Signs around country continue to show that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s contentious bill that would eliminate collective bargaining in most cases for public employees has done precisely what we suggested it would do a few weeks ago – mobilize the opposition.
According to recent polls, Scott Walker’s approval rating has plummeted recently. The latest poll from Rasmussen, a polling company itself accused of bias towards Republicans, shows that just 43% in Wisconsin support the job that Governor Walker is doing, while 57% have negative reviews. More concerning is that while just 34% strongly approve of the job he is doing, 48% strongly disapprove.
Making matters worse, yesterday, were images of police tackling State Representative Nick Milroy to the ground as he attempted to enter the Wisconsin Capitol Building on Thursday night.
“I was aggressive in attempting to enter the building,” Rep. Milroy told reporters. “Law enforcement was aggressive in trying to keep me out.”
“This is supposed to be the people’s house and it should be open for business. People should have access to their legislators,” he said.
“Overall I think that law enforcement is doing a great job,” Rep. Milroy said. “I’m frustrated by what happened last [Thursday] night. But really, to me, law enforcement is just following the orders that are coming down from Governor Walker.”
In California, fallout is continuing from an Op-Ed that UC Regent David Crane wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle last weekend, opposing collective bargaining.
David Crane, a former adviser to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and current member of the UC Board of Regents, wrote, “In the private sector, collective bargaining is used to equalize the power of employees and employers.”
Mr. Crane wrote, “because state employees already had civil service protections, collective bargaining wasn’t needed to equalize their power with employers’ power. As a result, collective bargaining for public employees in California changed the balance of power and – most importantly – gave public employees power over their compensation and benefits.”
Making the matter more dicey is the fact that Mr. Crane was just appointed to the Board of Regents and is now subject to a confirmation vote by the Senate. He probably would have been a shoe-in for the position had he simply not opened his mouth.
On Friday, Senator Ted Lieu, Chair of the Labor and Industrial Relations Committee, issued a statement regarding the confirmation of Mr. Crane.
“I actively oppose the confirmation of David Crane as a UC Regent,” the Senator wrote. “I read Mr. Crane’s Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle in which he argues for the elimination of collective bargaining for public sector employees.”
He continued, “I cannot support someone for the powerful post of UC Regent who continues to perpetuate the myth that collective bargaining caused our state economic crisis and has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our state budget operates.”
Senate Lieu continues, “Mr. Crane argues that because of collective bargaining, ‘general fund spending on higher education, parks and environmental protection was flat or lower.’ As a matter of historical fact, that is false. Our general fund spending generally declined because of a national economic recession. The recession was not caused by collective bargaining or public sector unions, but by private sector, out of control Wall Street firms at the time.”
“The specific reason our general fund spending sharply declined was because the person Mr. Crane advised, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, reduced the Vehicle License Fee and replaced it with . . . nothing,” Senator Lieu wrote. “As a result, the state general fund lost over $5 to $6 billion in revenues per year for every year Mr. Schwarzenegger was in office. The VLF reduction has resulted in a total loss of over $30 billion to the state, an amount in excess of the current California budgetary shortfall.”
He continues, “Mr. Crane’s Op-Ed also discusses political spending by public sector unions. In his world view, political spending by the California Teachers Association is inappropriate, but the massive political spending by the Koch Brothers would presumably be acceptable.”
He concludes, “I cannot, and will not, support someone for the post of UC Regent who blames public sector employees, such as teachers, for somehow being responsible for our economic crisis or the resulting decline in general fund spending. We need UC Regents who are interested in solving problems, not those who twist historical facts to suit an ideological agenda.”
Senator Lieu is the second Democrat in the Senate to take issue with Mr. Crane’s remarks. As reported earlier this week, Senator Leland Yee also took umbrage at Mr. Crane’s op-ed.
“I thought we had already seen the height of arrogance by UC Regents,” said Senator Yee. “It is time for Regent Crane to put away his Wisconsin playbook and come down from his ivory tower.”
“While the Regents have approved million dollar contracts for their top administrators, they allow many UC workers and their families to live in poverty,” said Yee. “Now, Regent Crane wants to take away their only avenue to earning a livable wage and a respectable retirement – their collective bargaining rights.”
At a press conference, Senator Yee became more strident still.
“David Crane, he thinks custodians, teachers, nurses and other public sector workers don’t need representation,” he said.
David Crane, according to accounts in the Bay Citizen, is somewhat astonished that his op-ed has caused this level of ruckus.
He writes, “Nothing in my op-ed calls for an end to collective bargaining and I support collective bargaining for UC employees.”
I am not sure what he believes he wrote, but he indicated, that “collective bargaining for public employees in California changed the balance of power and – most importantly – gave public employees power over their compensation and benefits” and that “collective bargaining wasn’t needed to equalize their power with employers’ power.”
It certainly would seem to the casual observer that he was calling for an end to collective bargaining, but I guess since he just described collective bargaining in negative terms and never overtly said that we need to end it, he is somehow off the hook, having his plausible deniability.
Meanwhile, back in Wisconsin, Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald described his Democratic colleagues as creating a “constitutional crisis.” “They’re insulting the very fabric of our representative democracy,” he added.
Democrats only need three Republican votes to defeat the bill outright and some Republicans are signaling it is time for compromise.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, Republican Senator Dale Schultz, speaking to a local radio show, said his fellow Republican senators are “wasting valuable time about collective bargaining, which I don’t ever remember being a part of the last election whatsoever. But most of all … this just looks like the classic overreach we see every two years.”
But will the party heed the warnings? As we said from the outset, this had the chance of igniting the opposition and blowing up in their faces, and that appears to be what is happening.
At the outset of this issue, one of our posters remarked that America considered Governor Walker a hero. The truth is that while Republicans may support his action, the majority of Americans do not. People want to see pensions and spending dealt with. What they do not want are political vendettas, particularly targeting public employees.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Quinnipiac poll from 3/2/2011
“To reduce state budget deficits, collective bargaining for public employees should be limited, 45 percent of American voters tell the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll, while 42 percent oppose limits on collective bargaining. But voters say 63 – 31 percent that government workers should pay more for benefits and retirement programs.
Efforts by governors to limit collective bargaining rights are motivated by a desire to reduce government costs rather than to weaken unions, voters say 47 – 41 percent.”
“While the Regents have approved million dollar contracts for their top administrators, they allow many UC workers and their families to live in poverty,” said Yee. “Now, Regent Crane wants to take away their only avenue to earning a livable wage and a respectable retirement – their collective bargaining rights.”
The Senator’s statement unintentionally makes a case against collective bargaining. If cbr is such a great avenue, why are the top administrators making millions while PUE families are living in poverty after 30 years of cbr? Taking the Senator’s statement at face value, cbr is not achieving the intended objective.
The Senator’s comments above are unfortunately reflective of the level of public debate on both sides of the cbr issue. Faulty reasoning, arithmetic that doesn’t add up, misstatements of fact. It’s little wonder that we’re thrashing around.
And am I the only one that sees some serious errors in the Senator’s comments regarding the Vehicle License Fee? It all amounts to a bunch of noise, not a debate.
Note: I’m not defending Crane’s statements. In fact, I’m backing off on any cbr position. It’s become a bit too strident and militant on both sides.
If true and the tide is turning against Gov. Walker then obviously more
public education is clearly needed on the plastic bags issue.
Oops, I meant the public union issue.
[i]”Governor Walker, who was elected narrowly in November with 52% of the vote, has polarized the electorate with 73% of Wisconsin Republicans approving of the job he is doing, but 89% of Democrats and 56% of independents disapproving.[/i]
From a recent Gallup Poll: “An average of 81% of Democrats and 13% of Republicans approved of the job Obama was doing as president during his second year. That 68-point gap in party ratings is up from 65 points in his first year and is easily the most polarized second year for a president since Dwight Eisenhower.”
So this is where we are: left-leaning voters approving of leaders that tax more and grow nanny government, and right-leaning voters approving fiscal responsibilty and blanced budgets without raising taxes. Note that one approach makes it easier to win approval from the masses; the other more difficult. Hugo Chavez knows this.
When you are the CEO of a large company having to cut, you will not be liked by the workforce. That does not mean you are an ineffective leader… in fact, it make signal just the opposite. The same is true for a governor or a president.
A recent report from the GAO [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030106448.html[/url] confirms what right-leaning folk are up in arms about. [quote]With Congress and the White House set to debate the merits of massive spending cuts, federal auditors have identified hundreds of overlapping government offices and programs that if merged or eliminated could save taxpayers billions of dollars.
The U.S. government has, for example, more than 100 programs dealing with surface transportation issues, 82 that monitor teacher quality, 80 for economic development, 56 for “financial literacy,” 20 offices or programs devoted to homelessness and 17 grant programs for disaster preparedness, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday. Among other redundancies, 15 agencies or offices handle food safety, and five agencies are working to ensure that the federal government uses less gasoline.
“Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services,” the GAO said. [/quote]
[i] this just looks like the classic overreach we see every two years[/i]
Problem with Walker’s position is that his rhetoric probably defies common experience of most people. Grade school teachers are his biggest target, but by outward appearance, teachers aren’t driving luxury cars, living in Belaire mansions, or vacationing in the Caribbean. Almost everyone knows a teacher, through their kids, church, family/extended family, neighbors, etc. As in Davis, the lifestyles of teachers are not notably different from anyone else, and often they’re slightly less. Walker did not have to go this far to balance the budget.
dmg: “It certainly would seem to the casual observer that he was calling for an end to collective bargaining, but I guess since he just described collective bargaining in negative terms and never overtly said that we need to end it, he is somehow off the hook, having his plausible deniability.”
Now who is twisting whose words?
dmg: “At the outset of this issue, one of our posters remarked that America considered Governor Walker a hero. The truth is that while Republicans may support his action, the majority of Americans do not. People want to see pensions and spending dealt with. What they do not want are political vendettas, particularly targeting public employees.”
You bet the public is fed up w PEUs, as they should be. The collective bargaining process has been completely corrupted. Had not Walker taken the position he did, I’ll bet PEUs in Wisconsin would not have made any meaningful concessions.
DTB: “The Senator’s statement unintentionally makes a case against collective bargaining. If cbr is such a great avenue, why are the top administrators making millions while PUE families are living in poverty after 30 years of cbr? Taking the Senator’s statement at face value, cbr is not achieving the intended objective.
The Senator’s comments above are unfortunately reflective of the level of public debate on both sides of the cbr issue. Faulty reasoning, arithmetic that doesn’t add up, misstatements of fact. It’s little wonder that we’re thrashing around.
And am I the only one that sees some serious errors in the Senator’s comments regarding the Vehicle License Fee? It all amounts to a bunch of noise, not a debate.”
Excellent points. Yee shot himself in the foot w his silly statement about PEUs and how well they have done for the poor working folk at UC. And I agree w you in regard to the Vehicle License Fee – talk about spin…
[i]”David Crane, a former adviser to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and current member of the UC Board of Regents, wrote, ‘In the private sector, collective bargaining is used to equalize the power of employees and employers.'”[/i]
I appreciate how you identify Mr. Crane as a Schwarzenegger affiliate. It is helpful to know where he is coming from.
[i]”Mr. Crane wrote, ‘because state employees already had civil service protections, collective bargaining wasn’t needed to equalize their power with employers’ power. As a result, [b]collective bargaining for public employees in California[/b] changed the balance of power and – most importantly – gave public employees power over their compensation and benefits.'”[/i]
Mr. Crane correctly points to “public employees in California.’ I notice he did not specify state employees, but rather all sorts of public employees.
[i”On Friday, Senator Ted Lieu, Chair of the Labor and Industrial Relations Committee, issued a statement regarding the confirmation of Mr. Crane.”[/i]
I don’t appreciate how you fail to properly identify Ted Lieu. You neglect to point out up front that he is a Democrat, the party of the public employee unions. (You later note that Sen. Yee and he are Dems, but that is way down in your story.)
You fail to point out that when Mr. Lieu just ran for attorney general, he was funded by the California Professional Firefighters, the group which has more than any other labor association in our state abused the collective bargaining process by purchasing favorable treatment. He also was financed for office by AFSCME, which has a direct interest in softening up those they bargain against. Other unions which attempted to corrupt Mr. Lieu through their largesse were: the California Teachers Federation; the Calif. State Council of Service Employees; Intl. Longshore & Warehouse Union; Long Beach Firefighters; Long Beach POA; Operating Engineers; Orange County Firefighters; Classified School Employees PAC; Professional Engineers in CA Govt; Riverside POA PAC; Riverside Sheriffs; Sheet Metal Workers; So. Cal Pipe Trades; Steamfitters and Refrigerators Local; and Torrance Firefighters PAC.
Lieu has been taking union money for many years. He just won a special election in the Calif. Senate. Before that he was in the Assembly, where many of the same PEUs funded him.
I don’t want to imply that he has not been corrupted by other financiers, including many business PACs and others who are trying to rip-off taxpayers by funding politicians. However, it’s important to know that when Mr. Lieu speaks on behalf of the public employee unions, he has been taking their money and speaking on their behalf for a long time.
[i]”‘I cannot support someone for the powerful post of UC Regent who continues to perpetuate the myth that collective bargaining caused our state economic crisis and has a fundamental misunderstanding of how our state budget operates.'”[/i]
Here is where Sen. Lieu goes off the rails. Mr. Crane did not say that ‘collective bargaining caused our state economic crisis.'” He said it was a part of it. Moreover, he condemns collective bargaining with PEUs at all levels of public employment in our state, because it is a rigged system.
[i]”Mr. Crane argues that because of collective bargaining, ‘general fund spending on higher education, parks and environmental protection was flat or lower.’ As a matter of historical fact, that is false. Our general fund spending generally declined because of a national economic recession.”[/i]
Wait. Those are not mutually exclusive. Lieu is trying to pull a fast one on stupid people. We have a budget crisis in part because of lower revenues and in part because of how we have been spending money. If the unions had not pushed so hard for (and paid so much in contributions for) things like unsustainable pensions, there would be more money available for parks and environmental protection. If the corrections officers had not won such lucrative contracts which, with massive amounts of built in overtime and very early retirements and very rich medical plans for life, we would have a lot more money for other state expenditures.
Most of the bits you quote Mr. Lieu as saying, where he excoriates Wall Street and the like, reads like a diversion tactic. He does not want his audience to notice that he cannot defend the people who have funded him for office. So he changes the topic by villianizing others who are not relevant to what Mr. Crane charged in his op-ed.
We’ve all seen children throwing tantrums when their parents try to teach them to behave in a civilized way.
Sometimes the children lash out against responsible parents, and say “But the other kids get to eat as much candy as they like” and even “I hate you” and “I wish you weren’t my parents”.
Responsible adults know that children have limited understanding of the long term consequences of their actions, and don’t get persuaded by tantrums, even when it costs them short term popularity.
So just out of curiosity, who are the children in your metaphor? and who are the responsible parents?
J.R., great post, you hit it on the head. Even if, and a big if, Gov. Walker has lost some popularity time will show that he stood up and acted like an adult and did the right thing. Doing the right thing isn’t always the most popular track to take. He’s a true American hero.
“so this where we are: left leaning voters approving of leaders that tax more and grow nanny government, and right leaning voters approving fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets without raising taxes”
I would like to rephrase your comment hopefully in somewhat more neutral terms. How about left leaning voters who believe in fiscal responsibility and are willing to pay for services they value through taxes rather than supporting what they view as unnecessary and destructive military adventures and right leaning voters who believe that everyone here should fend for themselves despite apparent differences in opportunity and life circumstances and who believe that foreign invasions are worth the cost because they are somehow portrayed as “defense” of our freedoms or way of life, even when these clearly are not threatened (Iraq) ?
While I agree that the elimination of duplication,overlap,fragmentation is desirable, I believe it is probably a drop in the bucket compared with our wasteful and destructive military spending.
There are governors all over the country who are balancing their budgets without attacking unions. Only a couple have decided that they want to link fiscal issues directly with the rights of union workers. So they’ve decided to polarize the issue rather than seek to work across party lines.
Republicans have been no more or less fiscally responsible than Democrats. They just have different priorities for the use of taxpayer dollars.
DS: “There are governors all over the country who are balancing their budgets without attacking unions. Only a couple have decided that they want to link fiscal issues directly with the rights of union workers. So they’ve decided to polarize the issue rather than seek to work across party lines.
Republicans have been no more or less fiscally responsible than Democrats. They just have different priorities for the use of taxpayer dollars.”
And there are governors all over the country who are running deficits and don’t know how they are going to fund wages/benefits of their PEU employees. It has taken some drastic measures, via Walker and others like him, to get the PEUs to make any concessions. The fact of the matter is that collective bargaining is a rigged game.
I agree that neither Republicans nor Democrats have been fiscally responsible, but the PEUs have gamed the system so much that states are going to go broke bc of it…
mw: “I would like to rephrase your comment hopefully in somewhat more neutral terms. How about left leaning voters who believe in fiscal responsibility and are willing to pay for services they value through taxes rather than supporting what they view as unnecessary and destructive military adventures and right leaning voters who believe that everyone here should fend for themselves despite apparent differences in opportunity and life circumstances and who believe that foreign invasions are worth the cost because they are somehow portrayed as “defense” of our freedoms or way of life, even when these clearly are not threatened (Iraq) ?”
More “neutral terms”? LOL
[i]”I would like to rephrase your comment hopefully in somewhat more neutral terms.”[/i]
Those are neutral terms? You paint one side as light and beneficent and the other as dark and malevolent. That’s certainly your prerogative, but it’s mindnumbing to think that is a “neutral” protrayal.
Since you condemn “destructive military adventures” as being the playground of the right, are you further saying that President Obama’s tenfold increase in expenditures on ground troops and air attacks and civilian programs in Afghanistan* and Pakistan make him a right-winger?
I would think from your self-styled “neutral” position you would have to. If not, it’s hard to see how you are “neutral” as you claim.
*Obama is a smart guy. However, the dumbest thing he ever did–worse than his misguided stimulus spending program–was to declare that “the right war is in Afghanistan, not Iraq.” It was stupid enough that W. Bush wasted so much of our treasury on his misadventure in Iraq. But at least in that stupid war you could say we were fighting over important, central territory in the heart of oilistan. Never mind that we didn’t take any of Iraq’s oil or anybody else’s oil or that we have never much depended on imports from the Persian Gulf. But with Afghanistan, there could not be a less important piece of land on earth. It’s a strategic wasteland of nothingness and no importance. And Obama, due to his dumb statement in his campaign, is wasting more and more of our treasure in that bottomless pit of nothingness.
[i]I agree that neither Republicans nor Democrats have been fiscally responsible, but the PEUs have gamed the system so much that states are going to go broke bc of it…[/i]
Walker could have chosen more egregious examples of fiscal irresponsibility than the teachers, but he didn’t. And I think there were plenty of other good options he could have chosen short of drastically reducing or eliminating collective bargaining among public employees. Successful governing involves compromise. Ronald Reagan knew that.
One more thing about Mr. Obama’s supposedly benevolent foreign adventures. I have to wonder if the netural medium woman has yet condemned the “right-wing” president who promised to close Guantanamo last year for not closing that prison?
I was bewildered why Obama thought closing it was a good idea. But it was his promise to the neutral people of the far left, and he has failed to do so. And yet I have not noticed any of them parading around with signs against Guantanamo lately, though they certainly protested before Mr. neutral became president.
On a side note … NPR is reporting that a former Guantanamo detainee is now leading Al-Qaeda in Yemen: [quote] Over the weekend, al-Qaida’s arm in Yemen provided the first outward indication that it is trying to take advantage of the instability there. One of its leaders, a former Guantanamo detainee named Ibrahim Rubaish, released an audiotape. He is seen as AQAP’s chief theologian.
In the 10-minute tape, he urged Muslims not just to protest against Arab rulers but to go a step further and demand governments based on Islamic law. Toppling tyrants is fine, he says, but the most important thing is to choose the right people to replace them. In his view, the right people would be strict Islamists.[/quote] I cannot understand why we should ever free these maniacs. If executing them is not justified, then it seems to me anyone who is advocating a violent jihad and the suppression of human rights and civil rights belongs locked up–in Guantanamo or in some other hellhole.
“So this is where we are: left-leaning voters approving of leaders that tax more and grow nanny government, and right-leaning voters approving fiscal responsibilty and blanced budgets without raising taxes.”
JB, I don’t think your comment is reflective of reality. DS is quite a bit closer to to the mark. Republicans for decades have preached that deficits don’t matter. Democrats are no better. Fiscally responsible leaders are the exception,not the rule.
wdf1, Ronald Reagan knew about successful governing? That’s a bit of revisionist myth. Reagan was as fiscally irresponsible as any other. To pretend otherwise is to willfully disregard the facts.
[i]But with Afghanistan, there could not be a less important piece of land on earth. It’s a strategic wasteland of nothingness and no importance.[/i]
Except that at one time it was the home of Islamic militancy/fanaticism — the Taliban and Al Qaeda — not Iraq. I agree that being in Afghanistan right now is questionable, because the militants have spread to other places (Pakistan, Yemen). Because of our venture in Iraq, we may have pushed that country into a future alliance with the Iranian government. I don’t see how we benefit from that.
[i]wdf1, Ronald Reagan knew about successful governing? That’s a bit of revisionist myth. Reagan was as fiscally irresponsible as any other. To pretend otherwise is to willfully disregard the facts.[/i]
I define successful governing as the ability to move your agenda forward. Not whether I agree with it or not. I use Reagan as an example because many limited government conservatives like to hold Reagan up as an icon, for whatever reason. Grover Norquist is prominent in this category.
Ok, ok …. Major misunderstanding which is my fault.
I in no way intended to portray my position as neutral. It clearly is not. The term neutral was
intended to modify only the word “term” and was written in response only to the clearly perforative term “nanny state”. And,although I only referenced Iraq, I do not support Obama in Afganistan any more than I supported Bush in Iraq and fail to see how any one could have assumed I support a Democratic led war any more than a Republican led one. DS actually made my point far better than I did by pointing out that there is a fundamental difference in priorities at work here rather than one side having a monopoly on responsibility
[i]So this is where we are: left-leaning voters approving of leaders that tax more and grow nanny government, and right-leaning voters approving fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets without raising taxes.”
JB, I don’t think your comment is reflective of reality. [/i]
DT: I was talking about voters, and you connected my comments to the politicians.
I do a lot of deep thinking on how my neighbor and I are so friendly and similar in all things except our politics. I think it comes does to a difference in mindset over the perceived power of natural rights, individual freedom and self-determination, over the perceived power and progressive rights of collectivism and central authority. Left-leaning voters think in terms of central government solving more of their problems. Right-leaning voters think in terms of having the responsibility and ability to solve more of their own problems.
This debate has raged since the group of white men got together to form the great experiment. Thomas Jefferson (the Republican anti-federalist) and John Adams (the progressive Democrat) were friends, and then enemies, and then friends again until they both died on the same day: July 4, 1826. Ironically, although he advocated for smaller government and prosperity though self-determination, Jefferson was a terrible businessman and died broke.
However, beginning with FDR all politicians have developed “Adams-it is”. Democrats cry that the wealthy should pay more taxes like they did in the 75% top tax bracket 1960s. However, as a percent of GDP, total tax receipts collected by the government have continued to climb. Democrats say we spend too much on defense; however, defense spending has remained flat. It is non-defense spending that has blown the doors off. Today, the US government spends 41% of GDP… that is $.41 of every $1.00 the US economy produces. The trend is steeply upward.
[url]http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html[/url]
The current political battle is one pitting selfish, overpaid, public-sector unions, and their puppet politicians against the future of our children.
[i]Except that [b]at one time it was the home of Islamic militancy/fanaticism[/b] — the Taliban and Al Qaeda — not Iraq. I agree that being in Afghanistan right now is questionable, because the militants have spread to other places (Pakistan, Yemen). [/i]
If you have followed the so-called War on Drugs, you will note that the home of the drug kingpins has every 5-10 years moved. It was for a long time in the mountains of Bolivia. But we successfully (for a time) pushed them out. Then the center of action was in Peru. But again (for a time) we successfully moved them out. Then it went to Colombia, and while there are still kingpins and production there, many of the kingpins and traffickers were killed or moved on. Mexico is now where many of the biggest kingpins do business. But there are plenty of others in Panama, various Carribbean islands, and of course some here in the U.S. (This same moving target of drug production and sales has taken place across Asia, too.)
The point is, you don’t ever win such wars by capturing territory. You just move them along.
It’s a myth that al-Qaeda was ever just in Afghanistan and by moving them out (as we did 8 years ago) they would have nowhere to operate from. The interntional jihadis have had a base of operations in Sudan and Somalia for much longer than they ever were in Afghanistan. They rule large parts of West Africa. As long as the Kashmir conflict has been going on, the jihadis have been in Pakistan and in India. There has always been a safe jihadi base in the Phillipines and another in Indonesia and another in Malaysia*.
And while they were not always treated well by their host governments, the Sunni version of the international jihad has had strong encampments for 30 years and more in Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Yemen, Oman and Saudi Arabia.
So it has never made sense to think that by taking over Afghanistan and putting in that reprehensible team of thieves who run the government of Kabul, we would make any dent against the international jihad. It’s not a land war. It’s a clash of civilizations (at least from the fundamentalist Islamist perspective).
*I am not counting the Shiite Islamists, who are safely ensconced in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Nor do I count in the Palestinian jihadis, because they don’t have a safe base of any kind, other than in Gaza where they are mostly terrorizing other Muslims.
JB
I have children and do not believe that their teachers (union members) were “pitted against their future”. if you had limited your comments to the union representing prison guards, we probably would have found common ground. Again, I feel that demonizing all public sector unions is too facile a generalization.
Wisconsin teacher pay, 2008 – 9.
Average Beginning Teacher Salary:
$31,753
Average Teacher Salary:
$47,602
Selfish, overpaid. Yeah.
Note: the topic of this thread is unions, budgets, fiscal issues, etc.
JB: [i]The current political battle is one pitting selfish, overpaid, public-sector unions, and their puppet politicians against the future of our children.[/i]
Building on Don’s point above, you might do well to check out this segment of the Daily Show:
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-march-3-2011/crisis-in-the-dairyland—for-richer-and-poorer—teachers-and-wall-street?xrs=share_fb[/url]
It points out how, when there was recent discussion of extending the Bush tax cuts to those earning $250K or more, there were several documented discussion (including on Fox News) that $250K was “barely above poverty”. If that’s true, then I think everyone employed at DJUSD, as well as nearly all of us reading this blog are in or close to dire poverty.
Again, it defies most anecdotal experiences that teachers are earning excessive amounts of compensation that they should be vilified in this way.
[i]Wisconsin … Average Teacher Salary: $47,602 [/i]
The Wisconsin legislation will affect union members who make minimal salaries up to six-figure incomes. I don’t know why you would just focus on the teachers. They are just one of many unions in Wisconsin.
I also find it strange why so much focus in being put on Wisconsin, if this sort of legislation is the heart of the story. (Maybe the real story is the odd tactics of the Democrats who fled to Illinois?) Indiana passed this sort of bill and there was no fanfare at all. Ohio has a similar bill ([url]http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0303/Ohio-s-union-bill-is-tougher-than-Wisconsin-s-so-where-is-the-outrage[/url]) which is about to be passed and no one is paying any attention to Ohio outside of that state: [quote] The Ohio bill is similar to the one pending in Wisconsin in that it eliminates collective-bargaining rights except for wages, and it forces workers to pay more of their health and pension costs. However, the bill goes further in making it illegal for workers to strike.
Among other measures, the bill also broadens the factors that can determine layoffs or dismissals and limits the number of vacation days and paid holidays for long-time workers. Teacher contracts can no longer set ratios, such as the number of students per teacher, and pay is based on merit, not necessarily length of service.
Gov. John Kasich (R) says the bill is needed to help trim the state’s forecasted $8 billion budget shortfall. [/quote]
Don: you need to include total compensation and not just their published salary. Average total compensation per teacher exceeds $100,000.
In addition, they do not work full time. Contracts differ state-to-state, and district-to-district, but full-time public school teachers work, on average, 36.5 hours per week during weeks that they are working… or 91.25% of full time. Wisconsin teachers claim they work an average of 41.5 hours per day. Then consider that teachers, in general, work 21% fewer days than the typical full-time worker (including all the breaks they receive).
I don’t think I have to do the math here to make the point. Just reporting a teacher’s annual salary distorts the truth.
wdf1: I don’t think people making $250k are “barely above poverty”, but if I live in CA and record $250k AGI on my tax form, I currently pay 33% to the fed and 10% to the state. That means out of my $250k I only am left with $142,500 in my pocket and the government gets $107,500 of it to pay off unions that financed political campaigns. Now if the Bush tax cuts are not extended and my fed tax goes to 39.6%, and I get $126,000 in my pocket and the government gets $124,000. If tax and spenders had their way, my tax bill would exceed what I am allowed to keep.
Now you need to consider the other penalties against me… AGI, write-offs that I am not ellible for, student aid that my kids cannot qualify for, no food stamps, no medicaid… basically with my $124k I have to pay my own way for everything because I am considered rich.
Note too that if I am lucky enough to make $250k, it is also likely that I didn’t for many years of my professional career taking risks to get there. My reward for getting there?… demonization from the left for being greedy while they make more having taken none of the risks.
You on the tax and spend side need to consider that when tax avoidance becomes a more lucrative economic stragey than to take business risks to grow wealth, we are all screwed. The Laffer Curve is real.
[url]http://factcheck.org/2011/03/wisconsins-baffling-budget-battle/[/url]
Or one could say that the government gets $107,000 of it to pay for services received. It all depends on your point of view. And I did take the risks and do make more than $250k and do not demonize anyone….simply see the world differently.
Boone: [i]. . . public school teachers work, on average, 36.5 hours per week . . . [/i]
You have absolutely no clue about the hours teachers work, or the amount of time they have off.
Bottom line, for those of you who support Gov. Walker: do you think Wisconsin teachers and other public employees are overpaid? If so, how much do you think they should be paid? What impact do you think it will have on the quality of teachers if their pay and/or benefits are reduced?
Jeff B: [i]Wisconsin teachers claim they work an average of 41.5 hours per day.[/i]
Really??? Is that an error or a citable claim?
My mom was a grade school teacher, and she worked long hours, at school and at home, but I never saw her put in 41.5 hours in a day.
[i]”41.5 hours in a day”[/i]
an error… I meant 41.5 hours per week… which is a dubious claim by the Wisconsin teachers given the national average of 36.5 hours per week… although not as dubious as 41.5 hours per day.
Neutral:[url]http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol11No3/Niederjohn11.3.pdf[/url] I don’t make up facts, they just exist. So there are 2080 work hours in a year. How many of these does the average teacher work? Remember now that this includes: Spring Break, the holiday break, other holidays and then summer.
[i]”Or one could say that the government gets $107,000 of it to pay for services received. It all depends on your point of view. And I did take the risks and do make more than $250k and do not demonize anyone….simply see the world differently.[/i]
Didn’t you mention in a previous post that you belong to a union? I might be confusing you another poster. Certainly this is all about how we all see the world differently. However, if you are Democrat, or liberal-progressive, you associate with a current political movement that has gone to great lengths to create an atmospere of class warfare.
I do not nor have I ever belonged to a union. And “class warfare” if used to mean attempting to promote the welfare of one’s own group at the expense of others existed long before the existence of the Democratic party. If there actually were to be equal opportunity for all in our society, then there would be no need for any “class” distinction, let alone “class warfare”. Sadly, this is the myth, but not the reality of our country.
[quote]David Frum: “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us and now we’re discovering we work for Fox. And this balance here has been completely reversed. The thing that sustains a strong Fox network is the thing that undermines a strong Republican party.” ABC’s Nightline, March 2010[/quote]
I have been thinking about this quote for almost a year, shortly after it was made. At some level I wonder if the seemingly increased polarization in politics is attributable to this phenomenon. Controversy and political gridlock are good for Fox News ratings; smooth times and compromise are not. Fox News isn’t the only news/opinion venue that this would apply to, but they seem to have been more successful at it than most. Jon Stewart made a good case of it as an interviewee on one of the last airings of CNN’s Crossfire. And in an interesting irony, this blog probably gets more traffic when there’s political controversy; the nice thing about this blog is that we’re talking to each other and mostly being civil. The result in many other places seems to be a gross inability to compromise.
[b]Jeff Boone:[/b] [i]”… public school teachers work, on average, 36.5 hours per week.”[/i]
[b]Not very Neutral on this issue:[/b] [i]”You have absolutely no clue about the hours teachers work, or the amount of time they have off. “[/i]
It turns out the data is on Jeff’s side:
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics ([url]http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_50.htm[/url]), public school teachers work just the amount of hours Jeff said, and far fewer hours per year than most college educated white collar professions.
[i]”This report compiles information on the hourly pay of public school teachers nationally and in 66 metropolitan areas, as collected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in its annual National Compensation Survey.”[/i] [quote] *According to the BLS, the average public school teacher in the United States earned $34.06 per hour in 2005.
*The average public school teacher was paid 36% more per hour than the average non-sales white-collar worker and 11% more than the average professional specialty and technical worker.
*[b]Full-time public school teachers work on average 36.5 hours per week[/b] during weeks that they are working. By comparison, white-collar workers (excluding sales) work 39.4 hours, and professional specialty and technical workers work 39.0 hours per week. Private school teachers work 38.3 hours per week.
*Compared with public school teachers, editors and reporters earn 24% less; architects, 11% less; psychologists, 9% less; chemists, 5% less; mechanical engineers, 6% less; and economists, 1% less.
*Compared with public school teachers, airplane pilots earn 186% more; physicians, 80% more; lawyers, 49% more; nuclear engineers, 17% more; actuaries, 9% more; and physicists, 3% more.
*Public school teachers are paid 61% more per hour than private school teachers, on average nationwide.
*The Detroit metropolitan area has the highest average public school teacher pay among metropolitan areas for which data are available, at $47.28 per hour, followed by the San Francisco metropolitan area at $46.70 per hour, and the New York metropolitan area at $45.79 per hour. [/quote] Public school teachers in most states also get other benefits which are worth far more per hour than most others in the private workforce get. But benefits are not included in the BLS numbers.
[i]medwoman: “I do not nor have I ever belonged to a union.”[/i]
Sorry about that. My memory did not serve me well.
On my point about class warfare:
I certainly know that Democrats have traditionally aligned with labor and the GOP with business. However, the anti-business, anti-CEO, anti-banker, anti-wealthy, anti-private sector, anti-GOP rhetoric has never come so thick from the leaders of the left. Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their minions are different in that respect. No previous Democrat in their position would ever think of crossing the lines they have repeatedly crossed blaming business, capitalism, profit, free enterprise… all these American economic ideals that most of us have cherished regardless of our political underpinnings.
It really was/is bad timing for the Dems. To win elections, the leveraged the crisis of this one of many cyclical economic downturns (ironically after their party’s policies – CRA, Freddie, Fannie decades of below market interest rates from the Fed – caused the bubble) they enflamed populist ire over outsourcing and corporate profits… making the case of runaway greed. And they took every penny of union money with all the strings attached. Meanwhile, back at the union shop, they were gorging themselves on the easy soft money of the government. Couldn’t the big brains behind the Democrat takeover of both house have seen this coming?
I think much of the GOP attack of the public sector is righteous payback for this class warfare. If no good deed goes unpunished, then bad deeds require their pound of flesh, right? These GOP governors did not elect themselves. Walker is not doing anything he did not campaign on. Unlike Obama, he is not blowing with the shifting winds of popularity. He is a hero to the voters that elected him for making commitments and sticking to those commitments. That is exactly what we need our politicians and leaders to do. Say what they mean, and do what they say.
Walker did not campaign on ending collective bargaining. He never said anything about it, as far as anyone can see. That is partly why his popularity has plummeted: he has over-reached, and linked collective bargaining to his budget policies in a way Wisconsin voters never expected.
[url]http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/what-did-walker-campaign-on.html[/url]
I anticipate that you will disagree, however, I feel that the term “class warfare”could equally well be applied to those who see nothing wrong with salaries in the millions while many of our children are living in shelters , in cars, or on the streets. As for “righteous payback”, perhaps one could say that if the adverse consequences fell only on those responsible instead of on innocents. I find this unconscionable. Are we not all members of the same society? Do those of us who have benefited from our public institutions not have some obligation to our fellow citizens
Who may not have had the same opportunities and advantages we have enjoyed? Maybe your answer would be “no”. In that case we truly have a different vision of “the Ameeican dream”.
“I think it comes does to a difference in mindset over the perceived power of natural rights, individual freedom and self-determination, over the perceived power and progressive rights of collectivism and central authority.”
I’m normally not a deep thinker, more of a practical thinker. However, I’ve made an exception for the concept expressed above. All of my life, I have found my own way and taken responsibility for my own actions. I have lived a rich, varied life with some pretty good achievements and some royal screw-ups. I had an epiphany a year or so ago. None of what I have achieved occurred in isolation. Very little can be achieved without society; certainly not wealth. You can create, innovate, and achieve all you want, but it doesn’t translate into wealth until someone (society) pays you for your efforts. This hold true for sports and movie stars, titans of industry, business and union executives, and financial whizzes. The closest that an individual comes to being solely responsible for their own achievements is a mountain man type living in the wilderness in severely primitive conditions. The trend since Reagan for the wealthiest individuals to become wealthier, while the vast majority of society becomes poorer cannot reasonably be justified. The wealthier tea party types are way off the mark. They wish to take credit for all they have achieved without acknowledging the role society played in their success. Don’t get me wrong, much of what society has achieved is owed the innovators, creators, and achievers. It is a symbiotic relationship, but the wealthy have had much the better of the dea; these past 30 years. And the excesses are frankly sickening. Geez, I think I created a self-induced brain cramp.
Now I’m scaring myself. I don’t know what came over me while posting the foregoing. I might have to change my user name to DT Socialist or DT Commie.
Jb” wdf1: I don’t think people making $250k are “barely above poverty”, but if I live in CA and record $250k AGI on my tax form, I currently pay 33% to the fed and 10% to the state. That means out of my $250k I only am left with $142,500 in my pocket and the government gets $107,500 of it to pay off unions that financed political campaigns. Now if the Bush tax cuts are not extended and my fed tax goes to 39.6%, and I get $126,000 in my pocket and the government gets $124,000. If tax and spenders had their way, my tax bill would exceed what I am allowed to keep.”
Have you ever made this kind of money? If you had you would know that those rates are marginal rates, the rates paid on the last dollar you made. You would also have a deferred comp program, business expenses, accelerated business depreciation, mortgage interest deductions on two homes, dividend and capital gains taxes at 15% federal and enough accumulated wealth that although your marginal rate would be high your tax bill as a portion of your total wealth would likely be small. So while you would not qualify for certain tax breaks there are many others that would help you out. If you pay $107,000 in taxes you either need a tax CPA or have a gross income that is much higher than $250,000. Oh and don’t forget your social security taxes max out at about $110,000.
Mr. Toad: You are correct that I did the math incorrectly here. I forgot to use my marginal tax rate calculator. So, my numbers were inflated only using the top tax rate (but not by much).
However, I don’t think you understand AGI (“Adjusted Gross Income”). It is the line on your tax return that the government considers your “net pay”. When Obama says that if you make $250k you are rich and deserve to pay higher taxes, he is talking about your net “taxable” income, or your AGI. And yes, you might have more deductions after your AGI. For example, maybe your AGI is $300 and you and have $50k in mortgage deductions. Almost anyone that makes enough to pay income tax will have an AGI that is lower than their total gross income, and most people have deductions.
Let’s take the $250k of taxable income that Obama likes to talk about as a rich person’s income. The fed marginal tax rate would be 27%, not 33%. The state tax rate would be 8.63% instead of 10%. So the government would take $89,075 instead of $107,500. AMT impacts most people in this category… their home mortgage alone could easily put them there. AMT essentially increases the amount of income tax they pay by about $5k.
The point is that it is a lot of tax being paid by working people and small business owners that are ALREADY paying their way for everything else… including their kid’s college costs, and (unless they are public-sector employees) their own healthcare and retirement.
Now you can certainly make the case that a person should be able to live on $156,000 or maybe $125,000 or even $100,000 of $250,000. Then we get to that question “how much is enough?” Next, we can talk about the fact that you and anyone else have complete freedom to go out and make $250,000. You can do this and give away most of it if you choose to do so. We would also need to talk about the fact that government overspending, not too low tax, is the source of our national and state budget problems.
Note the following:
– Federal government spending (outlays plus dollar transfers) per GDP is now 41.61%. It was 6.80% in 1903, 23.95% in 1950.
– Income tax payments were 39.9% of total fed inflows in 1950; they are 44.0% of total receipts today.
– In 1950, the total receipts equaled 14.4% of GDP; today they are 16.8% of GDP. Reported outlays (spending less government transfers) in 2011 will be 25.1% of GDP (or a 8.3% deficit). Note that 2010 was the first double-digit deficit since WWII (10.6%).
– Defense spending was about 10% of GDP during the cold war period, and is about 5% of GDP today.
Rifkin + Boone: I’ll accept statistics from the BLS, but not from the WI ‘think tank’ or the Manhattan Institute.
Don Shor: “Bottom line, for those of you who support Gov. Walker: do you think Wisconsin teachers and other public employees are overpaid? If so, how much do you think they should be paid? What impact do you think it will have on the quality of teachers if their pay and/or benefits are reduced?”
Good question. I agree w Walker to the extent he had to go after doing something about collective bargaining rights – they have been totally corrupted and the entire system needs some sort of reform. What that reform would be is the real question. Does real reform mean it has to be doing away w collective bargaining altogether? I’m not sure if there is a less drastic means, but I am perfectly willing to listen. However, as I have said before, had Walker not taken his tough stand, I do not believe the PEUs would have made any meaningful concessions.
As to your question about teachers’ salaries, the problem I have w this question is this: have teachers’ unions really helped teachers? I’m not sure. Teachers have no choice but to pay union dues, their salaries are certainly what I would call relatively moderate. But on the other hand teachers only work 9 months of the year and are free to find summer work to supplement their incomes. Teachers’ salaries seem reasonable to me. However, the position teachers’ unions take that tenure is more important than quality bothers me. LIFO – last in, first out, no matter what. And teachers’ unions have a bad habit of being unwilling to take concessions, and allow new teachers to be laid off; as opposed to making some modest concessions to retain new hires and keep class sizes smaller.
As for how many hours teachers work, it depends on the teacher. When I taught 8th grade, I came in at 7:30 am and left at about 4:00 pm, unless I had some students to tutor after school. I was allowed 25 minutes for lunch, which included the only opportunity to go to the rest room, and getting to the lunchroom and back from my portable classroom. I also graded papers at night and on weekends. Grade cards required working at nights and on weekends, and did lesson planning at times. However, I did only work 9 months of the year, and time off at holidays was great. But I can tell you, teachers need that time off or they will burn out quickly. Teaching is an extremely intense job. And I would know, bc I have taught in the public schools, junior college, been a private consultant and a systems analyst for a consulting firm.
DTBusinessman: “You can create, innovate, and achieve all you want, but it doesn’t translate into wealth until someone (society) pays you for your efforts. This hold true for sports and movie stars, titans of industry, business and union executives, and financial whizzes. The closest that an individual comes to being solely responsible for their own achievements is a mountain man type living in the wilderness in severely primitive conditions. The trend since Reagan for the wealthiest individuals to become wealthier, while the vast majority of society becomes poorer cannot reasonably be justified. The wealthier tea party types are way off the mark. They wish to take credit for all they have achieved without acknowledging the role society played in their success. Don’t get me wrong, much of what society has achieved is owed the innovators, creators, and achievers. It is a symbiotic relationship, but the wealthy have had much the better of the dea; these past 30 years. And the excesses are frankly sickening…”
I agree w you wholeheartedly. Society does not necessarily reward the most talented persons, or those who contribute the most to our well being. Paying some television movie star like Charlie Sheen $1.5 million dollars per episode is obscene. So is giving the outgoing head of the NYSE an $800 million golden parachute. Something is very out of kilter when this sort of things happens…
DT Businessman: You make good points. Yes, you need society and government and laws and regulations. You need police. You need teachers. You need prison guards. But you do not need to pay them more than market value. You also do not need other people restricting your use of plastic bags.
I admit that I am biased somewhat due to my own life journey of self-sufficiency. I grew up well in spite of many classic “pity-me” reasons why I should not have. Looking back I know it was my country that allowed me to save myself through hard work and self-determination. I am forever thankful for that and protective of those contributing attributes of good American-style governance so my sons have the same advantages and opportunities.
I look at what is going on in the world today, and it cements my view about what has made this country great, and what can destroy that greatness. I understand that laws and regulations are required. I understand the benefits of good leadership, good community and good collaboration… that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. However, the thing that most benefited me was generous individual freedom and ample opportunity for free enterprise. I learned more and developed more from work than from any other life experience. Under the watchful eyes of my parents, my family, my teachers and my community, my future would forever be constrained by what they needed (their bias was/is mostly blind). However, at work the only significant constraint was my individual interests, pursuits and my performance doing them. A company needing to make a profit removes most of the ambiguity and blind bias from the need-provider relationship. The relationship contracts are primarily based on monetary value… the people-behavior puzzles are secondary to this. In this way, the business environment is therapeutic. Pure competition provides a clarity of purpose that one can grow from. In pursuing profit, and hiring people to help get it done, free enterprise provides an order of magnitude greater social benefit than any government program.
I think if you [b]rely[/b] on others to care for you, including politicians and people running government programs, they will eventually let you down. Unfunded pension liabilities are an example… if the people that claim they care really cared; they would have been working hard at first light to prevent this pending fiscal catastrophe. They have not because they are simply humans with a natural tendency to tend to their own needs first. The key for all of us is to not “need” others’ help (at least for any long period of time), but to appreciate help when it is real and sustainable… and to reciprocate when able. The crucible lesson for all humans is the lesson of self… that nobody cares for us the way we care for our self… and that by pursuing our own rational interest in a moral and ethical way, assuming we have a robust sea of opportunity to do so, we will much more altruistically successful helping the people around us than had we just handed out bread and soup, or allowed more of our hard earned money to be taken by government and redistributed.
A job is infinitely better than a handout. A career builds individual self-esteem and self-sufficiency faster than any feel-good social program can. In my view, providing this same opportunity to its citizens is the key for what all government should be doing, both directly and indirectly… and it should do little else. The US is great because of our history of individual freedom and free enterprise and our government and legal system that was designed to be a servant to it… not served by it.
Thanks you,
John Galt
Quote cited by Rifkin: [i]The Ohio bill is similar to the one pending in Wisconsin in that it eliminates collective-bargaining rights except for wages, and [b]it forces workers to pay more of their health and pension costs[/b]. However, the bill goes further in making it illegal for workers to strike.[/i] (boldface added)
[quote]Economic nonsense is being reported as fact in most of the news reports on the Wisconsin dispute, the product of a breakdown of skepticism among journalists multiplied by their lack of understanding of basic economic principles.
Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans.
Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, created the impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from taxpayers. They are not.
Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.
[url]http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8EDJYS?OpenDocument[/url]
[/quote]
[i]”Walker did not campaign on ending collective bargaining.”[/i]
Any long-term solution to stop the growth of obscene, unfunded pension payments to the public-sector will require this change.
JB: “I look at what is going on in the world today, and it cements my view about what has made this country great, and what can destroy that greatness. I understand that laws and regulations are required. I understand the benefits of good leadership, good community and good collaboration… that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. However, the thing that most benefited me was generous individual freedom and ample opportunity for free enterprise. I learned more and developed more from work than from any other life experience.”
I would tend to agree w you except for one thing. Too many people have literally lost their life savings bc banks and Wall Street were not regulated enough. There has to be a proper balance struck between “free enterprise” and “gov’t regulation” that does not stifle innovation but makes the playing field fair for all. Banks literally targeted low-income, the elderly and minoriities to: a) talk them into taking out variable rate mortgages for home repairs; b) convert unsecured debt into unsustainable collaterallized debt; c) have now converted the loan industry into one of variable rates, including credit cards. As far as I am aware, Wall Street is still bundling mortgages, sub-prime and prime loans together, slicing and dicing them, and selling them off to hedge funds. Very little has been done in regulating the financial industry in any meaningful way.
This discussion of many topics included unions plus teachers. Curious, I looked at our school budget:
page 7 at: [url]http://www.djusd.net/district/business/budget/1011bgtdocs/1011bdr2[/url]
It appears the gross benefit package is about 25% of all salaries-not outrageous.
If I interpret page 7 correctly:
average salary of 457 teachers is $59,100 and 73,700 total compensation; again not outrageous in my mind.
average salary of 50.3 administrators is $127, 400 and 158,700 total compensation-good negotiators
average salary of 283.6 classified is $24,400 and 30, 400 total-they need better negotiators
Elaine: The housing bubble was the source of the financial meltdown and recession, and it was caused by government meddling in the free market… it is exactly the type of thing I am against.
I worked in banking during the 80’s and mid 90’s and I say first-hand how CRA was used by government regulators threatening banks that did not do enough lending to minority borrowers. Prior to this conservatism and banking were synonymous. After this, banks started developing new risky mortgage products that would allow low income people to meet credit standards that they otherwise could not. It was the government doing social engineering that led to a flood of new riskier loans.
Then we take Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. Without these two government sponsored enterprises, there would have been no way for mortgages to be securitized since there would not have been a source for banks to dump all these sub-prime mortgage assets on the secondary market so they could make perpetual loans with their freed-up capital. If you are a bank, and you make risky loans, if you have to keep those loans on your balance sheet and if they go south, you have to write off the loss. However, if you can collect origination fees and servicing fees but sell the loan asset to someone else, then you transfer the risk and free up capital to make the next loan. Fannie and Freddie enabled the cycling of capital that perpetuated the run-up.
Lastly we take Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke… three Fed chiefs concerned about their legacy-ending risk of inflation, and operating with an inflated sense of their power to control the financial markets. By keeping the Fed borrowing rates lower than what it should have been for decades, it made home mortgages too inexpensive and caused investors, mortgage bankers, realtors and borrowers to start gorging on the easy money from the run-up.
The argument of “predatory lending” is ridiculous for a couple of reasons… the primary being that the borrowers that got in trouble probably should not have been provided a mortgage in the first place. They should have been renters until they saved more money or made more money. So the tragedy of their circumstances is not really so much a tragedy as it is a return to reasonable. The other reason is that point of personal responsibility… I have a fixed-rate mortgage and have been in the same home for 22 years. I have borrowed some of the equity and refinanced for a lower rate, but nothing that I cannot afford to pay for. Unless I become unemployed for a long period, there is no reason I should lose my home assuming I own one I can afford.
On the crash of the markets wiping out life savings… trust me, I feel the pain of that having my 401(k) value plummet. I do think we have a problem with Wall Street. There are not enough negative consequences for those gambling with other people’s money if they lose. The equity markets are supposed to be a place for business to generate capital, but it has turned into a big casino that attracted the biggest brains trying to beat the system. Read the book “The Quants”; it is a great explanation for what has happened on Wall Street. Greed is not the source of the problem… it is math and computer science geniuses having a game and gambling addiction. They have created trading algorithms and systems that are so complex even the smartest CEOs and their risk managers cannot calculate the real risk. That is a problem.
However, again, the source of the problem was the housing mortgage bubble. The root cause of that was government meddling in the free markets. Instead of government working to ensure a level and competitive business environment, it inserted itself to force social outcomes. The consequences of that have been disastrous… but we appear to not have leaned any lessons from it.
Walker did not campaign on ending collective bargaining.”
[i]Any long-term solution to stop the growth of obscene, unfunded pension payments to the public-sector will require this change[/i]
Walker did not campaign on ending collective bargaining. Many other governors are addressing their budget problems without attacking the unions. The repeated statement that Walker is just doing what he campaigned on is simply false.
[i]medwoman: “Who may not have had the same opportunities and advantages we have enjoyed?”[/i]
Sorry, I missed your response.
This thinking is too much of the slippery slope of victimology that leads to destructive altruism. Opportunities are equalized in this country, at this point and time, more so than ever in the history of humans. Concerning the plight of children in poor economic circumstances, my heart hurts no less than my liberal neighbor. Though, maybe because my origins were very humble and fraught with family and economic instability and difficulty, I have a different worldview for what is an appropriate response. As for advantages… it is interesting that you use that word. I felt significantly disadvantaged throughout my childhood. But it never occurred to me that I required or deserved special consideration because of this. Some people are just lucky… they are born to wealth, to stable families or they inherit genetic gifts of higher intelligence. For example, should we compensate people with lower IQ, since they are at a disadvantage?
There is this saying “it is what it is”. You cannot change who you are. You cannot change your past, you can only affect your own behavior to impact the present and your future. The question should be “What are you going to do about it?”… Not “What is my government going to do about it?”
I think people generally will rise to expectations. Bleeding hearts set the bar very, very low and can trap people into believing that they are incapable of being self-sufficient.
If you really want to reduce the number of children without a promising future, then I urge you to support a complete transformation of our education system… including teacher pay for performance and privatization.
[i]”Walker did not campaign on ending collective bargaining”[/i]
Don, it is only on benefits since they have long-term fiscal implications. He is not touching collective bargaining for pay. Many other states do not allow collective bargaining for public-sector union employees. Federal employees are not allowed collective bargaining. Obama froze fed wages for 2 years. Walker is not even pushing for this level of power.
I think your point is a red herring… it is a little finger-hold on a cliff of public opinion. The left and media is using it to gin up opposition, but it will not work. It makes complete rational sense that Walker would be doing this.
[i]He is not touching collective bargaining for pay. [/i]
“Walker wants to end collective bargaining rights for all public employees except local police and fire departments and the state patrol. Wages could be bargained for only if they don’t exceed the consumer price index.” [url]http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110214/GPG0101/110214079/Wisconsin-unions-fight-Gov-Scott-Walker-s-collective-bargaining-proposal[/url]
I don’t know where you get your facts, Jeff.
[i]”Wages could be bargained for only if they don’t exceed the consumer price index.”[/i]
The bill would limit collective bargaining by public workers only to wages. Voters would have to approve raises higher that exceeded the increase in inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index.
So, what exactly are wrong with my facts? Sounds like collective bargaining to me… maybe constrained collective bargaining, but still collective bargaining. And if, as the media and left advertise, the public is behind the unions on this, they what could be better for the union than to appeal for wage increases exceeding the COLA by taking the vote to the people.
Walker campaigned on reigning in the escalating cost of public employees. He was elected on that general platform. Can you find evidence that he was asked specifically if he would go after collective bargaining and said “no”? If you can find that I would concede the point that he is not following commitments made during his campagin. That would be sort of like Obama changing his mind on the defense of marriage act.
Statement 1: “He is not touching collective bargaining for pay.”
Statement 2: “…maybe constrained collective bargaining, but still collective bargaining.”
Got it.
[i]Can you find evidence that he was asked specifically if he would go after collective bargaining and said “no”?
[/i]
You got me there. I can’t prove a negative. Here is a review of his record on collective bargaining:
[url]http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/what-did-walker-campaign-on.html[/url]
The point is, he didn’t have to turn this into a battle with the unions in order to balance his budget. He chose to do that. And now neither side can give in. Compromise has become a dirty word in politics, it seems, even though public opinion polls show that the public supports compromise.
From the Wall Street Journal
[i]The leader of the 14 Wisconsin Senate Democrats who left the state last month to block legislation that would curb public-employee union rights said the senators plan to return “in the relatively near future,” because negotiations with the governor have failed. Democratic Sen. Mark Miller said the Democrats intend to let the full Senate vote and potentially pass Gov. Scott Walker’s “budget-repair” bill, which would also limit public unions’ collective bargaining rights. The Democrats believe that the measure lacks voter support based on recent polls and that passage could hurt Republicans politically, Mr. Miller said. [/i]
Something is amiss with this software. It seems to repeat posts if they come at the end of 30 or the end of 60.
Nonetheless, I am enjoying reading your hearty debate.
[i]”The point is, he didn’t have to turn this into a battle with the unions in order to balance his budget.”[/i]
True, but then what about next year, or in five years? I think there is an inevitable battle that will occur with the unions in almost every state. Democrat-governed states like Montana are only putting temporary band aids on the problem. Another way to look at this is that Walker is doing the right thing despite popular opinion. Isn’t that behavior we attribute to our most venerate leaders? Don’t you honor Obama and the Dems in control of Congress for passing Obamacare despite all the popular opinion against it? Walker knows that he will be replaced eventually by a Democrat, and/or the legislature will turn back to Democrats rewarding their union pals for helping put them in power. He also knows that once collective bargaining is scaled back, and right-to-work rules are put in place, the voters are not likely to allow it to go back.
It is unfortunate that Democrats in so many states have hitched their political power so tightly to the unions. It makes this a political fight instead of a fight over fiscal priorities. The Republicans certainly are working for the political advantage gained with more right-to-work states, but they are also on the side of fiscal responsibility. That is the better side to be on these days.
Jeff talks of the “slippery slope” of victimology, then blames losses of his 401(k) to those who have “gamed” the stock market… I wonder who forced him into the “casino”, and/or the internal consistency of his arguments.
I am also intrigued by what appears to be a concept that public employees should have to meet & confer (negotiate) to keep up with CPI, and anything above that has to go to a “vote of the people”. If the “norm” was that salaries & medical benefit costs were automatically covered, I’d have no problem with that. However it appears that what is advocated is that compensation increases should be the latter of what was negotiated, or CPI increases. And of course, the professional negotiator for the public should always be looking for ‘take-backs’, not “keeping up”.
Yes, apparently California voters can’t vote on tax increases, but Wisconsin voters should have final say over employment contracts.
The crash of 2008 can be laid at the feet of Wall Street and their enablers, but one has to admire how they and their minions have deflected the blame onto others. Pensions were predicated on the basis of the unsustainable rates of return that Wall Street was indicating based on what most did not realize — that it was based on a Ponzi scheme of planetary proportions.
The planetary Ponzi scheme has not been dismantled. Many asset prices are still wildly inflated due to massive supporting debt levels. If any part of the debt gets called, or liquidity withdrawn, asset prices will tumble. Wall Street is hardly the only one to blame. You can include national, state, and local governments, indeed, society as a whole. At the core of the scheme is the consume, consume, consume phenomenon, the debt doesn’t matter mentality, and the kick-the-can-down-the-road-syndrom. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the next few decades.
[i]Yes, apparently California voters can’t vote on tax increases, but Wisconsin voters should have final say over employment contracts.[/i]
Re: California, the 60-day deadline should arrive this week (Thursday?). And I guess at that point we will find out if it has been decided for us or not whether we will have an all-cuts budget or if California voters can have a say in it.
[i]”Jeff talks of the “slippery slope” of victimology, then blames losses of his 401(k) to those who have “gamed” the stock market.”[/i]
Well no, not really. I blame my 401k losses on myself. I picked the investments. I blame the housing bubble on government meddling in what would have otherwise been a self-correcting free market. Economies are cyclical… they go up and they go down… always have and always will. The difference for this Great Recession was that the housing bubble masked the structural problems that should caused a recession to popped earlier.
However, Wall Street does have a problem with risk transparency due to hyper-complex multi-layers transactions and computerized trading, and we have a social and economic problem with too many big-brained people attracted to gambling in financial trades rather than gambling in the production of products.
Smart, aggressive people like to play games and win. They used to create new products. Now too many of them work for Wall Street. Regulators will never keep up with them.
Jeff B.: [i]we have a social and economic problem with too many big-brained people attracted to gambling in financial trades rather than gambling in the production of products.
Smart, aggressive people like to play games and win. They used to create new products. Now too many of them work for Wall Street.[/i]
You don’t this would have bothered Ayn Rand, do you?
I bet some of them would have been good teachers, except that the pay sucked.
Jeff Boone
“smart aggressive people like to play games and win.”
I would like to propose that smart and collaborative people like to play games in which everyone comes out ahead. A major difference in our
World views is that you seem to prize competition above all else, while I prize cooperation and collaboration above competition.
What we share is a strong belief in individual freedom and individual responsibility. I happen to believe that the responsibility in a society includes the obligation for those in a position of strength to reach out and help those in a position of weakness.
As you pointed out, you are unlikely to lose your home unless you were unemployed for a long period. This was also true of many people who have lost their homes when they lost their jobs due to illness or the economic downturn through no fault of their own.
So how does any of this apply to the subject of unions? Well it seems to me that Walker could doubtless be considered smart and aggressive, but it also seems that he is more interested in achieving a win over his political enemies than he is in finding a collaborative solution that could be of benefit to all. I suspect that the same could be said for many in union leadership. What a waste of intellect and drive to petty self interest All around.
medwoman: [i]”A major difference in our World views is that you seem to prize competition above all else, while I prize cooperation and collaboration above competition.”[/i]
First, thanks for the great blogging-conversation. With all I have written, I think it must be some form of therapy for me on this rainy weekend. I am doing my taxes… finding reasons to delay while blowing off steam over how much time it takes me every year.
You way over-simplify (or over-complicate) my point about competition. I think you should read up on modern leadership theory and best-practice to get a better idea of what I am talking about. Or I could spend some time explaining it. It is really a beautiful thing, not at all the mean and nasty version being conjured up.
Competition, in this case, requires the demonstrated ability to collaborate. It also requires the demonstrated ability to apply appropriate and optimized: tact, negotiation, communication, aggressiveness, politics and compromise. In fact, there are very few highly-compensated jobs available today for highly competitive people that do not do these other things well. We call these things soft skills and they have become very important in the modern workplace.
Most politicians are loaded with these soft skills. What they seem to lack is vision, experience, moral compass and real compassion (there is plenty of fake compassion). I think Walker has vision, and I think he is trying to do the right thing for Wisconsin. However, I think he has come up short on experience and on demonstration of compassion for the other side (sounds like Obama to me). He might get this done, but at a cost.
JB
It has indeed been a fun conversational weekend. I also just did my tax preparation which gives us another point in common.
I may be more aware than my posts would suggest to you about leadership theory. The soft skills you are describing certainly add a bit of humanity to to the competitive process. However, it does not change the basic, “for me to win, someone else must lose “philosophy that forms the core of the belief in the inherent good of an unfettered free market. Using all of the skills that you mentioned does indeed make for a better leader. But leadership to what end? To me, true leadership, whether in the public or private sector should reflect a sensitivity to both short and longterm gains, not just for ones self or ones party or class, but for all. Anything less is short sighted and ultimately self defeating.
As a tiny example from a management seminar, I recall a strategy game of which you may be aware. It is a card game in which you are given X and Y cards. The stated goal is to acquire as many points as “you” can. Playing a Y card will get a player less points than the X,but does not diminish any other players points. Playing the X card reaps the individual many more points, but subtracts points from the players at the same table. One catch of the game is that you are not told if the “you” in the instruction refers to the individual or the group.
As it turns out, the maximum amount of points for both the group and the individual is achieved if no one ever plays an X ( I win, you lose card) but rather always plays the Y ( or collaborative) card.
I am a strong believer that it is possible to do well for oneself while still promoting the good of all. And no, I do not believe that a “rising tide raises all boats”. That would only be true if all were equally well constructed and appointed.
Adam: the Democrats are denying the WSJ report. [url]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/wis-dem-leader-to-walker-lets-meet-at-the-state-line.php?ref=fpblg[/url]
The brinkmanship continues.
JB: “The argument of “predatory lending” is ridiculous for a couple of reasons… the primary being that the borrowers that got in trouble probably should not have been provided a mortgage in the first place. They should have been renters until they saved more money or made more money. So the tragedy of their circumstances is not really so much a tragedy as it is a return to reasonable. The other reason is that point of personal responsibility… I have a fixed-rate mortgage and have been in the same home for 22 years. I have borrowed some of the equity and refinanced for a lower rate, but nothing that I cannot afford to pay for. Unless I become unemployed for a long period, there is no reason I should lose my home assuming I own one I can afford.”
I largely agree w your assessment of the housing bubble, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Greenspan, et al. However, unregulated banks did some serious damage in this mess. I had too many clients, and heard of too many clients, that were talked into loans they did not need/should not have been offered, by greedy banks. Example: Had an elderly client talked into collaterallizing an unsecured debt that could have been dismissed in a simple bankruptcy. This client lost his house of 40 years, bc he was talked into taking out a variable rate mortgage where the interest rate was stated in MONTHLY TERMS on the paperwork as 1.5%. Obviously the mortgage contract itself was highly misleading. Example: Minority and elderly were “redlined” by banks, to talk those who did not speak English very well, and the elderly who were very vulnerable and trusting, into taking out unsuitable variable rate loans, when they could have qualified for fixed rate loans. Banks have admitted to “redlining” once certain internal bank documents came to public light. Example: Take careful notice of credit card offers now – they are for variable rate credit cards, the variable rate language hidden in a lot of verbiage.
Variable rate mortgages seem to be the wave of the future, being pushed by the banks themselves (no surprise there!). Unfortunately Greenspan was in favor of variable rate mortgages and encouraged them. The public is going to need to take a strong stand against them, if there is any hope of doing away with these awful loan products.
DS: “Adam: the Democrats are denying the WSJ report. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo…?ref=fpblg
The brinkmanship continues.”
Sigh… it’s like watching kids fighting in a sandbox…
[i]”I am a strong believer that it is possible to do well for oneself while still promoting the good of all.”[/i]
That is too broad a statement for me to be useful. The alternative is to what… do good for oneself while purposely harming others?
I have always been perplexed how my friends on the left can value competition in academics, but not in the workplace. They accept rigorous vetting of students – rewarding the brightest with admission to the best schools and providing them significant greater opportunity. Yet for some reason when people enter the workplace everything is supposed to be made level and fair, and competition becomes a dirty word. I would argue that this is all ass backwards… education should not be selective, but the workplace should. When in school we should be teaching them to survive. When in the workplace they should perform to survive.
I don’t know if you believe in creationism or evolution from natural selection; if you believe in the latter, you should have some concern about what happens to a species of animal where too much struggle to survive is removed. If you feed a lion, it stops hunting and over time the species will become weaker hunters. Now, maybe you see humanity more like hamsters… however, even wild hamsters must learn to fend for themselves. Humans have always struggled to survive. I believe we are wired that way. When we take away the need, we destroy something fundamental.
Whether lion or hamster, where we, the human animal, should spend our significant intellectual advantage is to help teach our species how to cope with the struggles of life and survive. We should grow and develop until we die. Some are lucky having a head start, but that does not make them any better or worse… just luckier. However, in this country you can make your own luck. You can come from rags and a sad story of hardship to great success and prosperity. It takes drive and determination… it takes hard work. I expect my employees to compete, but not at the expense of others around them. I expect them to grow and develop, but some will not be able to do it fast enough. That does not mean they are incapable. There may be other jobs/careers that are better suited for their natural wiring and tendencies. It may be that they need to spend more time working on their capabilities and confidence before they earn the job they are striving for. Or, maybe something in them or in their life changes where they no longer have the passion and energy to do the same job. In any case, if I make it easy for them… if I level the playing field so they can make as much money as a coworker who already has greater capacity (whether by luck, or because of his/her passion and hard work), then I wipe out the motivation to strive and grow and develop.
Too much charity is destructive altruism. It tends to benefit the giver much more than it does the receiver in the long run. Part of me wonders – given so many highly educated people align themselves with left-thinking politics – if the drive toward charity and altruism satiates some guilt over the relatively easy life they know they have had. I look at all people as being equal in terms of my expectations and their opportunity… the only real difference being luck.
[i]From DS – Bottom line, for those of you who support Gov. Walker: do you think Wisconsin teachers and other public employees are overpaid? If so, how much do you think they should be paid? What impact do you think it will have on the quality of teachers if their pay and/or benefits are reduced? [/i]
No one really picked up on this question from Don, but apart from the ideological arguments that we’ve been making, his question is quite important in how each of us feels about the issue. I decided to do some research to put context around the numbers for teachers salaries. According to the Wisconsin State Department of Instruction, the average school teacher in Wisconsin made approx $74,800 in total compensation and benefits for 2009/2010. According to the Milwaukee Public School System, the average total comp and benefits number will exceed 100,000/teacher in 2011, in the state’s largest city.
I thought it would be helpful to put those numbers in context with cost of living adjustments to an average of a hypothetical Davis/Woodland (I did this because Davis is much higher cost of living than Woodland, and I didn’t want to unduly sway the numbers). I consulted bestplaces.net, a cost of living adjustment calculator and comparison web site. I compared an average of Davis/Woodland cost of living with Milwaukee, and found that my hypothetical Davis/Woodland city was 56% more expensive than Milwaukee. I also compared Davis/Woodland to an average of 5 of the largest cities in WI – Racine, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Eau Claire and Madison. I used these 5 cities as a proxy for all of WI, although in all likelihood, they represent a higher cost than the actual index for all WI cities and towns. On average, the hypothetical Davis/Woodland was 52% more expensive than the average WI city.
Using these adjustment factors, the Milwaukee teacher would need to make about $157,000 in total comp and benefits to live similarly well in Davis/Woodland. The average WI teacher, would need to make about $104,000 to live similarly well in Davis/Woodland.
Now you can answer Don’s question for yourself. Do you think the public school teachers in Wisconsin are overcompensated? How much should they make?
Public school teachers should make no more or no less than their private-sector peers. Don’s question gets to the heart of the problem… the mindset that you can calculate a “fair” compensation using deductive reasoning alone. The definition of a “fair price” is one that the purchaser is willing to pay.
However, if I was to play this game, then I would first ask the question “Do Davis teachers make too much or too little?” You cannot just compare WI to Davis and make a conclusion of what is fair if Davis teachers are already over or under compensated.
There is also the value of their early-age retirement and guaranteed pension and healthcare until death. The current contributions fall far short of the liability. So, in that respect, the reported cost basis is much lower than what should be reported. If these retirement costs were fully funded (factoring real risk-managed rates of return not best-case rates of return), then the actual compensation would be significantly higher. As Bill Gates points out, we need to be transparent and honest about the true costs, and not use budget reporting tricks to hide it.
Jeff B: [i]Public school teachers should make no more or no less than their private-sector peers.[/i]
If private-sector peers means private school teachers, then I think you’re overlooking significant differences between the two. Public school teachers are required to have a teaching credential and fall under NCLB requirements of being “highly qualified” in their field; that is not the case for private teachers. Private school teachers may often teach in smaller classes (a selling point for many private schools). Private schools can kick out students if they want; public school districts have to provide alternative accommodations for students they expel. In fact, public school districts have to make accommodations for nearly every kind of student, especially lower income. Public school teachers have to live under the burden of standardized testing as the ultimate measure of nearly everything (because public money means that a lot of people want some form of accountability); not so for private school teachers.
If you’re going to compare public and private teachers, then you have to be transparent and honest about the full requirements and responsibilities assigned to each.
[i]”If you’re going to compare public and private teachers, then you have to be transparent and honest about the full requirements and responsibilities assigned to each.”[/i]
Ouch… nice jab!
I did say “make the same as their peers” which should incorporate any important difference. I’m not sure I agree with all of your reasons why public school teachers should make more. Private school teachers are generally held to pretty high service standards. People are paying for private school for a reason. If they could get the same education service quality from the public schools, then why spend the money on private?
I do hear public school teacher complain about having to deal with difficult children. It reminds me of the time I heard a Nordstrom’s sales person telling her boss that she needed a raise because she had to deal with difficult and demanding customers… (note: sarcasm alert).
[i]However, if I was to play this game, then I would first ask the question “Do Davis teachers make too much or too little?” You cannot just compare WI to Davis and make a conclusion of what is fair if Davis teachers are already over or under compensated.
[/i]
JB – Note that I wasn’t comparing anything to what Davis teachers make. I was trying to frame the question of what WI teachers make in local currency terms – If a teacher in Davis made 157K in total comp and benefits, how would we feel about it? Fair compensation or not?
This just in from the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel:
[i]The Milwaukee teachers union has dropped a lawsuit seeking to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back. [/i]
[i]”Fair compensation or not?”[/i]
Adam – I get your point now. However, I still cannot answer that question. First, I don’t like basing my opinion on what is fair on how I feel about it. If feelings were the yardstick I would feel better if everyone made $500k and nobody was wanting for safety, love, acceptance and self-actualization. However, lacking that panacea, I go back to the market value argument.
If I go to a job interview, I will have some idea of what the job should pay based on the market and my experience, and I will negotiate a salary and benefits. The employer will hire the best candidate they can get at the best price… so I am competing against other candidates who may be willing to do the job for less. Good employers will not discount a new hire… they will pay the market rate. However, they generally will not pay over market rate unless there is a good reason. If demand shoots up, like it did for certain tech resources in the 1990s, the price will rise from the laws of supply and demand.
Fair compensation is what the market will pay.
JB – “fair enough”! I understand what you are saying, but one can get tied up in one’s underwear in trying to make too fine a comparison.
From my own standpoint, I think about it somewhat different terms. If the average is 157k, then there are some making more and some making less. Presumably the ones making more are more senior and tenured, and this where I think the union protagonists run into trouble with the public perception of teacher salaries. Teachers simply get paid more as they’ve been there longer. I think it is presumed that they get better at what they do, but that isn’t necessarily so, and with no reasonable accountability for student performance and/or good way to judge and reward the better teachers, everyone simply makes more as time passes by. Despite the resistance by the unions, I believe that the better teachers and the schools as a whole would benefit from a healthy performance management system, that weeds out poor teachers and rewards the best ones.
[i]The Milwaukee teachers union has dropped a lawsuit seeking to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back.[/i]
And with that act, I think the teachers union just inadvertantly gave up any incentive for maintaining the seniority system.
Adam: Agreed.
Let’s say you have an enthusiastic 10-year career teacher that the kids and parents love, all of her coworkers think she is great, the principle thinks she is great, a higher percentage of her students learn the subject matter, get good grades, and do better in progressive classes on the subject… so what is fair compensation for her? Is it the same as the grumpy 20-year career teacher that nobody likes and the kids do not learn from?
By not rewarding high performance we produce a general work culture of mediocrity. Many teachers bristle at this type of statement because they know how hard they are working. However, working in a culture of mediocrity feels more difficult because it does not feedback the energy that comes from winning. Conversely, by developing and rewarding high performance you create a culture of excellence. This then creates enthusiasm and energy as the organization gets recognized and wins. Think how proud the employees of Nugget Market are to work for that company. They are not unionized and they are not paid more than unionized stores.
[i]If they could get the same education service quality from the public schools, then why spend the money on private?[/i]
Because many of those parents want smaller class sizes (Sacramento Country Day advertises a student-teacher ratio of 8-1 for instance), they want arts and extracurricular activities that have been cut from many schools because of panic over falling test scores, they want to see a better handle on discipline (private schools can kick out tough to handle students and don’t have to accommodate everyone), they want their kids to be with other kids from families that care about education enough to pay for it privately, among other things.
[i] they want their kids to be with other kids from families that care about education enough to pay for it privately[/i]
and possibly to be with other kids/families who are able to pay for private education.
As I understand, from U.S. Department of Education, NCES. Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), “Public, Public Charter, and Private School and Teacher Surveys,” 1999–2000, the public school student to teacher ratio was 15.6:1. The private school ratio was 13.2:1. However, the Catholic private school ratio was 17.2:1.
Jesuit High School in sacramento gets about $12,000 per year for tution. They claim a 16:1 ratio. My guess is that this ratio is about the same as the public high school ratio.
Regardless, I think all these arguments for why public school teachers deserve higher pay is bunk since there are kids lined up for miles that would take these jobs for less compensation. If the job is so difficult and underpaid, then we would not be able to find qualified employees. You and I know that we could easily fire all the teachers and hire replacements at 80% of the pay and 50% the level of benefits provided today.
School ratios in California:
[url]http://high-schools.com/report/ca/public-school-student-teacher-ratio-rank-in-california.html[/url]
This says Davis Senior High has a ratio of 22.1:1. Milwaukee is 18.3:1.
How do these numbers compare to larger private schools?
I don’t know the sizes of the private schools locally, but I’d guess they’re on this list:
[url]http://high-schools.com/report/ca/private-school-student-teacher-ratio-rank-in-california.html[/url]
[i] I think all these arguments for why public school teachers deserve higher pay is bunk since there are kids lined up for miles that would take these jobs for less compensation. If the job is so difficult and underpaid, then we would not be able to find qualified employees. You and I know that we could easily fire all the teachers and hire replacements at 80% of the pay and 50% the level of benefits provided today.[/i]
I’m impressed with your certainty in these insights. A California public teacher has to have a California teaching credential and at least a Bachelor’s degree.
Haven’t you read articles about how long teachers last in the teaching profession? A standard statistic I have heard is that 50% are gone within just a few years.
Here’s one example for the D.C. schools:
[url]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dcschools/2010/08/getting_a_handle_on_teacher_at.html[/url]
[i]A California public teacher has to have a California teaching credential and at least a Bachelor’s degree.[/i]
I say that, because a California teaching credential isn’t needed for many private schools. We have a family friend who gave up a chance to teach in the public schools because she couldn’t pass the CBEST, required of all teachers. She was born and raised in a foreign country, but didn’t know English well enough to pass the written section. She now teaches Spanish at a private school in Sacramento.
We have the CBEST because some voters and politicians think that all public teachers should have a certain level of proficiency in English and math. I think your claim that you could “easily fire all the teachers and hire replacements at 80% of the pay and 50% the level of benefits provided today” underestimates the dimensions of the problem.
And it will only get worse. After you’ve balanced the budget, cut education funding, and pilloried teachers for their unreasonable compensation, this is what you have to look forward to:
[url]http://www.cftl.org/centerviews/may10.html[/url]
At present, there aren’t enough students in California teaching credential programs today to cover expected attrition (retirements, etc.). I guess we could go back to raising salaries and benefits at that time to respond to the market shortage…
wdf1: We will need fewer teachers.
A quote from Gates: [quote] The ultimate “dream,” Mr. Gates said, is to take a quality education that might cost $200,000 today and make it more broadly available at a much cheaper price. “There’s some huge potential here to make education easily twice as effective per dollar as it is today,” Mr. Gates told reporters. [/quote] [url]http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/Virtual_Schools.pdf[/url]
[url]http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/teachers-262070-class-percent.html?data=1[/url]
[url]http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/gates-announces-20-million-for-new-education-technology-program/27564[/url]
[url]http://nextgenlearning.org[/url]
I prefer budget planning based on something a little more established than a dream. I welcome what Bill Gates hopes for, but I want to see it work somewhere before committing tax dollars in that direction.
In ~1971 Richard Nixon promised that the U.S. would be energy self-sufficient (no reliance on foreign oil) well before now. And GW Bush’s administration forecast the Iraqi invasion as a catalyst for transforming the Middle East into a land of stable democracies. You and I could probably go back & forth with a litanies of similar pipe dreams that didn’t pan out.
Jeff B.: I must say that I find it interesting that Don’s list of private school student-teacher ratios are all on the low side, even as you provide sources that say class size doesn’t matter. I’m not sure that I buy that, however. If class size doesn’t matter, then the school district could get away with holding classes of 500 with one teacher in the gym.
Still, though, why don’t private high schools make it work with lots of students to very few teachers?
Jeff B: [i]This says Davis Senior High has a ratio of 22.1:1. Milwaukee is 18.3:1.[/i]
I suspect that DHS data is old at that site. The ed-data website ([url]http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us[/url]) indicates the ratio was 23.1:1 in 2009-10. I suspect this number is higher for the current school year, but I don’t have the numbers.
[i]” I must say that I find it interesting that Don’s list of private school student-teacher ratios are all on the low side”[/i]
I can’t find the link right now, but since the 1940’s the ratio of student to public teacher has gone down quite a bit. This speaks to the inefficiency of the business model. The template is to say that teachers are not overpaid, but public education has grown far too expensive for the service provided.
Think about it… we have how many high schools in CA? How many Algebra-I classes are taught each semester? How many teachers is that in CA doing the exact same thing? What an opportunity for consolidation and greater efficiency. Reduce the number of teachers in each district and use the savings to create a completely different model. For example, using a combination of college student tutors (working part time to earn money for their out of control tuition), an administrator or two to keep an eye on the little darlings when they attend these larger collaborative classes of centralized lectures/presentation using hi-def simulcast webinar technology that will also be recorded and can be replayed… including interlaced Hollywood-style high-production video and graphics components to help explain concepts and their application, PC-based research and study tools, electronic testing, 1-800 help lines with web chat to centralized tutor, more career counselors for the kids.
Gates is working on this. It already exists and the number of virtual high schools is on the rise. Many districts are starting to embrace these concepts for cost-cutting and noting that their education results are also improving.
[i]Think about it… we have how many high schools in CA? How many Algebra-I classes are taught each semester? How many teachers is that in CA doing the exact same thing? What an opportunity for consolidation and greater efficiency. Reduce the number of teachers in each district and use the savings to create a completely different model.[/i]
There are situations where I think that could work, but you assume that learning might be as rote as loading a new program on your computer.
Math is a pretty good example of how complications arise. There are an infinite number of ways to misunderstand or not get a concept. Students respond to certain styles of teaching, settings, and teachers. It also assumes that your 8th grade darlings have the self motivation and wherewithall to contact someone if they need help. That is not the case.
That is how teaching can be labor intensive.
I don’t think the Gates Foundation is acting to increase student:teacher ratios. They have donated millions of dollars to reduce class and schools sizes and reduce student:teacher ratios.
I can’t imagine either of my children doing well in the classroom you describe. It sounds like a warehouse for zombie students. Or rather like the model of my Chem 1A class at UCD, which had over 500 students. That model works for self-motivated students who are voluntarily attending classes: i.e., college students.
Evaluating New York Teachers, Perhaps the Numbers Do Lie
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/education/07winerip.html?_r=1&ref=education[/url]
And perhaps we’re not measuring what people like in their schools.
I did some number spreadsheet crunching from the following two resources:
[url]http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/datasets/public-high-school-averaged-freshm/versions/1.txt[/url]
[url]http://www.roanokeciviccenter.com/85256A8D0062AF37/vwContentByKey/N25ZEKBD225LBASEN[/url]
I ranked the states by their student to teacher ratio after having added their published graduation rates by state (including DC) for the 2006 school year.
The average ratio for the top 25 was 13.56 students per teacher, and their average graduation rate was 77.64. The bottom 26 had a student-teacher ratio of 17.04 and a graduation rate of 72.71.
According to this: [url]http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/K12_Facts/[/url] the overall student to teacher ratio for public schools is 15.6:1 and the total number of teachers is 3,178,142 (the total number of public school students is 49,293,000). Lowering the student-teacher ratio to 13.56 means adding 13.1%… another 416,367… teachers to help boost graduations rates by another 4% or so.
Is that a good investment: 416,367 additional teachers to help another 1,971,720 students graduate? Is that the best the business of public education has to offer us?
This is the problem with defense of public education. There is no admission from the establishment that the current business is failing. There are no cries from the establishment for significant reform. The only cries are for more money. According to their own controlled measurements, the education establishment claims a national graduation rate of about 75%. However, they don’t count the kids that drop out. The real graduation rate hovers around a dismal 60%… and it is higher for boys and much higher for blacks and hispanics. Why in the hell should any of us continue to support any business that fails 40% of the time?
Jeff, you seem to have just demonstrated that lower student:teacher ratios have better outcomes, at least as measured by graduation rates. As to why there is such a low marginal return from investing in more teachers, I suspect (I have no expertise in this) that the ones that aren’t graduating would require more effort.
I could legitimately turn your question around: How many additional teachers [i]are[/i] you willing to invest in to get a higher graduation rate? I frankly think that using a straight cost/benefit analysis on this kind of thing is pretty simplistic. There are societal costs resulting from high dropout rates, but I imagine they’d be hard to quantify.
I question the direction we’re going with NCLB. If you google news stories, nationwide, about school district budget cuts (and really I refer to school budget cutting over the last decade), it is mostly about preserving the individually testable subjects — history, science, math, English, maybe some languages. What gets cut are arts, music, vocational classes, sports, digital media/video editing, journalism/school newspaper/yearbook. On top of that the individually testable subjects have their class sizes increased. Quite frankly, I think the sum total effect is that plenty of high school kids are having a bigger existential crisis than they were a couple of decades ago.
And connected to these cuts, we have come to the point of discounting most emotional aspects of life in modelling a successful school. We can’t measure any of that in standardized tests, can’t easily quantify it, so it isn’t included in any comprehensive model. Maybe this is why boys are having a rough time of it.
Don:
Yes, the data do demonstrate what I would consider a very marginal improvement in reported graduation rates for the states with a lower student-teacher ratio.
My points were four: one – we cannot afford the costs of another half million or more teachers; two – even if we could, it does not make a big enough dent in the problem considering we would be still using the present business model; three – the education estlishment is not coming to the table with solutions except for us to pay them more money; four – the real graduation rate is around 60% and that should be the biggest news-worthy bit of data related to education, yet we are debating teacher compensation.