Here comes another "stimulus"...this time for public employees..

[Belmont31R]

IMO public employees are going to be the BIGGEST stranglehold on getting budgets under control especially that so many of them are unionized now. Look at the public teacher fiasco in NJ. These people are driving states into big black holes budget wise, and often times they are paid 2-3X as much as the private sector. Just the average Fed gov wage is almost TWICE that of the private sector.


Also to these loons debt reduction = higher taxes. That is the way this goes. Massive public spending with massive taxes on the private sector. They will never fire people, lay off unnecessary workers, reduce wages, etc. The public sector grows, spending grows, and the answer is always higher taxes.


Also public spending has never in history proven to improve the private sector because that money comes out the private sector one way or another to begin with. If its debt spending (like it is now) that is money that has to be repaid, and that will come out of the private sector in the future at some point thus reducing future growth. By the time Obama is done he is going to leave us with a 10-15 TRILLION dollar egg to pay back, and we still are going to be in a shitty economy with much higher future responsibilities to pay for in Federal spending.


The ONLY way to fix all this is:

1. Cut public employee numbers.

2. Cut their wages.

3. Cut mostly all but vital services.

4. Cut taxes (especially for businesses).


No matter what they say public spending, and public debt spending is not going to do a damn thing. It never has, and never will. Even go back to the Great Depression era, and the only thing that really did anything to get us in a boom was WW2. Prior to that things were going up but very slowly, and it was mixed with a couple recessions in the mean time (besides the GD in the early 30's).


Not only are Obama's policies failures but they couldn't have come at a worse time with 2 wars, and the economy in the state that its in. We got through not as bad Clinton during the 90's because of the computer age coming to a boom. We don't have anything like that now to fall back on. Theres no huge growth industry at all right now.





WASHINGTON -- President Obama is pressing Congress to approve emergency aid money to support economic recovery and help avoid widespread layoffs of public workers, the Washington Post reported Saturday.

Congressional leaders received a letter from the president asking for almost $50 billion for distribution to state and local governments, saying that increased spending is “urgent and unavoidable,” the Post reported. The money would protect the jobs of teachers, police and firefighters.

“Because the urgency is high—many school districts, cities and states are already being forced to make these layoffs,” Obama wrote, “these provisions must be passed as quickly as possible.”

Obama’s plea comes despite last year’s $787 billion economic stimulus package, which worked to stabilize the failing economy, but did little to help the country’s high unemployment rate. At 9.7 percent, unemployment is nearly the same as it was a year ago.

Many economists are optimistic that packages such as this one could lower unemployment, but member of neither party seem eager to allow further spending; Republican concerns over record deficits are making Democrats think twice about approving more of Obama’s costly initiatives, the Post reported.

Obama, however, expressed that spending and national debt reduction could go hand-in-hand.
“These measures to jump-start private sector job creation, avoid massive layoffs at the local and state levels and help the unemployed are critical and timely ways to further that economic recovery,” the president wrote, adding that “robust economic growth is essential for achieving deficit reduction.”

Lawmakers remained skeptical.

“Democrats are showing either that they just don't get it on this issue of the debt, or that they just don't care,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in a reaction to the letter. “You can understand the American people's skepticism when they're told that simply adding more government
is the solution to government's previous failures."

Click here to read more on this story from the Washington Post.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/13/obama-appeals-congress-billion-emergency-aid/

[ForTehNguyen]

$800B wasnt enough apparently. Shadow bailout of govt unions, watch this $50B go to union dominated states

[Littlelebowski]

Words fail me.......

[TehLlama]

Shadow baliout? Corrupt activity? Pay-for-play? Federal tax dollars handed to unions?

No, this was dismissed as crazy people talk in '08: make way for more more monuments to dearest leader.

[Dunderway]

Just the average Fed gov wage is almost TWICE that of the private sector.

Got anything to back this up? I just don't see this as realistic. This is coming from a gov. employee that could walk tomorrow and easily double my salary in the private sector. Most people without families (no worry about job security) do this, and it can be tough to retain upper level federal employees. If you're talking about janitors, then maybe. If you're talking about someone with job skills, I doubt it.

I am highly trained, educated, and a performer, yet I type this from a small one-bedroom apartment. I believe this falls the way of the $1million hammer, or Mattel M-16. IOWs BS.

[Heavy Metal]

I am against it and I am a public employee.

My state is fiscially responsible and runs a balanced budget and has for years.

We did not go on a drunken binge the last few years like certain blue states did.

As long as we bail out Kali and NY, they will never learn to live within their means.

This is like giving more alcohol to a drunk.

[Heavy Metal]

Got anything to back this up? I just don't see this as realistic. This is coming from a gov. employee that could walk tomorrow and easily double my salary in the private sector. Most people without families (no worry about job security) do this, and it can be tough to retain upper level federal employees. If you're talking about janitors, then maybe. If you're talking about someone with job skills, I doubt it.

I am highly trained, educated, and a performer, yet I type this from a small one-bedroom apartment. I believe this falls the way of the $1million hammer, or Mattel M-16. IOWs BS.

The problem with that Fed salary being twice the private salary is it neglects to consider that a disproportinate amount of public employees tend to be clustered around large urban areas where $80,000 a year is nothing. $40,000 in Okalahoma goes farther than $100,000 does in New York or DC.

Tht said, I wish I made half what my Federal counterparts make.

[Dunderway]

Really? It has always been the opposite in my experience. Are we talking blue collar or white collar work? High level Fed Execs top out just above $100K, which is entry level for that type of position in the private sector. I understand the locality issue, but feds get some pretty hefty locality bumps depending on where you live. For example: my salary is about 15-20% higher in a large metro area than it would be in the rural midwest.

ETA: I don't think that I deserve any type of "stimulus" I just question the figure given in the OP.

[Belmont31R]

The problem with that Fed salary being twice the private salary is it neglects to consider that a disproportinate amount of public employees tend to be clustered around large urban areas where $80,000 a year is nothing. $40,000 in Okalahoma goes farther than $100,000 does in New York or DC.

Tht said, I wish I made half what my Federal counterparts make.


Many gov jobs come with COLA or cost of living allowance.

Average wage indexes:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Number of 100k+ Federal employees jumps:

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip



Bottom line is multiple sources put private sector average in the 40-50k a year range. Multiple sources put Fed average wage at 70-80k a year range. COLA is seperate, and depends on where the person is. COLA can be in the thousands for a person working in San Fransisco, and mere couple hundred bucks for someone in say OK.

[perna]

Why are you even talking about Fed. jobs, when this is about state and local?

I know the local government here had a hiring freeze last year, they are just starting to hire again. The pay range for those public employees here is pretty low by all standards.

[ForTehNguyen]

depends if you are in a union state or not. Wanna bet how much of that money goes to Cali, Chicago, NJ, NY, etc

[Caeser25]

Here in PA my friends wife has been a teacher for less than 5 years and makes around 70k, they just went on strike a couple months ago, not too mention not exactly the best district either. Penn Hills, for you sw PA mbrs. It just so happens that my insurance company handles that districts health insurance and she told me they pay 5% for benefits. I just happened to have been adjusting some claims when an employee of that districts was on my list, I had to look at the benefits to adjust a claim. They pay next to nothing, copays for office visits, maybe a small ded. Nothing like the rest of us, they have true "cadillac" plans. After working at the insurance company for 3 years. You wanna know who has "cadillac" plans, UNIONS and GOVN'T workers, that's it, I can vouch that none of us private sector employees have "cadillac" plans, not even priests and nuns that take a vow of poverty have the benefits they do:mad:

[Belmont31R]

Why are you even talking about Fed. jobs, when this is about state and local?

I know the local government here had a hiring freeze last year, they are just starting to hire again. The pay range for those public employees here is pretty low by all standards.


That is how its supposed to be. Government jobs were supposed to be lower than private industry but secure, and come with good benefits. They were also supposed to be hard to get.


I can go to the two surround counties, and larger cities in my areas and there are HUNDREDS of public jobs listed...most of them making more than the average job around here. Now many (not all) public jobs are easier to get, pay more, and have better benefits. Some of the cops around here are making well into double digits, and some triple digits including OT and benefits. My wife is going through nursing school, and although most of the public nursing jobs pay less per HR with the benefits they are selling come out to be 10-20k a year more than private sector.

[Belmont31R]

Here in PA my friends wife has been a teacher for less than 5 years and makes around 70k, they just went on strike a couple months ago, not too mention not exactly the best district either. Penn Hills, for you sw PA mbrs. It just so happens that my insurance company handles that districts health insurance and she told me they pay 5% for benefits. I just happened to have been adjusting some claims when an employee of that districts was on my list, I had to look at the benefits to adjust a claim. They pay next to nothing, copays for office visits, maybe a small ded. Nothing like the rest of us, they have true "cadillac" plans. After working at the insurance company for 3 years. You wanna know who has "cadillac" plans, UNIONS and GOVN'T workers, that's it, I can vouch that none of us private sector employees have "cadillac" plans, not even priests and nuns that take a vow of poverty have the benefits they do:mad:


My local city had a meter reader job for 25/hr with full excellent benefits. Even the "summer help" no experience required jobs were starting at 15/hr or TWICE minimum wage.

[perna]

Well 6 years ago I quit one of those public servant jobs, worst mistake I have ever made, and am now trying to become re-employed. This city has kept salaries reasonable, about 10 years ago they cut the fire and police promotional raises or they would have had to lay people off.

[kry226]

Comparing the average Federal wage to the average private sector wage is still comparing apples to oranges. Until a comparison is done by profession and responsibility levels, it's all just rhetoric.

You cannot just lump a group together, compare it with another, unequal group and call it good.

Table 2 on this page http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm shows what I am talking about.


And all the money we send overseas, as well as all of the ridiculous entitlement programs our government provides have nothing to do with our economic predicament either. [read: sarcasm]

Our problems really have to do with DEBT, and not being able to tell anyone "No," anymore.

C'mon. Repeat after me: "No."

[khc3]

Just in time for union campaign contributions to democrats!

So transparent, it's not even like they're trying to hide it anymore.

[Heartland Hawk]

I agree with the above poster. this is all about paying the unions back for the election.

[TehLlama]

Why bother hiding if the media is more than happy to run interference?

Federal jobs were hard to get until politicians realized that they could create a permanent constituency out of it... then obviously all you need to do is open the flood gates.

[Belmont31R]

Comparing the average Federal wage to the average private sector wage is still comparing apples to oranges. Until a comparison is done by profession and responsibility levels, it's all just rhetoric.

You cannot just lump a group together, compare it with another, unequal group and call it good.

Table 2 on this page http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm shows what I am talking about.


And all the money we send overseas, as well as all of the ridiculous entitlement programs our government provides have nothing to do with our economic predicament either. [read: sarcasm]

Our problems really have to do with DEBT, and not being able to tell anyone "No," anymore.

C'mon. Repeat after me: "No."



Federal employees include everyone from janitors up to POTUS....

[kry226]

Federal employees include everyone from janitors up to POTUS....

True, but the percentages of who works in what "profession" is different, and therefore, I would expect average salaries to be different from public to private sector. Did you even look at the distribution chart I posted?

In any case, the only salaries on the planet out of control are professional sports athletes and many private industry executives.

Taxes aren't the problem. The problem is that only half of all Americans actually paid taxes last year, and some even got more back than they paid into the system.

This country's problem is that it is creating an entitlement society and making everybody feel they deserve something. No one deserves anything. This country is full of consumers and not producers. This is our problem. Once we fix this, most everything else will fall into place.

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

[variablebinary]

No president is ever going to allow a big liberal state to go belly-up.

Reasons:

Electorates
Economics (Big state, big money)
Negative Publicity


That's just the way it is and no one on this forum can do anything about it

[Belmont31R]

True, but the percentages of who works in what "profession" is different, and therefore, I would expect average salaries to be different from public to private sector. Did you even look at the distribution chart I posted?

In any case, the only salaries on the planet out of control are professional sports athletes and many private industry executives.

Taxes aren't the problem. The problem is that only half of all Americans actually paid taxes last year, and some even got more back than they paid into the system.

This country's problem is that it is creating an entitlement society and making everybody feel they deserve something. No one deserves anything. This country is full of consumers and not producers. This is our problem. Once we fix this, most everything else will fall into place.

"If a man will not work, he shall not eat."


Yes I read your link.

I do agree everyone should be paying taxes, and most certainly no one should be getting back more than they paid in.

[Irish]

Of interest to the topic of Fed wages: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers

With projections of huge federal deficits for years to come, policymakers should scour the budget looking for places to cut spending. One area to find savings is the generous compensation paid to the federal government's 2.1 million civilian workers.1 Total wages and benefits paid to executive branch civilians was $230 billion in 2010, indicating that compensation is a major federal expense that can be trimmed.2

During the last decade, compensation of federal employees rose much faster than compensation of private-sector employees. As a consequence, the average federal civilian worker now earns twice as much in wages and benefits as the average worker in the U.S. private sector.3 A recent job-to-job comparison found that federal workers earned higher wages than did private-sector workers in four-fifths of the occupations examined.4

The federal workforce has become an elite island of secure and high-paid workers, separated from the ocean of average American workers competing in the global economy. It is time for some restraint. Federal wages should be frozen or cut, overly generous federal benefits should be overhauled, and the federal workforce downsized through program terminations and privatization. It is unfair to ask taxpayers to foot an ever-increasing bill for federal workers, especially when private-sector compensation has not kept pace. Follow link for remainder of article, graphs, pics and the rest.

[kry226]

Of interest to the topic of Fed wages: http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/overpaid-federal-workers

Now we're getting a little closer in the public-private comparison, though I would expect nothing less than that opinion from an organization entitled "downsizinggovernment.org." I really have no dog in this fight, though I am military, I'll probably never get rich wearing camouflage.

But allow me to throw a few variables in the mix to keep it interesting.

1. By-and-large, private wages expand and contract, depending on what the economy is doing, supply and demand, and the amount of work to do.

2. Sometimes, private wages keep up with inflation, sometimes they don't. Private industry normally has only a single bottom line, while public industry (for lack of a better term) generally has many bottom lines to worry about. The public workload rarely ever contracts. The public continues to demand more and more services through their entitlement conscience that is now prevalent.

3. The government has a better, fixed pay scale for keeping up with inflationary effects AND for reducing discrimination through across the board raises. This pay scale also provides a rigid avenue for promotion and longevity pay, and I would venture is light years ahead of the private sector from a promotion and longevity pay opportunity standpoint.

4. Who said the government has to keep up or (down) with the private sector?

5. One might expect that public workers stay in their jobs longer, on average, than the private sector. I am sure much of this is benefits related. But at the same time, one generally doesn't walk into a $100,000 job. Based on the above premises, does one really expect the same worker to still be earning the same $25K they started with 15, 20 or 25 years later.

6. And finally, the workforce is inundated with Baby Boomers who are about to retire. That equates to a very large number of senior workers, who probably make the type of money commensurate with a senior rank.

At the end of the day, I think what we're really seeing is the result of years of the government trying to close the public/private pay gap. Now that it appears to be achieved, the private sector has contracted while the government hasn't and now there are lots of folks up-in-arms about it.

Maybe they're right, maybe they're not. It's funny though, I didn't hear a lot of complaining from folks when the private sector was killing the public in profession-profession comparisons.

By the way, this article provides a different perspective than what your average news media wants you to know: http://calpensions.com/2010/05/04/government-pay-lower-than-private-sector/


Government pay lower than private sector?
By Ed Mendel
State and local government workers earn less than comparable workers in the private sector, a new study by two economics professors finds, even when pension and other benefits are included.

The study commissioned by two public employee-connected research groups contradicts comparisons in the “popular press” that show government work pays more than the private sector.

The media compares average pay and benefits, the study released last week said, which misses the point that the average public-sector worker and the average private-sector worker have different education levels and different job duties.

Compensation specialists have repeatedly shown that the average state and local government worker has “more education, more tenure and more responsibilities,” said the study by Keith Bender and John Heywood of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Nearly half of state and local government workers, 48 percent, have completed college, said the study of workers nationwide. Only a little more than a fifth of private-sector workers, 23 percent, have a degree.

Many of the most common state and local government jobs require higher education: teachers, social workers, nurses and university professors. In Michigan, more than half of the state jobs require that applicants have at least a bachelor’s degree.

“Thus, the fact that public sector workers receive greater average compensation than private sector workers should be no more surprising than the fact that those with more skills and education earn more,” said the study.

A number of previous academic studies, using the proper methodology, are said to have found that state and local government pay and benefits are less than for comparable workers in the private sector.

The new study finds that state workers earn 11 percent less and local government workers 12 percent less than comparable private-sector workers. The pay gap has grown during the last 15 years as government jobs fell farther behind the private sector.

Adjusted for higher public-employee benefits, the new study said the gap is 6.8 percent for state workers, 7.4 percent for local government workers.

“Unfortunately, explanation of the standard of comparability and its measurement rarely makes it to the popular press,” said the new study, mentioning that USA Today reported that public-sector pay averaged $11.90 an hour more than private-sector pay.

The new study was commissioned by two non-profit research groups formed in 2007 as, among other things, public debate continued on switching new public employees to the 401(k)-style individual investment plans common in the private sector.

The Center for State and Local Government Excellence was created with financial support from ICMA-RC, which sells various retirement financial products to the public sector.

The National Institute on Retirement Security was formed by the Council of Institutional Investors, the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, and the National Council on Teacher Retirement.

The new academic study, titled “Out of Balance? Comparing Public and Private Sector compensation over 20 years” draws a firm conclusion about the finding of a widening pay gap.

“These implications lead to the policy prescription that now is not the time to advocate for large-scale rollbacks in the compensation of state and local workers,” said the study. “Although the current recession calls for equal sacrifice, the long-term pattern indicates that state and local workers are not, on average, overcompensated.”

An opinion article in the Wall Street Journal last March, not mentioned in the study, makes a comparison similar to the USA Today averages: $39.66 per hour in total compensation for state and local government workers, $27.42 for private-sector workers.

But the Journal article also talks about a major form of compensation not covered in the new study — the “long-term benefit commitments” made to government workers for pensions and retiree health care.

Gov. Schwarzenegger and others who say we have a “pension crisis” are not talking about current costs only. A main cause of their alarm is the projected growth of costs in the future to pay for benefits promised current workers when they retire.

Most public pension systems, particularly after the stock market crash, are far from being fully funded. Higher annual payments from employers are scheduled, which in part will pay for the current years of service.

Another form of “compensation” for current work that will not be paid until the future: retiree health care. The state and many local governments are not setting aside money now to pay for the health care promised workers when they retire.

A governor’s commission estimated two years ago that state and local governments in California have an unfunded liability of at least $118 billion over the next 30 years for their current retiree health care promises.

Most private employers, if they offer a retirement plan, provide a 401(k) that might have a current contribution similar to a pension. But the 401(k) leaves the employer with no future cost, while current-year public pension costs could continue to grow.

Yet when the new study concludes that state and local government workers earn less total compensation than comparable workers in the private sector, even when pensions and other benefits are included, it’s only looking at current costs.

“The data on fringe benefits we used (of which pensions are part) measure the current cost to employers (both public and private),” Professor Heywood replied to a question via e-mail.

“To the extent that public costs of pensions change in the future, these measures would change,” he said. “As you note, we made no attempt to forecast these changes. The study thus represents a ‘snapshot’ of the current state of comparability between sectors.”

Four years ago, the state released its first attempt in two decades to compare state and private-sector compensation. The private data came from surveys in which businesses agreed to participate only if anonymous, keeping competitors in the dark.

The comparison of “benchmark” job classifications found that state worker total compensation was higher than the private sector for clerical jobs, accountants, custodians, electricians, stationary engineers and analysts, but lagged in medical occupations.

The state Department of Personnel Administration listed several concerns about the study: an incomplete analysis, less detail about private than public-sector jobs, and the use of only salaries not benefits in “job-by-job comparisons” with the private sector.

The introduction to the state study contained some history. Before a new law in 1978 allowed state workers to form unions and bargain for labor contracts, the State Personnel Board collected “labor market salary data” each year.

“The information they compiled provided the basis for the State Personnel Board’s annual recommendation to the Legislature on employee compensation,” said the introduction.

Reporter Ed Mendel covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune. More stories are at http://calpensions.com/ Posted 4 May 10

[Irish]

Now we're getting a little closer in the public-private comparison, though I would expect nothing less than that opinion from an organization entitled "downsizinggovernment.org."

The actual organization is The Cato Institute.

[Caeser25]

And it's ALWAYS and ONLY teachers, police officers, and firefighters that the public is threatened with to with to be laid off.

[kry226]

The actual organization is The Cato Institute.

Understood. I should have written: "though I would expect nothing less than that opinion from an organizational website entitled "downsizinggovernment.org."

End the end, it's the same. I can call myself the Wingnut Institute, but if my website is "nobama.net", it's still pretty indicative of an agenda.