USA Today Report: Wisconsin one of 41 states where public workers earn more

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 2:15 PM GMT

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm

    Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Still, the compensation of Wisconsin's government workers ranks below the national average for non-federal public employees and has increased only slightly since 2000.

    The finding comes as the Midwestern state remains in the center of efforts by several governors to reduce budget shortfalls in part by requiring state and local government workers to pay more for health and retirement benefits.

    The standoff reaches a crucial point today when Republican Gov. Scott Walker presents a proposed budget for the year beginning July 1. He says layoffs of state workers may begin if the Legislature does not adopt his proposal to curb collective-bargaining rights of public workers and require them to pay a higher share of the cost of benefits.

    The analysis of government data found that public employees' compensation has grown faster than the earnings of private workers since 2000. Primary cause: the rising value of benefits.

    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. The state ranked 33rd in public employee compensation among the states and Washington, D.C. It had ranked 20th in 2000.

    In contrast, California's public employees enjoyed soaring compensation throughout that state's decade-long budget crisis.

    The analysis included full and part-time workers and did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience. In an earlier job-to-job comparison, USA TODAY found that state and local government workers make about the same salary as those in the private sector but get more generous benefits.

    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.

    Key state-by-state findings:

    •California. Public employee compensation rose 28% above the inflation rate from 2000 to 2009 to an average of $71,385 in 2009.

    •Nevada. Government employees earned an average of $17,815 more — or 35% — than private workers, the nation's biggest pay gap. The state's low-paying private jobs in tourism were the cause, says Bob Potts of the Center for Business and Economic Research at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    •Texas. The state ranked last in benefits for public employees. The state hasn't granted cost-of-living increases to most retirees since 2001.

    Some states that limit the right of public employees to unionize — such as Texas, Georgia and Virginia — pay less in compensation than the private sector. Massachusetts and New Hampshire generally permit unions but pay less than the private sector in those high-income states.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 2:18 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidand did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience.


    The key sentence. The analysis is completely worthless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 2:20 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness saidand did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience.


    The key sentence. The analysis is completely worthless.

    No - that assumes there is a significant variance between public and private employees in terms of education. It is something that should be clarified and might adjust results, but no basis to say completely worthless, especially when looking at the relative increases in each sector.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 2:34 PM GMT
    socalfitness said


    •Texas. The state ranked last in benefits for public employees. The state hasn't granted cost-of-living increases to most retirees since 2001.

    Some states that limit the right of public employees to unionize — such as Texas, Georgia and Virginia — pay less in compensation than the private sector. Massachusetts and New Hampshire generally permit unions but pay less than the private sector in those high-income states.
    Snicker snicker snicker...


    Wow: Texas Deficit Estimate Comes In Worse Than The Worst Expectations
    http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-budget-shortfall-2011-1
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Mar 01, 2011 2:45 PM GMT
    LMAO @ quoting USA Today as a crediatable, reliable, accurate news source.

    their stories are just long enough for the average bowel moment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 3:05 PM GMT
    Sure. First, Business and the Republicans have decimated the private middle class workers. Then they compare the public sector workers to them and say "see, how overpaid they are." Clever strategy.

    Americans need to re-unionize!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 3:19 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness saidand did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience.


    The key sentence. The analysis is completely worthless.

    No - that assumes there is a significant variance between public and private employees in terms of education. It is something that should be clarified and might adjust results, but no basis to say completely worthless, especially when looking at the relative increases in each sector.


    Utter nonsense. You're talking about a $1300 difference, which is ~3% of the total. This is *precisely* at the level such effects might explain.

    I repeat the "study" is amateurish and worthless.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 3:30 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness saidand did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience.


    The key sentence. The analysis is completely worthless.

    No - that assumes there is a significant variance between public and private employees in terms of education. It is something that should be clarified and might adjust results, but no basis to say completely worthless, especially when looking at the relative increases in each sector.


    Utter nonsense. You're talking about a $1300 difference, which is ~3% of the total. This is *precisely* at the level such effects might explain.

    I repeat the "study" is amateurish and worthless.

    In and of itself, the study has limitations. We would need to see results broken out or adjusted by education. There is no basis a priori to assume a difference in education levels, or even which way such a difference would favor. Also, if the study had compared the change in wages, that would also be significant and not depend on an educational breakout. This study cannot be looked at in isolation, but that does not make it worthless, unless you have an agenda.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Mar 01, 2011 4:18 PM GMT
    "in and of itself, the study has limitations"



    this is like saying glenn beck is a little nuts.

    sf, why do you even quote such tripe?

    it's something southbeach jane would quote.

    it's that bad.

    you have sunk down to southbeach's level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 5:06 PM GMT
    rnch said"in and of itself, the study has limitations"



    this is like saying glenn beck is a little nuts.

    sf, why do you even quote such tripe?

    it's something southbeach jane would quote.

    it's that bad.

    you have sunk down to southbeach's level.

    It is a study reported by a major publication. The pub carried and I included the paragraph critical of the study, so there was no cover up. While this single study does not necessarily provide a complete picture, it does provide some useful input. Typically, we get input from multiple sources showing different things, and we synthesize a conclusion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 01, 2011 5:49 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness saidand did not adjust for specific jobs, age, education or experience.


    The key sentence. The analysis is completely worthless.

    No - that assumes there is a significant variance between public and private employees in terms of education. It is something that should be clarified and might adjust results, but no basis to say completely worthless, especially when looking at the relative increases in each sector.


    Utter nonsense. You're talking about a $1300 difference, which is ~3% of the total. This is *precisely* at the level such effects might explain.

    I repeat the "study" is amateurish and worthless.

    In and of itself, the study has limitations. We would need to see results broken out or adjusted by education. There is no basis a priori to assume a difference in education levels, or even which way such a difference would favor. Also, if the study had compared the change in wages, that would also be significant and not depend on an educational breakout. This study cannot be looked at in isolation, but that does not make it worthless, unless you have an agenda.


    I have to admit I do have an agenda, although it's not the one you're insinuating. Rather, as a professional expert in statistics [specifically Bayesian inverse problem theory] I *really* want the media to be HONEST in presenting quantitative data. This "study" is dishonest in that it does not control for relevant and necessary variables.

    I REPEAT: the study is WORTHLESS and INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT.