Though most government workers enjoy a good life - in the last decade salaries rose to 'compete with the private sector' and they were the only group that has not suffered unemployment under the lingering recession - they are not immune from criticism. Recently there have been calls to reduce benefits for teachers and a group of academics are proactively defending them.

The authors of a new paper were given access to public school pay scales, insurance premiums, and cost sharing arrangements for all school districts in Illinois for nearly 20 years - something the state will not give private sector analysis firms - and they found that in that time teachers' take-home pay fell by about $17 dollars for each $100 increase in the cost of individual insurance and by about $46 for each $100 increase in the cost to cover family members.

"Rising health insurance costs don't translate into dollar-for-dollar increases in the costs of public education" or in taxes, says Darren Lubotsky, UIC associate professor of economics.  For everyone not a government union employee, this was well-known. Instead, private sector taxpayers are alarmed it does not save more because it means taxpayers are still overpaying far too much.

And private sector workers are unsurprised to find that teachers in districts with older workforces tend to pay a larger share of their insurance costs, since all older people outside government payrolls do.

Many speculate that rising costs for employer-provided insurance will raise costs for districts, or lead them to cease offering coverage. But Lubotsky said the results of this study "suggest those fears may be exaggerated, since a fraction of these costs are passed on to teachers."