Government and NGOs a growing part of North Country economy
The New York state Department of Labor is a font of fantastic information about where the North Country's economy is going.
A new data set just compiled by their Lake Placid-based economist Anthony Hayden includes some particularly fascinating numbers.
Across the entire North Country region, government now provides roughly 30% of the jobs.
Here's the shocker: Most of that big spending isn't state or Federal, it's local.
More than 28,000 North Country workers draw a paycheck from a local town, village, county or school district - and from their neighbors' property taxes.
Another 14.4% of the region's jobs are provided by non-profit groups, many of them funded through taxpayer dollars.
That means the for-profit private sector now provides only a little over half of the employment (86,000 jobs) in our part of New York state
That compares with government agencies and NGOs at roughly 69,000 jobs.
One other wrinkle: Government workers out-earn private-sector employees significantly, accounting for 29% of the jobs...and 35% of the take-home pay.
So here's my question: Is this sustainable? And if budget cutting becomes a serious priority for Albany or Washington, how vulnerable is our region's job base?
posted by Brian Mann @ 11/16/2009 11:14:00 AM
29 Comments
29 Comments:
I doubt it is sustainable.
One thing I have noticed is how everyone wants more and more from local, state and federal governments and, oh by the way, lower taxes.
Everyone wants grants for everything - but they also want lower taxes.
The whole thing is insane.
"Daddy, daddy, daddy - give me, give, me!" Guess who said it in what movie and you might win a prize.
It isn't going to be pretty that is for sure. A number of years ago the Watertown Times did a study that showed St. Lawrence, Lewis, Jefferson and Franklin Counties got an average of 4 times as much back in NYS fund that it paid in taxes. This includes all kinds of state monies and payrolls. Obviously a very good deal. We can only be hurt by tax cuts, though they may be necessary. For every $250 in taxes paid there will be $1000 less in the community. Fewer jobs, poorly maintained road, larger classrooms, less discretionary spending for local businesses, empty store fronts. Many will chose to move away. Mostly, the very poor, well-off and the stubborn will remain.
Is the data set you mention in 2nd sentence publicly available? Online?
While the data is certainly legit it does not take into account those that earn $ under the table. As an example the waiter who earns $500 a shift in tips and declares none of it or the private business that will tell you cash is king. Not to mention the firewood industry.
"Daddy, daddy - give me, give me"
That's from the movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory."
That line was from Veruca Salt. Her first name is the Latin word for wart.
What do I win?
Gromit: Article appeared in December 26, 1993 WDT. May be available online at one of local colleges. It was entitled "State Pays more than it Takes". Despite its date, I suspect these figures remain fairly accurate, if not a bit low. At that time Franklin County received about 10x what was paid out in taxes. While I have access to it online, I don't think it is appropriate to reprint since it is copyrighted.
Gromit -
I wrote about the WDT article over at Sustainability Today blog. While I somewhat made light of it, the sad fact is that it doesn't do us as much good as it could because it leaves the region within a few days.
http://northcountrytoday.blogspot.com/2009/09/other-peoples-money.html
Doug W.
Anon 12:36 : You are describing two separate things, the former is part of the "underground" economy, while the latter is part of the region's "invisible economy".
I wrote something about the latter over at "Sustainability Today" :
http://northcountrytoday.blogspot.com/2009/09/north-countrys-invisible-economy.html Doug W.
Let me try again. What I would like to see is the "new data set just compiled by Anthony Hayden." I meant Brian's 2nd sentence.
A lot of the state jobs in the area like the state prison jobs and the educational faculty at SUNY benefit residents of other parts of the state.
The point of the underground economy is that there is a certain %(how large?) that is not taken into acount by the department of labor. Oh and is the native american economy included in the stats?
"Fewer jobs, poorly maintained road[s], larger classrooms, less discretionary spending for local businesses, empty store fronts. Many will chose to move away. Mostly, the very poor, well-off and the stubborn . . . remain."
Sounds to me like a pretty accurate description of the North Country for the last 75 years. Is anything, really, fundamentally different?
Could it just be that the mantra "lower taxes, smaller government" most benefits the wealthy and that the middle and lower classes have more to gain from the government than lose?
Once again Pat and I view things from polar opposites. How does more of your own money in your own pocket hurt anyone of any class? How does a smaller, more efficient, less expensive gov't hurt anyone of any class? How does punishing the producer help ensure he'll stay productive? We can have smaller gov't and lower taxes and keep essential programs by using good judgment and an honest assessment of the true needs of our society. I've seen and fought the waste from inside state and federal gov't. You'll never fix it all, but just throwing money at the problem is not an answer.
With all due respect, Bret, reread the post.
I don't buy the line that the government is necessarily always the enemy. It pays the salaries of a lot of citizens- hard working people who daily do their job.
"Across the entire North Country region, government now provides roughly 30% of the jobs."
It sometimes seens to that it's double speak. Ronald Reagan's famous anti-government remark when, as a politician, he was the government. Sarah Palin resigning to work outside the government.
See "Sarah Palin and the RWIC revisited" (looking beyond the personal attack angle.)
Anti government rants- what are they advocating? Revolution?
Seems in the 60s it was the left wing fringe calling for "power to the people" and now it's the right wing saying the same thing.
Right, hysterical fear of those Tea Party racist homophobes will win the day! Tell me, when will gov't be too big for you? It's already too big and bloated for me, but whats your cut off point? When everyone works in a nice safe collective factory? When the deficit is measured in quardrillions or bazillions? When gov't owns everything? Do you really not see the problem?
Bret,
I think Pat is just asking what is the alternative - an honest question. What specific steps can be taken to transition the North Country economy away from these jobs?
Help! Help! Run for your lives! The sky is falling!
Hi, Wall St. Exec and high roller, Shirleymay Dophwell here. Just drove up from the Hamptons to go bear hunting at my new 12,000 sqft. cabin in the 'Dacks. Paid for the place with your bailout money, suckers! :-)
I just don't understand the teapartiers who are against giving bailouts to Wall St.? Don't they realize that what is good for Wall St. is also good for our uberlobbyist friends on K St.? Also, buying friendly GOP Reps and Senators is costly (boy, could that Tom Delay make a million dollars squeak! Miss the old curmudgeon).
I've also used some of that chump change to pay my bill at the exclusive Bucksrun Country Club and Polo Grounds.
Anyway, I'm in the 'Dacks and see that my BFF Sarah P. is in the area. So I invite her over to my cozy cottage on my lake. The next day, Sarah P. wakes me up at 6:30 a.m.. She was having her coffee out on my wrap-around deck,
when she spotted 3 black bears, about 300 feet away, nuzzling around the bait, er...food I have my staff set out for them. Sarah, was like, "let's get our guns and go get 'em! I'm like, "Sarah, hunting black bears is not that easy." Sarah says, "I know everything there is about hunting black bears, I could see them from your deck!" Can't argue with that logic. You betcha.
Anyway, thanks for listening. Keep the bailout money coming in. Glad Obamamomma is retaining the good ol' boys from GoldmanSach in our Treasury and Federal Reserve.
PS. You poor people are used to being poor. We wealthy would just die without the perks your money can buy for us.
I know an old man (ok, my dad) who gets a whopping $600.00 a month from the Feds because he's too lazy to get a job. And just because he's diabetic, blind and confined to a wheel chair is no excuse, he could hire himself out as a living store window mannekin or a mattress tester.
But, anyway, if his monies were cut, his life would go on. He would just switch to a cheaper brand of cat food. I on the other hand could not imagine giving up caviar for sardines. Ewwww!
You betcha.
November 18, 2009 8:20 AM
9:46- A fair question and not the way I read Pats post. NYS is patently business unfriendly. Until we create an environment that encourages business we're stuck. We HAVE to cut taxes and spending, no other way I can see. The locals need more money in their pockets and the businessmen need to know they aren't going to be punished for any success they may have. We also need to streamline some of the various red tape people have to go though. Permits and fee's and interference just add up to more costs. Yes, we need to do things correctly, but that doesn't mean punishing the producers in this country and that's exactly what we do- punish the producers and reward the takers. Inside the Park is even worse as you can basically do NOTHING that's not purely PC and "green". So at this point you can pretty much write off anything in the Blue line as ever changing.
Think about it- have you ever worked for a poor man? Neither have I. There is no shame in profit, but we make it so. We punish the successful. Exactly how does that help things?
It won't change overnight, but stumbling along in the fashion we have been is just making it worse.
Bert4207 wrote, "Think about it- have you ever worked for a poor man? Neither have I. There is no shame in profit, but we make it so. We punish the successful. "
Back 29 years ago, when I was an evangelical Christian, I worked for a poor man named Jesus. There was no shame in him being a Prophet, but we made it so. We punished the successful.
Well Frank, if you're trying to say our society punishes Christians, I'll agree with you.
No, Bret4207, I am not saying that this society punishes Christians.
Not by a freakin' long shot!
Although they did send Timothy McVeigh to his maker...you may have something there.
As usual I'm just too hypocritical, moronic and blind to see it.
BTW, on the Hannity agonistes thread, don't be afraid of Big Bruthaa, it's just me joking around with you. Big Bruthaa doesn't exist.
***********************************
SUPERSOCIALISTTOPSECRECT
Mr. Prez:
Comrade, I have allayed 4207's fears.
I love how you took Cheney's old office and transformed it into Room 101.
The red walls, red curtains...to die for. Matches our new secret flag too. Genius, Comrade.
Sinc.
Agent Orange
"We punish the successful" Gee, Bret, is that why President Obama is getting such a rough ride? (couldn't resist, sorry...)
Do you really think that the CEOs and the infamous Wall Street wonders, the wildly successful who have piggybacked on the poor, are worth the astronomical salaries, the bulging bonuses and the retirement packages that they command?
I know so many feel that the successful are taxed more but percentage wise this is not the case. Warren Buffet famously noted that his office staff pays a higher percentage than he does.
add to that the tax havens the wealthy have, the loopholes that they utilize and you have even less tax being paid.
So advocating "keeping more of my money to myself" benefits the wealthy far more than the middle class.
I know many believe in survival of the fittest. But so many hard working people are a job loss away from losing their health insurance, their homes.
So it seems to me that we punish the vulnerable far more than the successful.
But back to the original topic...If you cut government jobs, people in the North Country will suffer. Friends and neighbours. The teachers, the firefighters, the nurses etc- people we rely on.
No man is an island. We have to start realizing that we are all in this together. This is supposed to be government of, for and by the people.
Pat, thanks for putting this thread back on topic. Can't think of anything to add to your succinct comment.
My little "Shirleymay Dophwell" conceit was meant to illustrate the ever widening income gap between the richest 5 percent and the rest of America.
The North Country, heck, the U.S. of A, could use programs like the old Depression era WPA and CCC to put people back to work and repair/replenish our infrastructure at the same time.
Sometimes the government needs to intervene when the private sector cannot generate enough jobs for all who need and want them.
Amen, Frank.
Lets see if the 'puter will stay on long enough to post-
I disagree with the entire premis you two espouse. What you advocate is stealing from the producers to give to the takers. It's that simple. Punish, through taxes, those who bust their butts making $40K and above a year and let politicians use it to buy votes with those same dollars. Look at Sen Landrau of La. and her $300 million bribe to support health care! Good old Democrat politics there. Wonder how many takers will sell their votes with that money?
To be clear, I have no issue helping the working poor, elderly and infirm. What I hate is the class envy that is so apparent in thsi argument. Yeah, the very rich- the Kennedys, Clintons, Gores, Hollywood types- can escape some taxes by hiding some of their money. That's nothing new and there are just as many Dems as Repubs in that group. But it's the top 40% of wage earners that pay 90+% of the taxes. Thats people making about $50K a year or more. Is that the rich you guys speak of? Meanwhile the bottom 40% of wage earners pay basically nothing in taxes. And those that contirbute nothing, a growing class it seems, benefit from others work. Those takers play on our guilt and compassion and so few of them acutally deserve it. Help the sick, the elderly, the vets, those truely unable to help themselves. But those who sit waiting for the next check, scheming about how to get more money, crying about how tough they have it- them I have no compassion for.
If you want the Gov't hand in your pocket, determining where your money is best spent that's fine. You guys send all your income into Obama and Patterson and feel good about your selflessness. Me, I'll keep as much of my $36K a year as I can and try and make ends meet as they raise my taxes again and again and again...
Bret4207 November 22, 2009 9:17 AM wrote - "But it's the top 40% of wage earners that pay 90+% of the taxes. Thats people making about $50K a year or more. Is that the rich you guys speak of? Meanwhile the bottom 40% of wage earners pay basically nothing in taxes...
Me, I'll keep as much of my $36K a year as I can and try and make ends meet as they raise my taxes again and again and again."
Bret4207's broad assumptions about people who are receiving government help, offer interesting
insights into modern day Conservative thought.
But, I can't figure out his figures. He claims that he earns $36,000 a year and is heavily taxed on that. In a previous posting in a different threat, Bret4207 claimed to have several adopted children, which would entitle him to money back from the Feds, would it not?
Bret4207 also points out that it is people earning over $50,000 a year who are the ones shouldering a disproportionate share of taxes.
So, how is it that Bret4207, at 36k a year, is so heavily taxed?
Dthe math just doesn't add up. I was once a volunteer tax assistant and I offer my help to Bret4207. I'll do his taxes this year so he won't be overpaying into the system.
I just retired Frank. Can you figure that part out? And I made a mistake in my math, my net is about $48K as is my wifes. Hardly the $100+ I used to gross, but oddly I bring home nearly the same amount. Why? Taxes. Does that add up, or should I say, subtract right for you? That still doesn't free me from land, sales, school, excise, etc., etc., etc. taxes. I just want to see some responsibility in Gov't with all that money they take from us. Like you claim Frank, I spent 23 years working inside Gov't. I started at $17k a year. I saw the waste, fought it where I could and then saw it just take off like a rocket about 15 years ago. There was no reason to worry about money all the sudden, everyone was spending like crazy. Well, here we are today wondering where the next dime is coming from. There's a problem if you ask me.
Pat- I just have to disagree with your stance. Keeping more of YOUR money benefits YOU and the Wall St Executive. You're so wrapped up in class envy that you can't get beyond it. In a free market system the best get paid the most. That's not wrong. It's natural. I don;t like that sports stars, actors, politicians, etc. make gazillions while my peers and I struggle, but someone made a choice to pay them that much. How can you complain about a Wall St guy making big bucks with skill (assuming it's legal!) while supporting the idea of a Union worker getting his raise because of a strike threat? One is blackmail, the other the result of honest "labor".
Step back and look at it.
Post a Comment
<< Home