Panel: Detroit water, sewer department should cut 81% of workers to slow soaring rate

[jt1]

I'm in total agreement here.

Eliminate pensions for all new employees and replace it with a 401k program and 401k matching. That way you can still help employees plan and save for retirement, provide an incentive for employees to save, and also eliminate all post-employment liabilities.

All the job classifications are sickening. The more "specialized" a worker is the more time that he or she gets to stand around waiting for other people to do work first. This is by design and exactly what the union wants, inefficiency that leads to higher labor costs, more employees, and more union dues.

I also blame the management and city for letting it get to this point.

I'd love to see the following:

1) Create a regional water authority
2) Have the regional authority purchase the system from Detroit
3) Have the regional authority privatize it

I agree with that approach. How well would it go over telling residents of SE Michigan they will have to purchase it form the city. I'm pretty sure you'd have an easier sell telling Charlton Heston [[if he's alive) to give up his guns.

The suburban residents and leaders want the system without any of that pesky concept of paying for it.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

I understand your point, Wesley. That said, the United States has become a society of two classes, with different rules for each.

For the rich: less oversight, fewer regulations, lower taxes, less accountability, generous support, subsidies, little to no prosecution.

For the non-rich: intensive surveillance, rigid laws, multiplying fees and burdens, absolute accountability, reduced support, fewer subsidies, and a lock-em-up mentality.

In light of these facts, there's really nothing wrong at all with viewing any and all events through this prism. The poverty at the local and state levels are directly related to the largesse for the few at the top. Pleas to "work with what we have" ignore the situation that keeps putting "what we have" in direr straits.

Well stated, it's the have's and have-nots, no more in-between's. The middle class will be a dinosaur very soon.

[Wesley Mouch]

I understand your point, Wesley. That said, the United States has become a society of two classes, with different rules for each.

For the rich: less oversight, fewer regulations, lower taxes, less accountability, generous support, subsidies, little to no prosecution.

For the non-rich: intensive surveillance, rigid laws, multiplying fees and burdens, absolute accountability, reduced support, fewer subsidies, and a lock-em-up mentality.

In light of these facts, there's really nothing wrong at all with viewing any and all events through this prism. The poverty at the local and state levels are directly related to the largesse for the few at the top. Pleas to "work with what we have" ignore the situation that keeps putting "what we have" in direr straits.

So long as you don't use it as an excuse for unacceptable waste of already poor citizens taxes, I'm OK with you viewing things through whatever prism you like.

I just hate seeing hate cloud thought and productive action where its needed. The DWSD needs to be cleaned up whether you're 99% or 1%.

[Detroitnerd]

So long as you don't use it as an excuse for unacceptable waste of already poor citizens taxes, I'm OK with you viewing things through whatever prism you like.

I just hate seeing hate cloud thought and productive action where its needed. The DWSD needs to be cleaned up whether you're 99% or 1%.

I take the consultant's report with a grain of salt, but I imagine there are efficiencies that could be enacted. For instance, I'd find it hard to buy a used car from Mercado, right?

[Hermod]

And when you lend somebody money, you take a risk.

That is why there is interest: To reward good risks.

Not all risks pay off. That's why there are rewards for taking good risks.

Except that we have set up systems where austerity gets enforced to protect the interests of lenders above all else.

That's not capitalism. That's not a free market. That's gangsterism.

Except that the DSWD bonds are not "general obligation" bonds of the city. They are "revenue bonds" where the DSWD pledged their future revenues to pay the interest on the bonds and to create a "sinking fund" to eventually pay off the bonds. In other words, the bondholders have a claim on the DSWD future income stream.

[Hermod]

I understand your point, Wesley. That said, the United States has become a society of two classes, with different rules for each.

For the rich: less oversight, fewer regulations, lower taxes, less accountability, generous support, subsidies, little to no prosecution.

For the non-rich: intensive surveillance, rigid laws, multiplying fees and burdens, absolute accountability, reduced support, fewer subsidies, and a lock-em-up mentality.

In light of these facts, there's really nothing wrong at all with viewing any and all events through this prism. The poverty at the local and state levels are directly related to the largesse for the few at the top. Pleas to "work with what we have" ignore the situation that keeps putting "what we have" in direr straits.

So I can't buy a 100 foot yacht because Bill Gates stole all my money!

[Wesley Mouch]

So I can't buy a 100 foot yacht because Bill Gates stole all my money!

At least he gives some of it back.

[Detroitnerd]

So I can't buy a 100 foot yacht because Bill Gates stole all my money!

Why so modest, Hermod? Bill Gates’ boat is 435 feet long and designed by the Cunard Company.

[Scottathew]

DSWD employees are protesting downtown. I saw them in front of the Compuware building today at lunch.

[Hermod]

Why so modest, Hermod? Bill Gates’ boat is 435 feet long and designed by the Cunard Company.

I know he has a much bigger yacht. I am older than Gates and I was in my 40s when MS-DOS 1.0 came out. I just can't figure where he stole all that money from me.

Reminds me of a story back in the 19th century during the "robber baron" era. This Marxist guy went up to Carnegie [[or one of the other big shots, can't recall at the moment) and denounced him for not sharing his wealth with the world. Carnegie pulled out his notebook and wrote down his nt worth and the population of the world. He divided the one into the other. He then pulled 18 cents out of his pocket and handed it to the Marxist, saying, "Here's your share".

[Wesley Mouch]

DSWD employees are protesting downtown. I saw them in front of the Compuware building today at lunch.

What protest they?

[Detroitnerd]

I know he has a much bigger yacht. I am older than Gates and I was in my 40s when MS-DOS 1.0 came out. I just can't figure where he stole all that money from me.

Hermod, interesting to watch you intentionally misunderstand things.

Americans love success. Really! Americans enjoy people who work hard and make things. That's the hook that followers of Ayn Rand use to sink their objectivist fangs into us.

So why would any American hate those wonderful rich people?

Because not all rich people do anything constructive. A lot of them make their money the old-fashioned way; they inherit it; they hoard it.

And a lot of rich people make their money by taking constructive enterprises and shipping them overseas to take more profit by arbitrage.

And still more rich people are involved in fundamentally unproductive industries, such as those who sell highly profitable crap investments to the public and to governments.

But, increasingly, and perhaps most importantly of all, they are cheating. They are rigging the markets in their favor, buying politicians to create an environment where they prevail whether they have a good product or not. And the American people increasingly realize this.

So go ahead. Make fun of "socialists" until the cows come home. Purposely misunderstand what the complaints against the upper-class criminals are. I wouldn't expect anything more of you.

[Wesley Mouch]

...

Because not all rich people do anything constructive. A lot of them make their money the old-fashioned way; they inherit it; they hoard it.

And a lot of rich people make their money by taking constructive enterprises and shipping them overseas to take more profit by arbitrage.

And still more rich people are involved in fundamentally unproductive industries, such as those who sell highly profitable crap investments to the public and to governments.

But, increasingly, and perhaps most importantly of all, they are cheating. They are rigging the markets in their favor, buying politicians to create an environment where they prevail whether they have a good product or not. And the American people increasingly realize this.

...

Do you honestly believe that your stereotypes are accurate? Do you also think all poor people are lazy?
Stereotypes.

[Hermod]

Because not all rich people do anything constructive. A lot of them make their money the old-fashioned way; they inherit it; they hoard it.

Nothing to be ashamed of in inheriting money.



Here is a picture of me enjoying a day on my grandfather's yacht as a young lad.Attachment 15194

[Wesley Mouch]

Hoarding of wealth and concentration of power are legitimate issues.

Envy, hate, and simplification are sins.

[Detroitnerd]

Nothing to be ashamed of in inheriting money.

Here is a picture of me enjoying a day on my grandfather's yacht as a young lad.Attachment 15194

Ha. My great-grandmother had three lovely daughters.

One married a well-to-do rum-runner.

One married the scion of the D.J. Healy shoe fortune.

One married grandpappy Detroitnerd, a stinking, laughing, hard-working rubber worker whose life was thick with friends until the day he died.

I know which daughter was happiest.

[Detroitnerd]

Hoarding of wealth and concentration of power are legitimate issues.

Envy, hate, and simplification are sins.

I agree with you. That is why I carefully qualify my remarks so they are not generalizations. That is why you see wording such as "not all rich people" and "a lot of them" and "increasingly."

During the 19th century, quite a few of the richest people, for instance, knew it was in the best interest of the country for it to be built up, and so approved of tariffs, donated land to hospitals and schools, funded institutions to ameliorate the worst excesses of the Gilded Age, etc. Not all of them, but many. Many were involved in fundamentally creative enterprises, taking raw materials and producing finished products for export.

Frankly, the way the whole system is set up now, it penalizes any people, rich or poor, who'd want to build up America. It was Jack Welch, after all, who said, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- to move from country to country where the situations best suit you.

[Wesley Mouch]

I agree with you. That is why I carefully qualify my remarks so they are not generalizations. That is why you see wording such as "not all rich people" and "a lot of them" and "increasingly."

During the 19th century, quite a few of the richest people, for instance, knew it was in the best interest of the country for it to be built up, and so approved of tariffs, donated land to hospitals and schools, funded institutions to ameliorate the worst excesses of the Gilded Age, etc. Not all of them, but many. Many were involved in fundamentally creative enterprises, taking raw materials and producing finished products for export.

Frankly, the way the whole system is set up now, it penalizes any people, rich or poor, who'd want to build up America. It was Jack Welch, after all, who said, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- to move from country to country where the situations best suit you.

Nice to be in agreement with you. I don't like the demonization of either the rich [[manipulative bastards) nor the poor [[lazy bastards). The 99% movement does itself a disservice when it hates wealth. We've seen what happens when the government redistributes wealth. Its ugly. And we're seeing what happens when the unfettered market does the same. What we need now is reasonable regulation of financial markets -- and less rhetoric about the rich.

We remain a pretty fine country. And our collective wealth is an asset to the world. I don't think very many of our wealthy are the manipulative bastards you decry. So I fight against that generalization. But I think we can agree that there are a few too many these days -- and we are letting them get away with selfish and destructive manipulation.

Let's not destroy the 90% of the 1% who are good, decent, people who do give back to their communities to rid ourselves of the 10% bastards.

[Detroitnerd]

The 99% movement does itself a disservice when it hates wealth.

To say the 99 percent movement hates wealth is to misunderstand the complaints driving the movement. I don't think anybody says it better than Matt Taibbi.

===================================

I was at an event on the Upper East Side last Friday night when I got to talking with a salesman in the media business. The subject turned to Zuccotti Park and Occupy Wall Street, and he was chuckling about something he'd heard on the news.
"I hear Occupy Wall Street has a CFO," he said. "I think that's funny."
"Okay, I'll bite," I said. "Why is that funny?"
"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."
Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.
"Listen," I said. "Where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"
"Well," he said, "it's just, their protests are all about ... You know ..."
"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."
"Whatever," he said, shrugging.

...


When you take into consideration all the theft and fraud and market manipulation and other evil shit Wall Street bankers have been guilty of in the last ten-fifteen years, you have to have balls like church bells to trot out a propaganda line that says the protesters are just jealous of their hard-earned money.
Think about it: there have always been rich and poor people in America, so if this is about jealousy, why the protests now? The idea that masses of people suddenly discovered a deep-seated animus/envy toward the rich -- after keeping it strategically hidden for decades -- is crazy.

...

In this country, we cheer for people who hit their own home runs – not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon.
That's why it's so obnoxious when people say the protesters are just sore losers who are jealous of these smart guys in suits who beat them at the game of life. This isn't disappointment at having lost. It's anger because those other guys didn't really win. And people now want the score overturned.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz23ddCTPjh

[corktownyuppie]

To say the 99 percent movement hates wealth is to misunderstand the complaints driving the movement. I don't think anybody says it better than Matt Taibbi.

I don't have a problem taking shots at the top 1%. They deserve it in my mind. The problem is that while we're all distracted by our [[legitimate) anger at the 1%, we're letting the bottom 5% in SE Michigan ruin it for the other 95%.

People bitching about an $.81 per month fee to get on Belle Isle? Letting the needs of 2,000 employees supersede the needs of 4 million consumers?

You know, screw the top 1%. But screw the bottom 1%, too. I'm sick and tired of catering to the extremes on both sides of political ideology, when most of us just want a clean park and for taxes to be in line with services.

JoAnn Watson doesn't represent the 99%. I don't even think she represents the 50%. I'll let you and JoAnn duke it out with Madoff and Diamond.

The rest of us just don't want to walk through a trash-filled field en route to an overflowing sewer that we try to pass off as a bathroom.

[Detroitnerd]

Kinda hard to get angry at the bottom 1 percent. They don't make the rules or own a single senator. They don't own anything. If a person doesn't have a stake in the world, kinda hard to fault them for not caring about it.

Anyway, nice to hear an angry voice this morning. Wakes me up!

[corktownyuppie]

Kinda hard to get angry at the bottom 1 percent. They don't make the rules or own a single senator. They don't own anything. If a person doesn't have a stake in the world, kinda hard to fault them for not caring about it.

Anyway, nice to hear an angry voice this morning. Wakes me up!

I think you're confusing feelings for actions. It's not that I lack compassion for the bottom 1%. It's that I'm tired of letting that compassion be the justification that makes it ok to ruin things for everyone else.

There's a somber scene in Crimson Tide where Denzel Washington orders one of the grunts to seal off a room where the submarine was ruptured and taking on water. Doing so would seal the fate of an injured sailor. Failure to do so would risk the entire ship going down. Not a single man on that ship takes any joy or pleasure in putting the nail in the coffin of one of their peers. It's a gut-wrenching scene that still affects me just thinking about it. I would never want to be in the captain's shoes, even though I know the right decision to make.

An overdramatic analogy, I know. But making decisions about money or policy from an emotional place is an easy way to trade long-term objectives for short-term emotional relief. And that's the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not angry at the bottom 1%. To the contrary. I'm very passionate about wanting to help build them up. If I didn't care, I would've moved off to the outer ring suburbs a long time ago.

I'm angry that we let their needs take precedence over the whole ship and big picture.

[Detroitnerd]

I'm angry that we let their needs take precedence over the whole ship and big picture.

Not overdramatic. I love it when people inject references to film or literature into these discussions.

I guess I don't see an example, any example, of letting the needs of the very poorest take precedence over the rest of us. How do the very poorest rig the system in their favor?

[Detroitnerd]

Not to belittle your argument, but, off the cuff, it kinda reminds me of Ruben Bolling's Lucky Ducky cartoons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...DuckyComic.png

[corktownyuppie]

Not to belittle your argument, but, off the cuff, it kinda reminds me of Ruben Bolling's Lucky Ducky cartoons.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...DuckyComic.png

Well, for example, I consider Belle Isle to be a non-essential government service. It's 1,000 acres. There are 4,000 acres of park space in the neighborhoods. [[citing Stephen Henderson column from this a.m.)

So if the $0.85 per month prices the bottom 1% out of Belle Isle, but doing so frees up cash for every other park in the city while also making Belle Isle an attraction for people all over the SE Michigan region, and possibly the state, why would everyone be up in arms over that?