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.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
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.Problems too insignificant, or too lame, to bother citing here we must assume.
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.Another non-related link about Federal pay and one from the most biased organization out there.
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.