So the National Post, Toronto Star, and the Sun all show the same trend. Whose left; Now, Snap, or the Scarborough Mirror
Garbage Strike - Give Me a Break
- Thread starter Thunderballs
- Start date
Well let's first establish the principal first: You can't pay McDonald's burger flippers $60k and say you are expanding the middle class. Less than $60k wealth is created by their job, so somewhere all you are really doing is robbing somebody and giving the money to the burger flipper in exchange for nothing.Toke said:Let's not compare it to McDonald's.
A poor country, for example, can't suddenly declare itself rich by paying all its rice farmers $100k per year. It doesn't work.
This is unlike when you have a high skilled auto worker building cars, where they are creating more than $60k in high quality goods through their work. You can pay that person $60k because they produced $60k.
It does not cost $60k to pick up the trash, and you can find someone to do it for half that much.
Who made you the judge
Who appointed you the judge of all of this. Oh I know Adam Smith.fuji said:Well let's first establish the principal first: You can't pay McDonald's burger flippers $60k and say you are expanding the middle class. Less than $60k wealth is created by their job, so somewhere all you are really doing is robbing somebody and giving the money to the burger flipper in exchange for nothing.
A poor country, for example, can't suddenly declare itself rich by paying all its rice farmers $100k per year. It doesn't work.
This is unlike when you have a high skilled auto worker building cars, where they are creating more than $60k in high quality goods through their work. You can pay that person $60k because they produced $60k.
It does not cost $60k to pick up the trash, and you can find someone to do it for half that much.
Do you accept the principle? Straight answer please.Mrbig1949 said:Who appointed you the judge of all of this. Oh I know Adam Smith.
If taxpayers pay someone $60k to do a job that produces $20k worth of goods does that increase or decrease the overall standard of living?
I am only interested in whether you accept the principle. We can leave for later which jobs are worth how much, for the sake of argument in this example the goods produced are worth $20k.
No more of your bullshit, a simple "yes, it does" or "no, it doesn't" will suffice.
The devil is in the details
I agree you cannot pay garbage collectors lawyers wages it just doen't work but I'm not prepared to make you the judge. I trust free collective bargaining, the worst system except for all the other ones.fuji said:Do you accept the principle? Straight answer please.
If taxpayers pay someone $60k to do a job that produces $20k worth of goods does that increase or decrease the overall standard of living?
I am only interested in whether you accept the principle. We can leave for later which jobs are worth how much, for the sake of argument in this example the goods produced are worth $20k.
No more of your bullshit, a simple "yes, it does" or "no, it doesn't" will suffice.
Ok. Next question.Mrbig1949 said:I agree you cannot pay garbage collectors lawyers wages it just doen't work but I'm not prepared to make you the judge. I trust free collective bargaining, the worst system except for all the other ones.
Do you think monopolies extract higher prices than are fair?
Only business monopolyies
The rest not so much.
Some day labour monopolies could extract too high prices. I know 2 unions that do, the OMA and the LSUC.fuji said:Ok. Next question.
Do you think monopolies extract higher prices than are fair?
The rest not so much.
In Etobicoke CUPE charged a higher price until it was in competition with a private contractor, and then charged a lower price for the same service.
That is the effect of a monopoly.
We are paying too much to CUPE for services in Toronto. The proof of that would be if CUPE were to lower its prices if put into competition with other providers.
That is the effect of a monopoly.
We are paying too much to CUPE for services in Toronto. The proof of that would be if CUPE were to lower its prices if put into competition with other providers.
If you don't pay skilled workers significantly more than unskilled workers then you take away the a big incentive for the people to go to all the work of becoming skilled. There is an abundance of people with the minimal skills necessary to become garbage collectors who would jump at the chance to take the jobs of the strikers. On the other hand if you look at Doctors there is an estimated shortage of 15,000 Doctors in Canada and our Doctor to patient ratio is one of the worst in the industrialized world. Hundreds of trained doctors leave Canada each year to practice in the US.Toke said:I'm sure everyone will jump in with their picks, but I would argue as to how all jobs are connected and that there is no overall benefit for some to be compensated much more than others.
The fact that there are so many more people who would be willing to work as garbage collectors than there is positions but a shortage of people willing to be Doctors in Canada show that the first group is probably overpaid and the second group underpaid and their should be even a bigger gap in the amount of their compensation.
So yes indeed there is an overall benefit of compensating some people significantly more than others, otherwise you end up with shortages of skilled workers and a glut of unskilled workers.
This is only one aspect of the problem
The down side of working in the public sector is that you will never get rich but the up side is you will never be poor and you will have relative job security.
There is a clear public policy objective here the same as the roll of EI, welfare, minimum wages, H&S all to stop the private market from having too much control over the standard of living. When the private sector has too much control, incomes polarize and a great deal of instability is created which ironically is bad for business. In extreme cases it creates revolutionary conditions. Witness Europe in the 1930s. The wages in the public sector are purchasing power that translates into demand thus fueling the private economy especially when the private economy is incapable of doing this on its own.
History clearly shows that when you give the keys to the family car to the private sector and don't come along for the ride with regulation and the policies above, they have pretty soon put the car in the ditch and the public sector has to bail them out again just a Roosevelt had to do in the thirties.Stimulus plan anyone? Thanks so much Wall Street.
You just can't trust the private sector alone with control of the economy and thus society in general. The are a dynamic wealth producer but a poor wealth distributor. You are just up against history here guys. I am declaring a victory at this point because I have so clearly won the debate right Fuji? Right Larue? Right Blackrock? I am going home to sleep with the Championship belt at this point.
The city and other public employers (school boards, hospitals, the province universities colleges) have a responsibility to act as model employers, to always have the best conditions, the best wages for similar work, not necessarily by a lot but by a noticable amount, in order to push private employers to clean up their act and get with the program.fuji said:In Etobicoke CUPE charged a higher price until it was in competition with a private contractor, and then charged a lower price for the same service.
That is the effect of a monopoly.
We are paying too much to CUPE for services in Toronto. The proof of that would be if CUPE were to lower its prices if put into competition with other providers.
The down side of working in the public sector is that you will never get rich but the up side is you will never be poor and you will have relative job security.
There is a clear public policy objective here the same as the roll of EI, welfare, minimum wages, H&S all to stop the private market from having too much control over the standard of living. When the private sector has too much control, incomes polarize and a great deal of instability is created which ironically is bad for business. In extreme cases it creates revolutionary conditions. Witness Europe in the 1930s. The wages in the public sector are purchasing power that translates into demand thus fueling the private economy especially when the private economy is incapable of doing this on its own.
History clearly shows that when you give the keys to the family car to the private sector and don't come along for the ride with regulation and the policies above, they have pretty soon put the car in the ditch and the public sector has to bail them out again just a Roosevelt had to do in the thirties.Stimulus plan anyone? Thanks so much Wall Street.
You just can't trust the private sector alone with control of the economy and thus society in general. The are a dynamic wealth producer but a poor wealth distributor. You are just up against history here guys. I am declaring a victory at this point because I have so clearly won the debate right Fuji? Right Larue? Right Blackrock? I am going home to sleep with the Championship belt at this point.
This is pure bullshit. The city has NO SUCH responsibility. The city has one, and only one responsibility, and that is to serve the people of Toronto.Mrbig1949 said:The city and other public employers (school boards, hospitals, the province universities colleges) have a responsibility to act as model employers, to always have the best conditions, the best wages for similar work, not necessarily by a lot but by a noticable amount, in order to push private employers to clean up their act and get with the program.
Period.
In the situation at hand the city's responsibility is to provision a good quality service as cheaply as it can.
Mr B, what you are doing right now is trying to throw sand in our faces.
You've lost the fundamental debate. You have not been able to justify overpaying public employees. You can't.
So now you are ranting about a bunch of other left wing ideas that are actually irrelevant to that point. Tax policy has nothing to do with it. The social safety net has nothing to do with it. Regulation of the financial system has nothing to do with it.
Income disparity, for example, has NOTHING to do with this debate. It has to do with TAX POLICY. If you have higher taxes you will have less income disparity. This is true no matter whether you contract out all government services to the private sector, or whether you have public employees. Even when your primary goal is to reduce income disparity you will make things WORSE by overpaying public employees, not better.
This has nothing to do with whether you believe in a strong social safety net, unemployment benefits, or welfare.
You can believe in all those things and STILL be smart enough to realize that overpaying public employees only makes society worse off.
You can believe in all those things and STILL be smart enough to realize that handing a union a monopoly over a service is inefficient.
You can believe in all those things and STILL be smart enough to realize that private market solutions are usually more efficient than public solutions (there are some exceptions).
Trying to bring those issues into the debate is simply throwing up a lot of sand to hide the fact that you have lost.
Overpaying people to pick up the garbage HARMS SOCIETY. Period. This is true no matter whether you have left wing or right wing ideals, no matter whether you believe in a strong social safety net or not, no matter whehter you believe in reducing income disparity or not.
Overpaying public employees makes society worse off.
You've lost the fundamental debate. You have not been able to justify overpaying public employees. You can't.
So now you are ranting about a bunch of other left wing ideas that are actually irrelevant to that point. Tax policy has nothing to do with it. The social safety net has nothing to do with it. Regulation of the financial system has nothing to do with it.
Income disparity, for example, has NOTHING to do with this debate. It has to do with TAX POLICY. If you have higher taxes you will have less income disparity. This is true no matter whether you contract out all government services to the private sector, or whether you have public employees. Even when your primary goal is to reduce income disparity you will make things WORSE by overpaying public employees, not better.
This has nothing to do with whether you believe in a strong social safety net, unemployment benefits, or welfare.
You can believe in all those things and STILL be smart enough to realize that overpaying public employees only makes society worse off.
You can believe in all those things and STILL be smart enough to realize that handing a union a monopoly over a service is inefficient.
You can believe in all those things and STILL be smart enough to realize that private market solutions are usually more efficient than public solutions (there are some exceptions).
Trying to bring those issues into the debate is simply throwing up a lot of sand to hide the fact that you have lost.
Overpaying people to pick up the garbage HARMS SOCIETY. Period. This is true no matter whether you have left wing or right wing ideals, no matter whether you believe in a strong social safety net or not, no matter whehter you believe in reducing income disparity or not.
Overpaying public employees makes society worse off.
Mrbig1949 said:The city and other public employers (school boards, hospitals, the province universities colleges) have a responsibility to act as model employers, to always have the best conditions, the best wages for similar work, not necessarily by a lot but by a noticable amount, in order to push private employers to clean up their act and get with the program.
The down side of working in the public sector is that you will never get rich but the up side is you will never be poor and you will have relative job security.
There is a clear public policy objective here the same as the roll of EI, welfare, minimum wages, H&S all to stop the private market from having too much control over the standard of living. When the private sector has too much control, incomes polarize and a great deal of instability is created which ironically is bad for business. In extreme cases it creates revolutionary conditions. Witness Europe in the 1930s. The wages in the public sector are purchasing power that translates into demand thus fueling the private economy especially when the private economy is incapable of doing this on its own.
History clearly shows that when you give the keys to the family car to the private sector and don't come along for the ride with regulation and the policies above, they have pretty soon put the car in the ditch and the public sector has to bail them out again just a Roosevelt had to do in the thirties.Stimulus plan anyone? Thanks so much Wall Street.
You just can't trust the private sector alone with control of the economy and thus society in general. The are a dynamic wealth producer but a poor wealth distributor. You are just up against history here guys. I am declaring a victory at this point because I have so clearly won the debate right Fuji? Right Larue? Right Blackrock? I am going home to sleep with the Championship belt at this point.
What you do win win is the award for the ultimate rambling about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with any point raised by others in this thread. Like Fuji said you throw dirt in the air to try to misdirect people.
No, it is not all connected. The nordic countries you like to discuss so much, for example, have high taxes which lower the disparity between rich and poor. On the other hand they contract out garbage collection.Mrbig1949 said:Its all connected. You guys can't see the big picture.
Taxpayers deserve fair value for their money, and this is independent of whether you have right-leaning or left-leaning policies in place.
CUPE spokes man o n CP24 reiterates their desire for a fair settlement like the firemen got.
Again trying to draw a parallel between firemn and garbage collectors. Whoa!!
Fairness? Where's that 'help wanted' sign?
Oh, by the way, 18 of the 23 councillors have not taken their 3% raise. It would be interest who didn't.
Again trying to draw a parallel between firemn and garbage collectors. Whoa!!
Fairness? Where's that 'help wanted' sign?
Oh, by the way, 18 of the 23 councillors have not taken their 3% raise. It would be interest who didn't.
hmmm
The Garbage Guys Have To Give Up On The Desire For Cumulative Sick Time.
But The People Of Toronto Also Have To Stop Whining.
For Gawds Sakes..i Live In A Place Where We Put A Certain Number Of Bags Out Every Two Weeks!!!
I Have Missed That One Week Before And Found Myself Collecting Garbage For Four Weeks. It Is Not That Bad!!
The Media Loves To Stir Up Conflict. Relax Folks!!
The Garbage Guys Have To Give Up On The Desire For Cumulative Sick Time.
But The People Of Toronto Also Have To Stop Whining.
For Gawds Sakes..i Live In A Place Where We Put A Certain Number Of Bags Out Every Two Weeks!!!
I Have Missed That One Week Before And Found Myself Collecting Garbage For Four Weeks. It Is Not That Bad!!
The Media Loves To Stir Up Conflict. Relax Folks!!
Once again after decades of pattern bargaining
With all unions working for the city receiving the same increase, not the same wage dufus, the same increase as a percentage why would CUPE not assume that fair is fair.blackrock13 said:CUPE spokes man o n CP24 reiterates their desire for a fair settlement like the firemen got.
Again trying to draw a parallel between firemn and garbage collectors. Whoa!!
Fairness? Where's that 'help wanted' sign?
Oh, by the way, 18 of the 23 councillors have not taken their 3% raise. It would be interest who didn't.
You do not have a caseMrbig1949 said:A National Post poll: I rest my case.
Well maybe a case of verbal diarrhea.
Question for you. Does all that bullshit you spout leave a nasty after taste?
Back to your feeble attempt to deflect the truth.
If you had read the post you would have noticed it was an Angus Reid Poll
I suppose you will say they are biased against unions as well
Well you going to run into that when 79% of the population has had enough.
The facts have been displayed right in front of you, by both the majority of the posters here, but also by two major newspapers and a well respected surveyor of common opinions
You will scoff at the facts and dismiss them as unreliable,because
a) they do not fit your agenda
b) because you think your sharper than all others & therefore your opinion is more important than the general populations
c) because you think another layer of fast talking bullshit will convince us all
"Hey yeah he is so right"
Don't hold your breath
For two reasons
1. It ain't going to happen
2. That nasty aftertaste
