What are the COLA (typically) based on? Rate of inflation? Did they go down by 1% last year?

I dont really want to pick on teachers because next week we'll all be talking about those dam auto workers, or somebody else that we feel is somehow taking our money or getting a better shake than we are. But this is exactly what happens when a society built on hedging comes to the point of unsustainability...everybody is questioned or on display for public scrutiny or ridicule.

I'd say that's right about where it should be. I'm in my 13th year of teaching with a master's degree. I will make 59K this year in a district that's been excellent every year that I've been there. I feel we do a great job and I'm paid pretty much right what I should be. I don't believe I should make all that much more than I do but I shouldn't be making less than that either. I have above average private sector health care for which I pay 10% of the premiums. I would be more than willing to go to 20%. I have my district pay 14% of my insurance while I pay 10%. I would have no problem with my district going down to 10%.

I have an average three bedroom house, two baths, two cars, nothing extra that most other professionals wouldn't have. I'm nowhere close to a doctor or someone making six figures and I shouldn't be.

I'm willing to make sacrifices but I'm not willing to go bankrupt because of the mistakes of those who racked up debt and didn't pay it back, those who made the housing market crash, and those who were bailed out after all this happened.

Depends on the district I'd say but my net value definitely went down by at least 1% when you take into account I didn't get a step and my insurance costs went up. Not sure about others.

+1

Everybody has to sacrifice except the fuckers that wrecked the economy and wiped out 900 billion in state and local pension funds.

And I don't care how it turns out as I'm not part of that state, but it's a pussy move to run and hide. About as undemocratic as you can get.

That's good. And I have no problem with teachers or anyone making what they are worth. In fact, my issue with pensions isn't really around teacher but around other state workers that don't particularly have a skill set that is hard to find.

My biggest gripe though is the notion that "we owe it to people". The State is hiring people to provide a service we want. All we owe is to find people who can do that service at an affordable cost. As I said before, the state isn't an employment agency, it's there to provide services to the people. Sometimes I think we get that mixed up.

I see it more as what a filibuster should be. The Dems can't hold out forever and they'll likely take a hit for leaving, but it buys some time for the public to change their minds. If only the U.S. Senate made it a tough decision to grind things to a halt.

I'm not a big fan of filibusters either. The people voted in a group of people that they wanted. Let them govern. It's just spitting in the face of voters.

So is doing something you never mentioned any intention of doing during a campaign because you knew you would never be elected if you mentioned even a hint of it. While things change over time, to do what's happening in Ohio within two months of being elected screams of hiding your true intentions before getting elected. Not very trustworthy.

Ultimately, it's another reason it's a bad move in Ohio. It'll cost the Republicans the state in 2012.

I think there's a place for the minority to stall things if and only if that decision comes with consequences. They can't hold out for more than a week or so. AT that point either pressure will have forced a negotiated settlement or the GOP will win on a vote.

How is it a pussy move? It's more we're gonna do whatever it takes to stop this bill from going forward instead of letting it happen and whining about it as the Dems have done over and over again. Republicans do what it takes to get things done. It's time for the Dems to stop whining and do the same.

But they also voted in the people who put the quorom and filibuster rules in place. If the voters really wanted the GOP to do whatever they wanted in Wisconsin without any input from the minority, they would've given them a bigger advantage.

Of course, the voters in the districts that elected the Dem legislators probably did so with the expectation that they'd fight for unions, teachers, the middle class, etc. I'm sure they're pretty happy with the actions.

I agree wholeheartedly. I have made my 3rd grader sit down and write out his addition tables 0-9 every day. It is amazing how much better he has gotten at addition (he was counting on his hands constantly a month ago).

I really wish they would separate classes into advanced, mid-range, and remedial for each grade. Too often teachers have to teach at the level of the slowest students and it hurts everyone in the class. Plus, from talking to my kindergarten son's teacher, it sounds like there is not good coordination between the grades about what each student needs to advance.


I disagree here. When I was in California, we had 25-30 kids in each class. We learned because we were expected to. If you caused trouble it was nipped in the bud. I knew a fair number of kids who were hellians outside of school but were great at school because they knew they would be punished if they got out of line.


I would love to see sterilization of a good portion of the populace. It is scary to see some of the parents out there.

Filibusters have their place. I've said it before, you need to make it tough to do though. Bring in the cots and the beds and make them go 24 hours a day like they used to.

While we're at it, bring back the appointment of senators. Insulating the senators from the populace would allow them to act as the elders out the Congress rather than chasing votes, which they do now. I really think a lot of people do not realize how much the 17th amendment changed things. Heck, I can live with issues getting someone into Washington, its better to have issues getting someone there rather than them concerned with getting re-elected once there. I would even support a limited term limits law that only applied to senators.

Agreed. Fuck the social contract. Sink or swim.

It's astounding that we've devolved to a place where people making an honest living and whether we ought to honor our commitments to them is a matter of debate. This country is completely and utterly doomed.

I was watching a documentary last night on the building of the Panama Canal and save for the thousands of cheap laborers from the west indies they used, the fact that the entire thing was constructed at all given the odds against them at that time, during the time they did it was astounding. I look at the country today and realize that the lack of vision since fails because the only thing anyone gives a damn about is whether we're meeting the bottom line.

Citizens aren't shareholders in a fucking corporation. They are people and sometimes, the notions of what works and what doesn't isn't always going to make the balance sheet work out. But if it means I get a dollar less so some other person can have a bit more of what maybe I was born luckier to get, then so be it.

A lot of people work hard and don't make an honest living out of it. Does your outrage only extend toward those employed by the state or should we make sure every person in the country makes a middle class income?

It's cliche to knock this country as being lazy or not having vision. But it's wrong. Just over 10 years ago, none of us were walking around with our own personal computer device that let us make phone calls, look up anything we wanted to on the web, play games, and all sorts of other stuff. The Internet seems to have been a rather large technological advancement that sees new ways for us to acquire information or communicate instantly. Sure we don't have a big concrete project to point to and brag about, but all our lives are completely different right now than they were 15 years ago. Lets not act like we have no vision.

Actually, they sort of are. They invest in something, vote the people into power they want, and have those people do things for them. Shareholders get profits, voters get services.

What you're saying is that if we hire someone, we should overpay them. And when someone is being overpaid, it means someone else gets underpaid. That person ends up in the private sector. The guy who has to pay a little more on his taxes to overpay for those people you want to "do the right thing for".

This is what people don't factor into this. If you puff up one part of the economy, you have to deflate another. So you pretend that this is some altruistic stance, but all you are saying is that if you work for the State, you deserve to be paid more and that the worker in the private sector should be paid less to do so.

Not true. That argument would mean growth is impossible.

Growth of an economy is factored into market value of an employee. It is still overpaying one to underpay another. You can't overpay both sides.

Again, that's only always true if growth is static.

I guess I'm not getting that part. If someone is being overpaid, doesn't that mean someone has to compensate for that? Isn't the balance shifted?

One, it's nearly impossible to know what constitutes overpaying. Two, velocity of money matters. What happens to the supposed overpayment? If that money is immediately spent it's likely to multiply and lead to growth. Now it's possible that the same money given to someone else would be spent and multiply the same or even more.

When unions work, that's the strength of collective bargaining. Incomes rise for the middle class ad that money is spent and multiplies. That's even possibly true with healthcare costs. One person's overpayment is another person's salary.

The reason this would never be done today is because you'd have people protesting the conditions people were working in. Plus, you'd have to make sure that the ecological impact was low. I mean we're mixing the water from two oceans, what about animals being introduced where they weren't before, etc.

The problem with not meeting the bottom line is that it is not sustainable.

I would counter this with, where does it come up that the government is responsible to take care of people? I have no problem with the companies making contracts to provide for retirement. However, the government should not be in that role for anyone but possibly their workers. Additionally, there are other service providers that provide for the elderly better than the government. If the government got out of the equation, charities and families would step up. They would maintain the social contract, it doesn't have to be the government.

When you need to have a bunch of Senators run and hide to neighboring states to protect your salary, it might be a sign you're being overpaid.

We typically don't pay people based on how fast they'll use the money. While I understand the strategy behind it, paying people based on their worth seems a much fairer approach.

I understand the benefits of a strong middle class. It seems a tad unfair that you want to discriminate between public and private employees. That public employees deserve to be guaranteed a middle class income while ignoring the private sector. Just think if you are providing a psuedo-welfare for one, you should be for all. There are a lot of people who work hard in the private sector who are no able to reach the middle class level either.

The poverty rate amongst the elderly pre-SS and later pre-Medicare would seem to discredit your theory.

It amazes me how many Americans support legislation based around maximising profits for corporations instead of trying to ensure that the citizens within it can live out happy and productive lives?

In comparison to European countries the average American person has very few rights within the workforce, a dreadful lack of holiday entitlement, the work hours required and the lack of job security ... if anything the recent financial crisis appears to be an excuse for those in power to further reduce the average persons lot in life further.

Would you consider that in practice (and this is generally speaking and based more on my knowledge of such things in England than in America so let me know if its different here) people within a government sector generally trade lesser pay for better benefits and job security.

If you are a public employee then generally you're at the whim of the government which employs you and regardless of your performance often you might find your pay cut or capped because of some convenient crusade the government is on etc. ...

As such its a trade off between a more cut-throat/competitive field and job security for many people. Its also worth noting that MANY government workers are in positions which are crucial to societies future but aren't competitively paid - such as teachers, these professions while not glamourous are vital to the future of the country imho.

If you disadvantage the public sector in terms of benefits then pay will have to rise to take this into consideration as there is now no visible advantage at all to a government job over the private sector - meaning that they have to pay more in order to retain their staff.

This in the long term is actually bad for the government sector as it pays out higher money in the short-term and also risks its employees having a short-fall in the long term (in terms of retirement planning) and thus having to lean on the state for help with that in their later years.

I'm not arguing for public or private. I just don't think a wage increase must equal a wage decrease. And I'll freely admit I don't know the worth of any employee, but do you? These wages and benefits have been bargained and entered into with agreement by both parties. What makes you certain you know the real worth of these employees?

They are worth what the market is willing to pay for them and what they are willing to work for.

I agree with the first part. Corporations have huge control over our government and population. So much so that people will vote against their best interests time and time again.

I'd disagree heavily with the second part though. Americans have the ultimate right in the workforce, the right to tell their employer to go fuck themselves and leave at any time. This isn't indentured servitude and I think you're over exaggerating conditions here. There are plenty of laws in place to protect workers, and most companies do provide holidays off and ample vacation time. This does depend heavily on the type of job of course (better ones have better perks), but I don't have a problem with the most valuable people getting the most valuable perks.

That's not the case here though. Public employees if anything have a reputation for being well compensated and having the best benefits in the job market. They are also some of the safest jobs to have (which is why a common joke here is how rude most of them are because they can't be fired).

A lot of the data is publically available too. You can see toll booth workers making $60k a year (along with benefits including a pension!).

The market doesn't dictate price though...at least not for teaching. It's what taxpayers are willing to pay and if there is not a safeguard against that, it will end in disaster. Now you might argue there are crappy teachers who don't deserve it and I agree. The system needs revamped but it doesn't need destroyed.

And in France, an extreme example of workers' rights, the difficulty in firing folks means a large chunk of contract employees so you can just let their contracts run out. They also have fairly regular riots because the "people" don't think they're being handed ENOUGH. So let's please not pretend Europe is a shining light of an example for the US to follow.

And how is that determined? Maybe by a negotiated contract entered into by both parties?

The market should dictate prices though. The field is currently oversaturated and states like Wisconsin don't need to pay what they currently do to keep staffs fully stocked.

Not every job allows you to negotiate salary and benefits. Those numbers get determined based on who is willing to work for those numbers. If the terms are not fair, Wisconsin will have a tough time filling the jobs.

So your real complaint isn't so much the terms as the right of collective bargaining. You certainly seem to be saying that workers shouldn't have the right to band together to achieve higher salaries. In other words, you're major concern is a large supply of cheap labor.

Workers can band together if they want. But States can say we don't negotiate with workers who band together. Wisconsin doesn't need to go into collective bargaining with the union. The job market is oversaturated, there is nothing to negotiate.

I agree with that. The State obviously has to factor in quality when they determine what they are willing to pay.

And while we're talking about whether they were overpaid or not, the unions have accepted all the concessions put forth by the Governor. You don't do that if you are being underpaid or getting market value.

Umm ... who exactly is "the market" if not the taxpayers?

I think besides the individual teacher salaries is also the student/teacher ratio. I've seen a lot of variation on this number and its probably the biggest single factor to consider for a yearly budget.

There are districts that are 25-30 students/teacher and then there are districts that are 15. No matter what the avg salary is for either of those districts...the 15:1 ratio is always easiest to simply bump to 20:1. Rather than see other teachers let go (or play roulette), they end up agreeing on paycuts or pay freezes (as was the case in my area).

As a purely anecdotal & speculative thought...it seems to me that the areas that have the highest student/teacher ratio also seem to have the lowest average salary whereas the low ratio areas also seem to have the highest average salary. Maybe this is just a factor of where I've lived & seen but it seems to be a significant disconnect in determining proper & ample funding levels (which can then be used to determine proper salary).

Most people I know over here have between 10-15 days holiday a year in Florida, the average holiday entitlement in the US as a whole is 15 days - that compares to 20-25 in Europe* (UK legal minimum is 20 not including bank holidays).

In England its illegal to force people to work above a 38 hour week (you can sign a waiver if you want to but it can't be forced upon someone), over here most people I know work far longer hours than that.

In England if you are a permanent employee then you are required to be given a notice period before you are let go and if you are a long term servant you get redundancy pay - in Florida the 'At Will' employment allows you to be let go at any time with little come back**.

As such I think things are pretty heavily stacked in favour of corporations here and against the citizens tbh.

PS - Yes I realise if you're in the lucky position to have a skilled trade where you aren't easy to replace you can get better conditions here, but most people aren't and its society as a whole rather than just the lucky few which should be looked after imho.

*http://www.mercer.com/press-releases/1360620
**At-will employment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I know its trendy to knock the French (heck I'm English, its practically a requirement back home ;) ).

However while I think they might sometimes go too far in their actions, I actually admire the French for their willingness to stand up and fight for their fellow citizens - they're one of the few western countries which isn't selfish and apathetic in ensuring that they have a decent lifestyle ... which doesn't just mean material goods but also time off and suchlike.

In a similar way to the French defending their rights one of the most refreshing places I've ever worked was Switzerland, I was amazed during my first few days there that everything closes down for several hours around lunch time so that workers (and school children) can go home and have lunch with their families - that imho is a fantastic idea and helps ensure a strong bond within communities and families which is sadly lacking today in England - I wish it was adopted back home. I believe that some other European countries (Spain?) also do this kind of thing which to me seems great.

If citizens in other countries didn't allow themselves to be pushed around by self-serving politicians then the world would be a far better place imho.

I'm not saying that everything in Europe/England/France/Where-ever is perfect*** - but I do think that looking at other cultures and considering things other than simply financial aspects is vital when determining a direction for a country to head in ...

*Heck look at the prats in charge of the UK at the moment and the tax loop holes they're giving the financial sector so that they can avoid paying yet more tax and offshore even more workers ... that being said one thing I am kinda proud of is that the UK is increasingly getting activists (such as UK Uncut***) protesting against corporations who are playing clever games to dodge paying tax - hopefully these actions will hit the corporations profits enough that they might actually consider paying the tax they should be coughing up rather than funneling it out of the country ....
***interestingly one of the articles about UK Uncut indicates there might be a US copycat coming? - how do people feel about that concept? .. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/fe...-banks-america

The problem with leaving things purely to a 'free market' is that it makes incredibly poor long term decisions on the basis of short-term cost/profit.

If the 'free market' was allowed to act unrestricted you'd see a lot more disasters like the BP Oil Spill and the recent Finance crash because its worth the risk in the short-term to go for the big profit rather than the sensible safe option.

The argument with education is similar; not funding the education system in the country properly makes short-term economic sense - but the long term effects of that on the nation would be hugely detrimental.

I wouldn't say it's heavily stacked in favor of anyone. It's a free market. People can work for who they want to and companies can hire/fire who they want to. And while they can fire you on a whim, there is unemployment as a safety net for most people. I'd say Europe favors employees at the expense of employers. Which is fine, but I think it's wrong to say we give huge advantages to businesses here.

As for vacation days and hours a week, it's all relative. If you're getting 2 months of vacation, the company is making it up by paying you less. So those extra days and extra free time might be nice, but know that they are not making as much money as they could.

The word "lucky" is where I disagree with you most. People who put themselves in a position because they are skilled are not lucky. They are people who worked hard. People who made themselves valuable to society. Made themselves valuable to a company. That isn't luck. And we shouldn't punish those people to prop up those who did not choose to go that route.

There are a lot of issues in this country with companies and power they have over certain aspects of life. But I don't think working conditions are bad in this country. And if someone finds them bad, they have every right to quit.

The issue isn't about funding things. It's about overpaying people.

If it turns out that we can't run a good school system with cuts to benefits and salaries, then we have to re-think the approach and raise those incentives. But as it stands, public employees are not quitting when they are seeing cuts.

Just want to double check something to make sure you're consistent. You're for a free market when it comes to health care too, correct? No government intervention? Nothing...market dictates pricing, etc. because if the price is too high consumers won't buy it and that will bring prices down?

You do that as a way to save collective bargaining rights. The average pension in WI is 24000. I don't know if that's high or low, but it certainly doesn't come across as exorbitant. I don't think the unions want to agree, but they're in a pickle.

Luck plays a huge roll. The single greatest determinant of future income is the income of your parents. I'm not saying people don't work hard, but luck plays a huge roll in where you end up.

We're a country based on equal right...which is not the same as equal starting points.

While there are many problems to be addressed in this country... those who develop their skills & value to society have opportunity to greatly enhance their wealth. And those who cannot add better than average value to society do not acquire as much wealth.

Whether that is because of the parenting is completely irrelevant...unless we want to begin enforcing a "good parents tax" to punish those who have successful parents that want to mentor their own children to be successful as well (and vise versa for less successful).

I use 'lucky' to indicate people who are in professions which give a reasonable amount of both power to negotiate salary (because of scarcity of available trained staff and the industry they're in).

Teachers imho are a scarce commodity however because of their choice of profession they aren't paid on this scale because its accepted that they chose that profession because they wanted to help society rather than maximise their financial gain. Such professions while existing within what is seen as a 'free market' aren't truly part of it imho.

That is a strange argument to be honest - when there is no protection for an employee the choice not to work (and thus have no money) or to work for what little they are offered isn't much choice imho.

I have relatives on my wife's side who are late in life now but haven't had a chance to put aside money for their retirement, they have to work for next to nothing because they have no health coverage otherwise. The companies involved know this and abuse this hugely through the hours they insist on them working and the pittance they are paid.

These people have worked their entire lives and paid taxes during that period but are unable to do anything but be exploited because they are in what I would consider a 'standard' job (ie. retail) instead of having a career - this imho is wrong.

The attitude of some people in America dumbfounds me to be frank - everyone could be in their boat sooner or later, so look out for the less well off ... it might be you one day.

People aren't 'stupid' or 'lazy' because they don't have careers presently - the world is changing fast and some people guessed right and got careers in a stable profession, others had divorces or chose areas which petered out.

I had a colleague a decade ago who was a trained book binder, my father in law was a television repair man originally - both professions which were skilled but are now defunct .. should they be punished because of this?

In ten years time I expect many computer programming positions will be largely defunct because advances will have simplified development to the level where its far easier to make programs generally, I expect I'll be ok because my niche is specialized and involves a heady amount of design and artificial intelligence - both of which are hard to standardise upon.

Does this mean I think any people currently relying upon less specialised programming for their income today should be condemned to a life of mediocrity if that profession disappears when they're in their 50's, heck no.

But you're presuming people are entirely selfish and only in it for 'themselves' - while this might be true of some poor unfortunates I'd like to think that many people think of more than just money in life.

There are many professions where people are 'underpaid' if you look at things in terms of simply market forces and compare the risks or time, skill and effort involved in their jobs against their pay packets.

For instance teachers, it takes a huge amount of training and dedicate to be a teacher - its a hugely stressful job BUT despite this pay is fairly low.

This is because teachers are generally people who want to help people and see the importance of the role, they aren't driven by a pay packet or they wouldn't have entered that industry in the first place - what you're arguing is that you should keep reducing the pay to the least possible in order to fill a role regardless of its worth to society - that is something I see as wholly wrong.

Market Forces aren't the 'be all and end all' to a successful country imho, in fact in many instances they are detrimental to it by driving things to the lowest common denominator rather than forcing society to excel.

Of course there will never be equal outcomes, but those outcomes aren't equally achievable. You want to make it all about hard work and desire, but even with those the person born to low income parents is significantly less likely to achieve a high income than the person born to wealthy parents. There area number of reason's for that, education, networks, work ethic, ect., but it sure as hell has a lot to do with luck.

I know I wouldn't be where I'm at today without my parents and my wife's parents. I've worked hard, but when I've struggled I've been lucky enough to have family that can help. Without that I would be in a much worse place today.

It's very interesting to me that some sort of absolute moral right to current supply and demand determining the value of a good. Never mind that there are all sorts of "outside" influences to this free market we claim to have: direct and indirect government intervention, monopolistic or oligopolistic pressures (yes, those significantly increase naturally occurring supply and demand), collective negotiating by groups of people, etc. But the current value- that's the morally correct one and if you try to put a direct or indirect government influence on it to change supply or demand, that's wrong in some way. It's weird that capitalism and a faux free market has become some sort of blind moral judgment.

SI

I think the key point of contention is...who's fault is any of this and what is the expected role of a citizen?

Is it the government's responsibility to forewarn citizens that their trades/skills need to be adapted to a new & emerging technology? And should they pre-determine what those people should do about it?

I can't speak for how your friend or father in law adapted in the UK but I can tell you that my own father, and many friends of mine, have gone through similar job changes and skillset adjustments. In the case of my father, he was a blue collar manufacturing machinist his entire life. His job required skill and was a manual job that he did for decades. Along came the computer which could essentially duplicate his skillset & precision and merely required an operator to perform his job (at an efficiency rate many times over what a manual machinist could possibly do). He was in his late 50's at that time...too young to retire but too old (in his eyes...not his employer's) to learn the newer technology.

I fought long & hard with him on this point and could not grasp why he would not pursue learning the new skills to apply to his old craft. He is not a lazy or stupid man in the least...but he did not embrace the world that has come to front & attempt to leverage it. He was techno-phobic, if you will. So, the end result is that he continued to find a few positions that were similar enough to what he had done for decades until he could retire a few years later (albeit a bit earlier than planned). He had skills that could transfer in some way if he were willing to apply them, had a market that would pay for his knowledge, and was simply unwilling to do so. He, of course, would tell you that they pushed him out of his job because a computer can do what he did but candidly, he will admit that he wasn't ready to learn something new. It was completely foreign to him & he wasn't ready/willing/whatever it is you want to call it to adapt.

I don't think that is anybody else's problem to deal with, nor do I think society as a whole needs to somehow reward his decision to not adapt to the changing job scene beyond what he is supposed to receive from his 401k, SS, etc. He doesn't disagree with that either.

So, I guess all I'm trying to point out is that there are many reasons & scenarios why people do not want to adapt, or cannot bring themselves to be bothered to adapt...but in the end, we have a world that has opportunities for people who are willing to look for them. It is not, imho, the role of a government to force people into them, nor is it the job of government to attempt to warn all 300 million people how long until their job is obsolete. Almost all of our jobs will be obsolete in 40 years, most in 30 years, and a majority in 20 years. Narrowing down between now & 20 years is difficult at best...but we'll all need to adapt our skills. And it wont be lucky when some do...it will be motivation & aptitude which enables it, for the vast majority.

This country has a ton of upward and downward mobility. The biggest factor that your parent's income has in this is that successful parents tend to be more likely than unsuccessful to instill good educational and work-ethic values than unsuccessful. But there are plenty of counter-examples to each going all four ways: kids born to poor parents with poor attitudes that dug themselves out anyway, kids born to poor parents with good attitudes that chose not to learn and stayed poor, kids born to successful parents with lousy attitudes that stayed "successful" despite their parents, and kids born to successful parents with great attitudes that pissed it all away despite that advantages they were given.

This country offers plenty of OPPORTUNITY to both dig yourself out of a hole and put yourself deep in one. The key word being "opportunity", not "right", unless we want to agree on "the right to have the opportunity". Decide you want to be successful, work at it, and odds are pretty good you will be, even with failures along the way. Decide you don't want to work and that everything is owed to you, you're likely headed off the deep-end. No guarantees, but the options are there if you want to take advantage of them.

All these government entitlement programs and safety nets take away much of the incentive to put that effort in, and that's why we need to change. Remember, it's the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to have it handed to you on a silver platter.

Good points. My dad is one who has adapted. We did lawn maintenance in the summer to supplemen his teacher's income, he learned CAD and computers so he could continue to teach drafting as the profession changed, he parlayed that into a CAD job once he left teaching, and has taken on a variety of other jobs / tasks as necessary. He took responsibility for how his own life would turn out, and didn't blame others. I've taken that lesson to heart.

I couldn't disagree more on the whole, anyway. Income class mobility happens all the time. We see various avenues for this whether it be music, sports, and yes...even educational pursuits via science & technology fields. It is certainly an advantage for a child to achieve their goals when they have great parents...but I'm not sure great parents need be synonymous to wealthy parents.


And that is why having great parents is an asset...but not the end all be all. I'd venture to say that, while possibly a significant disadvantage and perhaps even some degree of setback in your career/life, you would likely have achieved whatever it is you were trying to achieve even without the fallback. Skills can be taught...but motivation & passion must be brought to the table.

There's not nearly as much income mobility has there used to be and generally Europe has much more mobility currently. You can find all sorts of anecdotal evidence of people that overcame, but the percentages are clear, the single greatest determinant of future income is parental income and it's impossible to look at that and say anything other than luck is a major factor in economic success.

People who say this need to go spend eight weeks in an inner city school and then tell me that's true.

But where do you learn motivation and passion, at least to some degree from your parents, which you have no control over. There will always be people that overcome the odds, but just as in blackjack, most of the time the odds win.

I don't have a problem with people getting rich, I'd just like more of a sense of gratitude for the blessings you've been given to help you acquire wealth. A lot of it's a crapshoot and winning isn't always about skill.

Are you basically saying that most people who make over the average income level are not entitled to, or have not earned, their income?

Because what is much more valuable than money is that higher income parents (generally speaking) have passed along knowledge, motivation, and proper outlook on life to their kids.


Why is this true? And if it is "bad parents"...then should the government be a cradle to grave nanny for society? Do we allow people to opt into such "service"? How does the participation of this "service" get enforced, and to what extent does a child/adult have a say in their own life then?

I get that we have issues in our poorest neighborhoods...but simply guaranteeing "opportunity" to somebody that doesnt want the opportunity also does not = success. Allowing for the pursuit of opportunity (disadvantages and all) does...and in my opinion, that is in place (for the most part).

I think its important for people to realize though that the old world of people working for a living and making their way is starting to come to a close.

Today there are far fewer jobs than 10 years ago, in ten years time there will be fewer again still.

Regardless of what you look to do, your job will eventually be outsourced not to China but to automation.

In 50 years time when there are only feasible jobs for say 50% of the population do you want the other 50% condemned to a mediocre lifestyle? - thats what it comes down to really.

I want everyone to live a happy and productive life, not to have 50% of the population employed and working ludicrously long hours in a vain attempt to retain a job they probably hate. It'd be nice if in 50 years time everyone still had the opportunity to be employed because the working week was only 20 hours a week on average and holidays longer for example ....

Yes this is 'forward looking' - but its hardly rocket science based on progress in the past 20 years and the likely direction for the future ... its also something which society needs to start thinking about now before its too late.

If society continues to ignore this then (like the national debt) it'll be a huge issue and harder to surmount when it is impossible to ignore at some point in the future.

Politicians (and citizens) around the world are at some point going to have to tackle the difficult issues instead of constantly ducking them - unfortunately I think they'll wait until the car crash happens and even then pretend it didn't really, in a similar way to how the last financial debacle has largely been swept under the rug as something which won't happen again rather than taking true action to prevent its recurrence.

Perhaps the problem is one of too many people rather than too few jobs.

That can indeed be one way of looking at things.

The Chinese government for instance has taken this stance which is why they limit the children their population can have, its not something I'd have thought you'd be advocating though ... is this what you are suggesting?

From a socialist on FB. Not sure there's a correlation, but it's an interesting stat nonetheless.

This.

Seconded.

I think maybe 50% of the jobs "as they exist today" might be the better way to look at it.

If 50% of the people were not working or producing then how would we even have a demand for anything? How would we have sold automated products to people who did not even have a job to pay for them? Moreover...how would society not break down well before then anyway?

At some point...people who are not satisfied with their financial situation(s) will do what is necessary to better their situation. If we have a society that allows them the opportunity to increase their wealth, then they will pursue it in whatever form that is. Those who are not motivated to better their situation will simply not better it & will live a more low-cost/low-luxury lifestyle. Both of these options are choices that everybody is able to freely make today...no matter what their situation is to begin with.

There will always be outliers to every scenario but if we are trying to say that "people who arent motivated to increase their wealth should have their wealth increased in spite of this because they don't know any better due to uninterested parents instilling a desire to pursue happy lives and/or wealth"...then I think that is a similar line of thought to what American settlers thought the Native American Indians should have subscribed to.

IMHO, it isn't our (collective) job to force everybody to believe in concepts of materialism where the uninterested or unwilling aren't making the pursuit themselves. If we are looking at micro- situations, then I'm sure we'd agree there is work to be done. If we are talking macro-...I simply don't agree it isn't there today.

+3 to rowech

SI

How did you quote me on something I didn't say?

I don't disagree with the desire skills need to be learned...the problem is that these are survival skills that are taught by even the most mediocre of parents. Where I disagree is that it is ever too late to instill in a kid. This would mean life isn't really all that worwhile but if you get to a kid early enough...you can brainwash them into thinking it is. I know you didnt say that...but I think that is what that really would entail and I think anybody 30 & under is more than capable of seeing things from a new perspective & seeing a reason to develop their inner drive.


What opportunities are not available? Safety? Bad teachers...all of them? The issue is really bad parenting = bad future parents = low income from generation to generation. Where "bad" is a subjective term used by well-intentioned people to really mean "unable to instill rich person (read:materialistic) thinking".

There also seems to be a hint of "society should force kids & adults to believe in materialism & pursuit of wealth to the extent that Donald Trump does & instills in his own kids". If people in society don't want to partake in those pursuits and are content to live the way they want to live...who are (figuratively) you to tell them any different so long as they aren't infringing on your own?

I'm not sure why that happened. Hmm...I'll try to edit.

I'm not the most materialistic person out there but I do think we have a pretty good baseline we can all agree on, right?

We don't want people who are in jail- that's a pretty easy one baseline to start with but a pretty big one. The chapter in Freakonomics about selling drugs and how the org chart mirrors that of McDonalds as a business model- getting all people to be onboard with this is harder than you think. But, we as a society in a social contract have determined that the extreme level of violations of "you can have rights as long as they don't infringe on my own" go to jail- killing others, stealing from others, etc.

Can we agree that we don't want people who live with more debt than they have income in one year as that is highly unsustainable? We could even make the exclusion of a house if we want to claim that has value as an asset whereas almost every other consumer good loses a substantial portion of it's value as soon as you buy it. If you want to poor- that's a choice. But then borrowing it from others with no intent to repay seems like a case of taking more from society than you are contributing and, again, infringes on other's rights.

Lastly, and I think a big one but a controversial one: we don't really want people in society who have children but don't have the time or money to take care of them as that seems to perpetuate this cycle we're trying to get people out of. You create a life that requires a great amount of resources in terms of time and, likely, money but if you aren't willing to shoulder your fair share of that burden- then aren't you just making life more difficult for the rest of us?

SI

As long as you don't extrapolate it into a hearty endorsement of the specifics of the Chinese regulations then you're welcome to put me on the record as a supporter of the general concept in certain situations.

One easy example that comes to mind is my long-time support of proposals for mandatory tubal ligation for anyone "on the dole" in the U.S., say for a period of longer than one year.

I agree with all that, but I wonder how inherently "bad" these things are, and where the happy mediums are.

One of the strongest life motivations is to provide for one's children, to provide a better life for them. Is that essentially problematic and something we should seek to neuter as much as possible?

I think a lot of people here can agree with the general principle that a people's parents, and the money they come from, can have all sorts of advantages, but get a bad, resentful feeling when people imply that all or most of one's success is predetermined. That's just not fair. There's a lot of hardworking people that have kicked ass at life, and haven't had much handed to them. We all have a range of possible success and failures based on what we've been given, and we either overachieve or underachieve. And most of our ranges, outside of the top and bottom, are pretty similar. And people who come from money can fail and become drug addicts and contribute nothing to society - they still won't be starving, and they'll show up as a "success" if we look dryly at the numbers. And a person who comes from the gutter and works his ass of to reach an academic scholarship at a public school, and gains a middle to lower-middle class livelihood would be considered less successful by the numbers, but has really kicked ass at life. There's real people behind these numbers, and when we throw around these ideas with hugely negative energy about what people are predetermined to do (such as people with "success" don't generally deserve it, and people without it are the victims of the evil deeds of those who did succeed), it's just really damaging all around, IMO. Success shouldn't be something suspicious.

I guess the point is - what to make of these obvious trends that people start and different points in life? Do we just like to point it out to bring people down a notch, do we just like to comfort those (or ourselves) that are "lower" in society that it's not really their fault, are we just making political points - or are we actually saying that we should engineer society in such a way that should somehow ban the advantages parents give to their children, or supplement the disadvantages of others - or is it about looking for a middle ground? I think that as a free society, that we should try to find the best, the elite, from wherever they're born and help and encourage them to be in a place where those skills can be utilized - but otherwise, I don't think government should (or can) have the role of making sure life is fair for everybody.

No. Health care is one of the areas that I don't think it's possible to have a completely free market.

But they aren't. The teaching field is overly saturated right now. There are articles and reports all the time of a couple openings popping up and a thousand resumes being sent in for it. There are a lot of teachers out of work right now. Trust me, if it was scarce, we'd all be for paying top dollar to get them. But it's not.

What's your solution? To pay the guy who dropped out of high school and chose a life of flipping burgers the same as the neurosurgeon who went to school for an extra decade?

You can list sad stories all day. And someone else can list happy stories. That's life. We all make choices that either turn out good or bad. There are successes and failures. It's what motivates us to be better. It's part of our survival. If you take that away, we changet dramatically. You won't find as many people willing to go to school for 10 more years to become a surgeon when they can make the same amount of money sitting on the couch smoking bowls and playing Madden.

Maybe that makes me a bad person. I just don't believe in the logic of handing out a participation trophy to everyone and not keeping score.

First off, these teachers didn't call in sick because they didn't get enough textbooks, or because they want better materials for their students. They are protesting because the State doesn't want to negotiate the same way anymore and their union won't have as much strength.

A couple years ago the State had to cut aid to schools. Surprisingly, there were no massive protests. No rallies. No call-in sick days. So the "help people" narrative is nice, but it hasn't played out in reality. That's not saying they don't, or that it's not a huge motivating factor, just that money is quite important to them, just as it is to everyone.

But one thing I do want to stress. This isn't about teachers. This is about state employees. In fact, the teacher thing isn't a big deal to me. It's when toll booth workers are making $60k a year, getting benefits, and getting pensions that it bothers me.

And it might seem like it's not big deal to overpay someone. But someone has to pay it. My state nearly double the state income tax a few weeks ago. That means that every single person in this state took a paycut. From the rich banker to the single mother working for minimum wage. So someone is paying. What your stance seems to be is that public employees should get paid a lot and everyone else should have to sacrifice to make that happen.

I agree with you on this. Schools are not equal and we should do a better job at making them equal. Everyone should have the same educational opportunity growing up.

However, I don't know what you can do when it comes to parents. That's the bigger issue. It's not about a school not having some extra computers, it's about parents not giving a shit about their kids. Not raising them to do well, not teaching them discipline. When Chicago Public Schools has to bring Dwyane Wade and some rappers around the city to get kids to show up to the first day of class, that's a problem.

What everyone is afraid to talk about is that the people having the most kids are the ones least equipped to give them a chance at success. Perhaps we should be pushing birth control more heavily in these areas. Perhaps we should be offering more financial assistance in this field. And perhaps we need a system in place that says if you're living off the State, you have to be on birth control. While I'm sure some here will decry that as mean, I'd say it's worse to bring kids into the world who don't have a chance.

Money Won’t Buy You Health Insurance - NYTimes.com

Co-founder of Palm and Handspring writes an op-ed about difficult it was for her to get health insurance.

Toll booth workers getting $60K per year? Um... stats or it didn't happen?

(And if it's some poor dope who's working 14 hour days 7 days a week, I'm sorry but that doesn't count because he's basically working 2 full time jobs that pay $30K.)

SI

My post was clearly superseded by RainMaker's actual data below.

Nope. Average in New Jersey is around $65,000 a year.

Union: Privatization would hurt toll collectors | courierpostonline.com | Courier-Post

Base salary in Massachusetts was $53,000, which didn't include overtime, benefits, pension, etc. When they factored those in it went to $65,000 to $70,000.

In first wave of cuts, Turnpike to layoff 20 toll collectors - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

Some made 6-figures.

Some toll takers raking in $100G - BostonHerald.com

Despite what the job looks like, they actually have a pretty strong union in many parts of the country.

(Also, it's hard to feel that these anti-union rants come from anything but petty jealousy most of the time as it's always about "some guy making way too much" which translates to "more than I think he should make". But it's ok if he were out in the pseudo-free market because that's what the sacrosanct market believes you to be worth. I particularly love when it's a post oozing with a smug superiority- "he's just a construction worker/teacher/whatever" whereas the poster clearly does a much more important function in a more specialized field and thus is much more valuable.

Never mind that said worker is making that money because he agreed to take a calculated risk and band together with like minded individuals to increase his earning power. Of course, when he does that, he's a socialist. But when United and Continental merge so they can increase prices due to a lack of competition- that's... the free market?)

SI

I stand corrected. Maybe it's time to get out of my job and go take some tolls.

SI

First step to a job like that is donating to a a political campaign.

I have no problem with unions. And I've said many times that employees should try and get as much as they can from their employers. If a toll booth attendant can make $65k a year, more power to them. If a teacher can get a sweet salary and benefits package, more power to them. Everyone should try and get as much as they can for their services.

But as employees of the state, every taxpayer should have a say and opinion. We are the ones paying that salary and they technically work for us. That's not smug superiority, that's just looking out for yourself and where your money is being spent. I don't know why caring about where your tax dollars are spent is a bad thing.

(more WI specific politics nobody probably cares about)

My State Senator Dale Schultz (Republican) is working on an alternative bill to Walker's that would only suspend collective bargaining until 2013. Unions have already agreed to the money concessions. So this seems like a logical compromise. Probably too logical for either side because they both want this to be drawn out even longer.

It may not be fair, but there's plenty of evidence to show that a large part of financial success is determined before we're born. It doesn't mean those successful haven't worked hard, but the opportunity to work that hard and find that level of success has a lot to do with where and to whom we're born.

At the end of the day I'd be happy with a better understanding of what it means to grow up rich vs middle class vs poor. Success and failure are too often seen as moral judgments when the truth is that luck at the beginning had a whole lot to do with the outcome.

North Carolina's problem is not low teacher pay, it's a screwed-up educational emphasis that prefers social experimentation to actually educating kids. It's also a very agricultural state that could really use an emphasis on vocational education over the college-prep emphasis that's been pushed in this country over the last few decades. It's a prime example of how education is being destroyed in this country.

I guess I'd ask the question...can you honestly say you have the definition of success for everybody?

In this conversation I'm talking strictly about financial success.

Fair enough but I think that begs the question...are people legitimately trying to gain financial success and failing at it, or are they just not engaging in the 1st place?

Certainly those are sweeping generalizations, but I think you do have to ask that question on the whole before we say that society as a whole needs to do anything. I can agree all day long that financially underprivileged kids may not "know what they don't know", and therefore may not realize their potential opportunities. They may also be taught by their parents that the system will always screw them...so why try? But whatever their reason (just as the example I gave with my own father)...what is society supposed to do about it? Kidnap them? Force them into hard work to make them better "producers" (albeit giving them a nice materialistic lifestyle)?

I'm being a bit facetious but I just don't know why we want to try & turn everybody into a precise financial equal seemingly to prove something to ourselves. The world needs all kinds of people, and everybody cannot be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist. But the opportunity is there to rise up the ladder if one is diligent, talented, & motivated. It isn't always obviously fair, but it generally is fair.

I think a lot of people are very appreciative of their parents for all the help and sacrifices they've made for them. Is that enough? I'd agree that people who ignore/deny that help are douchebags.

Children of the middle class have a much higher "floor" if they fuck-up than poor people, but there's still a big difference between the child of a middle class family who fucks up in school, needs parental support his entire life, and bounces around low-paying jobs v. someone from the same family working hard in school and becoming a doctor or six-figure lawyer. We can look at the lawyer/doctor and say - "ya, you had help getting there", and they couldn't honestly deny it, but....what's the point there? It just seems unhelpful and mean-spirited (of course, if that person is saying how great he is and how poor people should just do what he did - I understand the emotional need to take him down a notch at a dinner party or something), but as far as those people as a whole - they're not the enemy, and resenting that kind of success is so unhealthy for a society I think. This is what we WANT from the middle class, or any class, people taking advantage of what they have and utilizing it.

Many successful people recognize very well all the advantages of the success they've had, and start/contribute to organizations/charities that helped them along the way, or that provide the kind of services and support that their peers lacked (in places like church and welfare organizations the very buzzword in giving is to help those "less fortunate" - the concept of advantages is built right into that buzzword. And I think a lot of successful people are also very proud of the advantages they didn't have (and there's always somebody to look at that has a better start/had more than you, if one chooses to be entirely wrapped up in that.)

Edit: And I don't think the people concerned with social justice who bring this stuff up are mean-spirited at all, but I think it would help to understand the defensiveness coming from the other side when groups of people are told their success is predetermined. Maybe SOME level of minimal comfort is predetermined but there's still a huge range of accomplishment from low to high depending where you start out. It's so predictable how these things can get emotional.

I believe that it's very questionable to use a broad "this is what we want" there. It's what you want, it's what I want, it's pretty damned obvious that there's a segment of our society that could give a damn about that & in fact, that it runs contrary to what they want: everything those people have taken from them & redistributed.

Hell, that's pretty much the core of this argument, but along the philosophical lines of the sub-discussion, I'd say the inability to ever hit "enough" in what's been given by/taken from those folks does much to explain the increasing pushback against given/having taken any.

A few things.

Studies have shown that charitable giving as a percentage of income is higher among lower income levels.

I'm not saying success is predetermined, hard work is definitely important. The point is that many people bust ass but they haven't been born into a situation that allows that level of hard work to produce the same outcome. It's impossible to completely alleviate, but at least recognizing that the poor aren't simply morally inferior would be a nice change in the national conversation.

Turning this back to our recent discussion, this is why unions are important. I'll admit I'm a little torn on state/local unions, but private unions are essential to giving hard working, but less gifted individuals a fair reward for their labor. It's not that unions are perfect or that they always make the correct decisions, but they are the only force pushing wages up for blue collar workers. I think these people shouldn't just be left to the lowest wage a company can find and fucked if they complain. Collective bargaining forces a company's profits to be somewhat more equitably distributed to the workers. Owners and management will still make a whole lot more, just not quite as much as without a union.

I shouldn't bother to engage you, but this riles me enough.

Show me one time where I say I want to strip the middle class and redistribute everything. Just because I think a policy of Fuck em is immoral doesn't mean I'm a Stalinite, or if I am, so was Jesus.

I agree with Jon's post but in a different way that he doesn't really address. I think there is definitely a class of very rich people that don't want everyone to get a leg up. Where I differ is with his analysis. He thinks those people get pissed about paying their taxes to the welfare state. I think those people lobby congressman to pass IRS tax code that lets them get away with tax write-offs on just about everything and more recently to just give them outright kickbacks. They are being taxed even less. Unfortunately if what I say is true then how is the government supposed to fix the problem? (when they are quite happy being part of the problem?)

Did I say you? Did I quote you? Did I mention you by name?

Don't get me wrong, I can see where you could draw that conclusion, but you ought to trust me when I say that you weren't even considered as a poster child for what I meant. Few FOFC'ers in particular were really, it was more of a "we've steadily tried government redistribution of wealth here for some 80 years & at no point did it ever reach the level of "enough" even being in sight" sort of thing.

You don't have to believe me about it not being something targeted at you, but why would I lie? It's not as though I'm known for being bashful about telling anyone when they're in the crosshairs of anything I say.

LMAO

We haven't even TOUCHED "government redistribution of wealth" on the scale on which other countries that have had legitimate policies of redistribution have done in the recent past. That's such a bogeyman mischaracterization of what's occurred in the US.

If you want real government redistribution of wealth go live in communist china, or go back and live in the USSR, or in Sweden in the 1980's, or any of a number of other countries. Fuck...go live in Cuba right now. Those are all societies where there have been actual government redistribution of wealth.

What we've done here doesn't even begin to approach the practical meaning of those words in reality and in practice (although I concede that of course they do in terms of "dictionary definition," which is what I'm sure you'll come back with).

Give me a break.

Actually, I'll just simplify & say that the difference is by degrees. Income is just one of the areas where we persist in attempting to change the graphs by tearing down from the top rather than looking for more performance and/or effort from the bottom.


What would you like broken?

Your internet connection? ;)

Fixed and yes, we need to make sure we never get there.