Before You Cheer the Layoffs of State Workers, Take a Minute to Think About the Real People You’re Rooting Against
Well this should make some conservatives happy.
Gov. Jim Doyle said Thursday the budget deficit has exploded to up to $6.5 billion – a historic gap he wants to fix by laying off hundreds, furloughing all state workers for 16 days, rescinding 2% pay raises for some workers and deeper cuts in aid to schools and local governments. – jsonline.com
I guess I’ve had a hard time understand the caustic attitudes a lot of (mostly) conservative people have against government, specifically State, employees. I mean, there are people out there cheering about this and high-fiving about the possibility of State workers being laid off.
Why?
Personally, I’ve never cheered for anyone in the private sector to get a pink slip. I understand more than most how layoffs can affect families. As this recession has worn on, I’ve seen the impact the loss of a paycheck has on friends and the families they support. It’s rough, and I’ve pointed out several times over the last year or so that my heart goes out to anyone who’s had to be in that position.
So again, I guess I don’t get it when those in the private sector cheer for those of us in the public sector to go through the same thing.
It’s not like there are fewer potholes to fill, students to teach, or prisoners to guard. We’ve got families to feed just like everyone else, but the products and services we provide aren’t as dynamic or susceptible to the economy as many of those in the private sector.
There are just as many tax returns that need a State employee to check, just as many criminals on the streets that need to be locked up, just as many fires that need to be put out and the trash still needs to be hauled.
Maybe someone on the other side can explain it to me, but literally cheering for people – many of whom have forgone raises in recent years and have young families to support – to lose their jobs simply because they happen to work for the government seems malevolent and spiteful.
So those who high five when you hear about people losing their jobs because they work for the State, take a minute to think about the people who simply work the jobs that need to be worked, just the same as you do, so they can support their families and just maybe give their kids a little better life than we had.
Furthermore, every single government employee is a consumer. Losing any of them is a blow to the economy and counteractive.
Well said, Dan.
Let’s not talk about blows to the economy unless we know what we’re talking about. Why are these people being laid off? It’s not a random unfortunate event. Government costs have surged higher than revenue. Government has grown to unsustainable levels. Laying off these individuals is not a blow to the economy. It removes people from inefficient, unsustainble positions and frees them up for more productive, sustainable work.
Dan, I doubt my answer to your question will satisfy you, but since you asked I’ll give it a shot anyway. I will never cheer a layoff. Especially with our government’s monetary policy that punishes savers and encourages debt, I know that loss of income is very close to loss of survival. When you look at the short term impact to individuals, there is absolutely nothing to cheer.
But there are two things to consider in the long term. If a person is in a position that cannot be sustained, the sooner that person is forced to retool, the better. The only thing we do by “providing a cushion” is cause them to retool when they are older and have less time to build expeience in their new line of work. When we are talking about people 5-10 years away from retirement, laying them off 2 years from now instead of today is extremely harmful, as the cost of retooling likely won’t make sense anymore, so the end reslt is simply a lower quality of life through retirement.
More importantly, if you do not allow retooling, the economy stagnates and everyone loses. We had the same sad stories throughout the computer revolution. Many, many jobs were made obsolete. But can you really make an argument that it didn’t need to happen and didn’t make everyones quality of life better? Where are those people who were laid off now? They retooled and have new jobs (yes, no doubt after a rough patch).
So, no, I don’t cheer layoffs. But I do cheer capitalism doing what the government absolutely cannot do: efficiently distribute capital.
(We all pay a lot in taxes to make the lives of those laid off a little less difficult. And there’s a lot we can do privately with food banks, clothing drives, and others. There is no need for an either-or position with capitalism and human compassion.)
Whatever you do, don’t criticize Doyle for his mismanagement of state funds; no, go after the red herring of people supposedly cheering layoffs. Yeah, a 10% budget increase in a recession and presents to laywers, insurance companies, and the indian casinos will all do wonders to put those people back to work.
Patrick: whatever you do, be sure to just glide right past the issues I’m bringing up so you can try to score a hit against someone in the opposite party.
Dan:
Do I feel sorry that government employees might lose 4% of their pay this year. Yes, but to be honest, only in the distant, abstract way that one feels for those one hasn’t met. I’m a little more worried about people who have lost 100% of their pay–like those auto workers in Kenosha. But if I were one of those government workers, I’d be pissed at the man whose lack of responsibility has most contributed to the situation. Sure, your sympathy card to them is nice, but don’t scramble to the high ground because you think I’m taking a shot at someone in the opposite pary; your post does everything it could to ignore the elephant in the room. Doyle.
Let’s suppose for a moment that Doyle was the CEO of a company where your union workers got paid. Could we honestly believe that you wouldn’t be online taking off Doyle’s head? How about a little more intellectual honesty. Please.
I think the ‘cheering’ as you put it, comes not from real people lose a bit of pay or their jobs, but that this is pretty much the first time in a long while there will be a serious cut in government spending, which fits in with the conservative philosophy: less government and spending.
The same thing, if not worse, is happening in the private sector. If people aren’t losing there jobs, many are having to forgo pay raises, endure pay cuts, or work fewer hours to keep the business afloat. Government employees don’t have to worry about the ‘company’ folding, but most years usually benefit from generous raises, a great pension, and ‘free’ health care. Why shouldn’t they have to share in the pain like everyone else now that times are bad?
Also, what else do you suggest Doyle do? He’s already raised taxes. It’s time for government to cut back.
Am I glad some people will lose their jobs or a week of pay? No. But I am glad taxes won’t be raised any more than they already are and hey maybe we can cut a government program or two.
While no one wishes anyone out of a job. Wis state employees are the slowest to change, have horribly outdated practices, and we the taxpayer have to allow a union spokesperson to decide if a new piece of software can be installed and its job impact. Stop whinning and visit another another state. I spent 10 months along side you and your co-workers as a consultant to avoid the union. During that time I actually worked and got things done. Though I was visited twice by a steward and told to slow down. In fact, I replaced 2 people and did more in 10 months than the previous 2 years. Its documented. Its called change. Wisconsin taxpayers need best practices in service delivery that are compared to other states. I sat by and watched two Ft employees do nothing but schedule conference rooms. There is software that can do this for ten years now, but the bargaining unit couldnt allow a dues paying EE to actually do nothing so they must have a title. What I saw on the inside made me sick as a taxpayer, dont even talk about services, waiting to process anything until always sat while a donut and coffee break took precedence. Its why this state is in the state it is. Much could be outsourced with tremendous cost reductions.
I would like to see the historical data that supports the view that unfettered capitalism “efficiently distribute capital.” This ultra-libertarian capitalism argument is an ideology devoid of supporting evidence.
Without regulation capitalism has always:
* Moved money and power into the hand of a small group of people.
* Reduced market competition by aggregating businesses into oligopolies, duopolies or monopolies.
* Does everything possible to maximize profits at the expense of labor and the environment.
The corrupted gains to be made by unfettered capitalism are so great as too make government corruption a constant threat.
Unfettered capitalism has always historically tended to destroy free markets. A free market economy can only be maintained through:
* An aggressive anti-trust and anti-monopoly regime.
* Preventing government corruption through public financing of elections.
* Encouraging the formation and success of new and small businesses to counter the problem is market share and size distorting the free market.
* Encourage cooperatives and employee owned businesses.
* Supporting Unions.
* Enforcing strong environmental and safety regulations.
A market place works best when you have multiple people selling and buying goods. The consolidation effects we have historically seen from unfettered capitalism tend to move us away from competitive marketplaces into a society that is fundamentally undemocratic and looks more like feudalism.
Where have you seen “ultra-libertarian capitalism” at work? What state or nation has ended up in such dire straits due to this form of market capitalism? As an accountant, I deal with hundreds of state, local, and federal regulations daily, so I have never seen what you’re talking about.
Joe, I didn’t see anyone advocating your definition of “unfettered capitalism”. Corruption and monopolistic competition are obvious impediments (fetters) to a truly free market. And while to ensure that a market is free and fair, there has to be regulation of that market, only a tiny percent of government is providing that regulation. The balance of the government is competing against the free market in a corrupt and monopolistic manner.
Sure we need some of the services government provides, but since they are a monopoly, they can get away with being inefficient, and unresponsive. So while I don’t cheer the loss of a job, I am happy that one more person is competing in the free market, rather than acting as a drag on it. There are huge parts of government that are not needed at all, and only survive because they have the ability to bill for services no one wants or needs. And because of the monopolistic nature of government, most of the rest of their services are overpriced and inefficient, and we would be better served if those jobs were outsourced to the private sector.
The steps the federal and state government have been taking to cut costs are almost comical though. We have Doyle making “huge” cuts that will still have government spending growing at an alarming rate. And the Feds cutting 17B in speding after increading it by a Trillion or so. In neither case are those “Cuts”. When spending actually goes down year on year, I’ll think someone is finally taking it seriously.
No one cheers the difficulties felt by the families of workers that will necessarily be furloughed. Sadly though, the real cause of the layoffs is the fact that Wisconsin government has become polluted with excessive administration, bloated programs of little real value, and wasteful spending done by uncaring legislators. We will all suffer when the useful parts of governance are shut down because we have a governor and legislature unwilling to do the real work needed to streamline the bureaucracy.
Perhaps Mr. Doyle could take a furlough himself, and maybe cut that fleet of planes he still hasn’t sold off…as he promised. Now that would be a real start.
@Belleville:
This is not unique to WI. I work in state government IT consulting, and if I had a nickel for every time we’ve suggested a process or system improvement that would save the state millions, but which we couldn’t do because it would anger one union or another by shrinking a job position. So we leave work for that position to do, even though it’s not necessary.
@Joe:
You and I are not going to agree, of course, so I’m not going to try to convince you. But I would like to offer some alternate explanations for the things you view as faults of the free market.
> * Moved money and power into the hand of
> a small group of people.
The free market exists to minimize cost of new competitors entering. The large existing market players are the ones who would love for the market not to be free.
> * Reduced market competition by aggregating
> businesses into oligopolies, duopolies or
> monopolies.
I’m not sure what you’re basing this on. Any premium that a monopoly might cause would only increase the motivation for a new competitor to enter the market, as the ability to undercut the existing players would be greater. This assumes, of course, minimal barriers to entry!
> * Does everything possible to maximize
> profits at the expense of labor and the
> environment.
Labor: if the company goes to far and takes advantage of labor, labor will leave to competitors and the company will lose out. I am always amused by people who will laugh at idiot managers who believes that employees are interchangeable, but then in the next breath act like employees ARE interchangeable and they have no power against management.
> The corrupted gains to be made by
> unfettered capitalism are so great as
> too make government corruption a constant
> threat.
Why are they so great? The left continually fights to increase centralized power in the federal government, and yet wonders by this centralized power gets lobbied? Are you kidding me? If 400 people control $1 trillion for my industry, and I can pay $10 million to direct that money to my company, it is only logical that I would pay the $10 million (lest my competitors will and I will lose).
Let’s consider a different scenario. Let’s say that $1 trillion is divided amongst the states. The same money ends up getting distributed across the same geographical area, yet the lobbying of one group will only allow me to sway an average of 1/50th of $1 trillion my way. Looking at this another way, in order to lobby for that same funding source, I would need to lay out *50 TIMES* the amount of money as before. That’s $500 million in spending instead of $10 million. Would I still do it? Maybe, but it’s less likely and less profitable a venture.
Lobbying and corruption is a direct result of centralization of power in Washington. It is odd that you would somehow blame the free market for this. I don’t see how regulation could ever stop lobbying efforts, without a decentralization of power.
> Unfettered capitalism has always historically
> tended to destroy free markets.
As another mentioned, no one is advocating anarchy here. The government exists to protect the free market. The government does not exist to impede the free market.
“the real cause of the layoffs is the fact that Wisconsin government has become polluted with excessive administration”
And yet it won’t be administrators that will be laid off; it’ll be the folks on the front lines.
Gonna try to hit a lot of comments here at once:
@soyouretheone: First off, you say that government employees have benefited from “generous raises”, and as such we should now “share the pain”. This really illustrates the fact that most people, like yourself, who scream that State employees are raking it in are really just misinformed. Seriously, go and look at the raises State employees have gotten over the last 6 years. It’s all online and available. I’ve worked for the State for almost 5 years, and in that time we’ve gotten a 0.25% raise per year. Hardly “GENEROUS!”. Even in the boom years of wages, we’ve not been on the receiving end of huge raises, and we don’t get bonuses. So please, at least be familiar with what is actually going on before trying to make some random statement just to bolster your point.
@belleville: I’ve made the case against government waste as much as anyone. Every organization has waste. But frankly, “consultants” like you are a lot of the problem and the reason a simple website to track campaign contributions cost two million dollars. So don’t lecture me about your stereotype that every government employee is a lazy donut eating waste please.
@the family guy: how do you streamline a massive decrease in sales tax revenues? It’s a cause of the recession we’re in. Period.
One thing the folks who have commented here have not addressed is the fact which I originally pointed out: many government jobs, mine included, isn’t based upon selling more widgets or more services, and hence can’t just be subjected to this “Well the washing machine maker is hurting so you should to” mentality. Trash still needs to be picked up, students need to be taught, and prisons still need guards.
Many of the jobs which government employees do aren’t tied to the same economic trends that private jobs are. That’s why they are government jobs in a lot of cases. Whether the economy is up or down, the jobs that a lot of us do still need to be done.
And to Jay Weber, who quoted part of what I wrote on his show this morning but again fails to cite who he’s quoting: no, I don’t feel “lucky” that my family is “only” out two weeks of pay. Anymore than you or anyone would feel “lucky” about dealing with that. Seriously Jay, think about it. Maybe your salary is such that you can get by without a few weeks of pay without having to worry about a mortgage or daycare or utility bills, but for the majority of people in America, that just isn’t the case.
So stop pretending like it is, and as I said in the original post, hold off on the cheering and actually think about how layoffs and pay cuts affect everyone. Not just those of us who choose to work as public servants.
Dan, you throw out that you received a 0.25% raise per year over 5 years, yet that doesn’t tell the whole picture. What dollar amounts does that equate to?
First, I don’t think you only made a 0.25% raise per year over 5 years. As that is .0025 and less than a penny. Come on…You want us to believe that! Less tan a penny? If true than maybe you are not that good at your job!
Cost of living adjustment!
I don’t recall any state pay freezes! Dan, can you step us through how you came to the .25% as a main point you are making.
Dan, I agree with you. The claim that state workers are overpaid and get generous raises just doesn’t match reality. In fact, in my opinion, the biggest problem with government is that it allows its compensation scheme to be influenced by th public’s idea of what is “fair”. And for some reason, many in the public believes that pay for state employees (and teachers!) should not be based on merit, and everyone should get the same raise. Well, raises make sense when the org can lay out X dollars to retain an employee that provides more than X in marginal value of is replacement. So when everyone must get the same raise, then the collective marginal benefit is spread acros everyone, including those who provide no or negative marginal benefit. The end result is that good employees don’t get adequately rewarded, and eventually the alternatives elsewhere in the market are just too attractive and the pay increaseis too high. They want to send their kids to college, after all. So the good employees have a short life, and the poor employees stay forever.
But then you say consultants are part of the problem? If there is one group of government employees I truly respect, it is the departnment administrators. They are the only oneswho tend to be hired for merit (often an external hire rather than internal promotion), but they aren’t high enough to be influenced by politics and special interests. Ask one of them what they think about consultants, and they aren’t going to agre with you. Consultants are the only way or the state to take advantage of a working, merit-based employment model. And it’s the only way the state can hold anyone remotely accountable for poor results.
While I’m certain that most readers of this blog (who have no experience in public sector consulting, but that won’t stop them) will have a knee-jerk reaction to this statement, I’ll make it anyway, because it is unfortunately the truth. The fact is that if tomorrow a law was passed fobidding states to use private consultants, all state operations would begin to fail. The systems that support your transortation authority, your welfare case management, your unemployment compensation eligibility determination, your waste management motor pool, etc were all built by private companies and most are mantained by private companies. And the bottom line — having worked with many state IT departments for 3 years — is that the states absolutely do not have individuals capable of doing this work.
Consultants are not part of the problem. Consultants are the most efficient solution to the problem, as long as state governments continue to tie their hands with regard to compensation. If states ever decide to abandon this welfare for their employees, the market for consultants will dry up and states will be able to hire and pay capable people directly (instead of paying them via a consulting company, and paying a premium for overhead and profit).
You don’t have to agree with what I’m saying, and probably most here won’t. All I can say is that my coworkers and I are critcal to the continuing operations of our client, yet I would never, ever work directly for them, because I would be taking a 40-50% pay cut. And when you think about it, at the end of the day, the state is paying WAY MORE for my time than if they matched my salary. It just doesn’t make any sense.
But, that’s your government for you; the solution to all of our problems, except for the new ones it creates…
@ soyouretheone:
You say:
“The same thing, if not worse, is happening in the private sector. If people aren’t losing there [sic] jobs, many are having to forgo pay raises, endure pay cuts, or work fewer hours to keep the business afloat.”
I know it’s not been in the news lately, but we did have a long discussion a couple of months back about why this didn’t seem to apply to the financial services industry. Some commenters were arguing that the very people who had been doing a crappy job (i.e., killing the company) did, in fact, deserve the truckloads of money they were getting.
The deal we’ve always made with our public employees is this: you don’t get a glamorous job, you don’t get bonuses, you don’t get big raises, you don’t get flexibility in your schedule, in some cases you have to work with people who no one else wants to deal with. In exchange, you get job security, decent benefits, and a better-than-average retirement plan.
I’ve worked in state government. I’ll agree that it’s a system that doesn’t usually reward merit. But that’s the deal that we as the public have made, so that we don’t have to pay people what they would make in the private sector.
I’m not commenting on whether the layoffs and furloughs are necessary, just on the fact that public employees don’t necessarily deserve the scorn that is thrown at them.
Dan, it’s not just a recession problem. Wisconsin had large funds set aside that have been raided and depleted by Governor Doyle. Look at how he drained the transportation fund as an example, or the squandering of the tobacco settlement money. We have been living above our means and off of our savings for 6 years.
The problem now is that we have run out of slush funds to raid, tax revenues are down, and we a Governor and Legislature that are unwilling to do the hard thing and tighten our belts. We drive away new jobs (ex. the new power plant), we tax and over-regulate to keep business (the enemy) afraid and malnourished, yet we continue to spend like nothing is wrong.
No one is cheering the sad state of affairs that we find ourselves in, that is just your partisan rhetoric. No one is happy to see more people unemployed as we watch our state suffer and our municipalities live in fear of the loss of state aid. If a few people are saying “See, we told you so” that is simply the result of their frustration at having predicted this downfall, and having been ignored and minimized. We have had this coming for years, now stop trying to paint someone else as the villain. Democrats have run this state for years (with some admitted help from a few RINOs like M. Panzer, and M Lazich… among others). Democrat policies are everywhere and state spending is at a record high. Quit trying to find someone to blame, and fix the mess you folks have made… without punishing the innocent voters who actually believed in you.
@paul: Though Dan and I aren’t in the same classification, I can tell you that IT people at UWM don’t get cost of living increases.
If you are willing to spend $10 for a CD of data you can go look at Dan’s salary a few years ago and compare it to what it is now.
The last two years of data is online and available from state computers. (It used to be open, but apparently their were head hunters using the data to target people.) Unfortunately I couldn’t find the 2004-2005 data at the wayback machine. But from my memory of roughly what Dan was paid when he was hired and what he was paid for 2008-2009, there is very little difference.
Without changing your classification, you are typically not going to get more than a 1% raise. And in recent years there have been freezes where people didn’t get raises.
Benefits are harder to include. We pay a little more out of our listed salary for medical insurance, but I believe the employer contributed part has increased significantly. If you add that benefit to salary, I would expect that to grow at a bit higher rate than just salary alone.
On the consultant issue, they are only a good solution in special circumstances. Consultant time is much more expensive than using normal employees. So generally you only want to use them for short periods of time, to say train your normal employees in something new.
On the union issue, I don’t know how things work in the nonacademic sectors (I have heard its different though), but at UWM the IT union (which I am not a member of, but which a lot of our IT people are) has never had any comments on technology being used by UWM that I am aware of. I have only seen them (from somewhat of a distance) be involved in wage / benefit bargaining and grievances.
While I do not take pleasure of a person losing a job, just as government workers don’t take pleasure of people in the private sector losing jobs. Oh, wait, sometimes they do. Just look at the auto crisis and how many people have been laid off. The government has cheered the layoffs, so to speak. They thought the companies were better off without the factories and employees.
Same thing with government. There is a tremedous amount of waste in government. So, why does the taxpayer have to pay for the waste? So, I do cheer when there is less government, fewer government workers and smaller budgets.
Public sector jobs are financed by taxes. Given the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the private sector, the loss of some public sector jobs is inevitable and necessary (and probably temporary). Even Governor Doyle can’t raise enough “fees” and taxes to to protect every public job.
On a pro rata basis the public sector has lost fewer jobs than the private.
@Smitty,
That’s because the worst has yet to come for state governments. Public sector is always out-of-phase a bit with private sector cycles, due to how taxes are collected and how budgets are set. State governments will get hit hardest this tax year (although they may be better prepared for it than they were this year — apparently it surprised them that they got so little capital gains tax revenue????), and that’s assuming we’re coming out of our economic slump (which I don’t think we are).
@dsmith: because the state has been in a budget crisis for years now, we’ve made concessions while working out contracts. The last one was along the lines of, “We know the state is in a pinch, so we’ll forego anything more than a 1% raise now with the understanding that in the next budget, we can have a 2% raise”.
The problem is, every budget cycle we’re told the same thing, which is true. “It’s tough right now for everyone, we’ll give you less now with the promise we’ll make it up in the future”. The problem is, it’s never gotten any ‘better’ and as a result, you have more people doing more work for wages that can’t keep up with the cost of living increases. I’m not going to go into it, but all this talk about how the public sector “hasn’t felt the cuts” is a gross misunderstanding of the issue. We’ve felt the cuts because we’ve had a hiring freeze in place for what seems like years. When people retire, they aren’t replaced. So while we haven’t matched the downward swing in terms of employment the private sector has felt, that’s because we never had an “upswing” to begin with!
One other thing. I, like anyone my age, with a family to support, paying off student loans, mortgage, etc.. understands that I’m very lucky to have a job in light of the current economic situation. I wake up every day feeling blessed that I don’t have to go through some of the same things that friends and family are having to deal with who haven’t been as fortunate. I really mean that, and it was the original point of the original post here. It’s easy to trash people or generalize them as “lazy!!!” or say they’re a waste of taxpayer money because they work in the public sector.
What I’m saying is that’s not always the case, and again, there are real people who do good work to keep the business of this State/County/City working. We’re doing more with less just like a lot of places, and the vast majority of us are just middle class folks trying to get by just like “everyone else”.
I think it is disingenuous to frame this a “rooting against” state workers. I understand the pain real people go through during a layoff; I’ve been there.
I’m not rooting against state workers. I’m rooting for tax payers in one of the highest tax/fee states. I’m rooting for smaller government that is finally forced to make hard choices rather than just kick the can down the road.
Keeping these employees means that we have to pay more in taxes and fees to pay them. Think about the real families that are overtaxed that you’re rooting against. Many of them are just middle class folks trying to get by just like everyone else.
State employees are “middle class” and “real families” who pay their fair share of taxes too.
I think it’s silly to argue that “if you’re not against cutting state workers, you’re against the middle class”.
Cutting firefighters so you can save $0.50/year on your property taxes is a good idea until it’s your house that’s on fire.
Dan, employees of the state do not pay taxes in any meaningful sense of the term. Their tax returns are an accounting trick, at best. If my employer paid me $10k extra, but then “took out” $10k from my paycheck to fund its own operations, I don’t think I could say that I’m funding the company’s operations.
Yes, there are essential people in state governments. There is no doubt about that. Not even the most ridiculous “ultra-libertarian” like myself would say otherwise. But do you really mean to imply that there is no waste in government today? There are no people who are non-essential? There are no individuals who have been floating along, and whose job descriptions would be difficult to pin down? If so, congratulations to WI, as they’re the only state I’ve seen who operates so efficiently (though I doubt it, since your state is a pretty big client of ours).
Like any organization there’s waste. But simply making cuts across the board does nothing to address the waste. It’s the hatchet approach to surgery when a scalpel is more appropriate.
I would also take this opportunity to point out that while State employees would be put on furlough, private contractors wouldn’t be. Private contractors cost more and also are responsible for plenty of waste, yet they aren’t being asked to “share the pain”.
Dan, I absolutely agree with you. This goes back to the pressure (real or not) that people responsible for the compensation structure in government feel to be “fair”, even when it flies in the face of logic and common business sense.
As for contractors like me, we are often on fixed-price contracts (the state and the public insist on it, even though it ends up costing them more). Asking us to stay home for a few weeks doesn’t save the state any money, and — depending on the project and contract terms — might cost it money.
Either we’re making across-the-board cuts without regard for logic, or we’re using a case-by-case approach and cutting where it makes sense after a cost-benefit analysis. That’s one of the things the private sector gets right, and the public sector gets wrong.
I’m curious about the “$10k extra”. In a recent (November 2008) salary survey in ComputerWorld, the average salary nationwide for a position comparable to mine is about $20k more than mine. In the North Central region, including Wisconsin, the average is about $10K more than mine. I’m a government employee, and have been for many years, with a brief (5 year) foray into the private sector. While I am certainly not saying this is generalizable in any way – one person does not a statistic make – it’s difficult to see from my perspective how this translates into $10K extra. Please note that I am not complaining – I chose my job with eyes open, and chose the pay cut that came when I came back to the government sector. My only point here is that “10K extra” might perhaps be a red herring. MHO.
10k was a random number I used as an example. Also, it had to do with phantom taxation, not underpayment of employees (though they are related, I guess).
I wasn’t saying I’m underpaid (remember, I chose my industry segment). I’m saying I’m not overpaid, which is clearly implied in your example. Unless I am missing the meaning of “$10K extra”. I’ve been obtuse before, and will be again, I’m sure. :)
Yes, you’re missing the point of the 10k. I am saying it doesn’t make any sense to say that government employees pay taxes, because they are funded by tax dollars and their taxes are withheld from their paychecks. If you “pay” $10k in taxes as a government employee, it is just an accounting trick.
I doubt most CPAs would consider taxing a state employee an accounting trick.
Does it make a difference if I were an independent consultant (instead of a state employee) working on a state contract? Would that be an accounting trick too?
Plus, I had another thought. If a government employee is paid from non-tax dollars (called “program revenue” dollars, a direct result of usage fees paid), does that count as an accounting trick? It’s not tax money.
State employees have income taxes withheld from their income and they pay sales and property taxes with their income. Their income is paid by the taxpayer. So who really pays their taxes?
Cutting firefighters is one thing, but what about cutting back the hours that state services like the DMV operates? They’re not an emergency service like firefighters (who are actually employed locally, aren’t they?). Companies all across the USA are cutting jobs to survive, but it seems that every gov’t job is necessary to provide “vital services.” Just where should we cut the spending? Or should we kick the can down the road by running a bigger deficit?
Have you been to a DMV service center recently?? DMV employees are employed locally just like firefighters, so perhaps I’m missing your point?
DMV employees work locally, but they are state employees working for DOT. They and the operating costs of the service centers are paid from state funds, no?
What are you proposing here anyway? Do we keep all these employees despite not having the money to pay them? Do we raise taxes even more on the private sector? Perhaps I’m missing your point. Is it that you accept the need for layoffs, but just want to call out people that seem to be “cheering” for them?
So, Dan, did you know that Mitchell Field has 2 seperate fire departments. The County and AF National Guard. Why? Doesn’t this seem like a waste of money and one or both of the fire departments should go. Perhaps MFD could take over. So, firefighters can be layed off.
Bottom line, there is waste and duplication of services in government that need to be trimmed.
Yes, it would hurt people and that is a shame when they are laid off, but the people who work for the government are in the same boat as people who work in the private sector, but it seems like the people in government think they are better than everybody else.
Government needs to be trimmed and yes, it effects people. Just like private companies, when times are good, who cares if they have an overabundance of workers in government. When times are tough, people who probably should not have been hired in the first place, have to be laid off. It hurts, it sucks and I blame the head of government, (state or local), or the CEO of a company.
Finally, I would love to see more layoffs from the federal government. I don’t think a rational person can argue that there is no waste in the federal goverment.
For those laid off, there is training available for them and people have to adjust to their new condition. If they work at it very hard, they will survive.