Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think it's obvious that there are important dissimilarities between teachers unions, defense contractors, and healthcare providers. I'm also pretty sure you see the parallel I'm trying to draw. I've also said that I supported Rhee vs. the unions in DC, but apparently I need to repeat that. If Fenty had been re-elected and she had continued in her position, that would have been great, and it wasn't the unions who voted her out.

There is a dissimilarity between an academic understanding of unions and a practical one, and if you had seen the distinction, that would have been great. too.

[Apropos of Nothing]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

There is a dissimilarity between an academic understanding of unions and a practical one, and if you had seen the distinction, that would have been great. too.

Apr ... uh, by the by, how come police unions don't get blamed for crime waves?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Apropos of Nothing

Apr ... uh, by the by, how come police unions don't get blamed for crime waves?

We might also want to keep in mind that American public schools, in general, are not nearly as bad as this discussion seems to assume. Of course, that perspective is probably much easier to keep in Minnesota.

For a related view, this is interesting although I do not fully endorse the methodology.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

But blaming the teachers unions for the state of the schools is a fool's errand. They're just profit-maximizing, like any firm would. They have every right to call for the return of a school board, however misguided that is.

I think I know what you're saying, and it isn't what you've written above. Of course, no one can blame a teacher's union for doing what serves its interests best. Unions are capitalist endeavors. They're as amoral as corporations, and it's absurd to criticize them in any moral sense for damaging an industry in which they operate. Their charge is not to improve something, but to maximize their members' take. If they go too far and kill the company they work for (say, as airline unions did), they lose their pensions and jobs. Simple risk/reward balancing act.

But they can be blamed, among other forces, for causing the sorry state of many schools. Where they've taken too much, like an investor/owner deciding it's better to liquidate the pieces of a company than operate it, the death of the entity is at least partly based on the union's decision to allocate more of the entity's revenues to themselves than to the continued operation of the entity. Nothing wrong with that. But technically, it does warrant "blame."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

There is a dissimilarity between an academic understanding of unions and a practical one, and if you had seen the distinction, that would have been great. too.

I know you know an awful lot about unions because you've said so many times. So tell me, what parts of Rhee's plans did the unions oppose, and why?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But they can be blamed, among other forces, for causing the sorry state of many schools. Where they've taken too much, like an investor/owner deciding it's better to liquidate the pieces of a company than operate it, the death of the entity is at least partly based on the union's decision to allocate more of the entity's revenues to themselves than to the continued operation of the entity. Nothing wrong with that. But technically, it does warrant "blame."

If they've taken too much, the problem is with the people who are giving it away. As with, e.g., defense contractors. Unions don't allocate a municipality's revenues -- they bargain for their share.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm pretty sure Cletus isn't named after a Bukowski character, but I could be wrong.

It's an unpublished work, and he's not the protagonist, but yeah, you're wrong.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If they've taken too much, the problem is with the people who are giving it away. As with, e.g., defense contractors. Unions don't allocate a municipality's revenues -- they bargain for their share.

Seriously, tho, the best union analog is the UAW at the big 3--a group that definitely was all about near-term profit maximization and defending work rules that harmed the enterprise, much like many (most? nearly all?) teacher's union locals. And both were negotiating "against" someone who was playing with other people's money, so it wasn't a real negotiation. And the latter is the problem with defense contractors, too, especially in the recent world of every ret. flag officer whoring himself out to the contractors.

On the police unions, (1) the politics are very different, and (2) the unions do get some of the blame sometimes, especially when a particular local spends too much time defending the blue mooks, blue crooks, and blue killers. But the leadership has generally gotten a little smarter about there PR needs in the past couple decades, so they are a little more able to walk that line.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Secret_Agent_Man

This point applies to almost any policy question. In the end, its impossible to save anyone from themselves. The goal, which is really hard, is to help people and communities to save themselves.

[This trenchant analysis brought to you by several good-quality high-test beers.]

S_A_M

This will lead you to the same conclusion it has every other professional and armchair philosopher in history: Let it collapse, leave the damage to wipe out the weak and hit restart when the dust settles.

Darwinism. All perceived end runs around it are mere delays of the inevitable. See also: Schumpeter. Schools, housing, the economy, SS, Medicare... we're not fixing any of it. We're just giving the appearance of a fix, which allows a series of soft landings, and allows for the divergence between classes in this country to occur slowly, insidiously, in a manner few of us will notice.

And this I know first hand. I doubt many of you see small businesses and debtors up close on a regular basis. The disconnect between our world and the lower middle class America is fucking staggering. I have hated Bob Herbert of the NYTimes for years because he's fucking bleeding heart liberal, but man-- I have to tell you, the shit he's saying in his recent columns about how we're turning into a 3d World nation for nearly 100 million of our inhabitants is dead spot-on. None of this shit is curable.

1. The muni bond crisis? Coming. I buy Whitney in full, and think the street's argument local govts will be barred from default by covenants requiring them to pay bonds first is hysterically, and historically, naive. And no, I don't think the Fed will do a QE with muni bonds to save them. Politically and practically that's a disaster. Bail one, bail all.

2. Student loan defaults. Right now, the govt isn't counting loans in deferrment as non-performing. Students get anywhere from 24-48 months of deferrment. Tick, tick, tick...

3. Housing's going down another 5-10%.

4. Comm r/e. What's the #1 driver behind those 100 or so local TARP banks nearing failure? Yep. Comm r/e.

5. Fuel prices. No need for explanation. (And worse, this time around, the whole world won't pull back on fuel consumption when our economy swoons. There's enough foreign demand to keep gas prices high even as we falter.)

6. Unemployment's going nowhere.

Hard-ons like Kudlow and the rest of the douchebag contingent of "Yay! Retail shows we're back!" pundits are a bad comedy show. Everything's on KMart blu-light special these days and retailers have no hope of raising any time soon. Holiday spending means jack. Aberration... insanity... the last gasp of a consumer culture desperate to feel like it used to (or armed with new found $$$ it used to spend on the mortgage).

We're still fucked. Cosmically, long term, "structural-change" fucked. The only thing that's changed is the spin.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If they've taken too much, the problem is with the people who are giving it away. As with, e.g., defense contractors. Unions don't allocate a municipality's revenues -- they bargain for their share.

No. The problem is with both. The union has to realize when it's pushed too far and risks crisis. And the idiots conceding to it have to grow a fucking spine and put the interests of the kids and taxpayers, which they are charged with protecting, before their political futures.

But as SAM noted, curing self-interested behavior of indvividual humans is near impossible. Hence, I say let the shit break. Americans don't fix anything until we're in dire crisis. Then we come together admirably. Let's have that. Because this slow band-aid here, band-aid there approach to fixing schools, markets, etc... might be fine for people like you and me, but in the long run, it's really fucking the country in whole. And it will fuck our kids.

Yep, I just linked libertarianism with altruism.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Kirsten Gillibrand. Amazing. In a number of ways.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Seriously, tho, the best union analog is the UAW at the big 3--a group that definitely was all about near-term profit maximization and defending work rules that harmed the enterprise, much like many (most? nearly all?) teacher's union locals. And both were negotiating "against" someone who was playing with other people's money, so it wasn't a real negotiation. And the latter is the problem with defense contractors, too, especially in the recent world of every ret. flag officer whoring himself out to the contractors.

On the police unions, (1) the politics are very different, and (2) the unions do get some of the blame sometimes, especially when a particular local spends too much time defending the blue mooks, blue crooks, and blue killers. But the leadership has generally gotten a little smarter about there PR needs in the past couple decades, so they are a little more able to walk that line.

You would think that GM shareholders would have been responsibly minding the job that GM's management was doing, but we all know how that turned out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

6. Unemployment's going nowhere.

I am a stupid troll, i admit that. but months ago I posted that the banks were fucked in this foreclosure mess becuase many loans will not be fixable. there will be gaps in the chain of title they cannot fix and thus the deadbeats will be left in their homes.

I based this theory on this: Judges were telling banks to bring in their proof of ownership, and the lawyers didn't bring anything. I do not know anything about bank law (actually I know more than most posters here, but not enough to claim i know anything (hi GGG!)). I am however a lawyer. i know if a judge tells me to bring proof to his chmabers next tuesday, I will be there with 1) my evidence, if it exists, or 2) a new assignment to fix any gap, if such a new assignment could be obtained.

since lawyers were showing up w/o proof, I hypothesized that the entity that would have to sign the new document no longer existed and i saw no way for the deadbeat not to be left in the home.

the mob here called me ignorant, with the more polite assuring me there would be no problem.

Well, guess what, the deadbeats are being left. The bank that own the notes are not being challenged by anyone in the chain, the entity challenging ownership is the one that everyone must agree has no equity- the occupant.

I got a call from a family friend, the guy has a PhD, he was asking me how to prove a document is an original- he was in the middle of foreclosure as he had not paid a mortgage payment in a year. BUT the loan owner has a sloppy chain of title. the crazy thing is the friend thought the bank was evil and he was the good guy.

this has got to be a major hit that is still coming at the banks. unless congress somehow passes a "fuck the home occupant" law millions of people are going to suddenly own a home- no rent- they won't be able to sell it I suppose, but maybe can transfer their squatters rights?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You would think that GM shareholders would have been responsibly minding the job that GM's management was doing, but we all know how that turned out.

the UAW had it made. they would strike 1 of the big 3. say it was Ford- ford is losing sales to GM and Chrysler while fighting not to pay silly salaries. eventually ford caves. then GM and Chrysler has to take the same. absent the big 3 joining into a strike fund they really had no chance.

In view of our new spirit, I won't call your post simplistic. I will remind you that the Rs tried to insist the UAW give concession as part of the bailout. The brave dems fought that so the concessions never happened- instead they will happen "at some point in the future." This will kill the big 3 someday soon.

Thanks dem party.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

the UAW had it made. they would strike 1 of the big 3. say it was Ford- ford is losing sales to GM and Chrysler while fighting not to pay silly salaries. eventually ford caves. then GM and Chrysler has to take the same. absent the big 3 joining into a strike fund they really had no chance.

In view of our new spirit, I won't call your post simplistic. I will remind you that the Rs tried to insist the UAW give concession as part of the bailout. The brave dems fought that so the concessions never happened- instead they will happen at some point in the future. This will kill the big 3 someday soon.

Thanks dems party.

Poor, poor management. It sounds like there was literally nothing they could do.