[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]Absolutely. And whether a teacher was good or bad, he enjoyed a raise, just like CEOs and upper management.

For the past 30 years, the high earners have earned more and more, while the rest of us have fallen behind inflation. Maybe the wealthy just work harder and hard each year while the rest of us slack.

Now that there is less money all around, guess who is being asked to tighten their belts? The little people.

And soon nearly all lobbying and campaign contributions will flow from the wealthy. Even our putative Marxist president is essentially a corporate technocrat.

If you who believe that the United States of 1890 was a great paradise, built on non-union labor singing four-part harmony throughout their 70-hour work weeks, I have good news for you: you may see such conditions again.

Good riddance to most public-sector unions, but I wonder when the top earners will be asked to tighten their belts.[/QUOTE]

Being a cynic, I understand where you are coming from, but I was only attacking unions. This discussion was not about CEOs raping their employees to enhance their golden parachutes.

Unions were necessary when there was no workplace protections for the workers, but things have changed in the past 100 years. I don't hear anyone in right to work states complaining about mistreatment by management.

BTW, if unions are so good, why doesn't Obama fight for more unionization in the federal goverment?

[QUOTE=rogue;254807]Being a cynic, I understand where you are coming from, but I was only attacking unions. This discussion was not about CEOs raping their employees to enhance their golden parachutes.[/QUOTE]

Fine. I hope you have no objection to someone making a point in this thread that the only privilege and corruption being rooted out these days is that which benefits the little people? Or is there some rule on this forum that my points constitute threadjacking in some sense?

[QUOTE]I don't hear anyone in right to work states complaining about mistreatment by management.[/QUOTE]

I am not in a right to work state, but I'm in a non-unionized field. I hear plenty of bitching about mistreatment by management. There is plenty of resentment of unionized public sector employees coming from private sector employees in every state. I believe that is because they resent the privileges enjoyed by public sector employees at a time when they themselves feel insecure. Though unions are probably not the solution to their problems, I have no vision of workers in non-unionized or right-to-work environments as being happy whistling litle elves.

[QUOTE]BTW, if unions are so good, why doesn't Obama fight for more unionization in the federal goverment?[/QUOTE]

Is there anything in my statements which suggests that I feel this would be a good idea, or that I speak for Obama? Or am I misunderstanding this sentence?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]Absolutely. And whether a teacher was good or bad, he enjoyed a raise, just like CEOs and upper management.[/QUOTE]

Actually the two are very unlike!

The ideal situation in both cases would be that those who are better would be paid more and those that are worse would be paid less, with those underperforming by a sufficient margin being fired.

In practice teachers are paid more based primarily on seniority*, regardless of their teaching ability. Low-performers are rarely fired, almost never when they have a reasonable number of years of experience.

In practice CEOs are paid more in good economic times and less in bad economic times, regardless of their managerial ability. (Bonuses are typically based on the company's absolute improvement, which is closely related to the overall financial health of the country.) Low-performers are often fired and high-performers typically take jobs at other companies for more pay (or negotiate for more at their current job).

Based on these imperfections, you'd expect that CEOs would be skilled but prone to risk-taking and that older teachers would be better-educated but less motivated to work hard. I'd argue that this is essentially correct.

* Technically, seniority and education. But education is [i]required[/i], making more senior teachers automatically fairly well-educated. (Whether this is good or bad, and to what extent, is an entirely separate discussion.)

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]For the past 30 years, the high earners have earned more and more, while the rest of us have fallen behind inflation.[/QUOTE]

No, actually.

In the past 30 years high earners have become wealthier faster than average- or low-earners in the US. This is unusual -- through most of the country's history the low- and moderate-earners have had their earnings increase faster than the high-income crowd.

But all groups have had their earnings increase faster than inflation.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]Now that there is less money all around, guess who is being asked to tighten their belts? The little people.[/QUOTE]

As a percentage, the incomes of the rich has decreased more in this recession than that of the middle-class or poor. As the economy recovers, their incomes will rise faster.

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254806]And soon nearly all lobbying and campaign contributions will flow from the wealthy.[/QUOTE]

Yes -- and this is a major influence in politics, IMO a strongly negative one. Related issues like regulatory capture are very serious and unfortunately not given enough public attention.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;254820]In the past 30 years high earners have become wealthier faster than average- or low-earners in the US. This is unusual -- through most of the country's history the low- and moderate-earners have had their earnings increase faster than the high-income crowd.

But all groups have had their earnings increase faster than inflation.
[/QUOTE]

I would like to see a link for your last statement.

Presuming that your statement is true, doesn't that tend to imply that the wealthy should be taxed at a greater percentage than what they currently are? My argument is that the disposable income of the wealthy is growing at a much greater rate than that of the non-wealthy.

[QUOTE]
As a percentage, the incomes of the rich has decreased more in this recession than that of the middle-class or poor. As the economy recovers, their incomes will rise faster.
[/QUOTE]

The first statement might be true, but even though the rich have "taken a bigger hit" than the middle class or poor, they are more immune to the recession than anyone else.

[QUOTE]
Yes -- and this is a major influence in politics, IMO a strongly negative one. Related issues like regulatory capture are very serious and unfortunately not given enough public attention.[/QUOTE]Outside money is a huge problem (IMO). I disagreed with the Supreme Court's statement that some group can spend freely in elections because they are protected by freedom of speech. IIRC freedom of speech applies to individuals, not these overly influential groups. Although I would like to see purely publicly financed elections, how does one determine who gets that assistance?

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]I would like to see a link for your last statement.[/QUOTE]

I'll dig one up for you if I get a chance.

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]Presuming that your statement is true, doesn't that tend to imply that the wealthy should be taxed at a greater percentage than what they currently are? My argument is that the disposable income of the wealthy is growing at a much greater rate than that of the non-wealthy.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't say anything about it one way or another. That's a normative statement, and mine was a positive one.

Personally I don't see the argument -- tax rates for a given income level should not be based on the rate of increase to that level. I wouldn't want to tax the [i]nouveau riche[/i] at a higher rate than the established wealthy. That is, if people become rich more quickly they will rise the progressive taxation scale and pay more on that basis rather than by a comparison with how much they had been making before.

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]The first statement might be true, but even though the rich have "taken a bigger hit" than the middle class or poor, they are more immune to the recession than anyone else.[/QUOTE]

It's better to have money in bad times as well as good? Sure, no one would disagree with that.

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]Outside money is a huge problem (IMO). I disagreed with the Supreme Court's statement that some group can spend freely in elections because they are protected by freedom of speech.[/QUOTE]

There are separate issues of what the law should be and what the law is. Any combination of views can be held here: that the decision was correct or incorrect and that the situation is desirable or undesirable. Personally I'm in the quadrant that says that the decision was correct, legally, but the situation should be different from what it is. A far harder issue is determining what that should be: newspapers, unions, and groups like the Federation of American Scientists are companies too, and I'm loathe to allow Congress to restrict their 'free speech' rights on a whim. I'm convinced that there is a solution but I don't know what it is. (Let's not discuss that here, though -- if you're interested, please start another thread.)

[QUOTE=rogue;254824]Although I would like to see purely publicly financed elections, how does one determine who gets that assistance?[/QUOTE]

The idea of publicly-financed elections terrifies me. Giving control of who gets funding for future elections to those who won the current election with the help of those funds seems inherently ripe for abuse. (All the major leaders of my local government were recently found to be corrupt on a massive scale; most are now in federal prison. You could say I'm more than slightly concerned about vulnerabilities in the system.)

I think what bugged me today was the fact that they wouldn't let people into a place they represent people in. It looks like they've tried to sidestep the law ( nothing new to politics last I heard anything).

[QUOTE=science_man_88;254831]I think what bugged me today was the fact that they wouldn't let people into a place they represent people in. It looks like they've tried to sidestep the law ( nothing new to politics last I heard anything).[/QUOTE]

I think that they are concerned about the safety of those who work in the capital, especially the Republicans who passed the bill. I think they are also concerned about the disruptions caused by the protests.

BTW, many of those who are protesting do not live or work in Wisconsin. Many are students from the university.

[QUOTE=rogue;254833]I think that they are concerned about the safety of those who work in the capital, especially the Republicans who passed the bill. I think they are also concerned about the disruptions caused by the protests.

BTW, many of those who are protesting do not live or work in Wisconsin. Many are students from the university.[/QUOTE]

So what.

Do you live or work in Wisconsin? I don't, and I assume that not everyone in this thread does. Should non-Wisconsinites keep their mouths shut on this issue?

You imply that those who disagree with Republicans, or who protested at the Capitol, are dangerous student radicals, or undesirables. Perhaps they should get real jobs?

[QUOTE=FactorEyes;254846]So what.

Do you live or work in Wisconsin? I don't, and I assume that not everyone in this thread does. Should non-Wisconsinites keep their mouths shut on this issue?

You imply that those who disagree with Republicans, or who protested at the Capitol, are dangerous student radicals, or undesirables. Perhaps they should get real jobs?[/QUOTE]

Yes, I live and work in Wisconsin, so I understand the issues well and probably better than anyone in this forum except cheesehead.

No. I am stating that only those directly impacted by this change should be protesting.

If Democrats are swept into power in the next election cycle and submit a bill to restore what was lost this week, I would not appreciate conservative outsiders getting involved in any protest either.

[QUOTE=rogue;254848]Yes, I live and work in Wisconsin, so I understand the issues well and probably better than anyone in this forum except cheesehead.[/QUOTE]Much as I have paid attention, I would not venture that I necessarily understand the issues in depth as well as someone who's been here longer.

What's happening in Wisconsin is incipient fascism. Any one who appreciates history will observe this carefully to enrich their understanding of how socio-economic-cultural evolution occurs.