Interesting article. Why has it come to this? Let's take a closer look.
(Excerpt)California taxpayers nevertheless received a brief respite, thanks to the mid-decade housing boom that drove the economy and tax collections higher and momentarily eased the state’s budget crisis. (End)
A person's home increased in value resulting in an increase in taxes. The taxes were paid to the State and all was fine. The question is, "Where did the people get the money to pay the tax increase?" Obviously they had it or they wouldn't have paid the taxes.
In other words if my home doubles in value and the corresponding taxes double where do I get the money to pay them? Just the fact my home may have doubled in value does not mean my savings account for taxes doubled. It means I had the money to pay double the taxes I was previously paying whether or not my home increased in value.
Of course, no one complains about paying more tax as long as it corresponds to the value their home increases. In other words they have the money to pay a tax increase independently of whether their home increases in value because just the fact their home increased in value does not mean they received more money in their savings account.
Where the problem lies is while the government brought in more money from rising house values, which means the prospect of a home care worker or a hospital janitor and other lower paid employee affording a home became less and less of a reality, the government didn't offer a one time bonus. The union had to fight for a permanent wage increase in order to keep up with the rising prices.
The same thing happened during the 90s with the tech boom. The Federal Government had a surplus. Did they offer anything to those on welfare?
Don't we always hear about how welfare payments cost the government so much money, which is a lie itself but for the sake of argument we'll assume it's true, but when the government has money does it ever send a few dollars to the poor? No, it does not. In other words the idea the government can not afford to look after the poor better than it does
is a lie.
That's why, when there are good times, unions go after wage increases because they know if they wait they'll hear the same story from the government, "We can't afford it."
The same thing happens with many companies. When a company does exceptionally well does it give unionized employees a bonus? Not as far as I'm aware so employees go for permanent wage increases. Then when the company doesn't do so good it whines about the high employee wages. If the company shared the good times with the employees things would be different.
So, when it comes to whining about high union wages governments and companies bring it on themselves. Maybe one day they'll learn.
Signed,
K. Marx
