Dems Raid Food Stamps to Pay Off Union Supporters

[j_b]

More baseless whining and lies about the cost of public employees but still nothing about the banksters and their Washington stooges who broke the economy or the ruinous geopolitical wars of aggression ... no credibility whatsoever!

[j_b]

We should recognize the attack on public sector workers for what it is: a sleazy case of scapegoating that it is intended to divert people's attention from the real villains in this economy, the Wall Street boys and the inept economic policymakers who took the economy to ruin and seem intent on leaving it there.

 

The basic facts are straightforward. Adjusting for education and experience, public sector workers actually get paid slightly less on average than their counterparts in the private sector. It is likely that the lower pay is largely or fully offset by a better benefit package, but it is likely that the difference in benefit packages between public and private sector workers is not as large as it may seem.

 

http://www.truth-out.org/the-public-pension-outrage-and-alan-greenspans-pension62358

[j_b]

I'll just keep repeating as necessary. I'm for using tax revenues as efficiently as possible

 

what tripe! everybody is for using tax revenues as efficiently as possible

 

to provide the highest output of services in those domains where only the public sector can deliver them.

 

can deliver them with the public interest in mind and not that of shareholders!

 

That includes law enforcement, which includes environmental laws, zoning laws, workplace safety laws. etc. Tending the flowers next to the capitol building, not so much.

 

what about fighting your wars? funny how the "free market" zealots don't mention anymore the $900 hammers now that we buy them from Halliburton

 

Under my "fantasy." there'd be more money to pay for them, and more people doing them, since the state would offer only the compensation necessary to insure that the positions were staffed with qualified individuals, and those that proved themselves incapable of doing so would be fired immediately.

 

under your fantasy, nobody but the upper 10% would earn a living wage.

[prole]

Wait, so you're for the poor now? You're for food stamps? Jay's for environmental regulation and public health care? Breathtaking. You guys should get your own Fox segment.

 

I'll just keep repeating as necessary. I'm for using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services in those domains where only the public sector can deliver them.

 

That includes law enforcement, which includes environmental laws, zoning laws, workplace safety laws. etc. Tending the flowers next to the capitol building, not so much.

 

Under my "fantasy." there'd be more money to pay for them, and more people doing them, since the state would offer only the compensation necessary to insure that the positions were staffed with qualified individuals, and those that proved themselves incapable of doing so would be fired immediately.

 

I'm also for "using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services..." but the fetishization for "efficiency" should be balanced against the need for living wages, decent benefits, and some semblance of security in old age for public and private sector workers. If capitalism in its current form can't even provide for these meager needs, maybe it's time to find a more humane way of going about things. At any rate, there's no shortage of low-hanging fruit within our current system in the form of giant corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and holidays, military largesse, etc. that never make it into this "non-debatable" topic. Why not start there?

 

What there's also no shortage of are, you know, real-life examples, from water privatization to military contracting, that prove that "private sector efficiencies" are often nothing more than opportunities for windfall profits though the kind of labor abuses Mattp is experiencing and gouging citizens turned "customers". Trotting out familiar tropes to free-market magic, "maximizing efficient output through private sector initiatives", and levelling down through outsourcing or union-busting isn't going to cut it in an environment where we've seen enough data already that suggests the outcomes of these endeavors are mixed at best. They've certainly not lived up to the breathless hype manufactured at business-friendly think-tanks.

 

I don't typically deal with Jay's airless, zero-sum parlour games, not because there's no answer or because he's always right, but because I'm unwilling to accept the absurd assumptions and abstractions on which his games are based. Nor am I much interested in validating rhetorical flourishes (capitol flower tending fat-cats) passed off as meaningful analysis. His "questions" are as rigged as State Fair Skeeball and we've already seen enough of the patent medicine he's peddling to know his cures are worse than the disease.

Edited August 17, 2010 by prole

[JayB]

Wait, so you're for the poor now? You're for food stamps? Jay's for environmental regulation and public health care? Breathtaking. You guys should get your own Fox segment.

 

I'll just keep repeating as necessary. I'm for using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services in those domains where only the public sector can deliver them.

 

That includes law enforcement, which includes environmental laws, zoning laws, workplace safety laws. etc. Tending the flowers next to the capitol building, not so much.

 

Under my "fantasy." there'd be more money to pay for them, and more people doing them, since the state would offer only the compensation necessary to insure that the positions were staffed with qualified individuals, and those that proved themselves incapable of doing so would be fired immediately.

 

I'm also for "using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services..." but the fetishization for "efficiency" should balanced against the need for living wages, decent benefits, and some semblance of security in old age for public and private sector workers. There's no shortage of low-hanging fruit in the form of giant corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and holidays, military largesse, etc. that never make it into this "non-debatable" topic.

 

What there's also no shortage of are, you know, real-life examples, from water privatization to military contracting, that prove that "private sector efficiencies" are often nothing more than opportunities for windfall profits though the kind of labor abuses Mattp is experiencing and gouging citizens turned "customers". Trotting out familiar tropes to free-market magic, "maximizing efficient output through private sector initiatives", and levelling down through outsourcing or union-busting isn't going to cut it in an environment where we've seen enough data already that suggests the outcomes of these endeavors are mixed at best. They've certainly not lived up to the breathless hype manufactured at business-friendly think-tanks.

 

I don't typically deal with Jay's airless, zero-sum parlour games, not because there's no answer or because he's always right, but because I'm unwilling to accept the absurd assumptions and abstractions on which his games are based. Nor am I much interested in validating rhetorical flourishes (capitol flower tending fat-cats) passed off as meaningful analysis. His "questions" are as rigged as State Fair Skeeball and we've already seen enough of the patent medicine he's peddling to know his cures are worse than the disease.

 

 

 

There are two separate propositions I've made here. The first is quite concrete and specific. The first is that the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs. My claim is that by not doing so, the state is actually acting counter to the public interest and wasting resources that could be used to fund more urgent public priorities.

 

If you oppose paying public employees only what is necessary to attract and retain enough qualified people to get the government's work done, then you are by definition, not ""using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services..." You are in favor of using public funds to generate a private windfall for public sector employees. That also, by definition, means that you place the private interests of the said employees above whatever alternate purposes those tax revenues could be used for.

 

The second claim is that some functions of government are more essential than others, and deserve a higher priority when it's clear that the economy isn't generating enough resources to sustain all functions of the government at their current level. If you do not believe this is true, then it makes sense to insist that,say, printing documents is an essential function of government that only the public sector can provide, and there are no more critical uses for the funds required to pay for its operations. If you don't believe this, then it makes sense to have a discussion about what should be privatized and what should remain public.

 

It's clear where you stand on both. Thanks.

 

 

[JayB]

We should recognize the attack on public sector workers for what it is: a sleazy case of scapegoating that it is intended to divert people's attention from the real villains in this economy, the Wall Street boys and the inept economic policymakers who took the economy to ruin and seem intent on leaving it there.

 

The basic facts are straightforward. Adjusting for education and experience, public sector workers actually get paid slightly less on average than their counterparts in the private sector. It is likely that the lower pay is largely or fully offset by a better benefit package, but it is likely that the difference in benefit packages between public and private sector workers is not as large as it may seem.

 

http://www.truth-out.org/the-public-pension-outrage-and-alan-greenspans-pension62358

 

Actually - different studies come to different conclusions based on their methods and whether or not they accurately account for the value of both pay and benefits.

 

I'm sure that studies which aggregate all bachelor's degrees into a single cohort and that pretend that a degree in Women's Studies and Electrical Engineering are equally valuable in the private labor market would support the above claims. So would the fiction that the average number of hours worked are equivalent in both sectors, by failing to accurately account for the future value of pension benefits, health benefits etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

 

[prole]

That you consider paying living wages, providing decent benefits, and some modicum of security in old age as a "private windfall" with no discernible value to society or to the public interest is a testament to your sociopathic ideology.

[j_b]

Actually - different studies come to different conclusions based on their methods and whether or not they accurately account for the value of both pay and benefits.

 

are you telling us that once again right wing think tanks full of charlatans produce studies that support regressive propaganda?

 

I'm sure that studies which aggregate all bachelor's degrees into a single cohort and that pretend that a degree in Women's Studies and Electrical Engineering are equally valuable in the private labor market would support the above claims. So would the fiction that the average number of hours worked are equivalent in both sectors, by failing to accurately account for the future value of pension benefits, health benefits etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

in other words, lots of vague arm waving but no real argument that counters the Baker piece.

[j_b]

There are two separate propositions I've made here. The first is quite concrete and specific. The first is that the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs. My claim is that by not doing so, the state is actually acting counter to the public interest and wasting resources that could be used to fund more urgent public priorities.

 

making claims is easy. Actually substantiating your claims is an entirely different matter, and cherry picking data is never going to get you there.

[billcoe]

I'm sure that studies which aggregate all bachelor's degrees into a single cohort and that pretend that a degree in Women's Studies and Electrical Engineering are equally valuable in the private labor market would support the above claims. So would the fiction that the average number of hours worked are equivalent in both sectors, by failing to accurately account for the future value of pension benefits, health benefits etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

Well played sir.

[Nitrox]

You and your anti-living wage policies have no credibility whatsoever.

 

Fortunately we still have your credibility to rely on...oh wait.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

making claims is easy. Actually substantiating your claims is an entirely different matter, and cherry picking data is never going to get you there.

 

[prole]

Well played sir.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well played sir.

 

 

once again, prole got schooled.

[prole]

Which part?

[JayB]

Actually - different studies come to different conclusions based on their methods and whether or not they accurately account for the value of both pay and benefits.

 

are you telling us that once again right wing think tanks full of charlatans produce studies that support regressive propaganda?

 

I'm sure that studies which aggregate all bachelor's degrees into a single cohort and that pretend that a degree in Women's Studies and Electrical Engineering are equally valuable in the private labor market would support the above claims. So would the fiction that the average number of hours worked are equivalent in both sectors, by failing to accurately account for the future value of pension benefits, health benefits etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

in other words, lots of vague arm waving but no real argument that counters the Baker piece.

 

There's a recent study generated with data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey that tries to account for some of the factors that I mentioned. It's findings are not consistent with the Baker piece. Here's a descriptive summary:

 

"Conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPS is a long-running survey that couples earnings and employment information with detailed demographic characteristics of the survey population. At first glance, the CPS data show that the average hourly wage for a federal worker is about 48% higher than a private worker's. Yet because federal employees tend to be more educated and experienced than their private counterparts, as Mr. Orszag noted, one has to control for these skill differences. This reduces the public-private salary gap—but it does not eliminate it. The federal wage premium for workers who have the same education and experience stands at 24%, still a windfall for public employees.

 

Even using all the standard controls—including race and gender, full- or part-time work, firm size, marital status, region, residence in a city or suburb, and more—the federal wage premium does not disappear. It stubbornly hovers around 12%, meaning private employees must work 13½ months to earn what comparable federal workers make in 12.

 

Most academic studies dating back to the 1970s have found similar pay differences. In addition to the wage premium, federal workers enjoy more generous fringe benefits than do private workers. For instance, federal workers receive a defined benefit pension with benefit levels comparable to those from private 401(k) plans, except that federal workers contribute only 0.8% of pay and are not subject to any market risk. They also receive employer matches to the defined contribution Thrift Savings Plan that significantly exceed the typical private employer match.

More

 

If the overall generosity of federal benefits matches that of federal salaries (which seems quite likely), total compensation for federal workers may easily exceed $14,000 per year more than an otherwise similar private employee.

 

The pay premium is probably the main reason federal workers quit their jobs at a far lower rate than do private employees. At the beginning of 2010, federal workers were only about one-third as likely to leave their jobs (a ratio not much different than in 2006, before the recession), implying that no private employer could offer them better compensation.

 

Federal employment also carries significant nonfinancial benefits—in particular that layoffs and firings are much rarer. If you think these aspects of federal employment lack value, ask any private employee who is now looking for work. A federal pay premium is unfair both to private workers, who receive less than their government peers, and to taxpayers who must cover the difference. Given our 2.7 million-strong federal work force, the government effectively overbills Americans by almost $40 billion every year just on labor costs."

 

IMO you can easily determine whether or not a given position is "underpaid" by whether or not it remains vacant. If the government can't fill a given job with a qualified person at the compensation that it's offering, then they're attempting, and failing, to "underpay."

 

[JayB]

There are two separate propositions I've made here. The first is quite concrete and specific. The first is that the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs. My claim is that by not doing so, the state is actually acting counter to the public interest and wasting resources that could be used to fund more urgent public priorities.

 

making claims is easy. Actually substantiating your claims is an entirely different matter, and cherry picking data is never going to get you there.

 

The above is an argument, not a claim.

 

Here's the same argument if a different form. If you can find a qualified person to wave cars onto a state ferry for X dollars per hour, and the state pays X + N dollars per hour - then the state is wasting N dollars every hour that the said person is working. If you wish to make an argument to the contrary, have at it.

 

If you want to discuss specific claims, how about starting with the percentage of health insurance costs that are borne by King County Employees:

 

"Metropolitan King County council members -- especially those running for county executive -- have a political problem.

 

As the council looks at a 2010 budget shortfall of up to $50 million, more people are asking why county employees don't pay a monthly premimum for health-care coverage as most other Washington workers do.

 

It's a particularly tricky issue for county exec candidates Dow Constantine and Larry Phillips, Democrats who have had cordial ties with organized labor but who are facing candidates who say the county should cut labor costs before asking taxpayers to pony up more money....

 

Constantine is trying to get his arms around the problem by proposing that non-union-represented employees pay 2 percent of any earnings above about $60,000 for health coverage."

 

My claim is that the private sector average is greater than zero, and that private sector workers in King County shoulder a greater share of their health-insurance costs than persons employed by King County do.

 

 

 

Happy to carry on from here if you wish.

 

 

[j_b]

There's a recent study generated with data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey that tries to account for some of the factors that I mentioned. It's findings are not consistent with the Baker piece. Here's a descriptive summary:

 

"Conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPS is a long-running survey that couples earnings and employment information with detailed ..

As I said, would be academics from right wing think tanks (although you didn't provide the link I found out that your write up is from the Heritage foundation and the American enterprise institute, 2 of the most rabidly regressive propaganda outfits) want us to take at face value their very special analysis of government data.

[j_b]

The above is an argument, not a claim.

 

It is a claim because you haven't provided any comprehensive analysis showing as you claimed that government wasted resources and acted contrary to public interest, or at least anymore than the private sector would.

[prole]

Actually - different studies come to different conclusions based on their methods and whether or not they accurately account for the value of both pay and benefits.

 

are you telling us that once again right wing think tanks full of charlatans produce studies that support regressive propaganda?

 

I'm sure that studies which aggregate all bachelor's degrees into a single cohort and that pretend that a degree in Women's Studies and Electrical Engineering are equally valuable in the private labor market would support the above claims. So would the fiction that the average number of hours worked are equivalent in both sectors, by failing to accurately account for the future value of pension benefits, health benefits etc, etc, etc, etc.

 

in other words, lots of vague arm waving but no real argument that counters the Baker piece.

 

There's a recent study generated with data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey that tries to account for some of the factors that I mentioned. It's findings are not consistent with the Baker piece. Here's a descriptive summary:

 

"Conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the CPS is a long-running survey that couples earnings and employment information with detailed demographic characteristics of the survey population. At first glance, the CPS data show that the average hourly wage for a federal worker is about 48% higher than a private worker's. Yet because federal employees tend to be more educated and experienced than their private counterparts, as Mr. Orszag noted, one has to control for these skill differences. This reduces the public-private salary gap—but it does not eliminate it. The federal wage premium for workers who have the same education and experience stands at 24%, still a windfall for public employees.

 

Even using all the standard controls—including race and gender, full- or part-time work, firm size, marital status, region, residence in a city or suburb, and more—the federal wage premium does not disappear. It stubbornly hovers around 12%, meaning private employees must work 13½ months to earn what comparable federal workers make in 12.

 

Most academic studies dating back to the 1970s have found similar pay differences. In addition to the wage premium, federal workers enjoy more generous fringe benefits than do private workers. For instance, federal workers receive a defined benefit pension with benefit levels comparable to those from private 401(k) plans, except that federal workers contribute only 0.8% of pay and are not subject to any market risk. They also receive employer matches to the defined contribution Thrift Savings Plan that significantly exceed the typical private employer match.

More

 

If the overall generosity of federal benefits matches that of federal salaries (which seems quite likely), total compensation for federal workers may easily exceed $14,000 per year more than an otherwise similar private employee.

 

The pay premium is probably the main reason federal workers quit their jobs at a far lower rate than do private employees. At the beginning of 2010, federal workers were only about one-third as likely to leave their jobs (a ratio not much different than in 2006, before the recession), implying that no private employer could offer them better compensation.

 

Federal employment also carries significant nonfinancial benefits—in particular that layoffs and firings are much rarer. If you think these aspects of federal employment lack value, ask any private employee who is now looking for work. A federal pay premium is unfair both to private workers, who receive less than their government peers, and to taxpayers who must cover the difference. Given our 2.7 million-strong federal work force, the government effectively overbills Americans by almost $40 billion every year just on labor costs."

 

IMO you can easily determine whether or not a given position is "underpaid" by whether or not it remains vacant. If the government can't fill a given job with a qualified person at the compensation that it's offering, then they're attempting, and failing, to "underpay."

 

Wait, why are higher wages, better benefits, and pensions bad again?

[j_b]

More baseless whining and lies about the cost of public employees but still nothing about the banksters and their Washington stooges who broke the economy or the ruinous geopolitical wars of aggression ... no credibility whatsoever!

[j_b]

As I said, would be academics from right wing think tanks (although you didn't provide the link I found out that your write up is from the Heritage foundation and the American enterprise institute, 2 of the most rabidly regressive propaganda outfits) want us to take at face value their very special analysis of government data.

 

Did I forget to mention these very same think tanks are the architects of the policies that destroyed the real economy, relentlessly attacked governmental institution, promoted deregulation, wars of aggression, etc? One has to be seriously deluded to believe anything coming out of these propaganda outlets.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

As I said, would be academics from right wing think tanks (although you didn't provide the link I found out that your write up is from the Heritage foundation and the American enterprise institute, 2 of the most rabid regressive propaganda outfits) want us to take at face value their very special analysis of government data.

 

Did I forget to mention these very same think tanks are the architects of the policies that destroyed the real economy, relentlessly attacked governmental institution, promoted deregulation, wars of aggression, etc? One has to be seriously deluded to believe anything coming out of these propaganda outlets.

 

You've not rebutted a single point Jay has made. You can't. This is why most refrain from entertaining anything you say with a serious argument.

 

You're not worth it.

[mattp]

OK. Now you've moved on from class warfare (government workers receive lavish benefits and every one of them or they as a class resist any possible suggestion that they should share in the economic downturn), based in incorrect fact (government agencies are not making any real compensation cuts).

 

Thank you.

 

But let's take your "points."

 

There are two separate propositions I've made here. The first is quite concrete and specific. The first is that the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs. My claim is that by not doing so, the state is actually acting counter to the public interest and wasting resources that could be used to fund more urgent public priorities.

 

If you oppose paying public employees only what is necessary to attract and retain enough qualified people to get the government's work done, then you are by definition, not ""using tax revenues as efficiently as possible to provide the highest output of services..." You are in favor of using public funds to generate a private windfall for public sector employees. That also, by definition, means that you place the private interests of the said employees above whatever alternate purposes those tax revenues could be used for.

 

The second claim is that some functions of government are more essential than others, and deserve a higher priority when it's clear that the economy isn't generating enough resources to sustain all functions of the government at their current level. If you do not believe this is true, then it makes sense to insist that,say, printing documents is an essential function of government that only the public sector can provide, and there are no more critical uses for the funds required to pay for its operations. If you don't believe this, then it makes sense to have a discussion about what should be privatized and what should remain public.

 

1. "the state should only pay public sector employees what is necessary to staff positions with people who are qualified to do their jobs..."

 

I guess so, if you think that merely filling chairs should be the goal of any public sector hiring. Personally, I think that in many positions we don't just want people who are "qualified," but actually we want people who are good at their jobs. Maybe you agree with this and have simply assumed a different definition of the word "qualified." If so, I agree with you. When it comes to gardener or bus driver, it may well be the case that government employment pays better than private. When it comes to "professionals," certainly not even close - even accounting for these disgustingly lavish benefits you complain of. I think the idea that we pay these people more than they are worth is just plain wrong, but I'm not an economic or vocational analyst.

 

2. "some functions of government are more essential than others, and deserve a higher priority when it's clear that the economy isn't generating enough resources to sustain all functions of the government at their current level."

 

OK, here too I may just agree with you. I'm not at all convinced that the State government needs to be running liquor stores or the ferry system. Health insurance, though, should absolutely NOT be run by private business. That is an abomination and any argument that the private sector is more efficient here is completely whacked. We KNOW that medicare is more efficient than Prudential and in this example you righties argue that medicare is less humane or driving the doctors out of business or .... but not that it the government run system is less efficient.

[j_b]

Did I forget to mention these very same think tanks are the architects of the policies that destroyed the real economy, relentlessly attacked governmental institution, promoted deregulation, wars of aggression, etc? One has to be seriously deluded to believe anything coming out of these propaganda outlets.

 

You've not rebutted a single point Jay has made. You can't. This is why most refrain from entertaining anything you say with a serious argument.

 

You're not worth it.

 

Jay regurgitated a piece of propaganda put out by "think tanks" funded by corporate interests and extremely wealthy individuals afflicted by the looter syndrome.