Of all of the reactions to the recall election in Wisconsin I’ve read I think that this anguished cri de coeur from Matt Stoller must be the most hysterical. Hysterical in the sense of irrational from fear, shock, or other strong emotion not in the sense of extremely funny. Here’s a snippet from a difficult-to-excerpt post:
In other words, first, liberals lost a policy battle, then they failed to strike, then they lost a primary election, then they lost a general election to the most high-profile effective reactionary policy-maker in the country. The conservative beat the moderate who beat the liberal. And had Barrett won, he wouldn’t even have rolled back Walker’s agenda. Somehow, in a no-win electoral situation, Democrats and labor managed to lose as badly as they possibly could.
What happened?
I wish I could say I had a new insight, but it’s basically the same problem I’ve been writing about for years. Put simply, it’s that Obama’s policy framework is now the policy framework of the Democratic Party, liberals, and unionism. Up and down the ticket, Democrats are operating under the shadow of the President, associated with unpopular policies that make the lives of voters worse and show government to be an incompetent, corrupt handmaiden to big business. So they keep losing.
I think he’s overrreacting, to say the least. A better analysis is that Wisconsinites prefer Scott Walker over Tom Barrett, they don’t like government by mob action, and the public employees’ unions aren’t nearly as popular in Wisconsin as its leaders apparently think they are.
My only other remark is that, when Alexis Tsipras is the standard bearer for what you believe in, you’re in a world of hurt. Let me remind everybody that when you get right down to it there are only two potential mechanisms for allocating resources: markets and fiat. When your preference is for a command economy you will inevitably get burned.
Update
Forsooth! The criticisms of Stoller’s post from other progressives are even more over-the-top than the post is.
Jon Stewart had it right. “Yes, the people have spoken, saying, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, you didn’t hear us the first time?'”
Succinct.
Michael,
A rare day —> we agree.
Ugh.
I couldn’t help but note this comment by Yves Smith downstream, on resentment towards public sector benefits:
“The real issue is buried: gov’t workers went for a deal of more security and pay stability and gave up upside. That turned out to be the better bet. Now the people who made the bad bet are acting like sore losers.”
If that’s the prevailing attitude among progressives, no wonder public sector unions are in trouble.
There’s actually the kernel of an important point in the comment. Particularly in places where teacher salaries are paid by their districts while their pensions are paid by the state government, e.g. Illinois and (I think) California, local governments have been able to finesse the system by encouraging the growth of benefits instead of wages. That is no longer a credible offer and we should expect teachers’ unions to start playing hardball on wages.
That’s playing out in Chicago right now (BTW the state doesn’t pay Chicago teachers’ pensions). Chicago public school teachers are demanding a 30% pay increase over a two year period. That sets the stage for Emanuel’s first real showdown with public employees’ unions in the fall. The strike vote’s being taken right now and if the interviews I’ve heard are to be believed there will, indeed, be a strike.
The strike vote’s being taken right now and if the interviews I’ve heard are to be believed there will, indeed, be a strike.
What happens if the teachers go on strike but there is no noticable drop-off in student performance?
I think a 30% increase in wages over the next two years in the current environment is a sensible request. yeah, I’m a sensible guy.
I also think every woman I find attractive should be subservient to my amorous desires”………no questions asked. Yeah, I’m a sensible guy…..
There’s quite some number of teachers who’ve been laid off recently and lots of new grads who can’t find jobs.
There’s quite some number of teachers who’ve been laid off recently and lots of new grads who can’t find jobs.
I wasn’t sufficiently snarky in my earlier comment. I mean, what if the kids don’t come off as more ignorant and more stupid even if they don’t go to school at all? The teachers may well be giving evidence of their complete worthlessness if the kids are alright without them.
Getting mellow in your old age? I wish it weren’t this way but the teachers are meaningless. It doesn’t matter what the students know or don’t know. It’s the credential that matters. Everything else is kabuki.
The same is true in college, with technical credentials, and even, at least to some degree, with professional degrees. What do they call the guy who graduated last in his medical school class? Doctor.
Getting mellow in your old age?
Getting tired in my daughter’s old age! Two year-olds are tiring….
As I recall, Chicago public teachers are the highest paid or close to the highest paid in the country if you factor in cost of living.
Starting salary for a CPS elementary school teacher, bachelors only, no experience, 10 month schedule is $45,000.
According to Teacher Portal, Illinois is the number one state in salary comfort for teachers, based upon starting and mean salaries, adjusted for cost of living. That may be difficult to isolate to Chicago, but my sense would be that Chicago’s teaching salaries are above average in the state, more so than the cost of living would account for. It may be necessary to pay Chicago teacher’s more, but they aren’t uncomfortable based upon national standards.
And I’m concerned that the kids aren’t getting jobs, they are staying for their Masters, hopining the situation changes, and I wonder/fear they might price themselves out. I think a lot of contracts guarantee a higher salary for a higher degree, and some schools might not be able to afford it.
In my view it is not only a professional responsibility but a practical necessity that professionals and public servants moderate their wage requirements relative to the community they serve. Chicago public school teachers already earn on average a couple of standard deviations above the median income for the city. The raise they’re asking for would put them into the stratosphere.
The city is not empowered to levy an income tax. Chicago already has the highest retail sales tax in the country and that avenue is about tapped out—raising the rate farther may not raise additional revenue.
The only viable alternative for additional revenue for the city is by increasing property taxes. Over the last six years Chicago homeowners have seen their taxes rise substantially even as the value of their homes decline. Taxes are now significantly higher relative to the value of their homes than they were just a few years ago. Raising property taxes farther will undoubtedly drive some people from their homes, maybe even out of the state. That particularly applies to people on fixed incomes. Enough already.