![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kinvore.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYes I know it's Rachel and therefore biased, so take it with a grain of salt. However if you have any facts that disprove what she's saying then I'd like to know. Seriously I do, because I don't want to believe that the GOP has sunk this low.
Otherwise she's managed to demonstrate both class warfare AND tyranny all in one douchebag, err governor.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 11:59 (UTC)Full stop. That's it. Arguments about whether state government bargained hard enough and the role of public sector unions are totally distinct from those about the cause of current pension costs.
Also worth noting: Texas has a $27 billion shortfall, and can hardly be considered a union-friendly state.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 14:10 (UTC)No, they were, just to different degrees. When you can't afford the pensions in the rough times because you worked out crappy deals in the good, that's unsustainable.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 14:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 14:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 14:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 17:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 17:03 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 17:04 (UTC)Regardless of that, the point still remains that the pensions are unsustainable because of the cycle, regardless of typicality.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 17:07 (UTC)If you were correct about this, pensions would have gone away in the late 70s, or the early 90s, or after the dot-com bubble.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 18:34 (UTC)Well, the discernible measure is the basic reality about economies. It does apply to the current situation, but even if we accept your premise that this situation is not part of it, the boom and bust creates unsustainable situations.
If you were correct about this, pensions would have gone away in the late 70s, or the early 90s, or after the dot-com bubble.
Like they pretty much have in the private sector, you mean?
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 18:52 (UTC)Are you arguing now that pensions went away in the private sector because they were unsustainable? What makes you think that is the cause?
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 20:35 (UTC)In theory, it's accounted for. In reality, as we see, it is not. The agreements for funding it, the planning for the good and not so much the bad, it becomes unsustainable.
Are you arguing now that pensions went away in the private sector because they were unsustainable? What makes you think that is the cause?
I'm not *now* arguing, you make it sound like it's a new occurance. The sustainability of them, i.e. the ability to afford them in good times and bad, was no longer possible, so they've been phased out in favor of more individual-directed sustainable investment options.
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 21:54 (UTC)Sure it is. You haven't indicated why you think otherwise except mentioning the business cycle, but I already explained that had nothing to do with our current scenario. And you didn't explain why public pensions stuck around through all the other recessions.
I'm not *now* arguing, you make it sound like it's a new occurance. The sustainability of them, i.e. the ability to afford them in good times and bad, was no longer possible, so they've been phased out in favor of more individual-directed sustainable investment options.
Well, the conversation had specifically been about public pensions. You brought up the private ones. What makes you think they were unsustainable? Is it possible that they were simply more expensive, or more complicated, or that weaker private sector unions meant companies could sacrifice pensions for profits, or any number of other more direct explanations?
(no subject)
Date: 14/3/11 22:11 (UTC)You assert that this is not part of the cycle, so it's kind of pointless to go around in circles on it.