Protests in Wisconsin - Scott Walker

dirtywick said:
Whoever's running the ads, I don't know. Just saying the firefighters aren't happy like you said with the police.

-edit-

Despite them both being exempted is why it's notable. I'm assuming that's why you said something about the police as well.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Good news, indeed :)

Btw, any chance we could find those ads on Youtube?
 
davefoc said:
My post didn't get the response I was hoping for. What I hoped was either Skeptic Ginger would just repost what her claims were and then Newtons bit could describe why he felt the evidence posted to support those claims didn't.

Or that Newtons bit could post an explicit statement of the claims that he thinks Skeptic Ginger is making and SG would either confirm or deny that she was making those claims.

I realize I'm being lazy here, I was just trying to understand this without sorting through a lot of gunge unrelated to the claims, support for the claims and refutation of the claims.
Click to expand...

Let's start with this direct-line:
Sorta first post(DavidJames)
Second Post(Newton's Bit)
Third Post (Skeptic Ginger)
Fourth Post(Newton's Bit)
Fifth Post(Skeptic Ginger)

And that's when all hell broke out.

The base-line claim is that the Unions are being attacked on purely ideological reasons. Pertinent to that are several items that Skeptic Ginger claimed in "Third Post". The only one I can tell she attempted to reply to was claim that union workers in WI receive about average pay. And that was with one link. And it has issues.

1. The two sources used are incredibly biased towards running numbers in favor of unions. Actually, let's not even go there. Let's just assume, ridiculous as it may be, that they're legit.

1. The first problem is that the link she provides uses two sources who provide contradictory information. The first is from the NYT:
But the New York Times has a more subtle chart that tells the real story. Focusing only on Wisconsin, the Times chart shows that among workers without a bachelor's degree, state workers are, indeed, better paid than private-sector workers - the figures are $37,000 annually for state workers, $33,250 for private-sector workers.
However, among workers with a bachelor's degree, private-sector workers earn more than state workers -- $57,113 for private-sector workers, $51,921 for public-sector workers.

The Times provides a helpful explanation of these numbers:
Wisconsin state workers have a median wage of $45,691, 22 percent more than the median wage earned by workers in the private sector. But these figures, which do not include benefits, can be deceptive because the state workforce is much better educated than the private-sector workforce. In Wisconsin, more than 60 percent of state workers have at least a bachelor's degree, compared with just over 20 percent in the private sector, according to census data. College-educated workers on the state payroll in fact earn a median wage that is 9 percent less than that of their peers in the private sector.
Click to expand...

And the second from something called the EPI:
The Economic Policy Institute (a pro-labor group, it should be said) has a fascinating chart on its Web site showing that in Wisconsin, the more educated the group of workers, the larger the gap between the public and private sectors - again, in favor of the private sector. According to EPI, those with professional degrees earn $225,644 in total compensation in the private sector, but $143,569 in the public sector. EPI, by the way, also shows a very small gap ($47,469 to $46,213) in favor of the private sector even among workers with only high school degrees. But the point is clear: the higher the education level, the larger the income gap is in favor of private-sector workers.
Click to expand...

The NYT claims that workers with high school only wage make $3,375 more than their private sector counter parts (9%) before benefits. The EPI claims that after benefits are included they're about even. There is something very wrong with the seconds numbers. State workers get far, far better benefits than their high-school educated private sector counter parts. That's my common sense talking, but I could probably back it up with sources if necessary.

2. The data that both the EPI is using are from March 2008 Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers. It's almost 3 years old and doesn't include much, if any, of the effect the recession has had on private sector workers. The NYT is also using survey data from 2006->2008. It's likewise dated (if not more so). Now this is also a "common sense" claim, but it's easily substantiated. You can go to the BLS and play with the cost of employment numbers and see that the cost of employment for private sector has been increasing slower than public sector for the past ten years.

This is the percent change in employment costs (including benefits) for State and Local governments (nationally)
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4
2001 3.3 3.7 4.4 4.1
2002 3.7 3.4 3.7 4.1
2003 4.3 4.3 3.7 3.5
2004 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.6
2005 3.6 3.5 3.9 4.1
2006 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.1
2007 4.6 4.8 4.3 4.1
2008 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.0
2009 3.1 3.1 2.3 2.3
2010 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8

And the same for private workers
Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4
2001 4.2 4.0 4.0 4.1
2002 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.1
2003 3.6 3.5 3.9 4.0
2004 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.8
2005 3.5 3.1 2.9 2.9
2006 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2
2007 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0
2008 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.4
2009 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.2
2010 1.6 1.9 2.0 2.1

edit: one important thing to add, the table above is for people in the private sector that still have a job. Quite a few people don't.

3. The bachelors degree claim is one that I find particularly interesting. This is a bit math heavy, but bare with me. The NYT claim in that link is that people with bachelors degrees make $51,921 (without benefits) in the public sector compared to $57,113 (again without benefits) for private sector. It also states that 60% of the workers have bachelors degrees or better. Now, teachers work 9 months a year. If we adjust that to an actual yearly wage it comes out to:

12/9 * $51,921 = $69,228.

Now we need to average this back into the total labor pool. There are 35.6k "full-time equivalent" educational workers at the State level and another 128.5k on the local level for a total of 164.1k "full-time equivalents". Most of these people have bachelors (or better) degrees and most of whom work only 9 months a year. There are a 70.5k state level workers and 214,506 at the local level for a total of 285.0k. Approximately 45% of all Wisconsin public sector employees work in the educational sector. Most of them work 9 months a year. We can then adjust the bachelors degree pay (without benefits) to:

(45/60) * $69,228 + (15/60) * $51,921 = $64,901

This shows that the PAY for a 12 month work-year of bachelor degreed people in Wisconsin exceeds that of the private sector. Now this item was down and dirty. I'm tired of this and want to get back to programming. It could be refined further by taking a hard look at who has a bachelors degree, who doesn't, who is really working 9 months and who's not, etc. I don't feel like the numbers will change substantially, however.

Conclusion: items (1) and (2) are pretty much no-brainers one learns when reading the article. I think (3) is pretty obvious to most people as well.

Anyways, that's the reason why I've been harping on the fact that she gave absolutely nothing to support her claims. Personally, I think the last link supports Walker's position, that the Unions are over-paid, over-benefited, etc after this work.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Poll: Public employee unions have support

What was that the Tea Party was saying about "representing the people"? :D
Click to expand...

I wonder if the poll also asked if they had any idea what the laws already are in their states. Half of them have been living under the "oppression" of restricted collective bargaining for some/all public workers all their lives.. If it's so bad surely they didn't just now develop an opinion on the matter right?
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
I wonder if the poll also asked if they had any idea what the laws already are in their states. Half of them have been living under the "oppression" of restricted collective bargaining for some/all public workers all their lives.. If it's so bad surely they didn't just now develop an opinion on the matter right?
Click to expand...
Why not?
 
thaiboxerken said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because maybe the terrible consequences of removing collective bargaining for public workers are just sensationalist propaganda, and half these people have been perfectly content living under similar restrictions their whole lives without even noticing?
 
davefoc said:
My post didn't get the response I was hoping for. What I hoped was either Skeptic Ginger would just repost what her claims were and then Newtons bit could describe why he felt the evidence posted to support those claims didn't.

Or that Newtons bit could post an explicit statement of the claims that he thinks Skeptic Ginger is making and SG would either confirm or deny that she was making those claims.

I realize I'm being lazy here, I was just trying to understand this without sorting through a lot of gunge unrelated to the claims, support for the claims and refutation of the claims.
Click to expand...
I did tell you my position, it was ridiculously simple so perhaps you were expecting something more earthshaking.

"In short, the confused budget shortfall numbers has been discussed and clarified. The current 24 month fiscal budget has $137 million shortfall and the predicted shortfall for the subsequent 24 month fiscal budget is 2+ billion. Anyone reading the thread should be aware this has been clarified."


That's it.

Early on the budget was confusing and misstated by people on both sides. NB took an early misstatement that wasn't even mine. It was in a citation I posted. Certain people in the thread had already claimed, "gotcha" only to find out I had hunted down the correct figures many posts earlier.

Could I have just said so? I did. I said he was taking stuff out of context that had been discussed and to go read the discussion.

This was the umteenth thing I and others had provided BB evidence supporting. And in my case, after showing him where something had been addressed, he wanted me to do it again. How many old posts am I obligated to find for someone who we all know is not interested in a discussion, but only interested in repeating unsupported Repub talking points?
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Because maybe the terrible consequences of removing collective bargaining for public workers are just sensationalist propaganda, and half these people have been perfectly content living under similar restrictions their whole lives without even noticing?
Click to expand...

History shows us how bad life was without collective bargaining. Hell, even today we can see it in the sweat shops of China.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I am not really sure what giving furloughs to unions entails.
Click to expand...

Furloughs are a mandatory reduction of hours worked. Wisconsin has been doing this for a while, especially in the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) service centers. I live about two miles from the service center for this area. It used to be open five days a week, now it's only open one day a week. I think the DNR took the hit first because so many gas stations and hardware stores sell fishing and hunting licenses now, there's really no need for a government outpost to exist to do the same thing. Hell, nowadays you can buy a fishing license, minnows and a can of Skoal at Monster Joe's Gas-n-Go at 3 am if you want to.
 
Howie Felterbush said:
Furloughs are a mandatory reduction of hours worked. Wisconsin has been doing this for a while, especially in the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) service centers. I live about two miles from the service center for this area. It used to be open five days a week, now it's only open one day a week. I think the DNR took the hit first because so many gas stations and hardware stores sell fishing and hunting licenses now, there's really no need for a government outpost to exist to do the same thing. Hell, nowadays you can buy a fishing license, minnows and a can of Skoal at Monster Joe's Gas-n-Go at 3 am if you want to.
Click to expand...
In Illinois Gov. Quinn got tough, and said he was going to save the state money by making unionized workers take a furlough day (non-unionized workers already had to take a furlough). Then the unions squawked, so Quinn settled on a compromise: the union members could use a personal day or a vacation day for their furlough. A paid furlough.

How this saved the state money, only Quinn and the unions can tell. But to hear the unions tell it they made a huge sacrafice... :boggled:
 
WildCat said:
In Illinois Gov. Quinn got tough, and said he was going to save the state money by making unionized workers take a furlough day (non-unionized workers already had to take a furlough). Then the unions squawked, so Quinn settled on a compromise: the union members could use a personal day or a vacation day for their furlough. A paid furlough.

How this saved the state money, only Quinn and the unions can tell. But to hear the unions tell it they made a huge sacrafice... :boggled:
Click to expand...

Look at the bright side, WildCat. Your state is now a safe haven for legislators on the lam. You guys should triple your hotel rates; you'd make a killing. Maybe the next time something like this goes down here in Wisconsin, you can host our Republicans for a couple of weeks. Plus, we have an exciting array of third-party wackos up here, maybe we'll send you a few of those, too.

You gotta be bipartisan, you know. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom