Mythbusting attacks against public workers

[j_b]

On his inaugural spin on the Sunday talk show circuit, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts called for a freeze on federal-employee pay, which he said was twice that of private-sector counterparts. It was an issue he campaigned on as a way to bring government spending under control. "Lavish pay and benefit packages have unfortunately become a way of life for public employees," he said at an event in January. "It's time to bring fiscal sanity to Washington. I support a temporary freeze on federal wages until the Congress devises a plan to control spending and debt."

 

[..]

 

PolitiFact was surprised by Scott Brown's claims, which after fact-checking, proved false. Brown used Cato Institute numbers that put the average federal employee's salary at $79,197, compared to $50,028 in the private sector. It's easy to tell right away that those salaries aren't double, contrary to Brown's claim on This Week on Jan. 31, but PolitiFact did even more digging.

 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers put average federal wages at $68,740, while private-sector wages averaged out at $42,270. The disparity is still there, in part because the nation's overall work force skews more toward blue-collar jobs than does the federal government. But $68,000 sounds less "lavish" than "respectable." Whether a worker makes more or less in the public sphere depends a lot on what job he or she is doing: Nurses make more, and petroleum engineers make less. Cashiers in government jobs make a lot more, $34,000, than the $18,000 of their private-sector counterparts.

 

But where can anyone easily live on $18,000 a year? It's below the federal poverty line for a family of three, and even a two-wage-earner household, with both adults making that salary, would be struggling well below the national median household income of $50,000. Conservatives argue that, especially in a bad economy, everyone should suffer equally. But why should we advocate anyone suffering at all?

 

Morgan Warstler recently posted on Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog that, to "fix" the budget, the government should cut federal employee wages by 20 percent because, "it is time for government workers to share our pain and get their interests aligned with ours." He also argues, without explanation, that government employees would eventually make more money as a result. Presumably he means they'll make more when they can snag the private-sector jobs created when savings from government wage cuts go to tax credits for businesses. So, he seems to simultaneously argue that federal employees are paid too well and that those employees would ultimately make more in the private sector. "Real jobs," he calls them, "the kind that don't have the dirty taint of government on them."

 

Which is really the point; conservatives don't believe the government should have many employees at all. That argument might be picking up steam because it's coupled with rhetoric that the government is expanding -- with the stimulus, bank bailouts, and health reform. It also probably helps that much of the anti-government rhetoric in the Republican Party is now aimed at voters in the South, where many of the states are among the nation's poorest and median incomes fall below the national average.

 

So what about Warstler's claim that cutting federal-employee wages by 20 percent would save the government so much money? (Incidentally, I don't know of any work force that would tolerate an overnight cut in the wages they agreed to work at by one-fifth.) Total compensation in the 2011 budget for employees is about $457 billion, including military personnel and benefits, and represents about 12 percent of the budget. It's clearly not where the bulk of our money is going; that would be defense spending.

 

And while conservatives like to gripe that government jobs don't inspire innovation in their workers, they don't like to point out how many private-sector jobs are spurred by government spending. It's hard to ignore that the Department of Defense gives a lot of money to Lockheed Martin, the third largest employer in Colorado Springs. So, government employees -- at the city or federal level -- are problematic, but employees whose jobs would not exist without government money are fine.

 

The hostility to government workers also fits into a larger conservative narrative that arose during the bank bailouts of Obama as a socialist who just wanted to spread the wealth. Letting the banks fail would have caused a lot of pain to the working class, which might have lost paychecks along with tax dollars, but that's beside the point for conservatives. Loss is already socialized, but wealth can't be. The wealthiest, of course, always deserve what they earn. The federal government -- with its steady pay structure, good benefits, and somewhat even playing field for promotions -- runs counter to the Republican idea that a system in which the wealthiest rise leaving the lowest earners behind is better for all.

 

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_much_should_a_government_employee_make

[Fairweather]

If you were to spend even half as much time working as you do copying/pasting leftist tripe to internet forums, I suspect you'd be at least half of the way toward resolving some of the "issues" you are so clearly wrestling with.

[Nitrox]

Clearly the government isn't getting the entire 8 hours it paid j_b for today.

 

 

[j_b]

Per usual not a single argument from the right wing goon squad.

[j_b]

State employees are not the budget culprits

 

Until the state deals with the real causes of fiscal fiasco, prepare for more misery.

 

By George Skelton Capitol Journal

 

June 21, 2010

 

From Sacramento

 

It's the summer budget-brawling season in Sacramento, a time for regurgitating old myths and simplistic solutions.

 

One persistent myth about the perpetually bleeding state budget is that it's all the fault of public employee unions.

 

[..]

 

Based on my e-mail, many people believe that the way for Sacramento to make ends meet is to cut state employees' salaries by, say, 10%. Well, in the last year, most have been cut by 14% through furloughs. And the state still has a $19-billion projected deficit.

 

For the fiscal year starting July 1, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing to cut salaries by 5%, require workers to contribute an additional 5% of pay to retirement and cut the workforce by 5%. That would save a mere $1.8 billion.

 

Even if Schwarzenegger could fire every state employee under his control — roughly 230,000 — it still wouldn't balance the books.

 

"Fire every prison guard, every CHP officer, everyone who works at the DMV, everyone who works for the state parks system … and you're still not there," notes H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Finance Department.

 

That's because roughly 70% of the state general fund flows out to local governments and schools, one of the unintended consequences of Proposition 13, which slashed the property tax 32 years ago.

 

And those pension costs? The governor has budgeted $3.8 billion in state contributions for the next fiscal year. But only $2.1 billion of that would burden the bleeding $83-billion general fund. The rest would come from self-sustaining special funds.

 

So even if employee pensions didn't cost the state a cent — an impossibility — the savings would fill only 11% of the general fund deficit hole.

 

[..]

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-me-cap-20100621,0,6406096.column

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

It's sunny.

 

Go climb something.

[kevbone]

If you were to spend even half as much time working as you do copying/pasting leftist righty tripe to internet forums, I suspect you'd be at least half of the way toward resolving some of the "issues" you are so clearly wrestling with.

 

Right (no pun intended) back at ya!

[billcoe]

Straighten these guys out Kevin!

[Peter_Puget]

link

 

We explore the consequences of public employment for labour market performance. Theory suggests that public employment may not only crowd out private employment, but also increase overall unemployment if, by offering attractive working conditions, it draws additional individuals into the labour force. Empirical evidence from a sample of OECD countries in the 1960-2000 period suggests that, on average, creation of 100 public jobs may have eliminated about 150 private sector jobs, slightly decreased labour market participation, and increased by about 33 the number of unemployed workers. Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence, however, suggest that the crowding out effect of public jobs on private jobs is only significant in countries where public production is highly substitutable to private activities and the public sector offers more attractive wages and/or other benefits than the private labour market.

[Peter_Puget]

Four out of every five jobs created or saved by the recovery act were in the public sector.

 

link

[Peter_Puget]

link

 

New jobless claims in the U.S. jumped last week by the most since February

[j_b]

The wealthy and corporations are taking a disproportionate share of the pie but they also aren't reinvesting to create jobs:

 

"Based on Internal Revenue Service figures, the richest 1% have TRIPLED their cut of America's income pie in one generation. In 1980 the richest 1% of America took one of every fifteen income dollars. Now they take THREE of every fifteen income dollars. That's a TRILLION extra dollars a year.

 

Some ultra-rich individuals, like hedge fund managers David Tepper and John Paulson, made $4 billion in a year (on most of which they paid only a 15% capital gains tax rate). This is enough to pay the salaries of every public school teacher in New York City.

 

But we blame the immigrants instead of the people taking unimaginable amounts of money from society.

 

Howard Zinn wrote about the petty thieves who go to jail for crimes averaging $1000 per offense, while sophisticated financial insiders get probation for swindling millions from the system. The only difference now is that it's "legal" to use financial trickery to divert funds from education and infrastructure to a few well-positioned money managers.

 

The way it's supposed to work, say the free-market tax-me-not supply-side trickle-down tea-party advocates, is that the rich will create jobs and stimulate the economy by investing in new production. But the richest 1%, who used to take $7 of every $100 of America's income, have increased that to $20 of every $100 in just one generation.

 

To put it another way, if the bottom 90% had shared in America's prosperity at a level consistent with 1980 incomes, the average middle-class family would be making $45,000 a year instead of $35,000.

 

And it's not just the rich individuals, but also the corporations that are taking money meant for jobs and public needs. Fareed Zakaria noted in Newsweek that the 500 largest non-financial companies are sitting on $1.8 trillion in uninvested cash."

 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/22

[Peter_Puget]

Changing the subject again......

 

[j_b]

Absolutely not. In theory, the private sector could create jobs but as a matter of fact, it doesn't because a few individuals are too busy shoveling the dough in their pockets.

[Nitrox]

Absolutely not. In theory, the private sector could create jobs but as a matter of fact, it doesn't because a few individuals are too busy shoveling the dough in their pockets.

 

Remind me again who you are to decide which people and corporations get to keep their own money?

 

 

 

[JayB]

Absolutely not. In theory, the private sector could create jobs but as a matter of fact, it doesn't because a few individuals are too busy shoveling the dough in their pockets.

 

Please expand.

 

I'm hoping that this is a reference to the record amounts of "cash" held on corporate balance sheets at the moment, and you'll make the argument that bank deposits, money-market securities, short-term bonds, repo-agreements, treasuries, etc, etc, etc, etc, are the economic equivalent of the same amount of physical currency sitting in vaults.

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]Y1iqJqNHX_g

[olyclimber]

dayum!

 

[video:youtube]z3rskbp3zao

[olyclimber]

back on track for ya

 

what the hell

[JayB]

back on track for ya

 

what the hell

 

Clearly you are a regressive and don't appreciate the magnitude of the Keynesian stimulus effects that paying the manager of a city of 37K $800,000 a year has on the local economy/population.

 

The funniest bit is that it sounds as though that final salary could entitle the guy to ~$600K/year worth of inflation-indexed pension money.

[billcoe]

Well, things may be out of control on a local level, but at least the "Progressives" have things well in hand nationally.

 

 

WHOOPS....nevermind....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100723/ap_on_bi_ge/us_budget_deficit_2

 

"WASHINGTON – New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends."

 

Holy shit, couple of zillion trillion more and that's almost real money. jb's childrens children will be working overtime to pay off this debt to the Chinese. I thought it was only the "Regressives" that were borrow and spend? Looks like there's no difference to me. It appears that both Bush and Obama must have their wives do their personal finances. Maybe we can get them elected instead instead of these out of control spenders?

[j_b]

Most of the money has been borrowed and spent because of your wars, your healthcare policy that results in skyrocketing costs, your corporate welfare policies, and your casino economy tanking, so spare us the pablum about borrow and spend, mkay?

[j_b]

back on track for ya

 

what the hell

 

Clearly you are a regressive and don't appreciate the magnitude of the Keynesian stimulus effects that paying the manager of a city of 37K $800,000 a year has on the local economy/population.

 

well, hopefully olyclimber is joking because there is a big difference between the manager of a city and “public employees”. As fas as you are concerned you do not get the benefit of the doubt because you have been told many times that cherry picking data won’t do. Nobody ever said that some excesses weren’t taking place (like everywhere) but a fraction of public employees getting too much has never meant that “public employees” as a whole earn too much and shouldn’t get their pensions.

 

The funniest bit is that it sounds as though that final salary could entitle the guy to ~$600K/year worth of inflation-indexed pension money.

 

from the article above: “even if employee pensions didn't cost the state a cent — an impossibility — the savings would fill only 11% of the general fund deficit hole.”

 

Your cherry picking of data woin’t do. Stop cheating.

 

[billcoe]

Most of the money has been borrowed and spent because of your wars, your healthcare policy that results in skyrocketing costs, your corporate welfare policies, and your casino economy tanking, so spare us the pablum about borrow and spend, mkay?

 

You and your type are so busy talking that you don't read at all - do ya. Your false attacks are just that. It may make you feel intelligent, but for everyone reading- it has the opposite effect.

[Nitrox]