New York Transit Strike
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Friday, January 6, 2006 06:29
VIEWED: 3670
PAGE 2 of 5
I personally have never seen a very convincing argument for why a bus driver should make more then $40,000 a year.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I guess if it costs $40,000 a year to live there then you have to pay that even to drive busses.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I guess if it costs $40,000 a year to live there then you have to pay that even to drive busses.
Fletch, I have to agree with Finn here. A job is not a welfare program. No one cares what your expenses care. No one should. They are absolutely right not to care. When I go across the street to the general store in my town of 200 people, I pick up a loaf of bread and pay the grocer a buck and change. This is a price determined by supply and demand. I don't go to him and say "John, what do you need today?" and he doesn't say "I need five bucks because I gotta get a gallon of milk and some cheeze."
So if the employees aren't willing to work for the wages offered, then another solution needs to be arrived at. I would agree that the last solution should be to raise the wages, particularly because that's the people's money they're spending.
I disagree with Hero on the importing of mexican labor. Our economy should be self sufficient, if possible, I think this is a last resort solution.
I think we should import this labor from 158th street. There's a whole bunch of people already in new york who know how to driver a car or a truck and know new york like the back of their hands and are unemployed. Teaching them how to drive a bus can't be that hard.
Here are some other more radical suggestions:
I was serious about automation. Miami tried this and it seemed to work just fine.
Privatize the whole sector. I think this would improve things immensely. Don't even contract it. People pay fares, they can pay them to private companies that provide the service. Before I get too much guff for this, a small reminder that my intense hatred of Bush doesn't make me any less of a right wing extremist.
A job is worth money either because it's needed or wanted and has a value determined by supply and demand, or it has a value connected with its ability to generate wealth. If a company hires a computer programmer whose unique skills add a million a year to profits, it's reasonable for him to ask for half a million in salary. It's not reasonable for the janitor to do the same, because the janitor could be replaced by any random guy off the street. Most of these jobs do not require rare skills and could be learned in a short period of time. Organized labor is organized job security, and organized job security is just an inherently bad idea. Your skill base is your job security. Organized job security therefore serves only one purpose, which is to grant jobs to those who do not have the skills to compete otherwise.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If it is the only store in town he says "It's now $2.75 a loaf because transport costs have gone up. So what are you going to do about it?" You have a very naive view of economics.
and he doesn't say "I need five bucks because I gotta get a gallon of milk and some cheeze
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Isn't a strike one way to affect supply and demand? What is your issue with that? Or do you think it should only go one way - ie the seller/employer gets to dictate conditions and there should be NO free-market haggling?
So if the employees aren't willing to work for the wages offered, then ... last solution should be to raise the wages, particularly because that's the people's money they're spending.
And I would disagree with your whole 'privatize' concept. For example, you apply it to schools. At the same time you claim the main US competition is Korea and Japan. Yet both have completely public school systems. Somehow they have achieved a level of success with public schooling you claim only private systems can reach. Simple facts contradict your dogma.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok let's look at that. Let's say I raise the property taxes on your general store. Does the price of your loaf of bread go up? I suspect it will. If your loaf costs you a buck something in change then it cost your groucer maybe 50c the rest going to pay taxes, labour, operating costs and hopefully make a modest profit. That is what a general store is for, to make a living for the folks that run it. If their costs go up all other things being equal, then the cost to you goes up. It's not a matter of you asking what he needs, he factors that into his costs and his markup.
Now here's the thing. Let's suppose he discovers he has termites. He hasn't enough saved to move the store, the bank is not interested. The only way he can stay in business and cover that cost is to raise prices on that $1 something loaf to $2. Do you pay that price hike for the convenience of having a store across the street or do you jump in your truck and go to the Walmart in the next town? If you pay the $2, then you have in effect just subsidized that general store because you paid more than the going market rate for the convenience of having a store across the street. If you go to Walmart then you just killed your local general store because he will go out of business. Probably doesnt effect you. Old Mrs Jones who lives next door and who can't drive 10 miles to Walmart is probably screwed.
Anyway, enough of your bogus analogies.
Over in the UK we had a politician called Norman Tebbitt who once said a very profound thing. If you need a job, get on your bike and look for one -- which means in effect, be willing to relocate to find work. If the cost of living, housing, food etc in NYC is high, that is a cost of doing business for anyone that lives there, just like the up front costs of your general store. Like your store very few people work as a charity for others, they expect to make at least some modest "profit" off of their labours. So the question becomes the same as your store example if the workers costs go up can that cost be bourne by the consumer or will people let that guy go. You assume that it's ok to let that guy go because there will always be others willing to take his place, is that really the case though? If the basic cost of living is high that cost effects all other canidates likely to apply for that job. If what you offer doesn't meet their needs why would they work for you? Why wouldn't they go someplace else for a job like Norman suggested?
As for privitization. That's a great way to see costs rise. At the moment you have a public monopoly, what you will replace it with is a private monopoly who will then screw more money from the commuter. This in turn will eventually get passed on as wage inflation to other consumers in the city.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch2,
I tend to agree with your arguments, and I would add this:
People whine about government waste as a servie provider. What they don't grasp is it THE most cost-effective service provider, and government employment boosts the economy.
Why? Large organizations have both built-in waste and savings, just by being large. So large businesses and large public agencies are about the same in that regard. But business spends more to do the 'business' functions that government doesn't do (CEO's, managers etc). On top of that business charges more for the same service in order to make a profit. Finally, they pay workers less so there is less money to go around in the economy.
As a real-life example look at private health care. It is a massive cost driving down auto manufacturers in the US. Other countries with public health care spend far less per capita, cover everyone (1/3 the US population is not covered) AND keep their industries competitive and unburdened. Simply by having government provide health care service.
Education is the same type of situation. Every other country provides public education (and sets a national curriculum). And they are outcompeting the US public/private system (under local/state control).
This is not to say that every public agency is a model of perfection. When I worked in a massive county hospital (for 7 years, so I have a lot of experience behind my opinion) everyone busted their butts, and at below-average wages. OTOH, King-Drew in Los Angeles is a nightmare of inefficiency, corruption and low morale. Some schools in the LA Unified School District are chaotic with stressed teachers and children, others run well with high levels of satisfaction.
Now, since workers are in the public sector under the same rules and with the same union-won rights, school-to-school and hospital-to-hospital differences must be due to administrators. That is something that does need to be adequately addressed.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess that depends a lot on where you're living in New York. It could cost several million a year to live in New York, or it could cost less then $40,000 a year. It just depends on what part of New York you want to live in, and whether or not you can afford it. I don't suspect that many bus drivers live in the fancier parts of New York, nor do I suspect that many bus drivers anywhere in the country live in particular wealth. It's not generally considered a high paying job, because any idiot can do it. And since 40 grand a year puts New York Bus drivers in the top 25 percentile of country, I would say that the cost of living is already figured in. I just don't see any reason why driving a bus should pay much more then that, but if New York tax payers want to pay them more, then so be it. That's up to New Yorkers.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I guess if it costs $40,000 a year to live there then you have to pay that even to drive busses.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue, don't be an asshole.
I think it's safe to assume us on the right have actually studied economics, probably all of us, and people on the left often have no concept of it. It wasn't just a rude thing to say, it was a moronic thing to say. Clearly if he charge too much for bread, we would go elsewhere. We do actually have cars.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And yet you have no answer to any of the economic facts I cited. So, personal name-calling aside (which, unlike you, I did not do, I merely said your opinions were naive) why do you think public/socialized services are cheaper and better when governments commit to providing them?
PS - not everyone has cars, as evacuations of both NO and Texas proved. But rather than be picky about that point, we could talk about vertical integration. And the reason why the price of an ordinary loaf of bread, or gallon of gas, or pretty much any other mass-market item, is driven by multinationals and is similar whether you live in Brooklyn, or Manhattan, or Grand Junction.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME