Garbage Strike - Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Thunderballs
- Start date
You know an Internet thread has run its course when people on a hooker board starting flashing their degrees (I'm smart in the real world, really!) 
Ultimately, the world has passed unions by, and the notion of a "secure job with a living wage" is a nice fantasy, but the vast majority of people don't have this luxury and never will. (The union folks betray their naivete when they say things like "if we all joined a union, we'd ALL have the possibility of secure, well paying jobs." Uh huh. Dream on baby!)
So in the end the unions have to resort to sympathy (don't you realize what unions have done for you!!!!!) or aggression (blocking people, forcing the city's hand, general thugishness) to preserve what is a market anomaly.
Ultimately, the world has passed unions by, and the notion of a "secure job with a living wage" is a nice fantasy, but the vast majority of people don't have this luxury and never will. (The union folks betray their naivete when they say things like "if we all joined a union, we'd ALL have the possibility of secure, well paying jobs." Uh huh. Dream on baby!)
So in the end the unions have to resort to sympathy (don't you realize what unions have done for you!!!!!) or aggression (blocking people, forcing the city's hand, general thugishness) to preserve what is a market anomaly.
If you knew anything about the issues, your opinion might actually be worth something. However, the fact is that I think it is worth much less than even OldJones response to the paper. He at least made no claims one way or another about the paper.Mrbig1949 said:
So, OldJones, do you see why I did not bother with sources in responding to mrbig's posts? He has said he cannot and will not read them.
Well we could elect a union busting politician if we persuade enough people of our views. I would like to see the city union busted.Mrbig1949 said:You guys can cry and cry about unions but guess what-nothing is going to change. Get over it.
Where's Reagan when you need him?
You are right in this sense Mao, nobody is going to convert anybody here. Lets just conclude that unions are legal, they are doing what they are suppose to do, asking they to do otherwise is like asking them to stop breathing so lets get back to talking about which women are really great in the sack, worth the money give great service and save each other some time and money and try to drive the B&S types out of business. Come on "someone" even you can agree to that? Solidarity Forever, Solidarity Forever The Union Make us Strong" what a great old tune.
Oshawa is a union town (CAW and government) and is bankrupt.someone said:
Windsor is a union town (CAW) and is bankrupt.
Toronto is full of LLL, socialists and commies and led by Charirman Mao (aka David Miller) and is bankrupt.
Clearly someone has enough time to read and respond—although what "…of it then blinding say" is actually supposed to mean is beyond me. But your whole post appears to be directed at Mrbig, while your earlier response to him addresses me directly (and I was the one who chided you for not giving sources) You definitely should take your own advice and spend time not posting. And cite, proofread and spellcheck when you do.someone said:
BTW: If I'm right your proffered paper says when you artificially adjust wages to an equal starting point back in '45 the right to Work states have theoretically done better wage-wise than non-RTW at the equally artificial finish line. All math and stats. But he also states that the biggest 'improvements' come when factors other than RTW are run like farm vs. non-farm incomes. Given that RTW states as he says have been more rural, the decline in farm incomes compared to non-farm seems an equally likely cause of the improvement. And of course none of this actually proves RTW caused anything, it was just one of a large number of variables ceteris paribus in the study. But it takes more than mere presence, or even controlling for lots of other variables to establish causation.
Which is why I'm a fan of history, which is what actually happened—as far as we know—over quantification exercises that look good enough on paper to teach bankers to swindle themselves, but never actually happened in real life.
Like proving bumblebees hike everywhere.
And speaking of history:Mrbig1949 said:
There once was a union maid,
Who never was afraid,
Of the goons and ginks,
And company finks
And the deputy sherriff
Who made the raids
She went to the Union hall, when a meeting it was called,
And when the company boys came round, she always stood her ground
Chorus
Oh, you can't scare me, I'm stickin to the Union,
I'm stickin to the Union,
I'm stickin to the Union,
Oh, you can't scare me, I'm stickin to the Union
Till the day I die
The reason it seemed to be directed at him was that I was being polite by not explicitly stating how stupid your response was. I thought you would appreciate that.oldjones said:
Personally, I think your posts would greatly improve if you tried to understand the issues involved rather than just repeating ideological claptrap. I think that is where we differ. You and Mrbig start with ideological beliefs and try to force the facts to fit them. When the facts don’t fit them you two get frustrated. Paradoxically, he responses by accusing others of being the people who are ideological. You respond by attacking typos. Neither makes a legitimate argument
No. It involves conditioning. Certis paribus is a common assumption in economic courses but in the real world you have to add control variables or you get what is called omitted variable bias. If you google the term, I am sure a few things will come up.oldjones said:
Not if he controlled for those variable. That is the whole point of controlling for such variables. Thus, here you are missing the point of the exercise.oldjones said:
Now you are being silly. Using your logic, nothing can be proved and there is no point even studying the issues. I would say that arguments based on data and scientific method are better than arguments based on ideology but I am sure the two of you will disagree.oldjones said:
Actually, I think the reason you are a fan of history is likely because you don’t have to know anything like statistics to read history papers. BTW, I don’t think most bankers would understand that paper any more than you do. Let’s just say, I will stick with studies based on scientific method and leave you and MrBig to arguments based on ideology.oldjones said:
If I wanted to talk about women, sex, strippers and mp, there are other sections in this BB I'd go to.Mrbig1949 said:
MB, every time you blow a tire on a fact, lose a train of thought or begin parroting long worn out union demagogy, you start throwing detritus around trying to muddy the waters or confuse our focus on the issue. It's classic and only barely entertaining. If you a shining example of union higher ups, I think you did say you were a shop steward, then the end of union movement as a major player is closer than some people think.
Stop digging!!
.Please do. And when you find one of those 'scientific' economics papers that actually proves something… do let us know. That one, proved that if, if if, if all sorts of artificial constraints conditions and conceits were assumed then an equally artificial numeber resulted. Whoopee.someone said:
In science, one would then use that math to predict a real-world observation, and if you found it, and if others replicated the calculations and the observations one might then say the hypothesis had been proven. Any such proofs offered, or just some fancy math?
You promised to leave me to my ideology, which is good 'cause Woody Guthrie wrote lots more verses. Enjoy your 'science'.
PS: Do you find it as interesting as I do that the only subjects in psych experiments who reliably and predictably take the self-interest/non-co-operative choices that the dismal science predicts are the economics students? A tidbit of real science. I heard it on some radio show.
Oh and I actually took Latin in high school. It's ceteris-Latin for "others" not certis paribus which would be something else entirely. Simple English might be less tricky, 'Other things being equal' stick to what you know.
Now where's my banjo.
/
You agree that the bank sick days is stupid idea, but you still manage to make this the fault of past city mangers?????
That is strange logic, however lets not focus on fault as its clear you will never find your union pals in the wrong, no matter how outrageous their demands.
Lets focus on what is right & fair and what the outcome should be
1. Sick days are for when you get sick
23 sick days / year is an allotment far above any other group of employees that I am aware of, however, Trash collectors work outside in the winter & work around trash, so it is likely they might catch more colds & possibly even infections, than the average office employee. So lets not begrudge them this overly generous benefit and make sure their health is not an issue
2. But if you do not use them, you lose them.
If you have 10 left over in December, then call in sick for a couple weeks & go to Florida.
If this becomes a staffing problem (all the trash guys call in sick in Dec), fine offset half of the employees sick day calender year by two months, 4 months , 6 months whatever it takes.
3. Banking 20 days year after year is just too expensive
This amounts to a couple extra years pay at retirement
In twenty years time you could have more collectors on a 14 month sick day vacation, than you have collectors out collecting.
This sounds similar to the GM situation & we all know how that turned out
4. This is clearly a situation that requires correction & the current city mangers are trying to make that correction.
Only a self serving person would not agree that banking 20 sick days is not an abuse
5. " it has nothing to do with self-serving stuff like I'm a taxpayer and they're hosing me. "
I have every right to be concerned with how my tax dollars are being wasted.
It drives me absolutely crazy that unions feel they have a right to abuse the taxpayer and any ridiculous demand can be met with a tax increase
How dare you!
WTFoldjones said:
You agree that the bank sick days is stupid idea, but you still manage to make this the fault of past city mangers?????
That is strange logic, however lets not focus on fault as its clear you will never find your union pals in the wrong, no matter how outrageous their demands.
Lets focus on what is right & fair and what the outcome should be
1. Sick days are for when you get sick
23 sick days / year is an allotment far above any other group of employees that I am aware of, however, Trash collectors work outside in the winter & work around trash, so it is likely they might catch more colds & possibly even infections, than the average office employee. So lets not begrudge them this overly generous benefit and make sure their health is not an issue
2. But if you do not use them, you lose them.
If you have 10 left over in December, then call in sick for a couple weeks & go to Florida.
If this becomes a staffing problem (all the trash guys call in sick in Dec), fine offset half of the employees sick day calender year by two months, 4 months , 6 months whatever it takes.
3. Banking 20 days year after year is just too expensive
This amounts to a couple extra years pay at retirement
In twenty years time you could have more collectors on a 14 month sick day vacation, than you have collectors out collecting.
This sounds similar to the GM situation & we all know how that turned out
4. This is clearly a situation that requires correction & the current city mangers are trying to make that correction.
Only a self serving person would not agree that banking 20 sick days is not an abuse
5. " it has nothing to do with self-serving stuff like I'm a taxpayer and they're hosing me. "
I have every right to be concerned with how my tax dollars are being wasted.
It drives me absolutely crazy that unions feel they have a right to abuse the taxpayer and any ridiculous demand can be met with a tax increase
How dare you!
OldJones, I am starting to think that you are as stupid as MrBig. Data and logic are artificial constraints! Not only do you have no understanding of what you read, but you don’t even know that you don’t have any understanding of it. I always find people who don’t know what they don’t know to be the worse. (Of course, the fact that you did not respond to any of my corrections of your errors makes me wonder if you might really know you don’t know and are just pretending, but I cannot be sure of this).
Yes, I will “enjoy” the use of scientific method and leave you to ideology. As far as your last point, I have read some of the literature and I would be willing to explain/discuss it with you if I thought you were interested in an intelligent discussion. However, I can see that is not the case. (It is an interesting literature and given the experiments are typically done by economists and not psychologists you are correct in referring to it as “real science” even if for a mistaken reason.)
Actually, you may be a happier person because you know what you want to believe and don’t have to worry about facts. Sometimes the search for knowledge and understanding can be frustrating. I sometimes wonder if people like you are not happier.
Edit: I see from the edit of your post that since you still have absolutely nothing to offer to the discussion, you are again picking on typos. Well, if it makes you fell like you are making up for having absolutely no understanding of the issues under discussion, I am happy for you.
Yes, I will “enjoy” the use of scientific method and leave you to ideology. As far as your last point, I have read some of the literature and I would be willing to explain/discuss it with you if I thought you were interested in an intelligent discussion. However, I can see that is not the case. (It is an interesting literature and given the experiments are typically done by economists and not psychologists you are correct in referring to it as “real science” even if for a mistaken reason.)
Actually, you may be a happier person because you know what you want to believe and don’t have to worry about facts. Sometimes the search for knowledge and understanding can be frustrating. I sometimes wonder if people like you are not happier.
Edit: I see from the edit of your post that since you still have absolutely nothing to offer to the discussion, you are again picking on typos. Well, if it makes you fell like you are making up for having absolutely no understanding of the issues under discussion, I am happy for you.
I didn't know that, but I'm finding the connection to our discussion a little difficult to make.oldjones said:
Did you know that the snowy owl eats 10 lemmings a day? There's really no connection here except for those who may try to draw an inference with mention of lemmings in this tidbit. Bye the bye, lemming don't commit suicide.
Just like the commies of old. In the old USSR everybody was effectively unionized.someone said:
BTW one would expect a Red Smear from the McCarthy types, if you think unions are a good thing you are a Commie? Get real we are talking about free trade unions, the ones who raised the common man/woman out of poverty, the ones supported by ML King, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi etc
