  Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2528 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.212.41.58 |
700 Michigan employees earn $100,000 plus 4/14/2006, 7:39 a.m. ET The Associated Press LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The number of Michigan state employees who get a salary of at least $100,000 a year has risen to about 700 from about 375 six years ago. Topping the list is state economic development chief James Epolito at $200,000 a year. Gov. Jennifer Granholm is No. 2 on the list at $177,000 a year. The third-highest paid state employee is state schools Superintendent Michael Flanagan at $168,300 a year. No. 4 is Sandy Ring, Michigan Economic Development Corp. business development director, at $154,500. Two members of the Legislature have six-figure salaries — House Speaker Craig DeRoche, R-Novi, at $106,650, and Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, R-Wyoming, at $105,650. http://www.mlive.com/newsflash /michigan/index.ssf?/base/news -33/1145005747316820.xml&story list=newsmichigan | ||
River_rat Member Username: River_rat Post Number: 104 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 207.67.146.66 |
700 state employees make over $100K ... hmmm...river rat knows how to save the state $70 million. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 268 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.229.212 |
That giant sucking sound that you hear is an army of fat, bloated, State bureaucrats draining the life out of our state economy. | ||
Everyman Member Username: Everyman Post Number: 55 Registered: 11-2005 Posted From: 24.136.14.239 |
The state needs to do so to compete. Consider the army of lawyers employed by the legislature. At Honigman, a downtown firm, they *start* at over $110k with yearly raises. If the state wants the talent, they gotta pay. There's only so far most people will go to contribute to the greater good... | ||
Crew Member Username: Crew Post Number: 921 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 69.14.27.21 |
$100k isn't as much as it used to be. I don't see a problem in most cases with the State paying these folks what the job is worth. | ||
Jjw Member Username: Jjw Post Number: 74 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 68.33.56.156 |
i am curious. Is there a way to find out about the top salaries in the Detroit Public Schools? and the city employees? bet they aren't teachers! | ||
Tortfeasor Member Username: Tortfeasor Post Number: 437 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.209.128.104 |
If you look at the breakdown of that list, a giant chunk of the $100k eatners are psychiatrists. I think Crew is right, you have to pay what the job is worth. As for State attorneys, they don't "start" anywhere near where Dykema, Honigman, or other big Detroit law firms start. I believe the starting pay is somewhere around $45k so its likely that only very experienced State attorneys general are making anywhere near that $100k. It's kinda funny that the governor is the number 2 earner in the State. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2104 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
When did the "need" for psychiatrists ever come under the purview of the state? The "need" for a state surgeon general is even more of a kicker. Just keep this in mind when your local officials come at you with hat outstreatched, telling you why they can't give you, the taxpayer, a tax break because there is no more money left. | ||
Mumbly Member Username: Mumbly Post Number: 25 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 69.218.156.72 |
Speaking of bloated salaries, has anyone seen the latest University of Michigan Salary Supplement? Does U-M President Mary Sue Coleman *really* need to be paid $501,458 per year? That seems a little excessive considering the state's troubled economic situation. Go to http://www.michigandaily.com and then click on the Salary Supplements link on the left-hand side of the screen. Coleman's listing is in Row 5799 of the Excel spreadsheet. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2532 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 69.212.41.58 |
Mumbly, university presidents' salaries are so "bloated" because their main responsibility is fundraising. They try to bring money and grants to the university. Hence their CEO-sized salaries. And don't forget that Detroit Public Schools Superintendent William Coleman makes over $200,000. | ||
Gambling_man Member Username: Gambling_man Post Number: 699 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 199.178.193.5 |
Everyman, no one at Honigman "starts" at 110K a year or anywhere near it.....There are plenty of the senior attorneys making that kind of money, but not the new guys. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 2476 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.210.27 |
This is a non-issue targeted at resentful readership in hard economic times; typical of bottom-feeding journalism. Compared to equivalent corporate positions one will quickly find that most state salaries, like most government positions, are way on the low end. If someone wants to make the argument that those positions are not necessary, I am all ears and say get rid of them. But if they are deemed necessary, those salaries are not at all excessive for the degree of management, expertise and resposibility they carry. Why pay Pudge Rodriguez millions when you could have a minor league catcher for the salary minimum? Almost all of the time, you get what you pay for in life. | ||
Tortfeasor Member Username: Tortfeasor Post Number: 440 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 69.209.128.104 |
Gambling_man - You are correct, no one at Honigman starts at $110k per year, they start at $115k, and yes, that is for new guys and gals. http://www.nalpdirectory.com/e mployerdetails.asp?fscid=F1221 &id=1&yr=2005 | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 269 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.229.212 |
The problem with State employees is that there are way too many of them. The excess legions of Michigan bureaucrats are staggering. They choke working people and stifle the state economy. 8,000 State workers need to go. Today. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2885 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.73.199.115 |
Future city, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Engler cut as many state employees as he possible could. In most instances, the cuts went too far, especially when combined with the new policies he instituted. Don't get me f'ing started about the "time-savings" and "policy simplification" bullshit line he used, either. The Department of Corrections needs 350 more parole/probation officers to handle their current workload. Foster care and Protective Services workers are carrying at least double, some triple, the workload regulations require. The state lost so many employees with the two early retirements in 1997 and 2002 that they are bringing back some of the retirees, because the ones who are left can't keep up. And don't get me started about this "cut taxes" bullshit. For 12 years, Engler and the Republicans cut every tax imaginable. Their rationale was that it was good for the economy. Well, their indiscriminate tax cutting left the state in shambles. There is a permanent roughly $1 billion discrepancy between what the state can raise and what the bare minimum service is. | ||
Itsjeff Member Username: Itsjeff Post Number: 5790 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.242.213.167 |
There are plenty of the senior attorneys making that kind of money, but not the new guys. Gamblingman, a partner at any large downtown firm makes between 300K-400K after bonuses. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2107 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Big difference in what pudge rodriguez makes and what we're forced to cough up to the state, Lowell. His salary is paid by illitch, not me. If I don't go down to comerica or buy one of his pizzas, then I'm not in any way "paying" his salary. However, if I were to tell Lansing what to go do with themselves (on ironically, April 15th), I would have any, if not all of my assets seized to pay my "share". | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 270 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.229.212 |
Ham Steve - sounds like you don't what the hell you're talking about. You sound like an apologist for non-working state bureaucrats on the state payroll. Your post seems to make the bizarre call for even more. Maybe you're one of them - that could explain it. As was posted on a previous thread: "Take a look to the south. The fat, bloated, inefficent state government of Ohio employs 60,000 to serve 11.4 million. Michigan employs 64,000 to serve 10.1 million." 8,000 State workers need to go. Today. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2886 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.73.199.115 |
You're right, future, I am a state employee. I'm a foster care worker in Macomb County, so I see up front and personal what budget cuts do. If you and I ever meet, I could tell you some really great stories about what mentally ill parents do to their children. I'm sorry I missed that post in whatever thread, because Michigan does not employ 64,000 people. There are only about 52,000 people covered by the state Civil Service system. This doesn't include temps, and it doesn't include political appointees. It also does not count employees of legislators. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 111 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 71.10.61.35 |
Hey Hamtramck_steve you know sometimes "Future" idiots think they speak for the whole "city" when all they are doing is rumbbling out of their ass to hear themselves talk or to say "mega-dittos, Rush!" They want to make themselves sound fervently committed to some kind of twisted patriotism and fiscal responsibility when all they are interested in is their own greed.  Livedog2 | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2111 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
First off, and this isn't meant as a knock towards Steve, but when did caring for the mentally ill fall under the purview of the state? Serious question. | ||
Lowell Board Administrator Username: Lowell Post Number: 2481 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.167.210.27 |
You've brought up a good point Mcp001. The next time a mentally ill homeless person comes raving toward you, ask that question. The next time an abandoned or orphaned child jacks your car, ask them. When you become disabled, mentally or otherwise, and fall on hard times with no family or friends to lean on, ask the question. This isn't meant as a knock toward you either or to pick you personally; my point is that we all pay for this, one way or the other. The mentally ill fill our prison systems, so do the our lost children. When nothing is done we pay twice; once for the damage these people create and once for the loss of our humanity in not caring about them. | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2888 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.73.199.115 |
MCP, what else are we going to do with them? You question why the state should do it. Well, it's not like we've got thirty million people willing to step into the breach. Would you sign up to take in a schizophrenic person? If so, I know who you can talk to. Depending on the size of your house, you might be able to have two live with you. We could ship the people who make us uncomfortable to some deserted island, I suppose. But then, Australia's already full. And England didn't stop creating more criminals and crazies, either. Why should caring for the mentally ill adults be the purview of the state? Who else is going to protect the children of the mentally ill parent who try to cure their child's constipation by inserting a wooden spoon into the rectum to "scoop out the poop"? Or how about those fathers (not mentally ill, but still 'messed up') who rape their 13 month old daughters, because "she was rubbing my penis while she was sitting on my lap and I couldn't help myself." But basically, at this point, Michigan really doesn't do shit for mentally ill. If they committ a crime, we lock them up. It's not hard to figure out why the corrections department bloomed at the same time the state was dismantling a world-renowned, research-based mental health system. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 113 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 71.10.61.35 |
Mcp001, you say, "when did caring for the mentally ill fall under the purview of the state?" I think it's easier and more palatable to ask that question and make believe you care about the state. I think it is also, easier on the conscience to ask the question as a ruse for making the statement, “I don't think it is the purview of the state to take care of the mentally ill.” Making the statement would garner more respect because taking responsibility for something would make you stand for something, no matter how repugnant the stand is! Furthermore, you don't need to care about the mentally ill. "Social Darwinism" has many adherents that also carry the thinking and philosophy to the far extreme of eugenics but fortunately there are enough humanists that do care. I am proud of the state and Hamtramck_steve for what they do for the mentally ill.  Livedog2 | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2113 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Interesting point, but you're both sidestepping an important issue. Government on any level in this country operates within a framework, usually a constitution. Within that framework, the duties of that elected body have certain, specific enumerated duties and roles to perform. Period. Nowhere in either constitution is there any authority to provide the services that you're claiming should be provided. By doing otherwise, you are in effect, advocating that we move away from a rule of law in this country, to a mob rule simply because there isn't enough assistance, by your estimation, to address a particular need. That having been said, I'm waiting to see the examination of why having the government stepping in to "fill the role that isn't being filled" has failed. Where is the questioning of why, nationally speaking, billion (if not trillions) of dollars have not addressed or remedied this problem. It had been mentioned above that if people did not provide for themselves, that no one would do it for them. At one time, people did provide for themselves. They did scrimp. They did save. And they did put something aside for future needs. Not only that, but they also had the means to give to their church or to charity on top of it, if they so choosed. Interesting thing to note here: those churches were able to provide a much more effieient level assistance because they were able to get to know the people that they were trying to help better. They knew their idiosyncrasies, when things were working, when things weren't, and why. Unfortunately, the notion took hold that "enough" wasn't being done, and that govenment "had" to step in to address the problem. Slight problem with that "solution", the money that government uses, needed to come from somewhere. People who were once able to scrimp and save are having a harder time doing so because other people feel that they can spend their money better than they can. To say nothing for the money that could've gone to a local charity/church if people didn't have to work several months into the year until they were finally working to support themselves and their families. It was interesting to see that the state was bring back retirees because the current batch of employees couldn't keep up with the caseload, why no concern about the organizations that were doing this long before the govenment placed itself where it is today? | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2889 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.245.97 |
"At one time, people did provide for themselves. They did scrimp. They did save. And they did put something aside for future needs..." Keep on track, MCP. We are talking about mental health services here. You are suddenly not talking about that. Perhaps food stamps or other welfare programs are on your mind. Staying on topic, at no time did "people provide" mental health services "for themselves." That part of your argument is laughable. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2118 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
And their families were where? | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2892 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.245.97 |
Locking them in the attic, because they were ashamed of them, usually. Really. In the past, the mentally ill and otherwise inferior had the good sense to stay out of public purview. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 1574 Registered: 12-2004 Posted From: 69.219.103.87 |
Mcp001: If you're going to invoke the constitution to make your argument, you might want to spend some time reading it. Here is Article IV, Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution in its entirety:
Mental health is recognized by every physician and every other health care professional on the planet as being a part of health care. Therefore, mental health care falls within the purview of the State of Michigan. | ||
Futurecity Member Username: Futurecity Post Number: 271 Registered: 05-2005 Posted From: 69.212.229.212 |
Ham Steve - I can appreciate your efforts in the area of state foster care. I can imagine that state budget constraints make a difficult job even tougher. Perhaps it is a misallocation of state resources as to why the state isn't providing enough funding in your area. Or perhaps foster care is low on the State's budget priority list. My point is that overrall, there are way too many state workers in Michigan. I don't know where you got your numbers, but the numbers that I am referring to are from the US Census site from 2004 and can be found at: http://www.census.gov/govs/www /apesst04view.html And according to the US Census Bureau there were 65,914 full-time (non-education) state employees in Michigan in 2004. Here is the summary from that site of a Michigan/Ohio state full-time (non-education) employment comparison for 2004: MICHIGAN Financial Administration 4633 Other Admin 1455 Judicial and Legal 1864 Police Total 2662 Corrections 17626 Highways 2775 Public Welfare 10500 Health 1535 Hospitals 11472 Social Ins Admin 1190 Parks & Rec 269 Natural Resources 4613 Other 5320 TOTAL 65914 OHIO Financial Administration 8274 Other Admin 837 Judicial and Legal 2732 Police Total 2663 Corrections 16082 Highways 7142 Public Welfare 2813 Health 3691 Hospitals 11436 Social Ins Admin 2359 Parks & Rec 622 Natural Resources 3457 Other 4618 TOTAL 66726 Michigan Population 10.11mil Ohio Population 11.45mil Michigan State Workers/1000 population - 6.51 Ohio State Workers/1000 population - 5.82 If staffing levels for state employees in Michigan were modeled after the inefficeint state of Ohio, Michigan would only have 58,885 employees, which is about 7,000 fewer than the US Census Bureau says that we had in 2004. Certainly if you modeled Michigan after a more efficient state than Ohio, even fewer state employees would be required. I wonder what the citizens of Michigan are getting for the extra 7,000+ state workers that the citizens of Ohio aren't. My guess is absolutely nothing. (Message edited by Futurecity on April 16, 2006) | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2895 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.245.97 |
Futurecity, I'm pulling my numbers from the budget of the state of Michigan. There are between 52,000 and 53,000 employees that are paid directly by you, me and all the other tax payers. I don't know how the census bureau calculates "state employees." For instance, any of the employees of, say, Senator Ken Sikkema, are not counted in the civil service system. They are political patronage jobs, paid for out of the senator's office allowance. Such classification differences could account for a lot of the discrepancy between the state's budget and how the census bureau counts the people. Engler bragged repeatedly that the number of state employees dropped nearly every year he was in office, as though that made things automatically better. Perhaps you weren't living in the state then? | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2896 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.245.97 |
As a matter of accuracy, futurecity, you can find the exact total of state employees on the payroll at any given time. Look on the Civil Service website under state workforce reports. As of the pay period ending March 25, 2006 (the most recent available), there are 52,173 classified employees. | ||
Mcp001 Member Username: Mcp001 Post Number: 2124 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 69.14.135.95 |
Uh, Fnemecek? You might want to read that again. Yes, promote & protect is mentioned, but nothing about provide. Big difference. | ||
Livedog2 Member Username: Livedog2 Post Number: 117 Registered: 03-2006 Posted From: 71.10.61.35 |
I smell a troublemaker! Get the rope!! When they start espousing the rule of law check your wallet, count your fingers and get the radio off of 760 AM from 12-3 P.M., M-F. Livedog2 | ||
Hamtramck_steve Member Username: Hamtramck_steve Post Number: 2897 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 69.215.245.97 |
Mcp, don't be daft. The state of Michigan is well within its constitutional ability to provide these various services. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1124 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 68.42.251.225 |
I liked your post. livedog. Especially that little dig at WJR. You should probably tune out Paul W. and Frank Beckman in the morning, too. Same for Hannity in the late afternoon. However, you will be happy when Mitch Album finally comes on and balances the scales big time. | ||
Dnvn522 Member Username: Dnvn522 Post Number: 104 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 204.24.64.25 |
And then the state would hire consultants to do that work at twice the original cost. Sounds like a great way to save money. | ||
Quinn Member Username: Quinn Post Number: 703 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 64.139.64.80 |
I worked at a law firm where everyone, including parnters, made 60k/year. They all got the big dough on bonus day (one day a year) when the firm would divy out cash based on a combination of hours billed, new clients/business and some other things I wasn't privy to. This is a large firm and was not too long ago (maybe 10 years). I imagine the base salary is up a bit now....who knows. I always loved bonus day (not that I got one) but it was fun to see everyone getting drunk around the office that day. Whooppeeeeeee. |
