wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:59:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:02:40 -0400, wrote:



The issue is not monetary policy, it is a decline in our capacity to
produce things we can sell the world.

and one of the biggest factors in this was the destruction of unions.
a recent series of articles in 'slate' showed that countries with
strong unions also have strong manufacturing bases. the right
destroyed the unions in this country and, bye bye manufacturing

The unions caused it to some degree by making our workers too
expensive to compete in a world market and not being willing to budge.
The only states that are growing in manufacturing capacity are the
non-union states.

You really can't blame the unions for screwed up, exploitive management
practices that caused the unions to be formed in the first place.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:00:57 -0400, wrote:


The question is what caused them to decline. You can blame it on
management but managers answer to stock holders, not unions.
In the late 80s and beyond we rated the economy based on how the stock
market was doing, not how the workers were doing. We still rate the
economy on how the major stock indexes are doing.
Bob dances around it but that was particularly true during the Clinton
administration. The decline of his middle class went into high gear
during that time.

wrong. the decline of the middle class has been happening for decades.
the 'great divergence' of middle class/wealthy salaries has been going
on for quite some time

That was when major corporations started shedding
their senior employees in massive downsizing actions, just to pump up
stock prices. That was where his "prosperity" came from.

and they started paying their CEO's astronomical salaries...one of the
major factors in the wage split

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:33:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:59:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:02:40 -0400, wrote:



The issue is not monetary policy, it is a decline in our capacity to
produce things we can sell the world.

and one of the biggest factors in this was the destruction of unions.
a recent series of articles in 'slate' showed that countries with
strong unions also have strong manufacturing bases. the right
destroyed the unions in this country and, bye bye manufacturing

The unions caused it to some degree by making our workers too
expensive to compete in a world market and not being willing to budge.
The only states that are growing in manufacturing capacity are the
non-union states.

You really can't blame the unions for screwed up, exploitive management
practices that caused the unions to be formed in the first place.


The question is what caused them to decline. You can blame it on
management but managers answer to stock holders, not unions.

Management has a judiciary obligation to stockholders to look at the
long-term view, even though stockholders might not appreciate that quarter
to quarter.

In the late 80s and beyond we rated the economy based on how the stock
market was doing, not how the workers were doing. We still rate the
economy on how the major stock indexes are doing.

Ok. Not sure what that has to do with the Fed, the decline of unions, or
anything else, but ok.

Bob dances around it but that was particularly true during the Clinton
administration. The decline of his middle class went into high gear
during that time. That was when major corporations started shedding
their senior employees in massive downsizing actions, just to pump up
stock prices. That was where his "prosperity" came from.

Please define the "middle class."

Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kr...ar_MClass.html

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:33:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:59:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:02:40 -0400, wrote:



The issue is not monetary policy, it is a decline in our capacity to
produce things we can sell the world.

and one of the biggest factors in this was the destruction of unions.
a recent series of articles in 'slate' showed that countries with
strong unions also have strong manufacturing bases. the right
destroyed the unions in this country and, bye bye manufacturing

The unions caused it to some degree by making our workers too
expensive to compete in a world market and not being willing to budge.
The only states that are growing in manufacturing capacity are the
non-union states.

You really can't blame the unions for screwed up, exploitive management
practices that caused the unions to be formed in the first place.


The question is what caused them to decline. You can blame it on
management but managers answer to stock holders, not unions.

Management has a judiciary obligation to stockholders to look at the
long-term view, even though stockholders might not appreciate that quarter
to quarter.

In the late 80s and beyond we rated the economy based on how the stock
market was doing, not how the workers were doing. We still rate the
economy on how the major stock indexes are doing.

Ok. Not sure what that has to do with the Fed, the decline of unions, or
anything else, but ok.

Bob dances around it but that was particularly true during the Clinton
administration. The decline of his middle class went into high gear
during that time. That was when major corporations started shedding
their senior employees in massive downsizing actions, just to pump up
stock prices. That was where his "prosperity" came from.
plumbers
Please define the "middle class."

Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kr...ar_MClass.html




But an important 8% auto workers, steel workers, garment workers, teachers, postal employees, electricians, plumbers, carpenters ect.

When a union employed social worker pulls down almost 130K there's something wrong. The union fat cats are not suffering like the union membership is.

You have your head so far up your ass you're looking at your tonsils. Go away little girl. Hey. That's a song title, isn't it?

Harry
"The 'C' students run the world."

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 14:23:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:33:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:59:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 02:02:40 -0400, wrote:




You really can't blame the unions for screwed up, exploitive management
practices that caused the unions to be formed in the first place.


The question is what caused them to decline. You can blame it on
management but managers answer to stock holders, not unions.

Management has a judiciary obligation to stockholders to look at the
long-term view, even though stockholders might not appreciate that quarter
to quarter.


That was the complaint that I started hearing in the late 80s and
early 90s. Corporations were losing their long term vision and running
ther whole operation on a 90 day window.

In the late 80s and beyond we rated the economy based on how the stock
market was doing, not how the workers were doing. We still rate the
economy on how the major stock indexes are doing.

Ok. Not sure what that has to do with the Fed, the decline of unions, or
anything else, but ok.

It all has to do with the loss of equity in the US and the fed tries
to prop that up by printing money.

Except that the Fed hasn't been printing money (more than usual). Inflation
is not an issue.

Bob dances around it but that was particularly true during the Clinton
administration. The decline of his middle class went into high gear
during that time. That was when major corporations started shedding
their senior employees in massive downsizing actions, just to pump up
stock prices. That was where his "prosperity" came from.

Please define the "middle class."

That is an ongoing question here but I will use Bob's definition for
this discussion.
People with air conditioned jobs.

?? Bectel maybe? They're considered a small business by the Republicans,
apparently.

Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

Most of them work for the government.


Actually, it's about 50/50. Of course, it depends on how you define "public"
sector. Does that include police and other essential services? Are you
including the Post Office (which is quasi-government)?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:37:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:




Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

Most of them work for the government.


Actually, it's about 50/50. Of course, it depends on how you define
"public"
sector. Does that include police and other essential services? Are you
including the Post Office (which is quasi-government)?


Certainly USPS is in the public sector, as are teachers, firemen and
policemen (along with the huge bureaucracy that they drag around
behind them).

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 11:23:26 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 09:37:02 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:




Keep in mind that union workers are only about 8% of the work force.

Most of them work for the government.


Actually, it's about 50/50. Of course, it depends on how you define
"public"
sector. Does that include police and other essential services? Are you
including the Post Office (which is quasi-government)?


Certainly USPS is in the public sector, as are teachers, firemen and
policemen (along with the huge bureaucracy that they drag around
behind them).

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?


Of course.
All I have to point to is our standing in the world (#23 or 26
depending on who you believe) and the amount of money we spend(#2 per
student).
Education rates worse than health care in that regard and we know how
you feel about health care.

It is not just the union but the total lack of "management" in US
education.
They spend about 60% of all the school tax money on administration but
they don't have any managers.
People who can't do, teach
Teachers who can't teach become administrators.

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.) is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then, you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message ...

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.) is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then, you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.


You hit the sauce kind of early today , Pumpkin. You don't make any sense. More than usual, even.

--
I'm the real Harry, and I post from a PC or a MAC, as virtually everyone knows.
If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a PC or a MAC, it's from an ID
spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his current ID
Boatless Harry

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:24:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?


Of course.
All I have to point to is our standing in the world (#23 or 26
depending on who you believe) and the amount of money we spend(#2 per
student).
Education rates worse than health care in that regard and we know how
you feel about health care.

It is not just the union but the total lack of "management" in US
education.
They spend about 60% of all the school tax money on administration but
they don't have any managers.
People who can't do, teach
Teachers who can't teach become administrators.

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.) is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Principals are not really managers. They generally have no business
sense or experience yet they are typically running a $5 million dollar
enterprise. (the average "in school" spending per school in our school
system)

So, you think having an MBA as a manager is going to make for a better
education? What do you think this MBA is going to do to promote a better
education vs. someone who is an educator by trade?

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then, you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.

The failed teachers should just be sent on their way, not made
"managers". The reality is you can't fire a bad teacher so you have to
promote them.

Huh? Who's the manager now?? The principal? You're saying failed teachers
are promoted to ??

The reality is there are no managers in most school systems.School
boards have billion dollar budgets and nobody there seems capable of
efficiently managing that $1.428 billion budget (what my county
spends). We are the #40 school system. 39 spend more than we do.
If I was the king, the first thing I would do to cut education
spending would be to privatize the food, the busses and maintaining
the property. That alone is over a half a billion in our system and
all of them are horribly managed.

Depends on if there enough safeguards in place. That means regulation and
oversight. Who, pray tell, will be doing that?

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 20:58:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:24:17 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

In any case, it's pretty evenly divided between public and private. Of
course, the teacher's unions are evil, right?


Of course.
All I have to point to is our standing in the world (#23 or 26
depending on who you believe) and the amount of money we spend(#2 per
student).
Education rates worse than health care in that regard and we know how
you feel about health care.

It is not just the union but the total lack of "management" in US
education.
They spend about 60% of all the school tax money on administration but
they don't have any managers.
People who can't do, teach
Teachers who can't teach become administrators.

So, much of the money spent on administration and infrastructure (esp.)
is
wasted? Hardly. And, hate to break it to you... the teachers and the
administration are TWO different entities. So, administration = no
management. Tell that to the principals.

Principals are not really managers. They generally have no business
sense or experience yet they are typically running a $5 million dollar
enterprise. (the average "in school" spending per school in our school
system)

So, you think having an MBA as a manager is going to make for a better
education? What do you think this MBA is going to do to promote a better
education vs. someone who is an educator by trade?

No but I think a real manager would help.
Someone who has actually been successful running a business

Well, who are you going to call? Ghostbusters? FYI, education isn't a
business. It doesn't need to show a financial profit. It's a societal
imperative.

It was MBAs who ran the economy into the ground.

So, it's people who are trained to run a business who are at fault for
running the economy into the ground. I guess that would include Bush.

"Real educators" are not the people I want running the largest food
outlet in my county or running the largest bus system. I don't want
them running a $100,000,000 maintenance department and I don't want
them making real estate decisions about the two billion dollars worth
of property they own.

Real educators don't "run" any of those things directly. They administer a
system, and most have years of experience doing it. But, you'd rather have
who do it exactly. So far, you've said "real managers." Who would they be?
How are they trained?

Unfortunately the vertical integration caused by the fact that you
can't go very far in the education department without being a teacher
assures we have people running it with absolutely zero management
experience.

? So, how would you structure a $multi-billion system? You have to use
someone?

Who do you think she be doing the teaching if not the teachers? Then,
you
claim they should be administrators!

This argument makes no sense. The expression is pretty hollow.

The failed teachers should just be sent on their way, not made
"managers". The reality is you can't fire a bad teacher so you have to
promote them.

Huh? Who's the manager now?? The principal? You're saying failed teachers
are promoted to ??


You can't do much of anything in the education establishment if you
are not a former teacher.

And, your point?

The reality is there are no managers in most school systems.School
boards have billion dollar budgets and nobody there seems capable of
efficiently managing that $1.428 billion budget (what my county
spends). We are the #40 school system. 39 spend more than we do.
If I was the king, the first thing I would do to cut education
spending would be to privatize the food, the busses and maintaining
the property. That alone is over a half a billion in our system and
all of them are horribly managed.

Depends on if there enough safeguards in place. That means regulation and
oversight. Who, pray tell, will be doing that?


Busses are regulated by the department of transportation and the
public services administration. Food is regulated by the health
department. EXCEPT IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Busses are beholden to the same regulations that any other vehicle on the
road follows. Food is regulated (not all that well) by the FDA. Not sure
what you're getting at. Are you trying to claim that a school administrator
can feed children uninspected (regulation-wise) chicken????

Is that really oversight? There are as many if not more stories about
tainted food being served in schools and dangerous busses in school
systems as there are in the private sector.

So, what you're really talking about is the decision of WHAT food is
given/sold to kids. That should be up to nutritionists in concert with
budget issues.

The maintenance department is simply a government boondoggle and a
private company could do a better job for half the money, still
returning money to stock holders. That is simple to evaluate. Either
the roof leaks or it doesn't, the light bulbs get replaced or they
don't. Tracking trouble calls, response times, cycle times, cost and
customer satisfaction are very easy to document.
That is a very well developed business model in the private sector
that just seems to baffle government maintenance operations.

So, schools that are underfunded are out of luck I suppose. You're going to
take the budget responsibilities away from the local officials and give it
to who?

This very much sounds like a rant. Who exactly are you angry with and why?
What did they do to you? Do you have any solutions or is it just privatize
everything?