patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,191,513 comments by 13,863 users - GNL, GreaterNYCDude, Robert Sproul, RWSGFY, stereotomy online now
Public workers are communists, by definition!
invite response
2012 Jul 15, 10:28am 3,101 views 6 comments
Comments 1 - 6 of 6 Search these comments
FortWayne
2012 Jul 16, 1:34am
We as a nation are slowly moving toward dictatorship and apathy, especially in CA.
To call public sector employees "communists" is like calling employees of companies that are publicly traded "communists" - completely inaccurate.
Peter P
2012 Jul 16, 1:55am
Can't blame him. Even most "communists" do not understand communism. Then again, many capitalist do not appreciate the spirit of capitalism either. They prefer to create moral hazards. They are really socialists.
MisdemeanorRebel
2012 Jul 16, 2:21am
Chile privatizing its social security system in the 70s/80s.
Which has been a disaster: Those who remained in the old, public system get 200-300% more than those who tried the privatized accounts - the stock jobbers who ran the accounts nickel and dimed the account holders to death and most funds underperformed the Chilean Stock Exchange average yearly gain (like most Funds do in the US, too).
These are identical comparisons. One guy said his co-workers who were in the same pay grade and hired the same time he was got double what he gets in retirement money - he chose the private option.
Which is why you seldom hear CATO and Heritage explaining the Chilean Soc Sec program in detail anymore like they did in the 90s.
MisdemeanorRebel
2012 Jul 17, 3:01am
Ah, typical rightist fillibuster. No counter-evidence, just a flat denial.
Here's some nice reads about the total failure of the Chilean retirement system:
Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system.
Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month.
"Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me," he said, "are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html?pagewanted=all&position=
Wall Street Wants Your Money. That's what privatizing Social Security is all about.
As a result, if two work colleagues reach retirement age in Chile today, both with the same salary and the same number of years contributing to social security, the one who changed to the privatized system back in 1981 will receive less than half of the pension amount that the one who remained in the old pay-as-you-go system will receive. This huge difference has been documented in hundreds of thousands of individual cases by the Association of Employees with Pension Damage, and their demand for reparations has been heard by parliament. A group of members of congress belonging to all political parties presented the problem to the administration, which has since started negotiations with the affected workers.
Monthly reviews of all Chilean workers' individual pension accounts provide excellent statistics of their crude labor reality. The numbers indicate that the modern Chilean workforce is composed of a huge quantity of workers who permanently move in and out of short-term salaried jobs, half of which last less than four months, and most of which last less than a year.
Which is the same situation we are seeing increasingly in the US - more Temp and Contract Employment living, which does not lend itself to saving money, since you must provide for yourself during your frequent "In-between Jobs" status.
...
As a result, 70 percent of the workforce contributes less than six months each year into pension accounts, and over half of the workforce contributes less than four months each year. These figures also show clearly that women and the poorest workers suffer most from the lack of permanent formal employment.
In their enthusiasm to grab pension contributions, the promoters of the system did not pay much attention to the public purse. By contrast, they assured private gain since the boards of private pension companies are full of ex-Cabinet members of the Pinochet government. The old pay-as-you-go system produced a yearly surplus -- as is the case with the present U.S. system. But the fiscal consequence of the Chilean pension reform was a huge pension deficit, which has been paid for out of regular government revenues. The public expenditure in pensions has remained consistently on the order of 6 percent of Chilean GDP since 1981. It has absorbed almost one-third of the overall government budget, and over 42 percent of public social expenditures. Chile spends more public funds in the pension deficit than it does in education and health put together.
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/0504a/chileprivatize.html
Again, it was never about efficiency, or creating reliable retirement. It was about extracting money for cronies - in this case, Pinochet's Pals. In our case, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs.
In New Zealand, things got so bad you couldn't buy a cube of margarine w/o a doctor's prescription. New Zealand in the late 80s early 90s went on a huge deregulation kick and is now one of the economically freeist nations on earth.
I have lived in New Zealand the last 6 years. Calling NZ one the economically freest nations on earth is utter, complete, and total bullshit. I lived in France years ago. Compared to the NZ district councils the French are government efficiency experts.
Example, it took me 6 months of stacks of paperwork, phone calls, and meetings at a cost of 15k from me plus 10k from the house mover to get the building permits to move a house to my lot. That's right, 25k for the just the plans and permits to move a house. It cost the person who sold me the lot 60k and 5 months to subdivide it and put in a driveway. Almost 6 months for each of us of frustrating work at a cost of 85k to get the permits and paperwork done. Care to guess if housing in NZ is expensive or not? Bonus points if you can guess the quality of these very expensive (whoops gave away the answer) houses? Hint, your choices are shitty, crappy, or garbage.
Running a business in NZ expensive, cumbersome, and complicated. There is every kind of labor, environmental, consumer, whatever law you could conceive of here. It was a lot easier to run a business in the states. Example, there is a new law coming in this month that any construction worker that doesn't have his feet on the ground must have protection against falls. So legally you will have to have a harness to go 1 step up a ladder.
Then there are certifications and qualifications.You have to get your certification for almost anything you do in NZ. Lots of jobs can only be done by "certified" or "qualified" people. Someone once said NZ is the home of the largest number of useless certifications on the planet. Absolutely true. All these certified people managed to build thousands of houses that are leaking and rotting. The almost new stadium that fell down in Invercargill was built by certified builders. The management of all the failed finance companies and their auditers? Yep, qualified.
Where did you get this economically freest crap from? NZ has always been semi socialist at best. The deregulation you talk about wasn't business deregulation, it was dismantling the subsidies to farmers. Your margerine example was a way to subsidize butter sales.
Straight from dictionary.com
com•mu•nism noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
The first criterion is obvious. The facilities and capital where all public employees "work" are publicly owned. The second one is clear when someone realizes that the people deciding the size and scope of government is government itself! This is a serious conflict of interest. When an entity exists that determines the rules by which it must follow in order for continued existence and growth, it will plant the seeds to ensure their own success.
I am interested in specific examples people may have where government voluntarily decreased their own influence over the economy or peoples lives. The end of prohibition is one.