Bay Area Public Employee Salaries 2010

At Thursday’s Manteca Patriots (Tea Party) there was a fine fellow running for office who pledge that he would only accept a salary  of $42,500 per year.  Because, he put it, you shouldn’t be “getting rich off the taxpayer who’s making less than you.”

Fantastic concept.  I noted at the meeting that “everybody in the city makes more than that, they all make like 100,000/yr.” 

Well this comment drew some reaction.  I don’t know if it’s how I said it or if I was over broad in my generalization but it got some hostile rebuttal (I was interrupted) from someone who thought that was a bunch of crap, basically.  That these city workers were … and I’m not quite sure what his argument was.  But that “they aren’t all making over $100,000 /yr!

Fair enough.

As I tried to explain at the meeting I was speaking in general terms and not every single worker makes that much.  Some make more, some make less.  But that as an average it’s right around (in the neighborhood) of 100K or so. 

Now, here’s the basis for that comment.  First, City Manager Pinkerton said this very thing at a meeting of the “tax committee” I forget the name of it but was the citizen’s group that met to try to explore any new taxes.  (Which were soundly turned down).  He said as a general rule, he counts about $100K per employee.  Including the guys who mow the grass who get like $80K and so on.

In addition, in the “COPS” grant application, Chief Bricker had listed the starting compensation for a brand new policeman as $114,000 per year.   To start.  Councilman Moorhead even asked for clarification.  (“Is that what it really cost to hire one policeman?”) The answer from the chief was yes, that’s what it costs.  About the same with the fire department.  And the pay goes up from there.  $114,000 per year is the absolute minimum.

I also asserted that the gentleman may simply not know how much they make.  And I related how when the Sun Post ran a list of all city worker pay, they got many complaints and downright accusations of “I don’t make that much.”  I asserted “they don’t even know what they make, they argue but the figures in the Sun Post were accurate.”  This was also disputed.

Now, read for yourself.  Here is all 560 city workers’ pay.  Look for yourself.  I’ll wait.

Now, if you notice, the “median” just directly from that list is $77,300 per year.   Now if you want to go further, notice the last 140 workers are part time, one time, special workers who get a few thousand dollars.  Lets just look at full time workers.  Fair?  Maybe, maybe not but lets just say the small payments less than $10,000 don’t count.  Now the median pay is $90,380 per year.

OK, so mea culpa, they aren’t making 100K a year, it’s only $90K.  I’m sorry to have even suggested they are making a good living.  Wait, the argument was if they were making more than the average Californian, $42,500. 

Lastly, remember I said “they don’t even know how much they make?”  Well, look at the San Jose Mercury News page.  Look at the first comment from a government worker there.  Accusing the paper of getting it all wrong, and insisting “I don’t make that much money.”  Which is exactly what I said at the meeting, that the workers themselves don’t even know how much they are getting.

And there’s nothing like that in the private (non government) world, but that’s a subject for another day.

You may use the space below in the comments to apologize for doubting my figures.

Bay Area Public Employee Salaries 2010 - San Jose Mercury News

More on cable customers taxed

Two other things I forgot.

Regarding the cable TV tax, the editor claims “There is little doubt the revenue is needed.” Little doubt? “Needed” by whom? For what? There are a lot of us who don’t believe the tremendous growth of government over the years has been a good or “needed” thing.

Next, he says “No one in Manteca at this time should have the stomach to push for new taxes. In time, though, the need will come.”

Why will the need come to raise new taxes? What is going to happen that will cause such a need?

Let me dispel two myths of why people think “new taxes” are “needed.” What about growth of the population? Does that cause the need for “new taxes?” NO! If there are more people, more houses, more businesses, then the government collects more taxes from the new people, houses, etc., in exactly the proportion of the growth.

If the population of Manteca goes from 60,000 to 120,000 there will theoretically be no need for “new taxes!” Why? Because there are twice as many people using government “services” and there will be twice as much tax collected. It all evens out.

Of course this never stops the government propaganda machine from telling us a new tax “is needed” because of “the growth in the population,” but that’s just the way it is.

The other excuse sometimes used is “inflation.” We need to raise taxes because “inflation” has made everything cost more. Sounds half-logical until you think about it. If a loaf of bread costs $1 today they collect x taxes. If the price of a loaf of bread goes to $2, then they collect 2x taxes. In other words, if the cost of everything doubles, then the taxes collected doubles. Once again, everything “evens out.”

No, the real question was raised by the author of A Monetary History of the United States; namely, why were taxes more or less stable at about 7 percent of GDP for the first 150 years of the nation, and then suddenly started skyrocketing in the later part of the 20th century. What was so “needed?” And why is the growth in the cost of government so “inevitable?”

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

A couple of comments in this editorial caught my eye.

Nothing illustrates how we underestimate the huge burden of taxation and regulation than the example of the cable TV provider in town (Comcast) and the proliferation of satellite TV.

Sure, the tax is just a few dollars per person. But it adds up when there are thousands of customers! And what about the regulation? We don’t usually think about regulation costing anything, but it’s not cheap to get city permits, to be authorized as the franchise, comply with all the rules and such.

I don’t have to list the costs. The reason is evident: The taxes and regulations are so burdensome that it was less costly to launch a complex scientific device into geo-stationary orbit above the Earth than to pay the taxes and deal with the regulatory hurdles governments put between them and their customers! Not to mention the costs of the receivers in each home capable of decoding signals from outer space.

And the editor bemoans how “unfair” it is that the genius innovators at the satellite TV company “don’t have to pay the cable tax.” Duh! They invented a way to distribute their content without cables. No cables, no tax.

Manteca Bulletin - Cable customers ‘taxed’ by Manteca, satellite users aren’t

p.s. The first person who suggests that the taxation was good because it spurred on innovation will get 20 lashes with the Milton Friedman noodle.

What happened in ‘82?

This is from the report on “affordable housing” that’s to be presented at tonight’s council meeting. (Pg 10, fig 1) It’s a graph of how much money people make (personal income) in this county over the years and compared to the average of the nation (United States) and the state (California.)

According to this, the rest of the state has done pretty well over the years. One of the more prosperous places in the nation. (Many lucrative industries, Hollywood, aerospace, silicon valley, etc). So what went wrong with San Joaquin country?

And in particular, what happened in 1982? SJ was more or less about as wealthy as the nation as a whole, just a little less than California as a whole. But according to this chart, the bottom fell out in the early ‘80’s. You can see the red line (San Joaquin) diverge from the national average about then, and the “gap” in poverty increases.

So what went wrong? Did people suddenly get stupid? Prop 13? Williamson act? The ascendency of “central planning?” State takeover of school funding? Ronald Reagan? (no, the nation prospered under Reagan). Then what was it? Maybe someone should ask the expert tonight.

One stop permit center opens

The long awaited “one stop” permit center has opened in Manteca.  Included in this video is the wild opening gala and interviews with customers about their experience and comments from various city officials.

In addition, in this video I ask the chief of Manteca Transit (bus service) about how the new bus route is working out. 

Citizens’ advisory committee

Meeting of the "citizens advisory committee" on 16 Jul 09. Briefing on current state of the economy, city government. One citizen pronounces judgment on presentation (near end of video) hehehe.

The government will "cease to exist?"

The editor of the Manteca Bulletin has a good idea recommending "no" on all the May 19 special election ballot measures. But I don't know what to make of his statement that if they don't pass "California government as we now know it will cease to exist." There's nothing in the measures that would cause the government to "cease to exist." At most, if you vote "no" it would cause the legislators to have to rethink things and start paying reasonable prices for government "services."

The real clue in in the first measure which couples a promise to spend less with extending the new tax increases beyond two years. Think about it, they are saying "we promise to spend less, so please give us more money; trust us, just give us more money and this time we'll spend less." Nonsense! If they are going to spend less, then they don't need more tax money!

The only measure I'm still thinking about is it might be an idea to re-purpose the special "mental health tax." I'll get back to you on that....

Again with the shrimp

This is the second time the Manteca Bulletin has complained bitterly about the "extravagance" of the Lathrop party organizers. Now it's the shrimp cocktails that's the "problem." You would think the mayor just bought a private jet and is being served shrimp cocktail by oiled Laotian boys while cutting deals with ex-Enron execs.

This falls under the classification of "tell the people what sounds like it should outrage them." Just look at that shrimp! The parties! This kind of opinion/reporting is why the public is so misinformed as to how tax dollars are spent.

(I previously mentioned last week in comments to the Sun Post that everyone at the school board meeting wanted the board members to cut their pay and give it to the poor workers sitting next to them. The public was ignorant that the poor worker next to them was making over forty times as much money as the board members. )

Did Mr. Wyatt ever consider the cost of the personnel and building being used for this public reception? And what benefits to the public there may be? Is the plate of shrimp cocktail (a few dollars at save-mart) really "the problem?"

All the high level city people (except the mayor and council!) are being paid well, roughly in the neighborhood $50 to $100 each hour. Let's just take round figures, let's say $80/hour for high level administrators and department heads. How many of them are there at these receptions open to the public? A dozen? (e.g., the head of planning, the police and fire chiefs, city clerk, city manager, etc., etc.). Now add in the cost of the building. From one source, the rough estimate is $500 for "a meeting." (I think the mortgage payment for the new city hall is in the ballpark of $2,000 each day.)

Let's just round it off and the back-of-the-napkin guesstimate for the cost of any meeting with all the city officials present is several thousand dollars each hour. Save that napkin, we're going to need it for the shrimp plate that cost 32 dollars or that terrible plate of cupcakes that costs $12.

Is the cost of the shrimp plate and the cupcakes really significant or a problem? And isn't there some benefit to the public? Think about it: Go down to city hall and ask for a meeting, for an hour, where you can meet with and ask questions of your city leaders. All of them: the mayor, the city manager, the department of tree trimming, whatever. Go ahead. Call up city hall and ask what that will cost you. I'll save you the trouble: you can't afford it.

But the so-called "wasteful extravagant" reception - which is open to you - is the same thing. Anyone (even you!) gets to saunter on in and meet with all those people in a cordial setting. What if you have a problem with your neighbor's chihuahua yapping all night or you want to build a swimming pool for your ferret or think some law is wrong and needs to be changed? There's your chance to -- if not discuss the issue at length -- at least meet people who you can later make an appointment with and discuss things.

Can a plate of shrimp help educate the public?

Many people are so uninformed they don't realize simple things about how their government works. Like, for example, they don't realize the mayor doesn't decide everything on a day-to-day basis. They may not even know there's a city manager or what he does or what the other departments do. The receptions are a great education for the public about how their government works. I can't help but think that if there are complaints with some department, it can never hurt to meet first in a cordial way, share a shrimp cocktail before talking about what the problem is.

And if having a plate of cupcakes there helps bring in the public then it's money well spent.

----

We haven't even talked about the distortions in the Bulletin hit piece.

The real purpose of the receptions is to recognize some achievement of city people. It builds morale. How would you like to work for some enterprise for 20, 30 or more years and then they throw you a retirement reception and say "sorry there's not even a cupcake here -- we didn't want to waste 12 dollars on you. Have a glass of water. At the water fountain."

The other distortion in the Bulletin diatribe was the implication that these were city fat cats stuffing themselves with your tax-paid-for "shrimp cocktail." The implication is that it's some expensive treat (which it is not) and that it was for them. But really, it's for the participants at the party -- the person being honored and YOU, the taxpayer. If it's open to the public, that's a completely different thing -- why didn't Editor Wyatt mention this?

School district pay chart

(Courtesy Manteca-Lathrop Sun-Post, 6 Feb 2009, pgs 12-15)

The chart is readable if you click on the image to show it full resolution.

This chart is distributed on a need-to-know basis*.

*Those who have a desire to remain ignorant of how your government works do not have a "need to know."

Handy city pay chart

Here's a handy email-able version of the city pay chart for those who may have missed it.

(courtesy of the Manteca-Lathrop Sun-Post, 30 Jan 2009, pgs 12-13)

The chart is readable if you click on the image to show it full resolution.

Stockton to Manteca: Raise your taxes, please!

The Record's endorsement: Stockton is telling us to vote for Measure M because it's good -- for Stockton!

The Record is a fine large city newspaper published in Stockton. However, I must respectfully disagree with the editorial opinion for the Measure M tax increase. (Or, as they put it, "seize the opportunity" to raise our taxes.) Before simply accepting their editorial opinion, consider:

First, Stockton would love it if Manteca would raise their taxes higher than Stockton's. If Measure M passes, Stockton will no longer have the highest sales tax in San Joaquin County! Stockton found out the hard way what happens when they were tricked into voting for their own Measure W. They raised their sales tax to 8 percent. They were promised a utopia of new police and fire protection, a safe, prosperous city.

Reality: After passing measure W, Stockton didn't really hire any more police or fire personnel than the normal number (more or less). The city spent the money on a sports arena, cinema, and a fancy restaurant. And I mean "fancy." The gift to the restaurant, $2.5 million is almost exactly what would have cost to build a fire station. Violent crime increased 14% or more, more than the rest of the nation. Stores and businesses closed under pressure from high taxes. Crime, poverty, joblessness, business failures, hopelessness. That is the legacy of Stockton's Measure W tax increase. And now they are telling Manteca "you should do the same!"

If the Stockton campaign sounds familiar, it's because it's being orchestrated by the same image consultants that Manteca hired. They tried exactly the same technique in Stockton. Promise them "Make Stockton Safer!" was the slogan. In fact, if you're curious, check out the "Arguments" for the measure from 2 years ago. Sound familiar? Stockton doesn't want to say they made a mistake, were duped, etc. Instead, they tell us in their endorsement that we'll be safer because the tax money over the years, will eventually, someday, make us safer. Just like Stockton.

In addition:

1. "In the quirky world of municipal finance in California..." and they say, this is our best chance. Translation: Politician squanders money. Politician needs money. Politician asks for help... from a public image firm. Image firm tells politician "people of Manteca are stupid, we can manipulate them with fear and promises of safety." Politician says "Great! Here is $160,000, make it so!"

Shouldn't we fix the "crazy way things are funded" instead of simply raising the tax every time a politician messes things up?

I love the way they call it an "opportunity." Like, it's not every day you get the opportunity to raise your taxes!

2. The editors are taking at face value the theory that more taxes = more safety. If it were that simple, we would be living in utopia by now, and Stockton would be leading the way.

3. There doesn't seem to be any consideration of the unprecedented campaign of propaganda funded mostly by tax dollars. Almost to a person, everyone touting the new tax is someone or some group that will be personally enriched by it. This is the best "community support" that money can buy. There is no public safety "crisis." There are no shortages of police and the extra fire crew needed can now be funded with existing surpluses.

4 .Why aren't the editors trying to cut through the nonsense, and not to simply echo "the party line." The campaign, on it's surface, seems simple, but is actually complex. Anyone can state the simple answers and just tell the people to "vote for it, it might do some good." The Record should have looked a little deeper into the issues.

5. Where do they get the idea that the community supports anything? See the massive spending noted above. If anything the ordinary citizen is overwhelmingly against the measure. Consider "letters to the editor" are running 8 to 1 against. People feel they are being lied to, are being blackmailed, threatened, using scare tactics, loopholes let the tax be misspent, etc. That 8 to 1 figure is based on excluding letters written by the paid consultants submitted by paid supporters.

If we're going to play the "who supports it" game, take out a paper and draw a line down the middle. Write "yes" on one side and "no" on the other. List the groups that support the measure under "yes" and those against under "no. Now, scratch out all the groups that are paid by the city, or somehow get money from the city, or are required to ask the city for money each year, or will be personally enriched if the measure passes. You will now have: under "yes," just about no one! (except a few fellow travelers if they haven't figured out how they are being used yet.) Under "no" is about 78% of the people of Manteca including me, and all of the non-incumbent
candidates for all local elections (fire board, school board, city council). That doesn't sound like "has community support" as The Record puts it.

Furthermore, why, does it matter, technically, if community groups support it. The readers want to know if the editors think if it's a good idea or not.

6. Note the error in the impact of the tax. Their math is off by a factor of ten. I'm sure it will be corrected. But it does suggest a mindset that had already decided "it's not much money." How else could that ridiculously low cost per person have gotten past the editors without noticing the error? The actual cost per taxpayer is ten times higher than what is listed.

From the time the sales tax was 2.5 percent to now, every increase has "just been a few pennies." And now the tax is 7.75 percent. And now they are asking for 8.25 percent. After all, "it's just a few pennies," we are told. One proponent actually asserted sanctimoniously that you're "letting your kids down" if you don't increase the taxes (paid by future generations!). And yet it will take $4 million or more from the people of Manteca.

Why would Stockton want Manteca to raise its taxes higher than Stockton's? Think about it!