cranking up the printing press will eventually lead to a weaker dollar has created the current gold bubble. How much benefit do you get when someone spends their money on gold; a commodity that is primarily horded rather than actually used. I’ve heard it compared to inmates using cigarettes as currency except that they’re in a non-smoking facility.
Yes money was destroyed. When a bank loans on margin (i.e., more than it has in cash), it creates artificial dollars in the economy. As people pay back the loan or default, the dollars disappear. And if the loans were pretty ficticous (a circle of people selling houses to each other in order to raise the prevailing house prices), and the asset is sold in a way that benefits somebody’s pension or stock price, the third person suffers the loss when the money disappars. Banks generally loan at 10:1, so there’s ten times more money in the economy than there would be on a cash basis. (It’s less now because banks aren’t lending as much, of course.)
Banks and companies are sitting on cash. Companies because they’re afraid the consumers won’t come, or because they’re busy acquiring other companies and paying large dividends. Banks because they’re [pick one according to your interpretation] (A) rebuilding their capital base, (B) afraid of making bad loans [and maybe Bernie's inflation factor], or (C) raking in the dough because even at 4% with fewer loans than normal they can still make a profit when they can borrow from the Fed at <1%.
“Wealth” was destroyed by loses in real estate and stocks but that didn’t change the money supply. In a deflationary economy “cash is King” and hence the drop in the velocity of money. Why buy today when you can get it for less tomorrow. Investment banks can make leveraged deals but commercial banks must operate in the black with prescribed reserves. The problem was that their assets (a loan is an asset to a bank, a deposit is a liability) were over stated in value because of the housing bubble.
This is a debate that we are going to be facing with increasing frequency and intensity in the next decade in the USA – not just about transit service and wages, but about virtually all government services and government jobs/benefits.
I fully expect that I will get flamed on this blog by some who believe that government or taxpayers are like a goose laying golden eggs from which you can get more and more – and maybe they can postpone the significant pain for a few more years….
BUT for most of the last 30 years (since stagflation in the 1970′s) or even 60 years (since WW2) we’ve had an economy that grew at high enough rates that there was plenty for everyone. But it seems we’ve hit a turning point in the last few years and we have an economy that hasn’t grown at all for 2 years and that seems destined to grow at permanently lower rates (think 2-3% instead of 5-6%). Yet health care costs are growing at 10% and many benefit and wage costs in government are growing far in excess of GDP growth – while tax collections have dropped. Private industry and individual consumers have tightened their belts and adjusted to their resources. Government provided services are going to have to do the same. This isn’t meant as an ideological statement, but a statement of facts. There will likely be ugly, ugly battles as this reality sets in, and many will resist, but the gap can’t be made up just by tax increases – and the voters are already saying that. In the long run, government cost increases will need to be in line with growth of the overall economy.
Sorry if this is somewhat off-topic, but to bring it back: the phenomenon is not unique to transit at all, but the underlying purpose of public transit funding is not to create “livable wages jobs with real benefits” – the purpose is to provide mobility to citizens while minimizing environmental impacts and supporting sustainable land use, and it will have to be in an economically affordable fashion, as well all government services, and in the long run transit service has to compete with health care and education and public safety for a share of the funding, and all need to live within the means of what the country can produce.
Real income has grown astronomically for the top tier of earners at a breakneck rate from the 70s to today, while real income has remained virtually flat for all lower tiers of earners. So our tax system, which is focused on the middle class, has seen drastically shrinking receipts compared to expenses.
What needs to change is the attitude that somehow cutting taxes for the highest earners stimulates our economy. Government isn’t an egg-laying goose; it’s a powerful structure we created but aren’t nearly taking advantage of its capability for contributing to and sustaining growth and prosperity, monetary or otherwise.
If you theoretically put a 99% income tax rate on the top 1% of the taxpayers, you wouldn’t generate enough revenue to meaningfully change the equation. You can’t grow the economy 3% and the spending 8%, it just doesn’t work. Plus there is a tax rate at which they should just buy tax exempt bonds or move to some place like Nevis. It may make you feel good to “soak the rich” but it doesn’t change the math of the problem. Kind of like Jarrett Walker talks about the physics or geometry of transit design.
Two words complicate the math: multiplier effect. It is, in fact, possible to accelerate the growth of the economy by increasing government spending. Though I suppose that will invte labels of “dirty Keynsian” or even “socialist” or “Marxist” as we have seen in the national political discourse lately.
I’m not saying that increasing government spending is the answer, either. But increasing government spending in certain areas, like ensuring healthcare and improving infrastructure, will have massively positive knock-on effects for the economy and the American citizenry. We can’t increase this spending without both decreasing spending where it’s not warranted (*cough* “defense,” to point out the elephant in the room) and rectifying our inequitable, unsustainable tax scheme.
PS: I am all for shifting a big bunch of our military spending and spending on incarcerating non-violent drug offenders to more socially useful purposes… but all these things buy a year or 2 before they are eaten up by the growth rates again, so the underlying problems will need to be tackled.
To put transit back in the equation, I’d call transit spending more socially useful than military or prison spending on non-violent drug offenders
Everything I’ve ever read or understood is that increased government spending reduces growth, and is less economically efficient than spending by private individuals or companies. But I don’t want to engage in that debate. I wrote my note about defense and prisons before yours, but we do agree on that.
Yes, it appears we do agree on that.
As for the effects of government spending on economic growth, good keywords to start your research are “Keynesian economics” and “multiplier effect.” There are, of course, many competing lines of economic thought.
@Carl, the bulk of taxes are paid for by the middle class but the bulk of wealth is held by the top 5%. We aren’t talking about “taking” 99% of the wealth, we are talking about re-adjusting slightly the proportion of wealth/income that each class receives through the use tax policy.
I’m not advocating a return to Roosevelt era taxation. I’m advocating a return to tax rates of the Clinton era where we had government surpluses. Not that economic policy under Clinton was all that above board either – those surpluses were actually funded by screwing with social security entitlements. But in any case, here is an info graphic that spells out the difference between Republican and Democratic tax proposals:
http://bit.ly/aUQg1P
As you can see, it is really only those making over 1 million dollars that substantially benefit from the Republican plan yet, this plan would require deficit spending of $700 billion.
Everything I’ve ever read or understood is that increased government spending reduces growth, and is less economically efficient than spending by private individuals or companies.
I don’t think that statement is properly composed. Surely some, perhaps even most, government spending is bad for growth. But to some extent other spending (I’d nominate infrastructure, education, and certain market-regulation activities) enhance the prospects for growth.
“I’m advocating a return to tax rates of the Clinton era where we had government surpluses.”
Government surpluses if you included the revenue from Social Security taxes that were being loaned to the federal government. Now that both Social Security & Medicare are spending more than they are taking in in FICA & Medicare taxes, those “surpluses” would not return, even with Clintonian tax rates.
The reality is this: Both the Democrats and Republicans are lying to you – They aren’t that far apart. Republicans don’t want to raise taxes on anybody, Democrats want to raise taxes on the top 1 or 2% – which may seem like a lot but it’s actually a drop in the bucket.
I don’t know how you fix it because fundamentally, we all need to pay more and expect less from government. I’m hoping less waste, less insanity in the defense budget, and less money spent on preventable illnesses when folks are given access to preventative medical care (ie. An ounce of preventative medical care vs. a pound of Emergency room care after neglecting diabetes or some other treatable illness)
I’m not terribly optimistic though since both parties seem intent on turning the congress into an Ultimate Fighting Championship cage fight rather than taking working together and selling the tough decisions that need to be made. Are you listening Mitch McConnell!?
@ Carl: “BUT for most of the last 30 years (since stagflation in the 1970′s) or even 60 years (since WW2) we’ve had an economy that grew at high enough rates that there was plenty for everyone.” –
this claim is factually incorrect.
@ Kyle: “Real income has grown astronomically for the top tier of earners at a breakneck rate from the 70s to today, while real income has remained virtually flat for all lower tiers of earners.”
- this statement is factually correct.
Both Carl and Kyle are basically correct. The economy grew post WWII because the US had the only non-damaged factories and was the leading oil producer. Americans mistook this incredible bounty as normal and built a high-cost, high-energy lifestyle around it. Europe responded to the 1970s oil crisis with public transportation and gas taxes, while the US shifted into higher gear building suburbs and then exurbs. Also since 1980, various tax breaks and policies have shifted money to the top 10% and 1%, which has now created a new Gilded Age.
Fairness between the 10% and 90% is one issue, but for transit and health and other services, the other factor is more immediate. Saying the taxpayers are like a goose is funny when everybody riding transit or commenting is a taxpayer. But the political debates do have an air of unreality: people voting for unfunded services and then lowering taxes at the same time. It’s like they don’t understand that services cost money. We need to make investments in transit and education because those are keys to our economic future.
As for healthcare, the cost is due to several factors:insurance companies and hospitals and high-tech labs and patients who want only the most expensive treatments. It is like a bubble because the costs can’t keep rising faster than wages forever. We need to have a national debate on what is reasonable end-of-life and catastrophic care, and that just because the highest-tech treatments exists doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for insurance to cover them. Death is inevitable and we shouldn’t spend millions to avoid it: we should instead look at better home-healthcare and comfort services so that people can manage better with their conditions. More faith-based and secular support groups, neighbors looking in on their elderly, etc.
How about the fact that state/local gov’ts have enormous unfunded pension liabilities to a growing group of retirees who are living longer than ever.
And whose responsibility is that? It is all of our’s fault for not holding our legislators accountable for not properly funding these pension obligations in the first place. They each kicked the can down the road and it got bigger and bigger with each successive budget season.
Whether true or not, fixing the blame doesn’t fix the game. Whose fault it is is irrelevant. Fixing it is relevant.
Understanding how it got broke in the first place is a big step to fixing the problem. And please stop with false equivalencies in these issues.
Washington employees and employers contribute to thier pensions and the newer plans are fully funded, for now. They are invested so when the market tanks, they take a hit. The older plan which closed to new entrants in 1977 is in some trouble due to poor market returns and the failure of the state to contribute adequately. http://www.king5.com/home/Washingtons-ailing-pension-system-69779022.html
Compared to other budget challenges it’s a relatively easy fix, but unpopular since it is seen as just giving money away and there are always examples of someone who gets a six figure pension that can rile the public.
One reason the fed is injecting money into the system and it is absolutely critical to avoid deflation is that it creates a huge risk to the gov’t. It would drive falling revenues down farther, with no mechanism or political will to revise benefits downward. Inflation at least touches both sides of the equation.
The Fed is injecting money because the politicians have failed to pass a stimulus. The Fed knows it’s a weak gesture, but there’s no choice when the politicians argue and do nothing.
The Fed printing money is pissing off countries like South Korea and China. Hence, no trade deal for you! It’s pretty scary when the EU has tighter monetary policy than the US. Japan muddled through a stagnant economy for years but their citizens were the ones buying the government debt (they owe it to themselves). What’s going to happen when foreign governments stop buying US treasury notes because, a) the dollar is no longer a “safe haven” and b) the real rate of return is negative because of minuscule interest rates and a devalued currency.
Two solutions to problem of too many retirees:
1. Let us have what a lot of us really want: productive work with decent pay to the end of our lives. Give us that and any kind of a medical program worthy of a first-world country, and we’ll be glad to “carry” a lot of younger people till you’re middle-aged yourselves.
2. Reinstitute the military draft with a lower age limit of sixty-five. Give priority classification to heads of Congressional committees. Attach an oath of enlistment to every positive vote for a war, with a lot of assignments to demolitions units. Be generous with survivor’s benefits.
Mark Dublin
Interesting tidbit I read in the AARP Bulletin, for the first time since 1948 the number of people in the work force above the age of 65 exceeds the number of teenagers. Of course that’s largely because of the current job market where you can’t get hired if you don’t have and work experience and you can’t get any work experience if you can’t get a job.
You know what will “break the narrative that any new funding will just go into the pockets of drivers”? NOT TAKING RIGHT-WING ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE WASHINGTON POLICY CENTER SERIOUSLY.
That is their “narrative” and only achieves success when it’s given credibility by people who don’t look carefully at their credentials (Tea Party) or their “free market” motivations.
If you believe the WPC, no funding over the last 10 years went to build park and rides, buy hybrid buses, make traffic and other system improvements, or give raises to any other employees, managers, administrators, etc.
If you really want to “help break the narrative” – quit putting the responsibility for doing so at the feet of bus drivers like the blinder-wearing WPC has.
I see your point however narratives can become stronger or weaker, and actions really are what feed into that. If drivers insist on raises with 10% unemployment that certainly feeds into the narrative.
Previously unions were about decent wages and working conditions for everyone. Weekends, 40-hour work week, safe working conditions, above-minimum wage. Now they’re about luxury benefits for 10% of the population and too bad about everybody else, including those whose taxes and purchases pay for these benefits. Why a 3% cost-of-living increase during <1% inflation, and no medical premiums/copays?
I disagree with the notion that unions should try for whatever they can get, and management should keep costs down as much as possible. Then they're both being part of the problem. Better to compromise and make a win-win for everybody. And look at the landscape around the company, not just in a one-contract bubble.
Nationalizing healthcare would remove it from the equation. It would eliminate the biggest source of contention between unions and management, and remove the cost disadvantage American companies have vs foreign companies. It's too bad this has been completely lost in the healthcare debate. The heads of the car companies have not forgotten about it, they made a joint statement in Washington a couple years ago. But I have not heard one ad or talking point about it this year.
well said
Where did you get the idea that Metro drivers don’t have medical premiums or copays?
Luxury?
You know, at one time unions represented 35% of the nation’s workforce. That 40 hour full time workweek you take for granted was won by union representation. Those employer paid health benefits that fewer and fewer of you get these days was won by union representation. Now that unions only represent 7 percent of the nations work force, you describe these benefits as LUXURIES? Maybe just maybe you should consider that instead of complaining about what unions win for their members versus your deteriorating pay and workplace stability, you should consider that for many occupations, supporting a labor union in your place of employment might be the best solution to a fair wage and working conditions. Or are you sufficiently afraid to work collaboratively with your co-workers to bargain for your work? Are you sufficiently deluded that you alone have the power to bargain with your employer? Or further deluded that you think an employer has your best interest at heart in any way shape or form?
Wake up and smell the coffee. Despite what corporatists say, they can make a profit, provide a quality product and gain higher customer satisfaction while employing a union workforce. And you’ll sleep better and be less prone to griping about what others have.
This MEME against unions has to stop.
Bravo. Well-said. I completely agree.
(My grandpa was a Teamster and I was raised not to cross a picket line.)
Reasonable union benefits are fine. And @Beavis McGee, I was talking generally about unions, not saying that Metro has the best health-insurance deal in the world. @Charles, I did say that unions have made important contributions in the past, like the 40-hour week. But these full-salary pensions are a major part of what drove the automakers to bankrupcy and non-competitiveness. And healthcare cost rises are a society-wide problem, not something that union workers should be shielded from. (Maybe if they felt more of the effects, they’d be more activist about reforming the system instead of saying “Don’t touch my existing plan”.) Re pensions and the like, unions could offer a reasonable compromise leading to a sustainable future, but instead it’s always “More, more.” — the only exception being when the company is in serious trouble and has to make cuts.
Also, I’m in the computer field and currently a contractor, and maybe later I’ll be doing individual jobs for companies. I can’t just go join a union.
For the record, I’m what most conservatives would consider a ‘liberal’ (said with disdain, of course). For civil rights across the board, legalization, progressive taxation, generally pro-union, pro-transit/bike, yadda yadda.
But let’s face it, public sector employees of all kinds get way, way, better deals than the rest of us. While I do think the government should set an example and provide it’s workers with a living wage, and a decent pension, there is no excuse for bus drivers retiring after 20 years and collecting a quite sizable pension for the rest of their (extremely long) life. There is no excuse for a Police Commissioner getting a 200k a year pension… you know?
Unions should be happy they’ve achieved as much as they have. And it pains me that private sector unionship has dropped off so dramatically. But the gravy train is running out, thanks to the economy and the anti-tax hysteria, and Unions need to stop demanding everything for themselves at the expense of every other person in the state.
“…there is no excuse for bus drivers retiring after 20 years and collecting a quite sizable pension for the rest of their (extremely long) life.”
Define “sizable pension.” Accouring to the State DRS site for PERS2, which is the defined retirement plan to which most drivers below, if you retire at age 55 with 20 years of service, you get .358 of your salary. According to published reports, the average wages earned by drivers last year was $47302. That person would therefore get a pension of $17k/year. They don’t get the full benefit (or the average of their highest paid 5 years) unless they retire at 65.
And, why is everyone so down on the drivers and other public employees? The vast majority (90%) of King County employees, including DID agree (or are about to vote on) to waive their COLA next year. Those were all represented by various unions.
Why is everyone down on driver’s and public employees.
Because we the people of Washington pay your salary, but have no say on your wages and benefits. Elected officials and buracracts have no incentive to reduce costs as in the private sector, it is not their money. They overpay and over benefit because they want “labor’s” vote. Setting a hard line is difficult. Why do that, again it is not their money. Government people use our money to further their agenda and look good and generous. $50,000 for a bus driver is a crime and that dosesn’t include benefits. These jobs should be privatized.
Rob, “elected officials and buracracts [sic]” don’t pay taxes?
Something my ninth grade civics teacher taught us: “Before you believe anything you hear or read, you need to find out who wants you to believe it.” And since recent Supreme Court decision allowing anonymous political contributions, he might have added: “…and how much they’re spending to MAKE you believe it.”
Before working people buy everything we’re told about the inevitability of an ever-worsening future, we have to wonder if the people most likely to predict disaster include their own future in the dismal prediction. It’s also fair to ask whose contribution the productive economy would miss most: a good facilities worker’s or the Seattle Times’ publisher’s?
I also have yet to see any proof that this country’s GDP would suffer one iota if every single economist in the republic got their notice before the end of work today.
Mark Dublin
You’re so right. There has been a long long running campaign to discredit unions and unionization along with political power have decimated the ranks. The cost of busting unions has been massive outsourcing, lowering wages, massive unemployment and now poorly paid desperate people sniping at the few remaining union workers trying to bring them down into the crab pot.
You may remember a prominent incident in Chicago area where a window manufacturer in a bid to deliberately break a union tried to move the factory out of state. The company owners deliberately bankrupted their firm, setup a new shell firm in a neighboring state and attempted to move equipment surreptitiously. The workers who were being left unpaid and high and dry went postal and occupied the plant for weeks preventing the removal of the equipment. It ended with a legal settlement and the companies were sanctioned for their actions.
Again, I say: if we’re going to discuss cutting wages and benefits for the working class, why is no one mentioning wages and benefits of managers? Please compare wages and benefits of the two. Why should one sacrifice but not the other?
I have yet to see a single post or comment on that topic as we discuss working class wages and benefits.
The class politics here is really showing. And it’s ugly.
we are all getting poorer (for the most part) in the private sector and hence the public sector needs to join the pain. We can’t afford big government; and wages and benefits and entitlement programs must shrink.
Who is “we?” The higher echelons don’t seem to be getting poorer to the level I’ve seen some people get poor. I’m not talking actual dollars, but percentage of income. A 30% drop for someone making $30k a year is magnitudes greater than someone making $300,000.
I think I know what you’re trying to say but what you said is completely wrong. A 30% drop in income is exactly the same magnitude for any income level. Dollar wise a high income earner sees a much greater drop. For someone starting out on survival wages the change in living standard is yes, orders of magnitude greater. You basically lose the ability to survive verses a setback in recreational activity. However, that assumes that the high wage earner had budgeted realistically. Many, perhaps most don’t and it’s the old story of leverage. They live high on the hog when times are good but that leveraged debt comes back to put them just as deeply in the hole as the low wage earner. But yeah, less sympathy for the ones that had the means but failed to save… come to think of it; they’re sort of like Congress :-(
It’s pretty basic…we all do better when we all do better. You should hope that everyone around you does as good as possible, not (necessarily) for altruistic reasons, but because it will make your life better/safer. I for one, don’t want to have to live in a gated community or worry about riding transit.
well said.
Yeah I agree but who is doing better right now? Not most people minus the richest of the rich.
“we are all getting poorer (for the most part) in the private sector “
Why is that?
And who specifically is getting poorer?
“and hence the public sector needs to join the pain.”