dayman

hmmm you must not live in the south? you out west or something?

Old news? Obama compromised to get the bill he believes in (right or wrong)....how terrible.

Perhaps we enact reasonable immigration reform and decide we can't and shouldn't fight terrorism with a wall.

Which GOP primary candidate wanted two walls? I think Herman was going to use wire at the top...but did someone say 2 walls?...

Now now, I'll take the women of my state against Australian women any day. Although their accent and perceived Crocodile Dundee attitude makes it close.

Maybe we could hire them and they could build it from the other side.

And lets be real here, what you've said DC is basically what I consider to a reasonable thing to say. Not, "we'll cut our way out of depression" and "if only Obama's 10000 trillion debt weren't crushing us all!" But a realistic assessment ... something a few of my libertarian friends aren't afraid to say "we should feel the pain, GDP should contract, this should be ugly and will take a lot time to get through" isn't the way to get elected I know...but people who are willing to talk that way deserve credit in my book.

So what are we to think about these public sector workers? Reagan/HBush/WBush all added more during recession to help and we've been in the worst recession basically ever and yet we've lost public sector workers. TV crap says 1.whatever million workers could be added with the money Obama wants Congress to give to states. Theoretically this is 1.whatever million unemployed people now employed with income who are then ready to buy housing and goods and get off unemployment/food stamps/other programs etc...spend this income to help the private sector come back...and we've done this over and over in the past to help the overall economy in times of need. At the same time...the money isn't forever and a lot of the states that fired all these people did so b/c they ran out of money... presumably they will again unless we get back to booming and the revenue is back up which is a big "if" relative to when the money runs out etc...it does put the states in a rough spot...plus as we all know reform in public sector benefits is a big issue (rightfully so in many states) and until that is taken care of it's even more reasonable for states themselves to feel apprehensive about this from a management standpoint...even assuming they would phase some out gradually as the economy gets better b/c some may be unnecessary they fired them at great political cost even now it will be more difficult in a theoretical future where we are back to normal and revenues are better... All that said...these unemployed people live in these states so it's not as if they take on the burden without getting some of the benefit. Then there's the money in the first place...some people want to aggressively attack the federal deficit now others are fine for now provided we link it with long term stability... ...what to think...is there truth somewhere in the middle? Should we maybe hire some back but not all, should we hire a bunch, should we not hire any, should we cut more? How does the answer to that effect how we view the actions of past Presidents who have increased public sector workers in recession? Also we know Romney doesn't plan to slash government spending/public employment when he's in office based on his Time interview so are we just waiting until Obama is out? As 3rdling posted in the other topic: So we know that over the course of economic depression the states have fired hundreds of thousands...overall gov't drops 407K while the Fed increases 225K...so while we may want to downsize what we are doing right now is one of the greatest downsizing in modern times during one of the greatest depressions in modern times. And while Mitt Romney will hit the campaign trail and say it's great...that's not what he says in interviews...maybe he should talk to Congress or something....but we have BEEN downsizing and it's not helping in the short term so I think at the very least we should admit that if this is the way we are going to go it's going to prolong the economic disaster...maybe it's worth it...that's the debate.

Probably be more excited about it if we weren't coming out of a depression and stalled in recession

When overall government jobs are down 407K despite a 225K increase in Federal hiring you know something just hit the fan.

Well to be fair the top 10% would have to have some really expensive houses to take that kind of hit...

So what are we to think about these public sector workers? Reagan/HBush/WBush all added more during recession to help and we've been in the worst recession basically ever and yet we've lost public sector workers. TV crap says 1.whatever million workers could be added with the money Obama wants Congress to give to states. Theoretically this is 1.whatever million unemployed people now employed with income who are then ready to buy housing and goods and get off unemployment/food stamps/other programs etc...spend this income to help the private sector come back...and we've done this over and over in the past to help the overall economy in times of need. At the same time...the money isn't forever and a lot of the states that fired all these people did so b/c they ran out of money... presumably they will again unless we get back to booming and the revenue is back up which is a big "if" relative to when the money runs out etc...it does put the states in a rough spot...plus as we all know reform in public sector benefits is a big issue (rightfully so in many states) and until that is taken care of it's even more reasonable for states themselves to feel apprehensive about this from a management standpoint...even assuming they would phase some out gradually as the economy gets better b/c some may be unnecessary they fired them at great political cost even now it will be more difficult in a theoretical future where we are back to normal and revenues are better... All that said...these unemployed people live in these states so it's not as if they take on the burden without getting some of the benefit. Then there's the money in the first place...some people want to aggressively attack the federal deficit now others are fine for now provided we link it with long term stability... ...what to think...is there truth somewhere in the middle? Should we maybe hire some back but not all, should we hire a bunch, should we not hire any, should we cut more? How does the answer to that effect how we view the actions of past Presidents who have increased public sector workers in recession? Also we know Romney doesn't plan to slash government spending/public employment when he's in office based on his Time interview so are we just waiting until Obama is out?

The single biggest gripe I can possibly have with any and all union policies I've seen in any context is the idea that a principal can observe a class only once or twice a year and only with notice. Can't get my head around that one. I obviously don't know the exact rule but it's something like that where I live. No dropping in to see what's going on by the boss.

$56K on AVERAGE in NY? OMFG...how are there any teachers left in my state...

...never seen a toll booth w/ out a tv...

I love what passes for news on tv these days

I know Karl Rove tweeted he was drunk and this board is anti-Obama but when the report says not alcohol or drugs and then it comes out the man had multiple seizures...at some point it's unbecoming of the American people and Karl Rove.

I don't know what I've typed that makes you think I'm advocating for Public Sector Unions. As for political whims I'm not sure why that isn't fairly self explanatory...there are clear cut differing ideologies (at least in my state IDK where you live) about the compensation some of these jobs should receive...there are frequent elections...etc etc

Of course I am and that's b/c unions are not necessary in modern times in most industries...however they still function in some. As for the rest of your comments about gov't workers...that is your opinion...you would have no mechanism by which they can engage in a dialogue as a group beyond the political process...so be it...the way I see it they should rely primarily on the political process but also have some limited internal mechanism that is protected from mere political whims. I'm sure the situation can vary from state to state/profession to profession but where I live if your profession is "teacher" or "fireman" or "policeman" ... you don't exactly have the traditional options of going to find another job/company anywhere/anytime you want...

Most people would have it 0 if they are not unionized (which a fair enough people aren't) AND not skilled enough so that they are totally replaceable...but they "have it 1 time" by virtue of that union or by virtue of their individual negotiation if they are a skilled worker... Everything else you said are reasons why they may not need a union as much as other workers (whether or not everything there is true is besides the point), but those don't address issue of bargaining power. "Do you have bargaining power?" and "Do you need bargaining power" are two different questions. Personally I think every employee group should have some reasonable ability to bargain for wages/benefits ... what is reasonable within different contexts is highly fact specific and as I said I think some limited internal process for this for public sectors protected from political whims would probably be enough...how limited?...pretty limited (but not totally lacking)

It's not necessarily that the jobs are "non-hazardous" but as others have hinted at when they strike they strike against the tax payers. They are the tax payers. "Management" in this instance is the government...and workers are citizen voters. So it's not really not really management v. workers bargaining for wages ... b/c the workers are all ready represented by the political process as voters. They can vote as they wish, and they can also lobby their fellow voters to persuade them that it's important to give x, y, and z conditions to public sector workers b/c they need to attract certain talent or whatever....Obviously that political representation is there and thus the public union is sort of "having it twice." Now, at the same time it probably isn't fair (IMO) to ONLY have that "first level" political influence as a citizen ... b/c while it's not the traditional management v. worker relationship it still IS a management v. worker relationship (lol) ... so long story short I think they should have some ability to "collectively bargain" but it should be significantly downscaled and ultimately it shouldn't resemble what we think of as a union at all there really should just be some sort of internal process of sorts that is protected against political whims (perhaps built into the state level constitutions?) that allows for some reasonable give and take/dialogue over various benefits and interests that are within the feasibility of whatever the current budget limitations are as set forth by the state congress. Long story short a traditional union would be having it twice. No protection is less than having it "one full time." Some lower-level bargaining power protected from political whims + the fact that they are voters will amount to a fair situation IMO.

LOL this topic is destroyed. I don't mind of course it was predictable but I do which it warped into something more interesting.

LOL, we sure did.

It's an entitlement program to allow students educated in American higher education institutions majoring in STEM fields to then put the education to work in America? And I'm not sure irrational fear of terrorists should be brought up every time people talk about any foreigner ... last I checked it takes years to graduate from college plenty of time to blow something up while here on their student visa.

On a note related to American Competitiveness...recently saw some stuff about the real flaws in our skilled-labor legal immigration process. Why on earth we would take talent from around the world suck them through our higher education system often coming out with graduate degrees in STEM fields and then make it difficult for them to get green cards? Needless to say, if you are an immigrant student graduating with a degree in a STEM field a green card should come with your diploma...no questions asked.