Is Kevin Orr living too large?

[mwilbert]

Anyone who graduates high school, doesn't become a parent before age 20 [[and is married when they do), and avoids drugs and alcohol has statistically almost no chance of spending much time, let alone a lifetime, in poverty.

First of all, that statistic is from a 2009 Brookings Institution study that doesn't say quite that. It says that they have a small chance of ending up in poverty, but not that they will only be in poverty for a short time.

But more importantly, this tells us less than you appear to think it does. In particular, poor men have a hard time finding women to marry, and because of the shortage of eligible poor men, so do poor women. So by looking at how married people do, you are already excluding the poor people with the worst prospects.

Anyone who says that the poor have no ability to improve their lives is wrong, at least in general. But anybody who thinks there is a three-step process to get out of poverty is also wrong. We know that moving up the economic ladder in the US is difficult. Not impossible. In the Detroit area [[not Detroit proper), according to the national study out last week by Raj Chetty et al, there is about a 5% chance that a child born into a household in lowest 20% of the population will reach the highest 20% [[by income). That is a lot more than zero, but a lot less than it should be. Incidentally, in New York City, it is over 10%, fortunately for your successful immigrant friend.

[MikeyinBrooklyn]

MWILBERT, I think I have a slightly different point of view than a lot of people do. I don't think anyone has a right to get out of poverty. They just have a right not to be kept there by someone else's actions. Someone not giving you their money doesn't make you poor. I think people should and do sink or swim on their own. There will always be poor people. My uncle John is a bum who has chosen to drink and bet his money [[or other people's money) on the ponies his whole life. I am angered to this day that this man who did nothing productive in his life, literally stole money from friends, family, and strangers [[did jail time for it), is now on the dole in his old age. He had every opportunity in the world, including education, but he squandered it all. I don't think he is owed anything by anyone. No one is entitled to money someone else earned, no matter how poor you are or how rich they are. Note: I am not rich and do not hang out with rich people. I have just sweated enough for my money that I am sure that someone who didn't sweat for it doesn't deserve it.

Question for my liberal friends: what is the amount of money that can be given to someone to end their poverty? Is there such a number? Of course there isn't. Lottery winners frequently end up broke. Why? Becasue long term responsible living and intelligent decision making make you prosperous.
If there was a check we could write that would end poverty, I would favor writing that check once. But there isn't. There will always be achievers and non-achievers; that's the human race.

A person who takes a mimimum wage job is a lot more likely to be well-off in a decade than someone who spends their time protesting the lack of living wage jobs. It's easier but a lot less productive to choose to not work.

[Hermod]

First of all, that statistic is from a 2009 Brookings Institution study that doesn't say quite that. It says that they have
a small chance of ending up in poverty, but not that they will only be in poverty for a short time.

But more importantly, this tells us less than you appear to think it does. In particular, poor men have a hard time finding women to marry, and because of the shortage of eligible poor men, so do poor women. So by looking at how married people do, you are already excluding the poor people with the worst prospects.

Anyone who says that the poor have no ability to improve their lives is wrong, at least in general. But anybody who thinks there is a three-step process to get out of poverty is also wrong. We know that moving up the economic ladder in the US is difficult. Not impossible. In the Detroit area [[not Detroit proper), according to the national study out last week by Raj Chetty et al, there is about a 5% chance that a child born into a household in lowest 20% of the population will reach the highest 20% [[by income). That is a lot more than zero, but a lot less than it should be. Incidentally, in New York City, it is over 10%, fortunately for your successful immigrant friend.

In other words, poor women should keep their knees together.

[Wesley Mouch]

In other words, poor women should keep their knees together.

Yes. Until they've created an environment to best raise their children. Of course.

Women serve themselves and their future children best by having high standards.

Do we think this will happen 100% of the time? No. Should this be our goal? Without doubt.

Not just 'poor women', but all women. Isn't this obvious?

[mwilbert]

MWILBERT, I think I have a slightly different point of view than a lot of people do. I don't think anyone has a right to get out of poverty.

Well, I guess I would say I don't really think there is any need for anyone to be in poverty in the United States, but I agree that our society hasn't established a right not to be poor. I just think it is harder for people to escape poverty than you seem to. I think the evidence is on my side, but it isn't cut-and-dried.

But let me ask you this. What kind of life should drug addicts have? Let's talk, of what Alfie Doolittle called the undeserving poor. Do they have to live on the street with no teeth? I think it is entirely appropriate that they be less well-off than the working poor [[who I think should be better-off anyway), but how much worse off? And what about the children of the undeserving poor? We can say we think that people shouldn't have children without the means of raising them, but it doesn't seem that we have been able to prevent it. What are the appropriate living conditions for those kids?

The other thing is that this is only going to get worse as more jobs are lost to automation. US inequality is already at levels that have historically been destabilizing [[i.e. 1890's and 1920's). Eric Brynjolfsson thinks that 65% of the jobs in the economy can be eliminated in the foreseeable future. The only answer to widespread poverty is going to be giving money to people, either in conjunction with some kind of work requirement or not. The US political system is not ready for this, but it probably is going to need to start working on it pretty soon.

[old guy]

Well, I guess I would say I don't really think there is any need for anyone to be in poverty in the United States, but I agree that our society hasn't established a right not to be poor. I just think it is harder for people to escape poverty than you seem to. I think the evidence is on my side, but it isn't cut-and-dried.

I have to agree. I think it's much harder for people to escape poverty now, than it was several decades ago. I also agree with some of the points that Mikeyinbrooklyn makes.
People need to work at it, whatever it takes. Take a lesson from people that are crossing the Mexican border because their families are starving, and they have no other recourse. Like it or not, they're attempting to feed their families and stay alive, no matter what it takes.

I feel sorry for the coming of age people of this country because I don't know what's in store for the general populace. There doesn't seem to be enough opportunities to bring people out of poverty. It's always been a problem, but seems to be at an historical low.

[Novine]

The MikeyinBrooklyn's of the world need to be able to blame the poor of the world for the circumstances and position the poor end up in the world. Otherwise, it might require them to show some compassion for their fellow man, something they are desperately trying to avoid doing.

[mwilbert]

Regarding economic insecurity, possibly people will be interested in this:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-work/2594203/

[Downtown Lady]

In other words, poor women should keep their knees together.

Oh, do men play no role in child creation?

[TKshreve]

Oh, do men play no role in child creation?

A lot of the time the answer will be NO if you are referring to the post-birth portion of that situation.

[Zug]

Capitalism creates wealth inequality. "Rich" means that you are much better off than the average person...so everyone cannot be rich at the same time. The value of a job is often determined by the sociocultural environments we live in [[and the market forces they influence)...and not necessarily the amount of "hard work" it takes. Even our relative global wealth in the US & other post-industrial countries has been on the backs of countries with lower standards, less regulation, and less pay.

I agree that there should be limits on what government provides. Personally, I think every person has a right to minimum nutritional requirements per day and shelter. In a society where millions are willing to shelter and feed pets [[often over-feed http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/dog-care/overweight-dogs ), I find it concerning that some would like to see other humans not receive necessities because they're looked at as freeloaders. And, no, not all pet owners are bleeding heart liberals.

There are some lazy poor...but there are also lazy wealthy people [[and middle class). Just because a wealthy lazy person can afford to mooch from benefactors [[or live on money earned during short-lived stints of marketability) does not mean they are more deserving of a meal than a lazy person born into poverty. It's not like poor people enjoy being poor or think they're living large when on welfare.

[Wesley Mouch]

Capitalism creates wealth inequality. "Rich" means that you are much better off than the average person...so everyone cannot be rich at the same time. The value of a job is often determined by the sociocultural environments we live in [[and the market forces they influence)...and not necessarily the amount of "hard work" it takes. Even our relative global wealth in the US & other post-industrial countries has been on the backs of countries with lower standards, less regulation, and less pay.

I agree that there should be limits on what government provides. Personally, I think every person has a right to minimum nutritional requirements per day and shelter. In a society where millions are willing to shelter and feed pets [[often over-feed http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/dog-care/overweight-dogs ), I find it concerning that some would like to see other humans not receive necessities because they're looked at as freeloaders. And, no, not all pet owners are bleeding heart liberals.

There are some lazy poor...but there are also lazy wealthy people [[and middle class). Just because a wealthy lazy person can afford to mooch from benefactors [[or live on money earned during short-lived stints of marketability) does not mean they are more deserving of a meal than a lazy person born into poverty. It's not like poor people enjoy being poor or think they're living large when on welfare.

I'm a strong libertarian. Not Tea Party -- but I believe that government is better smaller and less intrusive. Let people live.

I also believe in basic social safety net. Food at a soup kitchen for everyone. Basic healthcare for everyone. Shelter for everyone.

Providing those basic services does not corrode people unless we fall into the trap of taking those services beyond the basics. Just enough food to stay alive. A bed in a communal house with shared facilities. Basic healthcare and dental. We'll keep you alive -- but you probably won't enjoy it.

We err when we start adding ideas like -- everyone deserves a single-family home -- or that the food must be healthy. No. That's reserved for those who contribute via their church or society to the good of society. Volunteer at church -- they'll may feed you better. Don't, and enjoy your gruel.

Wealth inequality is a great thing -- where it is the result of one's own industry. I favor a 100% death tax. No inheritance. Leave it to them while you're alive -- or return it to society. I'm not jealous of the wealthy. I encourage the desire for wealth. I hope CEO's make 1,000 times the wages of the average worker -- so long as they do so by the rules, and that the rules do not create advantages. This farm subsidies. We hate ADM, but we continue to fund them via subsidies. Then we wonder why they pay their CEO a lot. Hmm.

To take it back to the thread. Mr. Orr doesn't seem greedy. But he is well paid. And he appears to be very smart, resourceful, fair, and effective. He hasn't said he wants to take any money from anyone he doesn't absolutely have to. But he understands that his obligation is to follow the law, and settle our self-created mess -- by the law. If the courts say he can't touch pensions, then he'll deal with that I'm sure.

If this man can create a financial foundation for a better Detroit that we have not been able to do ourselves over the last decade, he's worth every penny and I hope he's compensated appropriately times 100. We will all share in the wealth created, and we'll all do better than we are today.

[Hermod]

Capitalism creates wealth inequality. "Rich" means that you are much better off than the average person...so everyone cannot be rich at the same time. The value of a job is often determined by the sociocultural environments we live in [[and the market forces they influence)...and not necessarily the amount of "hard work" it takes. Even our relative global wealth in the US & other post-industrial countries has been on the backs of countries with lower standards, less regulation, and less pay.

I agree that there should be limits on what government provides. Personally, I think every person has a right to minimum nutritional requirements per day and shelter. In a society where millions are willing to shelter and feed pets [[often over-feed http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/dog-care/overweight-dogs ), I find it concerning that some would like to see other humans not receive necessities because they're looked at as freeloaders. And, no, not all pet owners are bleeding heart liberals.

There are some lazy poor...but there are also lazy wealthy people [[and middle class). Just because a wealthy lazy person can afford to mooch from benefactors [[or live on money earned during short-lived stints of marketability) does not mean they are more deserving of a meal than a lazy person born into poverty. It's not like poor people enjoy being poor or think they're living large when on welfare.

Often laziness leads to innovation. As they say, if a job is very hard, give it to a lazy person as they may find away of making it easy. Ole Evinrude had to row a boat accross a Wisconsin lake on a hot summer day and was really tired of it. He went home and invented the outboard motor.

I am a very lazy person which is why I expended so much effort in school to avoid the Detroit assembly lines. My favorite saying is, "I love work. I can sit and watch it all day long."

[Locke09]

Wesley Mouch,

Given the philosophy you just espoused, I would expect you to be strongly opposed to the idea of bankruptcy. I would expect you to believe that a person who couldn't pay their bills should whittle their life down to the bare minimum until their lawful creditors are paid off - and a municipality should do the same.

[Wesley Mouch]

Wesley Mouch,

Given the philosophy you just espoused, I would expect you to be strongly opposed to the idea of bankruptcy. I would expect you to believe that a person who couldn't pay their bills should whittle their life down to the bare minimum until their lawful creditors are paid off - and a municipality should do the same.

Sure, I have some qualms with bankruptcy -- but they aren't relevant.

Many things in life are wrong -- in my opinion. So what.

I would prefer fiscal collapse over bankruptcy. Let the payless paydays arrive. I do prefer bankruptcy over EFM. EFM/EM is just wallpaper to hide failures and find clever ways of paying the bills until cashflow improves.

As the world exists to this pragmatic Randian, it must be dealt with. Too many people here fantasize about their perfect world. John Galt rules. Or Hugo Chavez. Reality is more nuanced. And success has proven not to be at either end of the spectrum.

Enough of that.

Municipal bankruptcy shouldn't happen. But we don't deal with problems. So they fester and get worse.

Municipalities should not be able to borrow. And they should not be able to promise pensions that aren't 100% funded. No defined benefit plans. Its a risk we should not accept. But we did. So let's pay the pensioners what we can and move on [[and that might not be 100%.)

But that's a dream. Back in reality, we need to limit borrowing and promising by our government much better. Limits to how much goodness our legislators and administrators can pay out to everyone who votes for them.

[mwilbert]

I would expect you to believe that a person who couldn't pay their bills should whittle their life down to the bare minimum until their lawful creditors are paid off - and a municipality should do the same.

I don't share Mr. Mouch's philosophy, but in what way have Detroit's services not been whittled down to the bare minimum? I would say a bunch of them are less than the bare minimum already. And of course, further whittling will probably only diminish future resources--if you sold both your kidneys to pay off some of your debts, the rest of your creditors probably wouldn't get much.

[noggin]

This is why Mr. Orr has to change the old structure: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...trending_now_1

From wsj.com---
"Since Detroit declared bankruptcy on July 18, the city's crippling problems with corruption, unfunded benefits and pension liabilities have gotten the bulk of airtime. But equally at fault for its fiscal demise are the city's management structure and union and civil-service rules that hamstring efforts to make municipal services more efficient. I would know: I had a front-row seat for this dysfunction.

Last year, I served as chief operating officer of the Detroit Department of Transportation. I was hired as a contractor for the position, and in my eight months on the job I got a vivid sense of the city's dysfunction. Almost every day, a problem would arise, a solution would be found—but implementing the fix would prove impossible.

We began staff meetings each morning by learning which vendors had cut us off for lack of payment, including suppliers of essential items like motor oil or brake pads. Bus engines that the transportation department had sent out to be overhauled were sidelined for months when vendors refused to ship them back because the city hadn't paid for the repair. There were days when 20% of our scheduled runs did not go out because of a lack of road-ready buses.

The obvious solution for a cash-tight operation is to triage vendor payments to ensure that absolutely essential items are always there. But in Detroit, no one inside the transportation department could direct payments to the most important vendors. A bureaucrat working miles away in City Hall, not responsible to the transportation department [[and, frankly, not responsible to anyone we could identify), decided who got paid and who didn't. That meant vendors supplying noncritical items were often paid even as public buses were sidelined.

It was impossible to know, since the city's law department handled all litigation and settled cases without consulting the DDOT staff. It was the law department's policy to settle virtually all claims—which meant that the transportation department became easy prey for personal-injury lawyers bringing cases with little or no merit, costing the city millions. A major expense for Detroit is the cost of lawsuits filed against the city for various alleged injuries on municipal property. At the transportation department, there were hundreds of claims arising from bus accidents alone. How many of those claims were fraudulent? How many were settled [[with the cost of settlement and legal fees posted against DDOT's budget) at unnecessarily high cost?

In the DDOT we tried to hire our own lawyers to fight these claims. But we were blocked by city charter provisions prohibiting any city department from hiring outside counsel without the approval of the Detroit City Council. When we inquired with the mayor's office we were told that the union representing the law department—in Detroit, even the lawyers are unionized—would block any such approval.

Disability and workers' comp claims were routinely paid with no investigation into their validity. More than 80% of the transportation department's 1,400 employees were certified for family medical-leave absences—meaning they could call in for a day off without prior notice, often leaving buses without drivers or mechanics. Management's only recourse to get the work done was to pay the remaining employees overtime, at time-and-a-half rates. DDOT's overtime costs were running over $20 million a year.

Then there was the obstructionism of the City Council. While I was at the DDOT, roughly 10% of bus-fare collection boxes were broken. In another city, getting a contract to buy spare parts to repair these boxes would be routine. The City Council publicly expressed outrage that we didn't fix the fare boxes, since the city was losing an estimated $5 million a year in uncollected fares.

But the reason we couldn't fix the fare boxes was that the contract for the necessary spare parts had been sitting, untouched, in the City Council's offices for nine months. Due to past corruption, virtually every contract had to be approved by the council, resulting in months-long delays.

Micromanagement by the council was endemic; I once sat for five hours waiting to discuss a minor transportation matter while City Council members debated whether to authorize the demolition of individual vacant and vandalized houses, one by one. There are over 40,000 vacant houses in Detroit.

Union and civil-service rules made it virtually impossible to fire anyone. A six-step disciplinary process provided job protection to anyone with a pulse, regardless of poor performance or bad behavior. Even the time-honored management technique of moving someone up or sideways where he would do less harm didn't work in Detroit: Job descriptions and qualification requirements were so strict it was impossible for management to rearrange the organization chart. I was a manager with virtually no authority over personnel.

When the federal government got involved, it only made things worse. A federal lawsuit charging that the DDOT did not fully comply with the law in accommodating disabled riders had dragged on for years because of idealistic but painfully naïve Justice Department attorneys seeking regulatory perfection. I felt like a guy in the boiler room of the Titanic, desperately bailing to keep the ship afloat for a few more hours while the DOJ attorneys complained from their first-class cabin that their champagne wasn't properly chilled.
Detroit's other municipal departments had similar challenges. I would often compare notes with managers trying to run the city's street lights, recreation programs, police departments and smaller offices. All of us faced similar gridlock.

The last thing Detroit needs is a bailout. What it needs is to sweep away a city charter that protects only bureaucrats, civil-service rules that straightjacket municipal departments, and obsolete union contracts. A bailout would just keep the dysfunction in place. Time to start over."

[SWMAP]

All so very true.

[firstandten]

An interest aside to the article Bill Nojay was a contractor working for the contractor that was hired to fix DDOT. Mr. Nojay had to leave because he was violating the Hatch Act which says that working for the government you can't get involved in partisan politics [[he is a conservative Repub running for office in NY state). It seems however in the eight short months he had the job he pretty much nailed it.

[Locke09]

An interest aside to the article Bill Nojay was a contractor working for the contractor that was hired to fix DDOT. Mr. Nojay had to leave because he was violating the Hatch Act which says that working for the government you can't get involved in partisan politics [[he is a conservative Repub running for office in NY state). It seems however in the eight short months he had the job he pretty much nailed it.

He was running for office in New York while supposedly also working full time for the City. He makes some valid points but is exaggerating a lot as well.

He doesn't seem to understand that the City can't have each agency deciding in isolation who is important to pay. I know for a fact that the City routinely solicits info from each agency asking who are their critical vendors, who should receive preferential treatment when there are cash flow problems. Even the vendors know this is how it works and the savvy ones make their case for being considered critical. Granted, there is also going to be some politics played, with certain vendors always getting preferential treatment, especially if they are yelling loudly, but this happens in private industry too [[good to know things from both sides of the fence).

As far as not being able to fire bad employees - if he can't do that then he is incompetent. Give me a six-step procedure for firing someone and I will do my due diligence and have them out the door. I know the union will then ask for a "last-chance" for the employee. I will be ready with a last-chance plan that either results in a bad employee turned good or a bad employee turned out on the streets. I have done it more than once.

[cassiesmom1]

If this is true he should be ashamed of himself. All this on the backs of the City workers, retirees and taxpayers.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/i...z/-/index.html

Why should he be ashamed himself for coming to do the job he was hired to do at the salary he was promised. It is not on the backs of city workers because Detroit has no money.

[cassiesmom1]

Yes. Until they've created an environment to best raise their children. Of course.

Women serve themselves and their future children best by having high standards.



Do we think this will happen 100% of the time? No. Should this be our goal? Without doubt.

Not just 'poor women', but all women. Isn't this obvious?

I agree. Why would I want to give birth to a child for whom I cannot provide a good life?

[mwilbert]

As far as not being able to fire bad employees - if he can't do that then he is incompetent.

I want to agree with this, but with a caveat.

You absolutely can fire people in government. There are job descriptions and rules. If they don't do the job or don't follow the rules, you document it and if they don't get better you document that and you can get rid of them. It happens all the time.

The caveat is that the process can take a lot of work and follow-up, and managers only have so much time. In my personal experience, managers only take the trouble with employees who are active problems; because their work is actually destructive, or because they are destructive of morale, or because they are taking up a slot that the manager really needs someone competent in.

The other thing is that it is lot easier if you have competent HR people backing you up. I don't know how common that is in the City of Detroit.

[Wesley Mouch]

He was running for office in New York while supposedly also working full time for the City. He makes some valid points but is exaggerating a lot as well.

He doesn't seem to understand that the City can't have each agency deciding in isolation who is important to pay. I know for a fact that the City routinely solicits info from each agency asking who are their critical vendors, who should receive preferential treatment when there are cash flow problems. Even the vendors know this is how it works and the savvy ones make their case for being considered critical. Granted, there is also going to be some politics played, with certain vendors always getting preferential treatment, especially if they are yelling loudly, but this happens in private industry too [[good to know things from both sides of the fence).

As far as not being able to fire bad employees - if he can't do that then he is incompetent. Give me a six-step procedure for firing someone and I will do my due diligence and have them out the door. I know the union will then ask for a "last-chance" for the employee. I will be ready with a last-chance plan that either results in a bad employee turned good or a bad employee turned out on the streets. I have done it more than once.

You make some good arguments that the status quo is acceptable -- except that its not.

What you may be ignoring is that in the above examples, as you increase the difficulty of independent action, you give much more power to the political actors.

In Detroit, as many other places, the politics took control.

if you believe as he does that direct action is necessary to change the city, I'm sure he found that direct action is possible -- but very difficult.

Sure, you can get your necessary bills paid -- but you'll have to fight the machine.

Sure, you can fire someone -- but you'll have a fight on your hands.

We don't need to privatize everything. But we also can't let the political actors run everything either. We see the results of that approach.

[Locke09]

You make some good arguments that the status quo is acceptable -- except that its not.

What you may be ignoring is that in the above examples, as you increase the difficulty of independent action, you give much more power to the political actors.

In Detroit, as many other places, the politics took control.

if you believe as he does that direct action is necessary to change the city, I'm sure he found that direct action is possible -- but very difficult.

Sure, you can get your necessary bills paid -- but you'll have to fight the machine.

Sure, you can fire someone -- but you'll have a fight on your hands.

We don't need to privatize everything. But we also can't let the political actors run everything either. We see the results of that approach.

I didn't intend to imply that the status quo is acceptable. That's why I said he makes some valid points - but he is exaggerating. It is not easy but he is certainly implying it is impossible - which it isn't.

I was going to argue that you aren't fighting a political machine to get bills paid, because the problem is more a cash flow problem. But then I reconsidered. It is a political machine. Sometimes a very irritating one. But not the impossible situation he is describing.