Breaking news: Firefighters get paid more than cashiers

That should have been the title of this weekend's USA Today article. Instead, the front-page article was titled "Public jobs see pay gains" and purported to show a trend of "better pay and benefits for public employees" as compared to their counterparts in the private sector.

But USA Today is comparing apples to oranges. Different industries have different cost structures (think of the costs involved in running an auto plant versus a beauty salon), and the mix of skills and occupations involved in state and local government is entirely different from the mix of occupations in the private sector.

Nationwide, the top five occupations in the private sector, making up 12% of the workforce, are:

• Retail salespersons


• Cashiers


• Office clerks


• Combined food prep and serving workers, including fast food


• Waiters and waitresses

And the top three occupations employed by state and local governments, making up 15% of the workforce:

• Police and sheriff's patrol officers


• Fire fighters


• Correctional officers

Do we really want a force of firefighters and police officers who get paid minimum wage with no health care? Or maybe correctional officers should all work for tips. (Continued...)


Not only is USA Today's analysis flawed, but they can't even seem to keep their own numbers straight.

The chart accompanying the article claims to show "Average hourly wages" in the public and private sectors, revealing that public sector employees in 2007 earned an expansive-seeming average wage of $39.50. Two mistakes here. First, the article is about state and local government only, not the entire public sector; if you factored in federal employees (who aren't included in the survey), results would be different. And second, the average wage for state and local government in 2007 was not $39.50, but $26.26. (What's the difference? For a full-time worker, nearly $28 grand per year...)

That $39.50 represents not wages but total compensation, factoring in the high cost of health coverage (a nationwide problem not confined to the public sector) and retirement. The text of the article gets this right, but apparently whoever drew up the chart didn't bother to read the article. Can't say I blame them.


(All data is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The National Compensation Survey is available at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/; occupational employment is at http://www.bls.gov/oes/.)