Topic: Trade and Immigration

State and Local Workers Retain Advantage

The Bureau of Economic Analysis has released its annual data on employee compensation by industry. (See tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, and 6.6).

The new data for 2006 show that the nation’s 16 million state and local government workers earned an average $61,727 in total compensation (wages plus benefits). That is 11 percent more than the $55,470 average earned by U.S. private sector workers.

Looking just at wages, state and local workers earned an average $46,937, which is similar to the $45,995 average earned by private sector workers. Thus the primary state and local advantage is the generous fringe benefits.

The figure below shows that the state and local worker advantage has remained fairly constant since at least 1990. Private pay boomed in the late-1990s, but state and local pay has grown faster this decade.

Source: Chris Edwards, Cato Institute, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data

For those interested in the welfare of teachers, the BEA data shows that teacher compensation has closely tracked the overall state and local average since 1990. The average compensation in state and local education in 2006 was $62,371

State and local workers are not paid as well as federal workers, on average, but they usually receive similar generous fringe benefits including high job security, and lucrative pension and health care plans.

Federal Pay: Shoot the Messenger

Fedsmith.com ran a commentary today about the new data I cited on average federal worker compensation.

Most of the 31 comments on my blog and the commentary so far are hostile, and many take a “shoot the messenger” approach. Folks, it’s not my data. I didn’t use “fuzzy math” or “twist” the data. The data comes straight from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Yes, averages are only one indicator of pay gaps. But is it justified that the federal average has grown so much more quickly than the private sector average? Why should fringe benefits in the government workforce be so much more generous than in the private workforce?

And shouldn’t we have a “government of the people” rather than a class of elite overlords increasingly separated from the realities of taking risks, being fired, facing salary cuts in downturns, and having to work hard to get pay raises?

Life without Farm Subsidies

When the House passed a massive farm bill last month, supporters justified ongoing subsidies as a “safety net” for family farmers. But a story in the New York Times this morning on the New Zealand dairy industry shows that farmers can survive and thrive in a free market without subsidies.

The story begins by describing how technologically sophisticated the country’s export-oriented dairy industry has had to become to meet global competition.

Dairy farming in New Zealand was not always this sophisticated. But ever since a liberal but free-market government swept to power in 1984 and essentially canceled handouts to farmers — something that just about every other government in an advanced industrial nation has considered both politically and economically impossible — agriculture here has never been the same.

The farming community was devastated — but not for long. Today, agriculture remains the lifeblood of New Zealand’s economy. There are still more sheep and cows here than people, their meat, milk and wool providing the country with its biggest source of export earnings. Most farms are still owned by families, but their incomes have recovered and output has soared.

For more on the lessons we should learn from New Zealand’s successful reforms, check out a Free Trade Bulletin we published in 2005 titled, “Miracle Down Under: How New Zealand Farmers Prosper without Subsidies or Protection.” The Kiwi example also featured prominently in an online debate I had in May with the chief economist of the American Farm Bureau.

The New Zealand dairy industry and our own fruit and vegetable sectors prove that farmers can thrive without government subsidies and trade protection. Yet it looks like we will be saddled for another five years with an expensive and anti-market farm bill.

New Federal Pay Data

The Bureau of Economic Analysis just released its annual data on employee compensation by industry. (See tables 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, and 6.6).

The new data for 2006 show that 1.8 million federal civilian workers earned an average $111,180 in total compensation (wages plus benefits). That is more than double the $55,470 average earned by U.S. workers in the private sector.

Looking just at wages, federal workers earned an average $73,406, which is 60 percent greater than the $45,995 average earned by private sector workers.

Average federal pay has soared in recent years, growing much faster than private sector pay between 2001 and 2005. However, federal pay growth slowed in 2006, while private sector pay accelerated. As a result, average compensation for federal civilians grew 4.0 percent in 2006, compared to the average in the private sector of 4.2 percent.

Hopefully, federal pay increases will continue slowing to help relieve the soaring taxpayer costs of federal workers. I’ve proposed freezing federal pay to help reduce the deficit and privatizing expensive activities such as air traffic control.

The BEA data show that compensation for federal civilian workers cost taxpayers $203 billion in 2006, up from $145 billion in 2001 when President Bush took office. (The costs of military compensation have grown even more rapidly, from $98 billion in 2001 to $156 billion in 2006).

The acceleration of federal compensation is clear in the figure below covering 1990-2006.

Source: Chris Edwards, Cato Institute, based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data

For further information, see

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6611

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf

(Data note: The BEA data for number of employees is measured in full-time equivalents.)

A Correction

In my post last week on the House farm bill, I quoted a Congressional Quarterly article that said that “[chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Representative Collin] Peterson also worked to stave off a last-minute revolt by Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members by dedicating $1 million [sic] in extra funding for historically black universities and for black farmers.” (link requires subscription).

Further reporting has disclosed that the figure dedicated to those causes was $100 million (see here). Apologies.

House Farm Bill: “A Major Achievement?”

On Friday, the Democratically controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed a massive new farm bill. In a front page story on Saturday, the Washington Post reported:

The House yesterday passed a far-reaching new farm bill that preserves the existing system of subsidies for commercial farmers and adds billions of dollars for conservation, nutrition and new agricultural sectors.

Passage of the 741-page bill by a vote of 231 to 191, after partisan battling unusual for farm legislation, was a major achievement for the new Democratic leadership.

“A major achievement?” It says a lot about the political culture in our nation’s capital that passing a bill that basically continues more than 80 years of failed farm policy with minimal reforms is considered a major achievement.

In Washington, achievement is measured by how much legislation is passed and how much money is spent, not by whether the nation’s interests are advanced. For reasons we have outlined in great detail at Cato, the policies contained in the House farm bill benefit a small number of farmers at the expense of the vast majority of Americans.

Some achievement.

Parliament of Whores, Indeed

Those hoping for reform of the outdated and economically damaging farm bill have cause for disappointment today, after the House defeated, by a margin of three votes to one, an amendment that represented some hope for change. (The roll call can be viewed here). That amendment, whilst by no means close to sufficient reform, included important changes to income eligibility requirements and payment limits for subsidies, and would have closed a loophole allowing producers to manipulate the marketing loan program.

Unscathed passage of the House Agriculture Committee’s bill (see my colleague Dan Griswold’s brief criticism of the House bill here) looked in doubt just a few days ago, but House majority leaders managed to sway Rep. Jim McGovern (D., MA), originally in the reform camp, to vote for the farm bill by promising about $840 million to his pet cause, overseas food aid. The Congressional Black Caucus agreed to support the farm bill after a promise to spend $1.1 million on settling racial discrimination claims from the 1990s.

As if the House proposal for the “new” farm bill wasn’t insult enough for the taxpayer and consumer, the proposal for funding some of the largesse is beyond the pale. The $4 billion increase in food stamps and nutrition programs, which could presumably be paid for by cutting the subsidies to farmers of chosen crops, will instead be financed by taxing “inshoring” companies — U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign companies who employ American workers.

For a Congress supposedly concerned that international trade is threatening American jobs, taxing employment of American workers seems perverse — not to mention violative of tax treaties. Business groups and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson have expressed their deep dissatisfaction with the tax increase. Some Republicans, including the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee Robert Goodlatte (Va.), have indicated they would vote against the farm bill (up for a final vote today) because of the tax increase. I’ll believe that when I see it.

On a more positive note, the proposed tax increase has led the administration to issue a veto threat, albeit of the less-than-clear “his senior advisers will recommend that the president veto this bill” variety.