Sometimes, the government we get, we get from transients
March 12th, 2008 by Brian Withnell
Transients. People that have no roots, and do not plan to stay in an area.
Transients that are not citizens are not as bad as those that are citizens, and know they are not going to be here in five years. Why? One reason I have some knowledge concerning people that know they will be moving out of the area in a short amount of time.
A while back, my pastor was talking with a gentleman (I use the term loosely) about the taxes and how much the education costs are for Loudoun county. In particular, he brought up bond issues. The person with whom he was speaking stated he always votes for spending for education no matter what, even if it is frivolous. When my pastor, slack jawed, asked why the gentleman replied that he did not intend on living here for long, his company would be moving him in a matter of 3 or 4 years at most, and the single most important factor for housing price increase is “what are the schools like”. If the schools are excellent, then the housing is in high demand, and supply/demand dictates an increase in price. He stated he would not be here for more than a couple of years for paying on the bonds, so it made perfect sense for him to vote for every bond issue related to schools that comes up. While “past performance is no predictor of future value” this guy had figured that the highest probability of him getting a capital appreciation of the house he bought was to plunge the county in debt. It wouldn’t hurt him — he’d be long gone when the debt came due.
In a sense, this guy was a bigger drag on the taxes than illegal aliens. He knew that the county would pay 3 times as much for the capital improvements, but he also knew he would not be paying it himself. Those that were staying would pay (with those that move in later) while he had long since moved out. Don’t even ask me what I think of the people that vote with that as their mindset — matter of fact I’ll tell you anyway. They are bigger thieves than the politicians. They figured a way to scam the system and take money from others through the use of their vote.
The only way around such a scam is to pay up front on all projects. Don’t allow the government to borrow for anything, but only to allow the government to tax based on voting. In other words, have funding questions stated “Do you support a $.05 cent per hundred increase in the tax rate for construction of a school ….” The tax bill would be assessed at the time of the vote. You vote for a tax increase, you pay the tax.
Is it going to happen? I doubt it seriously. Would it be fair? Yes.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 12th, 2008 at 9:19 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
imagine someone voting for a policy that they’d like to see go into effect.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Brilliant observation, Brian—I’d love to hear you flesh some of these ideas out more. I.e., how can we start rolling back some of the “credit-based” decisions our localities are saddling future generations with? What effect does the Federal government’s involvement, both through direct funding and through indirect legislation, have on this type of fraudulent financing? Etc.
This would make a fascinating paper for any of you PolySci majors out there.
Oh, and Stay Puft—People are always free to vote for a “policy they’d like to see go into effect.” The problem arises when said people who do vote for such a “policy” do not remain in the locality long enough to help pay for it in the long run.
Regards,
Brian
March 13th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Marshmallow,
what is noble about doing onto others and then splitting?
March 13th, 2008 at 9:28 am
What a sad country this would be if we only planned for our own lifetime, let alone, only for the 4-5 years plans to stay in a place. This is especially true when it comes to parks, schools, libraries. The future belongs to us all. The better we make it, the better will be the lives of those who come after us.
How many of you would be able to buy a house, if you had to pay for it in one chunk? Most of us have car payments. Ours IS a credit-based economy! Why shouldn’t communities make use of bonds, in the cases where it has been found to be a distinct improvement for that community?
March 13th, 2008 at 9:47 am
haha
“we don’t take kindly to strangers around here” *hock-tooey*
March 13th, 2008 at 9:58 am
the great thing about voting is that everyone gets their say, not necessarily their way. Is this one guy setting the policy? NO. When they are considering an increase in funding, do they randomly select some guy and ask his opinion? NO. They put it to a vote. Why? Because this is a great country. Settle down. The only way this is going to have any real impact is if people start fleeing your town in droves.
Hypocrisy! Did any of you vote for what you wanted to see happen with regards to gay marriage even though you aren’t gay?
March 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Completely off topic but Not Larry Sabato has a most entertaining discussion about how Obama is destroying the Dem Party.
Read and enjoy.
http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2008/03/obama-is-destro.html#comments
March 13th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Ted,
that was a great set of comments. I was actually writing a post similar to that and discuss the BHO tactics and see if the guy has sullied himself a bit.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Imagine NOT voting for a policy and having it go into effect. Imagine voting for a policy and it NOT go into effect. What a great country when a select few get to vote for what is best for the people. Oh, wait. The people voted those people to do that, right? NO. The people want some responsibility to prevail. The BOS would like nothing better than to be that perfect “rich” county where you can have everything you want….at a cost! It’s just the MAJORITY of the people can’t afford it. And it will only get better with what PWC is doing. I’m taking my roots out of here in the not too distant future.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
It’s likely that more people vote DOWN all school spending because they don’t have kids in school. All works out as long as you have selfish people on each side of the issue.
Funny how you guys are sounding like Democrats. The Dems want a balanced budget and are willing to raise taxes to do it. The Repubs want to just borrow and leave an enormous burden for future generations after they’ve “left town” so to speak. Unfortunately, both parties seem to want to spend like drunken sailors.
Activist: When’s the moving party?
March 13th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I tend to want responsible government that does what its charter says it should do and no more.
People no longer even think there is a “right” and “wrong” to guide voting, so the only thing left is to vote self-interest. It is sad.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Sanity:
Put away your broad brush, you are getting paint all over the place.
I had at one time three kids in LCPS. I now have two attending a LC High School. Since moving to LC some 20 years ago, I have never voted for a Bond for new school construction. I have on occassion voted yes on bonds for maintenance and upgrades to existing outdated facilities.
Based on what has happened reguarding the LCPS budge over these many years my approach was correct. Unfortunately, most residents of the county, knowing very little about our budget other than what they are told by the Educrats, clueless PTA’s and teachers unions have voted for every Bond ( spending increase ) to come down the pike with little thought of the consequences. Now the chickens have come home to roost. Our budget is upside down, education spending has bloated to 75% of all county services , resulting in higher taxes right at a time when most families can ill afford an additional burden on their budget.
Memo to County Voters;
It is called cause and effect.
Learn to say NO and this kind of stuff will not happen to you.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
oh come on. you guys have no faith in the American system. I say, love it or leave it. Why don’t you move to Russia, where democracy’s been canceled?
March 14th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Well, puffalump, the system depends on educated voters.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I only have faith in the system when it is used within the context of a religious and moral people. The constitution we have is based on the people being moral from a Christian perspective. Even the Deists like Jefferson acknowledged the principles of right and wrong as taught in the Bible. Those that were not Christian knew and acknowledged Biblical moral truth. Today that is no longer the case, and we get government of the greedy, by the greedy, for the greedy.
March 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
being moral from a Christian perspective? you are so full of it. right and wrong as the bible taught? what? don’t kill people, don’t steel, listen to your parents and don’t screw your neighbor’s wife? How profound.
Forgive me, but your comments are just a bit flaky. You are choosing which dots to connect and in what order to draw the picture that your point of view depends on. Was there nothing greedy or immoral about the idea of linking voting rights to property ownership, and not enfranchising large sections of the population? These were the pure, selfless, and moral positions of the infallible founders. I’m sure you have some rationalizations for why those views were okay but whatever current lack of morality you’re on about is much worse.
what are you on about, anyway? Something a preacher overheard someone say about how they were going to vote on a millage? If you want to talk about immorality and elections, I’m sure you can do better! Wallace ran on a segregationist platform. Rove sent a tape of Bush practicing his debate to the Gore campaign and then accused them of spying, for christ sake! Millage, pah!
March 15th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Marshmallow,
“right and wrong as the bible taught? … How profound.”
OK. What is wrong with using the 10 commandments as a basis for a civil society? BTW, that is exactly what you live under. British common law is a combination of the old Anglo Saxon geld system, Canon law and the Puritan rules of conduct.
“Was there nothing greedy or immoral about the idea of linking voting rights to property ownership, and not enfranchising large sections of the population? These were the pure, selfless, and moral positions of the infallible founders.”
You speak of flakey and then you write the above tripe?
1. We went from a system where less than a 1/2 of one percent had a say (the nobility) to all male landholders voting. This was well over 40% of the adult population. Forget about the mind boggling revolutionary step forward this all was. Europe, Asia, Africa and South America had not seen anything remotely this democratic for well over 2000 years. But no, to you this was about greed and immorality? Are you sure you ain’t full of it?
2. Forget about the fact that slavery was practiced on every continent on the planet. We actually argued over this ideal of all men being created equal, and after the revolution many states emancipated their slaves, and many slave owners did so as well. I guess those nasty beneath contempt white Christian losers needed to grant womens suffrage, emancipate _all_ the slaves, offer abortion rights, invent unions and provide socialized medicine right off as well in order to earn your respect.
Dork, the fact that it was white, Christian men who started this idea and discussion which swept the world is totally lost on you isn’t it. You only can see that they did not go far enough, while today the left makes excuses for every barbaric act and chalks it up to environment, but our Christian founders don’t get this consideration. You flake, you have two sets of rules, don’t you see that?
3. Then you throw the founders in with Wallace, a populist Democrat? Get real bub.
March 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
marshmallow,
I’ll state your perspective is a little warped, but I would go so far as Jacob in saying it. While what he states is fairly accurate, I won’t make it personal, even as you seem to have done. I assure you my ideas are not flaky, but are what people have said for many years, not just the past 50 or 60. If you don’t participate in revisionist history, you would see it. Go read some of the original documents from the era — the mid 18th to mid 19th century — you will find them pregnant with acknowledging providence, the God of creation, moral living, a Biblical world view.
Those that formed the constitution saw the problems of a republic (from past democratic systems of government) and while there were attempts to put in place corrective structures. But they also acknowledged that the system rested on the Christian principles.
I don’t in any way say the founders were infallible (they were men, just like we are today). In fact, the government they put in place is not so unique (Greece and Rome both had republics). But in a more important sense, they did not calculate in the depravity of man as much as they should.
The governments of this world will all fail. It is just a matter of time. I’d rather it be later that sooner for the sake of my children, but I know it will come.
March 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
1. nice. here you’re suggesting that morality is relative.
Since you’re clearly too riled up to absorb ideas right now, I’ll try to keep it short and sweet. Witnull was suggesting that this idea of people voting their own interests is a new phenomenon that’s rooted in immorality and greed. Why would only land owners vote? Because they have the biggest stake (interest)? Why only white men? because with universal suffrage something could happen that would go against their interests? That goes beyond voting your own interests, and makes sure that only people with similar interests Can vote. …and yet you’re convinced that landed white men voted for what was best for everyone, and not what suited their own interests. what are you? Grand Visir of the Cult of the Founders? In terms of rights, the revolution was a point on a line, not the origin.
2. “I guess those nasty beneath contempt white Christian losers needed to grant womens suffrage, emancipate _all_ the slaves, offer abortion rights, invent unions and provide socialized medicine right off as well in order to earn your respect.” huh? I think you’ve short circuited. again, my point is that people voting their interests isn’t a new phenomenon, is rooted in the very idea of democracy. that’s why it’s essential for everyone to have a vote, to minimize the effects of one group’s interests determining the outcome. If people didn’t do things in their own interests, the free market wouldn’t function and Russia would be a soviet paradise full of frolicking socialists right now.
Nothing against the 10 commandments, it’s just that there’s nothing uniquely Christian or western about them. As standards of morality, the things listed in the ten commandments are fairly globally recognized. You can hike through the Amazon until you find some crazy tribe of natives and I’ll bet you they have some social norms against steeling, killing, and adultery. See, people are fundamentally decent, which is why democracy works in spite of some people voting purely in their own self-interest. I know that’s something that you can’t allow yourself to accept, which brings sadness to my heart.
Besides, if we wanted to insure that “Christian” morality was the basis of our government, we’d have a King of Morality ala Iran.
“other continents had slaves,” but since when do you give a crap about what other countries do when it comes to policy in our country? Today countries on virtually every continent have universal health care. Do you see that as a compelling argument for why we should? Virtually every country voted against going into Iraq, virtually every country signed the Kyoto protocol.
“Dork” …typical conservative.
“You only can see that they did not go far enough, while today the left makes excuses for every barbaric act and chalks it up to environment, but our Christian founders don’t get this consideration. You flake, you have two sets of rules, don’t you see that?”
excuses for every barbaric act?? nonsense. what in God’s name are you blathering about?
March 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
“Now the chickens have come home to roost.”
Jeez, you crack me up.
Excellent post. And I think it is shameful to have that kind of mentality against the rest of the decent, hard-working folks who will be asked to pay for their freebie.
Hadn’t posted in awhile here, and I was asked after today. Joe, if you read this, you were missed.
March 16th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Thanks, I look forward to hearing how it all went. I had to put in a bunch of hours at the office …
March 16th, 2008 at 12:24 am
I’m kind of hoping to hear how things went today myself. Both of the little ones were ill today — one went to the hospital (dehydration). I’d planned to go …
March 16th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Marshmallow must have caught fire!
March 16th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Marshmallow,
Please note the personal tone I adopted in my earlier posting was the one you took with Brian. So can it pal, it only makes you look flakey, or witless.
“1. nice. here you’re suggesting that morality is relative.”
No, I am stating that you are applying a 21st century political sensibility to the 18th century. This is preposterous on its face. The truth is immutable, but this is akin to demanding that for Confucius to be profound, he had to adopt the womyn’s suffragist position.
Our founders took a gigantic leap forward with the statement “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. This lead to an a 80 fold increase in the number of people who had a say in government. That is breathtaking and I am utterly tired of having the founders besmirched.
Your current set of questions:
Why would only land owners vote?
Over 95% of the country was farming. Damned near all farmers did own their own land. Many of those who lived in the few cities we had also owned property. So most could vote, this was not a big barrier.
For the few who did rent, more than likely the founders probably did not want the landless poor to vote, for the poor in those days where not held up as scions of noble virtue.
Why only white men?
Because they where ethnocentric, i.e. bigots. Guess what the whole planet was. If the founders had been Chinese do you think they would have given ’stupid-round-eye’ the vote? Bigotry is a universal disease.
Universal suffrage was discussed. The idea took root here, in the 18th century. Did you come out of your mom’s womb running, or did learning to do that take a while? But be certain, the ideals you hold so dear were first espoused by those you appear to hold in contempt.
“and yet you’re convinced that landed white men voted for what was best for everyone.”
When in blue blazes did I say this? My earlier comment was to point out that the founders are worthy of great respect.
To put a point on it, as far as I am concerned each person in our republic better vote their own selfish interest. This is for the good of the country.
“Nothing against the 10 commandments, it’s just that there’s nothing uniquely Christian or western about them.”
First, you disparage the 10 commandments in your comment to Brian and now you say they are hunky dory so much so that their truths are universal. My, how profound!
“See, people are fundamentally decent, which is why democracy works in spite of some people voting purely in their own self-interest.”
I have 5 thousand years of written human history to contradict your assertion. Democratic governance is the exception. Historically, the strong take from the weak and demand the weak thank them. Humans as a group have a track record that can be only described as disgusting.
“Besides, if we wanted to insure that “Christian” morality was the basis of our government, we’d have a King of Morality ala Iran.”
This can be charitably referred to as false. Go read the Bible. You will see something that looks very different from the Koran.
“since when do you give a crap about what other countries do when it comes to policy in our country?”
What does the policy of our country have to do with the exceptionalism of our founders? I put them into a historical context. How else can one explain it?
““Dork” …typical conservative.”
If I recall correctly, you said in one of your fevered posts that Obama was conservative. So, now you are calling Obama a dork? You racist, NAZI thug.
“excuses for every barbaric act?? nonsense. ”
True. I was just checking to see if you were awake.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I fear I must, to some extent, agree with puffalump here. It seems to me that the founding fathers expected people to vote their enlightened self-interest. ESA, if you will, is also the foundation of capitalism.
The problem we are experiencing is that many people are not enlightened. Thus we see that the less educated are more likely to vote for Democrats — they do not see the long-term damage that will be caused by the socialist policies of the Democrats.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Jack,
Isn’t that the very nature of humans; self-interest? I would think that everyone that goes to the polls for a vote votes on THEIR wants and needs. It is those that are enpowered that don’t have the right of “self-interest”. They need to step back and look at all with an understanding of what is the best thing for all. And an understanding of economics would be a plus. Maybe it should be a requirement to hold a government position of authority…along with passing a lie-detector test. I, for one, would feel better about those controlling my pursestrings.
March 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Jacob,
“Please note the personal tone I adopted in my earlier posting was the one you took with Brian.”
There you go again taking up for someone else! It’s interesting; I’m not criticizing, I mean, you’ve done it for me at times. Interestingly paternal. I’m going to nominate you, I think, for election as this blog’s daddy. Think about how awesome that would sound:
Jacob Ash, Blog Daddy
That’d be sweet. As in rad.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
careful with the generalizations, Jack. I’ve known my share of uneducated republicans. meanwhile academia is constantly being accused of being uber liberal. Hard to argue it’s based on lack of education. Again, I think it’s less about education for most groups and more about self-interest. Doctors, for instance, are highly educated. They also stand to make slightly less money if health care is financed through publicly funded insurance programs. So are they tending to vote republican because they’re more educated or because of self interest?
also, sticking with the doctor example, more education wont necessarily make people more educated about affairs of the state. For an issue like immigration, how is the opinion of a doctor who spent 8 years staring through a microscope any more well-informed than someone who works at a supermarket in Arizona?
and what of the long term damage caused by the brand of conservatism that’s been in power for the past 8 years? Can we hold this “highly educated right” responsible because they failed to foresee it?
March 16th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Certainly there are uneducated republicans, and there are educated Democrats. The existance of a large standard deviation in a sample does not invalidate the computation of the mean.
Yes, those with PhD’s do tend to vote Democratic. The reason is that most employment of PhD’s, particularly the academics, depends on government spending.
Those who are dependent on the government — the poor, the uneducated, and the academics, then to vote socialist. Those footing the bill tend to be Republicans.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
“And an understanding of economics would be a plus.”
Yes, reading “The Wealth of Nations” would be a great plus. I still have to put together a post to adress puffalump’s silly assertion that government requirements for global-warming-friendly energy will create jobs. Had he read that, such a post would not be necessary. (It’s in the draft stage.)
Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” would be a good start, for those who cannot handle “The Wealth of Nations.”
March 16th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Jack, be mindful that the wealth of nations serves as the foundation for free market economics. it isn’t the end all/be all.
did I say that gov. reg. in the energy sector would create jobs? Maybe it would. The argument I remember making is that there’s money to be made by investing in companies that make renewable energy stuff. I guess that by extension, as those companies grow and turn profits, they’d be creating more jobs.
March 17th, 2008 at 7:55 am
We are in agreement that “‘The Wealth of Nations’ serves as the foundation for free market economics.” Without a solid foundation to our understanding, we are lost.
I do understand that socialism is not founded on free-market economics. Nations do not get wealthy under socialism, either.
I shall return my attention to the work in progress.
March 17th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Are you referring to any market intervention as a form of socialism?
in face, by your definition, every wealthy nation is socialist. no one’s doing laissez faire these days. Classical economics offers an elegant model of human behavior, but it’s based on a lot of assumptions that don’t always hold up in every form of market, so utility isn’t always maximized by simply ‘believing’ in the free market.
re: voting patterns, why would low income people vote for policies that are going to benefit the wealthy at their expense? I don’t think it’s necessary to attribute this to a lack of education; it’s perfectly rational; everyone’s doing what’s in their own interest. Ultimately, though, the wealthy are wealthy because our system emphasizes free market competition over government intervention as much as possible. But by it’s nature, this system produces winners and losers. So the winners are making money as long as the losers agree to keep playing the game so to speak. If we had a pure laissez faire system, this would still be the case, a rising tide doesn’t lift the boats in the dry dock
The lower income people have nothing to gain from such a system. And the wealthy saying, “we’re rich, your’re poor. that’s the way it is; deal with it” is a call for class warfare.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
All nations do have some socialist tendencies. The greater those tendencies, the greater the drag on their economies.
Re: voting patterns:
It is that, in their ignorance fostered by the rhetoric of the socialists, they believe that the policies of the Republican Party “benefit the wealthy at their expense.” This is not the case. The socialist rhetoric uses the fixed-size pie theory of economics: they get more means we get less. If there were no wealthy people, who would create the jobs?
“But by it’s nature, this system produces winners and losers.”
This is the crux of the fallacy. WalMart may put a lot of mom-and-pop companies out of business, but their efficient business model provides consumers with less expensive products, so the consumers are winners, and they create jobs, too. Yes, mom and pop no longer have their store, and may have to get other jobs or open a different kind of store. On the other hand, there are people like five-foot-nothin’ “Mo” down the block from me. A native of Lebanon, he has started many businesses, some successful and others not. He has given some to his sons (he has 17 children), and some he has sold. He owns a half-dozen houses in our neighborhood, and is doing quite well. He has provided many people with good service and good jobs. He did not do it by taking a slice of the pie from someone else. He did it by baking more pies.
The socialist system just has losers and losers.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Kevin,
I was simply looking to get all of us here to keep the discourse from getting personal. Reading your March 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am comment I have changed my mind.
March 17th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Jacob,
No you’re right, I was out of hand (not to mention hypocritical). Just pickn’ for no reason and without any provocation; it was like that all weekend with me. Be thankful you only had to endure “March 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am”! My apologies.
Though I do kind of wonder how calling someone “dork. You racist, NAZI thug!” was an attempt on your part to keep things from getting personal (even though my expressed discontent with those words cedes any point I might erroneously have thought I was making in that crazed state of mind). It would have been much more appropriate for me to STHU and MMOB, as it were, and so I apologize.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Kevin,
You ignorant slut, don’t you know humor when you see it? Or does it have to bite you in the butt, which for you could lead to a brain injury. “You racist, NAZI thug!” was definitely in the context of humor.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“we’re rich, your’re poor. that’s the way it is; deal with it” is a call for class warfare.
That is something that the Democrats preach. You aren’t good enough to make it on your own so take it away from others to level the playing field. The only difference between a rich person and a poor person is the want or drive. There are no obstacles that can’t be surmounted and overcome. You will always have winners and losers and that is what makes competition. Where is the drive if everyone is a winner (or in politics where your a liberal democrat and a loser)? Take some responsibility for yourself.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Jacob,
You ignorant Ash, calling someone a racist, NAZI thug is never, in reality, in the context of humor. . .’But, then again, I guess it’s your habit to ignore reality. You’re a paranoid schizophrenic, Jacob, whose politics are obviously born out of some buried infantile trauma. You hide from reality, constructing a hostile world to justify your own incapacity for love and compassion. Go ahead, Jacob, live in your dark, lonely world.’ And if any such bite were to lead to my subsequent brain injury, at least I would have had the brain for injuring.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
You’re a paranoid schizophrenic, Jacob, whose politics are obviously born out of some buried infantile trauma. You hide from reality, constructing a hostile world to justify your own incapacity for love and compassion. Go ahead, Jacob, live in your dark, lonely world.’
Ouch! Do you think he was being sarcastic, Blog Daddy?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Jack,
that’s just, like, your opinion, man. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE2D81731F934A35754C0A96F948260
No one’s saying there should be no wealthy people. Sure, wealthy people create jobs. Versailles required all kindsa gardeners! At some point enough is enough, lit. I don’t think every time a CEO bails out with a “golden parachute” it results in more jobs.
Wal-mart’s great business model is to let the gov. subsidize their employees salaries. they pay workers so little that they still qualify for welfare, medicaid!
ACT:
“You aren’t good enough ”
So you judge a person’s quality as an individual based on how much money they bring in? If someone has a low income, it’s because they aren’t good enough? Typical conservative!
March 19th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Kevin,
Relax, don’t you remember Jane from Saturday night live? Seriously it was in humor. As for being paranoid, they are out to get me.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:50 am
ACT,
no I think he was frothing at the mouth.
March 19th, 2008 at 3:27 am
Jacob,
Of course, I do, mine was mostly a direct quote, broseph! That’s why I put quotation marks.
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/78/78iupdate.phtml
March 19th, 2008 at 6:13 am
Just as an aside, one of the reasons voting was limited to land owners was the idea that taxes should not be levied by those who do not pay tax. Here in Loudoun, the property tax is well more than my income tax. The idea that someone who does not own any land (and therefore pays no property tax) can vote themselves largess from county coffers is essentially stealing from those that do own land.
The problem is that people are greedy, they are selfish, and they do not act for the benefit of others. Class warfare would have started over those actions (and in a sense did happen in the late 19th and early 20th century, with the unionization movements). Those that have, oppress those that do not. When the employers started working together to set wages (and working for a major employer was the only option) then the class wars were declared. Those that reap benefits from the labor of other were miserly in sharing the benefit. Unions then forced the issue. It got ugly quick.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Brian, thanks for that “aside.” Now please try to stick to the topic at hand like the rest of the commenters.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:10 am
Linda,
There is a topic in this thread?
March 19th, 2008 at 10:20 am
“No one’s saying there should be no wealthy people…. At some point enough is enough, lit.”
And who is to decide what is or is not enough? You?
“Wal-mart’s great business model is to let the gov. subsidize their employees salaries. they pay workers so little that they still qualify for welfare, medicaid!”
Why are the mom-and-pop stores not able to do the same?
March 19th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“who?”: Not me. of course it’s a process that should be based on what’s going to maximize social utility. If you’re going to suggest that nothing can determine that so it shouldn’t be attempted, let me just say that would be a cop out.
“mom and pop?”: because they have to compete for labor with other shops through wages? When all the M&P stores in a town close, wal-mart becomes a monopsonist of sorts, with some power to set wages in the local economy.
March 19th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
So you’re going to set workers’ maximum wages and employers’ maximum profits based on “social utility”? That, sir, is socialism at its finest.
I assume you have some evidence that WalMart has done this — reduce wages after they put the local stores out of business? Please show us.
There must be some productive employment to sustain a service economy. Stores cannot simply sell things to their own employees and stay solvent. So there must be other employment. Thus, while such a large store may have an effect on wages, it cannot set wages as it wants.
March 19th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
it can set wages to unskilled workers. It happened in the town I grew up in. the cashiers who had worked at the local drug store for years lost their jobs and were hired in at min. wage at wal-mart. in part, Wal-mart posts great profits by effectively causing people to earn lower wages and extracting the difference. Wal-mart could afford to pay higher wages without laying people off. If would mean a cut in profit, but who cares? A $1000 I don’t see limits to this sort of thing as the epitome of socialism, and I don’t understand your insistence on a black-and-white interpretation, where anything other than laissez faire capitalism is framed as absolute communism.
wal-marts low-wage practices are well known. Here’s a resource for you:
http://www.walmartmovie.com/facts.php
March 19th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The question is, was WalMart offering higher wages while the drug store in question was still open, and then lower the wages when there was no more competition. THAT was your accusation. If the drug store had paid minimum wage, would it have remained open?
March 19th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
i didn’t finish that thought: 100 workers at the bottom of the walmart pyramid would derive more utility from a $1000 increase in yearly income than one person at the top would from an additional $100,000 a year (diminishing marginal utility)
March 19th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
that wasn’t my accusation. stores close when they can’t compete with walmart, which pays lower wages. Once it’s the main purchaser of unskilled labor in a market, it does have price (of labor) setting power. and workers are in fact paid lower wages. perhaps the drug store could have competed by cutting it’s workers wages workers wages. Is this likely to be beneficial or harmful the workers, or to the community in general?
March 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
So you judge a person’s quality as an individual based on how much money they bring in? If someone has a low income, it’s because they aren’t good enough? Typical conservative!
No, but evidentally you do, smore. You make the money you make. If you are happy with it, GOD bless you. If you aren’t, then go earn some more. It is up to the individual as to how he/she wants to live. Who am I to judge them? I was saying that the Dems will give something for nothing because others cry foul or are too lazy to compete or succeed. People never have to justify “good enough” to me.
You want to hang everything on Wal-Mart and nothing on the employees. If Wal-Mart is the only job in town and you aren’t game for its employment standards, boycott. Move to another town where there is more opportunity. What is it that you don’t understand? Just like the unions. Pays all good till they need something else they don’t deserve. Then they want to strike. Who wins and loses on that one? I know cause I’ve been there too mnay times. The company always wins. Union losses in the long run and the consumer is ALWAYS left holding the bag.
You liberals would be funny if you weren’t so sad. You are definitely a puzzle without a solution. No means and no end in sight.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Gosh, I can’t believe I’m doing this. I’m going to at least partially agree with SPMM.
Oppression of workers is NOT right, and when a company is capable of manipulating the supply chain, the distribution, and labor force because of size, they can easily become the one who oppresses the poor. What is oppression of the poor? Paying a wage that one knows cannot sustain living would be one good definition. The only reason a person can work at a place like WalMart is because they have multiple incomes within a household. At some point, it becomes oppression of the poor — and from a Biblical basis, that is a recipe for judgment. Now is it all bad? No. WalMart here in Leesburg is competing against many other stores, and they all have a limited supply of labor — there is balance. Do they pay well enough to live here? No. Do they pay better than some other places? Yes. So while I know oppressing the poor is not good, I don’t know as I see WalMart doing that … yet.
A Biblical model would be for those that own a business to trust to God for profit, while working fervently to reduce waste and maximize productivity (notice I don’t say reduce costs). What is unconscionable is a company that collaborates with their competition on the wages of workers in order to fix labor costs. (I know it happens, I was high enough in two separate organizations that had their HR departments active in groups that shared first quartile, median, and third quartile salaries for engineers. When hiring, we were informed the ranges, and we were told in one of those companies to hire H-1b applicants at a significantly reduced rate.
That is clearly beyond what ought to be allowed. Cartels and monopoly positions are not free competition for the good of all, but a perversion of the capitalism at its worst.
All that said, I still would disagree with SPMM on much of what he would suggest is the cure. Regulation of monopolies I see as the worst possible outcome. What would be much better would be divestiture of parts. As an example, I’ll use what happened with AT&T. If you don’t remember, a long-distance phone call from the east coast to the west coast would cost something on the order of $4.00 a minute back in the ’70s. It was impossible for competition to really flourish until after Judge Green’s Modified Final Judgment that had AT&T break up into the long distance company, and seven local companies. It also required that the local companies provide the same quality and cost connections to competitive service providers that it did for AT&T. The breakup of “Ma Bell” was radical at the time, but what did it do? I can call *anywhere* in the continental US for the same price as my parents basic phone service then. There are no “per minute” charges for phone calls. There are no hidden fees. The price is about the same (30 years later, the number of dollars price, not the adjusted for inflation price). Service is *much* better (if I have a problem with the phone company, they respond next day at the worst case–because they know I’ll take my business elsewhere if they don’t). Did it cause some pain for some? Yes, but not AT&T stockholders — at least in the short term, they made out like bandits (the pieces were worth far more than the whole).
A free market can work only as long as their is a low bar to entry into competition. Microsoft thrived because of a low bar. Firefox has thrived because Microsoft came under the microscope of an anti-trust investigation. What would have been better for everyone would have been the breakup of Microsoft. We would have had twice the innovation, prices going through the floor (remember “dime a minute” then nickel a minute long distance advertisements? Then long distance was free.) If there is a low bar to competition, free markets work, and they work well. When there is no competition, and a high bar to entering competition, free markets are ruled by the greed of the one person that owns the market. Not good.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
act, “too lazy” “go earn some more”
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the reality of many peoples’ situations. Sure, there will always be Mos out there, who have inspiring rags to riches stories. That’s great, those stories will always be woven into the fabric of our country. The only problem is that the lower you start on the totem pole, the more you have to rely on good luck, and the less likely you are, statistically, to rise to the top.
Someone making 101% of Fed. Poverty Level doesn’t qualify for medicaid in most states. If their kid gets pneumonia it could set them back months. Of course, it’s not going to be easy, and getting ahead takes lots of hard work. But it shouldn’t be impossible. I’m sorry about your experience with unions. Unchecked unionization isn’t a solution any more than laissez faire capitalism. (in fact, unionization is a product of laissez faire capitalism, which requires gov. regulations to prevent just as much as any of walmarts negative business practices) Asking the gov. to take take over the private sector, and turn more and more things into state-run enterprises is socialism, asking the gov., as the only legitimate representative of all citizens, to work toward maintaining a level playing field is not.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“stores close when they can’t compete with walmart, which pays lower wages.”
How can WalMart pay lower wages BEFORE it has put the other stores out of business? No-one would go work for them.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Jack,
People with no job will work for less wages. But that’s not what Wal-Mart does. They start out with wages at least as high, perhaps higher, with prices lower than the Mom-And-Pops. After the Mom-And-Pops go under, then they let go their higher-wage workers and bring in cheaper labor.
The Mom-And-Pops can’t do that because they don’t have the bankroll that Wal-Mart has (by a number of orders of magnitude).
A free market (or pure capitalism) assumes a couple things:
(1) The market size is infinitely big, and
(2) Local and short-term disruptions are tolerated for the good of the whole, long-term.
None of these is completely valid, and (2) is becoming less and less tolerated. Is it bad for a county or a state to pass regulations to protect its interests? And how does one force cooperation against a common threat? Without regulations of this sort, we would end up with the economic equivalent of Gaul.
Once a monopoly (or a close facsimile) is achieved, the only answers are (1) a breakup, (2) regulation of the monopoly, or (3) let the monopoly endure until it becomes lazy and irrelevant. We tried (1) with AT&T which then became (2). We also do (2) with most other utilities. (3) is IBM (old days) and Microsoft (new days). It will probably be Google soon. For products that change frequently, (3) isn’t a bad choice.
Being a monopoly is good in the short-term, but having wily competitors is often better in the long-term (from the companies’ point-of-view). Having competitors is almost always good from the consumers point of view, though, regulated standards are often necessary.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
That’s exactly what puffalump was NOT accusing WalMart of doing. Now you are. OK — show me the evidence.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
AT&T was a poor example to be used. It was government regulated all along. Sure, its seperate parts were worth more in the beginning but some of the parts went under. Instead of causing competition (local teles) it actually stiffled it because of the costs to create infrastructure. Even with the advent of fiber-optics, it took 20 years and a lot of regulation/de-regulation to get where we are today with true competition starting to arise. Just remember; because one name offers you the service, it doesn’t necessarilly mean that they OWN that service. Probably just renting. And it was the long-distance side of the house that kept your local phone bill low. Sure, you can call anywhere cheap but you usually have to bundle. Use the internet. Look at the cost for good service. With taxes, accesses and “universal service” charges, if you aren’t paying $100 a month for phone and net, then you don’t have much service. And that is without TV.
Monopolies can be great if regulated correctly. That ain’t the governments job. And they also don’t give a level playing field. Again, in the long run the consumer loses. And business suffers. And jobs are farmed out overseas or at cheaper rates.
Cheap products/service or fair labor practices. Think you can have both? Think again.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Act,
If you are paying $100/month for phone and net, you are paying *way* too much. I pay $65/month, which will rise to $70/month in a couple of months (introductory rate on VOIP of $15/month goes to $20/month — and includes all fees, plus $50/month for FIOS at 5d/2u Mbs).
The service I get now is way cheaper, more complete (it includes voice mail, forwarding, caller ID, number blocking, speed dial) and doesn’t include hidden costs. I’ve been paying $15.31 every month. I can call *Germany* for $0.03/minute — which was out of the question prior to the breakup. It is true that AT&T was regulated, they were not only regulated, but they were very profitable. The breakup made a lot of money for those that owned AT&T stock (at least those that sold off at least part of the stock).
March 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Brian,
Long distance unlimited, local/toll unlimited and DSL is actually $110 a month. That doesn’t include mama’s wireless. These are landline services. For security and emergency purposes, I would never be without a landline.
As far as stock goes, I’ve lost over $85,000 since the breakup.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
You’ve lost $85K because other companies have come in and eaten their lunch.
Technologically, we’re so far beyond what we were in the “Ma Bell” days it ain’t funny. We would have never seen anywhere near the innovation without the breakup. AT&T was the best example because it was a government-mandated monopoly.
Microsoft stifles innovation too, but at least others are ALLOWED to compete (even when it’s futile).
I also can’t help but note that Microsoft keeps saying their doing what their actually preventing. Kind of like Repub rhetoric.
March 20th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“I also can’t help but note that Microsoft keeps saying their doing what their actually preventing. Kind of like Repub rhetoric.”
Your ignorance is showing again.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Act,
The neighborhood is fiber, so no matter what, I have a form of “VOIP” from the start (though Verizon doesn’t call it VOIP, it is still digital at the ONT hanging on the back of the house out). There is essentially no difference between “land line” and VOIP. Get that from Verizon, and yes, it costs about $100/month. Get the minimal fiber data connect, and then use your own VOIP service, and you have exactly the same reliability as you do with fiber connect land lines.
The service is better (ever try to get Verizon to fix something quickly?) The features are far superior.
As to you losing $85,000 on the stock, when did you sell? Long after the breakup? To loose that much I’d hope you had a huge amount invested in many other stocks (if you follow “rule of thumb” for diversification, you would have no more than 10 - 20% in any single stock — or sector). Did you get nuked by not putting in stop losses? Long term loss is different from short term loss. Obviously, because telecomm became such a commodity item in the long run, the price of the stock *should* have gone down. AT&T was making money for providing very little. In a sense, even though they were government regulated (of necessity given they were granted the right of way for the infrastructure at the expense of the public) they certainly were charging outlandish prices. Once the infrastructure was paid for, the cost of making a long distance call was no more than a local call — the “theft” of the public funds ($4.00 a minute for a call!) certainly demonstrates that even though regulated, they were too greedy.
I worked for Cable & Wireless USA for almost 10 years, our cost for transport of a phone call was something less than a penny a minute. If we had direct T1 terminations at both ends, putting a “voice connection” across the intervening space was near without cost. If we had to terminate to a LEC, the single largest cost was what the LEC charged us for the termination. That now is starting to come down from what I understand, as the LECs are now starting to face competition with VOIP and Cable companys doing voice (and number transportability).
Competition was good for the market. AT&T was no longer able to pillage customers. AT&T would never have allowed other carriers to terminate calls to their network without prejudice left on their own. The bar to entry had to be lowered in order to stop a tyrant (monopoly) from stealing from the fiefdom he ruled. Now we have reasonable telephone rates (and data rates that are so far below what they were at the time it is crazy — a single 64kbps data line to the internet was hundreds a month. Now you complain about T1 spend internet and voice costing less than 64k line did without voice.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Sanity:
The “ignorance” in particular is “their” vs. “they’re” (though I’ll grant there is political bigotry, which is ignorance as well, in there).
There! I hope they’re response to their post there will not give additional flame to the discussion.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
I’m going to have to post something about a free market, and coerced market one of these days….
March 20th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
The IP in VOIP is “Internet Protocol.” Verizon may be using IP, but I seriously doubt it. IP does not guarantee that packets (generally either UDP or TCP, but you could roll your own) are received in the order in which they are sent. Thus, in VOIP, the receiving end will wait for missing packets or just drop a packet if it comes in too late.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I also have Verizon FIOS, and I do not believe they are using VOIP. I suspect they are using a slice of the FIOS bandwidth for plain old G.711 ulaw.
VOIP uses UDP, typically RTP on top of UDP. Even though TCP is a reliable protocol, TCP is impractical for realtime traffic. Implementations are aware that UDP can drop or disorder packets, but the signal processing algos normally care of that. Assume a sent sequence of n, n+1, n+2, and the network drops packet n+1, a replacement can be made based upon information found in packets n and n+2. VOIP is an amazing and flexible technology, with bandwidth requirements being as low as 8k, and up to ~96k for services such as Vonage.
I read sometime back that Verizon had converted all of their all of their circuit switching gear with a packet switched IP infrastructure. What this means is that existing analog copper circuits are converted to digital, and back if the far end is also analog.
It is true you can get VOIP to run your voice over the FIOS IP. Verizon has battery backup on the telephone, but not the data. You would either have to provide your own standby power, or forget about the phone during a power outage. I also believe that the 911 issue may still be there with VOIP also.
Sorry if I wandered too far off-topic, George Mason is getting their butts kicked by the F***ing Irish, and I am depressed..
March 21st, 2008 at 1:44 am
All the long distance carriers went to packet switched a few years ago. It just didn’t make sense to use a full 64kb channel to carry what generally fits in a much smaller footprint. With pauses in speech, less than full dynamic range, and a lot of redundancy in signal the wasting of space is huge. (Think of what you can compress an audio CD down to with MP3 with no loss of ability to hear what is said.)
Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before the LECs did also. They don’t need (and don’t want) to send signals any distance they don’t have to at full bandwidth. While GPON (G.984) allows for encapsulation of data, there is nothing I saw in the standard that required G.711 ulaw. I’d be surprised if they did in fact use all that bandwidth. And dismayed … that would take a lot of potential bandwidth from other uses, especially given it would be required for every subscriber line continuously, if for nothing else than signaling (if memory serves me, the full 64kb includes the A and B signaling bits …)
I run the whole show off my own backup system, so battery to the system should not be an issue.