Krugman on the attacks on teachers and other union employees' compensation

[ProSense]

Schoolteachers Driving Cadillacs

Jonathan Chait tells us that public-sector employees are the new welfare queens. Quite: any time you try to talk about the fiscal plight of state and local government, you get spittle-flecked denunciations of unions and their crazy pay packages.

So, how much truth is there to this? State and local employees are paid more, on average, than private-sector workers — about 13 percent more, according to this analysis by John Schmitt. But as Schmitt shows, that’s an apples and oranges comparison: state and local workers are much better educated and somewhat older than private-sector workers, and once you correct for that the comparison actually seems to go the other way.

I think the easy way to think about this is to realize that about half of state and local workers are teachers and academic administrators — which means that they’re college-educated, at minimum. And think about it: how many ambitious young people do you know saying, “My goal in life is to become a high school teacher — that would put me on easy street”?

Yes, firefighters and police get pretty generous pay packages; they also pull people from burning buildings.

<...>

A few percent either way in workers’ compensation would not make a big difference to state and local spending. This is a phony issue.

Of course, so were the welfare queens.

From the first link in Krugman's piece:

Conservatives say that excessive public employee pensions exemplify the greed of unions (which sought these generous benefits for public employees) and inefficiency of government (which agreed to pay them). If local and state governments are struggling financially, these conservatives say, they should figure out some way to reduce or revoke those promised benefits, rather than come to Washington and beg for help from the taxpayers.

The Senate Republican Policy Committee sums up the right’s mantra succinctly: “No state bailouts should be contemplated until the wages and pensions of public sector employees are brought into line.” Translation: You shouldn't have to give up another cent of your taxes until government stops paying its bureaucrats so damn much.

Republicans must actually believe they can justify excessive CEO pay and tax cuts for the rich by attacking teachers, waiters and all union workers.

From the Senate Republican Policy Committee link: Taxpayers Cannot Afford More State Bailouts

[rfranklin]

1. It's so easy to be manipulated into jealousy...

So many people I meet are determined to side with the Republicans against public workers. Instead of saying, wait, everyone should have decent benefits and pay, they want to bring everyone down to what the Republicans want to pay them...virtually nothing. In fact, I think that most wealthy Republicans would like to reestablish slavery. Notice how often they have stated that the slaves were happy and content in their bondage.

[Bozita]

3. +1

[tsuki]

5. And before that, they sided with Republicons against union workers.

[EC]

8. They are real good at that

and most I've met that rile against unions have been turned down for jobs in union shops for lack of education certification) in the chosen area...they were jealous that they couldn't get a union job...

[saigon68]

6. The Sheep ---manipulated by abortion, gun control and Gay Marriage

Will vote for these mother fuckers as long a Beck, the Priests and Limpballs can use hate to get them to the polls

These guys are the worst

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. They hate teachers because they don't like the idea of education

[saigon68]

44. They hate teachers

Because they have a union here in my great state

[n2doc]

10. Heck I see that here

Someone posts that they are making 50K and they get jumped on by folks thinking that "is a fortune to live on"

Somehow only the CEO's are allowed to make vast sums of money and have a great retirement. Because they are so worthy :sarcasm:

[YvonneCa]

2. Thanks for posting this, Prosense. I love...

...Paul Krugman. :)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

4. Bad Politics = Bad Policy

It's a classic Garbage In/Garbage Out situation.

When you assume that teachers get paid too much, you start cutting wages and benefits, which makes the teaching profession less attractive to really bright young people, who know damned well they can earn more by working somewhere else.

So while there are always people who will teach for the joy and passion of teaching (god love them), we're missing out on some very talented people who would make fine teachers, but their economic situation simply won't allow them to take vows of poverty (I'm over-stating, but for science and engineering majors, that's pretty close to being the case).

[quaker bill]

16. As a scientist,

I would love to teach. I simply could not afford it. The best paid public school teacher here makes roughly half my salary, and I am by no means rich.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

30. It's alarming

The general lack of scientific and financial knowledge that comes out of high schools. But these are the two professions where the private sector is by far more lucrative. And you don't have to spend 3-5 years hoping to get offered a fulltime contract. I have a friend, a music instructor, who is in his fourth year of teaching and every year he gets "let go" until the Board decides if they're going to hire him back the next year. Who wants to live that way?

[quaker bill]

42. I am doing just fine

as it is now financially, but would quickly go broke as a teacher. Being a Quaker, I believe in simple living so my needs are fairly modest. That said, teacher's salary here would not cut it, I looked into this seriously at one point and backed away rather quickly.

[EC]

7. And I'll bet that they think a firefighter working for $8.00

would be just as dedicated as one making more? Or that the matchbook cover college education is as good as an accredited college - so the "educated employee" for less money is just as competent as the well educated.

One thing about union workers - I know they have the right knowledge for the job and are accredited. I wouldn't hire a non-union electrician to wire my home...etc...

[Radical Activist]

9. Corporations hate competing with public sector wages.

Once public sector wages are down then they can lower their own wages even more. It's about lowering the standard of living for everyone.

[Hansel]

28. They can start lowering then. Because they are down and...

have been for a long time.

[tinrobot]

11. Schoolteachers driving Cadillacs? How about CEOs flying Gulfstreams?

Corporations have been the new welfare queens for at least the past 30 years.

[ProSense]

13. How about

oil subsidies and tax breaks to support Lee Raymond?

[dsc]

12. I am one of those public sector employees

I make a little more than 46k a year. I have a Masters Degree, without that degree I would be making about 40k. Yes, I have a pretty good retirement but I also pay a great deal for it. I pay the same SS taxes as you do, plus I pay an additional 5% in a seperate state retirement fund. I certainly don't think myself over paid. thanks for posting this.

[ProSense]

14. Woah! Krugman update:

Update: A number of commenters have alluded to large unfunded pension liabilities. Two points: first, the fact that state and local governments haven’t been making large enough contributions to pension funds says nothing, one way or the other, about whether workers are overcompensated. Bear in mind that, as Cohn notes, many government employees don’t get Social Security. Second, a “trillion dollar liability” needs to be placed in context: state and local governments spend $2.8 trillion per year. Compare the pension liability with total spending over, say, the expected remaining lifetimes of those workers, and it’s a real problem but not inconsistent with my point that these compensation issues have been grossly overstated.

Following the link in Cohn's piece leads, ultimately, to this NYT article:

<...>

More than six million public employees work outside the Social Security system, including roughly 1.7 million teachers in California, Illinois and Texas, and nearly two million employees of all types in Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Nevada and Ohio, as well as Louisiana and Maine. For years, these and other states have insisted they could provide richer pensions at a lower cost, both to workers and taxpayers, because of investments.

Some of those states’ pension plans now have shortfalls so large that they need outsize contributions. Virtually all state pension funds have had big losses in the last two years, but the go-it-alone states appear especially vulnerable.

Not only are these states trying to provide richer benefits with smaller contributions than the payroll tax for Social Security, but they have promised to do it for workers who can retire 10 and sometimes 20 years younger.

<...>

[dsc]

15. It wasn't a lower cost in Ohio

I paid either 9% or 10% there vs 6.2% for SS.

[YvonneCa]

21. As one of the 1.7 million teachers in...

...California, it should be noted that there is monthly contribution to CALSTRS, but not SS. Teachers do not get to choose. If teachers did other SS covered work (and contributed) for long enough to gain SS...that benefit is cut by about 2/3. WEP/GPO (Windfall Elimination Provision/ Government Pension Offset).

[ProSense]

25. Is anyone working to change this?

Why no choice?

[dsc]

27. because those states retirement predated social security

and those states opted out. Just like you have no choice but to pay into social security those teachers have no choice but to pay into those retirement systems.

[ProSense]

29. They predate SS?

Why does that matter? Social Security was designed as a safety net for all Americans.

"Just like you have no choice but to pay into social security those teachers have no choice but to pay into those retirement systems."

Do you approve of this? Sure, for most people Social Security is mandatory, but many people also have additional choices, including pensions and 401Ks

[dsc]

31. I have no idea why the original exemption was made

but it was the federal law which made the exemption. It should be noted teachers can have 401k accounts (they are called something else but work the same) but they don't in many states participate in social security. Honestly I didn't mind it in Ohio as long as the retirement we were promised materializes. Now I do pay into social security and a retirement for my state.

[YvonneCa]

34. This was done in about 1984 (Reagan) to prevent...

...'double-dipping.' I don't know why there is no choice, but would guess it was part of the change in the CA law at the time. The NEA has been working...unsuccessfully... for years to get rid of WEP/GPO.

Their website has a lot of info... http://www.nea.org/home/16491.htm

[ibegurpard]

17. I'm sorry did I miss something?

Have Arne and the Obama administration backed off on their pledge to replace public schools and teachers with private charter schools?

[ProSense]

18. "did I miss something?" Yes,

Krugman's point.

[ibegurpard]

19. His point: Democrats need to castigate Repukes for attacking educators

My point: How exactly do they do that when they're doing the same thing?

[ProSense]

22. "How exactly do they do that when they're doing the same thing?"

Krugman's point: "any time you try to talk about the fiscal plight of state and local government, you get spittle-flecked denunciations of unions and their crazy pay packages."

No, the Dems aren't "doing the same thing".

[MadHound]

23. Let me clue you into something

School starts here in 2-3 weeks. Most of the teacher hires and fires have already taken place, contracts are signed, decisions made. This money is going to have little effect on the employment of teachers this year. The main effect will be next year, this years decisions have already been made, and most range from bad to almost criminal.

The money that has had the most effect has been the RTTT money. Obama dangled these billions out there in front of cashed strapped states during the major contract season, earlier this spring and summer. Thus, states were forced to bite, even though RTTT strings mean more testing, merit based pay, and unlimited charter schools.

Thus, for many teachers, this money that is now forthcoming is nothing but adding insult to injury. Worse, it is a one shot wonder, and to revive our public education you need much more than a one shot wonder.

[ProSense]

24. OK,

what the hell does that have to do with attacking teachers and union employees over their compensation packages?

[MadHound]

35. If I have to explain this to you,

After all the posts, links and references on this topic, then frankly you're too uninformed on this topic to have any position of yours taken seriously. I suggest that you go educate yourself on this issue before again venturing an opinion that you are so dreadfully uninformed on.

[ProSense]

36. Who asked you for the explanation you posted?

I asked what it has to do with attacking teachers and union employees over their compensation, which is the point of Krugman's piece.

You volunteer an explanation about why states are hurting, that the funding is late and more is needed. Again, what does that have to do with Krugman's point.

"I suggest that you go educate yourself on this issue before again venturing an opinion that you are so dreadfully uninformed on."

And try to provide a response about the relevance of your comment to the OP without being condescending.

[MadHound]

37. Sorry, didn't know I had to get the permission of the almighty PS to post in here

Who died and made you admin?

You posted that "no, Dems aren't doing the same thing," with a link to the current education funding bill. I proceeded to point out what a sham and insult that bill is, since it is coming so late in the year to do much, if any good in regards to saving teachers' jobs. I also mentioned that this comes on top of virtually forcing states to accept the terms of RTTT. If you don't know what RTTT does as far as attacking teachers, unions, and public education, then you do need to go educate yourself. Is that an informative enough recap for you, or do you need the slo mo pan shot?

As far as my attitude, being condescending as you put it, well, ya know, I really don't like people who slam into me demanding explanations and acting as though it is an insult that I post in a particular thread. Nor does it do anything for my civility when you come back with "Who asked you for the explanation you posted?", which comes across basically as "Who asked for your opinion." This is a pattern I see you use time and again around here, somebody posts something you don't like and you become the virtual bully, belittling and demeaning people.

I suggest that if you want respect and civility then you need to start demonstrating some yourself. Otherwise, deal with the consequences and suck it up like a man rather than whining.

[ProSense]

38. Who said you needed my permission? Wait,

"You posted that 'no, Dems aren't doing the same thing,' with a link to the current education funding bill. I proceeded to point out what a sham and insult that bill is, since it is coming so late in the year to do much, if any good in regards to saving teachers' jobs."

So your point is that when Krugman calls out the RW attacks on teachers' compensation and state aid, you see the Dems passing a $26 billion dollar aid package as the same thing?

"Let me clue you into something"

"Who died and made you admin?"

"After all the posts, links and references on this topic, then frankly you're too uninformed on this topic to have any position of yours taken seriously. I suggest that you go educate yourself on this issue before again venturing an opinion that you are so dreadfully uninformed on. "

"This is a pattern I see you use time and again around here, somebody posts something you don't like and you become the virtual bully, belittling and demeaning people."

What was that about "belittling and demeaning people"?

[MadHound]

39. Good bye, this discussion has become pointless,

As are most discussions with you are. Get back to me when you evolve beyond the cut and paste.

[ProSense]

40. "Get back to me when you evolve beyond the cut and paste. " Again,

what was that about "belittling and demeaning people"?

[ibegurpard]

41. I suppose I should clarify

Democrats, or more specifically the Obama administration, are doing the same thing without the spittle.
Sorry, allowing our poorest school districts to be gutted for the benefit of private charter schools is not my idea of supporting teachers or public education.

[LWolf]

26. Teachers are paid for the number of days worked.

There are a few realities never factored into discussions of pay:

1. Very few teachers are able to perform every duty required of them within contractual hours. Most of us work many hours beyond those our contract specifies. Hours outside the contract that aren't compensated. In the '09- '10 school year, I worked about 12 hours a week outside my contractual hours, all year long.

2. Every teacher I've ever known in the 27 years and 2 states I've spent in public education subsidizes the classroom with their own funds. Personally, I've spent from $700 - $2200 in any given year, based on school budget, parent ability to provide for students, my own budget, and shifts in grade levels, subjects, and responsibilities.

[AngryAmish]

32. And they never mention that the hours are murder

Some teachers have to work past 4pm!

[LWolf]

33. Or their contract SAYS they're done at 4.

Whether they can fulfill all of the responsibilities enumerated in that contract by 4 is another story.

[The Wizard]

43. If teaching was easy

Publicans would be in line from here to China to get the jobs.
Their ultimate goal is a two class system, serfs and lords. They want lower living standards so as to keep the working class in line. No money = no power.