View Full Version : So goes Wisconsin - So goes America?
Will tomorrow's recall election reflect the priorities of the rest of the United States?
Either way it turns out, what might that say for our national elections in November?
I think Gov Walker will prevail and the priorities of the good folks in Wisconsin will prove to be a bellwether in later Congressional and Presidential races. It's gonna be interesting.
Perhaps someone who is anti-Walker could represent the grounds on which his recall is based to start a discussion. It's a pretty big deal to recall a sitting governor.
I believe that so goes Wisconsin, so goes Wisconsin.
Bless my Wisconsinite family and friends (whatever they decide) but they are not the United States.
And I think they are ALL "good folks," not just the ones that agree with me.
I believe that so goes Wisconsin, so goes Wisconsin.
Bless my Wisconsinite family and friends (whatever they decide) but they are not the United States.
I'm not so sure. I suspect the populace of Wisconsin are a pretty good representation of the people in the rest of the country and I think their vote tomorrow may tell us something about the national elections later in the year, whatever the result.
And I think they are ALL "good folks," not just the ones that agree with me.
I agree. I was speaking of the collective "good folks". Those who have suffered through a year of extreme partisanship and turmoil. Those who have seen the troubles the state faced, the same troubles the rest of the Nation endures, and the results of Governor Walker's actions. I guess I'm wondering if those results are seen as good or bad and whether the good citizens of Wisconsin ultimately approve or disapprove. Then, I'm wondering if the rest of the country see's value in emulating those results and if that will manifest itself in the national elections later this year.
ApatheticNoMore
6-4-12, 8:25pm
Perhaps someone who is anti-Walker could represent the grounds on which his recall is based to start a discussion. It's a pretty big deal to recall a sitting governor.
costly yea, too bad they aren't running a movie star as the replacement.
I'm concerned as well as I am a public school teacher in a right to work (read: no unions allowed) state.
I am paid a very low salary. In fact, I have a friend who recently graduated from college with a BA in English. She couldn't find a job for a long time and finally got hired as a secretary with a global computer company. Despite my graduate degree and 13 years teaching experience, she will still be making 33% higher salary than I am currently making.
It seems there's a push to in many states now (Wisconsin, OH, and PA among many others) to get those public service workers away from the taxpayers teat which we are all purportedly sucking dry.
It's very disconcerting and demoralizing. Because I don't really feel like I'm gorging myself like a pig at the trough. I'm a good teacher and I work hard and most of my colleagues do so as well and yet lately (last few years) we've gotten this idea that they want to cut us off without anything. They've been cutting our retirement, our insurance and other benefits as well. Not to mention the pay cuts we've recently been made to endure. (And with a salary that's currently 33% lower than what a newly hired secretary makes, I can ill-afford a pay cut.)
If I were the parent of a child in public school I'd want the teachers to feel like they were valued and respected and remunerated fairly. I don't understand this hostile attitude toward public service workers. Sure, they may say it's hostile only in the states where the unions are crazy with power. But the attacks on those in union states spreads like wildfire across the industry--even in those right to fire--er, work states.
I'm concerned for my situation. I don't see it getting better with this newly popular attack the public sector workers attitude. I have a mortgage to pay. I hope Walker and his ilk are defeated. But it isn't looking good...
ApatheticNoMore
6-4-12, 9:27pm
I am paid a very low salary. In fact, I have a friend who recently graduated from college with a BA in English. She couldn't find a job for a long time and finally got hired as a secretary with a global computer company. Despite my graduate degree and 13 years teaching experience, she will still be making 33% higher salary than I am currently making.
Are you working year round school or counting your income from summer school? Otherwise if you get 3 months off consider that she is working maybe around 25% more than you (probably gets an incredibly generous two week vacation a year if she's lucky, no spring break, a day or two off for the holidays). And when you take benefits into account she's probably not making more than you at all. And that a global computer company might be where the money is is just kinda duh.
I do think if they want good teachers they do need to pay them well. WI will pay for it if they treat their teachers badly, it will just take a few decades to play out (this stuff always does). I don't think teacher pay is terribly low at present (sometimes to hear teachers complain I think they need to further thier OWN EDUCATION on what has happened as a whole to the working class in this country!!! I mean do they know what is going on out there?). But teadher pay is not extravagent either, it's kinda average really, when you take into account time off etc.. But a little respect for other working people (yes, like secretaries) and what they have to put up with would also be nice.
I'm concerned for my situation. I don't see it getting better with this newly popular attack the public sector workers attitude. I have a mortgage to pay. I hope Walker and his ilk are defeated. But it isn't looking good...
Around here I'd steer clear of the field just because of how many people are getting LAID OFF or will be period. Good pay matters but is secondary to whether your field actually has jobs period in determining what fields look promising for the future.
... But the attacks on those in union states spreads like wildfire across the industry--even in those right to fire--er, work states...
Do you think that teachers should be protected from firing? From the comment above, it sounds like it.
You know, it's tough to sympathize with those who can't be fired. Real tough. The average Joe cannot relate. You probably have people on your side with the salary issue, but the rest--not so much.
The Chicago teachers' union is threatening a strike this year if they don't get what they want in negotiations. However due to a law passed in 2011, the union needs approval from 75% of membership before they can go out on strike. The teachers want a 30% pay hike over two years!? Who the heck in the real world is getting a 30% pay hike over two years? Heck, you're lucky if you get 3%! And how many of us haven't had raises in some years?
flowerseverywhere
6-5-12, 7:20am
I as well think we are in interesting times. Yes, people are upset for various reasons. The whole union and pension thing hasn't worked out too well in Europe as we can all see.
I think one of the problems with the public sector is the perception people have, often from limited workers. As I have posted before, I work as a sub nurse in two districts, and can also work as a sub teachers aide with special ed kids in one. I get called every day- often for more than one position. I am amazed, because when I worked in the private sector year round people just didn't call in sick unless you had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. So my limited experience alters my perception.
But the real truth is our elected leaders have been poor stewards of our taxpayer money on all levels. So now we all have to pitch in an pay like it or not. I can guarantee although I am almost 60 I will never get proportionately as much social security as people who retired ten years ago, they are sure the tweak the formulas little by little. Everyone will be feeling the pain like it or not. Higher taxes, fewer services. How can we avoid that?
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-12, 7:34am
The Chicago teachers' union is threatening a strike this year if they don't get what they want in negotiations. However due to a law passed in 2011, the union needs approval from 75% of membership before they can go out on strike. The teachers want a 30% pay hike over two years!? Who the heck in the real world is getting a 30% pay hike over two years? Heck, you're lucky if you get 3%! And how many of us haven't had raises in some years?
30% is what they will push for, but isn't it the very nature of negotiation to list a price over what you will get as part of negotiating? I mean isn't that little more than the very nature of bargaining? It's not the finished price if some comprimise is eventually reached (let's say at 15%, I don't know). It is true that pretty much noone is getting these raises in the private sector (and pretty much noone is although one can ocassionally, in some circumstances get a decent raise - by switching jobs - ocassionally if one is in the position, and that's the only way, you won't get it by staying at a company generally and everyone knows it and so job switching is so widespread you see it even in major recessions). But is private sector pay and benefits really going to improve any by going after public sector unions? Doubtful, in fact when there is a true apples to apples comparison in job roles (private school teachers for example), wages will probably only fall more when they don't even have to kinda sorta compete with high public sector teacher wages to attract employees. Race to the bottom anyone? I seriously doubt the pay as such is a major factor in budgets, now pension obligations and stuff like that are likely a WHOLE other category. More does seem to have been promised in some cases than can ever be paid in terms of things like pensions.
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-12, 7:46am
I am amazed, because when I worked in the private sector year round people just didn't call in sick unless you had one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel. So my limited experience alters my perception.
So much depends on the culture at any particular corporation (really EVERYTHING depends on this - CORPORATE CULTURE IS HUGE - and it varies a lot) that you can't generalize. Suffice to say that I have worked at some companies where it was the habit of people to use their sick days so that someone always seemed to be out sick (even so with maybe a week of sick time a year there is a hard limit on how many days can be used this way). And this was at companies where there were certainly a lot of people working unpaid overtime as well - the same people!, so it can't just be entirely explained by general slacking (perhaps by burnout though).
I live in Wisconsin and a lot of this stuff affects us and people we know. A few examples: we have friends who are teachers. One woman is a widow in her 50's, has a daughter in college, has been a teacher for 30+ years. She said that the teachers union was willing to compromise, and that the teachers were willing and expecting to take pay cuts, pay more for insurance and retirement, etc. But they were blindsided when the unions bargaining rights were taken away and they didn't even get to negotiate at all. The way this has affected her is that her monthly pay is $700 less than before! That's a mortgage payment around here! Another friend who's a teacher took early retirement last year because the cuts made it not even worth it. The teachers' union in Wisconsin was NOT asking for pay raises or threatening to strike; they were willing to negotiate and take cuts, and this is what happened.
Walker is all about "balancing the budget" no matter how it affects people. One of the ways he's doing it is to kick people off the state health care program. My family relies on BadgerCare, and we got a letter last month saying that starting in June we might not qualify anymore, if we can get affordable health care somewhere else. They don't define "affordable" so we have no idea whether we'll qualify or not. It used to be that BadgerCare was free if your income was below a certain amount, and if you made more money, you pay for it on a sliding scale. The insurance plan through my husband's work costs about $300/month and has an $8000 deductible!
Here's another brilliant Walker plan: http://thecentristword.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/scott-walker-declares-war-on-wisconsin-deer-hunters-wants-them-to-pay-up/ He thinks it's a good idea to privating public land that thousands of people use for deer hunting. A lot of people in Wisconsin, especially people who live in the north woods, depend on hunting for their livelihoods. Not just hunters who stock their freezers with meat, but the small resort owners like my husband's aunt, Mom and Pop diners and grocery stores, guides, taxidermists, etc.
Walker talked about "balancing the budget" before he got elected, but he didn't mention any of these plans. His number one priority is money, and he doesn't care how it affects middle class and low income people, as long as he can brag about balancing the budget. Sick.
30% is what they will push for, but isn't it the very nature of negotiation to list a price over what you will get as part of negotiating? I mean isn't that little more than the very nature of bargaining? It's not the finished price if some comprimise is eventually reached (let's say at 15%, I don't know). It is true that pretty much noone is getting these raises in the private sector (and pretty much noone is although one can ocassionally, in some circumstances get a decent raise - by switching jobs - ocassionally if one is in the position, and that's the only way, you won't get it by staying at a company generally and everyone knows it and so job switching is so widespread you see it even in major recessions). But is private sector pay and benefits really going to improve any by going after public sector unions? Doubtful, in fact when there is a true apples to apples comparison in job roles (private school teachers for example), wages will probably only fall more when they don't even have to kinda sorta compete with high public sector teacher wages to attract employees. Race to the bottom anyone? I seriously doubt the pay as such is a major factor in budgets, now pension obligations and stuff like that are likely a WHOLE other category. More does seem to have been promised in some cases than can ever be paid in terms of things like pensions.
Regardless if they get it or not, the gall to even be ASKING for it! That's what gets most people I know, the fact that the unions are even asking for such an increase. I grew up in the Rustbelt amongst the excesses of the UAW that eventually helped cripple the auto industry. I believe unions have long outlived their usefulness. 80-100 years ago they served some useful purposes. Now, not so much.
It's a bit different with cops and firefighters because they're doing risky jobs, but when they ask for exorbitant amounts, the average folk are still going to think, "Just who do they think they are?"
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-12, 8:23am
I believe unions have long outlived their usefulness. 80-100 years ago they served some useful purposes. Now, not so much.
It's hard to see what usefulness they served 80-100 years ago that isn't still relevant. So maybe just to be consistent declare they were irrelevant 80-100 years ago as well, that seems the consistent position. 40 hour weeks? Those have already been basically destroyed for many people via salaried exemptions, unpaid overtime is the norm for many many many people not at all in management roles. There is no 40 hour week except as enforced ocassionally by expectations and for those who are still hourly. Pay? Considering much of the country is now working low paid service work ... their pay is nothing to brag about. It's true public sector workers are sometimes still paid well (and paid better than anything comparable int he private sector) - public sector unions have a certain amount of ambiguity to them - it's not the clear cut labor versus owner battle you get in the private sector. It's just not as clear cut. Still does anyone really belive there is anything to gain by cutting teacher pay? Worker safety? Ok some real progress has been made here, but partly because many dangerous jobs have been outsourced! And truly dangerous work is still dangerous and people die on the job (but yea most people are not really working those types of jobs anymore)
I grew up in the Rustbelt amongst the excesses of the UAW that eventually helped cripple the auto industry.
Those industries also produced CR@P, their cars were pieces of junk for years and years. Yea, the product doesn't matter and all, but what if it actually does? What if the quality of the product matters? It's true if you produce junk and therefore are competeting for the bottom of the barel nitch, you can't necessarily charge premium prices for it. Once long ago, mid 90s, I suggested to an engineer who had worked for years in Detroit, in all my youth and naivety and not even being a car engineer or anything of the sort myself and so not really being certain on that level: "cars could be made so much more efficient than they are, could use so much less fuel ..". And he said, oh absolutely, I KNOW it's possible, but they aren't even trying to design cars like that, they don't even care about that, and have no interest in it in Detroit ....
Regardless if they get it or not, the gall to even be ASKING for it! That's what gets most people I know, the fact that the unions are even asking for such an increase. I grew up in the Rustbelt amongst the excesses of the UAW that eventually helped cripple the auto industry. I believe unions have long outlived their usefulness. 80-100 years ago they served some useful purposes. Now, not so much.
It's a bit different with cops and firefighters because they're doing risky jobs, but when they ask for exorbitant amounts, the average folk are still going to think, "Just who do they think they are?"
Way back after I got done with school I got a job at Bell Labs - we were nonunion, but the Western Electric folks next door were. When negotation time came both sides presented contracts so untenable it was just ridiculous, the idea being that now they had to work their way to a compromise.
I'd be curious what the teachers were offered - if it was in the range of 30% pay cuts, what the teachers are bringing to the table isn't any worse.
...
Walker talked about "balancing the budget" before he got elected, but he didn't mention any of these plans. His number one priority is money, and he doesn't care how it affects middle class and low income people, as long as he can brag about balancing the budget. Sick.
It's good to hear your perspective. I don't see how any state can balance their budget (which I assume is a state law) without affecting people. I don't think it's realistic to expect budget cuts not to be felt or seen.
Yes, I would expect health care costs to go up for those who are on the program, they are going up for those who are not on a government program. Costs are going up.
... The insurance plan through my husband's work costs about $300/month and has an $8000 deductible!
That is actually pretty inexpensive. And the deductible seems reasonable to me.
I grew up in the Rustbelt amongst the excesses of the UAW that eventually helped cripple the auto industry.
We have a good friend who's brother is a UAW member. He manipulates his sick time, personal time, vacation time, etc. to spend long weekends at the lake on his cigarette boat (the real deal, BTW). He's been on the job for almost 30 years now and claims that he has not worked a Friday shift in over 25 of those. He starts the year calling in sick every Friday because you can't carry over sick days and won't be issued a check for any that aren't used. He actually said he is bothered by the policy that forces him to actually make a call to work to take the sick day, he wants to schedule all of them at the beginning of the year so he doesn't actually have to call in every week!
That is actually pretty inexpensive. And the deductible seems reasonable to me.
My family is pretty healthy. I would jump on a plan for $300/month with an $8K deductible. Would be a huge improvement from our $1500/month with a $4K deductible (Blue Cross/Blue Shield).
Would you be able to afford it if you made $12/hour?
frugal-one
6-5-12, 12:08pm
I did not read all the responses here but took note of the teacher who stated she made 33% less than her friend. My question to her is that amount for 9 months of work versus 12 months or just a yearly summation? I talk to teachers and they say they do not make as much but negate that they have months off. Would be interesting to note the hourly rate. Just wondering. Also, I do not think WI is representative of the whole US! I, for one, do not vote strictly Republican or Democrat. If Walker wins that does not necessary mean that Obama is not viable in November.
I voted this morning, and the lines were quite long. Last I heard, Walker was going in with a slight lead in the polls, but within the margin of error. Bill Clinton's been here, bloviating away as only he can. As far as returning to the status quo pro ante for the unions, I would think they'd need to pick up a senate seat or two tonight as well, and even then Barrett hasn't clearly committed to the vicious battle that would require. Most of his ads have focused on jobs, health care and "the civil war in Wisconsin" rather than his devotion to the union cause. I'd be a little surprised if he'd be willing to return, at least completely, to a pre-Act 10 Wisconsin. He's certainly benefitted from it in Milwaukee.
I live in probably the reddest county in the state, and we're projecting a 65-70% turnout. Passions are even hotter in places like Madison, which houses most of our state government and a university that likes to think of itself as the midwestern Berkeley. Things have gotten very personal and nasty here, even more so than in the Bush V. Gore days. I know of people who have given up talking about it out of sheer exhaustion.
I'll be glad to see it end. A return to national obscurity is looking pretty good to me right now.
It's not really about how much teachers get paid; it's about taking away the union's bargaining rights without negotiating with the union at all. A lot of people who have no experience working in a union type job have the wrong idea about how all unions work, based on what they've heard about the auto industry, teachers' unions in different states, etc. My husband has a union job working as a service tech at a vending company. His job pays $12.61/hour. A couple years ago, business was down and when the company negotiated with the union, they said that unless the workers took pay cuts or worked fewer hours, they'd have to cut some jobs, and they didn't want to do that. The union agreed to cuts in hours. Unions are not all goons trying to rip off the companies and union workers are not all rich lazy jerks.
jennipurrr
6-5-12, 12:43pm
I'm concerned as well as I am a public school teacher in a right to work (read: no unions allowed) state.
I am paid a very low salary. In fact, I have a friend who recently graduated from college with a BA in English. She couldn't find a job for a long time and finally got hired as a secretary with a global computer company. Despite my graduate degree and 13 years teaching experience, she will still be making 33% higher salary than I am currently making.
I don't think that is a correct definition of Right to Work...my state is also a right to work state and we have a powerful teacher's union. From what I understand, "right to work" makes it voluntary to join the union...no one can be forced, whereas in other states it may be required to join the union if you are in a certain job. However, it would be ridiculous for any teacher here not to join the teacher's union, just for the legal representation alone. Other unions exist also, however several auto workers unions have tried to form here without success.
The education system is so messed up and I have no idea what the answer to it is. Fortunately, teachers here get paid a living wage and 99% of the teachers I know are hard working individuals who are sufficiently trained, yet the local school system keeps sliding towards oblivion. Its to the point now that I don't know if I could send my (imaginary) children...this has really all happened in the past 10-15 years and I am not sure what caused it or how to stop it, but I think it is a microcosm of what is happening at the national level.
ApatheticNoMore
6-5-12, 1:33pm
The education system is so messed up and I have no idea what the answer to it is
I was under the impression that in WI now the schools are pretty good. So really if it's not broke why break it? Why change things up by breaking the teachers unions etc., when things are basically working as they are? It is pretty much impossible to bring a school system back after it has deteriorated. I haven't the slightest idea how you'd do so in California for instance. How do you bring a school system back after the professional middle class has long since lost faith in it (so much that they pay hundreds of thousands more for a house in a good school district or send their kids to private school)? Probably not possible at that point.
I would say this doesn't fall under the "good folks":
Report: Robocalls falsely telling petition signers they don't have to vote
Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_4feaa078-af24-11e1-958b-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1wwXPfF8H
I was under the impression that in WI now the schools are pretty good. So really if it's not broke why break it? Why change things up by breaking the teachers unions etc., when things are basically working as they are? It is pretty much impossible to bring a school system back after it has deteriorated. I haven't the slightest idea how you'd do so in California for instance. How do you bring a school system back after the professional middle class has long since lost faith in it (so much that they pay hundreds of thousands more for a house in a good school district or send their kids to private school)? Probably not possible at that point.
I'm not sure that making union dues voluntary and asking teachers to pay part of their health care premium will necessarily destroy public education. Other countries spend less on education and get better results.
dado potato
6-5-12, 4:52pm
My sense is that the turnout will be very high (I witnessed long line-ups at the polls this morning.) I expect the outcome will be close, maybe close enough for a mandatory recount. The lawyers have been retained, so there may possibly be some basis for the loser to go to court, but I hope not.
I have been heartily sick of attack ads on every TV channel all hours of the day and night. And on every web page I go to today I see a banner to the effect that Governor Walker needs my help today. (Sorry, Charlie!)
Recall provisions in Wisconsin law are based on the reassuring principle that government obtains its just powers from the consent of the Governed. Within established procedures the Governed are able to withdraw their consent. It does not happen often. But I think politicians (who always seem to want the job) will take notice.
Recall provisions in Wisconsin law are based on the reassuring principle that government obtains its just powers from the consent of the Governed.
I have not followed this very closely but as an outsider it seems a little abusive to have recall elections over a matter of policy as opposed to misconduct. Your bar to get a recall election seems low. Is there anything that stops each side from ginning up the minimun number of petition signatures every time they lose a close election?
At least when we in California had our recall of a setting governor a few years ago we replaced him with a Hollywood Action Hero.
At least when we in California had our recall of a setting governor a few years ago we replaced him with a Hollywood Action Hero.
Mid westerners know better, but perhaps that what you meant.
I don't know how much of the Pro-Walker vote is really an anti-recall sentiment, but I suspect that if I had a dem governor in our Governor's Mansion and goons pushed through a recall for his perfectly appropriate political decisions, I might just vote to retain him. And then I'd vote his hairy *ss out in the next election.
Any more I pay as much attention to why the issue is on the ballot as I pay to the actual issue itself, and few need to be there.
dado potato
6-5-12, 11:19pm
Lest anyone suppose it "abusive", recall of public officials has been part of the constitution of Wisconsin since 1926. About 18 other states have a similar provision for the electorate to withdraw consent by means of a recall.
In Wisconsin the "bar" is a defined number of valid signatures on a petition, a minimum of 25% of the vote for the office in the last election collected within a 60-day period. Recall is not "for cause", such as corruption. For instance, in Wisconsin Rapids in the 1930s three School Board Members were recalled after some teachers were fired.
The results of the recall of Governor Walker appear to confirm that he retains the consent of a substantial majority of the Governed.
Lest anyone suppose it "abusive", recall of public officials has been part of the constitution of Wisconsin since 1926. About 18 other states have a similar provision for the electorate to withdraw consent by means of a recall.
In Wisconsin the "bar" is a defined number of valid signatures on a petition, a minimum of 25% of the vote for the office in the last election collected within a 60-day period. Recall is not "for cause", such as corruption. For instance, in Wisconsin Rapids in the 1930s three School Board Members were recalled after some teachers were fired.
The results of the recall of Governor Walker appear to confirm that he retains the consent of a substantial majority of the Governed.
I didn't say it was "abusive" but since you brought it up, I'll say it's a stupid use of taxpayers' money but let the Badgers just print more. Oh wait, you've got a governor with some cajones who won't rubber stamp that.
So given the extensive justification in the Wisc constitution and elsewhere how many times has it been used in the U.S for a sitting governor?
dado potato
6-5-12, 11:27pm
Iris Lily, You are correct that you didn't say it was abusive... however, earlier, Yossarian suggested that it was a little abusive.
Splashed all over the national news (again) today is the statistic saying Gov. Walker took the WI budget from a $3.5B deficit to a $90M surplus. Without getting into the wide ranging ramifications of how that was accomplished I think it is obviously going to be held up as an example of what can be accomplished for the rest of this election cycle. It should energize the Republican candidates that are presenting themselves as budget hawks and possibly the Tea Party base. This is shaping up to be a very interesting election.
flowerseverywhere
6-6-12, 9:00am
. Unions are not all goons trying to rip off the companies and union workers are not all rich lazy jerks.
Kathy, I am sorry you feel like people were implying that. I don't think that anyone was. I think what you are describing is what is happening all over the country for unionized and non unionized employees. Unfortunately non union workers have had no recourse. A company I worked for had a ruthless downsizing shortly before I left, we lost wages, benefits (all creatively packaged and talked up by management) and had more to do with fewer people.
I guess what should keep us all going is the knowledge that most of us still live better than most of the rest of the world, although I think it is more difficult to find and take advantage of good jobs more than ever.
In my area really good factory jobs are gone. We used to have auto manufacturing, one of two of our breweries closed down, a chocolate factory left (the town always smelled like brownies baking!). Generations worked in these plants and now they are gone. We had friends in two of these plants and it was after strikes- the companies settles and shortly afterward made plans to leave. Lots of bad feelings on all sides.
It will be interesting to see if other governors take this as evidence that it's possible to cross the unions and survive, or if it was just a Wisconsin thing. In any case, it appears to me that we will now see a fairly significant realignment of power here. As the Capitol occupiers were so fond of saying, "this is what democracy looks like."
flowerseverywhere
6-6-12, 9:04am
and you know, a big reason for these companies moving was to keep their costs as low as possible. Everyone wants to buy the cheapest stuff at walmart produced by slave labor yet get paid a good wage. That equation doesn't add up.
and you know, a big reason for these companies moving was to keep their costs as low as possible. Everyone wants to buy the cheapest stuff at walmart produced by slave labor yet get paid a good wage. That equation doesn't add up.
+1
ApatheticNoMore
6-6-12, 12:06pm
The WI budget may be balanced now (no way I accept those figures at face value since so much chicanery goes into budgets, half the time they are just playing games with the numbers!). But even if so, the true test is what the quality of education in WI is at least a decade, maybe two down the line. WI wants to run radical experiments (and breaking an existing system for radical conservative OR radical leftist reasons is radical) and so I guess they will (the states or localities if anywhere *ARE* the place for experimental government (it contains the damage and provides a control variable!) so ...). If 2 decades from now WI is competing with Alabama (of sigh California) for lowest school scores then .... it's not my kids, it's not my property values, and it's not my neighbors, but I do care a lot about a truly educated people for the future. The public schools are very far from a paragon of this, it's just hmm, what's the other plan? I'm fine with homeschooling etc., but realistically of course not everyone is going to live on a single income and home school, etc..
and you know, a big reason for these companies moving was to keep their costs as low as possible. Everyone wants to buy the cheapest stuff at walmart produced by slave labor yet get paid a good wage. That equation doesn't add up.
That's to blame the poor walmart shopper too much, and let the powerful get off far too easy. If the point is: practice ethical consumerism. Got ya. Agreed. But what actually happened wasn't just massive demand at the bottom for cheap goods at any costs like a totally bottom driven revolution if you will, what actually happened was dozens of trade agreements signed (and still being signed - yes under Obama), that made all this possible, in fact virtually inevitable. And that all happened at the highest level. And you don't need to believe in conspiracy to think that actions in some cases are thought through and planned. That maybe they knew all along the effect of this and what it would be. That maybe the destruction of manufacturing in America was foreseen and allowed, not just an "unintended consequence" (ha sometimes consequences aren't unintended). Wow "allowed", isn't that kind of conspiratorial? Look economic reasoning and models exist (yea ha scoff at their reliability but I doubt they are all as bad as their reputation) so it's sometimes possible to know the consequences of policies (especially what are fairly straight forward ones like this - I mean when your talking about social effects, like even the effect I speculate on above on WI schools, things get complicated as heck - but something like trade I think can be more straightforward). What if it was all planned and allowed? The destruction of manufacturing, the outsourcing of jobs, so that lower wages and higher unemployment are permanent features etc..
Oooh booga booga New World Order, but again knowing the effects of straightforward policies you implement isn't necessarily magic. It's not necessarily irrational to believe people can. And I'm not even arguing this from some absolute anti international trade position. I don't hate international trade or anything. It may have some benefits etc.. I'm asking what policies have our elected representatives deliberately inflicted on us for which we can now blame walmart shoppers! (but the trade agreements were never bottom up and in fact encountered a lot of resistance initially from people on the right and left - they were always elite consensus). The world we live is perhaps a built and designed world (ha with spontaneous order as well, but I'm talking about Washington policies here which are the opposite of that).
That's to blame the poor walmart shopper too much, and let the powerful get off far too easy.
I didn't take this as blaming walmart shoppers, just a very over-simplified statement associating actions and outcomes.
flowerseverywhere
6-6-12, 12:46pm
That's to blame the poor walmart shopper too much, and let the powerful get off far too easy. If the point is: practice ethical consumerism. Got ya. Agreed. But what actually happened wasn't just massive demand at the bottom for cheap goods at any costs like a totally bottom driven revolution if you will, what actually happened was dozens of trade agreements signed (and still being signed - yes under Obama), that made all this possible, in fact virtually inevitable. And that all happened at the highest level. And you don't need to believe in conspiracy to think that actions in some cases are thought through and planned. That maybe they knew all along the effect of this and what it would be. That maybe the destruction of manufacturing in America was foreseen and allowed, not just an "unintended consequence" (ha sometimes consequences aren't unintended). Wow "allowed", isn't that kind of conspiratorial? Look economic reasoning and models exist (yea ha scoff at their reliability but I doubt they are all as bad as their reputation) so it's sometimes possible to know the consequences of policies (especially what are fairly straight forward ones like this - I mean when your talking about social effects, like even the effect I speculate on above on WI schools, things get complicated as heck - but something like trade I think can be more straightforward). What if it was all planned and allowed? The destruction of manufacturing, the outsourcing of jobs, so that lower wages and higher unemployment are permanent features etc..
excellent post. I was not implying walmart per se, but rather the attitude. Cheap food, cheap gas, cheap cars, as a society we want it all. More services and better schools but not more taxes. And as it goes up the chain the people at the top want it all. I often wonder how a ceo can watch layoffs and wage freezes take place (often implementing them) while accepting millions of dollars of compensation a year, way more than any person needs to live a very nice upper middle class life and a secure future for themselves and their children. Kind of like our political leaders- I don't believe many have any idea of the struggles average middle class americans face every day trying to get ahead or in some instances stay afloat.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.