If those roots include uprooting pension abuse, revolving door legislation and insider benefits, then thank you for the acknowledgement.
At least get some revenue out of the deal if you’re going to allow this BS to continue.
Outside companies are buying these plates and reselling them and the state and DMV just look at the money change hands while they tax the fuck out of us on already existing taxes…idiots.
I have an idea. How about a big money making racket for SUPER PREMIUM vanity plates? A limited edition (say 28) white on black single letters A-Z distributed via auction.
Can you say CHA CHING!!
Loser and idots would fall all over themselves to get one.
Why? Because I doubt that when John signed up to write for FSP, he didn’t realize that he was signing up w/ people whose apparent working mission is to lower the wages of working class people in DE in the interest of real estate companies, developers, construction kingpins, etc.
I love how Dana can’t win an argument, he has to assign shady motives. Well, I reject that I’m working in anyone’s interest except that of trying to make the state a better place. I also contend, again, that repealing forced unionization laws will ADD jobs and ADD work to those with jobs.
I’ve made an argument and shown evidence, and all you can do is throw intellectually lazy ad hominems out there about me wanting to hurt working people simply because you have no counter-argument.
We’re happy to have John at FSP. I disagree with him on this, but I can’t get into every debate.
The biggest problem I have with Dave’s hope to shift funds directly from one to another area, he surely knows that is not how things work in the big and money committees. The 100m he claims to save for ‘better’ ends won’t necessarily be utilized that way. Just as likely to go to purchase more golf courses from the latest corporate conglomerate as part of some horribly misguided economic development deal.
BTW
Another way to raise an immediate 100m is to raise a fee on the oil lightered off of Big Stone Beach.
I actually supported the concept of a lightering tax at first, because it seemed fair that the inherent risk to the environment should be covered by some revenue. However, I researched the idea, and the lightering operations would simply move across the line and away from the state’s jurisdiction so they couldn’t be taxed.
So that is a waste of time.
As to the first part of your comment, legislative incompetence actually IS a legitimate argument against repeal. It’s downright shameful, but it is legitimate.
I researched the idea, and the lightering operations would simply move across the line and away from the state’s jurisdiction so they couldn’t be taxed.
Dude,
How are they going to move over the line? Run aground on New Jersey?
The 100m he claims to save for ‘better’ ends won’t necessarily be utilized that way.
There is no 100M savings just from construction wages. And there is certainly no sourced data that indicates that there is. There is plenty of argument (and argument from a great many false premises), but precious little (and that cherry-picked) data to back that up.
Sign me,
A Construction Project Manager (not a union member)
However, I researched the idea, and the lightering operations would simply move across the line and away from the state’s jurisdiction so they couldn’t be taxed.
*
do share your sources, Dave, don’t be so shy. Your dad is involved with the Maritrans lobby to keep lightering off of the table, or so I have heard from numerous sources.
Do tell who provided you with the cock and bull story that lightering would be done in the ocean’s rough environment.
What is the exact name and authors of the study so I know what to ask for…..if I can’t get it this way, I will take you up on your offer to send it and will gladly pay copying and postage. Will you you know via your email over at FSP.
Didn’t mean to insult you, I’ve no idea how big this report is. If this is a 3″ binder or two of data, there is no reason I should expect you to bear all of the costs and I wanted you to know that. I’m interested in the report, not in just having you produce it.
“Well, I reject that I’m working in anyone’s interest except that of trying to make the state a better place.”
Let’s see. A guy in the real estate business, involving the creation of NEW homes which require the creation of new & expanded roads, new schools and other infra-structure construction who has publicly stated that he wants to repeal prevailing wage laws because that will decrease the pay of workers and free up tax money for more construction projects–which will allow Dave and the realty he works for (or did?) to continue to press for new home projects in the beach area–that person we are supposed to believe doesn’t have a financial interest in what he is proposing? That he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart? Give us a break.
Also, Dave, your Taxpayer group for which you are a lobbyist…do you get paid for it? Are any individuals or interests that would benefit from your low-pay, non-prevailing wage construction jobs contributors to you “taxpayer” coalition group?
I’m sure you won’t want to dodge those questions will you, Mr. Open Government.
“The 100m he claims to save for ‘better’ ends won’t necessarily be utilized that way”
That’s right, although Dave’s financial interests might be otherwise. It’s as likely that those extra schools he goes on & on about won’t get built because if his fellow GOPers have their way, they’ll want the savings back in a tax cut.
Dave’s scheme is standard legislative strategy for the GOP. Hurt working and poor people (e.g. abolishing prevailing wage; slashing entitlements for poor people) in the name of giving taxpayers something they want (e.g. extra schools), but later gobble up the savings in the form of tax cuts that DISPROPORTIONATELY benefit the the wealthy patrons of the GOP. History is riddled w/ examples.
*
I’d be glad to provide you with more about the sources of the information that I received, Dave. You can email me if you like at nancyvwilling@yahoo.com and I’ll mail it to you.
So, Dana, you’re going with “they’d just waste the savings anyway.” That’s just about a concession, I’d say.
Feel free to explain, by the way, why construction workers, but not actual state payroll workers, deserve the extra $100 million (or $50, if that’s all it is).
“So, Dana, you’re going with “they’d just waste the savings anyway.” That’s just about a concession, I’d say.”
No, it’s not. I’m saying that even if there were a savings, it’s doubtful that the Republicans would want to fund all the projects Dave claims we can’t fund because of prevailing wage.
“Feel free to explain, by the way, why construction workers, but not actual state payroll workers, deserve the extra $100 million (or $50, if that’s all it is).”
Dave took a few months to study this; I’m taking 3 weeks or so to do so. But your question goes to what my preliminary study is beginning to suggest is Dave’s fallacy.
While it might be true that not paying prevailing wage saves taxpayers expenditures from year to year, it actually hurts state budgets in the aggregate because it decreases the revenue stream over time all other things being equal. The net effect is that states “save” themselves into less income (revenue), not unlike a person who invests (saves) in low-cost bad performing stocks. Technically the investor is “saving” by not paying for more expensive stock, but he is losing income in the aggregate because the stocks he does purchase under perform.
So the answer is that state workers will (should, at least) do better in an economy where more revenue makes its way into the coffers, not when less does.
So you’re taking the economic stimulus route. In that case, explain why the money, whatever the sum, is better spend on construction jobs than any other — particularly why construction jobs and not actual state payroll jobs.
I’ll tell you why, Dana — because construction trades are the only place, outside of public payroll work, where unions have any pull or any members in this state. It’s a giveaway to the union members, pure and simple. To which I respond, not on my dime as long as I have a voice to protest it.
Oh, by the way, “all else being equal” means “in a fantasy world.” Show me another state where 40 percent of state government revenue comes from out-of-state sources and I’ll start caring about how other states do it.
“While it might be true that not paying prevailing wage saves taxpayers expenditures from year to year, it actually hurts state budgets in the aggregate because it decreases the revenue stream over time all other things being equal.”
Maybe I am not understanding your attempted analogy, Dana. Are you saying massive yearly savings are not worthwhile because we might see slightly less tax revenue over time?
If you want to use an investing analogy, that is the equivalent of saying that you shouldn’t invest in a booming stock of a well-managed company because the dividend payments are not going to be as much as what you could somehow get from an underperforming stock of an ill-managed company.
For most smart investors the robust value of a company, denoted by its efficient and sound management, is far more more important than aggregate dividend payments.
“Oh, by the way, “all else being equal” means “in a fantasy world.” Show me another state where 40 percent of state government revenue comes from out-of-state sources and I’ll start caring about how other states do it.”
No, it doesn’t Al and you know it. There are many variables that affect a state’s bottom line and revenue stream. And that’s why Dave REFUSES to name the states that are supposedly benefitting from the lack of prevailing wage laws…that and the fact that he’s probably figured I have a good idea what those states are and his claim is largely bullshit.
“Other things being equal” means absent those other variables.
“So you’re taking the economic stimulus route. In that case, explain why the money, whatever the sum, is better spend on construction jobs than any other — particularly why construction jobs and not actual state payroll jobs.”
This is a good question and one I will need more time to explore. As I said, I’ve just begun to explore these matters and and some of the material involves reports that are 300 pages long.
But let me ask you Al, is the persistence of the state workers analogy just used as an analogy for the sake of argument or do you really have an issue w/ how much state workers are paid?
“Maybe I am not understanding your attempted analogy, Dana. Are you saying massive yearly savings are not worthwhile because we might see slightly less tax revenue over time?”
I’m saying that if you save 20% of a decreasing revenue stream that you don’t gain as much then taking measures to increase the revenue stream.
“If you want to use an investing analogy, that is the equivalent of saying that you shouldn’t invest in a booming stock of a well-managed company because the dividend payments are not going to be as much as what you could somehow get from an underperforming stock of an ill-managed company.”
Well, if you assume the stock is booming of course you are correct. But the stock here is decreased wages. Even Dave will say that when states lose their prevailing wage laws, wages for construction workers go down. The issue is whether they decrease at a rate that over times enhances the states bottom line or harms it. The PRELIMINARY evidence I’ve seen so far suggests the later.
Actually I thought the stock was the going concern of the taxpayer’s franchise : the state government, not the individual wage payments to a handful of its contracted payees.
What affects taxpayers is the bottom line, not some Rube Goldberg calculus of tertiary benefits somehow derived through our paying wages inflated beyond market value, simply because our government can be forced to do it by legislators representing narrow special interests.
BTW, you know I understand your pro-union, pro-high wage sentiments…in a perfect world, Dana.
But achieving your ends by forcing these wage inflations onto other lower and middle class people (as taxpayers) is not a fair way to go about it. Not all, in fact few, taxpayers are wealthy, as you well know.
Actually, Tyler, FDR really ended this argument decades ago, all the con/Repub revisionism notwithstanding.
This is merely another exercise in clearly the smoke of fat cats and their wannabes trying skim a greater percentage off the state’s treasury for themselves, and those in the middle class who hate unions because they don’t like working class people who don’t share their snobbish interests to have economic and political power especially if union members earn more than they do.
It’s another hate fest, but the economics behind it was debunked decades ago. The opportunity to hate makes people forget.
Dana, I work with my hands all the time (car rebuild work, home repairs) and in a skilled way but not for pay. My profession is one that requires I primarily use my mental capacities rather than physical. It is also one that is a “fend for yourself” if not “dog eat dog” profession, with a helluva lot of constraints (good ones, mind you, such as enforced ethics).
I am just curious what you define as “working class people”. Is it manual labor? Is there an income cutoff? Does it exclude professionals, well-paid or not?
I know plenty of people who work their asses off to make a living, some a fairly handsome one but well deserved for their labor. It may not be physical labor but they are hardly the ilk of “snobbish interests”. Labor is not limited to those who organize around a specific category of it, nor those who do so in a manual way.
It is a bit worrisome when you get into recriminations with extremely broad-brush platitudes about “snobbish interests” versus “working class people”. Especially when you bring the term “hate” into the equation. This topic may be polarizing, but indiscriminately polarizing entire categories of people is no solution.
“Dogless thinks the pot is calling the kettle black.”
Dana doesn’t care what dogless thinks
___________
Tyler, I’m not even sure what your point is or how it is relevant to the topic at hand. But let me admit that many people work hard who don’t work in construction jobs–OK?
Funny I was wondering how loaded trick phrases about “hate” “snobbish interests” and “working class people” were relevant to a rational discussion of the impact of prevailing wage laws on Delaware taxpayers. I guess we are even.
No, what is obvious Tyler is that the emerging power w/i the GOP named Dave Burris undoubtedly appreciates your efforts to befog these issues and my points w/ minutiae.
Can there ever be a discussion you don’t eventually devolve into assigning some sort of underhanded personal motive, when someone else’s comments don’t go your way? Sheesh.
I am sure Dave Burris needs no help from me to “befog” your “issues”. They look pretty damn foggy by your own hand already, with the class warfare nonsense.
Hey Dana, you commie bastard, in case you missed it I am a fairly lower income person struggling to meet ends with a fledgling professional business in a very competitive and rarefied economic environment. I am also a taxpayer who gets a bite at both ends from your Democratic party fiefdoms (city and county), as well as the usual state and federal grabs.
What do I and other citizens get for it? Grief, graft, and patronage teet sucking from your fellow travelers.
I am just about fed up with special interest handouts TO ANYBODY’S pet group…especially ones with powerful lobbies to pimp for them in Dover. With union lobbyists averaging about 400 lbs I am sure it is easy to crush anyone in your way, but get over yourselves. You aren’t the only working stiffs in the ‘hood.
Sorry for your “mood” but please spare me the idea that you are doing anything but inflicting it on us working class people with your endless special interest welfare programs.
I think the real significance of the graph is how it makes it unmistakably clear that the GOP trickle down nonsense is an utter lie and proven to be so over many, many years. Not only is it a lie, but it’s been a scheme to divert income away from the lower & middle classes and cram it into the pockets of the rich.
In terms of the prevailing wage nonsense, even Mike Castle drew the line on the latest scheme to impoverish these workers:
Notice also how the GOPers like Tyler swarm a person who dares to support unions on ANY matter. They dismiss people like me out of hand WHO ADMITS that he is pro-union on many matters and ADMITS that he will soon work for a union. But they won’t hold a Dave Burris accountable and tell him he should answer what was put to him in comment #27 above. Not a word about that.
Dana, I really do think many state workers are underpaid. I talk regularly with people in various social service jobs and am dismayed at how low the pay is. Let’s face it, with higher pay scales a lot of the problems at places like the prisons and the DPC might not exist. Considering the training required and the importance of curbing turnover in these jobs, this strikes me as a better use of the money. As a taxpayer, I see far more benefit of keeping those workers happy than tossing extra money at construction workers — I frankly don’t care to add incentive to the building trades in a state that could be paved over completely by the time I croak.
I didn’t pay much attention to the wish list Dave assembled, because as you have so ably noted there’s no guarantee the money will be used for any of that. I just think that, as we try to figure out where to get the money for programs that will hit the chopping block, there’s not as much to recommend prevailing wage as many other potential uses.
#1 – I used ALL the prevailing wage states and ALL the non-prevailing wage states, and calculated the average for all the statistics.
#2 – Just because you’re being paid to shill for unions doesn’t mean the same of me. Yes, I will pay myself if I raise enough money, but the $950 I’ve raised so far ain’t gonna do it. So there, if you want to claim that my integrity has been purchased for $950 (some of which came from my family) be my guest.
Just because you’re losing the argument, don’t go casting aspersions on people’s character.
Dave, thanks for your partial answer. But it is partial. Would there be any benefit for you as a Realtor if prevailing wage was repealed or for the realty company you are associated w/, Jack Lingo?
As a matter of fact, Dave, the biggest part of post #27 is about your realty connections. Why are you silent about that?
“Just because you’re losing the argument,…”
Now there you go again. I wrote you in an e-mail telling you that I wouldn’t be able to really engage fully in the argument until about 3 weeks when I read all the relevant material. So how can I be losing an argument I haven’t really entered into completely yet? I guess I’ll eventually have to post the e-mails and your little cheap shots about me losing this argument just to show people how you can be…..
“Just because you’re being paid to shill for unions doesn’t mean the same of me.”
Actually, Dave, I’m not being paid yet but will be soon. And I’m not being paid to speak for them; just to do research for them. And since you are throwing mud now knowing that it is unfair….I’ll remind everyone else here what you are not saying: That I told you months ago that I would be getting this job, but that didn’t stop me from supporting J. Christian contrary to the unions whose workers came out and worked for Ennis–you remember complaining about them, don’t you, Dave. How you resented them participating in the campaign.
It also hasn’t stopped me from coming out for wind power (which some unions oppose) or writing critically of Mayor Baker.
Sorry to intrude w/ those facts, Dave. I know those facts don’t accord w/ your mission to cast doubt on what I say because of my employer (as if that ever deterred me at Family Court).
In fact, Dave, you are the shill. I have never once seen you write any support for a Democratic candidate. Not once. Hell, even Jason will endorse some people in the GOP (Hastings & Tyler). But not you. You won’t ever step out of line, will you shill boy? lol
“Yes, I will pay myself if I raise enough money, but the $950 I’ve raised so far ain’t gonna do it.”
I guess if you were able to get prevailing wage defeated, the donations would spike up. 😉
Oh, that NCC study you keep citing. Why didn’t you tell us how old that study is, Dave? Why didn’t you tell us it was commissioned by Sherry Freebury (sp?) and why?
Is it because it would then appear neither relevant for 2008 nor the pristine, objective, politically-untainted document you’ve tried to sell it as?
Al, you are right about state workers, especially the social workers being underpaid for the state. At the Division of Family Services it’s particularly egregious.
What happens is that they hire social workers right out college, load them up w/ more cases then they really are supposed to handle, pay them shit wages, give them complex cases which require someone w/ more experience than someone fresh out of college, tragedies occur (and near tragedies no one ever hears about) like kids getting killed or harmed for life, and too many of these line workers get burned out in 2-3 years even though they’re young & just out of college. It’s really tragic.
Years ago in meetings when this was being discussed even at Family Court, I argued that the line workers at DFS should be paid more than their supervisors so that more veterans stay in the ranks of line workers and can be assigned the more complex cases. Other veterans will still want to supervise, especially those getting near retirement age, because they won’t lose any of their current pay under state rules and they’ll just want the change.
My idea was considered ridiculous because it was unconventional. Silly me. I thought that was one of its virtues.
No, a repeal of the prevailing wage would not benefit the company I work for. And even if my broker benefited in some way, I would not see any of that benefit at any time.
You can try to cast doubt on me all you like, but there I have inherent advantages in this argument. Like being right.
I agree that you would do this disingenuous shilling for free. You are a complete sycophant when it comes to all things labor. Hey, we all have our flaws.
“I wrote you in an e-mail telling you that I wouldn’t be able to really engage fully in the argument until about 3 weeks when I read all the relevant material.”
But yet you’ve already claimed you’re going to “have my ass.” How would you know if you haven’t had time to prepare?
If those roots include uprooting pension abuse, revolving door legislation and insider benefits, then thank you for the acknowledgement.
At least get some revenue out of the deal if you’re going to allow this BS to continue.
Outside companies are buying these plates and reselling them and the state and DMV just look at the money change hands while they tax the fuck out of us on already existing taxes…idiots.
I agree the state should get a cut.
I have an idea. How about a big money making racket for SUPER PREMIUM vanity plates? A limited edition (say 28) white on black single letters A-Z distributed via auction.
Can you say CHA CHING!!
Loser and idots would fall all over themselves to get one.
I’m looking forward to the day when John Feroce realizes that he doesn’t belong w/ the looters and plutocrats in the GOP.
Why’s that? Would he somehow feel more at home with the looters, crooks, and autocrats in the Democratic Party?
Let’s not forget how old Democrat Ruthie doubled everyone’s DMV fees overnight…yeah, real working class party.
Feroce, leave our tags alone.
“Why’s that?”
Why? Because I doubt that when John signed up to write for FSP, he didn’t realize that he was signing up w/ people whose apparent working mission is to lower the wages of working class people in DE in the interest of real estate companies, developers, construction kingpins, etc.
Gee, thanks Dana. Blow me, then put your wide stroke brush away.
I love how Dana can’t win an argument, he has to assign shady motives. Well, I reject that I’m working in anyone’s interest except that of trying to make the state a better place. I also contend, again, that repealing forced unionization laws will ADD jobs and ADD work to those with jobs.
I’ve made an argument and shown evidence, and all you can do is throw intellectually lazy ad hominems out there about me wanting to hurt working people simply because you have no counter-argument.
We’re happy to have John at FSP. I disagree with him on this, but I can’t get into every debate.
The biggest problem I have with Dave’s hope to shift funds directly from one to another area, he surely knows that is not how things work in the big and money committees. The 100m he claims to save for ‘better’ ends won’t necessarily be utilized that way. Just as likely to go to purchase more golf courses from the latest corporate conglomerate as part of some horribly misguided economic development deal.
BTW
Another way to raise an immediate 100m is to raise a fee on the oil lightered off of Big Stone Beach.
I actually supported the concept of a lightering tax at first, because it seemed fair that the inherent risk to the environment should be covered by some revenue. However, I researched the idea, and the lightering operations would simply move across the line and away from the state’s jurisdiction so they couldn’t be taxed.
So that is a waste of time.
As to the first part of your comment, legislative incompetence actually IS a legitimate argument against repeal. It’s downright shameful, but it is legitimate.
grrr
I researched the idea, and the lightering operations would simply move across the line and away from the state’s jurisdiction so they couldn’t be taxed.
Dude,
How are they going to move over the line? Run aground on New Jersey?
We own the whole bay Matey!! Grrr!
They do the lightering on the Atlantic Ocean side of the line and then proceed up the Delaware Bay and River.
The 100m he claims to save for ‘better’ ends won’t necessarily be utilized that way.
There is no 100M savings just from construction wages. And there is certainly no sourced data that indicates that there is. There is plenty of argument (and argument from a great many false premises), but precious little (and that cherry-picked) data to back that up.
Sign me,
A Construction Project Manager (not a union member)
Dave then it wouldn’t be “lightering” it would be “splashing oil into the Atlantic Ocean”
Much less protifable.
I call bull on #15.
The Means study said that prevailing wage costs 17%. 17% of our average $600MM bond bill equals what?
And even if it was only $50 MM, the case is the same and it is still iron-clad.
MORE money. MORE jobs. MORE work. MORE for other priorities.
“Much less protifable.”
Yeah, but is it $100 MM less profitable?
Where is this Means study?
I don’t know if it is online or not. I could mail it to you, but I don’t know where you are. I’m sure you could get a copy from DCA or ABC.
However, I researched the idea, and the lightering operations would simply move across the line and away from the state’s jurisdiction so they couldn’t be taxed.
*
do share your sources, Dave, don’t be so shy. Your dad is involved with the Maritrans lobby to keep lightering off of the table, or so I have heard from numerous sources.
Do tell who provided you with the cock and bull story that lightering would be done in the ocean’s rough environment.
@19 — Thank you.
What is the exact name and authors of the study so I know what to ask for…..if I can’t get it this way, I will take you up on your offer to send it and will gladly pay copying and postage. Will you you know via your email over at FSP.
Nancy — You’re lying again.
Cassanda M – The R. S. Means Consulting Services Final Report for New Castle County, May 3, 2002, by Phillip Waier, PE and Robert Gair.
You can email me if you like at firststatepolitics at gmail.com and I’ll mail it to you.
Oh, and I’m not the government and this ain’t FOIA. I’d be happy to pay for the copies and the postage.
Didn’t mean to insult you, I’ve no idea how big this report is. If this is a 3″ binder or two of data, there is no reason I should expect you to bear all of the costs and I wanted you to know that. I’m interested in the report, not in just having you produce it.
Gotcha. It’s about 20 pages.
“Well, I reject that I’m working in anyone’s interest except that of trying to make the state a better place.”
Let’s see. A guy in the real estate business, involving the creation of NEW homes which require the creation of new & expanded roads, new schools and other infra-structure construction who has publicly stated that he wants to repeal prevailing wage laws because that will decrease the pay of workers and free up tax money for more construction projects–which will allow Dave and the realty he works for (or did?) to continue to press for new home projects in the beach area–that person we are supposed to believe doesn’t have a financial interest in what he is proposing? That he is doing it out of the goodness of his heart? Give us a break.
Also, Dave, your Taxpayer group for which you are a lobbyist…do you get paid for it? Are any individuals or interests that would benefit from your low-pay, non-prevailing wage construction jobs contributors to you “taxpayer” coalition group?
I’m sure you won’t want to dodge those questions will you, Mr. Open Government.
“The 100m he claims to save for ‘better’ ends won’t necessarily be utilized that way”
That’s right, although Dave’s financial interests might be otherwise. It’s as likely that those extra schools he goes on & on about won’t get built because if his fellow GOPers have their way, they’ll want the savings back in a tax cut.
Dave’s scheme is standard legislative strategy for the GOP. Hurt working and poor people (e.g. abolishing prevailing wage; slashing entitlements for poor people) in the name of giving taxpayers something they want (e.g. extra schools), but later gobble up the savings in the form of tax cuts that DISPROPORTIONATELY benefit the the wealthy patrons of the GOP. History is riddled w/ examples.
Nancy — You’re lying again.
*
I’d be glad to provide you with more about the sources of the information that I received, Dave. You can email me if you like at nancyvwilling@yahoo.com and I’ll mail it to you.
So, Dana, you’re going with “they’d just waste the savings anyway.” That’s just about a concession, I’d say.
Feel free to explain, by the way, why construction workers, but not actual state payroll workers, deserve the extra $100 million (or $50, if that’s all it is).
“So, Dana, you’re going with “they’d just waste the savings anyway.” That’s just about a concession, I’d say.”
No, it’s not. I’m saying that even if there were a savings, it’s doubtful that the Republicans would want to fund all the projects Dave claims we can’t fund because of prevailing wage.
“Feel free to explain, by the way, why construction workers, but not actual state payroll workers, deserve the extra $100 million (or $50, if that’s all it is).”
Dave took a few months to study this; I’m taking 3 weeks or so to do so. But your question goes to what my preliminary study is beginning to suggest is Dave’s fallacy.
While it might be true that not paying prevailing wage saves taxpayers expenditures from year to year, it actually hurts state budgets in the aggregate because it decreases the revenue stream over time all other things being equal. The net effect is that states “save” themselves into less income (revenue), not unlike a person who invests (saves) in low-cost bad performing stocks. Technically the investor is “saving” by not paying for more expensive stock, but he is losing income in the aggregate because the stocks he does purchase under perform.
So the answer is that state workers will (should, at least) do better in an economy where more revenue makes its way into the coffers, not when less does.
So you’re taking the economic stimulus route. In that case, explain why the money, whatever the sum, is better spend on construction jobs than any other — particularly why construction jobs and not actual state payroll jobs.
I’ll tell you why, Dana — because construction trades are the only place, outside of public payroll work, where unions have any pull or any members in this state. It’s a giveaway to the union members, pure and simple. To which I respond, not on my dime as long as I have a voice to protest it.
Oh, by the way, “all else being equal” means “in a fantasy world.” Show me another state where 40 percent of state government revenue comes from out-of-state sources and I’ll start caring about how other states do it.
“While it might be true that not paying prevailing wage saves taxpayers expenditures from year to year, it actually hurts state budgets in the aggregate because it decreases the revenue stream over time all other things being equal.”
Maybe I am not understanding your attempted analogy, Dana. Are you saying massive yearly savings are not worthwhile because we might see slightly less tax revenue over time?
If you want to use an investing analogy, that is the equivalent of saying that you shouldn’t invest in a booming stock of a well-managed company because the dividend payments are not going to be as much as what you could somehow get from an underperforming stock of an ill-managed company.
For most smart investors the robust value of a company, denoted by its efficient and sound management, is far more more important than aggregate dividend payments.
“Oh, by the way, “all else being equal” means “in a fantasy world.” Show me another state where 40 percent of state government revenue comes from out-of-state sources and I’ll start caring about how other states do it.”
No, it doesn’t Al and you know it. There are many variables that affect a state’s bottom line and revenue stream. And that’s why Dave REFUSES to name the states that are supposedly benefitting from the lack of prevailing wage laws…that and the fact that he’s probably figured I have a good idea what those states are and his claim is largely bullshit.
“Other things being equal” means absent those other variables.
“So you’re taking the economic stimulus route. In that case, explain why the money, whatever the sum, is better spend on construction jobs than any other — particularly why construction jobs and not actual state payroll jobs.”
This is a good question and one I will need more time to explore. As I said, I’ve just begun to explore these matters and and some of the material involves reports that are 300 pages long.
But let me ask you Al, is the persistence of the state workers analogy just used as an analogy for the sake of argument or do you really have an issue w/ how much state workers are paid?
“Maybe I am not understanding your attempted analogy, Dana. Are you saying massive yearly savings are not worthwhile because we might see slightly less tax revenue over time?”
I’m saying that if you save 20% of a decreasing revenue stream that you don’t gain as much then taking measures to increase the revenue stream.
“If you want to use an investing analogy, that is the equivalent of saying that you shouldn’t invest in a booming stock of a well-managed company because the dividend payments are not going to be as much as what you could somehow get from an underperforming stock of an ill-managed company.”
Well, if you assume the stock is booming of course you are correct. But the stock here is decreased wages. Even Dave will say that when states lose their prevailing wage laws, wages for construction workers go down. The issue is whether they decrease at a rate that over times enhances the states bottom line or harms it. The PRELIMINARY evidence I’ve seen so far suggests the later.
Actually I thought the stock was the going concern of the taxpayer’s franchise : the state government, not the individual wage payments to a handful of its contracted payees.
What affects taxpayers is the bottom line, not some Rube Goldberg calculus of tertiary benefits somehow derived through our paying wages inflated beyond market value, simply because our government can be forced to do it by legislators representing narrow special interests.
BTW, you know I understand your pro-union, pro-high wage sentiments…in a perfect world, Dana.
But achieving your ends by forcing these wage inflations onto other lower and middle class people (as taxpayers) is not a fair way to go about it. Not all, in fact few, taxpayers are wealthy, as you well know.
Actually, Tyler, FDR really ended this argument decades ago, all the con/Repub revisionism notwithstanding.
This is merely another exercise in clearly the smoke of fat cats and their wannabes trying skim a greater percentage off the state’s treasury for themselves, and those in the middle class who hate unions because they don’t like working class people who don’t share their snobbish interests to have economic and political power especially if union members earn more than they do.
It’s another hate fest, but the economics behind it was debunked decades ago. The opportunity to hate makes people forget.
Dana, I work with my hands all the time (car rebuild work, home repairs) and in a skilled way but not for pay. My profession is one that requires I primarily use my mental capacities rather than physical. It is also one that is a “fend for yourself” if not “dog eat dog” profession, with a helluva lot of constraints (good ones, mind you, such as enforced ethics).
I am just curious what you define as “working class people”. Is it manual labor? Is there an income cutoff? Does it exclude professionals, well-paid or not?
I know plenty of people who work their asses off to make a living, some a fairly handsome one but well deserved for their labor. It may not be physical labor but they are hardly the ilk of “snobbish interests”. Labor is not limited to those who organize around a specific category of it, nor those who do so in a manual way.
It is a bit worrisome when you get into recriminations with extremely broad-brush platitudes about “snobbish interests” versus “working class people”. Especially when you bring the term “hate” into the equation. This topic may be polarizing, but indiscriminately polarizing entire categories of people is no solution.
“It’s another hate fest, but the economics behind it was debunked decades ago. The opportunity to hate makes people forget.”
Dogless thinks the pot is calling the kettle black.
“Dogless thinks the pot is calling the kettle black.”
Dana doesn’t care what dogless thinks
___________
Tyler, I’m not even sure what your point is or how it is relevant to the topic at hand. But let me admit that many people work hard who don’t work in construction jobs–OK?
Funny I was wondering how loaded trick phrases about “hate” “snobbish interests” and “working class people” were relevant to a rational discussion of the impact of prevailing wage laws on Delaware taxpayers. I guess we are even.
My point I think was pretty obvious.
No, what is obvious Tyler is that the emerging power w/i the GOP named Dave Burris undoubtedly appreciates your efforts to befog these issues and my points w/ minutiae.
Can there ever be a discussion you don’t eventually devolve into assigning some sort of underhanded personal motive, when someone else’s comments don’t go your way? Sheesh.
I am sure Dave Burris needs no help from me to “befog” your “issues”. They look pretty damn foggy by your own hand already, with the class warfare nonsense.
“Class war nonsense,” you say? Well, you callous SOB, it seems to me that the class war was declared nearly three decades ago.
Eat this:
http://www.cbpp.org/12-14-07inc.-f1.jpg
Look at the chart and you’ll know why I and many others are in no mood to take prisoners anymore.
Continue to argue to hurt the condition of middle & lower class Americans and get crushed. I don’t care who it is.
What’s interesting about your graph, Dana, is how close together the bottom four-fifths are.
The big difference is with the top 1%. That’s because at that level, most of your income is taxed at 15% – and your gains compound.
So even a modest increase in tax on the top 1% (investment taxes – capital gains and dividends) would flatten out the differences considerably.
Conversely, a tax cut on the lower ranks would not have much effect on their net income growth.
Hey Dana, you commie bastard, in case you missed it I am a fairly lower income person struggling to meet ends with a fledgling professional business in a very competitive and rarefied economic environment. I am also a taxpayer who gets a bite at both ends from your Democratic party fiefdoms (city and county), as well as the usual state and federal grabs.
What do I and other citizens get for it? Grief, graft, and patronage teet sucking from your fellow travelers.
I am just about fed up with special interest handouts TO ANYBODY’S pet group…especially ones with powerful lobbies to pimp for them in Dover. With union lobbyists averaging about 400 lbs I am sure it is easy to crush anyone in your way, but get over yourselves. You aren’t the only working stiffs in the ‘hood.
Sorry for your “mood” but please spare me the idea that you are doing anything but inflicting it on us working class people with your endless special interest welfare programs.
Anon,
Interesting points.
I think the real significance of the graph is how it makes it unmistakably clear that the GOP trickle down nonsense is an utter lie and proven to be so over many, many years. Not only is it a lie, but it’s been a scheme to divert income away from the lower & middle classes and cram it into the pockets of the rich.
In terms of the prevailing wage nonsense, even Mike Castle drew the line on the latest scheme to impoverish these workers:
http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/will-dave-burris-denounce-mike-castle.html
Notice also how the GOPers like Tyler swarm a person who dares to support unions on ANY matter. They dismiss people like me out of hand WHO ADMITS that he is pro-union on many matters and ADMITS that he will soon work for a union. But they won’t hold a Dave Burris accountable and tell him he should answer what was put to him in comment #27 above. Not a word about that.
Dana, I really do think many state workers are underpaid. I talk regularly with people in various social service jobs and am dismayed at how low the pay is. Let’s face it, with higher pay scales a lot of the problems at places like the prisons and the DPC might not exist. Considering the training required and the importance of curbing turnover in these jobs, this strikes me as a better use of the money. As a taxpayer, I see far more benefit of keeping those workers happy than tossing extra money at construction workers — I frankly don’t care to add incentive to the building trades in a state that could be paved over completely by the time I croak.
I didn’t pay much attention to the wish list Dave assembled, because as you have so ably noted there’s no guarantee the money will be used for any of that. I just think that, as we try to figure out where to get the money for programs that will hit the chopping block, there’s not as much to recommend prevailing wage as many other potential uses.
I’m lost.
#1 – I used ALL the prevailing wage states and ALL the non-prevailing wage states, and calculated the average for all the statistics.
#2 – Just because you’re being paid to shill for unions doesn’t mean the same of me. Yes, I will pay myself if I raise enough money, but the $950 I’ve raised so far ain’t gonna do it. So there, if you want to claim that my integrity has been purchased for $950 (some of which came from my family) be my guest.
Just because you’re losing the argument, don’t go casting aspersions on people’s character.
Dave, thanks for your partial answer. But it is partial. Would there be any benefit for you as a Realtor if prevailing wage was repealed or for the realty company you are associated w/, Jack Lingo?
As a matter of fact, Dave, the biggest part of post #27 is about your realty connections. Why are you silent about that?
“Just because you’re losing the argument,…”
Now there you go again. I wrote you in an e-mail telling you that I wouldn’t be able to really engage fully in the argument until about 3 weeks when I read all the relevant material. So how can I be losing an argument I haven’t really entered into completely yet? I guess I’ll eventually have to post the e-mails and your little cheap shots about me losing this argument just to show people how you can be…..
“Just because you’re being paid to shill for unions doesn’t mean the same of me.”
Actually, Dave, I’m not being paid yet but will be soon. And I’m not being paid to speak for them; just to do research for them. And since you are throwing mud now knowing that it is unfair….I’ll remind everyone else here what you are not saying: That I told you months ago that I would be getting this job, but that didn’t stop me from supporting J. Christian contrary to the unions whose workers came out and worked for Ennis–you remember complaining about them, don’t you, Dave. How you resented them participating in the campaign.
It also hasn’t stopped me from coming out for wind power (which some unions oppose) or writing critically of Mayor Baker.
Sorry to intrude w/ those facts, Dave. I know those facts don’t accord w/ your mission to cast doubt on what I say because of my employer (as if that ever deterred me at Family Court).
In fact, Dave, you are the shill. I have never once seen you write any support for a Democratic candidate. Not once. Hell, even Jason will endorse some people in the GOP (Hastings & Tyler). But not you. You won’t ever step out of line, will you shill boy? lol
“Yes, I will pay myself if I raise enough money, but the $950 I’ve raised so far ain’t gonna do it.”
I guess if you were able to get prevailing wage defeated, the donations would spike up. 😉
Oh, that NCC study you keep citing. Why didn’t you tell us how old that study is, Dave? Why didn’t you tell us it was commissioned by Sherry Freebury (sp?) and why?
Is it because it would then appear neither relevant for 2008 nor the pristine, objective, politically-untainted document you’ve tried to sell it as?
LOL.
Al, you are right about state workers, especially the social workers being underpaid for the state. At the Division of Family Services it’s particularly egregious.
What happens is that they hire social workers right out college, load them up w/ more cases then they really are supposed to handle, pay them shit wages, give them complex cases which require someone w/ more experience than someone fresh out of college, tragedies occur (and near tragedies no one ever hears about) like kids getting killed or harmed for life, and too many of these line workers get burned out in 2-3 years even though they’re young & just out of college. It’s really tragic.
Years ago in meetings when this was being discussed even at Family Court, I argued that the line workers at DFS should be paid more than their supervisors so that more veterans stay in the ranks of line workers and can be assigned the more complex cases. Other veterans will still want to supervise, especially those getting near retirement age, because they won’t lose any of their current pay under state rules and they’ll just want the change.
My idea was considered ridiculous because it was unconventional. Silly me. I thought that was one of its virtues.
From a East-West line across Odessa,
Going South
The Delaware Bay is divided in half.
Half Delaware, half New Jersey.
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701512039/Delaware.html
I just hate it when people try to tell others where to go, but they themselves can not read a map.
Same with those who pretend to understand Math and Logic. Statements and fallacious arguments.
Quiz: What are deMorgan’s Laws. What is necessary to dis-prove a compound statement?
No, a repeal of the prevailing wage would not benefit the company I work for. And even if my broker benefited in some way, I would not see any of that benefit at any time.
You can try to cast doubt on me all you like, but there I have inherent advantages in this argument. Like being right.
I agree that you would do this disingenuous shilling for free. You are a complete sycophant when it comes to all things labor. Hey, we all have our flaws.
“I wrote you in an e-mail telling you that I wouldn’t be able to really engage fully in the argument until about 3 weeks when I read all the relevant material.”
But yet you’ve already claimed you’re going to “have my ass.” How would you know if you haven’t had time to prepare?