Samuel C. Butler, chairman of the compensation committee of the library's board, said the compensation for Mr. Ferriero that year included a reimbursement for part of the cost of moving his family to New York. Surely a hint that Mr. Ferriero has been head hunted.. Perhaps he is a mega library boss.. The best.. Who knows ? A Dronetek like investigation is required me thinks...
A librarian makes one hundred grand a year in Long Island. A University library director in Houston makes $193,000 per year. Exactly how much should this man, who is in charge of the second largest library sysem in the entire country, and one of the largest in the world, be paid? Anybody want to tackle this?
Yea, I'm not sure what the point of calling out the free market was. Such a complex decision should not be based on arbitrary things, but rather, the market should decided how much the librarian makes.
Was not intended as such.. I would have no problem with those being at the top of their game being rewarded for same. The Free Market is not all bad. Competition is essential..
Paul LeClerc is also a trustee of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, among other appointments besides his position at New York Public Library. Now, to get back to the basic question: He makes $690,000 a year. If this is not acceptable, then what is an appropriate salary for the position?
And I repeat; Such a complex decision should not be based on arbitrary things, but rather, the market should decided how much the librarian makes.
I don't know who decided how much it should be, but it's six hundred eighty nine thousand dollars a year. Is there a problem with that? P.S. No disrespect intended towards librarians, but that is not this man's job title or duty. And this, the quote above, is coming from the guy who used the word "retarded" in another post.
It's almost as if you didn't even read the thread, or the OP. Yet more demagoguery from garrison68. Ideally, the library should be completely privatized, and then the market could accurately decide how much this guy should be paid. As it stands (which is the point of this controversy), is the fact that he makes so much money, which is paid for by taxes, and the State and local Governments are bleeding money, laying off teachers, etc. What is the social utility of having a well-paid library manager when essential things like public school funding are being cut? The library itself was bleeding money (you wouldn't know that, because you apparently didn't even read the article), and had to sell off some of it's assets, and forced it's lower-rung employees to take cuts in benefits, yet, in one year, the LeClerc guy had a pay raise of $220,000. This is at the same time the library was bleeding money. The article also points out how a number of other new employees were paid substantially more than previous people in those positions, again, at the same time the library is bleeding money, having to seek private donations, indicating gross mis-management. So, we have a public library that's bleeding money, which gets it's funding from a state and local Government that is ALSO bleeding money, which is getting rid of essential spending, and you find no problem that this guy gets a pay raise despite the fact that it's apparent he's grossly mismanaging the library (hence the reason it's hemorrhaging money) Your argument basically boils down to, the library needs a wealthy person so he can lobby for endowments. Yet, he so horribly mismanages his library that it bleeds money, yet he deserves that pay because he talks to rich people at cocktail parties. He makes twice as much money as people who save lives, lead the country, etc., because he can socialize at a rich people party. Oh yea, that's right, your argument is retarded. (Incoming report of my post cuz someone got their feelings hurted on the internet).
What I want to know is why is he being paid so much more than his predecessor? It says he received $350,000 compensation, which is $118,000 more than his predecessors salary. Thats quite a large salary jump. Another employee getting $90,000 in raises over 4 years, this isnt a time of surplus so why are they being so careless with their money?
No way. If we did that, then the public sector wouldn't be able to compete and get their share of the best employees. What we should do is mandate that every person hired on by the gov. be payed the fair market price for their labor. Is it even possible to make such a mandate, though? And if it is, why the fuck haven't we done it already?
Where did you hear that teachers were recently laid off in New York City? A source, please? We've gone from a moderately stupid video to a severe denunciation, complete with lack of reason and logic, including false information about teacher layoffs, regarding a person that has put the New York Public Library at the forefront of the world's state of the art library facilities. Since you can't really argue that Paul LeClerc's salary is too high, compared to library directors elsewhere of much less importance, you're now suggesting that New York City close all the libraries and let the private citizens pay for them. if they choose to do so. If they refuse, so be it - no more libraries. R.I.P. Ben Franklin. Well at least we know where you stand at the moment. I wish your favorite candidates good luck in the next election. NOT.
It's not really a question of mandating anything, IMO. If something is mandated, that means coercion is being employed. If coercion is being employed, whatever is being done is necessarily immoral. So mandates are not the answer. The issue here, in my view, is that the State is interfering with market processes by misrepresenting market values and thus reallocating resources away from the market. This paves the way for a number of potential negative externalities. On top of this, we also have the problem of immorality in that wealth is being coercively redistributed for the purposes of acquiring these reallocated resources away from the market. This is to mention nothing of the already worsening economic forecast the country is enduring, and the growing pile of debt we've been accumulating.
I see your side. But in explaining your side, you have offered no remedy. In a utopia, society would never mandate anything, sure. But we live in the real world. My solution is like a band-aid to be placed on our current form of government. It is not all that coercive either. The mandate would be for the government. The gov. would be required by law to pay the fair market price to its employees. The only people who would be coerced are those who deserve more than the fair market price for their labor and those who feel that they should be allowed to pay public sector employees more than the fair market price. No one deserves more than the fair market price, and no government should be allowed to pillage the citizens tax dollars by paying some entitled individual more than the fair market price. TBH, I think my solution nips some of those negative externalities you mentioned right in the bud. I dunno, makes sense to me lol, what you think? My idea is not an idealistic one, just a solution to a problem.
Now, let's examine the "fair market" wage question, in this case a comparison to the new head of the Smithsonian, Wayne Clough, who was hired in 2008. He started at $490,000, which is $199,000 less than Paul LeClerc of the NYPL currently earns. Dr. LeClerc, however, has been with the NYPL for sixteen years. Obviously there isn't much disparity between these two salaries for jobs that require similar talents and expertise.