Gettin' Spicy Up In Here, Up In Here

[ivan]

TTK's Chinese utopia today:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15956299

 

so....china's evil b/c its expanded it defintion of who's poor by 100%?

 

you woulda been a big herbert hoover supporter back in the day, no?

 

$1 per day! Sounds to me like you support a very limited upper class--and semantics that gloss-over oppression.

i'm not chinese, nor have i traveled to a chinese city, let alone the immense chinese countryside, so i can't claim to understand their system or their economy all that well

 

but what i see, at least from a PR perspective, is a chinese governmetn admitting it has a large poor class - the first step in solving any problem is of course admitting the problem exists (your climate crowing of late being a fine example of such)

 

i wonder how much purchasing power 1$ has in the typical chinese village? reckon they're not buying a lot of itunes?

[j_b]

By all means, show us the comps for WA State private sector salaries...

 

You are really slow on the uptake. I have already linked to the Seattle Times analysis of state salaries showing that median wages are lower for ~3/4 of public employee occupations than their equivalent in the private sector. The irony of your ignorant statements is your not realizing that top public salaries are consistently less than in the private sector whereas salaries at the bottom of the scale are usually greater than in the private sector.

 

Of course, Bill Gates' salary isn't taxpayer funded...

 

"Dumbo"??

 

right, "dumbfuck" is a lot more to the point.

[Jim]

I'm not sure you want to use the Seattle Times as a primary source. Similarly I wouldn't use the USA article that came the exact opposite conclusion as a source.

 

Rather, I'd depend more on the academics for this one. Similarly the Bureau of Labor Statistics and some think-tank (Cato comes to mind) studies are too simplistic. The ones worth discussion, IMO are the Rutgers study (union paid) and the American Enterprise Institute (private slant).

 

The AEI makes a transparent attempt to factor "equal job" issues. One I'd have to agree with (yes - personal bias from experience) is that folks in government are put into postions at a higher level than private sector employees given comparable skill and experience sets. In general their conclusions are that lower level staff are paid substantially more in government postions, while higher level staff are paid slightly more in government positions. This does, of course include wage and benefits, unlike some of the other studies.

 

In my experience in federal, state, and the private sector; I'd say it's a fair assessment based on my, yes, personal experience. I've found that private sector folks also work longer hours in general and hustle more. One recent anecedote: I was out a relatively remote field site with some government biologists. We had only gotten to the site an hour ago, and in my opinion we had a lot to go over but still had 4 hours of daylight, so we were good. I thought. Then the feds starting looking at their watches. Both are single, so there's no kid issues - but were worried about not getting back to the office by 5:00. OK then - so we had to come back out the next day and do it all over again. Extremely efficient!

 

 

[j_b]

I am not using the Seattle Times as primary source. I have listed plenty of academic studies that show what they found. I am emphasizing the Seattle Times because they did a local study and they are other otherwise a regressive rag.

 

AEI is a neoliberal think tank that has constantly been at the forefront of deregulation, privatization of the public domain, outsourcing, denial of climate change, union busting, etc. I wouldn't put one once of credibility toward the analysis of this propaganda outfit as I haven't for any of the previous frauds they claimed were "scholarly work".

 

Who gives a fig about "your personal experience" enthralled as if it were a system analysis. My personal experience doesn't match yours in any way and I don't spend half my time trying to claim it is the end all of public work mores.

[Jim]

Well, simlarly the one academic study you did post was paid for by a federal govenment union - so clearly there is some bias there. And I've pointed out the inherent bias of each study in my post.

 

And yes. I'm willing to admit that my opinion also is affected by my direct experience. Having worked in government - where we had a saying - the 20/80 rule - 80% of the work was done by 20% of the staff - I am definately convinced that folks hustle more and are paid less for comparable positions and experience in the private sector.

 

I'm also aware of deadwood in the private sectors and can point to a few current examples of that as well. Large entities - coporations or government - have a number of good places to hide. Government just allows it more.

 

Rather than look an any of the papers on their merit and dismiss them out of hand because of the source - then there is no room for conversation or reasonable debate.

 

Another recent example: On the phone with two federal resource agecies - one has a severe dealing on some science studies - the other is supposed to be a cooperating agency. Agency 1 sends info to Agency 2 two weeks ago so they will be prepared for conversation. Agency 2 (3 staff) get on phone and ask us to walk through the study plans because they have not looked at it (would take an hour) - and then they want us to have ANOTHER call in a week to go over it. Meanwhile the clock is ticking for seasonal time limits on studies. Agency 1 points this out - Agency 2 says "we don't care about an artifical timeline" !!!!!

 

Arrogant to say the least. We went forward without their cooperation thank-you. Behavior like this, in my experience, is not tolerated in the private sector. Unless of course you are a car rental agency.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Who gives a fig about "your personal experience"

 

His anecdotal experiences are far more useful than your blathering.

 

[Jim]

That said: Raises for all public school primary and secondary teachers. I don't see how they do it. I would be drunk or in prison for drowning a couple in the science lab sink.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

That said: Raises for all public school primary and secondary teachers. I don't see how they do it. I would be drunk or in prison for drowning a couple in the science lab sink.

 

fire some administrators and/or cut some high-end pensions and you could finance that.

[j_b]

Well, simlarly the one academic study you did post was paid for by a federal govenment union - so clearly there is some bias there. And I've pointed out the inherent bias of each study in my post.

 

Unions paid independent scholars to do a study which is far cry from "scholars" working for a think tank entirely financed by corporations. AEI is a propaganda outfit and one of the worse. Nothing more.

Edited November 30, 2011 by j_b

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Unions entirely financed "scholars" to do a study which is far cry from "scholars" working for a think tank entirely financed by corporations.

 

Fixed your bias.

 

Sounds pretty much analogous, dipshit.

[Jim]

Well, simlarly the one academic study you did post was paid for by a federal govenment union - so clearly there is some bias there. And I've pointed out the inherent bias of each study in my post.

 

Unions paid independent scholars to do a study which is far cry from "scholars" working for a think tank entirely financed by corporations. AEI is a propaganda outfit and one of the worse. Nothing more.

 

Oh, now I see. Academics paid by AEI - bias. Academics paid by Union - no bias. There is clarity.

[j_b]

No. AEI is an organization paid at 100% by corporate interests and has a long record of publishing propaganda favorable to their sponsors. Whereas, unions paid independent scholars working for an academic institution with a long record of scholarly achievement to do a study on the topic.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Well, simlarly the one academic study you did post was paid for by a federal govenment union - so clearly there is some bias there. And I've pointed out the inherent bias of each study in my post.

 

Unions paid independent scholars to do a study which is far cry from "scholars" working for a think tank entirely financed by corporations. AEI is a propaganda outfit and one of the worse. Nothing more.

 

 

 

 

Oh, now I see. Academics paid by AEI - bias. Academics paid by Union - no bias. There is clarity.

 

No, no, no, Jim. Can't you read, you corporate shill?!? Unions paid scholars, not "scholars". Get it? And the unions paid *independent* scholars! More clear? And the unions just paid them. But AEI is a *think tank*!! Get it - the loaded term - it really makes the point! And this *think tank* ENTIRELY financed the "scholars". ENTIRELY! They didn't just pay them, they financed them. Entirely. Learn to read, f-wit!

 

[j_b]

The gist of the Rudgers study:

 

Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at the university’s School of Management and Labor Relations, said public employees do not make more than comparable private employees.

 

According to Keefe, comparing private and public employees with the same educational level, experience and work schedule shows private employees make 11 percent more in wages and 5 percent more in total compensation than public workers.

 

"It’s hard to show that public workers are overpaid compared to private sector workers," said Keefe, but he quickly added: "Even though their wages are lower, it’s also hard to argue they are underpaid.’’

 

In other words, it’s not simple.

 

Using the latest federal data, Keefe said the average total compensation for workers in the private sector with bachelor’s degrees is $89,041 compared with $56,641 for public workers.

 

For workers with professional degrees — lawyers, say, or doctors — the gap is more dramatic: $175,141 in the private sector, $79,330 in the public.

 

Where public outdoes private is among workers without much education. The average compensation for a public worker without a high school diploma is $41,000, compared with $27,719. With diplomas, employees in both sectors make $44,000.

 

Public workers are more educated than private — 57 percent have college degrees and higher, compared with 44 percent. Because workers in all sectors are paid according to education and skill levels, lumping them all together — the least skilled with the most — is misleading.

[Jim]

No. AEI is an organization paid at 100% by corporate interests and has a long record of publishing propaganda favorable to their sponsors. Whereas, unions paid independent scholars working for an academic institution with a long record of scholarly achievement to do a study on the topic.

 

Seems anecdotal an an opinion. Nothing more.

[j_b]

Seems anecdotal an an opinion. Nothing more.

 

Here you go: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

 

Work on issues

 

Iraq

 

More recently, it has emerged as one of the leading architects of the Bush administration's foreign policy. AEI rents office space to the Project for the New American Century, one of the leading voices that pushed the Bush administration's plan for "regime change" through war in Iraq. AEI reps have also aggressively denied that the war has anything to do with oil.

 

Tobacco issues

 

In 1980, the American Enterprise Institute for the sum of $25,000 produced a study in support of the tobacco industry titled, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Regulation: Consumer Products. The study was designed to counteract "social cost" arguments against smoking by broadening the social cost issue to include other consumer products such as alcohol and saccharin. The social cost arguments against smoking hold that smoking burdens society with additional costs from on-the-job absenteeism, medical costs, cleaning costs and fires.[3] The report was part of the global tobacco industry's 1980s Social Costs/Social Values Project, carried out to refute emerging social cost arguments against smoking.

 

Water Policy

 

At a conference on water policy hosted by AEI in 2006, William Morris, a Professor at Case Western Law School, argued that "markets are essential in providing people with water," because they "provide more information at a lower cost." Yet Morris also acknowledged the downfall of market water management, in the form of the "inevitable movement of water from poor rural areas to rich urban areas." [8]

 

Case Studies

 

NGO Watch

 

In June 2003, AEI and another right-wing group, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, launched a new website NGOWatch.org/NGOwatch.org to expose the funding, operations and agendas of international NGOs, and particularly their alleged efforts to constrain U.S. freedom of action in international affairs and influence the behavior of corporations abroad. [4] AEI states that "The extraordinary growth of advocacy NGOs in liberal democracies has the potential to undermine the sovereignty of constitutional democracies, as well as the effectiveness of credible NGOs."[5] Ralph Nader responds with "What they are condemning, with vague, ironic regulatory nostrums proposed against dissenting citizen groups, is democracy itself." [6]

 

Casting Doubt on Global Warming

 

In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent." [7]

 

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian. [8]

 

[Jim]

Keefe leads with a table that appears to undercut his own argument--unless he means simply to impugn the integrity of The Star-Ledger. That table (on page 3) shows that New Jersey has the second-highest level of public-sector wages in the country (and the highest salaries for police officers and firefighters), and the fourth-highest level for private-sector employees (and, oddly enough, for teachers). Furthermore, that table does show that private-sector employees tend to earn less.

 

That is only one flaw. In addition, Keefe neglects to show the denominators in his data. He cites averages wages and benefits, but does not demonstrate that he has applied any statistical tests to remove "outliers"--exceptional high-end or low-end earners who would skew the results. Moreover, some commenters suspect that Keefe might have included among private-sector "employees" certain persons who are not, strictly speaking, "employees," and in fact live in New Jersey but work out-of-State (usually in New York, especially in the financial district). Nor, one suspects, does Keefe answer either of these questions:

 

Did he, and should he not, count unemployed (including chronically unemployed and "discouraged") former private-sector workers in his denominator, especially if they live in New Jersey?

 

Why did he fail to mention former public-sector employees, who retire at age 55 and are now drawing defined-benefit pensions, while so many of their private-sector counterparts are instead drawing distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements and 401(k) and 403(b) plans?

(Nor did Keefe think to examine whether the establishment of 457 plans, the government equivalent of 401(k)s, might save the State money.)

 

Keefe might have considered this question beyond scope: Do the State and local governments in New Jersey simply employ too many people? Private companies have every incentive to get the same work done with fewer employees. The government has the opposite incentive. Not only do unions have a motive to insist that the government hire more people, but any bureaucrat knows that his power varies directly as the number of employees in his department. Indeed, Friedman quoted Jerry Cantrell of the New Jersey Taxpayers' Association as reminding people that private companies have downsized in the recession, while government has not.

 

Last year, Catherine Rampell of The New York Times linked to this chart by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing that state and local governments pay far more in wages, salary and benefits per hour worked than do their private-sector counterparts. This is where the Keefe analysis is most vulnerable: government departments do not necessarily keep fewer hours of operation just because any given employee might work fewer than 40 hours a week.

 

Finally, Keefe ends with the counterintuitive prediction that "the State's budget-balancing efforts [might] prolong the economic downturn by increasing unemployment." Here he reflects the common pro-government paradigm that says that an economy is always demand-driven, while ignoring the depression in aggregate demand that results from the heavy taxes necessary to support a bloated government. Then he predicts that "thousands of New Jersey public employees will lose their jobs," without saying why or even how

 

[j_b]

Seems anecdotal an an opinion. Nothing more.

 

Here you go: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

 

crickets ...

[j_b]

Keefe leads with a table that appears to undercut his own argument--unless he means simply to impugn the integrity of The Star-Ledger. That table (on page 3) shows that New Jersey has the second-highest level of public-sector wages in the country (and the highest salaries for police officers and firefighters), and the fourth-highest level for private-sector employees (and, oddly enough, for teachers). Furthermore, that table does show that private-sector employees tend to earn less.

 

That is only one flaw. In addition, Keefe neglects to show the denominators in his data. He cites averages wages and benefits, but does not demonstrate that he has applied any statistical tests to remove "outliers"--exceptional high-end or low-end earners who would skew the results. Moreover, some commenters suspect that Keefe might have included among private-sector "employees" certain persons who are not, strictly speaking, "employees," and in fact live in New Jersey but work out-of-State (usually in New York, especially in the financial district). Nor, one suspects, does Keefe answer either of these questions:

 

Did he, and should he not, count unemployed (including chronically unemployed and "discouraged") former private-sector workers in his denominator, especially if they live in New Jersey?

 

Why did he fail to mention former public-sector employees, who retire at age 55 and are now drawing defined-benefit pensions, while so many of their private-sector counterparts are instead drawing distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements and 401(k) and 403(b) plans?

(Nor did Keefe think to examine whether the establishment of 457 plans, the government equivalent of 401(k)s, might save the State money.)

 

Keefe might have considered this question beyond scope: Do the State and local governments in New Jersey simply employ too many people? Private companies have every incentive to get the same work done with fewer employees. The government has the opposite incentive. Not only do unions have a motive to insist that the government hire more people, but any bureaucrat knows that his power varies directly as the number of employees in his department. Indeed, Friedman quoted Jerry Cantrell of the New Jersey Taxpayers' Association as reminding people that private companies have downsized in the recession, while government has not.

 

Last year, Catherine Rampell of The New York Times linked to this chart by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showing that state and local governments pay far more in wages, salary and benefits per hour worked than do their private-sector counterparts. This is where the Keefe analysis is most vulnerable: government departments do not necessarily keep fewer hours of operation just because any given employee might work fewer than 40 hours a week.

 

Finally, Keefe ends with the counterintuitive prediction that "the State's budget-balancing efforts [might] prolong the economic downturn by increasing unemployment." Here he reflects the common pro-government paradigm that says that an economy is always demand-driven, while ignoring the depression in aggregate demand that results from the heavy taxes necessary to support a bloated government. Then he predicts that "thousands of New Jersey public employees will lose their jobs," without saying why or even how

 

right out of the Essex County Conservative Examiner? LOLZ

 

I guess you didn't feel like you could give the link to that gibberish: "the study is seriously flawed and makes some untenable assumptions, chief among them that the numbers of public employees are appropriate for a free society."

 

[Jim]

Seems anecdotal an an opinion. Nothing more.

 

Here you go: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute

 

crickets ...

 

I still don't see the difference. You have one group - Unions, who have hired academics. They clearly have an agenda - that is, preservation of their position - wages and benefits.

 

You have a second the AEI - with a clear bent on private enterprise and pro-business, generally anti-union approach. Both have paid economists to come up with a study. Each have reached opposing conclusions.

 

I'd have to say that the AEI seems more thorougly sourced and lays out the assumptions they made. The Rutgers study, not so transparent.

 

So the poison the well logic really doesn't carry much water. But that's likely my science bias for objectivity.

 

One item you SHOULD find intersting in the Rutgers study is that no attempt was made to compare like degrees. Rather, it compares "level of education". So, rather than compare say, a Masters in Physics with a like degree, it just compares all Masters degrees. That doesn't make sense. So you're comparing someone who has a Masters in History with someone with a MBA. Not so objective. Or, a Masters in Education, which you can do in a summer, compared to a Masters in a science, which typically takes 2 - 3 years.

 

The AEI institute makes an attempt at comparing like positions and education in similar fields. They at least tell you what they are trying to do. The Rutgers study doesn't attempt this and doesn't address the effects of such an assumption.

 

Also, the Rutgers study doesn't include retirment health benefits. That seems odd, doesn't it? You retire from the feds after 20 yrs and you have life-time health benefits at the same cost you're now paying. Great bargin if you can get it. But it at least should be put in the forumla, eh?

 

Then there is the guaranteed pension return (thanks taxpayers ) vs. a vanilla 401k, much higher matches, more vacation days, less hours worked, and generally earlier retirement.

 

So pointing the finger at the evil AEI just isn't an argument. Now if you can come up with some logical argument we're listening.

[ivan]

I would be drunk or in prison for drowning a couple in the science lab sink.

 

funny, drinking and contemplating prison (and summer, for that matter) have worked wonders at keeping me at this thing for going on 2 decades now

 

raises? shit! i'd be happy enough if we could just tread water!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I still don't see the difference. You have one group - Unions, who have hired academics. They clearly have an agenda - that is, preservation of their position - wages and benefits.

 

You have a second the AEI - with a clear bent on private enterprise and pro-business, generally anti-union approach. Both have paid economists to come up with a study. Each have reached opposing conclusions.

 

I'd have to say that the AEI seems more thorougly sourced and lays out the assumptions they made. The Rutgers study, not so transparent.

 

So the poison the well logic really doesn't carry much water. But that's likely my science bias for objectivity.

 

One item you SHOULD find intersting in the Rutgers study is that no attempt was made to compare like degrees. Rather, it compares "level of education". So, rather than compare say, a Masters in Physics with a like degree, it just compares all Masters degrees. That doesn't make sense. So you're comparing someone who has a Masters in History with someone with a MBA. Not so objective. Or, a Masters in Education, which you can do in a summer, compared to a Masters in a science, which typically takes 2 - 3 years.

 

The AEI institute makes an attempt at comparing like positions and education in similar fields. They at least tell you what they are trying to do. The Rutgers study doesn't attempt this and doesn't address the effects of such an assumption.

 

Also, the Rutgers study doesn't include retirment health benefits. That seems odd, doesn't it? You retire from the feds after 20 yrs and you have life-time health benefits at the same cost you're now paying. Great bargin if you can get it. But it at least should be put in the forumla, eh?

 

Then there is the guaranteed pension return (thanks taxpayers ) vs. a vanilla 401k, much higher matches, more vacation days, less hours worked, and generally earlier retirement.

 

So pointing the finger at the evil AEI just isn't an argument. Now if you can come up with some logical argument we're listening.

 

crickets

[j_b]

I still don't see the difference. You have one group - Unions, who have hired academics. They clearly have an agenda - that is, preservation of their position - wages and benefits.

 

You have a second the AEI - with a clear bent on private enterprise and pro-business, generally anti-union approach. Both have paid economists to come up with a study. Each have reached opposing conclusions.

 

It's not my fault if you can't see the difference between a study conducted by academics with a record of scholarly achievement and another study conducted by a corporate propaganda outfit with a record of disinformation.

 

 

I'd have to say that the AEI seems more thorougly sourced and lays out the assumptions they made. The Rutgers study, not so transparent.

 

So the poison the well logic really doesn't carry much water. But that's likely my science bias for objectivity.

 

I wouldn't describe cherry-picking high wages out of an employee database as "scientific bias for objectivity"

 

One item you SHOULD find intersting in the Rutgers study is that no attempt was made to compare like degrees. Rather, it compares "level of education". So, rather than compare say, a Masters in Physics with a like degree, it just compares all Masters degrees. That doesn't make sense. So you're comparing someone who has a Masters in History with someone with a MBA. Not so objective. Or, a Masters in Education, which you can do in a summer, compared to a Masters in a science, which typically takes 2 - 3 years.

 

an MBA degree is a masters in science? since when? Do you have any idea what goes into acquiring an MBA through an evening program compared to a masters in education?

 

So pointing the finger at the evil AEI just isn't an argument. Now if you can come up with some logical argument we're listening.

 

whenever you cite the study (Keefe alone published several reports in 2011) you are discussing with specific arguments, I'll reply.

Edited November 30, 2011 by j_b

[Jim]

One item you SHOULD find intersting in the Rutgers study is that no attempt was made to compare like degrees. Rather, it compares "level of education". So, rather than compare say, a Masters in Physics with a like degree, it just compares all Masters degrees. That doesn't make sense. So you're comparing someone who has a Masters in History with someone with a MBA. Not so objective. Or, a Masters in Education, which you can do in a summer, compared to a Masters in a science, which typically takes 2 - 3 years.

 

an MBA degree is a masters in science? since when? Do you have any idea what goes into acquiring an MBA through an evening program compared to a masters in education?

 

Umm. No. If you slowly read the above they are seperate sentences that provide different examples of how the Rutgers study lumps degrees. Example 1: Should be comparing (as an example) MS physics to MS physics.

 

Example 2: What the Rutgers study is doing - comparing a MS History to MBA (as an example).

 

Example 3: Rutgers study is comparing degree LEVEL only so a Masters in Education is the same as a Masters in a science field in this study.

 

Hope that is clear now. I don't have any picture books to assist.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Hope that is clear now. I don't have any picture books to assist.