PDA

View Full Version : Death to the Transit Workers Union



rhodescholar
December 13th, 2009, 12:04 PM
I hope the city fires each and every last one of them...a 12% raise in this economy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/nyregion/13TWU.html?ref=nyregion

I am firing workers because of the Metropolitan Mobility Commuter tax - yet another instance of legalized theft from the filth in Albany such as Espada, Monserrate, etc - and now the MTA will be even further in the hole due to these unacceptable raises?

It is time to disband all public unions, starting with this one, enough is absolutely enough.

The taxes and fees in NYC are high enough already - its because of the healthcare unions that NY spends more than double the next highest state in medicaid costs - the tax base is vanishing, how much more do the criminal unions think they can squeeze the rest of the city?

As it is, there are over 300,000 people out of 8 million working for the city - this is just insane, and totally unsustainable.

I would threaten to fire every MTA worker if they do not accept the rescision of this raise, and accept that there are 1,000 people ready to step in for each and every job if they are unhappy with their current salary.

Codex
December 13th, 2009, 12:10 PM
We share your pain, Tube and Railway workers aren't always the most popular of people here in the UK.

http://www.backingblair.co.uk/london_underground/

rhodescholar
December 13th, 2009, 12:16 PM
We share your pain, Tube and Railway workers aren't always the most popular of people here in the UK.

http://www.backingblair.co.uk/london_underground/

The transit workers are merely one facet of the overall issue; the courts in the 1940s and 1950s in the US should NEVER have allowed public workers to form unions.

City governments are service providers, NOT job providers.

If you do not like purchasing a car from a unionized car company, you have a choice - with basic city services like schools, transit, police, etc - there is NO choice, you MUST deal with the product offered.

Further, municpalities have a fundamental responsibility to provide these services at the lowest possible cost, i.e, keeping taxes low - and thereby preventing corruption. Anything that raises the costs of providing these services is unacceptable, and that includes unions.

lofter1
December 13th, 2009, 03:37 PM
OK, but first let's opt for Death to Rhodes Scholars.

rhodescholar
December 13th, 2009, 05:06 PM
OK, but first let's opt for Death to Rhodes Scholars.

ZZZzzzzz....why is it that so few liberals outside of Mike Farrell or Mario Cuomo are completely incapable of presenting an intelligent thought?

ZippyTheChimp
December 13th, 2009, 05:10 PM
^
Cut out personal remarks, or you'll be removed.

rhodescholar
December 13th, 2009, 05:53 PM
^
Cut out personal remarks, or you'll be removed.

Agreed. I'd like to see mods enforce keeping threads on topic, unlike that poster's comment above.

ZippyTheChimp
December 13th, 2009, 05:57 PM
I think you missed the intent.

Hint: Plural.

infoshare
December 13th, 2009, 06:49 PM
ZZZzzzzz....why is it that so few liberals outside of Mike Farrell or Mario Cuomo are completely incapable of presenting an intelligent thought?

Next time you use that line, could you at least add (http://www.hitchensweb.com/) C. Hitchens to the short list.

http://www.hitchensweb.com/

lofter1
December 13th, 2009, 07:49 PM
Isn't the topic Death to those who are dastardly?

rhodescholar
December 13th, 2009, 09:48 PM
I think you missed the intent.

Hint: Plural.

Why not look up and see who is derailing the thread, and initiated the insults.

Why wasn't that poster's post deleted, and they given a warning?

Or is this a forum with 2 sets of rules, with the softer one for liberals?

rhodescholar
December 13th, 2009, 09:49 PM
Next time you use that line, could you at least add (http://www.hitchensweb.com/) C. Hitchens to the short list.

http://www.hitchensweb.com/

Hitchens is not really liberal, at least not any more, particularly since he supported the iraq war.

ZippyTheChimp
December 13th, 2009, 09:57 PM
Why not look up and see who is derailing the thread, and initiated the insults.You still don't see the sarcasm.

And lay off the liberal-conservative hostility. You're in New York forum and it attracts mostly the city's demographic. If that frustrates you, you can move to Oklahoma.

stache
December 13th, 2009, 09:57 PM
Is lofter softer?

lofter1
December 13th, 2009, 10:40 PM
Simply simpler :o

btw: How does anyone know that someone else has not been warned?

There is an entire shadow life at WNY that takes place solely within PMs.

But I'm still confused about the actual topic (as opposed to the title) of this thread ...

is it the Hoped For Massacre of the Members of the Transit Workers Union?

Or maybe just Generalized Reactionary Spoutings?

Or is it Forum Issues? (FYI: There's a whole spool of threads (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30) for that).

From what I've read so far it could be any of that -- and more.

rhodescholar
December 14th, 2009, 08:44 AM
You still don't see the sarcasm.

And lay off the liberal-conservative hostility. You're in New York forum and it attracts mostly the city's demographic. If that frustrates you, you can move to Oklahoma.

Sorry kid, I was born here in '58, have lived in manhattan for 51 years since.

I've watched the liberals destroy the city in the 70s, and are doing so again now. When I am good and ready to leave - that is when it will happen, probably to a place where 15% of the population doesn't work for the city government :rolleyes:

ZippyTheChimp
December 14th, 2009, 08:54 AM
^
I've been here longer than you, kid.

If I was so ideologically rigid as you, I would have left a long time ago. Maybe today, you wouldn't come across as such a bitter person.

stache
December 14th, 2009, 09:11 AM
And while we're at it, it's an 11.5% increase (NOT 12) spread out over three years, which brings out an average of 3.8% increase per year. I will grant these increases are on the high side.

ZippyTheChimp
December 14th, 2009, 09:20 AM
Death to the Investment Bankers?

stache
December 14th, 2009, 09:29 AM
I always find it odd when people think it's ok for some to enjoy enormous financial gains, but not others. :confused:

Codex
December 14th, 2009, 09:36 AM
The transit workers are merely one facet of the overall issue; the courts in the 1940s and 1950s in the US should NEVER have allowed public workers to form unions.

City governments are service providers, NOT job providers.

If you do not like purchasing a car from a unionized car company, you have a choice - with basic city services like schools, transit, police, etc - there is NO choice, you MUST deal with the product offered.

Further, municpalities have a fundamental responsibility to provide these services at the lowest possible cost, i.e, keeping taxes low - and thereby preventing corruption. Anything that raises the costs of providing these services is unacceptable, and that includes unions.

The Government here in the UK have in recent years threatened to take the 'right to strike' away from certain public services such as Prison Officers and the Fire Service.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7175503.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1414863/Government-prepares-to-ban-firemen-from-striking.html

Whilst UK Police do not have the 'right to strike' and are represented by a Federation rather than a Union.

Legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the 1919 Police Strikes, forbidding British Police from both taking industrial action, and discussing the possibility with colleagues. The Police Federation which was created at the time to deal with employment grievances, and provide representation to police officers, has increasingly put pressure on the government, and repeatedly threatened strike action, and has even carried out votes to try to change this legislation to give officers back the right to strike, but to no avail.

Obviously strikes by emergency services are particuarly controversial as they can lead to peoples lives being put at risk.





:)

Ninjahedge
December 14th, 2009, 12:55 PM
He picked the wrong fight. When the starting salary is squat, 4% a year means very little.

The things that should be looked into are salary caps for certain professions (such as no matter how long you have been a station cleaner, you should never make more than, say, $50K?) I will not make the levels as I do not know the responsibilities, but suffice to say, there is only so much "experience" you can get in some professions and having 20 years of experience does not make you any more valuable than someone with 10.

The other key is proviosions. If someone stinks, they should be let go. A janitor that does not cleanin up after the inconsiderate louts at some stations that cannot walk 2 feet to the nearest trash recepticle should not be one that we really feel the need to keep, especially when there are others looking for work (although most would probably not like his assignment either...)

The main problem is that, like schools, it is a political arrangement. The best conductors, the most understandable and clear announcers and the hardest working janitors will not be the ones getting the nicest stations or the best routes if they do not know how to kiss the right butts. A removal of this union protection will not do more than give us a bunch of overpaid relations and other people that know those in charge better than they know what they are being hired to do.

So the key point here RS is stop pointing out all these people that you want to burn on high in a bonfire to the gods and start talking like someone with a few lessbourbons coursing through his typing fingers.

You may be as sober and as rational as the rock of Gibraltar (really, it is a really rational rock!), but you sure as hell aren't coming off like it.

One final thing. We do not know you, we know Loft. We know when he is being ascerbic and when he is just trying to lighten things up from a poster intent of flaming. 22,000 posts and contributions across the entire site has a tendency to make people more likely to support you in a conflict than someon coming in and yelling at 17.

Oh, BTW, there is one other thing that comes with age that is nothing to brag about when posting about rationality. So can the "I am old, I know best" crap. Age is no benefit if you do not use what it gives you wisely. Crankiness has never been an asset. (although it does, arguably, make you a better arse.)

lofter1
December 14th, 2009, 01:06 PM
Besides, I'm older (and crankier) than most here :cool: so that argument don't fly.

Ninjahedge
December 14th, 2009, 01:11 PM
Have you tried Fiber?

/me hands Metamucil......

lofter1
December 14th, 2009, 04:59 PM
Assuming that's ^ not aimed towards me :cool: ...

Wasn't aware that a high fiber diet calmed those anti-union blues :confused:

ZippyTheChimp
December 14th, 2009, 05:15 PM
Death to Irregularity

Ninjahedge
December 14th, 2009, 08:05 PM
Assuming that's ^ not aimed towards me :cool: ...

Wasn't aware that a high fiber diet calmed those anti-union blues :confused:

It just makes any blockage pass easier.

Derek2k3
December 14th, 2009, 09:36 PM
I actually kinda agree with the guy. Not that I wish death on the workers, but my first thought too was to fire 11.5% of them. Then I calmed down.

I think the city should fire the bottom 10% of its workforce every few years.

kakonsteraro
December 14th, 2009, 10:30 PM
I am wondering what a transit worker is and why people wished they were dead.Do you really wish they were dead? please clarify.

lofter1
December 14th, 2009, 10:56 PM
They drive the cattle cars.

hbcat
December 14th, 2009, 11:01 PM
I am wondering what a transit worker is and why people wished they were dead.Do you really wish they were dead? please clarify.

They are the staff (bus, subway, rail) of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. I don't think anyone really wants them dead. The title of the thread is rhetorical -- "Death to the Transit Workers Union". The issue is that this labor union recently negotiated a deal for a pay raise for the workers it represents and some people are upset about the terms of the new proposed (?) contract. Others here can elaborate on the details.

Ninjahedge
December 15th, 2009, 11:39 AM
I think the MTA should follow the example of the private sector. Cut salaries across the board by 10%, ALL THE WAY UP THE LINE!

Start with the executives.

THEN protest Albany to do the same for ALL state workers and representatives. Lead by example.

If that does not work, they then need to find a way to keep the $$ in the city rather than paying for the entire states shortcomings.

But the key is everyone, not just the peons.

One exec getting a cut can pay for several underlings in full.

ZippyTheChimp
December 15th, 2009, 11:43 AM
The MTA should be re-organized, completely.

It's a dysfunctional agency.

rhodescholar
December 16th, 2009, 12:22 PM
More fuel to the fire:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/opinion/16wed1.ready.html?_r=1&hp


December 16, 2009
EDITORIAL
New York’s Fiscal Crisis

A Legislature in Denial

Gov. David Paterson of New York announced this week that the state will have to delay $750 million in scheduled payments to schools and local governments. It is a drastic step, but the governor, rightly, argues that he had no alternative. It was either that or watch the state slip $1 billion into the red.

Even to borrow that money, the governor and legislative leaders would have to declare a fiscal emergency before they could seek an expensive short-term loan. The Legislature, in denial, is refusing to do the hard work that’s needed.

Mr. Paterson has gone for a delay in the hopes that tax revenues next month will be a little higher than projected. There is no guarantee that Wall Street bonuses or first signs of recovery will bring in enough cash to make it through to the end of the fiscal year in March.

Unless there are serious changes in the way New York spends and raises money, the state could be facing a $10 billion deficit next year.

New York is not alone in facing tough times. But for years, New York’s Legislature has been spending beyond its means. The recession has made matters far worse. Mr. Paterson, who took office just as Bear Stearns collapsed in 2008, has been warning of calamity ever since. The Legislature has stubbornly refused to listen.

Last month, the governor called lawmakers back to Albany to fill a $3.2 billion gap in this year’s budget of $132 billion. The governor proposed painful cuts: including $113 million from the New York City-area public transit budget; $686 million in school funds, or about 3 percent per district with even larger cuts for wealthier districts; $470 million from health care spending.

The Democratic-majority Legislature balked. Lawmakers decreed there would be no midyear cuts in school budgets, not even for wealthy districts. Although they did improve the pension structure, legislators protected other programs like health care and shielded state workers from furloughs or layoffs.

They finally made some cuts, including a larger swipe at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, but mostly they drained other savings accounts and used some of the federal stimulus dollars that were supposed to be saved for next year.

Even then, they only came up with $2.7 billion — and were $500 million short. That left Governor Paterson no choice but to delay payments to schools cities and towns. Some of these schools have rainy-day funds, but Mr. Paterson should try to limit cuts for the poorer areas. Communities will have no choice but to pare down spending.

Legislative leaders — from both parties — need to wake up to the harsh reality. When the stimulus money is gone there will be no cushion, and there is no hidden cache of funds about to be discovered.

There is no chance of balancing next year’s budget as required by law unless they are finally willing to make deep cuts, even in favorite programs, personal items to districts and especially those items backed by the state’s most powerful education unions, and health care and business lobbyists. At this point, there is no other choice.

Long Island's Fortress Mentality

There may be some dire situation in which state senators from Long Island will stop insisting that their disproportionate share of state school aid must not be cut, delayed or in any way changed. Don’t count on it.

Despite the serious disaster that has hit the state’s budget, the Long Island delegation has been behaving as it always has. They have opposed Gov. David Paterson’s repeated efforts to get New York’s finances in order, including his latest tactic of delaying $750 million in December payments, including aid to schools, to avoid insolvency this year. The naysayers include the usual Republican bloc, along with two newcomer Democrats with dicey re-election hopes, Craig Johnson and Brian Foley.

Greedy parochialism is old news in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Turn back to any year — say, 1988, when this page was deploring how “a pork-minded bloc of Republican senators” known as “the Long Island Eight,” led by Ralph J. Marino of Muttontown, was holding a budget hostage over aid to local school districts.

The state’s convoluted school-aid formulas have long favored rich Long Island schools at the expense of those in New York City and other districts where people are poor and needs are great. Long Island has some of the highest-spending districts and best-paid superintendents in the country. It’s home to a district — Roslyn — where administrators, employees and their families stole millions of dollars for years, and nobody noticed.

This is not to say that Long Islanders are not feeling financial pain. They pay some of the highest property taxes in the country, and Mr. Johnson and Mr. Foley have good reason to be afraid of wrathful voters, who just fired the able Nassau County executive, Thomas Suozzi, because they were sick of paying high taxes.

But Long Islanders have proudly embraced their ever-more-expensive schools for years, approving ever-higher budgets and ever-soaring official salaries. For years they have benefited from the powerful bloc voting of their Senate delegation. It’s ridiculous to think their schools can’t possibly tap rainy-day funds or find savings on an island where superintendents routinely make six figures, where some rich villages give students two identical textbooks — one for home and one for school — and where the sports and arts and video and language programs are the envy of the nation.

New York is in dire straits, the governor is trying to cope and Long Island’s schools are touchable.

-----------

It is time to liquidate the unions, and restructure public employee contracts, pensions and benefits across the entire state.

Health payments and medicaid MUST be reduced so as to be more in line with the rest of the country.

Disband the entire state assembly and senate, and replace them with full-time officials without external jobs that create massive conflicts of interest, like with criminals such as Bruno.

Then consolidate school districts so as to eliminate waste. There are so many more things that can also be done...

infoshare
December 16th, 2009, 12:38 PM
More fuel to the fire:

Disband the entire state assembly and senate, and replace them with full-time officials without external jobs that create massive conflicts of interest, like with criminals such as Bruno.

Then consolidate school districts so as to eliminate waste. There are so many more things that can also be done...

Was not your main contention that it is liberal democrats that are bankrupting this city (as you say they did in the 70s) and it is essentially a change of party leadership that is needed; if so, why site Bruno - he is a Republican.


p.s. - There is only one set of simple rule here: not two (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=309047&postcount=11). There is no censorship on WNY!

lofter1
December 16th, 2009, 04:03 PM
Disband the entire state assembly and senate, and replace them with full-time officials without external jobs that create massive conflicts of interest, like with criminals such as Bruno.


Interesting objective.

How would you go about disbanding the NYS Legislature?

Maybe your Iran plan would transfer to Albany ...

Nihilism :cool: It's so twentieth century.

rhodescholar
December 16th, 2009, 10:13 PM
Was not your main contention that it is liberal democrats that are bankrupting this city (as you say they did in the 70s) and it is essentially a change of party leadership that is needed; if so, why site Bruno - he is a Republican.

Where did i claim that republicans bear no responsibility? Repubs like Bruno are RINOs, they are free-spending liberals who pretend to be repubs.

This is not a question of party, anyone with a brain knows that the union pensions and benefits are bankrupting the city and state, and for the NYT - whose existence in life it seems is to protect unions - to actually come out and admit they are damaging the financial health of the city is proof positive of the need for change.

The repubs in NYS office are no better than the dems, and all should be removed from office, with full timers voted in so that they cannot claim they "need external income" to survive. The conflicts of interest displayed by scum like Bruno, where he runs a consulting company that makes money off of those who have business before the state is totally unacceptable, and he is not the only turd doing this.

How anyone can believe filth like Espada and Monserratte should be anywhere near public office at this point is beyond the pale.

Side note: given that it seems that i am the only conservative here, either the liberals have taken over the former, or the mods do not manage the forum fairly...which is it?

ZippyTheChimp
December 16th, 2009, 10:33 PM
Do you need an avatar?

http://smcandrew.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/archie-bunker.jpg

lofter1
December 16th, 2009, 10:58 PM
... it seems that i am the only conservative here, either the liberals have taken over the former, or the mods do not manage the forum fairly...which is it?

Why would the lack of an intelligent conservative POV (is that an oxymoron in this day and age?) indicate unfair management by mods?

Seems there's an implication that those who moderate here censor views that are not line with some imagined agenda.

Far from the truth.

Historically at WNY the "conservative" voices tend to repeat and bleat to such a degree that there's little to no engagement -- they often hang around for a while, scream their guts out then wither and die of their own accord.

infoshare
December 16th, 2009, 11:03 PM
How anyone can believe filth like Espada and Monserratte should be anywhere near public office at this point is beyond the pale.

Side note: given that it seems that i am the only conservative here, either the liberals have taken over the former, or the mods do not manage the forum fairly...which is it?

O.K. – you’re the rhodescholar here, and the truth of what you say is just to obvious to deny; but I honestly do not know why there are not more conservative voices on these forums.

This being a NYC centric website, one would expect the membership to be predominately liberal where politics are concerned. I personally would not consider myself liberal, left-of-center maybe: but definitely not a liberal.

That being said, maybe you can balance things out around here a bit; to me the only bad post, is no post. And if you are in fact a Rhodescholar: all the better.

And yea., Espada/Monserratte – the worst.

rhodescholar
December 16th, 2009, 11:33 PM
O.K. – you’re the rhodescholar here, and the truth of what you say is just to obvious to deny; but I honestly do not know why there are not more conservative voices on these forums.

This being a NYC centric website, one would expect the membership to be predominately liberal where politics are concerned. I personally would not consider myself liberal, left-of-center maybe: but definitely not a liberal.

That being said, maybe you can balance things out around here a bit; to me the only bad post, is no post. And if you are in fact a Rhodescholar: all the better.

And yea., Espada/Monserratte – the worst.

My point above was that a forum that had all libs or all cons is boring, and many times it is due to unfair, biased mods pushing one side out.

BTW, I am not a rhodescholar per se, I play the rhodes piano, so I use the ID as a funny (it is to me, damnit!) moniker...given that rachel maddow is one, it is another reason NOT to be one...

rhodescholar
December 16th, 2009, 11:56 PM
Back to the topic, a superb article:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/why-is-the-mta-always-in-trouble/?ref=nyregion

Get Smart With Labor

Nicole Gelinas, a contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute City Journal, is author of “After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street — and Washington.”

Seven months ago, the state-run Metropolitan Transportation Authority won a $2.1 billion bailout. Today, it is preparing to make the same “draconian” service cuts that it threatened last year.

The problem is that New York’s labor costs are unsustainable and consume money for physical investments. The deficit is a leadership deficit.

Powerful unions cannot continue to enjoy outdated compensation and rule packages at the expense of riders and New York’s economic future.
If the authority’s costs had kept up with inflation during the last half-decade, the M.T.A. would not face big deficits today. Instead, labor costs have increased more than 40 percent, driven by pension and health care benefits. Next year, pensions and health care will cost the authority nearly $2.2 billion, more than one-fifth of its cash operating expenses. Debt costs are up, too, and the reason for so much debt is that labor costs require so much cash.

These problems are not temporary — caused by the recession — but indefinite, caused by poor political decisions. The authority’s unionized workers in New York City can retire as early as 55 with generous health benefits. Long Island Rail Road benefits are legendary.

This is not compensation for low wages. Average pay for the authority’s city union members is more than $64,000. Subway and bus workers recently won an 11.5 percent raise over three years, costing the M.T.A. $193 million in 2010, more than service cuts will save. Similar generosity at state government is why Albany had to take away $143 million of the authority’s money for its own deficit. Work rules, too, add costs.

Immediately, the authority cannot do much about these costs, which are contractual. M.T.A. chief Jay Walder is cutting the non-union budget, including, possibly, 10 percent pay cuts, and there’s plenty more to do administratively. “It’s apparent to me that we don’t operate in a way that ensures that every taxpayer dollar that we receive is being used as effectively as possible,” Walder said Wednesday. But administrative cuts are not enough to avoid public pain.

Longer term, it comes down to political leadership from Gov. David Paterson, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and lawmakers. Skilled workers should be paid fairly, and current workers have a right to the pensions that Albany has promised them. But powerful unions cannot continue to enjoy outdated compensation and rule packages at the expense of riders and New York’s economic future.

infoshare
December 17th, 2009, 10:35 AM
My point above was that a forum that had all libs or all cons is boring, and many times it is due to unfair, biased mods pushing one side out.


Point well taken, it has become increasingly obvious to me that this (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=308983&postcount=1) particular problem is absolutely pandemic in the world of internet forums.

The methodology is usually not two sets of rules – as you stated earlier – but one set of rules (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=309047&postcount=11) that are ‘selectively’ enforced. For ‘some’ the rules are strictly applied; but for ‘others’ those same rules are, lets say, more ‘liberally’ applied. A common practice on ‘most’ internet forums, but here at wny.

That being said, and despite the fact that I am the son of a civil service worker, I will try my best to keep moderation here exactly that, ‘moderate’; and if it is the end of TWU you wish to advocate for here: I, for one, would be interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject.

I am reading the latest article you posted and must say that much of the material you have posted does resonate with me, but I do not have much else to say on the subject at this point.

P.S. A little Whistle blowing on this issue - Syracuse.com

rhodescholar
December 17th, 2009, 11:20 PM
Point well taken, it has become increasingly obvious to me that this (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=308983&postcount=1) particular problem is absolutely pandemic in the world of internet forums.

The methodology is usually not two sets of rules – as you stated earlier – but one set of rules (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=309047&postcount=11) that are ‘selectively’ enforced. For ‘some’ the rules are strictly applied; but for ‘others’ those same rules are, lets say, more ‘liberally’ applied. A common practice on ‘most’ internet forums, but here at wny.

That being said, and despite the fact that I am the son of a civil service worker, I will try my best to keep moderation here exactly that, ‘moderate’; and if it is the end of TWU you wish to advocate for here: I, for one, would be interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject.

I am reading the latest article you posted and must say that much of the material you have posted does resonate with me, but I do not have much else to say on the subject at this point.

P.S. A little Whistle blowing on this issue - Syracuse.com

Well stated, and distinctly accurate. For the record, both of my parents worked for the city as civil service, and were longtime public union members. While one can argue for the right of unions to exist in the private sector, no such argument is viable for public employees, which is why the courts must correct their mistake and dissolve all public unions.

lofter1
December 17th, 2009, 11:50 PM
All?

Teachers? Cops? Firefighters? Those who clean and maintain public buildings?

Who would then negotiate on their behalf?

rhodescholar
December 18th, 2009, 06:08 PM
All?

Teachers? Cops? Firefighters? Those who clean and maintain public buildings?

Who would then negotiate on their behalf?

Like the rest of the planet, the municipality/employer would offer a salary that they felt was reasonable, and based upon:

1-how many show up to get a job
2-how long people stay on the job
3-the reasons people leaving the job express for doing so

..the employer/municipality would then have the freedom to fire low quality performers, fire excess staff in poor economic times, and demand quality work from the employees, none of which can be done currently.

They would also be able to better manage costs, without having to fund ever growing pension and health benefit plans that are absurd compared the rest of the workplaces in the country, or be blackmailed with a strike.

stache
December 18th, 2009, 07:06 PM
That's when scabs get hired, and accidents happen because they are improperly trained.

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 07:13 PM
Somebody clearly would rather live in one of those flourishing Right To Work states.

There are three handy airports close to NYC with flights to all of them.

rhodescholar
December 18th, 2009, 10:23 PM
Somebody clearly would rather live in one of those flourishing Right To Work states.

There are three handy airports close to NYC with flights to all of them.

Funny how all of those right to work states have enjoyed FAR higher growth than NY. Funny how NY is the top state in the country in the number of people moving out:

http://www.empirecenter.org/2007/09/mayflower-moves.cfm

You keep raising those fees and taxes to pay those union salaries baby, and people like me will continue to get fed up, and move our businesses elsewhere.

See how long your tax base holds up, superstar...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/nyregion/17mta.html?_r=1&em

"The state is staring at a $6.8 billion deficit, and Gov. David A. Paterson has already announced a delay on payments to schools and property owners."

And:

"...revenues from a dedicated payroll tax — enacted in the spring to avert service cuts — came in $100 million below expectations. Last week, a court ruled that the authority must also pay big raises to its unionized workers."

Yeah, genius, that'll help bring LOTS of jobs back to NY... :rolleyes:

As Maggie Thatcher once said,"the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

rhodescholar
December 18th, 2009, 10:44 PM
From here:

http://www.empirecenter.org/files/MigrationReport.Red.pdf

Nearly 60 percent of the New York out-migrants moved to southern
states—with Florida alone drawing nearly one-third of the total. Thirty
percent moved to the neighboring states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Connecticut.

• Households moving out of New York State had average incomes 13 percent
higher than those moving into New York during the most recent year
for which such data are available. In 2006-07 alone, the migration flow out
of New York drained $4.3 billion in taxpayer income from the state.

Yeah, that's sustainable.

When you're left with 5 people, and 4 are on welfare, see if you're able to continue funding those fat pay packages of your union friends...NOT.

lofter1
December 18th, 2009, 10:50 PM
So you're leaving this disgusting broke NYS when?

ZippyTheChimp
December 18th, 2009, 11:01 PM
LOL

He's been here all his life. Don't hold your breath.

rhodescholar
December 19th, 2009, 12:46 AM
I'm beginning to see why this forum has almost no activity, the most prominent poster is a far leftist with no clue, whose only responses to posts are personal insults - and a so-called "moderator" who joins in.

Yeah, that'll keep the forum healthy and active. :rolleyes:

rhodescholar
December 19th, 2009, 12:47 AM
So you're leaving this disgusting broke NYS when?

Let us know what f--king year you plan on posting on topic.

stache
December 19th, 2009, 01:10 AM
I'm assuming you've asked your parents (should they still be living) that they forfeit their government pensions, in the interest of lowering our tax obligations.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2009, 01:15 AM
Nearly 60 percent of the New York out-migrants moved to southern
states—with Florida alone drawing nearly one-third of the total. Thirty
percent moved to the neighboring states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and
Connecticut.

PEW report on the top ten states in fiscal danger:

1.California
2. Arizona
3. Rhode Island
4. Michigan
5. Oregon
6. Nevada
7. Florida
8. New Jersey
9. Illinois
10. Wisconsin


For the first time since World War II, Florida’s population is shrinking. This is a disturbing revelation for a state that has built its economy—and structured its budget—on the assumption that throngs of new residents will move to its sunny shores each year.

Source (http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/1111pewreport.pdf)

lofter1
December 19th, 2009, 09:12 AM
I'm beginning to see why this forum has almost no activity, the most prominent poster is a far leftist with no clue, whose only responses to posts are personal insults - and a so-called "moderator" who joins in.


My question about plans to transplant was in response to prior "threats" ...




When I am good and ready to leave - that is when it will happen, probably to a place where 15% of the population doesn't work for the city government :rolleyes:




... people like me will continue to get fed up, and move our businesses elsewhere.


I ask questions. And in regard to personal insults, this is how replies to those questions (and others) have been addressed, snarky from the beginning:


superstar ...


Yeah, genius ...


Sorry kid ...

Then there's this bit of silliness which it seems was supposed to be the shiv between the ribs, but means nothing except in the world of talk radio ...


... the most prominent poster is a far leftist with no clue ...

On and on, despite the fact that, from almost day one, a warning went out ...




Cut out personal remarks, or you'll be removed.

rhodescholar
December 19th, 2009, 12:23 PM
I'm assuming you've asked your parents (should they still be living) that they forfeit their government pensions, in the interest of lowering our tax obligations.

And don't forget the lifetime of free health coverage to boot...

lofter1
December 19th, 2009, 12:48 PM
"Free"? In the way that Social Security benefits are "free"?

Folks paid in for that coverage. Employers also agreed to pay in. That was part of the social bargain.

stache
December 19th, 2009, 02:01 PM
Well they're his parents, not ours. Hard to tell what kind of deals they have had.

rhodescholar
December 19th, 2009, 03:06 PM
"Free"? In the way that Social Security benefits are "free"?

Folks paid in for that coverage. Employers also agreed to pay in. That was part of the social bargain.

You must not understand how SS works, most people receive much more than they pay in, so long as the work force is perpetually growing.

Unfortunately, as the country ages and its work force retires - or as in the case of the public union workers, retire at young ages like 55, and with people living well into their 80s now, the system is paying out more than it is taking in.

FYI, my father was a Tier 1 in education, so his benefits are unreal - and he'd be the first to say there is no way they are sustainable for the long term, for a large number of people.

lofter1
December 19th, 2009, 04:07 PM
I totally understand how SS works. I'm not the one who labeled them "free" ...

Is what's being placed upon the table a proposal to do away with Social Security benefits (along with the Unions)?

lofter1
December 19th, 2009, 04:09 PM
... my father was a Tier 1 in education, so his benefits are unreal - and he'd be the first to say there is no way they are sustainable for the long term, for a large number of people.

Based upon that knowledge, have you been able to convince your father to give up those benefits and only take a newly-determined fair share?

infoshare
December 19th, 2009, 04:19 PM
FYI, my father was a Tier 1 in education, so his benefits are unreal - and he'd be the first to say there is no way they are sustainable for the long term, for a large number of people.

Sounds to me like you are describing some sort of ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme): and those up on Tier 1,2,3 are looking down on those people who are paying their way and just snickering - problem is, it is their very own children that are the but of the joke.

I can not (or don't care to) crunch those kinds of numbers: but, I am not convinced you can either.

rhodescholar
December 19th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Sounds to me like you are describing some sort of ponzi scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme): and those up on Tier 1,2,3 are looking down on those people who are paying their way and just snickering - problem is, it is their very own children that are the but of the joke.

I can not (or don't care to) crunch those kinds of numbers: but, I am not convinced you can either.

Look at what Paterson has proposed and implemented, he is creating new tiers with lower benefits. The state simply HAS to find a way to reduce the benefits, there is no way to sustain what will become the largest part of the state and city budget in the next few years.

Given that he lacks the political will to take on the unions head on, this was his best option. Unless he declares the state is bankrupt - the atomic bomb against the unions which I pray he uses - and terminates all of their contracts.

And to the other poster, who gives a flying f--k what my father, uncle, cousin, etc., want or believe?

There are 306,000 people on the NYC payroll, and over a million on the state - then you have the 1 million retirees. Their current level of benefits is unsustainable, so unless you have a serious suggestion on how to address that shortfall without raising taxes and fees further, perhaps you'd best leave this thread and let the adults do the talking, k?

lofter1
December 19th, 2009, 06:57 PM
What grade are we in here? I didn't originally bring up (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=309956&postcount=61) the father figure.

Such an odd way of debating: Introduce a particular subject and then attack as "off topic" when a response is given in regard to that subject :confused:

Such tactics might play better back over HERE (http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_posts&mid=18075&)

lofter1
December 19th, 2009, 07:04 PM
Unless he declares the state is bankrupt - the atomic bomb against the unions which I pray he uses - and terminates all of their contracts.


That would leave how many people without a working contract, and thereby bringing in no income or paying any taxes?

Without the workers in place how would the various schools, transit operations and other agencies carry forward?

ablarc
December 19th, 2009, 07:27 PM
*yawn*

This thread is such a water haul.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2009, 07:40 PM
HAHA.

Reminds me, I have to trudge out in the snow to buy eggs.

I did get a laugh skimming through Lofter's link of some of the (ahem) adult posts. I'm sure the profanity auto-correct software is well intentioned, but sometimes it's better to just let it be.


You are a stupid racist [butt opening].

When we see israel do those things, as iran has done for 30+ years, THEN [incestuous act] you might have a point to make...

Fabrizio
December 19th, 2009, 08:51 PM
*yawn* This thread is such a water haul.

The only way a thread like this works is if the posters are gay.

rhodescholar
December 19th, 2009, 10:17 PM
What grade are we in here? I didn't originally bring up (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=309956&postcount=61) the father figure.

Such an odd way of debating: Introduce a particular subject and then attack as "off topic" when a response is given in regard to that subject :confused:

Such tactics might play better back over HERE (http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?app=core&module=search&do=user_posts&mid=18075&)

I mentioned a family member who was receiving a pension, you've pursued their opinion on the status of the benefit as if they were a decision maker of authority for the state, which you know they are not, ergo, you are trolling.

And for someone who continues to try and make this thread personal rather than discussing the OP/matter at hand, is truly telling.

ALL future responses from you will be ignored unless they address the OP. Good luck, and be well.

rhodescholar
December 19th, 2009, 10:19 PM
*yawn*

This thread is such a water haul.

No doubt, when you have a few posters trying to discuss a topic, and a group of others more interested in derailing the thread, making personal insults, and wasting everyone's time.

Notice how dead this forum is? Or is that what the far left posters here want?

stache
December 19th, 2009, 10:37 PM
We need to get rid of this person, please. He feeds on being disruptive, similar to bobbiesox from days of yore.

ZippyTheChimp
December 19th, 2009, 10:57 PM
Notice how dead this forum is? Or is that what the far left posters here want?This forum is dead to you because you are only interested in a minor part of it.

And we don't want THIS (http://www.usmessageboard.com/1297014-post12.html) either.

I told you before you're not fooling me. I already had you checked out. The same MO everywhere, and eventually you get banned.

You don't want to discus; you want to fight. If this place is too quiet for you, you know where the door is. There are plenty of other places where you can be a jerk.

rhodescholar
December 20th, 2009, 12:05 AM
This forum is dead to you because you are only interested in a minor part of it.

I just joined, am I supposed to overwhelm the board with posts in every section in the first days? Is there a quota one is supposed to fulfill within a week of joining?


And we don't want THIS (http://www.usmessageboard.com/1297014-post12.html) either.

LOL, what makes you think that because I have the same ID as that person, we are the same? A little paranoia, perhaps? This might be a shock to you but the nickname "rhodescholar" is rather common, and I've seen it all over the web. But you keep seeing those ghosts...


I told you before you're not fooling me. I already had you checked out. The same MO everywhere, and eventually you get banned.

Banned? From where? I've never been banned from a forum anywhere. And you're a mod here? I've yet to see you type ONE on topic post in this thread.

Thinking of you, I'm reminded of the scene in Animal House, where the dean says:

"Mr. Hoover, president of Delta house? One point six; four C's and an F. A fine example you set!"


You don't want to discus; you want to fight. If this place is too quiet for you, you know where the door is. There are plenty of other places where you can be a jerk.

I posted an OP and here was the first trolling response:

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=308994&postcount=4

"OK, but first let's opt for Death to Rhodes Scholars."

Which you of course as a mod, did nothing about.

At least if you are going to accuse someone of something, bring the facts.

rhodescholar
December 20th, 2009, 12:06 AM
We need to get rid of this person, please. He feeds on being disruptive, similar to bobbiesox from days of yore.

Another poster 5 pages in, who has yet to include an on-topic post. Congratulations... :rolleyes:

ZippyTheChimp
December 20th, 2009, 12:36 AM
I just joined, am I supposed to overwhelm the board with posts in every section in the first days? Is there a quota one is supposed to fulfill within a week of joining?Did I state or even imply that, or did I just explain why the forum seems dead to you? If you still can't figure out the obvious, this forum is not primarily about politics, which is just one section. The bulk of the interest is architecture in NY and elsewhere, and city life.


LOL, what makes you think that because I have the same ID as that person, we are the same? A little paranoia, perhaps? This might be a shock to you but the nickname "rhodescholar" is rather common, and I've seen it all over the web. But you keep seeing those ghosts...Just read the entire thread. If it's not you, someone is stealing your material.


Banned? From where? I've never been banned from a forum anywhere.

BINGO (http://www.politicalforum.com/members/rhodescholar.html)

Some of the threads started by "your imposer":

"US Public Sector unions are unconstitutional"

"Can Islam be Eradicated"

ZippyTheChimp
December 20th, 2009, 12:53 AM
Thinking of you, I'm reminded of the scene in Animal House, where the dean says:

"Mr. Hoover, president of Delta house? One point six; four C's and an F. A fine example you set!"That's funny. You remind me of Marion Wormer.

rhodescholar
December 20th, 2009, 01:18 AM
Did I state or even imply that, or did I just explain why the forum seems dead to you? If you still can't figure out the obvious, this forum is not primarily about politics, which is just one section. The bulk of the interest is architecture in NY and elsewhere, and city life.

I just joined, and haven't as of yet explored the other sections.

BTW, people who I may entirely disagree with politically I might enjoy conversing with tremendously in other sections.

Not everyone will agree on everything, and obviously, some people may disagree with politically may personally get along quite well. Friendships, online or off, do not include litmus tests on all subjects...


Just read the entire thread. If it's not you, someone is stealing your material.

It would not be a surprise, since I have had stalkers before. This can be expected when one has strong opinions, and sadly, the web is a medium that attracts some rather unsavory elements.


Some of the threads started by "your imposer"

You piqued my interest, so I did a google search of the word "rhodescholar", and it is used by hundreds of forums, so clearly, it is a very popular nickname.

Even if I wanted to, there is no way I could possibly post in hundreds of forums - you found one that was not me, though in reading that thread, I think the person may have some good ideas, and some not so good...

rhodescholar
December 20th, 2009, 01:18 AM
That's funny. You remind me of Marion Wormer.

She was a rather attractive woman for her age...

infoshare
December 20th, 2009, 09:44 AM
It would not be a surprise, since I have had stalkers before. This can be expected when one has strong opinions, and sadly, the web is a medium that attracts some rather unsavory elements.


And to segue back to the topic regarding the demise of the TWU.

If you care to entertain the idea, why is it that the TWU – as is the case with web forums – is effectively a medium that attracts so many ‘unsavory’ elements; be it top management or subway train conductors – mediocrity reigns.

One ny mayor (I think Rudy G. or Mike B.) used the an unusually blunt term – for a politician anyway – stating that that TWU workers were ‘thugs’.

Many, myself included, could not help but to grudgingly agree.

p.s. I think it was Rudy (That scumbag REPUBLICAN) who said it....:D:D:D

lofter1
December 20th, 2009, 10:19 AM
All TWU workers are "thugs"?

infoshare
December 20th, 2009, 11:05 AM
Or so said mayor Rudy Or Mike: the point is that (as if I have to say this) that TWU is a mediocre institution (a disfunctional orginazaton) and no reasonable person would even would question that current state of affairs.

To answer your question "yes" in general TWU workers are thugs 'if you ask our x mayor' - if you ask me i would say the job performance of TWU workers in general is mediocre. I mean, is this really a sincere question here!!! You need to find another hobby for gods' sake. (Lol)

And I repeat the question: assuming the likely hood that someone agrees -- would anyone care to entertain the question as to why it has decended into such mediocrity.

btw - the statement the mayor made is called "a generalization" and most people GET the import of the remark: sorry to get pert with you but - not my idea of a good question. :p

195Broadway
December 20th, 2009, 12:41 PM
How much compensation do these people currently receive as individuals? Can someone post some job specific figures/ examples?
thanks

lofter1
December 20th, 2009, 01:32 PM
Info from Wikipedia for 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_strike#Average_MTA_Sala ries) (per the '05 contract negotiations):



Average MTA Salaries

Bus or Subway Operator $63,000
Subway Conductor $54,000
Station Agent $51,000
Cleaner $40,000
Average MTA Worker $52,000

NYC Transit workers are, on average, higher-paid than other New York transportation workers. Salary figures for skilled labor (e.g. electricians, carpenters, mechanics) within the Authority are comparable to those listed above. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual income for all "Transportation and Material Moving Occupations" in New York City is US $36,310 and the mean annual income in New York City is US $49,670.[9]

... on the evening of December 27, 2005, Roger Toussaint announced an agreement with the MTA calling for no change in the pension (very costly to the MTA and very valuable to workers), 3%, 4%, and 3.5% annual salary increases for the next three years respectively plus a 1.5% of salary cost to workers to help defray health care costs.

Those increases apparently would put the average salary of an MTA worker at the end of that 3-year contract (and prior to the latest mediated increases) at ~ $58,000 / year.

Seems that the initial increase in the new contract would bring that average salary to ~$60,000 / year:




...% increase (NOT 12) spread out over three years, which brings out an average of 3.8% increase per year.

lofter1
December 20th, 2009, 01:41 PM
From the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_nyc_so_costly_you_need_to_earn_six_figur.html) ( February 6, 2009):

N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class

More than $2,000 a month for day care. Some of the highest phone bills in the country. Jam-packed, 50-plus-minute commutes to work.

You knew it was tough to live in New York City — but this tough?

A new report shows just how ugly — and expensive — New York City can be, especially for the middle class, squeezed by skyrocketing living costs and stagnant wages.

The study, released Thursday by the Center for an Urban Future, shows that New York City is hands-down the most expensive place to live in the country.

Among the findings:


A New Yorker would have to make $123,322 a year to have the same standard of living as someone making $50,000 in Houston.

In Manhattan, a $60,000 salary is equivalent to someone making $26,092 in Atlanta.

You knew it was expensive to live in Manhattan, but Queens? The report tagged Queens the fifth most expensive urban area in the country.

The average monthly rent in New York is $2,801, 53% higher than San Francisco, the second most expensive city in the country.

“Income levels that would enable a very comfortable lifestyle in other locales barely suffice to provide the basics in New York City,” the report concludes.

Other belt-tightening details include:


New Yorkers paid about $34 a month for phone service in 2006. In San Francisco, similar service cost $17 a month.

Home heating costs have jumped 125% in the past five years and are up 243% since 1998.

Full-time day care costs can run up to $25,000 a year for one child, depending on the neighborhood, or about as much as some college tuitions.

Meanwhile, wages in the city have remained mostly flat in all boroughs but Manhattan — even during the boom years from 2003 to 2007.

© Copyright 2009 NYDailyNews.com.

rhodescholar
December 20th, 2009, 07:20 PM
From the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_nyc_so_costly_you_need_to_earn_six_figur.html) ( February 6, 2009):

N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class

More than $2,000 a month for day care. Some of the highest phone bills in the country. Jam-packed, 50-plus-minute commutes to work.

You knew it was tough to live in New York City — but this tough?

A new report shows just how ugly — and expensive — New York City can be, especially for the middle class, squeezed by skyrocketing living costs and stagnant wages.

The study, released Thursday by the Center for an Urban Future, shows that New York City is hands-down the most expensive place to live in the country.

Among the findings:


A New Yorker would have to make $123,322 a year to have the same standard of living as someone making $50,000 in Houston.

In Manhattan, a $60,000 salary is equivalent to someone making $26,092 in Atlanta.

You knew it was expensive to live in Manhattan, but Queens? The report tagged Queens the fifth most expensive urban area in the country.

The average monthly rent in New York is $2,801, 53% higher than San Francisco, the second most expensive city in the country.

“Income levels that would enable a very comfortable lifestyle in other locales barely suffice to provide the basics in New York City,” the report concludes.

Other belt-tightening details include:


New Yorkers paid about $34 a month for phone service in 2006. In San Francisco, similar service cost $17 a month.

Home heating costs have jumped 125% in the past five years and are up 243% since 1998.

Full-time day care costs can run up to $25,000 a year for one child, depending on the neighborhood, or about as much as some college tuitions.

Meanwhile, wages in the city have remained mostly flat in all boroughs but Manhattan — even during the boom years from 2003 to 2007.

© Copyright 2009 NYDailyNews.com.

And why is NYC so expensive? Could it be the pervasive unions, which require ever higher taxes, and ever higher prices, to cover their costs?

ablarc
December 20th, 2009, 08:01 PM
And why is NYC so expensive?
Supply and Demand.

Plus perceived value.

(Same as anything that costs a lot.)

195Broadway
December 20th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Info from Wikipedia for 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_York_City_transit_strike#Average_MTA_Sala ries) (per the '05 contract negotiations):



Those increases apparently would put the average salary of an MTA worker at the end of that 3-year contract (and prior to the latest mediated increases) at ~ $58,000 / year.

Seems that the initial increase in the new contract would bring that average salary to ~$60,000 / year:

Thanks, Lofter.
Per my quick calcs, current pay average:
Bus/ subway operator $69,847
conductor $59,869
Agent $56,543
Cleaner $44,348
Mechanic?...............?

A few more questions. (not meant to be directed solely at Lofter)

1 What is the starting salary for each of those classifications?
2 How many years until top-out pay for each?
3 What is the current top-out pay for each?
4 What portion of health care benefits are the employees paying?
5 Is there a 401k (or public employee equivalent) plan?
6 What is the MTA $ match for the above plan?
7 What is the retirement income %'s?
8 What is the overtime rate schedule?
9 How much overtime is worked in each classification?
10 What is the vacation vs. years of employment shedule?

195Broadway
December 20th, 2009, 10:49 PM
From the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/05/2009-02-05_nyc_so_costly_you_need_to_earn_six_figur.html) ( February 6, 2009):

N.Y.C. so costly you need to earn six figures to make middle class

More than $2,000 a month for day care. Some of the highest phone bills in the country. Jam-packed, 50-plus-minute commutes to work.

You knew it was tough to live in New York City — but this tough?

A new report shows just how ugly — and expensive — New York City can be, especially for the middle class, squeezed by skyrocketing living costs and stagnant wages.

The study, released Thursday by the Center for an Urban Future, shows that New York City is hands-down the most expensive place to live in the country.

Among the findings:

A New Yorker would have to make $123,322 a year to have the same standard of living as someone making $50,000 in Houston.

In Manhattan, a $60,000 salary is equivalent to someone making $26,092 in Atlanta.

You knew it was expensive to live in Manhattan, but Queens? The report tagged Queens the fifth most expensive urban area in the country.

The average monthly rent in New York is $2,801, 53% higher than San Francisco, the second most expensive city in the country.
“Income levels that would enable a very comfortable lifestyle in other locales barely suffice to provide the basics in New York City,” the report concludes.

Other belt-tightening details include:

New Yorkers paid about $34 a month for phone service in 2006. In San Francisco, similar service cost $17 a month.

Home heating costs have jumped 125% in the past five years and are up 243% since 1998.

Full-time day care costs can run up to $25,000 a year for one child, depending on the neighborhood, or about as much as some college tuitions.
Meanwhile, wages in the city have remained mostly flat in all boroughs but Manhattan — even during the boom years from 2003 to 2007.

© Copyright 2009 NYDailyNews.com.

I find this to be fairly accurate. For example, the home I now own here in Houston would cost me approx $500-600k back in NJ where I grew up. If I sold it tomorrow (the one here in Houston), it would go for about $170k. The prop tax for one like it here is between $4&$5k/ yr. There is no state income tax, though sales taxes hover around 8.3%.
Down here, a topped out transportation worker (in the private sector) pulls down about the same $ as the posted MTA figures.

In NJ, our home was 1200 square feet. It cost $132,000 in 1988. I had to drive an hour and twenty minutes each way to work. (Newark Airport). Down here, the commute takes 18 minutes.
We got off that treadmill.


Some representative homes here in Houston:
http://www.homes.com/For-Sale/TX/KINGWOOD/minprice=150000&maxprice=170000

Some homes near where I grew up:
http://www.homes.com/For-Sale/NJ/MADISON/minprice=500000&maxprice=600000

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:10 PM
I hope the city fires each and every last one of them...a 12% raise in this economy?.In looking through the posts on this board, I didn't see this level of anger at the Federal Government or Treasury for letting financial firms pay huge bonuses to workers. Their arguments, which Mayor Bloomburg supported? The firms were legally binded to the pay outs because of existing contracts with these workers.


I am firing workers because of the Metropolitan Mobility Commuter tax - yet another instance of legalized theft from the filth in Albany such as Espada, Monserrate, etc - and now the MTA will be even further in the hole due to these unacceptable raises?Most respectable firms are doing all they can to retain employees in this economy. The question that comes to my mind by this statement and by the tone of the post is that the workers are being fired because it is eating up profits as opposed to them being economically unviable.

In reality, the MTA will be in a hole, but certainly not because of these increases. The increases were negotiated before this economy collapsed and have been on the balance sheets for some time. The hole the MTA is due to the mismanagement of that agency for years as well as its inability to professionally manage capital projects and contain costs to the initial budget presented to Albany.


It is time to disband all public unions, starting with this one, enough is absolutely enough.Can you elaborate on what exactly is "enough"? Do you object to workers getting raises? Do you know how many years prior to this contract they did or did not receive pay increases? Do you know what the median income is for a transit worker? Do you know how many positions have been eliminated through attrition or replacement by machines?

It seems that only a person that does not utilize public transportation, which in and of itself should be subject to fine in NYC, would argue that the unions ought to be eliminated.


The taxes and fees in NYC are high enough already - its because of the healthcare unions that NY spends more than double the next highest state in medicaid costs - the tax base is vanishing, how much more do the criminal unions think they can squeeze the rest of the city?If there weren’t any healthcare unions, then we would have people working within hospitals for minimum wage. In that instance, people would be getting the lowest possible quality of care. Healthcare unions are employed by hospitals and clinics. The state is paying expenses equivalent to their market share of hospital visits. The use of public / municipal hospitals can be directly correlated to the expense and, therefore, exclusivity of private health insurance.


As it is, there are over 300,000 people out of 8 million working for the city - this is just insane, and totally unsustainable. Do you expect the roads to be plowed? Garbage to be collected? Roads and sidewalks to be in good repair? On-call fire service? Ambulance serives? 911 Emergency calls? Water and environmental quality protections? Bridge and tunnels to be open? Traffic violations to be enforced? Tourism to be promoted? Libraries to be open? Parks to maintained? Police protection?

That takes workers.

With a city of 8 million residents, that comes out to one worker per 26,666 residents. Add into that the surge of daily workers and tourists and it seems woefully inadequate.


I would threaten to fire every MTA worker if they do not accept the rescision of this raise, and accept that there are 1,000 people ready to step in for each and every job if they are unhappy with their current salary.Then, you would have no services and a collapse in wages. These union workers that seem the bane of existence in your world would have no means to support themselves and, even if they left the city for cheaper living accommodations, transportation would be too expensive for commutes.

Do you get salary increases? Would you be disappointed with a frozen rate of 4%?

With all do respect, I suspect that you weren’t very supportive of unions when they had received 3% or less increases during the boom days of this decade.

I understand the passion of opposing extraordinary costs in a budget crunch, but I seriously doubt you would be arguing in favor of salary increases in boom times.

I find the attitude expressed in the post to be no less “I got mine, screw you”, than what we see from the sleazy, greedy Wall Street thugs and crooks who are directly responsible for destroying our economy.

In closing, let me say that the title of this thread is astonishingly obnoxious. Yet, that seems to be the tone of your post that introduced the topic.

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:16 PM
City governments are service providers, NOT job providers.

If you do not like purchasing a car from a unionized car company, you have a choice - with basic city services like schools, transit, police, etc - there is NO choice, you MUST deal with the product offered.

I imagine that minimum wage workers would provide the high standard of services we would all expect. Minimum wage teachers would give children exactly what they deserve. Minimum wage cops would neve be influenced by ddrug dealers offering bribes. Minimum wage fire workers would run extra fast to that firetruck.

Either we are dealing with an incredibly ignorant person making these posts or someone perfectly inept at having a mature debate.

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:21 PM
OK, but first let's opt for Death to Rhodes Scholars.

Considering the initial post calling for Death to the Transit Workers, I think that this sarcasm reinforces how repugnant the thread title is. Sometimes we have to hold mirrors up to hateful individuals to show them just how ugly they can be.

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:25 PM
Why not look up and see who is derailing the thread, and initiated the insults.

Why wasn't that poster's post deleted, and they given a warning?

Or is this a forum with 2 sets of rules, with the softer one for liberals?

I don't see anyone derailing a thread. This forum is not an echo chamber, we encourage and thrive on debate of ideas and opinions.

With a grand total of 54 posts versus the thousands that others have contributed to this site, I suggest you read more and post less. When you get a feel for the courtesy and mutual respect that this forum is committed to maintaining, perhaps the alienation you feel will dissipate.

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:29 PM
...But I'm still confused about the actual topic (as opposed to the title) of this thread ...

is it the Hoped For Massacre of the Members of the Transit Workers Union?

Or maybe just Generalized Reactionary Spoutings?

I view it as advocating violence against workers and civil employees. It seems to me that it can be literally interpreted as seeking the death of others.

The provocative and bold hatred in the title seems more intent on generating reaction than discussion.

Small minds have used this tactic in many forums. I think it is best equated with how Fox News channel attracts viewers.

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:32 PM
I think the city should fire the bottom 10% of its workforce every few years.

The bottom 10% in performnce criteria? Would you do this each year to attract better workers or just to save costs?

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:35 PM
I think the MTA should follow the example of the private sector. Cut salaries across the board by 10%, ALL THE WAY UP THE LINE!

The precedent set in the private sector and reinforced by this presidential administration is that contracts are binding and compensation agreements must be honored.

See TARP.

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:39 PM
Disband the entire state assembly and senate, and replace them with full-time officials without external jobs that create massive conflicts of interest.

What would the criteria be for these full-time officials? No prior experience? Can you give us, say, ten examples of members, from each body of NY's legislature, who have external "jobs".

It always helpful to make one's point with documented evidence.

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 06:55 PM
Side note: given that it seems that i am the only conservative here, either the liberals have taken over the former, or the mods do not manage the forum fairly...which is it?

I think that your position is

1. unsubstantiated
2. poorly articulated
3. based on ideological purism steeped in denial
4. unsustainable

We don't accept opinion as fact and, therefore, do not predicate our answers on a faulty premise

This is an extremely popular forum. Again, I will note that with 54 posts to date, you seem ill equipped to challenge the moderation on this site. If you were truly interested in this site, you would recognize the designated areas and/or procedures to challenge moderation or other issues within the forum.

I invite you to contact other members of this forum to get a "reality check" on your perspective that (a) the forum has been overtaken by liberals and (b) moderators do not manage the forum properly. It seems that you expect your position to be roundly accepted and defended by moderators.

This forum has not been "overtaken" by anybody, but it has built its stellar reputation and exponential growth through the participation of a community of people that respect one another's opinion and don't resort to name calling or applying useless labels, if faced with opposition to a post or argument.

The bigger reality, which I think unfortunately eludes you, is that this is what we call "civil discourse".

That said, I will defend this forum and the community that read and post in it daily against individuals that make blanket accusations or toss out unfounded criticisms. This is what moderation is about - NOT making sure that a lone delusional voice gets equal amplification amongst a chorus of established individuals with a history of well articulated contributions.

Ninjahedge
December 21st, 2009, 07:08 PM
The precedent set in the private sector and reinforced by this presidential administration is that contracts are binding and compensation agreements must be honored.

See TARP.

When you run out of money, contracts mean very little. Go into construction and take a look BR.

I am not saying it is 100% fair, (or fare), but the first step is unilateral responsibility for shortcomings all the way across the board.

Until you start cutting the head honchos pocketbooks, then you will have no real meat to put on the table for later. The current method of funding does not work, and only leads to spending more for the same service without any feeling of accountability.

Now while I do not like what RS is saying, and think his "suggestions" are unreasonable and quite hateful, I know that the system we have now, made from a battling of Unions versus Admin, is not the way to run things either. The unions should concentrate on keeping a certain minimum (safety, health care, etc) and Admin needs to be trimmed and made more efficient as well.

Since when does it make sense to have a station cleaner, after working for 20 years, earning more than one that has worked for 10? Does he know more? Are his stations cleaner? Maybe we need a way to make it so the jobs are paid what they are worth, with a sliding salary cap. They already do that with teachers........

BrooklynRider
December 21st, 2009, 07:48 PM
Points taken, but I don't think that you can point to substantial (or even insubstantial) efforts to deal with the incompetency and vast bureaucratic structure of the MTA. I think the unions bore a greater burden of cost control in the last decade or two and the concessions they won last round at the negotiating table were fair and well-earned.

Police got a HUGE increase. Teachers got a HUGE increase. Mass Transit is the backbone of the city and those workers deserve a pay increase consistent with the increases of the other municipal unions. I daresay that the fact that it has a larger percentage high school educated level workers and minorities makes it an easy target. They had Toussaint at the head duting negotiations verus Weingarten for the techers and Pat Lynch for police. People think of the Transit Workers and they think "black", "minority", "radical".

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 12:43 AM
In looking through the posts on this board, I didn't see this level of anger at the Federal Government or Treasury for letting financial firms pay huge bonuses to workers.

Since when does the federal government get to decide what a company pays its workers?

You spend the next 150 lines defending what you feel public sector workers should be getting - but are against the market determining what private sector ones can earn? Sorry, the US is still, despite Obama's greatest efforts, is still not socialist :rolleyes:


Their arguments, which Mayor Bloomburg supported? The firms were legally binded to the pay outs because of existing contracts with these workers.

That's hilarious, you know nothing about Wall Street firms. Very few workers's bonuses at a bank are contractually guaranteed, I know many who get canned after 11 months of working 100 hour weeks, constant travel, awful work environment under more stress than any public sector worker save a cop, and then get canned right before their bonus is paid to them.

And there's not an iota they can do about it. Try that in the public sector.


Most respectable firms are doing all they can to retain employees in this economy.

Personal attack aside, my business that I run is quite respectable, but when the city/state decides it needs yet more of MY earnings PLUS I have to pay higher taxes on my employees' earnings - you do know that both the employee AND employer pay double tax on the employee salaries, its called a payroll tax - then people are going to lose their jobs.

Its called economics 101, raise taxes, and people lose their jobs. I'm firing people so that I can maintain MY income, not to increase it.


The question that comes to my mind by this statement and by the tone of the post is that the workers are being fired because it is eating up profits as opposed to them being economically unviable.

See above.


In reality, the MTA will be in a hole, but certainly not because of these increases.

And you know that how? I know several people in the MTA budget/finance office, and they have given me a sense of the numbers, based upon these wage increases and ballooning pension and health benefits increases over the coming years, and if you think things are bad now, wait a few years until the costs for retirees' benefits eat up over half of the MTA budgets.


The increases were negotiated before this economy collapsed and have been on the balance sheets for some time. The hole the MTA is due to the mismanagement of that agency for years as well as its inability to professionally manage capital projects and contain costs to the initial budget presented to Albany.

This is part of it, but so are the exploding salaries and benefits for current and retired workers.


Can you elaborate on what exactly is "enough"?

When 1 out of 40 city dwellers work for the city, when private sector workers average salary and benefits are below that of public union workers who enjoy job protection and freedom from the stresses of a private sector job, when private sector workers are seeing wage levels stagnate, and when MTA workers who are legally prevented from striking yet do go out on strike, yeah, that's when "enough is enough."


Do you object to workers getting raises?

I believe in a market economy, where people are paid based upon their skills and knowledge. A cleaner of a train station, as ninja explains above, does not need 4% annual increases when someone else can step in and be paid far less for the same job.

Public sector workers think that they can enjoy infinite salary and benefits increases via perpetually increasing fees and taxes - without it affecting the surrounding economy and quality of life for those paying for them - and that is a fantasy.

There are several reasons businesses are leaving NY in droves - been upstate recently? - and in NYC as well, and high taxes and fees are tops on that list.


Do you know how many years prior to this contract they did or did not receive pay increases?

Are you kidding me? Since when is someone entitled to a wage increase, simply for staying on their job?

People should be paid on their skills and merit, not longevity.

FYI- I am a commission only salesman, with ZERO benefits, so before you start bitching to me, I built my business from scratch, and it has taken over 10 years to get it off the ground.

If I want to make more money, I sell more, period. If I want to slack off, I accept my income will fall. I am not in a protected, womb-like cocoon that the public-sector workers operate in...


Do you know what the median income is for a transit worker? Do you know how many positions have been eliminated through attrition or replacement by machines?

Apparently, not enough.


It seems that only a person that does not utilize public transportation, which in and of itself should be subject to fine in NYC, would argue that the unions ought to be eliminated.

You keep making those stupid assumptions, and I'll keep knocking them down; I ride the NYC subway all day long... :eek:


If there weren’t any healthcare unions, then we would have people working within hospitals for minimum wage.

Again, they would be paid based upon the market - if few people are willing to do that job, their salaries would rise...


In that instance, people would be getting the lowest possible quality of care.

Unlike now?


Healthcare unions are employed by hospitals and clinics. The state is paying expenses equivalent to their market share of hospital visits. The use of public / municipal hospitals can be directly correlated to the expense and, therefore, exclusivity of private health insurance. Do you expect the roads to be plowed? Garbage to be collected? Roads and sidewalks to be in good repair? On-call fire service? Ambulance serives? 911 Emergency calls? Water and environmental quality protections? Bridge and tunnels to be open? Traffic violations to be enforced? Tourism to be promoted? Libraries to be open? Parks to maintained? Police protection?

I expect people to do their jobs, or they will be fired. There is something America has seemingly lost - and alot of it is because of unions - its called pride in one's work.

If you gave me $.10/hour, I'd still do my best for an employer, as my work ethic is high and desire for a good reputation is equally so - show me a publi sector union made up of people sharing that attitude.


With a city of 8 million residents, that comes out to one worker per 26,666 residents. Add into that the surge of daily workers and tourists and it seems woefully inadequate.

I think you need some help with your math; 300,000 / 8,000,000 = 1 in 35. That is a far higher ratio than any other major city in the US.


Then, you would have no services and a collapse in wages. These union workers that seem the bane of existence in your world would have no means to support themselves and, even if they left the city for cheaper living accommodations, transportation would be too expensive for commutes.

Just as the chicken littles keep crying: "don't end rent control, the sky will collapse!", you know what - Boston and SF did, and guess what, both rental markets are doing just fine, thank you.

The market is a very efficient mechanism, and while imperfect, is terribly distorted by unions. If there were no workers to work in the subways, etc., salaries would rise, and the market would reach equilibrium.

What the real issue is that the workers KNOW they are unskilled labor, and if an efficient market was allowed to be initiated, their protected positions - along with various elected officials who leverage them - would end up in a very different place.


Do you get salary increases? Would you be disappointed with a frozen rate of 4%?

See above, friend. NOONE pays me squat - this year my business was down 10%, and guess what, that's life - the economy is down, so no big vacations planned.

Unlike the public sector union workers guaranteed their salaries and free health care... :rolleyes:


With all do respect, I suspect that you weren’t very supportive of unions when they had received 3% or less increases during the boom days of this decade.

I have not been a supporter of union since I was 16 years old, was in one, and saw how the workers slacked off while I worked hard. They used to get on my case because I was working too fast and would make them look bad, and they'd have to work harder.

Unions are like welfare, they breed laziness in people.


I find the attitude expressed in the post to be no less “I got mine, screw you”, than what we see from the sleazy, greedy Wall Street thugs and crooks who are directly responsible for destroying our economy.

Life is a little bit more complicated than what Rachel Maddow has been foisting upon you lately - but while you're on that game, I didn't see you complaining when it was those "fat bonuses" that were paying for all of the massive city development and public sector raises... :(

You should take a moment and look up what percentage of both NYC and NY state's total annual revenue comes from Wall street banks/hedge funds before complaining about them, because without them, NYC/NY state would be DOA.


In closing, let me say that the title of this thread is astonishingly obnoxious. Yet, that seems to be the tone of your post that introduced the topic.

You're correct, I should have said "death to all public sector unions"... :p

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 12:48 AM
I imagine that minimum wage workers would provide the high standard of services we would all expect. Minimum wage teachers would give children exactly what they deserve. Minimum wage cops would neve be influenced by ddrug dealers offering bribes. Minimum wage fire workers would run extra fast to that firetruck.

Either we are dealing with an incredibly ignorant person making these posts or someone perfectly inept at having a mature debate.

Yeah that makes sense, lets pay someone 7 figures because they might get bribed... :rolleyes:

How about paying good cops twice what they make, since it is a dangerous job, and take the difference from lousy teachers who cannot get fired, and transit authority station cleaners whose job a junior HS student could do?

If the quality people were paid well, with bonuses for good jobs performed, and the poor workers were paid less, they'd leave, or better yet, be fired. THAT is how the system works in the private sector, and does quite well when the government doesn't screw things up.

NOTE: I should have challenged your obscene comment in the last post - you blamed the banks for getting the US in this mess, how about liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for forcing the banks to make loans to people who had no way of paying them back?

Oh I guess you missed that part on the Keith Olberman show... :rolleyes:

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 12:50 AM
I view it as advocating violence against workers and civil employees. It seems to me that it can be literally interpreted as seeking the death of others.

The provocative and bold hatred in the title seems more intent on generating reaction than discussion.

Small minds have used this tactic in many forums. I think it is best equated with how Fox News channel attracts viewers.

I am not advocating for the murder of anyone, simply the immediate disbanding of all public unions in the city and state of NY.

Let the market determine their benefits and salaries, with all workers pensions, health benefits, etc.. re-negotiated to better fit what is available to a private sector worker in a similar position.

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 12:51 AM
The precedent set in the private sector and reinforced by this presidential administration is that contracts are binding and compensation agreements must be honored.

See TARP.

I find it hilarious you keep saying that, after AIG reneged on its bonuses to its workers several times... :rolleyes:

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 01:00 AM
What would the criteria be for these full-time officials? No prior experience? Can you give us, say, ten examples of members, from each body of NY's legislature, who have external "jobs".

It always helpful to make one's point with documented evidence.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/moonlight_erenade_zLDKNErFynojdfAUPv6ALM

"A Post analysis of 2008 ethics disclosure forms show that 44 percent of state senators and 46 percent of Assembly members moonlight.
The issue of lawmakers grabbing at lucrative side jobs reared its ugly head again last week during the testimony of Jared Abbruzzese at the corruption trial of former Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno."

Just look up Monserrate, who is making hundreds of thousands of dollars in his "regular" job.

BrooklynRider
December 22nd, 2009, 01:39 AM
Since when does the federal government get to decide what a company pays its workers?

You have completely missed the point. As a self-deined "Rhodes Scholar", I think you do yourself a great disservice.

The federal government DOES have the discretion over employee compensation in the the cases of the financial sector and automobile sector.


You spend the next 150 lines defending what you feel public sector workers should be getting - but are against the market determining what private sector ones can earn? Sorry, the US is still, despite Obama's greatest efforts, is still not socialist :rolleyes:

As brilliant as your alledged Rhodes Scholar moniker might present you, I only wrote 73 lines. 18 of those setences were specifically used to defend what I feel public sector workers should be getting. I'm guessing that mathematics was not within your curriculum. Although I am surprised, because that would be 3rd grade basics.


That's hilarious, you know nothing about Wall Street firms. Very few workers's bonuses at a bank are contractually guaranteed...

You can presume all you want about what another person knows or does not know. I don't know you and am only acquainted with your limp assertions made in this thread. Never-the-less, the following from Bloomberg news report on typical compensation. Considering the potential amounts of bonus payouts in the industry and the competitive nature of many positions, no one would be working without writtencontractual assurances of bonus triggers, amounts, gross versus net and a variety of other items that would be a mechanism of Mathematics (the one subject you seemed to have skipped).



Bonuses, the financial industry's annual rite of compensation typically calculated as a multiple of salary, probably will decline as much as 5 percent from 2006, according to Options Group, the New York-based firm that has tracked pay and hiring trends for more than a decade. While the payouts often far exceeded the average of $220,650 at the biggest U.S. securities firms last year and increased as much as 20 percent from 2005, the subprime-mortgage collapse already has drained the punch bowl.

Except at the most junior levels, traders and bankers receive most of their annual pay in year-end bonuses that are determined in part by the revenue produced by the individual, their division and the firm as a whole. The average bonus per employee at Wall Street's five biggest firms rose 18 percent in 2006, according to Bloomberg calculations based on company reports.

Hedge-fund traders with at least 10 years' experience, who made an average of $580,000 last year, probably will see pay rise 8 percent to 9 percent this year, according to Adam Zoia (http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Adam+Zoia&site=wnews&client=wnews&proxystylesheet=wnews&output=xml_no_dtd&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=p&getfields=wnnis&sort=date:D:S:d1), founder of New York-based Glocap Search LLC and co-editor-in- chief of the Hedge Fund Compensation Report. That's about half of the rate he was expecting before the market's decline.

...The hedge-fund industry, where assets almost tripled to $1.7 trillion since 2002, leads Wall Street when it comes to outsized paydays. The 25 best-paid hedge-fund managers earned an average of $570 million in 2006, an increase of 57 percent from the previous year, according to Institutional Investor's Alpha magazine. Hedge funds typically charge fees of 1 percent to 2 percent of assets and 20 percent of investment gains....
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a2kyW8bmxMd8&refer=home



I know many who get canned after 11 months of working 100 hour weeks, constant travel, awful work environment....
These would be the successful Wall Street friends from which you gather your unbounded knowledge of the industry?



Personal attack aside, my business that I run is quite respectable, but...
C'mon. You totally stole this quote from Heidi Fleiss.

Additionally, a the use of the word "but" adds an asterisk or compromising footnote to the aforementioned claim. So we could also say that, "Other than for this or that exception, your business is quite respectable." I guess we can say that your business is "not entirely respectable".


when the city/state decides it needs yet more of MY earnings PLUS I have to pay higher taxes on my employees' earnings - you do know that, correct, that both the employee AND employer pay double tax on the employee salaries, its called a payroll tax - then people are going to lose their jobs.

Actually the only place you could claim to pay "double" taxes is on FICA taxes. The reality is that you pay a matching tax. Employee pays 50% of the tax and Employer pays 50% of the tax. The city, state, and federal employee payroll deductions are not matched by the employer. This is a typical ploy of especially stingy usiness owners who wish to deny their employee a fair wage or beg out of offering merit increases.

You also pay FUTA which is minimal in relation to the overall payroll. You also pay for Worker's Comp.

Can you elaborate for all the folks here that you assume know nothing about payroll taxes (like me) what specific "double" payroll taxes you are being forced to pay?


Its called economics 101, raise taxes, and people lose their jobs.

Actually, that's an economic theory. One example would be the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. They didn't add jobs. How about the tax/penalty amnesty for overseas businesses bringing earnings back to the US? That didn't spur job growth.

While I apprciate your economic acumen, I believe it is the economic experts with the MBAs and PhD's that never saw this collapse coming. Perhaps, you are a Rhoses Scholar in economics, which would help me understand the apparent disconnect with reality.


I'm firing people so that I can maintain MY income, not to increase it.

I believe this kind of "contraction" happened on Wall Street as well. Lots of people got fired and profits are at record levels. Bonuses all around. Executives wringing their hands waiting for more money. More. More. More. Greed. Greed. Greed.

I think the consensus in this country is that people with business qualities that you are extolling, i.e. firing employees to avoid taxes and maintain you own income, can best be described as "douchebaggery".

You know, there are some conservatives who have the concern of this country and its citizens at the forefront of their politics. The problem they face is that corporatists, i.e. pure capitalist ideologues, have hikacked the term and hide behind it for their own to serve their own greedy, self-serving purposes.

BrooklynRider
December 22nd, 2009, 02:32 AM
rhodescholar][/B]I know several people in the MTA budget/finance office, and they have given me a sense of the numbers, based upon these wage increases and ballooning pension and health benefits increases over the coming years, and if you think things are bad now, wait a few years until the costs for retirees' benefits eat up over half of the MTA budgets.

Well, based on the evidence of the last two decades, I think anyone, other than maybe an alledged Rhodes Scholar, would place such faith in an agency that has been so completely inept at budget calculations and financial management.


rhodescholar][/B]This is part of it, but so are the exploding salaries and benefits for current and retired workers.


New York City’s new transit boss gets $40,000 raise
By Bill Van Auken
9 January 2007

The newly appointed chief of New York’s Metropolitan Transit Authority last week was awarded a raise of $42,000, a pay boost that is approximately equivalent to the annual salary of many of the city’s transit workers.

Elliot Sander, the new executive director and chief executive of the authority, will receive a total compensation package of $340,000 a year, including a salary of $265,000, a housing allowance of $60,000 and $15,000 in deferred compensation.

Sander’s predecessor in the top post at the MTA, Katherine Lapp, was paid a total of $298,000 a year. A spokesperson for recently inaugurated Democratic Governor Elliot Spitzer justified the 14 percent raise by pointing to Sander’s being given the newly minted title of “chief executive” in addition to that of executive director.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/tran-j09.shtml




I believe in a market economy, where people are paid based upon their skills and knowledge. A cleaner of a train station, as ninja explains below, does not need 4% annual increases when someone else can step in and be paid far less for the same job.

Public sector workers think that they can enjoy infinite salary and benefits increases via perpetually increasing fees and taxes - without it affecting the surrounding economy and quality of life for those paying for them - and that is a fantasy.

Hmmm... Market economy? Would that be the one that we just bailed out? Would that Market Economy be the one that required $1 Trillion in tax-payer bailout money that comes from HONEST working people like transit workers? Would the bailout of our automobile industry that was gung-ho on producing hummers in the midst of rising gas costs be another one of those glorious Free Markete examples you cite? How about the failure to bail out the people who were baboozled by the mortgage brokers or the banks? In their case, it's just too bad, because, hey, this is the free market.

For you to even cite a "free market" in this economy and in face of the collapse that shatters any illusion of an American free market is beyong lauahhable. It is repugnant.


There are several reasons businesses are leaving NY in droves - been upstate recently? - and in NYC as well, and high taxes and fees are tops on that list.

Name 20 companies in upstate New York that employ more that 100 people that have left in the last 6 months. Name 10. Droves? I'm not impressed by unsubstantiated facts.

For the record, yeah, I've been upstate recently. I recently sold a home in the town of Dannemora in Clinton County. It's inside the Adirondack Park. There is no industry upstate. Hasn't been for 20 years. While people downstate whined about all the minorities on welfare in NYC, there were more white people living on welfare checks upstate. Upstaet New york is Alabama with mountains. And with a little research, you'll find that employment in the North Country of NY State is largely comprised of State Workers - the majority in the prison/corrections sector.

[QUOTE]Are you kidding me? Since when is someone entitled to a wage increase, simply for staying on their job?

People should be paid on their skills and merit, not longevity.

Really? There's a part of me that just wants to let you keep posting. Cold-hearted, hateful, selfish, unconscienable, morally-reprehensive. So many of these adjectives are apropos to your views. I think I'll just let you spout off. As you go on and on, you built a more and more complete and inarguable image of yourself.

In this day and age with the level of social disintegration going on and people suffering largely from economic disaster, your words crystallize the sentiments that drove the country to this point. I can only imagine that you are posting these things to extract some sort of outrage that gives you some shiny boner. If not, I'm not sure I've see mored disgraceful posting about the plight and rights of fellow Americans.


FYI- I am a commission only salesman, with ZERO benefits, so before you start bitching to me, I built my business from scratch, and it has taken over 10 years to get it off the ground.

Commission only salesman - no benefits after 10 years in business.

I'm sorry. If knew you attained this level of success, I would have bowed at your feet and excused myself from this thread.

I do question how a commission only salesman has a big salaried staff that he is being forced to lay off and all of these employee payroll taxes to pay. Yeah.... sounds more like you are an independent contractor - most likely a former real estate shark - you aren't paying "payroll" taxes. You are paying estimated income taxes. Big difference, pal.


You keep making those stupid assumptions, and I'll keep knocking them down; I ride the NYC subway all day long... :eek:

You are absolutely right. I thought you were a Rhodes Sholar. Well, not really. I thought you had a business philosophy (repugnant as it seemed).

I have no doubt you are on the subway all day long. How long does it take to get your shopping bags and cart down the stairs? Let me know what line you ride, I'll gladly drop a dollar in your cup.

Clearly, you are not as upset about the transit worker raises as you are envious. You're a working schmo and you are suffering like everyone else. Instead of finding community and understanding the efforts and rewards of interdependence, you separate yourself and make your case the exception to the rule. Everyone else is a loser and on the dole. You are just trying to make an honest living. You are a REAL worker, not like all of those poor, lazy unemployed people. Being a salesman with no benefits or payment of real payroll taxes, you have no access to unemplyment benefits - you have to pay into it to be eligible.

Suddenly, I find you and your bitterness at the world sad and pathetic. You must be a very scared individual. Your someone thatcould actually use support. Too bad you chose to express this angry rant. Folks here are generally very nice and helpful where they can be.

I don't think there's really much to debate here. I hope you find a job with benefits that will give you an annual raise - at the very least for cost of living increases.

Good luck.

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 09:12 AM
You have completely missed the point. As a self-deined "Rhodes Scholar", I think you do yourself a great disservice.

A mod making personal insults, yeah, this forum has a superlative future... :rolleyes:


The federal government DOES have the discretion over employee compensation in the the cases of the financial sector and automobile sector.

WRONG. It has influence, and only over a few firms on the Street, not the whole sector.


As brilliant as your alledged Rhodes Scholar moniker might present you, I only wrote 73 lines. 18 of those setences were specifically used to defend what I feel public sector workers should be getting. I'm guessing that mathematics was not within your curriculum. Although I am surprised, because that would be 3rd grade basics.

Any plans on addressing the topic, or do you plan on spending the entire post on nonsequitor BS?


You can presume all you want about what another person knows or does not know.

Given that I have several thousand wall street clients, and have worked on WS for oh, 30 years, with intricate knowledge of their compensation deal being my fundamental job requirement - when I see someone claim that "most people on WS have contracts" like you do below, then its pretty obvious the person does not know the first thing about how comp is structured on the Street.


I don't know you and am only acquainted with your limp assertions made in this thread. Never-the-less, the following from Bloomberg news report on typical compensation.

This is getting hilarious, besides the fact that your article is over 2 years old, show us where in the link does it talk about CONTRACTS or GUARANTEED payouts... good luck.


Considering the potential amounts of bonus payouts in the industry and the competitive nature of many positions, no one would be working without written contractual assurances of bonus triggers, amounts, gross versus net and a variety of other items that would be a mechanism of Mathematics (the one subject you seemed to have skipped).

Man, I hope you are not this arrogant in real life, this is getting rather embarrassing.

99.99% of people on Wall street DO NOT HAVE guaranteed compensation, do you understand?

The IB/M&A/structured finance/trading/structuring jobs you hear about in the news are compensated with a small base, with a non-guaranteed bonus. This is common knowledge to anyone who has a clue.

Spend some time researching this fact, given your level of arrogance, it is quite frankly ASTOUNDING that your knowledge of the Street's comp structure is so completely non-existent.


These would be the successful Wall Street friends from which you gather your unbounded knowledge of the industry?

You are kidding here right?


C'mon. You totally stole this quote from Heidi Fleiss.

So far in this post, you've made some 5 personal attacks, and not one thoughtful response to ANYTHING I've written.


Additionally, a the use of the word "but" adds an asterisk or compromising footnote to the aforementioned claim. So we could also say that, "Other than for this or that exception, your business is quite respectable." I guess we can say that your business is "not entirely respectable".

A 5th personal attack, good job. And you have yet to address the OP, or my post.

For the record, I advise individuals on insurance/risk management and compensation, so I have an intimate knowledge of what I'm talking about. Clearly, you do not.


Actually the only place you could claim to pay "double" taxes is on FICA taxes. The reality is that you pay a matching tax. Employee pays 50% of the tax and Employer pays 50% of the tax. The city, state, and federal employee payroll deductions are not matched by the employer. This is a typical ploy of especially stingy usiness owners who wish to deny their employee a fair wage or beg out of offering merit increases./Can you elaborate for all the folks here that you assume know nothing about payroll taxes (like me) what specific "double" payroll taxes you are being forced to pay?

My employees pay city, state, and federal income taxes on here wages - and I pay them on their salary as well, and this goes well above "FICA":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States

In some places, employers may be required to withhold state income tax, or even county or city income tax. In addition the employer is required to pay State and Federal unemployment tax.

http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Tax-Shelter/Payroll-Taxes/

"Municipal Taxes

In general, most of the larger cities across the United States charge a municipal income tax or city tax. The rates of certain cities can be quite high. For example New York City charges a payroll tax in the area of 3%. Unlike federal and state taxes, you are usually charged municipal income taxes based on where you work and not where you live.

For example, if you live in New Jersey and work in New York City, then you pay federal income taxes, New Jersey state income taxes, and city taxes are owed to the New York City."


Actually, that's an economic theory. One example would be the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. They didn't add jobs. How about the tax/penalty amnesty for overseas businesses bringing earnings back to the US? That didn't spur job growth.

And you know this how?


While I apprciate your economic acumen, I believe it is the economic experts with the MBAs and PhD's that never saw this collapse coming. Perhaps, you are a Rhoses Scholar in economics, which would help me understand the apparent disconnect with reality.

Personal attack #6.

This might be news to you and other apparent socialists, but a market economy works in cycles.


I believe this kind of "contraction" happened on Wall Street as well. Lots of people got fired and profits are at record levels. Bonuses all around. Executives wringing their hands waiting for more money. More. More. More. Greed. Greed. Greed.

Is this the Rachel Maddow/Barack Obama "make the working class feel good about themselves" speech"?


I think the consensus in this country is that people with business qualities that you are extolling, i.e. firing employees to avoid taxes and maintain you own income, can best be described as "douchebaggery".

Personal attack #7.

Where am I required to keep someone employed? And in a free market economy, they can FIND ANOTHER JOB.

You should get some courage and run a business one day, we'll see how long your magnanimous employment practices hold up when your employee comes in late half the week, calls in sick mondays and fridays, demands raises in bad years, etc.

And friend, I have a family to feed, and if I have to fire staff because people like you want their public union friends to get ever higher benefits in a declining economy, i.e, higher taxes for me - tough cookies. They are welcome to find antoher job.

Oh yeah, that's right, there aren't many, because the awful NY business environment sucks because some people want to maintain a distorted structure with high fees and taxes favoring THEM.


You know, there are some conservatives who have the concern of this country and its citizens at the forefront of their politics. The problem they face is that corporatists, i.e. pure capitalist ideologues, have hikacked the term and hide behind it for their own to serve their own greedy, self-serving purposes.

This might be news to you, but I dislike large companies only slightly less than I detest big government and unions.

But you wouldn't know that from reading my posts, you're too busy trying to obfuscate your lack of knowledge with insults.

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 09:35 AM
Well, based on the evidence of the last two decades, I think anyone, other than maybe an alledged Rhodes Scholar, would place such faith in an agency that has been so completely inept at budget calculations and financial management.

Noone is claiming that the MTA is well run, but when the city and state pull out the rug on what, 20% or more of their annual finances, then it is not surprising that they are going to have problems paying the bills.


Hmmm... Market economy? Would that be the one that we just bailed out?

Does that include banks that the Fed forced TARP money on that did not want it?

And BTW, the US has had a market economy for over 200 years. If you don't like it, you can go to Europe where they have a nice socialist/managed economy, with oh, maybe 25 years left before it collapses - or turns into Eurabia because they have to import so many immigrants to fund their massive retirement benefits' programs...


Would the bailout of our automobile industry that was gung-ho on producing hummers in the midst of rising gas costs be another one of those glorious Free Markete examples you cite?

You mean Hummers produced by companies like GM, with its massive UNION-DRIVEN retirement packages, salaries and perks like a jobs bank, paying people for sitting and playing cards - who needed to have massive gross profit margins to pay for these benefits?

Interesting how I heard NYC teachers have something similar... :eek:

And what of those poor, poor individual dimwits who took out mortgages - of their own free will - that walked away from them after the home value declined below the mortgage value? Or does the bailout money for them not count?


How about the failure to bail out the people who were baboozled by the mortgage brokers or the banks? In their case, it's just too bad, because, hey, this is the free market.

"Bamboozled"? WTF are you talking about? Its called READ THE FUC-ING CONTRACT.

WHO forced people to take out interest-only loans, when rates were at an all-time low, and had nowhere to go but up? Is that so difficult to understand? More nanny state BS - you speak about the "responsible" transit workers - what about the people who did not take out stupid mortgages - no concern for them having to bail out the idiots?


For you to even cite a "free market" in this economy and in face of the collapse that shatters any illusion of an American free market is beyong lauahhable. It is repugnant.

As i said above, things would have been far less of a bubble had Barney idiot Frank not strong-armed Fannie and Freddie mac to force the banks to make irresponsible loans to super high risk credit cases.

But oh that's right, Barney's a liberal democrat, so he is exempt from being called out, just like Charlie "I'm on the Taxation Committee in the House but cannot figure out what taxes I actually owe" Rangel... :confused:


Name 20 companies in upstate New York that employ more that 100 people that have left in the last 6 months. Name 10. Droves? I'm not impressed by unsubstantiated facts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/nyregion/13census.html

""When the jobs don't grow, the people go," Mr. Keith said."

"While the chronic economic woes upstate have been of growing concern for a decade or more, the accelerating departure of young people is considered particularly alarming."

""Rochester is on the list, but do I think I'll work here? Probably not," he said. "When you think Rochester, you think Kodak. But you also think layoffs.""

Its not exactly news that upstate NY is dying out - and one of the primary reasons is it has the highest property taxes in the US. Not sure why you are even belaboring this point.


Really? There's a part of me that just wants to let you keep posting. Cold-hearted, hateful, selfish, unconscienable, morally-reprehensive.

Go read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and soon. I fire someone, they get a job elsewhere - I pay too low, a person quits, and does the same.

A system that has worked well for oh, 400 years, and has only raised man's standard of living by 1,000 percent.


I do question how a commission only salesman has a big salaried staff that he is being forced to lay off and all of these employee payroll taxes to pay. Yeah.... sounds more like you are an independent contractor - most likely a former real estate shark - you aren't paying "payroll" taxes. You are paying estimated income taxes. Big difference, pal.

Really? How's that, my CPA/controller might be interested to know how that works... :rolleyes:


You are absolutely right. I thought you were a Rhodes Sholar. Well, not really. I thought you had a business philosophy (repugnant as it seemed).

What is that the 10th personal insult? Your ratio of on- vs. off-topic statements is pretty low...


I have no doubt you are on the subway all day long. How long does it take to get your shopping bags and cart down the stairs? Let me know what line you ride, I'll gladly drop a dollar in your cup.

Ugh, you're a troll dressed as a mod, with no facts and few intelligent points. I will only respond in the future to thoughtful responses from you, otherwise, FO.

I deleted the rest of your garbage post, as it, as usual for a Far Leftist, avoided all substance and stuck to personal insults and slanderous comments.

You keep fighting the good fight for those higher taxes and fees, as NYC's jobs base hollows out and vanishes under the weight of an ever growing public sector benefit structure.

ablarc
December 22nd, 2009, 10:59 AM
Monologues.

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 11:27 AM
Monologues.

Show me one point I've made not substantiated by facts - and even better, without insults - I'm all ears.

MidtownGuy
December 22nd, 2009, 11:27 AM
Sorry, the US is still, despite Obama's greatest efforts, is still not socialist

All of that baloney, and all we need is this one statement to tell us the guy is just repeating the braindead mantra of Beck et al.

If only Obama really was a socialist! Oh, glory day that would be! All of the energy that has been spent kowtowing to the corporate powers/Wall Street...if he had a thread of socialist ideology in his brain, things might have played out much differently.

Obama a socialist? Absurd. If he were, socialists would be in the streets cheering. Instead, they're at their computers mourning the death of universal health care and everything else that we were jazzed up about.

No, we have a true corporatist as President. His uber-capitalist friends at Bilderburg, whom he visited last summer in Chantilly VA., must be very pleased with his Oscar-winning performance so far.

195Broadway
December 22nd, 2009, 11:52 AM
The Contract.
http://www.twulocal100.org/node/2868

ablarc
December 22nd, 2009, 03:13 PM
Show me one point I've made not substantiated by facts - and even better, without insults - I'm all ears.
Which insults?

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 06:22 PM
All of that baloney, and all we need is this one statement to tell us the guy is just repeating the braindead mantra of Beck et al.

Don't watch Beck, or Fox.


Obama a socialist? Absurd. If he were, socialists would be in the streets cheering. Instead, they're at their computers mourning the death of universal health care and everything else that we were jazzed up about.

Government-run health care system = socialism

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 06:23 PM
Which insults?

Not from you, from the "mod" I responded to above.

Fabrizio
December 22nd, 2009, 06:55 PM
"Government-run health care system = socialism"

Being for Government-run health care system makes Obama a Socialist?

"Government-run health care system = socialism"

... you mean like Medicade?


But anyway... why do no conservative leaders in Europe favour making Europe's system private and modelled after the US?

Not even Reagan's friend Margaret Thatcher ever proposed doing away with the National Health Service.

Why is that?

ablarc
December 22nd, 2009, 07:46 PM
Not even Reagan's friend Margaret Thatcher ever proposed doing away with the National Health Service.

Why is that?
Because it works.

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 10:07 PM
Because it works.

Works? Apparently the British themselves don't think so:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7071660.stm

"Serious flaws' in UK health care

UK health care has been changing in recent years

People in the UK face longer waits for non-emergency surgery and struggle to see GPs out-of-hours compared with other western countries, a survey says.

It is not the first time waiting times in the UK have been compared unfavourably with those in other countries."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/brits_defend_their_muchcritici.html

rhodescholar
December 22nd, 2009, 10:07 PM
"Government-run health care system = socialism"

Being for Government-run health care system makes Obama a Socialist?

"Government-run health care system = socialism"

... you mean like Medicade?

The "public" option Obama was strongly pushing for...

MidtownGuy
December 22nd, 2009, 11:03 PM
When and where? He didn't strongly push for the public option at all. That's why I'm pissed.

Ninjahedge
December 22nd, 2009, 11:48 PM
RS, a wait is better than never.

Also, a PHC "option" is just that. If you feel you are afluent enough to afford a better way for other people to take your money, hold onto it, and then pay the hospitals and doctors that care for you, go on ahead and use it.

As for associating everything with Socialism, how is privatization any better? After US Healthcare REFUSED to send me to Sloan after I was diagnoced with cancer, then asked for all their money back when we went to sloan on our OWN dime and sued for misdiagnosis, I have NO respect for "private health care".

It aint health care, it is money laundering.

rhodescholar
December 23rd, 2009, 09:01 AM
RS, a wait is better than never.

Also, a PHC "option" is just that. If you feel you are afluent enough to afford a better way for other people to take your money, hold onto it, and then pay the hospitals and doctors that care for you, go on ahead and use it.

As for associating everything with Socialism, how is privatization any better? After US Healthcare REFUSED to send me to Sloan after I was diagnoced with cancer, then asked for all their money back when we went to sloan on our OWN dime and sued for misdiagnosis, I have NO respect for "private health care".

It aint health care, it is money laundering.

As long as there are 3 factors in place, the problems associated with health care will persist:

1-doctors go to medical school and intern for years of low pay, then expect to make huge salaries as payback

2-everyone wants to go to the "best" doctor in the world for their treatment.

3-the US has a huge population, meaning that any agency set up to handle 300 million recipients will have to be enormous.

So fine set up a national health care agency - or regional ones, to administer an immense plan.

You see how efficient the government is at everything else, what make you think that health care will be handled more so?

ablarc
December 23rd, 2009, 09:42 AM
It is not the first time waiting times in the UK have been compared unfavourably with those in other countries."
Those "other countries" also have government health plans.

Fabrizio
December 23rd, 2009, 09:45 AM
^ Why did you ignore my question:

"But anyway... why do no conservative leaders in Europe favour making Europe's system private and modelled after the US?

Not even Reagan's friend Margaret Thatcher ever proposed doing away with the National Health Service.

Why is that?"

-----------------------

Also you write: "You see how efficient the government is at everything else, what make you think that health care will be handled more so?"

Yet, why is the right is so ready to trust the efficiency of the US gov when it comes to war, nation building, rebuilding Iraq etc?

Why do you have no problem with the hospitals built and programs in place for the health care of Iraqi's?

The Bush administration made sure free health care was included in the Iraqi Consitution:

Guaranteed Health Care In Iraq - But Not For You

By: Mark Dorlester

You'd better sit down, folks.

Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.

Article 31 reads:

"First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.

Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics,or private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law."

There are other health care guarantees, including special provisions for children, the elderly, and the handicapped elsewhere in the 43-page document.

Under force of arms, President Bush imposed his particular idea of democracy on a people not asking for it - perhaps a noble undertaking in one context and a criminal violation of international law in another. Bush's followers are proud of the Iraqi Constitution, a model for the world, they told us.

So, according to the American political right-wing, government-guaranteed health care is good for Iraqis, but not good for us. Not good for you. They decry even a limited public option for you, but gleefully imposed upon the Iraqis what they label here as "socialism," with much Democratic Party member support.

Indeed, reading the Iraqi Constitution so near to the 8th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is instructive. It is the very definition of American right-wing hypocrisy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-dorlester/guaranteed-health-care-in_b_280528.html

---------

For the children of Iraq l:
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/pr_02092009.html

rhodescholar
December 23rd, 2009, 04:59 PM
^ Why did you ignore my question: "But anyway... why do no conservative leaders in Europe favour making Europe's system private and modelled after the US? Not even Reagan's friend Margaret Thatcher ever proposed doing away with the National Health Service. Why is that?"

I don't avoid anyone's questions, I may not have seen the post. Unlike some other posters here, I actually make an effort to address each and every point made in a post directed towards me.

Now then, since I do not live in europe, and am therefore not in one of their governments, I cannot speak for why, but I do know that many countries in europe has far more socialistic policies than the US - including national health care, massive safety nets, and pensions. Alot of the funding from this comes from the fact that the US provides a massive security umbrella, relieving europe of huge amounts of military expenditures.

IMO, the US should pull all of its troops out of germany, japan, and south korea, and let these countries start spending their own money, which would free up billions for the US, thereby reducing the deficit.


Also you write: "You see how efficient the government is at everything else, what make you think that health care will be handled more so?" Yet, why is the right is so ready to trust the efficiency of the US gov when it comes to war, nation building, rebuilding Iraq etc?

Where did I claim to be rightwing, and where did i claim that the military is any more efficient than any other part of the federal government?


Why do you have no problem with the hospitals built and programs in place for the health care of Iraqi's?

What does this have to do with anything?

Fabrizio
December 23rd, 2009, 05:32 PM
Where did I claim to be rightwing...?

Reading your posts, I have a hard time believing that you are not.

Usually if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...it's a Republican.

I asked you: "Why do you have no problem with the hospitals built and programs in place for the health care of Iraqi's?"

You answer: "What does this have to do with anything?"

Because if the US government (under a conservative pres.) insists on free health car for the Iraqi's ... what is wrong with the Dems insisting on health care for Americans?

Please explain.

Fabrizio
December 23rd, 2009, 05:42 PM
Alot of the funding from this comes from the fact that the US provides a massive security umbrella, relieving europe of huge amounts of military expenditures.

IMO, the US should pull all of its troops out of germany, japan, and south korea, and let these countries start spending their own money, which would free up billions for the US, thereby reducing the deficit.

I agree with you.

Remember that massive security umbrella , besides serving Europe's interests, is a part of what makes the US a Superpower. It what gives it the ability to call the shots.

Do you really think the US would ever want to see Europe become a stand-alone military might? I think not. IMHO having a presence in Europe has served the US well... and the US is not leaving any time soon. The US is there because it wants to be.

Ninjahedge
December 23rd, 2009, 08:50 PM
As long as there are 3 factors in place, the problems associated with health care will persist:

1-doctors go to medical school and intern for years of low pay, then expect to make huge salaries as payback

Solution: Enable some education options through the state that are on a comparable level of reputation and reliability based on the cost of operation, NOT on how much they ned to convince everyone how special they are or to build that new library dedicated to XXX's son.


2-everyone wants to go to the "best" doctor in the world for their treatment.

What everyone wants is the doctor that can get the job done. If he is the best, so be it, but so long as he "fixes" you, all is good.


3-the US has a huge population, meaning that any agency set up to handle 300 million recipients will have to be enormous.

That is true, but this is not to be set as a "ALL INSURANCE IS ILLEGAL!!!!!" and instantly 300M are ready for the government plan. You start with those that cannot afford first, then start moving it up the line.

When a company can literally claim 25% operating costs on Insurance policies (our old one went up because we had more than a 75 cent on a dollar payback on our premiums), I can't believe that that much cash is really needed to run the system.

You set it up to give the ones who can't something for free, then step it up slightly based on salaries (like Taxes). If people could pay half of what they do now for insurance, they would be much happier. It does not have to be free for all you know.

Also, the whole thing about insurance is that it is a sort of communal pool for unexpected expenses. Not many need $1M in medical care, but when you divide that amongst the 1/1000 that do, that $1000 in one year is a lot easier to handle. Distribution of the bearing load.[/quote]


So fine set up a national health care agency - or regional ones, to administer an immense plan.

You see how efficient the government is at everything else, what make you think that health care will be handled more so?

The key here is NOT to give the government Carte Blanche. We, as a people, are asking for another option. We are not asking for complete socialism and pre-determined death age based on the crystal in your palm..... (obscure reference).

But when you see how much money is made not from PROVIDING any real service, AAMOF,coming from DENYING it, it is hard to say that Government can't do better. Can it do worse? Yep, that is why you don't let it. Give it the reigns, but don't go to sleep in the back seat.


Final point, hospital costs. Since when is it fair that uninsured people have to pay MORE than insurance companies for the same service? There should be a law, passed before even health care, requiring full payment for services rendered. Now there has to be SOME check and balance there to insure that the Hospitals do not run wild with this. Limited profit margins subject to secondary tax assesments maybe? (earn more than XX and you get taxed progressively higher on the amount... that tax $ going strait into Medicare/etc...)

scumonkey
December 23rd, 2009, 09:00 PM
(obscure reference)
I loved Logan's Run! ;)

Ninjahedge
December 23rd, 2009, 09:42 PM
I agree with you.

Remember that massive security umbrella , besides serving Europe's interests, is a part of what makes the US a Superpower. It what gives it the ability to call the shots.

Do you really think the US would ever want to see Europe become a stand-alone military might? I think not. IMHO having a presence in Europe has served the US well... and the US is not leaving any time soon. The US is there because it wants to be.

Didn't think of it that way, but I guess the analogy is, if someone else is spending money for the police force in your neighborhood, would you really want to pony up your people and your DM/Francs/etc to put up your own neighborhood watch?

By providing free bagels, it's hard for the Indie Bagel Shops to set up.

User Name
December 23rd, 2009, 09:55 PM
Final point, hospital costs. Since when is it fair that uninsured people have to pay MORE than insurance companies for the same service? They charge people w/o ins more because they are much more likely to not pay the bill (and they get what they can through collections settlements), whereas an insurance company usually will probably pay the bill.


There should be a law, passed before even health care, requiring full payment for services rendered.

Make healthcare costs non-dismissable through bankruptcy and the hospitals/doctors would love you forever.

Ninjahedge
December 23rd, 2009, 11:25 PM
They charge people w/o ins more because they are much more likely to not pay the bill (and they get what they can through collections settlements), whereas an insurance company usually will probably pay the bill.

That's the logic, but it makes no sense. If someone is unlikely to pay a bill, you do not increase it.

What it really is is that the insurance companies barter with the hospital. They make a deal to include them on their service list so patients would come there, and in exchange, they pay less to them.


Make healthcare costs non-dismissable through bankruptcy and the hospitals/doctors would love you forever.

That is not a solution. The solution is to make it so what is charged is what is paid, so no games need to be played.

Include a universal standard for health care and we will have a system that will buffer the extreme medical needs of the few over the shoulders of the many who can bear it.

Or just let them die and hope you are not one of them one day.

stache
December 24th, 2009, 02:35 AM
Still trying to figure out why Socialism is such a horrible thing -

rhodescholar
December 24th, 2009, 10:23 AM
Reading your posts, I have a hard time believing that you are not.

Believe what you may, my job in life is not to convince others how/what to label me, but if you feel labeling someone is needed to help you place them in a convenient "box" so you can comprehend their positions, that's up to you.


I asked you: "Why do you have no problem with the hospitals built and programs in place for the health care of Iraqi's?"

Uh let me see now, you have a country who just went through a war and a massive terrorist campaign - who did you expect would provide medical care?

Germany and Japan also offered free medical care at the end of WW2, given that they also had their former governments and basic infrastructure severely impacted. Who realistically did you expect to provide basic medical services?

The question is so absurd, it cannot even be determined clearly what you are asking.

rhodescholar
December 24th, 2009, 10:25 AM
Is there any chance the mods can get this thread back on topic?

Anyone who posts a question directed at me on a subject other than the OP will have to do it in a different thread

This thread is for the discussion of how the public unions are destroying the city and state of NY.

Taz
December 24th, 2009, 04:25 PM
You don't sound like you know much about the operation of the transit system in this city. My father worked for the TA, my grandfather worked for the TA, and I've passed the train conductor's exam and I'm waiting for the list to be published.

That said, I know more about how the transit system works than most people in this city. Most of those 300,000 people are operating personnel, who need to be replaced when they pass a promotional exam or retire, quit etc.

The bosses are a different story. They have supervisors tripping over each other, but the operating personnel (bus drivers, dispatchers, train conductors, motorman, tower operators, etc) are needed to ensure that trains and buses run and as close to schedule as possible. You don't like that they're entitled to a contract and that the contract stipulates a raise that they're also entitled to, because without one the union would never agree to said contract that's fine. You don't have to like it, but you have to live with it because we need them.

I personally take comfort in knowing that when I do start with the TA that I'll be making 20 bucks an hour, and close to 30 after 3 years. :)


I hope the city fires each and every last one of them...a 12% raise in this economy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/nyregion/13TWU.html?ref=nyregion

I am firing workers because of the Metropolitan Mobility Commuter tax - yet another instance of legalized theft from the filth in Albany such as Espada, Monserrate, etc - and now the MTA will be even further in the hole due to these unacceptable raises?

It is time to disband all public unions, starting with this one, enough is absolutely enough.

The taxes and fees in NYC are high enough already - its because of the healthcare unions that NY spends more than double the next highest state in medicaid costs - the tax base is vanishing, how much more do the criminal unions think they can squeeze the rest of the city?

As it is, there are over 300,000 people out of 8 million working for the city - this is just insane, and totally unsustainable.

I would threaten to fire every MTA worker if they do not accept the rescision of this raise, and accept that there are 1,000 people ready to step in for each and every job if they are unhappy with their current salary.

rhodescholar
December 24th, 2009, 09:39 PM
The bosses are a different story. They have supervisors tripping over each other, but the operating personnel (bus drivers, dispatchers, train conductors, motorman, tower operators, etc) are needed to ensure that trains and buses run and as close to schedule as possible. You don't like that they're entitled to a contract and that the contract stipulates a raise that they're also entitled to, because without one the union would never agree to said contract that's fine. You don't have to like it, but you have to live with it because we need them.

I personally take comfort in knowing that when I do start with the TA that I'll be making 20 bucks an hour, and close to 30 after 3 years. :)

If they are so valuable, then what do they need a union for? The market would do just fine determining what the appropriate salary would be for each position, given the very basic notion of supply and demand.

BrooklynRider
December 25th, 2009, 12:55 AM
Believe what you may, my job in life is not to convince others how/what to label me, but if you feel labeling someone is needed to help you place them in a convenient "box" so you can comprehend their positions, that's up to you.

I believe it was YOU who early on noted that you were the only "conservative" here and that this forum was overtaken by "liberals".

It was certainly a bit of labeling early on in this thread initiated by you to elevate yourself to martyr and put everyone in a convenient box.

This thread is on topic. I see no divergence by people seeking more background on a person who posted a tread title calling for death to working people. I think each question peels back another layer of who you are and the cracked foundation upon which you made your repulsive comments.

You initiated this discourse. We don't censor people. We accepted the challenge of your premise and took it from there.

Why is it that people who choose to start fights by coming out swinging and trash talking always end up looking for someone to swoop in and save them?

My view is that you entered the coliseum as a gladiator with a challenge and broad criticism of everyone in this community. You got yourself here. Now, the fight is yours.

Good luck.

Taz
December 25th, 2009, 01:07 AM
Because without the union there would be nobody to argue on behalf of the employees, you'd have people being terminated for any or no reason at all. The union provides job security, which is obviously important. They also guarantee the right to retire at a certain age and after X number years of service.

The current going rate for retirement from the MTA is 25 years of service and age 50 (or 55, I'm pretty sure it's 50) which means that if I do in fact start when I'm expecting to, I could retire before I'm 50 with a full pension. I also take comfort in knowing that I won't have to work until I drop dead.

That 12% raise, without knowing the specifics, is most likely spread over X number of years. Usually 3-5, so it's not like they're getting a 12% increase effective in February, unless I missed something. There's a reason 15,000 people took the most recent open competitive train conductor exam. Job security, a union that guarantees your employment unless you screw up royally, and ridiculously good benefits. Without those and in my opinion moreso the union itself, you wouldn't have the current starting rate of pay, which leads to less people wanting to work for the TA.


If they are so valuable, then what do they need a union for? The market would do just fine determining what the appropriate salary would be for each position, given the very basic notion of supply and demand.

rhodescholar
December 25th, 2009, 01:35 AM
Because without the union there would be nobody to argue on behalf of the employees, you'd have people being terminated for any or no reason at all. The union provides job security, which is obviously important. They also guarantee the right to retire at a certain age and after X number years of service.

Says who?

Most people aren't in unions, and they get along just fine. A company that mistreats its workers has problems hiring new ones, and in today's world with the internet, crappy companies get publicly exposed in a heartbeat.

The public unions in NYC/NYS have extorted money from the taxpayer for far too long - no wonder the medicaid rate in NY is over twice the national average - and it is time for the pendulum to swing way, way back the other way.


The current going rate for retirement from the MTA is 25 years of service and age 50 (or 55, I'm pretty sure it's 50) which means that if I do in fact start when I'm expecting to, I could retire before I'm 50 with a full pension. I also take comfort in knowing that I won't have to work until I drop dead.

50? Are you f--king kidding me?

So with an average life expectancy of 80 or so, you think the NYC taxpayer should carry you with free health coverage for 30 years? Besides the fact that there is no job I can think of in the private sector where someone can retire anywhere near 50 unless they play pro sports, that's just absurd.


Job security, a union that guarantees your employment unless you screw up royally, and ridiculously good benefits. Without those and in my opinion moreso the union itself, you wouldn't have the current starting rate of pay, which leads to less people wanting to work for the TA.

So what? Again, let the market decide. If the jobs is really that tough, then salaries would rise when few people show up. My guess is that the union bosses and the members know that they are vastly overpaid for what they do relative to private sector work, and would have to actually compete on their skills for compensation.

Unions and welfare are the source of unproductive, lazy tendencies and for the most part - institutional dysfunction.

We are finally seeing the US post office downsize to fit current times, the public unions elsewhere are going to be facing the same music soon, and it cannot happen soon enough.

The day is fast approaching where the NY state leadership/elected officials become functional - there is a lot of attention now being paid to Albany that wasn't for a long time, and the days of the unions running the show behind the scenes - i.e, the shelly silver circus, are over.

BrooklynRider
December 25th, 2009, 02:02 AM
Can you post the star coordinates for this planet you live on? It is so different from earth.

rhodescholar
December 25th, 2009, 09:29 AM
Can you post the star coordinates for this planet you live on? It is so different from earth.

Oh my gosh already just shut up already...

For once just pretend you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, any discussion.

195Broadway
December 25th, 2009, 01:17 PM
You don't sound like you know much about the operation of the transit system in this city. My father worked for the TA, my grandfather worked for the TA, and I've passed the train conductor's exam and I'm waiting for the list to be published.

That said, I know more about how the transit system works than most people in this city. Most of those 300,000 people are operating personnel, who need to be replaced when they pass a promotional exam or retire, quit etc.

The bosses are a different story. They have supervisors tripping over each other, but the operating personnel (bus drivers, dispatchers, train conductors, motorman, tower operators, etc) are needed to ensure that trains and buses run and as close to schedule as possible. You don't like that they're entitled to a contract and that the contract stipulates a raise that they're also entitled to, because without one the union would never agree to said contract that's fine. You don't have to like it, but you have to live with it because we need them.

I personally take comfort in knowing that when I do start with the TA that I'll be making 20 bucks an hour, and close to 30 after 3 years. :)

Taz,
could you post a link to the basic contract? I didn't see it on the union website. I'm looking to see the starting and top out rates, overtime policy, etc.
Thanks.

ablarc
December 25th, 2009, 01:33 PM
Oh my gosh already just shut up already...

For once just pretend you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, any discussion.
This isn't grounds for banning?

Seems both personal and hostile to me.

infoshare
December 25th, 2009, 02:18 PM
This isn't grounds for banning?



Discussions/arguments in these forums can get a bit heated - particularly for this particular member has been continually challenged here by multiple other members - so I would like to show a little flexibility here: but that is only my attitude – others may differ.


p.s. I knew it was only a matter of time before rhodescholar would loose his patience (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=310173&postcount=29). (LOL)
EXCERPT - "I can see there is going to be no possibility for meaningful discussion found here, just bitter wrangling, vindictiveness and insults that are beyond degrading to both sides. Such [hostile] discussions are an exercise in futility and I just do not get it!"

ablarc
December 25th, 2009, 02:45 PM
^ Oh, so it's us !

Sorry.

infoshare
December 25th, 2009, 02:56 PM
Sorry.

He is a bit of a rebel: I like that. Also sorry. :rolleyes:

But, seriously - let's get this thread back on topic.

195Broadway
December 25th, 2009, 02:58 PM
It's a bit early to bring out the pitch forks.

infoshare
December 25th, 2009, 03:07 PM
a bit early to bring out the pitch forks.


Cheers.

But, maybe it's time to bring out the shovels: and dig a grave, not for the TWU, but for this thread. :eek:

ablarc
December 25th, 2009, 04:54 PM
He is a bit of a rebel: I like that. Also sorry. :rolleyes:
I think you missed the irony.


But, seriously - let's get this thread back on topic.
It's been on topic the whole time. The topic has been quarrelsome posting.

nycla3
December 25th, 2009, 08:26 PM
It's a Christmas Miracle! Couldn't have predicted this...

stache
December 25th, 2009, 09:07 PM
Praise Jesus!

195Broadway
December 25th, 2009, 09:48 PM
Did he do something horrific on another post?

195Broadway
December 25th, 2009, 10:10 PM
Cheers.

But, maybe it's time to bring out the shovels: and dig a grave, not for the TWU, but for this thread. :eek:

Apparently, through not exercising exceptional self control, the author has dug it himself.

BrooklynRider
December 26th, 2009, 02:41 AM
Oh my gosh already just shut up already...

For once just pretend you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, any discussion.

He has been banned by a senior moderator in another tread for a similar post. Should that banned be lifted, it will be followed by a ban for this post.

lofter1
December 26th, 2009, 12:00 PM
Perhaps the Bush Doctrine -- in this case a more limited program: Pre-emptory Banning -- does work.

Anyone who can claim that many workers would be just fine without a union or guild or some other umbrella organization to fight for an assurance that rights and benefits and wages will be civilized and upheld for those employed or seeking employment has a very narrow and myopic view of the history of business in the USA and elsewhere.

Now, if the thread had been titled "Changes Must Be Made in the Way Business and Labor Interact" there might have been a civil discussion.

But that wasn't the argument presented.

As they say: Yous digs yer own grave.

Ninjahedge
December 26th, 2009, 04:56 PM
As they say: Yous digs yer own grave.

He wasn's allowed to....

He wasn't Union! ;)

lofter1
December 26th, 2009, 05:21 PM
Well, anybody -- despite membership or lack there of -- could have done the job under the provisions of Taft-Hartley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft–Hartley_Act). But after 30 days then becoming a brother may have been required.

Considering the work involved it's doubtful that gainful employment would be needed after that initial time span.

Unless (http://www.horror-mall.com/images/D/grave_robbers-l.jpg) ...

lofter1
December 26th, 2009, 05:22 PM
Should that banned be lifted, it will be followed by a ban for this post.

THIS (http://crunchypost.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/t-shirt-next-on-the-banned-list-789925-300x298.jpg) might come in handy.

THIS, too (http://rlv.zcache.com/banned_4_life_customized_tshirt-p2357733128039464823dq5_400.jpg) ...

lofter1
December 29th, 2009, 09:33 AM
WNY in Wonderland ...




... given that it seems that i am the only conservative here ...





Where did I claim to be rightwing ...

stache
December 29th, 2009, 06:33 PM
Now that he's gone it's moot.

Ninjahedge
December 29th, 2009, 07:08 PM
[Herd of apathetic cows goes by]

*moot*


*MOOT*






*moooooot*

phoenix_rises
December 30th, 2009, 10:42 PM
WNY in Wonderland ...

Conservative and right wing are not the same, regardless, it looks like he was right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/nyregion/31budget.html?_r=1&hp

"The Paterson administration has raised the possibility of layoffs, furloughs and the partial shutdown of state government if the stalemate with lawmakers persists. And the situation will grow more serious next year when the budget deficit is expected to be even higher. Months ago, state budget officials said that without significant cuts, spending out of the general fund was projected to grow 37 percent through the 2013 fiscal year, while revenue was expected to grow only 3.4 percent..."

Can't increase spending for bloated union salaries and benefits almost 40% when revenue increases by 4%.

lofter1
December 30th, 2009, 10:50 PM
The statement "Can't increase spending for bloated union salaries and benefits almost 40% ..." is based on what data?

The number stated in the article covers far more than salaries & benefits:




... spending out of the general fund was projected to grow 37 percent through the 2013 fiscal year ...

RandySavage
December 30th, 2009, 11:09 PM
Another civil employee union that needs to have their contracts re-written:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31494936/ns/us_news-education/

phoenix_rises
December 30th, 2009, 11:22 PM
The statement "Can't increase spending for bloated union salaries and benefits almost 40% ..." is based on what data?

The number stated in the article covers far more than salaries & benefits:

The article stated that the state overall spending was budgeted to rise 40%.

I do not know the percentage of the overall state expenditures that go toward union salaries, perks, benefits, pensions, etc., but it is a large percentage I believe.

Many articles I've seen, for instance, state that the reason NY state's medicaid expenses are twice the national average are due to union salaries.

I read through this thread, and I think someone already mentioned it.

lofter1
December 30th, 2009, 11:34 PM
If it's posted at WNY it's gotta be true.

Hard to argue with beliefs.

Uncle.

lofter1
January 1st, 2010, 03:53 PM
Wow -- Just 2 posts and our newbie is gone?




phoenix_rises

Banned Member

That was quick.

ZippyTheChimp
January 1st, 2010, 04:18 PM
phoenix_rises = rhodescholar = FAIL

stache
January 1st, 2010, 04:48 PM
I had a sneaking suspicion -

Ninjahedge
January 3rd, 2010, 12:02 AM
It is very hard, even for those that say it does not matter, to simply walk away from a place they argued on.

Many banned members come back. "Phoenix rises" was a bit ghey (not gay, because there would be nothing wrong with that! ;) ). I wonder if his next attempt will be "Ditto".

scumonkey
January 3rd, 2010, 12:09 AM
"ghey"
I'm an old fart and hadn't seen this one before so I looked it up...
From the urban dictionary:
ghey 619 up (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#), 387 down (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#) http://static3.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsup.gif?1262309817 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#) http://static2.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsdown.gif?1262309817 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#)

a way to take the guilt out of offending homosexuals by calling something unfavorable gay (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay).

since verbally, the new spelling is virtually unnoticeable, this rationale is rendered a waste of time, but as mentioned, it serves its purpose in the mind of the homophobe (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homophobe)-in-denial.
"that album was GAY as hell... no offense, (homosexual (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homosexual) bystander), i don't mean it in a bad way" ...

i hope he thinks i said "ghey" instead of "gay", so he won't take me for the idiot i am, since i can't think up a better adjective to put in place of "bad"

stache
January 3rd, 2010, 02:57 AM
kweer?

Ninjahedge
January 3rd, 2010, 02:53 PM
"ghey"
I'm an old fart and hadn't seen this one before so I looked it up...
From the urban dictionary:
ghey 619 up (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#), 387 down (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#) http://static3.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsup.gif?1262309817 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#)http://static2.urbandictionary.com/images/thumbsdown.gif?1262309817 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ghey#)

a way to take the guilt out of offending homosexuals by calling something unfavorable gay (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay).

since verbally, the new spelling is virtually unnoticeable, this rationale is rendered a waste of time, but as mentioned, it serves its purpose in the mind of the homophobe (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homophobe)-in-denial.
"that album was GAY as hell... no offense, (homosexual (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=homosexual) bystander), i don't mean it in a bad way" ...

i hope he thinks i said "ghey" instead of "gay", so he won't take me for the idiot i am, since i can't think up a better adjective to put in place of "bad"

How old are you scum?


And how sensitive are you?


:rolleyes: Great self confidence there man.

Ninjahedge
January 3rd, 2010, 02:54 PM
kweer?

You know the literal definition of queer, right?


Somehow "gay" seems so much less insulting....

lofter1
January 3rd, 2010, 04:24 PM
Words words words.

All depends on who is saying them -- and to whom they're spoken.

Often better to bite the tongue than to blurt out a questionable phrase.

scumonkey
January 3rd, 2010, 04:35 PM
How old are you scum?old enough to be your father;)

And how sensitive are you?sensitive has nothing to do with calling out ignorance when I see it:rolleyes:

Great self confidence there manEnough to call you out for being insensitive and PI :cool:

Ninjahedge
January 4th, 2010, 07:02 PM
old enough to be your father;)
sensitive has nothing to do with calling out ignorance when I see it:rolleyes:
Enough to call you out for being insensitive and PI :cool:

:rolleyes: