• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

New York - We Too Could Run Out of Money

6 words. I'm disappointed; I figured you could fit "unions" into the first 3 or 4.
 
It's not really fair to demonize the unions for getting cities into this mess - they took what the crooked politicians were willing to foolishly give them and did the best job for their members, which is what they're supposed to do. The politicians deserve to be demonized. That said, there's now a mess, and the unions are going to have to make significant concessions to help cities get out of it if they don't want their pensions to evaporate in bankruptcy court a la Detroit.

Despite the fact that I don't believe it is fair to demonize the unions, I also believe that public employees should not be permitted to collectively bargain for wages and benefits, precisely because politicians cannot be trusted to look out after the long-term interests of their constituents in the face of trading union giveaways for votes. North Carolina cities, by and large, do not have these problems because public employee unions in NC are not allowed to collectively bargain.
 
Corporations are supposed to get the best deal for their stakeholders, but unions aren't supposed to get the best deal for their members?

I think the better response would be that one of the great businessmen of our time had 12 years to address this issue as mayor and on the way out, he is complaining about it. I'm guessing Rudy probably shares some blame as well.
 
No problem with unions getting the best deal for the clients, as losing as they are willing to accept the eventual consequences. Of course those consequences usually end up being felt by the next generation, but DOESN'T MATTER GOT PAID, right?

#fucktheold
 
  • Like
Reactions: ONW
For the record, it wasn't an "article", it was an opinion piece written by Bloomberg himself (or more likely, his speechwriter). As such, it focuses ONLY on the unions as the sources of NYC's financial woes. Forgot to mention any other sources, such as, oh I don't know, the billion dollars the city has lavished on the Yankees and the Mets to build new stadiums in recent years. Maybe they could have put that in the pension fund and enjoyed the 20% run up in the Dow this year, that would have solved quite a good chunk of their pension underfunding issue.

Not saying that the unions shouldn't share some pain, but the idea that union pensions are the ONLY source of financial shortfalls in NYC and other big cities is laughable. If I'm the lawyer negotiating for the union, and I'm asked to take a cut "for the common good", I point to those stadium deals and ask why those guys aren't taking any cuts for the common good.
 
DeacMan said:
I'm fairly confident Ph didn't bother to read the article, Bill.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I just read your post and responded to it. Could you please point out how your post misrepresents the article? Thanks.
 
At what point do unions wrecking local (and soon, state) governments become a moral issue? There is no such thing as a good faith promise made upon due diligence that might scrape the underside of the overpass of gross negligence? Are we really to be satiated with the "Well, receipts failed to meet forecast" apologia/shrug?
 
"scrape the underside of the overpass of gross negligence"

Lenox, is that you?
 
Deacon923 said:
For the record, it wasn't an "article", it was an opinion piece written by Bloomberg himself (or more likely, his speechwriter). As such, it focuses ONLY on the unions as the sources of NYC's financial woes. Forgot to mention any other sources, such as, oh I don't know, the billion dollars the city has lavished on the Yankees and the Mets to build new stadiums in recent years. Maybe they could have put that in the pension fund and enjoyed the 20% run up in the Dow this year, that would have solved quite a good chunk of their pension underfunding issue.

Not saying that the unions shouldn't share some pain, but the idea that union pensions are the ONLY source of financial shortfalls in NYC and other big cities is laughable. If I'm the lawyer negotiating for the union, and I'm asked to take a cut "for the common good", I point to those stadium deals and ask why those guys aren't taking any cuts for the common good.
Click to expand...

Unlike most other cities, you don't think NYC makes enough directly off the Yankees (especially) and Mets to get a good return on its investment? The subway revenue alone is astronomical. Throw in the hotel taxes, food taxes, etc and it seems a no-brainer even without considering the private-sector and overall economic benefits.
 
Deacon923 said:
For the record, it wasn't an "article", it was an opinion piece written by Bloomberg himself (or more likely, his speechwriter). As such, it focuses ONLY on the unions as the sources of NYC's financial woes. Forgot to mention any other sources, such as, oh I don't know, the billion dollars the city has lavished on the Yankees and the Mets to build new stadiums in recent years. Maybe they could have put that in the pension fund and enjoyed the 20% run up in the Dow this year, that would have solved quite a good chunk of their pension underfunding issue.

Not saying that the unions shouldn't share some pain, but the idea that union pensions are the ONLY source of financial shortfalls in NYC and other big cities is laughable. If I'm the lawyer negotiating for the union, and I'm asked to take a cut "for the common good", I point to those stadium deals and ask why those guys aren't taking any cuts for the common good.
Click to expand...

LOLLERs @ underfunding. It's never overpromising, no. It's "underfunding". Got it.

When union pensions bring a Super Bowl to the area, call me. Until then, your ROI analysis is underfact-ed.
 
What type of ROI does NYC get from getting the garbage picked up?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Unlike most other cities, you don't think NYC makes enough directly off the Yankees (especially) and Mets to get a good return on its investment? The subway revenue alone is astronomical. Throw in the hotel taxes, food taxes, etc and it seems a no-brainer even without considering the private-sector and overall economic benefits.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Neither team was moving. Each was making millions, because they are in NYC.

BTW if 1000 people stayed in hotel rooms by themselves for each game the Yanks and Mets played and paid $$20/night, it would only be about $3.2M/year.
 
Keep the current benefit structures in place and the garbage won't be picked up. I love it when people pretend there's just a bottomless pit of money that can be spent on pensions and benefits. How many bankruptcies have to take place and how many democratic politicians like the mayors of New York and Chicago have to step up and call a spade a spade before people take notice. It's nothing more than simple math.
 
Simple math also shows there are plenty of other items in city budgets besides pensions and benefits.

By the way, simple history would show that NYC hasn't been run by a Democrat in 20 years.
 
jhmd2000 said:
LOLLERs @ underfunding. It's never overpromising, no. It's "underfunding". Got it.

When union pensions bring a Super Bowl to the area, call me. Until then, your ROI analysis is underfact-ed.
Click to expand...

you're exactly right, it was overpromising. that's the problem with public sector unions being allowed to negotiate with politicians they helped to elect. It shouldn't be allowed and shouldn't have been done.

Nonetheless, it was done, and cities like Detroit have more obligations than they have cash. They can respond to that in two ways - reduce obligations, or increase cash. In Detroit, everyone played pass (and borrow) the buck long past the point of blowing up the Laffer curve and long after it should have been apparent to everyone that the merry-go-round was slowing down. Like, decades past that point.

NYC is in a very different position - it's got some of the highest property values and richest people in the world, and it's on the upswing, not the downswing. The unions have a right to sit at the table and ask who else is going to share the pain of fixing the city's finances - reduce union obligations, sure, but go find some cash somewhere else too. Expecting the unions to just roll over because Bloomberg has decreed it's the right thing to do is unrealistic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top