U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2013, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Dangling from a mooses antlers
7,311 posts, read 12,211,191 times
Reputation: 6138

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
Ex, you're rambling without foundation. Homo sapiens are social animals ... socialism is an extensional abstraction of a natural structure for humans.

Capitalism is a cancerous growth rooted in a very very small percentage of rogue humanity. It is a system based on self-interest of individuals which is symptomatic of sociopathy. Sociopathy occurs in just a few percent of the general population -- but is found in very high percentages of corporate management and ownership. They are developing and perpetuating sociopathic conditioning for the general population. Supporting studies are easily found and denials are absent. All those "benefits" of capitalism you cite exist apart from capitalism: hospital wings, universities, employment ... where on earth do you get the notion that those are exclusively products of capitalism?

Jobs provided by capitalism occur without regard to the value of the products and services produced. What good, for instance, comes of a career in the tobacco industry? People work and get paid for poisoning and killing others, including addicting youth. But that's okay because they have a job?

What a person does -- and gets paid for -- has to have value for individual and species alike.

We should all live in a society where everyone earns the same and shares all that they have. That is what you are proposing isn't it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2013, 09:41 PM
 
7,150 posts, read 8,811,008 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffnecked View Post
We should all live in a society where everyone earns the same and shares all that they have. That is what you are proposing isn't it?
Where do you find me saying that? Or is your assumption based on your complete lack of understanding of anthropology, history, culture, and governmental theory, and especially of socialism? Perhaps you are educated on these subjects at the University of AM Radio?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 10:15 PM
 
Location: Conejo Valley, CA
12,476 posts, read 17,460,649 times
Reputation: 4321
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
As to economies of scale, yes there's some truth to the notion that larger systems can be run more efficiently per capita ... but that doesn't account for the degree of efficiency that California runs on ... California has a full 25% fewer public employees to population ratio than the national state average. That is a huge variation..
It doesn't? Why is that? California is the largest state in the union, its much larger than the vast majority of states, so why wouldn't economies of scale explain the difference?

In any case, California has one of the highest tax burdens in the union, so if it can't manage to maintain a sufficient public work force with one of the highest tax burdens something is seriously going wrong. I don't know, perhaps state politicians made all sorts of unrealistic pension promises.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2013, 10:43 PM
 
7,281 posts, read 8,887,852 times
Reputation: 11420
Pensions in government are not the problem, the problem is mismanagement of resources like taxes.

I've said this elsewhere:

Blaming pensions for economic problems is like blaming the car because you ran out of gas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2013, 06:06 AM
 
Location: SW MO
23,605 posts, read 31,514,657 times
Reputation: 29081
Default And there's more!

Here's the latest: Dan Walters: Bankruptcy zeroes in on pensions - Capitol and California - The Sacramento Bee

And more: http://calpensions.com/2013/07/22/wi...stockton-deal/

And even more: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...te-pension-law

And more again: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-...orm-goes-court

Will this never end?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2013, 08:06 AM
 
25,630 posts, read 30,467,612 times
Reputation: 23112
Not until SCOTUS, unless pension systems come to the table. As I called it several years ago this will continue to be a cascade of events across the county. Having been involved in many untold number of contract renegotiations over the last 30 years, a compromise is almost always better than what you'll get in court or mediation. Not to mention the money savings in legal fees.

States Rights vs Federal Law, pensions last gasp.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2013, 08:16 AM
 
7,150 posts, read 8,811,008 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Not until SCOTUS, unless pension systems come to the table. As I called it several years ago this will continue to be a cascade of events across the county. Having been involved in many untold number of contract renegotiations over the last 30 years, a compromise is almost always better than what you'll get in court or mediation. Not to mention the money savings in legal fees.

States Rights vs Federal Law, pensions last gasp.
?? ?? Mediations are negotiated compromises ... did you mean "arbitrations"? ... which animals are binding ... My experience with mediations / negotiated compromises in court cases agrees with your assessment: stay OUT of court! Especially jury trials (!!!) Putting your interests in the hands of 6 or 12 men/women from the general public is worse than gambling your net worth in Vegas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2013, 08:29 AM
 
7,150 posts, read 8,811,008 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id View Post
It doesn't? Why is that? California is the largest state in the union, its much larger than the vast majority of states, so why wouldn't economies of scale explain the difference?

In any case, California has one of the highest tax burdens in the union, so if it can't manage to maintain a sufficient public work force with one of the highest tax burdens something is seriously going wrong. I don't know, perhaps state politicians made all sorts of unrealistic pension promises.....
A 25% "economy of scale" against the national average is unbelievably huge, user ... and you know it ... but how could we continue the entertainment without you being obtuse, eh?

Regardless, what it shows at the very least is that California is not out of line -- which is the implication of Sporty's list and Expat's protestations. With other states being all over the board in relative number of personnel-to-population management, there is no real benchmark to use to analyze economy of scale anyway.

The other reality overlooked here is that the number of agencies in any state's government is an entirely meaningless concern. The only legitimate concern is the number of employees, and their cost, to run the ship on a worthy cost / benefits basis. Here, the attack against California would be that it's payrolls are higher than average for other states -- not the number of agencies or even personnel.

Now let the argument alter course to why California pays higher than average wages. But, right off the bat, be sure to establish what the difference really is. Being highest when the difference is a few percent isn't a very meaningful position -- especially when the regional COL is factored, as it must be.

California is not out of line with it's personnel or budget. It is at least relatively normal -- or somewhat more efficient, whatever the reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2013, 08:52 AM
 
25,630 posts, read 30,467,612 times
Reputation: 23112
Quote:
Originally Posted by nullgeo View Post
?? ?? Mediations are negotiated compromises ... did you mean "arbitrations"? ... which animals are binding ... My experience with mediations / negotiated compromises in court cases agrees with your assessment: stay OUT of court! Especially jury trials (!!!) Putting your interests in the hands of 6 or 12 men/women from the general public is worse than gambling your net worth in Vegas.
Mediation is ALWAYS preferable to Arbitration which is preferable to Litigation. Yes meant Arbitration.

Like I always tell my lawyer and CPA, I hate you now give me a kiss.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2013, 08:55 AM
 
7,150 posts, read 8,811,008 times
Reputation: 3806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Mediation is ALWAYS preferable to Arbitration which is preferable to Litigation.
Roger that Dawg
(See, we can agree on some things ... now, about the purpose of government, where I am right ... and you ....)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:21 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top