federal employees make more for the same job than private

[Throckmorton]

That depends on the person . Some stay home and never really leave and are willing at happy to not have the Crazy traffic in metro areas. Thats not a trade off for lower wages for same work. Thats BS. Now we have these huge dead cities were the infurstructure is falling apart.

I don't understand this post. Are you saying that some people work from home, therefore everybody gets to choose where they live?

 

[Infohawk]

If your concern is about abstract fairness, then fine, that point is debatable. If this is a concern about total government spending and debt/deficit, however, I seriously doubt that adopting the 50th percentile parity that you suggest will make much difference, particularly since it would require that high salaried government workers with advanced degrees get a large pay hike.

- wolf

I doubt they looked at the full situation with regard to the higher end pay, but maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong. People with high-end degrees often get worked to death in private industry. So if a starting lawyer is making $175,000 on Wall St., they're working 80 hours a week. Meanwhile, the government lawyer looks comparatively poor at $100,000 - $125,000 or whatever it is but never mind they have actual jobs that their private peers would consider cushy (not to mention lifetime employment, pensions, etc.) (And I'm not saying that every single federal employee has a cushy job but I imagine on average it is cushier than their counterparts' job. This is natural when you consider the bureacracy and legal protections that come with employment with the federal government.)

And yes, fairness should be paramount in how our government operates. The only counter-arguments I've seen in this thread is "hey don't look at me look at those Wall St. fat cats. They're our real enemy! Now never mind while your taxes going to pay me more than the comparable taxpayer."

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Why do we insist on comparing parts of society dedicated to providing service versus those dedicated to providing profit?

Its a pointless comparison really.

 

[bfdd]

Infohawk, I quoted you but was talking to woolfe there sorry 🙂

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Higher public wages help pull up private wages.

Save234

And raises taxes which leads to more spending and higher taxes again. You see the vicious cycle??

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Why do we insist on comparing parts of society dedicated to providing service versus those dedicated to providing profit?

Its a pointless comparison really.

Because we are paying their salaries. That's enough reason for me.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You do the same when you buy an iPhone.

Not a very strong point.

 

[PokerGuy]

Please show me exactly where that policy of private wages are determined by the open market. Has not been that way in almost 80 years.

Oh, if not the open market, can you explain to me who is setting every single salary / benefit for every private sector employee? There are factors that interfere with the market settings (like unions, or employer collusion), but the market sets the rates.

that also includes all of the military personnel. So are you willing to pay them less or provide lower benefits? Because that just points out the stupidity in this entire debate.

There is no private sector equivalent to the military, so there is no comparison. They need to pay the military whatever is needed to field the most effective fighting force.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

You do the same when you buy an iPhone.

Not a very strong point.

Is this directed at me?
Do I get a choice in whether I buy an iphone or not?
What about paying taxes?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Do you grow your own food, generate your own electricity, and refine your own oil?

 

[hal2kilo]

I've worked for over 30 years as a tech rep, 20 or so supporting a DOD civil service shop. When I first came out here 20 years ago, they would bitch and moan about how they didn't get as much money as a private contractor or employee. I noticed about ten years ago they stopped bitching so much. I had more than one guy working for me that made significantly less than they did, and we're supposed to be the systems expert.

They look in the want adds now and realize how good and secure they have it.

 

[jstern01]

Who are you suggesting determines the price of wages? The government sets a price floor. That doesn't mean they set the price for private wages. The open market does determine most people's wages.

Exactly, by guaranteeing a minimum wage, the myth that free market determines the value of the work is busted. If free market truly determined the value of the work, then there would be no need for minimum wages would there?

 

[jstern01]

Oh, if not the open market, can you explain to me who is setting every single salary / benefit for every private sector employee? There are factors that interfere with the market settings (like unions, or employer collusion), but the market sets the rates.

Minimum wage law. Simple do you really think a guy/gal flipping burgers at McD. is doing a job that requires $7+/hr or should it really be maybe $3/hr?

There is no private sector equivalent to the military, so there is no comparison. They need to pay the military whatever is needed to field the most effective fighting force.

But they are included in the study and that is part of the issue. So until we get an study sans the military, which might be artificial inflating the pension/compensation numbers, the numbers spouted are superfluous.

 

[Craig234]

And raises taxes which leads to more spending and higher taxes again. You see the vicious cycle??

No. The budget and economy are far larger than this money, and more than enough is available for it - the rich have been grabbing a far larger share and hoarding it.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Do you grow your own food, generate your own electricity, and refine your own oil?

what does that have to do with anything?

 

[Infohawk]

Exactly, by guaranteeing a minimum wage, the myth that free market determines the value of the work is busted. If free market truly determined the value of the work, then there would be no need for minimum wages would there?

Can you answer my question? Who are you saying determines the price of labor?

 

[Acanthus]

Exactly, by guaranteeing a minimum wage, the myth that free market determines the value of the work is busted. If free market truly determined the value of the work, then there would be no need for minimum wages would there?

The fact of the matter is, if the free market were left to its devices, you would wind up with people making far less than the standard of living we have now.

The "free market" doesn't have empathy or a will, it simply seeks efficiency and moves toward that goal.

Slaves are the most efficient market model. Without reasonable amounts of regulation, that is where the free market will naturally trend.

 

[jstern01]

Can you answer my question? Who are you saying determines the price of labor?

Simple the government does by guaranteeing a minimum wage. Free market determination would be whatever a person would accept.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

what does that have to do with anything?

The point you are trying to make, I believe, is that you have no choice in how much tax you pay and how the government spends it.

My counter-point is that there are many things in life where you dont really get to choose to pay or not, ergo you dont get to choose how that money is then reallocated.

 

[Infohawk]

Simple the government does by guaranteeing a minimum wage.

Most people don't work for minimum wage. You're arguing against basic microeconomics here. It's not a partisan issue.

 

[Balt]

Minimum wage law. Simple do you really think a guy/gal flipping burgers at McD. is doing a job that requires $7+/hr or should it really be maybe $3/hr?

I don't think dropping the minimum wage would have as large of an impact as you think it would. McDonald's already seems to have high employee turnover and is usually hiring (meaning a lot of people don't think the job is worth the frustration or whatever for minimum wage). If they paid $3/hr I doubt they would get much interest at all, since many people aren't going to take a 20 hour/week job to earn a weekly paycheck that won't even buy them a tank of gas.

 

[Carmen813]

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.

For my profession, mental health, the public sector is almost always more lucrative than the private sector. Most Bachelor level jobs will be in the GS-5/7 pay scale, which is in the 30-40k range. I recently accepted a Master's level position with the Veteran's Administration at the 9/11 level (it's based on experience).

Obviously I'm biased but I feel the compensation is justified. Many of the positions are quite demanding, at least from the mental health perspective, and you will work with clients who have very complex issues. I think it's also worth paying more money to recruit better people to work with Veterans.

In the end, this strikes me as simple political chicanery. Federal employees and their pay are a small portion of the budget. The vast majority of federal employees are middle class. This is simply a tactic to pit middle class against middle class, so that the real issues facing our society never get addressed since we keep sniping at each other.

Fact is, the stuff offered by the federal government only looks good now because of how broken the private sector has become. My grandfather, with a G.E.D., worked for GM for 30+ years and earned enough money to raise four children, own his own home, and save a great deal for retirement. He also received benefits and a pension. Try finding that in today's private sector, it simply isn't possible. Our private sector work environments have become hostile towards workers, and that is not the fault of federal employees (with the possible exception of 537 of them.)

For those not keeping track, a pay freeze is a pay cut. Inflation doesn't stop.

 

[soundforbjt]

For my profession, mental health, the public sector is almost always more lucrative than the private sector. Most Bachelor level jobs will be in the GS-5/7 pay scale, which is in the 30-40k range. I recently accepted a Master's level position with the Veteran's Administration at the 9/11 level (it's based on experience).

Obviously I'm biased but I feel the compensation is justified. Many of the positions are quite demanding, at least from the mental health perspective, and you will work with clients who have very complex issues. I think it's also worth paying more money to recruit better people to work with Veterans.

In the end, this strikes me as simple political chicanery. Federal employees and their pay are a small portion of the budget. The vast majority of federal employees are middle class. This is simply a tactic to pit middle class against middle class, so that the real issues facing our society never get addressed since we keep sniping at each other.

Fact is, the stuff offered by the federal government only looks good now because of how broken the private sector has become. My grandfather, with a G.E.D., worked for GM for 30+ years and earned enough money to raise four children, own his own home, and save a great deal for retirement. He also received benefits and a pension. Try finding that in today's private sector, it simply isn't possible. Our private sector work environments have become hostile towards workers, and that is not the fault of federal employees (with the possible exception of 537 of them.)

Well said. I agree with the bolded.

 

[Balt]

For my profession, mental health, the public sector is almost always more lucrative than the private sector. Most Bachelor level jobs will be in the GS-5/7 pay scale, which is in the 30-40k range. I recently accepted a Master's level position with the Veteran's Administration at the 9/11 level (it's based on experience).

Obviously I'm biased but I feel the compensation is justified. Many of the positions are quite demanding, at least from the mental health perspective, and you will work with clients who have very complex issues. I think it's also worth paying more money to recruit better people to work with Veterans.

In the end, this strikes me as simple political chicanery. Federal employees and their pay are a small portion of the budget. The vast majority of federal employees are middle class. This is simply a tactic to pit middle class against middle class, so that the real issues facing our society never get addressed since we keep sniping at each other.

Fact is, the stuff offered by the federal government only looks good now because of how broken the private sector has become. My grandfather, with a G.E.D., worked for GM for 30+ years and earned enough money to raise four children, own his own home, and save a great deal for retirement. He also received benefits and a pension. Try finding that in today's private sector, it simply isn't possible. Our private sector work environments have become hostile towards workers, and that is not the fault of federal employees (with the possible exception of 537 of them.)

For those not keeping track, a pay freeze is a pay cut. Inflation doesn't stop.

There's a lot of truth to everything you said, imo.

I would also like to point out something else. Many of the politicians promising to fix the federal deficit by cutting the federal workforce really only want to "shrink" the federal workforce by off-loading government jobs onto contractors/contracting companies. Will it save money? Probably not as much as you think. It will, however, drastically change the distribution of the payroll system.

Currently there are feds who don't even apply for supervisory positions within their agencies because it's a lot more responsibility (and a lot more flak if something goes wrong) for only a bit more money (usually going from something like GS-11 to GS-12). In a lot of the private sector, the salary money tends to concentrate at the top and everyone else makes a pretty meager living. Personally, I prefer the system where things are more evenly distributed. Those who take on the burden of supervisory roles are there because they want to be, not because they are motivated by greed. And those who work under them aren't bitter because their supervisor is making 2 or 3 times what they do. I think it's a better overall model. I realize not everyone will agree, however.

And believe me, some of the people in DC salivate at the idea of being able to hook up their friends in the private sector with government contracts. It's all part of the revolving door of politics.

 

[Infohawk]

Obviously I'm biased but I feel the compensation is justified. Many of the positions are quite demanding, at least from the mental health perspective, and you will work with clients who have very complex issues. I think it's also worth paying more money to recruit better people to work with Veterans.

Yes you are biased. I hate the better people argument. Everyone thinks they're better. Better than what? Do you think the salaries should be so high that top students at Harvard want to work for the government? (Because again that's how it is in other countries and their governments are no more effective than ours.) Many people think their job is challenging and yet they don't get paid higher than the private sector.

In the end, this strikes me as simple political chicanery. Federal employees and their pay are a small portion of the budget. The vast majority of federal employees are middle class. This is simply a tactic to pit middle class against middle class, so that the real issues facing our society never get addressed since we keep sniping at each other.

What is "this"? Merely pointing out that federal employees get more than their private counterparts? Other people have made the "blame the fat cats" argument. No, the issue is that some middle-class people are paying taxes that go to pay other middle-class people more than they themselves get. How is that fair? Saying it's not a lot of money is irrelevant. Middle-class people pay many thousands in federal taxes.

Fact is, the stuff offered by the federal government only looks good now because of how broken the private sector has become. and that is not the fault of federal employees.

Okay, let's fix that. But in the meantime there's no reason to keep having certain middle-class people shift some of their wealth, no matter how small, to other middle-class people.

For those not keeping track, a pay freeze is a pay cut. Inflation doesn't stop.

Doesn't change the fact it's still higher salaries than in the private sector, where some people are earning zero. It's a bit sickening to hear government workers complain about a pay cut when the federal government has not fired anyone on a net basis and many Americans are out of work.

You should be happy that it looks like Obama will probably win again. Maybe the Republicans would be worse for the country. (And even if they won I can't imagine they'd do anything about this problem. That doesn't change the fact that there is no good reason that public sector people should earn more than their private-sector counterparts.