• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New poll shows majority support Walker recall

You cited two studies and both are not unbiased. EPI is a lefty organization just as biased as Heritage is. Take a look at their board of directors then tell me with a straight face they are unbiased. You seem to think that Ezra (who himself is biased) commenting on the EPI study is a whole separate study.

And I have provided a researched and sourced argument to the study you provided. That is more then just my opinion.

The fact that you are unaware of other studies is your fault. Not mine. If I was only looking for studies to confirm my own bias, I would be just as clueless as you of all the studies that refute my position.

The sources I cited:

"x

Nationally, state and local governments spent $26.25 per hour per
employee in 2010, with 34% of total compensation represented by benefits.
Private industry employers spent $27.88 per hour, with 29.4% for benefits.3

x

A study of national data controlling for education, work experience, annual
hours worked, organizational size and other factors
found that total
compensation was 1.8% less for local government employees and 7.6% less
for state government employees than for comparable private sector
workers.4

x

A separate study found that state government employees across the
country earned 6.8% less in total compensation than comparable private
sector peers between 2000 and 2008, and local government employees
earned 7.4% less.5

x

According to an analysis by the Seattle Times, median wages for the same
type of work was lower for Washington state government workers than in the
private sector in the majority of nearly 200 occupational categories
examined. State government workers tended to earn higher wages in lower
paying jobs."

Powered by Google Docs

EPI Study - "the Economic Policy Institute conducted comparing total compensation -- that is to say, wages and health-care benefits and pensions -- among public and private workers in Wisconsin. To get an apples-to-apples comparison, the study's author controlled for experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship and disability, and then sorted the results by education"
Ezra Klein - Are Wisconsin's state and local workers overpaid?

"New research by a University of Illinois expert in employment relations and labor economics shows that, for more than a decade, Wisconsin teacher salaries have fallen behind changes in the cost of living as well as wage growth in the private sector. Craig A. Olson, a professor of labor and employment relations, says the salaries of Wisconsin teachers have lost ground to those of their private sector counterparts over the last 16 years.


The paper compares the earnings of an average college graduate employed in the private sector in the U.S. versus the earnings of an average college-educated teacher in Wisconsin through public data from 1995 to the present."
Study: Over 16-year span, Wisconsin teacher salaries lag private sector wages |News Bureau | University of Illinois



Vs the sources you have cited:

Zero..........zip...........nada...............
 
Last edited:
The stuff I posted is a mere drop in the bucket. Some of these are instances where the vendor merely got exposed. If you want me to provide an item for item list comparing what every state and local government in the land (nevermind the feds) pays for everything from toilet paper to computers to office space--compared to the going market rates for the same items--we could be here a very long time. Suffice to say, that in some instances the overcharge is subtle while in others it is obnoxious. The bottom line is that when you tally it all up, it is astronomically more than mere "peanuts."

If you want to be a crusader for cutting back on government spending, start crusading for state and federal laws making it illegal for any agency of federal, state, and local governments to pay one dime more than fair market value for any goods and services it purchases from the private sector.

Nope I don't want an itemized list. I want a study, and trust me if the percentage you believe of a states budget was spent in this way studies would be done. It's a lot of money. I agree, it should be fixed. However, as a percentage of the overall budget, it's low. Anyway, do you have a study?
 
The sources I cited:

Nationally, state and local governments spent $26.25 per hour per
employee in 2010, with 34% of total compensation represented by benefits.
Private industry employers spent $27.88 per hour, with 29.4% for benefits.

Federal pay ahead of private industry - USATODAY.comFederal 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.


According to an analysis by the Seattle Times, median wages for the same
type of work was lower for Washington state government workers than in the
private sector in the majority of nearly 200 occupational categories
examined. State government workers tended to earn higher wages in lower
paying jobs."

The Times did not compare state health-care plans and pensions to the private sector. Such benefits are a major part of total state employee compensation — about 30 percent, on average — but are difficult to put present-day dollar values on and even harder to compare across different employers and job categories.


EPI Study - "the Economic Policy Institute conducted comparing total compensation -- that is to say, wages and health-care benefits and pensions -- among public and private workers in Wisconsin. To get an apples-to-apples comparison, the study's author controlled for experience, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, citizenship and disability, and then sorted the results by education"
Ezra Klein - Are Wisconsin's state and local workers overpaid?

Further analysis has found problems with EPI's methods. I have already posted a link to one of the critiques. EPI (and Ezra) are not unbiased and neither is the group that did the analysis that contradicted EPI's findings.

Vs the sources you have cited:

http://www.aei.org/files/2011/06/08/AEI-Working-Paper-on-Federal-Pay-May-2011.pdf
Public Schools Pay Teachers 50% Above Market, Heritage Analysis Finds
 
Last edited:
I read the study and I didn’t come to the conclusion that they were responding any specific study. If I were responding to a "specific study " I don’t believe that I would start out asking a question such as “Are California Public Employees Overpaid?”


The CWED report, written by Keefe - who also worked on the EPI study.


Fact=more education, more dough, whether its private, of public sector. Fact= 50% of California citizens have a college degree as apposed to Wisconsin’s 40.2%.

Then it's a good thing the rebuttal was written to a study of CA. It didn't argue with educaiton, it argued thhat some items were not included in total compensation of the public worker. I thought you said you read it?
 
Last edited:
Federal pay.......................

Teachers are not federal employees.




The Times did not compare state health-care plans and pensions to the private sector. Such benefits are a major part of total state employee compensation — about 30 percent, on average — but are difficult to put present-day dollar values on and even harder to compare across different employers and job categories.

Right below this part you quoted without giving the source credit, "However, such analyses don't tell the whole story because the government and private-sector work forces are composed very differently. Washington state's payroll, for instance, includes relatively more high-earning occupations, such as educators and finance specialists, and relatively fewer low-earning occupations, such as wait staff and retail clerks."Local News | How state workers' pay really stacks up | Seattle Times Newspaper




Further analysis has found problems with EPI's methods. I have already posted a link to one of the critiques. EPI (and Ezra) are not unbiased and neither is the group that did the analysis that contradicted EPI's findings.

Problems too insignificant, or too lame, to bother citing here we must assume.




Another non-related link about Federal pay and one from the most biased organization out there.
 
Teachers are not federal employees.

I've been talking about public sector employees the whole time. Not just teachers.

Right below this part you quoted without giving the source credit, "However, such analyses don't tell the whole story because the government and private-sector work forces are composed very differently. Washington state's payroll, for instance, includes relatively more high-earning occupations, such as educators and finance specialists, and relatively fewer low-earning occupations, such as wait staff and retail clerks."Local News | How state workers' pay really stacks up | Seattle Times Newspaper

Yeah.. I didn't think I would have to give a source since, you know, it's from the exact article you were originally quoting in the seattle times. So now I have to ask why you are quoting sources that you don't even, apparently, agree with and now that it got called out are actively trying to dimsmiss? Well done my friend. You may want to follow the link in your original cite, if you don't believe me.

Problems too insignificant, or too lame, to bother citing here we must assume.
Well.. No. I've already cited the source ealier in this thread. This is my point, though. You couldn't even be bothered to look at it. It doesn't confirm your bias, so has to be discarded. The problems with the study: The author of the study from EPI didn't calculate retiree health benefits correctly. Public workers retire much earlier then in private employment. So, this can be significant. Differences in the way pensions were calculated. Job security is a benefit that was not taken into account, many people will take a lower salary in order to enjoy job security and has to be included in any study on the subject.

Another non-related link about Federal pay and one from the most biased organization out there.

Well, no, EPI and Heritage BOTH are two of the most biased sources out there. You keep wanting to dismiss the bias in your own cited studies to call out the biases in conflicting studies. If you are going to quote biased studies, expect to have biased studies thrown back. I've readily acknowledged that Heritage is right wing. EPI is every bit as biased on the opposite end.

Anyway, I provided two studies. One was directly related to teacher pay. You really are batting a thousand. Aren't you?

Now, again, I don't expect to change your mind, as evidenced by your dismissal of the seattle times study that you originally quoted when you thought it proved your point then quickly discarded when you found out that it didn't. I am only pointing out that there are conflicting studies and it is not nearly as as black and white as you believe.
 
Last edited:
Nope I don't want an itemized list. I want a study, and trust me if the percentage you believe of a states budget was spent in this way studies would be done. It's a lot of money. I agree, it should be fixed. However, as a percentage of the overall budget, it's low. Anyway, do you have a study?

How's this?

Defense Contractors bilked taxpayers out of a trillion dollars - National economic policy | Examiner.com

..or this?

http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11865

...or this?

http://www.truth-out.org/guess-what...ent-employees-contractor-employees/1315928973
 
Last edited:

A possible 100 bil per year is a lot of money - this sounds like its the high end of the estimate, BTW, so is likely less. However, it's not much when compared to the size of the annual budget. And this is from the defense department, which constitutes a large portion of the federal budget and has the most opportunities. So, this would likely be higher then any of the other departments combined.


This isn't an example of overcharging. No one has accused the contractors of fraud, which is what you were complaining about, or overcharging the government. They are only saying that contractor's cost more. I'm not certain I agree, but it's off topic enough that I am not going to bother looking it up. I have no desire to start a whole new topic of discussion.


This is the same report as the last one, just from a more biased source. Good try, though.
 
Last edited:
I am only pointing out that there are conflicting studies and it is not nearly as as black and white as you believe.

Like there are conflicting studies regarding AGW???
 
A possible 100 bil per year is a lot of money - this sounds like its the high end of the estimate, BTW, so is likely less. However, it's not much when compared to the size of the annual budget. And this is from the defense department, which constitutes a large portion of the federal budget and has the most opportunities. So, this would likely be higher then any of the other departments combined.

And what is this compared to the salaries of federal employees? How can you possbibly complain about middle class public employees being "overpaid" in the face of such outrageous mega larceny?

Where is your mind?


This isn't an example of overcharging. No one has accused the contractors of fraud, which is what you were complaining about, or overcharging the government. They are only saying that contractor's cost more. I'm not certain I agree, but it's off topic enough that I am not going to bother looking it up. I have no desire to start a whole new topic of discussion.

I am complaining about both criminal overcharging and moral overcharging. Point of fact, it is the moral overcharging, wherein sweetheart contracts allow the private vendor to charge more than fair market value in order to recoup the costs of essentially bribing our elected officials for granting them the contract that is the most insidious, and the most costly.


This is the same report as the last one, just from a more biased source. Good try, though.

I wanted you to read it twice.
 
Last edited:
Like there are conflicting studies regarding AGW???

No. Like how you believe that the Seattle study proves that PS employees are underpaid until it's pointed out that the study indicates that they didn't include pension/benefits which proves that PS employees actually make more... then all of a sudden you dont like the study.

Or how you'll point out bias of the group performing the study that doesn't agree with your conclusion, but ignore the bias of the group doing the study you agree with.
 
Last edited:
And what is this compared to the salaries of federal employees? How can you possbibly complain about middle class public employees being "overpaid" in the face of such outrageous mega larceny?

Federal employee compensation makes up a much higher percentge of the overall budget then what you are describing. $100 bill is a lot of money. We should put a stop to it. However, it's not a high percentage of the budget and getting rid of it wil not even make a dent in the total budget. THat is all I ever said.

Where is your mind?

Where is yours? You complain about private companies overcharging the government - which is a legitimate argument - but then give a pass to the fact that federal employees are overcharging the government when compared to what private employees make for comparable jobs, as illustrated in many studies and one that I copied above (Wall Street Journal, if I recall correctly).

I am complaining about both criminal overcharging and moral overcharging. Point of fact, it is the moral overcharging, wherein sweetheart contracts allow the private vendor to charge more than fair market value in order to recoup the costs of essentially bribing our elected officials for granting them the contract that is the most insidious, and the most costly.

No one has accused the contractors of charging more then fair market value. They are only claiming that federal employees can do it cheaper. You should really read the articles before you post them. Catawba can use that advice too. Again, I don't agree with the articles conclusion, but I really don't want to start the new topic.

I wanted you to read it twice.

Not really. You just did a yahoo search, found things you thought proved your point and copied them blindly. Apparently didn't even read them.
 
No. Like how you believe that the Seattle study proves that PS employees are underpaid until it's pointed out that the study indicates that they didn't include pension/benefits, then all of a sudden you dont like the study.

What you do not seem to understand about benefits is that the public employee has no control over what the healthcare cabal charges for its goods and services.

What is more, the public employee should not be blamed for the fact that the government is allowing the healthcare cabal to extort the government and its citizenry by overcharging Medicare and Medicaid, as well as overcharging for healthcare packages offered to the employees of both public and private industry.

Middle class public employees are just as much victims of the healthcare cabal as anyone else. They are certainly not conspirators.
 
What you do not seem to understand about benefits is that the public employee has no control over what the healthcare cabal charges for its goods and services.

What is more, the public employee should not be blamed for the fact that the government is allowing the healthcare cabal to extort the government and its citizenry by overcharging Medicare and Medicaid, as well as overcharging for healthcare packages offered to the employees of both public and private industry.

Middle class public employees are just as much victims of the healthcare cabal as anyone else. They are certainly not conspirators.

Here's the problem with your attempt to grasp at straws to maintain your world view. The Seattle study you are responding to (apparently you want to ignore the federal study that shows federal employees make more in just salary then private employees in comparable jobs) found that public employees make more in just salary then private employees in 74 of 200 job comparisons.

Just including pensions (forget your evil "healthcare cabal" for a moment) signifcantly changes that and probably makes public overcompensated in nearly all 200 comparable jobs, private employees make far-far less then private employees in pension.

Now, including the evil "healthcare cabal" benefits will change that even futher. You can't ignore that portion of compensation just because you think healthcare charges are evil or blindly believe that they are fraudulently overcharging for the benefits. Insurance, which I assume is your real issue, adds little to the overall cost of healthcare. However, this is a completly different topic that I am not intersted in having.

Although, you could blame the unions for demanding better and more expensive health care benefits then private sector employees recieve and the government for caving into those requirements.
 
Last edited:
Federal employee compensation makes up a much higher percentge of the overall budget then what you are describing. $100 bill is a lot of money. We should put a stop to it. However, it's not a high percentage of the budget and getting rid of it wil not even make a dent in the total budget. THat is all I ever said.

Has it ever occurred to you that some of these federal employees actually perform a much needed function, that they are not getting paid for nothing?

BTW: The WSJ is not exactly an unbiased source.


Where is yours? You complain about private companies overcharging the government - which is a legitimate argument - but then give a pass to the fact that federal employees are overcharging the government when compared to what private employees make for comparable jobs, as illustrated in many studies and one that I copied above (Wall Street Journal, if I recall correctly).

It's a matter of priorities. I can only speculate as to what is wrong with your soul that you should be principally concerned with the salaries of middle-class employees, while only secondarily concerned with the salaries of upper-class millionaires who are getting filthy rich by continuing to rip-off the taxpayer.

No one has accused the contractors of charging more then fair market value. They are only claiming that federal employees can do it cheaper. You should really read the articles before you post them. Catawba can use that advice too. Again, I don't agree with the articles conclusion, but I really don't want to start the new topic.

Actually, they are accusing the contractors of charging more than fair market value. This is the point. I suppose you need them to state it directly?
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem with your attempt to grasp at straws to maintain your world view. The Seattle study you are responding to (apparently you want to ignore the federal study that shows federal employees make more in just salary then private employees in comparable jobs) found that public employees make more in just salary then private employees in 74 of 200 job comparisons.

Maybe it's just me, but 74 out of 200 does not seem like a convincing argument. Are you shooting for 0 out of 200?

Just including pensions (forget your evil "healthcare cabal" for a moment) signifcantly changes that and probably makes public overcompensated in nearly all 200 comparable jobs, private employees make far-far less then private employees in pension.

Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the pension system preceded the 401k system by about 40 years, and that many state's have failed to fund their pensions---a faux pas for which, incidentally, any private entity would be indicted.

Are public employees not entitled to some sort of retirement package or are they supposed to wander off onto some polar icesheet and quietly die?

Now, including the evil "healthcare cabal" benefits will change that even futher. You can't ignore that portion of compensation just because you think healthcare charges are evil or blindly believe that they are fraudulently overcharging for the benefits. Insurance, which I assume is your real issue, adds little to the overall cost of healthcare. However, this is a completly different topic that I am not intersted in having.

I do not care a whit whether you are interested in discussing the issue. The fact of the matter is that the healthcare cabal is extorting all of us, even you, though you are too much the fool to recognize it.

Although, you could blame the unions for demanding better and more expensive health care benefits then private sector employees recieve and the government for caving into those requirements.

...or you could recognize that unions are the foundation of economic democracy and that many private sector unions do as well or better than many public sector unions in obtaining healthcare benefits for their members.
 
Maybe it's just me, but 74 out of 200 does not seem like a convincing argument. Are you shooting for 0 out of 200?

I guess if I wanted to make up my own study. However, we are discussing a study that Catawba thought proved that state employees were underpaid. At least until he found out that pensions and health care benefits were not included - then he decided the study was not a good one. Anyway, that study found that 74 out of 200 job comparisons paid higher salary (just salary) to public sector emplyoees. The remaining 126 jobs comparisons paid higher salary to private sector. This did not include pensions other benefits. Including both of those chages things drastically and probably woudl result in 200 out of 200 comparable jobs being higher compensated in the public sector.

There was a similar study done on the federal level, which found that 83% of comparable jobs resulted in higher salary in the public sector. Again, this just looked at salary, and does not include pensions or other benefits. Including pensions and other benefits would probably result in 100%.

Of course, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that the pension system preceded the 401k system by about 40 years, and that many state's have failed to fund their pensions---a faux pas for which, incidentally, any private entity would be indicted.

I am not ignoring anything. And this argument doesn't sway a thing. Wether the pension came before the 401k or if the pension system is fully funded has no bearing on the fact that public sector unions recieve much more in benefit per year from retirement packages then private sector employees. If I recall correctly (and I could be off by a bit, but not much) public sector employees earn an average of $40k per year from retirement benefits but only $9k in the private sector.

Are public employees not entitled to some sort of retirement package or are they supposed to wander off onto some polar icesheet and quietly die?

Not sure I would say entitled. No one is entitled. However, if they do get a retirement package it should not be one that makes them vastly overpaid compared to the private sector work force - especially since it's not something we can afford any longer..

I do not care a whit whether you are interested in discussing the issue. The fact of the matter is that the healthcare cabal is extorting all of us, even you, though you are too much the fool to recognize it.

I used to work in the evil "healthcare cabal". They are not extorting us. We recieve a lot of benefit from the cost we pay. However, again, that's another topic. If you want to discuss that, start a new topic. I won't participiate, because I just don't care enough in arguing something so silly.

...or you could recognize that unions are the foundation of economic democracy and that many private sector unions do as well or better than many public sector unions in obtaining healthcare benefits for their members.

I have no issue with private sector unions. I do not like them, but private companies engaged in negotiations with a union will result in much different outcomes then a public sector union engaged in negotiations with the government, which they then turn around and provide campaign contributions and voters.

Trying to say that health care benefits are the reason that public employees make more then private employees is a rather assinine argument. Both private and public employees recieve health care benefits from their employer. The probelm is that public sector employees are recieving much higher levels of benefits.
 
Last edited:
Has it ever occurred to you that some of these federal employees actually perform a much needed function, that they are not getting paid for nothing?

Yes, as private sector employees do. However, that doesn't mean that the public sector emploees should be compensated at higher rates then the private sector employee. Especially since we can no longer afford it.

BTW: The WSJ is not exactly an unbiased source.

My fault. It was actually the USA Today, and wether it's biased or not, it is less biased then EPI.


It's a matter of priorities. I can only speculate as to what is wrong with your soul that you should be principally concerned with the salaries of middle-class employees, while only secondarily concerned with the salaries of upper-class millionaires who are getting filthy rich by continuing to rip-off the taxpayer.

Related to companies engaged in procurement fraud, i've stated over and over, it's bad and should be stopped. However, stopping it will not put a dent in the budget. It's such a small percetnage of the overall budget. Stopping what public sector unions are doing to us will put a huge dent in the budget. PS union employees make up over 50.0% of the local governments budget and 20.0% of the state's budget (40.0% overall). That's where real change can occur.

Actually, they are accusing the contractors of charging more than fair market value. This is the point. I suppose you need them to state it directly?

Actually, they are not. They are saying that contract employees make more then government employees. The same is true at my place of employement. It is cheaper to hire someone then to hire a contractor. This does not mean that the contractor is being paid above FMV. Yes, having them state it directly rather then just having you make up what you think they meant is always preferable.
 
Last edited:
No. Like how you believe that the Seattle study proves that PS employees are underpaid until it's pointed out that the study indicates that they didn't include pension/benefits which proves that PS employees actually make more... then all of a sudden you dont like the study.

Or how you'll point out bias of the group performing the study that doesn't agree with your conclusion, but ignore the bias of the group doing the study you agree with.

Yet another study that confirms teachers total compensation lower than private sector:

"I recently completed a statistical analysis of what has happened to the earnings of an average college graduate employed in the private sector in the U.S. since 1995 and what has happened to the earnings of an average college educated teacher in Wisconsin. The data on private sector earnings of college educated workers is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and is widely used by scholars. The Wisconsin teacher data comes directly from the State of Wisconsin and is available to anyone. It includes detailed data on all public school teachers in Wisconsin.
*
My analysis shows that from 1995-2009, the average privat -sector college graduate saw his/her weekly earnings increase by 10 percent after accounting for inflation. In contrast, from 1995 to 2010 the average teacher in Wisconsin saw his/her salary (without fringe benefits) decline by 10 percent after accounting for inflation. To state this another way, in 2009 a typical private sector college educated worker could buy 10 percent more goods and services with their salary compared to what the average worker could buy in 1995. However, the average Wisconsin teacher could buy 10 percent less in 2010 compared to 1995.* Wisconsin teachers did not keep up with inflation and they also fell behind their college educated private sector counterparts. In 1995 the average college educated private sector worker in the U.S. earned 17 percent more than a Wisconsin teacher and in 2009 this gap had increased to 36 percent.

It has been argued that while the salaries of public sector workers have not risen dramatically, expenditures on their benefits, especially health insurance benefits, have increased dramatically. While this is true, health insurance premium costs have also increased in the private sector. Data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows the average premium cost for family coverage provided to private sector employees (who are mostly non-union) increased from $5.742 in 1999 to $13,770 in 2010 (adjusting to the 2009 price level).* While I don’t have premium and copayment data for Wisconsin school districts, in Illinois over the 1993-2008 time period the average inflation adjusted premium (2009 price level) for a family health insurance policy for Illinois teachers increased from $5,758 to $10,905. *Governor Walker has argued and proposes in his bill that public sector employees should pay at least 12 percent of the cost of health insurance through their employee premium copayments.* He argues this copayment needs to be mandated by the state because private sector workers have higher premium copayments compared to public sector workers. This argument misses a key point about how health insurance premiums and employee copayments influence other employment outcomes such as wages.*

A standard prediction in economics is that in a competitive labor market two identical workers are expected to receive the same total compensation where total compensation equals salary plus fringe benefits. Thus, economics predicts that if one worker has more generous health insurance benefits he/she will receive a lower wage compared to a comparable worker with less generous benefits.* While it may appear to local school districts and the state of Wisconsin that employers pay most of the cost of health insurance because they write the check to the insurance company, economic theory predicts that employees will eventually pay for the insurance through wages that are lower than what they would receive if they had less generous benefits."
Opinion Editorial Posts by Public-Sector Employment Issues | EPRN
 
Yet another study that confirms teachers total compensation lower than private sector:

"I recently completed a statistical analysis of what has happened to the earnings of an average college graduate employed in the private sector in the U.S. since 1995 and what has happened to the earnings of an average college educated teacher in Wisconsin. The data on private sector earnings of college educated workers is collected by the U.S. Census Bureau and is widely used by scholars. The Wisconsin teacher data comes directly from the State of Wisconsin and is available to anyone. It includes detailed data on all public school teachers in Wisconsin.
*
My analysis shows that from 1995-2009, the average privat -sector college graduate saw his/her weekly earnings increase by 10 percent after accounting for inflation. In contrast, from 1995 to 2010 the average teacher in Wisconsin saw his/her salary (without fringe benefits) decline by 10 percent after accounting for inflation. To state this another way, in 2009 a typical private sector college educated worker could buy 10 percent more goods and services with their salary compared to what the average worker could buy in 1995. However, the average Wisconsin teacher could buy 10 percent less in 2010 compared to 1995.* Wisconsin teachers did not keep up with inflation and they also fell behind their college educated private sector counterparts. In 1995 the average college educated private sector worker in the U.S. earned 17 percent more than a Wisconsin teacher and in 2009 this gap had increased to 36 percent.

It has been argued that while the salaries of public sector workers have not risen dramatically, expenditures on their benefits, especially health insurance benefits, have increased dramatically. While this is true, health insurance premium costs have also increased in the private sector. Data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows the average premium cost for family coverage provided to private sector employees (who are mostly non-union) increased from $5.742 in 1999 to $13,770 in 2010 (adjusting to the 2009 price level).* While I don’t have premium and copayment data for Wisconsin school districts, in Illinois over the 1993-2008 time period the average inflation adjusted premium (2009 price level) for a family health insurance policy for Illinois teachers increased from $5,758 to $10,905. *Governor Walker has argued and proposes in his bill that public sector employees should pay at least 12 percent of the cost of health insurance through their employee premium copayments.* He argues this copayment needs to be mandated by the state because private sector workers have higher premium copayments compared to public sector workers. This argument misses a key point about how health insurance premiums and employee copayments influence other employment outcomes such as wages.*

A standard prediction in economics is that in a competitive labor market two identical workers are expected to receive the same total compensation where total compensation equals salary plus fringe benefits. Thus, economics predicts that if one worker has more generous health insurance benefits he/she will receive a lower wage compared to a comparable worker with less generous benefits.* While it may appear to local school districts and the state of Wisconsin that employers pay most of the cost of health insurance because they write the check to the insurance company, economic theory predicts that employees will eventually pay for the insurance through wages that are lower than what they would receive if they had less generous benefits."
Opinion Editorial Posts by Public-Sector Employment Issues | EPRN

Most everyone in the private sector is underpaid...and have been stripped of their benefits...and the ceo pay just SOARS AND SOARS....and so does the profits...alot at the expense of their workers...and the private sector has been brainwashed into being jealous of the public workers...and GIVE THE PIGS AT THE TROUGH A PASS...its sad how they have been manipulated into blaming other WORKING CLASS by the pigs at the trough...like grover norquist and the teaparty governors..
 
Most everyone in the private sector is underpaid...and have been stripped of their benefits...and the ceo pay just SOARS AND SOARS....and so does the profits...alot at the expense of their workers...and the private sector has been brainwashed into being jealous of the public workers...and GIVE THE PIGS AT THE TROUGH A PASS...its sad how they have been manipulated into blaming other WORKING CLASS by the pigs at the trough...like grover norquist and the teaparty governors..

And then this information is used in the right wing driven Race To The Bottom where each state is pitted against the other to see who will be the first to have a majority of minimum wage workers with no benefits. And when that is no longer enough, it will pit Americans against third world children to see who will enjoy the right to work for crumbs and scraps. And of course, all this will be part of the Great and Glorious FREE MARKET solution that is not to be questioned, not to be challenged and most certainly not to be opposed or fought against by workers joining together in unions.

Who wants to win that race to the bottom?
 
Yet another study that confirms teachers total compensation lower than private sector:

Hopefully you actually read this one to confirm it confirms what you believe. I've already acknowledged there are studies saying one thing and studies saying another. I don't know enough about this study to really comment, but the people that were responsible for it are not in the least unbiased - although the bias confirms your belief, so I am sure you'll just ignore it.

They themselves are tied into the union and the "Labor and Employment Relations Association" which is itself closely tied into the unions and, of course, the EPI - which is also closely related to unions. It's like one big incestuous group putting out studies under different names saying roughly the same thing. Do you think a group run by unions is really going to find anything other then "we are all underpaid"?

BTW, since the groups are tied into the EPI, I wonder if they had the same flaws in their study. Somehow, it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Most everyone in the private sector is underpaid...and have been stripped of their benefits...and the ceo pay just SOARS AND SOARS....and so does the profits...alot at the expense of their workers...and the private sector has been brainwashed into being jealous of the public workers...and GIVE THE PIGS AT THE TROUGH A PASS...its sad how they have been manipulated into blaming other WORKING CLASS by the pigs at the trough...like grover norquist and the teaparty governors..
There have been studies showing that is not at all true. There have been at least two newspapers (Seattle Times and the USA today), one that Catawba tried to use as proof for his position until he found out it didn't really confirm his position showing that in comparable jobs, public sector employees are paid more then private sector employees (salary and benefits). Keep in mind, this was comparing jobs that have roughly the same responsibilities.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom