Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Gov't employees update (Read 11888 times)
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
Whenever you list percentages and not total numbers you are being unfair to the lower populated states. And if you list total numbers and not percentages, you're being unfair to the higher-populated states! StevenN, I cannot understand such are arguement. Please look at my whole point... The FSP stats are designed to make the larger population states look better. Oh well, it is too late to correct this huge blunder, anyway. This is odd - my understanding of the issue is that it's the percentage that's important, because a higher percentage of government employees is more likely to equate to a higher percentage of people who would have to be 'weaned from the teat' of government, just like the percentage of people on welfare. Ultimately political power is about elections, and elections are about percentages. Eric Eric, we are talking about different things. You are comparing the percentages of government workers to the total number of government workers and like stats. I am not talking about that at all. What I am talking about is this, The FSP wants to move 20,000 people into one state. That is a total number, 20,000. However, to show which state is best the FSP uses mostly percentages and not total numbers. So, the FSP is trying to prove something by using something entirely different. If the FSP was about moving a percentage of people to one state, it would make sense for all of the stats to be in percentages. However, the FSP it talking about moving a total number of people to one state, so all of the stats should be in total numbers. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DadELK68
|
Actually, the initial selection of the number 20k and the candidate states was based on percentages - the number of activists it would take to have the desired influence on the population, which is a percentage. In trying to assess the suitability of each state, the variability of most parameters requires adopting some standard which makes comparing and contrasting possible.
In some situations it's more appropriate to use total numbers, but for many it's most appropriate to use percentages. Ironically, in the post EMOR made in support of your contention, he argues in favor of using plain numbers but defines using percentages. He said:
"I agree with freedom road on this one. State rankings should be, when talking about population figures, compared in porcupines per non-porcupines(whichever catergory you are using). I don't really want to get into the arguement because it seems a little late for the state discussion with the vote already taking place, but that is the way I see it."
By definition, 'porcupines (numerator) per non-porcupines (denominator)' is a fraction - or a percentage!
The bottom line is, you have to be consistent and use the measurement which makes the most sense in comparisons between states. For the most part the FSP measurement criteria have taken this into account, and the arguments have arisen from individuals trying to manipulate numbers to support their positions.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Mincin
|
Thank you for explaining the faults behind the orginal 20,000 number, but guess what? The number is 20,000 so what is the point? Guess we should change the number cause Joe says?
When it is convient for you you quote numbers, when it is not you resort to questioning folks honesty.
Who is really using the politics of the past?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Please join us! http://www.nhliberty.org/ New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. " A leader knows that if he is generous with his time, his people will be generous with their effort." Plug>>>>Realtor Lovejoy Real Estate! |
|
|
|
Leonard
|
Joe, the number "20000" is unrelated to the main use that many of us are making of the government employees numbers.
That use is: determining whether or not the population of a state is statist. Do they generally believe that the state should provide lots of services? The assumption here is that what the population wants in terms of government services has been expressed in the size of their government.
There is a big difference between a state where 1 in 9 workers works for the state, and a state where 1 in 5 (!) workers does. The difference is a matter of the government's ideology, presumably based in the people. The state where 1 in 5 work for the state is more amenable to big government than the state with 1 in 9.
Note that the above conclusion has nothing -- zero -- to do with the number 20000. It is a useful item of knowledge for a single person who is considering moving. It is also useful for groups, including groups which happen to number 20000.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 04:45:07 pm by Leonard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DadELK68
|
Thank you, Leonard and MarshRobert, for grasping the obvious - the number 20,000 was reached initially as the minimum number of activists to impact a state with maximum population less than or equal to 'X'.
Keith and Joe, you're splitting hairs to justify your preferences - the argument that all comparison should be made with absolute numbers is ludicrous. I have no qualms about agreeing that it may take fewer people in WY or AK than in ID or NH to have a significant impact (although the baseline from which you're starting with the current population, what that impact may be and how quickly it may be realized is justifiably hotly debated), and if you want to get 5k or 10k people who agree with you to move to WY apart from the FSP, more power to you.
However, the stated goal of the FSP is to get 20k people in one of the target states. While the original maximum ratio (percentage) led to settling on the number 20k, after that the number was fixed at 20k. Maybe you think that the goal of the FSP should have been to hit some specified ratio of porcupines to population; the frequently bandied number of 7k in WY being the numeric equivalent of 20k in NH might meet this goal. You might even be right that this approach would have been worthwhile, but it is not - and as far as I can tell has never been - the official goal of the FSP, so it is irrelevant.
From that point, some analysis is better done with straightforward numbers (projected job growth, projected population growth, etc.) and some is better done with percentages. The problem is, you have to be willing to be honest with your numbers either way.
Joe, I have read the other threads - why is it that any time someone disagrees with you the assumption is that they must be lazy and ignorant? If you're not understanding this concept, apparently the volume of posts doesn't correlate to a solid grasp of the material.
Bottom line? Any of what will end up being the top five or so candidate states are likely excellent choices, each with their own relative strengths and weaknesses. If NH or ID is not selected, I'll live with that - and I have no problem with WY being selected, although I don't consider it one of the best choices (it comes after AK on my list).
Eric
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 29, 2003, 10:00:40 pm by DadELK68 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zxcv
|
That use is: determining whether or not the population of a state is statist. Do they generally believe that the state should provide lots of services? The assumption here is that what the population wants in terms of government services has been expressed in the size of their government.
Lots of problems with this statement. First, what do you mean by size? Here are the state budgets, in millions of dollars, for 2001: WY 1546 ND 2297 SD 2353 VT 2665 MT 3104 NH 3425 ID 3984 ME 5269 DE 5417 AK n/a http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/nasbo2001exrep.pdfPerhaps you mean the per-capita numbers. But whatever you mean on this, you simply can't assume more dollars means the people are more statist, or that they want lots of government services. This is easy to show. Say we have two states, A and B. They are identical in all respects, but for one thing - A is physically twice as large as B. So to provide the same level of government service as B does, A has to spend twice as much money on the roads to connect its cities. The point is, there are lots of things that affect government spending in a state - things like weather, physical size, percentage of people in the child-bearing years, prevalence of crime, economies of scale, etc. Propensity of people to want lots of government services is just one of these many factors. So, to use government spending as a proxy for statism is completely bogus. Anyway, it's silly to suggest people in Wyoming want lots of government services!  Here is the breakdown (in percentages of total budget) from the above report, to show what governments spend on different things (AK not present because they did not give those numbers): K-12 "education" SD 12.8 ND 17.1 MT 19.3 ME 20.4 DE 23.4 ID 27.5 NH 27.5 VT 31.0 WY 36.3 Higher Ed VT 2.9 NH 4.5 ME 4.6 DE 5.2 ID 9.4 MT 10.0 ND 11.7 SD 14.7 WY 15.1 Public Assistance SD 0.4 ND 0.6 MT 1.1 WY 1.2 NH, DE 1.3 ID 1.4 VT 2.3 ME 2.7 Medicaid DE 10.5 MT 15.4 WY 16.4 ND, ID 17.8 SD 19.9 VT 21.5 ME 24.9 NH 26.9 Transportation DE 8.3 ME 8.7 VT 11.0 NH, ID 12.2 ND 13.0 MT 14.0 SD 18.8 WY 26.6 Corrections ME 1.9 ND 2.0 NH 2.2 SD 2.5 VT 2.7 MT 3.3 DE 3.7 ID 4.1 WY 4.5 Other WY 0 NH 23.8 ID 27.6 VT 28.6 SD 30.9 ME 36.8 MT 36.9 ND 37.9 DE 47.6 (It's been pointed out that WY probably spends more than 0% of its budget on "other", a category that is rather elastic - they do have state parks after all - so if the reporting practices were equivalent across the states Wyoming would probably have some non-zero number here and its numbers in some other categories would be reduced some. For example, Wyoming may report its state police under "Corrections" while the others report it under "Other".) Physical size is going to hurt the big western states in categories like "Transportation" and even in "K-12" (since isolated small towns will not be able to share costs like close-packed eastern towns can do). A quarter of Wyoming's tiny budget is spent on roads (no public transport to speak of)!Population demographics will affect "Medicaid". Public assistance will be affected by the state of the economy, which itself is dependent on population and physical factors. Any way you look at it, budget numbers are a lousy way to measure statism. I did at one point make the claim that the category "Other" is a possible indicator, but because the category is so elastic and governments can report things in one category or another, even this is stretching things. It is a little worrysome that DE can spend almost half its budget outside of basic categories, though. But again, this may mean nothing because of the reporting problem. On the controversy about whether to use percentages or numbersI believe Jason prefers percentages because it means the variables in the spreadsheets are more independent. His answer to Keith's concerns would likely be something like this: "Percentages are more correct. If you have a concern about absolute numbers, the way to handle this is to compensate by weighing the population variables more heavily." And Jason's right about this (if that is in fact his position). The problem comes in when unsophisticated people use the spreadsheet. Many will just decide population is not all that important, and will weigh it very low. What the effect of that will be, when weighing percentage-based variables higher, is that Wyoming is penalized for having a small population! And a hypothetical state with 1/10th Wyoming's population would be penalized even more, even though FSP-influenced immigration could give us an absolute majority! That is an absurd result. If you want to use percentages, then use them. But then, place more importance on population-based measures, too; don't discount population. And by all means, don't use percentages of govt employees, or government spending, as an indicator of statist tendencies. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 30, 2003, 11:49:04 am by Zxcv »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Leonard
|
That use is: determining whether or not the population of a state is statist. Do they generally believe that the state should provide lots of services? The assumption here is that what the population wants in terms of government services has been expressed in the size of their government.
Lots of problems with this statement. First, what do you mean by size? Government per capita. It is those heads we are talking about - the people. you simply can't assume more dollars means the people are more statist, or that they want lots of government services.
I simply did assume that more dollar/person indicates more statism. So your statement is wrong. Of course you meant to say "you can't simply assume...". And that is true. It is not a simple assumption. Say we have two states, A and B. They are identical in all respects, but for one thing - A is physically twice as large as B. So to provide the same level of government service as B does, A has to spend twice as much money on the roads to connect its cities.
I see the argument. And I agree, scale does matter, at least somewhat. I have three counterpoints: (1) For most services, the areal coverage is not the major cost of providing service. There is one generally used method to keep costs low: you force the customers to come to you instead of vice versa. Think of DMV. They could, in a wealthier world, come to you. They'd spend a lot of time driving, and then they would be much more costly in Wyoming than NH. But this is counterfactual: the cost of transportation is borne by the people in both cases. (2) Regardless of the scale of the price difference, the fact remains that areal coverage is still a real cost of government. The fact that a certain cost is unavoidable to the taxpayer, if things are done as they are, does certainly absolve the voters from statism, but only to a degree. The higher the costs, the more they ought to be considering privatization, or other methods of reducing costs. (3) Regardless of the scale of the price difference, the fact remains that all the "extra" government workers are still there, with both their personal influence on the process (which would be measured by absolute numbers), and their per-capita influence (measured by percentage). The point is, there are lots of things that affect government spending in a state - things like weather, physical size, percentage of people in the child-bearing years, prevalence of crime, economies of scale, etc. Propensity of people to want lots of government services is just one of these many factors.
You forgot "sun got in their eyes". Look, I would never say that there are not an endless array of factors that affect the size of governments. But so what? The fact is that the vastly preponderate one is what is in the heads of the voters on election day. Do they want the government to fund the new day center, or not? This makes using per capita data a reasonable thing. If we had a way to measure and characterize all those other factors that perturb the process, then sure, we ought to account for them. Aren't some of them already in the spreadsheet? Area, in particular. So, to use government spending as a proxy for statism is completely bogus.
No. "Slightly bogus" - sure. But nowhere near completely. And, I would add: "among the best data we have". [I believe Jason prefers percentages because it means the variables in the spreadsheets are more independent. His answer to Keith's concerns would likely be something like this:
"Percentages are more correct. If you have a concern about absolute numbers, the way to handle this is to compensate by weighing the population variables more heavily."
I certainly agree with this. However, there is a second argument that is a result of the 20000 number. That is, that no matter what state we pick, even Wyoming, we will be but a small fraction of the electorate. So by far the largest factor affecting the political outcome is the political orientation of the people currently there. Incidentally, your hypothetical state with only 20k voters is interesting, but it is only hypothetical. If such a state existed, we would not be having this discussion. As it is the population differences between the states are large, but not so large that they cannot be decently accounted for using a relatively unsophisticated ranking algorighm. The problem comes in when unsophisticated people use the spreadsheet. Many will just decide population is not all that important, and will weigh it very low.
Well, let's hope the FSP is not that unsophisticated! If you want to use percentages, then use them. But then, place more importance on population-based measures, too; don't discount population.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zack Bass
Guest
|
you simply can't assume more dollars means the people are more statist, or that they want lots of government services.
I simply did assume that more dollar/person indicates more statism. So your statement is wrong. Of course you meant to say "you can't simply assume...". And that is true. It is not a simple assumption. You are a brave man. I long ago gave up trying to get such points across. The few who understand what you're saying will view it as nitpicking. (The UnaBomber was right about only one thing: The logically correct phrasing is "You can't eat your cake and have it too" - and that unconventional phrasing is what got him caught. Must be an occupational hazard of Anarchists.) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
What I don't quite understand is why use total non-agricultural workforce? Is it just because the data for agricultural employees is limited?
Yes, the BLS doesn't give data on agricultural employment on these series. That can be a problem, as you note, biasing the numbers against ag states. What I think is going on w/ Idaho, also, is that its age profile is so much younger (more children to adults) than all the other states that it has a significantly lower percentage of the population in the workforce. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
JasonPSorens
|
Zxcv is right. In the context of the spreadsheet, whether you use percentages or absolute numbers doesn't matter one whit. If absolute numbers were used, then the weight on population or number of voters should be very low. If percentages were used, then the weight on population or number of voters should be very high. Since the spreadsheet is set up so that each category (SYSTEM, AUTONOMY, CULTURE, and QUALITY) should be about equally weighted, I use percentages. That encourages users to weight population at the appropriately high level.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Audio signature (MP3) "Experience has shown that it is difficult, if not impossible, for a populous state to be run by good laws." --Aristotle, The Politics
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
What I don't quite understand is why use total non-agricultural workforce? Is it just because the data for agricultural employees is limited?
What I think is going on w/ Idaho, also, is that its age profile is so much younger (more children to adults) than all the other states that it has a significantly lower percentage of the population in the workforce. Even more children to adults than Alaska? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zxcv
|
Well, Leonard, maybe I should have said you simply shouldn't assume!  1) For most services, the areal coverage is not the major cost of providing service. There is one generally used method to keep costs low: you force the customers to come to you instead of vice versa. Think of DMV. True, for things like DMV. Those sorts of things are not the only thing in the budget. Two miles of road still costs more than one mile of road! (2) Regardless of the scale of the price difference, the fact remains that areal coverage is still a real cost of government. The fact that a certain cost is unavoidable to the taxpayer, if things are done as they are, does certainly absolve the voters from statism, but only to a degree. The higher the costs, the more they ought to be considering privatization, or other methods of reducing costs.
Yes, but that was not your argument. You were making the argument that more dollars spent means people want more government services. The counter argument is that more dollars can be spent with even the same level of government services. Sure, higher costs should drive them to look around for better solutions, but until it's demonstrated that road privatization is viable (and not just in the middle of Los Angeles), this is a pretty theoretical position. (3) Regardless of the scale of the price difference, the fact remains that all the "extra" government workers are still there, with both their personal influence on the process (which would be measured by absolute numbers), and their per-capita influence (measured by percentage).
Well, I'm glad you at least acknowledge there are two ways of looking at this. Wyoming has the advantage in lower personal influence compared to NH - there are 41k govt workers in WY compared to 68k in NH. NH has the advantage in per-capita influence, with 5.3% of the NH population being govt workers compared to 8.2% in Wyoming. Look, I would never say that there are not an endless array of factors that affect the size of governments. But so what? The fact is that the vastly preponderate one is what is in the heads of the voters on election day. Do they want the government to fund the new day center, or not? This makes using per capita data a reasonable thing.
Well, it's not reasonable if it doesn't jive with the real world. Does Wyoming have a reputation for funding things like day care centers? Public assistance is a smaller percentage of Wyoming's much smaller budget, than it is of New Hampshire's - 1.2% vs 1.3%. Just as an interesting exercise, I tried making transportation the same percentage of Wyoming's budget as it is of New Hampshire's, 12.2%. The total revised per-capita budget for Wyoming came down to $2653, just under New Hampshire's $2686. As they say, "Size matters." Wyoming is over 10 times as large as New Hampshire. Yet they manage to keep transportation costs down; their total state expenditure for transportation is still less than New Hampshire's ($411M vs $418M), so they are keeping costs in line, at least by this simple analysis. It's not a fancy system; there's no public transport, there are very few signal-controlled intersections, there's not a parking meter in the state as far as I could see, when I went through there a couple of months ago. No, a higher per-capita budget does not imply people in Wyoming are drooling and slavering for more government bennies.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
No, a higher per-capita budget does not imply people in Wyoming are drooling and slavering for more government bennies. We also have to remember that WY and AK get much of there budgets from mineral taxes. Also, in WY's case, lots of its money comes from Interest (I think AK gives its citizens some of the interest from its reserve fund). What does this mean? It means that the rich pay less in Wyoming than in any other state, the same is true for businesses. There is even a study that includes a sample (fake) family. This family makes $75,000 per year. The study places this family in different states and finds that in all of the places, they pay less taxes in Cheyenne, WY while they pay the most in CT. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zxcv
|
I was digging around the Internet and found this interesting site on my state, Oregon: http://www.oregonfollowthemoney.org/Press/jan2503.htmMeasure 28 was referred to the voters, an income tax increase. The contributions for "Yes on 28" were $470,000. The "No on 28" side apparently got $8170. Major contributors to "Yes on 28" were: Oregon AFSCME Council 75 – $125,000 National Education Association (Washington DC) - $75,000 Oregon Public Employees Union – SEIU Local 503- $70,000 AFSCME (Washington DC) - $51,513 Oregon Education Association - $46,906 Oregon Public Employees Union PAC ( PAC #2102) - $31,000 School Employees Exercising Democracy (PAC #2307) - $26,000 AFT – Oregon Action PAC Plus (PAC #2089) - $15,000 Kulongoski for Governor - $10,000 Oregon AFL-CIO - $8,800 Peace Health - $5,000 Despite all this money spent by public employee and other unions, Measure 28 failed on the ballot, by a margin of 55% to 45%. No problem for the feeders at the trough, though. They simply went into the places (e.g., Multnomah County, which is Portland) where the measure had done well, and put a local measure on the ballot, which passed. Portland now has the only county income tax in the state (yes, the big, statist city problem). Local measures were passed in other towns as well. Finally, the unions went into the legislature, and after the longest session in Oregon history, got an income tax hike passed even though they needed a supermajority to do it, even with a big Republican majority in one house and an even D/R split in the other, that was larger than the one defeated last January by the voters. It was signed by Gov. Kulongoski who campaigned and was elected on a promise not to raise broad-based taxes (this Democrat governor got lots of help from the public employee unions in his very tight race, as well as from the LP candidate who got over 4%, far larger than the margin separating the D and R candidates). An initiative will be on the ballot in February, and this tax increase will be knocked down. But the local levies won't be, and the public employees will be back for more next time around. This newsletter: http://www.oregontaxes.org/YT-may-2003.pdfexplains what's behind the mess of Oregon finances, at least on the school budget. In a nutshell, it is costs increasing at 6% a year while revenues increase at 1.5% a year. This leads to the interesting situation of having to cut school programs, shorten the school year and increase student-teacher ratios, at the same time school employees are making out like bandits. These program cuts are lavishly reported in the media, raising pressure for tax hikes. So, if you are still with me so far, what's all this stuff in Oregon have to do with our state selection?Here's the deal: Our opposition matters. Public employees matter. Unions matter. They are a giant, powerful constituency for sucking in more tax dollars even in states like Oregon with a busted budget and highest-in-the-nation unemployment. They don't give a damn that jobs are being driven out of state or out of the country. Oregon is actually a fairly libertarian state. We've passed initiatives such as Measure 7 (since knocked out in the courts, of course) that required monetary compensation for regulatory takings. But our huge public employee population is an albatross around the neck of state taxpayers. They are awful hard to beat, with lots of them working full-time to squeeze yet more money from the citizens. Here are how many people will be actively working against us in the candidate states, even on such basic issues as tax cuts: State and local employees: ND 37,410 VT 37,640 WY 40,920 SD 41,090 DE 46,810 AK 50,880 MT 53,630 NH 67,580 ME 76,350 ID 79,120 Total number of govt school teachers: ND 14,074 WY 14,930 DE 15,290 VT 17,559 SD 18,053 AK 18,342 MT 21,477 NH 28,974 ID 29,613 ME 34,301 Teachers who are NEA members: WY 5,713 SD 6,524 ND 7,282 (+1665 AFT) VT 8,974 DE 9,239 ID 11,132 NH 11,834 AK 9,892 (+3668 AFT) MT 10,621 (+3573 AFT) ME 18,288 Total number of union members in the state: SD 19,000 WY 20,000 ND 21,000 VT 30,000 ID 42,000 DE 45,000 MT 48,000 AK 59,000 NH 60,000 ME 72,000 States That Do Not Authorize Teacher-Monopoly Bargaining or Forced-Dues: Wyoming States With Teacher Monopoly Bargaining, But No Forced Dues For Teachers: South Dakota Idaho Vermont North Dakota Maine States That Authorize Teacher Monopoly Bargaining and Forced Dues: New Hampshire Montana Alaska Delaware |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 11, 2003, 11:58:38 am by Zxcv »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tony Stelik
|
In NH first thing to acomplish will be creating school system alternatives and than separation of schools and government. There is strong support of the public.
Also per capita numbers would be for me more representative to compare WY and NH
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forgive you
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
