Also, those employment figures tend to include direct contractors like utility providers and other assorted individuals. If we include contractors subcontractors and indirect subcontractors, the number becomes frighteningly huge.
In a sense, GE, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, 3M, Xe Services (Blackwater) and a handful of others are "part-time government employees" just to name the more popular and well-known.
Technically anyone who receives or processes food stamps is also a government employee since the retailer is "micro-contracting" the distribution of food.
James, I sounded like you just there. I'm a little scared.
great thing about the internet is that it has gotten a lot harder to strategically withhold information in order to promote your agenda - the trouble is that people still too often take what they hear at face value, there's an awful lot of noise you need to sift through, and you have ask the right questions in order to get the real story.
anyway - in terms of the jobs bill... I don't think decreasing payroll tax is going to do much of anything. If you have enough work you'd hire people (probably regardless), if you don't have enough work you'd probably pocket that money - oops - I mean "invest" it in your business. how many firms do you know that are "understaffed" right now?
Donna, I was grouping all types of insurance: liability, workers comp, health, unemployment, I put them all together as the % of my earnings that goes for future terrible things that are bound to happen. Not sure how my rent would compare to an architecture firm. It would be about the same. An architecture firm would be smaller sized, but a nicer space.
The payroll tax decrease is not something that the business owner gets, it is the employees. There is no savings to the business owner under the payroll tax deduction.
there there:"My biggest expenses as a small business:
Rent (Commercial lease),Payroll,Taxes and Insurance"
Does not compute. How much do you pay for the office?? Or do you only hire migrant workers to do your CAD...
A single full time employee would dwarf the rent. And if they are part time only, it doesn't sound like you would need much office space. Or everyone's an intern. Rafa Vinoly, is that you? If so, then airplane lease and expenses would also go before payroll.
i heard a story this morning on the radio regarding this rising party in Germany called the Pirate Party. Sounded like it was basically a party run by special algorithms interpretations of arguments made on Pirate Party sanctioned web forums... personally, i think it sounds great... i think its time to admit that human beings are incapable of governing themselves, we should hand the reigns off to computers
Walker , Scott (i) GOP 1,332,692 53%
Barrett , Tom Dem 1,160,245 46%
Trivedi , Hari Ind 14,332 1%
Yeah if you call 53%-46% squeaking out a victory than I can't wait for Romney to squeak out a victory over Obama. Wasn't to long ago the media was calling Obama's 6 point victory over McCain a "Blow Out!"
romney can go suck donkey dick if he thinks he is winning shit. even if that were to happen, Democrats are going to own Republicans in '14.
oh, in case anyone thought that victory was for walker and those gay hating, women hating, immigrant hating conservative shit eaters, it wasn't, it was against the recall itself.
cocksucking mother effers.
oh, and romney and the rest of you chicken-hawk clowns can go fuck cattle.
walker may have won, but the republicans lost the state senate, so the level of damage they can now cause has gone down considerably. that's what i meant by squeaked out a victory.
romney can go suck donkey dick if he thinks he is winning shit. even if that were to happen, Democrats are going to own Republicans in '14.
oh, in case anyone thought that victory was for walker and those gay hating, women hating, immigrant hating conservative shit eaters, it wasn't, it was against the recall itself.
cocksucking mother effers.
oh, and romney and the rest of you chicken-hawk clowns can go fuck cattle.
bullshit - he supposedly balanced the budget by "closing tax loopholes" (which is just another term for raising taxes) - increasing various fees (typical republican trick to make up budget shortfalls without the public noticing), and deferred payment on the state's loans until 2030 - well after he's gone from office.
Wisconsin's books are going to look really scary in 20 years unless they can raise some serious revenue to offset all that interest. Hey - at least walker isn't going to look like the bad guy because by that time people won't remember what he did.
anyway - dems simply couldn't put up a strong enough candidate - no one ever really wins as the vote against someone. Walker is damaged goods - and if doesn't make some concessions over the next couple years he's a one-term governor.
Yeah 'cause Obama didn't win because everyone was pissed at Bush for Bailing out the banks. That vote was as much against Bush as it was for Obama.
And the Republicans lost the senate in Wisconsin for about 5 months. There's another election in November and if you look at who's up for election it will swing back to the Republicans.
Look at Wisconsin's books three years ago. That was scary. Look at Illinois now. That is scary.
What I really wonder is why the 35% of union households voted for Walker?
maybe because since 'Great Scott!' Walker became pro-choice and made public employee union dues voluntary about 50% of union members have opted out of the due-dues.
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel ...management.
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.
A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
Is that because you feel good about watching other people pained? Have you been the underdog here so long that you've developed that serious of an inferiority complex? That's not good.
Or is it because you think it's a good thing that elections are bought? You think it's good that democracy is ended in America (I don't share that opinion, but I just want to understand which part of that video you felt was worth sharing)?
Or are you sympathizing with the left because you've given up your right wing tendencies?
i dont understand how you can be a liberal, in terms of personal liberty, and still support unions which force employees to pay dues and become members as preconditions to a job.
a. unions don't force anyone to pay dues. there are choices.
b. many public/federal unions allow members to opt out (my mother in law does this). she still benefited when her union garnered better vacation and health insurance, but she can't participate in union activities (elections, meetings, etc.). those in private unions can object to paying union dues and have them reduced or eliminated (my tea baggin cousin does this).
c. 35% of WI households w/ union members voted against barrett because the average american is a hair smarter than a box of rocks. apparently they don't mind losing what few workers rights they have left, and they're fine with losing a seat at the bargaining table. this asinine mentality has been growing over the last 30 years as conservatives have driven wedges fairly successfully, while at the same time eroding worker's rights. these folks don't see the long term implications of their 'thinking', if you can call it that.
"i dont understand how you can be a liberal, in terms of personal liberty, and still support unions which force employees to pay dues and become members as preconditions to a job."
Willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of son. Surely you must know at least a wee bit about history of industrial age labor and its struggles. That the unions have a potential of becoming as corrupt as the thing they stood up against is a forgone conclusion. blah blah blah talking to deaf ears grows old after awhile.
Yeah 'cause Obama didn't win because everyone was pissed at Bush for Bailing out the banks. That vote was as much against Bush as it was for Obama.
WTF? Obama won because a lot of people were genuinely excited about him (for various reasons) and he was running against what appeared to be a mentally unstable old dude whose running mate was a box of rocks with lipstick. plus, the bulk of TARP policies were enactedimmediately AFTER THE ELECTION, and no one really understood where all the money went until shortly after Obama took office.
Rusty, you and I both know that history is written by the victors. The unions and Progressives won the fight over organizing labor in the 19th and early 20th century, and they're the ones who wrote the history of it. So, it's a bit disingenuous to refer to the propaganda of the victorious party as evidence of the necessity of that party's victory.
I don't understand how a conservative, who wants less government, wants the government to interfere in union activities.
I don't understand how a republican, who values and wants to reward hard work, would want to take away collective bargaining rights and depress wages and benefits of those doing the work.
ah, but it's perfectly ok for corporations to be running on finite gov't resources? for all the f*cking pathetic whining about unions i hear from douchebigot conservatives, they seem to be pretty f*cking (and quite hypocritically) silent regarding oil subsidies, no bid contracts, and just general auditing/oversight - especially within the private sector of defense and health care that's reimbursed by 'gov't resources'. which both affect more of the national bottom line then workers trying to make sure their lives and wages aren't cut so CEO buttmunch can buy a third mega yacht.
christ, you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. you can be 'against' something, and still game the system to rake oodles of money off it before your corporate-owned pawns wreck it (like subsidized healthcare). what conservatives proclaim to believe, and what they pull off policy wise are usually two completely separate things. that's what's so f*cking pathetic and annoying about conservatives, they're hypocrites on the highest order.
ed conard's a dunce who rails for less taxes and gov't oversight, but only for the innovative/well-off. i am not railing against rich people, just corporate leeches and hypocrites.
I don't understand how a conservative, who wants less government, wants the government to interfere in union activities.
(Great) Scott Walker 'interfered' with government unions, not private unions
I don't understand how a republican, who values and wants to reward hard work, would want to take away collective bargaining rights and depress wages and benefits of those doing the work.
again, Mr. Walker rectified a horrible conflict of interest between public employee (government) unions and elected officials. what happened in wisconsin, and what still needs to be fixed in california, is that public employee unions fund almost exclusively democratic candidates (literally 99.8% of public employee political funding went to democrats in california in recent years) who then in turn reward those union workers with unsustainable pensions, health care benifits, and wages. Walker raised what public employee union members have to pay for health care and their pensions to a level that is still below what the private sector pays. but it's a good start. let's make this a model for the country.
99.8% of public employee political funding did NOT go to dems. as i stated before, you can opt out of unions in CA, and many do. or they have their funds diverted from political activities. furthermore, many public employees in CA are conservative, and bankroll repubs. stop with the inane lies, they don't help.
i stand corrected. i was thinking of the california teacher's association:
Cannily, the CTA also funds a wide array of liberal causes unrelated to education, with the goal of spreading around enough cash to prevent dissent from the Left. Among these causes: implementing a single-payer health-care system in California, blocking photo-identification requirements for voters, and limiting restraints on the government’s power of eminent domain. The CTA was the single biggest financial opponent of another Proposition 8, the controversial 2008 proposal to ban gay marriage, ponying up $1.3 million to fight an initiative that eventually won 52.2 percent of the vote. The union has also become the biggest donor to the California Democratic Party. From 2003 to 2012, the CTA spent nearly $102 million on political contributions; 0.08 percent of that money went to Republicans.
now i voted against prop 8 back in '08. i think gay people should be able to get married and that both obama and romney are wrong when they say it should be left up to the states (if you file a joint tax return, that's a federal issue). but why is a teacher's union giving money to oppose this bill? what the hell does that have to do with k-12 education?
you do realize meg whitman bankrolled her attempt to buy the governor's seat (in one year, mind you) to the tune of $142 million dollars, right?!? sure makes the teacher's union look like small fries (1/14 the expenditures/year!).
the problem isn't union money, it's money in general for elections, get it completely out. both union and corporate. make the race actually on merit, and not buying your way, lying your way, conniving your way into office. shit, third party candidates would even have a legitimate chance. onoz!
The Implosion of the Democrat Party (hang on while I get some champagne...)
Also, those employment figures tend to include direct contractors like utility providers and other assorted individuals. If we include contractors subcontractors and indirect subcontractors, the number becomes frighteningly huge.
In a sense, GE, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, 3M, Xe Services (Blackwater) and a handful of others are "part-time government employees" just to name the more popular and well-known.
Technically anyone who receives or processes food stamps is also a government employee since the retailer is "micro-contracting" the distribution of food.
James, I sounded like you just there. I'm a little scared.
great thing about the internet is that it has gotten a lot harder to strategically withhold information in order to promote your agenda - the trouble is that people still too often take what they hear at face value, there's an awful lot of noise you need to sift through, and you have ask the right questions in order to get the real story.
anyway - in terms of the jobs bill... I don't think decreasing payroll tax is going to do much of anything. If you have enough work you'd hire people (probably regardless), if you don't have enough work you'd probably pocket that money - oops - I mean "invest" it in your business. how many firms do you know that are "understaffed" right now?
Donna, I was grouping all types of insurance: liability, workers comp, health, unemployment, I put them all together as the % of my earnings that goes for future terrible things that are bound to happen. Not sure how my rent would compare to an architecture firm. It would be about the same. An architecture firm would be smaller sized, but a nicer space.
The payroll tax decrease is not something that the business owner gets, it is the employees. There is no savings to the business owner under the payroll tax deduction.
^ Nevermind, the new bill expands on the current payroll tax deduction. I didn't know that.
there there:"My biggest expenses as a small business:
Rent (Commercial lease),Payroll,Taxes and Insurance"
Does not compute. How much do you pay for the office?? Or do you only hire migrant workers to do your CAD...
A single full time employee would dwarf the rent. And if they are part time only, it doesn't sound like you would need much office space. Or everyone's an intern. Rafa Vinoly, is that you? If so, then airplane lease and expenses would also go before payroll.
Part time employees. It's not an architecture firm, sorry, I should have said that.
"Part time employees"
Ah! So no need to pay their health insurance. Smaaart.
Scott Walker wins Wisconsin recall election
yep, just what i was praying for; conservative overreach, thanks for that FRac!
huge victory for all of wisconsin
well done and mucho congratulations guys!
6.7% unemployment, a deficit turned to surplus, and walker soundly re-elected
if only it were this easy in california :'(
how could i forget? no tax increase, either!
mr. walker, you are a model for the entire country!
the model is get the people who own you to outspend your opponents 9:1 and then barely squeak out a victory? sounds like a sustainable model to me...
i heard a story this morning on the radio regarding this rising party in Germany called the Pirate Party. Sounded like it was basically a party run by special algorithms interpretations of arguments made on Pirate Party sanctioned web forums... personally, i think it sounds great... i think its time to admit that human beings are incapable of governing themselves, we should hand the reigns off to computers
Walker , Scott (i) GOP 1,332,692 53%
Barrett , Tom Dem 1,160,245 46%
Trivedi , Hari Ind 14,332 1%
Yeah if you call 53%-46% squeaking out a victory than I can't wait for Romney to squeak out a victory over Obama. Wasn't to long ago the media was calling Obama's 6 point victory over McCain a "Blow Out!"
romney can go suck donkey dick if he thinks he is winning shit. even if that were to happen, Democrats are going to own Republicans in '14.
oh, in case anyone thought that victory was for walker and those gay hating, women hating, immigrant hating conservative shit eaters, it wasn't, it was against the recall itself.
cocksucking mother effers.
oh, and romney and the rest of you chicken-hawk clowns can go fuck cattle.
!!!
Global economic collapse for dummies.
No mention of champagne though :(
Uh oh, yo!
yawn.
beta wow there buddy! also lletdown see this Der Spiegel article (in english) regarding the Pirate Party's new model.
wurdan,
walker may have won, but the republicans lost the state senate, so the level of damage they can now cause has gone down considerably. that's what i meant by squeaked out a victory.
romney can go suck donkey dick if he thinks he is winning shit. even if that were to happen, Democrats are going to own Republicans in '14.
oh, in case anyone thought that victory was for walker and those gay hating, women hating, immigrant hating conservative shit eaters, it wasn't, it was against the recall itself.
cocksucking mother effers.
oh, and romney and the rest of you chicken-hawk clowns can go fuck cattle.
wait, who's the hater?
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." - Thomas Jefferson
What I really wonder is why the 35% of union households voted for Walker?
how could i forget? no tax increase, either!
bullshit - he supposedly balanced the budget by "closing tax loopholes" (which is just another term for raising taxes) - increasing various fees (typical republican trick to make up budget shortfalls without the public noticing), and deferred payment on the state's loans until 2030 - well after he's gone from office.
Wisconsin's books are going to look really scary in 20 years unless they can raise some serious revenue to offset all that interest. Hey - at least walker isn't going to look like the bad guy because by that time people won't remember what he did.
anyway - dems simply couldn't put up a strong enough candidate - no one ever really wins as the vote against someone. Walker is damaged goods - and if doesn't make some concessions over the next couple years he's a one-term governor.
Yeah 'cause Obama didn't win because everyone was pissed at Bush for Bailing out the banks. That vote was as much against Bush as it was for Obama.
And the Republicans lost the senate in Wisconsin for about 5 months. There's another election in November and if you look at who's up for election it will swing back to the Republicans.
Look at Wisconsin's books three years ago. That was scary. Look at Illinois now. That is scary.
What I really wonder is why the 35% of union households voted for Walker?
maybe because since 'Great Scott!' Walker became pro-choice and made public employee union dues voluntary about 50% of union members have opted out of the due-dues.
y'all are pro-choice, right?
"We're not just disappointed, this is the end of democracy. We just got outspent $34 million to $4 million. This was the biggest election in America and I hope he keep me on tonight because this hurts us all. Every single one of you out there in the nation, if you're watching, democracy died tonight," an emotional proponent of Scott Walker's recall told a CNN correspondent in Wisconsin on Tuesday night.
"I'm very emotional because we all had invested in this. This was it. If we didn't win tonight, the end of the U.S. as we know it just happened. This is it. We just got outspent $34 million to $4 million. And we don't have any more resource left but the people you see here behind me. And if the people you see here behind me can't get it done tonight, it's done. Democracy's dead,"
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel ...management.
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.
A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I don't get why Frac posted those links.
Is that because you feel good about watching other people pained? Have you been the underdog here so long that you've developed that serious of an inferiority complex? That's not good.
Or is it because you think it's a good thing that elections are bought? You think it's good that democracy is ended in America (I don't share that opinion, but I just want to understand which part of that video you felt was worth sharing)?
Or are you sympathizing with the left because you've given up your right wing tendencies?
i dont understand how you can be a liberal, in terms of personal liberty, and still support unions which force employees to pay dues and become members as preconditions to a job.
a. unions don't force anyone to pay dues. there are choices.
b. many public/federal unions allow members to opt out (my mother in law does this). she still benefited when her union garnered better vacation and health insurance, but she can't participate in union activities (elections, meetings, etc.). those in private unions can object to paying union dues and have them reduced or eliminated (my tea baggin cousin does this).
c. 35% of WI households w/ union members voted against barrett because the average american is a hair smarter than a box of rocks. apparently they don't mind losing what few workers rights they have left, and they're fine with losing a seat at the bargaining table. this asinine mentality has been growing over the last 30 years as conservatives have driven wedges fairly successfully, while at the same time eroding worker's rights. these folks don't see the long term implications of their 'thinking', if you can call it that.
d. FDR wasn't anti-union, he was anti-strikes.
"i dont understand how you can be a liberal, in terms of personal liberty, and still support unions which force employees to pay dues and become members as preconditions to a job."
Willful ignorance is nothing to be proud of son. Surely you must know at least a wee bit about history of industrial age labor and its struggles. That the unions have a potential of becoming as corrupt as the thing they stood up against is a forgone conclusion. blah blah blah talking to deaf ears grows old after awhile.
"unions don't force anyone to pay dues. there are choices."
yeah, either become a member of the union or you won't be allowed to work here. UAW Detroit style.
Yeah 'cause Obama didn't win because everyone was pissed at Bush for Bailing out the banks. That vote was as much against Bush as it was for Obama.
WTF? Obama won because a lot of people were genuinely excited about him (for various reasons) and he was running against what appeared to be a mentally unstable old dude whose running mate was a box of rocks with lipstick. plus, the bulk of TARP policies were enacted immediately AFTER THE ELECTION, and no one really understood where all the money went until shortly after Obama took office.
Rusty, you and I both know that history is written by the victors. The unions and Progressives won the fight over organizing labor in the 19th and early 20th century, and they're the ones who wrote the history of it. So, it's a bit disingenuous to refer to the propaganda of the victorious party as evidence of the necessity of that party's victory.
yes gwharton. Because being a 19th century factory worker was a frigging paradise. I can't wait for us to return to it. You first.
I don't understand how a conservative, who wants less government, wants the government to interfere in union activities.
I don't understand how a republican, who values and wants to reward hard work, would want to take away collective bargaining rights and depress wages and benefits of those doing the work.
Remember when the AIA set the architects fee?
actually, the big kicker in the case of Wisconsin is the fact that dues won't be automatically deducted from union workers right off of their payroll.
sorry boys, and girls, but unions should not be running on government resources.
i r giv up,
ah, but it's perfectly ok for corporations to be running on finite gov't resources? for all the f*cking pathetic whining about unions i hear from douchebigot conservatives, they seem to be pretty f*cking (and quite hypocritically) silent regarding oil subsidies, no bid contracts, and just general auditing/oversight - especially within the private sector of defense and health care that's reimbursed by 'gov't resources'. which both affect more of the national bottom line then workers trying to make sure their lives and wages aren't cut so CEO buttmunch can buy a third mega yacht.
huh, i thought most conservatives were against public government subsidized health care....
feel free to run your mouth against conservatives. but get your facts right, k?
btw, read a bit of ed conard before you rail against rich people.
it pays to see the issue through both sides, mr. occupy.
i r giv up,
christ, you have no f*cking clue what you are talking about. you can be 'against' something, and still game the system to rake oodles of money off it before your corporate-owned pawns wreck it (like subsidized healthcare). what conservatives proclaim to believe, and what they pull off policy wise are usually two completely separate things. that's what's so f*cking pathetic and annoying about conservatives, they're hypocrites on the highest order.
ed conard's a dunce who rails for less taxes and gov't oversight, but only for the innovative/well-off. i am not railing against rich people, just corporate leeches and hypocrites.
I don't understand how a conservative, who wants less government, wants the government to interfere in union activities.
(Great) Scott Walker 'interfered' with government unions, not private unions
I don't understand how a republican, who values and wants to reward hard work, would want to take away collective bargaining rights and depress wages and benefits of those doing the work.
again, Mr. Walker rectified a horrible conflict of interest between public employee (government) unions and elected officials. what happened in wisconsin, and what still needs to be fixed in california, is that public employee unions fund almost exclusively democratic candidates (literally 99.8% of public employee political funding went to democrats in california in recent years) who then in turn reward those union workers with unsustainable pensions, health care benifits, and wages. Walker raised what public employee union members have to pay for health care and their pensions to a level that is still below what the private sector pays. but it's a good start. let's make this a model for the country.
understand?
FRaC, you're wrong (as usual)...
99.8% of public employee political funding did NOT go to dems. as i stated before, you can opt out of unions in CA, and many do. or they have their funds diverted from political activities. furthermore, many public employees in CA are conservative, and bankroll repubs. stop with the inane lies, they don't help.
i stand corrected. i was thinking of the california teacher's association:
Cannily, the CTA also funds a wide array of liberal causes unrelated to education, with the goal of spreading around enough cash to prevent dissent from the Left. Among these causes: implementing a single-payer health-care system in California, blocking photo-identification requirements for voters, and limiting restraints on the government’s power of eminent domain. The CTA was the single biggest financial opponent of another Proposition 8, the controversial 2008 proposal to ban gay marriage, ponying up $1.3 million to fight an initiative that eventually won 52.2 percent of the vote. The union has also become the biggest donor to the California Democratic Party. From 2003 to 2012, the CTA spent nearly $102 million on political contributions; 0.08 percent of that money went to Republicans.
http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-teachers-association.html
now i voted against prop 8 back in '08. i think gay people should be able to get married and that both obama and romney are wrong when they say it should be left up to the states (if you file a joint tax return, that's a federal issue). but why is a teacher's union giving money to oppose this bill? what the hell does that have to do with k-12 education?
I'm 98% convinced that the economy is going off the deep end soon no matter who is in charge.
you do realize meg whitman bankrolled her attempt to buy the governor's seat (in one year, mind you) to the tune of $142 million dollars, right?!? sure makes the teacher's union look like small fries (1/14 the expenditures/year!).
the problem isn't union money, it's money in general for elections, get it completely out. both union and corporate. make the race actually on merit, and not buying your way, lying your way, conniving your way into office. shit, third party candidates would even have a legitimate chance. onoz!
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.