 |
|
|
|
| |
Analysis of the University of Michigan Salary Database Growth Rates For 5 Years
 Zarko Research has taken the data obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provided in Excel File Listing format by University of Michgian for the last five years and sorted and analyzed it to provide meaningful detail. All of this data as presented below is a creation of Zarko Research through standard statistical (no regressions, just raw comparisons) manipulations. The raw table is provided below to prove the data and provide the ability to replicate these results. The "Top 554" employees raking in $185,000 plus.
2001-2002 FY (WARNING - 6MB each) | 2002-2003 FY (WARNING - 6MB each)
2003-2004 FY (WARNING - 6MB each) | 2004-2005 FY (WARNING - 6MB each)
2005-2006 FY (WARNING - 6MB each) | 2006-2007 FY (WARNING - 6MB each)
Note that in 2005, Zarko Research did a similar analysis debunking claims by former U-M president James Duderstadt that the legislature has underfunded higher education. Those claims were particularly egregious misuses of statistics.
Zarko Research is proud to provide you with this statistical analysis of salary data from the University of Michigan. Links to the Top 1000 paid employees will be provided shortly, as will cross links to the two years of analysis for Michigan State University, already performed.
The story is clearly one of bureaucratic growth and high-level administration greed while at the same time asking the citizens of the state for more money.
Steady growth like a clock (shaded area). Note that the "blip" (shaded darker green two tables below) in Year 2 that we see in other categories doesn't occur here.Year 2 everyone at the top took a massive pay increase (with some "trickle down"), and an accounting shift from thegeneral fund was made.This makes sense given the relative strength of the 2000 economy and knowledge of the coming recession.
Note that these growth rates in raw employee numbers must be paid for in lower salary "growth".
| #at$100K |
Raw^ |
YTY |
Sal of #1000 |
^ |
^% |
TopK-Total-Sal |
^ |
^% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2380 |
0 |
0.00% |
$133,495.00 |
$0.00 |
0.00% |
$165,077,388.61 |
$0.00 |
0.00% |
| 2663 |
283 |
11.89% |
$140,000.00 |
$6,505.00 |
4.87% |
$173,605,940.66 |
$8,528,552.05 |
5.17% |
| 2865 |
202 |
7.59% |
$144,357.00 |
$4,357.00 |
3.11% |
$178,668,298.29 |
$5,062,357.63 |
2.92% |
| 3176 |
311 |
10.86% |
$150,033.00 |
$5,676.00 |
3.93% |
$184,692,416.14 |
$6,024,117.85 |
3.37% |
| 3500 |
324 |
10.20% |
$158,015.00 |
$7,982.00 |
5.32% |
$192,033,372.48 |
$7,340,956.34 |
3.97% |
| 3831 |
331 |
9.46% |
$165,000.00 |
$6,985.00 |
4.42% |
$198,563,692.12 |
$6,530,319.64 |
3.40% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOP DOG - PIG GROWTH |
This is where the story is told. (Shaded)
Mammoth growth in number of employees making more than $100,000 annually. #at is number of employees making 100K. "Sal of" is the salary of the 1000th employee. "TopK" is the total combined spent on the top 1000 employees (hundreds of millions). |
| Total Salary GF Paid |
^ |
^% |
Extrapolated Salary |
^ |
^% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 421,502,943.35 |
0.00 |
0.00% |
$1,562,517,381.54 |
$0.00 |
0.00% |
| 513,635,127.60 |
92,132,184.25 |
21.86% |
$1,679,688,372.02 |
$117,170,990.48 |
7.50% |
| 522,035,438.29 |
8,400,310.69 |
1.64% |
$1,773,315,889.45 |
$93,627,517.43 |
5.57% |
| 531,910,692.43 |
9,875,254.14 |
1.89% |
$1,871,320,494.79 |
$98,004,605.34 |
5.53% |
| 556,221,949.88 |
24,311,257.45 |
4.57% |
$1,987,836,269.55 |
$116,515,774.76 |
6.23% |
| 582,257,950.63 |
26,036,000.75 |
4.68% |
$2,118,264,739.11 |
$130,428,469.56 |
6.56% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
OVERALL SALARY GROWTH |
| General Fund (GF) paid out is only a bottom line number since some parts of some individuals' salaries come from earmarks like the medical school budget or federal research grants. On the other hand, the extrapolated salaries isn't precise (but it is consistent from year to year in its methodology, so the change rates are reasonable) because as many as 10% of professors may begin a sabbatical mid-year, and the average employee "FTE" ratio is 82%, meaning their annualized salary is only paid on a part-time basis (ergo, at least 18% of the extrapolated isn't actually paid out) |
AVERAGE WORKERS GET FAR LESS RAISE (IF ANY) |
Average Salary |
Ave. Salary Increase |
Ave. Salary Increase Percentage |
|
|
|
| $47,049.60 |
0.00 |
0.00% |
| $48,825.31 |
1,775.71 |
3.77% |
| $50,072.45 |
1,247.14 |
2.55% |
| $51,604.13 |
1,531.68 |
3.06% |
| $53,386.23 |
1,782.10 |
3.45% |
| $55,158.83 |
1,772.61 |
3.32% |
|
|
|
| The "Average" person is getting far less than the total increase % even in a % relative basis, let alone to the nearly 6% the top dogs give themselves. And the "Average" person includes the increases from the top dogs, so the real pay increases a person at 50K is seeing is much lower than 3% (which is an upper limit measure), if they receive any pay increase. This measure only measures the increase in the average, not any individual. |
|
|
|
|
~ 
~ 
~ 
