3 ms·

Whether you pay it directly, or thru property tax, how is there a difference? The difference is, if the firemen are government employees, they can vote themsel

by pravda 10y ago

Whether you pay it directly, or thru property tax, how is there a difference? The difference is, if the firemen are government employees, they can vote themselves rich. http://www.publicsectorinc.org/2014/06/firefighter-pay-shows-why-san-bernardino-is-bankrupt/ http://www.publicsectorinc.org/2014/06/firefighter-pay-shows...

ubernostrum 10y ago
Much better for executives to vote themselves rich, like in a well-run privatized system, right?
- pravda 10y ago
  That's the point. Private executives can't vote themselves rich. Well, they could, but how would they collect? Government employees can use violence to steal from you.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    You think executives of a private-sector corporation can't vote to give themselves high salaries or huge bonuses? Most of the time they don't even have to -- it's so ingrained in the culture now that it's just considered a cost of doing business to be robbed blind by the executive team. And if you think a private corporation can't deploy violence, you probably have never in your life read anything about why we had a rise of labor unions in this country; companies used to be able to call on not only the government's army but also their own private armies to put down, via deadly force, anyone perceived as a threat to the company's profits.
    - pravda 10y ago
      >it's just considered a cost of doing business to be robbed blind by the executive team. Who are they robbing? Shareholders! But shareholders choose to be shareholders. You don't like what the executives are up to, you can sell your shares. > private armies to put down, via deadly force, anyone perceived as a threat to the company's profits. Ok, now you are being inconsistent. You think it's wrong for executives to be paid above-market wages, but you think it acceptable for employees to be paid above-market wages. Every dollar paid to an employee above market wage comes from shareholders! But none from taxpayers. All out of corporate profits.
      - ubernostrum 10y ago
        Ok, now you are being inconsistent. You think it's wrong for executives to be paid above-market wages, but you think it acceptable for employees to be paid above-market wages. Nope, perfectly consistent. If one group gets to vote themselves a raise, all groups should get to. Or, more rigorously: if we're going to introduce artificial legally-blessed structures to allow people to pool their resources in order to accomplish things, or wield power in the market, that they couldn't when acting alone, then... I think we should be consistent about it. The corporation exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of capital, and the union exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of labor. I don't see a way to argue, from a consistent moral/ethical position, for allowing one to exist while forbidding the other. And similarly, the fewer regulations we place on one of these types of entities, the fewer we should place on the other.

by pravda 10y ago

ubernostrum 10y ago

Much better for executives to vote themselves rich, like in a well-run privatized system, right?

pravda 10y ago
That's the point. Private executives can't vote themselves rich. Well, they could, but how would they collect? Government employees can use violence to steal from you.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  You think executives of a private-sector corporation can't vote to give themselves high salaries or huge bonuses? Most of the time they don't even have to -- it's so ingrained in the culture now that it's just considered a cost of doing business to be robbed blind by the executive team. And if you think a private corporation can't deploy violence, you probably have never in your life read anything about why we had a rise of labor unions in this country; companies used to be able to call on not only the government's army but also their own private armies to put down, via deadly force, anyone perceived as a threat to the company's profits.
  - pravda 10y ago
    >it's just considered a cost of doing business to be robbed blind by the executive team. Who are they robbing? Shareholders! But shareholders choose to be shareholders. You don't like what the executives are up to, you can sell your shares. > private armies to put down, via deadly force, anyone perceived as a threat to the company's profits. Ok, now you are being inconsistent. You think it's wrong for executives to be paid above-market wages, but you think it acceptable for employees to be paid above-market wages. Every dollar paid to an employee above market wage comes from shareholders! But none from taxpayers. All out of corporate profits.
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      Ok, now you are being inconsistent. You think it's wrong for executives to be paid above-market wages, but you think it acceptable for employees to be paid above-market wages. Nope, perfectly consistent. If one group gets to vote themselves a raise, all groups should get to. Or, more rigorously: if we're going to introduce artificial legally-blessed structures to allow people to pool their resources in order to accomplish things, or wield power in the market, that they couldn't when acting alone, then... I think we should be consistent about it. The corporation exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of capital, and the union exists as an artificial legally-blessed structure for pooling of labor. I don't see a way to argue, from a consistent moral/ethical position, for allowing one to exist while forbidding the other. And similarly, the fewer regulations we place on one of these types of entities, the fewer we should place on the other.