The Democratic Candidates

Jearlpam0925

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

Certainly, being born unto more money provides higher likelihood of success.  But the west isn't exactly a caste system either.  Im not sure if you're speaking of Europe or the States,  but I've never felt that we've had near the political meritocracy as there is in Britain. People move classes here,  and yes it seems to be driven by education level which leads to career success.  We have our George W. Bush's but there's Bill Clinton's too.

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

And I wasn't really a fan of the piece to be honest.  It was too utopian.  I don't honestly know what he was advocating for that was actionable. 

mickeyrat

Kat said:

Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

greater possibilty this cycle as more repubs are up for election. likelyhood is a different question.

oftenreading

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

Certainly, being born unto more money provides higher likelihood of success.  But the west isn't exactly a caste system either.  Im not sure if you're speaking of Europe or the States,  but I've never felt that we've had near the political meritocracy as there is in Britain. People move classes here,  and yes it seems to be driven by education level which leads to career success.  We have our George W. Bush's but there's Bill Clinton's too.

People “move classes” in other countries, too. In fact, there is data to suggest that the US has lower social mobility than many European countries now. 
 

Jearlpam0925

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

Certainly, being born unto more money provides higher likelihood of success.  But the west isn't exactly a caste system either.  Im not sure if you're speaking of Europe or the States,  but I've never felt that we've had near the political meritocracy as there is in Britain. People move classes here,  and yes it seems to be driven by education level which leads to career success.  We have our George W. Bush's but there's Bill Clinton's too.

Yeah, I'm talking less about political meritocracy and more about basic socioeconomic mobility. My point is there's a reason the void between the poor and the rich gets wider and it's not a matter of pulling one up from one's boot straps. I'm irked more by the idea of meritocracy on its own and people's faith that is put into it. The more you believe in meritocracy - as those in power would like us to do - the more you'll buy into the idea that get what you deserve, even when you've worked your ass off and what you "deserve" is shit. Sometimes tossed around is the phrase "you're paid what you're worth" - personally, I find this abhorrent.

And there's nothing wrong with striving for a utopia.

Jearlpam0925

oftenreading said:

People “move classes” in other countries, too. In fact, there is data to suggest that the US HD lower social mobility than many European countries now. 
 

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/14/americans-overestimate-social-mobility-in-their-country

Gern Blansten

mickeyrat said:

Kat said:

Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

greater possibilty this cycle as more repubs are up for election. likelyhood is a different question.

If we get the blue wave that we should get it will happen.  

Jearlpam0925

Gern Blansten said:

mickeyrat said:

Kat said:

Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

greater possibilty this cycle as more repubs are up for election. likelyhood is a different question.

If we get the blue wave that we should get it will happen.  

I wish. I just don't see it. I mean maybe, outside shot? So many R's are up, but they're mostly in super-red states. People need to be cognizant of their local races and keep chipping away at state legislatures as well. From what I've read there's a good chance of taking over a lot of these in the next few years just based on national perception alone. But, again, not getting my hopes up. Post-2016 it's a "hope for the best, expect the worst" mentality for me going forward.

Run for something, anything. Help someone else run for something. Knock on a neighbor's doors, talk to people. My only philosophy now is to take care of my teeny tiny division in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And if everyone did that I'd feel better about your optimism, haha...

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mickeyrat said:

Kat said:

Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

greater possibilty this cycle as more repubs are up for election. likelyhood is a different question.

If we get the blue wave that we should get it will happen.  

I wish. I just don't see it. I mean maybe, outside shot? So many R's are up, but they're mostly in super-red states. People need to be cognizant of their local races and keep chipping away at state legislatures as well. From what I've read there's a good chance of taking over a lot of these in the next few years just based on national perception alone. But, again, not getting my hopes up. Post-2016 it's a "hope for the best, expect the worst" mentality for me going forward.

Run for something, anything. Help someone else run for something. Knock on a neighbor's doors, talk to people. My only philosophy now is to take care of my teeny tiny division in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And if everyone did that I'd feel better about your optimism, haha...

Hey, I was thinking about the +7 and I don't think that's right.  It's 53-47, (2 Indy's caucus with D's), so really we only need to win the presidency and go +3, and that makes it 50/50.  That's feasible.  

dignin

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mickeyrat said:

Kat said:

Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

greater possibilty this cycle as more repubs are up for election. likelyhood is a different question.

If we get the blue wave that we should get it will happen.  

I wish. I just don't see it. I mean maybe, outside shot? So many R's are up, but they're mostly in super-red states. People need to be cognizant of their local races and keep chipping away at state legislatures as well. From what I've read there's a good chance of taking over a lot of these in the next few years just based on national perception alone. But, again, not getting my hopes up. Post-2016 it's a "hope for the best, expect the worst" mentality for me going forward.

Run for something, anything. Help someone else run for something. Knock on a neighbor's doors, talk to people. My only philosophy now is to take care of my teeny tiny division in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And if everyone did that I'd feel better about your optimism, haha...

Hey, I was thinking about the +7 and I don't think that's right.  It's 53-47, (2 Indy's caucus with D's), so really we only need to win the presidency and go +3, and that makes it 50/50.  That's feasible.  

And get rid of the filibuster. 

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

Certainly, being born unto more money provides higher likelihood of success.  But the west isn't exactly a caste system either.  Im not sure if you're speaking of Europe or the States,  but I've never felt that we've had near the political meritocracy as there is in Britain. People move classes here,  and yes it seems to be driven by education level which leads to career success.  We have our George W. Bush's but there's Bill Clinton's too.

Yeah, I'm talking less about political meritocracy and more about basic socioeconomic mobility. My point is there's a reason the void between the poor and the rich gets wider and it's not a matter of pulling one up from one's boot straps. I'm irked more by the idea of meritocracy on its own and people's faith that is put into it. The more you believe in meritocracy - as those in power would like us to do - the more you'll buy into the idea that get what you deserve, even when you've worked your ass off and what you "deserve" is shit. Sometimes tossed around is the phrase "you're paid what you're worth" - personally, I find this abhorrent.

And there's nothing wrong with striving for a utopia.

I wasn't sure if you were talking socio-econ or political, so I went with the more traditional political angle.  Plus the link seemed to center more around political.  

Certainly meritocracy, or the western concept of the last 100 years of moving through social classes is imperfect.  But it sort of reminds me of the old Churchill saying on democracy, "it's the worst form of government, except for all the others".  

And agree, there's nothing wrong with Utopia, but the author's argument was not fleshed out at all, from how I read it.  Now mind you, my background is in history and poli sci, and I've been in financial services for 25  years, so practicality is a main driver of how I see the world.  But this guy seemed to be advocating that the gov't distributes jobs/opportunities based on some sort of assessment of need and skill.  But to me, I see that as 'central planning', one of the key tenants of communism.  You would have to discount the history and nature of mankind to believe that could be done benevolently.  

mrussel1

oftenreading said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

Certainly, being born unto more money provides higher likelihood of success.  But the west isn't exactly a caste system either.  Im not sure if you're speaking of Europe or the States,  but I've never felt that we've had near the political meritocracy as there is in Britain. People move classes here,  and yes it seems to be driven by education level which leads to career success.  We have our George W. Bush's but there's Bill Clinton's too.

People “move classes” in other countries, too. In fact, there is data to suggest that the US has lower social mobility than many European countries now. 
 

I'm not arguing that at all.  I was speaking of political meritocracy.  I did see the economist chart on social mobility.  My first question on that would be the size of the spread between the bottom and top 20% in each country.  It seems like social movement was defined as going from poor to rich, not poor to middle, middle to upper middle or upper middle to wealthy.  

Jearlpam0925

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

Certainly, being born unto more money provides higher likelihood of success.  But the west isn't exactly a caste system either.  Im not sure if you're speaking of Europe or the States,  but I've never felt that we've had near the political meritocracy as there is in Britain. People move classes here,  and yes it seems to be driven by education level which leads to career success.  We have our George W. Bush's but there's Bill Clinton's too.

Yeah, I'm talking less about political meritocracy and more about basic socioeconomic mobility. My point is there's a reason the void between the poor and the rich gets wider and it's not a matter of pulling one up from one's boot straps. I'm irked more by the idea of meritocracy on its own and people's faith that is put into it. The more you believe in meritocracy - as those in power would like us to do - the more you'll buy into the idea that get what you deserve, even when you've worked your ass off and what you "deserve" is shit. Sometimes tossed around is the phrase "you're paid what you're worth" - personally, I find this abhorrent.

And there's nothing wrong with striving for a utopia.

I wasn't sure if you were talking socio-econ or political, so I went with the more traditional political angle.  Plus the link seemed to center more around political.  

Certainly meritocracy, or the western concept of the last 100 years of moving through social classes is imperfect.  But it sort of reminds me of the old Churchill saying on democracy, "it's the worst form of government, except for all the others".  

And agree, there's nothing wrong with Utopia, but the author's argument was not fleshed out at all, from how I read it.  Now mind you, my background is in history and poli sci, and I've been in financial services for 25  years, so practicality is a main driver of how I see the world.  But this guy seemed to be advocating that the gov't distributes jobs/opportunities based on some sort of assessment of need and skill.  But to me, I see that as 'central planning', one of the key tenants of communism.  You would have to discount the history and nature of mankind to believe that could be done benevolently.  

Fair points. Curious - what do you do in finance? I work in corporate finance for a big insurance company, so I would say I'm, uh, the complete opposite of most of the people I work with (dipshit, super uptight R's), though that's certainly not true of everyone.

I don't believe jobs should be based on some assessment of need and skill. And I certainly don't accept that striving toward ideals means pretending that central planning is a cure-all, nor should be the way. But I believe the gov't should absolutely be doing all it can to provide resources that assist with opportunity - be it education, regulation, taxes, etc. It's like anything - there is no cure-all system, and no one should ever put their complete faith behind one type of thinking. Utopia would be if Capitalism works perfectly right? But it doesn't, not even close.

Jearlpam0925

mrussel1 said:

Hey, I was thinking about the +7 and I don't think that's right.  It's 53-47, (2 Indy's caucus with D's), so really we only need to win the presidency and go +3, and that makes it 50/50.  That's feasible.  

Yeah this is right. Still gonna be hard, but one can hope I guess. This is good to mess around with: https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/

mrussel1

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Party like it's 1890 again.  

The balance of power hasn't swung massively towards employers since the Reagan Revolution ?

Before attacking unions please consider the NYC metro area. Massive union participation and a top notch economy.

I agree it could get annoying watching teachers get 6% raises in years of recession while we get wage freezes  in the private world

...or MTA workers bilk the ot system for $300,000 in OT wages per year

...but those of us on the outside looking in are cannon fodder to employers ;=)

A lot of one's perspective comes from what one considers as a 'worker'.  We're not a manufacturing society any longer, so the need for unions has dissipated steadily over the years.  Companies with white collar work forces have a strong focus on employee benefits, morale, etc.  They also believe in performance based pay, which is my perspective.  Collective bargaining can have, and still has, a place in jobs where there is no distinction in employee performance.  But the % of jobs that look like that continues to decrease.  So I'm not disparaging unions, I just think it's a silly and arbitrary goal.  I also think it has the unintended consequence of creating class separation between 'union' and 'management', making it difficult for high performing employees to break through into management.  

Performance based pay sounds nice in theory but to me rising to senior management, perhaps a 1 in a 100 chance, hinges as much on prospects groveling for attention and business leaders taking care of "friends."

I'll never forget my buddy in senior management at his co. at a meeting where ratings were being determined in advance of layoffs. I'll never forget how disgusted he looked when saying all the VPs exempted their 2 or 3 friends first and it was painfully obvious. And when he said "it's never any different at meetings like this."

Do you work in an environment where pay and promotion are performance based? 

Yes. And without getting into too much detail the metrics are more targeted towards pie in the sky tasks that have little to do with the daily functions.

But leaving that aside, that's how employers accomplish their goal, to maintain enormous leverage over employees.

I initially acknowledged unions come with alot of baggage but at will laws marginalize workers to an extreme. Sure I could play the free market but if I'm over 40 without revenue generating potential, good luck to me.

Also, I used to think meritocracy was legit. But, yeah, that's all a joke; good article:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/oct/19/the-myth-of-meritocracy-who-really-gets-what-they-deserve

Basically, where you are born, and to whom you're born, are better factors for your outcome in life as opposed to your amazing resume you've curated for yourself.

Certainly, being born unto more money provides higher likelihood of success.  But the west isn't exactly a caste system either.  Im not sure if you're speaking of Europe or the States,  but I've never felt that we've had near the political meritocracy as there is in Britain. People move classes here,  and yes it seems to be driven by education level which leads to career success.  We have our George W. Bush's but there's Bill Clinton's too.

Yeah, I'm talking less about political meritocracy and more about basic socioeconomic mobility. My point is there's a reason the void between the poor and the rich gets wider and it's not a matter of pulling one up from one's boot straps. I'm irked more by the idea of meritocracy on its own and people's faith that is put into it. The more you believe in meritocracy - as those in power would like us to do - the more you'll buy into the idea that get what you deserve, even when you've worked your ass off and what you "deserve" is shit. Sometimes tossed around is the phrase "you're paid what you're worth" - personally, I find this abhorrent.

And there's nothing wrong with striving for a utopia.

I wasn't sure if you were talking socio-econ or political, so I went with the more traditional political angle.  Plus the link seemed to center more around political.  

Certainly meritocracy, or the western concept of the last 100 years of moving through social classes is imperfect.  But it sort of reminds me of the old Churchill saying on democracy, "it's the worst form of government, except for all the others".  

And agree, there's nothing wrong with Utopia, but the author's argument was not fleshed out at all, from how I read it.  Now mind you, my background is in history and poli sci, and I've been in financial services for 25  years, so practicality is a main driver of how I see the world.  But this guy seemed to be advocating that the gov't distributes jobs/opportunities based on some sort of assessment of need and skill.  But to me, I see that as 'central planning', one of the key tenants of communism.  You would have to discount the history and nature of mankind to believe that could be done benevolently.  

Fair points. Curious - what do you do in finance? I work in corporate finance for a big insurance company, so I would say I'm, uh, the complete opposite of most of the people I work with (dipshit, super uptight R's), though that's certainly not true of everyone.

I don't believe jobs should be based on some assessment of need and skill. And I certainly don't accept that striving toward ideals means pretending that central planning is a cure-all, nor should be the way. But I believe the gov't should absolutely be doing all it can to provide resources that assist with opportunity - be it education, regulation, taxes, etc. It's like anything - there is no cure-all system, and no one should ever put their complete faith behind one type of thinking. Utopia would be if Capitalism works perfectly right? But it doesn't, not even close.

Yes, absolutely agree that the role of gov't should be to provide egalitarian opportunities to its people, just like you say.  After that, I believe it should step back and businesses should reward its hardest working, most successful assets.  To reward based on anything else is self-defeating and contrary to economic principles (and self interest).  

I'm the COO of a mid size financial services analytics company.  It's a real niche, but we do scoring, valuation and analytics on distressed assets to determine the long term value of them through different treatment segments or through trades.  Our clients are the banks that you see on TV every single day.  I've been here for ten years.  The previous 15 were at Capital One, where I started on the phones in customer service while in college and eventually made it up to senior management, senior credit officer, and some other duties. Now Cap One is a very liberal, progressive company in how they treat employees, compensate, and encourage diversity.  We were celebrating gay pride back in the mid 90's when that would have been highly unusual for a bank.  So my belief in business meritocracy (vs unions) is shaped by my very positive experiences.  If Bernie tried to unionize Cap One's 50k employees, it would be a joke.  Few would sign on because my story of career growth was not unusual.  

Jearlpam0925

I agree that white collar, college educated jobs do not need unions.

mickeyrat

dignin said:

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

Gern Blansten said:

mickeyrat said:

Kat said:

Is there any chance at all that by making the right moves, the Senate could be flipped?

greater possibilty this cycle as more repubs are up for election. likelyhood is a different question.

If we get the blue wave that we should get it will happen.  

I wish. I just don't see it. I mean maybe, outside shot? So many R's are up, but they're mostly in super-red states. People need to be cognizant of their local races and keep chipping away at state legislatures as well. From what I've read there's a good chance of taking over a lot of these in the next few years just based on national perception alone. But, again, not getting my hopes up. Post-2016 it's a "hope for the best, expect the worst" mentality for me going forward.

Run for something, anything. Help someone else run for something. Knock on a neighbor's doors, talk to people. My only philosophy now is to take care of my teeny tiny division in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. And if everyone did that I'd feel better about your optimism, haha...

Hey, I was thinking about the +7 and I don't think that's right.  It's 53-47, (2 Indy's caucus with D's), so really we only need to win the presidency and go +3, and that makes it 50/50.  That's feasible.  

And get rid of the filibuster. 

no. make them fuckers speak. that is what was Reids problem. the threat of it shut things down. get your ass in the well and start talking....

benjs

Mrussel, which BI tools do you guys use? I’m our Looker developer at our company and love the tool to death.

mrussel1

benjs said:

Mrussel, which BI tools do you guys use? I’m our Looker developer at our company and love the tool to death.

We have our own home grown product today, but I've used Crystal and Microstrategy when I was at Cap One.  But I'm consumer, not a developer by trade so I don't have much insight into the level of effort that it took to get there.  Earlier in my career (late 20's, early 30's) I got heavily into Six Sigma and went all black belt.  For that, we used Minitab as the suite of analytical tools needed (pareto charts, FMEA, t-charts, regression bullshit, etc.).  It was all built in and easy to use compared to writing all the queries in Excel.