It happens every year, in the early spring.  Right before we become obsessed with NCAA basketball, and several weeks before pollen blankets our patio furniture, Parade Magazine treats us to its annual rundown titled “What People Earn.”  It’s a fascinating, frustrating look at our American economic system and what capitalism has wrought.  It’s one of those articles that makes you sick, but you can’t put it down.

Because Parade is a supplement in the Sunday newspapers in major metropolitan areas, and because so few of us even bother to subscribe to printed newspapers any more, it might be a good idea to recap the highlights and lowlights of “What People Earn.”

Here are some of the lowlights; workers in America who earn under $100,000 per year:

A civilian psychologist for the U.S. Army.  A botanical photographer who searches for rare plants.  A historic preservationist.  A designer who creates 3-D virtual models for Navy stealth destroyer ships.  A library director.  A pediatric speech pathologist.  A sign language instructor.  A waste-water treatment plant operator.  Lab technicians.  Day care providers.  Public safety dispatchers.  Substitute teachers.  An educational theater specialist.  Pastors.  A nuclear security training instructor.  A pathology assistant who analyzes surgical specimens.  An associate professor who teaches welding.  A weapons technician, a bookstore owner, an emergency flight nurse, and a special needs school bus driver.

Think about this.  Some of these people are creative, blazing new trails and looking to make a difference.  Many of them are the people who take care of us, and our children.  They work to make our lives better, healthier, more productive.  If they don’t show up for work, we may suffer.  And most of these individuals make much less than $100,000 per year.

Now here are a few of the highlights; individuals who mostly earn well over $100,000 per year:

A tennis champion.  A pop music sensation.  An actor-producer who collects $500,000 per episode.  Comedians, actresses, football players, singer/songwriters.  A spa owner.  A celebrity chef, who earns an extra $100,000 for each personal appearance.  A bridal shop owner.  A country music star and a reality show coach.  An actor/producer who made $7 million doing perfume ads.  Professional basketball players.  And an actress who made $160,000 per pound for each of the 25 pounds that she lost for her last role.

Oh, and we can’t forget someone named “Honey Boo Boo” Thompson, a seven-year-old star of a reality TV show who makes about $50,000 per episode and whose net worth is estimated to be more than $300,000.

Now think about these folks.  These are people who entertain us.  Certainly, most of them are greatly talented, and we enjoy watching them perform.  They can make us happy.  But they don’t teach us, they don’t take care of us, and they don’t really make our lives better.  More fun, yes.  But not necessarily better.

It’s interesting that Parade fails to include some of the titans of industry; those CEOs and Wall Street wonders whose million-dollar bonuses have become commonplace during the past few years.  Perhaps the editors of the supplement believe that we can read all about them in the Wall Street Journal or in the business pages of our daily papers. Also excluded are politicians, who seem to amass great wealth once they step into the halls of power in Washington, DC.

One week before the Parade magazine article appeared, the New York Times ran an article headlined “Swiss Voters Approve a Plan to Severely Limit Executive Compensation.”  Almost 68 percent of Swiss voters backed a plan to impose some of the world’s most severe restrictions on executive pay.  In the run-up to the vote, bankers and prominent executives were accused of receiving “rip off” pay packages.

Americans are being ripped off, too, and it’s undoubtedly going to take more than a few newspaper articles or Sunday supplements to make us aware of the economic disparities that we seem happy to tolerate right now.  I don’t know what it’s going to take.  But personally, I’d like to see some of the money that Honey Boo Boo is making go to the guy who shows up every day to operate the waste water treatment plant.

The post Honey Boo Boo versus the wastewater treatment guy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Angling for a behind-the-scenes staff job on Capitol Hill? If so, you’re probably curious about what salaries are like in the capital of the free world. Even if you’re not hoping to put that poli sci degree into play in DC, you might be interested in knowing what Congressional representatives and Senators pay the staffers who do the trench work [while their bosses get all the glory—if there’s any to be had, that is.] Lucky for you—and all of us who care about transparency [and gossip]– there’s Legistorm.

On Dec. 5, 2011, Legistorm posted the latest data on staff salaries, gleaned from official records published by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House. According to Legistorm, the Senate publishes its data every six months; the House, every three months. The December 2011 information release represents the first time that the Senate has published its staff-salary data electronically. Previously, this information was available only in printed volumes, making Legistorm’s job much more difficult. This time, because Legistorm staffers didn’t have to manually enter all of the information into its database, the information became available in less than three business days—a record, according to Legistorm.

So, what do we learn from this data? We already know that, for the most part, elected members of Congress make the same as each other [as of January 2011, $174,000]. But they have broad discretion in how they pay their staff.

A few aides are well paid by any measure. Many others make an embarrassing sum, especially in an expensive city such as Washington, DC at jobs that can have a ferocious intensity to them. While Congress is in session, Congressional aides often work well into the night, sometimes into the early morning, to craft legislation or to broker deals with the administration.

And yet because of their prestige, competition for congressional jobs is fierce. Lawyers with Ivy League educations seek positions earning a small fraction of what they might work for at a private law firm. In fact, many experienced congressional staffers leave the public sector to find jobs in the private sector making many times what they make in Congress. Of course, their value in the private sector is sometimes enhanced not by their skills but by the personal connections they make while working for Congress.

So, how much do they earn?

Legistorm offers a variety of ways to browse its database. You can search by staffer, representative, senator, committee, leadership office, administrative office, or state. Legistorm has 11 years of this stuff, so it’s a rich database. Below are a few examples from the most recent report.  The amounts listed are salaries paid during the covered time period. In a simple world, you could calculate annual salaries with some basic multiplication. But, according to Legistorm, it’s simply not that simple.

Congressional staff salaries shown are the amount paid in the period shown. They are not annual salaries. Because bonuses may be included here and other payments may not be (most notably with aides working for multiple offices or for a political campaign committee.”

We encourage all users to keep in mind that information on our site can easily be misused, that raw data can have limitations. Sometimes context is vitally important.

That said, here are the promised examples, randomly selected and in no particular order. It’s a fascinating database. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions…

Time frame – 7/01/11 to 9/30/11

• Constituent advocate, Rep. Jan Schakowsky [D-IL]                                           $11,499.99
• Press secretary, House Natural Resources Committee                                      $18,750.00
• Senior professional staff member, House Foreign Affairs Committee:          $34,166.67
• Staff associate & policy assistant, House Foreign Affairs Committee:           $  9,999.99
• Staff assistant, House Space & Technology Committee                                     $12,500.01

Time frame – 4/01/11 to 9/30/11

• Professional staff member, Senate Ethics Committee                                       $50,089.00
• Special assistant for financial disclosure, Senate Ethics Committee               $17,999.96
• Legislative assistant to Senator Bernie Sanders [I-VT]                                       $21,666.64
• Caseworker for Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL]                                                          $20,801,40

The post What do Congressional staffers earn? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A chart that has gone viral on social media sites claims that American CEOs earn 475 times more per year than the average worker. That’s outrageous, right? That’s how I felt when I saw it. But it’s simply not true, says Politifact, the fact-checking site run by the St. Petersburg Times.

The chart lists the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay in the U.S. and nine other countries. The smallest ratio is Japan’s at 11 to 1. The United States is highest at 475 to 1.

… The chart is the latest reminder that factual claims can spread at lightning speed on the Internet — even when the facts to back them up are scarce.

In addition to being shared on Facebook, emailed, and tweeted and re-tweeted thousands of times, the chart has also been cited in a report at a conference of a United Nations affiliate. Politifact did the due diligence and tracked down the origins of the chart—which should have aroused suspicions because it’s not dated and doesn’t cite any sources for its data. It turns out that chart originated in a paper written by three graduate students at Louisiana Tech College of Business in 2005.

In a post that details the intriguing background of the chart, Politifact concludes:

This is a textbook example of how claims can spiral out of control on the Internet. Just as conservatives have circulated unfounded claims about President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, liberals are spreading this questionable chart.

We don’t doubt the chart’s underlying point that the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay is high in the United States, and is likely higher in our free-wheeling economy than it is in the historically more egalitarian nations of Europe.

But in its claim that the U.S. ratio is 475 to 1, the chart conveys a sense of certitude and statistical precision that simply isn’t warranted — and which is contradicted by the facts. The latest number for the U.S. is 185 to 1 in one study and 325 to 1 in another — and those numbers were not generated by groups that might have an ideological interest in downplaying the gaps between rich and poor. We rate the claim on the U.S. ratio False.

The post Do CEOs make 475 times more than workers? Not really. appeared first on Occasional Planet.

For kids, a typical school day is about six to eight hours. Not so for teachers, whose work load includes additional hours for grading tests and papers, preparing lessons, gathering materials, making classroom displays, and meeting with students, parents and administrators. [And I’m probably leaving out a lot of other things, like contorting learning opportunities into preparation for standardized tests, and attending classes for the extra credits that earn higher pay.] So, how much is all of this effort worth in salary dollars? The answer depends a great deal on geography. States may fund schools, but local districts generally determine salaries, and they vary widely from state to state, and even within states.

At a helpful website called Teacher Salary Info, you can click on a state and find out salary ranges, plus information about median household income and home prices [to help prospective teachers get a handle on how well or poorly one might live on an educator’s income in that state], and state expenditures per pupil. Created by a teacher for other teachers, the website offers, on each state’s page, an extended description of the ins and outs of the state’s educational structure and funding, and other tips about the overall teaching environment. The website also includes graphs depicting, state by state: average teacher salary compared to median house price; and average teacher salary compared to median household income.

Designed to help both new and experienced teachers make informed decisions about where to work, Teacher Salary Info clearly believes in the value and satisfaction of teaching, but it presents a realistic picture of the world in which teachers work.

“Teachers… love to teach, but hate how little [they] are paid.” That’s both the opening and the bottom line of Teacher Salary Info. By way of explanation, the site says:

A 2006 study done by the National Education Association [found that] 50% of teachers leave the profession within five years because of poor working conditions and low salaries. Yet, according to the 2006 General Social Survey, teaching ranks among the Top 10 most gratifying jobs with 69% of teachers reporting they were very satisfied with their jobs.

So, would you be satisfied to teach if your salary range fell into one of the categories in the chart? Just asking. And, by the way, study this chart carefully, because if you live in almost any US state, there may be a test on this information later.

Teachers’ Salary Ranges by State

State	From	To
Alabama	$33, 737	$56,774
Alaska	$24,100	$70,704
Arizona	$33, 152	$70,875
Arkansas	$20,416	$69,021
California	$44,337	$102,348
Colorado	$31,675	$73,437
Connecticut	$40,973	$90,998
Delaware	$31,978	$54,646
District of Columbia	$42,370	$68,396
Florida	$32,870	$59,138
Georgia	$29,918	$68,700
Hawaii	$43,157	$79,170
Idaho	$31,000	$64,442
Illinois	$22,079	$118,963
Indiana	$31,095	$65,858
Iowa	$29,414	$61,152
Kansas	$33,580	$50,395
Kentucky	$32,981	$62,171
Louisiana	$33,665	$60,729
Maine	$31,152	$63,861
Maryland	$36,500	$74,134
Massachusetts	$41,385	$69,076
Michigan	$38,297	$71,046
Minnesota	$20,141	$68,612
Mississippi	$35,020	$44,840
Missouri	$34,345	$76,349
Montana	$28,546	$60,064
Nebraska	$32,487	$52,400
Nevada	$30,905	$64,805
New Hampshire	$25,600	$76,097
New Jersey	$44,450	$93,412
New Mexico	$23,528	$58,289
New York	$43,362	$95, 285
North Carolina	$29,750	$64,160
North Dakota	$26,800	$51,912
Ohio	$24,051	$60,800
Oklahoma	$31,600	$47,135
Oregon	$27,764	$62,534
Pennsylvania	$38,751	$71,234
Rhode Island	$35,563	$70,190
South Carolina	$26,975	$68,817
South Dakota	$26,750	$42,470
Tennessee	$22,645	$55,710
Texas	$40,800	$66,231
Utah	$31,604	$63,770
Vermont	$36,548	$65,654
Virginia	$32,303	$74,883
Washington	$32,746	$61,720
West Virginia	$25,832	$54,632
Wisconsin	$32,364	$70,948
Wyoming	$42,000	$79,000

[Originally posted Aug. 24, 2010 on Occasional Planet]

The post School’s in! What’s your teacher’s salary? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Robert Reich has been a contrarian about most of the Obama economic policies, but that does not necessarily make him a negative person.  In fact he is as jocular as a short skinny man can be, focusing his biting wit first on himself; then on others. He deserves a lot of slack when he critiques policies because at heart he is an optimist and when there are reasons to cheer, he’ll be among the first.

How can you tell when someone is a “doomsayer” or someone with a clear vision in contrast to conventional wisdom?

When it comes to advocating trickle-down economics, he’ll say that a Democrat who advocates it is someone who is most likely abandoning the traditional constituents of the party.  This means that Democrats are walking away from almost everyone except the very wealthy and the extreme social conservatives.  This is not your father’s Democrat; certainly not your grandfather’s, which included embracing FDR’s New Deal.

Recently, the Obama administration has been justifiably touting some positive economic numbers.  Corporate profits are up; the stock-market has soared since the Obama inauguration, companies such as General Motors that were bailed out are now profiting and repaying their loans from the government with interest.

And now we hear what we have long awaited, unemployment is down and jobsare up.  In his March 4 post, Reich says:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 192,000 new jobs in February (220,000 new jobs in the private sector and a drop in government employment), and a drop in the overall unemployment rate from 9 to 8.9 percent.

But to get to the most important trend you have to dig under the job numbers and look at what kind of new jobs are being created. That’s where the big problem lies.

The National Employment Law Project did just that. Its new data brief shows that most of the new job

 

s created since February 2010 (about 1.26 million) pay significantly lower wages than the jobs lost (8.4 million) between January 2008 and February 2010.

He illustrates this with these chilling statistics:

While the biggest losses were higher-wage jobs paying an average of $19.05 to $31.40 an hour, the biggest gains have been lower-wage jobs paying an average of $9.03 to $12.91 an hour.

In other words, the big news is not jobs as some would want us to believe. It’s wages.  We work for basically two reasons: (a) a way of gaining personal fulfillment, and (b) accruing income that allows us to purchase necessities, and if possible, some discretionary items.  Whether an individual makes the federal minimum wage of $7.25 / hour or $5,000 / hour as some hedge fund managers do, he or she is still counted as employed.

The Economic Policy Institute maintains a dynamic web site on “The State of Working America” with hundreds of graphs and charts.  The graph below illustrates how since 1973 wages for the wealthy have grown rapidly while those of the poor have declined.  This is not news to anyone, but it is a fact that is rarely pointed out when monthly employment figures are released

Structural changes make the situation worse.  Reich points out, “Millions of private-sector workers have been fired and then re-hired as contract workers to do almost exactly what they were doing before, but without any benefits or job security.”  When combined with the outsourcing that has taken place since 1973, it’s no small wonder that the American worker’s worries do not end with whether or not they are employed, but at what wage.

Current American capitalism means that we have high unemployment with low wages which forces more and more consumers to shop at the likes of the Dollar Store.  If we had lower unemployment with high wages, consumers could more readily afford Target, Macy’s, or even more expensive stores such as Needless Mark-up (or something like that).

In his blog, Reich repeatedly points out that the most secure jobs are those in the public sector.  They cannot be outsourced and wages at least keep up with inflation.  At least that’s the way it was before Scott Walker’s Wisconsin and the vision that he any most Republicans have of the American economy.

As we give kudos to the Obama administration for beginning to reverse declining employment trends, we need to keep the pressure on to ensure that the jobs that are created are ones that pay decent wages.  As is so often the case, when this administration gets to an intersection, it tends to look right before crossing.  We need to do more to ensure that it looks both ways.

The post Good news on jobs means good wages appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Are government workers overpaid? According to many observers, the notion that government workers are living high on the hog is a myth [as reported recently by Madonna Gauding on Occasional Planet].

President Obama’s recent freeze on federal workers’ salaries was aimed, ostensibly, at trimming government spending. But the net effect of that move—which addresses a minuscule fraction of government expenditures and is seen as misguided by a chorus of critics—has been to add credibility to the prevailing propaganda that characterizes government workers as earning more than their fair share.

If you agree with George Lakoff—that facts don’t matter in today’s political climate—stop reading here.

But if you’re a fan of documentation, a recent post by Congress.org will be of interest. Congress.org has taken a hard look at federal employees’ salaries, and concludes: “How well do the best-paid federal employees do? Pretty well, compared to the rest of us, but still far below the millions received by the best-paid workers in the private sector.”

The salaries for the top five jobs range from about $199,000 to the mid-$200,000s. [Example: the job listed as the second highest paying among non-elected positions is  Chief Medical Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, with a salary of: $220,382.] Considering the responsibilities that go with that job and the other top four, the salaries—while an enviable chunk o’change for most Americans—aren’t that generous, compared to what might be expected in the corporate world.  Click on the link, and decide for  yourself. If you’d like to do more research, you can go to the original source, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management [OPM], where you can rummage through 2010 Pay Tables for Executive and Senior Level Employees.

The post The five best-paying government jobs appeared first on Occasional Planet.