|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Whose Side Is The New York Times On?Posted on Mar 14, 2011
Editor’s note: The Moshe Pit is Moshe Adler’s blog on economics, media and whatever else piques his interest. Get more here. As if dealing with the many known enemies of government workers is not enough, state employees in New York now also have to contend with the old gray lady herself, The New York Times. Declaring that it was neither anti-union nor anti-worker, the editorial page recently set out to assess whether New York’s state workers have been overpaid—and lo and behold it discovered that they are. Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to freeze the salaries of state employees, but The New York Times soberly cites numbers showing, it says, that the governor “may need to go further.” What are the numbers, then? “The average salary for New York’s full-time state employees in 2009 (even before the last round of raises) was $63,382, well above the state’s average personal income that year of $46,957,” the paper noted. There is nothing wrong with the numbers, but putting them together, side by side, suggests either that the editorial board of The New York Times does not know that you must compare apples to apples or that it does not know what the words per capita mean. (In either case, this is perhaps evidence that the private school system is also in need of reform.) The first figure is the average salary of a state employee, and in a family in which both parents work full time and for the same pay, the combined income from salaries is $126,764. The second figure is the personal income per capita, which means that if personal income were distributed equally, every family of four in the state of New York would have had an income of $187,828. It is clear, therefore, that the incomes of the families of state employees do not come even close to the average family income and, as a matter of fact, neither does the pay of the vast majority of New York families. In 2009, median income for a family of four in the state was only $82,587. Both public and private workers are due a raise. Furthermore, it was in The New York Times itself that reporter Michael Powell pointed out that a mere 2 percent increase in the state income tax would tip the state budget into a surplus. How is this figure consistent with The Times’ call for even more draconian measures than a wage freeze? The record is on the side of workers; too bad the paper of record isn’t. Moshe Adler teaches economics at Columbia University and at the Harry Van Arsdale Center for Labor Studies at Empire State College. He is the author of “Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science That Makes Life Dismal,” which is just out in paperback. —Posted by Moshe Adler. Advertisement TAGS:
|
Truthdigger of the Week: Sen. Angus King
 . '/' . substr('9780769634326',-6,3) . '/' . '9780769634326' . '.jpg'; ?>)
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Anarcissie, March 18, 2011 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment
The New York Times is to the the American ruling class approximately as Pravda was to the old Soviet ruling class. Generally speaking, it gives the party line at a certain upper-middle-class level. (There are different lines depending on the level being spoken to.) Backing the invasion of Iraq was actually sort of a gaffe; the proper reaction for the hierarchical level the Times represents would have been verbose, complicated, nuanced doubt, which would allow the war to go off yet not embarrass their trusting audience with the burden of seeming stupid later. I am always surprised when I see a supposedly intelligent person looking at it; it’s sort of like seeing a pretty girl with the Post.
I stopped reading them a long time ago, on a day when they were discussing how to get rid of the homeless around Columbus Circle for some reason. Never looked back.
Report thisBy Maani, March 15, 2011 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment
At the risk of sounnding like an apologist for the NYT (I do not work for them, and have no vested interest intheir success or failure) - and although their figures in this instance are, in fact, wrong - I think the denigration of the paper is wildly overreactive.
Certainly, they have been on the wrong side of a few issues, most particularly the run-up to the Iraq war. But let’s be honest and fair here: they came out immediately against Citizens United, and have not “hidden” behind it as others have; they came out immediately in favor of the unions - and against Gov. Walker and his ilk - in the fight in WI; they were courageous in their immediate post-Tuscon call for sane gun control; and they were immediately critical of Justices Thomas and Scalia for their conflicts of interest. And that is just four major items in the recent past.
Yes, the Times CAN make one “angry at least once a ‘read.’” But they can also make one cheer for a courageous position that goes AGAINST the perception of the “gray lady” as simply a corporate shill.
Peace.
Report thisBy rico, suave, March 15, 2011 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
“The first figure is the average salary of a state employee,... The second figure is the personal income per capita.”
Did I read that right? Is Adler saying that every man, woman, and child in the state of New York makes $47,000??!!! That’s what “per capita” means to me, too. So your “typical family of four” in New York pulls in just south of 190 grand per year???
Then he goes and proves the Times wrong, and shoots himself in the foot, (can I say “shoots”?) when he says that a regular family of four in fact really only makes $82,500 ($20,625 PER CAPITA!), which is just $19,000 more than ONE state employee makes.
You might want to lower your dudgeon Moshe. I’m not sure you did AFSCME any favors with your fruitful analysis.
Report thisBy Salome, March 15, 2011 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The owners of The New York Times come from the same—-greed is next to godliness—-culture as Bernanke, et. al. Enough is never Enough.
Report thisBy NYCartist, March 15, 2011 at 7:54 am Link to this comment
The New York Times has always been in support of big business. This is a variation on the theme. This newspaper makes one angry at least once a “read”.
Report thisBy Addibeth, March 15, 2011 at 12:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When you’re talking about income, any good statistician knows you have to talk about
MEDIAN not MEAN income. Especially given the concentration of super-rich in New
York, the mean is skewed by these outliers in the tail. Additionally, since public workers,
often by law, have capped salaries, these outliers don’t exist in the distribution of public
employees.
Median income, not mean.
Report thisBy kerryrose, March 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm Link to this comment
The New York Times shut destroyed it’s production union by contracting my company to do the work of the union members. Then, the NYT, with no notice, took the work from my company, and sent it to India.
The NYT has no scruples or moral standing.
Report thisBy TDoff, March 14, 2011 at 4:44 pm Link to this comment
What kind of a question is that?
The New York Times is, as always on the side of the NYT.
And there is not much they can do to help the State of New York in these times of trouble. If they donated themselves to the State of New York, that would just increase the deficit.
However, I presume they are incorporated. Since corporations are now, by SCOTUS edict, ‘persons’, I guess they could shoot themselves in the head.
If they could find the head.
Report this