Cops and Teachers? THEY Don't Pay Taxes!

[paft.livejournal.com]

Wisconsin State Assemblyman Robin Vos lets us all know what he thinks of those taxpaying Wisconsin citizens who work in the public sector:

The reality is they haven’t had to pay for these things, they’re upset about doing it now, and the taxpayers are the ones who definitely understand this because they get it, they’ve been doing this in the private sector for years, it’s time we had the same thing happen in the public sector…The fact that my Democratic colleagues want to go back to the taxpayer and have them pay higher taxes because someone shouldn’t pay 12% towards their healthcare….We are standing with the taxpayers all across Wisconsin. It’s amazing the outpouring of support that we’ve been getting from the people outside the Capitol Square, the people who are in the reality of the world, not the place that we’re sitting.

Howard Dean does a very good job of refuting Kudlow and Vos’ fiction that the demonstrations are all about the cuts in benefits and not about the elimination of collective bargaining. The capper to this exchange, however, comes near the end of the segment, when a sign appears just over Vos’ shoulder on the right. Not the kind of thing Kudlow could choreograph.

It beautifully highlights the idiocy of Vos' fiction that the demonstrators are, in some fundamental way, less American than other Americans. Does he really think cops and teachers don't pay taxes, or “live in the reality of the world?”

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
*

Comments

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

why is the sky blue paft?

[paft.livejournal.com]

WAF: why is the sky blue?

Because Earth's atmosphere scatters short-wavelength light and blue light is at the short wavelength end of the visible spectrum.

Your turn.

Who do you think is responsible for making the 8 hour workday the norm?

If we get another evasion from you, I'll just assume you know the correct answer would force you to concede a point.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

the point is irrelevant. were not talking about private sector unions. were talking about teachers, who are employees of the state, and not at any risk of having to work in sweatshops.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You obviously don't know much about the conditions under which many public school teachers work.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

you obviously don't know much about me. my mom and sister are both public school teachers. they do just fine. i can't imagine that working conditions for public school teachers in wisconsin are any worse.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And you don't think the conditions under which your mom and sister work as school teachers could become bad or exploitative?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

could they become exploitative? possible, but extremely unlikely. and they wouldn't need a union to protest.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

By which mechanism would their working conditions stay acceptable? You seem to trust the politicians that control education budgets more than I would expect.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

By which mechanism would their working conditions stay acceptable?

state laws.

You seem to trust the politicians that control education budgets more than I would expect.

yes, i trust the principals, administrators, teachers, and citizens.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

state laws.

When private companies offer poor compensation, workers are free to search for other jobs in different companies. On the other hand, if legislatures are strapped for cash and change state laws such that they can save money by damaging working conditions for public employees, there is no balance in the market. Public employees can't search for another government to work for (or at least not nearly as easily as private workers can look for another company), so there isn't any check on the power of the state government to change its mind about how they want to treat these employees (other than unions, of course).

yes, i trust the principals, administrators, teachers, and citizens.

No, you are essentially trusting elected officials that draw up budgets to treat public employees well. It is just a leap of faith. Like I described above, public employees don't obey all the same economic laws as private ones. Legislatures aren't subject to the forces of the market and can change their mind about how they treat their employees at their own whim (or the whim of their constituency).

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

When private companies offer poor compensation, workers are free to search for other jobs in different companies

and people are forced to teach in public schools? who knew?!

if legislatures are strapped for cash and change state laws such that they can save money by damaging working conditions for public employees

honestly, you sound desperate. if they are strapped for cash, they're going to lay off teachers. you really think they want to deal with a PR nightmare?

Public employees can't search for another government to work for

and by golly they can't work in the private sector.

so there isn't any check on the power of the state government to change its mind about how they want to treat these employees

its called the electorate. ever heard of it?

you are essentially trusting elected officials that draw up budgets to treat public employees well

no, im trusting principals, administrators, teachers, and citizens. the teachers union just skims of the paychecks and gets in the way of education.

It is just a leap of faith.

democracy is a leap of faith.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

and people are forced to teach in public schools? who knew?!

Someone has to do it; we need X number of teachers to fulfill out educational requirements, and if you lower compensation you'll hemorrhage good employees, and those spots will be taken by low-quality ones. You can give competitive compensation and get high-quality people, or you can offer poor compensation and get low-quality people. There are no free lunches.

the teachers union just skims of the paychecks and gets in the way of education.

You've managed to totally ignore my argument while being kind of snarky for no real reason. I didn't say there isn't corruption in the unions. I'm saying that some form of collective bargaining is necessary for public sector employees because there are no market forces to protect them. Their well-being has little to do with supply and demand and everything to do with how much lawmakers decide to give them. Do you have an opinion on that?

if they are strapped for cash, they're going to lay off teachers.

It's a question of priorities. Why are tax cuts placed ahead of education?

and by golly they can't work in the private sector.

Like I said, there are X number of people that need to work in the government for it work properly. You can either attract good employees or bad ones.

its called the electorate. ever heard of it?

Exactly my point. I'd rather not see public employees abused by an electorate that doesn't appreciate or understand the value of their work, or would rather plunder their compensation for a tax break.

democracy is a leap of faith.

Democracy doesn't just happen in a vacuum. There are all sorts of institutions and norms that form a foundation, without which a democracy wouldn't function. It's anything but a leap of faith.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

You can give competitive compensation and get high-quality people, or you can offer poor compensation and get low-quality people.

exactly, which is why state governments are not going to significantly slash the salaries and benefits of teachers. we understand the trade offs.

I'm saying that some form of collective bargaining is necessary for public sector employees because there are no market forces to protect them

of course there are. state governments have to compete with the private sector for employees.

It's a question of priorities.

it most certainly is. they had an election in wisconsin over those kinds of priorities.

Why are tax cuts placed ahead of education?

how much is already being spent on education, and how high are taxes?

I'd rather not see public employees abused by an electorate

your definition of abuse appears to be quite liberal.

that doesn't appreciate or understand the value of their work

so if you want teachers to contribute to their retirement and pay a portion of their health care costs you don't appreciate their work? spare us the drama.

would rather plunder their compensation for a tax break.

plunder? lol. the taxpayers of wisconsin appear to have a different perspective on that.

It's anything but a leap of faith.

its a huge leap of faith. your entrusting the future of your country to the whims of a bunch of infallible human beings.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

the taxpayers of wisconsin appear to have a different perspective on that.

You're appealing to the fact that Wisconsin voters have registered their opinion in an election quite a bit, but that is really completely irrelevant. I realize that voters have the right to make whatever decisions they want and set whatever priorities they want. I am just arguing that those decisions and priorities are wrong. Just because Wisconsin voters seem to have fallen for class-warfare demagoguery doesn't mean that they are correct.

of course there are. state governments have to compete with the private sector for employees.

Except that the demand for education stays constant regardless of the economic climate. There will still roughly be the same number of kids that need to go to school whether things are good or bad. So you have several choices (or a combination of the three):

1) lay-off teachers, thereby raising the number of kids per classroom
2) cut teacher compensation, thereby driving the more highly qualified teachers into the private sector. However, unlike in a private company where a person gets let go because there is no useful work for him or her to do for the company during an economic downturn, the amount of productive work necessary in a school has not changed. That means you have to hire lower-quality employees to fill the jobs that people who flee to the private sector have abandoned. That is the difference.
3) Run a deficit, raise taxes, or cut something else

so if you want teachers to contribute to their retirement and pay a portion of their health care costs you don't appreciate their work? spare us the drama.

1) Public sector employees do not get more pay than private sector ones when education level is accounted for: http://www.slge.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={22748FDE-C3B8-4E10-83D0-959386E5C1A4}&DE={BD1EB9E6-79DA-42C7-A47E-5D4FA1280C0B}

2) Even if they did get a better deal, these people have been told that they would be treated a certain way for all this time. It isn't fair to change the rules of the game half-way through.

3) Superior compensation nets superior employees. If you want amazing teachers, offer $100,000 a year to start. We don't offer that (or anything like it) because we as a society don't value education.

your definition of abuse appears to be quite liberal.

Actually, this was in response to your contention that not being able to unionize would not leave public sector employees vulnerable to abuse (a claim which you haven't actually defended, except to say that they can beg the electorate for better treatment). It wasn't referring to the current situation.

your entrusting the future of your country to the whims of a bunch of infallible human beings.

Nah, that's just any form of government (or any form of life, for that matter), at least until killer robots take over. A liberal democracy has rule of law and checks and balances that make it the least whimsical of all forms of government, all other things being equal.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

but that is really completely irrelevant.

this is your problem. wisconsin voters are not irrelevant.

I am just arguing that those decisions and priorities are wrong.

and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but its completely irrelevant to the debate over the allocation of state funds in Wisconsin.

Public sector employees do not get more pay than private sector ones when education level is accounted for

who cares? they are certainly paid a good wage, and have an excellent benefits package. its pretty pathetic when people get upset that they will have to contribute 5% and 12% respectively to their retirement and health care costs.

It isn't fair to change the rules of the game half-way through.

life is a bitch. but what wasn't fair, was making these kinds of promises in the first place. guess what, you're not going to get all your SS benefits either. deal with it.

If you want amazing teachers, offer $100,000 a year to start.

that would be really dumb. why would you offer a six figure salary to some kid right out of college who has never proved themselves in the classroom?

We don't offer that (or anything like it) because we as a society don't value education.

so we have to pay six figure salaries to entry level teachers or we don't value education? again, spare us the drama. the fact of the matter is, if teachers are only motivated by money, they're going to be shitty teachers anyways.

not being able to unionize would not leave public sector employees vulnerable to abuse

as i said, the vulnerability would be exceptionally low. teachers should have the option of having a union. they should not be forced to pay dues.

they can beg the electorate for better treatment

beg? lol, your rhetoric is amusing. if teachers were being "abused" by their politicians, you better believe the voters would hear about it, and they would be pissed. its not like the electorate has a disdain for teachers.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

The problem in Calif is that there seem to be no checks on the public sector unions.

[http://users.livejournal.com/-wanderer-/]

Yeah, that is an important issue as well. I think there need to be some form of checks on public sector unions. Actually, the very reason that public sector unions are so important (there is only one government) is the same reason they need to be checked. I don't see that going back on past commitments is the right way to do it though. When Enron does it it is illegal, but when the state of Wisconsin does it it's alright?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Why extremely unlikely? And without a union, what recourse would workers have?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Why extremely unlikely?

because principals and administrators aren't in the sweatshop business.

what recourse would workers have?

i don't know, the electorate?

[paft.livejournal.com]

w: because principals and administrators aren't in the sweatshop business.

I see. Educators will have to rely on the goodness of the boss' heart.

And of course, NOBODY has ever ended up underpaid or overworked based on that touching article of faith...

paft: what recourse would workers have?
w: i don't know, the electorate?

And how did that work in the past?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Educators will have to rely on the goodness of the boss' heart.

yeah paft, those principals are real slave drivers!

NOBODY has ever ended up underpaid or overworked based on that touching article of faith...

your fearmongering is quite funny. were you spanked by your principal? are you really afraid of teachers being abused?

And how did that work in the past?

pretty good, considering they passed a bunch of labor laws. its like your can't get passed the 1930's.

[paft.livejournal.com]

w: yeah paft, those principals are real slave drivers!

Principals are human beings with the same flaws as any other human being. Give a principal the power to be a "slave" driver," and yes, many of them will be "slave drivers."

pft: And how did that work in the past?
w: pretty good, considering they passed a bunch of labor laws. its like your can't get passed the 1930's.

You mean labor laws that gave workers the right to collective bargaining? Yeah, those worked pretty well.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

Give a principal the power to be a "slave" driver," and yes, many of them will be "slave drivers."

your fearmongering is quite funny. waiting at every job is a slave driver in training! without a union, we're all doomed!

Principals are human beings with the same flaws as any other human being

whats funny is you have such faith in labor unions to do whats right for students and educators, but are scared of those evil principals just waiting in the wings to become slave drivers.

Yeah, those worked pretty well.

no, i mean the ones that got labor laws passed back in the 30's and 40's.

[paft.livejournal.com]

w: your fearmongering is quite funny.

Your naivete is not.

w: whats funny is you have such faith in labor unions to do whats right for students and educators, but are scared of those evil principals just waiting in the wings to become slave drivers.

Have I advocated the abolition of principals? Have I declared that schools have no need of principals (or other forms of management) because, as human beings, principals might occasionally abuse their position?

w: no, i mean the ones that got labor laws passed back in the 30's and 40's.

And what forces campaigned for those labor laws?

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

as human beings, principals might occasionally abuse their position?

and you think a union is going to prevent this? thats naivete paft.

And what forces campaigned for those labor laws?

unions, back when they served a purpose. today a lot of them just gin up fear and create boogeymen to justify their mandatory union dues.