Who Do You Work For?

[hillary supporter]

So we are discounting everything that is not manufactured, writing books, creating web services ,programs/software (used by manufacturers), medicines, multiple patents, and copy rights.... we are now just looking at hard manufacturing such as planes, cigars, and such?

Apparently so, and as you pointedout, in doing so, one completely misses the point

Except Airbus...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380

I have found that many find Airbus inferior to American airliners (Boeing, ect) Professional air pilots among others. And America produces the most commerical airliners in the world.

Compared to 50-60 years ago, America is practically out of the manufacturing business...

Sorry to disagree with you, Timkin, but thats just not true. Perhaps if you look at specific numbers addressing employment, you may be able to make a point but when you say we are "practically out of the (manufacturing business) i strongly disagree (with the utmost personal respect).

None taken at all..  America at one time produced a printing press,  a television set, guess we still do manufacture cars, (but I wonder for how long)  We used to build furniture, manufacture steel and steel products,  these are just a few.....   I did not say we no longer manufacture anything.. just not in the vastness of half a decade ago.  Seems everything then was made in America.   Our TVs and practically any electronics come from abroad.. I do not have numbers, but would be willing to bet , half of the cars on America's roads today are not built in America..

But no.. I do not offend quite that easily    .. I respect your view point

Great. Its just that the american economy is moving towards a service driven economy (surprize, right?). Its ironic this thread is as im digesting Adam Smith right now, and he philosophizes all these points over two hundred years ago. To where economies will focus on a smaller number of products, for us services, and concede to other economies those to aquire with them. His term was the standard bearing "bargaining" a phenonema strictly associated with capitalism.
Hmm. no coincidence that Chinas is the largest consumer purchaser, of American commerical airliners!

[uptowngirl]

I'd be curious to know what percentage of Boeing's revenues come from government contracts.

Which governments?

What if you work in manufacturing for the government?

OHHHHHH, now we re talking! Like manufacturing money, er, currency, umm dollar bill$?

+100

[hillary supporter]

nope, I would not say it is the main source of revenue, but I would also say they do not produce anything.

Did I miss the point of the article? I thought it was people are preferring lower paying government jobs because:

there are more of them available due to not having productivity improvements
Due to unions there is hardly any way to lose your job, even if you don't do it well
The government does not produce anything

I thought the thread was who one worked for.W.hich went to many( although most was inferred) for the government. Which went to a loss of manufacturing jobs. Which was refuted.
I believe todays union presence is MUCH smaller than ever certainly more than 20 years ago. And personally my wifes union is powerless, as her company has loss a lot of jobs, most by retirement and then   using free lancers for her company to avoid employee benefits. Which then gets into a sematic argument of those free lancers being abused empolyees. Which they terminate, i'm sorry, dont need their services anymore.

[finehoe]

Did I miss the point of the article?

No, you took away exactly what the WSJ wanted you to.

[uptowngirl]

Well, it is hard to deny the truth when it is right in front of your face 

[buckethead]

Have government payrolls increased as it relates to GDP? Population? Without those facts, this is a game of spin.

The graph finhoe linked to shows manufacturing holding steady in terms of payroll, with fluctuations, and government payrolls steadily increasing.

If this is in dollars, it shows that manufacturing is actually dropping (adjusted for inflation) and government payrolls are steady. If these are inflation adjusted dollars, it paints a very different picture.

[uptowngirl]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657704576149941061124736.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The Public Worker Gravy Train
Many government employees are paid up to 30% more than those in the private sector.

By ANDREW BIGGS AND JASON RICHWINE
Leaders across the country are proposing restrictions on public employees' pay and benefits in order to put their budgets on a more sustainable path. The political left's counterattack is that government workers aren't overpaid compared to those in the private economy. Who's right?

Consider a study released last October by the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at the University of California, Berkeley, which concluded that Golden State public employees "are neither overpaid nor overcompensated." The Economic Policy Institute has generated reports arguing that government workers are underpaid.

These studies are misleading. Public-private pay comparisons vary from state to state, but a full accounting shows clearly that large, union-dominated states tend to overpay their workers. California is a good example.

The Berkeley study begins by studying salaries, where its methods are solid. Using individual-level data from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, it compares public and private wages while controlling for differences in age, education and other earnings-related characteristics. Using essentially the same methods, we found that California state and local government employees receive wages about 4% lower than those received by similarly skilled workers in large private firms, which offer the most generous pay and benefits. But if we compare public employees to all private workers, the 4% penalty becomes statistically zero.

Public employees really pull ahead in non-wage benefits.
Slideshow: Teachers Revolt
Public employee protests spread across the Midwest.
Public employees really pull ahead in non-wage benefits. The Berkeley study concludes that counting benefits means that public workers' total hourly compensation is about 2% higher than that of private workers. But our research shows that the study underestimates what public workers receive from pensions and retiree health programs. It also doesn't account for the value of job security in government employment. Once these are noted, the balance tilts clearly in favor of public workers.

The first error in the Berkeley study concerns defined-benefit pension plans. The study erroneously conflated what governments pay into defined-benefit plans with what workers will eventually receive in retirement. So if governments contribute 10% of employee pay to defined-benefit pensions while private employers contribute 10% to 401(k)-type pensions, these studies conclude that pension compensation is equal.

But here's the problem: State and local pensions effectively guarantee employees an 8% return on both their contributions and those made by their employer. By contrast, a private-sector employee with a 401(k) can achieve a guaranteed return of only around 4% by investing in U.S. Treasury securities. Most economists believe governments are foolish to base their funding decisions on the assumption of high investment returns, but the benefits for public employees are guaranteed in any case.

Over a career, the difference between a 4% and 8% return is significant. Using data from California's major pension funds, we calculate that the higher implicit return on public pensions increases the compensation of California's government workers by around 4%.

The Berkeley study's second error is the omission of retiree health benefits. Private workers retire later and relatively few receive retiree health coverage. For those who do, eligibility has been tightened and premiums increased. But almost 90% of state and local governments offer retiree health benefits to employees. They generally retire in their 50s, at which point the government often pays most of their costs, including Medicare premiums and deductibles.

State actuarial reports show the annual cost of California retiree health benefits could top 8% of total compensation. Thus an accurate accounting of pension and retiree health benefits shows that public employees in California are paid about 15% more than individuals working for large private firms (accounting for age, education, etc.).

Another major benefit of public employment is job security. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, on average, a private worker has about a 20% chance of being fired or laid off in a given year. In state and local government, the discharge rate is only about 6%â€"and several studies have found that public employees are more risk-averse than other workers, meaning they place particular value on job security. We estimate that government job security is equivalent to about a 15% increase in compensation.

Overall, our research suggests that government workers in California are compensated up to 30% more generously than are similar employees in large private firms. And the California experience is similar to that of other large states with powerful public unions. Elected officials are right to reassess public worker compensation as they try to close their budget deficits.

[finehoe]

Public workers highly paid? Not exactly

Marisa Lagos, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

(10-19) 04:00 PDT Sacramento - --

Public workers in California earn 7 percent less on average than private sector employees, but make about the same amount after benefits and other compensation are factored in, according to a study released Monday.

The study by economists at UC Berkeley and Rutgers University found that the similar wages and benefits exist despite the fact that 55 percent of public employees in the state have a college degree, compared with just 35 percent of California's private sector workers. Education levels are usually the most important factor in determining wages, but public employees do not get the same return for their education level as private sector employees, said co-author Sylvia Allegretto.

Allegretto, deputy chairwoman of UC Berkeley's Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics, co-authored the study with Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor of labor and employment relations at Rutgers University.

Allegretto said the findings should put to rest some of the arguments over high public compensation, which has been a huge issue this election season and one that became particularly acute in California on the heels of a public corruption scandal in the Los Angeles County city of Bell.

"There's no significant difference between public and private sector workers in California. ... It's basically a wash," Allegretto said.

5,000 workers studied
The researchers examined the wage and demographic data of 5,000 workers in a monthly household survey conducted in 2009 by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Self-employed, part-time, agricultural and domestic workers were excluded from the sample. Benefit information was culled from the Department of Labor's Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey.

The study - which says that government workers have been "vilified" in California - concludes that public employees are not overpaid when you make an "apples-to-apples" comparison of employees' education, experience and other factors that might influence pay.

The study did not compare workers with similar jobs in the private and public sector because its authors felt there were too many differences to draw accurate conclusions. For example, the study notes that there are no private sector police officers or firefighters; and that teachers at a public school face far different challenges than those at a private school.

Instead, the study relied on education levels - "the single most important earnings predictor" - and other factors widely found to affect compensation levels, such as gender, race, ethnicity and disability, to compare the two sectors.

The study determined that public agencies generally pay college-educated workers less than private employers do, and that the differential is greatest for professional employees, lawyers and doctors. But the public sector "also appears to set a floor on compensation," so less educated public sector workers generally make more than people with the same level of education working for a private company. The study attributed this in part to the fact that "the earnings floor has collapsed in the private sector."

While public employees make about 7 percent less than their counterparts in private industry, the study found there is virtually no difference between the two sectors once you consider that state and local governments contribute nearly 6 percent more to benefits such as health insurance and retirement funds. But public employees also receive "considerably" less supplemental pay and vacation time, the study found.

Fewer workers today
Allegretto defended public workers, saying that there are 60,000 fewer government workers at the state and local level today than before the economic downturn began.

And she noted that despite the attention being paid by the governor and other politicians this year to rising public pension costs, those costs make up a small fraction of state spending.

"It is important to keep in mind that a huge state like California needs a lot of workers to keep going - and by and large they are highly educated, skilled workers who need to be fairly compensated," she said. "This tells me that the problems in California certainly could not have been caused by pensions and cannot be cured by pensions."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has repeatedly targeted state employees in budget cuts since February 2009, when he began imposing unpaid furloughs. Soon after, the furloughs were expanded from two to three days a month, amounting to pay cuts of about 15 percent a year. The governor has also often criticized the public employee pension system and has pushed for state workers to contribute more to their own pensions.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/19/MNUJ1FUAOH.DTL&tsp=1

[buckethead]

So I guess it depends on which side of the partisan paradigm you view which determines reality?

[BridgeTroll]

As with most things... the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.  We probably should prune government... and take steps to promote American manufacturing.  Of course... this probably means... opening tax loopholes and providing incentives for corporations...

[finehoe]

Its ironic this thread is as im digesting Adam Smith right now, and he philosophizes all these points over two hundred years ago.

Indeed he did:

The disciples of Adam Smith seem to have swallowed completely the economic orthodoxy which views the public sector as a fetter upon the private sector. Private sector jobs are by definition proper jobs contributing to the wealth of the country, whilst the public sector drains wealth from society.

This is a travesty of Smith’s views. This crude ideological orthodoxy is contributing to the decline in the wealth of the country.

The crucial distinction for Smith was between productive and non-productive occupations. not between the public and the private sector. Many occupations are unproductive because their work “in the very instant of their performance” leaves no trace or value behind. He includes lawyers and opera-singers in this category. We could probably include bankers, restaurants and car-clamping companies as well.

Some unproductive occupations are, for Smith, “important”, some are “frivolous”. No doubt he would have classed doctors, nurses, teachers and carers as important, whilst gambling casinos, premiership football and night clubs would have been on the frivolous side.

Smith believed in the public sector. Public institutions and public works for him are often “in the highest degree advantageous to a great society”. They are of such a nature that “profit could never repay the expense” and no individual or individuals should be expected to maintain them.

http://nigelgilbert.co.uk/?page_id=101

[uptowngirl]

Well there is one difference- one worker is paid by consumers, one is paid by tax payers. One is employed based on offerring a product that can chosen, another is employed whether you want, need, or even get the product. Seems a pretty significant difference to me.

[finehoe]

Well there is one difference- one worker is paid by consumers, one is paid by tax payers. One is employed based on offerring a product that can chosen, another is employed whether you want, need, or even get the product. Seems a pretty significant difference to me.

Which is why your industry refused the taxpayer-funded bailouts it was offered, right?

Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one

[fieldafm]

In it's purest form, banks allocate the supply of money to sources that create more utility.

I'm not blind to the fact that some institutions or some specific people in the industry have done great harm, but the industry as a whole is essential for economic growth.

[uptowngirl]

ahem, money was taken and money was paid back, why is this even still an issue?

also weren't some of the healthy companies ASKED to take on some of the crappy ones to ensure there was not complete failure? I know people like to forget that one tiny point in the money grabbing picture being painted. Let us not pretend that after that money was taken many companies tried to pay it back quickly but the government decided they liked to be in the drivers seat and started applying all kinds of conditions to be abe PAY THE MONEY BACK.  am not sure but I am pretty sure anyone with a government loan wanting to pay if off is not subjected to meeting a whole bunch of conditions to do so.

The government should be in the business of helping job creation, not making the jobs themselves.