USA Today runs a poor story this morning that says its analysis finds that government workers make more in total compensation (wages plus benefits) than private-sector workers in forty-one states.
And so it does, but this is a case when stats are very misleading.
Amazingly, USA Today doesn’t take into account factors like education that account for the differences in government and private-sector pay. This is a basic flaw, and one that’s hard to figure after all the other stories we’ve seen about this topic. This is just hamfisted here:
Wisconsin is typical. State, city and school district workers earned an average of $50,774 in wages and benefits in 2009, about $1,800 more than in the private sector.
While USA Today does nod to a criticism of this kind of superficial “analysis,” it’s still not good enough—at all:
Economist Jeffrey Keefe of the liberal Economic Policy Institute says the analysis is misleading because it doesn’t reflect factors such as education that result in higher pay for public employees.
As we saw the other day, a lot of those public employees are, say, teachers. Teachers have to have college degrees. People with college degrees get paid more on average than people without college degrees. Nationwide, 54 percent of government workers have at least a four-year degree compared to just 35 percent of private-sector workers.
It’s comparing apples to oranges to run numbers like USA Today does here without putting them in proper context.
Dean Baker shows how silly this analysis is with a good point:
The gap in compensation (pay and benefits) highlighted in the USA Today article could be eliminated if governments made a point of replacing work that is often contracted to outside businesses (e.g. cafeterias in government buildings, custodial work in government buildings and groundskeeping on government properties) with government employees. By increasing the ratio of less educated workers to more highly educated workers (e.g. teachers, nurses, and doctors) state governments can eliminate the sort of pay gap that concerns USA Today.
I disagree with that last point in your quote of Mr. Baker. In fact, I think you'd find that there would remain a substantial pay gap. And that pay gap would represent the value added by collective bargaining. It's a fact that unionized workers generally have higher wages and better benefit packages than non-union workers. That's what unions are for. The pay gap among similar job descriptions between union and non-union would remain, because that's why groups of workers engage in collective bargaining: for better wages and benefits.
People -- working people -- who resent the higher wages and benefits that unionized workplaces offer might consider gathering their colleagues together and trying to negotiate as a group with their management for better wages and benefits package.
Not only is such collective bargaining beneficial for the group of workers, but it's also beneficial (and cheaper in the long run) for management to have a loyal, highly trained and experienced staff. It's more expensive in the long run to have poorly educated, poorly paid, resentful, throwaway workers with high turnover. Corporate America unlearned that lesson back in the 1980's.
And they have gotten the dumbass rightwinger crazies bamboozled into demanding lower wages and no benefits for themselves, their families, and their colleagues. Go figure.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 06:43 PM
Not to change the subject, but one thing I haven't seen addressed is the media blackout of the ongoing protests and union voices. When you have to go to russia today to see Wisconsin protests unfold:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mI--Ar8Ry0
and you have to "mount a targeted campaign to push for a single labor leader to appear and speak on a cable news show, to counter the parade of conservative governors and pundits."
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/01/union-links-and-anti-union-links/
when, not to long ago, tea party protestors could get national coverage for every bussed in event their D.B. Norton benefactors could sponsor, it makes you wonder.
Liberal Media?
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 07:55 PM
Once again, apples and blueberries.
How does their pay compare with private counterparts on an equal basis. How much does a CPA make working for a Milwaukee accounting firm and how much does a CPA working for the city of Milwaukee make? How much does a 4th grade public school teacher with X qualifications compare to a 4th grade teacher at a Catholic school in a similar geographic region. I can tell you why guys like Baker don't even bother to ask the question: they are afraid to see just how big the discrepancy is on a real apples to apples basis. And speaking of discrepancies, how is it that private and religious schools routinely trounce their public counterparts in every metric except $/pupil?
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 08:13 PM
One of the sources people are turning to for labor coverage are the labor sites (which are not the most unbiased sites, you don't have to tell me. But when the options are limited, you take the options you have).
Which is why some folks were hiring the computer warfare folks to target pro-union groups.
ArsTechnica (not CBS or the NYTimes) has the latest on the HBGary saga:
Rootkits as a tool of government and profit:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/black-ops-how-hbgary-wrote-backdoors-and-rootkits-for-the-government.ars/
And the push for a mini Church Committee look into the whole kaboodle.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/democrats-push-for-congressional-investigation-of-hbgary-federal.ars
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 08:14 PM
Hmm. Using data from the BLS, an accountant working in Sector 55 - Management of Companies and Enterprises (55--56) has the following wage range:
Annual Mean: $66,330
Annual Median: $60,650
Annual 10th Percentile: $39,250
Annual 90th Percentile: $101,140
For Local government including schools and hospitals (999301):
Annual Mean: $57,620
Annual Median: $54,960
Annual 10th Percentile: $36,120
Annual 90th Percentile: $84,280
We have already established that professionals in government earn less than professionals in private industry. so you picked a couple of bad examples, there, pal.
We cannot compare the wages of professional, certificated teachers with private school teachers because private school teachers do not have the same education and certification requirements as public school teachers.
You can play around with wage comparisons here. Educate yourself.
http://data.bls.gov/oes/search.jsp?data_tool=OES
As to the other assertions, they have been litigated and argued ad infinitum since the 1980s. It's a boring discussion and absolutely meaningless to boot. You ought to ask your taskmasters for a new script.
Here's a question for you. Wisconsin teachers make around $50,000 on average per year. How much do you think they should make? $20,000? $30,000?
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 09:03 PM
We have already established that professionals in government earn less than professionals in private industry. so you picked a couple of bad examples, there, pal.
The BLS data does not include benefits so you really havent established anything other than your googling abiliites.
We cannot compare the wages of professional, certificated teachers with private school teachers because private school teachers do not have the same education and certification requirements as public school teachers/i>
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee has the same requirements for its teachers that the Milwaukee public schools system does. And of you dont want to compare wages, lets compare results shall we?
How much do you think they should make? $20,000? $30,000?
If they would work for that little, that would be great. It would save me thousands on my property taxes. Which, at the end of the day, is really all government should be concerned with: providing the highest quality service for the lowest cost possible.
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 09:25 PM
You want apples to apples? Okay then. Let's compare teachers to teachers elsewhere in the world.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/teacher-pay-around-the-world/
And why do private schools out perform public schools? Two reasons, class size
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/class-size-around-the-world/
and selection.
Why do private insurance companies make billions of dollars while Medicare is losing money? Because medicare has to take everybody, rich poor, healthy near death.
Private companies can take the healthiest customers.
High achievers with the disposable income to afford private schools often have high achievers as children. Private schools offer smaller class sizes to children selected by parental income or by academic ability (scholarships) to perform.
Public schools have big class sizes from an unselected population from which the cream is skimmed off by private schools. Private teachers are compensated less, but their environment and support is completely different from public schools. If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, using achievement records between private and public isn't the best way to go about it.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 10:20 PM
"Which, at the end of the day, is really all government should be concerned with: providing the highest quality service for the lowest cost possible."
Pick one. Your demands are mutually exclusive.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 10:32 PM
You want apples to apples? Okay then. Let's compare teachers to teachers elsewhere in the world.
And what does that demonstrate? That out of the OCED nations, the US pays it teachers above average and has some of the wost performing test scores? Thats not really helping your case here. Interesting though, public scool teachers work only 1100 hours a year on average?!? Sounds like a part time job.
High achievers with the disposable income to afford private schools often have high achievers as children. Private schools offer smaller class sizes to children selected by parental income or by academic ability (scholarships) to perform.
I can tell you dont have any experience with private education. You seem to be under the impression that all private education = Riverdale Country School, Elisabeth Irwin, Latin School of Chicago, Choate. The vast majority, like 90% +, of private K-12 schools are run by the Catholic Church and they aint exclusive. Trust me on that. They are filled with a very broad cross section of America. The Catholic schools I went to were filled with the children of welders, pipefitters, millwirghts, architects, car salesmen, computer programmers, nurses and, most ironically, lots of public school teachers ... exactly like the Catholic elementary school I send my kids to.
You are right about the ability to compare test scores though ... it can be difficult to measure when the metrics are so different. The high scool I went to had an average ACT score just over 24 in 2009, while the local public school was just under 23. Not much of difference until you consider all of the students at my alma mater took the ACT while only 80% took it at the public school. The best part though, was the fact that my alma matter did it for only 55% of the per pupil cost of its public school equivalent.
Now granted, they dont have defined benefit retirement packages for thier employees, a big swimming pool, field house, laptops for every student, a dozen administrators making $200K + or free bus service. Its a wonder that a school so strapped for resources can even manage to graduate kids who can read. But the proof, as it were, is in the pudding.
#9 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 10:57 PM
Pick one. Your demands are mutually exclusive.
Hmmm ... that must explain why private schools pay less and produce better educated students.
#10 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 1 Mar 2011 at 11:03 PM
"Hmmm ... that must explain why private schools pay less and produce better educated students."
O'rly?
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.asp
Better environments, smaller class sizes produce better students.
Teacher pay is only a factor as higher teacher pay attracts more adept professionals.
But those same professionals are driven away by shoddy working conditions. They may go work for private schools. They may switch professions.
But the problems with schools are not as related to teacher compensation as they are related to administrative and political deprivation to the system.
There are good public schools, there are bad private schools, each which work within a system that determines the outcome.
That is one of the reasons why house prices inflated in many markets. If the schools had a good system, parents would pay anything to place their kids in there.
Instead of grousing about teacher salaries and pensions, people should be looking at successful school systems and trying to emulate what works.
Just saying "slishity slash" improves nothing and degrades what little you have.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 2 Mar 2011 at 12:18 AM
What's the Wisconsin teacher's in-class/office requirement compared to the time-off allowances for private workers? Something Ryan overlooks, big surprise. A lot of people, particularly women, go into teaching because of this greater flexibility and free time. I know that teachers work at home a lot - but a lot of people would like to be able to do some of their job at home.
Beyond teachers, the state and municipal workers I know usually have civil service protections - a factor which has seldom been mentioned within my hearing in these 'comparison' stories. It's not unusual to encounter a state or city worker who has been at his job for 25-30. This is much less usual in the private sector, where job security is harder to come by.
If Ryan were at the top of his game, he would be asking about the total work life picture. Are public-school teachers, for the total extent of their careers, worse off at retirement than other college-educated professionals? Is there a teacher shortage as a result? Seems to me that the competition for public-school teaching jobs is intense. How can that be, if you are better off getting a degree in something else? Just asking.
#12 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 2 Mar 2011 at 12:42 PM
First of all, there is nothing wrong with making decent wages. And decent wages for someone with a post-graduate education can be $50,000 a year, actually below the median US salary. And, there is nothing whatever wrong with having a benefit package that includes pension, health insurance, cost-of-living adjustments, a career track up the ladder, and job security.
Why everyone seems to be breaking their butts trying to prove that career public employees don't get this makes no sense. Careers in the private sector also offer these kinds of compensation packages. That's a good thing. Okay? It's become rather silly for everyone to try to prove to these seething rightwing extremists that career public employees jobs are somehow just exactly like the lowest, worst jobs in the private sector.
You angry, seething rightwingers don't like it, tough shit. You are in the fringe minority, okay? Most people think a good job with decent wages and benefits for a professional teacher is okay, and they like teachers. Okay? Most people value the work of a teaching professional. You don't, fine, you have every right to your opinion, but you are a fringe, nasty, hideous minority in America.
#13 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 2 Mar 2011 at 02:59 PM
Ryan, CJR's in house NEA lobbyist, once again refuses to quantify the disparity in the amount of work actually performed by teachers and the amount of work performed by those in the private sector.
It's funny (funny, strange, not funny, ha-ha) that we should "address such factors as education" in distinguishing public and private workers, yet we chose to ignore the time that these workers put in on the job.
Of course, the NEA defense would not suffer such an analysis- clearly, when the amount of time teachers spend off from work is accounted for, the average Wisconsin teacher would earn the equivalent of nearly $100,000 per year in salary and benefits.
#14 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 07:13 AM
lol, stay classy, there, James.
#15 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 12:23 PM
Thimbles, yeah really. You didnt read your report too closely, did you?
You angry, seething rightwingers don't like it, tough shit. You are in the fringe minority, okay?
Well, James, as our beloved leader said, "elections have consequences" and this time we wone. See you in November 2012.
#16 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 12:40 PM
Thimbles - They are NOT mutually exclusive. Did you fail economics classes? Or are you one of those people who believe that the quality of, say, a car is entirely dependent on how much you paid for it? For instance, is a $20,000 automobile inherently better than a $15,000 automobile simply because someone charges $5,000 more for it?
Also, you are obviously not in business. If you were, you would know that the goal of producing the best possible product for the least amount of money is the ideal of EVERY honest businessman who has ever lived. Now, please, I hope I'm not losing you here. See, I'm not saying that the goals are either a) producing the best possible product or b) producing a product at the lowest cost. Rather, in the real world in which most of us operate, it is the result of a tradeoff: You have only so much money to invest in a product. Your customer has only so much money to spend on the product you produce. Therefore, you try to reach the point at which the customer is willing to pay a little more than what you are willing to invest. Voila - we have profit.
While profit motive doesn't translate well in the public sector, the goal of efficiency and productivity should be the ideal. Hence, it works like this: You have only so much tax money (read: OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY) to work with to hire teachers to staff your schools. The teachers, however, have a price at which they are willing to actually show up. As anyone in business knows, that price is usually well below what they actually say they desire initially. So, you need to play a little hardball and work them down to a number that meets your available tax revenue and makes the teachers comfortable to come in and do their work and be productive.
So, you see: The best possible product at the lowest possible price.
Hope I didn't hurt your brain too much.
#17 Posted by JB, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 10:58 PM
"Thimbles, yeah really. You didnt read your report too closely, did you?"
You mean the parts where they claimed between private and public, "After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was near zero and not significant. In the second set of analyses, Catholic schools and Lutheran schools were each compared to all public schools." over and over again?
There are differences in the student body and there are differences in the class sizes.
"The teachers, however, have a price at which they are willing to actually show up. As anyone in business knows, that price is usually well below what they actually say they desire initially. So, you need to play a little hardball and work them down to a number that meets your available tax revenue and makes the teachers comfortable to come in and do their work and be productive."
I think you'll find that many of those teachers were at that number a long time ago, which is why some school systems have to pay 10,000 dollar bonuses to get a warm body in the room, and that the states maintaining the lowest costs have the lowest grades on the assessments.
I am fully aware of business principles and I am aware of what it costs to manufacture a quality product. (I run a profitable business, thanks.)
It requires investment in inputs to produce quality outputs: textbooks, school facilities, special classes for children with special needs (and the professionals to teach them), decent meals (well prepared school lunches, not processed, USDA surplus crap where ketchup counts as a vegetable), ESL classes for children lacking required english, music, arts, computers, all the things that are cut back on while trying to grind out the lowest price for a child's well being, because your present tax dollar is sooooo goddamn important in comparison to to the education of your future generation.
If teaching is such an easy profession, try it yourself under the demands the system puts teachers under these days. Show us how it's done.
Again, teacher salaries are a small component of low achievement, systemic problem. Find the schools that work and incorporate their models, improve on them even. That's what you do when you are serious about improving the quality of education of children.
When you are not serious about improving quality, you break teacher's unions even when they agree to the salary demands cut cut billions to the education budget so you can make room for tax breaks. Those people don't care about students AT ALL. They just want their precious tax money. I don't care to hear from these people because they have no solutions to the problems in American education because they aren't interested in any. They are motivated by their wallet size to the exclusion of their children.
Which is kind of sick.
#18 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 11:41 PM
And kind of stupid to because the money you save on schools now, is money you'll be spending on jails later.
And jail cost per prisoner exceeds any cost suggested per teacher.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Mar 2011 at 11:45 PM
Argh, this is what I get when my time budget is limited between business and dialog.
What I meant to write:
You mean the parts where they claimed between private and public, "After adjusting for selected student characteristics, the difference in means was -4.5 and significantly different from zero. (Note that a negative difference implies that the average school mean was higher for public schools.) In the second set, Catholic schools and Lutheran schools were each compared to all public schools. The results, both with and without adjustments, were similar to the corresponding results for all private schools." over and over again?
There are differences in the student body and there are differences in the class sizes. The results when you adjust for that are not so different.
Oh and the best data I could find on education expense per pupil versus quality of education was here:
http://edmoney.newamerica.net/node/36914
There was some interesting patterns there as some states followed the trend of money = quality and others bucked that trend..
"For example, Wisconsin appears to get some of the best returns on its education spending compared to other states – it has a relatively low per pupil expenditure ($10,791 – just over the national average) but the highest graduation rate in the country (89.6 percent). Iowa and Minnesota, with slightly lower graduation rates (84.6 percent for both), also buck the trend with lower than average per pupil expenditures ($9,520 in Iowa and $10,048 in Minnesota)."
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Mar 2011 at 04:46 AM
I'm less certain of my theory that Thimbles is really Paul Krugman or his spouse. Now I'm thinking he is a writer named Charles Kaiser . . .
#21 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 9 Mar 2011 at 01:14 PM