We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I was at a family reunion in a very red state a number of years ago, and heard quite a few stories -- conspiracy theories, really -- about how Obama was going to take people's guns away and/or make firearms or ammunition more expensive. I didn't really want to pursue that line of talk with most of the cousins who were on that kick (which was many if not most of the men but none of the women, for whatever reason). But one cousin who has been decently successful in the corporate world and otherwise seems like a reasonable guy explained to me how Obama was going to pass a tax on ammunition that was going to make it much more expensive, and so I asked him how Obama was going to do that, since the Constitution reserves taxing power to the Congress, which at that time was controlled by Republicans. He stopped and thought about it for a few moments, and allowed that that was a good question that he hadn't thought of and that he would have to look into that. From all of which I conclude that these sorts of stories are shibboleths told for purposes of group bonding, not necessarily as part of a search for the truths of the matters asserted.

shibboleth? wait, are a MotT or are you a cultural appropriator?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If money goes to someone rich enough that they aren't going to change their consumption, then it does just go into a bank account. I just don't believe there's much difference between union and non-union infrastructure projects in that regard. I am a fan of unions for other reasons, some of which Sebby has pointed to.

This is confusing. A union project requires more of the money that is spent go to workers. A non-union job allows that money to be kept by the principals. Unless you're going to start arguing in favor of trickle down theory, how is there not much of a difference?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I said they decide to work -- you changed that to "under the gun." If someone has to work then it really isn't a holiday, is it?

I have had so many co-workers who email from their vacations. No one makes them do it. It totally defeats the point. My rule is, I'm not responding to email during a vacation. If you need me, text or call me. Otherwise, it can wait until I'm back. I don't understand why more people don't that.

You're fucking kidding, right? Since you sit in a position that permits you to actually be completely focused on vacation, you're going to forget what it was like to have pressure to show you're always working hard and on top of things or a boss who expects you to work on vacation even though she says you shouldn't?

You've changed, man. You've changed.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the looniest of my FB/HS friends is posting a meme claiming the bombs were mailed BY Dems- nice plot, but I'd wait for some, ummm, evidence before sticking my neck out like that?

Why? It no longer matters what actually happened--only what you think happened or want to have happened. Any news to the contrary is summarily ignored.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is confusing. A union project requires more of the money that is spent go to workers. A non-union job allows that money to be kept by the principals. Unless you're going to start arguing in favor of trickle down theory, how is there not much of a difference?

TM

Trickle down works for the blow dealers, and my impression is people were focused on full employment for drug dealers (but not so much for the low-paid hookers - I think the hookers need a union before dealing with the likes of Slave and Adder).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You're fucking kidding, right? Since you sit in a position that permits this, you're going to forget what it was like to have pressure to show you're always working hard and on top of things or a boss who expects you to work on vacation even though she says you shouldn't?

You've changed, man. You've changed.

TM

These people ought to be able to get the work he gives them done during the day. They're clearly just lazy and that's why they have to work all the time to keep him happy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is confusing. A union project requires more of the money that is spent go to workers. A non-union job allows that money to be kept by the principals. Unless you're going to start arguing in favor of trickle down theory, how is there not much of a difference?

TM

If we're comparing a more expensive (union) job to a less expensive (non-union) job, obviously the former has more stimulus. But if we're talking about $100m of federal spending on infrastructure, whether it goes to union or non-union jobs would not seem to me to make much difference in the stimulative effect, as much as I like unions. Some non-zero difference on the margin, sure, but I think the difference will be pretty small.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You're fucking kidding, right? Since you sit in a position that permits you to actually be completely focused on vacation, you're going to forget what it was like to have pressure to show you're always working hard and on top of things or a boss who expects you to work on vacation even though she says you shouldn't?

You've changed, man. You've changed.

TM

Since I left a law firm, and thank God for that, I have worked at a number of different places, and I have not had a boss who expects me to work on vacation even though she says I shouldn't. But I've seen a lot of co-workers who don't step away from the job when they're out. That doesn't mean I've never been called or texted when I'm on PTO, and that's fine. If the ground rule is, I'm not checking email and you need to call or text, people don't call or text unless it's urgent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If we're comparing a more expensive (union) job to a less expensive (non-union) job, obviously the former has more stimulus. But if we're talking about $100m of federal spending on infrastructure, whether it goes to union or non-union jobs would not seem to me to make much difference in the stimulative effect, as much as I like unions. Some non-zero difference on the margin, sure, but I think the difference will be pretty small.

To drive home TM's point, so you think the stimulus is the same if you spend $60M on materials, $30M on wages, and send $10m to the shareholders and if you spend $60M on materials, $10M on wages, and send $30M to the shareholders?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

To drive home TM's point, so you think the stimulus is the same if you spend $60M on materials, $30M on wages, and send $10m to the shareholders and if you spend $60M on materials, $10M on wages, and send $30M to the shareholders?

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.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If we're comparing a more expensive (union) job to a less expensive (non-union) job, obviously the former has more stimulus.

All other things being equal, union jobs are always more expensive than non-union jobs because they pay workers more. That's the entire point.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

But if we're talking about $100m of federal spending on infrastructure, whether it goes to union or non-union jobs would not seem to me to make much difference in the stimulative effect, as much as I like unions. Some non-zero difference on the margin, sure, but I think the difference will be pretty small.

You have done nothing to clear up my confusion. Even if we lived in fiction land and you could spend the exact same amount of money on a union job or a non-union job, the union project would allocate a higher percentage of your spend to union salaries and that means that more money goes into the pockets of average people who will spend it (and will create a much higher stimulative effect) as opposed to the wealthy people pitching for the project, who will bank it.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Since I left a law firm, and thank God for that, I have worked at a number of different places, and I have not had a boss who expects me to work on vacation even though she says I shouldn't. But I've seen a lot of co-workers who don't step away from the job when they're out. That doesn't mean I've never been called or texted when I'm on PTO, and that's fine. If the ground rule is, I'm not checking email and you need to call or text, people don't call or text unless it's urgent.

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

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.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.

You're actually crazy.

Union wages are considerably higher than non-union wages. Who am I even talking to right now?

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

All other things being equal, union jobs are always more expensive than non-union jobs because they pay workers more. That's the entire point.

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 have done nothing to clear up my confusion. Even if we lived in fiction land and you could spend the exact same amount of money on a union job or a non-union job, the union project would allocate a higher percentage of your spend to union salaries and that means that more money goes into the pockets of average people who will spend it (and will create a much higher stimulative effect) as opposed to the wealthy people pitching for the project, who will bank it.

TM

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.