Comrade Anklebiter |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hundreds Of UPS Drivers Strike In Queens
Yeah, baby!
Comrade Anklebiter |
Boston Facebook Riot!
Emergency Picket! Fight Union-Busting!
An injury to one is an injury to all!
All Out to the Step 2 Termination Hearing! No Justice, No Peace!
Pack the courts!
Vive le Galt!!!!!!
Yakman |
Snyder to Detroit’s Retirees: Survive on One-Third Less
Honestly, should they expect what they were promised when the city was twice as large and financially healthy?
Things have changed. It sucks, but they STILL HAVE A PENSION and some benefits. Most people don't. They MIGHT have a 401k with a bit of money in it, but for most Americans, Social Security is going to have to be the primary breadwinner after retirement.
Scribbling Rambler |
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:Snyder to Detroit’s Retirees: Survive on One-Third LessHonestly, should they expect what they were promised when the city was twice as large and financially healthy?
Not just promised, but guaranteed in a legally binding contract.
Irontruth |
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:Snyder to Detroit’s Retirees: Survive on One-Third LessHonestly, should they expect what they were promised when the city was twice as large and financially healthy?
Things have changed. It sucks, but they STILL HAVE A PENSION and some benefits. Most people don't. They MIGHT have a 401k with a bit of money in it, but for most Americans, Social Security is going to have to be the primary breadwinner after retirement.
Detroit's pension is costly, but it's not the biggest thing dragging the city down. The cities police department accounts for 32% of the budget and fire is 15%. Retiree health care is 12% and pensions are 6%.
Cutting the pensions initially helps the budget, but now your retirees are going to have less money to spend and the sales tax is important for Detroit, so you're going to see less revenue.
People on fixed income tend to spend most of their income. Reducing their income means reducing consumer spending. That's a downward spiral for the cities budget.
As bad as it would be, razing neighborhoods and consolidating homes would be more effective. It would require building new homes for people to move to, but it would make city services cheaper, such as police and fire. Making service areas smaller and denser would save the city money. No one's going to do that though.
Krensky |
As bad as it would be, razing neighborhoods and consolidating homes would be more effective. It would require building new homes for people to move to, but it would make city services cheaper, such as police and fire. Making service areas smaller and denser would save the city money. No one's going to do that though.
This.
A lot.
Detroit's got a lot of problems, but this is a big one at the moment.
Irontruth |
Heard a story a couple years back (probably prior to Google maps).
A woman is at home during the day. Early afternoon there's a knock at the door. It's a neighbor who's an immigrant and doesn't speak English. She's disturbed and trying to get the woman to follow her. Eventually she does, the neighbor leads her to a house and points through a window. Inside is a man who looks like he's hung himself. The woman goes home and calls the police, hoping to have them collect the body before the kids get home from school.
She tells them the address, the operator tries to find it on their system. Not only is the house not listed, they don't even have the street on their maps. The woman has to give police turn by turn directions to get to the house.
meatrace |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:Snyder to Detroit’s Retirees: Survive on One-Third LessHonestly, should they expect what they were promised when the city was twice as large and financially healthy?
Things have changed. It sucks, but they STILL HAVE A PENSION and some benefits. Most people don't. They MIGHT have a 401k with a bit of money in it, but for most Americans, Social Security is going to have to be the primary breadwinner after retirement.
Unless I'm woefully uninformed, a pension is a managed fund that is contributed to by an employee which he/she can then draw from after retirement. Granted it's not as safe as a bank account, but when contractually guaranteed the onus is on the guarantor to provide their end of the bargain. Hence, since it is perfectly rational to expect that contractual obligations are observed, it's reasonable to expect pensions to be paid in full.
The REASON that most people don't still have pensions is that they have been robbed blind by the fund managers who, miraculously, still walk out of their job with golden parachutes.
Comrade Anklebiter |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw some picketers for increasing the minimum wage outside a local McDonalds today (here in Southwest Missouri we do things late). My favorite sign: Boycott the Hamburgler.
I was standing next to a sweet grandmotherly black woman at our picket line in Worcester. After I made up my super-size ode in the other thread, I asked her what she thought we should chant. She replied,
Kick the bosses in the ass!
Power to the working class!
Turns out she's been in PL since the mid-70s.
Comrade Anklebiter |
Lemme see if I can re-find my favorite anti-homeless policies protest of late...
From "Bride of Gov't Folly":
Dear Far Left,
Please consider bringing back torches and pitchforks.
Yours for the revolution,
Doodlebug Anklebiter
LazarX |
The REASON that most people don't still have pensions is that they have been robbed blind by the fund managers who, miraculously, still walk out of their job with golden parachutes.
Not just fund managers. New Jersey has had more than one governor willing to raid state pension funds as well.
markofbane |
Seattle Marches to a $15 Beat
It is a promising sign when most of the opponents are trying to dilute it rather than kill it all together.
I live in the city of Seattle proper, but work in a neighboring community. It will be interesting to see if workers filling these jobs are willing to bus into the city for the higher wage. Will we see more competent employees gravitate toward the city? I am pleased that Seattle is one of the leaders on this front.
I don't expect much impact on us personally. My wife and I both make more than a $15 per hour equivalent, and we don't often frequent places that use minimum wage workers (we don't eat out much and our grocery store is unionized).
Comrade Anklebiter |
Irontruth |
I don't expect much impact on us personally. My wife and I both make more than a $15 per hour equivalent, and we don't often frequent places that use minimum wage workers (we don't eat out much and our grocery store is unionized).
During my teenage years I worked at two grocery stores, both union and both times I made minimum wage. This doesn't mean your grocery store pays minimum wage, but just saying that being unionized does not guarantee above minimum-wage jobs.
Cori Marie |
Lord Snow wrote:There is a *serious* difference between firing someone because of the level of attraction the boss feels to them, and firing someone because their dress code doesn't suite your place of business, and they insist/are unable (in the case of tattoos) to change that.An effective Human Resources officer isn't there to protect the employees, he or she is there to protect the business from the employees. The best can find cause for firing anyone, regardless of the actual reason. But does requiring female employees to wear makeup and hose and skirts really impact the business' bottom line and her interaction with customers? Or is it just the expected/traditional unexamined "norm"?
Lord Snow wrote:...discrimination based on sexual-orientation/race/gender or any of a dozen other similar things is illegal...No, it's still perfectly legal to discriminate for sexual preference and gender identity in most of the U.S. when it comes to employment, housing, education, loans, and much more.
Just putting in my two cents here. While it is still legal in most states to discriminate based on sexuality, gender identity is slightly different in that respect. Vandy Beth Glenn (whose case you cited earlier) set a wonderful precedent. This was followed by Mia Macy getting support from the EEOC in a similar case. The EEOC ruled that discrimination based on gender identity violates Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is because if you fire someone due to Gender Identity, you are firing them for not meeting your expectations of what a man or a woman are. The EEOC has continued to drive home this stance, most recently in the case of Corinne McCreery (better known as yours truly). So while there is still a long way to go, and we still need ENDA, transgender people need to know that this protection exists until we get something more substantial and specific.
Don Juan de Doodlebug |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I was a young goblin lad, peddling socialist newspapers and attending UMass Boston, I befriended a left Irish nationalist Catholic emigre who also served as a steward in HERE (the Hotel and Restaurant employees--I think they merged with somebody else and are now UNITE!).
We were chatting and he told me about a case where he was representing a trans union sister who wasn't allowed to change in the women's dressing room. This was the mid-90s, so I don't remember how the case ended, I think the company ended up providing her with her own dressing room.
Anyway, I remember being impressed that this pretty devout Catholic was going up against his employer in defense of trans rights and then he ruined it at the end by saying some pretty transphobic shiznit but then reeled it back in by saying "Whatever, she's a union sister and I'll be damned if I let them gobshites push her around."
Union members: Not always the most enlightened folk, but generally on the right side.
Yakman |
Yakman wrote:Not just promised, but guaranteed in a legally binding contract.Comrade Anklebiter wrote:Snyder to Detroit’s Retirees: Survive on One-Third LessHonestly, should they expect what they were promised when the city was twice as large and financially healthy?
One of my clients was a lawyer, and he decided not to pay his bill (he was going out of business).
I told him that he signed a contract saying that he would pay said bill. He responded "Every contract has the implicit understanding of breach."
Things aren't great in Detroit, but EVERYONE is taking haircuts here, including the much maligned bondholders.
Yakman |
Yakman wrote:Comrade Anklebiter wrote:Snyder to Detroit’s Retirees: Survive on One-Third LessHonestly, should they expect what they were promised when the city was twice as large and financially healthy?
Things have changed. It sucks, but they STILL HAVE A PENSION and some benefits. Most people don't. They MIGHT have a 401k with a bit of money in it, but for most Americans, Social Security is going to have to be the primary breadwinner after retirement.
Detroit's pension is costly, but it's not the biggest thing dragging the city down. The cities police department accounts for 32% of the budget and fire is 15%. Retiree health care is 12% and pensions are 6%.
Cutting the pensions initially helps the budget, but now your retirees are going to have less money to spend and the sales tax is important for Detroit, so you're going to see less revenue.
People on fixed income tend to spend most of their income. Reducing their income means reducing consumer spending. That's a downward spiral for the cities budget.
As bad as it would be, razing neighborhoods and consolidating homes would be more effective. It would require building new homes for people to move to, but it would make city services cheaper, such as police and fire. Making service areas smaller and denser would save the city money. No one's going to do that though.
Detroit's pensioners don't all live in the city.
The police and fire department do all their work in the city. Big difference. When you have a city plagued by fires from abandoned buildings and with a horrifying crime rate, I would think that investments in public safety are pretty important. Apparently, so do Detroit's leaders.
Irontruth |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cutting pensions means putting more people into poverty, which will increase the number of abandoned buildings and make crime harder to deal with.
Canceling payments to Bank of America will make it harder to borrow, but won't as negatively impact the local economy of Detroit. Canceling the potentially illegal credit swaps (worth $1.44 billion) would probably have no affect on Detroit (other than reducing their debt and liability by $1.44 billion) since they aren't engaging in credit swaps any more.
Reducing the economic activity within Detroit is only going to create a vicious cycle. That means the best course of action is to cancel the cities payments to people clearly not spending money inside the city or not providing services within the city.
Yakman |
When a city stops making bond payments, it stops being able to borrow money. This is a very bad thing.
The bondholders have taken losses on Detroit's bonds already. They might have to take more. But the city has obligations to pay them, just like it has obligations to pay the pensioners. I don't know how they are tiered, but it seems to me like the pensions are going to have to take a cut.
It's a bad situation. Everyone is going to have to feel some of the pain. But ultimately, looking forward, it's better for the city that Detroit is able to borrow money than it is to paying people who used to work for it (and don't any more).
Irontruth |
When a city stops making bond payments, it stops being able to borrow money. This is a very bad thing.
The bondholders have taken losses on Detroit's bonds already. They might have to take more. But the city has obligations to pay them, just like it has obligations to pay the pensioners. I don't know how they are tiered, but it seems to me like the pensions are going to have to take a cut.
It's a bad situation. Everyone is going to have to feel some of the pain. But ultimately, looking forward, it's better for the city that Detroit is able to borrow money than it is to paying people who used to work for it (and don't any more).
I acknowledged it would make it harder to borrow.
Do you disagree on the credit swap payment though? Detroit is not making any new credit swap agreements, and doing so has proven to be pretty detrimental to governments of all sizes. Why not remove $1.44 billion from the books? It's not a bond, it doesn't affect future borrowing and it doesn't hurt people inside the city.
The people who worked for the city negotiated those pensions. They negotiated in good faith and probably took pay cuts to get those pensions. These are people who would now be in the long term unemployed if they started looking for work again. They're older workers, with skill sets that aren't as useful any more. Cutting the pension is just going to increase the burden they place on other social services. More abandoned homes, more crime, more homeless, more people not paying hospital bills, more demand on other social services.
The city pensions aren't even the biggest in the nation. It wasn't overly generous, the price per pensioner is lower than most major cities in the country. The city itself is to blame for mismanaging it and engaging in potential illegal activity (like credit swaps). A retired general city employee only received $18,000 in 2011. Now it's being cut by 35% or more? Police and firefighter pensions average $40k for those who retired in 2011 (which is significantly lower than comparable cities, or even smaller cities).
They attracted employees with offers of pensions. These aren't wealthy people who made an investment, these are people who lived their lives on the assumption they would have a pension. It's not like people over 65 have great job prospects where they can go earn a living and save for retirement again.
Letting Detroit fold on it's pensioners is going to create a burden for other levels of government.
I get it, there's going to be pain. I just don't see why the those who have the least are targeted first. Oh wait, it's because they have less to defend themselves with.
Yakman |
I agree with you on most points. However, just telling BofA to shove it and not pay $1.4B in credit swaps is going to have massively negative consequences for Detroit's ability to borrow from BofA or anybody really, in the future. Hopefully Detroit and EVERY OTHER STUPID CITY COUNCIL EVER learned its lesson to never ever buy into some investment bankers' slick method of racking up fees on the backs of the taxpayers. See Harrisburg PA for a marvelous example of this kind of stupidity.
Just like the pensioners negotiated for their benefits, so too did the city's financiers. Detroit offered potential employees pensions, and they offered potential creditors interest payments. Both lenders and pensioners have legitimate claims on the city's resources. It's up to the Emergency Manager and the bankruptcy judge to decide who gets what.
Personally, I agree that the pensions should be paid for most workers. But there are going to be some extravagant pensions which should not be paid. Again, that's the role of the authorities to determine.
thejeff |
I agree with you on most points. However, just telling BofA to shove it and not pay $1.4B in credit swaps is going to have massively negative consequences for Detroit's ability to borrow from BofA or anybody really, in the future. Hopefully Detroit and EVERY OTHER STUPID CITY COUNCIL EVER learned its lesson to never ever buy into some investment bankers' slick method of racking up fees on the backs of the taxpayers. See Harrisburg PA for a marvelous example of this kind of stupidity.
Just like the pensioners negotiated for their benefits, so too did the city's financiers. Detroit offered potential employees pensions, and they offered potential creditors interest payments. Both lenders and pensioners have legitimate claims on the city's resources. It's up to the Emergency Manager and the bankruptcy judge to decide who gets what.
Personally, I agree that the pensions should be paid for most workers. But there are going to be some extravagant pensions which should not be paid. Again, that's the role of the authorities to determine.
A pension cap would be an interesting approach. Despite the high profile cases, it wouldn't be a huge savings. The extravagant pensions make news because they're rare.
thejeff |
Not in a number of states like California, where retirees make more from their pension than they did when they were working.
Even in California, that's rare as far as I can tell. Usually caused by racking up a lot of OT in the last year or two. That I'd have no objections to fixing.
A quick glance shows that the standard calculation is 2% of your last year's pay * years of service(capped at 30). Some police qualify for 3%, which starts to get close.
Obviously some will make more than their average salary over 30 years, but that's a pretty useless metric.
Even in California, the vast majority of retirees are making far less than they were when working.