To play devil's advocate: Does anybody other than hardcore libertarians (like me) actually dispute this? The people in the right column perform (allegedly) useful services, while the people in the left column, aside from small business vendors, are basically money sinks. One can argue that we should, as a matter of compassion, support them, but they're not important in the sense of actually doing anything useful.
Even if one was to agree with what you just said, wouldn't it be right to cut off support entirely to "non-useful" groups, rather than promise support, but not actually give it?
Besides, there seem to be plenty of sinks in both columns
Not all people who are currently "money sinks" will remain so. Sometimes, a little bit of help can move somebody from one column to the other -- and I know, it can work both ways.
It's an investment. And like all investments, it doesn't always pay a return. But there's enough return from the investment to make it profitable to consider it a market.
My mother was a teenage bride, pregnant at 15, first child born just 3 months after she turned 16. When I was nine, my father became a dead-beat dad before there was such a catchy name for non-supportive fathers (or laws against it). He supported his my step-mother's children, not his children. I grew up eating what we could grow (we lived on a farm), supplemented by army surplus food -- the predecessor of food stamps; boxes of nasty stuff my mom picked up at the town office each month.
She enrolled in a CETA program in the early 1970's lab technician. And she kept on going, retiring as a respected histologists. And she lifted us out of poverty because of her training and her hard work.
I'm very proud of my mother; and I'm extremely grateful for the investment others made in her -- and my -- life. That investment moved both of us from the liability to the asset column.
I'm extremely grateful for the investment others made in her -- and my -- life. That investment moved both of us from the liability to the asset column.
Again, not an investment. A (forced and involuntary) transfer of wealth is not an investment, it's thievery, no matter how beneficial it is for those receiving someone else's money (not that anyone should go all Inspector Javert on such people or anything).
Okay, not an investment. I'm sure you don't think it was better for us to have had no opportunity, no hope for a better life, no ability to contribute instead of leech.
But I do know that what she paid in taxes in the 24 years she worked was many times the cost of helping her gain the skills to enable her to move our family out of poverty. And the skills were desperately needed by the health-care industry at the time.
So if it wasn't an investment, what was it? And while you're at the thievery theme, get off my roads. You're stealing them. And get off my internet. Because that was stolen from me, too. And don't even think about either you or your offspring attending a public university, a hospital, or going to an event in a arena, because they were all stolen from me, too. No PBS, no cancer treatments, and no vaccinations allowed, either. No food, Dept. of AG is among the biggest of theves, no water, and no air. I paid for it with more taxes then you can possibly imagine, and I really resent your stealing it from me.
Here's something: your mother had a child she couldn't support--should other people be forced to fix her mistakes?
I also think any unnecessary public fixtures, such as government-funded universities, hospitals, and arenas should not exist. Roads are pretty much impossible for anyone not to use, but they are also a special case. Just because you are forced by the government to use things they paid for by confiscation does not make it right.
I won't go crying in my pillow at night with no PBS (seriously, you think this is somehow a loss?) Private cancer research does way more with less funds. And I'm not sure how we wouldn't have food without the Department of Agriculture, I think people have been growing it themselves for thousands of years before the US government starting paying farmers not to farm and giving hundred-thousand-dollar handouts to people already making that amount.
I also pay taxes. I don't think they should go to anything other than what's absolutely necessary. People who refuse to help themselves are not who I would deem absolutely necessary, especially when they think they should be allowed to steal from others in order to get ahead in life, while the people who made smart decisions are penalized for doing so.
That list seems calculated to be as offensive as possible, much like the old "pretend we can only cut essential services so they'll let us raise taxes" trick. Someone's trying to put pressure on someone else for some purpose; the question is, who, who, and what?
Brad, I think the argument would go something like this:
Ask the question, "what things should the government pay for?"
One simple answer is, "the things that society feels should be done that the market, left to its own devices, will not do."
If you assume that if something is useful to someone then the market will provide for it, then it is the "useless" things that people still want done that should be provided for by the government.
Note that I'm not actually stating my personal opinion on anything. More of just a logical exercise.
How can the socialists at the various communes... errr... I mean "universities," allow for this? I thought that this was all about "to everyone according to their needs," no? Clearly the blind and the developmentally delayed aren't able bodied, and need social assistance more than able-bodied Ph.D.'s
Unlike the disabled, the professors, with their 90 caliber degrees and 2 inch thick CV's, should be able to find work in days. There are crops to pick, roads to clean, burgers to flip, etc.
Why aren't they walking the walk? What are they, Commissars?
Well, all of the academic types I know (quiet a few, as I am one) voted for tax increases. That seems like how we "walked the walk" in terms of "actually wanting to feed the hungry."
As far as why professors are getting paid while the disabled get IOU's, well, I don't think that's quiet the way it's working out, but, strangely, the legislators didn't send out a memo at our last secret meeting for world domination and so, alas, the choice was not ours to make.
Of course academics vote for higher taxes. From the academic's perspective, the rest of the economy can go hang as long as there are enough taxes to pay his salary.
What is wrong with paying the useful people before the sponges?
Isn't that sort of like putting your own oxygen mask on before helping someone else?
After all, if you don't pay the people with jobs, like professors, they will quit and work somewhere else. If you quit paying the disabled, they aren't going to quit being disabled and go mooch somewhere else.
It's just common sense if you ask me. If it bothers you so much, write a check. And in any case, quit forcing other people to pay for your moral preferences.
"After all, if you don't pay the people with jobs, like professors, they will quit and work somewhere else."
Um, right. How often do professors, except *maybe* the occasional engineering or chemistry prof, have any skill others will pay for without retraining as a paralegal or some other low-level reader of paper?
If you cut professor's salaries by half, they would still show up for work. Pissed. But they would show up. (See also the UAW.)
Perhaps it's easy to produce IOUs in Braille? Anyway, "That list seems calculated to be as offensive as possible, much like the old "pretend we can only cut essential services so they'll let us raise taxes" trick": that trick is called "shroud-waving" in Britain. Thus, any government cuts are predicted to destroy the National Health Service and so yield mountains of corpses.
Kidding aside, has anyone looked into the legality of this? I didn't think that a municipality could write an IOU - I thought that was called a "bond." Can you force someone to take a bond in lieu of cash?
Yes, this issue has been explored in court; after a previous budget showdown (this was the mid-90s) in which state employees were paid in IOUs, courts found that this practice was unlawful. So it's not like the Governor just up and decided on his own that employees won't/can't be paid in IOUs.
Politically, of course this looks really bad. But like any organization, the state has a lot more latitude with people to whom it *gives* money than it does with people to whom it *owes* money. I think this is ultimately proper, even if it has distasteful consequences.
So it's not like the Governor just up and decided on his own that employees won't/can't be paid in IOUs.
According to the State Controller, the following people must be paid in cash by the state constitution, court mandate or federal law. Everyone else is getting an IOU.
You seem to be somewhat familiar with the subject. This is an actual question with no snark, sarcasm, or political commentary involved. I have been unable to find the answer elsewhere.
Vendors and private businesses who have contractual relationships with the State of California are being paid in IOU's, which may or may not be accepted by their financial institutions as being money. I heard a number of the larger ones aren't, but the source was the LA Times which requires confirmation before believing. The California Treasurer's web site does say that financial institutions are NOT required to accept them as deposits, and recommends that if yours won't, to find another which will.
If you are a private business which has signed a contract with the state to deliver a good or service to the state, and you are functionally being paid in scrip of questionable value [in the 1960's-70's Colorado did the same a few times for its employees and the "vouchers" were only accepted by merchants and banks at a 15% discount]; are you required by law to continue fulfilling your side of the contract, even though you are not really being paid? Or can you terminate the relationship like you would for any other deadbeat customer? Would a business be required to eat the loss? It strikes me that if the state requires that its IOU's be accepted by businesses at face value; that functionally it is creating its own currency on its own printing presses. Neither constitutionally nor economically a good thing.
No, I do not have a business in California, albeit I have family out there who do. But it would seem that just as any disruption to the normal rule of law in business adds to the "regime risk" of doing business; this process would push businesses a) away from doing business with government entities in California, b) or if they do so, to price in a "risk premium" markup ahead of time to cover anticipated losses caused by government fiat, and c) is yet another factor that would weigh against doing business in California at all if it can be avoided because the basic rules [details like getting paid for what you do] are malleable and out of your control.
I'm sorry to say that my familiarity with the situation is this:
My parents work for the state of California, and I was living with them (in either high school or junior college, I don't remember) at the time of the 90's IOU episode.
Impressive, I know.
Anyway, at that time there was a single credit union (Golden 1) that dominated the state-worker banking market. This CU had sufficient liquidity to treat the IOUs as cash deposits, and they did so. The consequences around the house were thus negligible. I'm not sure if this is still the case this time around; G1 is still around and still huge, but it wouldn't exactly surprise me to hear that in the current financial environment it's much harder for G1 to treat IOUs as cash.
Still, I remember subsequently reading about state employees filing suit against the state for this treatment. I don't actually recall whether the case was decided in US or CA court, but the ruling was (broadly, in lay terms) that the IOU payments violated labor laws and/or contracts and were unlawful. This is all stuff I read in the Sacramento Bee/heard from my Mom. I don't bring it up because I'm an expert, but just because I remember it and it seems like other people have forgotten.
As for the vendors to the state, their being paid in IOUs is obviously troubling. But as I understand it an entity also has more leeway in dealing with vendors than it does with employees; ie, the rules and consequences about paying employees on time are stricter than those about paying other bills on time. I could be wrong about that, and am open to correction.
Subotai: Strictly speaking, it is constitutional for the state to print its own currency. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the right to "coin" money. During the early years of the republic private banks and states issued their own paper dollars, which traded in currency (foreign exchange) markets. Over the past year I have seen several news stories about communities creating their own currency (sorry I'm not going to look up sources but I believe "Berkshire Bucks" is an example) in order to encourage a buy local movement. But your second point is correct, it may not be economically a good thing.
If you quit paying the disabled, they aren't going to quit being disabled and go mooch somewhere else.
Just as an aside, I once heard a criminal defendant admit that he was on disability, and then state that he was trying to get a job at the local mill. Which of course suggests that perhaps he was, shall we say, "differently" disabled.
I would say you're making a snap judgment about someone whose situation is completely unknown to you, is what I would say. Then again, I'm aware of the fact that things can be made to sound horrible when they're total innocuous. Have you heard about the evil of dihydrogen monoxide?
I sat through the whole #&^@* trial, for heaven's sake. His situation wasn't so much "completely unknown" to me as "known in far more detail than I ever would have wanted."
Allow me to spell it out in words of one syllable: He said he could work. There was no sign that he lied. If that is true (and he should know), he should not get cash from the State to sit at home and smoke pot (which he did).*
I did not speak to him face to face.
*(Legally speaking, it is possible to be "disabled" even while capable of working, but not possible to be "disabled" while actually working. This is a quirk in the law.)
So, he said he could work, was mooching of disability, and was applying for a job?
Wtf are you smoking at home, dude? Obviously, he went on disability and was trying to find work he could do so that he get off of it.
Newsflash, most people don't want to make a meager wage even if they have to do nothing for it. Disability ISN'T AWESOME.
I mention this often, but it's called knowing what you're talking about. Even if you are, by some stroke of luck, completely correct in your assessment of this young man, you still don't know shit about him. Stop fucking judging people you don't know shit about. I'm sure there are a million ways to sum your life up in a few sentences that make you look like an asshole. Hell, you seem to do it in comments daily.
Even if you are, by some stroke of luck, completely correct in your assessment of this young man, you still don't know shit about him. Stop fucking judging people you don't know shit about.
Well, first off, I haven't really been judging him. I have seen many much worse people. I have merely suggested that he wasn't actually disabled. Which he...wasn't, by his own admission. Disabled people don't apply for mill-floor jobs. Whether he had been disabled at some earlier time, I don't know. He certainly convinced somebody that he was.
But as for knowing what you're talking about: I know substantially more about him than you know about me. His entire (successful!) defense to drug and gun-trafficking charges was "I'm a poor dumb redneck, I don't know what's going on, dude!" So his life was pretty thoroughly put on display, and in a manner calculated to make him as sympathetic a figure as possible.
One thing I don't know about him was whether he ever really did get that job, or whether that might have been a sympathy ploy. I'd actually bet on the latter, seeing as how he probably didn't enjoy the first trial, and the AUSA who lost might well have wanted another run at him for Social Security fraud.
I know of three people on permanent disability that spend every afternoon at my gym working towards their body building careers. Probably not a coincidence that they worked for the town fire department.
Unless they are suffering from some kind of monstrous mental impairment--in which case they should probably be kept away from hard, heavy objects--anybody who is strong enough to work out regularly is strong enough to hold some kind of job. I once worked a guy with a serious neurological disorder who rolled his electric wheelchair into work every morning and sat at a computer filling orders for auto parts. He was a real jerk to me, but you have to respect someone with enough self-respect to keep working even when he struggled to control his hands well enough to punch keys on the keyboard. He could have mooched, but he didn't have to mooch, so he didn't.
Or they could suffer from a non "monstrous" mental impairment that prevents them from working. Bipolar disorder, borderline, controlled schizophrenia. I'm sure you're familiar with those terms.
Hey, I have an idea, let's let doctors decide who can work and who can't. You know, the ONES WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
Yeah, there are plenty of ailments that would prevent any real work but allow for working out. They could have carpal tunnel. They could have herniated discs. They could have something that allows them to workout for 3 hours but not sustain concentrated effort for 8.
Again, doctors are the ones who know about this kind of thing, not bitter commentors on the internet who are really hard working and yet have time at work to follow invective comment threads religiously. Yes, I include myself in that latter criticism, to ward of your ZOMG HYPOCRITE line of attack.
They could have carpal tunnel. They could have herniated discs.
They sure as hell shouldn't be lifting weights with either of those. But yes, spinal stenosis is practically mandatory for the SS disability applicant.
But in any case, neither carpal tunnel nor herniated disks bar one from ALL possible work. They bar one from certain kinds of work, sure. But it turns out that there are many kinds of work, from the physically stressful to the sedentary, from jobs requiring high intelligence to jobs requiring borderline no intelligence. And to be disabled from ALL forms of work, one has to be functioning at a pretty low level either mentally or physically, which is virtually certain to exclude regular vigorous exercise.
Yancy. Nope. I applied for it because of three herniated discs in the lower and mid back, but was rejected. I didn't appeal because I finally found treatment that made the pain manageable, after two years.
When I wasn't managed, I went to the gym regularly because exercise was the best thing for the pain, but I was unable to work full time in any capacity. Now, I'm back at work. I would not be if I hadn't been lucky enough to find a treatment that helped me, after trying several.
Rob, those were called EXAMPLED. They were hardly meant to be a definitive list. See, I know that I'm not a doctor and hence that there are ailments of which I'm unaware.
MORAL OUTRAGE! OR STUPIDITY OUTRAGE! WHATEVER!!!!! RARAARARARAAARARARAR! I TALK LOUDER BECAUSE I DON'T SPEAK STUPID AND WE ALL KNOW THE BEST WAY TO OVERCOME A LANGUAGE BARRIER IS TO YELL! RAAAAAARRRRR!
Yeah, there are plenty of ailments that would prevent any real work but allow for working out. They could have carpal tunnel. They could have herniated discs.
I've suffered from both of those. I was able to work. Go to the gym? Not so much.
Herniated disk + load bearing activity == OMFG IT HURTS SO MUCH EPIC FAIL. I guess the squat machines or maybe lower body cardio with carpal tunnel is doable.
Incidentally, one can work with carpal tunnel. Perhaps your career as a programmer is over, but you can do other jobs.
Nutella, spend some time working for a federal judge or, really, any system that adjudicates disability claims. The amount of fraud is enraging. Sure, there are some sad case--heck, lots of sad cases.
There are also way too many people seeking checks when they don't need them. Someone bodybuilding while "disabled" is almost certainly in that category.
I know of three people on permanent disability that spend every afternoon at my gym working towards their body building careers. Probably not a coincidence that they worked for the town fire department.
Yes, indeed, the CA disability system is famous for a staggering amount of fraud. But I'm thinking the solution is less to pay them with IOUs than to figure out which ones are truly disabled and get rid of the rest.
You got it, mi amigo. That is why everyone in the know just rolls their eyes, ignores the fraud, and hopes the larger community does not figure out what is going on: a fairly small but no totally insignificant percentage of the "disabled" are people loafing and enjoying life on the money taken from others.
Just how much do you know about the south? Is it really laissez faire? Has it always been? What are the differences in unemployment between the north and the south, over the past century? Are there any other factors that could explain them? It's called knowing what you are talking about, asshole.
Employment should be higher in California. No snow, no hurricanes, and water access to China where most things get made. You'd really have to screw something up for California to overcome its natural advantages in a negative way.
I think i see the nutella formula. It goes like this
1. there is an infinite amount of information on any given subject.
2. Anyone's knowledge of any subject is final.
3. It follows that no one knows all there is to know about anything.
4. Anyone that does not know all about something cannot arrive at any conclusions.
5. Anyone who arrives at a conclusion is an asshole and should be told so.
Notice, that i only suspect that this is the formula, and in no way consider this a conclusion, therefor I am not an asshole.
Considering this post is all about how unfair it is that politians are obeying the law, I'd say it's a safe bet that people here are discussing things of which they're not informed.
Tell me, is everyone here an expert on disability AND happens to have found out that the trust about it conforms to their idea that anyone receiving government handouts is a lazy moocher, or are they just all biased as hell and incapable of empathy?
We report, you decide.
Or, you just decide.
If you'll notice, I haven't called anyone lazy OR defended the disability system. I've merely pointed out that people here are making blanket statements based on incomplete information that reflect their predispositions. I have yet to see a thread where you guys say "Hmm, that sounds bad but I don't know the details so I'll refrain from judgment." If I saw any indication that people were even TRYING to see both sides of the issue, I'd find some other ant hill to poke with a stick. Just so happens, you guys are my little ants.
Nutella on Toast (Replying to: RobM1981) on July 2, at 2009 10:38 AM
Well, all of the academic types I know (quiet a few, as I am one) voted for tax increases. ...
As far as why professors are getting paid while the disabled get IOU's, well, I don't think that's quiet the way it's working out
I sure as hell hope you don't teach English but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you do.
I don't think that's it, rather its the same reason africa hasn't developed economically. People rise in the face of adversity, and most technological progress comes from necessity. When resources are plentiful, fewer bother trying.
If you'll notice, I haven't called anyone lazy OR defended the disability system. I've merely pointed out that people here are making blanket statements based on incomplete information that reflect their predispositions.
What I noticed is that you started by going after someone who didn't make a blanket statement, but based what statement he did make on fairly extensive information.
I have rather more familiarity with the disability system than most, having had a little part to play in it a few years ago, reading hundreds of pages of medical history and briefs written by advocates including italics, bold italics, and bold underline italics. Your pitiful caps lock holds no fear for me.
What I saw was a lot of whiners mixed in with some people who got genuinely screwed because they waited 5 years for the damn system to process them. Plus a lot of sleazy hangers-on like borderline incompetent lawyers (one filed a claim for prevailing party attorney's fees after he LOST) and sketchy doctors. Also, a system whose standards are, on their face, screwy.
When I wasn't managed, I went to the gym regularly because exercise was the best thing for the pain, but I was unable to work full time in any capacity. Now, I'm back at work. I would not be if I hadn't been lucky enough to find a treatment that helped me, after trying several.
This seems perfectly reasonable - speaking as someone who's suffered a twinge or two themselves. But - as usual - you get the same reflexive contradictions from the same small set of people.
In fact, exercising to prevent or remediate back pain is a well-established procedure. It is by no means quackery of the accupuncture sort either. In fact, the University of Michigan guys say:
Good activities for people with back problems include:
• walking
• bicycling
• swimming
• strength training on machines
• aerobic exercise on machines
Who does the government of the state of California exist to serve? Hopefully it will be obvious now.
LOL! Beautiful!
To play devil's advocate: Does anybody other than hardcore libertarians (like me) actually dispute this? The people in the right column perform (allegedly) useful services, while the people in the left column, aside from small business vendors, are basically money sinks. One can argue that we should, as a matter of compassion, support them, but they're not important in the sense of actually doing anything useful.
Even if one was to agree with what you just said, wouldn't it be right to cut off support entirely to "non-useful" groups, rather than promise support, but not actually give it?
Besides, there seem to be plenty of sinks in both columns
Not all people who are currently "money sinks" will remain so. Sometimes, a little bit of help can move somebody from one column to the other -- and I know, it can work both ways.
It's an investment. And like all investments, it doesn't always pay a return. But there's enough return from the investment to make it profitable to consider it a market.
Zic, that was your best comment I've ever read.
To quibble:
Investments are made voluntarily, while tax supported welfare are not.
Still, you just laid out the foundation for libertarian welfare, which is no small accomplishment.
I'm flattered.
My mother was a teenage bride, pregnant at 15, first child born just 3 months after she turned 16. When I was nine, my father became a dead-beat dad before there was such a catchy name for non-supportive fathers (or laws against it). He supported his my step-mother's children, not his children. I grew up eating what we could grow (we lived on a farm), supplemented by army surplus food -- the predecessor of food stamps; boxes of nasty stuff my mom picked up at the town office each month.
She enrolled in a CETA program in the early 1970's lab technician. And she kept on going, retiring as a respected histologists. And she lifted us out of poverty because of her training and her hard work.
I'm very proud of my mother; and I'm extremely grateful for the investment others made in her -- and my -- life. That investment moved both of us from the liability to the asset column.
I'm extremely grateful for the investment others made in her -- and my -- life. That investment moved both of us from the liability to the asset column.
Again, not an investment. A (forced and involuntary) transfer of wealth is not an investment, it's thievery, no matter how beneficial it is for those receiving someone else's money (not that anyone should go all Inspector Javert on such people or anything).
Not an investment.
Okay, not an investment. I'm sure you don't think it was better for us to have had no opportunity, no hope for a better life, no ability to contribute instead of leech.
But I do know that what she paid in taxes in the 24 years she worked was many times the cost of helping her gain the skills to enable her to move our family out of poverty. And the skills were desperately needed by the health-care industry at the time.
So if it wasn't an investment, what was it? And while you're at the thievery theme, get off my roads. You're stealing them. And get off my internet. Because that was stolen from me, too. And don't even think about either you or your offspring attending a public university, a hospital, or going to an event in a arena, because they were all stolen from me, too. No PBS, no cancer treatments, and no vaccinations allowed, either. No food, Dept. of AG is among the biggest of theves, no water, and no air. I paid for it with more taxes then you can possibly imagine, and I really resent your stealing it from me.
Here's something: your mother had a child she couldn't support--should other people be forced to fix her mistakes?
I also think any unnecessary public fixtures, such as government-funded universities, hospitals, and arenas should not exist. Roads are pretty much impossible for anyone not to use, but they are also a special case. Just because you are forced by the government to use things they paid for by confiscation does not make it right.
I won't go crying in my pillow at night with no PBS (seriously, you think this is somehow a loss?) Private cancer research does way more with less funds. And I'm not sure how we wouldn't have food without the Department of Agriculture, I think people have been growing it themselves for thousands of years before the US government starting paying farmers not to farm and giving hundred-thousand-dollar handouts to people already making that amount.
I also pay taxes. I don't think they should go to anything other than what's absolutely necessary. People who refuse to help themselves are not who I would deem absolutely necessary, especially when they think they should be allowed to steal from others in order to get ahead in life, while the people who made smart decisions are penalized for doing so.
That list seems calculated to be as offensive as possible, much like the old "pretend we can only cut essential services so they'll let us raise taxes" trick. Someone's trying to put pressure on someone else for some purpose; the question is, who, who, and what?
Brad, I think the argument would go something like this:
Ask the question, "what things should the government pay for?"
One simple answer is, "the things that society feels should be done that the market, left to its own devices, will not do."
If you assume that if something is useful to someone then the market will provide for it, then it is the "useless" things that people still want done that should be provided for by the government.
Note that I'm not actually stating my personal opinion on anything. More of just a logical exercise.
How can the socialists at the various communes... errr... I mean "universities," allow for this? I thought that this was all about "to everyone according to their needs," no? Clearly the blind and the developmentally delayed aren't able bodied, and need social assistance more than able-bodied Ph.D.'s
Unlike the disabled, the professors, with their 90 caliber degrees and 2 inch thick CV's, should be able to find work in days. There are crops to pick, roads to clean, burgers to flip, etc.
Why aren't they walking the walk? What are they, Commissars?
Project much?
Rapier...
Well, all of the academic types I know (quiet a few, as I am one) voted for tax increases. That seems like how we "walked the walk" in terms of "actually wanting to feed the hungry."
As far as why professors are getting paid while the disabled get IOU's, well, I don't think that's quiet the way it's working out, but, strangely, the legislators didn't send out a memo at our last secret meeting for world domination and so, alas, the choice was not ours to make.
Of course academics vote for higher taxes. From the academic's perspective, the rest of the economy can go hang as long as there are enough taxes to pay his salary.
Yeah, those Harvard boys are really living off the teat of.. oh wait.
And wasn't the criticism something else two comments ago? Whatever makes those damn know it alls look bad, eh?
I'm guessing you're not an economist if you don't realize that's exactly what's happening.
What is wrong with paying the useful people before the sponges?
Isn't that sort of like putting your own oxygen mask on before helping someone else?
After all, if you don't pay the people with jobs, like professors, they will quit and work somewhere else. If you quit paying the disabled, they aren't going to quit being disabled and go mooch somewhere else.
It's just common sense if you ask me. If it bothers you so much, write a check. And in any case, quit forcing other people to pay for your moral preferences.
Jay,
How useful are the legislators?
"After all, if you don't pay the people with jobs, like professors, they will quit and work somewhere else."
Um, right. How often do professors, except *maybe* the occasional engineering or chemistry prof, have any skill others will pay for without retraining as a paralegal or some other low-level reader of paper?
If you cut professor's salaries by half, they would still show up for work. Pissed. But they would show up. (See also the UAW.)
That means one thing: overpaid.
Perhaps it's easy to produce IOUs in Braille? Anyway, "That list seems calculated to be as offensive as possible, much like the old "pretend we can only cut essential services so they'll let us raise taxes" trick": that trick is called "shroud-waving" in Britain. Thus, any government cuts are predicted to destroy the National Health Service and so yield mountains of corpses.
Kidding aside, has anyone looked into the legality of this? I didn't think that a municipality could write an IOU - I thought that was called a "bond." Can you force someone to take a bond in lieu of cash?
IANAL, so, you know...
Yes, this issue has been explored in court; after a previous budget showdown (this was the mid-90s) in which state employees were paid in IOUs, courts found that this practice was unlawful. So it's not like the Governor just up and decided on his own that employees won't/can't be paid in IOUs.
Politically, of course this looks really bad. But like any organization, the state has a lot more latitude with people to whom it *gives* money than it does with people to whom it *owes* money. I think this is ultimately proper, even if it has distasteful consequences.
So it's not like the Governor just up and decided on his own that employees won't/can't be paid in IOUs.
According to the State Controller, the following people must be paid in cash by the state constitution, court mandate or federal law. Everyone else is getting an IOU.
http://www.sco.ca.gov/5917.html
How invidiousulous of them to follow the law. What next?
broken_quanta
You seem to be somewhat familiar with the subject. This is an actual question with no snark, sarcasm, or political commentary involved. I have been unable to find the answer elsewhere.
Vendors and private businesses who have contractual relationships with the State of California are being paid in IOU's, which may or may not be accepted by their financial institutions as being money. I heard a number of the larger ones aren't, but the source was the LA Times which requires confirmation before believing. The California Treasurer's web site does say that financial institutions are NOT required to accept them as deposits, and recommends that if yours won't, to find another which will.
If you are a private business which has signed a contract with the state to deliver a good or service to the state, and you are functionally being paid in scrip of questionable value [in the 1960's-70's Colorado did the same a few times for its employees and the "vouchers" were only accepted by merchants and banks at a 15% discount]; are you required by law to continue fulfilling your side of the contract, even though you are not really being paid? Or can you terminate the relationship like you would for any other deadbeat customer? Would a business be required to eat the loss? It strikes me that if the state requires that its IOU's be accepted by businesses at face value; that functionally it is creating its own currency on its own printing presses. Neither constitutionally nor economically a good thing.
No, I do not have a business in California, albeit I have family out there who do. But it would seem that just as any disruption to the normal rule of law in business adds to the "regime risk" of doing business; this process would push businesses a) away from doing business with government entities in California, b) or if they do so, to price in a "risk premium" markup ahead of time to cover anticipated losses caused by government fiat, and c) is yet another factor that would weigh against doing business in California at all if it can be avoided because the basic rules [details like getting paid for what you do] are malleable and out of your control.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai,
I'm sorry to say that my familiarity with the situation is this:
My parents work for the state of California, and I was living with them (in either high school or junior college, I don't remember) at the time of the 90's IOU episode.
Impressive, I know.
Anyway, at that time there was a single credit union (Golden 1) that dominated the state-worker banking market. This CU had sufficient liquidity to treat the IOUs as cash deposits, and they did so. The consequences around the house were thus negligible. I'm not sure if this is still the case this time around; G1 is still around and still huge, but it wouldn't exactly surprise me to hear that in the current financial environment it's much harder for G1 to treat IOUs as cash.
Still, I remember subsequently reading about state employees filing suit against the state for this treatment. I don't actually recall whether the case was decided in US or CA court, but the ruling was (broadly, in lay terms) that the IOU payments violated labor laws and/or contracts and were unlawful. This is all stuff I read in the Sacramento Bee/heard from my Mom. I don't bring it up because I'm an expert, but just because I remember it and it seems like other people have forgotten.
As for the vendors to the state, their being paid in IOUs is obviously troubling. But as I understand it an entity also has more leeway in dealing with vendors than it does with employees; ie, the rules and consequences about paying employees on time are stricter than those about paying other bills on time. I could be wrong about that, and am open to correction.
Subotai: Strictly speaking, it is constitutional for the state to print its own currency. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the right to "coin" money. During the early years of the republic private banks and states issued their own paper dollars, which traded in currency (foreign exchange) markets. Over the past year I have seen several news stories about communities creating their own currency (sorry I'm not going to look up sources but I believe "Berkshire Bucks" is an example) in order to encourage a buy local movement. But your second point is correct, it may not be economically a good thing.
If you quit paying the disabled, they aren't going to quit being disabled and go mooch somewhere else.
Just as an aside, I once heard a criminal defendant admit that he was on disability, and then state that he was trying to get a job at the local mill. Which of course suggests that perhaps he was, shall we say, "differently" disabled.
I would say you're making a snap judgment about someone whose situation is completely unknown to you, is what I would say. Then again, I'm aware of the fact that things can be made to sound horrible when they're total innocuous. Have you heard about the evil of dihydrogen monoxide?
I sat through the whole #&^@* trial, for heaven's sake. His situation wasn't so much "completely unknown" to me as "known in far more detail than I ever would have wanted."
I apologize if that was too long for you to read.
TLDR.
You know so much, but his disability was only "suggested" to you? Wow, sounds like you guys were best buds.
Allow me to spell it out in words of one syllable: He said he could work. There was no sign that he lied. If that is true (and he should know), he should not get cash from the State to sit at home and smoke pot (which he did).*
I did not speak to him face to face.
*(Legally speaking, it is possible to be "disabled" even while capable of working, but not possible to be "disabled" while actually working. This is a quirk in the law.)
So, he said he could work, was mooching of disability, and was applying for a job?
Wtf are you smoking at home, dude? Obviously, he went on disability and was trying to find work he could do so that he get off of it.
Newsflash, most people don't want to make a meager wage even if they have to do nothing for it. Disability ISN'T AWESOME.
I mention this often, but it's called knowing what you're talking about. Even if you are, by some stroke of luck, completely correct in your assessment of this young man, you still don't know shit about him. Stop fucking judging people you don't know shit about. I'm sure there are a million ways to sum your life up in a few sentences that make you look like an asshole. Hell, you seem to do it in comments daily.
Even if you are, by some stroke of luck, completely correct in your assessment of this young man, you still don't know shit about him. Stop fucking judging people you don't know shit about.
Well, first off, I haven't really been judging him. I have seen many much worse people. I have merely suggested that he wasn't actually disabled. Which he...wasn't, by his own admission. Disabled people don't apply for mill-floor jobs. Whether he had been disabled at some earlier time, I don't know. He certainly convinced somebody that he was.
But as for knowing what you're talking about: I know substantially more about him than you know about me. His entire (successful!) defense to drug and gun-trafficking charges was "I'm a poor dumb redneck, I don't know what's going on, dude!" So his life was pretty thoroughly put on display, and in a manner calculated to make him as sympathetic a figure as possible.
One thing I don't know about him was whether he ever really did get that job, or whether that might have been a sympathy ploy. I'd actually bet on the latter, seeing as how he probably didn't enjoy the first trial, and the AUSA who lost might well have wanted another run at him for Social Security fraud.
Guys, get a room.
I know of three people on permanent disability that spend every afternoon at my gym working towards their body building careers. Probably not a coincidence that they worked for the town fire department.
I know FOUR people on permanent disability that are retarded, in a wheelchair, blind, dyslexick and hate kittens.
Oh, wait, what I meant to say is that being able to go to the gym and being able to hold a full time job AREN'T THE SAME THING YOU IDIOT.
Unless they are suffering from some kind of monstrous mental impairment--in which case they should probably be kept away from hard, heavy objects--anybody who is strong enough to work out regularly is strong enough to hold some kind of job. I once worked a guy with a serious neurological disorder who rolled his electric wheelchair into work every morning and sat at a computer filling orders for auto parts. He was a real jerk to me, but you have to respect someone with enough self-respect to keep working even when he struggled to control his hands well enough to punch keys on the keyboard. He could have mooched, but he didn't have to mooch, so he didn't.
Or they could suffer from a non "monstrous" mental impairment that prevents them from working. Bipolar disorder, borderline, controlled schizophrenia. I'm sure you're familiar with those terms.
Hey, I have an idea, let's let doctors decide who can work and who can't. You know, the ONES WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
In at least two of the cases, it is proclaimed to be the inability to perform physical labor. I suppose it could all be in their heads.
Or they could suffer from a non "monstrous" mental impairment that prevents them from working.
It's called "laziness."
OMG LET'S TYPE IN CAPS TO EXPRESS OUR MORAL OUTRAGE AT PEOPLE WHO EXPECT OTHERS TO WORK FOR A LIVING!!
Yeah, there are plenty of ailments that would prevent any real work but allow for working out. They could have carpal tunnel. They could have herniated discs. They could have something that allows them to workout for 3 hours but not sustain concentrated effort for 8.
Again, doctors are the ones who know about this kind of thing, not bitter commentors on the internet who are really hard working and yet have time at work to follow invective comment threads religiously. Yes, I include myself in that latter criticism, to ward of your ZOMG HYPOCRITE line of attack.
Maybe it's all in your head.
They could have carpal tunnel. They could have herniated discs.
They sure as hell shouldn't be lifting weights with either of those. But yes, spinal stenosis is practically mandatory for the SS disability applicant.
But in any case, neither carpal tunnel nor herniated disks bar one from ALL possible work. They bar one from certain kinds of work, sure. But it turns out that there are many kinds of work, from the physically stressful to the sedentary, from jobs requiring high intelligence to jobs requiring borderline no intelligence. And to be disabled from ALL forms of work, one has to be functioning at a pretty low level either mentally or physically, which is virtually certain to exclude regular vigorous exercise.
Nut,
I just took it as a given that you are on disability due to deep emotional problems, so you would get no hypocrite criticisms from me.
Yancy. Nope. I applied for it because of three herniated discs in the lower and mid back, but was rejected. I didn't appeal because I finally found treatment that made the pain manageable, after two years.
When I wasn't managed, I went to the gym regularly because exercise was the best thing for the pain, but I was unable to work full time in any capacity. Now, I'm back at work. I would not be if I hadn't been lucky enough to find a treatment that helped me, after trying several.
Rob, those were called EXAMPLED. They were hardly meant to be a definitive list. See, I know that I'm not a doctor and hence that there are ailments of which I'm unaware.
MORAL OUTRAGE! OR STUPIDITY OUTRAGE! WHATEVER!!!!! RARAARARARAAARARARAR! I TALK LOUDER BECAUSE I DON'T SPEAK STUPID AND WE ALL KNOW THE BEST WAY TO OVERCOME A LANGUAGE BARRIER IS TO YELL! RAAAAAARRRRR!
I've suffered from both of those. I was able to work. Go to the gym? Not so much.
Herniated disk + load bearing activity == OMFG IT HURTS SO MUCH EPIC FAIL. I guess the squat machines or maybe lower body cardio with carpal tunnel is doable.
Incidentally, one can work with carpal tunnel. Perhaps your career as a programmer is over, but you can do other jobs.
Nutella, spend some time working for a federal judge or, really, any system that adjudicates disability claims. The amount of fraud is enraging. Sure, there are some sad case--heck, lots of sad cases.
There are also way too many people seeking checks when they don't need them. Someone bodybuilding while "disabled" is almost certainly in that category.
Yes, indeed, the CA disability system is famous for a staggering amount of fraud. But I'm thinking the solution is less to pay them with IOUs than to figure out which ones are truly disabled and get rid of the rest.
But I'm thinking the solution is less to pay them with IOUs than to figure out which ones are truly disabled and get rid of the rest.
Ironically, it will probably cost a lot more to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate them.
You got it, mi amigo. That is why everyone in the know just rolls their eyes, ignores the fraud, and hopes the larger community does not figure out what is going on: a fairly small but no totally insignificant percentage of the "disabled" are people loafing and enjoying life on the money taken from others.
The best part is that Obama is holding up California as the model for the nation.
Soon you too will know the joy of reduced energy usage via higher taxes and fleeing industry!
I wonder if the national IOUs will come with Obama's face on them? I'm looking forward to having my next tax refund paid in Barry Bucks.
As opposed to those havens of laissez faire in the south, where unemployment hasn't been high, ever.
Just how much do you know about the south? Is it really laissez faire? Has it always been? What are the differences in unemployment between the north and the south, over the past century? Are there any other factors that could explain them? It's called knowing what you are talking about, asshole.
It was nice of California to take pity on flyover country and send us all their industry.
Employment should be higher in California. No snow, no hurricanes, and water access to China where most things get made. You'd really have to screw something up for California to overcome its natural advantages in a negative way.
No earthquakes, droughts, brush fires or mudslides either. It's a freaking paradise, here.
When was the last serious earthquake? Economically, brushfires and mudslides are nothing compared to snow.
Like Texas?
I think i see the nutella formula. It goes like this
1. there is an infinite amount of information on any given subject.
2. Anyone's knowledge of any subject is final.
3. It follows that no one knows all there is to know about anything.
4. Anyone that does not know all about something cannot arrive at any conclusions.
5. Anyone who arrives at a conclusion is an asshole and should be told so.
Notice, that i only suspect that this is the formula, and in no way consider this a conclusion, therefor I am not an asshole.
Considering this post is all about how unfair it is that politians are obeying the law, I'd say it's a safe bet that people here are discussing things of which they're not informed.
Tell me, is everyone here an expert on disability AND happens to have found out that the trust about it conforms to their idea that anyone receiving government handouts is a lazy moocher, or are they just all biased as hell and incapable of empathy?
We report, you decide.
Or, you just decide.
If you'll notice, I haven't called anyone lazy OR defended the disability system. I've merely pointed out that people here are making blanket statements based on incomplete information that reflect their predispositions. I have yet to see a thread where you guys say "Hmm, that sounds bad but I don't know the details so I'll refrain from judgment." If I saw any indication that people were even TRYING to see both sides of the issue, I'd find some other ant hill to poke with a stick. Just so happens, you guys are my little ants.
truth, not trust. Ignore what I said because I made a typo and am therefore wrong.
Nutella on Toast (Replying to: RobM1981) on July 2, at 2009 10:38 AM
Well, all of the academic types I know (quiet a few, as I am one) voted for tax increases. ...
As far as why professors are getting paid while the disabled get IOU's, well, I don't think that's quiet the way it's working out
I sure as hell hope you don't teach English but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if you do.
Shall we go over some of our muse's various typos, or do you only proofread people that call you dumb?
Employment should be higher in California. No snow, no hurricanes..
How do we know the nice weather doesn't just draw the country's bums and layabouts?
I don't think that's it, rather its the same reason africa hasn't developed economically. People rise in the face of adversity, and most technological progress comes from necessity. When resources are plentiful, fewer bother trying.
the reason is that in California and in Africa property rights are violated, ignored and in some cases not even recognized.
If you'll notice, I haven't called anyone lazy OR defended the disability system. I've merely pointed out that people here are making blanket statements based on incomplete information that reflect their predispositions.
What I noticed is that you started by going after someone who didn't make a blanket statement, but based what statement he did make on fairly extensive information.
I have rather more familiarity with the disability system than most, having had a little part to play in it a few years ago, reading hundreds of pages of medical history and briefs written by advocates including italics, bold italics, and bold underline italics. Your pitiful caps lock holds no fear for me.
What I saw was a lot of whiners mixed in with some people who got genuinely screwed because they waited 5 years for the damn system to process them. Plus a lot of sleazy hangers-on like borderline incompetent lawyers (one filed a claim for prevailing party attorney's fees after he LOST) and sketchy doctors. Also, a system whose standards are, on their face, screwy.
This seems perfectly reasonable - speaking as someone who's suffered a twinge or two themselves. But - as usual - you get the same reflexive contradictions from the same small set of people.
In fact, exercising to prevent or remediate back pain is a well-established procedure. It is by no means quackery of the accupuncture sort either. In fact, the University of Michigan guys say:
The bottom line is, don't be too quick to judge.