Jump to content

Neomalthusian

non-Liberal
  • Content Count

    1,883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Shit Poster

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alaska

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Stock options usually take years to vest, and it is set up this way precisely to avoid short-term stock-popping tactics.
  2. That's usually the crux of the problem with pensions. Neither the employer nor the employee wants to actually put money into the pension funds, but are often happy to agree to promises of generous benefits. Thus they all too often "pull in the same direction" with pensions, and that direction is toward failure. This is why we see pensions failing to adequately remain unded regardless of the fiduciary (whether private, government, or union). Pensions are a way to avoid current-period expenses by instead taking on long-term liabilities. This is super tempting for both employers and employees. When it comes to pensions, both sides often pull in the same direction, which is the direction that ends up contributing to long-term failure. Have a read: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4349885-arrival-of-unavoidable-pension-crisis
  3. Given the way corporations operate these days, isn't it probably for the better that employees be paid in the current period for work performed in the current period? Why should we want corporations' employees to be able to be paid in long-range IOUs? Is that really in the best interests of those employees? Honest question. Do you actually want a corporation's CEO-du jour to be able to cut wages and salaries expense to the bone in exchange for making promises that the company will pay them some handsome reward starting 30 years from now, well after said CEO is dead and his heirs have already inherited the fortunes? Do you actually honestly think that's good policy?
  4. Unions did not "give us" the provisions of the FLSA or other labor laws. If a person is in a union and refuses to pay the dues, what do you think should happen? 1) Should the union just stop representing them? 2) Should the union be able to order the employer to fire the employee? 3) Should the union be able to take the person to court over it to get the money remanded to them? There are several things a person can be when they are affiliated with a union. 1) They can be a full member that pays dues as well as PAC contributions. 2) They can be a a partial member that pays dues but opts out of PAC contributions. These ones usually can still vote on union matters. 3) They can opt out of union membership altogether, even if they're represented by a union. Union-represented employees do not have to be actual "members." But they cannot opt out of being represented by a union, if their position is in a union's "bargaining unit." In some states which are not Right To Work, private sector workers that are represented by a union have to pay dues by another name: "agency fees" Paying this money does not entitle them to vote on union matters. They still have to pay the money but they don't get the voice in union matters and they don't get to opt out of being represented. In the public sector, as well as in Right To Work states, opting out of union membership altogether means they do not have to pay any dues or agency fees.
  5. Working from home (but that’s the norm, even in non-COVID), teaching our preschooler to read, teaching our kindergartner multiplication tables and typing, baking lots of baked goods. Working on artisan sourdough but don’t have the patience to meticulously follow the instructions so we’ll see how that goes.
  6. A lot of places are essentially doing that right now, by putting everyone into tiers and making every next tier less and less generous. Financially this helps significantly compared to the unfeasible alternative, but this still arbitrarily heavily favors those who on average received the most irresponsibly generous pension benefits in the first place, to the relative detriment of basically everyone else. Pension reform needs to cut benefits to those whose “promises” were most generous relative to the actual work they did. As one particularly sickening example, those who worked basically their entire careers for government unions (not government) and then were allowed to just draw government pensions, they should have their pensions reduced to absolute zero immediately.
  7. Not just those, but also pension-spiking, pension holidays, 20-and-out rules, and so on. Alaska defunded its pensions in the 90s, but it also had extremely generous 20-and-out pensions for decades. I met a couple of middle school music teachers who retired at 40, have been retired for 20 years, and could easily live for another 30 or more years on a full pension and full health benefits that have $5 copays. Should benefits like that be sacrosanct as a state careens into de facto bankruptcy because these people who will spend 75% of their adulthoods retired on a state pension can just shout “I was promised!?” No. People like that need a benefit cut. Will they maybe have to downsize or sell their winter home in Florida or Arizona? Yeah maybe. Because the alternative sends a message to states that they are idiots if they actually fund their pensions, since making them extremely generous and then refusing to fund them causes magic federal bailout dollars to flood in.
  8. By the way, New York is not nearly the worst state in terms of pension sabotage and underfunding. The states that have really effed up their pensions are Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Kentucky, Alaska, and Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Hawaii (among others, but those are the worst).
  9. McConnell is right about this, actually. States like New Jersey and Illinois have actively sabotaged their pension funding situation for years. They created their own bankruptcy. It was mostly (albeit not exclusively) Democratic executive and legislative leadership that caused it, which is a function of the interest groups that supported those politicians as well as the general voting public that enabled the de facto state of bankruptcy for certain states. The benefits should be cut, and the federal government is going to have to get involved to enable those cuts to happen. The benefit cuts need to start with the largest (e.g. six-figure) pensions, and the most ridiculous and unearned benefits such as those that that arose from pension-spiking tactics, and work their way down according to who worked the fewest years relative to their estimated lifetime pension benefit. Those who worked the most years and/or receive the most modest pensions should be cut last, if at all. If states are still that bankrupt that they can't even pay the pension benefits of those who worked the longest and have the lowest level of benefits relative to years worked, then perhaps the feds can step in and add in some bailout money. If letting states go through some bankruptcy procedures is what's needed to allow the necessary cuts to take place, then McConnell is right.
  10. We'd have almost no COVID problem if we just refused to test anyone for COVID. Then we'd have zero COVID cases and zero COVID deaths. That's basically what right wing partisan hacks are arguing here, by virtue of their inability or refusal to analyze basic data or perform simple math. Just don't test anyone, pretend it doesn't exist, then the problem will go away. Ignorance is bliss.
  11. This thread you've created is a mix of hyper-partisan hackery meets poor critical thinking skills. Rank the states in terms of population and % of population tested. All of the largest boxes in the graphic, both "red" and "blue," are among the top 15 most populous states. Four of the largest blue states rank in the top 10 in testing per capita. Three of the most populous red states, Texas, Ohio and Georgia, rank 2nd, 7th and 8th in total population and yet they rank 40th, 45th and 48th in testing per capita. In particular, Texas ranks 2nd in total population and 48th in testing per capita, whereas New York ranks 4th in total population and 2nd in testing per capita. When you have the capacity to think logically, rather than see everything through the lens of a complete partisan hack, it becomes clear that basically all of this discrepancy in case counts is explained by testing discrepancies and population.
×
×
  • Create New...