Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

[TheWebHead]

Source: USA Today

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

---

The unions will argue education levels are a factor but make no mistake, in this environment, this data is not helpful for those advocating for taxes increases and against federal budget cutting.

[robcon]

1. Across the board cuts, IMO.

In a time of economic distress and deficits, there should be sharing - especially those for whom that last decade has been a blessing.

[w4rma]

15. No. Raise incomes for the private sector and soak the rich to do it. (nt)

[Mark D.]

63. Damned Right

I remember speaking to someone who worked at a Best Buy near a Ford plant. She hated unions. Why? There were people there, according to her, 'sweeping floors for twice what I make'. She's mad, at people doing labor, making more than her. The Royal Scam is complete when the victims support the cause. Not ONE iota of anger at the real culprits. Non-union Best Buy. Upper management and owners who don't think she deserves more than minimum wage (and would lower her pay if it was lower).

Ask how she feels about the VP's for that company getting over a million, and the CEO getting millions in pay yearly, I didn't, but if she was GOP, I'd bet she'd say: "What, you don't like capitalism". Amazing. We cannot solve the biggest single problem in America since Reagan got elected, the one trillion a year shifting from the bottom 99% to the top 1%, until we stop getting mad at each other (fellow victims of this) and unite to stand up to the elite, and their enablers.

[CreekDog]

18. .

.

[elleng]

23. Agreed.

AND federal pay is largely location-based, and DC area demands higher pay then most 'elsewheres.'

Also, part of these numbers are undoubtedly related to value of Federal Employees Health Benefits.

[No Elephants]

42. Health benefits are reflected in the private sector numbers, too. So are location differences.

[elleng]

93. There's something wrong with these numbers, imo.

'average pay and benefits of $123,049'

I'm a retired fed, and my husb is a fed; he's at the upper end, so I know something about fed numbers.

AHA!

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

Feds changed pension scheme 20? years ago, so now feds MATCH 'ee contributions; that's prolly where the big # comes from.

[Joe Bacon]

124. Those numbers are bull$%&t!

I wish my average pay was HALF of what the liars at USA Today allege. I have 32 years in with Social Security and I come nowhere near half that!

[NutmegYankee]

123. You're comparing college educated professionals to an average including Walmart workers

And so on.

It called Bullshit, and the CATO Institute shovels it all day long...

[CreekDog]

33. okay, how much should we cut air traffic controllers' pay?

and how much should we cut pay of doctors at the VA?

smart guy. :eyes:

[sasquuatch55]

39. Why not compair discrepecies in soldiers pay and benefits with private contractors also?

nt

[No Elephants]

45. No reason federal employees should make twice what their counterparts in the private sector make.

Air traffic controllers may not have a private counterpart, but doctors do. So do the many clerks and secretaries who work for the federal government.

I don't care if they even things out by raising the private sector or by lowering the public sector or by splitting the difference. I'm just saying you cannot justify asking taxpayers to foot double the bill profit making employers foot, especially when taxpayers have no say over who gets hired or fired, who works overtime, etc.

[alarimer]

75. There is no fucking way that VA doctors make more than private sector doctors.

No earthly way that could be true, especially since mos doctors I know of (not a scientific study I know) have invested in all kinds of medical facilities so that they get a cut of every test they order.

[No Elephants]

81. I never said they did. I simply said there's no reason why they should.

And, you have to look at my post in the context of the post to which I was replying.

However, since you bring it up, remember, these are averages and bases on employee wages and fringe benefits, not clinics in which doctors have invested, which is a whole other issue from compensation. Federal employeess are free to make money from investments, too. If they do, it's not considered part of their compensation, either.

Back to averages: Some octors in some parts of the country make a pittance and some plastic surgeons in and around Hollywood rake it in. And not all doctors who work for the government are in V.A. hospitals, either.

The OP article does not give a lot of detail, but the Bureau seems to have compared one work force with the other, period, not profession by profession.

[bergie321]

59. Great Idea

Let's have a race to the bottom!

:sarcasm:

[Doremus]

62. WTF? There's a gap because the corpos are sticking it to the rest of us.

And you want to cut government salaries so we can spread the love?

:eyes:

[No Elephants]

72. "Cut" is very different from "not raise this year."

[Doremus]

96. "Cuts" is the exact word used, not "no raise this year." Thanks.

[No Elephants]

113. From the OP article.

"Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.

Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion."

[Scruffy1]

89. figures don't lie but liars can figure

This is a bullshit job from Grover Norquist and his friends at the Cato institute. It's all apples to oranges and their is no balancing for skill level. It just lumps all federal employees like judges together with all private sector workers, including custodial. This I why my fathet used to tell me "figures don't lie but liars can figure" Actually having worked for both I can the federal government pays less, but offers more security and decent benefits. They don't provide any raw data but I suspect
they pulled a lot of this out of their ass. I know if you like at professions they government pay is below average for doctors, accountants, engineers and scientists.

[sofa king]

102. Uh, I believe the current disparity is the result of many cuts already.

You see, back when the United States clung to a sheen of honesty, federal employees were guaranteed a number automatic cost of living increases.

The reason for that, of course, is that any time someone publishes the salary of government employees, someone--including Members of Congress--gets the bright idea to take away that hard earned money from the employees who deserve it. That idea runs parallel with the concept that the government can help set the standard for wages by paying an honest salary to the employees the government hires. That way, the government either attracts the very best workers in the field, or corporations have to compete to get the very best by offering competitive wages themselves.

That's why a fucking evil moron like George W. Bush was all about denying wage increases to government employees: because it's a wise thing to do, and he and his people wouldn't know wise if it crapped in their laps. He tried to cut wage increases 2007 (at the same time he tried to deny a combat pay increase to soldiers in the field), and if I recall correctly, the cost-of-living increase was left out of every Bush budget projection for seven years running, so they could blame Congress for "pork barrel spending."

Oh, you deserve what those government employees are getting too, I'm sure. But you work for a sociopathic entity that pays its upper leadership in bonuses collected from the wages they can divert away from you. Or that sociopathic entity fired you. Or cut back your hours to part time. And stole your 401K.

[daggahead]

2. Or put another way ...

Private workers' pay has dropped by half, whereas Fed workers pay has not.

[philly_bob]

5. Exactly. Another Reagan-Bush legacy.

Discrepancy is a sign of how private companies, unconstrained by unions, have lowered wages especially with respect to dramatic productivity gains.

(See also: undocumented workers tolerated/encouraged by business owners.)

[DoBotherMe]

6. That's exactly what it is

top salaries are capped and kept low by public information. Private business execs can do whatever the heck they want with no scrutiny. So the income gap for the public sector is in line with what's fair. Dana ; )

[No Elephants]

49. Executives are employees, too. So, executive compensation should be included

in the figure for the public sector and in the figure for the private sector.

[DoBotherMe]

65. Is it? I don't know what private sector

data was included. Did it include all salaries in the private sector to get the average. Did it include all compensation in the private sector to get the average. What were the highest and lowest salaries for each sector ... what does that gap show. I believe that the government compensation structure is more equitable against the labor performed than what we get in the private sector. Dana ; )

[No Elephants]

82. As you can see, the OP article does not tell us a lot. However, the subjective impression I got

was that the Bureau of Economic analysis was comparing the entire federal work force (federal) (other than elected officials and independent contractors, from Blackwater to economic consultants) with all private sector employees.

"I believe that the government compensation structure is more equitable against the labor performed than what we get in the private sector."

I've been a public employee (not federal, though) and a private employee. As a workaholic in both sectors (then, not now), I don't think there was a perfect match between effort and compensation in either sector, but I do think coastiing can be easier in the public sector.

[DoBotherMe]

91. I'm not talking about coasting being an effort

I'm talking about an executive of a private corporation making 300 times more than an average employee. Does the executive coast too? I'm unsure what you are implying about federal government employees. It would be nice to be able to coast occasionally. I'm not going to bash labor, whether it's public or private. Dana ; )

[No Elephants]

98. I've been labor, public and private. . I've never been management, except.

when I was self employed and managed me, myself and I. My parents were labor, too. All of us were union.

If saying what I observed is bashing labor in your eyes, that's on you.

I have no love for anyone who makes several hundred times what their average employee makes.

[Bonhomme Richard]

8. +1000 n/t

[Wickerman]

10. +100

Fed workers get raises that are set on what was a "conservative" representation of what the prevailing trend was in private like industries. That the private sector decided to only reward those at the top and stomp on those in the middle and lower is unfortunate. It does not mean we need to scapegoat Fed workers.

[avaistheone1]

11. Problem being is that private workers who are paid half and who do not have

the generous benefit packages of federal workers, can no longer afford to pay for federal workers.

[CreekDog]

30. the average federal health plan is less costly than the private sector equivalent

approximately $5300 per year overall cost and the employee picks up 28% of that cost.

and nevermind that the lawyers who work for the gov't helping regulate industries are paid far less than if they joined industry and helped companies skirt those rules.

as for other benefits, what are they? i'd like a list.

[No Elephants]

54. Supposedly, total compensation, including all fringe benefits, in the public sector

is being compared with total compensation, including all fringe benefits, in the private sector. So, I'm not sure what a breakdown adds.

[Patchuli]

94. What "generous benefit package????????"

I don't get a stingy benefit package let alone a generous one! Luckily, my spouse and I have health insurance through his AT &T retirement package (although they've slashed that as well)otherwise, I'd be paying about $500 out of my not-so-generous salary monthly for us to have healthcare. Where in the heck did you get that "generous" idea from??????

[Bigmack]

3. i need to see lots more stats...

before I get all excited.

I'm wary of anything that says that we all need to join the race to the bottom... the race to Bangladesh-style wages.

If I remember correctly, not many years ago, the roles were reversed... private sector wages were much higher. Now that the private sector has screwed the pooch, they want the public sector to suck hind tit along with them.

[No Elephants]

56. IMO, private sector wages should be higher. Private employees, as a general rule, have much less

job security than public employees, and fewer fringe benefits. And the federal government has yet to screw employees out of their pensions, ala Enron.

[mike r]

4. It's long past time for government employees to quit whining about low pay

It's a myth and they know it.

[Bonhomme Richard]

13. Maybe it's time for the wealthy to quit whining about paying higher taxes.

Race to the bottom would suit republicans just fine. Damn uppity workers.

[No Elephants]

58. Maybe it's time both groups stopped whining.

[Hangingon]

47. In some areas it is a myth and some a fact

Lawyers, engineers and scientists are almost always paid less than private counterparts. Many of these people use the Feds to gain marketable experience. This especially true in intelligence. Go to work for the government and get experience and a clearance then move to a lucrative contract job. In other occupations like historians and librarians, the government pays more than private sector. Location is a big factor also.

[Demeter]

7. Not to Mention Bennies and Job Security

Too bad I'm totally unsuited for such a life....

[godai]

25. Bennies are included and make up 50% of the difference. n/t

[dipsydoodle]

9. If they also get public sector pensions too

then eventually the US will have exactly the same issues as Greece, France and the UK.

[avaistheone1]

14. Yup. Given the rest of America who is either unemployed or making half the pay of the federal

workers without the generous federal benefits packages we are responsible to pay for the federal workers...we are headed the way of Greece.

[indepat]

12. Federal pay increases have largely been based on increases in CPI ((which grossly

understates the real world (medical expenses, health insurance costs, local taxes)) so the real news this data depict is how much pay in the private sector has lagged increased productivity and profitability: pay increases have almost exclusively gone to those at the top. Moreover, a goodly portion of the federal work-force is comprised of professionals where pay has not lagged as much in the private sector.

[No Elephants]

60. The Op article claims federal compensation has grown much faster than inflation, though.

And similar work was compared, too.


"What the data show:

Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

[indepat]

87. I question some of this, sensing some skewering to make Federal pay look as bad as possible. But

most of this period of time was during junior's reign. Finally, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. PS, having retired from Federal service in '96, all I can say is what a damn fool I was not not stay on to get on the upcoming Bush gravy train. :P

[No Elephants]

101. I agree. Also," figures lie and liars figure."

I am not vouching for accuracy of the article. (Notice my post said the article "claims..."

I think, though, if we are going to discuss the article, we have to at least start from what it actually does say, then disprove it, if we can.

[valerief]

16. No cuts for Federal workers. Just drop the war, remove Bush tax cuts, and hire more Federal workers

from the US unemployed rolls.

[Bonhomme Richard]

17. They are not talking about the mailroom person making 123K.

That average is just that. An average is based on federally employed Doctors, Lawyers, FBI agents, AT&F, Judges, etc..etc... Guaranteed the guy they want to go after is the mailroom clerk, janitors, etc..etc...

[No Elephants]

61. The private sector figures are bassed on the same kind of mix, though

[Scruffy1]

88. No there not

This is complete bullshit comparing apples to oranges.

[No Elephants]

64. They're not talking about the mailroom person making 60K in the private sector, either, though.

An average is an average in both groups, from the mail room messenger or photocopy room staff to doctors, lawyers, research scientists, etc. to the AIG execs.

And total compensation in the private sector includes executive salaries, bonuses, stock options, etc.

[DoBotherMe]

92. Do you have a link for the criteria?

I could find nothing in the article that showed the methodology. Thanks! Dana ; )

[No Elephants]

100. The OP says they are comparing average total compensation of federal employees

with average total compensation of private employees. Stands to reason neither average figure represents mail room salaries.

[CreekDog]

19. that's the solution --make sure everybody makes less money!

when everyone's poor it will all be fair!

:wtf:

[No Elephants]

66. No, but the solution isn't paying federal employees twice as much as the taxpayers who pay federal

compensation, either.

[CreekDog]

69. you're sure the study is right

i base all my decisions on what's printed in USA Today. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

77. To the contrary. Many of my posts on this thread are qualified by phrases like

"the OP article claims..." or "According to the OP article..." Phrases like that show I am not assuming the OP article is correct. However, I can respond to a statement like this "that's the solution --make sure everybody makes less money!," regardless of whether the OP article is sound or not.

Meanwhile, you make up something like "you're sure the study is right" and then ridicule your own concoction. Building those straw men just so you can tear them down seems like a waste of energy, but, to each his or her own, I guess.

[MikeW]

106. they arnt paid 2x as much

My salary is sig. lower than what Id make in the private sector.

The difference is I have a small pension (and I do mean small) on CSRS.

Part of CSRS depends on social security (added to your total pension) + TSP (= 401k)

My Benefits? I have good health insurance BC ... I pay through the nose for it.

And ITS MORE expensive than my wife's - works in industry.

As for DENTAL (doesn't exist in the government) neither does vision. There are no national agreements for it.

I'll say it again ... this article smells of hidden agenda.

[godai]

20. "The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education"

Looks like a comparison of apples to oranges. Experience and education will get you a higher salary. How can you try to make this comparison without adjusting for experience and education? I went to the BEA website and was not able to find this survey. Something seems fishy here.

$30K (50%) of the difference is benefits. This would be health care benefits and retirement contributions.



The really good federal retirement is long gone (CSRS...50% of salary at 30 yr retirement). Now, there's a government match to contributions, plus SS.

My experience working in government is that most employees could make a lot more money in the private sector, but choose to work for the government for benefits, job security and working conditions. Everyone can make this choice, with the right experience and education for the available jobs. Isn't this the American dream?

[No Elephants]

68. ...

"Looks like a comparison of apples to oranges"

Not necessarily. Not considering education and experience at all, one way or the other, does not automatically mean that everyone in the private sector is less educated and experienced than everyone in the public sector.

"$30K (50%) of the difference is benefits. This would be health care benefits and retirement contributions."

What's your point? total compensation is total compensation--and public sector wages alone are still higher than private sector wages alone, when the opposite should be the case, for some of the very reasons you cite--better working conditions, greater job security, security that the pension earned will actually be paid on retirement.

"Everyone can make this choice, with the right experience and education for the available jobs."

"the available jobs" being the key words. The federal government does not have enough jobs for everyone and certain people have an advantage. So, no, everyone isn't able to choose a government job. But that's beside the point anyway.

The point is, why the hell should government employees be making total compensation that is twice as great as the total compensation of taxpayers working in the private sector?

[godai]

86. You've fallen into the trap.

Read the other posts. There are no burger flippers in government, few minimum wage jobs. Averaging these in for comparison leads to the results seen in the article. Most federal workers can make more $$ in the private sector. They stay for working conditions, job security and good health benefits. Probably 75% of the government paid health premiums go directly to the insurance companies. Federal workers never see that money. Retirement is SS plus a savings plan matched by the government, hardly better than comparable private sector jobs, with stock options and bonuses. To repeat, isn't this the American Dream rather than something to be angry about?


You wrote...
"$30K (50%) of the difference is benefits. This would be health care benefits and retirement contributions."

What's your point? total compensation is total compensation--and public sector wages alone are still higher than private sector wages alone, when the opposite should be the case, for some of the very reasons you cite--better working conditions, greater job security, security that the pension earned will actually be paid on retirement.
-----------------------------------------------------------

My point is that half of the described perks are health care and retirement contributions. Would you like this to be worse? Are you really against good health care programs and good retirement programs? Federal retirement is SS plus an employer matched savings plan. Would you really like this to be less? Regarding wages, private sector wages (and benefits) are much higher, in my experience. The article is flawed.

[No Elephants]

103. Nothing you've said proves that.

"Read the other posts."

I have. Many unsupported statements. Posting something does not make it so.

"There are no burger flippers in government, few minimum wage jobs."

You've never eaten in a cafeteria in a federal building? Never seen anyone mopping the floors in a federal building? Never seen anyone whose job it was to make copies? Or to run errands, or serve as a messenger? Rest room attendant in a federal courthouse? If not, your experience of federal offices and buildings in D.C and the individual states is very different from mine.

"Probably 75% of the government paid health premiums go directly to the insurance companies. Federal workers never see that money. Retirement is SS plus a savings plan matched by the government, hardly better than comparable private sector jobs, with stock options and bonuses."

AGAIN, they supposedly compared total compensation of federal employees with total compensation of private sector employees total commpensation includes everything an employee gets, except reimbursement of actual out of pocket expenditures That means wages; health coverage, if any; pension, if any; and any other compensation, such as free meals or lodging. In the private sector, total compensation would also include stock options. It may or may not also include things like paid vacation days.

And, comparing total compensation of federal employees with total compensation of private sector employees, they found the b] total compensation of federal employees was double b] total compensation of private sector employees. Yu can argue that the Bureau is lying or mistaken, but just reciting the specifics of federal health insurance or pensions doesn't get us there.

"My point is that half of the described perks are health care and retirement contributions." No, that was what you said. I asked you what the purpose of saying that was. Simply repeating what you said doesn't explain your reason for saying it.

You now said the study is flawed, so I assume your point was, if the pension and health benefits are so meager, federal employees
can't possibly be making twice what private employees make. Well, maybe. But the article also says federal salaries alone are higher than private salaries alone.

I am not saying the article is right or wrong. I am just saying salaries in both sectors should be roughly equal for equal work. As a lesser point, I am also saying that the article doesn't give us nearly enough info to draw conclusions.

"Would you like this to be worse? Are you really against good health care programs and good retirement programs? Federal retirement is SS plus an employer matched savings plan. Would you really like this to be less?"

Ridiculous. My asking you to elaborate on one sentence in your post doesn't make me Simon Legree, ffs.

[alarimer]

76. I agree- they need to account for the relatively long tenure of public employees

People do not leave those jobs (and they are not laid off as often). Private sector employees are subject to the whims of their employers. Because of outsourcing, layoffs, etc, I would bet that most people in the private sector move around from job to job a lot more often and get paid less as a result. You stay in a job for a while, eventually you will move to the top of the career ladder, with the higher pay.

[No Elephants]

79. Tenure is a diffferent issue from experience, though there may be some overlap.

that jobs in the public sector are so secure is a reason to pay less in the public sector, not more.

[burnsei sensei]

21. Aren't the great majority of them UNIONIZED? nt

[Hangingon]

50. Federal unions cannot negotiate wages or benefits

[CountAllVotes]

57. the postal workers are unionized

it is a two-bit union. The Federal workers have an even bigger of a two-bit union. They have no real rights so to speak of.

Too bad they aren't unionized. Maybe their jobs would be better and the workers won't have to put up with all of the crap I had to put up with for 10 long years of going nowhere. :puke:

Damn those unions eh? :mad:

[LostinVA]

73. No

Many states actually have laws AGAINST public workers unionizing.

[No Elephants]

80. The OP article compares federal employees with private sector employees, so

state employees and their unionizing don't come into it--not for purposes of the OP article, anyway.

[Bonhomme Richard]

22. Here's a new idea. How about CEO's make less so the average worker...

Can get their income level up to the Federal average.
How about this headline. Organized Federal workers manage to keep pace with inflation while disorganized private industry employees get the shit kicked out of them. I like that.

[Travis_0004]

26. I would be more interested in a comparison between similar jobs

The government has lots and lots of jobs where you need a college degree. They are going to pay more. There are a lot of private sector jobs such as McDonalds, that don't even require a high school diploma, so they are obviously going to pay less.

How does pay compare among people with similar job titles. I would be much more interested in that statistic.

[Bonhomme Richard]

35. You are right. What does a Federal Lawyer make compared to ...

a private practice Lawyer? How about Doctors or a FBI special agent compared to a city detective, keep in mind a FBI agent is either a lawyer of an accountant before they can become a special agent.

[No Elephants]

84. the feds employ plenty of go-fers, food service employees, people who mop floors, file clerks, etc

But, you're right: we don't have enough info.

[No Elephants]

105. Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream does that--or used to anyway. I don't

now if they kept it up, or even if the founders still own the company. Originally, no salary could be higher X times the salary of Ben and Jerry's lowest paid employee.

Of course, that is not as sweet as it sounds because some employees owned stock in addition to getting a salary; and the stock came to be worth a lot.

[Bonhomme Richard]

24. As you can see this subject really pisses me off......

and no, I am not a federal employee. As a matter of fact I work for myself but I can see the difference between who's getting screwed and who is about to get screwed.

[No Elephants]

85. Well, as usual, they want the lowest paid to go after each other and leave the powerful folk in both

groups to continue doing whatever they please. I am sure it's no coincidence that we are hearing this now, when Obama {theoretically} wants an increase of only 1.4% and the Republicans want no increase at all.

[Roland99]

27. The key portion is what's in the data >>>>>>>>>>

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

[Abq_Sarah]

31. Part of the problem

Is that private employers can't print their own money. We have no mechanism that allows us to raise revenue by forcing people to pay us.

[Roland99]

34. And the same isn't true for the gov't? You think all branches/depts have access to the Treasury?

the printing press is only there to continue supplying dollars to the big banks to keep them capitalized so they can then borrow more money from the Fed at practically no interest and loan it out to businesses and people at much higher interest rates and pocket the profits at taxpayer expense.

[Abq_Sarah]

38. The government

has a mechanism for spending more money. Print more or raise taxes. Sure, I can raise prices in order to raise wages but I can't force someone to purchase my product (I don't have an insurance company) or pay higher prices.

[Roland99]

41. And that can happen at the dept level regardless of fiscal budgets that are set in stone?

[No Elephants]

107. Every department doesn't need access to the Treasury

Department heads don't pay rent, buy supplies, or meet payroll. The federal government does that for each and every department.

[Roland99]

121. Right. And they don't call upon the "printing press" when they need to hire someone or offer a raise

there's a thing called...budgets.

[mike r]

71. Bulletproof jobs, cushy salaries and raises, guaranteed lifetime pensions and benefits

What's not to like??

[gkhouston]

97. Cushy salaries, my ass. I used to be a defense contractor. I made more $$

than my govie boss, and both of us had experience and PhDs.

[No Elephants]

99. Everything is relative

[LanternWaste]

118. A statement of absolutism.

A statement of absolutism, thus denying the statement itself.

[LanternWaste]

104. Sounds exactly like what the free market sector promised everyone.

"Bulletproof jobs, cushy salaries and raises, guaranteed lifetime pensions and benefits"
Sounds exactly like what the free market sector promised everyone. I imagine many people have bought that bill of goods over years and called it The American dream.

"What's not to like??"
That the private sector can rescind their contractual obligations to employees while the government does not.

[MikeW]

110. hmmm ...

You sound like you'd fit right in over in Freeperville.

I smell something .... :nuke:

[tk2kewl]

28. Have a look at Krugman for a more honest assesment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x402231

[Bragi]

29. What? Someone's doing well? Penalize them! /nt

[Recursion]

32. Absolute horses**t. "Private corporations cut wages to half of public sector levels over 30 years"

Let's be honest here about what actually happened.

[Yavin4]

36. Let's Start By Cutting Congress' Salary and Benefits

Set the example Republicans.

[smoogatz]

37. Averages can be misleading.

You add the highest paid civil servant's salary to the lowest paid and divide by two--that's the average, but it doesn't tell you much about what most civil servants make. You'd need the median salary to do that--the point at which the greatest number of civil servants' salaries cluster. The study also doesn't tell us much about what kinds of private sector employees we're talking about--certainly if you add the salaries of CEOs to the equation, that would change things. Then you'd get an average private sector salary in the millions. The local paper did this at our university last year, and came up with an "average" salary+benefits package of $109,000 for tenured profs. Of course, the university Chancellor is a tenured professor in history; many of the other highly paid administrators are also given tenure when they're hired. The median salary is around $55k; which is actually kind of pathetic.

[No Elephants]

108. Agree. The article gives us nowhere near enough information about anything.

[One_Life_To_Give]

40. Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

Just goes to show that one can cherry pick the data to say just about anything.

If we outsource all of the low cost Federal Employees. Then what is left is only the highly paid, highly skilled Federal Employees. For the same reasons a Medical Doctor would ask how their pay compares to the average. Don't expect to compare "Fed Employees" to "Private Employees". But compare Fed MD to Private MD. Fed Intelligence annalist to private, Fed Engineer to private, etc.

[leahcim]

43. I'm not buying it.

As an educated private-sector employee, from my experience at least, government salaries aren't even close to competitive for the same work. Government work is where people go for security when private sector work is scarce, but when private sector work picks up again, back into the real world they go. I'd bet that most of the discrepancy is exactly where the article says it is -- there are few government employees that do the low-paid "grunt work" that brings down the average for the private sector.

The only meaningful statistic is a direct comparison broken down by the type of work done. If the government pays a premium for their software developers over private sector software developers, that's something we can do something about. If they pay more for software developers than the private sector pays for waiters, that's not an issue.

[Uncle Joe]

44. This is how USA Today represents the best interests of the mega wealthy.

They don't bother with the outrageous bonuses to CEOs and the ridiculous 300xs CEO to worker salary ratio and how that's had a long term adverse affect against the private sector work-force's pay and benefits.

USA Today would rather divert attention to government workers, because they believe this will be a Republican issue allowing Republicans back in to power to drag down federal workers as opposed to holding CEOs and the mega wealthy accountable while lifting up the private sector workers.

This is just a red flag being waved by USA Today to take attention away from the sword.

Thanks for the thread, TheWebHead.

[CountAllVotes]

53. red flag being waved by USA Today

You are very right!

I worked for the Feds for 10 long years. Starting salary was $2.88 an hr. Ending salary was about $9.00 an hr. if that.

The benefits were not that great - no dental insurance and if you wanted the good health coverage you had to pay a lot for it. Hence, I ended up with a cheap HMO.

My mother retired from the U.S. gov't as well. Her "hefty pension" was all of $750.00 a month. She got $160.00 from Social Security. She was a retired secretary that had been downgraded to a mail room clerk after she got too old to be pretty and useful.

When my mother got sick with cancer, the care she needed WAS NOT COVERED. I paid the bill for the last months of her life, not the U.S. government.

The average two-bit worker gets jack from them, I know this much.

:grr:

[Blue_Tires]

55. +1000

[Downwinder]

46. Have to keep the oppressors happy, so they will keep oppressing.

[greiner3]

48. My father;

With a Masters Degree in MSW (Masters of Social Work) in Psychiatric VA hospitals put in 30 years. When he retired he figured he earned about 60% of what a similar trained civilian employee would have made. His benefits were somewhat higher but not nearly on par.

On a similar note, my mother had a double Masters, early childhood education and handicapped child education. When she retired after nearly 30 years of teaching she made just about what what a private sector employee made 5 years after graduation.

Is it time for the government to finally offer good wages and benefits to highly qualified employees? If wages and benefits are always lower then while some good workers will stay with government jobs. But more and more job applicants will have to take what's left, lower paying jobs offered by governments around the country.

I don't have any factual basis to dispute this study. I just find it difficult to believe that the average federal worker's wage is that high compared to the private sector. If anything, this may have been misreported and the median wage was supposed to have been cited. I can see that during the bush years those loyal to the cause had their wages raised. This would cause a trickle down effect, the bosses have their wages hiked and as rewards their sycophants of all levels got raises.

Just saying.

[brentspeak]

51. Then raise private employee pay. Or cut corporate executives' bonuses

[brentspeak]

52. This article is a textbook example of "divide and conquer"

[senseandsensibility]

67. word

And why disregard the educational differences? Yesterday on MSNBC I saw that most of the difference can be explained by two factors: the federal workforce is both much older and much better educated. Apples and oranges.

[mike r]

70. Most people slaving away in private industry are not CEOs

Arguments comparing federal pay to CEO pay are bogus.

[alarimer]

74. This is BULLSHIT

No way is that a true statistic. Everything I have ever read indicates that government employees make less not more.

Something is fucked up here.

[Downwinder]

78. How many Gov. employees have lost their retirement or medical?

[godai]

83. None...that's one reason to be a federal employee.

That's a good thing, right? Everyone has the opportunity to get a government job. Some choose to work for the government and, good benefits, not high salary, is one of the reasons.

All current federal employess are under the regular SS system, plus a savings program where contributions are matched.

[Downwinder]

90. I went to work for the Government.

Salary: sufficient
Benefits: sufficient
Future expectations: limited

I switched to private industry.
Salary: the same
Benefits: better
Future expectations: unlimited

Then I learned about Chapters 9, 11, 13
Salary: none
Benefits: none
Future expectations: Unemployment, S.S.

I now know why CEO's negotiate their severance before they start.

[totodeinhere]

95. Good for them. They deserve it and more. Now lets work to get private sector workers up to that

level as well. And of course one reason why public sector workers make more is because of strong public employee's unions. If we can get better penetration of unions into the private sector, then wages there will increase.

[shanti]

125. thank you, think: union busting

that's what all this is about. they are REALLY pushing the meme that public sector workers are so highly paid, with their humungous pensions, "IT'S JUST NOT FAIR"!

[BumRushDaShow]

109. This is BULLSHIT

The equivalent of comparing the salary of a 30-year civil servant to the starting salary of private industry.

The largest % of gov't workers are boomers, who have only recently started retiring in dribs and drabs AND with 30 - 40 years of service, so to use an "average" is ludicrous. They NEVER even fully implemented the Pay Comparability Act either.

Look up the starting salaries of gov't vs private for similar positions and see how much bull this is.

[MikeW]

111. this article is a HIT piece

it doesn't account for a lot of variables that factor into fed salaries

like age, seniority and advanced training / education.

[mbperrin]

112. As usual in this corporofascist environment, the wrong questions are being asked.

Why have real wages in this country grown zero since 1978 when adjusted for inflation? Why do both adults in a family HAVE to work to get what one wage earner got previously? Why are children 16 and up working in record numbers? Could it be because companies have been truly successful in pounding down workers by scaring them for three decades now about everything in their lives?

It's the Reds! It's the bomb! It's the Russians! It's the Cubans! It's missiles! It's Saddam! It's Osama! It's burkas! RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN, be SCARED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ignore the fact that CEOs used to earn 5 times employee wages and now earn 400 times - they deserve it!
Ignore your health benefits being canceled - the company needs the money worse than you need care! Plus, can't you just splint up little Johnny's collarbone yourself, you lazy fuck?

So we have a military that gets what all the other militaries in the world put together get; we have a debt machine that cranks out billions and billions each week to Treasury bond holders, including big banks ,etc; but when someone is doing okay, tear their ass up! The undeserving pricks! They're not CEOs or government contractors!

So happy that I quit banking in 1978 and simply don't need most of the large money-sucking structures in this country, like debt.

[No Elephants]

114. This is the most truthful statement about this "info."

"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union."

We have not been given information we can use. We've been given a red flag and a red herring.

[defendandprotect]

115. Every private paycheck should be doubled ... so should Social Secuity checks . . .

Increases based on inflation have kept their salaries high --

[PSUDem]

116. I call Bullsh*t

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1131768.html

[quakerboy]

117. Why is the private sector paying so little?

How do they expect to get the best and brightest, when they can't match the government in the free market? Clearly this is why private business is so poorly run, and it needs to be reformed.

[Gormy Cuss]

119. The BEA's own FAQs on why there's a difference

http://faq.bea.gov/cgi-bin/bea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=320&p_created=1156971364

There are a number of factors that explain why average compensation for federal government non-postal civilian employees is higher than average compensation for private-sector employees.

* The mix of occupations held by federal government civilian employees is different from that of occupations held by the entire private-sector workforce. The private-sector workforce are in a wider range of jobs than federal government employees -- from minimum-wage positions to highly paid CEOs. According to studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), jobs in the federal government civilian workforce are concentrated in professional (e.g., lawyers, accountants, and economists), administrative, and technical occupations.1 In addition, skill levels and educational attainment tend to be higher, on average, for federal government civilian employees than for private-sector employees because of the occupational requirements in the federal government.2

* Over the past several years, there has been a shift in federal employment toward higher-skilled, higher-paid positions because lower-skilled (and lower-paid) positions have been contracted out to private industries.1 This trend has contributed to higher average pay for federal government civilian employees than for private-sector employees.

* On average, federal government employees receive higher benefits in the form of pensions and health insurance contributions than private-sector employees; some private-sector employees receive no benefits.

* Moreover, federal compensation estimates include sizable payments for unfunded liabilities that distort comparisons with private-sector compensation. For 2006, for example, the value of these payments for unfunded liability was $28.6 billion or 10.7 percent of total federal civilian compensation. Please see the FAQ "How does BEA treat federal payments to the Military and Civil Service Retirement Funds?" for more information on payments for unfunded liabilities.

IOW, apples and oranges.

[hollowdweller]

120. Here's my take on it

The federal professionals I know make a lot less than they would in private employment.

The non professional ones make slightly more but not a lot but have better benefits.

One thing is tenure. For instance Social Security right now is making a big push to hire some new folks because a big % age of their workforce is going to retire soon.

[NutmegYankee]

122. This is just Libertarian Horseshit!

It's comparing Government Engineers to Walmart workers. Hello!