Mythbusting attacks against public workers 2

[j_b]

"f, as some media reports claim, federal workers were earning roughly $8,000 more than private-sector workers in occupations that exist both in the government and private sector for no reason at all, that would be troubling. But the truth is that a comparison of federal and private-sector pay, even by occupation, is misleading because the employees hired by the federal government often have higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector - even within the same occupations. When you factor in the education and experience of the federal workforce, there is no statistically significant difference in average pay levels.

 

Take registered nurses working at the Veterans Administration. They care for the complex injuries and illnesses of our wounded warriors and veterans. Partly reflecting the complexity of the care they deliver, nurses working for the federal government are more than twice as likely to have a college degree as those employed by the private sector (24 percent relative to 11 percent). As another example, database administrators are twice as likely to have a post-collegiate degree in the federal government as those working in the private sector (31 percent versus 16 percent).

 

Overall, roughly half the federal workforce has a college degree, compared to about a third in the private sector. Most of the difference (82 percent) in average pay between the federal government and the private sector is explained by these differences in education. Holding education constant, federal workers earn $1,604 more than their private-sector counterparts on average. That is where the experience of the federal workforce comes into play. More experienced workers tend to earn more, and the federal workforce, by and large, is older on average than the private workforce. If you hold education and age constant - and thus have an apples to apples comparison - federal employees earn slightly less than those in the private sector on average, although the difference is not statistically significant.

 

So the bottom line is: when education and age are held constant, the entire difference in average pay between the federal and private sectors disappears."

 

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008110022

[Fairweather]

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.

 

 

 

 

Nicely put together and well balanced. Hell, even my right-wing GS-15 brother-in-law won't cede as much ground as you just did. Well done. I'm not sure I agree with you about the cops though...

[j_b]

Of course, Fairweather would much rather base his opinion on hearsay than comprehensive studies that say the exact oposite of what he believes.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Of course, Fairweather would much rather base his opinion on hearsay than comprehensive studies that say the exact oposite of what he believes.

 

you forgot to call him a regressive

[j_b]

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

 

They are cutting services because your boys drove the economy over the cliff not because public employees make too much. Until you suggest to repare the mess you supported (2 wars, wall street casino, shipping good jobs to the land of the bottom cost, etc ..) you have no credibity whatsoever when you suggest that public employees should take a pay cut.

 

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.

 

as most know, providing a good service usually demands a good standard of living for service providers, but you couldn't care less because you don't give a shit about providing good public services despite your crocodiles' tears (not convincing at all btw)

[j_b]

Of course, Fairweather would much rather base his opinion on hearsay than comprehensive studies that say the exact oposite of what he believes.

 

you forgot to call him a regressive

 

you forgot to say something germane to the discussion. Oh wait, my bad, you never say anything relevant anyway.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

you forgot to say something germane to the discussion. Oh wait, my bad, you never say anything relevant anyway.

 

is that what you think you do - "discuss"?

[j_b]

is that all you've got? why don't you play with yourself, moron.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

is that all you've got? why don't you play with yourself, moron.

 

more "discussion"?

[Fairweather]

Of course, Fairweather would much rather base his opinion on hearsay than comprehensive studies that say the exact oposite of what he believes.

 

I'll take primary data over agenda-inspired sophistry any day of the week. A public university produces a paper which says, basically, that high public wages (read: their own) are justified by the educational credentials only public employees possess--and then goes on to concoct a select-data scheme whereby it becomes quantifiable. Garbage in, garbage out--not to mention more than a bit erudite. For once, I appreciate Jim's position. If only you would show some glimmer of balance. Even once.

[JayB]

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

 

They are cutting services because your boys drove the economy over the cliff not because public employees make too much. Until you suggest to repare the mess you supported (2 wars, wall street casino, shipping good jobs to the land of the bottom cost, etc ..) you have no credibity whatsoever when you suggest that public employees should take a pay cut.

 

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.

 

as most know, providing a good service usually demands a good standard of living for service providers, but you couldn't care less because you don't give a shit about providing good public services despite your crocodiles' tears (not convincing at all btw)

 

Whether it was an evil plot by libertarian regressives working in conjuction with Satan and the Bilderburgs in the basement of Dick Cheney's Wyoming guesthouse, or a typical boom bust cycle amplified by loose credit, or an act of god is irrelevant.

 

The money isn't there to finance the current level of services at current wage rates. Until that changes, the options are limited. Cut compensation, cut services, or some combination of both.

 

If you believe that providing a comfortable living to as many public sector employees as possible is the highest priority, then it's time to cut as many services as necessary to preserve existing pay and benefit levels. If you believe the opposite, then it's time to cut pay and benefits in order to maintain existing service levels.

 

It's really that simple.

[Fairweather]

Oh, oh, oh! Jay, you forgot to mention the obvious solution of FUCKING those evil rich people. You know, the ones making over $200,000 each year--well, this year anyhow...

 

[j_b]

Whether it was an evil plot by libertarian regressives working in conjuction with Satan and the Bilderburgs in the basement of Dick Cheney's Wyoming guesthouse, or a typical boom bust cycle amplified by loose credit, or an act of god is irrelevant.

 

it is relevant. If you don't account for what caused the problem, you can't fix it.

 

The money isn't there to finance the current level of services at current wage rates. Until that changes, the options are limited. Cut compensation, cut services, or some combination of both.

 

not until you cut your war budget and the top 1% starts paying a lot more taxes.

 

If you believe that providing a comfortable living to as many public sector employees as possible is the highest priority, ...

 

drivel