Both Arnold Kling and I (and probably a few million other people) have wondered why it was necessary for Federal money to be given to the states and cities to prevent job losses. For states that have been irresponsible or unlucky and find themselves short of revenue, why not reduce salaries some, say 10% and save that money?
One answer is that state and city employees are under union contracts that are not easily adjusted on short notice.
Oakland is grappling with this problem. The city wants to lay off 80 officers from a force of 776 and it is negotiating with the union.
With Oakland desperate to cut its public safety costs to balance its budget, the police union has agreed to two key city proposals – that officers contribute part of their salaries toward their pensions and that the retirement age be pushed back for future hires.
However, the two sides were at an impasse over a police union proposal that the City Council ensure that no officers will be laid off for three years. Council members say that even worse budget problems loom for Oakland beyond 2010 and that they can’t afford to make any such promises.
Having officers contribute to their pension fund seems reasonable. Of course it would depend on how much their salary is, right?
The council voted last month to lay off more than 10 percent of the police force to cope with what officials describe as an unprecedented financial crisis. The $407 million general fund budget for the fiscal year that began July 1 represents a decline of $69 million since 2005, and public safety now accounts for three-fourths of discretionary spending.
With the average officer’s salary and benefits totaling $188,000 a year, City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente, a union leader himself, has described the situation as “unsustainable.”
$188,000?!?!?!? That is one expensive police officer. That’s the average. I wonder what the veterans get.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 37 comments }
This is a huge problem. But Isn't it worse still? If I understand correctly, the larger problem that they retire fairly young and cost the tax payers more in retirement than they ever did while they were working.
Clearly I'm in the wrong line of work!
Great point; the defined benefit pensions that they probably get will not be based off the average of $188,000, but off the end-of-service wage (much higher than the average).
“Happiness is a warm gun”?
$188,000 a year……woooooooo doggies, we is all in de rong line of woik!
And meanwhile the “firesale” on favors goes on. Give me some campaign money and I'll probably be in a position to help you get the favor back next January.
God Almighty, it is sickening.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/white-h...
I don't dispute your basic argument, but what does that actually reflect in terms of salary? Police work isn't ditch digging. Given the level of risk and responsibility it should be well compensated. What does and GMU Prof earn once you add salary, benefits, perks and tenure together?
As an aside, an experienced IT worker can earn a similar benefit package with no where near the responsibility (ie if they make a mistake nobody dies) and without the same risk of personal harm.
[reposting; WordPress doesn't like my links]
See here:
Employee Compensation in State and Local Governments
And here:
The $2 Trillion Hole
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB12684381587...
And one more:
The Beholden State: How public-sector unions broke California
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_californi...
This is outrageous:
A survey by the watchdog group California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility found that some 15,000 Golden State public employees are knocking down $100,000 or more, while some 200, mostly police and fire chiefs and school administrators, are members of the $200,000-a-year-and-up club.
Nobody dies? You're severely overestimating how often police find themselves in life and death situations.
Private organizations figure they get more than $188K added to their bottom line for those IT workers.
What's the market price for a policeman? It certainly isn't their union negotiated wage.
I can tell you it ain't $188K per year. But, what does a GMU professor have to do with police compensation? And you're going to have to define “well compensated”.
How many people apply for every police opening? I realize that like Lloyd Blankfein, they want to claim to be doing God's Work as they amuse themselves by harassing, intimidating and framing innocent people, but I can't seem to swallow that load.
I think you are overgeneralizing. IT people that maintain the networks for hospitals, military and police, airlines and airports, and other “life critical” systems can end up with life and death responsibilities. The ones that work for banks, large firms, and financial institutions are often in situations where a single mistake could cost millions of dollars an hour. Not life and death, but still a large measure of responsibility.
Not all those IT people will get $188k or anything near it. A lot of responsibility doesn't automatically mean one deserves a lot of money. If I hop in the car with kids, I have a great responsibility not to get them killed and not to kill anyone else on the road, both of which I could easily do. Nobody does–or should–pay me extra for that.
Police? Sounds more like parasites to me.
Isn’t it funny how childish notions of police and fire as being somehow exempt from greed are maintained by adults?
Chop chop.
I haven't seen the numbers for awhile but last time I checked, policemen and firemen do not show any significant death risk above the general population as strange as it sounds.
“the two sides were at an impasse over a police union proposal that the City Council ensure that no officers will be laid off for three years.”
The state is still in denial about the structural depth of their problems. Even without the Depression, many state budgets were on track to blow up. In three years, the situation will be much worse. Many of those pensions need to half to restore fiscal viability, recession or no. That is where state negotiators need to begin.
In the same way Mr. Roberts made the point that the banks implicitly knew they would be bailed out after years of coddling, it is articles like this which make me think the state workers all have the same assumption. That the money will come from somewhere, if only they hang tough.
There are state, city, and county employees, all of whose wages and retirement benefits are destroying the budgets of those governmental entities. Since these are contractual obligations that apparently cannot be modified, the only real solution to the problem is the extinction of those governmental entities. No more State of California, and end to Ventura County, Bakersfield goes up in smoke. The state is reconfigured into two or three smaller, more manageable parcels, counties become boroughs, Bakersfield is reborn and rechartered as Buck Owensville. None of them inherit the fiscal responsibilities of their predecessors. They should get started tomorrow.
I'm an IT worker with over 15 years of experience. My income is in the 90th percentile for someone with my skills and my level of experience. I can assure you that my income comes nowhere near that 188k. I also wonder if they take into account the present value of future retirement benefts into consideration when they calculate that figure. I spend long hours at work, and I spent many years in school. I have to constantly learn new technologies to keep me updated with the latest programming techniques and languages. If I don't update my portfolio of skills every 18-24 months, my services will no longer be needed.
There are a lot of risky jobs out there – like in mining, in private security, in running a small business in risky neighborhoods! I wonder how much these people make compared to a police officer in Oakland.
But the pension system is broke in CA – so I don't think it really matters. They can mandate it all they want. But courts can strike down contracts any time they like.
Maybe to compensate they are more careful when off duty compared to regular people.
Wow, just wow. All you libertarians would axe police and fire. Is nothing sacred to you people in your unbridled quest for more money?
I think its necessary to distinguish between paying for police and fire protection, and paying for a political organization that pays its members wages and benefits that are three or four times higher than the wages and benefits of the people they tax to pay for it.
When I read an article on this subject I recall it saying that each officer cost the city $188,000. That's different than the officer being paid that amount.
My first thought was the cost of the vehicle. Police cars ain't free.
The article also said that the officers being let go were newbies with less than three years experience. I really doubt that they were being paid that high a salary being that new to the job.
So it makes me wonder what other costs to the city there are associated with the duties of a police officer.
Right. Union featherbedding is way easier to pull off when you claim that it is needed for something like public safety. In my city we're struggling with the same problem, the unions are forcing the city to give them a raise and not accept layoffs, even though independent studies show we could get by on a lot fewer, especially firefighters.
I have been commenting on the emergence of a two class society for some time.
Public workers in general earn more and have better benefits than their private sector counterparts.
This creates a “gap” that has deep consequences – one group likes the way things are going and appreciates the willingness of democrats to expand public employment – they are doing quite well.
The second – private sector workers – sees a much less attractive future – increases in taxes – and costs the act like taxes [health insurance premiums] with no real job security.
The good news – at least I see it as good news – is that this is coming to a head in California – unions – and union members – will face very difficult choices in the months and years to come – give up some of the “excess” they have been given – or give up their own – or their friends job.
The problem is that this comes AFTER a good deal of damage and harm has been permanently done to the state's economy.
I think oakeshott meant that nobody dies if the IT worker makes a mistake.
When I clicked on that link, it came up blank.
Here are a couple more from Reason:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/12/class-war
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/03/why-cities-ar...
I understand that. I think he overestimates the number of times a policeman finds himself in a situation where somebody might die if he makes a mistake. He's exaggerating the difference in the importance of the job of the IT worker and the policeman.
Bring on the courts then.
Most police work consists of intimidating people and collecting revenue in the form of fines.
I've been the victim of assault, robbery, and I've even been mugged. In all cases it was pulling teeth to get an officer show up, and not one report was filed. They could care less.
I have also allowed myself to be caught in the act of a few victimless crimes.
You can guess correctly that I was treated quite differently.
“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.” – Bastiat
I have lost all respect for the law.
You bring up an interesting point. Will we not know that we have restored sanity when our local parish and town governments are the most powerful, and the federal government the least? Methinks if such were true, local media would also enjoy a resurgence. It may in fact solve the media 'crisis.'
substitute “liberty” for “money” and you have it right
I agree that teachers and many public sector employees are overpaid and the recession is good discipline for bringing things back into line.
Having said the above, I would ask what portion of the state's budgets relate to salaries of the overpaid public service employees? I know that many of the costs such as Medicaid are payments to independent hospitals, nursing homes, home health care workers, etc. who are not exactly getting rich at the public trough. The Federal government subsidies have relieved great stress that would have resulted from the downturn in the economy.
I don't want to know…
Damn Murdoch.
Gotta call Liz (his daughter/my fellow alum…..)
Comments on this entry are closed.