PDA

View Full Version : Union Backers Can't Handle the Truth



Apocalypse
03-02-2011, 09:44 AM
They say it's not about the money.

So, you'd better believe it's about the money.

And that is only the most prominent of the lies being told by public employee unions and their enablers on the left in Wisconsin, where Republican Gov. Scott Walker is trying to close a looming $3.6 billion budget gap by pushing a bill to strip public sector unions of some of their collective bargaining rights.

This is not just some heartland squabble that has no relevance here. The protests are spreading — they reached the steps of the Massachusetts Statehouse this past week, where there could be trouble in paradise even within the sacred marriage between Democratic politicians and public sector unions. Gov. Deval Patrick is looking to limit their power when it comes to bargaining health care benefits.

And what is happening in Wisconsin is instructive, because the union playbook used there will be used everywhere.

By now, the bumper-sticker version of the dispute is familiar. Gov. Walker says without the constraints he seeks on collective bargaining, he will have to lay off more than 5,000 workers. The unions, who have massed by the tens of thousands at the Statehouse (Do you ever wonder why they have so much time off to protest?), say it's not about the money — that they are willing to make the benefit concessions sought by Walker. They're just not going to let him steal their collective bargaining rights.

But that is the equivalent of saying, "It's not about the money. It's just about the money."

Collective bargaining, by its nature, is about money. Not so much salaries — they are practically an afterthought. The real gold is in benefits — holidays, sick time, personal days, funeral leave, vacation, seniority, step increases, work rules like minimum manning, shift swapping and overtime, health care and, of course, pensions.

The unions may be willing to pay a bit toward their pensions and health care, but they will be looking to get it all back and more in other ways. It's what they euphemistically call "give and take at the bargaining table."

Beyond that, here are a few other areas where the allegedly oppressed workers could use some truth serum:

Civility for thee, but not for me: Wasn't it just a month or so ago that Democrats, led by President Obama, were demanding "civility" in political discourse?

Weren't Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly being blamed for inciting the deranged Jared Lee Loughner to kill six people in Tucson and grievously wound Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords through incendiary rhetoric and putting crosshairs on congressional districts?

Apparently that only applies to conservatives. Union protesters are comparing Walker to Hitler. Massachusetts Congressman Michael Capuano sounded like a common union thug when he told a rally on the Statehouse steps, "Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary." He also referred to counter-protesters as "nuts."

What would he be saying if Sarah Palin said that, and tea party activists had cheered?

Apparently, when it's coming from the left, incendiary rhetoric and calls for violence morph into, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

Working people: Politicians like Capuano love to talk about how they're "standing up for working people." But they're very selective about which working people. They only stand up for those who work for the government. Working people in the private sector who have to pay the bill? Not so much.

Unions vs. corporate might: Protesters are trying to make this about unions in general. It's not. It's about public-sector unions. Even Democratic icon FDR was opposed to them, because he saw the obvious conflict of interest — they would work to elect their bosses and then negotiate with them out of sight of "the people" who get stuck with the bill. There is no corporate bogeyman here.

Rights: The leader of Wisconsin's largest public employee union said his members, "will not be denied our God-given right to join a real union."

This is especially rich. Why is he bringing God into this? He's violating the separation of church and state! Where's the outrage? But, if God is involved, why did He wait through all of human history until the middle of the last century to bestow collective bargaining as a right?

Also, God being evenhanded and all, shouldn't there be a corresponding right not to join a union, and pay its confiscatory dues that are then spent on electing Democrats?

Democracy for thee, not for me: When Republicans complained about Obama, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid crushing the minority in pursuit of their agenda, the president had a one-line answer: "We won the election."

But since Republicans won the governor's office and both houses of the Legislature in Wisconsin, Democratic senators have left the state so the Republican majority cannot conduct business. If the GOP had done something similar, they would have rightly been castigated as cowardly and anti-democratic. In Wisconsin, the left is hailing them as heroes.

Class warfare: This concept has been turned upside down. Relative to most taxpayers in Wisconsin, it is the public-sector workers who are the rich, with better pay and vastly better benefits than those in the private sector. To portray themselves as the oppressed targets of a tyrant amounts to theater of the absurd.

The real problem here is that government is running out of other people's money. Maybe they really should be talking to God, and asking him for another loaves-and-fishes type of miracle.

Calling Gov. Walker a Nazi isn't going to manufacture the money they want.

FBIGuy
03-02-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm starting to think that Walker should cave in, give them what they want and then fire the lot of them because the government can't afford to pay them. A hundred thousand or so new welfare receipts should really do wonders for the state's economy.

Constitutionally Speaking
03-02-2011, 01:21 PM
I'm starting to think that Walker should cave in, give them what they want and then fire the lot of them because the government can't afford to pay them. A hundred thousand or so new welfare receipts should really do wonders for the state's economy. He WOULD have to hire others to replace them. THOSE new teachers might actually appreciated their cushy jobs.

Wei Wu Wei
03-02-2011, 07:38 PM
Class warfare: This concept has been turned upside down. Relative to most taxpayers in Wisconsin, it is the public-sector workers who are the rich, with better pay and vastly better benefits than those in the private sector. To portray themselves as the oppressed targets of a tyrant amounts to theater of the absurd..

lmao

http://i.imgur.com/Mkwwr.jpg

Novaheart
03-02-2011, 07:45 PM
You want to deal a blow to the unions?

Demand Single Payer health insurance. If everyone gets the same coverage by paying the same premium/tax, then the unions will be out of the health benefit business.

ps- it also does away with worker comp health coverage

Rockntractor
03-02-2011, 07:49 PM
lmao

http://i.imgur.com/Mkwwr.jpg

It is a good time for them to quit then

FlaGator
03-02-2011, 08:17 PM
You want to deal a blow to the unions?

Demand Single Payer health insurance. If everyone gets the same coverage by paying the same premium/tax, then the unions will be out of the health benefit business.

ps- it also does away with worker comp health coverage

You make a very good point my friend.

PoliCon
03-02-2011, 11:29 PM
lmao

http://i.imgur.com/Mkwwr.jpg

Source? And are they comparing Wisconsin public sector workers to Wisconsin private sector workers? Or to the national average? Or to what? It's easy to make a graph - but without context the graph is meaningless and less than worthless. :rolleyes:

Apocalypse
03-02-2011, 11:35 PM
Source? And are they comparing Wisconsin public sector workers to Wisconsin private sector workers? Or to the national average? Or to what? It's easy to make a graph - but without context the graph is meaningless and less than worthless. :rolleyes:

I found this on it.


There are some problems with the study that may have skewed the results. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that he assumes two people with the same level of education should be getting the same pay--as if the field of study were not important. It's inappropriate to compare those with bachelors or advanced degrees in private industry with those having the same level of degree in the private sector because the disciplines aren't comparable. Someone with a masters degree in art history working a city hall is not "entitled" to the same compensation as, say, an MBA or chemical engineer with a masters degree in private industry. The disciplines and backgrounds of private and public sector employees are surely much different, and their market value is different. Market value or any measure of "fair value" depends on duties as well as experience and capabilities, but Keefe appears to only consider seniority and education level. The field of endeavor will make a big difference for those with degrees. High school GPA and other work experience and skills will make a difference for those with high school education or less than high school education.

http://sanity.blog-city.com/do_public_employees_really_make_less_than_private_ sector_emp.htm

Long and it ripped him apart

Rockntractor
03-02-2011, 11:37 PM
You want to deal a blow to the unions?

Demand Single Payer health insurance. If everyone gets the same coverage by paying the same premium/tax, then the unions will be out of the health benefit business.

ps- it also does away with worker comp health coverage

They would be given an exemption just like they are doing now.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 12:19 AM
Source? And are they comparing Wisconsin public sector workers to Wisconsin private sector workers? Or to the national average? Or to what? It's easy to make a graph - but without context the graph is meaningless and less than worthless. :rolleyes:

The source is written right there at the bottom fool it says in bold letters Source


Here is the paper you can read it yourself: http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

PoliCon
03-03-2011, 12:22 AM
The source is written right there at the bottom fool it says in bold letters Source


Here is the paper you can read it yourself: http://epi.3cdn.net/9e237c56096a8e4904_rkm6b9hn1.pdf

Yes I saw what the 'source' is. I also read up on them as a far left leaning "progressive" group. Even still - you did not link back to the source. You just threw it out there like we should all abandon any opposition because you have a graph. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 12:25 AM
I found this on it.



http://sanity.blog-city.com/do_public_employees_really_make_less_than_private_ sector_emp.htm

Long and it ripped him apart
Most of these criticisms are dispelled in the first page of the study. It's clearly aimed at people too lazy to think for themselves who would rather get their opinion from some idiot blog writer than actually reading the damn thing.


Let me give you an example;

From your blog:
The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that he assumes two people with the same level of education should be getting the same pay--as if the field of study were not important. It's inappropriate to compare those with bachelors or advanced degrees in private industry with those having the same level of degree in the private sector because the disciplines aren't comparable. Someone with a masters degree in art history working a city hall is not "entitled" to the same compensation as, say, an MBA or chemical engineer with a masters degree in private industry. The disciplines and backgrounds of private and public sector employees are surely much different, and their market value is different. Market value or any measure of "fair value" depends on duties as well as experience and capabilities, but Keefe appears to only consider seniority and education level.


From the paper:
While we ideally would compare public sector workerswith private sector workers performing similar work, it is not possible to find private sector matches for the entirespectrum of public employees. Too many critical occupations in the public sector—for example, police, fire, andcorrections— lack private sector analogues. Even public
and private teaching differ significantly. Public schoolsaccept all students, while private schools are sometimes highly selective and may exclude or remove poor per-forming, special needs, or disruptive students. Consequently, comparing workers of similar “humancapital” (fundamental personal characteristics and labormarket skills) is considered the best alternative. Analyses based on comparisons of personal characteristics and labormarket skills capture what comparable work studies haveshown to be the most important and salient attributesaffecting compensation. Prior research reveals that education level is the singlemost important earnings predictor. Education helps foster work-relevant skills. People invest heavily in their ownand their children’s education, by paying for housing incommunities with good schools and funding attendanceat schools, colleges, and universities. Empirically, experience follows education in advancingearnings. People learn by doing and by handling a variety of job tasks as they advance within occupations. Most occupations reward experience, since on-the-job learning delivers more competent and complex performance.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 12:28 AM
Yes I saw what the 'source' is. I also read up on them as a far left leaning "progressive" group. Even still - you did not link back to the source. You just threw it out there like we should all abandon any opposition because you have a graph. :rolleyes:

Oppose all you want I don't care how you deal with the graph. I'm just posting the data that clearly refutes the silly claims being thrown around here. If you want to believe that this data doesn't exist because Karl Rove considers the Economic Policy Institute to be "left wing" then by all means go ahead. The paper is there to read and if you have any problems with the methodology you're welcome to point them out but I have a feeling that "they're liberals!!" is about all the criticism you've got.

Rockntractor
03-03-2011, 12:29 AM
Yes I saw what the 'source' is. I also read up on them as a far left leaning "progressive" group. Even still - you did not link back to the source. You just threw it out there like we should all abandon any opposition because you have a graph. :rolleyes:

He doesn't answer anything we produce to prove our points, he is just like the other trolls on this board he just continues with his talking points.
We waste a lot of bandwidth on these trolls, they don't debate, they just use us for their soapbox.

Apocalypse
03-03-2011, 08:27 AM
Most of these criticisms are dispelled in the first page of the study. It's clearly aimed at people too lazy to think for themselves who would rather get their opinion from some idiot blog writer than actually reading the damn thing.


Let me give you an example;

From your blog:


From the paper:

And I'll call BS on that paper. From the blog.


To be more fair, we should compare people in equivalent job categories and with similar duties, but this is not done. It's hard to do for some areas like fire fighters, but it can be done for many jobs. Some have argued that teachers don't have comparable private sector counterparts, so education and seniority is the only reasonable way to evaluate their compensation. Actually, there are counterparts. Private schools exist and have teachers with similar duties and education. Why not compare their compensation to public school teachers? Naw, forget that--it's common knowledge that teachers in private schools make a lot less, at least the ones I know of in Wisconsin. Would have made the study more interesting to look at that.

Now take his examples, police, fire, and corrections.

Police - Private security firms.

Fire - Private firefighters http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=ytff-&p=prvate+fire+fighters

Corrections - private corrections officer. A growing field.

There are a private sector equivalent for almost every state and federal position to be found, so that is bull-shit.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 09:54 AM
Now you're just being ridiculous. While private security firms do exist they do not exist within the same scope of duties as the actual Police.

The same thing with firefighters, and these are far more rare.

As for teachers, in the quote that I already posted:
Even public
and private teaching differ significantly. Public schoolsaccept all students, while private schools are sometimes highly selective and may exclude or remove poor per-forming, special needs, or disruptive students.

You cannot compare a public school that is legally required to accept all students to a private school that can exclude poor performing or disruptive students. That's a whole different ballpark.

Apocalypse
03-03-2011, 10:15 AM
Now you're just being ridiculous. While private security firms do exist they do not exist within the same scope of duties as the actual Police.

The same thing with firefighters, and these are far more rare.

As for teachers, in the quote that I already posted:

You cannot compare a public school that is legally required to accept all students to a private school that can exclude poor performing or disruptive students. That's a whole different ballpark.

No your proving how uneducated you are.

Private security firms do provide in some cities their cities police forces.

Portland for example has a private police force. PPI

In South Carolina, all Security Officers have the same authority and power to make an arrest as Sheriff's Deputies. Spring Valley HOA in Columbia, SC is a good example of this. Private Officers respond to calls for service, make arrests and use blue lights and traffic radar. They are Law Enforcement under state law, case law and AG’s opinion, and are authorized by the state to issue Uniform Traffic Tickets to violators. Security Officers in some cases are also considered Police Officers.

And a firefighter, public or private, same thing as they both fight fires.

And teachers, your article is BS as it trie and say that "You must account for the students they teach". So a public English teacher (Public) is different then a English teacher (Private) that have the same background (School and education level) because of the students admitted?

Even you are smarter then that.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 10:24 AM
No your proving how uneducated you are.

Private security firms do provide in some cities their cities police forces.

Portland for example has a private police force. PPI

In South Carolina, all Security Officers have the same authority and power to make an arrest as Sheriff's Deputies. Spring Valley HOA in Columbia, SC is a good example of this. Private Officers respond to calls for service, make arrests and use blue lights and traffic radar. They are Law Enforcement under state law, case law and AG’s opinion, and are authorized by the state to issue Uniform Traffic Tickets to violators. Security Officers in some cases are also considered Police Officers.

And a firefighter, public or private, same thing as they both fight fires.

I didn't say they don't exist, I said they don't exist within the same scope as the real ones.

Do you really think it's a good idea to switch to private emergency response services like police, fire, and ambulances?


And teachers, your article is BS as it trie and say that "You must account for the students they teach". So a public English teacher (Public) is different then a English teacher (Private) that have the same background (School and education level) because of the students admitted?

Oh so now you are saying it is fair to compare based on levels of education, while earlier you were saying you can only compare based on their job duties.

I don't know if you have any experience in teaching but teaching a group of selectively-admitted middle-class students who can be removed from the school if they misbehave is a hell of a lot different than teaching a random group of students from all income levels who cannot be removed from the school unless they do something horrible.

Those are totally different work environments, even if they have the same 'title'.



Even so, all you are arguing is for a different measurement stick, but as far as I know, that study hasn't been done. There has been a study comparing income based on education level, experience, and a bunch of other factors shown to predict income, and that study is the one I posted.

You can read that study yourself and show me what's wrong with it or you can get your opinions from some anonymous blog jerkoff.

Apocalypse
03-03-2011, 10:33 AM
Wei I'll toss this back at you. Find me another study, one not written by all far left hacks that have an agenda to push as those who came up with that BS post.

Jeff Faux, if you don't recognize him, criticized Barack Obama for not being liberal enough.

Robert Reich is a hard-left politician from Clinton's administration.

Lester Thurow is a socialist.

Kuttner is a well known far leftest.

Marshall was labor secretary under Carter.

They all closely tied to left-wing causes.

Come up with a more impartial source to back up your claims, not one that comes from those who have an agenda to push and willing to do it with a slanted questionable piece.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 10:42 AM
Wei I'll toss this back at you. Find me another study, one not written by all far left hacks that have an agenda to push as those who came up with that BS post.

Jeff Faux, if you don't recognize him, criticized Barack Obama for not being liberal enough.

Robert Reich is a hard-left politician from Clinton's administration.

Lester Thurow is a socialist.

Kuttner is a well known far leftest.

Marshall was labor secretary under Carter.

They all closely tied to left-wing causes.

Come up with a more impartial source to back up your claims, not one that comes from those who have an agenda to push and willing to do it with a slanted questionable piece.

Here's the thing. It is fair to doubt a study because of the people who present the data, but if their methodology is included, what are you afraid of, that they smiled as they got their results?

I understand somewhat, I'm familiar with looking out for things when reading research studies, and sometimes you know that authors have certain agendas (this is just about all the time in scientific research, many a scientist finds a niche theory and tries really hard to promote that), but when you recognize an author may be biased it's crucial to examine the methodology.

If all of the methods are legit methods that can be replicated or that have shown consistent legitimacy before (scales and questionnaires often require much prior testing to determine their validity/reliability before they are used in a study), then it doesn't matter if the person who presents the data is Phred Phelps, Hugo Chavez, or Santa Clause.

Sometimes, the methods are not included, and all you have is the authors and you know the authors are biased, then it makes sense to be skeptical, but in this case all of the methodology is included:



This study uses the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) of the March Current Population Survey (CPS).
The CPS is a monthly U.S. household survey conducted jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The March Annual Demographic File and Income Supplement is the most widely used source for earnings used by social scientists. We are using the CPS database created by the Minnesota Population Center (King et al. 2009).

.....

The IPUMS-CPS identifies an employee’s full-time status, education level, experience level as a function of age minus years of education plus five, gender, and race; and an employer’s organizational size and industry. The IPUMS-CPS sample was selected for this analysis because the March CPS Annual File provides information on organizational size not provided by the larger CPS sample in the Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups (MORG).


The Employer Cost of Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, part of the National Compensation Survey, was used to calculate total compensation costs as a mark- up on wages.

Apocalypse
03-03-2011, 11:59 AM
But even you can see the error in their study in they claim there is no private to Public sources to coMpair so the instead comPair a art teacher Ben. To those of a CEO with a degree in business management

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 12:03 PM
But even you can see the error in their study in they claim there is no private to Public sources to coMpair so the instead comPair a art teacher Ben. To those of a CEO with a degree in business management

I'm going to guess a CEO has either more than a bachelors degree or a lot of experience. Even so, you are right that this method is not perfectly ideal, but the paper elaborates on why it was impractical to try to compare every single job one-to-one.

Previous studies have established that on average, education level is the most consistent predictor of income level, along with experience, the size of the organization, race and gender.

It's not perfect, that's true, but I think that this is a fairly good way to asses private vs public workers. Just the logistics required to dig up info on every single job and finding a public-private counterpart to that job is so extraordinary.

Yes the method is imperfect, but it is included and is the most reliable method we have. Yes the authors might have some bias but they included all of their methodology including the sources of all their data.

There are limitations to the study but keeping those all in mind, I think the graph is a good approximate representation of public-vs-private compensation.

obx
03-03-2011, 12:17 PM
How many of the flee baggers are facing recall now?

Apocalypse
03-03-2011, 12:18 PM
I'm going to guess a CEO has either more than a bachelors degree or a lot of experience. Even so, you are right that this method is not perfectly ideal, but the paper elaborates on why it was impractical to try to compare every single job one-to-one.

Previous studies have established that on average, education level is the most consistent predictor of income level, along with experience, the size of the organization, race and gender.

It's not perfect, that's true, but I think that this is a fairly good way to asses private vs public workers. Just the logistics required to dig up info on every single job and finding a public-private counterpart to that job is so extraordinary.

Yes the method is imperfect, but it is included and is the most reliable method we have. Yes the authors might have some bias but they included all of their methodology including the sources of all their data.

There are limitations to the study but keeping those all in mind, I think the graph is a good approximate representation of public-vs-private compensation.

comparing those of same education level is important, but it needs to be done on the same fields. You can't compaire those with a bachelor to some one with a bachelor in some thing else.

The whole article is using a flawed method, that even your admit and thus its results will be flawed.

And how can a graph be a good representation of public to private when it is not comparing same job to same job? Your whole source goes to great length to try and excuses its method from doing so.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 12:36 PM
I wouldn't say the whole thing is flawed only that it's not ideal.

Often times it is tough to find private-sector corralates to public-sector jobs but even more often it's harder the other way around. There are no public bookstore workers or public clothing designers ect. ect. ect.

Education level and experience alone are the main predictors of income, using those two we can get the best data possible.

Doing the ideal study would not be possible because you don't have a one-to-one correlation of jobs in the private and public sectors it's not as if there are two economies with all the same jobs titles.

Yes you can find the highest paid person with a bachelors degree and the lowest paid person with a bachelors degree and say they cannot be compared but on average they can be

Yes someone in a certain field in a certain company with a BA might make more than someone else within a different field, but when you look at the average of people with a BA you'll see that education level is a good way to predict income.

Yes averages might not accurately describe people who fall on the higher or lower end of the spectrum but it's a fairly accurate way to predict their income.

Even without knowing the field they have their degree in, you can predict with some level of accuracy how much money people make based on their education. It won't always be right, but it's fairly reliable.

If you have a problem with using statistical methods like averages then every study is going to be flawed.

Trust me it's very common for research studies to include the limitations of their own work, that doesn't mean it is invalid, it just means you have to keep those limitations in mind.



And how can a graph be a good representation of public to private when it is not comparing same job to same job?

Because you cannot compare job-to-job because there isn't a 1-to-1 corralation between public and private sector jobs. There are public sector jobs that either don't exist or exist in very few number in the private sector, and there are private sector jobs that either don't exist or exist in very few numbers in the public sector. The method you are proposing can't be done, and if it were attempted to be done there would be flaws all over it because there simply isn't an equal number of types of jobs in the two spheres.

It's a good representation because the best (although not perfect) predictor of income is education level and experience.

PoliCon
03-03-2011, 01:05 PM
Oppose all you want I don't care how you deal with the graph. I'm just posting the data that clearly refutes the silly claims being thrown around here. If you want to believe that this data doesn't exist because Karl Rove considers the Economic Policy Institute to be "left wing" then by all means go ahead. The paper is there to read and if you have any problems with the methodology you're welcome to point them out but I have a feeling that "they're liberals!!" is about all the criticism you've got.

No it doesn't refute any fucking thing that's the point. It's a graph that makes your argument look good- but it says NOTHING. The only people who buy into graphs like that are idiots who are unable and/or unwilling to think for themselves. The graph gives ZERO context. It gives ZERO background information. It gives ZERO corroborating facts and figures and you posted it out of no where without even sighting a source until you were called on it.

As for Rove - I have no idea what Rove has to say about the Economic Policy Institute - unless of course you're going to claim that Rove is the author of Wikipedia now or better still their own website. :rolleyes:

From Wikipedia:
The Economic Policy Institute is a "nonpartisan but progressive"[1] non-profit American think tank that was created in 1986. According to EPI's website, the institute was established to "broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers." EPI focuses on "the economic condition of low- and middle-income Americans and their families."[2] EPI researchers, who often testify to Congress and are widely cited in the media, brought to light the disconnect between pay and productivity that marked the U.S. economy in the 1990s.

From the EPI about us:
The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising, and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways, it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a voice in the economic discourse. They admit in the very first paragraph that they are a class warfare economic group - and which economic system espouses the class warfare ideology of economic discourse again? :rolleyes:

Oh and where does EPI get it's money? Well for one - from George Soros. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderProfile.asp?fndid=5181 They also get money from the Rockefeller foundation and from the Barbara Streisand and many other far left leaning groups and foundations.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 01:22 PM
No it doesn't refute any fucking thing that's the point. It's a graph that makes your argument look good- but it says NOTHING. The only people who buy into graphs like that are idiots who are unable and/or unwilling to think for themselves. The graph gives ZERO context. It gives ZERO background information. It gives ZERO corroborating facts and figures and you posted it out of no where without even sighting a source until you were called on it. .

and I provided all the source data you wanted when you asked for it so stop crying about it like a little bitch

PoliCon
03-03-2011, 01:25 PM
and I provided all the source data you wanted when you asked for it so stop crying about it like a little bitch

source data? A press release from a group with a known and documented agenda is now source material?? :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 01:31 PM
This study uses the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) of the March Current Population Survey (CPS).
The CPS is a monthly U.S. household survey conducted jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The March Annual Demographic File and Income Supplement is the most widely used source for earnings used by social scientists. We are using the CPS database created by the Minnesota Population Center (King et al. 2009).

.....

The IPUMS-CPS identifies an employee’s full-time status, education level, experience level as a function of age minus years of education plus five, gender, and race; and an employer’s organizational size and industry. The IPUMS-CPS sample was selected for this analysis because the March CPS Annual File provides information on organizational size not provided by the larger CPS sample in the Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups (MORG).


The Employer Cost of Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, part of the National Compensation Survey, was used to calculate total compensation costs as a mark- up on wages.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 01:36 PM
Policon if your criticisms are correct is it fair to hold you to that same standard? Every article you post by the heritage foundation or members of it should be promptly ignored because that is obviously a partisian think-tank. Hell it even says so right there on their main page: Conservative Policy Research and Analysis | The Heritage Foundation.

Should we all promptly ignore anything you post supported by this think tank because they are admittedly partisain?

PoliCon
03-03-2011, 01:36 PM
This study uses the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) of the March Current Population Survey (CPS).
The CPS is a monthly U.S. household survey conducted jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The March Annual Demographic File and Income Supplement is the most widely used source for earnings used by social scientists. We are using the CPS database created by the Minnesota Population Center (King et al. 2009).

.....

The IPUMS-CPS identifies an employee’s full-time status, education level, experience level as a function of age minus years of education plus five, gender, and race; and an employer’s organizational size and industry. The IPUMS-CPS sample was selected for this analysis because the March CPS Annual File provides information on organizational size not provided by the larger CPS sample in the Merged Outgoing Rotation Groups (MORG).


The Employer Cost of Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, part of the National Compensation Survey, was used to calculate total compensation costs as a mark- up on wages.

So you admit that they are using biased and flawed data collection methods to come up with biased and flawed conclusions. About time you were just a little bit honest.

PoliCon
03-03-2011, 01:41 PM
Policon if your criticisms are correct is it fair to hold you to that same standard? Every article you post by the heritage foundation or members of it should be promptly ignored because that is obviously a partisian think-tank. Hell it even says so right there on their main page: Conservative Policy Research and Analysis | The Heritage Foundation.

Should we all promptly ignore anything you post supported by this think tank because they are admittedly partisain?

Except fucktard - I did not try to hide my source. I did not offer a graph devoid of context and expect people to accept it just because I posted it. :rolleyes: Except that Heritage does not try to hide what it believes in or it's funding sources. When you can say the same - you can be held to the same standard.

Wei Wu Wei
03-03-2011, 01:51 PM
Sure there are liberals who worked on that paper and who fund the organization that did it.

Also, all of their methodology is included so you can look yourself and see what data they used.

There you go. stop crying now big boy

PoliCon
03-03-2011, 02:17 PM
Sure there are liberals who worked on that paper and who fund the organization that did it.

Also, all of their methodology is included so you can look yourself and see what data they used.

There you go. stop crying now big boy

There you go - trying to make me prove your case. :rolleyes:

Adam Wood
03-03-2011, 02:21 PM
Oppose all you want I don't care how you deal with the graph. I'm just posting the data that clearly refutes the silly claims being thrown around here. If you want to believe that this data doesn't exist because Karl Rove considers the Economic Policy Institute to be "left wing" then by all means go ahead. The paper is there to read and if you have any problems with the methodology you're welcome to point them out but I have a feeling that "they're liberals!!" is about all the criticism you've got.Sorry. The Moonbat Policy Institute does not refute anything. The graph is a load of horseshit. Compare public school teacher salaries to private school teacher salaries if you actually want to be honest. But then you're a Leftist, so it's virtually impossible for you to be honest anyway.

PoliCon
03-03-2011, 02:27 PM
Sorry. The Moonbat Policy Institute does not refute anything. The graph is a load of horseshit. Compare public school teacher salaries to private school teacher salaries if you actually want to be honest. But then you're a Leftist, so it's virtually impossible for you to be honest anyway.

EXACTLY. Add to the equation pension packages - the fact that a large portion of state employees are double dipping - that is collecting a salary and a pension at the same time - factor out the legislators and CEO - who do not get paid equally of course - nor should they . . . . there are so many way that his study is misleading and idiotic. WHICH of course is prolly whey he didn't want to include such information in the first place - either that or he didn't/doesn't care about the facts he only wanted to score cheap points and copied the graph from his talking points memo from the World Workers Party. :rolleyes: