Classical Liberalism, Ilana Mercer, libertarianism, Liberty, Political Philosophy
My first book, Broad Sides, One Woman’s Clash with a Corrupt Culture, is now back in print. The publisher is accepting pre-orders now, and will fulfill them in about two weeks, just in time for your Christmas and Hanuka shopping.
The Second Edition comes with bonus material and reviews. All in all, it is a very good paleo-libertarian primer. Read about it here.
The book will be ready for sale and updated at Amazon shortly.
Government, Ilana Mercer, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, The State
Are Federal Workers Overpaid? asks Professor Nancy Folbre of Economix at the New York Times. Unfortunately, Ms. Folbre answers unsatisfactorily. However, she does cite me in her New-York Times’ Economix blog.
New York Times
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
Nancy Folbre – 9 hours ago
“…They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby” …
October 13, 2009, 7:11 am
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
By Nancy Folbre
Today’s Economist
Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
It’s bad enough that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private-sector worker, especially taking into account the value of benefits like health insurance and pensions. But what’s really shocking is that the gulf between the total compensation (wages plus benefits) enjoyed by federal workers and private-sector workers has increased since 1990.
So argues Chris Edwards, the tax director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization.
Similar arguments were featured in a full-page ad sponsored by The Free Enterprise Nation in The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 22.
They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe.
None of the sources provided any details about the characteristics of federal workers or their jobs. But such details (easily extracted from the regular Current Population Survey) explain why federal workers are paid more and why their average compensation has risen higher. They also show that federal employment creates proportionately far more middle-class jobs than the private sector.
In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers.
Federal workers are more likely to receive employer-paid health benefits than private sector workers — 77 percent compared to 56 percent. This is one reason our highest-paid federal employee, the president of the United States, is fighting for universal health insurance coverage.
Federal workers are also more likely than private sector workers to garner pension benefits (81 percent compared to 53 percent). Keep in mind, however, that for some federal employees, pension benefits come in lieu of Social Security payments.
Both health insurance and pension benefits are more expensive for older than for younger workers, and health insurance costs, in particular, have escalated rapidly since 1990. Also, age and educational attainment differences have widened considerably since 1991, when 20 percent of private sector and 31 percent of federal workers had a college degree or higher.
The biggest difference between private and federal employment, illustrated in the graph above, lies in the proportion of jobs paying less than $25,000 a year. In 2008 more than 43 percent of private-sector workers earned less than $25,000 a year. Most federal employees fell squarely in the middle earnings brackets, making $25,000 to $75,000 a year.
A larger share of federal than private-sector workers earned $75,000 to $150,000 a year. Beyond that level, private employees were overrepresented. The percentage earning more than $250,000 in 2008 (not shown in the graph above) was twice as high as the percentage of federal employees (1 percent compared to 0.5 percent).
In order to protect the confidentiality of its respondents, the Current Population Survey assigns all extremely high levels of earnings the same value or “topcode.” As a result, it’s impossible to accurately compare all private sector and federal workers in the long right-hand tail of the earnings distribution
But not all earnings are confidential. We, know, for instance, that the president of the United States earned $400,000 in 2008. He also enjoyed a $50,000 annual expense account and rent-free accomodations for himself and his family at the White House.
By comparison, the compensation of the chief executive officers of the 500 biggest companies of the United States in 2008 came out to an average of $11.4 million each.
Consistent with the overall picture described above, statistical analysis of the impact of individual education and experience on earnings in the United States by the Harvard economist George Borjas showed that federal employees are paid considerably less than comparable private workers at the top end.
As the conservative columnist Ross Douthat points out, earnings inequality is generally lower in public-sector employment, and countries with a larger public sector therefore experience less overall income inequality.
Some oinking can definitely be heard out there in the labor market, but anyone willing to follow the numbers can tell that the biggest piggies are not those employed by the federal government.
Economy, Government, Ilana Mercer, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, The State
Are Federal Workers Overpaid? asks Professor Nancy Folbre of Economix at the New York Times. Unfortunately, Ms. Folbre answers unsatisfactorily. However, she does cite me in her New-York Times’ Economix blog.
New York Times
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
Nancy Folbre – 9 hours ago
“…They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby” …
October 13, 2009, 7:11 am
Are Federal Workers Overpaid?
By Nancy Folbre
Today’s Economist
Nancy Folbre is an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
It’s bad enough that the average federal worker is paid more than the average private-sector worker, especially taking into account the value of benefits like health insurance and pensions. But what’s really shocking is that the gulf between the total compensation (wages plus benefits) enjoyed by federal workers and private-sector workers has increased since 1990.
So argues Chris Edwards, the tax director at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research organization.
Similar arguments were featured in a full-page ad sponsored by The Free Enterprise Nation in The Wall Street Journal on Sept. 22.
They were dramatized by Ilana Mercer in World Net Daily in a feature entitled “Life in the Oink Sector” and echoed by the conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby in The Boston Globe.
None of the sources provided any details about the characteristics of federal workers or their jobs. But such details (easily extracted from the regular Current Population Survey) explain why federal workers are paid more and why their average compensation has risen higher. They also show that federal employment creates proportionately far more middle-class jobs than the private sector.
In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers.
Federal workers are more likely to receive employer-paid health benefits than private sector workers — 77 percent compared to 56 percent. This is one reason our highest-paid federal employee, the president of the United States, is fighting for universal health insurance coverage.
Federal workers are also more likely than private sector workers to garner pension benefits (81 percent compared to 53 percent). Keep in mind, however, that for some federal employees, pension benefits come in lieu of Social Security payments.
Both health insurance and pension benefits are more expensive for older than for younger workers, and health insurance costs, in particular, have escalated rapidly since 1990. Also, age and educational attainment differences have widened considerably since 1991, when 20 percent of private sector and 31 percent of federal workers had a college degree or higher.
The biggest difference between private and federal employment, illustrated in the graph above, lies in the proportion of jobs paying less than $25,000 a year. In 2008 more than 43 percent of private-sector workers earned less than $25,000 a year. Most federal employees fell squarely in the middle earnings brackets, making $25,000 to $75,000 a year.
A larger share of federal than private-sector workers earned $75,000 to $150,000 a year. Beyond that level, private employees were overrepresented. The percentage earning more than $250,000 in 2008 (not shown in the graph above) was twice as high as the percentage of federal employees (1 percent compared to 0.5 percent).
In order to protect the confidentiality of its respondents, the Current Population Survey assigns all extremely high levels of earnings the same value or “topcode.” As a result, it’s impossible to accurately compare all private sector and federal workers in the long right-hand tail of the earnings distribution
But not all earnings are confidential. We, know, for instance, that the president of the United States earned $400,000 in 2008. He also enjoyed a $50,000 annual expense account and rent-free accomodations for himself and his family at the White House.
By comparison, the compensation of the chief executive officers of the 500 biggest companies of the United States in 2008 came out to an average of $11.4 million each.
Consistent with the overall picture described above, statistical analysis of the impact of individual education and experience on earnings in the United States by the Harvard economist George Borjas showed that federal employees are paid considerably less than comparable private workers at the top end.
As the conservative columnist Ross Douthat points out, earnings inequality is generally lower in public-sector employment, and countries with a larger public sector therefore experience less overall income inequality.
Some oinking can definitely be heard out there in the labor market, but anyone willing to follow the numbers can tell that the biggest piggies are not those employed by the federal government.
Ancient History, Democracy, Education, Ilana Mercer, Intellectualism, Intelligence, Pop-Culture, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, The Zeitgeist
Excerpted from “Writing In The Age Of The Idiot,” this week’s WND.COM column:
“The reasons for addressing readers’ responses to last week’s column, “Paleoconservative Hypocrisy” [not my title], lie not in an exaggerated sense of self-importance, but in a sense of urgency. For some particularly jarring retorts (these have become ubiquitous over the years) are emblematic of the triumph of twiddle dumb and twiddle dumber in American culture and politics. And that’s a problem.
Super smart sorts still predominate in the few professional niches in which advanced skill and aptitude are necessary if bridges are to keep from falling, airplanes to remain airborne, and their human cargo pacified with electronic gadgets. Otherwise, an intellectual underclass has risen to dominate America in almost every field of endeavor.
Once upon-a-time simpletons sought self-improvement. No longer; in the Age of the Idiot they are groomed to be oblivious to their shortcomings—and will proceed loudly and aggressively against those who fail to mirror their mindset. … On encountering someone he might learn from, he unfurls an “untamed Id” and an inflated Ego in all their fury.
So it was that Ivan Poulter wrote to inform me that … although he meant no insult, he nevertheless needed to inform me that I ‘also appear as some kind of dumb-ass in [my] exaggerated intelligence.'”
Believe it or not, but one Founding Founders forewarned of the “Idiocracy,” although not quite in those words. More in the column “Writing In The Age Of The Idiot,” which can be read on the weekends on Taki’s too.
Update I (Oct. 9): George Pal’s comment hereunder about the association between democratic mass society and mass stupidity is an important one. I wanted to include this observation, plus a reference from a “dumb-ass with an exaggerated intelligence”—can’t recall if it was Hoppe or Huntington—but I dropped the idea. Too many ideas in one column might have caused a riot.
Update II: Regarding Clay Shirky (whoever he may be, posted by anon): the man belongs to the postmodern tradition—a “tradition” that has managed to almost completely dismantle one of the greatest achievements of Western Civilization: the intellectual discipline. (Hint: this is why you “study” so-called “social sciences” o “cultural studies” in secondary and tertiary schools and not history.)
“Intellectual disciplines were founded in ancient Greece and gained considerable impetus from the work of Aristotle who identified and organized a range of subjects into orderly bodies of learning. … The history of Western knowledge shows the decisive importance of the structuring of disciplines. This structuring allowed the West to benefit from two key innovations: the systematization of research methods, which produced an accretion of consistent findings; and the organization of effective teaching, which permitted a large and accumulating body of knowledge to be transmitted from one generation to the next.” (The Killing of History, Keith Windschuttle, Encounter, pp. 247-250)
The concept of the intellectual discipline is inseparable from Western canon and curriculum.