State Employee Total Comp Database...

[j_b]

"Dept of Social and Health Services B*******, J***** M. Title:

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 2

Base Comp: $74,220

Benefits: $22,266

Paid Time Off: $17,367

Total Comp: $113,853"

 

If you'd scroll down the page a little more, you'll see that the above information is a mistake. Further down it shows that an Administrative Assistant 5 makes $53,148 base comp. An administrative Assistant 2 is in the pay range 35, which ranges from $28,440 to $36,756 base pay. Funny what a little fact checking will get you!

 

It's par for the course for conservatives to either cherry pick information to substantiate an unsupportable point of view or lie about it, which is the reason why I asked our screw-the-people bunch to actually compare apples with apples. Needless to say, I am still waiting for this sorry bunch to actually answer my question.

[j_b]

where is my post? It looks as if it was lost in the cc.com bowels.

 

edit: odd, my previous post eventually showed up when I posted the above sentence.

Edited March 2, 2010 by j_b

[JayB]

"Dept of Social and Health Services B*******, J***** M. Title:

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 2

Base Comp: $74,220

Benefits: $22,266

Paid Time Off: $17,367

Total Comp: $113,853"

 

If you'd scroll down the page a little more, you'll see that the above information is a mistake. Further down it shows that an Administrative Assistant 5 makes $53,148 base comp. An administrative Assistant 2 is in the pay range 35, which ranges from $28,440 to $36,756 base pay. Funny what a little fact checking will get you!

]

 

Indeed.

 

Your claim is that this individual didn't get paid what the public records state she got paid because...there's a general salary table that says otherwise?

[JayB]

How dare these everyday people accept jobs that have good pay and benefits! They should be punished and forced to work at shittier jobs than all of us who didn't look around or were too proud and full of gov't hatred to take a gov't job ourselves!

 

The plain facts are that workers in the private sector generate all of the wealth that the government collects and redistributes, and that amount of money is finite.

 

If you can hire and retain an administrative assistant for a particular position for $50,000 a year, and you're paying more than that - every dollar above that threshold that's going towards the said individual's compensation is money that's not going into infrastructure, isn't available for Medicare, etc, etc, etc. I can't for the life of me understand how putting those funds into private bank accounts constitutes a greater public good than putting them into roads, clinics, animal shelters, etc constitutes an intellectually or morally defensible "progressive" outlook.

 

Does insisting that the 60% of all state tax revenues that go towards funding public employee compensation really constitute irrational government hatred?

 

 

[j_b]

You are cherry-picking data. ~95% of administrative assistants in Washington don't have anywhere near a total compensation of over a 100k. Your entire argument is based on that other 5% being the norm, which is totally false.

[j_b]

Indeed.

 

Your claim is that this individual didn't get paid what the public records state she got paid because...there's a general salary table that says otherwise?

 

who cares? what matters is whether that data is representative or whether you cherry picked it. I looked at average compensation per position, and I say you cherry-picked that data. The example you picked is an extreme portrayal of compensation for public employees that has nothing to do with the average condition. What gives?

[jon]

You can't get caught up thinking this person being a secretary doing their nails and chatting on the phone all day making over $100k. This person could likely be an experienced paralegal. DSHS is a very poor department, nobody there is getting rich working there. It's not uncommon for someone not to meet qualifications because of education etc for a particular job category so they will put them in a different classification and pay them on the high end of the pay scale. You are arguing about nothing.

 

Deal in reality.

[j_b]

just go to the site and search for the compensation of any administrative level at the given department. You'll get a $ total and a number of employees. No average ad assistant at any level has a total comp over 70k.

[JayB]

You are cherry-picking data. ~95% of administrative assistants in Washington don't have anywhere near a total compensation of over a 100k. Your entire argument is based on that other 5% being the norm, which is totally false.

 

My argument is twofold.

 

One is that the government is paying far more than necessary to retain the staff necessary to provide public services. It's not about one admin assistant's paycheck. It's about the 60% of all tax revenues that fund the entire government payroll.

 

The second is that there are many uses of the said funds that would be more beneficial for promoting the public welfare than transferring them directly to private bank accounts.

 

[j_b]

First, whatever your reason, your example is cherry-picked

 

[jon]

JayB I think you should move to Belgium.

[j_b]

One is that the government is paying far more than necessary to retain the staff necessary to provide public services. It's not about one admin assistant's paycheck. It's about the 60% of all tax revenues that fund the entire government payroll.

 

I don't see a problem with 60% of the state budget being spent on education, social services, etc ..

 

 

[JayB]

You can't get caught up thinking this person being a secretary doing their nails and chatting on the phone all day making over $100k. This person could likely be an experienced paralegal. DSHS is a very poor department, nobody there is getting rich working there. It's not uncommon for someone not to meet qualifications because of education etc for a particular job category so they will put them in a different classification and pay them on the high end of the pay scale. You are arguing about nothing.

 

Deal in reality.

 

So I'm making this up?

 

"States may be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes or slash government services to address a $1 trillion funding shortfall in public sector retirement benefits, according to a new study that warns of even more debilitating costs if immediate action isn't taken.

 

The Pew Center on the States released a survey Thursday of state-administered pension plans, retiree health care and other post-employment benefits in all 50 states that blamed a decade's worth of policy decisions for leaving them shortchanged.

 

The result for some states will be "high annual costs that come with significant unfunded liabilities, lower bond ratings, less money available for services, higher taxes and the specter of worsening problems in the future," the study said.

 

The cost of the trillion-dollar shortfall, which will be paid over the coming decades, is about $8,800 for each American household. The study did not include many city, county and municipal pension plans, which are thought to have similar underfunding."

 

http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/State_policy/pension_report.pdf

 

In the end, the bond markets and/or bankruptcy courts will impose the discipline on public spending that state legislatures haven't.

 

California is exhibit A, and other states that fail to reform won't be far behind.

[JayB]

JayB I think you should move to Belgium.

 

Not Greece? California's closer.

[j_b]

So I'm making this up?

 

"States may be forced to reduce benefits,

 

What you are making up is that crisis outcome (not being able to pay employee compensation) is the cause of the budget deficit, when in fact the economic crisis caused by the financial bubble and race to the bottom labor/environmental costs are the causes of revenue shortfall.

[JayB]

One is that the government is paying far more than necessary to retain the staff necessary to provide public services. It's not about one admin assistant's paycheck. It's about the 60% of all tax revenues that fund the entire government payroll.

 

I don't see a problem with 60% of the state budget being spent on education, social services, etc ..

 

 

What matters is to me is the quantity of services being provided in each of the said sectors and their unit costs over time relative to inflation and revenue.

 

Clearly in your universe the it's the material well-being of the people delivering public services that trumps that of the people who depend on them.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

JayB - you cherry picked that admin level 2 data ...

 

the fact of the matter is you have no idea how median washington state public employee comp compares with the equivalent in the private sector.

[jon]

JayB I think you should move to Belgium.

 

Not Greece? California's closer.

 

You're missing the point. Study this table and get back to me.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

[j_b]

What matters is to me is the quantity of services being provided in each of the said sectors and their unit costs over time relative to inflation and revenue.

 

and who is going to believe that?

[JayB]

So I'm making this up?

 

"States may be forced to reduce benefits,

 

What you are making up is that crisis outcome (not being able to pay employee compensation) is the cause of the budget deficit, when in fact the economic crisis caused by the financial bubble and race to the bottom labor/environmental costs are the causes of revenue shortfall.

 

The crisis only hastened the inevitable. Cost growth can only exceed revenue growth for so long before the curves converge and the gap between costs and revenues can no longer be financed with taxes or borrowing. That moment is now for California, Illinois, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

Take a look at the real and projected curves for public employee wage, pension, and benefit obligations vs time for the said states.

 

Wage and benefits cuts are coming for public employees. Not because knuckle-dragging regressives like myself are clamoring for them, but because they can't be paid for. The only question is whether they'll be administered by legislatures or bankruptcy courts.

 

 

 

[j_b]

The crisis only hastened the inevitable. Cost growth can only exceed revenue growth for so long before the curves converge and the gap between costs and revenues can no longer be financed with taxes or borrowing. That moment is now for California, Illinois, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

don't worry about it. Before Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was 70%, it is now less than half that, now over half of corporations pay no taxes, there is a huge amount of tax evasion through tax heavens, etc ... so there is a way to go before we have to cut people's wages.

 

Take a look at the real and projected curves for public employee wage, pension, and benefit obligations vs time for the said states.

 

Wage and benefits cuts are coming for public employees. Not because knuckle-dragging regressives like myself are clamoring for them, but because they can't be paid for. The only question is whether they'll be administered by legislatures or bankruptcy courts.

 

Well, I guess we have established that you are not the sanctity-of-contract type ... what's left for you?

 

 

[j_b]

I note there is still no acknowledgment on your part that you cherry-picked that admin assistant2 data. Despite your claims to the contrary, there isn't any evidence that median public employee compensation is unreasonable.

[JayB]

JayB I think you should move to Belgium.

 

Not Greece? California's closer.

 

You're missing the point. Study this table and get back to me.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

 

Looks like I should move to Japan - 27.4% vs 28.1!

 

Momentary aside - this chart neglects the effects of debts that will have to be paid with taxes in the future. Factor this in and I think that the (real) tax rates, fiscal positions, and the efficiency with which tax revenues are put to use Canada, Australia, and NZ make them strong contenders for places where taxes are collected more judiciously and spent more efficiently than the US. And - all three of them now rank more highly than the US on the Index of Economic Freedom.

 

We like NZ quite a bit and haven't completely ruled out re-locating there. Canada would also be on the list if they weren't 100% single payer.

 

Now back to your point - the efficiency with which taxes are spent matters every bit as much as what percentage of GDP they represent. Asking workers in the public sector to finance their own retirements via 401(K) plans,paying for the same percentage of their medical expenses as workers in the private sector, etc would have next to zero-effect on retention, recruitment and would enable the government to provide more infrastructure, services, etc, for the same amount of money.

 

What about that do you find so objectionable?

 

 

[JayB]

I note there is still no acknowledgment on your part that you cherry-picked that admin assistant2 data. Despite your claims to the contrary, there isn't any evidence that median public employee compensation is unreasonable.

 

Unreasonable is a value-judgment. I'll settle for "exceeds total private sector compensation for comparable positions and skill sets." Or "exceeds the levels required to recruit and retain the necessary staff."

 

 

[JayB]

The crisis only hastened the inevitable. Cost growth can only exceed revenue growth for so long before the curves converge and the gap between costs and revenues can no longer be financed with taxes or borrowing. That moment is now for California, Illinois, etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

don't worry about it. Before Reagan, the top marginal tax rate was 70%, it is now less than half that, now over half of corporations pay no taxes, there is a huge amount of tax evasion through tax heavens, etc ... so there is a way to go before we have to cut people's wages.

 

Take a look at the real and projected curves for public employee wage, pension, and benefit obligations vs time for the said states.

 

Wage and benefits cuts are coming for public employees. Not because knuckle-dragging regressives like myself are clamoring for them, but because they can't be paid for. The only question is whether they'll be administered by legislatures or bankruptcy courts.

 

Well, I guess we have established that you are not the sanctity-of-contract type ... what's left for you?

 

 

Employee contracts are sacrosanct in Chapter 9 bankruptcy proceedings?