[turtle777]

Lemme get this straight:

They work for a "company" that basically gives them a job for life, with almost no risk, they don't need to be productive, and it's paid by the idiots that make less than them (i.e. private sector employees).



Any more questions why we need radically smaller government ?

I'm so sick of the government leeches.

-t

[ghporter]

Note that your numbers are for "state and local" government employees. I wonder if BLS has numbers for federal employees...

And depending on the state, your state/local job could be anything but "a job for life." Some states have massive turnovers when the leading party gets voted out-all the way down to city level. Being registered to vote as one party and having the other party voted in could definitely suck in that sort of situation.

Of course considering how federal jobs work, you can get stuck in something that sucks like deep space for a very long time without hope of improvement-or anything like recognition or job satisfaction. While that doesn't seem to be a monetary thing, the intrinsic parts of a job are often MUCH more important than the concrete parts of its compensation.

[SpaceMonkey]

These days, state/local public sector employees are also increasingly vulnerable to mandatory furloughs.

[OAW]

First of all, a link for your graphs would be helpful. Second, the nature of the comparison is flawed. Well perhaps I shouldn't say "flawed", but one does need to know what the statistics are actually saying and not read into them more than that. For instance, generally when you and our other good friends on the right complain about "big government" you are typically referring to the federal government. So the first thing I'll point out is that the graph is talking about "state and local government" (SLG). You know ... just it case you missed that part. Beyond that, the graph appears to be comparing the average compensation for SLG workers versus private sector workers. The problem with such a comparison ... and the reason why it can be very misleading ... is that comparing SLG jobs to the entire private sector is not an apples to apples comparison. The entire private sector would contain people working for minimum wage at your local burger joint. Something that has no corresponding position in SLG. It contains people repairing roofs and waitresses and dishwashers. Again, jobs that have no corresponding position in SLG.

In order to do an apples to apples comparison, you would need to compare the average compensation for an SLG worker to the average salary of a private sector worker in a similar position. That is, a comparison between the average compensation of an IT worker in SLG compared to the average compensation of the IT worker in the private sector would be useful. And something tells me that when you do an apples to apples comparison you will find that the private sector pays considerably more.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

In order to do an apples to apples comparison, you would need to compare the average compensation for an SLG worker to the average salary of a private sector worker in a similar position. That is, a comparison between the average compensation of an IT worker in SLG compared to the average compensation of the IT worker in the private sector would be useful. And something tells me that when you do an apples to apples comparison you will find that the private sector pays considerably more.

Total compensation, incl. fringes, health-care and retirement pay ? I doubt it.

Plus, you need to factor in productivity. Public sector losses, hands down.

Plus, look at unpaid overtime. Heck, if you factor that in, there is no way public doesn't earn MUCH more.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

What exactly do you mean by productivity?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

First of all, a link for your graphs would be helpful.

Sorry. WSJ. The Government Pay Boom

The Government Pay Boom - WSJ.com

I like this, btw.

If government workers were underpaid, we'd expect high attrition rates, as they pursued better private opportunities. The reality is the opposite. Cato Institute economist Chris Edwards has analyzed Department of Labor statistics and found that private workers are three times more likely to quit their jobs than are government workers.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What exactly do you mean by productivity?

Output per labour hour input.

You can't convince me that the government employees are pushed as hard or harder than private sector employees.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Total compensation, incl. fringes, health-care and retirement pay ? I doubt it.

Plus, you need to factor in productivity. Public sector losses, hands down.

Plus, look at unpaid overtime. Heck, if you factor that in, there is no way public doesn't earn MUCH more.

-t

Again, until you list a comparison of average compensation by similar job position all of that is a moot point. Not trying to be difficult here ... just fair. You have lots of low-paying positions in the private sector that simply have no counterpart in SLG. That serves to drive down the "average" on the private sector side. That's not something that's based in politics. That's just, you know ... math.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Output per labour hour input.

You can't convince me that the government employees are pushed as hard or harder than private sector employees.

-t

If your starting position is that you can't be convinced, then no, I probably can't. My anecdotal experience is that there are roughly the same number of sloths in each.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If your starting position is that you can't be convinced, then no, I probably can't. My anecdotal experience is that there are roughly the same number of sloths in each.

Working in the private sector, and seeing the layoffs and downsizing of the last years, I tend to say you're wrong.

The public sector has increased employment, whereas the private sector decreased employment.

Now, guess who the private sector fired: the best, or the worst ?
And now guess who the public sector picked up from those that got fired by he private sector.

Voila.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Except unemployment went up, so clearly the public sector has not soaked up all of the private sector's detritus.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Except unemployment went up, so clearly the public sector has not soaked up all of the private sector's detritus.

This is true, but doesn't take away from my point.

But it clearly illustrates the problem, and that the path we're on is unsustainable.

-t

[besson3c]

So what is the point of this thread?

The things that the public sector are most appropriate at providing and the things provided through the private sector generally don't compete or overlap with one another (that is, there is no firefighter company that I'm aware of, etc.). The idea of government jobs being at least a little cushier is pretty widely understood, I think, and not really disputed.

You have a really strange and bizarre thing about the the government, turtle, at least the way you direct these sorts of rants.

[turtle777]

The point is: we can't afford big government, and we can't afford lower-productivity gov't employees to make that much more money.

Of course, this is not a problem for you, since you don't see how debt is a problem, and how all these nice government services have to be financed.

-t

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You have a really strange and bizarre thing about the the government, turtle, at least the way you direct these sorts of rants.

No, bessie, the difference is that turtle believes in the Constitution, the very limited government it mandates, and the high amount of liberty it provides for by constraining the federal government to core, enumerated functions. You, who come from a Canadian political tradition, obviously don't have those attitudes, so to you limited government is apparently a foreign concept. It isn't to us.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The point is: we can't afford big government, and we can't afford lower-productivity gov't employees to make that much more money.

Of course, this is not a problem for you, since you don't see how debt is a problem, and how all these nice government services have to be financed.

-t

So how is this actionable?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, bessie, the difference is that turtle believes in the Constitution, the very limited government it mandates, and the high amount of liberty it provides for by constraining the federal government to core, enumerated functions. You, who come from a Canadian political tradition, obviously don't have those attitudes, so to you limited government is apparently a foreign concept. It isn't to us.

Is medicare, social security, public education, etc. etc. unconstitutional in your mind, and if it is, what do we do? How is this actionable?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c

So how is this actionable?

Particularly given OAW's complaints above.

[lpkmckenna]

If you Americans would like smaller gov't, you could start by downsizing your bloated military.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

If you Americans would like smaller gov't, you could start by downsizing your bloated military.

Is it true that we have tens of thousands of military of various sorts still stationed in Germany and Japan? If so, why?

[SpaceMonkey]

Inertia and force projection.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Inertia and force projection.

Why do we need that, why those numbers, and why those countries?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

No, bessie, the difference is that turtle believes in the Constitution, the very limited government it mandates, and the high amount of liberty it provides for by constraining the federal government to core, enumerated functions. You, who come from a Canadian political tradition, obviously don't have those attitudes, so to you limited government is apparently a foreign concept. It isn't to us.

I thought this thread was about state and local governments

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is medicare, social security, public education, etc. etc. unconstitutional in your mind, and if it is, what do we do? How is this actionable?

1. Medicare: Unconstitutional
2. Social Security: Unconstitutional
3. Public Education: Unconstitutional at the federal level

I think we've already discussed my views on Medicare and Social Security. They both need to be radically reformed and brought toward the free market, but sadly we're doing the opposite with the passage of Obama-Care. Congressman Paul Ryan has solutions for both that I like, and he also had a great proposal for health care reform that included reform of Medicare. The federal government has no business running any of those enterprises. At most it is authorized to manage interstate commerce between the states so that there's a true national private market for those services, but it should not be running these programs directly.

Public education is constitutional at the state level. At the federal level those bureaucrats shouldn't have much to do, although some minimum standards for public education are justifiable (IMO) because poor educational standards do have an effect on interstate commerce.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I thought this thread was about state and local governments

I'm pretty sure turtle's point was about the public sector generally, which would definitely include the federal level.

[Osedax]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Is it true that we have tens of thousands of military of various sorts still stationed in Germany and Japan? If so, why?

Having all of our military at home wouldn't make them very responsive to needs around the globe.

As well, Japan helps pay for the military bases in Japan. (~$2 billion in 2007).

I'm not sure if we have a similar arrangement with Germany.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Particularly given OAW's complaints above.

Psssssstttt. Addressing those "complaints" would be too much like right. So of course, that's not going to happen.

OAW

PS: And pretty soon the thread will degenerate into rants against the federal government when the graphic was about state and local governments. You know ... the same ones that these same people in other threads say should be performing the functions that the federal government isn't constitutionally authorized to do.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

1. Medicare: Unconstitutional
2. Social Security: Unconstitutional
3. Public Education: Unconstitutional at the federal level

I think we've already discussed my views on Medicare and Social Security. They both need to be radically reformed and brought toward the free market, but sadly we're doing the opposite with the passage of Obama-Care. Congressman Paul Ryan has solutions for both that I like, and he also had a great proposal for health care reform that included reform of Medicare. The federal government has no business running any of those enterprises. At most it is authorized to manage interstate commerce between the states so that there's a true national private market for those services, but it should not be running these programs directly.

Public education is constitutional at the state level. At the federal level those bureaucrats shouldn't have much to do, although some minimum standards for public education are justifiable (IMO) because poor educational standards do have an effect on interstate commerce.

I'm pretty sure turtle's point was about the public sector generally, which would definitely include the federal level.

My point is what is and what isn't constitutional is in most cases just rhetoric, often from people (unlike yourself) who don't know much about the constitution in the first place.

The constitution is not an instruction manual for how government should be run today. It's a framework, and it is often a great illuminator, reminder, valuable reference, but the constitution has nothing to say about credit default swaps and the like because those things didn't exist back then. You can get into treating a credit default swap as a form of fraud, but then you won't even find agreement from everybody whether it even is a form of fraud in the first place.

Moreover, all of this philosophy and role of government conversation is fine, but it also has to be actionable. If politicians are going to have a cow about reforming health care to something resembling what Mitt Romney did (that is, a system based entirely on the free market and free market competition), is it really practical to go on about disbanding social security altogether and replacing it with something else? The something else might be a wonderful option in every way, but it is just not going to happen because Americans generally don't like big magnitude changes. The point here is arguments about whether this program that a group is lobbying to reform is constitutional or not don't really change this much if Joe Sixpack cannot translate this into his modern times reality.

Since Joe Sixpack probably can't grapple with really learning the constitution and why it is relevant and pertinent to this issue - that is why something is unconstitutional and why he/she should care, these arguments have little value, and like I said, most of the time they come in the form of manipulative rhetoric anyway. That is, I don't like this idea = unconstitutional, or I don't like this war = illegal and unconstitutional (which is what Cindy Sheehan or somebody in her group used to claim, IIRC).

[Big Mac]

You make good points, there, besson, but I disagree with your belief that constitutionality is too difficult a concept for most to grasp. It's really pretty simple. The first question to ask is, do you agree or disagree that the Constitution mandates a limited federal government? Some cretins like Senator Feinstein believe it does not - she believes that Congress is a general legislature, and whatever it decides to legislate on is de facto constitutional. If that's the belief being considered, then there's no room for debate.

The second question to ask is (if you can get to the second question), given that you agree the Constitution sets limits on the scope of the federal government, how do you justify the constitutionality of a given piece of legislation? The left does not want to get into this argument, it's plain to see, because if there were a serious, honest national debate on the subject they know they would lose. They're worried about several states' attorney generals challenging the constitutionality of Obama-Care, and one of the things they've said is that if Obama-Care's constitutionality is challenged then you can also challenge the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare. BING BING BING, they got a prize - that's exactly correct!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You make good points, there, besson, but I disagree with your belief that constitutionality is too difficult a concept for most to grasp. It's really pretty simple. The first question to ask is, do you agree or disagree that the Constitution mandates a limited federal government? Some cretins like Senator Feinstein believe it does not - she believes that Congress is a general legislature, and whatever it decides to legislate on is de facto constitutional. If that's the belief being considered, then there's no room for debate.

It's not that simple. Our federal government is not limited when it comes to the military. The military is freaking massive, and some would say bloated, but few would say "limited". If your response is how the military is constitutionally approved, that is exactly my point, this gets back to precisely what the role of the government is and ought to be, and bringing what the constitution says into the picture often doesn't help sell this to Joe Sixpack or anybody else so long as rhetoric is overblown.

[Big Mac]

Granted, the military is huge, but at least national defense is an enumerated power granted to the federal government by the Constitution!

[OAW]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Constitution means whatever the h*ll the Supreme Court says it means. They are the final arbiters as to what is "constitutional" or not. It's their fundamental role in the federal government. The Supreme Court has yet to rule that Social Security or Medicare or whatever other federal program one wants to name is "unconstitutional". And it has had DECADES to do so. So quibbling over whether or not such activities are "constitutional" is an exercise in pedantry at best.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Granted, the military is huge, but at least national defense is an enumerated power granted to the federal government by the Constitution!

The US spends more money per annum on its military than the next 20 nations combined. Moreover, considering our military posture around the globe one can credibly argue that our military has gone well above and beyond being a Department of Defense. Of the approx. 25 armed conflicts the US has been involved in starting with the War of Independence, perhaps 6 were "defensive" in nature.

OAW

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Constitution means whatever the h*ll the Supreme Court says it means. They are the final arbiters as to what is "constitutional" or not. It's their fundamental role in the federal government. The Supreme Court has yet to rule that Social Security or Medicare or whatever other federal program one wants to name is "unconstitutional". And it has had DECADES to do so. So quibbling over whether or not such activities are "constitutional" is an exercise in pedantry at best.

That's you're view - the view of the Left. But as I think has been discussed here, the Supreme Court is fallible and sometimes delivers bad decisions, like Plessey v. Ferguson. The final arbiter of what the Constitution means is the citizenry, namely the extent to which it rejects unconstitutional encroachments on liberty.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

That's you're view - the view of the Left. But as I think has been discussed here, the Supreme Court is fallible and sometimes delivers bad decisions, like Plessey v. Ferguson. The final arbiter of what the Constitution means is the citizenry, namely the extent to which it rejects unconstitutional encroachments on liberty.

Some things are opinion and some things are fact my friend. With Plessy vs. Ferguson the Supreme Court decided in 1896 that "separate but equal" was "constitutional". And as a result, that was the law of the land (in those areas that decided to implement segregation) for 58 years until the Supreme Court repudiated that doctrine with its Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. This is not a "left" or a "right" issue. The historical record shows this to be the case. "Separate but equal" wasn't "unconstitutional" because the segments of the citizenry disliked it. Certainly many people disliked it and rejected the very notion of it. They considered it "wrong" ... maybe even "evil". But it wasn't "unconstitutional" until the Supreme Court said so.

IOW ... whether something is "constitutional" or not is a LEGAL determination. It is not a MORAL determination. I'm sure there are multitudes of men who have been bent over in divorce court who could tell you that what is "legal" and what is "right" can be two different things.

OAW

[Big Mac]

Constitutionality is a legal distinction, I agree. But saying whatever government says is constitutional must be constitutional (even including the Supreme Court's holding on any given case) and leaving it at that is a cop out and an abrogation of one's duty as a citizen. The Court is a political institution, susceptible to contemporary political trends. The Constitution is higher and means more than what nine black robes say it means. It is the bequeathed property of every American citizen, so every citizen has a stake in how it's interpreted and how the government operates in accordance or at variance with it.

[Trekkie]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

If you Americans would like smaller gov't, you could start by downsizing your bloated military.

Military ≠ government. Speaking of bloated, I don't hear Canada's government complaining about all the money they're able to spend on healthcare instead of a larger military since the US would never let anything happen to our brothers from the North.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Constitutionality is a legal distinction, I agree. But saying whatever government says is constitutional must be constitutional (even including the Supreme Court's holding on any given case) and leaving it at that is a cop out and an abrogation of one's duty as a citizen. The Court is a political institution, susceptible to contemporary political trends. The Constitution is higher and means more than what nine black robes say it means. It is the bequeathed property of every American citizen, so every citizen has a stake in how it's interpreted and how the government operates in accordance or at variance with it.

I think you are arguing a point that is not in dispute Big Mac. Indeed the citizenry does have a stake in how the Constitution is interpreted. If they take issue with the Court's decisions their recourse is to elect a President who can appoint like minded individuals to the Court ... and Senators who will confirm them. Of course, this is a process that takes time ... by design. The Founders did not envision the Court being subject to the whims and fickleness of popular opinion over the short term. But over time ... the Court has been brought along to reflect the changing norms and attitudes of the public. As the Brown vs. Board of Education decision which overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson reflects.

But in the meantime ... "constitutionality" in the legal sense is determined by the Supreme Court. Just ask those people sitting in jail because they deemed the income tax to be "unconstitutional" themselves.

OAW

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Granted, the military is huge, but at least national defense is an enumerated power granted to the federal government by the Constitution!

And the military is the biggest portion of the federal budget by far, and that was brought to you by a man who labeled himself as a conservative Republican.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Lemme get this straight:

They work for a "company" that basically gives them a job for life, with almost no risk, they don't need to be productive, and it's paid by the idiots that make less than them (i.e. private sector employees).



Any more questions why we need radically smaller government ?

I'm so sick of the government leeches.

-t

Now compare the wages of Capitalist America versus Communist China.

Apples to Oranges comparison.

I'm sure the millions of fast food jobs and sales person jobs bring down the average salary for corporate America.

McDonalds and Walmart anyone?

Walmart employees - 1.2 million
Walmart sales associate salary - $8.78/hr average
Walmart cashier salary - $8.41/hr average
Walmart associate salary - $8.59/hr average
Walmart Department manager - $11.14/hr average

http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Wal-...aries-E715.htm


McDonald employees - 400,000
Cashier - $7.48/hr
Crew Member - $7.58/hr
Fry Cook - $8.54/hr
Shift Manager - $9.73/hr


http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/McDo...aries-E432.htm

[turtle777]

I don't buy that argument.

You also have people in private companies that make millions. I don't think this exists in the public sector.

-t

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

And the military is the biggest portion of the federal budget by far, and that was brought to you by a man who labeled himself as a conservative Republican.

Military payroll is far from trivial, but it's not as huge as many would think. There are more civil service employees of DoD than people in uniform-by quite a bit. Any civil service job with the federal government is "secure" in most senses, but they are still not "job for life" material. And keep in mind that a majority of uniformed military people are "short timers," people who serve one or two enlistments then move on. That cuts down on the extended cost of benefits by quite a lot.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't buy that argument.

You also have people in private companies that make millions. I don't think this exists in the public sector.

-t

Whether or not you buy it, it introduces a variable (relative weights of high earners vs. low earners) that you have not accounted for in your analysis, casting doubt on your conclusion.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Military payroll is far from trivial, but it's not as huge as many would think. There are more civil service employees of DoD than people in uniform-by quite a bit. Any civil service job with the federal government is "secure" in most senses, but they are still not "job for life" material. And keep in mind that a majority of uniformed military people are "short timers," people who serve one or two enlistments then move on. That cuts down on the extended cost of benefits by quite a lot.

There's more to the military than payroll.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Output per labour hour input.

You can't convince me that the government employees are pushed as hard or harder than private sector employees.

-t

The fundamental problem is that government employees get to CREATE things to do, themselves, so they can be measured DOING THEM. There is absolutely no accountability in many levels of government because the bureaucrats have designed it that way. New regulations, new enforcement initiatives, very rarely do we see the effects of these things, but they're something that bureaucrats can point to as "we're doing something."

Alternatively, they can b*tch about time on task, or "we get here before everyone and leave after." Never a concern about whether the task gets done properly, or whether it even needs to be done, but lots of focus on "look how hard we're working for YOU." Unbelievable.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I don't buy that argument.

You also have people in private companies that make millions. I don't think this exists in the public sector.

-t

But there's a whole lot more people who are making Walmart & McDonald's money than there are who are making millions. That does, in fact, significantly affect the average compensation of workers in the private sector. So again, that's just, you know ... math.

The bottom line here is that in order to do a fair comparison you have to compare the average salary of workers in the public and private sectors by similar job position. Otherwise, the point you are trying to make simply doesn't hold water.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

This stuff really isn't that hard to look up.

First: most of these studies compare the same occupations and wages between public/private, not "all the McWorkers vs. government lawyers. Also, yes Virginia, there are plenty of 'crap' jobs like janitors and cooks in the public sector too. So that 'argument' is moot.

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

The typical federal worker is paid 20% more than a private-sector worker in the same occupation.

Median annual salary:
Federal Private Difference
$66,591 $55,500 $11,091

Sources: Bureau of Labor statistics, USA TODAY analysis

I know it's a tough pill for the gang of government sycophants to swallow, but YES Virginia, big government extracts from you what you're always whining about big business not giving you, in order to pay for the endless bureaucracy some of you seem (for some unfathomable reason) to be both in love with, and likewise completely ignorant of the true scale. So go ahead and cheer-lead for more and more bloated government at the cost of more and more private sector gutting, but at least be somewhat aware of what exactly you're cheerleading for.

[SpaceMonkey]

The other traditional rationale for perhaps higher salaries in the government is that there is often less room for advancement.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The other traditional rationale for perhaps higher salaries in the government is that there is often less room for advancement.

And why would you need to compensate for that ?
If somebody was truly brilliant enough to advance, he would, or could always change to the private sector.

Along the same line, private sector employees don't get a "bonus" for getting little job security and meager fringes.

-t

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And why would you need to compensate for that ?
If somebody was truly brilliant enough to advance, he would, or could always change to the private sector.

If government agencies don't want their people leaving for the private sector, then obviously they would need to compensate for that.

I don't know what you mean by your second point.