Monday, March 09, 2009
"THE PURPOSE IF GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS TO PAY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES"
SCOTLAND'S largest council announced yesterday all its workers would be paid a minimum of £7 an hour.
Council leader Steven Purcell revealed details of the Glasgow Living Wage at the Scottish Labour Conference.
The move, to be implemented on 1 April, will cost Glasgow City Council up to £1.2 million, and will be funded by cracking down on absenteeism. The new wage rate is £1.27 above the current national minimum wage of £5.73.
Glasgow's initiative will mean the salaries of its lowest paid workers will now increase from £12,200 a year to £13,340 a year. There are currently 681 employees in the authority earning less than £7 an hour who will benefit.
The move did not meet with universal approval to the conference. Senior figures from other authorities were angry that Mr Purcell had put pressure on their councils to do the same.
Other Labour figures believed Mr Purcell's decision to leak the information a day early had detracted publicity from the speech made by Iain Gray on Saturday. But a spokesman for Mr Purcell said the council leader was unrepentant.
An example of Pournelle's law that the purpose of government is to pay government workers and their allies & that their official job takes, at best, 2nd place.
The last couple of paragraphs give it away - this is aimed at the semi literate Purcell getting in with the public employees who make up the overwhelming bulk activists in a Labour party who once claimed to represent the entire working class. The claim that this can be paid for simply by asking the council workers to turn up for their jobs is clearly nonsense. It would work only if they were going to cut the number of employees on the assumption that them actually being there would make up for it. There is no intention to cut employees therefore either council tax will go up or services to Glaswegians will be reduced. My bet is on the latter since they have already signed up to an agreement with Holyrood not to raise charges.
This is particularly disgusting when ordinary people are losing their jobs & seeing their pension funds eroded in great numbers while those with the party clout not only keep their jobs & padded state funded pensions but are getting raises.
The claim that this can be funded by a crackdown in absenteeism proves is how grossly padded with lazy but unsackable parasites our public "services" are. At a time when government spending is passing 50% of UK GNP & 60% of Scotland's such behaviour will ensure that the current recession goes on forever.
UPDATE
I sent this out as a letter to most of Scotland's press. The last paragraph of it alone was in the Scotsman today except they, not unreasonably, changed my reference to "unsackable parasites" into "unsackable individuals". I'm glad I didn't hold up the article, as i usually do, to give the media first publication.
Council leader Steven Purcell revealed details of the Glasgow Living Wage at the Scottish Labour Conference.
The move, to be implemented on 1 April, will cost Glasgow City Council up to £1.2 million, and will be funded by cracking down on absenteeism. The new wage rate is £1.27 above the current national minimum wage of £5.73.
Glasgow's initiative will mean the salaries of its lowest paid workers will now increase from £12,200 a year to £13,340 a year. There are currently 681 employees in the authority earning less than £7 an hour who will benefit.
The move did not meet with universal approval to the conference. Senior figures from other authorities were angry that Mr Purcell had put pressure on their councils to do the same.
Other Labour figures believed Mr Purcell's decision to leak the information a day early had detracted publicity from the speech made by Iain Gray on Saturday. But a spokesman for Mr Purcell said the council leader was unrepentant.
An example of Pournelle's law that the purpose of government is to pay government workers and their allies & that their official job takes, at best, 2nd place.
The last couple of paragraphs give it away - this is aimed at the semi literate Purcell getting in with the public employees who make up the overwhelming bulk activists in a Labour party who once claimed to represent the entire working class. The claim that this can be paid for simply by asking the council workers to turn up for their jobs is clearly nonsense. It would work only if they were going to cut the number of employees on the assumption that them actually being there would make up for it. There is no intention to cut employees therefore either council tax will go up or services to Glaswegians will be reduced. My bet is on the latter since they have already signed up to an agreement with Holyrood not to raise charges.
This is particularly disgusting when ordinary people are losing their jobs & seeing their pension funds eroded in great numbers while those with the party clout not only keep their jobs & padded state funded pensions but are getting raises.
The claim that this can be funded by a crackdown in absenteeism proves is how grossly padded with lazy but unsackable parasites our public "services" are. At a time when government spending is passing 50% of UK GNP & 60% of Scotland's such behaviour will ensure that the current recession goes on forever.
UPDATE
I sent this out as a letter to most of Scotland's press. The last paragraph of it alone was in the Scotsman today except they, not unreasonably, changed my reference to "unsackable parasites" into "unsackable individuals". I'm glad I didn't hold up the article, as i usually do, to give the media first publication.
Comments:
<< Home
The last couple of paragraphs give it away - this is aimed at the semi literate Purcell getting in with the public employees who make up the overwhelming bulk activists in a Labour party who once claimed to represent the entire working class.
When the British state owned major industries then public workers and the working class were one and the same. But back in the 1960's public workers produced steel, cars, airplanes, coal and electricity. Public workers also ran Heathrow airport, providing a major transportation service to the rest of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if the British state is still the same percentage of the economy as it was in 1965 despite not producing anything of value.
This is particularly disgusting when ordinary people are losing their jobs & seeing their pension funds eroded in great numbers while those with the party clout not only keep their jobs & padded state funded pensions but are getting raises.
Since the DuPont anittrust case of the late 1950's General Motors has been one of the most badly run large corporations in the world. Right now in order to fend off the Grim Reaper GM is working as hard as it can to cut labor costs and to cut its pension obligations. I don't see any of America's states attempting to do the same thing, not even California, which is almost broke. California has competition, other states, and so it should work to stay solvent and provide a good "product" and yet it doesn't. GM has been on a fighting retreat for decades, but unlike California the Feds expect it to provide a good turnaround plan that includes cutting costs.
When the British state owned major industries then public workers and the working class were one and the same. But back in the 1960's public workers produced steel, cars, airplanes, coal and electricity. Public workers also ran Heathrow airport, providing a major transportation service to the rest of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if the British state is still the same percentage of the economy as it was in 1965 despite not producing anything of value.
This is particularly disgusting when ordinary people are losing their jobs & seeing their pension funds eroded in great numbers while those with the party clout not only keep their jobs & padded state funded pensions but are getting raises.
Since the DuPont anittrust case of the late 1950's General Motors has been one of the most badly run large corporations in the world. Right now in order to fend off the Grim Reaper GM is working as hard as it can to cut labor costs and to cut its pension obligations. I don't see any of America's states attempting to do the same thing, not even California, which is almost broke. California has competition, other states, and so it should work to stay solvent and provide a good "product" and yet it doesn't. GM has been on a fighting retreat for decades, but unlike California the Feds expect it to provide a good turnaround plan that includes cutting costs.
# posted by 
: March 09, 2009
: March 09, 2009
I don't know either what the exact % of the state GNP that was government back when we had a lot of nationalised industries was but I suspect, as you say, that it wasn't more than it is now.
The idea of California really going bankrupt strikes me as a cery good one. I have no doubt that trustees in bankruptcy, who would be able to fire the parasites, followed by selling its government as a public company with tradeable shares would get the place solvent & growing within a year. Bankruptcy may be the most important single part of the free enterprise system since it provides discipline.
The idea of California really going bankrupt strikes me as a cery good one. I have no doubt that trustees in bankruptcy, who would be able to fire the parasites, followed by selling its government as a public company with tradeable shares would get the place solvent & growing within a year. Bankruptcy may be the most important single part of the free enterprise system since it provides discipline.
1. States are often destroyed by invasion, not bankruptcy; the same is the case for California.
2. The bankruptcy laws of the United States are set by Congress. If Obama and the Dems cooperate they could change the chapter on governmental bankruptcy to allow Cali to not pay its debts or they could provide money to Cali to keep the flow of future Democratic voters flowing across our southern border.
3. There is no chance in hell I would want the government trading as a for profit company. I want the gov to do less, but I don't want private police or courts. I would love to have private schools and freeways, but I draw the line at private counties, townships, cities, states and countries.
2. The bankruptcy laws of the United States are set by Congress. If Obama and the Dems cooperate they could change the chapter on governmental bankruptcy to allow Cali to not pay its debts or they could provide money to Cali to keep the flow of future Democratic voters flowing across our southern border.
3. There is no chance in hell I would want the government trading as a for profit company. I want the gov to do less, but I don't want private police or courts. I would love to have private schools and freeways, but I draw the line at private counties, townships, cities, states and countries.
# posted by : March 13, 2009
: March 13, 2009
I heard of somebody visiting Orlando who told the bus driver that he wanted to get off at the bit of the road which was owned & maintained by Disney rather than the municipality. He asked how he would know when they reached it & the driver answered "Don't worry you'll know".
I can't say corporate owned for profit government much appeals to me either but we may be dealing with a least worst option rather than a best option situation.
Howecer i can see genuine advantages to government being organised as a not for profit organisation with shares traded on the open market but only between citizens. If there was no profit people would buy them out of a sense of civic duty (or admittedly to get government contracts). I think that would be an experiment worth trying.
I can't say corporate owned for profit government much appeals to me either but we may be dealing with a least worst option rather than a best option situation.
Howecer i can see genuine advantages to government being organised as a not for profit organisation with shares traded on the open market but only between citizens. If there was no profit people would buy them out of a sense of civic duty (or admittedly to get government contracts). I think that would be an experiment worth trying.
I read a book that states that the Miami-Dade county courthouse has a janitor whose job every morning is to clean up the powders and sacrifices that are left outside the courthouse every morning by the Haitians and Dominicans every night to bring good luck to their cases. Miami is probably a lot like Orlando, so the quality of the people makes a difference. Also, all of south Florida is inhabited by the Latin refugees from Cuba, so their political culture is different.
Your idea of having shares traded on the open market is just a way of disenfranchising that part of the electorate that is most likely to vote for corruption, handouts and make-work projects, not improvements. Two centuries ago there was a property requirement to vote, eliminating part of the problem, but in Miami the Cubans are likely to be wealthy and still corrupt.
Your idea of having shares traded on the open market is just a way of disenfranchising that part of the electorate that is most likely to vote for corruption, handouts and make-work projects, not improvements. Two centuries ago there was a property requirement to vote, eliminating part of the problem, but in Miami the Cubans are likely to be wealthy and still corrupt.
# posted by : March 13, 2009
: March 13, 2009
That is a major part of the purpose. I think it would be better than a property qualification, which gives the vote to any scumbag so long as he is rich. What I am suggesting gives the vote to anybody willing to sacrifice though I grant sacrificing a fixed sum is much easier for the rich.
I certainly do not think it will solve all the problems of government & would be leery about seeing it done anywhere on a large scale until it had been tested somewhjere on a small scale.
I certainly do not think it will solve all the problems of government & would be leery about seeing it done anywhere on a large scale until it had been tested somewhjere on a small scale.
The problem here in the US is that the Democrats are either our native Blacks or they are imported. If this process continues long enough there will be whining and agitation like there was in South Africa.
If we didn't have a malignant government and a major section of the White vote collaborating with these colored communists, we wouldn't need to fantasize about disenfranchising a major part of the electorate.
Second if your plan was seriously considered it would be seen as a threat to the power of the Left, and therefore would be opposed by the UN, the US Democratic party, and foreign leftist (ie: Communist) parties would join the chorus of those denouncing, and working within the system to stop it.
Disraeli was right, everything is about race.
Post a Comment
If we didn't have a malignant government and a major section of the White vote collaborating with these colored communists, we wouldn't need to fantasize about disenfranchising a major part of the electorate.
Second if your plan was seriously considered it would be seen as a threat to the power of the Left, and therefore would be opposed by the UN, the US Democratic party, and foreign leftist (ie: Communist) parties would join the chorus of those denouncing, and working within the system to stop it.
Disraeli was right, everything is about race.
# posted by : March 14, 2009
: March 14, 2009 << Home
