U.S. 2012 Election

[Redeye]

How large a number? I used to think that way too. I wasn't even so generous as to give it the all races and societies disclaimer with complete seriousness either. But I came to realize that while some people are indeed simply lazy and possessed of a nauseating sense of entitlement, they're a tiny minority. Moreover, all the program reforms, workfare, etc will never get rid of them. Accepting that reality allows me - forces me - to then focus on the remainder - the ones who are down for whatever reason and would leap at a chance no get out of their situation. That is, in fact, the vast majority of those people. They want the dignity that comes with a paycheque, the accomplishment, etc. But instead, too often, they're scapegoated as somehow being leeches, when they're simply using the benefits that in many cases they've paid into in the first place.

How do we accomplish that when we don't want to pay the bill for investing in that human capital? When we want to fund less and less infrastructure, education, and so on? It's that inherent contradiction that is what led me to start labeling myself as a "Recovering Conservative". There has to be a better way. I don't know what it is yet, but I do know that we haven't found it.

Sooner or later, we have to admit that there is a large number of people, of all races and societies, that just don't want to work for a living.

They are self entitled, whether by choice or being brought up that way. As this type of generation passes it's 'values' to next, again and again, it becomes harder to break the cycle.

While many people never have the opportunity, millions of others, in the US & Canada do. They just won't though because we've made it too easy for them to play the victim and then to assuage our guilt, we allow programs, paid with our taxes to support their lifestyle.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a large portion of 'the gap'. Instead of perpetuating it and taking more from those that have it and giving it to those that don't appreciate it, tough love programs need to become entrenched.

Workfare, paid apprenticeship programs to address our lack of skilled trade population, with job placement, etc. Once you graduate it should be made extremely hard to be able to slide back to the welfare system.

People have to be made to give up the sense of entitlement, but we have to replace it with a sense of pride, moral worth and human value.

We have to take care of our old, unhealthy and truly, TRULY disadvantaged.

It's not the rich, not the employed, and not those that would jump at the chance to climb out of the gutter. They are not the problem.

We don't have to take care of our lazy, self entitled good for nothing dregs of society. They are the ones that are truly creating the gap, them and the politicians with their never ending programs and social engineering agendas.

That's just my take on things though.




edit for grammar

 

[Rifleman62]

ERC:

the many who wanted mortgages made available to people who were unequipped to handle them

Probably the best description of why there are so many underwater mortgages I have ever seen.

The description includes the 20s something, newly married couple who want/require/need the same house, now, that they just moved out of, which took their their parents twenty/thirty years to move up to. Yes three/four bedrooms and bathrooms, three car garage is definitely needed for them and their dog. Furniture for that big 2500 sq ft plus house? Well, add it to the mortgage.

Then there is the free chicken in every pot group. Cost of their house: Votes. They leaped at the chance of home ownership, even though they were not, will not ever be equipped to handle the responsibility.

 

[Edward Campbell]

ERC:
Probably the best description of why there are so many underwater mortgages I have ever seen.

The description includes the 20s something, newly married couple who want/require/need the same house, now, that they just moved out of, which took their their parents twenty/thirty years to move up to. Yes three/four bedrooms and bathrooms, three car garage is definitely needed for them and their dog. Furniture for that big 2500 sq ft plus house? Well, add it to the mortgage.

Then there is the free chicken in every pot group. Cost of their house: Votes. They leaped at the chance of home ownership, even though they were not, will not ever be equipped to handle the responsibility.

I have used these two anecdotes before, but ...

We know two families down in Texas:

1. Five university degrees between them, secure in their jobs - he had tenure at a major university, you don't get more secure than that; two homes; three cars and so on. They took some risks - he quit his job to become Chief Something Officer at a high-tech startup, she made some questionable investments ... then they used their homes as virtual "cash dispensers," refinancing to buy more and more ... then came the crash, then his company folded and the university did not want him back ... then the "variable rate" clauses kicked in ... now they live in a rented apartment, having declared personal bankruptcy and lost both homes and a cottage, and, and and ...

2. A Latino family (I don't know their "legal" status and have not asked) have a nice little bungalow and one old car - husband, wife, three kids ... they have no university degrees but they work three or four jobs, cash mostly ... they bought their house with a sub-prime mortgage ... the crash and the "variable rate" clause hit them, too ... but they still have their house, and their jobs ...

The difference: prudence.

 

[exabedtech]

The other entitled sector you didn't mention is government workers, who have a great gravy train going. They get above market wages and benefits, and recycle some of the cash back to keep their their patron party in power. Look at the last Ontario election, the latest scare headlines about laying off 60,000 Canadian public sector workers or the shenanigans in Wisconsin. You know they are fighting to the last taxpayer to keep their perques.

Government workers have above market wages and benefits?  lol  I'm not saying that some don't, but I had to quit my public service job since I was tired of going paycheque to paycheque.  Our Federal Public Service offers job security, not decent wages.  I earn more now in the private sector than anyone in the entire organisation did where I used to work for the government. 
Do they sometimes feel entitled? Yes, i'd say that they do with regard to benefits, time off, etc but that sort of 'entitlement' applies equally to anyone who works within the constraints of a contract.  I hardly consider it unreasonable for a person to expect an employer to follow the guidelines both parties have agreed to.
These are hard working men and women slogging it out in sometimes thankless jobs and often for a lot less money than they could be earning in the private sector.  Some stay because it's secure work, some out of loyalty, some love the challenges and responsibilities, but in the end these are WORKING Canadians and to describe them as 'entitled' is both false and unwarranted.
There are very little savings to be had cutting away at this group.  They are always an easy target, and the easy cuts have been made already years ago. 

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

exabedtech,
You're just wasting your breath on Thucydides when it comes to Govt. employees. He hates us all, even though, it would appear, he has no problem sucking at that teat and not to mention taking the raises that that the PSAC folks have to sometimes lose wages to get while he has risked nothing.

 

[a_majoor]

While I can't speak for your individual cases, a fairly recent study I posted (and that was reported in the National Post) suggested that if Canadian public sector workers were paid at the same rate as private sector workers doing identical jobs (which factors out categories that include risk premiums like police, firefighters and EMS); the yearly saving in wage and benefit costs would be $19 billion/year.

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/18/indifference-ends-on-public-wages/

So we are talking an amount that would cut the Canadian deficit in half.

Lorne Gunter also commented in National Post: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/23/lorne-gunter-big-cuts-needed-in-ottawas-bloated-public-service/

Key quote:

Each of the more than 450,000 federal civil servants costs taxpayers an average of $92,000 annually for salaries, benefits and pension contributions, according to James Lahey, a former senior bureaucrat who has done the most comprehensive studies yet into civil service pay and benefits. The cost of a federal civil servant is nearly $20,000 a year more than the cost of an average private-sector worker.

Now you may or may not fall into that category, but public sector workers as a whole have a huge incentive to vote for politicians who will keep a gravy train like that running, and will fight bitterly against any politician who proposes to stop it.

And of course the same situation obtains in the United States, as the antics of Wisconsin's public sector unions showed.

 

[exabedtech]

Yes, no doubt there is a study to 'prove' that point.  But then there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.  We all know that any position can be supported by a study.  I found this interesting little gem.  Yes, it's a real poll conducted in the States;

As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth?

Earth revolves around the sun 79%
Sun revolves around the earth 18
No opinion 3
100%

Simply demonstrates that you can't even get a consensus with the obvious.

I worked as a CE Electrician at CFB Edmonton.  EIM10 pay was $24.00 an hour.  4 years later it is $27.00 an hour.  Oilsands work pays over $40 an hour (yes, those guys mostly live here in Edmonton), my company pays $35.00 an hour. 
Benefits?  The benefit package my guys have is also Sunlife, but a much upgraded version over the PS or military ones.
Pensions?  Take that $7-$15 an hour difference and invest it.
So then why would anyone take or keep that PS job?  You'd have to go visit them in Edmonton and ask, but I can tell you that they are downsizing and contracting out the vast majority of the work to private companies since they do not have the staff to stay on top of things. 
Do you know a lot of public servants out there living the good life?  I certainly do not unless they're married to nurses 

 

[aesop081]

Do you know a lot of public servants out there living the good life? 

I work along side a floor full of them.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes, no doubt there is a study to 'prove' that point.  But then there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.  We all know that any position can be supported by a study.  I found this interesting little gem.  Yes, it's a real poll conducted in the States;

As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth?

Earth revolves around the sun 79%
Sun revolves around the earth 18
No opinion 3
100%

Simply demonstrates that you can't even get a consensus with the obvious.

I worked as a CE Electrician at CFB Edmonton.  EIM10 pay was $24.00 an hour.  4 years later it is $27.00 an hour.  Oilsands work pays over $40 an hour (yes, those guys mostly live here in Edmonton), my company pays $35.00 an hour. 
Benefits?  The benefit package my guys have is also Sunlife, but a much upgraded version over the PS or military ones.
Pensions?  Take that $7-$15 an hour difference and invest it.
So then why would anyone take or keep that PS job?  You'd have to go visit them in Edmonton and ask, but I can tell you that they are downsizing and contracting out the vast majority of the work to private companies since they do not have the staff to stay on top of things. 
Do you know a lot of public servants out there living the good life?  I certainly do not unless they're married to nurses 

Have fun. No matter how plausible you make your arguement, Thucydides won't budge. This has been the burr under his saddle for many a year. He doesn't care that it hits the majority working stiff that doesn't make that wage. Only that the minority top end are lumped in to skew the stats in favour of his stance.

If you don't listen to Bruce on this matter, it will only end in frustration for you.

exabedtech,
You're just wasting your breath on Thucydides when it comes to Govt. employees. He hates us all, even though, it would appear, he has no problem sucking at that teat and not to mention taking the raises that that the PSAC folks have to sometimes lose wages to get while he has risked nothing.

 

[ModlrMike]

Whether or not Public Servants are overpaid is somewhat moot. The real cost is more a reflection of how many taxpayers it takes to fund each position.

If you presume that each PS employee pays roughly 27% of their wage in taxes, then it takes at least three equivalently paid non-PS tax payers to make up the difference. When you add in the Govt's employment costs, that number then grows to 4 tax payers required to offset the position.

There's the real cost, regardless of the actual dollar amount. When the number of tax payers can't support the number of PS positions, something has to give.

 

[ballz]

Yes, no doubt there is a study to 'prove' that point.  But then there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'.  We all know that any position can be supported by a study.  I found this interesting little gem.  Yes, it's a real poll conducted in the States;

As far as you know, does the earth revolve around the sun, or does the sun revolve around the earth?

Earth revolves around the sun 79%
Sun revolves around the earth 18
No opinion 3
100%

Simply demonstrates that you can't even get a consensus with the obvious.

That's a pretty poor "demonstration." The study that Thucyclides is referring to is not a poll, it is not a consensus, it is a financial analysis. It's math, and it's fairly black and white.

I worked as a CE Electrician at CFB Edmonton.  EIM10 pay was $24.00 an hour.  4 years later it is $27.00 an hour.  Oilsands work pays over $40 an hour (yes, those guys mostly live here in Edmonton), my company pays $35.00 an hour.

Having lived in Fort Mac and worked as a tradesman, and still return every year, your assertion that most of those tradesman live in Edmonton are simply not true. More importantly, it's irrelevant. If they are choosing to sacrifice their time with their families, etc, to travel to and from work, and live in camps, then that is a choice they are making for the extra cash. There are people in Newfoundland flying to Fort Mac or to an oil rig in GP for 20 days, then coming back for 10. Is it fair to compare their wages to someone living in Newfoundland? This is no different than the argument about how people used to move to places to find a job, and now they expect a job to come to them.

I also remember when my friends were coming back in the summers between semesters at university, many of them were trying to get jobs working for the city as opposed to working out at Suncor/Syncrude/CNRL etc. The pay was as good, but the pace was... a lot easier.

You'd have to go visit them in Edmonton and ask, but I can tell you that they are downsizing and contracting out the vast majority of the work to private companies since they do not have the staff to stay on top of things.

Probably has something to do with the fact that it's a lot cheaper, as well...

Do you know a lot of public servants out there living the good life?  I certainly do not unless they're married to nurses 

Come to any liquor store in Newfoundland and meet the unionized, high school educated person making $20/hr, 25 paid vacation days a year, plus sick days, guaranteed OT, government pension, etc. I don't mean to say "high school educated" with a negative connotation, simply that the rest of the folks in Newfoundland with a high school education cannot get that wage, let alone those benefits, in the private sector.

In Newfoundland, people are always looking to "get on with the government." It would be a lot of people's top choice for employment. There must be something attractive about it.


I don't "hate" government employees. I have lots of friends and family that work for the government in Newfoundland. They are necessary. The government runs just like a business, and it needs employees, some skilled, some trained, and some just for manual, tedious tasks. I do think in Canada we overspend on government employees, and we are only able to do so because of the amount of natural resources we have yet relatively small population. Almost 10% of our population is employed in the public sector. There has to be a cheaper way than that.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Anyone that thinks privatizing public employee positions is going to save money is living in La La land. You don't think for a minute that those companies that are hosing the government on contracts right now are going to change because they get the job permanently do you?



edit for spelling

 

[ModlrMike]

For me, the reductions would have to be quite specific. For example, here in MB, we have MPI. MPI is the provincial motor vehicle insurer. Its employees are public servants. I have my own objections to the concept of government run insurance, but that's not the point. My bigger objection is that motor vehicle insurance should not be considered a core government function. Do we really need a large number of public employees providing a service that the market has proven it can provide for less? In addition, the union representing these employees quite unabashedly campaigned for the NDP as they guaranteed the security of those jobs, where the Torries were looking to dismantle MPI.

 

[Redeye]

Anyone that thinks privatizing public empoyee positions is going to save money is living in La La land. You don't think for a minute that those companies that are hosing the government on contracts right now are going to change because they get the job permanently do you?

EXACTLY.

Look at all these PPP/PFI scams. Look what happens when privatization happens, in a lot of cases it's disastrous. Great Britain has been a shining example. My father, being an expat, keeps a subscription to Private Eye which usually winds up breaking the stories of how much money gets pissed away on them. The great example is British Rail, which apparently costs the public MORE now that it's in private hands.

To be clear, there's some scope for privatization in many cases, but the benefits tend to be heavily oversold, the costs basically never mentioned.

 

[exabedtech]

Contracting out work isn't saving you any money.  The reason has less to do with private contractors and more to do with the procurement methods used by our government.  Specifically the idea that if you bid successfully on a supposed 'cart' of products, you become the only guy they can call for the year under what they call a Standing Offer Agreement (SOA).  Its a system asking to be abused and to think it isn't abused on a daily basis by contractors inflating costs because they know they'll get the job regardless or by PS staff awarding the contracts based on 'favours'.  Do I have proof?  no i don't, but I do remember being offered everything from boats and TVs to evenings with strippers if only I would choose one supplier over the other back in the day when procurement was part of my job.
In the open market, contracts are awarded mostly on an individual basis, not for a year or 2 at a time.  If the government dealt with construction the same way private industry does, there would be saving to be had.  Should be a simple procedural change, but its anything but.  Way too many vested interests in keeping things as they are.
I can recall as a young Sgt 642 looking to CE to see if I could take on some of their work as OJT for my guys.  They handed my a pile of work orders, one of which was meant for an outside contractor.  The contractor, who of course held the SOA, had quoted $945.00 for this particular job.  I sent one guy with $30 in materials and he was done in an hour. Of course the Contracts WO was pissed since that work was meant to be sub-contracted.  I only use this example because it is such simple math, but this same thing gets repeated every day on every base, station, armoury and depot in the country.
If you want to save some government cash, get them to operate as though it were their own money and allow them to pick and choose the manner in which these services are rendered without interference. 
I'd bid on some gov't maintenance jobs, except that the last time it came up, I recall that the electrical contractor also had to bid on the painting, carpeting, tilework and everything else.  I can clearly see on MERX that this isn't the case everywhere, but the SOA system is in force everywhere and it really is a 'gravy train' if you can get it. 
I asked one contractor years ago how he managed to underbid everyone and get the SOA for the year... he told me that on the line where they ask your after hours/weekend rate, he put down 'no charge' knowing full well that the base would NEVER call him on it since they have CE staff on call.  He was right.  They never did and he consistently won that SOA year after year.

 

[mariomike]

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/18/indifference-ends-on-public-wages/

From the quoted story:
"Torontonians appear prepared to take a long-term strike to reduce civil servant wages (and concomitantly, property taxes)."

Most of what I have heard and read seems to indicate that.
I was a full-time member of the of the city's outside-workers union aka "the garbagemen's union" from the age of 18 till my 55th birthday. I remember being pulled over by garbage trucks during contract negotiations for not too subtle lectures on "brotherhood". The Local knew the public might tolerate their garbage piling up for a while, but not bodies. 
Interestingly, in those 37 years there was only one strike, and it only lasted 16 days. Although officially on strike, paramedics were ordered to remain on duty by the province.
Loved the job, don't miss the politics. 

The outside workers union has 6,000 members, including 850 paramdedics. Our sister union, the inside workers, has 18,000 members.

 

[ballz]

Anyone that thinks privatizing public employee positions is going to save money is living in La La land. You don't think for a minute that those companies that are hosing the government on contracts right now are going to change because they get the job permanently do you?



edit for spelling

My answer, is always, is that it depends on the scenario.

I'll use a Newfoundland example again. The city has taken it upon themselves for clear snow... there is a lot of snow here and therefore a lot of demand for snow-clearing. There would be many, many companies trying to compete. It would be cheaper if they contracted it out, for sure. Businesses would have incentives to keep costs low, so that they could bid competitively, and they would have incentives to do a good job, so that they get the job the next year. Instead, the city buys it's own equipment, hires a boatload of employees that are unionised and has to pay them ridiculous wages and benefits to do the job. This requires a boatload more employees for the administration involved, as well as the maintenance of vehicles, etc.

How many examples there are like that at the Federal level, I am not sure. But I refuse to accept a blanket solution that it's always cheaper or more expensive to do it one certain way.

I agree that companies would try and hose the gov't on contracts. That is a flaw in the delivery that needs to be fixed, by intelligent politicians and bureaucrats that we are paying good money and should expect demand better solutions from.

Contracting out work isn't saving you any money.  The reason has less to do with private contractors and more to do with the procurement methods used by our government.  Specifically the idea that if you bid successfully on a supposed 'cart' of products, you become the only guy they can call for the year under what they call a Standing Offer Agreement (SOA).  Its a system asking to be abused and to think it isn't abused on a daily basis by contractors inflating costs because they know they'll get the job regardless or by PS staff awarding the contracts based on 'favours'.  Do I have proof?  no i don't, but I do remember being offered everything from boats and TVs to evenings with strippers if only I would choose one supplier over the other back in the day when procurement was part of my job.
In the open market, contracts are awarded mostly on an individual basis, not for a year or 2 at a time.  If the government dealt with construction the same way private industry does, there would be saving to be had.  Should be a simple procedural change, but its anything but.  Way too many vested interests in keeping things as they are.
I can recall as a young Sgt 642 looking to CE to see if I could take on some of their work as OJT for my guys.  They handed my a pile of work orders, one of which was meant for an outside contractor.  The contractor, who of course held the SOA, had quoted $945.00 for this particular job.  I sent one guy with $30 in materials and he was done in an hour. Of course the Contracts WO was pissed since that work was meant to be sub-contracted.  I only use this example because it is such simple math, but this same thing gets repeated every day on every base, station, armoury and depot in the country.
If you want to save some government cash, get them to operate as though it were their own money and allow them to pick and choose the manner in which these services are rendered without interference. 
I'd bid on some gov't maintenance jobs, except that the last time it came up, I recall that the electrical contractor also had to bid on the painting, carpeting, tilework and everything else.  I can clearly see on MERX that this isn't the case everywhere, but the SOA system is in force everywhere and it really is a 'gravy train' if you can get it. 
I asked one contractor years ago how he managed to underbid everyone and get the SOA for the year... he told me that on the line where they ask your after hours/weekend rate, he put down 'no charge' knowing full well that the base would NEVER call him on it since they have CE staff on call.  He was right.  They never did and he consistently won that SOA year after year.

I agree with you, but like I said, that's not a private vs public issue, that's a flaw in the implementation. It needs to be fixed, and I like the way you put this: "If you want to save some government cash, get them to operate as though it were their own money and allow them to pick and choose the manner in which these services are rendered without interference."

There needs to be some monitoring, of course, to avoid corruption, conflicts of interest, etc... but at the end of the day, the gov't needs to be run like a real business, where it is their own damn money that is either going to be saved or wasted. I don't have the answers as to how that change could be made, I assume no one does, but those answers do exist and can be found.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The question isn't really whether the service is public or private.  The question is why government can't buy goods and services as efficiently as any private company.

During fat times, private companies are prone to convincing themselves that they need all sorts of capabilities in house (essentially, a symptom of empire building).  During lean times, they learn to focus on their core strengths and divest themselves of capabilities which are core strengths of others (outside contractors, suppliers, etc).  There isn't really much to debate over the superiority of focusing on core business, since the lesson is hammered home with every trip around the business cycle.

Identify the reasons government finds itself incapable of purchasing efficiently and eliminate them.  Otherwise, accept them and start drawing up the list of programs to keep and programs to terminate.  And there is no need to resort to the "but it does X good" defence of a program.  I will stipulate that every public dollar spent has some utility.  But not every way of spending a public dollar has equal utility, and public dollars are finite.  Stop pretending every program is untouchable.  Start cutting and gutting.

 

[exabedtech]

Looks like Obama has found at least ONE program to cut!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/01/obama_s_pentagon_budget_cuts_panetta_s_defense_department_cuts_are_surprisingly_modest_.html

Not sure he and I could agree on much, but cutting their defence budget is long overdue.  Exactly who are they aiming to need that massive military against?  Not saying it isn't handy having 11 or so aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans, but they need it the way I need 11 Ferraris.  Without question, I need 2 or 3, but 11??  Bad enough that I can't afford one 

 

[Sythen]

Looks like Obama has found at least ONE program to cut!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2012/01/obama_s_pentagon_budget_cuts_panetta_s_defense_department_cuts_are_surprisingly_modest_.html

Not sure he and I could agree on much, but cutting their defence budget is long overdue.  Exactly who are they aiming to need that massive military against?  Not saying it isn't handy having 11 or so aircraft carriers patrolling the oceans, but they need it the way I need 11 Ferraris.  Without question, I need 2 or 3, but 11????  Bad enough that I can't afford one 

And I'm sure you're a qualified foreign policy expert giving an informed opinion on the American military needs, right? Makes me think of a guy asking why a scarecrow is needed for a particular field when there are no crows to be seen around the scarecrow.