PDA

View Full Version : 19% of Federal Employees make over $100,000 /yr (not including overtime)


Analog
12-11-2009, 02:17 PM
For feds, more get 6-figure salaries
Average pay $30,000 over private sector
By Dennis Cauchon
USA TODAY
The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules.
"There's no way to justify this to the American people. It's ridiculous," says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, a first-term lawmaker who is on the House's federal workforce subcommittee.
Jessica Klement, government affairs director for the Federal Managers Association, says the federal workforce is highly paid because the government employs skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. She says federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs.
USA TODAY analyzed the Office of Personnel Management's database that tracks salaries of more than 2 million federal workers. Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.
The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.





http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip

surfsatwerk
12-11-2009, 02:17 PM
P/n --->

SAWYER
12-11-2009, 02:18 PM
Actually the link is <---- way

surfsatwerk
12-11-2009, 02:19 PM
Actually the link is <---- way


It's not ^^ up there?

mb
12-11-2009, 02:22 PM
ok

Epic Fail
12-11-2009, 02:23 PM
Hell is this way.

|
|
|
V

FoBoT
12-11-2009, 02:24 PM
yeah, i gotta get me one of those

IceBergSLiM
12-11-2009, 02:24 PM
What % of the jobs require 15+ years experience and advanced degrees masters, and phd etc? Statistic is irrelevant without that data.

spidey07
12-11-2009, 02:25 PM
I'm not surprised. 100k a year isn't that big a deal anymore. It's not some magical number.

CRXican
12-11-2009, 02:25 PM
that's why I'm applying for fed jobs

MONEY!

rdubbz
12-11-2009, 02:25 PM
100k in the DC area is middle class. Sounds about average.

zinfamous
12-11-2009, 02:43 PM
I'm not surprised. 100k a year isn't that big a deal anymore. It's not some magical number.

this.

Jadow
12-11-2009, 02:50 PM
the old mantra was that govt employees make less salary, but get way better benefits (pensions, cadillac healthcare, 7 weeks vacation, etc...)

Now they get all the best benefits AND on average 30 grand more per year.

What a fvcking crock of shlt.

hiromizu
12-11-2009, 02:54 PM
Pretty good salary. They're right up to ATOT standards.

Queasy
12-11-2009, 02:55 PM
This is what is shocking to me:
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

Seriously? At a time when people in the private industry are getting laid off, pay is being cut, and our national debt is skyrocketing?

trmiv
12-11-2009, 02:55 PM
Pretty good salary. They're right up to ATOT standards.

Nah, $200,000 is the new $100,000. Or at least it was a few years ago around here. It's possible that $300,000 is the new $200,000 by now though.

Cheesetogo
12-11-2009, 02:55 PM
the old mantra was that govt employees make less salary, but get way better benefits (pensions, cadillac healthcare, 7 weeks vacation, etc...)

Now they get all the best benefits AND on average 30 grand more per year.

What a fvcking crock of shlt.

Generally you're still going to be making less in a government job than a comparable corporate one.

2Xtreme21
12-11-2009, 03:16 PM
Means nothing for people just starting out. There are no entry-level government positions out there that don't have someone lined up who was specifically recruited. My goal is to get a few years corporate experience and go public sector for that $30,000 boost.

Zebo
12-11-2009, 03:18 PM
I remember a time govt jobs was where people went that couldn't make it in private sector, they paid less too. Now it's the place to be.

JohnOfSheffield
12-11-2009, 03:23 PM
I remember a time govt jobs was where people went that couldn't make it in private sector, they paid less too. Now it's the place to be.

Probably not, but even the Government need qualified people to do the work, if they didn't have that you'd be complaining about that instead.

spidey07
12-11-2009, 03:23 PM
My girl works for the gubment. Nice hefty salary but her benefits are INSANE. Awesome pension/retirement and gold plated health insurance. So she easily has 30K a year if not more in benefits alone.

And she doesn't pay SS tax.

Zebo
12-11-2009, 03:26 PM
Little story about my time at DOD. We used to have loading doc workers at Nevada test site, retired military so they were drawing that too, making 80K a year just to sit there and read magazines and every once and a while a load would come in. They wouldn't get off their chair even. Made driver come to their office usually browsing the net and unload truck himself with the help of a few part time lackeys, also making a decent $18 an hour. I bet this warehouse supervisors make over 100K now.

Genx87
12-11-2009, 03:33 PM
We are fueling the political class and asking for second helpings.

Slick5150
12-11-2009, 03:37 PM
This story has zero context. Since most people w/ federal jobs live in DC, of course their wages are going to be higher becauase the cost of living there is through the roof. Compare their salaries to private sector jobs in the SAME CITY. Bet you're not going to see that discrepancy. In fact, its probably the other way around (private making more than public)

CycloWizard
12-11-2009, 03:37 PM
Yes, the government employs a lot of skilled workers like scientists. However, we scientists aren't making 6 figures - our non-technical administrators are. They are given incentive to create new and exciting ways to make us spend more time doing paperwork and training and less time doing research.

JohnOfSheffield
12-11-2009, 03:43 PM
Yes, the government employs a lot of skilled workers like scientists. However, we scientists aren't making 6 figures - our non-technical administrators are. They are given incentive to create new and exciting ways to make us spend more time doing paperwork and training and less time doing research.

Every time you say "we scientists" you make me laugh.

JeffreyLebowski
12-11-2009, 03:50 PM
Entry level Helpdesk IT support job at the FDIC in Dallas Texas makes $76K a year.

That's $25K over the average for the area.

CycloWizard
12-11-2009, 03:53 PM
Every time you say "we scientists" you make me laugh.
Is that because you think I'm saying "wee scientists?" :confused:

Lizardman
12-11-2009, 04:02 PM
I work for a gov contractor and actually do better then the gov jobs around where I work.

Nebor
12-11-2009, 04:10 PM
Well you have to pay to get top talent. Unfortunately with the way most government agencies are structured, people can never be fired, so these people making good money are probably just people riding a desk till retirement. Good pay combined with strict performance standards could make for a much more efficient and competent federal bureaucracy.

Zebo
12-11-2009, 04:33 PM
I work for a gov contractor and actually do better then the gov jobs around where I work.

Same thing more or less. Govt puts stipulations and regs on govt contractors e.g. prevailing wage, health ins requirements etc. Of course exclusive gov't contractors like Lockheed or Computer Sciences Corp wants to increase overhead as well as they can get good people though revolving door and get larger contracts next go around.

ElFenix
12-11-2009, 04:48 PM
Excluded from OPM's data: the White House, Congress, the Postal Service, intelligence agencies and uniformed military personnel.
so, basically everyone that makes not very much money. i suspected as much when i heard dave ramsey going on about it on the way back from lunch.


on a related note, a friend of mine who is a .gov scientist got a huge raise after coming back from a 1 month vacation.



that US DOT statistic is pretty ridiculous though.

Mani
12-11-2009, 04:53 PM
Need more context. Was this driven by highly qualified professionals who decided because of the recession to retreat from the private sector? Was it just raises given to existing employees? Did the government decide to upgrade the talent level by going after higher-salaried people? Honestly, I wouldn't mind if it was the latter - more effective people lower costs in the long run.

dud
12-11-2009, 05:00 PM
My girl works for the gubment. Nice hefty salary but her benefits are INSANE. Awesome pension/retirement and gold plated health insurance. So she easily has 30K a year if not more in benefits alone.

And she doesn't pay SS tax.


It sounds like your girl is on the CSRS retirement system. If so then she's probably a "mature" woman as CSRS is being slowly phased out. CSRS was replaced by FERS back in the 80s.

The FERS system is NOT even close to as generous as CSRS.


If you want to complain about how insane the Govt spends money ... go find a CSRS retiree. If you do 30+ years you get like 60+% of salary as a retirement plus.

jonks
12-11-2009, 05:14 PM
This is what is shocking to me:


Seriously? At a time when people in the private industry are getting laid off, pay is being cut, and our national debt is skyrocketing?

Those numbers do sound very strange. Any bets that's the result of merged departments and not $50k in raises per person across the board? Or was it that one person made $170k, and the other 1800 made 169k and a slight raise pushed them over the mark? Strange they would pick $170k as the dividing line...why use that figure unless it created the starkest contrast for the article?

ps: anyone else hate how quotes don't nest anymore? ugh

Ausm
12-11-2009, 05:19 PM
100K is pocket change for most of them.

bob4432
12-11-2009, 05:35 PM
Means nothing for people just starting out. There are no entry-level government positions out there that don't have someone lined up who was specifically recruited. My goal is to get a few years corporate experience and go public sector for that $30,000 boost.

yes there are - 2012 is right around the corner :eek:

jonks
12-11-2009, 05:38 PM
OP either snipped out the rest of the article or they added it in later, but it's kinda relevant and explains a lot.

From the link:

•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

StageLeft
12-11-2009, 05:44 PM
insane

bob4432
12-11-2009, 05:47 PM
OP either snipped out the rest of the article or they added it in later, but it's kinda relevant and explains a lot.

From the link:

•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

all these pay hikes while social security recipients don't get a cola this year because there was no cost of living change o_O

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 06:26 PM
100% of statistics is made up.

bob4432
12-11-2009, 06:32 PM
100% of statistics is made up.

they have the data....they need to add in the usps to really piss people off

bob4432
12-11-2009, 06:39 PM
Well you have to pay to get top talent. Unfortunately with the way most government agencies are structured, people can never be fired, so these people making good money are probably just people riding a desk till retirement. Good pay combined with strict performance standards could make for a much more efficient and competent federal bureaucracy.

:eek: you know, you almost imploded the universe w/ words like that so close each other.

“Bureaucracy is the death of all sound work"
-Albert Einstein

“Bureaucracy is the art of making the possible impossible”
-Javier Pascual Salcedo

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 06:46 PM
they have the data....they need to add in the usps to really piss people off


News is calculated to be sensational, and if useful information is omitted then that's a needed sacrifice.

What would be more relevant is to look at similar pays for similar professions in similar locations.

Since a great many of those earning that figure are in DC (certainly not all, but DC is the government after all), what is the going rate for private industry in a very expensive area?

Without such context, numbers are meaningless. One could say how poor government workers are by selecting occupations in less well compensated parts of the US and comparing them to a Manhattanite. Just omit the details and everyone is rich and poor at the same time.

piasabird
12-11-2009, 07:05 PM
I was watching a house hunting show in DC and a house/condo was going for around $500K - $2Mil.

Craig234
12-11-2009, 07:13 PM
The biggest issues with the government hurting the averag American are when the corporatocracy get rules passed in their favor, and money that goes through the government to private interests.

Salary abuses, some of which are outragesous, are a tiny issue compared to that.

For example, that one sentence inMedicare part D that banned price negotiation gave hundreds of billlionjs ore tax dollars to the GOP's top donor industry (and Obama disgustingly has continued it).

THe government is a combination of under-resourced areas, with other overpaid areas.

You can't really generalize.

And the public shares some of the blame in sometimes having a mob mentality like they want to march on the local government workers with torches, and demand service for no taxes.

It's not easy to deal with the waste - in the public or private sectors. Sometimes you need to deal with the budget priorities more than the waste issue.

When a good program is slashed 75%, when a bad program is funded, that can be more important than the 20% waste in the budget.

The DoT stastic is disturbing. Even assuming they're cherry pickkng the data it's hard to see the justification there. I'd like to see some waste reduiction efforts increasing under the Democrats.

While Republican mythology thinks the Dems are crack addicts on spending the fact is they have had some pretty good efforts at reducing waste and should again.

Genx87
12-11-2009, 07:19 PM
Entry level Helpdesk IT support job at the FDIC in Dallas Texas makes $76K a year.

That's $25K over the average for the area.

/shakes head

Genx87
12-11-2009, 07:22 PM
OP either snipped out the rest of the article or they added it in later, but it's kinda relevant and explains a lot.

From the link:

•Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

•Pay caps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

Why get a raise at all? We are in a deflationary period.

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 07:24 PM
Well Craig, part of the dishonesty of the situation is "waste". For example "trickle down" was looked upon as a good thing because those with high incomes would spend money and that would provide others with a job.

The thing is that money is neutral. When one buys a car or a TV, it doesn't care if the cash came from government or Bill Gates.

One argument is that by taxation money is taken out of business, but considering the disparity between top executive salaries and median wage earners, it seems hard to argue that the latter benefit greatly by the good fortunes of the former.

In other words, if it's grand to make money and Reganomics is the standard, then anyone who spends drives the economy.

Now the validity of "trickle down" is another issue, but if one holds to it, then the goose can spend money just as well as the gander.

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 07:29 PM
Why get a raise at all? We are in a deflationary period.

My cost of living hasn't "deflated" Gas is still $3.00 or so around here, my food costs haven't decreased either.

Let's take executive pay again. If we are in a deflationary period, should they have to give back a portion of their bonus? If you had a raise, should you reject it? Should the government disallow raises, then force a wage freeze on others?

These are people who work, some of them better than others to be sure, but they aren't pariahs who ought to be treated as some plague.

Zebo
12-11-2009, 07:29 PM
It sounds like your girl is on the CSRS retirement system. If so then she's probably a "mature" woman as CSRS is being slowly phased out. CSRS was replaced by FERS back in the 80s.

The FERS system is NOT even close to as generous as CSRS.


If you want to complain about how insane the Govt spends money ... go find a CSRS retiree. If you do 30+ years you get like 60+% of salary as a retirement plus.

Yeah but then they gave 401k too I think it's called TPS. Forgot to menton that...

Zebo
12-11-2009, 07:33 PM
insane

More insane when you think govt creates nothing no wealth. Can only survive by taking from those who do or borrowing (as is most of the case now as tax receipts will barley pay for defense and SS) There will be a reckoning soon with them too don't worry.

We need government we need government employees - but not ones that put us in debt let alone ones that make more than the people they are taxing. It's unsustainable.

Genx87
12-11-2009, 07:47 PM
My cost of living hasn't "deflated" Gas is still $3.00 or so around here, my food costs haven't decreased either.

Let's take executive pay again. If we are in a deflationary period, should they have to give back a portion of their bonus? If you had a raise, should you reject it? Should the government disallow raises, then force a wage freeze on others?

These are people who work, some of them better than others to be sure, but they aren't pariahs who ought to be treated as some plague.

What does executive pay have to do with federal employee's getting a pay raise in a time of deflationary pressure? I work in the private sector and wont see a raise this year. But the govt sees fit to make sure its employee's do? Jonks presented it as if Obama giving them a 2% raise was worthy of praise. That is 2% above inflation.

Red Dawn
12-11-2009, 07:53 PM
My girl works for the gubment. Nice hefty salary but her benefits are INSANE. Awesome pension/retirement and gold plated health insurance. So she easily has 30K a year if not more in benefits alone.

And she doesn't pay SS tax.
Does the job she does warrant such wages and benefits?

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 07:54 PM
More insane when you think govt creates nothing no wealth. Can only survive by taking from those who do or borrowing (as is most of the case now as tax receipts will barley pay for defense and SS) There will be a reckoning soon with them too don't worry.

We need government we need government employees - but not ones that put us in debt let alone ones that make more than the people they are taxing. It's unsustainable.

So who has this wealth? AMG execs?
The government creates jobs. People who have jobs spend money. People who spend money drive the economy.

The government is a service industry, which subcontracts out in large part to private industry. Now if you want to say that service industries aren't significant to the economy, be my guest, but that's going to be a hard sell.

Hell I don't like the government much, but this "productivity" kick we got onto was so bogus it was ridiculous.

What is productivity? Having one person do the work of two so you could fire one or cut the pay of both.

As a society we're severely fucked up if we think that's a good thing, unless of course you are an Exec raking in more money for putting more people on unemployment.

Red Dawn
12-11-2009, 07:57 PM
So who has this wealth? AMG execs?
The government creates jobs. People who have jobs spend money. People who spend money drive the economy.

The government is a service industry, which subcontracts out in large part to private industry. Now if you want to say that service industries aren't significant to the economy, be my guest, but that's going to be a hard sell.

Hell I don't like the government much, but this "productivity" kick we got onto was so bogus it was ridiculous.

What is productivity? Having one person do the work of two so you could fire one or cut the pay of both.

As a society we're severely fucked up if we think that's a good thing, unless of course you are an Exec raking in more money for putting more people on unemployment.
Well our economy has become one of service instead of productivity.

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 07:59 PM
What does executive pay have to do with federal employee's getting a pay raise in a time of deflationary pressure? I work in the private sector and wont see a raise this year. But the govt sees fit to make sure its employee's do? Jonks presented it as if Obama giving them a 2% raise was worthy of praise. That is 2% above inflation.


It has everything to do with it. On one hand employees shouldn't expect a raise, but the execs should see a bonus even if they run the company into the ground. We had bail outs which ensured that.

You shouldn't be complaining that people got a 2% raise, but yelling like hell that some nitwit got yours.

If government is so inferior to large corporations, then why the hell did they need to be bailed out to begin with?

Again, I dislike government because it's agenda driven, but when people are trying to make a living who have no say in those decisions I'm not going to try to kill their cow.

marincounty
12-11-2009, 08:05 PM
The main reason I quit working for the fed govt many years ago was the lousy pay.
Now that they have reduced the retirement benefits and have layoffs, there is no reason for competent people to consider working for the govt.

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 08:13 PM
Well our economy has become one of service instead of productivity.


That's one of my points. The only sector that "makes" anything is manufacturing. We don't do much of that any more, and therefore we make money doing things for other people which don't go into their pocket or on their shelves. It isn't all physical "stuff" anymore.

Now one can argue against government and taxation because often it takes money and spends it on things the general public doesn't want, but on the other hand when a corporation sees the need to lay off people or not give them a raise but then decides to spend millions on exec bathrooms, I'd say the same thing.

It's a conflation of issues. Because people dislike the government (and you know how I feel about government run health care and the like), some seem to resent the guy down the street because he works for them. Apparently they should be mowing the lawns of those in the private sector, or be punished in other ways.

For me it's a matter of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and if some lucky bastard earns a few dollars more I'm not going to beat my breast. Now if someone screws around whether they are the cook or CEO then out they go. If they work for Uncle Sam or UPS I really don't care.

Want to talk policy issues? Ok, that's another thing, but jeebus people don't need to crap on someone working for a living because Bush or Obama are at the helm any more than the teller at the bank should be kicked in the nads because his execs screwed the pooch and got handsomely rewarded.

Zebo
12-11-2009, 08:32 PM
So who has this wealth? AMG execs?
The government creates jobs. People who have jobs spend money. People who spend money drive the economy.

The government is a service industry, which subcontracts out in large part to private industry. Now if you want to say that service industries aren't significant to the economy, be my guest, but that's going to be a hard sell.

Hell I don't like the government much, but this "productivity" kick we got onto was so bogus it was ridiculous.

What is productivity? Having one person do the work of two so you could fire one or cut the pay of both.

As a society we're severely fucked up if we think that's a good thing, unless of course you are an Exec raking in more money for putting more people on unemployment.
AIG?

Government does not create a job it transfers wealth to create a job. Look we can debate the necessity of each and every service and corresponding job it provides all we want - sufficed to say we'd all disagree but the bottom line is they are too many and too much as private economy can not support them. Proof is we borrow about 500B-2T a year to cover the short comings putting everyone on the line for this debt. The only way out is cut spending or raise taxes to regain balance choose one but their will be a day when we will have to choose.

lothar
12-11-2009, 08:34 PM
My girl works for the gubment. Nice hefty salary but her benefits are INSANE. Awesome pension/retirement and gold plated health insurance. So she easily has 30K a year if not more in benefits alone.

And she doesn't pay SS tax.

Government employees don't pay SS tax?

bob4432
12-11-2009, 08:37 PM
Government employees don't pay SS tax?

yes they do.

Marlin1975
12-11-2009, 08:41 PM
What % of the jobs require 15+ years experience and advanced degrees masters, and phd etc? Statistic is irrelevant without that data.

This +


I work Fed Gov and you have to be a GS14 (step1) or higher to get 100k+. 14 or 15 is not that easy. You can get it at the 13 level as well but you have to be there for a long time to get a high enough step.

Then there are Foreign Service and I can't remember the charts off the top of my head. Then SES people. But again not many.

BUt at the GS14 level you are either a lawyer with many years of Exp and on at least a bar or more or you have many years os specilized experiance that you are not able to get out in private sector.

And in DC 100k does not go as far as 100k in NC or many other places. I make a little over 60k and my wife another 80k+ and we are not rolling in it here in N.VA. But if we made that much in Cary/Raleigh NC we be MUCH better off.
So a 100k does not say much depending where you live. And most Fed Gov places are in major cities. Would you be happy with 100k... in SF and have to live in a small place and probable never own a home? or 60k in in NC have a decent house?

Genx87
12-11-2009, 08:41 PM
It has everything to do with it. On one hand employees shouldn't expect a raise, but the execs should see a bonus even if they run the company into the ground. We had bail outs which ensured that.

You shouldn't be complaining that people got a 2% raise, but yelling like hell that some nitwit got yours.

If government is so inferior to large corporations, then why the hell did they need to be bailed out to begin with?

Again, I dislike government because it's agenda driven, but when people are trying to make a living who have no say in those decisions I'm not going to try to kill their cow.

Nobody including the execs at my place are getting a raise. In fact the owner of the company stands to lose millions of dollars this year. But really private executive pay has nothing to do with public employee's seeing standard cost of living wage increases in a time of deflation.

I will be complaining public employee's being paid with public(my) dollars are getting a raise. If some private organization feels fit to give raises that is their business.

Zebo
12-11-2009, 08:44 PM
Production is everything. Services are a byproduct of production. Service is the cart production is the horse. You can't put the cart in front of the horse and expect it to go. Like the car you drive requires mechanics, gas stations, drivers to truck the gas around, people to pump oil out of the ground, people to trade commodities and futures in gas steal tin and anything else that car uses.

Poker night see you guys

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 08:48 PM
AIG?

Government does not create a job it transfers wealth to create a job. Look we can debate the necessity of each and every service and corresponding job it provides all we want - sufficed to say we'd all disagree but the bottom line is they are too many and too much as private economy can not support them. Proof is we borrow about 500B-2T a year to cover the short comings putting everyone on the line for this debt. The only way out is cut spending or raise taxes to regain balance choose one but their will be a day when we will have to choose.


Heh, not the car company.

I understand that there is a limit to what ought to be spent and as you say what that is and how it ought to be allocated is up for debate. What I'm looking at is the OPs article which states pretty much nothing, but there were plenty of people saying that it was awful that they made that much. Never mind that it's entirely possible like work in like areas might be discounted over private pay, or perhaps not. People saw a dollar figure and went off in a complete vacuum. That led to other things, but again my main point is that we may want to crucify policy makers, but I don't want to kick the guy who trying to make an honest living in the nuts because of them.

One thing is rarely mentioned. For sake of argument, suppose that a third of public employees were released to get to the "right" size.

They wouldn't be absorbed into the job market. In fact it would depress wages. Wal-Mart can only use so many greeters. That means people would be on unemployment and doing nothing at all.

We may wish the world were different, but if it were to happen then the consequences might not be so pleasant after all.

spidey07
12-11-2009, 08:50 PM
Does the job she does warrant such wages and benefits?

Believe it or not, it does. A masters is required, doctorate preferred. I would expect similar total compensation in the private sector given the impact of her decisions.

My main point is the benefits are incredible which is typical for gubment work

Hayabusa Rider
12-11-2009, 09:03 PM
Nobody including the execs at my place are getting a raise. In fact the owner of the company stands to lose millions of dollars this year. But really private executive pay has nothing to do with public employee's seeing standard cost of living wage increases in a time of deflation.

I will be complaining public employee's being paid with public(my) dollars are getting a raise. If some private organization feels fit to give raises that is their business.


Yet if they give a raise you are going to pay more if a private organization gives them out.

This is a philosophical issue for you, not a financial one. Public employees aren't as worthy so they shouldn't get a raise, but if you had to pay more for some service from a private industry that would be fine.

In NY we are killing our residents and businesses with taxation. No one pays more than we do in western NY. Why is that? Not because the state workers got a raise, they took a cut, but because of political pandering and bad judgment. Those at the top are responsible, and I hold them accountable for mismanagement. Then again I hold the financial industry or anyone else who screws us in equal contempt.

Fox5
12-11-2009, 09:09 PM
the old mantra was that govt employees make less salary, but get way better benefits (pensions, cadillac healthcare, 7 weeks vacation, etc...)

Now they get all the best benefits AND on average 30 grand more per year.

What a fvcking crock of shlt.

Benefits have been cut a lot.

And most of those >$100,000 a year jobs are probably managerial positions. Generally, the government jobs I've looked at have been the worst paid in the fields they're offered in.

lothar
12-11-2009, 09:26 PM
Government employees don't pay SS tax?

yes they do.

So how is his wife able to evade the SS tax while almost everyone else has to pay it?
Is she looking for a future job in the Obama administration?

TruePaige
12-11-2009, 09:27 PM
So how is his wife able to evade the SS tax while almost everyone else has to pay it?
Is she looking for a future job in the Obama administration?

You know you can opt out of SS in some positions, right?

Some ways to get around it:

* Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
* State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
* Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
* Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
* Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
* Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
* Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
* College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
* Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.

Genx87
12-11-2009, 10:55 PM
Yet if they give a raise you are going to pay more if a private organization gives them out.

This is a philosophical issue for you, not a financial one. Public employees aren't as worthy so they shouldn't get a raise, but if you had to pay more for some service from a private industry that would be fine.

In NY we are killing our residents and businesses with taxation. No one pays more than we do in western NY. Why is that? Not because the state workers got a raise, they took a cut, but because of political pandering and bad judgment. Those at the top are responsible, and I hold them accountable for mismanagement. Then again I hold the financial industry or anyone else who screws us in equal contempt.

It has nothing to do with whether public employee's are worthy or not. We are in a time of deflationary pressure. Why would anybody get a cost of living increase?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

dammitgibs
12-11-2009, 11:56 PM
This just proves that big government is better, how many private sectors have had an explosion of 6 figure incomes during the recession? Obvious the business of governing has been doing very well if they're able to afford all these pay increases. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it you capitalism small government hicks!

Craig234
12-12-2009, 02:42 AM
Benefits have been cut a lot.

And most of those >$100,000 a year jobs are probably managerial positions. Generally, the government jobs I've looked at have been the worst paid in the fields they're offered in.

Wow - Fox telling the tuth:)

ScottyB
12-12-2009, 05:00 AM
You know you can opt out of SS in some positions, right?

Some ways to get around it:

* Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
* State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers' alternative retirement system.
* Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
* Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
* Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
* Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
* Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
* College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
* Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.

I wondered why I pay some taxes and not Medicaid and SS.

dmcowen674
12-12-2009, 09:32 AM
My girl works for the gubment.

Nice hefty salary but her benefits are INSANE.

Awesome pension/retirement and gold plated health insurance. So she easily has 30K a year if not more in benefits alone.

And she doesn't pay SS tax.

Ah idiot ass caught lying once again.

In the other thread where you claim everything is Obama's fault and you claim you and your girlfriend are doing worse because of Obama you also claim that you both are considering not getting married because of Obama's marriage penalty.

Since she is clearly doing worse she should quit that shit ass job immediately, she is clearly not doing her job to the best of her ability since you and her feel the Government sucks with Obama running it.

Triumph
12-12-2009, 10:01 AM
Ah idiot ass caught lying once again.

In the other thread where you claim everything is Obama's fault and you claim you and your girlfriend are doing worse because of Obama you also claim that you both are considering not getting married because of Obama's marriage penalty.

Since she is clearly doing worse she should quit that shit ass job immediately, she is clearly not doing her job to the best of her ability since you and her feel the Government sucks with Obama running it.

I work for the Army. I pay SS. I don't know anyone who doesn't, or why they wouldn't. Maybe state guv'ment, but not the fed.

We also don't have pensions anymore. I have a retirement account similar to a 401k, called a thrift savings plan. Guv'ment puts in like 1%, I put in 14%. If I retire, that's my pension.

ebaycj
12-12-2009, 10:31 AM
insane


FDIC, Arlington VA.

https://jobs1.quickhire.com/scripts/fdic.exe/runjobinfo?aOrg=1&aJob=3401

Salary: $123,693.00 TO $204,659.00

Who May Apply:
All US Citizens

Key Requirements:
* None




Enrollment in the Federal Employees Retirement
System.

Federal Thrift Savings Plan and FDIC 401(k)
Plan, both with employer matching funds.

Health and Dependent Care Flexible Spending
Accounts.

Federal and FDIC Life Insurance Programs,
Federal health insurance and FDIC dental and
vision plans;

for permanent appointments only,
long-term disability insurance.

Thirteen 13 paid sick leave days annually,
including sick leave usage options for family-
related reasons.

Ten 10 paid holidays per year.

Thirteen 13 paid days of vacation for the first 3
years of federal service, increasing to 20 days
for more than 3 to 15 years of service, and 26
days for more than 15 years of federal service.

Transit Subsidy Program for employees who
commute via public transportation.

WorkLife Programs and Services, including:
teleworking,
alternative work schedules,
Information and Referral Services,
and Elder Care Support Services.

Business Casual Dress Code.

Clinical Support Services.

Supplemental pay and support for activated
Reserve and Guard members.


Sounds like a good gig.

venkman
12-12-2009, 10:44 AM
100k in the DC area is middle class. Sounds about average.

No kidding, I make nearly 60K a year in NOVA and still live like I did in college making $12/hr part time.

Hayabusa Rider
12-12-2009, 11:54 AM
Sounds like a good gig.

Sure does.

For the $123k starting salary the lucky bastard can live here

http://a367.yahoofs.com/ypost_re/pacman_6783cf112aed3ba78908956cce978e8_task_200908 242358_500517_m_000008_0_10890_1260405858/da14ec38-a0ad-436f-b728-943c82de2b52.jpg?reA.TENB6NdkEPo.

It's a steal at $639,500

Painman
12-12-2009, 12:05 PM
What the flying fuck? $639.5 for a bungalow? That's insane.

I live in more-or-less (much closer to less) metro Boston, and... That's Insane.

The Washington Monument better be right behind that fucking tree.

TruePaige
12-12-2009, 12:12 PM
Sounds like a good gig.

You could post the real requirements, once of which is that you must have been working as a GS-14 or equivalent for at least a year.

Under law, FDIC may not employ any person who
has:
1) been convicted of any felony;
2) been removed from, or prohibited from
participating in the affairs of any insured
depository institution pursuant to any final
enforcement action by any appropriate Federal
banking agency;
3) demonstrated a pattern or practice of
defalcation regarding obligations to insured
depository institutions; or
4) caused a substantial loss, in an amount in
excess of $50,000, to Federal deposit insurance
funds.

FDIC employees, their spouses, and minor
children are also prohibited from acquiring,
owning, or controlling, directly or indirectly,
a security of an FDIC-insured depository
institution, or an affiliate of an FDIC-insured
depository institution.

An applicant who accepts and occupies this
position and who holds a license related to real
estate, appraisals, securities, or insurance,
including but not limited to a real estate
broker's license, a mortgage broker's license, a
financial planner license, and a real estate
appraiser license, is prohibited from using such
license in matters involving or related to real
estate, appraisals, securities, or insurance,
other than in the performance of his or her
official duties, for the production of income.

Only United States citizens and nationals
(residents of American Samoa and Swains Island)
are eligible for appointment to competitive
service jobs.

Moderate Risk Position--Minimum Background
Investigation (MBI) Required.

Applicants tentatively selected for this
position must complete a Confidential Financial
Disclosure OGE-450 prior to receiving an
official offer from the Human Resources Branch.

Candidate must possess one year of specialized experience at or
equivalent to the grade 14 level in the Federal service.
Specialized experience is managing a divisional program involving
Information Technology (IT) policy and implementation, IT business
planning, IT program budgeting, staff evaluation and planning,
management reporting, IT project tracking, productivity measurement
and evaluation and work with senior management on sensitive issues
impacting an Information Technology (IT) organization.

Candidates eligible for CTAP or ICTAP will be
determined to be well-qualified if they achieve
a score of 85 points or higher. More
information on
http://www.fdic.gov/about/jobs/jobs
_ctap_ictap.html

How You Will Be Evaluated:
Applicants will be evaluated on responses to
quality ranking factors described in vacancy
questions. The applicants' answers will be
validated against information provided in their
resumes, including their paid or volunteer
experience, education, training, and
certifications. The score awarded will be
augmented by additional points for applicants
who are eligible for and claim veterans
preference.

How to Apply:
The first step is registering as a user of FDIC
Careers and then responding to all of the
vacancy questions. During registration you will
be required to establish a password. It is
essential that you verify before noon of the
closing date that you have access to your FDIC
Careers account to ensure you are able to
complete your application on time. If you are
locked out of your account, you must call 1-866-
656-6831 or email mgshelp@monster.com between 7
a.m. and 7 p.m., E.T. or call Monday-Friday.
Each account is linked to a unique SSN;
therefore, you cannot create a new account as a
work-around to a lost password. Creating a
false SSN or using another's is prohibited under
18 USC 1001.

We encourage you to review the resume that you
load in FDIC Careers and update it to accurately
reflect your current experience, providing
specifics that will help us verify the responses
provided to the vacancy questions. If you have
rated yourself higher than is supported by your
description of experience and/or education or
your application is incomplete, you may be rated
ineligible or your score may be lowered.
Check below for any documentation needs that may
be relevant to your application.

Only applications submitted by 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time of the closing date via the FDIC
Careers site will be accepted.

Exceptions will be made in the instance of
handicap accommodation specific to problems with
using a computer or extreme hardship cases in
accessing technology. Applicants requesting an
exception from on-line application must contact
the Human Resources Specialist listed in the
vacancy announcement prior to 12:00--noon local
time on the closing date. Approved applicants
will receive a complete paper application
package which includes the same vacancy
questions as those applying on-line, to be
completed and returned within timeframes as
specified in the package. Alternate
applications submitted without prior approval
will not be accepted for this announcement.

Required Documents:
Please review information about types of
documentation that may apply to your
application. If you claim special hiring
eligibility, you will need to provide
supplemental documentation. For VRA and 30%
disabled veterans, please check the information
at our Veterans Employment link; for the
disabled, please check the information at our
People with Disabilities link. Both of these
links are displayed at the top of the FDIC
Careers home page.

All supplemental documents required to establish
your eligibility or entitlement to any type of
consideration need to be received by the closing
date. If you encounter a delay in meeting the
cut-off, contact the HR specialist noted in this
announcement by noon of the closing date to
request an extension. Late filing of
documentation will not be accepted without the
prior approval of the specialist. Submit your
documentation using the fax coversheet that you
will be prompted to printout at the end of the
application process.

Veterans' preference eligibles must submit a
copy of their DD214 which shows complete service
dates and character of service (Member Copy 4),
and other documentation as appropriate, as
explained on the Veterans Employment
http://www.fdic.gov/about/jobs/jobs_vetera
ns.html site.

Applicants claiming CTAP/ICTAP eligibility
should review requirements at the CTAP/ICTAP
http://www.fdic.gov/about/jobs/jobs_ctap_
ictap.html. Documents required to establish
eligibility include a copy of the agency RIF
notice or certificate of expected separation,
your most recent performance appraisal, and your
most recent SF-50 showing position, grade level
and duty location.

What to Expect Next:
Applicants should sign in to the FDIC Careers system to monitor the
status of their application.

Benefits:
The FDIC offers a comprehensive package of
employee benefits and worklife programs. Some
benefits are at no cost while others involve a
premium or contribution, often on a pre-tax
basis. Your type of appointment determines the
benefits for which you are eligible.

Enrollment in the Federal Employees Retirement
System.
Federal Thrift Savings Plan and FDIC 401(k)
Plan, both with employer matching funds.
Health and Dependent Care Flexible Spending
Accounts.
Federal and FDIC Life Insurance Programs,
Federal health insurance and FDIC dental and
vision plans; for permanent appointments only,
long-term disability insurance.
Thirteen paid sick leave days annually,
including sick leave usage options for family-
related reasons.
Ten paid holidays per year.
Thirteen paid days of vacation for the first 3
years of federal service, increasing to 20 days
for more than 3 to 15 years of service, and 26
days for more than 15 years of federal service.
Transit Subsidy Program for employees who
commute via public transportation.
WorkLife Programs and Services, including:
teleworking, alternative work schedules,
Information and Referral
Services and Elder Care Support Services.
Business Casual Dress Code.
Clinical Support Services.
Supplemental pay and support for activated
Reserve and Guard members.

Additional Information:
Additional selections may be made from
applicants to this position to fill identical
vacancies that occur subsequent to this
announcement, as allowed by regulation.

Please read about your rights and
responsibilities as an applicant for Federal
employment under the following link:
http://www.fdic.gov/about/jobs/jobs_rights
protections.html.

If selected from a DEU certificate or this is
your first federal appointment, you will be
required to serve a one-year probationary perio

Veramocor
12-12-2009, 05:11 PM
My girl works for the gubment. Nice hefty salary but her benefits are INSANE. Awesome pension/retirement and gold plated health insurance. So she easily has 30K a year if not more in benefits alone.

And she doesn't pay SS tax.

Unless your girl was under the CSRS retirement statement this can't be correct (which means she was working for the federal government prior to 1986 to be under CSRS). All federal employees under FERS retirement system pay social security tax.

Veramocor
12-12-2009, 05:20 PM
the old mantra was that govt employees make less salary, but get way better benefits (pensions, cadillac healthcare, 7 weeks vacation, etc...)

Now they get all the best benefits AND on average 30 grand more per year.

What a fvcking crock of shlt.

Federal government is hiring scientists, accountants, engineers and lawyers not low wage McDonalds or WalMart workers so of course the average is going to be higher. As seen below there are older workers (higher pay), more educated workers (higher pay again), and they work less part time schedules.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/are-federal-workers-overpaid/

"In 2008, only 14 percent of federal workers were on part-time schedules, compared to 26 percent in the private sector. Federal workers were far older on average: 55 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, compared to 36 percent of private-sector workers. Furthermore, 45 percent of federal workers held a college degree or higher educational credential, compared to 29 percent of private-sector workers."

Full Disclosure: I work for the USPTO as a patent examiner. Before any bitching commences the USPTO is fee funded so it doesn't spend any tax dollars (in fact Congress has raided the money the PTO has taken in over the last 20 years).

nobodyknows
12-12-2009, 05:33 PM
Sure does.

For the $123k starting salary the lucky bastard can live here

http://a367.yahoofs.com/ypost_re/pacman_6783cf112aed3ba78908956cce978e8_task_200908 242358_500517_m_000008_0_10890_1260405858/da14ec38-a0ad-436f-b728-943c82de2b52.jpg?reA.TENB6NdkEPo.

It's a steal at $639,500

Well, if he can live on $1.37/day for food then he could pay for the house in 6 years.

Balt
12-12-2009, 07:00 PM
I'm going to speculate on a few possible contributing factors not mentioned in the article:

1) Our civil service is aging. I've been hearing for the last 8 years that a lot of it will have to be replaced in the near future because of retirements. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. It might be the case that a bunch of these future retirees are finally reaching the GS salary rate that puts them above $100k.

or

2) Some of the people who ordinarily abandon the civil service at around the ~$100k mark for private sectors jobs are staying put because they know how bad the economy is. People making that salary are likely the managers, who might have more private sector opportunities that they don't turn down when the economy is good.

As I said, just speculation. No statistics to back any of it up.

Marlin1975
12-12-2009, 07:53 PM
I'm going to speculate on a few possible contributing factors not mentioned in the article:

1) Our civil service is aging. I've been hearing for the last 8 years that a lot of it will have to be replaced in the near future because of retirements. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. It might be the case that a bunch of these future retirees are finally reaching the GS salary rate that puts them above $100k.

or

2) Some of the people who ordinarily abandon the civil service at around the ~$100k mark for private sectors jobs are staying put because they know how bad the economy is. People making that salary are likely the managers, who might be have more private sector opportunities that they don't turn down when the economy is good.

As I said, just speculation. No statistics to back any of it up.

1. Is very true. In fcat we have a brain drain problem now. Now from people leaving to private sector jobs but retirement. So some we bring back on to train others and/or they go to work teaching other federal employees.

2. Hit or miss depending on the field, so not true or false but sometimes. One problem is for example we have a hard time getting fresh out of college lawyers but can soemtime sget ones with many years of exp. the older ones don;t want to work 50-60-70+++ hours a week. They don;t mind less pay for more family/freetime. The youngers ones only care about $$$.

NeoV
12-12-2009, 10:19 PM
the story here isn't how much they are making - it's how many more federal workers are now making big money than they were just a few years ago despite the overall economic climate

Patranus
12-12-2009, 10:20 PM
the story here isn't how much they are making - it's how many more federal workers are now making big money than they were just a few years ago despite the overall economic climate

Yup.

blackangst1
12-13-2009, 01:02 PM
Subject: 19% of Federal Employees make over $100,000 /yr (not including overtime)

Response: And so?

blackangst1
12-13-2009, 01:03 PM
the story here isn't how much they are making - it's how many more federal workers are now making big money than they were just a few years ago despite the overall economic climate

Sorry, but $100k in the cities I bet theyre making it in is NOT big money.

Rainsford
12-13-2009, 01:29 PM
the story here isn't how much they are making - it's how many more federal workers are now making big money than they were just a few years ago despite the overall economic climate

Why is that a story?

Sure, it's easy to get caught up in the "outrage", but aside from the generic (implied) argument that federal employees making more money is bad, I don't see a lot of logic behind it.

People should get paid based on their skills and experience, not based on how the overall economy is doing. There are any number of perfectly rational reasons why feds would get paid more than a few years ago (I'll list them if you like, but I didn't want to turn my post into a novel)...should we ignore all of those reasons so federal employees can be made to suffer like some other Americans?

Rainsford
12-13-2009, 01:31 PM
Unless your girl was under the CSRS retirement statement this can't be correct (which means she was working for the federal government prior to 1986 to be under CSRS). All federal employees under FERS retirement system pay social security tax.

To be fair, spidey didn't say his girlfriend works for the US government...maybe she works for the government of Lollipopland, where those things could be true.

Here in the old USA though...not so much.

Hayabusa Rider
12-13-2009, 01:33 PM
Sorry, but $100k in the cities I bet theyre making it in is NOT big money.


Shhh, don't wake them up :D

As I said, there is no context, but if the majority of workers in an area are getting paid less than they need to afford housing etc, they'll leave unless they get more. That's private industry or public.

For those positions, it may be that they were severely underpaid and it was a wage correction to keep qualified people.

That 600k+ home in Arlington in a prior post isn't exactly a mansion.

Rainsford
12-13-2009, 01:45 PM
Shhh, don't wake them up :D

As I said, there is no context, but if the majority of workers in an area are getting paid less than they need to afford housing etc, they'll leave unless they get more. That's private industry or public.

For those positions, it may be that they were severely underpaid and it was a wage correction to keep qualified people.

That 600k+ home in Arlington in a prior post isn't exactly a mansion.

It's pretty widely known that the government has a very hard time hanging on to people in professions requiring a high degree of skill and education (in other words, the type of jobs where people make $100k+) because private industry tends to pay those people far more.

heyheybooboo
12-13-2009, 02:43 PM
I thought this was pretty interesting (http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm) ...

Average annual salaries for full-time workers under the General Schedule in the Federal Government

All occupations
$65,463


General attorney
111,304

Financial management
101,022

General engineering
100,051

Economist
94,098

Computer science
90,929

Chemistry
89,954

Criminal investigating
88,174

Microbiology
87,206

Architecture
87,128

Statistics
85,690

Information technology management
81,524

Librarian
80,873

Accounting
78,665

Chaplain
78,030

Ecology
76,511

Human resources management
76,503

Mine safety and health
73,003

Air traffic control
72,049

Budget analysis
71,267

Correctional officer
67,140

Nurse
65,345

Engineering technical
63,951

Border patrol agent
63,550

Medical technologist
59,840

Customs and border protection
59,248

Legal assistance
46,912

Fire protection and prevention
43,407

Secretary
42,334

Police
42,150

Tax examining
38,290

Human resources assistance
37,835

Nursing assistant
33,134


It appears that roughly two-thirds of Fed jobs would be considered 'professional'. I was surprised that only 1.6% of employees are lawyers while 4.6% are engineers.

Also surprising - overall employment in most job categories is declining while correctional officers, jailers, detectives and criminal investigators have increased 13.4%.

Wreckem
12-14-2009, 08:56 PM
I work for the Army. I pay SS. I don't know anyone who doesn't, or why they wouldn't. Maybe state guv'ment, but not the fed.

We also don't have pensions anymore. I have a retirement account similar to a 401k, called a thrift savings plan. Guv'ment puts in like 1%, I put in 14%. If I retire, that's my pension.

Are you not employed by the Federal Government?

Federal employees get TSP, but if they hit 20 years of service(or 62 years old with atleast 5 years of service), they do indeed get a pension/annuity.

Its calculated by 1-1.1%(1.7 for Air Traffic Controllers, members of Congress, Congressional staffers) x years of service. If you are a regular federal employee working 20+ years you should get atleast 20-22% of your highest three salary averaged yearly. Its not as good as the old retirement program but you are misleading when you say all you have is TSP.

Wreckem
12-14-2009, 09:09 PM
Whoever said the majority of Fed employees live in DC/VA/Maryland area are complete morons. The vast majority are working in the other 48 states + overseas. Not even the majority of the highest earners work in the DC area. Not to mention salaries are also adjusted for cost of living for specific areas.

Lakedaimon
12-14-2009, 09:38 PM
Im a federal employee and in my agency only a handful of people make 100k unless they have been there for ages or have an upper management position - which usually requires you to go on tours of duty in Washington DC and move around the country frequently. Someone with my experience could probably make more in the private sector but id probably be expected to work longer hours and the job security just isnt there.

I make pretty good money, but ive also earned a merit promotion past my normal journeyman level. I grew up in a UAW household, so the benefits arent that great in comparison. Health insurance is good, but dental and vision are crummy. Pension will be 1% of my annual pay for every year of service, so 30% if I retire asap. Like a lot of people my 401k (the TSP) took a real beating the past couple years. The old pre 1984 system gave you 2% per year of service but you didnt get social security or the 401k.

Craig234
12-16-2009, 08:26 AM
To be fair, spidey didn't say his girlfriend works for the US government...maybe she works for the government of Lollipopland, where those things could be true.

A girlfriend from Lollipopland, doesn't get much better.

Hacp
12-16-2009, 09:11 AM
I assume these employees are union members? If so, they should all get fired and we should hire cheaper non-union workers. Too long has the American taxpayer been raped by sky high union salaries.

Red Dawn
12-16-2009, 09:28 AM
I assume these employees are union members? If so, they should all get fired and we should hire cheaper non-union workers. Too long has the American taxpayer been raped by sky high union salaries.LOL A Union member impregnate your wife and run off with her??:awe:

Marlin1975
12-16-2009, 09:45 AM
I assume these employees are union members? If so, they should all get fired and we should hire cheaper non-union workers. Too long has the American taxpayer been raped by sky high union salaries.




The low paying jobs are union the higher up Pro/MGT ones are usually not allowed to join the union. I am not allowed to join due to my job function and I am only a GS11 and started out as a 7.

Nice try at the "unions are all evil cause of all our problems..." post.

NoCreativity
12-16-2009, 10:30 AM
The misinformation in both the article and this thread is very amusing.

werepossum
12-16-2009, 10:58 AM
This is just the natural progression of establishing our mandarin class. As government takes more and more control of our lives, it's only natural that they earn much more money as well. If we are not smart enough to run our own lives, we can hardly expect to earn as much as those who are smart enough to run their own lives as ours too, right?

Lakedaimon
12-16-2009, 07:58 PM
At my job all management (usually GS-13+)is non-union. The regular peons have a union, but cannot go on strike (legally anyways). Being in the union is not mandatory.

Generally the union works pretty well alongside management. However you occasionally have managers who try to make arbitrary and ridiculous changes. One wanted a dress code where all women had to wear skirts & pantyhose. This is where the union steps in.

We've had one case where an employee got into a fairly serious situation involving the police. The union actually didnt want the person back afterwards, but management has kept the person around. Go figure.

werepossum
12-16-2009, 08:10 PM
At my job all management (usually GS-13+)is non-union. The regular peons have a union, but cannot go on strike (legally anyways). Being in the union is not mandatory.

Generally the union works pretty well alongside management. However you occasionally have managers who try to make arbitrary and ridiculous changes. One wanted a dress code where all women had to wear skirts & pantyhose. This is where the union steps in.

We've had one case where an employee got into a fairly serious situation involving the police. The union actually didnt want the person back afterwards, but management has kept the person around. Go figure.

Actually that seems to be a pretty benign union to me, as the employees already have good-paying, generally not difficult jobs with excellent job security and benefits and good raises and therefore don't need to strike. Bringing bullshit like that to the attention of higher-ups is usually sufficient without a strike. As far as keeping undesirable people employed, as long as you don't start preaching to your coworkers you're unlikely to lose a government job anyway.

Rainsford
12-17-2009, 12:00 AM
This is just the natural progression of establishing our mandarin class. As government takes more and more control of our lives, it's only natural that they earn much more money as well. If we are not smart enough to run our own lives, we can hardly expect to earn as much as those who are smart enough to run their own lives as ours too, right?

What kind of communist crap is that? It must be totally impossible that some people make more money because they have more valuable skills. Nope, it's definitely because of some massive conspiracy of the overclass against the hard-working normal folk.

IronWing
12-17-2009, 12:04 AM
I assume these employees are union members? If so, they should all get fired and we should hire cheaper non-union workers. Too long has the American taxpayer been raped by sky high union salaries.
If you should someday successfully complete high school and enter the work force you might find that unions can be helpful and useful to you.