The Latest

Local Government Payroll: 2002 and 2010

|

This post is another discussion of the spreadsheet of the U.S. Census Bureau’s state and local government employment and payroll data, which is linked from this post. The data can be downloaded by following the link. It shows that the average New York City local government employee earned 40.4% more than the average U.S. local government employee in March 2010. That is down from 44.6% above average in March 2002, when New York City’s police, fire and sanitation payroll was inflated by post-9/11 overtime.

For comparison, local government employees in New Jersey earned 27.1% more than the national average in March 2010 up from 23.9% above average in March 2002. And private sector workers in Downstate New York, including New York City, Long Island and the Lower Hudson Valley (which really functions as one big labor market), earned 56.0% more than private sector workers in the U.S. in 2010, according to Employment and Wages data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Excluding the massively paid Finance and Insurance sector, Downstate New York’s private sector workers earned 30.0% more than the U.S. average, the same as in 2002 and a figure that has varied only slightly – from 29.0% above average to 32.0% above average – over the past decade. A discussion follows.

Some Rules for Radicals

|

SAUL ALINSKY:  Always remember the  rule[s] of power tactics…The seventh rules: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.

A FEW THINGS TO SAY AFTER WHAT HAPPENED IN CD #9

|

A few months ago I wrote a column imploring Anthony Wiener not to resign his office. Many short-sighted democrats took umbrage; some of these very Dems were vociferously defending Bill Clinton during “Monicagate” without seeing the contradiction now. Back then I was a lonely voice saying Clinton should step down from the presidency since it was the decent thing to do.

SOME PUSHBACK ON MY LAST COLUMN

|

I always know when a column has touched some raw nerves: the phones start ringing almost as soon as the column is e-mailed; long before it even goes public/viral/lol.  And that’s when I usually have to defend my thesis or ”splain” myself like the deceased Lucille Ball. My last column- primarily about the potential Ed Towns v. Hakeem Jeffries congressional primary next year- brought some strange calls and e-mails. So let me expound on some of the things I wrote there and even throw in some other kibbles and bits.

They Still Don’t Get It

|

From Bloomberg/Business Week: "New York’s 8 percent assumed rate of return on its pension investments is so unrealistic that the city may have to spend even more than the $1 billion it has in reserve for its retirement plans, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said." I can't argue with that. "Officials are waiting for chief actuary Robert North to recommend how much the city can expect to reap on its pension assets, which were valued at $120 billion as of June 30. North hasn’t issued a recommendation in more than a year." Waiting for a miracle.

"Each quarter-point drop in the assumed rate of return would cost New York at least $350 million to be set aside to pay benefits, said Marc LaVorgna, a mayoral spokesman." Wrong! The cost to the city depends on the cost of benefits. Inflating the presumed future rate of return doesn't change the actual cost one cent. It just changes the extent to which you can cover up the cost and shift it to a future you don't care about. Which, along with retroactive pension enhancements in deals between unions and politicians, are the reasons we got in this mess to begin with.

© Room Eight