That is a valid point. Conversely, those "government knows best, the people are ignorant fools that don't know what's best for them" people are now on the other side of the fence.
Politics has a funny way of doing that!
Hell compare it to Toyota they actually pay the same amount for most workers in the states and more in some situations. But they don't have rediculous pensions/union benefits to deal with.
without unions companies can hire a lot more people to do one job, so any one person just does one dumb thing all the time. it makes for great efficiency, ask china. that is not how the us became the best place in the world to live.
i dont understand that. if they pay the same as in the states then how is our package ridiculous and theirs just fine?
THE STATE IS NOT BROKE. the state budget committee reported a surplus until walker cut taxes for corporations. and even those tax cuts wouldnt put the state into bad trouble. wisconsin is not illinois! holy christ it is unbelieveable how politicians can just spread blatent lies and there are people who sit there and go "oh ok... duuuhhhh ok".
It has taken hold with conviction: the idea that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ginned up a phony budget crisis to justify his bold bid to strip state employees of most bargaining rights and cut their benefits.
A volley of e-mails, blog posts and inquiries to reporters followed a Madison Capital Times editorial on Feb. 16, 2011, that said no state budget deficit exists for 2010-11 -- or if it does, its the fault of Walker and the Republicans in the Legislature.
Liberal MSNBC talk show host Rachel Maddow joined in Feb. 17, accusing Walker of manipulating the situation for political gain.
"Despite what you may have heard about Wisconsins finances, Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year," she said. "I am not kidding."
She added a kicker that is also making the rounds: Walker and fellow Republicans in the Legislature this year gave away $140 million in business tax breaks -- so if there is a deficit projected of $137 million, they created it.
Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."
We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.
In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. Thats the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.
Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.
We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinels Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.
Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.
There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.
More on that second point in a bit.
The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Langs memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the states general fund as of June 30, 2011.
But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defenders office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.
The result, by our math and Langs, is the $137 million shortfall.
It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the states patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.
A court ruling is pending in that matter, so the money might not have to be transferred until next budget year.
To be sure, the projected shortfall is a modest one by the standards of the last decade, which saw a $600 million repair bill one year as the economy and national tax collections slumped.
But ignoring it would have meant turning away eligible Medicaid clients, which was not an option, Lang said.
This same situation has happened in the past, including during the tenure of Doyle, a Democrat. In January 2005, a fiscal bureau memo showed a similar surplus, but lawmakers approved a major fix of a Medicaid shortfall that would have eaten up that projected surplus.
Reporters who cover the Capitol are used to doing the math to come up with the bottom-line surplus or deficit, but average readers are not. (The Journal Sentinels Stein addressed these and other budget questions in a follow-up story.)
So why does Lang write his biennial memo in a way that invites confusion?
Lang, a veteran and respected civil servant working in a nonpartisan job, told us he does not want to presume what legislative or other action will be taken to address the potential shortfalls he lists.
Admittedly, the approach this time created the opportunity for a snappy -- and powerful -- political attack.
But it is an inaccurate one.
Meanwhile, what about Maddows claim -- also repeated across the liberal blogosphere -- that Walkers tax-cut bills approved in January are responsible for the $137 million deficit?
Langs fiscal bureau report and news accounts addressed that issue as well.
The tax cuts will cost the state a projected $140 million in tax revenue -- but not until the next two-year budget, from July 2011 to June 2013. The cuts are not even in effect yet, so they cannot be part of the current problem.
Heres the bottom line:
There is fierce debate over the approach Walker took to address the short-term budget deficit. But there should be no debate on whether or not there is a shortfall. While not historically large, the shortfall in the current budget needed to be addressed in some fashion. Walkers tax cuts will boost the size of the projected deficit in the next budget, but theyre not part of this problem and did not create it.
We rate Maddows take False.
<snip>
Walker and other Republicans say the state is broke, so broke that theres no money, and because theres no money, they are unwilling to negotiate over the terms of the budget-repair bill.
Experts agree the state faces financial challenges in the form of deficits. But they also agree the state isnt broke. Employees and bills are being paid. Services are continuing to be performed. Revenue continues to roll in. A variety of tools -- taxes, layoffs, spending cuts, debt shifting -- is available to make ends meet. Walker has promised not to increase taxes. That takes one tool off the table. Another tool was never there: declaring bankruptcy. Were not broke or bankrupt in part because under federal law we cant be.
We rate Walkers statement False.
<snip>
Democratic state Rep. Mark Pocan accused Walker of manufacturing a crisis for his own ends. Pocan says the deficit problem is about half what Walker claims. Walker will surely knock down the spending increases requested by state agencies, to bring costs in line with revenue.
But Walker is following the rules and traditions of the shortfall-prediction game, and outside experts say his figure is realistic as a measure of the challenge he faces. And Pocan hurts his cause by not having read the latest shortfall estimate report by Walkers top aides.
We rate Pocans statement False.
Sorry I have no clue what the hell you just said. They can hire a lot more people to do one job? You mean pay more people less money to do one job?
They can't if the person chooses to accept the job sure. That's called fair market value. a Job pays what it's worth.
I sure as hell would hate being in a union because I'd be forced to make the same money my peers do and less than some due to me not being the most senior person. I don't have that problem though because I bring in FAR more money to the company than my peers and I'm compensated for doing my job at higher productivity levels.
Unions encourage people to be average. If I was in a union I'd have no reason to perform at higher levels.
Unions encourage people to be average. If I was in a union I'd have no reason to perform at higher levels.
Why is the fair market value of a job determined by a negotiating settlement where one party has vastly more resources than the other? Do you think that a billion dollar corporation and an individual with zero net worth are going to reach an agreement that represents the true value of that individual's labor?
Looking forward to seeing if the Wisconsin people are Americans or America hating pussies.
They already fucked up by voting for and allowing an all Republican Government to begin with.
They will either redeem themselves or die as a traitorous state to the country.
There was never a surplus, and Walker's tax cut did not eliminate the false surplus.
i dont think you get the gravity of this. the money is not the problem. this is about a few hundred people in this country wanting full control and theyre using the republican party to do it.
It's simple economics. If you help the company make more money by being there... you can get paid more. Or you can leave to find a company that will.
I made almost double what some of my peers did last year. Why? Because I produced more. The company wants me to continue doing that and they value me being at the company. hence they pay me.
There are millions of people making a godo living without unions. SO yes it's possible to make a good living. It happens all the time.
It is simple economics, but you appear to be missing it. If one party has vastly more bargaining power than the other, they can afford to drive a better deal for themselves, one that may not represent the true value of the transaction. In most situations employers occupy a superior bargaining position to their employees, therefore they are able to make a bargain more beneficial to themselves.
You might think that this is the best way to do things, but you shouldn't fail to recognize the market distorting effects of concentrated wealth.
Damn and here I thought companies were hiring people who don't add any value or add negative value.The reality is if you are valuable to a company help them make more money etc... you will get paid for it.
Why is the fair market value of a job determined by a negotiating settlement where one party has vastly more resources than the other? Do you think that a billion dollar corporation and an individual with zero net worth are going to reach an agreement that represents the true value of that individual's labor?
Anyway again I stand by the fact that myself and millions of other people make a good living without unions. Explain that.
The reality is if you are valuable to a company help them make more money etc... you will get paid for it.
many many more millions make a wage that couldnt sustain a family. explain that.
reality eludes you in the cases of most jobs.
It's possible yes but you can leave and find work else where as well. But lets turn it around Collective Bargaining is giving vast amount of bargaining power to unions. That is the same issue.
Anyway again I stand by the fact that myself and millions of other people make a good living without unions. Explain that.
The reality is if you are valuable to a company help them make more money etc... you will get paid for it.
Absolutely, because that billion dollar corporation is in competition with another billion dollar corporation for the labor of that individual. That's a fact that many choose to ignore. Corporations are not in collusion to set the price of labor at a certain point; they compete against each other to get the most productive labor at the best price.
It's simple economics. If you help the company make more money by being there... you can get paid more. Or you can leave to find a company that will.
I made almost double what some of my peers did last year. Why? Because I produced more. The company wants me to continue doing that and they value me being at the company. hence they pay me.
There are millions of people making a godo living without unions. SO yes it's possible to make a good living. It happens all the time.
Absolutely, because that billion dollar corporation is in competition with another billion dollar corporation for the labor of that individual. That's a fact that many choose to ignore. Corporations are not in collusion to set the price of labor at a certain point; they compete against each other to get the most productive labor at the best price.
The only time that doesn't hold is in the situation where there is only a single employer available in a particular area and labor is largely unskilled (ie, a coal mining town). Otherwise, yes, the pay will reflect the true value of that labor in the market, regardless of how much money each side (the worker vs the company) has in their pocket.
many many more millions make a wage that couldnt sustain a family. explain that.
Give examples. Manufacturing is not valuable anymore. Most of the complaints comes from people doing blue collar jobs. I'm not saying there isn't value in those jobs but it's less and for less people.
The fact is you need to adapt as the world changes. Due to automation manufacturing just is not worth what it was anymore.
not when 10% of the country is laid off. companies are absolutely screwing their workers, i hear it all the time everyday. you might be doing ok, but the fact is most arent.
It's so simple it doesn't even work that way! I've not found a single company that truly gives compensation and benefits based on actual value. Every corporation I've worked for, had friends worked for, interviewed for, or read anything about will do the same thing. They will do their best to pay the least for the most benefit to the company.