I, like many others watched in awe for weeks as the protesters in Egypt toppled the Mubarak regime. I still can’t tear myself away from following the revolutions(?) unfolding throughout the region. As someone born and raised a train ride (red line) from the Freedom Trail I can’t help but root for them as they are demanding self determination.
Now, I can’t tear myself away from the street protests in Wisconsin. As an American, I care more about street protests here as I feel I can have more of a presence – on the ground, rather than just online.
What is happening in Wisconsin is not isolated to that state; it is the opening salvo of a state by state strategy to bust unions. Ohio and Indiana are next in line in this strategy to bury the middle class (not to mention Chris Christie (R-NJ) finishing his opening salvo) by busting unions. If Governor Walker (R-WI) wins this battle then Mitch Daniels (R-IN) and John Kasich (R-OH) will not only open the next round of war on the worker but ramp it up (and set the stages for other states to squeeze the American worker).
We watched in horror or indifference as a state by state strategy was used to render the LGBT community as second class citizens, and then non-white people as criminals. This strategy is no longer a surprise so it’s time for everyone to rise up and kill this in its infancy.
Similar to the revolutions happening in the Middle East and Africa, this fight is going to have a domino affect; whoever wins is going to start a wave to other states. If the workers prevail, our weekends, safe working environments, collective bargaining, overtime, etc will be preserved. If the union busters prevail then the war will be on in the state by state strategy.
We need to stand in solidarity (every community, city, state) with Wisconsin workers to make sure the middle class survives (I won’t touch on the fact that the middle class is now lower class in this post).
That being said, I was waiting for days for an email from one of the many groups that email me daily (dfa, ofa, moveon, uw, many more) for a Boston rally or at least a call to protest in solidarity, but none have come. I googled to see if there was an event being held in Boston, but could not find any.
I’m going to Michael’s Crafts now to buy supplies to make signs. If need be, I will start (hopefully tomorrow – that’s the plan) protesting outside the state capitol in solidarity. I’ll be contacting all of my reps/senators/etc too to ask them to stand with the working people of Wisconsin and stand for the working people of Massachusetts.
I’m not a member of a union and never have been but I consider them my brothers and thank them for allowing me to work in safe conditions, for a good wage, 40 hour work weeks, overtime, more.
Thank a union and support them. United we bargain, divided we beg.
@DaysWithDave
I’m not quite ready to compare these demonstrations in Madison with people protesting a 30-year dictatorship in Cairo, Manama, or other cities.
<
p>That said…
<
p>What’s happening in Wisconsin is a head-on frontal assault on the last politically significant organizations that defend a living wage for workers. If these pesky, uncowed unions are dealt with, then a race to the bottom can begin in earnest and this ex- traveling salesman college dropout can finally make the whole economy over to match Walmart’s hiring policies.
<
p>This isn’t about whether you like unions, but whether you like weekends, vacations, and eight-hour workdays.
I see a connection. I don’t think I’d see the similar protest in WI without what’s happening half a world away.
<
p>I see a connection between what’s happening over there and the state by state strategy to harm the LGBT community, perceived illegals, and now unions. I think everyone that supports the #wiunion needs to be seen. This assault on workers is going to come in a wave across the states like the revolutions currently. If we can win the battle than the wave can crest workers across the states instead.
<
p>While I do have a problem with the inflexibility of the public unions in some circumstances, removing them will only give more power to lower the standard of living for all working Americans. In reality, the pay and benefit standards of the public unions should remain, and the pay/benefits of the private sector should rise to meet them. There is a big discrepency, which is the biggest talking points against the unions, but if the private sector rose to meet than there would not be such controversy; private sector workers would be contributing more in tax revenue and more toward economic growth.
<
p>I think we should start talking about raising the standard of living in the private sector to meet the standard of those working under the public unions. That should be the real story of how to solve our country’s woes. Not consistently trying to take from workers so more weatlh can accumulate at the top.
The theory that government workers are overpaid may not really hold water.
<
p>http://www.epi.org/analysis_an…
of government workers. However, as the private sector continues to lose ground with wages and benefits, the appearance of government workers being overpaid only increases.
…is to unionize the private sector.
<
p>I wish that the American legal framework was similar to Germany’s — one that results in greater productivity and better compensation. However, since it is in essence an adversarial process, I rely on unions in every sector to ensure that the inequality in America, already near Third-World levels, doesn’t worsen still more.
bringing up child-labor laws is some kind of red herring, this may be an eye-opener:
There has been news footage on several networks, but these are the signs I saw on NECN –
<
p>Walker is Hitler.
At our School, We Call this Bullying
Mubarek of the Midwest
One Dictator Down, One to Go (with photo of Hosni)
Down with Dictators/Can you spell Dictator?
Budget Bill (pic of bill with bullet hole and blood)
<
p>These are educators. People teaching thought, language, reason. THIS is the best they can do? I mean forget civility, nobody would expect that of them even after Giffords, but where is the literacy? Intelligence? These are the people who sneer at ‘teabaggers’, and yet when their turn comes, this dreck is their best efforts?
<
p>Two other observations: The state senator who left the state in order to duck a tough vote says that she is doing her job??? And should these demonstrators be paid the sick time they called in for?
I just clicked through about 100 pictures of protests from the protests at the 540,000 To See Scott Walker out of WI, January 2012 facebook page. I saw one of the signs you listed, dozens and dozens of others that were nothing like you represent.
<
p>There’s plenty of literacy, plenty of intelligence and plenty of angry folks who wrote stupid, insulting signs – tens of thousands who aren’t teachers. Your list is not representative and just like everything you say about unions, devoid of substance and balance.
thumbsup
include doing almost anything (short of assassination ) to delay a vote. Denying a quorum included. Even if you have to go into hiding to elude a police summons — although I wondered aloud, alone, to read about the rules of the Wisconsin Legislature.
<
p>I wonder if the Wisconsin Governor can find a Tom Delay to fund a lobbying campaign to ensure the Republican’s goals in Wisconsin like he (Delay) ensured a Republican victory against run away Democrats in Texas………….wait.
<
p>
I’m glad to see that you’ve finally – if belatedly – signed on to what we on the left have been saying for ages about protest rhetoric. Now, kindly clean up your own side’s act, and we’ll be all set.
Let’s call in the National Guard sign police.
My post about the Hyattization of labor
<
p>After the Hyatt rallies, what then for these abandoned and betrayed loyal employees?
<
p>First they came forthe housekeepers – and I did not speak out, because I was not a housekeeper.
<
p>Then they came for the public employee unions, but I don’t have a union job, so I did not speak out.
<
p>Then they outsourced my IT job to India – who was left to speak for me?
<
p>If maximum profit, rather than a fair profit and a social compact that considers all citizens to be entitled to certain inalienable rights – controls – then there will be a gilded elite and neoserfs, ground down equally in a global economy.
<
p>Corporate America has been chipping away at the American dream for a long time. And for the most part the American people have sat on the sidelines and shrugged their shoulders wondering how their voice could be heard.
<
p>We need serious campaign finance reform at the federal level. We need legislators who aren’t spending the majority of their time trying to raise money for their next campaign. They should be doing the people’s will and legislating not fundraising. Get the money out of politics and then maybe we can get serious about fixing what’s wrong in America.
<
p>It should not cost $750,000,000 to run for President. That’s obscene!
I have only read the Times reports on these issues but it seems that both sides are being needlessly intractable. Walker is obviously trying to score a political point by taking away the public sectors ability to bargain collectively, that is certainly something to be alarmed about, and to be fair I say this as a son of an SEIU member and school worker, but it is still alarming. The second point is that Walker is being fiscally irresponsible by refusing to raise taxes and by insisting that this showdown is the best way to save the budget when in reality he would still have over $3 billion dollars worth of holes to plug in. So I agree with that. But the public service unions are also being intractable and are not helping their cause by deserting public school students and robbing them of their education. It makes the teachers look petty and greedy. And the truth is they should contribute far more to their health care and pensions, particularly pensions which are going to be fiscal albatrosses on the necks of every state and municipal government in this coming decade. I blame Walker for starting from the gate with a confrontational attitude and preventing some kind of negotiation to be had, but at the same time the public sector unions do need to accept concessions and reform, just not at the expense of their right to bargain or organize.
<
p>Also Sabutai for a college drop out this guy is fairly successful, and politically devious. By merging the issue of public sector pension reform, which has wide bipartisan support, with a scheme to take away the public sectors right to organize in a way we haven’t seen since the Gilded Age, he is letting a radical right wing policy slip under the radar. Hopefully the public sectors can wise up and start waging a sensible campaign.
<
p>Also with a red house, senate, Governors mansion, and bumping off Feingold WI is definitely no longer a blue state that can be taken for granted.
<
p>Lastly it seems that the progressive minority of the State Senate is using tactics even more procedurally repugnant than the filibuster to stall this legislation, how does that sit with all you filibuster haters out there? It feels a whole lot different when our side benefits doesn’t it?
Not even a Republican governor can raise taxes by fiat.
<
p>But legislators can. And they are hiding instead of voting.
<
p>If a tax hike is obvious and necessary, then why isn’t the legislature voting on it? THEY are the ones with the power to levy, not the Governor.
<
p>They don’t want to offend ‘working men and women’ by voting on pension contributions, they don’t seem to want to raise taxes, and I havn’t heard any reporting that the numbers are fudged and the $3 billion revenue is really there.
<
p>This really is up to the missing representatives of the people.
A little truth:
<
p>
<
p>It’s a rigged crisis to give him cover to strip workers of their rights. “Same state of emergency” kinda thing we see elsewhere. Create and emergency so you can “respond” to it.
<
p>
The filibuster is an extreme action that is used routinely to stop all sorts of legislation, both significant and insignificant. It’s also routinely used stop appointments at all levels of government. It’s a veto that requires no real action or sacrifice by those who use it.
<
p>Skipping town to stop the Senate from meeting is, by it’s very nature, something that can’t be done routinely, it’s something that requires real sacrifice by the participants. Like civil disobedience, it’s something that is only used when the stakes are really high – when the issue represents the core of what values we want to hold dear. If the WI senate jumped ship every time a bill they didn’t like came up, you’d have a point, but they don’t. This bill, however, is so reprehensible that extreme action is required – if that means not being polite and undermining the parliamentary procedure, it’s worth it.
<
p>As to the issue of whether a strike (in the form of a sick out) by public employees is justified in the face of a bill that would essentially take away their right to have a union? Folks probably asked themselves questions like these: is it worth it to take away two, three, or even five days worth of classroom instruction from children in order to protect a fundamental protection for the working class? Will the students of Madison be better off being 5 days behind in fractions, in order to secure the rights of workers to act in concert to better the working class for the next generation?
<
p>For me, that’s the easiest question in the world to answer, as it probably was for the thousands of students who joined their teachers.
negotiate on benefits, etc. The problem is the Governor working to end collective bargaining, which is beyond working on debt-reduction.
<
p>Add another fallacy to your thinking: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation: it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position.
<
p>
<
p>It’s not surprising that “It seems that both sides are being needlessly intractable” to you, since that’s your position on most issues.
You have just informed me that the unions did try to negotiate in good faith and I already mentioned that collective bargaining should never be given up, especially from the public sector. So that puts me squarely to the left of most people I would say, though the fact that I do think unions in these times should make some sacrifice for the greater public good, mainly be matching their public pension and health care contributions to the private sector levels (and perhaps by raising their salaries to private sector levels to compensate and make up for loss in incentives), probably puts me to the right of most people on this blog. In Illinois where I currently live, the state pensions are bloated and are already wiping out the states bond rating. The Governor Quinn approach, working with the unions on a series of agreed upon concessions that respect workers rights while also making important sacrifices, is a lot better than the Governor Walker union busting take no prisoners approach.
<
p>Walker never intended to negotiate, he is also exempting unions that endorsed him in the election, mainly police and fire fighters, who have far more bloated benefits schemes than the teachers and health care workers he demonizes. Again my mom is an SEIU member and a school worker, so my natural sympathies are with the organizers anyway, even more so now. I do apologize for assuming that the teachers unions refused to make concessions, as they have consistently done elsewhere in the country (Chicago, DC, and NYC most notably), it seems that the WI unions were willing to compromise from the get go which makes Walker even worse in my eyes.
Can we recenter this discussion? I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure rhetoric was not invented to debate the merits of rhetoric. I think it was designed to debate issues.
<
p>And Peter P. has raised an important one. Are the Democratic legislators really doing their job by delaying the debate? I’m not convinced that they are. They may be buying free media time, but their job is to represent their constituents. At the moment — and I’d be happy to be wrong about this — it feels to me like they’re ducking a debate because they don’t have the votes to win it.
<
p>
But I’ll continue to point out logical fallacies.
<
p>Accept fallacies as part of the argument, and you’re not confronting valid arguments. Three-quarters of conservative arguments on BMG are fallacious. I think pointing out the particular strategies is useful for the quality of discourse.
Your point taken as well.
<
p>But I’m on a chess kick. Always advance your own strategy.
We’re in full out Republicans are Hitler mode here. Talk about civility.
<
p>
<
p>Public Employee unions should not be allowed to collectively bargain. There is no management, they have owned management at all levels of government by helping management get elected.
That’s the answer? Ban collective bargaining?
That is the root cause for a lot of our problems. Especially in Education. In NYC there are even rooms where they send bad teachers to do nothing but sit in them all day because you can’t fire them.
<
p>In order for a management labor system to work there needs to be two sides, management and labor. In the public employee sector far too often Management, like the DNC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of labor.
<
p>We cannot afford this and it is destroying the nation.
Individual teachers individually negotiating with a locally elected school committee would be more efficient and would save the taxpayers money.
<
p>And that would be good for the kids, too? They’d learn free market principles early on?
<
p>
Teachers being paid what they are individually worth and being promoted based upon it would be cheaper in the long run. We’d be able to fire underperforming teachers without the union getting in the way thus increasing the level of education our students receive. Public employee unions are driving this nation into bankruptcy. We will be insolvent in less than a decade if this continues. I personally of course can’t wait to pay $10 for a bag of chips, and $30 for a cheeseburger at Chilis. Because rampant inflation is about the only way we are going to dig ourselves out of this mess. We are careening towards a third world economy and it is a good reason why is because of the takers in society, the public employee unions.
<
p>This is going to come to a head across the nation. This time the people who pay the bills are going to win. Elections have consequences, the Wisconsin Governor promised he was going to do this and he is. It is what the people voted for.
I know you believe that, so I won’t argue the particulars. I think you know that I disagree.
<
p>This situation is either going to court, or a federal bailout. The governor may pledge to violate contracts and may gain support for doing so, but that doesn’t make that legal. Maybe it is already, in Wisconsin. We’ll see.
<
p>
The feds have no money either. Why isn’t the solution that we cut overinflated government benefits and make due with less. Why is it always more money?
Pesky contracts!
<
p>Come on, EaBo, you know the governor can’t just wish away the existing legal structure. Someone in power signed a deal. It may be morning in America, but we still have to pay the Visa bill for last night’s drinks.
This may end up in the courts. One quick question is this legislation retroactive? or is it going forward. Will current contracts be voided, or will only new ones not be made. If it is the latter then NO CONTRACTS will be violated.
<
p>So that’s your answer, we got a contract to destruction so lets keep going in the same direction?
But a signed and negotiated contract is a signed and negotiated contract, in my perhaps overly simplified view.
So if the law is passed and then the state declares bankruptcy, which Jerry Brown is looking at in California, then the contracts can be voided.
<
p>Sounds like a plan to me.
in the federalism department, not to mention the 5th and 14th amendments.
<
p>There is no reason that MUNICIPAL debt– a lot of these numbers– can’t have this happen already, BTW.
…doesn’t the Constitution prohibit states from infringing on the obligation of a contract?
” Why isn’t the solution that we cut overinflated government benefits”
<
p>So you’ll be looking for all that corporate rescue money to be paid back forthwith, right? A tiny sliver of what we’ve burned in Afghanistan could sole any budget lie Walker could dream up. But you like blowing that kind of change on explosions. Okay…how about corporate welfare? Nope.
<
p>Okay, guess we gotta stick it to the middle class.
I never wanted it to be spent in the first place. Yes end corporate welfare let the markets decide. End farm subsidies. Yes Yes Yes. The government that is best is the government that does the least.
living in Somalia. That’s a libertarian’s paradise.
Libertarians believe in limited government. Somalia has no government. There is a stark difference between anarchy and libertarianism.
There is surely a distinct difference between anarchy and the Libertarian ideal of a government system. But it is not at all clear that the Libertarian ideal is even remotely realistic. I think that he is trying to suggest that the reality might end up closer to Somalia than Libertarians would like to admit.
<
p>I think if you really want to counter this line of argument you need to point to an example of successful Libertarian government somewhere.
<
p>
at its founding was no where like Somalia. That is pretty close to the libertarian ideal.
you’re advocating for a nation where only white men with property can vote, some people can be bought and sold as property, and more than 90 percent of the population lives in rural areas?
<
p>Cause that’s what things were like when the nation was founded.
The legislature cut taxes, and now are arguing that they don’t have enough money to pay the salaries of their employees.
<
p>Why is the GOP solution to cut taxes on the rich and then stick it to the middle class and the poor?
Cutting taxes helps the middle class and the poor. Takers that take from the middle class and the poor for over generous benefits and $100K teachers salaries, as teachers make on average in Milwaukee. I think what the Wisconsin GOP is trying to do is stop the government from stealing from the middle class to pay upper class wages and benefits to government employees.
<
p>In Massachusetts $100K a year may be upper middle class. In Milwaukee with that cost of living it is damn near upper class.
<
p>I thought you guys were reality based around here.
to the rich and crumbs to the middle-class and poor, which cannot hope to afford health insurance or retirement benefits except in that fantasy land you guys have in your heads.
<
p>That said. Your honesty about your position is refreshing. So much better than obsessing about a few signs, the departure of Wisconsin Democrats, or the fact that teachers have the temerity to carry out a labor protest, which some of our conservative lights regard as unseemly.
<
p>Who’s making 100 grand on Georgie’s post? It’s kind of misleading to list average salaries for CPA’s whose average is dragged down by less affluent states.
that strikes me as unlikely.
<
p>i followed ur link. but i didn’t see ABC news blog saying 100k. some random commenter did. was that ur source?
Actual average Milwaukee teacher salary: 41K/yr. Less than half of what EaBo claimed it is. Not really the way to build credibility.
How much red ink do you think there is in the state budgets?
<
p>And why should I, having lived in a state that is at least not grossly negligent about its budget, have to pay to bail out the voters in states that were? Will voters in those states pay extra taxes to make it up in the future?
<
p>That governor has taken an absurdly over-aggressive stance; but the issue– the budget issue– isn’t going anywhere. It might not be a bad thing if the unreasonable parties on both sides bring the issue to a boil.
<
p>Pension systems worked when there were three people working for every retiree. They don’t work when there are three retirees for every worker. The baby boom is retiring, and the arithmetic is not subject to ideological yelping.
Not advocating.
<
p>Over-aggressive might be overly generous. The governor is forcing a crisis.
is a good way to force people to address a problem when it is fixable, rather pretending that there is no problem
I’ve heard that argument before, usually in corporate settings. I don’t think it’s true. You get a crisis response — addressing the short-term problem at the expense of long-term priorities.
<
p>If, in the case of Wisconsin, the long-term priorities are out of whack, then it’s a long-term process to fix them.
<
p>Sorry, CMD. Haste makes waste, especially where government is concerned. Today’s quick fix is tomorrow’s protracted legal battle.
<
p>
They are politicians, and will never even acknowledge a long term priority, or solution. Politicians long term plans are to think about tomorrow’s breakfast before today’s dinner.
<
p>I’d rather see this come to a boil while there is still some ability to maneuver.
I thought it was the illegal war that W started that’s already cost the American taxpayers more than $1 trillion. Where were you and all of your “fiscally conservative” friends when Bush and the GOP majority on Capitol Hill was bloating the federal budget fighting the “War on Terror”?
The answer is that they were whispering “no” up their sleeve so that they could try to say, with a straight face, that “I didn’t support that.”
<
p>Same goes for Medicare Part D
School Committees would not be doing that! It would be the school principals. EaBo, collective bargaining is not going to go away with a wave of a republican wand. Unless the unions agree to concessions there will be massive lay-offs in the public sector very soon unless this economy turns around or revenues increase.
” In NYC there are even rooms where they send bad teachers to do nothing but sit in them all day because you can’t fire them.”
<
p>In NYC there are even rooms where they send teachers they don’t want teaching kids, but can’t fire because they haven’t demonstrated cause.
<
p>For the left, due process is a sacred part of the rule of law. For the right, it’s an annoyance.
Regardless of your nuance against the accusation, the Process, sacred as it is appears to suck wildly.
The teachers sit there for years at a time doing absolutely nothing but collecting a pay check. That is not a lie. It’s not “due process” it’s “no process.”
So it’s “no process” if it’s not fast enough for you. Sorry, you don’t get to redefine inconvenient truths. Here’s a crazy idea — actually fund the process enough to deal with these cases quickly enough. But no, we spend money in order to bray that we’ve cut costs.
<
p>As we see on this thread, few things elicit conservative anger more than working people trying to maintain a good standard of living.
First, he’s not a liar. The truth about the “rubber rooms” is close enough to what he says. Second, the system for firing bad NY teachers is ludicrous and warrants no defense. In fact, defending it is counter-productive.
<
p>The problem with EaBo’s argument is that it is too narrowly focused. Even if everything he believes is correct (and I’m with him on some of it), the expense of public employees is trivial compared to the “expense” (so far as the state, which is all of us citizens, is concerned) of massive tax cuts for corporations and the richest Americans. The latter, as can be seen by the decline in our competitiveness and standard of living visible to all, are starving this country of investment and leaving us open to increasingly fierce competition from countries, like those in Europe and Asia, who are willing to tax and invest.
When Republicans focus on the kind of indefensible crap like this, Democrats talk about indefensible crap given as triubute to Republican interest groups, as vice versa. Both seem to think that this is justification.
from an actual labor argument. It suggests that coddling poor teachers is a major educational problem. It isn’t. Ignoring the fact that these teachers can be removed in their first three years without a problem, it suggests that it is a union-caused problem, instead of a poor solution by an unwieldy that can’t deal with anything very well.
<
p>Seriously, is there any reason to suppose that NYC can handle firing teachers any better than anything else?
These “rubber rooms” exist because the process of disciplining and firing bad teachers is so slow. Why is it so slow? Because Republicans and their ilk refuse to fund education and justice systems adequately enough to perform their function. This is a microcosm of labor debate: a contract is agreed to by all sides, Republicans in government ensure that they can’t honor their contract, and then they blame labor for the situation.
<
p>Once labor and its supporters accept the logic, the debate only comes down to how much do we blame working families for Republican malfeasance.
What I meant and better said.
Back the truck up… are you seriously suggesting we be more like Finland? I thought you were a libertarian, not a socialist!
Finland, Finland, Finland
The country where I want to be
Pony trekking or camping
Or just watching TV
Finland, Finland, Finland
It’s the country for me
<
p>You’re so near to Russia
So far from Japan
Quite a long way from Cairo
Lots of miles from Vietnam
<
p>… Monty Python
<
p>I couldn’t resist
<
p>The facts are pretty interesting though.
There is a problem that comes with treating a job as a property interest.
“I am taking away your rights. And, then I am calling out the National Guard to shut you the hell up.”
<
p>Nothing like a well-regualted militia to take care of those pesky first amendment rights.
<
p>Governor Walker, Wisconsin Rangers, is just dusting off the old playbook:
<
p>* Ludlow Massacre
<
p>* Battle of the Overpass
<
p>* Memorial Day Massacre
<
p>What, the Pinkertons are busy these days?
<
p>Fake up a little crisis and send in the militia to restore order. So civil. You, the Governator, and the Koch Brothers could at least be a little more original.
Looks like the time has come to start living with the dire consequences of decades of democrats and republicans siring a government incapable of living within its means.
<
p>Everyone bring your budgetary sacred pigs to the town square! They’re getting slaughtered today at 5! First up unions! Later today, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid anddddd the Defense budget!
The current government — Democrats and Republicans alike — is in the process of dismantling Fannie and Freddie. Their misleadingly calm summary is “Getting the government out of the mortgage industry.”
<
p>The result will be most Americans will not be able to own their own homes. There will be no 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. None. Getting any mortgage will require a 20% down payment. We are blowing up yet another foundation-stone of post-WWII America, in the relentless quest of those at the very top to return us to the Gilded Age.
<
p>We have simultaneously concentrated wealth and power in a tiny handful of our population, to an extent not seen since the Gilded Age, and also trained our masses to be passive, infantile, ignorant, and slothful.
<
p>We are in the process of dismantling the “American Dream.”
<
p>Don’t like “collective bargaining”? It’s time to remind our overseers that we turned to collective bargaining to avoid bloody conflicts in the street. If we remove collective bargaining, that violence will return — at a level unheard of since the early 20th century.
<
p>I don’t know if Americans have the courage, energy, and passion to fight those who have stripped our wealth from us with the fervor we see in Egypt and now Bahrain. It seems clear enough that our wealthiest corporatist overseers have concluded that we will not. They are banking on popular passivity, sloth, and apathy winning out.
<
p>Will Americans allow ourselves to be plundered and pillaged? Only time will tell.
<
p>U.S. is somewhat exceptional in the 30 year fix rate market. Far less common in other countries.
<
p>Seems that there’s an argument that if you can’t come up with 10% – 20% equity, then maybe you can’t afford to own a home.
<
p>If you can’t come up with $15K or so to close, what do you do after buying the house and there’s an emergency that involves significant cash to repair. Homeownership isn’t for everyone and loose money in the recent bubble proved it.
We are creating an America where only a tiny handful of the very wealthy can afford to own their own home.
<
p>Where do you get the idea that “$15K or so” will be a 20% down payment on a home in Massachusetts today? If you know of someplace to buy a habitable home for $75K, please share it with us. The median price of the most affordable neighborhoods in Middlesex county is nearly twice that, at $148,450.
<
p>Your proposal would set the entry price for home ownership at $30K or more. As I observed down-thread, a 20% down payment for a median-price home in Billerica (hardly a prestigious upper-class haven) is $59,700. How many families have save that kind of money?
<
p>The American economy provided home ownership for a HUGE portion of American working and middle class families for several generations. It does not do so today.
Given the frequency with which Americans move today, one might not expect a person’s first home to be of median value. The 25th percentile might be a much more reasonable target. Now, given the way housing prices work, that might not be much less expensive than the median, but it might be a few tens of thousands, of which 20% might be a few twos of thousands. Not insignificant.
<
p>Here’s the other bit though. If 20% is required, the price of homes in some price ranges will necessarily fall. Good for inexpensive home buyers and inexpensive home property tax payers, not good for inexpensive home sellers. It might also encourage new home builders of starter homes to figure out how to make them less expensive — townhomes instead of single family, one car garage instead of two car, etc. As it turns out, all things being equal, smaller homes are greener.
<
p>Of course, if mortgage insurance is priced properly, paying down less than 20% becomes quite expensive, and folks would be less inclined to do it even if it is permissible.
<
p>
<
p>As for the 30 year fixed, it may be rare but it’s the right thing to do. The fixed part anyway. The idea that you could work the same job and find yourself unable to afford your house payment in three years is reprehensible. Sure other bills may go up, but the mortgage is the big bill. It needs predictability. Is 30 the right number? I don’t know. It’s not the number with which I went.
<
p>Home ownership in US isn’t so different from other industrialized nations, even though those other nations don’t have similar access to 30 year mortgages. So, your hyperbole is petty and meaningless, lacking any reflection of reality.
<
p>
<
p>First, I didn’t say 20%, I said 10% to 20% down. That’s not unreasonable. So, $15K to buy a house at $125,000. Also, not unreasonable. Probably if fewer people hand bought houses they couldn’t afford, there would not have been a housing bubble and bust. Just a hunch.
<
p>And second, Massachusetts housing is quite expensive in part because of the State’s restrictive building policies. You got a policy that makes houses costly, then lament no one can afford them?!
<
p>So, let’s maintain an entity that guarantees 30 year mortgages. Otherwise, banks won’t offer them. Then, because so many more people can afford houses and the government back stops the mortgage then maybe Wall Street will also buy them, and maybe repackage them into some kinds of dirivative and investors will buy them. What could possibly go wrong?
<
p>
You seem to have missed the point of my post.
<
p>When the government is out of the mortgage business, the minimum downpayment is likely to be 20% — not 10%, not 5%, not 0%.
<
p>If it ever sinks in to the American public that folks who, like you, desire an economy where only the very wealthy can afford to own their own home (like much of Europe), then I suspect you’ll find that the American public will be much less likely to support your policies.
I hardly missed your point. Your point is clear, just not substantiated. You claim that absent FNMA that minimum down payment will be 20% and only wealthy will afford homes.
<
p>I pointed out, and you didn’t explain, why home ownership in post-industrial countries is similar to that of US yet those countries aren’t in the mortgage business and 30 year loans are uncommon.
<
p>So, question. If the absence of government subsidy doesn’t harm broad home ownership in Europe, why would it harm it in US?
Right Peter I believe you had to put a substantial amount down to get a mortgage. 0% down is what helped to collapse home values these last 5 years. Maybe some folks should not own a home. It’s called being responsible.
for keeping Ameriquest going!
You also probably got a 15 or 20 year mortgage. Presumably you did not qualify for an FHA or VA loan (both had significantly lower down payment requirements). Those 0%, 5%, and 10% mortgages — together with 30-year terms — were a response to the explosion in housing prices of the mid to late eighties.
<
p>A more interesting metric is to compare the down payment required for a median home against the median annual or monthly take-home pay for a given region. Do the same for the monthly nut.
<
p>In 1979, my salary of $60K looked pretty darned good. My wife at the time was earning about $40K, as I recall. The price of our first house, in Billerica, was $47,500. Our down payment of $9,500 was about 9.5% of our gross annual income.
<
p>According to the most current trulia heat map, the median sales price for a home in Billerica in 2010 was $298,500 (never mind that we bought a Victorian with attached barn, not a condo). A 20% down payment on that home is $59,700. In order for that down payment on that median-priced home to be as affordable for my wife and me today as it was in 1979, my wife and I together would have have to earn $628,421 per year. We don’t earn that much.
<
p>What portion of working and middle class families, in 2011, can afford a 20% down payment on a home at current median prices?
Because you are way smarter than I am. I shall give it a go. To get to 20% today it means waiting longer and sacrificing more and I know that is not in vogue today. I tend to think the Trulia numbers trend on the high side. Maybe we need to re-think home ownership. The recent run up in prices was great for those that bought in the 90s not so great for those that bought in last 10 years. You need a place to live, for some renting is way to go. For others it may be worth the sacrifice to own your own home, not as an investment but as a place to live. Maybe 30 years down the road you sell and make a small capital gain.
<
p>I don’t have the numbers but I think that someone that bought a property in 1928 probably was underwater till 1953. What we are going thru now is similiar to the Great Depression and we need to lower our expectations.
and other towns around MA, and with salaries as low as you contend… how are there any homes being sold? I mean, you would think housing prices would be in the $75K range and existing homeowners “giving” them away.
<
p>But I find the market is actually very stable. SUre prices have fallen over the last few years but not nearly as much as you would expect Tom. You said yourself that Trulia says the median sales price for Billerica was $298.5K in 2010… how is that happening? Is there a significant population in MA who CAN afford the 20% down and the wages to support the $298K mortgage?
<
p>Also depends where in the US you live…
<
p>
You asked:
<
p>1. How are any homes being sold?
2. How is the median price for homes in Billerica at $298.5K?
3. Is there a significant population in MA who CAN afford the 20% downpayment and wages?
<
p>I suggest that the answers lie in the demographics of home buyers and home sellers — I suspect that we’re seeing an increase in age of home buyers, and I suspect that we’re seeing a downturn in the number of young families buying homes.
<
p>I bought my first house in 1979, when my wife and I were 27 and our joint income was about $100K. In the economy of that period, we were fortunate but not unique. How many 27 year old married couples can afford a comparable home today?
<
p>We are playing a game of musical chairs, and our young people are the ones being squeezed out.
I bought m,y first house in 1984 for $129K and our combined annual salary was $65K. You were rich from my standpoint making $100K in 1979 (evil rich person, hmm…).
<
p>The market will bear what it can. If “older” people are buying homes and paying those prices, then that is exactly what has happened in the past. The market will determine the price and who buys.
<
p>Believe me, I want people to be able to buy homes. But I also believe we do no favors for anyone by allowing people to buy homes who can’t afford it. All we do is tease a bunch of people into thinking they can afford it and the first bump int he road, they lose their house, their credit and their self-esteem (in many cases).
<
p>All the “Euro-lovers” out there who are always pointing to how wonderful they do things seem silent concerning how “little” home ownership happens there. My German friends say owning a home is simply not an option for many in Germany and they have accepted apartment living as the norm.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>Tom, do you want home ownership in the US to return to when you first bought your home (1979 – ~65%) and the Clinton years which are so fondly remembered on BMG. If so, maybe this change in mortgage borrowing will make it happen!
I want an economy where most Americans can afford to own their own homes. I want young people to have a realistic opportunity to attend college and then buy a home they can afford.
You said… “I want an economy where most Americans can afford to own their own homes. I want young people to have a realistic opportunity to attend college and then buy a home they can afford.”
<
p>But… back in 1996 we had 16.7 million college enrollees while now we have 21 million. Back then we had 65% of Americans owning their home while now we have 67% (down a few points from 69% due to all the foreclosures).
<
p>Sounds like our kids have a better chance of college education and buying a house now than they have ever had. Am I wrong?
<
p>
You asked “Am I wrong?”
<
p>Yes, I think so — you ignore the soaring debt burden of those college attendees.
<
p>I suggest you compare the debt burden of the average college graduate of, say, 1974 (when I graduated) to today. I note that our “progressive” president is also proposing to raise interest rates on federal education loans. So the college class of, say, 2014 will have to save those 20% down payments while paying off student loans with escalating interest rates.
<
p>On the trajectory we are on now, the classes of 2014-2020 will be graduating with crushing student loan burdens, entering an economy with no jobs for them, and facing a housing market that requires a down payment comparable to a year’s salary (for those that DO find jobs).
<
p>Welcome to Republican Reality.
Why Tom are student’s debt increasing? Does the current Wisconsin situation suddenly make sense?
<
p>Why have college tuitions soared. I graduated in the same era as you and I don’t remember the teachers being substandard, the buildings falling down… what has caused colleges (public and private) costs to explode? Maybe this increase from 16.7 million to 21 million students have tilted the supply/demand curve? Maybe pensions like Billy Bulger’s $240,000 annual pension, as well as so many MA college admin’s pensions. I won’t bore you with the details but go to this link and sort the state pensions by amount. The first page of 25 are all MA college teachers with the following leading the pack…
<
p>Pappas Md Arthur Univ. Of Mass Medical School $232,718.40
Rossini Md Aldo Univ. Of Mass Medical School $202,417.92
Dave, As a off again on again union member I do agree that unions have provided many with good wages and working conditions. I think the question these days is in the public sector. Can benefits be sustained when the taxpayers are losing benefits at the same time. I believe the answer is NO. Unless corresponding tax increases or other spending cuts occur. Many of my union brothers have accepted increases in the cost of health care and downgraded pensions for future workers because we have no choice. If we strike we lose big. Public employees have got to accept the fact that there is no money, unless we want to increase taxes and that is a different discusion than your post Dave.
While almost everyone is having a very hard time, we should take a look at the top 10%, 5%, and 1% slivers of the populace whose real inflation-adjusted wealth has mushroomed over the last 30 years.
<
p>No sensible person advocates complete equality but the extreme we have now cannot sustain a real democracy with an informed citizenry. We need a serious discussion about how to turn this around for both public and private employees.
“Can benefits be sustained when the taxpayers are losing benefits at the same time. I believe the answer is NO.”
<
p>Not in a situation where we live in a country that pays more for defense than the next 20 countries combined. Not in a situation where we spend more for worse health care than any industrialized country. Not when we spend money on endless, needless wars.
<
p>I guess I just don’t understand why the solution is to make public service such an unattractive option for skilled professionals.
I don’t think the solution is to make public service unattractive. Somewhere in the last 15 years or so the line was crossed between public and private. It used to be the benefits attracted people to public service because the salaries were low. Now the public sector benefits and salaries trend to be better than the private sector. A lot of private sector workers are resentful of that.
<
p>Democrats or Republicans can’t seem to find anyone with the guts to cut the defense budget. Look at Rep Tierney crying over the GE engines. Disgraceful! If you don’t cut GE then you cut Pratt and Whitney…oh wait we will build both engines so no one gets left out. Reminds me of giving the soccer trophies to all the kids.
It appears that the ruckus is not so much about money as class war. Wisconsin’s fiscal bureau estimates the state ending the year in the black by over $100Million. To be sure, governments should be fiscally accountable but this seems to be more about people control than cost control.
<
p>Calling out the National Guard? (I picture the Yankee Division’s mounted charge into the rioters of Scollay Square, sabers slashing.) Have American governments come to that?
<
p>Terror by the government for the benefit of the oligarchs?
<
p>Governments are force. They may use the force to protect the rights of free people or use it to take those rights away. We’ve seen more of the latter recently. The same politicians that praised the Egyptian people’s struggle for freedom were sweeping the American Patriot Act extension through Congress. And who could forget this marvel of hypocrisy? Whose side are they on? Yours?
<
p>Time to concentrate on what kind of future we can expect and take appropriate action. It is naive to think that politicians of either party represent you. They vote for the money. Whatever happens in Wisconsin isn’t the end. Law, liberty will be at risk elsewhere. What protection do the people have against the oligarchy?
<
p>The gallows is before us.
<
p>
From HLN’s ‘marvel of hypocricy’ link:
All he did was stand up and turn his back. Hilary ignored his being beaten and dragged off for doing it. Yay, freedom! How far into police state do we have to go before we can call it that without being ridiculed?
As the country collapses more into the police state we can expect more brutality directed at citizens. We’ve become the road kill of the New World Order. Little wonder the
Internet kill switch“Internet freedom switch” is so important to the government. They don’t want the people to know the depths of corruption, barbarism to which our government has sunk. I find myself wondering how much control the politicians actually have vs. the Departments under oligarch control.<
p>Nothing against Hilary Clinton, but her job was to give the speech. She may have had no real conception of what the words were about. I’ve not met any politician from any party that wasn’t more spin than substance. Nothing in the way of philosophy. Elections are more business than service.
<
p>“Our enemies…never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. –GW Bush
An interesting thread: from the beloved tactic of claiming that liberals said it too, we find quick confirmation on this thread that what Walker really seeks is not an increase in health care or pension contributions but an end to collective bargaining for public employees and especially teachers period.
Way to go with that freedom agenda!
<
p>It’s also revealing that Walker was so quick to start talking about the National Guard.
<
p>The one issue that is not getting much coverage is the extraordinary behavior of Wisconsin law enforcement–apparently some unions are more equal than other unions in the Upper Midwest.
Part of me wants to cheer their escape from the state to deny quorum, but I generally believe that bills deserve an up or down vote. If the GOP has their majorities they should be able to pursue their agenda and suffer the consequences next election.
Koch brothers funded Walker’s election and attack all collective bargaining.
<
p>THEY don’t want unions, THEY want to rule without any push back. Eliminating unions will not liberate anyone; eliminating unions will allow the Kochtopus to squeeze you and your children dry.
Doesn’t the state have some ways to fire these teachers who call in sick but end up protesting? I hope the politicans in Wisconsin listen to the what the people want… and I mean ALL the people of Wisconsin and not just the union workers who would have to pay for some benefits which are not in line witht he rest of the country.
<
p>Where were the protests when the public was upset over California city manager making nearly $800,000 dollars annually, the police chief of the 38,000 resident Town making over $450,000 per year and each city council member raking in $100,000 for their part time jobs?
<
p>What’s the issue here…
<
p>
<
p>Ohhh, how terrible!
<
p>Let the people, not just the unruly tea party state workers protestors with their VERY UNCIVIL Hitler signs, but all the 5 million plus Wisconsin resident’s will be followed. Ignore the protests, fire anyone breaking the rules and replace with new untenured teachers.
it’s about the collective bargaining. Educate yourself:
<
p>From the Wisconsin State Journal:
<
p>
<
p>Your desire to see unions busted notwithstanding, this nation’s labor force is not going to forego the ability to negotiate wages and benefits any time soon. Look for more protests like this around the nation. If you think that firing the union labor force is going to move this nation forward–even if that were possible–you’re delusional.
<
p>only refers to 11.9% of workers in the US in 2010.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>This would absolutely move this nation forward. Of course there would be collateral damage in losing the good workers but at this point in time it seems like the only way to “save the leg is cut off the foot”. Until unions stop defending their bad, lazy and nonproductive workers/teachers and until they stop bargaining for excessive benefits (pensions, accumulated sick time, inexpensive insurance…), they will be painted with a broad brush and attacked. Politicians and unions need to stop defending their bad players and throw them under the bus!
<
p>The plane is losing altitude and they need to throw out any extra baggage or they’ll crash.
firefighters, air traffic controllers, aviation mechanics, federal employees, state employees, teachers, and countless other professionals, the nation would move improve?
<
p>Okay, thanks. I’m all set. Your argument is too silly to take seriously.
<
p>
…refers to ALL people who work for a living and arguably includes those who could potentially work for a living but are unemployed. It does NOT only refer to union membership.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment that the salary and benefits of public workers should be appropriate. However, I do believe that the total compensation which has already been agreed upon should be upheld by all parties, and that future compensations should be negotiated.
<
p>That negotiation should be in a fair environment, not one where the state has eliminated the worker’s ability to negotiate over parts of the contract. Let both sides negotiate over all facets of any upcoming contract, and if they can’t find an agreement, then deal with it. Don’t take away their ability to negotiate.
<
p>In the mean time, I have no problem with the government enforcing any punishment on their union employees which was agreed to in their contract. If their sick days require notes, then require the notes. Etc.
The only people I think should not be allowed to strike are emergency services – fire, police, medical. Even so the whole point of such actions, and as far as I can tell this protest is not really a strike anyway, is to show how valuable these people are to society. When the message comes down that certain people’s jobs are too important for them to strike I say fine, then TREAT them like they are too important to be allowed to strike!
benefits down for workers. It’s a position to argue, I guess, and it usually comes from one of two perspectives:
<
p>1. In the lower-middle class, the position is driven by jealousy and resentment. Union workers should come down to their level because “it’s fair.” Of course, that’s bullshit. As Gandhi said, “An eye for eye makes the whole world blind.” And while the lower-middle class tries to pull down the unionized middle-class, they fail to realize that the only situation they’ve improved is that of the rich.
<
p>The success of the GOP rests on the fact that many people will vote, not in their best interests, but for the sense of identity it provides. The lower-middle class will vote Republican and identify with the rich whose wealth or power they can’t hope to share.A good portion of the GOP’s poorer voters vote against their own interests to preserve their identity.
<
p>2. The upper-middle class worries less about the peanuts made by most union members and rejects unions from a management point of view: workers must feel nervous because it makes them more pliable and productive. Without the threat of punishment, workers will do nothing. At least in education, that’s crap.
<
p>Conservatives have convinced the electorate people that they should only see themselves as the managers of government, and while they should certainly do so, they should also consider that they are also its beneficiaries of the very programs the managerial mindset would destroy.
…on WHY the lower middle class identifies with the rich rather than their unionized brothers and sisters with whom they probably share more similarities in terms of station in life?
lower middle class people.
<
p>We’re talking psychology here, so …
<
p>George Lakoff offers the general idea when he says that conservatives identify with a strict father model of government while liberals identify with a nutrant mother model. I haven’t read all of Lakoff’s book, I’m not that big a fan, but it’s easy enough to see the model of conservative thinking.
<
p>I like the labels: YOYO and WITT.
<
p>YOYO’s are basically conservative; they believe that “you’re on you’re own.” You have to take care of yourself; government shouldn’t do it. A lot of the working-class people I know–not necessarily in the lower-middle class economically–are independent contractors. They see themselves as having had to rely on their own hard work without help. They think everyone should have to do it the same way. I have a friend my mother’s age who thinks like this.
<
p>WITT’s, like you and I, believe “we’re in this together”; Government is a way that we work together for the Commonwealth. We want to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves; we want to ameliorate the negative side effects of capitalism. Working-class men in particular dislike the idea that they haven’t succeeded on their own and the idea that others may not be able to succeed on their own.
<
p>In our times, the Right is intensely emotional. Those emotions are usually fear, anger, and resentment: the FoxNews recipe. The accompanying narratives are not hard to understand. In fact, a lot of popular and television involves the same narrative emotions.
<
p>The Left is more rational. Rational doesn’t mean having the right answer, but it definitely means its hard to have a narrative. Which would you rather do: solve a math problem or watch Die Hard?
<
p>Obviously, there’s a lot more to politics than this.