Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

[The_Animus]

I was surprised I didn't see any post about this yet and nothing came up when I searched.

Protests started Tuesday and have continued yesterday and today. Over 13,000 people showed up at the capital to protest and many more students, teachers, and others at universities across Wisconsin. Students walked out of classes and teachers called in sick resulting in large numbers of classes being canceled.

Here are a few links with more information.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/editorial/article_61064e9a-27b0-5f28-b6d1-a57c8b2aaaf6.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116339939.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/16/wisconsin-republicans

My understanding is that the newly elected Governor:

• Chose to turn down a federally supported high speed rail which could have helped create jobs and improved transportation in the state
• Instituted new funding for programs which are largely ineffectual or benefit the wealthy at the expense of creating a budget deficit
• Is using this deficit as an excuse to remove the ability of state employees to collectively bargain for benefits, thus reducing public union power.

At the same time I have heard that public sector employees get far greater benefits than the private sector at the expense of the taxpayers and even if this bill passed the public sector workers would still pay about half of what the private sector does for certain benefits.

What does everyone else think about what's going on?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It looks like the Democrats staged a "foot fillibuster" by leaving the capital ahead of the vote and depriving the legislature of a quorum.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

It looks like the Democrats staged a "foot fillibuster" by leaving the capital ahead of the vote and depriving the legislature of a quorum.

And Walker is calling for the state police to go and arrest them/round them up to force a vote.

 

[daredelvis]

At the same time I have heard that public sector employees get far greater benefits than the private sector at the expense of the taxpayers and even if this bill passed the public sector workers would still pay about half of what the private sector does for certain benefits.

That is often stated, but rarely corrected for education and experience. Public sector employees typically earn less than their private sector peers when corrected for education levels. There aren't that many public sector employees flipping burgers.

I also wonder why those in the middle class react to the reduction in private sector benefits over the last few decades (coincident with skyrocketing executive pay) by attacking other middle class workers who still have some remaining benefits.

Daredelvis

 

[The_Animus]

That is often stated, but rarely corrected for education and experience. Public sector employees typically earn less than their private sector peers when corrected for education levels. There aren't that many public sector employees flipping burgers.

I also wonder why those in the middle class react to the reduction in private sector benefits over the last few decades (coincident with skyrocketing executive pay) by attacking other middle class workers who still have some remaining benefits.

Daredelvis

Thanks for the response. Do you know of any study/article that gives the corrected figures for public vs private sector?

 

[Neally]

That is often stated, but rarely corrected for education and experience. Public sector employees typically earn less than their private sector peers when corrected for education levels.

Just because someone is hired with a certain education level, that doesn't mean that level is necessary for the job. A better comparison is by position. A private sector accountant and a public sector accountant, for example.

A comparison from 2008 found that the average salary was $67,691 for government and average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046. 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. A whopping difference.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

 

[TraneWreck]

Basically, the governor is demanding that teachers contribute 12% to their health care packages. That doesn't sound all that drastic, but it amounts to a 7% pay cut for teachers. Phrased that way, the angst becomes more understandable.

THe main issue, however, is that the governor is attempting to revoke public sector union collective bargaining rights. Walker is attempting to describe that move as an austerity measure, but it will obviously save no money alone. It would only be relevant in future contract negotiations.

The other major issue is that there doesn't actually appear to be a budget crisis in Wisconsin that demands such harsh austerity measures...or there wouldn't be with a different governor:

You can read the fiscal bureaus report here (PDF). It holds that "more than half" of the new shortfall comes from three of Walker's initiatives:

•$25 million for an economic development fund for job creation, which still holds $73 million because of anemic job growth.

•$48 million for private health savings accounts -- a perennial Republican favorite.


•$67 million for a tax incentive plan that benefits employers, but at levels too low to spur hiring.

In essence, public workers are being asked to pick up the tab for this agenda. "The provisions in his bill do two things simultaneously," Norman says. "They remove bargaining rights, and having accomplished that, make changes in the benefit packages." That's how Walker's plan saves money. And when it's all said and done, these workers will have lost their bargaining rights going forward in perpetuity.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...udget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php

Very interesting developments.

It also appears that the Democratic legislators have fled the state so that Wisconsin police can't gather them up. This is an entertaining show.

 

[TraneWreck]

Just because someone is hired with a certain education level, that doesn't mean that level is necessary for the job. A better comparison is by position. A private sector accountant and a public sector accountant, for example.

A comparison from 2008 found that the average salary was $67,691 for government and average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046. 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. A whopping difference.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

No, that's a terrible comparison. It doesn't control for education or experience. Just because two people are "accountants," that doesn't mean they're equivalent. Both the partner of a law firm and an associate are "lawyers," but their pay difference could be a million dollars a year.

When education and experience are controlled for, the private sector does yield more lucrative salaries:

Several recent reports in the media have reinforced this view by emphasizing that, on average, government employees earn more than workers in the private sector. The problem with these analyses is that state and local government workers have much higher levels of formal education and are older (and therefore generally more experienced) than workers in the private sector. When state and local government employees are compared to private-sector workers with similar characteristics, state and local workers actually earn 4 percent less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts. This paper examines the wage penalty for working in the state-and-local sector.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/wage-penalty-state-local-gov-employees/

 

[Neally]

No, that's a terrible comparison. It doesn't control for education or experience. Just because two people are "accountants," that doesn't mean they're equivalent. Both the partner of a law firm and an associate are "lawyers," but their pay difference could be a million dollars a year.

When education and experience are controlled for, the private sector does yield more lucrative salaries:


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/publications/reports/wage-penalty-state-local-gov-employees/

As I said before, education is not a good factor to normalize for, what the job actually entails is. Just because a government job requires a certain level of education doesn't mean that education level is necessary to perform the job.

The link I referenced adjusts for work performed. USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses. Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations.

Also note that your link did not take BENEFITS into consideration.

 

[daredelvis]

As I said before, education is not a good factor to normalize for, what the job actually entails is. Just because a government job requires a certain level of education doesn't mean that education level is necessary to perform the job.

You repeating that does not make it true. Most higher level jobs require education for a reason. There is a big difference between someone with a B.S. and a PhD.

Daredelvis

 

[WildCat]

That is often stated, but rarely corrected for education and experience. Public sector employees typically earn less than their private sector peers when corrected for education levels.

Not when you include bennies. It's not even close.

 

[WildCat]

You repeating that does not make it true. Most higher level jobs require education for a reason.

This is true. The more powerful the teacher's unions get, the worse the job they do educating children. As it now stands, a high school diploma doesn't even guarantee you can spell your own name.

College is the new high school. That's why basic entry-level clerical jobs now require a college degree.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Um, not to throw a wrench in the "federal workers are overpaid slobs" argument that none of us have ever heard before in our lives, but I just want to point out that Walker has said he'll call the National Guard in against protests and has said he'll call the state police to round up/arrest legislators to force a vote on this. That's...uh...heavy handed, and a lot bigger/more pressing of an issue, in my opinion.

 

[Neally]

You repeating that does not make it true. Most higher level jobs require education for a reason.

You denying it doesn't change the fact that a far better criteria is the position itself, not the education level that workers in that position may have. An entry level nurse with a PhD doesn't justify a higher wage in a government position vs an entry level nurse with a B.S. in the private sector.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Um, not to throw a wrench in the "federal workers are overpaid slobs" argument that none of us have ever heard before in our lives, but I just want to point out that Walker has said he'll call the National Guard in against protests and has said he'll call the state police to round up/arrest legislators to force a vote on this. That's...uh...heavy handed, and a lot bigger/more pressing of an issue, in my opinion.

That's why the democats are in Rockford Illinois at the best western clock tower.

 

[WildCat]

That's why the democats are in Rockford Illinois at the best western clock tower.

Someone's got to stimulate the Illinois economy, especially in Rockford. I hope their stay is a long one.

 

[TraneWreck]

As I said before, education is not a good factor to normalize for, what the job actually entails is. Just because a government job requires a certain level of education doesn't mean that education level is necessary to perform the job.

That's an odd scope shift. Whether or not it's "necessary," we would generally expect to see someone with a higher education be paid more, even withing the private industry or hell, even within a single company.

It should also be pointed out that you ignored the second variable, experience. Public sector workers tend to be more experienced than their private counterparts, explaining why they would earn more.

The link I referenced adjusts for work performed. USA TODAY used Bureau of Labor Statistics data to compare salaries in every federal job that had a private-sector equivalent. For example, the federal government's 57,000 registered nurses — working for the Veterans Administration and elsewhere — were paid an average of $74,460 a year, $10,680 more than the average for private-sector nurses. Average federal salaries exceed average private-sector pay in 83% of comparable occupations.

Also note that your link did not take BENEFITS into consideration.

The studies have been done:

In addition, it is frequently noted that public employees earn more in benefits such as health care and pensions: therefore, a simple wage comparison will not accurately capture difference in total compensation. Nonetheless, after controlling for multiple factors including level of education, hours worked and non-cash compensation, Keefe found that, on average, full-time state and local employees are undercompensated compared to “otherwise similar private-sector workers.”

[...]

Keefe found that private sector workers earned average annual wages of $55,132, $6,061 greater than the $49,072 earned by public sector workers. When looking at total compensation including employer-provided benefits, this gap narrowed but the private sector workers still earned $2,001 more per year than public sector workers ($71,109 in total compensation, versus $69,108). This gap was especially large among more educated workers.

http://www.epi.org/analysis_and_opinion/entry/public_sector_workers_earn_less/

"Otherwise similar" means, "same job."

Ergo, Nurse v. Nurse, teacher v. teacher...etc.

 

[The_Animus]

Thanks for the responses and links to other articles everyone. I appreciate the diverse discussion!

The point about education and experience is an interesting one. Recently in a Human Resource Management class we were discussing the qualifications of teachers and what we as students wanted. The class unanimously said that education is important but even more so is real world experience in the field being taught. In other words students don't care if a teacher has a Masters or Doctorate but find that a teacher able to add comments and examples from their work history is immensely helpful. Basically the teachers are able to help prepare students better and give more useful advice as to what is important on the job. In this sense teachers with less education but more experience are able to do their job better, prepare students for getting jobs upon graduation.

In the same respect education is not necessarily a good indicator of how well a public sector person can do their job, nor how much they should be paid. In some fields education can be extremely important, such as doctors, while in others a certain baseline of education is necessary, but beyond that experience is better than further education.

Numerous articles and studies have been linked to, and each uses different methods of calculating. I'd be interested to see one that compares public and private sector jobs that require similar skills and perform similar tasks adjusted for experience only.

 

[rwguinn]

Um, not to throw a wrench in the "federal workers are overpaid slobs" argument that none of us have ever heard before in our lives, but I just want to point out that Walker has said he'll call the National Guard in against protests and has said he'll call the state police to round up/arrest legislators to force a vote on this. That's...uh...heavy handed, and a lot bigger/more pressing of an issue, in my opinion.

That's why the democats are in Rockford Illinois at the best western clock tower.

Someone's got to stimulate the Illinois economy, especially in Rockford. I hope their stay is a long one.

Are you the guys who railed at the Texas Governor and legislature (Republicans, too) when the Dems went to Oklahoma City to avoid a vote a couple-three years ago?

JAQ

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Are you the guys who railed at the Texas Governor and legislature (Republicans, too) when the Dems went to Oklahoma City to avoid a vote a couple-three years ago?

JAQ

I wasn't, as I was of the "I'm above politics, it's, like, all just a sham, man" mindset at that point in my life (not to that degree, obviously, but I thought being aloof was the same thing as being an individual). However, I don't really approve of a walkout vote. On the other hand, instead of going "wow these guys are being jerks" and potentially scoring political points, do you think that maybe, just maybe saying that you're going to call in the police and the military to crack down on protestors may have a bit of an undertone the public may not approve of?