The problem with romantic jobs is that many people will always argue, on any margin, that the right thing to do is “support” them. This is on full display in a recent article in the Washington Post discussing the plight of families with public sector workers in Ohio.
Judy and Jim Embree, an operating room nurse and paramedic and firefighter, were attending a rally at the state Capitol when they discovered that everything they thought to be good and right about their lives was, to an alarming number of people, completely wrong.
The people who showed up that day in support of a plan, since adopted, to cut the power and benefits of public-sector unions said that people like them were the problem. That their “high wages” and “exorbitant pensions” were crippling cities and counties across Ohio. Some, even, said their jobs were unnecessary.
It had never occurred to the Embrees that firefighters and nurses could be unnecessary. They thought of themselves as linchpins of the community — and one of the biggest rewards of their jobs was knowing that the rest of the world thought so, too.
One can obviously feel sympathy for these people. But it’s an extremely problematic notion that an occupation that people generally admire should always have more, and that to question whether wages are too high or whether there has been too much hiring is an unimaginable assualt. The shame of this is that the current negative attitude towards public sector workers by some, however unfair, is in part created by a system that has generated obviously inefficient and unsustainable policies, which is in turn enabled by such romanticism in the first place.
On this issue and many other I continue to believe that if you’re angry about radical reforms today, you should be angry at those that fought moderate reform. The unions, legislators, and administators who for so long failed to produce or outright opposed meaningful education and public sector reform have brought us to the point where people are willing to vote for radical reform. With respect to edcuation I particularly blame those from the “all wee need is more money and smaller classrooms” school of education policy.
Part of this has to do with the fact that the Great Recession has magnified these issues, and Republicans have successfully stoked these fires. But they aren’t creating the demand for radical reform, they’re simply catering to it. The lesson, for both left and right, is that there is a danger to preserving the unsustainable by fighting off moderate reforms. Bringing this back to my initial point, I think this problem is most likely in areas where romantic and idealistic beliefs make it easy for vested interests to fight off moderate reforms.

10 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 9:51 am
BSE
I don’t disagree in theory with your main point that various interest groups resist moderate reforms to their peril though several of your points, I think, are a factual. In fact, I think the USUAL tendancy is for moderate reforms to spur more comprehensive reforms. I’ll lay out why I think so in a moment, but given this tendancy, I think interest groups have the incentive to fight every reform as much as they can, perhaps even if there is what seems to be a pareto-improving policy under consideration.
So why do I think this is the case. Well, first off, consider the example you use: education reform. Education reform has been ongoing for quite a while, including at the national level with things like No Child Left Behind: exactly the kind of “moderate reform” you’re talking about. There was a major wave of state level pension reform not too long ago as well, although I’m too lazy to look up the half-remembered reference on this one. At any rate, the pattern, to me, looks the same. Interest group loses a battle, moderate reform is passed, and the interest group is weaker when the next round of reform comes around.
We can hypothesize why: perhaps by letting through moderate reform, the interest group in question looks weak. Or, the public, having witnessed that the last round of reform didn’t result in their kids learning any less material have become more open to blaming these people for any problems.
I don’t know the answer. But this: “current negative attitude towards public sector workers by some, however unfair, is in part created by a system that has generated obviously inefficient and unsustainable policies, which is in turn enabled by such romanticism in the first place”, I am pretty sure is just wrong. There has been a concerted effort to demonize public sector workers (whether the public is just receptive or the reformers are just emboldened), and the system is not unsustainable. The deficits these states face is after all, cyclical; most of these states were running surpluses before the recession and rising state-level obligations prior to the recession were mostly from an expansion in government services, not pay.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Adam Ozimek
I would argue aspects of NCLB were actually quite radical. Certainly the timeline and requirement of 100% proficiency was. But m
oderate reforms followed by comprehensive reforms are possible, sure. I’m not arguing that this is always the case. But with education you do not find teachers unions losing power because of moderate reforms were compromised on and that made them look weak. The voting public has turned against them, in part because of short term budget problems, but that is just supply meeting demand. People are ready and receptive to a narrative about inefficient public sector unions who won’t reform because that is that they’ve seen, and that vastly predates the great recession.
I think you are sorely mistaken to claim that the only problems states are having is cyclical. Short term budget shortfalls may be, but there are long-term pension problems, and long term budget gaps that a recovery is not going to do away with. Likewise the problems with education policies are long-term structural problems, and people understand that. You see several states going after LIFO policies. This has nothing to do with deficits, but about long-term structural problems.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
DJ Any Reason
Long-term pension problems are almost entirely caused by tax cuts enacted in the 90′s and 00′s. Moreover, long-term pension problems are all entirely cyclical, just on a longer cycle. As the boomers become retirees, there’s a pension problem. Once they shuffle off the mortal coil, that problem largely goes away.
I also think the idea that “[p]eople are ready and receptive to a narrative about inefficient public sector unions who won’t reform because that is [w]hat they’ve seen” is rather naive. If we grant the premise that people are receptive to such a narrative (which events in Wisconsin suggests is not entirely certain), that still doesn’t mean that its due to truth, as opposed to confirmation bias, or lazy thinking. People are ready and receptive to a narrative about balancing the federal budget by soaking the rich, or by ending earmarks, or by cutting foreign aid. None of those three are an avenue that will actually accomplish the end. Yet you’ll find a plenty large set of the populace who will buy what you’re selling if what you’re selling is one of those three remedies.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 10:13 am
Th
In 1980 I worked on the Jimmy Carter reelection campaign. He repeatedly called for moderate, temporary sacrifices to free up money for long term investments that would return our country to prosperity. Reagan scoffed at the idea that any sacrifice was needed at all. He promised to cut taxes, increase spending and balance the budget leading to such an explosion in growth that we would all be rich.
Now Adam tells us that we need to accept a lower standard of living or our country ‘s economy is “unsustainable.” Reagan is spinning.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 10:33 am
Shangwen
The problem with romantic jobs is that the jobholders are inclined to believe they have infinitely high value, and outsiders are disinclined to be skeptical about those claims. If you propose that technology makes certain middle management functions redundant, or that Google has eliminated the need for some advertising and marketing-related jobs, no one has a problem with that. But if you mention empirical evidence about the over-valuation of health care, or propose that health care is somehow inefficient, it gets decried as a hatefest.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 11:15 am
geaugailluminati
we’re well on our way to becoming a third world country, and you just gave us another push…
http://marketwatch666.blogspot.com/2011/04/crisis-in-us-public-education.html
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
govt_mule
Firefighters and other public employees are not saying they “should always have more”, simply that the salary and benefits they have contracted for should be honored.
If these salaries and benefits are now unsustainable (which certainly shouldn’t be the case in an economy that is more productive than at any time in history) it has nothing to do with employees fighting off moderate reforms. It is because, when things were good, money was put into the pockets of the wealthy via tax cuts instead of being put aside to meet pension obligations. Any “reforms” (salary cuts), simply would have been doled out as tax cuts, not used to properly fund employee pensions, and we would be in the same boat we are now in.
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Quote of the day, change is inevitable edition « Blunt Object
[...] from Adam Ozimek: I continue to believe that if you’re angry about radical reforms today, you should be angry at [...]
Wednesday ~ April 20th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Adam Ozimek
I suggest all commenters who believe the problems that states and cities are facing are simply due to lavish tax cuts for the rich read more of Josh Barro. For a single example, here he is on Chicago’s problems:
http://www.publicsectorinc.com/psi_articles/2011/02/rahmbo-takes-on-public-worker-unions.html
Thursday ~ April 21st, 2011 at 9:19 am
DJ Any Reason
Ok, I’ll bite – what, exactly, in that article addresses the question of whether or not tax cuts could explain the pension shortfall? If my goal is to confirm my preconceived notions of “Unions BAD!” then, yeah, sure, its a fine thing to cite. But if I’m trying to convince a skeptic that the long-term public sector pension shortfall is due to union intransigence, and not poor fiscal management, what in this article accomplishes that?