federal employees make more for the same job than private

[JSt0rm]

If you had government workers make 50% of what private make you would only get the biggest idiots working in government. We want smart people to work in government.

Some people throw out some stupid ideas around here.

 

[Throckmorton]

They can't opt out of their pension like private sector workers can opt out of their IRAs or whatever.

So because a lot of private sector workers opt out and don't get their employer match, they lose free money. It also means that federal gov workers have less disposable income. I work for a county government and I wish I could opt out of my pension. It's $180/month that I need for FOOD.

I'm quitting and going to the private sector as soon as I can. Working for government is for suckers.

 

[Infohawk]

As we slide towards a 3rd world wealth distribution you will find more outrages that these people are the only ones with jobs that maintained steady raises.

Smart middle class is in government work. Boring as fuck though.

You're right about government being the smart move for the middle-class and that third-world wealth distribution is going to make it worse.

What's scary is this is already the case in some European countries. I'm not a Eurobasher that hates on everything European, but that is not a trait we want to imitate. In some countries, the elite track is a job in government bureaucracy. And yet those governments are meaningfully more efficient than our government.

 

[Infohawk]

If you had government workers make 50% of what private make you would only get the biggest idiots working in government. We want smart people to work in government.

Some people throw out some stupid ideas around here.

If you kept reading you'd see I clearly meant the 50th percentile. Don't let me get in the way of your insults though.

 

[Anarchist420]

It isn't wasteful or inefficient based on pay alone. Whats wasteful and inefficient is how the private sector allocates pay to those at the top compared to those who actually make the products and provide the services in our economy. You have to realize that government and business are fundamentally different in their purposes, and hence in their operations. Are there improvements to be made? Of course.

Your teacher analogy is outright fail though. Having worked in private education, the problem isn't that public schools pay too much, its that private schools pay too little for what they do. I was able to make a larger difference in a private school due to having a supportive administration that didn't tie my hands behind my back due to the policies/regulations/etc. that public school teachers have imposed on their classrooms. K-12 isn't exactly a lucrative field to go into by a long shot despite the lipservice you hear about how much society values a good education.

If a private company misallocated resources, payments, and whatnot, then they'd go out of business. The Federal government can't go out of business so there is waste there.

As for private school teachers, you're right that they don't make a lot of money. However, that could be because of public schools, vouchers (which cause misallocation of resources), the value of an education isn't that high as we've been told, or any combination of the three.

I know someone who teaches at a Roman Catholic school and they're very inefficient from what I've observed. The dioceses are always in debt and they give very little of their money to the poor while they get a lot of revenue, especially from people who are paying to send their kids Roman Catholic schools. The Church of Rome also takes a lot of public money, so that should tell people something. I'd like to know where all of that money goes.

 

[Throckmorton]

As we slide towards a 3rd world wealth distribution you will find more outrages that these people are the only ones with jobs that maintained steady raises.

Smart middle class is in government work. Boring as fuck though.

It's only smart higher up in the pay grades. Maybe GS-10 and above. Otherwise you aren't even getting a living wage in some places, even with the COLA. They pay a new college graduate 27k. BTW... note that pays are frozen at 2010 levels. They aren't getting raises.

 

[JSt0rm]

If you kept reading you'd see I clearly meant the 50th percentile. Don't let me get in the way of your insults though.

I wont.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's only smart higher up in the pay grades. Maybe GS-10 and above. Otherwise you aren't even getting a living wage in some places, even with the COLA. They pay a new college graduate 27k. BTW... note that pays are frozen at 2010 levels. They aren't getting raises.

Well according to some they should make even less. We will have zombies in charge of our drinking water. It will be a horribly dysfunctional government that the repugs can then point to as being horrible.

 

[Infohawk]

It's only smart higher up in the pay grades. Maybe GS-10 and above. Otherwise you aren't even getting a living wage in some places, even with the COLA. They pay a new college graduate 27k. BTW... note that pays are frozen at 2010 levels. They aren't getting raises.

You tend not to stay in the same pay grade though. There are a fair amount of advancement opportunities.

And again, complaining about COLA is silly when the rest of the country has gone through job losses, bankruptcy, etc...

 

[Balt]

Remember I'm talking about total compensation, not comparable wages. In practice, I'm suggesting that they would be paid less in wages than their private counterparts. It would end up being similar to the private sector median once you take into consideration the benefits (which are unheard of in the private sector).

Yeah, I understood what you meant. Not every federal benefit increases with wages, though, so they are relatively much more generous for the lower employees than the higher ones. Obviously pensions and TSP-matching are exceptions. There are still some similar benefits in the private sector for high-skilled workers, though. I couldn't claim to know the numbers, however.

 

[Infohawk]

Yeah, I understood what you meant. Not every federal benefit increases with wages, though, so they are relatively much more generous for the lower employees than the higher ones. Obviously pensions and TSP-matching exceptions. There are still some similar benefits in the private sector for high-skilled workers, though. I couldn't claim to know the numbers, however.

Yeah I don't see any evidence that the private sector still has anything close to benefits of the public sector. Pensions are unheard of. Huge contributions towards insurance premiums are common. Guaranteed vacation, 9-5 hours, different legal standards for what can get you fired. The list goes on and on and it's worth a lot.

 

[Fox5]

In government, secretaries make $80k a year. So do highly skilled engineers and scientists. Both of those are wrong, for opposite reasons.

 

[Rainsford]

Actually, no. What you're saying would make sense if there was more merit based pay in government and the best employees would make the most. That's not generally how it works though. So, you're going to attract both dolts and good employees, and with no effective continuous improvement mechanism or mechanism to drive efficiency, you're going to end up with exactly what we have now: overpaid people (compared to the private sector) that are no better in terms of performance (and that's being extremely generous )

I think there should be a LOT more merit based pay in government, in fact. The reason we don't have that sort of system is a strange combination of "union fairness" type limitations on one side and anti-government sentiment on the other.

But I think my point still has merit when it comes to initial hiring. If government employees are so dramatically overcompensated, as you suggested, then there should be stiff competition to get those jobs in the first place. This, in theory, allows the government to be much more selective in who they hire. I imagine the supply of dolts will be limited by the fact that they have to compete with good employees who want the jobs.

This is just a theoretical argument, IMO though. Since the higher skilled government employees aren't really overcompensated AND performance incentives are harder to come by, the government does have and will continue to have trouble attracting and keeping the best employees.

 

[Rainsford]

The market system is the system we have and historically it does better than other systems. Again, if you want to completely change our economy, that's another matter. But in our current reality, protecting a certain group of people from market forces while the others suffer is not fair.

Then we should protect everyone from suffering, not make sure all groups suffer equally. Our current system (I'd dispute that it's a free market in the sense economists mean) has created a situation where most people are getting a smaller share of the pie as time goes on. I don't think that's an ideal free market result...

Again, this is not about the top 1%. You could tax them at 75% and redistribute it and it wouldn't change the fact that government employees are making more than their private counterparts for no other reason than they work for the government.

It IS about the 1% when we're talking about market distribution of wages. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't tax anyone. What I am saying is that average wages aren't rising with a growing economy, while those at the top are dramatically increasing. To me, this is an argument that maybe the market distribution of wages is either inaccurate or being manipulated in some way. In either case, maybe not a great comparison point for reasonable wages for government employees.

 

[MovingTarget]

If a private company misallocated resources, payments, and whatnot, then they'd go out of business. The Federal government can't go out of business so there is waste there.

As for private school teachers, you're right that they don't make a lot of money. However, that could be because of public schools, vouchers (which cause misallocation of resources), the value of an education isn't that high as we've been told, or any combination of the three.

I know someone who teaches at a Roman Catholic school and they're very inefficient from what I've observed. The dioceses are always in debt and they give very little of their money to the poor while they get a lot of revenue, especially from people who are paying to send their kids Roman Catholic schools. The Church of Rome also takes a lot of public money, so that should tell people something. I'd like to know where all of that money goes.

You say that a company would go out of business over those pressures but that a government wouldn't, correct? You can't compare the two. Their reason for existence is fundamentally different. Unless governments are operating in a command economy (which we are not), they certainly are subject to market forces and rules of finance. It may not be in the same way, but it still exists. There comes a point where governments must institute hiring freezes, layoffs, pay freezes/reductions, or a reduction of services. You see this in all levels of government in this economy, so you can't pretend that the incentive to reduce waste due to these pressures isn't there.

Also, I wouldn't take your friend's experience as evidence of Catholic schools or dioceses at large. Running small private schools is a challenge, especially in this economy. Many parochial schools, including Catholic ones, receive a subsidy from their diocese to supplement the tuition they charge. Raising tuition will often send enrollment plummeting, so it can be a constant struggle to keep the teachers paid, the classrooms furnished, and the lights on. Its simple math. Many Catholic schools and churches do make their finances publicly viewable, so feel free to check out what your local church/school has to say on the matter. Don't assume that Catholic churches are swimming in the dough, because most certainly are not.

 

[Infohawk]

I think there should be a LOT more merit based pay in government, in fact.

Be careful what you wish for. People have been trying to do this with teaching and it's been a failure from what I've heard. Especially, in the context of government if you follow performance too much you're opening up the chance of bribery or fraud.

If government employees are so dramatically overcompensated, as you suggested, then there should be stiff competition to get those jobs in the first place.

Are you saying there isn't stiff competition to get government jobs?

I think your dream of the best and brightest in government is a bit naive. This is the reality in many countries around the world already in terms of top students aiming to go into government. Again, their governments aren't that much better than ours.

 

[Rainsford]

You tend not to stay in the same pay grade though. There are a fair amount of advancement opportunities.

That's also governed by the same artificial budgetary limitations that affect COLA and all that. In some ways it's even worse since availability of promotions often has nothing to do with how well employees are doing.

And again, complaining about COLA is silly when the rest of the country has gone through job losses, bankruptcy, etc...

The rest of the country? Times may be tough for some people, but they aren't uniformly tough for every single private sector employee. On the other hand, ALL government employees are feeling the pain now, regardless of any other factors. If Google or Apple is doing well, even in a tough economy, they can give bonuses and raises to employees (and I'm sure they are). If the agency you're employed at is doing a bang up job and producing stellar results, you still get your pay frozen.

 

[Infohawk]

It IS about the 1% when we're talking about market distribution of wages. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't tax anyone. What I am saying is that average wages aren't rising with a growing economy, while those at the top are dramatically increasing. To me, this is an argument that maybe the market distribution of wages is either inaccurate or being manipulated in some way. In either case, maybe not a great comparison point for reasonable wages for government employees.

I'm still not seeing the connection to this topic. At this point I'm probably in favor of higher taxes for the top 1% (although I think things like tariffs on countries with low environmental and labor standards is a better way to help America). That doesn't change the fact that there is no reason a government worker should be more highly compensated than his private counterpart. Two wrongs don't make a right. One bigger problem doesn't mean the smaller problem doesn't exist. We should correct both of these but they are completely independent unless you're really arguing that the government should set wages for all workers which is really extreme.

 

[Infohawk]

The rest of the country? Times may be tough for some people, but they aren't uniformly tough for every single private sector employee. On the other hand, ALL government employees are feeling the pain now, regardless of any other factors. If Google or Apple is doing well, even in a tough economy, they can give bonuses and raises to employees (and I'm sure they are). If the agency you're employed at is doing a bang up job and producing stellar results, you still get your pay frozen.

It's silly to cherry-pick Google or Apple. Why don't we look at the averages? On average, wages are going down. On average, benefits are going down. On average, more people are unemployed (although this is changing recently). The same thing simply isn't true for the federal government.

 

[Rainsford]

Be careful what you wish for. People have been trying to do this with teaching and it's been a failure from what I've heard. Especially, in the context of government if you follow performance too much you're opening up the chance of bribery or fraud.

I can't think of a better motivator than performance based incentives...it's certainly better than the alternative. Obviously there are things to watch out for, but I'd like to see a system that generally rewards government employees more like private sector ones. It's hard to motivate people if just showing up gets you the same reward as people who go above and beyond.

Are you saying there isn't stiff competition to get government jobs?

I'm saying that the whole image of government jobs being super rewarding and somehow simultaneously mainly being done by incompetent idiots doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If there's a lot of competition, as there should be for high paying jobs, then you should be able to pick and choose the best folks.

I think your dream of the best and brightest in government is a bit naive. This is the reality in many countries around the world already in terms of top students aiming to go into government. Again, their governments aren't that much better than ours.

How is that naive? We do a horrible job of attracting (and keeping) the best people in government right now, at least for highly skilled positions. Fixing that may not solve all the problems in government, but we sure as hell aren't going to fix those problems without smart, dedicated people.

 

[Rainsford]

It's silly to cherry-pick Google or Apple. Why don't we look at the averages? On average, wages are going down. On average, benefits are going down. On average, more people are unemployed (although this is changing recently). The same thing simply isn't true for the federal government.

I was talking about Google or Apple to highlight the fact that the average for private sector employment doesn't impact EVERY private sector employee the way government standards do.

I'm curious if you can back up your argument though. Government hiring has slowed (or stopped) dramatically in the last several years, as has money available for performance incentives, cost of living increases, etc. ARE they really getting a much better deal in these rough economic times than the average private sector worker, or is it just nice to think so?

 

[Infohawk]

I can't think of a better motivator than performance based incentives...it's certainly better than the alternative. Obviously there are things to watch out for, but I'd like to see a system that generally rewards government employees more like private sector ones. It's hard to motivate people if just showing up gets you the same reward as people who go above and beyond.

I'm saying that the whole image of government jobs being super rewarding and somehow simultaneously mainly being done by incompetent idiots doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If there's a lot of competition, as there should be for high paying jobs, then you should be able to pick and choose the best folks.


How is that naive? We do a horrible job of attracting (and keeping) the best people in government right now, at least for highly skilled positions. Fixing that may not solve all the problems in government, but we sure as hell aren't going to fix those problems without smart, dedicated people.

Personally, I think this whole movement towards measuring and rewarding performance is just making the workplace a worse thing for everyone. It leads to a silly rat race in many situations. How many jobs in the federal government do you really think need incentives? Most jobs just need to be done. Penalizing a postman for a misdirected letter here or there is probably more trouble than its worth.

I don't think the people working for the federal government are idiots. I think performance is represented by a bell curve with the vast majority of people performing about the same. I think they're doing a job that 80% of people could do just as well.

Your position on attracting the best and the brightest is naive because you're failing to look at other countries where the "best and the brightest" are attracted to government already. Even in Western Europe, those countries still have all the same problems with government that we do.

 

[Rainsford]

In government, secretaries make $80k a year. So do highly skilled engineers and scientists. Both of those are wrong, for opposite reasons.

I would generally agree with that statement, and I do think it's a problem. I think there also tends to be a somewhat more limited range of performance based incentive available for good workers. The very best people with the very best skill-set in government are going to end up being rewarded much closer to average than similar people in the private sector.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yeah I don't see any evidence that the private sector still has anything close to benefits of the public sector. Pensions are unheard of. Huge contributions towards insurance premiums are common. Guaranteed vacation, 9-5 hours, different legal standards for what can get you fired. The list goes on and on and it's worth a lot.

The private sector USED to have those things. Thats why you see them in the government sector.

If everyone worked for 3 dollars a day and 10 year old could work you would see that in the government as well.

 

[Throckmorton]

Yeah I don't see any evidence that the private sector still has anything close to benefits of the public sector. Pensions are unheard of. Huge contributions towards insurance premiums are common. Guaranteed vacation, 9-5 hours, different legal standards for what can get you fired. The list goes on and on and it's worth a lot.

9-5? More like 8-5 with 1 hr lunch. The 9-5 workday including a 1 hour lunch is gone, part of the nickel and diming of the American worker.