Mythbusting attacks against public workers 2

[j_b]

On average, state and local government employees in New England earn more than private-sector workers. But, state and local workers are also, on average, older and substantially better educated than private-sector workers. When state and local government employees are compared to private sector workers with similar characteristics - particularly when workers are matched by age and education – state and local workers actually earn less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts. The wage penalty for working in the state and local sector is particularly large for higher-wage workers. Taking benefits into account reduces - but does not eliminate - the wage penalty for state and local workers.

 

 

Conclusions of a new study conducted by PERI of UMass and cepr: "The Wage Penalty for State and Local Government Employees in New England"

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_201-250/WP233.pdf

[JayB]

On average, state and local government employees in New England earn more than private-sector workers. But, state and local workers are also, on average, older and substantially better educated than private-sector workers. When state and local government employees are compared to private sector workers with similar characteristics - particularly when workers are matched by age and education – state and local workers actually earn less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts. The wage penalty for working in the state and local sector is particularly large for higher-wage workers. Taking benefits into account reduces - but does not eliminate - the wage penalty for state and local workers.

 

 

Conclusions of a new study conducted by PERI of UMass and cepr: "The Wage Penalty for State and Local Government Employees in New England"

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/working_papers/working_papers_201-250/WP233.pdf

 

I love papers like this.

 

1)Assume that all educational credentials, from all institutions, in all disciplines have an equal value.

 

2)Assume all private sector earnings are accrued in the course of a 40 hour work-week.

 

3)Assume that age automatically translates into a higher salary.

 

Bingo - all the evidence you need to demonstrate that a 58 year old with a BA in sociology from 1975 who hasn't worked in the private sector since that date will automatically, or would have automatically, secured a higher salary by entering the private sector. Which of course, explains why public sector turnover is 1/3rd that of the private sector, and why wages and benefits are matters of peripheral concern to public employees when it's time to renegotiate contracts.

 

The only class of government employees for which these claims have any evidence to support them are those with professional degrees or PhD's, and who are generally not part of public sector unions. The notion that the guys filling potholes or tying the ferry to the dock are voluntarily renouncing crass material rewards like a higher salary that they could obtain elsehwere in pursuit of a higher calling is quite amusing.

 

 

[j_b]

 

I love papers like this.

 

I love people like you who continually cherry pick data (taking an egregious case of a public worker earnings and extrapolating it to all workers), then when faced with a formal analysis debunking the myth you propagated, suddenly pretend the methodology for the analysis isn’t robust. Can’t you abide by the methodologies you want others to observe or is this just another rhetorical exercise devoid of intellectual honesty?

 

1)Assume that all educational credentials, from all institutions, in all disciplines have an equal value.

 

bzzzt. there is absolutely no good reason to assume there isn’t an even distribution of degrees from Harvard and Podunk U among both set of degreed workers (public and private). The public sector has more than twice the number of workers with advanced degrees. Don't fudge that very important fact.

 

 

2)Assume all private sector earnings are accrued in the course of a 40 hour work-week.

 

BS arm waving that is vague enough to mean whatever one wants. What is your claim exactly

 

3)Assume that age automatically translates into a higher salary.

 

on average it does (wages start to decline after 60), especially for better educated workers and those in the public sector where age is a reasonable proxy for time spent in a career. People who are discarded in later age and forced to become Wal-Mart greeters appear to be your reference, which gives us an indication of your twisted model.

 

[Jim]

In general I don't see an issue with the paper - their assumptions are ones that any statistician has to make when relying on such data sets, and they seem reasonable.

 

But - one item did catch my eye:

 

The actual difference in non-wage compensation reflected in the NCS data is smaller than what is sometimes imagined because the NCS includes a broad range of non-wage compensation. One important difference is that many state and local government workers (including those in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) are not eligible for Social Security; public sector workers in those states rely exclusively on their pensions, while those in the private sector combine pensions, 401(k) benefits, and Social Security.

 

There's no comparison of pension benifits vs. what they would have earned at the same salary for social security.

 

Having worked for a state, the feds, and private industury, here's what I've found:

 

Private employees are generally paid at a higher wage than public employees - but there is a higher expectation of workload and no comp time.

 

Public employees have more generous benefits such as sick time, health benefits, holidays, and matches to 401ks.

 

Public employees stick to a 40 hr work week or less (but certainly not teachers!).

 

I tried to recruit an ecologist from the UW and could not match his salary request because we couldn't bill out his hourly rate at his level of experience. He was requesting this higher salary to make up for our lesser benefits and the 100% 401k match he gets at the UW. Couldn't do it.

 

Deadwood - much less of it in the private sector. In the public sector I found there was always some percentage (15%?) of folks not pulling their weight and just hiding. They got a reputation of incompetence so folks would not give them much work, so they were not so busy. If you were competent then more work came your way. We called it the 80/20 rule - 80% of the work got done by 20% of the staff. I'm all for reasonable work expectations but found this living off the dole appalling.

 

Exceptions - I find these groups to generally have extremely tough jobs and they are underpaid for the shite they put up with and the hours they put in: teachers and cops.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

I have worked for both public and private sectors for extended periods of times, and have observed my wife's private professional setting for years. I have found much more deadwood and general incompetence in the private sector than in the public sector. Meritocracy and efficiency in much of the private sector is a complete myth.

[Nitrox]

bzzzt. there is absolutely no good reason to assume there isn’t an even distribution of degrees from Harvard and Podunk U among both set of degreed workers (public and private). The public sector has more than twice the number of workers with advanced degrees. Don't fudge that very important fact.

 

Actually there is. Assuming there is even close to the same amount of Harvard grads in public sector jobs as community college grads is just plain foolish. On average Ivy league educations earn more and fill those evil regressive corporate shill type jobs you so loathe.

 

Shaquanda the DMV counter worker didn't go to Princeton.

 

 

[Nitrox]

I have worked for both public and private sectors for extended periods of times, and have observed my wife's private professional setting for years. I have found much more deadwood and general incompetence in the private sector than in the public sector. Meritocracy and efficiency in much of the private sector is a complete myth.

 

Now we know how you managed to ever find someone to marry you.

 

 

 

 

[j_b]

Actually there is. Assuming there is even close to the same amount of Harvard grads in public sector jobs as community college grads is just plain foolish. On average Ivy league educations earn more and fill those evil regressive corporate shill type jobs you so loathe.

 

No, there is isn't (or you'd provide the data) and I didn't make the assumption you ascribed to me.

 

Shaquanda the DMV counter worker didn't go to Princeton.

 

racist fuck.

[DPS]

bzzzt. there is absolutely no good reason to assume there isn’t an even distribution of degrees from Harvard and Podunk U among both set of degreed workers (public and private). The public sector has more than twice the number of workers with advanced degrees. Don't fudge that very important fact.

 

Actually there is. Assuming there is even close to the same amount of Harvard grads in public sector jobs as community college grads is just plain foolish. On average Ivy league educations earn more and fill those evil regressive corporate shill type jobs you so loathe.

 

Shaquanda the DMV counter worker didn't go to Princeton.

 

 

I work in the public sector. The majority of my colleagues went to ivy league schools including Brown, Harvard, Yale, Duke, Tufts as well as smaller but still excellent private schools including Smith College, Williams College not to mention those folks that went to very good public schools such as Cal Poly.

Edited September 17, 2010 by danielpatricksmith

[Jim]

That's a pretty sweeping statement. And because I haven't studied it I can only go my experience and here's a couple of contrasting examples.

 

When I worked for the feds there was a guy, who on my first week in the office explained to me that when I travelled during the next month how I could pad my expense report to make some money. This is the same guy who had an office tucked back in an out of the way place - purposely put there because they didn't know what else to do with him and didn't whan the paper chase of trying to fire him - where he would bring a couple beers into work in the afternoon three times a week. Then there was the supervisor who wanted a promotion but couldn't get one because he had to supervise a certain number of GS-12 employees. So he promoted an incompetent person just to get his quota. Then there was the series of folks who just took sick days as if they were added vacation days.

 

In my private sector jobs if you didn't cut the mustuard you were out. We hired one bright and promising person who turned out to be a lunch time drinker. After a couple warnings and offers to help with no response he was fired. No dancing around. I hired an ecologist who looked good on paper but after several months it was apparant she oversold herself. Couldn't afford to keep someone on to warm a chair so we gave her a small and fair severance and hired another person.

 

While I don't advocate the private model for all of the public sector there needs to be a bit of belt tightening - particularly with the benefits, in these economic times.

[Peter_Puget]

 

I work in the public sector. The majority of my colleagues went to ivy league schools including Brown, Harvard, Yale, Duke, Tufts as well as smaller but still excellent private schools including Smith College, Williams College not to mention those folks that went to very good public schools such as Cal Poly.

 

Please tell me what schools are in the "Ivy League".

[Peter_Puget]

Hey Jim I don't think you ever replied to this post I made on the Spill Baby Spill thread:

 

Can you provide some specifics? For instance, the Solar Millennium project in the CA mojave (which I'm working on) is going in right now. 200 MW - the only incentive they are getting is some good deal on BLM land leases (as all energy projects get including coal and oil) and the benefit of an accelerated depreciation. There is no money from the state or feds in it. You can point to the renewable energy goals of Or, WA, and CA among other states as altering the market I suppose - but the coal, oil, and gas industries get way more tax incentives and outright handouts than the peanuts provided to renewables.

 

 

Gohere:

 

http://www.solarmillennium.de/Investors/Information_for_Shareholders_and_Interested_Parties_,lang2,4.html

 

Download latest Annual Report

 

Go to page 71.

[j_b]

That's a pretty sweeping statement. And because I haven't studied it I can only go my experience and here's a couple of contrasting examples.

 

We all have examples. The ones that stick in my mind about the private sector are the systematic favoring at promotion time of the old boys who didn't do squat, and the favoring of show offs who didn't know squat. Very similar to the pecking order found in high school.

 

While I don't advocate the private model for all of the public sector there needs to be a bit of belt tightening - particularly with the benefits, in these economic times.

 

We can talk about improving the public sector but public sector employees aren't responsible for the deficit created by the policies of the looting party.

[Jim]

Well no, you don't have examples. Just generalizations.

[j_b]

my generalizations are based on specific examples. Loads of them.

[Jim]

Hey Jim I don't think you ever replied to this post I made on the Spill Baby Spill thread:

 

Can you provide some specifics? For instance, the Solar Millennium project in the CA mojave (which I'm working on) is going in right now. 200 MW - the only incentive they are getting is some good deal on BLM land leases (as all energy projects get including coal and oil) and the benefit of an accelerated depreciation. There is no money from the state or feds in it. You can point to the renewable energy goals of Or, WA, and CA among other states as altering the market I suppose - but the coal, oil, and gas industries get way more tax incentives and outright handouts than the peanuts provided to renewables.

 

 

Gohere:

 

http://www.solarmillennium.de/Investors/Information_for_Shareholders_and_Interested_Parties_,lang2,4.html

 

Download latest Annual Report

 

Go to page 71.

 

Jesus. Well not to get off track on the discussion - but yes, it verifies what I said, they are getting investment tax credits in the way of accelerated depreciation. And as far us being an unviable industry they are looking pretty good as of, well today! http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/17/17greenwire-calif-oks-major-solar-project-slated-for-feder-36415.html

[Jim]

We can talk about improving the public sector but public sector employees aren't responsible for the deficit created by the policies of the looting party.

 

I'm not blaming public employees for anything. But when they are paid by the public from taxes there needs to be some reasonable give and take in the system. I'm a bit miffed that King County, for a specific example, has chosen NOT to negoiate with the union to have employees pay a higher share of thier medical benefits. Given the extremely large deficts that are looming it's a mystery to me because there will be more layoffs without it.

 

Should everyone, private sector and public, have access to health care without the screwed up system we have now? Of course. But that is a larger systematic issue and in the meantime having higher, public funded benefits seems out of wack.

[Nitrox]

That's a pretty sweeping statement. And because I haven't studied it I can only go my experience and here's a couple of contrasting examples.

 

We all have examples. The ones that stick in my mind about the private sector are the systematic favoring at promotion time of the old boys who didn't do squat, and the favoring of show offs who didn't know squat. Very similar to the pecking order found in high school.

 

While I don't advocate the private model for all of the public sector there needs to be a bit of belt tightening - particularly with the benefits, in these economic times.

 

We can talk about improving the public sector but public sector employees aren't responsible for the deficit created by the policies of the looting party.

 

I can only assume you worked at Burger King because I work in the private sector and that has never been the case. I think you're either making it up or cherry picking to support your broad assumption.

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

Hey Jim I don't think you ever replied to this post I made on the Spill Baby Spill thread:

 

Can you provide some specifics? For instance, the Solar Millennium project in the CA mojave (which I'm working on) is going in right now. 200 MW - the only incentive they are getting is some good deal on BLM land leases (as all energy projects get including coal and oil) and the benefit of an accelerated depreciation. There is no money from the state or feds in it. You can point to the renewable energy goals of Or, WA, and CA among other states as altering the market I suppose - but the coal, oil, and gas industries get way more tax incentives and outright handouts than the peanuts provided to renewables.

 

 

Gohere:

 

http://www.solarmillennium.de/Investors/Information_for_Shareholders_and_Interested_Parties_,lang2,4.html

 

Download latest Annual Report

 

Go to page 71.

 

Jesus. Well not to get off track on the discussion - but yes, it verifies what I said, they are getting investment tax credits in the way of accelerated depreciation. And as far us being an unviable industry they are looking pretty good as of, well today! http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/17/17greenwire-calif-oks-major-solar-project-slated-for-feder-36415.html

 

From the Report I linked:

 

From the latest interim report:

 

 

These seem to suggest that government incentives and subsidies seem much more prevalent than you suggest and that they have made a substantial impact on the volume of investment. (ie they have distorted existing patterns of investment.) That they have recently hired an expert in “integrating tax equity and loan guarantee programs by the US government” as the US CFO reminds me of a replay of the housing crisis. Oh look pension fund are investing too!

 

 

Edited September 17, 2010 by Peter_Puget

[Jim]

Yea. They got discounted loans and tax credits. Anything different (a lot less) than you think the oil industry and natural gas is getting? Don't see your point.

 

About your larger point of this not being a viable industry, well that's by the wayside.

 

The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008, revealed that the lion's share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.

 

The research demonstrates that the federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Fossil fuels benefited from approximately US $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion.

 

More than half the subsidies for renewables—$16.8 billion—are attributable to corn-based ethanol. Of the fossil fuel subsidies, $70.2 billion went to traditional sources—such as coal and oil—and $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage

[JayB]

We can talk about improving the public sector but public sector employees aren't responsible for the deficit created by the policies of the looting party.

 

I'm not blaming public employees for anything. But when they are paid by the public from taxes there needs to be some reasonable give and take in the system. I'm a bit miffed that King County, for a specific example, has chosen NOT to negoiate with the union to have employees pay a higher share of thier medical benefits. Given the extremely large deficts that are looming it's a mystery to me because there will be more layoffs without it.

 

Should everyone, private sector and public, have access to health care without the screwed up system we have now? Of course. But that is a larger systematic issue and in the meantime having higher, public funded benefits seems out of wack.

 

This is particularly egregious given that they're opting to cut services.

 

The purpose of the public sector is to maximize the public well-being by providing services that no other institution in society can, as efficiently as possible. It's not to provide the maximum private benefit to those that deliver the services.

 

If we're going to have, say, public transport - then the sole object should be to transport the public as efficiently as possible. In practice that means benefit and wage levels should be determined by the compensation levels necessary to operate the buses - nothing more.

 

I am quite certain that there are large numbers of people who would be willing and able to drive buses at compensation levels that would allow Metro to operate without making service cuts.

 

If we're spending money to operate public buses - then granny getting a ride to the senior center trumps the driver's standard of living as a public priority. If they don't like it - there are plenty of private bus operators that they can apply to.

[Jim]

By Mike Lindblom

 

Seattle Times transportation reporter

 

A Metro bus driver rolls in downtown Seattle on Tuesday. Average pay is up 38.5 percent since 2000 and now averages $60,806.

 

 

Number of drivers earning more than $75,000 per year, including overtime:

 

In 2000:22

 

In 2009:255

 

Number of drivers earning more than $100,000, including overtime:

 

In 2000:0

 

In 2009:20

Source: King County Metro internal review

 

After two years of tapping reserves, boosting fares, surviving on federal grants and postponing new routes, King County Metro Transit managers now are looking behind the wheel for savings.

 

Metro drivers rank third nationally in wages, with a top rate of $28.47 an hour, and the average yearly income, including overtime, is almost $61,000 a year, according to a Metro review that includes full- and part-time drivers.

 

Because of cost-of-living raises in the union contract, drivers' pay rose nearly 4 percent each year over the past five years. Union leaders say the growth merely brings drivers back to a reasonable standard of living, after losing ground in the 1990s.

 

Driver pay has become a touchy issue because the current contract expires Oct. 31, and the county government is seeking to suspend automatic cost-of-living increases.

 

Paul Bachtel, president of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587, said Tuesday that skipping a 2011 inflation raise is unacceptable, unless the new contract offers substantial raises in later years. He said it would be better to trim routes or cut management.

Other options, Metro says, include layoffs, shorter break times between trips (causing risks of late arrivals) or service cuts, to start in early 2011.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Jim

[Peter_Puget]

Yea. They got discounted loans and tax credits. Anything different (a lot less) than you think the oil industry and natural gas is getting? Don't see your point.

 

About your larger point of this not being a viable industry, well that's by the wayside.

 

The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI). The study, which reviewed fossil fuel and energy subsidies for Fiscal Years 2002-2008, revealed that the lion's share of energy subsidies supported energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases.

 

The research demonstrates that the federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Fossil fuels benefited from approximately US $72 billion over the seven-year period, while subsidies for renewable fuels totaled only $29 billion.

 

More than half the subsidies for renewables—$16.8 billion—are attributable to corn-based ethanol. Of the fossil fuel subsidies, $70.2 billion went to traditional sources—such as coal and oil—and $2.3 billion went to carbon capture and storage

 

I was making several points: 1) That government $$$ played a far gretter role in your company's growth and investment strategy than you were claiming. 2) Since government intervention is increasing demand for skills in this area above workers and suppliers are reaping a benefit even if they aren't directly employed in the industry. On the margin they are in some sense round-about public workers. 3) People are investing where, absent government involement, they otherwise wouldn't. Other areas are losing out.

 

I never said the solar inustry was not viabl;however, I do think it is not viable at its current size without government intervention.

 

 

[Jim]

 

I was making several points: 1) That government $$$ played a far gretter role in your company's growth and investment strategy than you were claiming. Uhh, not my company. Never said so.

 

 

2) Since government intervention is increasing demand for skills in this area above workers and suppliers are reaping a benefit even if they aren't directly employed in the industry. On the margin they are in some sense round-about public workers. Pales in comparison to oil and gas, and well the military supply firms.

 

3) People are investing where, absent government involement, they otherwise wouldn't. Other areas are losing out. Hmm. Never heard you sqeal about all our tax payer funds going to dirty coal, oil, and gas industries that have been at the public trough for years.

 

[Jim]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

 

 

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

 

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

 

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

 

But National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley says the comparison is faulty because it "compares apples and oranges." Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says.

 

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

 

Office of Personnel Management spokeswoman Sedelta Verble, says higher pay also reflects the longevity and older age of federal workers.

 

USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses.

 

The BLS reports that 216 occupations covering 1.1 million federal workers exist in both the federal government and the private sector. An additional 124 federal occupations covering 750,000 employees — air-traffic controllers, tax collectors and others — did not have direct equivalents, according to the BLS. What?

 

Federal jobs have more limited salary ranges than private-sector jobs, some of which have million-dollar payouts.

 

Key findings:

 

• Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector.

 

•Private. The private sector paid more on average in a select group of high-skill occupations, including lawyers, veterinarians and airline pilots. The government's 5,200 computer research scientists made an average of $95,190, about $10,000 less than the average in the corporate world. Not considering benefits

 

•State and local. State government employees had an average salary of $47,231 in 2008, about 5% less than comparable jobs in the private sector. City and county workers earned an average of $43,589, about 2% more than private workers in similar jobs. State and local workers have higher total compensation than private workers when the value of benefits is included.