http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html
Quote
We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined..
By STEPHEN MOORE
If you want to understand better why so many statesâ€"from New York to Wisconsin to Californiaâ€"are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.
It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?
Every state in America today except for twoâ€"Indiana and Wisconsinâ€"has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employeesâ€"twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida's ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York's.
Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.
Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the worldâ€"at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That's less than half of the state's 1.48 million government employees.
Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.
Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.
But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.
The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.
Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many servicesâ€"fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operationsâ€"through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.
President Obama says we have to retool our economy to "win the future." The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.
I would feel more secure working for the government than a private industry. The government isn't going to close up shop and move to India.
At least the government provides services to people. How many people work in the financial industry which does little but leech off of all other sectors?
The best way to increase manufacturing here is a slight increase in tariffs.
Wow... really? Maybe this should be a poll question.
This is the real problem with our economy, not how many people are employed by the government:
(http://macromon.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fire-economy.jpg)
Does that site have a graph comparing manufacturing vs government jobs?
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 10:53:02 AM
At least the government provides services to people. How many people work in the financial industry which does little but leech off of all other sectors?
LOL, the government leeches off our tax dollars....it is an endless cycle of leeches.
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 11:47:31 AM
LOL, the government leeches off our tax dollars....it is an endless cycle of leeches.
At least you benefit from those tax dollars being spent on protecting your food, preventing planes from running into each other mid-air, ensuring your water is safe to drink, etc. How are you benefiting when a banker skims a fee off of you transfering your own money somewhere or when a stockbroker charges a fee for you buying a stock?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 11:32:51 AM
Does that site have a graph comparing manufacturing vs government jobs?
This is from a different site, but I think it's what you want to see: http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/01/20/milestone/
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 11:52:21 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 11:47:31 AM
LOL, the government leeches off our tax dollars....it is an endless cycle of leeches.
At least you benefit from those tax dollars being spent on protecting your food, preventing planes from running into each other mid-air, ensuring your water is safe to drink, etc. How are you benefiting when a banker skims a fee off of you transfering your own money somewhere or when a stockbroker charges a fee for you buying a stock?
So you can move your money to mexico or india on your own? A plane ticket costs a lot more than a wire fee. You can buy and sell stocks on your own- just get a license, it is a lot of studying and a pretty big fee. You can also purchase a house with cash, but you will still pay the tax and filing fees. It is all about what you feel you should be paying for- you can decide that on your own in the private sector, but are stuck with the government even if you don't want it, like it, or use it.
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 11:56:38 AM
It is all about what you feel you should be paying for- you can decide that on your own in the private sector, but are stuck with the government even if you don't want it, like it, or use it.
No, it's all about how productive is it to have a country that doesn't produce anything and instead tries to base its economy on shuffling money around, with a parasitic class sucking a portion of that money out at each transaction. We have an illusion of "growth" and "wealth" that has been created by the FIRE economy in which shuffling paper and bits of data pass for actual productive activities when in fact they created nothing.
I work for a manufacturer based here in J'ville. We sell our products all over the world, by providing a superior product and customer service. We aren't adding jobs, but we aren't cutting them either. The average worker has been here 15 years (27 for me). I just wanted to let people know there are still a few of us out there, and we aren't going anywhere.
This is more stark than even the WSJ article... :o Thanks fineho... :)
(http://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pic-png.png?w=492&h=425)
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 10:53:02 AM
At least the government provides services to people. How many people work in the financial industry which does little but leech off of all other sectors?
LOL, the government leeches off our tax dollars....it is an endless cycle of leeches.
+1,000,000,000,000,000 Fine
Look carefully at the figures. Even though America has less manufactoring JOBS, it is still the manufactoring LEADER. Technology has replaced manufactoring jobs. While the headlines intimidate those in government employ, it forgot to mention a lot of labor involved in most service jobs.
Manufactoring numbers include products we take for granted the largest being commerical airplanes.... nobody builds airliners like America. Nobody.
Except Airbus...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg/300px-Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A380
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?
Compared to 50-60 years ago, America is practically out of the manufacturing business...
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 01:13:59 PM
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
Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 01:00:40 PM
Except Airbus...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg/300px-Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Timkin on April 01, 2011, 01:22:16 PM
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).
http://seekingalpha.com/article/155428-actually-china-s-not-the-world-leader-in-manufacturing-or-exports
What if you work in manufacturing for the government?
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 01:13:59 PM
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?
No one said that. Everything you mention is something that is actually produced. The FIRE economy is non-productive, it just shifts money already made from one entity to another.
Boeing, soybeans, almonds, Hollywood, Catepillar, and Microsoft are all manufacturing stars. The U.S. sells $1 trillion in goods and services abroad: that's 7.5% of the GDP. But the U.S. imports $1.8 trillion. So the question becomes: can our exporting stalwarts sell $800 billion more a year? And if they can't, then what U.S. goods and services will appear that overseas buyers want?
If we've removed the incentives to producing actual goods, then perhaps the answer will be: there won't be any meaningful resurgence in exports, or the jobs that go with them.
Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one, and we sell a lot of the software and programs/products we create. Many of these financial institutions work hand in hand with manufactures, and even schools such as caltech and MIT in inovation center partnerships.
What I took from the story is the private sector (whether farming, financial, manufacturing) have gone through productivity changes and improvements where the government sector has not:
The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.
Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.
But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one, and we sell a lot of the software and programs/products we create.
And that's their main source of revenue? Or is it just a sideline.
Quote from: hillary supporter on April 01, 2011, 01:42:27 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 01:13:59 PM
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 Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 01:00:40 PM
Except Airbus...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg/300px-Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg)
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.Quote from: Timkin on April 01, 2011, 01:22:16 PM
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 :)
I'd be curious to know what percentage of Boeing's revenues come from government contracts.
Good point, Finehoe
Quote from: copperfiend on April 01, 2011, 10:52:45 AM
I would feel more secure working for the government than a private industry. The government isn't going to close up shop and move to India.
Trust me on this one, being in the employ of the government creates its own set of insecurities. Especially now.
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 02:33:35 PM
I'd be curious to know what percentage of Boeing's revenues come from government contracts.
Which governments?
Quote from: acme54321 on April 01, 2011, 01:45:59 PM
What if you work in manufacturing for the government?
OHHHHHH, now we re talking! Like manufacturing money, er, currency, umm dollar bill$?
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
Quote from: Timkin on April 01, 2011, 02:30:42 PM
Quote from: hillary supporter on April 01, 2011, 01:42:27 PM
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 01:13:59 PM
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 Quote from: BridgeTroll on April 01, 2011, 01:00:40 PM
Except Airbus...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg/300px-Qantas_a380_vh-oqa_takeoff_heathrow_arp.jpg)
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.Quote from: Timkin on April 01, 2011, 01:22:16 PM
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!
Quote from: hillary supporter on April 01, 2011, 02:37:01 PM
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 02:33:35 PM
I'd be curious to know what percentage of Boeing's revenues come from government contracts.
Which governments?Quote from: acme54321 on April 01, 2011, 01:45:59 PM
What if you work in manufacturing for the government?
OHHHHHH, now we re talking! Like manufacturing money, er, currency, umm dollar bill$?
+100
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:38:34 PM
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.
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:38:34 PM
Did I miss the point of the article?
No, you took away exactly what the WSJ wanted you to.
Well, it is hard to deny the truth when it is right in front of your face ;)
Have government payrolls increased as it relates to GDP? Population? Without those facts, this is a game of spin.
The graph finhoe linked to (http://fabiusmaximus.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/pic-png.png?w=492&h=425) 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.
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.
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
So I guess it depends on which side of the partisan paradigm you view which determines reality?
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... ;)
Quote from: hillary supporter on April 01, 2011, 02:46:19 PM
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:
QuoteThe 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, “importantâ€, some are “frivolousâ€. 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 societyâ€. 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
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.
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 04:38:34 PM
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?
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one
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.
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.
BT - Best Article I have seen on MJ in 2011!
QuoteOver the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.
We call it negative productivity here in Jacksonville with the DCPS system too! If others see the problem, this is not just a Jacksonville problem.
I blame the internet. Great discussion!
Quote from: finehoe on April 01, 2011, 10:53:02 AM
At least the government provides services to people. How many people work in the financial industry which does little but leech off of all other sectors?
+1
QuoteThe market mystique didn’t always rule financial policy. America emerged from the Great Depression with a tightly regulated banking system, which made finance a staid, even boring business. Banks attracted depositors by providing convenient branch locations and maybe a free toaster or two; they used the money thus attracted to make loans, and that was that.
And the financial system wasn’t just boring. It was also, by today’s standards, small. Even during the “go-go years,†the bull market of the 1960s, finance and insurance together accounted for less than 4 percent of G.D.P. The relative unimportance of finance was reflected in the list of stocks making up the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which until 1982 contained not a single financial company.
It all sounds primitive by today’s standards. Yet that boring, primitive financial system serviced an economy that doubled living standards over the course of a generation.
After 1980, of course, a very different financial system emerged. In the deregulation-minded Reagan era, old-fashioned banking was increasingly replaced by wheeling and dealing on a grand scale. The new system was much bigger than the old regime: On the eve of the current crisis, finance and insurance accounted for 8 percent of G.D.P., more than twice their share in the 1960s. By early last year, the Dow contained five financial companies â€" giants like A.I.G., Citigroup and Bank of America.
And finance became anything but boring. It attracted many of our sharpest minds and made a select few immensely rich.
Underlying the glamorous new world of finance was the process of securitization. Loans no longer stayed with the lender. Instead, they were sold on to others, who sliced, diced and puréed individual debts to synthesize new assets. Subprime mortgages, credit card debts, car loans â€" all went into the financial system’s juicer. Out the other end, supposedly, came sweet-tasting AAA investments. And financial wizards were lavishly rewarded for overseeing the process.
But the wizards were frauds, whether they knew it or not, and their magic turned out to be no more than a collection of cheap stage tricks. Above all, the key promise of securitization â€" that it would make the financial system more robust by spreading risk more widely â€" turned out to be a lie. Banks used securitization to increase their risk, not reduce it, and in the process they made the economy more, not less, vulnerable to financial disruption.
Sooner or later, things were bound to go wrong, and eventually they did. Bear Stearns failed; Lehman failed; but most of all, securitization failed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/opinion/27krugman.html
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one, and we sell a lot of the software and programs/products we create. Many of these financial institutions work hand in hand with manufactures, and even schools such as caltech and MIT in inovation center partnerships.
What do financial services create again other than toxic assets?
(http://macromon.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/fire-economy.jpg?w=640&h=423)
BTW, I wonder if you actually work for a European company?
QuoteING Group
Dutch insurance conglomerate providing news, investor relations and general information about the company. Offers personal and institutional clients ...
www.ing.com/
Quote from: stephendare on April 02, 2011, 09:58:14 AM
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 02, 2011, 09:45:30 AM
BT - Best Article I have seen on MJ in 2011!
QuoteOver the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.
We call it negative productivity here in Jacksonville with the DCPS system too! If others see the problem, this is not just a Jacksonville problem.
I blame the internet. Great discussion!
Like most of the articles that BT has been posting lately, it doesnt really tell you anything.
How much of that, for example, went for school security in the wake of national hysteria following columbine. Arent the extra security measures merely a way of forcing the schools to pay for the outcomes of the gun laws in this country?
How much money went into the mandatory court compliance programs in pursuit of the war on drugs?
Why again, are the school tax payers being made to pay for the programs set in place by the national politicians?
How much of that alleged per student spending (not verified, naturally) was spent because of the number of corrupt charter schools that were able to take money from public coffers, which count in the budget as dollars per child, but still took children away from the school system (which raises the average since there are fewer students?
Aw darn... Stephen disappoves of my article and topic? I must be doing something right...
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one, and we sell a lot of the software and programs/products we create. Many of these financial institutions work hand in hand with manufactures, and even schools such as caltech and MIT in inovation center partnerships.
Ok, a wild guess:
QuoteGiven our comprehensive experience in software engineering and project management, our company can be relied upon to deliver partial or full life-cycle projects on time and within budget. By outsourcing a portion of their development needs to Website Outsourcing, our customers gain a flexible and cost-effective resource enabling them to increase product ranges, decrease time to market, and significantly lower development costs.
http://ingsoftware.com/outsourcing/
Oooopsie, might you actually work for one of those socialist capitalist european companies?
Makes me proud of my home country ( the Netherlands) for their prowess, and higher Per Capita GDP than FL despite offering universal healthcare to ALL its citizens.
Too bad they lack the sunshine of the Sunshine state ;)
Yes, some of us immigrants are simply here for the sunshine ;D
Faye you must really like me :o
But no, I do not work for any European bank, but we did buy one ;)
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 02, 2011, 10:39:35 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one, and we sell a lot of the software and programs/products we create. Many of these financial institutions work hand in hand with manufactures, and even schools such as caltech and MIT in inovation center partnerships.
Ok, a wild guess:
QuoteGiven our comprehensive experience in software engineering and project management, our company can be relied upon to deliver partial or full life-cycle projects on time and within budget. By outsourcing a portion of their development needs to Website Outsourcing, our customers gain a flexible and cost-effective resource enabling them to increase product ranges, decrease time to market, and significantly lower development costs.
http://ingsoftware.com/outsourcing/
Oooopsie, might you actually work for one of those socialist capitalist european companies?
Makes me proud of my home country ( the Netherlands) for their prowess, and higher Per Capita GDP than FL despite offering universal healthcare to ALL its citizens.
Too bad they lack the sunshine of the Sunshine state ;)
Yes, some of us immigrants are simply here for the sunshine ;D
Faye,
If you don't mind me asking, why did you immigrate? And why did you choose Jacksonville, Florida? Or was it not by choice?
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 02, 2011, 09:17:50 PM
Faye you must really like me :o
But no, I do not work for any European bank, but we did buy one ;)
Ah, well THAT really narrows it down:
QuoteBank Of America Paid Nothing In Federal Income Taxes Last Year And Got Almost $1 Billion From Taxpayers
All around the country, right-wing legislators are asking Main Street Americans to pay for budget deficits resulting mainly from a recession caused by Wall Street by attacking collective bargaining, and cutting necessary services and investments like college tuition aid and health care for the poor.
Yet at the same time, some of the country’s biggest corporations are getting away without being asked to pay anything at all. In 2009, mega corporations like Boeing and General Electric managed to avoid paying a penny in federal taxes â€" while also netting enormous benefits in tax benefits and subsidies.
Now, with many companies releasing their financial reports for 2010, it appears that Bank of America â€" the nation’s largest bank â€" has gone a second year in a row paying absolutely no federal corporate income taxes. In fact, not only did the company use its losses to avoid paying taxes last year, but it actually reported a tax benefit of almost a billion dollars:
After another money-losing year, Bank of America Corp. got the upper hand with Uncle Sam in 2010.
The Charlotte-based bank had no federal income tax expense for a second straight year and actually reported a tax “benefit†of nearly $1 billion. Also, the bank’s billions in accumulated losses could reduce its taxes in future years, a tax expert said.
“Bank of America takes its role as a corporate citizen very seriously, and pays taxes in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations,†bank spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said.
“If you go out and try to make money and you don’t do it, why should the government pay you for your losses?†asked Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice when Bank of America used a similar provision in the tax code to dodge taxes in 2009. Additionally, in one state alone, Connecticut, Bank of America’s state income tax tax dodging cost the state a whopping $500 million.
Over the weekend, the UK-inspired movement US Uncut held demonstrations at Bank of America branches all over the country to protest the bank’s egregious tax dodging. In Washington, D.C., US Uncut protests shut down a major Bank of America branch in the Columbia Heights neighborhood. Watch it:
In a press release from last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) laid out ten corporate tax dodgers who aren’t paying their fair share and called for shared sacrifice. We have a deficit problem. It has to be addressed,†said Sanders in a press release addressing tax fairness. “But it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We’ve got to talk about shared sacrifice.â€[/b]
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/28/bank-of-america-taxes/
What do they exactly "produce" again?
TOXIC ASSETS
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 03, 2011, 09:15:10 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 02, 2011, 09:17:50 PM
Faye you must really like me :o
But no, I do not work for any European bank, but we did buy one ;)
Ah, well THAT really narrows it down:
QuoteBank Of America Paid Nothing In Federal Income Taxes Last Year And Got Almost $1 Billion From Taxpayers
All around the country, right-wing legislators are asking Main Street Americans to pay for budget deficits resulting mainly from a recession caused by Wall Street by attacking collective bargaining, and cutting necessary services and investments like college tuition aid and health care for the poor.
Yet at the same time, some of the country’s biggest corporations are getting away without being asked to pay anything at all. In 2009, mega corporations like Boeing and General Electric managed to avoid paying a penny in federal taxes â€" while also netting enormous benefits in tax benefits and subsidies.
Now, with many companies releasing their financial reports for 2010, it appears that Bank of America â€" the nation’s largest bank â€" has gone a second year in a row paying absolutely no federal corporate income taxes. In fact, not only did the company use its losses to avoid paying taxes last year, but it actually reported a tax benefit of almost a billion dollars:
After another money-losing year, Bank of America Corp. got the upper hand with Uncle Sam in 2010.
The Charlotte-based bank had no federal income tax expense for a second straight year and actually reported a tax “benefit†of nearly $1 billion. Also, the bank’s billions in accumulated losses could reduce its taxes in future years, a tax expert said.
“Bank of America takes its role as a corporate citizen very seriously, and pays taxes in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations,†bank spokesman Jerry Dubrowski said.
“If you go out and try to make money and you don’t do it, why should the government pay you for your losses?†asked Bob McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice when Bank of America used a similar provision in the tax code to dodge taxes in 2009. Additionally, in one state alone, Connecticut, Bank of America’s state income tax tax dodging cost the state a whopping $500 million.
Over the weekend, the UK-inspired movement US Uncut held demonstrations at Bank of America branches all over the country to protest the bank’s egregious tax dodging. In Washington, D.C., US Uncut protests shut down a major Bank of America branch in the Columbia Heights neighborhood. Watch it:
In a press release from last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) laid out ten corporate tax dodgers who aren’t paying their fair share and called for shared sacrifice. We have a deficit problem. It has to be addressed,†said Sanders in a press release addressing tax fairness. “But it cannot be addressed on the backs of the sick, the elderly, the poor, young people, the most vulnerable in this country. The wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country have got to contribute. We’ve got to talk about shared sacrifice.â€[/b]
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/28/bank-of-america-taxes/
What do they exactly "produce" again?
TOXIC ASSETS
I understand and see your point of view/ And agree with it.
Unfortunately, in the fall of 2008, a decision had ti be made, whether to let these banks fail, and endure the repercussions, or save them through a bail out, to possibly avoid the consequences of a
depression. a great depression. And with quick and (very) kn owedgable insight, and unprecedented bi partisanship, leading democrats and republicans concluded, through chairman Bernanke's expertise, that to allow the banks to fail would bring on a great economic depression that would probably eclipse the great depression of the 1930s. So 'too big to fail" was enacted and i believe it saved America from probably the biggest economic catasphone of our history. But it was far from prefect. And many Americans that had nothing to do with it , would take the biggest bite out of the s#$t sandwich we were dealt.
Oh i so much agree with your point, i personally felt it when, after our taxpayer dollars with to save "my" bank, they then cancelled my credit account and refused to lent me money for a house loan. But, and only as time passed i say, did i learn that such is the PARADOX of living in a capitalist society and more importantly, America.
And as bad as the economic "sneeze" was, is... the rest of the world did catch the "cold".
Tarp came with no strings attached, and was followed by no real banking reforms.
This is the larger tragedy than the initial meltdown.
Quote from: buckethead on April 03, 2011, 12:56:12 PM
Tarp came with no strings attached, and was followed by no real banking reforms.
This is the larger tragedy than the initial meltdown.
That is a very tragic and scary point!
Quote from: NotNow on April 02, 2011, 09:34:38 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 02, 2011, 10:39:35 AM
Quote from: uptowngirl on April 01, 2011, 02:07:01 PM
Citicorp is a financial institute, I work for another big one, and we sell a lot of the software and programs/products we create. Many of these financial institutions work hand in hand with manufactures, and even schools such as caltech and MIT in inovation center partnerships.
Ok, a wild guess:
QuoteGiven our comprehensive experience in software engineering and project management, our company can be relied upon to deliver partial or full life-cycle projects on time and within budget. By outsourcing a portion of their development needs to Website Outsourcing, our customers gain a flexible and cost-effective resource enabling them to increase product ranges, decrease time to market, and significantly lower development costs.
http://ingsoftware.com/outsourcing/
Oooopsie, might you actually work for one of those socialist capitalist european companies?
Makes me proud of my home country ( the Netherlands) for their prowess, and higher Per Capita GDP than FL despite offering universal healthcare to ALL its citizens.
Too bad they lack the sunshine of the Sunshine state ;)
Yes, some of us immigrants are simply here for the sunshine ;D
Faye,
If you don't mind me asking, why did you immigrate? And why did you choose Jacksonville, Florida? Or was it not by choice?
No problem NotNow.
I recently went back to the Netherlands for a week to attend my dad's 80th birthday celebration. He has stage 4 kidney cancer, and when it was discovered in 2007, he was immediately put on Sutent which had just been FDA approved in 2006, and had a price tag of $7,000 per month. No questions asked and no out-of pocket expense to my then 77 year old dad.
And contrary to the Republican "too old for treatment" rationing that their vivid imagination holds of European universal healthcare systems, my dad was NOT deemed too old for life-extending treatments!!!! That whole notion is preposterous, and does NOT exist except as a figment of the imagination. But it is just sooooo easy to fool the ignorant American masses.
All my four sisters were there too at his 80th birthday celebration.........as they all remained in the Netherlands (and never even bothered to visit me in the US).
In reminiscing, my dad told me he was disappointed in me for turning down a great job opportunity for a marketing Innovation think tank, working directly for Mr. Dreesmann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxeda
Instead I had to "chase after the sun" according to my dad.
I left Amsterdam in 1980, and moved to Los Angeles. Got married in 1982 to a British man that I had been living with since my Amsterdam college days, and all my children were born in LA. After 10 years of marriage, we divorced and I decided to move to Florida primarily because housing expenses were so much less in Florida. I settled in Orlando in 1994, but after about 6 years there I decided Orlando was too transient of a community. I briefly moved to Georgia (where I taught at Georgia Perimeter College, Brenau University and had an evening job as a pharmacy assistant at Wal-mart) for a therapy program for my son who became paralyzed from a soccer collison at age 7, but got home-sick for Florida.
It was a choice of either Tallahassee or Jacksonville (further south would be too much of a hassle)...........I found the house I was looking for in Jax in Dec. 2002, and voila, I'm here!
Actually grew some roots here ;D
So yeah, it really is true: some of us immigrants simply come here for the sunshine! :o
Thanks Faye, and though we don't always agree, Welcome! (Although you have been here long enough to be considered...Floridian)
And best wishes for your Dad.
Same here, Faye :)
Thank you, NotNow and Timkin. Your kind words are much appreciated!
;) very welcome.. Wish the best for your Father. :)
That's a pretty awesome story there, Faye!
I might have to share my little story here one day. Lot of things has happened to me in my 24 years of life.
-Josh
Please do, Josh!
Awesome, Faye :) Jacksonville is very fortunate to have you here! People like you make Jacksonville a great place!
Quote from: hillary supporter on April 03, 2011, 03:37:23 PM
Awesome, Faye :) Jacksonville is very fortunate to have you here! People like you make Jacksonville a great place!
Thanks Hillary supporter! I will keep promoting the cause of women, children, and the plight/rights of the average American worker, both male and female!
Thank you too Josh! And please share your story too...........it's always important to know how we became the person we are.
It really fosters understanding of one another!! :)