Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on October 26, 2018, 09:04:01 AM
-
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/michael-barone-will-burly-men-stop-the-democrats-blue-wave
Standard article about the split between college-educated white women vs. non-college educated white men.*
However, a point that I've seen before struck me:
President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus package was heavily tilted toward college women. As my American Enterprise Institute colleague Christina Hoff Summers wrote in The Weekly Standard in June 2009, the Obama economic team’s original idea was to finance infrastructure, construction, and manufacturing, sectors which lost 3 million jobs in 2007-09.
But feminist groups objected. Obama economist Christina Romer, Summers wrote, recalled that her first email “was from a women’s group saying, ‘We don’t want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.’” So Obama ditched his “macho” stimulus plan for one stimulating creation of jobs in government and especially in education and healthcare, which had gained 588,000 jobs during the 2007-09 recession. Forget the bridge-building and electric grid modernization; let’s subsidize more administrators, facilitators, liaisons.
The results were disappointing. Sputtering growth nudged up toward 3 percent and down toward zero, which is what it was during the last quarter of the Obama administration. Administrators outnumbered teachers in higher education but added little value; government payrolls were sheltered from cuts, temporarily. There was little recovery in blue-collar jobs, and millions of men lingered on the disability rolls. Life-expectancy fell among downscale groups amid a rise in opioid dependency and deaths.
Barone here is laying out the actual numbers that created the Trump presidency. The Obama administration was poised to (attempt to) help the people who had suffered the most from the economic downturn. I would argue it would not be as effective as spurring the economy, but, taking the Keynesian or NeoKeynsian view, this is what the government ought to do during downturns.
But feminist groups didn't care that men had suffered the most. Men don't deserve help, so women (especially white, college-educated women) who had fared pretty well during the downturn, were the recipients of most of the jobs from the "stimulus."
Obama could have been heralded as the next FDR by creating some TVA or WPA type effect for the "working class." With the "seen vs. unseen" problem, the workers would never know if they would have been better off some other way, but there would be a lot of "downtrodden" families who saw Obama as putting them back on their feet and "fixing" the economy.
But white, college-educated women had to be appeased. So Obama left the downtrodden where they were and told them they needed to learn to code because those jobs were never coming back.
And now we have Trump, who rightly saw this dissatisfaction and spoke to it. Further, he seems to be fighting specifically for these "left-behinds" (you can argue over the effects of his policies, but the target is pretty clear.)
So Democrats have ensured that their coalition will rely more and more on the vote of white, college-educated women and the Republican Party will have a much larger tent.
I'm going to have to re-examine my classification of the two parties as the Stupid Party and the Evil Party. Looks like it's the Stupid Party and the Stupid and Evil Party.
*An aside: it seems the Democrat policy has been to create both more college educated white women and fewer college educated men... which actually fits in with the entirety of my point about Democrats' identity politics killing the Democrats.
-
First of all, infrastructure would have been the right place to spend some money (if that's your idea of how to help). Bridge-building and electric grid modernization are going to give more bang for the buck regardless of who's doing the work and what "kind of job" it is. So as far as that point - I don't really disagree.
That being said...
they needed to learn to code because those jobs were never coming back.
Yes! It doesn't have to be coding but learn a new skill, do something to make yourself employable in an industry that's growing. A lot of those lost jobs aren't coming back and the sooner people wake up to that the better their lives will go. Those industries that gained jobs (especially healthcare) - it makes a lot of sense to retrain for those because they're growing. I don't give a **** if you think it's a girly job, if you want a paycheck ya might just have to do it! Trump may be able to stop the bleeding in some of those industries but the landscape is changing.
Out-of-work miners cite many reasons beyond faith in Trump policy for their reluctance to train for new industries, according to Reuters interviews with more than a dozen former and prospective coal workers, career counselors and local economic development officials. They say mining pays well; other industries are unfamiliar; and there’s no income during training and no guarantee of a job afterward.
:mad:
Bootstraps buttercup. The world is moving fast, jobs are being automated and you've just gotta stay ahead. That's how it is now. I get that the coal industry would have been doing better without over-regulation but we've all got to deal with larger circumstances out of our control affecting our employment.
I've been laid off plenty times, got new skills and got different jobs. I've moved to cities because that's where the jobs are. I've got no pity for people who stay in economically depressed rural areas and especially those who refuse to retrain. I know many people from where I grew up who have no job and very little hope for one yet they won't leave. It's a beautiful rural area and I would love to still live there but there's just no jobs to support it.
-
First of all, infrastructure would have been the right place to spend some money (if that's your idea of how to help). Bridge-building and electric grid modernization are going to give more bang for the buck regardless of who's doing the work and what "kind of job" it is. So as far as that point - I don't really disagree.
That being said...
Yes! It doesn't have to be coding but learn a new skill, do something to make yourself employable in an industry that's growing. A lot of those lost jobs aren't coming back and the sooner people wake up to that the better their lives will go. Those industries that gained jobs (especially healthcare) - it makes a lot of sense to retrain for those because they're growing. I don't give a **** if you think it's a girly job, if you want a paycheck ya might just have to do it! Trump may be able to stop the bleeding in some of those industries but the landscape is changing.
:mad:
Bootstraps buttercup. The world is moving fast, jobs are being automated and you've just gotta stay ahead. That's how it is now. I get that the coal industry would have been doing better without over-regulation but we've all got to deal with larger circumstances out of our control affecting our employment.
I've been laid off plenty times, got new skills and got different jobs. I've moved to cities because that's where the jobs are. I've got no pity for people who stay in economically depressed rural areas and especially those who refuse to retrain. I know many people from where I grew up who have no job and very little hope for one yet they won't leave. It's a beautiful rural area and I would love to still live there but there's just no jobs to support it.
That's good advice for people facing adverse circumstances.
Now do black people.
If you weren't catching my point, the people to whom you are telling to "suck it up, buttercup" aren't going to take kindly to someone telling them that, yes, some other people are working to destroy your way of life, but there's nothing you can do about it, so just accept it and leave everything you've ever known.
Oh, and the move is likely to make you categorically worse off and unlikely to achieve anything ever approaching your previous standard of living, even in the long term.
Additionally, when at least some of the causes of the misery is demonstrably the result of political policies* by individuals who openly state that they hate you, your message of "it sucks, just deal with it, though" is likely to get them looking elsewhere for assistance.
Which is how they got Trump.
*Demonstrated by the fact that at least some of those jobs ARE coming back under a different political regime. That's pretty difficult to claim that it was just technological shifts.
-
Now do black people.
???
I don't believe my post ever mentioned race so.... should I just quote the whole thing again for you?
the people to whom you are telling to "suck it up, buttercup" aren't going to take kindly to someone telling them that
Clearly many people enjoy being told what they want to hear, that doesn't make it the truth. Should I call them something clever like snowflakes?
Oh, and the move is likely to make you categorically worse off and unlikely to achieve anything ever approaching your previous standard of living, even in the long term.
Then they either moved to the wrong place or neglected that training I mentioned. "Lingering on the disability rolls" is not (or shouldn't be) a viable option. It's one thing to bemoan what over-regulation has done to an industry and vote\argue against that in whatever form you can. It's another to stubbornly refuse the assistance that is provided because you don't want to train for a "woman's job". The reality is that many industries that used to provide good paying jobs are automating and increasing per-worker productivity - even if the industry does really well it doesn't mean everyone is getting hired back to their old jobs. They need to find other jobs, like programming that automation.
-
Were coal-miners refusing to train to do "women's work"? Is that something I missed?
Personally, I'd find it difficult to go into healthcare, as things medical just make my skin crawl.
-
Were coal-miners refusing to train to do "women's work"? Is that something I missed?
Personally, I'd find it difficult to go into healthcare, as things medical just make my skin crawl.
Would you juggle baby geese?
-
Would you juggle baby geese?
Yes. Yes, I would do that. Where can I train to do that job?
-
Were coal-miners refusing to train to do "women's work"? Is that something I missed?
No, the coal miners in the article I linked were refusing any retraining and instead placing their faith in Trump to bring back their old jobs.
The original topic was about the women's work, apparently Obama managed to "create jobs" that only white women could do! :O
I understand it's a lot to keep track of, especially for those of us who are only smart enough to do grunt work.
-
Were coal-miners refusing to train to do "women's work"? Is that something I missed?
Personally, I'd find it difficult to go into healthcare, as things medical just make my skin crawl.
Would pick products at a fulfillment center? Learn to fix robotic equipment, learn a trade like electrician or plumbing? If you lost everything would you move 500 or more miles away from your current location because there is a job that will support you and your household?
Those are a lot thing people flat out refuse to do.
-
People get peaved when it is government that they perceive as eliminating their job or raising their health care costs.
They bitch instead of adapt.
Or they vote for someone who does what he can to fix the situation.
-
^^^^^^^THIS.
Plus there are other reasons why people don't want to pack up and move. Like having most of your family near you and the support that can provide (like daycare for young kids), and the sense of community.
-
^^^^^^^THIS.
Plus there are other reasons why people don't want to pack up and move. Like having most of your family near you and the support that can provide (like daycare for young kids), and the sense of community.
...but if you can't make ends meet, why? Are you going to depend upon family and the government assistance to provide for your basic needs?
-
Not only them, but the local religious and other groups there form a very strong support network. I know, I see it when I go visit family in Southern Illinois. The community bands together to weather the various storms, both natural and man-made.
Besides, China wants to buy our coal. Lots of it. We're shipping a lot to them these days. Mines are re=opening.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-coal/u-s-coal-miners-worry-trump-china-trade-dispute-could-hit-exports-idUSKBN1JL281
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/us-coal-exports-are-surging-under-trump-but-it-probably-wont-last.html
-
Plus there are other reasons why people don't want to pack up and move. Like having most of your family near you and the support that can provide (like daycare for young kids), and the sense of community.
Certainly there are reasons to stay, the question is whether they outweigh reasons to move. I would like to live closer to my retired parents and have them help provide daycare. However, that wouldn't be enough to make up for two good paying jobs (me full time and the wife part time) that simply aren't available where I grew up and they still live. Not only did we easily find those jobs in a larger city, if something changes we both have a better chance of finding new jobs, and for that matter education/training for new jobs down the line. The calculation might work out differently for some people but if the good jobs aren't there, it's pretty hard to make up for that.
-
Then they either moved to the wrong place or neglected that training I mentioned. "Lingering on the disability rolls" is not (or shouldn't be) a viable option. It's one thing to bemoan what over-regulation has done to an industry and vote\argue against that in whatever form you can. It's another to stubbornly refuse the assistance that is provided because you don't want to train for a "woman's job". The reality is that many industries that used to provide good paying jobs are automating and increasing per-worker productivity - even if the industry does really well it doesn't mean everyone is getting hired back to their old jobs. They need to find other jobs, like programming that automation.
Funny, again, how arguments like that only go one way.
When women are under-represented in a job (that is seen as a good job), it's the fault of men.
When men are under-represented in a job (whatever it is seen as), it's the fault of men.
Men and women BOTH have preferences in the type of things they like to do. On average, women prefer dealing with people (as crazy as that is), and men prefer dealing with things. For the same people who make the above arguments to scream to high heaven about the underrepresentation of women at, say, Google, and the also attack men for not wanting to do "women's work" is part of the reason the left got Trump.
Yet again, this is another instance where a specific cohort of people is being singled out for attacks and/or ridicule while others in very similar situations are pandered to and coddled.
My point in this is not that your advice may be helpful (though it clearly missed just how much it costs to follow that advice), but that people who hear that advice given to them while others are getting MUCH different treatment are not going to react well to it.
We have a problem with hypocrisy in this country, and such blatant hypocritical treatment of people based on their identity alone is creating the backlash we've seen.
-
People aren't going to "react well" to a lot of realities that they will eventually need to face: pre-existing conditions, social security, taxes & debt, etc. The answer isn't to tell them it will all be fine, everything will be covered and if they like their doctor they can keep their doctor.
The answer to identity politics isn't to coddle and give preference to your own tribe, it's to reject the premise. Obama tried to create jobs for women, I say a job is a job when you need one.
-
I say a job is a job when you need one.
X2, a lot of people can't figure that out.
-
A global economy of rootless corporations that continually seeks out and exploits the cheapest labor world wide will create a different job market than a nationalist economy that seeks to retain industries that are crucial to the nations security.
Is “the economy” for the people or are the people for “the economy”?
-
People aren't going to "react well" to a lot of realities that they will eventually need to face: pre-existing conditions, social security, taxes & debt, etc. The answer isn't to tell them it will all be fine, everything will be covered and if they like their doctor they can keep their doctor.
The answer to identity politics isn't to coddle and give preference to your own tribe, it's to reject the premise. Obama tried to create jobs for women, I say a job is a job when you need one.
On that you are completely wrong.
"No one wants war! The answer isn't to arm yourself and defend yourself, but to reject the premise of war!"
You aren't going to get less identity politics by allowing your political opponents to practice it to their own benefit and the detriment of your "identity" and completely disarm yourself in the process.
The way to get less identity politics is to make it in the best interest of everyone to stop playing identity politics. Otherwise you get rather foolish statements like the one I italicized.
I'm sure you didn't think it was foolish, so let me translate so that you can hear what you are saying from the ears of its intended audience.
"Yes, you suffered the worst from the event*, and the administration recognized that. Nevertheless, because an identity group that hates you is far more effective at lobbying for their interests to the detriment of your own, you need to just suck it up and accept that you're going to have much worse jobs than what would have actually helped you. Oh, and you're going to have to make significant sacrifices to get training for these much worse jobs that are really designed to appeal to college educated women."
Yes, I know you didn't intend that statement, but that's what will be heard by the audience. And it is NOT a way to get less identity politics. Effectively you've just said that identity politics works for other people, and a clearly identifiable group that was targeted by identity politics needs to just take it.
I've read a large number of people who just don't understand that. (Kevin Williamson being among the worst offenders.)
You can argue all you want that it is good advice, but when people are faced with a reality that identity politics rewards those who play it- you're not going to get less identity politics.
*We'll leave aside who is responsible for the collapse.
-
A global economy of rootless corporations that continually seeks out and exploits the cheapest labor world wide will create a different job market than a nationalist economy that seeks to retain industries that are crucial to the nations security.
Is “the economy” for the people or are the people for “the economy”?
Makes the mind hurt trying to rationalize and comprehend that. *expletive deleted*ck the party loyalty, we really need to take back the government for the citizens, vote every incumbent out of office.
-
Makes the mind hurt trying to rationalize and comprehend that. *expletive deleted*ck the party loyalty, we really need to take back the government for the citizens, vote every incumbent out of office.
Vote for nationalists over globalists.
Vote for proponents of States rights over Federal control.
Vote for proponents of county and city rights over State control.
The right needs to systematically take over or create new institutions and platforms.
I think the Roman Catholic Church has a doctrine or philosophy that is called “subsidiarity” that dovetails nicely with a federalism devolving more authority down to the states.
-
The way to get less identity politics is to make it in the best interest of everyone to stop playing identity politics.
That's really vague. How is that done?
Rejecting the premise of identity politics isn't pretending it doesn't exist, it's arguing that it shouldn't and demonstrating that it doesn't need to.
-
The right needs to systematically take over or create new institutions and platforms.
Not all of the Right, most of them can pound sand.
-
Not all of the Right, most of them can pound sand.
The left/progressives are detached from reality.
I’ll take anyone on the right over anyone who identifies as a progressive.
Even mostly worthless Republicans like Flake, Collins and Murkowski have some utility until the Senate has a more favorable rightist majority.
The right has to win elections and Trump has showed how. The alternatives are too terrible to consider.
-
That's really vague. How is that done?
Rejecting the premise of identity politics isn't pretending it doesn't exist, it's arguing that it shouldn't and demonstrating that it doesn't need to.
Identity politics is reality.
If you fight against identity politics you lose because you always lose fighting against reality.
The right needs to win the identity politics battle.
What is the American identity?
Heritage Americans are mostly white ethnicities but native Americans, Mexicans have been here all along and Africans from very early on also.
The right needs a brand that can peel off the minority conservatives from the minority Heritage Americans.
If only the right had someone that was a master of branding.
-
That's really vague. How is that done?
Rejecting the premise of identity politics isn't pretending it doesn't exist, it's arguing that it shouldn't and demonstrating that it doesn't need to.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I wish we could just convince people that identity politics is a sure loser*, but apparently that ship has sailed. What is likely going to be necessary is to play the game such that it starts costing the other side too.
Until those who have played identity politics for 50-60 years start losing, they aren't going to give up their weapons.
In the long-term, it would be nice if we could train our children up that they are part of one large American identity, so that they could more easily reject appeals based on their other traits.
Our education system has been doing the exact opposite of that, for about 30-40 years.
If you truly do want less identity politics, it would be wise to root out the leftist control of education that has been doing everything it can to promote it.
*It's a zero-sum game. In fact, it's probably a negative-sum game. However, the people that play it win, at the cost of the people that don't. So they'll keep playing it.
-
So what identity politics did Trump engage in? Just curious to see how you define it.
I guess it can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't because your entire campaign. I think politicians go to that so they don't have to talk about real issues or what they actually think (they know their voters won't like it). And yes, unfortunately it does work with a lot of people.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz_V4lRdtjo
Gil Fulbright for Senate
-
So what identity politics did Trump engage in? Just curious to see how you define it.
I guess it can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't because your entire campaign. I think politicians go to that so they don't have to talk about real issues or what they actually think (they know their voters won't like it). And yes, unfortunately it does work with a lot of people.
“I’m a Nationalist”
He is going to reclame the word nationalist from the Orwellian leftists who’ve perverted it to mean white nationalist.
He is offering an umbrella identity that will supersede the continually fracturing identities the left offers. The left is melting down in their perpetual intersectional identity crises.
I was mostly comfortable with Trump because early on he seemed very paleo con to me. I like paleo cons, I think they got a bad rap due to their stating obvious realities. Like flooding the country with third worlders might not be good or hollowing out our industrial base is a bad idea.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rouDIzhgVcY
Generic Presidential Campaign Ad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4u_FJHWkTo
A Campaign Ad for the Most Electable Candidate Ever
I thought these were pretty good. Not quite the same identity politics, but pretty much the same thing when it comes to the way some voters seem to choose a candidate.
A local radio show was playing a set of campaign commercials for candidates Whiteman and Blackman with each going back and forth with positive and negative ads. It is pretty funny, but I can't find it.
-
People are tribal.
People are sheep.
People identify with people that are like them.
You can rail against it all you like but that’s the reality.
-
“I’m a Nationalist”
He is going to reclame the word nationalist from the Orwellian leftists who’ve perverted it to mean white nationalist.
He is offering an umbrella identity that will supersede the continually fracturing identities the left offers. The left is melting down in their perpetual intersectional identity crises.
I was mostly comfortable with Trump because early on he seemed very paleo con to me. I like paleo cons, I think they got a bad rap due to their stating obvious realities. Like flooding the country with third worlders might not be good or hollowing out our industrial base is a bad idea.
The analysis I saw a while back showed that Trump pretty much chose the top 3 issues polled of the Republican voter base. Immigration was high up there if not #1. Trump had the guts to take it on and face the resultant media criticism. It really showed that guys like Jeb! Bush were just weak. The way I saw it, he was just championing some basic conservative ideas without apologizing and refusing to backtrack when questioned. It was refreshing. I don't keep up with the neo-con/paleo-con labels.
I almost think many of the Democrat candidates are trying to do the same thing to some extent by being more open and direct about their issues, but I think leftist issues aren't as popular as they would like. We will see about that.
-
People are tribal.
People are sheep.
People identify with people that are like them.
You can rail against it all you like but that’s the reality.
So which breed of sheep are you?
-
Makes the mind hurt trying to rationalize and comprehend that. *expletive deleted*ck the party loyalty, we really need to take back the government for the citizens, vote every incumbent out of office.
So what you are saying is that I should vote out my current R representative, who has been fairly libertarian, and vote for the Democrat, who is promises to more federal giveaways and free *expletive deleted*it to "downtrodden" people. He also advocates for ending ICE and opening the border to any and all comers (which helps keeps wages down).
My 3 county board members are all R's, same with the chairman of the county board. That have done a good job in holding down the budget, keeping property taxes low (compared to the increases in the rest of Illinois, specifically Cook County) and actually reducing the number of units of local government.
The D's running all want to expand county "services" for the "downtrodden", increase the number of "refugees" we accept, and help provide for them. Spend more "in the classrooms" (When we already have some of the highest paid teachers and administrators in the country), along with other proposals that will increase spending and thereby force and increase in taxes, as by the state constitution, the budgets have to be balanced.
I'm not seeing how voting out my incumbent R's and putting in D's helps "take back the government".
-
So which breed of sheep are you?
I try and view everything through some basic Christian principles and presuppositions. I’m one of Jesus sheep.
The problem is not getting tricked. We are very easy to trick, even by our own self rationalizations.
Hence the importance of the old ways, traditions and being “conservative”. Particularly regarding big changes where we don’t even know what we don’t know regarding unintended consequences.
The old ways, traditions etc have withstood the test of time for a reason. I’m not saying never change. I am saying don’t discount that which has endured millennia cavalierly under the pretence of “progress”.
-
So what you are saying is that I should vote out my current R representative, who has been fairly libertarian, and vote for the Democrat, who is promises to more federal giveaways and free *expletive deleted*it to "downtrodden" people. He also advocates for ending ICE and opening the border to any and all comers (which helps keeps wages down).
My 3 county board members are all R's, same with the chairman of the county board. That have done a good job in holding down the budget, keeping property taxes low (compared to the increases in the rest of Illinois, specifically Cook County) and actually reducing the number of units of local government.
The D's running all want to expand county "services" for the "downtrodden", increase the number of "refugees" we accept, and help provide for them. Spend more "in the classrooms" (When we already have some of the highest paid teachers and administrators in the country), along with other proposals that will increase spending and thereby force and increase in taxes, as by the state constitution, the budgets have to be balanced.
I'm not seeing how voting out my incumbent R's and putting in D's helps "take back the government".
Do what you want, but I'd vote against them first in the primary.
-
Do what you want, but I'd vote against them first in the primary.
Let’s say everyone followed your strategy.
What makes you think all the new politicians swept into office wouldn’t be lined up at the same lobbyists trough where current politicians feed?
Who consolidates power under your strategy? The permanent unelected bureaucracy aka deep state, otherwise known as the swamp.
But I’m ok with term limits. I also think we need to look at government bureaucracies and figure out a way of limiting their “terms” also.
There seems to be some confusion in some quarters regarding who exists for whom. Many in government think that the USA is our government and our government is the USA.
Somehow the fact that the people are the nation has escaped them.
Term limits for elected officials and .gov employees would allow a transition period and wouldn’t throw the whole system into chaos or gridlock.
-
So what identity politics did Trump engage in? Just curious to see how you define it.
I guess it can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't because your entire campaign. I think politicians go to that so they don't have to talk about real issues or what they actually think (they know their voters won't like it). And yes, unfortunately it does work with a lot of people.
You'll see in another post, I have indicated that it was a small foray into identity politics. Ryan was the one with the claim. (Others have phrased it as the Democrats shouting identity politics for 50 years and the right has finally responded with I... den... tity....??? and the left went nuts.)
I would say that Trump's specific targeting of the concerns of the white working class were a type of identity politics. (Very light type, but a type.)
Trump is savvy enough that he realizes that the concerns of the white working class mostly coincide with the concerns of the black working class and is attempting to target them for peeling from the Democrat coalition of identities, so despite the claims of his opponents, I'd say it's not a racial identity that he is appealing to.
It's my greatest hope of his presidency that he is able to get the black vote to be maybe 70/30 for Dems instead of 90/10 or 95/5.
-
But I’m ok with term limits. I also think we need to look at government bureaucracies and figure out a way of limiting their “terms” also.
IMHO, this is a far more realistic near-term goal than voting incumbents out of office or getting third party candidates into the mainstream. It in itself forces incumbents out. I think "no one gets more than two terms" would be fair. It gives people you like some time to do good, and those you don't a limit on how much stuff they can do contrary to your principles.
-
Do what you want, but I'd vote against them first in the primary.
Usually there are no challengers to incumbents. As there weren't this time.
-
Let’s say everyone followed your strategy. Term limits for elected officials and .gov employees would allow a transition period and wouldn’t throw the whole system into chaos or gridlock.
I'm tired of career politicians, especially those beholden to campaign donors/lobbyists (and party) and not their constituents of "territory" that they represent. Need to represent all their constituents, regardless of party.
Term limits, that would be better, at least for elected officials. I can see middle and senior leadership positions in .gov employees being set to term limits. Rank and file employees for most positions would be chaos since it can take several years to be effective in a position and the policies that affect the job.
-
Usually there are no challengers to incumbents. As there weren't this time.
That is a problem, all elected officials should be challenged at primary/caucus time.
-
I'm tired of career politicians, especially those beholden to campaign donors/lobbyists (and party) and not their constituents of "territory" that they represent. Need to represent all their constituents, regardless of party.
IIRC, elected officials swear an oath to support the Constitution of the US and the State, and to faithfully discharge their duties of that office.
Doesn't say anything about doing what the constituents want. Their duty is to the Constitution.
Term limits, that would be better, at least for elected officials. I can see middle and senior leadership positions in .gov employees being set to term limits. Rank and file employees for most positions would be chaos since it can take several years to be effective in a position and the policies that affect the job.
So as long as no one touches your riceball, everyone else should be fired periodically, regardless. Perhaps we should fire ALL .gov employees every few years as your reasons for retaining the "rank and file" can also be used as a reason to retain the senior and middle managers, along with the elected officials.
-
So as long as no one touches your riceball, everyone else should be fired periodically, regardless. Perhaps we should fire ALL .gov employees every few years as your reasons for retaining the "rank and file" can also be used as a reason to retain the senior and middle managers, along with the elected officials.
Given the results of a so-called "professional" federal workforce, I'm all for returning to the spoils system. They may be biased, but at least I've got a chance of them being biased my way under the spoils system, instead of 95% against.1
1: I have documentation for that: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/302817-government-workers-shun-trump-give-big-money-to-clinton-campaign
-
elected officials swear an oath to support the Constitution of the US and the State, and to faithfully discharge their duties of that office.
Doesn't say anything about doing what the constituents want.
For many positions, I would expect the duties to include representing their constituents. Especially if the title is something like representative. =)
-
IIRC, elected officials swear an oath to support the Constitution of the US and the State, and to faithfully discharge their duties of that office.
Doesn't say anything about doing what the constituents want. Their duty is to the Constitution.
So as long as no one touches your riceball, everyone else should be fired periodically, regardless. Perhaps we should fire ALL .gov employees every few years as your reasons for retaining the "rank and file" can also be used as a reason to retain the senior and middle managers, along with the elected officials.
Usually management was put in place by an administration.
So your saying shitt can all teachers, firemen, police, military, etc government employees after a certain period of time? Look at all the money that can be saved by not allowing any military members getting to retirement age, no pension, no VA hospitals, etc.
-
So which breed of sheep are you?
I'm the guy on the right.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jhecotouradventures.com%2Fimages%2Fgeneral%2FBighorn-Rut-3-of-7-768x512.jpg&hash=344e0191b28eefd60f7d91208132aa1e64d6b6c6)
-
So your saying shitt can all teachers, firemen, police, military, etc government employees after a certain period of time?
Well, maybe not important people, but pesticide investigators at a minimum.
If you're for term limits and always voting against incumbents because of possible corruption and rent seeking, why would you not have a similar view for non-elected, entrenched bureaucrats?
-
A global economy of rootless corporations that continually seeks out and exploits the cheapest labor world wide will create a different job market than a nationalist economy that seeks to retain industries that are crucial to the nations security.
Is “the economy” for the people or are the people for “the economy”?
This
-
Usually management was put in place by an administration.
So your saying shitt can all teachers, firemen, police, military, etc government employees after a certain period of time? Look at all the money that can be saved by not allowing any military members getting to retirement age, no pension, no VA hospitals, etc.
Teachers, yep. Fire 'em after xx years. Cops also. That way you are always getting in new blood. And no firemen past age 50. No unions either; not for teachers or firemen or police. Employment is at the pleasure of the locally elected officials. Don't F-up and let the wrong house burn or shoot a innocent bystander that costs the city $$$$ to settle or defend.
Military is already age/years of service limited and has an "Up or Out" policy. (usually takes an Act of Congress to serve more than 30 years.)
-
I'm tired of career politicians, especially those beholden to campaign donors/lobbyists (and party) and not their constituents of "territory" that they represent. Need to represent all their constituents, regardless of party.
Term limits, that would be better, at least for elected officials. I can see middle and senior leadership positions in .gov employees being set to term limits. Rank and file employees for most positions would be chaos since it can take several years to be effective in a position and the policies that affect the job.
Preferential voting would be much, mich more effective. It means you have to be palatable to much more voters and can’t win on polarising by giving some everything and screwing over the remaining 50 percent of the vote
-
Teachers, yep. Fire 'em after xx years. Cops also. That way you are always getting in new blood. And no firemen past age 50. No unions either; not for teachers or firemen or police. Employment is at the pleasure of the locally elected officials. Don't F-up and let the wrong house burn or shoot a innocent bystander that costs the city $$$$ to settle or defend.
Military is already age/years of service limited and has an "Up or Out" policy. (usually takes an Act of Congress to serve more than 30 years.)
At will employment in public service is proven to result in lots of cousins and friends of elected officials having public jobs.
Those unions are why the fire services actually work.
-
Teachers, yep. Fire 'em after xx years. Cops also. That way you are always getting in new blood. And no firemen past age 50. No unions either; not for teachers or firemen or police. Employment is at the pleasure of the locally elected officials. Don't F-up and let the wrong house burn or shoot a innocent bystander that costs the city $$$$ to settle or defend.
Military is already age/years of service limited and has an "Up or Out" policy. (usually takes an Act of Congress to serve more than 30 years.)
If you can serve in the military for x numbers of years, other non elected public workers should be given the same amount of years.
-
If you can serve in the military for x numbers of years, other non elected public workers should be given the same amount of years.
Okay, as long as every 3-4 years those non-elected public workers have to pack-up and move to another state.
-
Okay, as long as every 3-4 years those non-elected public workers have to pack-up and move to another state.
Sure but moving expenses are covered and lifetime pension/medical if they work 20+ years.
-
Sure but moving expenses are covered and lifetime pension/medical if they work 20+ years.
To a certain extent, and pension is 50% of max earnings and they have to use the VA or get Tri-Care.
-
At will employment in public service is proven to result in lots of cousins and friends of elected officials having public jobs.
Those unions are why the fire services actually work.
Most public employee unions exist to filter .gov money to D politicians.
-
To a certain extent, and pension is 50% of max earnings and they have to use the VA or get Tri-Care.
Still better than what they currently get.
-
Still better than what they currently get.
Hahahahahahaha.
Teachers here make MORE when they retire, then when they are working*. A friend of mine recently retired as a firefighter after 30 years, at 85% salary.
And they are eligible for Medicare, since they do pay the Medicare tax, so they only have to buy a supplement.
-
Hahahahahahaha.
Teachers here make MORE when they retire, then when they are working*. A friend of mine recently retired as a firefighter after 30 years, at 85% salary.
And they are eligible for Medicare, since they do pay the Medicare tax, so they only have to buy a supplement.
Sounds like a state of Illinois problem.
Best you can get in Iowa is 65% of weighted average of your 5 best earning years, but that takes 35 years of service to get that. Currently the employee pays 6.9% of their salary into it and the employing agency pays 7.45% into the fund. Takes 7 years to get vested and there is no COL increase during retirement. You can't withdraw until years of service plus age equals 88, 60 years old and 20 years or vested and 65 years of age. Each year of service up to 30 years is worth 2% of your 5 best years average, 1% for each year of service from 31-35 years of service.
-
It has been a while since I have reviewed it, but my wife's projected retirement benefit (from 33 years of teaching if she retires at age 65) will not be paying more than she is making as an active worker. The plus side, however, is that Washington state is one of the better states in having their state employee retirement system fully funded. I want to say it is something like 90% plus. Which puts it in contrast to some other states that are looking at default, slashing benefits or raising taxes significantly to cover pensions.
My Dad worked at Boeing for 40 years as an aeronautical engineer. This was back in the day when Boeing offered great pensions. He retired in 1990 at age 65, and he said between his Boeing pension and Social Security, he was taking home more than when he was still working, what with the lower taxes and no more paycheck deductions.
-
Were coal-miners refusing to train to do "women's work"? Is that something I missed?
No, the coal miners in the article I linked were refusing any retraining and instead placing their faith in Trump to bring back their old jobs.
The original topic was about the women's work, apparently Obama managed to "create jobs" that only white women could do! :O
I understand it's a lot to keep track of, especially for those of us who are only smart enough to do grunt work.
The original topic was about women refusing to do "men's work." Well, not exactly, but you managed to twist the meaning of the story almost 180 degrees around. Unlike your fabricated smear against the coal-miners, and their fragile male egos, the article recounted how feminist groups objected to the government jobs and infrastructure program actually creating jobs in infrastructure, and demanded that the jobs be more in line with women's tastes and training.
Also, the original topic was not about simple retraining, to gain new job skills. It was about a split between those with four-year degrees in education and healthcare, vs those seeking construction jobs.