6 ms·

> Government workers are far more likely to be unionized Isn't this a problem? Government workers are supposed to be working for the people, involvement in a

> Government workers are far more likely to be unionized Isn't this a problem? Government workers are supposed to be working for the people, involvement in a union is a conflict of interest -- this is why FDR banned unionization of federal workers (versus the private sector where there is no obligation and the relationship is generally adversarial). > Governments are freed from having to prioritize maximizing profits at the cost of everything else That's a huge problem. The legitimacy of government is predicated on the ability of the voter to yank the money from the government if it's ineffective -- otherwise the government can just vote itself more and more funds for whatever without accountability. Since we're all deficit spending, the burden to repay the debt falls on future generations who can't vote against spending that happened in the past! And spending by printing money hurts the poor the hardest, which I can't imagine you would be in favor of.

autoexec 2y ago
> Isn't this a problem? Government workers are supposed to be working for the people, involvement in a union is a conflict of interest I don't think so. Government workers have faced the same problems as workers in the private sector (excessive overtime, unpaid wages, pay not keeping up with inflation, workplace safety issues, etc.) and unions are the best way we have to combat those kinds of issues to ensure that workers are treated fairly. > The legitimacy of government is predicated on the ability of the voter to yank the money from the government if it's ineffective -- otherwise the government can just vote itself more and more funds for whatever without accountability. We can certainly vote out people who commit fraud and decide democratically what we want the government to spend money on, but we can also decide that some things are worth having even when they don't make money. Governments can even run programs at a loss if we feel that those services are worth having. That doesn't mean printing money.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  > unions are the best way They are when labor is fungible, and when you're not paid by the public. Lots of crazy effects happen when the second condition is not met, for example prison guards unions advocating for harsher laws so that prisons stay full. > That doesn't mean printing money In principle, it does not. In practice you can count the countries that don't deficit finance on one hand.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    >prison guards unions advocating for harsher laws so that prisons stay full. People in America always vote in attorneys who are "hard on crime though". I simply see that as unchecked reflection of the people's will. To double down on it, my state had a recent proposition rejected that would have addressed some prisoners rights regarding treatment and compensation. The bluest state you can imagine and we still can't properly say that prisoners aren't slaves. The only people America trusts less than authority is their own people, apparently. If they vote in people who want to lock more people up instead of focusing on rehabilitating: well, that's they get what they vote for, huh?
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      > People in America always vote in attorneys who are "hard on crime though" They don't. For example chesa boudin in San Francisco (there are others too). Also don't forget that those tough on crime electees get campaign funds from those unions.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
> Government workers are supposed to be working for the people, involvement in a union is a conflict of interest Whats the logic here? Unions protect against employers, not consumers. Where does "the people" come in this relationship? Securing your ability to not be fired because the new president doesn't like the color of your suit is indeed a benefit to both of us, even if you disagree with that person's views. >otherwise the government can just vote itself more and more funds for whatever without accountability. Since we're all deficit spending, t Yeah, it's almost like that's a career Killing move presidents avoid like the plauge. I wonder why. Must be because the people care so little about politics. Oh, but tarrifs? That's a great strategy. > Since we're all deficit spending, I wish the people at large cared even 10% as much about balancing the budget as they love to discuss about during the election season. You'd see from basic research that thr defecit oft rises during republican terms (over guess what? Tax breaks) and not as much over democrats. In fact, the fee times it fell came under democratic administrations. So the solution? Vote in the republican. One that already set a record for the biggest deficit increase and made a tarriff war that cost Americans billions. Surely he has the solution.

autoexec 2y ago

> Isn't this a problem? Government workers are supposed to be working for the people, involvement in a union is a conflict of interest I don't think so. Government workers have faced the same problems as workers in the private sector (excessive overtime, unpaid wages, pay not keeping up with inflation, workplace safety issues, etc.) and unions are the best way we have to combat those kinds of issues to ensure that workers are treated fairly. > The legitimacy of government is predicated on the ability of the voter to yank the money from the government if it's ineffective -- otherwise the government can just vote itself more and more funds for whatever without accountability. We can certainly vote out people who commit fraud and decide democratically what we want the government to spend money on, but we can also decide that some things are worth having even when they don't make money. Governments can even run programs at a loss if we feel that those services are worth having. That doesn't mean printing money.

throwawaymaths 2y ago
> unions are the best way They are when labor is fungible, and when you're not paid by the public. Lots of crazy effects happen when the second condition is not met, for example prison guards unions advocating for harsher laws so that prisons stay full. > That doesn't mean printing money In principle, it does not. In practice you can count the countries that don't deficit finance on one hand.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  >prison guards unions advocating for harsher laws so that prisons stay full. People in America always vote in attorneys who are "hard on crime though". I simply see that as unchecked reflection of the people's will. To double down on it, my state had a recent proposition rejected that would have addressed some prisoners rights regarding treatment and compensation. The bluest state you can imagine and we still can't properly say that prisoners aren't slaves. The only people America trusts less than authority is their own people, apparently. If they vote in people who want to lock more people up instead of focusing on rehabilitating: well, that's they get what they vote for, huh?
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    > People in America always vote in attorneys who are "hard on crime though" They don't. For example chesa boudin in San Francisco (there are others too). Also don't forget that those tough on crime electees get campaign funds from those unions.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

> Government workers are supposed to be working for the people, involvement in a union is a conflict of interest Whats the logic here? Unions protect against employers, not consumers. Where does "the people" come in this relationship? Securing your ability to not be fired because the new president doesn't like the color of your suit is indeed a benefit to both of us, even if you disagree with that person's views. >otherwise the government can just vote itself more and more funds for whatever without accountability. Since we're all deficit spending, t Yeah, it's almost like that's a career Killing move presidents avoid like the plauge. I wonder why. Must be because the people care so little about politics. Oh, but tarrifs? That's a great strategy. > Since we're all deficit spending, I wish the people at large cared even 10% as much about balancing the budget as they love to discuss about during the election season. You'd see from basic research that thr defecit oft rises during republican terms (over guess what? Tax breaks) and not as much over democrats. In fact, the fee times it fell came under democratic administrations. So the solution? Vote in the republican. One that already set a record for the biggest deficit increase and made a tarriff war that cost Americans billions. Surely he has the solution.