Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

destruction of unions

  • Thread starter Thread starter densoo
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 36

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
I apologize, but I was a public employee at one point. I spent 12 years working in County government before I started flying. For my 12 years of service I will collect $28,000 per year after I turn 50, until the day I die. That is in today's dollars, subject to cost of living adjustments after I begin collecting.

If I had stayed until I could retire at full pension (which is age 55), I would have collected 93% of the average of my highest five years of salary. If I would have stayed until retirement I would have picked up as much overtime as I could during my last (highest) five years of work to bolster my pension to be way out of proportion to what I would have made during a regular five year period. Saw every one of my elderly co-workers do just that. My pension would not be subject to bankruptcy or pawning off to the PBGC. It is guaranteed money paid for by whom?? Yes, the taxpayer.

Name me a private sector job that will guarantee you 93% of your salary when you retire, without risk. There are none. Name me a private sector job that would pay you $28,0000/yr. at age 50 for just 12 years of service. Again, there are none. If I was altruistic I would give the money back to the government to help pay down their debt, but I worked in government too long to know that they won't spend the money as wisely as I will.

Corporations have a feduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. Government has no feduciary responsibility to its shareholders (i.e. taxpayers) to be fiscally responsible. Government just comes back to the taxpayers and says they "need" more money to provide services. They have no bottom line. Government Bureaucrats think they have a tap into an endless well of resources to do what they please. We are at the tipping point where the public sector is almost as large as the private sector. Once the public sector outnumbers private...we will be just like Greece.
 
Last edited:
I apologize, but I was a public employee at one point. I spent 12 years working in County government before I started flying. For my 12 years of service I will collect $28,000 per year after I turn 50, until the day I die. That is in today's dollars, subject to cost of living adjustments after I begin collecting.

If I had stayed until I could retire at full pension (which is age 55), I would have collected 93% of the average of my highest five years of salary. If I would have stayed until retirement I would have picked up as much overtime as I could during my last (highest) five years of work to bolster my pension to be way out of proportion to what I would have made during a regular five year period. Saw every one of my elderly co-workers do just that. My pension would not be subject to bankruptcy or pawning off to the PBGC. It is guaranteed money paid for by whom?? Yes, the taxpayer.

Name me a private sector job that will guarantee you 93% of your salary when you retire, without risk. There are none. Name me a private sector job that would pay you $28,0000/yr. at age 50 for just 12 years of service. Again, there are none. If I was altruistic I would give the money back to the government to help pay down their debt, but I worked in government too long to know that they won't spend the money as wisely as I will.

Corporations have a feduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. Government has no feduciary responsibility to its shareholders (i.e. taxpayers) to be fiscally responsible. Government just comes back to the taxpayers and says they "need" more money to provide services. They have no bottom line. Government Bureaucrats think they have a tap into an endless well of resources to do what they please. We are at the tipping point where the public sector is almost as large as the private sector. Once the public sector outnumbers private...we will be just like Greece.
Hey stop that this is FI, we do not deal in reality here. We only deal with if you are not 100% pro union in every post you are drinking management cool aid
 
I apologize, but I was a public employee at one point. I spent 12 years working in County government before I started flying. For my 12 years of service I will collect $28,000 per year after I turn 50, until the day I die. That is in today's dollars, subject to cost of living adjustments after I begin collecting.

If I had stayed until I could retire at full pension (which is age 55), I would have collected 93% of the average of my highest five years of salary. If I would have stayed until retirement I would have picked up as much overtime as I could during my last (highest) five years of work to bolster my pension to be way out of proportion to what I would have made during a regular five year period. Saw every one of my elderly co-workers do just that. My pension would not be subject to bankruptcy or pawning off to the PBGC. It is guaranteed money paid for by whom?? Yes, the taxpayer.

Name me a private sector job that will guarantee you 93% of your salary when you retire, without risk. There are none. Name me a private sector job that would pay you $28,0000/yr. at age 50 for just 12 years of service. Again, there are none. If I was altruistic I would give the money back to the government to help pay down their debt, but I worked in government too long to know that they won't spend the money as wisely as I will.

Corporations have a feduciary responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. Government has no feduciary responsibility to its shareholders (i.e. taxpayers) to be fiscally responsible. Government just comes back to the taxpayers and says they "need" more money to provide services. They have no bottom line. Government Bureaucrats think they have a tap into an endless well of resources to do what they please. We are at the tipping point where the public sector is almost as large as the private sector. Once the public sector outnumbers private...we will be just like Greece.

Holy Smokes that was a good post. There is hope yet!
 
The problem is, from MSNBC to Fox to Colbert Report to The View, few precede the word "union" with the word "public" or "private"--it's just "unions."

All unions are bad. And that's bad for pilots.
 
CiFIKNOW,
Thanks for your post and your candor. How anybody can think the spending on the Public Sector is sustainable is beyond me. And yes, I put the blame squarely at the foot of Public unions. There should be none. Period. The military does not have them and there is no outrage inside or outside the military.
 
I have spoke with plenty of ALPA pilots who see the reining in of public unions as very good for us. It illustrates the difference between pubic and private, and it helps curb the abuses which were almost all on the part of public unions.

If we let public unions continue to screw the taxpayer, they may sooner or later have turned against private unions as well.

The public unions created this problem, I am not willing to expend any of my political capital to rescue them. They would never stand up for me.
 
Not only would they not stand up for you, they would be the first to jump on increased taxes either for the evil aviation corporations or you personally to pay for "the children", "the schools", "the firemen" , "the policemen", the "fill in the blank" with whatever emotional label they want. Once that money has been conned, it of course goes to the unions, the dems, the crazy pensions and benefits.
 
What's crazy is executive compensation and the continued destruction of the middle class. That's where the national dialogue should be.
 
What's crazy is executive compensation and the continued destruction of the middle class. That's where the national dialogue should be.
here is what is happening to the middle class

www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/106421

January 26, 2012 | Wall Street Journal
news » hoover daily report
Lessons From the Great Expansion
by Henry R. Nau (W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellow, 2011–12)

In his State of the Union address this week, President Obama said we shouldn't "settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by."

No one would argue with that. But is it an accurate description of our economy? The production of wealth is not a zero-sum game here at home or in the global economy—never has been.

Between 1980 and 2007, the world economy experienced what I call a "Great Expansion" due largely to the free-market polices that President Obama blames for the last recession. Over those three decades, world GDP grew by about 145%, or roughly 3.4% a year, a rate comparable to the 3.5% per year growth during the golden era of 1950-1973.

Even if we include the downturn of the so-called Great Recession, real world growth, after slipping to 2.9% in 2008 and then declining by 0.5% in 2009, rebounded by 5.0% in 2010. And according to this week's International Monetary Fund forecast, it is expected to grow by more than 4.4% in 2011 and 4.5% in 2012.

None of this global growth came at the expense of growth in the U.S. Taking into account two mild recessions in 1990-91 and 2000-01, the U.S. grew by more than 3% per year from 1980-2007 and created more than 50 million new jobs, massively expanding a middle class of working women, African-Americans and legal as well as illegal immigrants.

Per capita income increased by 65%, and household income went up substantially in all income categories.

Yes, "the middle class has shrunk," as Mr. Obama said while campaigning last month. But not because it's getting poorer, rather because it's getting richer.

According to Stephen Rose of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, fewer people live today in middle-class households with incomes between $35,000 and $105,000, while the percentage of households making less than $35,000 has remained the same. Where did the missing households go? They became richer. In the past three decades, the percentage of households making more than $105,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars doubled to 24% from 11%.

Even more importantly, the global surge in growth spread wealth from the rich to the poor countries, creating greater equality in global markets than ever before. Throughout this period, developing countries grew two and even three times faster than developed countries. As a result, the share of world GDP held by emerging markets increased to 22% from 13%, while the U.S. share remained steady at approximately 26%. The "Great Expansion" created a global middle class of some 600 million-800 million people in China, India, Brazil and other developing countries.

What were the policy trends that produced this Great Expansion? Precisely the free-market policies of deregulation and lower marginal income-tax rates that Mr. Obama decries.

President Ronald Reagan's decision to reverse the high-tax, loose-money, and interventionist government policies of the 1970s brought an end to the painful "stagflation" of that decade. Privatization world-wide reversed the growth of government, and new trade rounds were launched to open global markets and roll back protectionism. The Uruguay Round and later the North American Free Trade Agreement liberalized trade in agriculture and services and brought fast-growing emerging markets into the global system. This was combined with the liberalization of private financial markets, creating the global banking system that mobilized massive savings in emerging markets to fuel the industrial engines of the Great Expansion.

Global financial markets could have been better regulated, but President Obama's policies go far beyond any reforms that would bring an end to "too big to fail." His policies shift the emphasis back to public-sector growth while squeezing private-sector initiatives. He raises federal spending to 25% of GDP, favors higher taxes to keep it there, and touts government investment in clean energy and infrastructure to spur economic growth.

Meanwhile, he imposes health-care, regulatory and other costs on the private sector, restricts credit by trashing "fat cat" bankers, and discourages imports by pandering to labor's fears of globalization. Sadly, his policies resemble those that brought on the stagflation of the '70s, not those that ignited the Great Expansion.

Mr. Nau, a Hoover Institution fellow, teaches political science and international affairs at George Washington University.


check it out
 
Last edited:
What's crazy is executive compensation and the continued destruction of the middle class. That's where the national dialogue should be.

Executive compensation, while insane, is not the cause.

Executive INCENTIVE is the cause.

That, and fractional reserve lending, along with the excess financial engineering on wall street.

While it may be viscerally satisfying to rail against executive compensation, I offer this challenge:

Take all the executive compensation dollars, and divide that by the number of affected workers and see how much more each worker would make.

Answer: Not enough to matter.

So, where did all the extra money go? Why are people struggling?

The answer is found in the fraudulent nature of the financial industry, not in the executive compensation sphere.

No doubt that executive compensation is excessive, but it is not high enough to account for the current slow impoverishment of the middle class.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom