federal employees make more for the same job than private

[BlahBlahYouToo]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4619486...eral-workers-make-more-same-job/#.Ty00T_lnASE

The average federal worker earns about 2 percent more than a private sector worker in a comparable profession, though the government's generous pension system means that overall compensation is significantly higher, a government study released Monday said.

Once pension and health benefits are factored in, the average federal worker reaps 16 percent more in total compensation than do private sector workers.

The Congressional Budget Office study said federal workers in lower-level jobs make more than private sector workers but that those with advanced degrees earn more in the private sector. Federal workers with a high school education or less earn about $4 more an hour than private sector employees in similar jobs.

The CBO study comes as House GOP leader have scheduled a vote this week to extend the current federal worker pay freeze for an additional year and have been pressing to make federal employees contribute more for their pensions.

"While millions of Americans continue to struggle with stagnant wages and high unemployment, government bureaucrats in Washington continue to enjoy significant advantages over those whose tax dollars finance their compensation," read a statement by the office of Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee.

The average benefits package for federal workers, including health insurance and a defined benefit pension plan, costs the government about 48 percent more than for private sector workers in comparable jobs. Defined benefit pensions — in which retirement payments are based on a formula involving wages and length of service — are becoming far less common in the private sector.

The federal government employs about 2.3 million civilian workers, or about 1.7 percent of the U.S. workforce. Total compensation for civilian federal workers costs roughly $200 billion a year. Civilian worker pay has been frozen for the past two years in response to exploding budget deficits.

President Barack Obama has proposed lifting the pay freeze next year but limiting the increase to a small 0.5 percent hike.

Supporters of federal workers say the government has difficulty competing for highly qualified workers like doctors and engineers because federal pay isn't as high. Indeed, federal workers with a professional degree or a doctorate earn, on average, 23 percent less than private sector employees. On the other hand, the government offers far greater job security and comparable benefits.

For workers with a college degree, private and public sector wages are about the same, but the government's benefits package means overall compensation costs about $7 more an hour, on average.

Lower-skill workers with a high school diploma or less fare significantly better as government workers than they would in comparable private sector jobs, with 21 percent higher wages and far better health and pension benefits.

so more pay, more time off, better benefits with lower contribution.
and the tax payers are paying for this.

 

[silverpig]

1. It is probably on average. A government mailroom clerk earns more than the average private sector mailroom clerk, but I doubt they earn more than EVERY private sector mailroom clerk.

2. Maybe they do that so they can attract the best mailroom clerks? There's nothing wrong with paying more if you get more for it.

 

[PeshakJang]

1. It is probably on average. A government mailroom clerk earns more than the average private sector mailroom clerk, but I doubt they earn more than EVERY private sector mailroom clerk.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12696/01-30-FedPay.pdf

Page 21 shows distribution for different education levels. Public and private distributions are roughly the same, with some variation.

2. Maybe they do that so they can attract the best mailroom clerks? There's nothing wrong with paying more if you get more for it.

It's a no-skill occupation. There are no pay incentives to be a better mail clerk, other than to last long enough to get your scheduled raises.

Bottom line, the study shows what has been generally known for a long time. Federal jobs are basically a subsidy for the lower, uneducated class, paying above market wages for unskilled occupations.

 

[3chordcharlie]

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12696/01-30-FedPay.pdf

Page 21 shows distribution for different education levels. Public and private distributions are roughly the same, with some variation.



It's a no-skill occupation. There are no pay incentives to be a better mail clerk, other than to last long enough to get your scheduled raises.

Bottom line, the study shows what has been generally known for a long time. Federal jobs are basically a subsidy for the lower, uneducated class, paying above market wages for unskilled occupations.

I think we - and by we, I mean you - throw out the 'no-skill' tag too freely.

There are plenty of 'no-skill' jobs for which I am unsuited, and would be unproductive due to personality, physical capability, etc.

OTOH I suspect government is overpaying some of their employees in some areas, and a performance-based system of retention, promotion, and raises really is needed to replace a strictly seniority based one.

 

[Pneumothorax]

State jobs are even worse. Their guaranteed pensions are crazy where the employee contributions aren't even close to what's required for these 'fake nest eggs'. What's crazier is that these so called pension fund 'managers' claim a guaranteed (of course taxpayers are on the hook if the investments fail) 7-8% interest in their investment holdings into perpetuity. I sure would like to be able to contribute into that 401K with that much guaranteed return. This is all brought upon by the wonderful collaboration between the democrats and their true bosses: SEIU, teacher's unions (which love to defend cockroach and semen spoon feeders), and other ilk.

 

[yottabit]

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/126xx/doc12696/01-30-FedPay.pdf
It's a no-skill occupation. There are no pay incentives to be a better mail clerk, other than to last long enough to get your scheduled raises.

That's pretty harsh to say. Having used the post office frequently (or any shipping service), I can say that having a good mail clerk can both save you money and help make sure your package gets there on track. Sometimes I'm reusing a box and they'll cover an old Newegg barcode or something, whereas a slacker wouldn't.

2% really isn't much of a margin, but I think the pension needs to phase out in this day and age.

I honestly think that people in "unskilled" trades should still be compensated for performance much more than is traditional today. Take Dunkin Donuts for example. I don't see any reason why people starting shouldn't earn minimum wage, but then if you prove yourself over time (very low percentage of messed up orders, fast service, etc) you get a decent pay raise. Employers may not see it but that pay raise will pay for itself through the increased performance due to a reduction in overhead if you hire the right people!

 

[PeshakJang]

I think we - and by we, I mean you - throw out the 'no-skill' tag too freely.

There are plenty of 'no-skill' jobs for which I am unsuited, and would be unproductive due to personality, physical capability, etc.

I'd say you are making a case for capabilities, not skills. No-skill basically means that any average person could perform the task with little to no training.

Standing outside a gold store twirling one of those big signs is certainly no-skill... yet there are plenty of people that couldn't/wouldn't do it for various reasons.

 

[3chordcharlie]

That's pretty harsh to say. Having used the post office frequently (or any shipping service), I can say that having a good mail clerk can both save you money and help make sure your package gets there on track. Sometimes I'm reusing a box and they'll cover an old Newegg barcode or something, whereas a slacker wouldn't.

2% really isn't much of a margin, but I think the pension needs to phase out in this day and age.

I honestly think that people in "unskilled" trades should still be compensated for performance much more than is traditional today. Take Dunkin Donuts for example. I don't see any reason why people starting shouldn't earn minimum wage, but then if you prove yourself over time (very low percentage of messed up orders, fast service, etc) you get a decent pay raise. Employers may not see it but that pay raise will pay for itself through the increased performance due to a reduction in overhead if you hire the right people!

Any creative thought, engagement, talent, 'bedside manor', etc, are about to be defined as 'common sense' and not in any way 'skillful'...

 

[3chordcharlie]

I'd say you are making a case for capabilities, not skills. No-skill basically means that any average person could perform the task with little to no training.

Standing outside a gold store twirling one of those big signs is certainly no-skill... yet there are plenty of people that couldn't/wouldn't do it for various reasons.

We aren't talking about walking billboard. If you want to talk about that level of job, start a thread, or at least find an overpaid government employee who has 'walking billboard' for their job description.

Stay on-topic.

 

[PeshakJang]

That's pretty harsh to say. Having used the post office frequently (or any shipping service), I can say that having a good mail clerk can both save you money and help make sure your package gets there on track. Sometimes I'm reusing a box and they'll cover an old Newegg barcode or something, whereas a slacker wouldn't.

How does that relate to skill level? That's a motivation issue. If you like your job, you like your job. If you have no incentive to work any harder than is required, why would you?

2% really isn't much of a margin, but I think the pension needs to phase out in this day and age.

It's only 2% for the highest skill levels. It's 21% for the lowest education levels.

I honestly think that people in "unskilled" trades should still be compensated for performance much more than is traditional today. Take Dunkin Donuts for example. I don't see any reason why people starting shouldn't earn minimum wage, but then if you prove yourself over time (very low percentage of messed up orders, fast service, etc) you get a decent pay raise. Employers may not see it but that pay raise will pay for itself through the increased performance due to a reduction in overhead if you hire the right people!

You are talking like the market has no concept of pay, incentives, and personnel in terms of performance and return. Do you think this doesn't happen at Dunkin Donuts already? And every other place?

 

[PeshakJang]

We aren't talking about walking billboard. If you want to talk about that level of job, start a thread, or at least find an overpaid government employee who has 'walking billboard' for their job description.

Stay on-topic.

It's a comparative analogy of a no-skilled position that I used to show that you are talking about capabilities, not skills. Is this getting too confusing for you?

 

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, you're moaning that the 30 year shift of income to the tippy top in private enterprise hasn't extended to govt employment? That even low level govt employees still make a half-assed decent living when their private enterprise counterparts no longer do?

Jealous?

 

[IronWing]

If one reads past the graph on the cover of the report PeshakJang linked one discovers that while federal employees with HS only do better than in the private sector, they also make up a much smaller proportion of the federal work force than HS grads make up in the private sector (20% vs 41%). On the other end employees with Masters, Professional, and PhDs make up double the percentage of the federal work force vs those with similar degrees in the private sector (21% -vs 10%) [Table 1]. And those federal workers earn less in wages and benefits than their private sector counterparts [Table 2]. At the BS/BA level the federal workers do slightly better.

 

[3chordcharlie]

It's a comparative analogy of a no-skilled position that I used to show that you are talking about capabilities, not skills. Is this getting too confusing for you?

It's not a comparative analogy, it's clearly intended to be a disparaging analogy.

I do grasp the concept of a difference between skills/training and talent/ability. One is not necessarily worth more than the other, and regardless of the skillset required for a job, you need to attract the right person in the first place, or they will be hopeless. Skills you can generally train, talent you can't.

If you want to re-phrase that mail-clerk is not a highly-skilled job (say, requiring post-secondary education) I would certainly accept that.

 

[Siddhartha]

You get what you pay for.

 

[Codewiz]

This seems about right.

Highly skilled positions such as software developers and/or engineers get paid much less in the government than private industry.

Low skilled employees get paid more than private industry. However, in the case of the defense department, there isn't much you can do. You can't have your janitor trying to steal classified information. But you still need a janitor.

 

[Anarchist420]

This is what pisses me off so much. If the private sector paid this and was as wasteful and inefficient, then they'd go out of business.

It's the same thing with public school teachers. They get paid way more than their private school counterparts and that's fucked up. It's true that some public school teachers are literally risking their lives, but that's not the tax payer's fault.

Let me add something else to this. The Federal government has artificially increased the value of homes in the greater D.C. area because of all of the overpaid underworked government employees and quasi-private contractors. That's ridiculous that people are getting stolen money so more the government can steal more money and kill people. Contractors and government employees are doing very harmful work.

 

[soundforbjt]

This is what pisses me off so much. If the private sector paid this and was as wasteful and inefficient, then they'd go out of business.

So, I'll bet you have no problem with CEO's pay which could be considered wasteful & inefficient as well.

 

[Acanthus]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4619486...eral-workers-make-more-same-job/#.Ty00T_lnASE



so more pay, more time off, better benefits with lower contribution.
and the tax payers are paying for this.

I'm fine with this, as long as we are drawing good employees.

The problem at hand is the effectiveness of the work force. In a large swath of cases we are not getting what we are paying for.

 

[IronWing]

<snip>

Maybe some day you'll hold a job and be qualified to comment.

 

[Infohawk]

This is an ongoing problem with public sector employees. When you consider the legal protections they have in their jobs, the benefits and the stability they are simply being overcompensated compared to the private sector. It has to come back down towards normal. Their actual salary should be lower than the private sector considering all the perks they have.

 

[Jhhnn]

This is an ongoing problem with public sector employees. When you consider the legal protections they have in their jobs, the benefits and the stability they are simply being overcompensated compared to the private sector. It has to come back down towards normal. Their actual salary should be lower than the private sector considering all the perks they have.

Nice emphasis favoring the Lootocracy... It's not that govt employees are paid too much, but rather that private sector employees are paid too little relative to the financial elite. The top 1% share of income has doubled in 30 years, the top .1% doing much, much better, and it had to come at the expense of the rest of us, obviously.

 

[Rainsford]

This seems like an extremely important distinction that most people seem to be ignoring...

The Congressional Budget Office study said federal workers in lower-level jobs make more than private sector workers but that those with advanced degrees earn more in the private sector.

The backlash against government employees doesn't seem at all selective (the pay freeze targets EVERYONE, for example). Rather than trying to reform the system in a way to award more fair compensation, everyone gets their revenge against "overpaid government workers" in an overly broad way that ensures the higher skilled, higher quality employees leave for the private sector and the government is worse off than before...which is probably not the goal people had in mind.

 

[Infohawk]

Nice emphasis favoring the Lootocracy... It's not that govt employees are paid too much, but rather that private sector employees are paid too little relative to the financial elite. The top 1% share of income has doubled in 30 years, the top .1% doing much, much better, and it had to come at the expense of the rest of us, obviously.

This has nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth or the 1%. You could tax the top 1% at 75%, redistribute it, and government workers would still be making more than their private counterparts.

 

[Rainsford]

This has nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth or the 1%. You could tax the top 1% at 75%, redistribute it, and government workers would still be making more than their private counterparts.

I think the point was that folks are assuming that the private sector salaries for lower skilled workers (ie, those fields where government workers make more) are the "right" amount and that it's the government that's screwed up. Maybe it's not that government workers in those areas are paid too much, maybe the private sector workers are paid too little.

I'm not saying I agree with that necessarily, but it seems like a reasonable question to ask.