Tuesday marks an important 1-year anniversary. On March 9, 2009, the S&P 500 closed at 676.53, marking its bottom from a 17-month decline that began in October 2007. Since that bottom, the S&P has risen 68% under our "socialist" president to its current standing at 1,138.69. And while a lot of this is still somewhat bubblicious due to the unaccountable Wall Street bailouts and return of speculation money, it still is noteworthy, as the freefall that was evident a year has clearly stopped.
However, the clear lagger is employment, where the American economy continues to shed jobs and the resulting lack of demand threatens a serious recovery. But here, we also see clear signs of stabilization compared to where we were a year ago. (read the official BLS release yourself off to the right of this page)
Oct. 2009- Feb. 2010 - 556,000 jobs lost (93K a month).
Oct. 2008- Feb. 2009- 3.918 million jobs lost (653K a month, more than what was lost the last 6 months combined).
Let's also compare it to the last president who took over in a declining economy. And I won't even compare it to the 6 months after 9/11, as that's an extraneous event that no president should be blamed for.
Oct. 2009- Feb. 2010- 556,000 jobs lost
Mar. 2001- Aug. 2001- 608,000 jobs lost. Still higher.
Productivity continues to zoom ahead as well, going up by an estimated 6.9 percent in the 4th quarter of 2009. The textbooks and right-wing think tank world would tell you that high productivity and increased stock prices should drive hiring due to the comparatively high returns for adding labor, and that capital gains lead to reinvestment. But when comparing the stock market and the jobs market, the clear message is that rich folks are deciding to plow money into equities over employment and expansion. This is despite a number of reports I've heard and seen that indicate suppliers continue to fall behind on orders, mostly because they are feeling no retribution for their delays. Action needs to be taken to make these people do the most positive thing for our economy at this point- hire and continue to make things.
Does anyone else think higher cap. gains and reduced payroll taxes are the way to go in the face of this data? The last decade has proven once and for all that lower cap.gains do NOT get reinvested, but instead are hoarded for personal use and put back in to other forms of legalized gambling. This is not a way for an economy to sustainably grow.
It's also worth mentioning that we are now just over a year since the passage of the stimulus package, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Now, lots of people have pointed to the contuinued decline in jobs to say it hasn't worked and was a waste of money. But there's no doubt that the stimulus and other moves have stabilized our economy, as well as avoided even larger fiscal disasters at the state and local levels. As it is, state and local governments have lost a seasonally adjusted 165,000 jobs in the last year despite an increase in demand for services due to the increased unemployment and continued increases in enrollment for many universities. As I've mentioned before, government may be the only industry where we the amount of employment and scope of service is cut when demand goes up. How bad would it look without the billions from Uncle Sam in the stimulus?
Private sector employers have refused to hire, either due to a belief in low demand or a belief in keeping profits for themselves, so the public sector has had to be the one to pick up the huge slack in the economy. Numbers don't lie here, and while more is need to be done to reign in health insurance costs and other threats to hiring and our ultimate economic recovery, it is beyond doubt that the stimulus has succeeded as a stabilization policy. The biggest mistake made with the stimulus was its name- it should have been called the American STABILIZATION and Reinvestment Act. Because that's what it really was, it was an attempt to stop the bleeding that was in our economy in early 2009. AND IT WORKED.
We are nowhere near out of the woods, but we're in a lot better place than we were a year ago, and people better take a step back and realize it. Because if we go back to where we were a year ago, I don't know if we ever get back to a decent economy for most people in the real world.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
A word about furloughs
Lots of stuff in the news about layoffs and furloughs, most recently where Milwaukee's county board formally signed off on adding another 10 days of furlough for many unionized county workers, bringing the total to 22 for all of 2010. In previous jobs I've had as well as academic work, I've examined the efficacy of balancing whether to reduce salary expenses through reducing positions (layoffs) or keeping the positions are reducing paid days of work (furloughs).
Outside of the political questions that arise with these choices, the decision on which direction to choose comes down to three big variables: 1. How necessary is the job that is being performed (essential, optional, or excess) 2. How many people are required to perform the duty at the desired level of service? 3. What are the benefit costs to keeping employees? For example, if number 3 is a high number, maybe it makes layoffs the more likely choice (due to the current and future benefit costs being cut by job losses). But if the answer to No. 1 is "absolutely essential" and No. 2 is "the amount that is currently working" (or, as in the case of many government agencies. "more than you currently have."), then the answer is more likely to be to impose furloughs.
As the article notes, furloughs create a major problem for operations at a place like the Milwaukee County Zoo, which is open every day of the year with an inelastic need for care of animals. Reducing the number of people available for this means that some areas have to be closed at various times, as the manpower is not there for needed cleanings and supervision of animals. If this is an unacceptable outcome for running a zoo, you probably don't want to do furloughs, and find some place or way to reduce expenses.
But Milwaukee County's case makes no sense. The County is now giving 22 unpaid days off to many of its workers, which accounts for almost 8% of 5 days of work a week throughout the year (approximately 260). Now to those 22 days, add another 7 or 8 for holidays and an average iof 12 for vacation, and you're past 40 days of work that each employee is not actually performing his or her job- 15% of their days at work. This means that for every 7 workers in each of these units, the County does not get the equivalent services of 1 of these workers for the entire year.
Instead of cutting every worker by the 8% of reduction that the furloughs result in, why not just cut 4 or 5% of the workers in those areas? This would probably get you the same monetary savings when you combine salary and benefit costs (remember, benefit amounts DO NOT CHANGE with furloughs- those workers still get what's coming to them), and you don't have the long-term costs that go into providing retirement and medical benefits for these workers in the future.
From a pure money standpoint, there is only 1 reason you do not make those cuts- because the furloughed workers are needed, and the needed services break down by reducing staff (and/or revenue), to a point that it is well beyond the reduced costs and workers. And that is the hidden thing the privatization freaks don't want to bring up. That clearly these workers perform a valuable, needed service at a reasonable price, or else smart economics would say they should just be laid off or have the services sold off to an taxpayer-unaccountable bidder.
The fact that Scott Walker and co. don't do this, or are relatively unsuccessful in selling things off without having increased taxpayer costs or unacceptable levels of service, tells you that they don't believe their rhetoric that "the public sector doesn't work." It clearly does work, and the reductions given to County employees is done as a short-term, vegeneful way to get retribution on people they don't like- folks who do things that Gordon Gekko wouldn't go into business for. And it certainly does nothing to solve the long-term problems that continue to multiply with the broken county budget.
Outside of the political questions that arise with these choices, the decision on which direction to choose comes down to three big variables: 1. How necessary is the job that is being performed (essential, optional, or excess) 2. How many people are required to perform the duty at the desired level of service? 3. What are the benefit costs to keeping employees? For example, if number 3 is a high number, maybe it makes layoffs the more likely choice (due to the current and future benefit costs being cut by job losses). But if the answer to No. 1 is "absolutely essential" and No. 2 is "the amount that is currently working" (or, as in the case of many government agencies. "more than you currently have."), then the answer is more likely to be to impose furloughs.
As the article notes, furloughs create a major problem for operations at a place like the Milwaukee County Zoo, which is open every day of the year with an inelastic need for care of animals. Reducing the number of people available for this means that some areas have to be closed at various times, as the manpower is not there for needed cleanings and supervision of animals. If this is an unacceptable outcome for running a zoo, you probably don't want to do furloughs, and find some place or way to reduce expenses.
But Milwaukee County's case makes no sense. The County is now giving 22 unpaid days off to many of its workers, which accounts for almost 8% of 5 days of work a week throughout the year (approximately 260). Now to those 22 days, add another 7 or 8 for holidays and an average iof 12 for vacation, and you're past 40 days of work that each employee is not actually performing his or her job- 15% of their days at work. This means that for every 7 workers in each of these units, the County does not get the equivalent services of 1 of these workers for the entire year.
Instead of cutting every worker by the 8% of reduction that the furloughs result in, why not just cut 4 or 5% of the workers in those areas? This would probably get you the same monetary savings when you combine salary and benefit costs (remember, benefit amounts DO NOT CHANGE with furloughs- those workers still get what's coming to them), and you don't have the long-term costs that go into providing retirement and medical benefits for these workers in the future.
From a pure money standpoint, there is only 1 reason you do not make those cuts- because the furloughed workers are needed, and the needed services break down by reducing staff (and/or revenue), to a point that it is well beyond the reduced costs and workers. And that is the hidden thing the privatization freaks don't want to bring up. That clearly these workers perform a valuable, needed service at a reasonable price, or else smart economics would say they should just be laid off or have the services sold off to an taxpayer-unaccountable bidder.
The fact that Scott Walker and co. don't do this, or are relatively unsuccessful in selling things off without having increased taxpayer costs or unacceptable levels of service, tells you that they don't believe their rhetoric that "the public sector doesn't work." It clearly does work, and the reductions given to County employees is done as a short-term, vegeneful way to get retribution on people they don't like- folks who do things that Gordon Gekko wouldn't go into business for. And it certainly does nothing to solve the long-term problems that continue to multiply with the broken county budget.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Healthy reality check
Just in time for today's health care summit, I wanted to relay the story of my friends Steve and Tracy. They are a brilliant couple with extensive backgrounds in IT-related jobs, and would be well worth to have on most companies' payrolls. Steve has had debilitating back pain for several years (at the ripe old age of 35), and it had degenerated to the point that he could not work, and required spinal fusion surgery. Sad and unfair enough, but nothing compared to their treatement by our health care system.
See, Steve's condition left him basically uninsurable either through his former job or Tracy's. They don't have kids, so BadgerCare Plus or any similar subsidiary doesn't help them, and Medicaid won't cover an "optional" surgery like spinal fusion, despite the fact that Steve's back was keeping him from leading any sort of decent lifestyle or contributing any significant amount of work. So, in order to allow Steve to live anythng resembling a normal life, they checked the Internet listings and decided to go ahead with the spinal fusion surgery...in one of the only places they could remotely get it- Malaysia.
The trip required almost full-day plane trips in Steve's debilitated condition, but they finally got halfway around the globe in absurd conditions, and were able to have the surgery, which has greatly relieved Steve's back pain. However, all of the reclining positions exacerbated blood issues Steve had from the compressed pain, and led to blood clots in his leg and groin, which knocked him back another week in Malaysia. A few weeks after the surgery, Steve's leg is still swollen from the clots, and he struggles to walk around as a result.
They took one more all-day trip back to the States, and are presently back in Verona, but Steve is still far from OK, due to the clots and recovery time. They took him to a doctor this week to draw blood, and he promptly passed out from the bodily stress. Tracy estimates the total out-of-pocket for this ordeal at nearly $55,000, and they are not finished yet. I went over to their place to drop off some supplies for one of their friends, and noticed a "for sale" sign outside of the home, and I don't think they were planning to relocate out of town. I'm not going to ask them if it's related to the medical bills, but it's not like they're loaded with money, and you can't help but believe it's related.
Now think about this in terms of our current health care situation. There is an estimated eight health care lobbyists for every member of Congress at an estimated 2009 price tag of $1.2 billion. That's $1.2 billion that could have gone toward medical breakthroughs, expanded coverage, or lower premiums for consumers. Explain to me how guaranteeing Well Point's board of directors their 8-figure salaries over covering our people is something remotely productive for our economy?
How has our health care system helped Steve and Tracy? How has pricing them out of the market and preventing them from getting the coverage and treatment they deserve helped our economy in any way? Isn't it better to have people healed and working instead of being 1. infirmed at home and/or 2. indebted due to the foreign travels they've had to make to.
The health care companies and the insurance whores in Congress get to get paid at the expense of people like Steve and Tracy every day. I'm getting very close to stepping up, and making the execs and other scumbags find out just how good their medical coverage really is. Making them feel the pain may be the only way they do anything to lessen ours, and get our economy off the disastrous track that our country's unregulated health insurance leads to.
I'd like to go into things further, but it sickens me too much. RECONCILE THIS BILL NOW, single-payer health care as soon as possible, and cut the costs for all other groups of real people in the process (heck, it'll also cut your property taxes at the local level. Government worker medical care and low-income Medicaid comes from somewhere, doesn't it?). This is real life with real problems, and I' very tempted to make anyone who tries to lie about the way things really are have to get some health care of their own.
See, Steve's condition left him basically uninsurable either through his former job or Tracy's. They don't have kids, so BadgerCare Plus or any similar subsidiary doesn't help them, and Medicaid won't cover an "optional" surgery like spinal fusion, despite the fact that Steve's back was keeping him from leading any sort of decent lifestyle or contributing any significant amount of work. So, in order to allow Steve to live anythng resembling a normal life, they checked the Internet listings and decided to go ahead with the spinal fusion surgery...in one of the only places they could remotely get it- Malaysia.
The trip required almost full-day plane trips in Steve's debilitated condition, but they finally got halfway around the globe in absurd conditions, and were able to have the surgery, which has greatly relieved Steve's back pain. However, all of the reclining positions exacerbated blood issues Steve had from the compressed pain, and led to blood clots in his leg and groin, which knocked him back another week in Malaysia. A few weeks after the surgery, Steve's leg is still swollen from the clots, and he struggles to walk around as a result.
They took one more all-day trip back to the States, and are presently back in Verona, but Steve is still far from OK, due to the clots and recovery time. They took him to a doctor this week to draw blood, and he promptly passed out from the bodily stress. Tracy estimates the total out-of-pocket for this ordeal at nearly $55,000, and they are not finished yet. I went over to their place to drop off some supplies for one of their friends, and noticed a "for sale" sign outside of the home, and I don't think they were planning to relocate out of town. I'm not going to ask them if it's related to the medical bills, but it's not like they're loaded with money, and you can't help but believe it's related.
Now think about this in terms of our current health care situation. There is an estimated eight health care lobbyists for every member of Congress at an estimated 2009 price tag of $1.2 billion. That's $1.2 billion that could have gone toward medical breakthroughs, expanded coverage, or lower premiums for consumers. Explain to me how guaranteeing Well Point's board of directors their 8-figure salaries over covering our people is something remotely productive for our economy?
How has our health care system helped Steve and Tracy? How has pricing them out of the market and preventing them from getting the coverage and treatment they deserve helped our economy in any way? Isn't it better to have people healed and working instead of being 1. infirmed at home and/or 2. indebted due to the foreign travels they've had to make to.
The health care companies and the insurance whores in Congress get to get paid at the expense of people like Steve and Tracy every day. I'm getting very close to stepping up, and making the execs and other scumbags find out just how good their medical coverage really is. Making them feel the pain may be the only way they do anything to lessen ours, and get our economy off the disastrous track that our country's unregulated health insurance leads to.
I'd like to go into things further, but it sickens me too much. RECONCILE THIS BILL NOW, single-payer health care as soon as possible, and cut the costs for all other groups of real people in the process (heck, it'll also cut your property taxes at the local level. Government worker medical care and low-income Medicaid comes from somewhere, doesn't it?). This is real life with real problems, and I' very tempted to make anyone who tries to lie about the way things really are have to get some health care of their own.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Government is not an IPOD
You knew this was coming. Scott Walker's low-tax "leadership" leads to an attempt to give mid-year paycuts to County employees under contract.
Read some of the comments below. You can spot the clueless ones when they start saying "In tough times, all parties should tighten their belts, just like the private sector." The problem with that thinking is that government services do NOT have lower demand when the economy suffers, because people still use the parks, people still need law enforcement on the street, and there is an added amount of people in need of financial assistance due to higher unemployment and lower wages. In the private sector, expenses and hiring occurs when demand for a product is high, why isn't it the same for the public sector if they should treated the same...RIGHT?
Of course, that last part is in jest, as people don't like to see taxes go up when they're struggling, but it proves the flaw in the "run it like a business" argument. Government is NOT a business. It delivers services that might not be cost-effective to improve the choices available to citizens, and improve the chances of businesses succeeding. It delivers services like education to children, health care, food stamps, green space, and transportation that private operators would never offer due to cost-effectiveness reasons, but are requirements for a functioning society and any sort of improving quality of life. And government has an extra layer of accountability to the taxpayer that profit-driven corporations will never have, and therefore requires that its provision of services be looked after in a closer manner, and operated more responsibly than their private sector counterparts.
There's no question Milwaukee County workers have some benefits that are out of whack with what many people get in their jobs. But they also give up some of the pay that would come with it, and do thankless jobs like social work that the majority people are too unqualified and uninterested in doing, but are requirements for the world we live in. Walker could have shown legitimate leadership by negotiating in good faith, and offered items such as required contributions to employee pensions and lowered benefits in the future (or an encouragement of early retirement).
This is what Tom Barrett did in the City of Milwaukee for the 2010 budget (I know, I was there), and got the needed concessions out of most City workers with fewer furlough days, and no major holes in the budget deficit. Now, the City still has structural issues in its budget, but they were lessened in this latest round of negotiations, because THE MAYOR'S OFFICE DECIDED TO NEGOTIATE AND GOT SOME OF WHAT THEY WANTED. Walker has decided to score political points with suburb boys instead of work with the unions, and the County workers have rightfully told him to shove it. The Milw. County union's act is no different than corporations shopping their facilities to local communities, trying to score any tax break they can at the expense of everyone else in that town. Strangely, angry white man radio ignores those people who work for the best deal, I suppose because they have money and white collars, while dumping on people who perform real work and have blue collars that are trying to do the same thing.
I agree that unions have to understand they can't have it all, just like corporates should. But demonizing your workers and trying to play games with their jobs is not the way to get anything done as an employer, and a very telling sign of the type of disaster someone like Walker would be as the head of a McDonald's (if he ever had a private sector job), and he's worse of being head of something we DO need, like government services.
Read some of the comments below. You can spot the clueless ones when they start saying "In tough times, all parties should tighten their belts, just like the private sector." The problem with that thinking is that government services do NOT have lower demand when the economy suffers, because people still use the parks, people still need law enforcement on the street, and there is an added amount of people in need of financial assistance due to higher unemployment and lower wages. In the private sector, expenses and hiring occurs when demand for a product is high, why isn't it the same for the public sector if they should treated the same...RIGHT?
Of course, that last part is in jest, as people don't like to see taxes go up when they're struggling, but it proves the flaw in the "run it like a business" argument. Government is NOT a business. It delivers services that might not be cost-effective to improve the choices available to citizens, and improve the chances of businesses succeeding. It delivers services like education to children, health care, food stamps, green space, and transportation that private operators would never offer due to cost-effectiveness reasons, but are requirements for a functioning society and any sort of improving quality of life. And government has an extra layer of accountability to the taxpayer that profit-driven corporations will never have, and therefore requires that its provision of services be looked after in a closer manner, and operated more responsibly than their private sector counterparts.
There's no question Milwaukee County workers have some benefits that are out of whack with what many people get in their jobs. But they also give up some of the pay that would come with it, and do thankless jobs like social work that the majority people are too unqualified and uninterested in doing, but are requirements for the world we live in. Walker could have shown legitimate leadership by negotiating in good faith, and offered items such as required contributions to employee pensions and lowered benefits in the future (or an encouragement of early retirement).
This is what Tom Barrett did in the City of Milwaukee for the 2010 budget (I know, I was there), and got the needed concessions out of most City workers with fewer furlough days, and no major holes in the budget deficit. Now, the City still has structural issues in its budget, but they were lessened in this latest round of negotiations, because THE MAYOR'S OFFICE DECIDED TO NEGOTIATE AND GOT SOME OF WHAT THEY WANTED. Walker has decided to score political points with suburb boys instead of work with the unions, and the County workers have rightfully told him to shove it. The Milw. County union's act is no different than corporations shopping their facilities to local communities, trying to score any tax break they can at the expense of everyone else in that town. Strangely, angry white man radio ignores those people who work for the best deal, I suppose because they have money and white collars, while dumping on people who perform real work and have blue collars that are trying to do the same thing.
I agree that unions have to understand they can't have it all, just like corporates should. But demonizing your workers and trying to play games with their jobs is not the way to get anything done as an employer, and a very telling sign of the type of disaster someone like Walker would be as the head of a McDonald's (if he ever had a private sector job), and he's worse of being head of something we DO need, like government services.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Who's Really Surrounded by Reality? (economic)
Now, here's part 2 of how far suburban Milwaukee is out of step with the rest of Wisconsin.
I was inspired to look into this when the Brookings Institute sent out a report on the increasing amount of poverty being seen in suburban America. The Journal-Sentinel covered the release with a decent article, and included Milwaukee area data as part of it. It may surprise some that over 47,000 people in Milwaukee's suburbs live in poverty (especially Sykesists who think that poverty and a lack of opportunity are for those "other people in the messed-up city"), but those rates are still dwarfed the City of Milwaukee's rates, where nearly 1 in 4 deal with poverty.
Now, Wisconsin does have low poverty rates in general, in no small part due to its progressive tradition of strong public education, high access to health care, and general respect for quality of life. In 2008, the U.S. Census estimated Wisconsin's poverty rate at 10.7%
Now let's take a look at that 10.7% rate and compare it to the JS story that gave the rates of poverty in Scott Walker Country.
suburban Milwaukee County: 6.5% (61% of state rate)
Washington County: 4.3% (40% of state rate)
Waukesha County: 3.9% (36% of state rate)
Ozaukee County: 3.6% (34% of state rate)
But that can't be much differnt than rich, latte-sipping Madison, as well as the stats for the equally wacky Dane County.
Dane County 10.9% (101.9% of state rate)
Madison 17.3% (162% of state rate)
So while Madison is significantly above the state rate at 62% higher, it's still not much different than having poverty rates 60-66% below the state average, like what you see in Wauzaukington County. And Madison's rates are skewed higher by the disproportionate amount of students that live there. Since their incomes are lower, it runs the poverty rate higher than what the standards of living would indicate.
In fact, if you look at the Wisconsin city rates of poverty , Wauzaukington County communities stand out even more for being unusual. Out of the largest communities in Wisconsin, the ones with the 6 lowest poverty levels are in Wauzaukington County.
Mequon 1.7%
Menomonee Falls 2.4%
Brookfield 2.5%
New Berlin 2.5%
Franklin 3.1%
Muskego 3.3%
Of course, when you charge an admission fee to get into these towns in the form of specialized zoning and overpriced homes, it's not surprising that you can keep the poor people out.
One more stat to go along these lines. Check out what the median (half above, half below) household made in income in 2008 for these towns, then compare it to the crazies on the Isthmus, as well as the state's largest city.
Milwaukee $37,331
STATE OF WISCONSIN MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME $52,094
Madison $53,516 (2.7% above the state median)
Dane County $61,441 (17.9% above the state median)
Washington County $63,332 (21.6% above the state median)
Ozaukee County $69,376 (33.2% above the state median)
Waukesha County $75,372 (44.7%! above the state median)
So to review, the City of Madison is far from outside of reality, and in fact has a mixture of poverty and income that comes closest to what is seen in the rest of Wisconsin. Wauzaukington County is every bit out of step when it comes to income as the City of Milwaukee...and the City of Milwaukee has that lower level in no small part to Wauzaukington County's policies and flight from reality.
What becomes laughable (well, would be laughable if radio stations and political discourse weren't overrun by these folks) is that it's the WAUZAUKINGTON COUNTY folks who dare to run their mouths with all the answers about what ails low-income folks in Wisconsin. Like they have any clue how people in low-income communities deal with life on a day-to-day basis. But somehow, that little tidbit doesn't keep them from talking about it. Some Madison people are certainly Pollyannish about the world (which pisses me off probably more than the angry-man radio listeners, because it keeps Madison from acting like the large city it now is), but I can bet at least a few of them have actually seen poverty and maybe have studied some of the research about how to help people out of it. You think a Wauzaukingtonian knows about these studies or poverty's reality, or that they even care? Heck, poor people make them "uncomfortable", and so they try not to deal with it, or denigrate these others, to make their barely above-average lives seem accomplished.
Fortunately, lots of people like me that grew up in the burbs got older, went to college, learned from others, perhaps worked with and taught others less fortunate than us, and realized that we were pretty fortunate to have had the supportive and relatively affluent upbringing we had. Who I feel bad for (well, sorta) are the people who spend their whole lives thinking Wauzaukington County is the normal, and that others are the ones who don't get it. No wonder these people hold such absurd political views, because they've never stepped outside of their comfortable little bubble where everything's taken care of for them. It's up to us to puncture that bubble, because we've seen how suburban "ownership society" works in the real world, and it's a disaster.
So Madtown, hold your head up high, and keep telling Sykes-World about reality's liberal bias. Because it's likely that a Madisonian like you lives your life more in line with the average Wisconsinite than the suburb boys that get all the air time representing "the Silent Majority".
I was inspired to look into this when the Brookings Institute sent out a report on the increasing amount of poverty being seen in suburban America. The Journal-Sentinel covered the release with a decent article, and included Milwaukee area data as part of it. It may surprise some that over 47,000 people in Milwaukee's suburbs live in poverty (especially Sykesists who think that poverty and a lack of opportunity are for those "other people in the messed-up city"), but those rates are still dwarfed the City of Milwaukee's rates, where nearly 1 in 4 deal with poverty.
Now, Wisconsin does have low poverty rates in general, in no small part due to its progressive tradition of strong public education, high access to health care, and general respect for quality of life. In 2008, the U.S. Census estimated Wisconsin's poverty rate at 10.7%
Now let's take a look at that 10.7% rate and compare it to the JS story that gave the rates of poverty in Scott Walker Country.
suburban Milwaukee County: 6.5% (61% of state rate)
Washington County: 4.3% (40% of state rate)
Waukesha County: 3.9% (36% of state rate)
Ozaukee County: 3.6% (34% of state rate)
But that can't be much differnt than rich, latte-sipping Madison, as well as the stats for the equally wacky Dane County.
Dane County 10.9% (101.9% of state rate)
Madison 17.3% (162% of state rate)
So while Madison is significantly above the state rate at 62% higher, it's still not much different than having poverty rates 60-66% below the state average, like what you see in Wauzaukington County. And Madison's rates are skewed higher by the disproportionate amount of students that live there. Since their incomes are lower, it runs the poverty rate higher than what the standards of living would indicate.
In fact, if you look at the Wisconsin city rates of poverty , Wauzaukington County communities stand out even more for being unusual. Out of the largest communities in Wisconsin, the ones with the 6 lowest poverty levels are in Wauzaukington County.
Mequon 1.7%
Menomonee Falls 2.4%
Brookfield 2.5%
New Berlin 2.5%
Franklin 3.1%
Muskego 3.3%
Of course, when you charge an admission fee to get into these towns in the form of specialized zoning and overpriced homes, it's not surprising that you can keep the poor people out.
One more stat to go along these lines. Check out what the median (half above, half below) household made in income in 2008 for these towns, then compare it to the crazies on the Isthmus, as well as the state's largest city.
Milwaukee $37,331
STATE OF WISCONSIN MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME $52,094
Madison $53,516 (2.7% above the state median)
Dane County $61,441 (17.9% above the state median)
Washington County $63,332 (21.6% above the state median)
Ozaukee County $69,376 (33.2% above the state median)
Waukesha County $75,372 (44.7%! above the state median)
So to review, the City of Madison is far from outside of reality, and in fact has a mixture of poverty and income that comes closest to what is seen in the rest of Wisconsin. Wauzaukington County is every bit out of step when it comes to income as the City of Milwaukee...and the City of Milwaukee has that lower level in no small part to Wauzaukington County's policies and flight from reality.
What becomes laughable (well, would be laughable if radio stations and political discourse weren't overrun by these folks) is that it's the WAUZAUKINGTON COUNTY folks who dare to run their mouths with all the answers about what ails low-income folks in Wisconsin. Like they have any clue how people in low-income communities deal with life on a day-to-day basis. But somehow, that little tidbit doesn't keep them from talking about it. Some Madison people are certainly Pollyannish about the world (which pisses me off probably more than the angry-man radio listeners, because it keeps Madison from acting like the large city it now is), but I can bet at least a few of them have actually seen poverty and maybe have studied some of the research about how to help people out of it. You think a Wauzaukingtonian knows about these studies or poverty's reality, or that they even care? Heck, poor people make them "uncomfortable", and so they try not to deal with it, or denigrate these others, to make their barely above-average lives seem accomplished.
Fortunately, lots of people like me that grew up in the burbs got older, went to college, learned from others, perhaps worked with and taught others less fortunate than us, and realized that we were pretty fortunate to have had the supportive and relatively affluent upbringing we had. Who I feel bad for (well, sorta) are the people who spend their whole lives thinking Wauzaukington County is the normal, and that others are the ones who don't get it. No wonder these people hold such absurd political views, because they've never stepped outside of their comfortable little bubble where everything's taken care of for them. It's up to us to puncture that bubble, because we've seen how suburban "ownership society" works in the real world, and it's a disaster.
So Madtown, hold your head up high, and keep telling Sykes-World about reality's liberal bias. Because it's likely that a Madisonian like you lives your life more in line with the average Wisconsinite than the suburb boys that get all the air time representing "the Silent Majority".
Who's Really Surrounded by Reality? (voting)
One of my bigger complaints I hear from angry-man radio and similarly clueless folks is some kind of knock-off of the Lee Sherman Dreyfus line about Madison being "____ miles surrounded by reality." It's often done to discount the quality of life and thought coming out of the state capital and home of the state's flagship university, and indirectly is used to justify the way of life of "normal, salt-of-the-earth" Wisconsinites (Sarah Palin might call them part of the "real Wisconsin"). Well, the Sykes and Belling backers that are most likely to give that line may want to check themselves, because suburb boys like them aren't in line with the real Wisconsin either.
So let's look at the results of the 2008 presidential election. Since Madtown's filled with crazy hippies and arrogant Prius drivers, I bet they're going to be a crazy outlier compared to the decent-living folks that live just outside of Milwaukee. Right? (we'll leave out 3rd party votes for this arrangement, as they were around 1% of the total vote in the state- a bit more in Madtown).
City of Madison 2008 presidential election
Obama 112,411- 80.8%
McCain 26,639 19.2% (Obama +61.6%)
Not surprisingly, it's heavily Dem. So let's now take out Madison and see how the rest of the state went.
Obama- 1,565,010 55.9%
McCain 1,235,754 44.1 (Obama +11.8%)
So Madison was +49.8% heavier for Obama than the rest of Wisconsin. Yeah, that seems to on the heavy side for one candidate. I'll bet the Milwaukee suburbs fit in with reality more, as the following data will show.
Ozaukee County
McCain 32,172 (61.0%)
Obama 20,579 (39.0%) (McCain +22.0%)
Rest of state: Obama wins 57.4%-42.6% (Obama +14.8%)
Ozaukee Co. difference: McCain +36.8%
Nearly 37% off of the state, but still isn't quite as weird as Madison. Let's get off the lake and head to the west.
Washington County
McCain 47,729 (65.0%)
Obama 25,719 (35.0%) (McCain +30.0%)
Rest of state: Obama wins 57.6%- 42.4% (Obama +15.2%)
Washington Co. difference: McCain +45.2%
Can't you see how we can get clowns like Annette Ziegler and Glenn Grothmann from here?
Waukesha County
McCain 145,152 (63.0%)
Obama 85,339 (37.0%)(McCain +26.0%)
Rest of state: Obama wins 58.8%- 41.2% (Obama +17.6%)
Waukesha County difference: McCain +43.6%
Now, here's the real fun part. Let's combine those 3 suburban Milwaukee counties, and make them one big county. Call it Wauzaukington County (and why not, is there really any difference between these three places?)
Wauzaukington County
McCain 225,053 (63.2%)
Obama 131,137 (37.8%) (McCain +25.4%)
Rest of the state: Obama 59.8%-40.2% (Obama +19.6%)
Wauzaukington County difference: McCain +45.0%
So to review
Madison +49.8% effect for Obama
Wauzaukington County +45.0% effect for McCain.
Looks like mostly a wash to me, as both areas are well out of step with how the rest of the state voted. And Madison mentality doesn't get hours upon hours on high-powered AM stations bamming their angry-man garbage throughout the state every day, like Wauzaukington County does.
And here's the final kicker for how disproportionate the votes were for the 2 candidates in these 2 places.
% of Obama's Wisconsin votes from Madison: 6.7%
% of McCain's votes from Madison: 2.1% (4.6% difference)
% of Obama's votes from Wauzaukington County: 7.8%
% of McCain's votes from Wauzaukington County : 17.8%! (10% difference)
Sure, the stat's a bit flawed due to there being more people in Wauzaukington County than Madtown, but that reiterates the point even more. Madison doesn't dominate the Democratic votes in this states anywhere near the way that Wauzaukington County does for the Republican.
So the next time someone says Madison should be ignored in elections because they're 92 square miles surrounded by reality (depending on what's being annexed that day), remind the whiner that being surrounded bny reality in a cool city with a lake, intellectuals and 2-liter boots of beer is a whole lot better than being surrounded by reality in a lame cul-de-sac with no nightlife, stultifying conformity, and irrational fear of being exposed as nothing special.
I'll be back with the economic stats, which will make it even more obvious that it's the 2000 square miles of Wauzaukington County that's truly surrounded by reality.
So let's look at the results of the 2008 presidential election. Since Madtown's filled with crazy hippies and arrogant Prius drivers, I bet they're going to be a crazy outlier compared to the decent-living folks that live just outside of Milwaukee. Right? (we'll leave out 3rd party votes for this arrangement, as they were around 1% of the total vote in the state- a bit more in Madtown).
City of Madison 2008 presidential election
Obama 112,411- 80.8%
McCain 26,639 19.2% (Obama +61.6%)
Not surprisingly, it's heavily Dem. So let's now take out Madison and see how the rest of the state went.
Obama- 1,565,010 55.9%
McCain 1,235,754 44.1 (Obama +11.8%)
So Madison was +49.8% heavier for Obama than the rest of Wisconsin. Yeah, that seems to on the heavy side for one candidate. I'll bet the Milwaukee suburbs fit in with reality more, as the following data will show.
Ozaukee County
McCain 32,172 (61.0%)
Obama 20,579 (39.0%) (McCain +22.0%)
Rest of state: Obama wins 57.4%-42.6% (Obama +14.8%)
Ozaukee Co. difference: McCain +36.8%
Nearly 37% off of the state, but still isn't quite as weird as Madison. Let's get off the lake and head to the west.
Washington County
McCain 47,729 (65.0%)
Obama 25,719 (35.0%) (McCain +30.0%)
Rest of state: Obama wins 57.6%- 42.4% (Obama +15.2%)
Washington Co. difference: McCain +45.2%
Can't you see how we can get clowns like Annette Ziegler and Glenn Grothmann from here?
Waukesha County
McCain 145,152 (63.0%)
Obama 85,339 (37.0%)(McCain +26.0%)
Rest of state: Obama wins 58.8%- 41.2% (Obama +17.6%)
Waukesha County difference: McCain +43.6%
Now, here's the real fun part. Let's combine those 3 suburban Milwaukee counties, and make them one big county. Call it Wauzaukington County (and why not, is there really any difference between these three places?)
Wauzaukington County
McCain 225,053 (63.2%)
Obama 131,137 (37.8%) (McCain +25.4%)
Rest of the state: Obama 59.8%-40.2% (Obama +19.6%)
Wauzaukington County difference: McCain +45.0%
So to review
Madison +49.8% effect for Obama
Wauzaukington County +45.0% effect for McCain.
Looks like mostly a wash to me, as both areas are well out of step with how the rest of the state voted. And Madison mentality doesn't get hours upon hours on high-powered AM stations bamming their angry-man garbage throughout the state every day, like Wauzaukington County does.
And here's the final kicker for how disproportionate the votes were for the 2 candidates in these 2 places.
% of Obama's Wisconsin votes from Madison: 6.7%
% of McCain's votes from Madison: 2.1% (4.6% difference)
% of Obama's votes from Wauzaukington County: 7.8%
% of McCain's votes from Wauzaukington County : 17.8%! (10% difference)
Sure, the stat's a bit flawed due to there being more people in Wauzaukington County than Madtown, but that reiterates the point even more. Madison doesn't dominate the Democratic votes in this states anywhere near the way that Wauzaukington County does for the Republican.
So the next time someone says Madison should be ignored in elections because they're 92 square miles surrounded by reality (depending on what's being annexed that day), remind the whiner that being surrounded bny reality in a cool city with a lake, intellectuals and 2-liter boots of beer is a whole lot better than being surrounded by reality in a lame cul-de-sac with no nightlife, stultifying conformity, and irrational fear of being exposed as nothing special.
I'll be back with the economic stats, which will make it even more obvious that it's the 2000 square miles of Wauzaukington County that's truly surrounded by reality.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
The elderly are being driven out of their homes!!!
Well, not quite, according to a paper from a group that includes one of my former La Follette School instructors (Andy Reschovsky- who was kind of a blah teacher, but he has an awesome knowledge of state and local taxation.)
Here's the paper on Property Taxes and Likelihood of Moving.
Basically, the biggest changes happen with people 75+ facing property tax increases of more than 5% in a given year. And how many of those people have to move for reasons that have nothing to do with the property tax? (i.e. need more assistance, spouse dies, etc.) Even among the super-elderly (80+), it appears that income changes are the bigger factor vs. property taxes, with more money making them more likely to move. This holds for the younger folks as well, as the people most likely to move are ones under 50 that make more money and are more likely to both upgrade and move for job reasons.
Anyway, much like the reasons that companies locate, this study says there are many more reasons that are more important than property taxes in determining whether the elderly and others choose to move. Not that property taxes are a variable to be ignored, they need to be part of the equation and strategy that communities and individuals take in when making decisions. But it also holds that taxes are the #1 determiner of outcomes only in Sykes-world, and not the real one.
Here's the paper on Property Taxes and Likelihood of Moving.
Basically, the biggest changes happen with people 75+ facing property tax increases of more than 5% in a given year. And how many of those people have to move for reasons that have nothing to do with the property tax? (i.e. need more assistance, spouse dies, etc.) Even among the super-elderly (80+), it appears that income changes are the bigger factor vs. property taxes, with more money making them more likely to move. This holds for the younger folks as well, as the people most likely to move are ones under 50 that make more money and are more likely to both upgrade and move for job reasons.
Anyway, much like the reasons that companies locate, this study says there are many more reasons that are more important than property taxes in determining whether the elderly and others choose to move. Not that property taxes are a variable to be ignored, they need to be part of the equation and strategy that communities and individuals take in when making decisions. But it also holds that taxes are the #1 determiner of outcomes only in Sykes-world, and not the real one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)