destruction of unions

[dragontamer]

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.

 

[zonker]

What's crazy is executive compensation and the continued destruction of the middle class. That's where the national dialogue should be.

 

[fly4surf]

The 1% controls the National dialogue.

 

[pilotyip]

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

 

[livin'thesim]

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.

 

[jonjuan]

http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2...-totally-lucrative-some-make-over-200k/44783/


Lifeguarding in OC is totally lucrative; some make over $200k
May 10th, 2011, 5:32 pm · · posted by Brian Calle
High pay and benefits for lifeguards in Newport Beach is the latest example of frustrating levels of compensation for public employees. More than half the city’s full-time lifeguards are paid a salary of over $100,000 and all but one of them collect more than $100,000 in total compensation including benefits.
When thinking about career options with high salaries, lifeguarding is probably not one of the first jobs to come to mind. But it apparently should. In one of Orange County’s most desirable beach destinations, Newport Beach, lifeguards are compensated all too well; especially compared with the county annual median household income of $71,735.
It might be time for a career change.
According to a city report on lifeguard pay for the calendar year 2010, of the 14 full-time lifeguards, 13 collected more than $120,000 in total compensation; one lifeguard collected $98,160.65. More than half the lifeguards collected more than $150,000 for 2010 with the two highest-paid collecting $211,451 and $203,481 in total compensation respectively. Even excluding benefits like health care and pension, more than half the lifeguards receive a total salary, including overtime pay, exceeding $100,000. And they also receive an annual allowance of $400 for “Sun Protection.” Many work four days a week, 10 hours a day.
Lifeguarding in Newport Beach is a pretty good gig, if you can get it.
There is no denying that lifeguards protect swimmers and play a vital safety role in protecting numerous beachgoers every year. In 2010, the total number of rescues by Newport Beach lifeguards was 2,190. Even so, these salaries seem too generous, and the compensation levels don’t appear fiscally sane.
Currently, Newport Beach has 13 full-time active lifeguards and hires about 210 seasonal and part-time “tower” guards, Newport Beach City Manager David Kiff told us. Lifeguards are organized as part of the fire department. The Lifeguard Management Association represents the 13 full-time, salaried employees in collective bargaining with the city whereas the Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards represents the part-time, seasonal lifeguards.
See our letters to the editor: “Lifeguards are riding a profitable wave”
In a phone conversation, Brent Jacobsen, president of the Lifeguard Management Association, defended the lifeguard pay in Newport Beach: “We have negotiated very fair and very reasonable salaries in conjunction with comparable positions and other cities up and down the coast.” “Lifeguard salaries here are well within the norm of other city employees.” *****And therein is the problem: Local public worker pay has become all too generous and out of line with private sector equivalents.
On face, the compensation packages for these guards are staggering. But take into consideration the retirement benefits being paid to currently retired lifeguards and lifeguards who will retire at these pay levels in the future and the problem is further compounded. Lifeguards are able to retire with 90 percent of their salary, after only 30 years of work at as early as the age of 50.
A YouTube video created by Americans for Prosperity-California, an education advocacy organization concerned with limited government, lower taxation, and free-market principles, outlined how in Newport Beach a “recently retired lifeguard, age 51, receives a government retirement of over $108,000 per year for the rest of his life.” The video also notes that “He will make well over $3 million in retirement if he lives to age 80!”
The Newport Beach City Council – as well as other beach cities – ought to take a hard look at reforming the pay scale and compensation for lifeguards as well as the way in which the department is organized. This is a reasonable starting point for applying some fiscal sanity to public employee compensation.

 

[jhwk0309]

Law Enforcement.

Kinda interesting that your "excessive pension" example relates to your
law enforcement pension which typically is much higher than the average
worker for obvious reasons. I have abosolutely no problem with my
emergency repsonders making a liveable salary. The problem is they don't really and the pension is the carrot.

Obviously your awesome pension wasn't enough to keep you doing the job. You mean destroying your body clock and stopping some marginal character on some road alone while over 30 mins away from backup with a rapsheet as long as the tax code isn't reason enough to pay enough to keep someone willing and motivated to make that stop night after night after night? How about the nasty accidents that others have to respond to that would make even the toughest stomach churn. It isn't a matter of them making too much these days.

I've lived in a place where my property tax was nearly $6,000/yr and now live where it's only $1,500/yr for similar assesed values. You'd be shocked which city has better services and pays their responders better(not to mention parks and recreation)! Oh, and safety isn't even close. It
all comes to value. Are you receiving services for which you pay for. I think if not, you better look at who's controlling the purse strings. I finally left that city with high taxes and lackluster services and fought tooth and nail to never pay another cent while I was there(not saying the guys made too much either, just that my money was being poorly managed). At my current location, I just voted to give my guys a raise. While I keep
receiving services commensurate with what I'm paying, I got no problem.

 

[jhwk0309]

http://orangepunch.ocregister.com/2...-totally-lucrative-some-make-over-200k/44783/


Lifeguarding in OC is totally lucrative; some make over $200k
May 10th, 2011, 5:32 pm · · posted by Brian Calle
High pay and benefits for lifeguards in Newport Beach is the latest example of frustrating levels of compensation for public employees. More than half the city’s full-time lifeguards are paid a salary of over $100,000 and all but one of them collect more than $100,000 in total compensation including benefits.
When thinking about career options with high salaries, lifeguarding is probably not one of the first jobs to come to mind. But it apparently should. In one of Orange County’s most desirable beach destinations, Newport Beach, lifeguards are compensated all too well; especially compared with the county annual median household income of $71,735.
It might be time for a career change.
According to a city report on lifeguard pay for the calendar year 2010, of the 14 full-time lifeguards, 13 collected more than $120,000 in total compensation; one lifeguard collected $98,160.65. More than half the lifeguards collected more than $150,000 for 2010 with the two highest-paid collecting $211,451 and $203,481 in total compensation respectively. Even excluding benefits like health care and pension, more than half the lifeguards receive a total salary, including overtime pay, exceeding $100,000. And they also receive an annual allowance of $400 for “Sun Protection.” Many work four days a week, 10 hours a day.
Lifeguarding in Newport Beach is a pretty good gig, if you can get it.
There is no denying that lifeguards protect swimmers and play a vital safety role in protecting numerous beachgoers every year. In 2010, the total number of rescues by Newport Beach lifeguards was 2,190. Even so, these salaries seem too generous, and the compensation levels don’t appear fiscally sane.
Currently, Newport Beach has 13 full-time active lifeguards and hires about 210 seasonal and part-time “tower” guards, Newport Beach City Manager David Kiff told us. Lifeguards are organized as part of the fire department. The Lifeguard Management Association represents the 13 full-time, salaried employees in collective bargaining with the city whereas the Association of Newport Beach Ocean Lifeguards represents the part-time, seasonal lifeguards.
See our letters to the editor: “Lifeguards are riding a profitable wave”
In a phone conversation, Brent Jacobsen, president of the Lifeguard Management Association, defended the lifeguard pay in Newport Beach: “We have negotiated very fair and very reasonable salaries in conjunction with comparable positions and other cities up and down the coast.” “Lifeguard salaries here are well within the norm of other city employees.” *****And therein is the problem: Local public worker pay has become all too generous and out of line with private sector equivalents.
On face, the compensation packages for these guards are staggering. But take into consideration the retirement benefits being paid to currently retired lifeguards and lifeguards who will retire at these pay levels in the future and the problem is further compounded. Lifeguards are able to retire with 90 percent of their salary, after only 30 years of work at as early as the age of 50.
A YouTube video created by Americans for Prosperity-California, an education advocacy organization concerned with limited government, lower taxation, and free-market principles, outlined how in Newport Beach a “recently retired lifeguard, age 51, receives a government retirement of over $108,000 per year for the rest of his life.” The video also notes that “He will make well over $3 million in retirement if he lives to age 80!”
The Newport Beach City Council – as well as other beach cities – ought to take a hard look at reforming the pay scale and compensation for lifeguards as well as the way in which the department is organized. This is a reasonable starting point for applying some fiscal sanity to public employee compensation.

I'm just wondering if these few guys are breaking the bank or if the author has another agenda. There needs to be more review to see if they indeed make "too much". I know personally as much as I love the Irvine, Newport Beach area, I would never live there if I couldn't afford a small abode to which I could have a reasonable drive to work and a safe school to send my kids. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Don't tell me that you could live 30 mins away on the 405. That's fine if there's no traffic! That place is insane from 0600-0900 and 1500-1800. Now if these salaries were in Oklahoma(especially since they don't have beaches), we'd have some revamping to do...

I do realize that many cities probably are strapped because of lower property values and a slow economy. I think there is balance somewhere in this whole debate. I don't think that a full time lifeguard force of 5% of their total force sounds unreasonable. There are only a small number over the median income. Maybe the high end cap should be revisited but I'd have to look deeper to see what all this entails. Are they supervisors? If so, when someone drowns or is injured what role and responsibility do they have? With 2,190 rescues, a couple guys making more than the median income to manage all the issues related with saving lives and keeping the force appropriately trained might not be so far out of line with their salary. I'm also curious as to what qualifications these guys have. What rescue vehicles and size of area of responsibility are under their stewardship. Also, take a look at where buying a house in the area where the median home price is in your area is and you will see what that gets you. I will say at face value their salaries appear excessive, but when the whole picture is painted they aren't too crazy.

I just hate someone saying essentially, "I didn't get it so nobody else should get it!" That's what I feel this author is trying to write.
His analysis should be how it compares to the teenager working at the community pool in Nebraska make adjustments for amount of work, responsibility, cost of living, supply and demand, etc.

Just to give perspective:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Beach,_California


The city's median family income and property values consistently place high in national rankings. The Daily Pilot, a newspaper published in the neighboring city of Costa Mesa but which serves the greater Newport-Mesa community, reported in 2010 that more than a quarter of households have an income greater than $200,000, and the median value for homes is approximately $1 million.[5]

According to a 2008 US Census estimate, the median income for a household in the city was $95,511, while the median family income was $126,976.[18] Males had a median income of $73,425 versus $45,409 for females. The per capita income for the city was $63,015. About 2.1% of families and 4.4% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.0% of those under age 18 and 3.5% of those age 65 or over.
Housing prices in Newport Beach ranked eighth highest in the United States in a 2009 survey.[19]

 

[shroomwell]

Check out this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmC26RuO26g

 

[relief tube]

it wasn't the destruction of unions that has effed this industry, it was de-regulation, LCC's, and $29 fares to orlando that have.