Verified:

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Apr 3rd 2011, 14:13:43

iMag -7
sof 12
lcn 24
laf -17
evo 7
omega 18
rd -3
sanct 10
icn 10
pdm -11
monsters 11
fluff 3
wof 10
na 3
sol -42
m0m0 0

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Mar 23rd 2011, 13:45:18

imag -5
sof 8
lcn 21
laf -15
evo 10
omega 12
rd -2
sanct 7
icn 8
pdm -10
monsters 10
fluff 1
wof 8
na 1
sol -38

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Mar 14th 2011, 13:47:52

WOW, a Chervy visit!!!???

Where are you living now? Send me a PM with an e-mail and stop hiding !!!!

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Mar 12th 2011, 17:49:13

The "Wealth of Nations" is one of the greatest macro-economic books ever written!!! And indeed, there must be balance. The question is WHERE that balance is, and how to achieve it.

Also, that book was written long enough ago that the current "small world" and the ability to simply relocate, or out-source, was not yet quite as feasible.

There must be balance, but Unions (even if good), heavy regulations (even if good), and high taxation (even if needed) all add up to "somewhere else" being a better place to conduct business. While it gets some tax revenue, or raises in wages for the workers, at some point they shoot themselves in the foot as well, as there is no way to force that rich CEO from just moving operations.

People ALSO frequently mix up CEO and executive pay, with the corporation itself which may be making next to nothing on a net profit basis. We usually see revenue figures when people point out "the rich".

For ME, I think Unions are bad, as things stand today, unless they back off some and take corporate profit into account. If the Exec pay is an issue, buy up stock and force the issue by that means. Other shareholders SHOULD be doing the same.

The government could further encourage balance by ELIMINATING all corporate taxes entirely. That money will be taxed anyway when it leaves the company in the form of wages, dividends, etc. This will encourage companies to retain more earnings for growth, profitability, AND pay for workers higher than they could otherwise afford. Balance this with tax increases on PERSONAL income at high wage brackets, or even create additional brackets at the high end. The tax revenue is then covered by those same CEO's. Now, they have a choice, retain earning and grow the company faster, or continue to take a huge salary that is taxed MUCH higher. Eliminating any LONG term capital gains tax while increasing short term capital gains would further increase that balance.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Mar 7th 2011, 19:08:10

Exec pay has gotten bloated and out of hand, although as Evolution stated it is at least somewhat coming back down. I'm also surprised we don't see more shareholder groups pushing against that as well, at least for those companies with no single, large, controlling owner.

However, it also doesn't fit the argument or desired result. While I agree they are WAY overpaid, they also have a choice. Just as we can all chose to work elsewhere, they can also take the company elsewhere. As bloated as it is, they also will protect what they have as well. SOME would take a cut, but how many will simply say the cost of labor is too high and move? Does that help the labor market? Also, what SHOULD a CEO make? I think some think anything over the lowest paid worker in the company is enough.

Also, way too many confuse the "company" with the executive pay. On a corporate level few are making the killing many claim by lumping every term related to what they see as "rich" into one bucket. A company may have billions a year in revenue, but after costs they manage a few percent in net profit. Showing the total revenue is meaningless and meant to only show things out of proportion. For the investment risk few shareholders, the real owners, are making anything like the killing we so often hear.

It isn't fair, and we also know "trickle down" only works in rare cases where a business is already wanting to expand. Otherwise, it just pads their margins. However, that doesn't mean the reverse, in making them less profitable, doesn't drive them away.

I would think a balance could be found, but we can't change reality. Drive up the cost of doing business, the business will go elsewhere.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Mar 7th 2011, 2:45:17

It's Postman! How ya doing????

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Mar 6th 2011, 17:27:45

But Bru is one of the 15, and he is entertaining enough to count for at least a few more :)

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Mar 4th 2011, 13:27:38

Imag -3
SoF 2
LCN 10
LaF 2
Evo 4
Omega 5
RD 0
Sanct 5
ICN 3
PDM -12
Monsters 2
WoF 4
NA -1
SoL -10

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 24th 2011, 21:39:03

Walker also didn't say the Union couldn't collect dues, only that the State was not going to do it FOR them and make it mandatory to have it withheld. The Unions can still get their dues. They are likely worried about those who would stop paying when they are no longer forced.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 24th 2011, 20:31:23

But, imagine them running around to keep the budget balanced!

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 24th 2011, 18:43:27

Those GOP members may still want things like the State being responsible for collecting dues changed, or more frequent union votes on certification, and Unions still refuse since it still limits collective bargaining under certain circumstances, but I like the compromise idea at the end of this editorial:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/116773954.html

It removes it for NOW, but it would also turn the Unions into budget Watchdogs to ensure it stays preserved once this budget is fixed. They could still collectively bargain, but they would ALWAYS be on the lookout for waste. They would also likely stop supporting every proposed entitlement program that has nothing to do with them in an effort to keep the budget in balance for their own self-preservation. I would personally still add that the State stop collecting the dues for them and let them deal with that themselves, but the "basic" idea of this is the first thing I've seen that would really be a compromise.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 22nd 2011, 21:26:09

Martian, am I to assume you are one that is back on the story that Walker created this deficit for the budget ending this June?

Also, I DO agree ALL legislators should take a cut as a means to lead by example. However, it should also be odd that the Governor makes LESS than the leader of WEAC, just ONE of the many Unions.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 22nd 2011, 20:23:52

Yep! There are some school districts in Wisconsin that had teachers slated to be laid off. In THESE cases it was also due to declining class size and not "strictly" budget, although due to State funding being per-student it was that as well.

Stimulus money was accepted. This paid all the costs of these teachers for a one year period. However, it required a 2 or 3 year contract be signed. So, by accepting the "stimulus", we are now stuck with excess teachers in rural schools that are not needed even by their own Union's class size desires. They SHOULD have just been laid off and the stimulus money refused if it came with those strings.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 22nd 2011, 14:20:32

People are still forgetting the almost $1 billion in cuts yet to come. It is also much more than teachers. An example that I am sure Wisconsin is not alone in, the DMV. Ever been there and waited forever, to get the grumpy guy who rarely speaks, just pushes the papers to you, and moves at the speed of drying paint?

Well, now they need to lay someone off. Do they lay off the non-productive lazy guy? Nope, they are forced to lay off the new girl who just happens to be full of energy, fast, and friendly. The same thing for road works, plow drivers, everyone. Promotion? Still based on seniority. Or, refusal to allow cross training in many areas, even if it would not change working hours. Just a few examples.

I DO think though that if the Unions agreed to transform there would be enough support to make it temporary until the new organization can be defined and roles agreed. Something more "like" an oversight organization. They also always claim just about everything is working "conditions" giving the image of sweat shops, and should somehow keep it restricted to true conditions. Since those are pretty much all defined in law they could act as legal support for individual workers under the existing law. Just ideas.

But it is about budget due to that $1 billion as well as the future. It MAY still be the wrong thing to do, and as I said before there is plenty to argue. But to say it isn't even about the budget is the wrong direction to argue it if resolution or more support is the desired result.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 23:08:53

Ok Servant, you obviously can't debate and have a one track mind. Give me $1 billion, I will pass it on to local governments, and the argument will be settled :)

I, for one, do not like where we are, but people only spouting half a story doesn't fix it. I guess we'll have to let the protests continue and go with the line in the sand sort of mentality.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 23:06:31

Wait, you just contradicted yourself. First you claim he is handing out favors over a SMALL minority of unions who endorsed him, THEN claim those same unions support the protests. You just proved MY point. Other than four SMALL unions, they already didn't support him, and he is obviously not doling out favors to them. Kudos to them for sticking with what they believe though, although I bet none of them, other than maybe 3 of the 4 small ones, appreciate being told they gained favor when they had nothing to do with it.

How much of their voice now is simply due to trying to PROVE they had no part in it, drummed up by people spreading a complete falsehood?

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 23:01:26

The "article" said. You obviously missed that the article is not accurate, just as your previous claim on the State not really having a deficit. FOUR, of 314 Emergency Services related unions supported Walker. Also, at least one of them has now decided they want nothing to do with him. Where do you get that they vote Republican? Where do you get that he would reward thousands as a favor when only a few of them supported him? It doesn't add up.

But, I guess when you have no REAL argument to support, having to point fingers is what must be resorted to.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 21:55:54

For clarification Servant, I'm not saying Walker is right either. I'm only saying that all this obfuscation is getting ridiculous. Argue the point of if the Union should remain, and if it is more important than tax savings, etc. Pointing out one thing after another against Walker, either with no proof or proven false, doesn't meet that.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 21:49:15

If the AP says it, it must be true!!

Here's a good one:

"Public safety workers, including police officers, firefighters and state troopers, would keep their rights under the plan. Those unions endorsed Walker in his campaign for governor last year, but he said they were exempted because he did not want to jeopardize public safety if they walked off the job."

Of 314 Public safety unions in the state, FOUR endorsed Walker. The rest, including the two largest statewide unions, all opposed him. yet, we continue to see drivel like this? Payback? Really? If one pays back a group who was still largely against them, then I want some payback from all those I ever didn't endorse or vote for!

There is MORE than enough to argue or discuss, without poor reporting and people repeating it as fact.

Servant, your last post was based on another falsehood. When shown wrong you moved to another with no comment on having perpetuated a myth. I admire anyone who stands up for their beliefs, but do it on it's own merits (and there are MANY), and not by simply pointing fingers, innuendo, and false accusations.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 19:38:06

No, it would not be Walker at all, but each local government.

MY point, is that it IS still a fiscal issue. He wants those local governments to have more "tools". The Unions SHOULD be arguing that it crosses the line, not that it has nothing to do with finances when it clearly does. We could say all classes will have 100 students, and clearly save money. It would be finance, but it would obviously cross the line. They are only galvanizing the opposition arguing in the wrong direction. Fight for the collective bargaining based on it crossing the line, not by denying it has no fiscal impact. MANY more would support them if they did. It would also likely open up more conversation for them to be part of the solution, instead of a growing distrust by many.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 19:20:55

Detmer,

Currently, an administrator can hardly remove a poor performing teacher. They are also stuck in that if they MUST lay someone off it is by senority alone. So, while they MAY have a new genius on their hands, fresh from school, and a great teacher, that one must go first. Not productive.

While it WOULD degrade education as a whole, at least for now until the budget is fixed, something as small as increasing class size from 20 to 25 students is a Union issue. Changing teachers in-service days to be at the beginning or end of the school year would save, but is a Union issue (wouldn't save much though). Reducing "prep time" is a union issue. They obviously should have some, but we all went to school and know they mostly use the same lesson plan year after year. These things still all add up to money in the end. The question should not be if it is related to the budget, because it certainly is, but rather where the line should be. I think unions are making a mistake claiming it is NOT about the budget, instead of arguing it crosses the line while admitting there is a financial impact.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 19:05:21

"It's a chicken vs egg argument. You won't get good teachers until you pay more and you won't pay more if you just have a bunch of crap teachers.The real solution would be to pay teachers more but to then have critical evaluations in place to ensure that they are good teachers. Only give the good pay to current teachers who are demonstrably good (which of course there are many factors that make this difficult). That being said, crap teachers and good teachers both get paid like crap right now."

I also agree 100% there. That is why I would like to see the collective bargaining suspension being temporary and redefine how it all works. Unions could easily adjust to looking out for TRUE workplace abuses, negotiate salary within some boundary, and also warp into a sort of "oversight" to ensure nobody is unfairly harmed, while still moving things more towards performance.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 19:01:37

Detmer, you are still missing the fact that there is up to another $1 billion in cuts to local government. He may be WRONG in thinking it is needed to help close that gap, but it IS about budget even if it isn't the right answer.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 18:20:28

Yeah, he went for what has already been proven false and even the Unions have corrected their own statements :) Bad Servant!!

But, the issue still remains on HOW to fix it. The cuts yet to come that local governments have to deal with will be slowed by the Unions, although Detmer's take is also correct. If they know the consequence, they will likely agree quickly. If Unions are OTHERWISE good or bad, is yet another argument entirely. I would personally rather see this current proposal as temporary, and before it expires work with the Unions on redefining the process and organization. It seems even Unions are now seeing performance vs tenure as important. It could likely be hashed out.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 16:41:36

No. What I am saying is those local governments that have up to a $1 billion reduction staring them in the face have their hands tied if they have to rely on 18 months or more to even TRY making any changes or adjustments that can help them balance their own budget and survive. Maybe that is not the answer though and just going with the layoffs is.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 16:05:52

And that is something that can be argued. There are still an estimated $800 million ti $1 Billion that will be cut from State aid to local governments. Without this change those small governments will just have to lay workers off. Personally, I think with it being made this big of an issue Walker should just back down and let the layoffs happen. Counties can't even hope to increase property taxes so far to make up that much in funding. So, for right or wrong on the decision itself, it is actually still about budget.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Feb 21st 2011, 15:19:33

Ooops, I didn't know Kitty had left herself logged in, that should have been me.

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Jan 14th 2011, 23:21:53

Started on inter-BBS BRE around 1992 and switched to Earth around 1998 and am now 43, ummm, I think.

A few breaks through the years though. I mean, I had to try doing something productive every now and then....

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Jan 14th 2011, 22:57:22

It got me into the habit of not ignoring the phone in the middle of the night when on-call for work!!

You, know, those late night calls telling you to hurry up, you're getting GS'ed!

DaGecko Game profile

Member
30

Jan 14th 2011, 1:47:13

Speaking of Chervy, where the hell is he?

Hiya diez!!!!