20 Most miserable cities to live in, anyone see a pattern?

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from PiggyBank:

^ That isn't corporate raiding.

Let's go over what employment is. A producer of goods or services (aka an employer) often needs help providing said goods or services to consumers. To fill this necessity they offer jobs to potential employees. This job is essentially a contract between employee and employer which provides specific tasks to the employee in return for specific compensation from the employer. This is in no way exploitation, it's a deal between two willing parties, and as long as both sides need eachother and fulfill their obligations, the deal will continue.

If that job is no longer necessary, or can be done for less cost, then it will be cut as the employer no longer requires the services of it's employee. If the employee finds another job which offers them more desirable compensation, then they will take the new job. If you expect an employer to cost itself more by paying higher wages than its competitors for similar employment, or for them to sink the whole company (of which they may be personally liable) out of loyalty to their workforce, you're a fool, because that is in no way beneficial to the employer.

No one is entitled to their job, they should be grateful for the opportunity. If they feel mistreated they should seek employment elsewhere. If they ARE being mistreated (ie. the employer is not living up to their end of the deal) they can bring the employer to court.

What you describe no doubt is the most economically efficient system. As a conservative, I see economic efficiency as an important goal, but it is not a religion. There are other things to consider.

The most obvious is what happens to workers who get fired or laid off later in life? People who put in 25 years on a production line or some such soul-numbing work. What are they supposed to do Get a job at Starbucks as a barrista? Many of these people will never get another job and will end up being more or less permanently on welfare.

I see that as an external cost of the company's employment policy. We don't let them dump raw waste into a river, because it's not fair that someone else have to pay the cost of the cleanup. Is it fair for them to be able to dump their longtime employees on us?

Of course, this very concern is why workers join unions. But havng to deal with a union is very disruptive and economically inefficient. I think we would be better off with less unions and some more rules about arbitrary layoffs and redundancy benefits.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

I missed this excellent part of the equation, but the PigMeister is absolutely correct. Labor can choose to work elsewhere if it feels it is getting the short end of the stick, and this pressure will - if appropriate - apply pressure on companies to correct that. If inappropriate, labor will lose as it is the market that determines what is fair.

While I agree in theory, and wish this were the way it worked.. it really isn't the market which solely determines compensation anymore. I think you'll agree that legislation, taxation, and regulation all help to make the free market, not so free. Also, they have the (hopefully) unintended consequence of raising the cost of living for everyone. A producer is not going to absorb additional costs, but instead pass them along to the consumer.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Part of the way is to bring justice back into the system, and end the crony government/financial industry revolving door. Close loopholes, rid or seriously limit lobbyist behavior, institute a fair, flat tax. Tell companies if they want to do business in the US, they need to employ US citizens, domestically. Get government out of the way, let states do more. Pass a balanced budget act. Drastically cut military spending and waste.

We need "smart and efficient and fair" tax code, "smart and efficient and fair" regulations and "smart and efficient and fair" government leaders, I don't see that happening.

 

[jem]

The pattern was...

cities rotted by giving out by financial mismanagement.

politicans who created big, unaffordable giveaways to public unions, freeloaders and non citizens.

screwing the hardworking productive base?

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

What you describe no doubt is the most economically efficient system. As a conservative, I see economic efficiency as an important goal, but it is not a religion. There are other things to consider.

The most obvious is what happens to workers who get fired or laid off later in life? People who put in 25 years on a production line or some such soul-numbing work. What are they supposed to do Get a job at Starbucks as a barrista? Many of these people will never get another job and will end up being more or less permanently on welfare.

I see that as an external cost of the company's employment policy. We don't let them dump raw waste into a river, because it's not fair that someone else have to pay the cost of the cleanup. Is it fair for them to be able to dump their longtime employees on us?

Of course, this very concern is why workers join unions. But havng to deal with a union is very disruptive and economically inefficient. I think we would be better off with less unions and some more rules about arbitrary layoffs and redundancy benefits.

I'm not trying to come across as religious about it, I simply see it as better in every way. I think it is fair for an employer to cut an employee whenever they determine it necessary. An employee who has had a steady job for 25 years should have his expenses pretty well taken care of. That this individual would end up on welfare is not a given if he/she lives within their means.

Also, this is the purpose of unions. I have no problem with parts or an entire workforce banding together to make demands of their employer. I have a problem with unions lobbying lawmakers for fixed compensation, or to lock out competitors. And situations like the UAW demanding unionization of say, dealers at a casino. lol what the hell does the UAW have to do with that? IMO, unions should be formed by employees at the place of their employment ONLY. If a union was formed and they successfully demanded a pension for example, then this 25 year employee would be retiring with something.

One other thing, if there was no welfare, then the employee wouldn't be dumped on us. I know that's the way it is now.. but it wasn't always. And I do believe that the federal govt should not be involved. To clarify, they (feds) shouldn't be involved with any social program and instead of trying to fix these run away trains they built, I think their time would be better spent trying to figure a reasonable way out.

 

[bigarrow]

Quote from PiggyBank:

I'm not trying to come across as religious about it, I simply see it as better in every way. I think it is fair for an employer to cut an employee whenever they determine it necessary. An employee who has had a steady job for 25 years should have his expenses pretty well taken care of. That this individual would end up on welfare is not a given if he/she lives within their means.

Also, this is the purpose of unions. I have no problem with parts or an entire workforce banding together to make demands of their employer. I have a problem with unions lobbying lawmakers for fixed compensation, or to lock out competitors. And situations like the UAW demanding unionization of say, dealers at a casino. lol what the hell does the UAW have to do with that? IMO, unions should be formed by employees at the place of their employment ONLY. If a union was formed and they successfully demanded a pension for example, then this 25 year employee would be retiring with something.

One other thing, if there was no welfare, then the employee wouldn't be dumped on us. I know that's the way it is now.. but it wasn't always. And I do believe that the federal govt should not be involved.

Do you really want to go back to the days of robber barons, company stores, union busting bosses and unsafe work places. I think America became great in the last century with the rise of the prosperous middle class.

 

[PiggyBank]

Quote from bigarrow:

Do you really want to go back to the days of robber barons, company stores, union busting bosses and unsafe work places. I think America became great in the last century with the rise of the prosperous middle class.

Didn't I just say I support the right of a labor force to unionize. I just don't support these corrupt, power-hungry unions that exist right now. It's identical to my feelings on the federal government, I know it's necessary and I don't despise the fed govt.. just what it's become.

 

[BSAM]

A flat tax is not a fair tax.
(Too easy to hide income.)
Only a consumption tax is a fair tax.
www.fairtax.org

 

[BSAM]

I still think Detroit and Chicago are #1 & #2.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from bigarrow:

Back to the topic of the thread, the pattern is most are in CA and FL.
It's probably the gods way of punishing those who like to live in the sun and fun by the ocean.
Fact: the real redistribution of wealth is from the middle class to the wealthy. This is hurting the middle class and working poor and I have no idea how to fix this.

+1