Matthew Yglesias (February 07, 2008) - Romney's Speech (Foreign Policy)

Wait, does this imply that maybe the Preznit makes more money than the dude at the local McD's?

That certainly would make zombie Reagan cry.

Posted by Chuck | February 7, 2008 3:28 PM

What, it just happened today?

Good riddance, Mittens. Eat a bowl of dicks.

Posted by B-$ | February 7, 2008 3:31 PM

Matt, he's a Republican. Get a fricking clue. They're ALL evil. A L L. E V I L. I won't sit down to a goddamned meal with one. Hitler was 60 years too early and one targeted demographic off in waging his Holocaust.

Posted by steve duncan | February 7, 2008 3:33 PM

I suppose now someone has to point out the obvious, that despite the undisputedly terrible nature of Republican doctrine and the Republican party, steve duncan's Holocaust-themed, genocide-approving eliminationist rhetoric is just disgusting.

Posted by Christopher M | February 7, 2008 3:37 PM

No wonder Mitt was running for President!

He's always had a head for money, and apparently government service is where it's at! I'm surprised it took him so long to figure it out, but that explains why he spent a million dollars a delegate or whatever.

It's like the old joke. Someone asked a bank robber, why do you rob banks? He replied, b/c that's where the money is.

Posted by bob | February 7, 2008 3:37 PM

Assuming what Romney says is correct, which I don't, is he pointing out that public sector salaries are too high or that private sector salaries are too low?

I presume the former, but why didn't we hear more of this "bureaucrats get paid too much" talk when his campaign, you know, existed?

Posted by Marshall | February 7, 2008 3:40 PM

Can I also mention that your support of Mitt b/c he was secretly moderate was non-retroactively ridiculous?

Since he would have been in hock to the far right, he would have appointed terrible judges and generally acted like an arch-conservative in order to get re-elected. Duh.

Maybe you would have realized if you hadn't left MA before his governorship went so far south so fast.

Posted by bob | February 7, 2008 3:40 PM

I think his point is (and I don't even know if this is true), people handing out forms at the DMV make more than people handing out forms in the private sector. And while cops and firefighters aren't lazy paper-pushers, I'm not so sure it's a good thing that here in California we routinely pay them six-figure salaries.

Posted by too many steves | February 7, 2008 3:41 PM

Class warfare!

Mitt sounds like he's calling for Workers of the World to Unite!

Posted by john doe | February 7, 2008 3:42 PM

Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector

Maybe because in the private sector the ordinary worker get screwed, while CEO types (like Mittens) make millions. God, I detest that guy. What a dick!

I'm retroactively reconsidering my support for this clown.

Welcome to the light.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | February 7, 2008 3:42 PM

This is all not to mention that 1) Many of these jobs don't pay all _that_ well. 2) Where there is a private sector version of the job, those almost always pay more. What a dishonest chump he's turned out to be.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 7, 2008 3:43 PM

I liked this part of the speech:

The attack on faith and religion is no less relentless. And tolerance for pornography—even celebration of it—and sexual promiscuity, combined with the twisted incentives of government welfare programs have led to today’s grim realities: 68% of African American children are born out-of-wedlock, 45% of Hispanic children, and 25% of White children.

All that because of tolerance for pornography--even celebration of it.

Posted by southpaw | February 7, 2008 3:43 PM

The following quote, an apparent endorsement of atheists, is interesting coming from Romney-

Americans love God, and those who don’t have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves—a “Purpose Driven Life.”

Posted by nbt | February 7, 2008 3:45 PM

In the past I've always heard complaints that the best and the brightest in the US go into the private sector because government doesn't pay competitively, hence the mediocrity of our bureaucracies here. So now Mitt wants them to be even worse compensated? This is a plan that not even the best terroristic saboteur could match for harming our country.

Posted by oljb | February 7, 2008 3:45 PM

Lots of nuttery in there, but nice to see the recognition that atheists are actual human beings:

"Americans love God, and those who don’t have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves—a “Purpose Driven Life.”"

Posted by Andrew Edwards | February 7, 2008 3:46 PM

This is all not to mention that 1) Many of these jobs don't pay all _that_ well. 2) Where there is a private sector version of the job, those almost always pay more. What a dishonest chump he's turned out to be.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 7, 2008 3:47 PM

Of course cut the salary for govt. employees and they leave for the private sector and then people whine about how we "can't get qualified people in this govt.". Are people really that short sighted and stupid?

Then again since the military is the largest part of our budget, is Mitt saying that the military is overpaid? Is that what's going on here?

Posted by freddiemac | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM

From what I've seen here in Michigan, government jobs aren't getting big raises (not even keeping up with inflation), but private sector jobs are getting big pay cuts. No one is getting ahead, some are just falling behind slower.

Posted by MarvyT | February 7, 2008 3:48 PM

Why, oh why, does Mitt want our Marines to take a pay cut?

Posted by Ceko | February 7, 2008 3:53 PM

A lot of the people working for the government have specialized skills.

Huh? A lot of people NOT working for government have specialized skills too. What the heck is Matthew's point?

Posted by Al | February 7, 2008 3:54 PM

Actually Isn't it the case that similar private sectors jobs frequently pay more and that this has been quite bad for the bureaucracy and in turn the country by making it harder to attract smarter civil servants?

Posted by rtaycher1987 | February 7, 2008 4:00 PM

Last time a head-hunter tried to lure me away from my cushy government job, they offerred me a 50% pay increase. That was a while back though. My friends in the private sector say the bump is usually much less.

Posted by Njorl | February 7, 2008 4:03 PM

Truly, Mitt was generous today in giving the blogosphere a well-stocked barrel of fish to shoot at. I mean, every single paragraph in that speech is an incoherently-presented right-wing talking point. (Why exactly was Clinton's downsizing the U.S. Navy a bad thing?) I think we should all sign a big "Thank You" card for Mr. Romney.

Posted by James Gary | February 7, 2008 4:04 PM

And tolerance for pornography—even celebration of it—and sexual promiscuity

Thanks Southpaw. This is funny. For cons, its' always about sex!

What do you call a conservative who just had satisfying sex? ... a liberal

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | February 7, 2008 4:06 PM

Welcome back to reality Matt. Sorry you were missing that blinding light of pandering foolishness prior to this. He didn't turn out to be a dishinest chump just today. It's what he has been or did you miss the "I didn't serve in the military, but I wish I would have" quote at the Reagan Libraby debate?

And maybe someone can ask Mitt why so many Bush Admin officials and the like have quit after serving for a few years saying they are going to go into the private sector where they can make money. It has been a recurring theme.

Posted by PaulE | February 7, 2008 4:13 PM

I think I see where he is going with this...

Obviously the military is getting paid too much. We need to pay them less so they can stop giving money to Obama and Ron Paul. Because we all know that if one of those psychos win then the terrorists win. Mitt simply wants to stop our military from being able to assist the evil doers.

How much money did Mitt get from the America-hating American military anyway?

Posted by AJ | February 7, 2008 4:19 PM

Mittens said Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?

Yes, it's called France. It's actually a surprisingly pleasant place.

Posted by vanya | February 7, 2008 4:24 PM

Huh? A lot of people NOT working for government have specialized skills too. What the heck is Matthew's point?

I think the point is that the government doesn't have a lot of need for unskilled, low wage workers. The private sector, by contrast, employs large numbers of these workers. So it makes sense that the median wage of government workers is higher than in the private sector.

It is, of course, false to suggest that the best opportunities are for bureaucrats, since there's a hard (and relatively low) ceiling on their compensation.

Posted by southpaw | February 7, 2008 4:24 PM

Jesus H Christ, is there any senior Republican out there who doesn't hate all foreigners? I thought Mitt was that man, but it turns out that he despises those rest-of-world types too. Huckabee thinks they're heathens, and McCain dreams of bombing the crap out of them. What's with these guys? Can't we all just get along?

Posted by JohnTh | February 7, 2008 4:35 PM

MY:I'm retroactively reconsidering my support for this clown.

Yeah. His "I'm dropping out of the race because Clinton or Obama would surrender to terror" is either psychopathic or beneath contempt, take your pick.

Posted by MattF | February 7, 2008 4:37 PM

"This seems bizarre. A lot of the people working for the government have specialized skills. They're lawyers, scientists, accountants, etc. and, in good market fashion, they earn more money than do unskilled workers."

Matt,

I think you are missing the point, but admittedly this is more of a state and local issue than a federal one. Take a state like NJ, which is in debt up to I-80. The state is full of six-figure salaried employees, including just about every state cop. Sure the job has its risks -- so does driving a cab or being a fisherman -- but that's not why it pays so well. It pays well because government employee unions are the most effective union/political groups in the country.

It's all well and good for government employees to get paid well, but when they get paid so much that it puts such a high debt and tax burden on private sector employees, it becomes both unfair and economically destructive.

Posted by Fred | February 7, 2008 4:38 PM

"there's a hard (and relatively low) ceiling on their compensation"

Yup (bumping head), that's certainly true.

Posted by David in NY | February 7, 2008 4:39 PM

I think the point is that the government doesn't have a lot of need for unskilled, low wage workers. The private sector, by contrast, employs large numbers of these workers.

Hmmm. Is that true? The government employs lots of DMV clerks and such, no?

But in any case, let's assume, arguendo, that it is true that the public sector employs relatively more skilled workers than does the private sector. Wouldn't that BOLSTER Mitt's point? His point, as I take it, is that too many of our highly skilled workers are in the public sector, as opposed to the private sector. Our most skilled workers shuold work in the private sector than in the bureaucracy. Liberals may not believe this, but conservatives believe that the private sector is inherently more productive than the bureaucracy - that we should as a society strive to decrease bureaucrats and increase private sector workers.

So it seems perfectly reasonable for Mitt to be making this argument. Socialists like Matthew who think that government bureaucracy is the most productive form of society may believe otherwise.

Posted by Al | February 7, 2008 4:42 PM

"Yes, it's called France. It's actually a surprisingly pleasant place."

France is a pleasant place if you are an ENA alumnus or otherwise a member of the establishment, but it seems to be decidedly unpleasant if you, your parents, or your grand parents immigrated there from North Africa, or if you are part of the 8% of the population that is perennially unemployed. Most of the French understand this, which is why they elected Sarkozy to reform the French economy.

In any case, Mitt is quite familiar with France.

Posted by Fred | February 7, 2008 4:50 PM

Our most skilled workers shuold work in the private sector than in the bureaucracy.

The government is always going to have a demand for highly skilled and intelligent lawyers, accountants, and scientists. I can understand, from a political standpoint, how it might hurt the Republican cause if these workers were known for being very good at what they do, but from the perspective of an individual citizen, they tend to be happy when government needs are fulfilled by highly qualified professionals.

I don't see why you would assume that it is best when government is staffed by the unskilled. It strikes me that in a scenario in which the government was as small as possible, federal employees would only be needed for highly specialized services, in which case the median salary would become even more skewed in favor of federal employees than it is today.

Posted by Tyro | February 7, 2008 4:54 PM

Socialists like Matthew who think that government bureaucracy is the most productive form of society may believe otherwise.

Excellent refutation of an argument that NO ONE MADE.

Posted by Jen | February 7, 2008 4:56 PM

I can definitively say that government lawyers do not make as much as equivalent private sector lawyers.

Posted by Dave | February 7, 2008 5:00 PM

I thought the only people who go to work on the public titty were the low talent rejects and social retards who couldn't get jobs in the private industry? Isn't that why we have a government? Are their people who truly grow up, study hard, sacrafice, and dream of one day working for the governement?

Posted by JBJB | February 7, 2008 5:03 PM

I'm thinking Blackwater rent-a-mercenary vs your average GI grunt. No contest.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | February 7, 2008 5:06 PM

Yeah. I really can't speak to the broad data - the set of all gov't employees v. the set of all private sector employees - or even for what the breakdown is at a certain level of abstract skilled-ness. But in every circumstance of which I'm aware, a gov't employee whose job or a job for which she would be qualified exists in the private sector makes less, sometimes much less, than they could in the private sector. Lawyers are the obvious example here, and by the time they get to be judges even more so. Many if not most federal judges make about as much as first year associates at NY/CHI law firms, and needless to say could make a great deal more than that if they entered private practice. Haven't there been one or two high profile instances of this in the past few years, where the judge in question said something like "I have two kids to put through Yale"?

Posted by Quarterican | February 7, 2008 5:09 PM

JBJB,

No, that is not why we have a government. Perhaps you should first study up on why we have a government and what governments do before posting.

Posted by freddiemac | February 7, 2008 5:09 PM

Matt is off base in his flaky critique. Compare average income of private lawyers and average income of government lawyers - Mitt may be right in saying the average government person gets more, especially when adding in benefits, pensions, etc.

The point is, I gather, we should cut the headcount of the government by 10%, and probably could without much pain.

In fact, with good out-placement, I would suggest 10% per year for say 3 years.

MR is perhaps thinking like a Bain consultant.

Posted by cfw | February 7, 2008 5:11 PM

Too many steves claimed that in CA cops "routinely" are paid in the 6 figures. This isn't, I think, true. Some googeling seems to suggest the vast majority of patrol cops make between 44 and 66K- a decent living but hardly a lavish one. Almost none (as in less than one percent) make more than 80K. In LA, to quality for a more than 6 figure salary it seems you have to be a Lt. commander. Now, cops get a lot of over-time so some will get more, though usually the amount of OT they can get is capped and, this means they work long, long hours. State Troopers in NJ (one of the highest paying states) top out at 98K- they surely go over that with overtime, though most won't get to that level- lots and lots of cops leave before they get to that level. So, the claims being made here about cop pay are, it seems, somewhat exadurated. Al, of course, is engaging in comical miss-readings.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 7, 2008 5:21 PM

Well, perhaps this will finally put an end to Matt's soft spot for Mitt. I'm not among those who think he was a moderate technocrat masquerading as a right-winger. I think he was a typical socially conservative Mormon who ran as a socially moderate technocrat in order to get elected in Massachusetts, and in the presidential campaign we've finally seen his true colors. This idea that he's somehow so much more competent and acceptable a GOP candidate than the others because of his experience as a CEO seems pretty elitist to me. Imagine how much worse off we'd be now if Dubya had been more competent at enacting his right-wing policies, after all. Competence is no substitute for good policies. And Mitt's speech today ended in a McCarthyite flourish, basically saying all Democrats want to surrender to the terrorists. Classy, Mitt.

Posted by jlr29 | February 7, 2008 5:26 PM

But in any case, let's assume, arguendo, that it is true that the public sector employs relatively more skilled workers than does the private sector. Wouldn't that BOLSTER Mitt's point? His point, as I take it, is that too many of our highly skilled workers are in the public sector, as opposed to the private sector. Our most skilled workers shuold work in the private sector than in the bureaucracy.

Sadly, no. The government is different from the private sector in both nature and scale, so the comparison Romney sets up here is fallacious.

An example. I think it's fair to presume that the median salary of someone working at the White House is higher than the median salary of someone working for a private business in the United States. That does not imply that too many of our highly skilled workers are working at the White House. (Probably the White House has the number of employees it needs.) It implies that preponderance of low wage factory workers, burger flippers, couriers, drivers, etc. drives down the median wage in the private sector relative to the White House.

A single comparison of medians does not engage the subject in sufficient detail to give us any idea of what policy changes, if any, should be made going forward.

Posted by southpaw | February 7, 2008 5:33 PM

Fred,

I'm well aware that France has structural issues with it's economy. But neither is it an unmitigated disaster. In certain areas - public infrastructure like bridges and roads, healthcare, railways, parks and cultural institutions - France is a more comfortable place to live than the US (French roads actually put the US to shame). But opportunities both for the marginalized and the entrepreneurial are certainly more limited, you are correct. The point is, public vs. private can be a trade-off it doesn't have to be all or nothing the way Mitt implies.

Also I challenge your assertion that Mitt knows anything at all about France. Sure he did his mission there, but Mormon missionaries can be quite isolated from the general population. Since Mormons can't drink wine, can't smoke and can't drink coffee in cafes, I submit they cannot understand France. And I've never seen any evidence in anything Romney has ever said or done that he has the slightest understanding of France. And for the record, I'm an Italophile and don't even particularly like France.

Posted by vanya | February 7, 2008 5:50 PM

Compare average income of private lawyers and average income of government lawyers - Mitt may be right in saying the average government person gets more, especially when adding in benefits, pensions, etc.

Do you have any data whatsoever to support this? I'm a government lawyer. People routinely fall out of their chairs when they learn what I make. Or they look sorry for me, because they assumed I made more than teachers.

Posted by Jen | February 7, 2008 5:51 PM

Funny, 12% of the US population live below the poverty line, while in France it's only 6%.

Posted by novakant | February 7, 2008 6:21 PM

In addition to France, add Japan(and its former colonies) to the list of country that had benefited from a strong and prestigious civil service.

In my own specialty, law librarianship, law firm librarians usually out earn public sector law librarians by at least 50% for equivalent positions, especially if they have billable hours.

http://www.law.com/jsp/llf/PubArticleLLF.jsp?id=1186563724387

Posted by Kanchou | February 7, 2008 6:29 PM

I have a friend who was a Queens County DA in the homicide division. Now he's the NYC PBA's lawyer. He makes tons more money than he did as an asst. DA. Lawyers are one group that do make tons more in the private sector than the public sector. Private sector lawyers are also much better lawyers than public sector lawyers too, and one factor is a 28 year old public sector lawyer will be a much better 50 year old private sector lawyer when he gets older. A 50 year old public sector lawyer is probably a pretty awful lawyer though, if he isn't a big muckety muck like a judge of a DA.

As far as the good life in France, one must factor in that pretty much all the improvements in French life since about 1900, or since Louis Pasteur died, have been imported from elsewhere except for maybe innovative painting styles, deconstructionism and Bernard Henri Levy. If the world became 'French' in 1880, well what would life be like now? I don't begrudge their nice, and it is nice, country, but as far as improvements in living standards due to tech advancement, which all improvements in living standards are from, who will we import them from? I'd figure that in first before making a move.

Posted by j mct | February 7, 2008 7:13 PM

I have a friend who was a Queens County DA in the homicide division. Now he's the NYC PBA's lawyer. He makes tons more money than he did as an asst. DA. Lawyers are one group that do make tons more in the private sector than the public sector. Private sector lawyers are also much better lawyers than public sector lawyers too, and one factor is a 28 year old public sector lawyer will be a much better 50 year old private sector lawyer when he gets older. A 50 year old public sector lawyer is probably a pretty awful lawyer though, if he isn't a big muckety muck like a judge of a DA.

As far as the good life in France, one must factor in that pretty much all the improvements in French life since about 1900, or since Louis Pasteur died, have been imported from elsewhere except for maybe innovative painting styles, deconstructionism and Bernard Henri Levy. If the world became 'French' in 1880, well what would life be like now? I don't begrudge their nice, and it is nice, country, but as far as improvements in living standards due to tech advancement, which all improvements in living standards are from, who will we import them from? I'd figure that in first before making a move.

Posted by j mct | February 7, 2008 7:14 PM

I have a friend who was a Queens County DA in the homicide division. Now he's the NYC PBA's lawyer. He makes tons more money than he did as an asst. DA. Lawyers are one group that do make tons more in the private sector than the public sector. Private sector lawyers are also much better lawyers than public sector lawyers too, and one factor is a 28 year old public sector lawyer will be a much better 50 year old private sector lawyer when he gets older. A 50 year old public sector lawyer is probably a pretty awful lawyer though, if he isn't a big muckety muck like a judge of a DA.

As far as the good life in France, one must factor in that pretty much all the improvements in French life since about 1900, or since Louis Pasteur died, have been imported from elsewhere except for maybe innovative painting styles, deconstructionism and Bernard Henri Levy. If the world became 'French' in 1880, well what would life be like now? I don't begrudge their nice, and it is nice, country, but as far as improvements in living standards due to tech advancement, which all improvements in living standards are from, who will we import them from? I'd figure that in first before making a move.

Posted by j mct | February 7, 2008 7:15 PM

I have a friend who was a Queens County DA in the homicide division. Now he's the NYC PBA's lawyer. He makes tons more money than he did as an asst. DA. Lawyers are one group that do make tons more in the private sector than the public sector. Private sector lawyers are also much better lawyers than public sector lawyers too, and one factor is a 28 year old public sector lawyer will be a much better 50 year old private sector lawyer when he gets older. A 50 year old public sector lawyer is probably a pretty awful lawyer though, if he isn't a big muckety muck like a judge of a DA.

As far as the good life in France, one must factor in that pretty much all the improvements in French life since about 1900, or since Louis Pasteur died, have been imported from elsewhere except for maybe innovative painting styles, deconstructionism and Bernard Henri Levy. If the world became 'French' in 1880, well what would life be like now? I don't begrudge their nice, and it is nice, country, but as far as improvements in living standards due to tech advancement, which all improvements in living standards are from, who will we import them from? I'd figure that in first before making a move.

Posted by j mct | February 7, 2008 7:15 PM

I have a friend who was a Queens County DA in the homicide division. Now he's the NYC PBA's lawyer. He makes tons more money than he did as an asst. DA. Lawyers are one group that do make tons more in the private sector than the public sector. Private sector lawyers are also much better lawyers than public sector lawyers too, and one factor is a 28 year old public sector lawyer will be a much better 50 year old private sector lawyer when he gets older. A 50 year old public sector lawyer is probably a pretty awful lawyer though, if he isn't a big muckety muck like a judge of a DA.

As far as the good life in France, one must factor in that pretty much all the improvements in French life since about 1900, or since Louis Pasteur died, have been imported from elsewhere except for maybe innovative painting styles, deconstructionism and Bernard Henri Levy. If the world became 'French' in 1880, well what would life be like now? I don't begrudge their nice, and it is nice, country, but as far as improvements in living standards due to tech advancement, which all improvements in living standards are from, who will we import them from? I'd figure that in first before making a move.

Posted by j mct | February 7, 2008 7:16 PM

Very very sorry. Please delete extras

Posted by j mct | February 7, 2008 7:18 PM

"Perhaps you should first study up on why we have a government and what governments do before posting."

Oh Freddie, I have read about and studied our government ad nauseam, even worked with the government on a few occasions. I am pretty sure the primary reason it exists today is to keep the ever increasing number of lazy, pathetic slobs in this country employed.

Posted by JBJB | February 7, 2008 7:31 PM

"Compare average income of private lawyers and average income of government lawyers - Mitt may be right in saying the average government person gets more, especially when adding in benefits, pensions, etc.

Do you have any data whatsoever to support this? I'm a government lawyer. People routinely fall out of their chairs when they learn what I make. Or they look sorry for me, because they assumed I made more than teachers."

Look at the average income of the lawyer out of the 25th to 75th percentile of his/her class from a mid level law school (say about 100 to 300 in rank). Tell me you would advise a graduating son or daughter with such a rank in such a school to avoid government service to go the private route. That advice would be extremely risky. Folks recruiting lawyers for federal government service routinely get 100 or more resumes for a job that pays say $90,000 for a lawyer. What does that tell one about the economic prospects for the hypothetical average lawyer debating private or public work? It is a buyer's market, not a seller's market, when talking lawyers that are not fresh out of a top 30 law school with a top 100 class rank.

The law business average income has not kept up with inflation for the last 15 years or so. Things are flat and getting flatter in average private law practice.

Repubs and fellow travelers are slamming shut the court house doors for plaintiff-side trial lawyers, which has a ripple effect throughout the profession.

People forget the average lawyers when focusing on starting salaries for say 3000 lawyers per year out of top 30 law schools (80% of whom will have moved out of BigLaw in 3-4 years).

If lawyers in government service have such a raw deal, factoring in hours and benefits and pensions, they should have no objection to a 10% per year reduction in government lawyer head count for three years.

Putting lawyers on the federal payroll to do things like just FOIA requests is a bit like white collar welfare. Mitt may have a point that we need to cut back government headcount and get more people doing things that are private, productive, and ideally marketable globally. Hard in the short term, no doubt, but perhaps necessary.

Posted by cfw | February 7, 2008 7:57 PM

That was one of the least bizarre bits in the robot's speech. The part about Europe's declining demography - yikes, here comes Eurabia - must be a new software program Mitt's handlers put in his head. Deliriously stupid, out of touch, and just right for the schizo right mindset. They'll eat it up! This is a man who has a future.

If only he'd finished up with a paen to those high White IQs, it would have been perfect. The Romney-bot people really needs to stock up on their racism software. Maybe they should hire Saletan at Slate to design some.

Posted by roger | February 7, 2008 8:28 PM

Vanya,

There are a number of things to admire about France, and we could benefit from borrowing some of them (e.g., their embrace of nuclear power). But you praised the society without initially acknowledging that the French themselves realize they need to make difficult structural changes.

As an Italophile, I don't know if you read this week's op/eds on Italy in the FT, but one of them made the point that Italy's government sector is as large as those of Northern European countries, but it is far less effective and far less efficient. This, along with Kanchou's comment below, gets to the problem I have with proposals to expand government in the U.S.:

"In addition to France, add Japan(and its former colonies) to the list of country that had benefited from a strong and prestigious civil service."

A strong and prestigious civil service is a wonderful thing, but for that you need the civil service to be meritocratic. Jimmy Carter did away with much of that, in order to make the civil service more of an affirmative action jobs program. You can't look at Japan's or Sweden's civil service and expand an American government program to be comparable. In America, the program won't be administered by highly-intelligent and diligent Swedes or Japanese, but by blacks, Hispanics, women, disabled people, veterans, or whoever had enough "Queen for a Day" points to get to the top of the civil service hiring list.

Posted by Fred | February 7, 2008 9:21 PM

I think Romney's correct in that, for the same professional skills, Federal employees on average make more. I worked as a scientist in both areas and that was the case at least through the 70's-90's. That's one reason Federal employees don't have high turnover.

Of course you can't make the big bucks as an entrepreneur as Romney did.

Posted by Robert Hume | February 7, 2008 9:25 PM

There seems to be a little bit of deliberate obtuseness here. Sure, top tier talent gets paid more in the private sector. But:

1) Public sector work often leads to private sector big bucks (e.g., a lawyer for the SEC who takes that experience into a private firm working on securities law).

2) Lower tier talent usually gets paid more in the public sector. For example, a graduate of a second- or third-tier law school who is lucky to get a job in a private firm these days can make a decent living working for the government.

3) When you take into account the government benefits (e.g., a defined benefit pension plan, lots of days off, job security), even at similar incomes the government job is usually a better deal.

Posted by Fred | February 7, 2008 9:34 PM

" Can you imagine what happens to an economy where the best opportunities are for bureaucrats?"

Um, you get competent government?

Posted by Ginger Yellow | February 7, 2008 9:53 PM

There seems to be a little bit of deliberate obtuseness here [. . .] even at similar incomes the government job is usually a better deal.

When it comes to deliberate obtuseness, no one out-obfuscates Fred. I'm aware of no case where there are "similar incomes" between comparable public and private sector jobs. Job for job, Public sector incomes are drastically lower.

As to Fred's other points:

(1) . . .Only goes to show that there are, indeed, better opportunities in the private sector.

(2) . . . If Romney's point was that the best opportunities for people who can't get private sector jobs are in the bureaucracy, well . . . yeah.

Posted by southpaw | February 7, 2008 10:18 PM

Well, I can tell you that the morons and nepotists in the Federal Bureau of Prisons are paid WAY too much.

Most Correctional Officers are downsized ex-military - who were too stupid to make it in the MILITARY! - and wannabe cops who were too stupid to pass the law enforcement exams.

Inmates don't call these guys "hacks" - Horses Asses Carrying Keys - for nothing, you know. $40-50,000 plus a year plus government bennies for these jerks?

And the civilian staff aren't just morons - they immediately get their wife, husband, brother, sister, aunts, uncles, nephews, and fellow travelers jobs at the same prison they work at. There, they work maybe four, five hours out of their less than eight hour day, shuffling papers.

Fred: "In America, the program won't be administered by highly-intelligent and diligent Swedes or Japanese, but by blacks, Hispanics, women, disabled people, veterans, or whoever had enough "Queen for a Day" points to get to the top of the civil service hiring list."

So we can assume Fred despises "blacks, Hispanics, women, disabled people, and veterans." Who does that leave? Japanese and Swedes, I guess, according to him.

Nice. And Josh Marshall bitches because he (erroneously) thinks I "despise Jews".

Do us all a favor, Fred - move to Sweden. Don't move to Japan - they wouldn't tolerate your stupid ass in that country.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 7, 2008 10:52 PM

A fascinating response, cfw, which contains absolutely no data to support your contention that public service lawyers probably make more than private lawyers.

Since it probably took a little while to write, may I suggest "Look! A Jackalope!" as a shorter version?

Posted by Jen | February 7, 2008 11:44 PM

Wait a minute. The right-wing spends a generation privatizing every public sector service that lends itself to commoditization (from janitors to jail guards), and then says that government workers are overpaid?

Shameless.

Posted by Dan Hartung | February 8, 2008 12:28 AM

Silly me, here I was assuming all along that they had women in Sweden and Japan.

Posted by Lucy | February 8, 2008 12:32 AM

"Did you see that today, government workers make more money than people who work in the private sector."

And this, children, is why Dick Cheney came crawling back to public service.

Posted by rickhavoc | February 8, 2008 1:13 AM

Tyro: It strikes me that in a scenario in which the government was as small as possible, federal employees would only be needed for highly specialized services, in which case the median salary would become even more skewed in favor of federal employees than it is today.
I am a scientist in a well-known federal laboratory and this is indeed the model being used today. Whereas 10 years ago most of the technicians, programmers, computer specialists, etc were federal employees, now only the senior scientists are, and the lower-level jobs are being filled as contractors working for private companies with few if any benefits. So the median federal salary has certainly gone up at this lab, although there are about the same number and type of people working, doing similar jobs at similar pay. Although some money is probably being saved (at least in amortized benefits), one result is that the contractors all have one foot out the door, looking for a more permanent gig, and consequently have much less loyalty and commitment to the work.

Posted by bouncing_b | February 8, 2008 2:02 AM

Clearly he was worried that the U.S. is becoming like France. Imagine universal healthcare, state run preschool, etc.... Doesn't sound bad does it?

Posted by DG in Paris | February 8, 2008 8:24 AM

According to...

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2f_Lawyer/Salary

...Federal government lawyers make more than average, state and local government lawyers make less.

Posted by Njorl | February 8, 2008 11:33 AM

Of course, for sales, the Federal government pays just about the least,

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Sales_Associate/Hourly_Rate/by_Employer_Type

Posted by Njorl | February 8, 2008 12:00 PM

Steve Sailer had an interesting article about the demise of the Federal Civil Service exam that's worth reading http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/11/steve-sailers-test-case_4916.html

Highly skilled government employees (Army trauma surgeon, assistant US Attorneys) make less than they could in the private sector, but low skill government employees, (once benefits are included) are generally overpaid.

Posted by beowulf | February 8, 2008 4:38 PM

(once benefits are included) are generally overpaid.

I hardly think that having a secure retirement plan and health insurance makes one "overpaid."

Posted by Tyro | February 8, 2008 8:03 PM

Romney's Speech

Comments (74)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories