High Five, Governor Scott Walker: Wisconsin Lost The Most Jobs Last Year

A big pat on the back goes out to Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin –¬†his state it posted the most job losses in a year, more losses than any other state in all of America. He happens to be facing a recall in Wisconsin in June, so many of his constituents might take that job-loss into account when casting ballots.

The Christian Science Monitor cites stats from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which say that the cheese state lost 23,900 jobs between March 2011 and March 2012. It’s not even that it was a close race among the other states, either –¬†no other state lost more than 3,500 jobs.

Most of the job losses in Wisconsin were in the public sector, at 17,800. But it also lost the most private-sector jobs at 6,100 than any other state. Only two other states, Mississippi and Rhode Island, reported any private-sector job losses at all.

This might come as a shock, as Walker has been campaigning with a message that jobs are up in Wisconsin, after job gains were up in January and February with 17,000 new jobs. A loss of 4,300 in March brought that positive number down again, however.

“We understand, it’s not the government that creates jobs; it’s the people who create jobs. The best thing we can do is get government out of the way,” Walker told the Illinois Chamber of Commerce in Springfield last week.

Walker’s camp says this all means that the gains early in this year will keep going for the rest of the year, adding that unemployment rates are lower in Wisconsin except in three counties. They say job growth in the early part of the year is because of Walker’s agenda to cut public-sector union benefits and bargaining power.

While jobs are not solely the responsibility of the governor by any means,. Walker originally campaigned on adding 250,000 private-sector jobs to the state in his first term. As the Christian Science Monitor points out, only 5,900 jobs have been added since he took office.

His Democratic opponents see the job loss as job loss and place blame squarely on Walker.

“Every report card that comes in for Gov. Walker shows he’s failing Wisconsin,” candidate Kathleen Falk, a former Dane County executive, said in a statement released Tuesday.

A May 8 Democratic primary will decide whether Falk, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett or four others will compete against Walker in the June 5 recall election.

Editor’s Note: If there was a way for me to strike through the words in the headline and totally rewrite them, I would. Since I can’t, I’ve started with trying to strike through the parts of this post that I now realize are wrong.

It was wrong of me to take any personal bias I have against Walker and let that bleed into any part of this post, or in the larger sense, to let any personal bias I have whatsoever make its way into any post I ever write.

I value our readers, and I let you down by not simply presenting the facts of job loss and having you make your own judgment on those facts. I don’t take your criticisms lightly, and in fact, have the utmost respect for your opinions.

It was never my intent to alienate, offend or even one of you, much less the numbers it seems I have angered. I don’t take this lightly, and will aim to make it up to you and regain your trust in future posts.

I let you all down and myself as well, and so I hope you all will accept my sincere apology and continue to be Consumerist readers. Please feel free to email me directly and I’ll do my best to further apologize.

Mary Beth

Wisconsin posts biggest US job loss, as Gov. Scott Walker fights for his job [Christian Science Monitor]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Blueskylaw says:

    There’s nothing wrong with coming in last place, just don’t let it happen two years in a row.

    Lee Iaccoca

  2. bnceo says:

    Since so many public sector jobs were lost, I say that’s a win right there. The less tax payers have to pay for salaries, the better.

    • madcatcasey says:

      Came in to say the same thing.

    • Andy Dufresne says:


    • WB987 says:

      Do you not think of consumer spending or that maybe those jobs, like teachers or clerks, provide a real service? Do you make so little that a few dollars in tax savings, at any cost, makes you happy? Are you so self-absorbedthat a job or service needs to benefit you in order to justify its existence?

      • bnceo says:

        Considering I am a federal employee and have full first hand knowledge of this. Yes, lots of us can go because government does NOT hire talented people. Coming from Corporate America, I am shocked at the waste that goes on here.

        It’s not the government’s job to give jobs to everyone. They need to be lean, not bloated which they are.

        So don’t try to put a nice positive cute spin on it by mentioning teachers. Not going to get a sympathy vote fro me.

        • WB987 says:

          Most companies don’t hire the best. There are a handful of companies each year that throw down over the top minds. Everyone else fights over the rest and that’s fine. The company I work for would be considered one of those companies and even we don’t have the best people in every single position. It’s not necessary for day to day operations. So, as a person who works for one of your heralded “companies that hire the best,” I’m telling you to stop being an arrogant dick about it.

          As for positions, I wish there were more government jobs because every time I have to deal with an office, the wait is long and they seem bare bones in terms of staff. If a few extra dollars come out of my paycheck (or more come out of my company’s since they profit a bunch of archaic and misappropriated tax regulations) that would be fine by me.

        • dwtomek says:

          Ron Swanson, is that you?

        • jasonq says:

          If you think that corporate America hires competent people as a rule, you need to get out more.

      • Nikephoros says:

        The worst part is that there is no tax savings. When you’re running a deficit and you cut spending, you are shrinking your GDP and since all you’re doing is balancing the budget there is no savings to pass on to taxpayers.

        The only reason to do that would be if you cannot borrow the money to float the deficit, or you cannot borrow at reasonable rates. At the State level that IS a valid concern, but the point still stands that all cutting public sector jobs during a down economy does is bring the economy down further.

    • philpm says:

      You do realize that those government workers also pay taxes and buy things too, don’t you? And when there are fewer of them, less taxes get paid and fewer things get bought.

      • Andy Dufresne says:

        Aaaaand enter strawman.

        • dwtomek says:

          That word, I don’t think it means what you think it means. Or would you care to explain how pointing out some possible negative effects of the scenario was a misrepresentation of his argument that it was a “win right there”?

          • Andy Dufresne says:

            Are you serious? The straw man in that response is that since state employees are also taxpayers, one cannot make an argument about the detrimental effects that public sector collective bargaining has on taxpayers. I know you’ve been chomping at the bit to throw out an Inigo Montoya quote, but that is a plainly obvious straw man.

            • Jackmojo says:

              Uhm…actually you’re the one straw man-ing; you just stated an argument you could refute that no one actually made…He never said no criticism of public workers, he said, that they are also tax payers (no mention of the union issue which you invented from whole cloth).

      • Bsamm09 says:

        Less taxes get paid but less tax money is spent. Not agreeing of disagreeing with the OP but this part of your argument doesn’t hold water.

    • Zelgadis says:

      And now the taxpayers get to pay for their unemployment. Only dumb people think that simply firing public workers is a “win.” If those workers cannot make a lateral move into the private sector, nothing is won and more is lost.

      • bnceo says:

        No. You missed a spot. Firing public employees and helping corporations hire those employees is the win. Less on the payroll, the better. Lots can go. I see it everyday.

        • sagodjur says:

          You missed the part where the corporations didn’t hire everyone who was fired from the public sector, so where is the win? Also, why corporations? Why not small businesses?

        • who? says:

          I think you missed the part where your precious corporations also dropped 6,100 jobs, more than in any other state. Probably because the 17,800 people that got fired from government jobs weren’t spending any money, but I suppose for you that’s a net win somehow.

    • c_c says:

      Both my parents are life-long, hard working public sector employees. They pay plenty of taxes, and make very modest salaries, especially considering the amount of effort and time they put into their jobs. They’re not leeches on the system. And every few years they have to get nervous because some stupid ballot initiative comes around that would gut their respective departments in order to pay for a weak tax cut.

      So seriously, screw you and everyone else celebrating public-sector layoffs. And as the article states, Wisconsin also had the highest rate of private-sector job losses, so it’s not like those public jobs were being replaced by cush private ones.

      • bnceo says:

        Coming from New Jersey, I say screw all the politicians who have no problem giving cushy jobs to friends and bloating up the system. Yes, there are plenty of good employees in the public sector. But a lot are redundant, bloated, protected by union control (who are also cushy with politicians).

        • mob3000 says:

          So, because New Jersey is out of control with public worker unions, you feel like you are the all-knowing decider for WI. I got news for you, very little of the United States operates the way NJ does. That would be why there are shows about people from NJ, because nobody else thinks like that

      • bnceo says:

        Also, you calling your parents hard working is a little bias. Because I doubt that if they weren’t hard working that you would call them out on it.

    • PolarDan says:

      Are you trolling? Those public sector workers contribute as much to the economy as private sector workers with their purchasing power. They buy things, pay their bills, go out to eat, just as much as any private sector worker. If you fire a whole bunch of government employees, its impossible not to do damage to the economy as those people no longer have the purchasing power that they had before, so they don’t spend money at all the private sector businesses that they did before, and therefore threaten those private sector jobs as well. Even if your ideology dictates that you try to reduce the size of government, the time to do it is not during an economic downturn, when jobs are hard to come by. The way to reduce the size of government is through attrition, and only during an economic boom time when private sector employers are fighting over new hires.

      • bnceo says:

        You call giving a different opinion than yours trolling?

        • who? says:

          To call *all* government salaries waste? Yes, I’ll call a troll a troll.

          Even the founding fathers eventually figured out that we needed a government to do certain things.

      • TuxthePenguin says:

        You’re right, but their pay is at worst a complete deadweight loss to the economy as a whole (as they are overhead) and at best probably break even (if they are at a essentially a company just owned by the government, see Frannie/Freddie). The point is that their salaries are taken from others via taxes – so the money they get would have been in the hands of others.

        I’ve argued that most of the “client-facing” public sector is a net zero on economic drag. You simply have to have people to run the lines at the DMV, you need police, fire, etc. But some of the back office stuff… I was an auditor back in the day. I’ve seen deadweight at both private and public. Only difference is that you don’t necessarily pay for the private (don’t buy their products) but you do for public.

        • sagodjur says:

          The same can be said of corporate salaries.

          Their salaries are taken from others via high profit margins – so the money they get would have been in the hands of others.

          • TuxthePenguin says:

            Except that corporate profits are driven from voluntary exchanges, not the force of law. Or at least were, if the individual mandate holds.

            • sagodjur says:

              Theoretically, but since we don’t have a truly free market, that isn’t necessarily true. With price-fixing, price-gouging, collusion, monopolies, and government subsidies for private corporations, that just isn’t true.

              I can “voluntarily” give my money to one of a few large corporations for necessary supplies or else spend my entire day growing my own food on land that I’ll have to buy with money I’ll have to earn either from tax payer-funded government jobs, a small business if I’m savvy enough, or working for a corporation. The choice you refer to is as much an illusion as the choice of voting for political candidates.

              • RvLeshrac says:

                Not only that, but you can’t determine who you’re giving your money to now unless you carry an org chart with you. Don’t want to buy from Company X? Well, you can buy from Company Y, but they’re a wholly-owned subsidiary of Company X. You could buy from Company Z, but Company X takes a 40% cut out of everything sold by Company Z.

            • Kavatar says:

              You voluntarily choose to live here.

            • JJFIII says:

              Voluntary exchanges? What planet do you live on? We all pay salaries of many employees at General Dynamics and Haliburton. Both private companies that feed of the tax payers dollars.

        • kathygnome says:

          It’s only a deadweight loss if you think the government serves no purpose. Infrastructure, security, and education are vital to the common wealth.

          • StarKillerX says:

            And if government offices are unable to do more with less, as private industry has been learning to do for years, then we’ve definately got the wrong people supervising that workforce.

        • Tacojelly says:

          If it’s a complete deadweight lose “at worst,” then why was there a 43 million dollar hole in Wisconsin’s budget? Scott Walker has cut every social program and government assistance he can, all while maintaining if not increasing tax cuts for corporations, and it has been disastrous.

          I understand conservative, tea party, and/or republican philosophy on restoring the economy; though I disagree completely with it; but nobody on the right has addressed why this state is failing so horribly when they’ve gotten their way on practically every issue.

        • JJFIII says:

          Really. So deadweight at General Dynamics does not hurt tax payers? You do realize those are “private sector” jobs at General Dynamic? That deadweight leads to costlier spending for the military industrial complex. Can I choose where to shop for our planes, missles and defense systems? Last I checked I couldnt.
          Your argument is just plain silly, as are most right wing talking points. If a dollar is spent in the economy IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE DOLLAR CAME. A state employee buys a home, if fewer can afford homes, demand goes down with a steady supply. That leads to lower housing values.If fewer can afford cars, auto workers are laid off. If fewer can go to the movies, teenagers who work at the theaters have no jobs.

    • miguelggarcia says:


    • FilthyHarry says:

      You do understand that the people who lost their jobs are also taxpayers and fellow citizens of the people of Wisconsin?

    • MMD says:

      “But it also lost the most private-sector jobs at 6,100 than any other state.”

      Have an explanation for that one?

    • buddhalite says:

      +1 – finally some common sense on this website.

    • a354174 says:

      I’m glad that their are people on consumerist that understand how the economy works.

    • soj4life says:

      Let me be #22 to respond to this troll. The taxpayers are still going to be paying for some of those salaries without anything in return. There are those that were forced into early retirement. Others are on unemployment, which is only worse when the state is also losing private sector jobs. Along with that, the citizens are going to receive less services if there are less public sector employees, the same for when businesses have massive job cuts.

    • bravohotel01 says:

      Why worry about the parsley when you could go after the steak and lobster?

      54% of all federal tax dollars go towards DoD. Cut that puppy by 90% and you’ll have enough to still “man the walls” domestically (sorry, those 900+ foreign bases gotta go), and suddenly every state gets a cash bonus of $34 million dollars.

  3. Quirk Sugarplum says:

    “What people don’t understand is that jobs are like brush. You have to clear out the old jobs to allow the new jobs to grow and thrive. But in time those new jobs will bear fruit. And that fruit is the fruit of personal freedom and responsibility. And jobs. It’s good fruit.” – S. Walker, 2012

  4. StB says:

    So now the Consumerist has people crowing about politics? Funny how she doesn’t mention that the majority of these jobs were lost in Milwaukee, where a certain mayor wants to be governor. Milwaukee hasn’t gained any jobs under Tom Barrett. How stupid would it be to make him governor after an article like this?

    • TacoDave says:

      Exactly. If the Consumerist is going to turn into a one-sided political rant, I’ll stop visiting.

      Shame on you, Mary Beth. I understand that some bias is inevitable, but your text is so obviously one-sided (on the wrong side, in my opinion), it’s almost stupid.

    • StarKillerX says:

      What are you doing posting facts in here, and even worse they are facts which don’t promote a leftist agenda?

      Post flagged for review!


  5. Andy Dufresne says:

    I’m sorry, is this The Consumerist or the Huffington Post? I don’t really care about your views on public sector unions collectively bargaining against the taxpayer, so keep your political views to yourself, Quirk.

    • madcatcasey says:

      + 10

    • sagodjur says:

      You do realize that consumer rights advocacy is inherently left of the middle on the political spectrum? If you don’t want leftist political opinions, go watch Fox News and let us enjoy our freedom of speech here.

      • TuxthePenguin says:

        And yet this has zero to do with anything close to consumer rights. This is just Quirk throwing out something she liked that bashes and praises groups she bashes and praises.

        Funny, but I didn’t see the post showing unemployment claims are near 390k for the last three months… again, not aligning with her bash/praise groups.

        • wade says:

          +390k (one for every unemployment claim not properly sensationalized on a consumer blog)

        • StarKillerX says:

          Get with the program, unemployment and jobs are only a consumer issue if it allows the site to bash a republican.

          It’s sort of how during when Clinton was running for office any jobs created under Bush were called “burger flipping jobs” by the press, but suddenly once they got Clinton elected and he was sworn in the phrase “burger flipping jobs” was never heard again.

      • LabanDenter says:

        mary isn’t just a little left of the middle.

      • wade says:

        . . .hmm. . .pompus liberal douchenozzle. . .pompus liberal douchenozzle. . .there it is!

        Time to cross that spot off on my Consumerist bingo card.

        But, just for shits and grins, would you care to enlighten me on how this is addressing a consumer issue and not simply a “gotcha” piece that show MB has just a little more sand down there?

        • Jules Noctambule says:

          And you add misogyny to the mix! Aren’t you just adorable?

        • sagodjur says:

          Oh come on. Surely I’m too far left to be called a liberal douchenozzle. Why not socialist douchenozzle? Or communist? I bet I’m a terrorist too. God forbid you be a human being and care about other people because then you’ll get called names by corporatist douchenozzles.

          • wade says:

            Well, really, as long as we are in agreement that you’re a douchnozzle, I don’t really care whether you choose to identify yourself as a terrorist or a socialist. After all, it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, right?

      • Cosmo_Kramer says:

        He’s not complaining about the liberal slant, he’s complaining that this article is purely political and has nothing to do with consumer issues.

        • sagodjur says:

          If you think jobs aren’t an issue to consumers, you don’t understand how the economy works.

          • Cosmo_Kramer says:

            I understand how the economy works as well as anyone here. This isn’t a consumer issue. It is an issue that affects some consumers, but it is no more appropriate for this blog than an article about the war in Afghanistan (tens of thousands of consumers taken out of the country).

      • Andy Dufresne says:

        About Us: The Consumerist empowers consumers by informing and entertaining them about the top consumer issues of the day. We are a leading online resource for consumer-driven advice about dealing with everything from non-existent customer service to onerous cell-phone contracts to ever-shrinking (and ever-more-expensive) grocery products.

      • palace_gypsy says:

        Freedom of speech only applies to you, apparently.

        • sagodjur says:

          No, I’m just exercising my freedom of speech to invite you to exercise your freedom of speech elsewhere. You are under no obligation to do so. I’m just expressing my lack of understanding why anyone would go to a website that contradicts their values unless they are A) trying to learn about dissenting views to their own or B) are trying to troll and grief people with whom they disagree.

        • Kuri says:

          I love how people like yourself always, ALWAYS jump right to that.

    • alstein says:

      Quite honestly- the two political parties in this country do differ heavily on consumer and employee rights.

      It’s the main reason I vote the way I do, and why I would never vote for someone as horrible as Scott Walker, the governor from Koch Industries.

    • Remarkable Melba Kramer says:

      Hey Andy, I totally agree with you. If I wanted to read this kind of bashing amongst friends I would have headed over to Huff Po.

      I BLAME THE OP!!

    • consumerfan says:

      How dare you have opinions on anything and post them on the internet!

  6. cecilsaxon says:

    A little bias perhaps in your tone. A bit snarky- but hey its your website. Quit hatin’.

    • JennQPublic says:

      Exactly. She’s a blogger, not a journalist. I don’t see why she shouldn’t be permitted a bit of bias now and then.

      I really don’t understand what people expect from this site. It ain’t the BBC, it’s a blog. Back when the comments added more to the conversation than “Wh s ths n Cnsmrst?”, it was a great one.

      • ganon446 says:

        You got to understand this was a part of Gawker. A leftist blog group who complains everyone else isn’t fair except people from their own political spectrum. Also bloggers are a funny bunch they want to be treated like journalists and have their rights and invites to events but this also changed when they are expected to have the same ethics.

  7. HowardRoarksTSquare says:

    I miss Phil,

    He would have had a nice random list copied from website instead of some left-wing opinionated person clamoring about public sector unions

    • regis-s says:

      I was just thinking about Phil. People bitched and complained about him and now he’s gone. For whatever reason.

      Looks like they’ve found someone else to go after.

  8. Andy Dufresne says:

    “… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …

    “Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”

    -FDR, 1937

    • captadam says:

      Your point, exactly? Yeah, Walker killed collective bargaining among public employees. He’s also killed a ton of jobs and, more importantly, chances of economic recovery in his state.

      • Kuri says:

        Well, he hasn’t exactly killed it, but he has made it incredibly hard for whoever gets elected in his place.

        Yet he’ll be set for the rest of his life.

  9. Retired Again says:

    DISAPPOINTED in CONSUMERIST …. No more donations to them. This is a POLITICAL HATCHET
    article and have never seen CONSUMERIST do this — either side.
    Will be deleting Consumerist if an apology is not posted.

    • sagodjur says:

      I’m really hoping that all the offended people who leave because of this article are the ones who self-righteously blame the OP everytime and brag about how they’re so financially responsible and would never be stupid enough to end up poor or unemployed. Good riddance.

      • StarKillerX says:

        Really, I mean how dare people not agree with you, and even not blaming companies, even if for no reason other then someone got their panties in a bunch!

        Seriously though, if you can’t deal with dissenting opinions then you need to re-evaluate your beliefs.

        • sagodjur says:

          Oh I enjoy hearing from people I disagree with. I’m just continually confused why the comments section of a website about consumer rights advocacy is infested with anti-consumer commenters who speak from self-righteous and privileged positions.

          • sagodjur says:

            It’s like going to a brewfest and asking another attendee if they prefer a porter or a stout and they respond that they’re actually a member of the temperance league. And then they start yelling at you for liking beer.

        • RvLeshrac says:

          You’re entitled to an opinion.

          You’re also entitled to being called batshit-fucking-insane when the base facts of the matter prove you wrong, yet you STILL hold onto the same moronic opinion. What’s worse is when you don’t even have a rebuttal, you just talk shit about the article.

          The article has provided facts. You want to espouse an opposing point of view, bring your own fucking facts to the table or shut up and get the hell out.

    • captadam says:

      That darned biased reality.

    • crispyduck13 says:

      Well I demand an apology for your wanton caps lock key use.

    • clippy2.0 says:

      You’re going to delete consumerist? But then how will I read it?

      • Blueskylaw says:

        I just bought a 750G external hard drive and downloaded a copy of
        Consumerist. If he ever deletes it, just shoot me an email and i’ll forward you a copy.

    • LJKelley says:

      How is stating facts political? And yes Job losses are a consumerist issue. You can’t consume (or consume well) if you don’t have a job.

      The fact is Wisconsin lost the most jobs in the period reported. How you interpret that is up to you.

      Course I have always said that reality has a leftist slant.

  10. crispyduck13 says:

    I agree with all the others who are asking why this article is on a consumer blog, but I do want to point this out while we’re here:

    “They say job growth in the early part of the year is because of Walker’s agenda to cut public-sector union benefits and bargaining power.”

    Can someone please explain to me how his agenda directly caused job growth? When I read that sentence, it sounds the same as someone telling me that the sky turned green because I bought steak for dinner.

  11. miguelggarcia says:

    And this has to do with Consumerist because…?

    • MMD says:

      Because people need jobs that pay wages in order to consume things?

      • miguelggarcia says:

        This is a purely political post. Just deleted consumerist from my favorites.

      • miguelggarcia says:

        I come to this site to learn about recalls, grocery shrink rays and similar stuff, not politics. If I want politics there’s HuffPo, Breitbart and thousands of other sites across the political spectrum.

  12. LabanDenter says:

    consumerist taken over by the DailyKos?

    Furthermore, most of those jobs lost were lost in the city of Milwaukee, which is ran by a democrat who’s been in power for years now.

  13. GMFish says:

    A rightwinger sees no problem with this. Leftwing nuts see this in human terms. Real families are in hardship because they lost jobs. Rightwing nuts see a healthier business sector because deadwood was cut to make the whole tree healthier.

    And furthermore, the rightwing is not about job creation. So this is not bad news at all. As Scott Walker said, the purpose of government is not to facilitate the creation of jobs. It’s to create a system wherein businesses are free to maximize profits.

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      By your logic, then, should we not have the government give everyone a guarantee of a “living wage”? I mean, they could open the coffers and make sure there are no hardships, right?

      The sad thing about the entire left-right debate is that it misses the bigger point – government/public sector rarely create wealth. And its that creation of wealth that drives prosperity – both financial and non-financial. We need a public sector for many things – the classic is national defense, but you also need people to man the DMV, police, fire, etc. But do the workers at the DMV need to be unionized? Do we need dozens of people calculating payroll at the Detroit PD when it could be done cheaper by an outsourced provider? Yes, there is a human cost. But by that logic, should we do away with all automation?

      • GMFish says:

        “By your logic…”

        I didn’t provide any logic other than merely explaining the left’s and right’s point of view. My own point of view was never given.

      • wade says:

        Geez, quit with the logic already. Start seeing things in human terms!!!

      • RvLeshrac says:

        The government seemed to create a shitton of wealth back when the top marginal tax rate was around 90%. Then the tax rate was lowered dramatically, and the economy ground to a complete halt.

  14. Retired Again says:

    SiteMeter – Google – AddThis – Real Media – ChartBeat ,- One Social Networks and One AD company are tracking YOU.
    Gee Thanks CONSUMERIST – 7 “TRACKERS” you put on me and slow my computer! Most companies are just 1 or 2 — BUT CONSUMERIST — SEVEN!

    • captadam says:

      Yet you keep coming back.

      • Retired Again says:

        No not just keep coming back — just found the TRACKERS yesterday. I may come back but never will DONATE again and will convince friends not to.

    • drjayphd says:

      And let’s not get into the crate of Tracker Jackers they had shipped to your doorstep.

  15. TuxthePenguin says:

    I’d like to ask a truly serious question. In the last year the state of Wisconsin has lost nearly 18k public employees. Are there any reduction in services of note? Or agencies no longer functioning? Because it seems to me that if everything is trucking along just fine, Wisconsin had 18k more public employees than it needed. Just sayin’.

    • crispyduck13 says:

      Or else there’s 18,000 current employees now doing twice the work for the same pay, which is where most people find themselves these days.

    • Alliance to Restore the Republic of the United States of America says:

      Yeah, now you have the employees left working twice the hours for pay that’s worth less and less and health care that costs more and more. Public services still run, but there’s more wait time, more mistakes, more stand-off bureaucracy and less efficiency.

      And there’s 18k more people on unemployment.

      Yeah big win, dude.

      • wade says:

      • wade says:

        I’m sure for these claims about more wait times and mistakes (both quantifiable benchmarks), you can provide some reputable citation to back up the assertion, right? And for the qualitative measures (more stand-off bureaucracy and less efficiency), again, you can provide some citation, right?

      • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

        Data please or STFU and GTFO.

        • WB987 says:

          it’s always hilarious to me when people demand data and can’t produce their own

          • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

            It’s always hilarious to me when someone obfuscates and changes the subject when they don’t have any data to prove their claim.

    • Worstdaysinceyesterday says:

      I am kind of a Ron Swanson, but I have seen no reduction in services, increase in wait times, etc.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Exactly! Private industry has been coming up with ways to do more with less as long as they’ve existed, government employees/agencies have been exempt from this and in fact have consistantly been doing less and less with more and more.

      For example, where I live in Western NY, various levels of government and/or government agencies are 8 of the top 10 employers in the county. The county itself is the #1 employer and government workers hold second, third and forth spots as well. On top of this the average wage paid by the county is roughly double the average private wage in the county, and of course the government workers benifts are such much better that there is no comparison.

      • Kuri says:

        Yet are there enough private sector jobs for the people who are not unemployed?

        Doing more with less tends to mean more people being left unemployed.

    • LD says:

      “Are there any reduction in services of note?” As someone living in Wisconsin, I can say with all honesty, no there hasn’t been any reduction of note in services provided.

  16. kataisa says:

    MBQ needs to stop blogging for The Consumerist.

  17. redd77 says:

    This one does seem to be a slight tinge of liberal politics. Is Consumerist part of AOL now perhaps? Hey, at least he isn’t going to prison like Rod Blagojevich or George Ryan.

  18. Worstdaysinceyesterday says:

    What is the photo of…I’m from WI and have no idea what that is supposed to be??

    • sagodjur says:

      If you click the attribution link you’ll see:

      “The long row of cows

      Public art behind Kopp’s frozen custard stand in Glendale, WI”

      • Worstdaysinceyesterday says:

        Ah do’nt go there, I live two blocks away from the one in Greenfield. And they look like cattle, not dairy cows.

  19. rushevents says:

    Let’s see… what to do today.

    Start up computer… check.
    Conduct daily research for blogging job… check.
    Carry water for only one side of the political spectrum… Check.
    Hmmm. I love my job.

  20. ChacoKevy says:

    I don’t have feelings about what a blog should or shouldn’t post, but I strongly feel that this topic is WAY outside the wheelhouse of Consumerist and its commentariat. It’s almost as bad as when Consumerist posts something about the Fed or inflation.

    If someone were so inclined, I’d direct you to the blogging of Menzie Chinn. He has been all over this for a while now.

    • sagodjur says:

      Wait, you’re saying inflation isn’t a consumer issue? If that isn’t, what is?

      • ChacoKevy says:

        Nope, I’m saying Consumerist nor its commenters know enough about it to have worthwhile discussion.

  21. Pigfish99 the randomly insane says:

    Wisconsin has been a giant wreck for the past few months. This is actually quite relavent to the consumerist, due to the fact that this is cold hard proof they F***ed up.

    yes, I have friends there. the collective bargining fiasco thing was just part of this whole mess.

  22. bricko says:

    Any loss of public job is a plus.

  23. Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

    Yeah, Walker is doing such a bad job that he’s up 4 to 12 points against every Democrat challenger. The unions are going to take it in the ass over this recall election and they are now in full panic mode. Chew on that a while, Mary Beth Quirk.


  24. DragonThermo says:

    I’m still voting for Scott Walker.

    While there are many factors affecting job creation that he has no control over; e.g., ObamaCare, Obama’s Marxist bungling of the economy and uncontrolled government spending; Scott Walker does have the right idea. Now if we only had someone in the White House and in Congress who had the same right idea.

    Despite what Obama thinks, despite all the evidence to the contrary, government spending does not make America great. The business of government is to facilitate private sector jobs. While I applaud Gov. Walker for putting Wisconsin on the road to recovery, but while Wisconsin is still affected by the economic bungling from Washington D.C., we are going to need a “regime change” in Washington D.C. to permit Gov. Walker’s plan to come to fruition.

    • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

      Bravo! GO SCOTT!!

    • sagodjur says:

      Actual Marxists laugh every time someone calls Obama a Marxist or a socialist. Have you studied politics at all? Obama and his opponents on the right are all in the pockets of the wealthy regardless of their stated ideals and campaign promises. It’s virtually impossible to get to high office without being in someone’s pocket. When the entertainment industry threatens to pull campaign contributions to Obama when he doesn’t encourage their legislation, you have a hard time arguing that he’s a socialist or a Marxist.

      Good luck with job creation if Romney gets elected. His experience with jobs is gutting perfectly functioning companies for fun and profit.

    • Kuri says:

      I tend to find that only people who don’t know what the hell a Marxist actually is tend ot call Obama a Marxist.

  25. heisindc says:

    Besides Walker’s policies (less than a year old) saving Wisconsin over a billion dollars, and President Obama still blaming job loss on Bush (3.5 years ago)…

    Look to Ohio to see what could have been. 500 teachers laid off in Cleveland because they rescinded Senate Bill 5, a semi-copy of Walker’s plan, requiring public employees to pay a bit more in benefits (15%).

    From GOHP Blog “Under their last contract, Cleveland teachers paid only $30/month for a family health plan‚Äìjust $360 per year‚Äìwhile the average Ohio family pays $4,129 per year for health coverage. The reforms of Senate Bill 5 would have increased teacher contributions to just 15%, half of what the average Ohio family pays. In a district with 5,600 teachers, those savings add up.”

    National Unions spent $42 million to stop SB.5. Unions paid to have teachers fired rather than offer any form of submission that could be spread to other states.

  26. AEN says:

    I suspect Walker would claim that the state would have lost EVEN MORE jobs if it wern’t for his leadership.

  27. sirnic00 says:

    No bias, no bull goes right out the window eh Mary Beth? Since he may not get to finish his first term we may never know if he would have added to those job numbers. Once again the unions win and the taxpayer loses.

    • Kuri says:

      Why the hell do unions get so much blame for just about every employment problem in this country?

  28. JDnCT says:

    Where is the consumer issue here? A state eliminated a large number of public sector jobs? Wow, congrats Wisconsin, hopefully you can have a balanced/reduced budget without a huge increase in personal and property taxes like in my state.

    • Kuri says:

      And then the budget problems aren’t fixed and the only number that’s up is their unemployment number.

  29. AgostoBehemoth says:

    this helps me be a smart consumer how? by not moving to Wisconsin? this a political blog now?

    I like the story on prices at the ballpark, stories on what home item is the best bang for the buck.

    I used to visit your site several times a day. I rarely visit anymore, and when I do, this type of story makes me wonder why I bothered.

  30. Retired Again says:

    MARY BETH — Your strike-throughs just EMPHASIZE badly. YOU are not a professional and do not understand what is happening in Wisconsin.
    WHY DONATE to CONSUMERIST ….. No better than other BIAS Blogs.

    • sagodjur says:

      Or, you know, you’re not required to read or respond to the articles here. I can do a google search for you if you want to find something else to read instead of spilling your vitriol all over the comments section.

    • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

      She can’t help herself. Liberals never admit an error. NEVER.

      • JJFIII says:

        Why admit something that is not an error. The failure of Scott Walker is obvious. When your state had the WORST record in the entire country, the leader of that state MUST take responsibility. If he were a CEO, he would be fired for poor performance and pissing off his CUSTOMERS (the citizens of Wisconsin are his customers). I always find it ironic that the right wing says government should be run like a business, yet do not care if they piss off a vast majority of their customer base. Only the CEO of a state would call his employees lazy or unneeded.

        • sagodjur says:

          Actually, according to the screwed up way that corporate logic works, a CEO who fired so many employees would be getting a golden parachute upon his retirement greater than the net profit for an entire year.

  31. Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

    Oh yeah, that reminds me – I need to donate some more money to Walker’s campaign. I think I‚Äôll use the money I was going to donate to Consumerist. Thanks Mary Beth!!

    • sagodjur says:

      That might seem meaningful if you seemed at all inclined to donate to the Consumerist in the first place. A quick look at your comment history seems to render the pattern that you just come here to troll. I’m not seeing any pro-consumer comments.

      • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

        I don’t see any either – from the staff – and that is the problem. Reading this screed makes me wax nostalgic for Phil Vil.

        BTW, how much have you donated? Be honest.

        • sagodjur says:

          I donate to other causes, but this isn’t about donating at all. It’s about disingenuousness and anti-consumer comments on a pro-consumer website. Without politeness, such comments are just trollish. It’s fine to disagree, but to be rude is something else.

          • Maltboy wanders aimlessly through the Uncanny Valley says:

            I have been a subscriber to Consumer Reports (the owner of Consumerist) for 32 years. I also regularly contribute to them via their raffles. I have also subscribed to CR online for a few years. I can assure you that my threats to spend my money elsewhere are quite sincere. As a matter of fact, I am going to let my CR subscriptions expire and I will not be donating any more of my cash to an organization that panders to public service unions through their partners.

            As far as anti-consumer comments go, I think that public service unions have contributed greatly to the decline in teacher quality, public graft and corruption (i.e. insurance mandates), and burgeoning deficits driven by unfunded pension liabilities. That’s about as anti-consumer as it gets. So why are they being published on this site?

            And remember that when someone has an opinion that differs from yours, it doesn’t make them a troll. My comments may be a little rude (some might even describe it as refreshingly frank and honest), but I resent it greatly when clueless shills like Mary Beth Quirk try to pass off leftist political rhetoric as friendly advice. In other words, don’t pass me a shovel full of horseshit and tell me it’s apple butter. I just might call you out on it.

  32. ganon446 says:

    So if this is going to be a leftist blog now can you change just it from the consumerist to theleftistconsumerist

  33. soj4life says:

    Wait, the consumerist had to alter an article that was critical of a governor?