LawTalkers
Page 251 of 334 « First 151201241249250 251 252253261301 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We are all Slave now. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=882)

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2018 12:16 PM
Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 519014)
Oh. Well, if it didn't happen to you, then it surely doesn't happen at all. And if it doesn't happen at your level, it probably doesn't happen below. Have you been attending Sebby's cocktail parties too? Ease back.

TM
WTF? Of course it happens. I said two things: (1) I think the guy who left us and asked to be paid for holidays he didn't take was audacious. We paid him for his unused vacations. No one stopped him from taking those holidays. Hell, he could have used them in his last week. (2) I have seen many co-workers choose to keep doing work on vacation when they don't have to, usually by staying on email. They shouldn't.

Who put a stick up your ass? There are lots of people out there with crappy bosses who make them work on vacation. That's not what I was talking about.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2018 12:18 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 519015)
It's pretty common for union wages to be 2x to even 3x times non-union; you also regularly deal with a skill difference, because non-union contractors usually put fewer and less skilled people on the same job because they don't have union rules, including safety rules.

The profitability for nonunion contractors is significantly higher. Again, by a factor, maybe just a factor of 2 instead of 3, but a significant factor. Maybe you could argue that the non-union job should be 95M instead of 100M, but experience around here is that the graft cost for the non-union "privatization" contracts is a lot higher - Charlie's buddies are making a lot of money, but they've got to keep the Republican party and its candidates funded as a quid pro quo, and need to hire the right PR and lobbying firms with Charlie Baker's out of office friends. So even if the nonunion contractor makes more from the job, they have a lot of mouths to feed.
If the wage differentials are that high, that starts to make a difference. Why are the graft costs higher for non-union jobs? Seems like politicians who like privatization are the cause of those, not whether the job is union or non-union.

ThurgreedMarshall 10-26-2018 12:24 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519017)
This started from something Sebby said* about the effectiveness of stimulus. If the entire point of making infrastructure spending go to union jobs is that they are more expensive and you think you get more of it, OK, but I think what actually happens is that Congress appropriates whatever it's going to appropriate and if it goes to union projects then there are fewer of them, and the same aggregate spending.
Yes. The same aggregate spending yields a way lower multiplier when it comes to the economy because, although there may be more less-expensive jobs, the fact that they're not going to union contractors means a way higher percentage of the budget is going into the pockets of rich people who aren't trickling it the fuck down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519017)
You guys keep explaining the concept to me as if I don't understand it. I get it. I just the delta is pretty small. I concede I'm not backing that up with anything other than an intuition that in all the money spent on an infrastructure project on materials and land and etc., the delta between union and non-union wages is a pretty small thing.
Well, it sure is hard to argue with intuition. Not sure why contractors and owners all over this country are trying to crush unions. It must be because they value the worker's right to work and not because they'll make tons more money with no collective bargaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519017)
It's not small to the workers involved, but it does seem pretty small when you are trying to assess the stimulative effects. Also, (a) the money that goest to the wealthy has some stimulative effect, just not as much, and (b) if the non-union projects are really cheaper, then the mix of work is different -- e.g., your federal highway spending bill gets you 28 highway projects instead of 26, so more non-union workers are getting work than union workers are.
Your argument is based on assumptions and zero facts in evidence. You have no idea if there will be a different number of jobs if union shops aren't being considered. My guess is that contractors who know they aren't competing with union shops charge whatever they would have charged and pocket even more. Otherwise, if the costs are simply passed on, why wouldn't they be ambivalent towards whether they're a union shop or not? And let's not even talk about the higher training that comes with union work, benefits, and long-term nature of union jobs.

I'm not really going to take your word for the stimulative effect of money in a union worker's pocket vs. that in an owner's pocket. Again, I think trickle down is complete bullshit and am surprised you are a proponent of it, even in this weird, roundabout way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519017)
To this, GGG offers me a hypothetical where union wages are 3x non-union wages, and TM asserts theres "a much highly stimulative effect," as if just saying that way answers the question instead of restates it. Hey, I just spent a few minutes Googling and I couldn't find anything useful on point, so it's not like I'm saying anything new at this point either. If I were designing federal infrastructure spending packages, I would still steer the work to union shops, but I wouldn't tout the heightened stimulus effects as the reason to do it.
Sure thing. I'll get right on that research for you.

TM

*I try not to read that garbage anymore.

ThurgreedMarshall 10-26-2018 12:27 PM
Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519018)
WTF? Of course it happens. I said two things: (1) I think the guy who left us and asked to be paid for holidays he didn't take was audacious. We paid him for his unused vacations. No one stopped him from taking those holidays. Hell, he could have used them in his last week. (2) I have seen many co-workers choose to keep doing work on vacation when they don't have to, usually by staying on email. They shouldn't.

Who put a stick up your ass? There are lots of people out there with crappy bosses who make them work on vacation. That's not what I was talking about.
If you know it happens and you know why it happens, then I am at a loss to explain what the fuck you've been talking about since you said you didn't understand why people do it. I guess we're just talking about your crazy coworkers in your office. If that's the case, I'll go back to doing something more interesting, like organizing these almonds over here by size and color.

TM

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2018 12:32 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 519020)
Well, it sure is hard to argue with intuition.
Not it isn't. You just call the multiplier "way lower" and that cinches it.

Quote:
Not sure why contractors and owners all over this country are trying to crush unions. It must be because they value the worker's right to work and not because they'll make tons more money with no collective bargaining.
Thanks, Thurgreed, the idea that contractors and owners want to crush unions because they'll make more money is both highly relevant to what I was saying and also is something that never occurred to me. Brilliant.

Quote:
I'm not really going to take your word for the stimulative effect of money in a union worker's pocket vs. that in an owner's pocket.
No one should "take my word" for it because I have been very explicit that I don't know and am just working through an argument here. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- I am asking to be persuaded, something you so far are failing at.

Quote:
Again, I think trickle down is complete bullshit and am surprised you are a proponent of it, even in this weird, roundabout way.
I am surprised you think I am a proponent of trickle down. I am now a proponent of stimulating the economy by paying for remedial reading instructions for you.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2018 12:37 PM
Re: Which side are you on, boys?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 519021)
If you know it happens and you know why it happens, then I am at a loss to explain what the fuck you've been talking about since you said you didn't understand why people do it. I guess we're just talking about your crazy coworkers in your office. If that's the case, I'll go back to doing something more interesting, like organizing these almonds over here by size and color.
Here's what I said: "I have had so many co-workers who email from their vacations. No one makes them do it." I actually do think I understand why they do it. They're not crazy, but they're not good at taking a break from their jobs. If you feel like being a jackass instead of having a conversation, stick to your almonds.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-26-2018 12:46 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519012)
But the whole point is that the numbers aren't going to be that different. Union wages are not 3x non-union wages and -- more critically to this point -- the non-union contractors usually price lower. Do I think the stimulus is "the same"? No, and I said there's a non-zero difference, but it's small.
On a large enough project, you are talking about hundreds to thousands of jobs. The small differences add up in volume.

Tyrone Slothrop 10-26-2018 12:49 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 519024)
On a large enough project, you are talking about hundreds to thousands of jobs. The small differences add up in volume.
Absolutely.

But if you are comparing different ways to spend a certain amount of government money, then you may be comparing more lower-paid jobs with fewer higher-paid jobs, and added differentials between costs of materials and the wages/profits that go to execs and owners, so it's not so simple.

Maybe the difference is not so small. If anyone can find actual research that addresses this, I'd be curious to see it. When I tried, I found some crap from Heritage and Cato that I didn't bother to share here.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 10-26-2018 12:57 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519017)
To this, GGG offers me a hypothetical where union wages are 3x non-union wages, and TM asserts theres "a much highly stimulative effect," as if just saying that way answers the question instead of restates it. Hey, I just spent a few minutes Googling and I couldn't find anything useful on point, so it's not like I'm saying anything new at this point either. If I were designing federal infrastructure spending packages, I would still steer the work to union shops, but I wouldn't tout the heightened stimulus effects as the reason to do it.
Back in the day, the most effective part of the Dukakis campaign was his singular focus on "good jobs at good wages", and that was what stimulus was about.

If the slogan is "so-so jobs some of which will be at decent wages", well, ok then, but it doesn't seem like what people want from stimulus spending.

Replaced_Texan 10-26-2018 01:04 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 519003)
shibboleth? wait, are a MotT or are you a cultural appropriator?
Or he watched the West Wing.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-26-2018 01:05 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519017)
This started from something Sebby said about the effectiveness of stimulus. If the entire point of making infrastructure spending go to union jobs is that they are more expensive and you think you get more of it, OK, but I think what actually happens is that Congress appropriates whatever it's going to appropriate and if it goes to union projects then there are fewer of them, and the same aggregate spending.

You guys keep explaining the concept to me as if I don't understand it. I get it. I just think the delta is pretty small. I concede I'm not backing that up with anything other than an intuition that in all the money spent on an infrastructure project on materials and land and etc., the delta between union and non-union wages is a pretty small thing. It's not small to the workers involved, but it does seem pretty small when you are trying to assess the stimulative effects. Also, (a) the money that goest to the wealthy has some stimulative effect, just not as much, and (b) if the non-union projects are really cheaper, then the mix of work is different -- e.g., your federal highway spending bill gets you 28 highway projects instead of 26, so more non-union workers are getting work than union workers are.

To this, GGG offers me a hypothetical where union wages are 3x non-union wages, and TM asserts theres "a much highly stimulative effect," as if just saying that way answers the question instead of restates it. Hey, I just spent a few minutes Googling and I couldn't find anything useful on point, so it's not like I'm saying anything new at this point either. If I were designing federal infrastructure spending packages, I would still steer the work to union shops, but I wouldn't tout the heightened stimulus effects as the reason to do it.
Union wages have a uniquely high multiplier effect because union workers tend to consume in more sectors than non-union workers. Non-union workers are paid as little as management can pay them. Right there, a significant amount of purchasing power is eliminated. Non-union workers typically do not have benefits. They are more likely to have health care costs, interest on payday loans, and all other variety of debts that dog people living on the margin. These people do not have safety nets and acquire debt to survive in payoff periods. In short, non-union fungible construction labor tends to have very little discretionary income.

Union labor, otoh, gets paid more, has safety nets for periods of layoff or disability, and consequently tends not be in debt servitude. Union members can go to lunch and dinner at local establishments, drink at local bars, buy at local grocers, etc. They grow the local economy.

So the delta you're citing (union wage - non-union wage) is an incomplete assessment of the difference between union and non-union labor. It's not a question of one guy being able to spend $50 on dinner after work versus another being able to spend only $25. It's one guy being able to spend $25 versus another guy being able to spend $0. It's multiplier (union) vs. no multiplier (non-union).

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 10-26-2018 01:11 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519019)
If the wage differentials are that high, that starts to make a difference. Why are the graft costs higher for non-union jobs? Seems like politicians who like privatization are the cause of those, not whether the job is union or non-union.
The privatization is pushed as saving money because the private contractors won't be subject to the same "government red tape" (e.g., unions and civil service rules).

It's pretty simple. My uncles were union carpenters and iron workers, and back in the day when someone got hired for a union job fresh off their training (a journeyman), at a point when they knew what they were doing but had modest work experience, they'd get $30-$40 an hour in NYC when the minimum wage was close to $5. The nonunion guys would get hired knowing squat at $10 an hour and move up with on-the-job training. But for someone experienced, comparing a $50 union wage and a $20 non-union one was pretty common. And the non-union work sites were also overrun by minimum wage workers (and sometimes sub-minimum wage illegal workers) who especially could do things done by carpenters on union sites. Never as well, of course, but they could do them.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-26-2018 01:13 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 519025)
Absolutely.

But if you are comparing different ways to spend a certain amount of government money, then you may be comparing more lower-paid jobs with fewer higher-paid jobs, and added differentials between costs of materials and the wages/profits that go to execs and owners, so it's not so simple.

Maybe the difference is not so small. If anyone can find actual research that addresses this, I'd be curious to see it. When I tried, I found some crap from Heritage and Cato that I didn't bother to share here.
You want people earning enough to have discretionary income to throw around. An army of people paid subsistence wages does nothing for the economy.

This is why the media's fixation on unemployment numbers drives me nuts. The only stat that matters at the moment is wage stagnation.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 10-26-2018 01:17 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 519029)
The privatization is pushed as saving money because the private contractors won't be subject to the same "government red tape" (e.g., unions and civil service rules).

It's pretty simple. My uncles were union carpenters and iron workers, and back in the day when someone got hired for a union job fresh off their training (a journeyman), at a point when they knew what they were doing but had modest work experience, they'd get $30-$40 an hour in NYC when the minimum wage was close to $5. The nonunion guys would get hired knowing squat at $10 an hour and move up with on-the-job training. But for someone experienced, comparing a $50 union wage and a $20 non-union one was pretty common. And the non-union work sites were also overrun by minimum wage workers (and sometimes sub-minimum wage illegal workers) who especially could do things done by carpenters on union sites. Never as well, of course, but they could do them.

Here's a current wage card from a NJ Ironworkers union: http://cms.impactunions.org/Iron-Wor...2018%20(1).pdf - wages over $50, total package is north of $80 per hour, including benefits

Here's payscale's survey of Ironworker comp (national avg. of $22 an hour)
https://www.payscale.com/research/US...er/Hourly_Rate

Think of how many low paid workers you need to have to offset the $50+ per hour union wages and come to that average.

sebastian_dangerfield 10-26-2018 01:17 PM
Re: Sebby is a dumbass
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 519029)
The privatization is pushed as saving money because the private contractors won't be subject to the same "government red tape" (e.g., unions and civil service rules).
Or you can be smart, pay prevailing wage and get the unions on board as supporters.

YMMV based on location, but in the mid-atlantic, it's wiser to make an ally of the unions and mine the profit conceded through union wages from other efficiencies.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:47 PM.
Page 251 of 334 « First 151201241249250 251 252253261301 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com