|
Post by ridgecommander on May 23, 2016 17:22:57 GMT -5
Are you saying that 6% growth is reasonable or 60-70% of expenditures going towards personnel costs is reasonable? Actually PGC has testified that personnel costs are a huge burden on the agency. Well......seeing that from the PGC's Facebook page....there Mission Statement: "MISSION: To manage Pennsylvania's wild birds and mammals and their habitat for current and future generations." Tell me....how is any agency suppose to do this without manpower? So the answer to my question is.......
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on May 23, 2016 18:19:32 GMT -5
So, what is the national average on employee "overhead" costs for businesses? Probably 65%
|
|
|
Post by davet on May 24, 2016 6:13:30 GMT -5
Well......seeing that from the PGC's Facebook page....there Mission Statement: "MISSION: To manage Pennsylvania's wild birds and mammals and their habitat for current and future generations." Tell me....how is any agency suppose to do this without manpower? So the answer to my question is....... It is what it is. Your a brilliant man with all the answers. More than me. I'm just the numbers guy. Like I said in the interview when the guy ask me the question...he said "What does 2+2 equal?" I said "What do you want it to be?" He said..."Your hired"
|
|
|
Post by davet on May 24, 2016 6:23:07 GMT -5
So, what is the national average on employee "overhead" costs for businesses? Service related business have much higher labor cost....because they are "service" related. However, you can "slice" service industries down into specialty related sectors. IE: Hotel service vs tax preparation services. Construction industries. Specifically home plans land development earth moving. Labor cost vs. all other associated cost. Labor may be 20 to 25% vs. equipment depreciation, repairs, fuel, and other cost. Your asking for an answer that can be right or wrong no matter what number is tossed out. It's like going to a doctor and saying I have a brain tumor that's giving me a headache. What should I do? The Doc says take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on May 24, 2016 6:41:43 GMT -5
I'm just the numbers guy. Like I said in the interview when the guy ask me the question...he said "What does 2+2 equal?" I said "What do you want it to be?" He said..."Your hired" Since you are a numbers guy, maybe you can answer the question I asked you in response to your comment about the financial numbers of the PGC. Here is my question again for you. If you don't want to answer it, that is OK as well. Just would lead one to believe there is a reason why you wouldn't want to expand further on it.
|
|
|
Post by davet on May 24, 2016 7:44:37 GMT -5
Well.....Ghee Ridge, here is what I will say. First, I'm not an "expert" on what other State Game agencies cost of labor are when compared to their revenues....nor do I know if these other State agencies revenues include or are comparable to what is or is not includable or comparable to what is or is not includable in the Pa. PGC's budget. For a true comparison against other budgets of other State agencies this type of information is critical in order to make a true comparison and provide an objective platform of date for comparison.
Do you understand that statement? I'm going to "assume" that you do.
Accordingly, I took the labor cost from the 2013-14 PGC Budget Report that was released, and that also had the 1997-98 budget report total cost and total labor cost reported for that 16th preceding year. Then I looked up (Google is a great tool) from the web, the published Federal annual average inflation rate for those 16 years between. Then the next step that I did was take, beginning with the 1997-98 year, and apply the annual inflation rate to the preceding years LABOR COST to arrive at what, using just an inflation based COLA increase would be, to the previous years labor cost. Well, after the 19 years what I found out was this: For the year ended 2013-14, the LABOR COST using the average COLA multiple "should be" $61,056,227. The "actual" labor cost of the PGC for the year 2013-14 was in fact $64,711,630.
Now, at first blush one would look at that and say "AH HA!! The PGC's labor cost is above the COL over a 16 year period by $3,655,403!!! That's terrible!! Really? Well, what that really represents is a few matters. (I'll explain the obvious here.) First of all if labor cost meets inflation that simply means that labor is just keeping up with cost. It means no "real" wage increase to labor is happening. So, no real standard of living increase is occurring. Accordingly, if you drank Iron City when you started as a CO 15 years ago, chances are good your still drinking it today because you have never had a "real" wage increase. You have just been keeping up with inflation. In my eyes as a former business owner that is completely unfair to any employee who is worth his\her salt. Also, if you look at that $3.6-Mil increase what that represents is a "real" 6% increase in labor cost over the COL. Not a knock your socks over the inflation rate, yet it is a "real" wage increase to the employee.
Also, if you look at the PGC's Total cost, in '98 they were $58.1-Mil. That has grown to $104.9-Mil. If you apply the same inflation calculation to total cost that you do to just the labor cost, then the total cost would be $87.8-Mil based upon inflation. But, actual total cost (including labor) are the $104.9-Mil...or 19.5% higher than the '98 year. In "real dollars" that's $17-Million. Now, if you back out the Labor cost that means the "rest" of the cost accounts for $13.4-Million, or 13% of the 2013-14 budget. And that's excluding the Labor.
So....what have we learned here today? Well, we have learned that 16 years ago the labor cost were 8% higher than they are today. And did anyone complain? I don't know. We have also learned that the employees over the last 16 years have received a "real" increase over and above inflation of 6%. Not making millions, not driving Range Rovers. We have also learned that total expenditures, not including labor have increased by 13%....or just over twice that of labor during the same time period.
And we have learned all of that for free. I would usually charge $2,400 for this....and perhaps I will. Ridge, please PM me your address so I may know where to send the bill.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on May 24, 2016 7:54:23 GMT -5
Thanks for the info!
|
|
|
Post by dennyf on May 24, 2016 8:17:19 GMT -5
Well, Dave, that was interesting and appreciated. But when I asked if anyone knew what the average (employee) overhead costs were for businesses, I already knew that certain endeavors have different costs - mostly related to the number of people required to accomplish whatever a business is trying to accomplish by its mere existence. The builder/developer I worked for in the 70s and 80s, had a core employment requirement of four people while I worked there. I was one of the four, two others had worked for him over a period of 30+ years. Four of us could build houses one at a time. When we had more work, we hired additional people - sometimes there were twelve or fifteen "of us" over a period of a few years. Obviously it cost my employer more for the additional staffing, but the bottom line was always to have a profit at the end of each year, regardless of overhead costs. So it was up to him to figure out how much to charge per project, in order to meet that annual profit goal. He was in business for over 36 years, so I figure he had that down pat? Public entities like PGC, do similar things, but without an actual "profit goal". They just have to accomplish what they can, with the available amount of revenue. Right now they need additional revenue via a license fee increase. A fee which has remained static for 17 years now. And I already knew that PGC, like most other government entities, have seen increasing overhead costs related to such things as pensions and benefits. Most of us also knew that these costs are not under the control of PGC, because they do not get to have a say in such things. All they can do to hold down the overhead, is to control the number of employees. The agency has a limit as to how many people they can employ. Last I knew, they were below that limit, which is a plus IF one is only concerned about the "bottom line" fiscally. Not so great, when one is more concerned about an agency fulfilling its mandates?
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on May 24, 2016 8:49:41 GMT -5
The lack of a long term plan is their Achilles heel, we are just finishing up 8 years of stagnation or low growth in our economy, their are fewer people working today as % of our population than any time in history, personal savings is nonexistence and the number of hunters is dropping like a wing shot goose. Piss poor planning in the past is no reason to walk the plank on a huge increase at a time when hunters and hunting in general can least afford it. Regular set increases so every 5-7 years would be far better for everyone involved and for budgetary planning with a whole lot fewer surprises.
Actually I believe we are in a loose, loose situation until the personal cost are brought under control, out sourcing many jobs to the private sector is a place to start.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on May 24, 2016 9:28:02 GMT -5
Hunter numbers are not dropping like a wingshot goose.
You are reading too much USP propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by davet on May 24, 2016 9:34:46 GMT -5
Yeah.....but I still need your email to send the bill. Or......as I figured, just like my old "C" rated clients. Want the best CPA and the best info and analysis....and then "forget" to pay the bill. The agency has a limit as to how many people they can employ. Last I knew, they were below that limit, which is a plus IF one is only concerned about the "bottom line" fiscally. Not so great, when one is more concerned about an agency fulfilling its mandates? True Denny, but budgets....or money....always plays a role in everything. I've always "preached" to my kids that no matter what....."Money" or actually what I said was "Economics drives everything." I made this point to my oldest daughter one day when she was either a Jr. or Sr. in high school. We were in the car going somewhere and she said something to the effect of "Dad, you always say that....but I really don't get what you mean." Ok....fair question, so I thought. So, I responded to her essentially this way. "Daughter (I used her first name of course) think of your favorite music band that you really like." She said "Ok, I saw Bla, Bla, Bla at the Arena two weeks ago and it was great." "Ok" I said. "Now, you paid $35 for the ticket. So, the show was in the Arena with 5,000 other fans. Would the show have been better if it would have been at a venue with only 500 fans?" She said "Oh yes....that would have been great!" So, I said "Well...would you have been willing to pay $350 for the ticket to see them?" She said "Heck no. They are good....but not that good!" I said "Well, you see....in order for them to put on that show, they need to gross $175-K. So, they do that by selling 3500 tickets at $35 each. Or they could have sold 500 tickets at $350 each.....but how many kids have $350 to spend on a ticket?" She got my point. Actually I believe we are in a loose, loose situation until the personal cost are brought under control, out sourcing many jobs to the private sector is a place to start. I'm going to agree that we will disagree on this point. Out sourcing of jobs IMHO does nothing more than bring in lower paying job and the "talent" that comes with it.....IF the purpose of the outsource is to lower the cost.
|
|
|
Post by davet on May 24, 2016 9:47:07 GMT -5
Annual COLA Labor Cost x COLA Total Cost x COLA 1997 2.30% 41,392,626 59,526,324 1998 1.60% 42,054,908 60,478,745 1999 2.20% 42,980,116 61,809,278 2000 3.40% 44,441,440 63,910,793 2001 2.80% 45,685,800 65,700,295 2002 1.60% 46,416,773 66,751,500 2003 2.30% 47,484,359 68,286,784 2004 2.70% 48,766,437 70,130,528 2005 3.40% 50,424,495 72,514,966 2006 3.20% 52,038,079 74,835,444 2007 2.80% 53,495,145 76,930,837 2008 3.80% 55,527,961 79,854,209 2009 -0.40% 55,305,849 79,534,792 2010 1.60% 56,190,743 80,807,349 2011 3.20% 57,988,846 83,393,184 2012 2.10% 59,206,612 85,144,441 2013 1.50% 60,094,711 86,421,607 2014 1.60% 61,056,227 87,804,353 Oh....the above...and it's tough to read....but even tougher to make the column's come out pretty, is the year, average annual Inflation percent, Labor cost of previous year multiplied by inflation rate, total cost multiplied by inflation rate. You can check my math from here.....but careful....review my statements for what I said before you think I put a wrong number in it.
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on May 24, 2016 9:50:26 GMT -5
Actually I believe we are in a loose, loose situation until the personal cost are brought under control, out sourcing many jobs to the private sector is a place to start. I'm going to agree that we will disagree on this point. Out sourcing of jobs IMHO does nothing more than bring in lower paying job and the "talent" that comes with it.....IF the purpose of the outsource is to lower the cost. [/quote] Two points that should be out sourced off hand.Number one are the pheasant farmes, we pay union wages to feed chickens! The PGC says they have just under 30 bucks in a pheasant, I can buy all I want for ten bucks apiece from a guy whos day job is raising pheasants for the PGC! Second is foresters, independent foresters work off a 10 % take of the total harvest, they have an incentive to find good buyers and sawyers and get the work done within all rules and regulation while being bonded and insured, it's not rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by dennyf on May 24, 2016 11:07:04 GMT -5
Budgets! How many are aware that PGC must submit its proposed annual budget to the Governor's office each year for approval?
Approval for monies not even raised from taxes/the general funds of the Commonwealth, but from licenses, permits, grants, sales of timber/gas/coal/minerals and other sources. Because each agency is under the control of the administration, even if they raise most or all of their own annual funding.
Several years ago, Corbett's administration cut about $500K from the proposed PGC budget.
Then later in the year when CWD hit several deer farms and PA AG refused to make those deer farmers put fencing back up around the operations that had held CWD-positive deer, PGC wound up having to handle the fencing and (IIRC) got some of that money put back in their budget to help pay for the fencing.
I can see administration oversight of state agencies. Makes no sense to me, that an agency that doesn't rely on a chunk of tax money annually to operate (like all other state agencies do), has some of its proposed budget cut.
|
|