|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 12, 2010 21:40:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 13, 2010 8:00:56 GMT -8
"believes in magic". Didn't John Sebastian of the Lovin Spoonful do that in 1965?  |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 13, 2010 8:23:24 GMT -8
The biggest problem with California's budget is that the Democrats are COMPLETELY owned by the public employees unions. The amount that California pays in salaries, and - more importantly - in PENSIONS is going to bury the state in about 10 years.
Only bankruptcy/insolvency and court action voiding parts or all of their contracts will save the state. Otherwise right now will look like the, "Good old days," in about 10-15 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 13, 2010 8:25:35 GMT -8
Two things rally stick out. We have discussed them before. The more wealthy folks are moving out at breakneck speed and sooner rather than later the other 49 states will make the Federal Government stop lending us money.
Try to figure out how that effects you. My problem is I can't get my wife to move.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 13, 2010 9:06:40 GMT -8
Two things rally stick out. We have discussed them before. The more wealthy folks are moving out at breakneck speed and sooner rather than later the other 49 states will make the Federal Government stop lending us money. Try to figure out how that effects you. My problem is I can't get my wife to move. It would seem to me that the exit of middle class people from California would be much more problematic than the exit of the rich, whose assets flow freely anyway. You have a real hard on for unions, don't you? How can you be so angry at people who are only seeking the same advantages as any business? Are they not also allowed to seek economic advantage? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 13, 2010 9:13:47 GMT -8
Two things rally stick out. We have discussed them before. The more wealthy folks are moving out at breakneck speed and sooner rather than later the other 49 states will make the Federal Government stop lending us money. Try to figure out how that effects you. My problem is I can't get my wife to move. It would seem to me that the exit of middle class people from California would be much more problematic than the exit of the rich, whose assets flow freely anyway. You have a real hard on for unions, don't you? How can you be so angry at people who are only seeking the same advantages as any business? Are they not also allowed to seek economic advantage? I am not angry at union members, only the corrupt union leadership that spends a significant portion of their dues on political campaigns that the members do not support. There are other issues as well. A portion of the demise of jobs and businesses in this country are due to union efforts that result in pricing American goods out of the reach of other countries and made foreign goods more attractive both in price and in some cases quality for consumers at home. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 13, 2010 9:34:03 GMT -8
Two things rally stick out. We have discussed them before. The more wealthy folks are moving out at breakneck speed and sooner rather than later the other 49 states will make the Federal Government stop lending us money. Try to figure out how that effects you. My problem is I can't get my wife to move. It would seem to me that the exit of middle class people from California would be much more problematic than the exit of the rich, whose assets flow freely anyway. The devil is in the details. The state budget has relied HEAVILY on the wealthy for the last decade or so, and when the wealthy have a down year the state budget deficit balloons. That's one of the big flaws in the current budget structure. One of them, anyway. That's fine and good, but unions have actually buried several industries in the U.S. and cut off their noses to spite their faces. The steel industry, for example, almost completely shut down in the U.S. for several years. The auto industry in the U.S. couldn't compete with foreign companies because of the ludicrous contracts that the unions demanded. And why should state workers get to unionize? The idea was that they would give up a small amount in income to get greater benefits and job security. Since the public employees in California were unionized (thanks to Jerry Brown) they have both greater benefits and job security AND higher wages. It's burying the state. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 13, 2010 9:40:19 GMT -8
It would seem to me that the exit of middle class people from California would be much more problematic than the exit of the rich, whose assets flow freely anyway. The devil is in the details. The state budget has relied HEAVILY on the wealthy for the last decade or so, and when the wealthy have a down year the state budget deficit balloons. That's one of the big flaws in the current budget structure. One of them, anyway. That's fine and good, but unions have actually buried several industries in the U.S. and cut off their noses to spite their faces. The steel industry, for example, almost completely shut down in the U.S. for several years. The auto industry in the U.S. couldn't compete with foreign companies because of the ludicrous contracts that the unions demanded. And why should state workers get to unionize? The idea was that they would give up a small amount in income to get greater benefits and job security. Since the public employees in California were unionized (thanks to Jerry Brown) they have both greater benefits and job security AND higher wages. It's burying the state. Unions don't get what management will not give away. So who should be blamed? |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 13, 2010 9:58:07 GMT -8
The devil is in the details. The state budget has relied HEAVILY on the wealthy for the last decade or so, and when the wealthy have a down year the state budget deficit balloons. That's one of the big flaws in the current budget structure. One of them, anyway. That's fine and good, but unions have actually buried several industries in the U.S. and cut off their noses to spite their faces. The steel industry, for example, almost completely shut down in the U.S. for several years. The auto industry in the U.S. couldn't compete with foreign companies because of the ludicrous contracts that the unions demanded. And why should state workers get to unionize? The idea was that they would give up a small amount in income to get greater benefits and job security. Since the public employees in California were unionized (thanks to Jerry Brown) they have both greater benefits and job security AND higher wages. It's burying the state. Unions don't get what management will not give away. So who should be blamed? The unions - for not accepting reasonable offers and going on strike instead. And it's not even the union membership that's responsible - it's the union leaders who have a vested interest in getting every penny possible (the bigger the contract, the bigger their cut). |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Nov 13, 2010 10:53:55 GMT -8
Sure, the political/financial situation in California is complex. Still, one cannot just say, "Don't pick on the govt. employees just because they have a union" and let it go at that. The very generous benefits enjoyed by the state workers have to be taken into consideration.
Here's a very big part of why many are hostile to those unions and there workers. Unlike private sector workers, members of public employee unions can, to a large extent, pick their bosses. Through cash contributions and volunteer efforts (get-out-the-vote phone banks, etc.), the unions have an enormous influence on who gets elected to state offices.
There are other factors, of course, but they all add up to insane public policy that is heading this state down the road to bankruptcy.
We may turn things around, but I can't see Jerry Brown doing what Governor Christie is doing in New Jersey. I'm sure he means well, but his head is still too much in the clouds to figure out what is going on.
In any event, whether sooner or later, things are going to get really ugly. If it is sooner, things will not be so ugly as they will be if it is later.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 14, 2010 9:03:08 GMT -8
No pension should be more than 50% of the maximum average income for the last five years of employment. That should be a Federal Law.
Anybody who make more than $30,000 a year from his job should be taxed fifty percent on the excess. The first $30,000 should be free of taxation as that will be called a "Living Wage."
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 14, 2010 13:03:05 GMT -8
The devil is in the details. The state budget has relied HEAVILY on the wealthy for the last decade or so, and when the wealthy have a down year the state budget deficit balloons. That's one of the big flaws in the current budget structure. One of them, anyway. That's fine and good, but unions have actually buried several industries in the U.S. and cut off their noses to spite their faces. The steel industry, for example, almost completely shut down in the U.S. for several years. The auto industry in the U.S. couldn't compete with foreign companies because of the ludicrous contracts that the unions demanded. And why should state workers get to unionize? The idea was that they would give up a small amount in income to get greater benefits and job security. Since the public employees in California were unionized (thanks to Jerry Brown) they have both greater benefits and job security AND higher wages. It's burying the state. Unions don't get what management will not give away. So who should be blamed? Good question on the surface. Don't you think that the study that goes into what can be done during contract talks is a little more complicated than that? Don't you think that the decisions are made with estimates on razor thin margins to stay viable? When those estimates are wrong you have industries close up shop. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 14, 2010 13:08:31 GMT -8
Unions don't get what management will not give away. So who should be blamed? Good question on the surface. Don't you think that the study that goes into what can be done during contract talks is a little more complicated than that? Don't you think that the decisions are made with estimates on razor thin margins to stay viable? When those estimates are wrong you have industries close up shop. Yep I guess the future generations will all be state employees. |
|
