federal employees make more for the same job than private

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Maybe it's not that government workers in those areas are paid too much, maybe the private sector workers are paid too little.

As a government employee, I can attest to that. I'd also like to mention my COLA has been frozen for two years.

 

[Wreckem]

Derp

Its the economy stupid.

Salaries in the private sector are being depressed by a bad economy. When the economy is booming, private sector employees make way more. When the economy is depressed the public sector makes more. Its all because the govt cannot react to the economy in the same manner as the private sector.

 

[Infohawk]

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.

I think you're arguing against a straw man here. Who is arguing that all salaries should be cut in an overly broad way?

Anyway, a lot of people with higher degrees are probably happy to work for less pay in the federal government for quality of life reasons.

 

[MovingTarget]

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.

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.

 

[MovingTarget]

On another note, why all the hate for people in "no-skill" positions? Should people without specialized and/or technical skills not be entitled to make a decent living for themselves? Do we value hard work so little these days? All you should need to make it in this world is a good work ethic, but for too many people these days it simply doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Infohawk]

Maybe it's not that government workers in those areas are paid too much, maybe the private sector workers are paid too little.

That argument doesn't really make any sense to me. We have a market economy. Private sector workers are being paid what the market dictates. Things we can do to improve the labor market as a whole are a totally different topic.

 

[Rainsford]

I think you're arguing against a straw man here. Who is arguing that all salaries should be cut in an overly broad way?

Well, you were, for one...

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.

Maybe you really meant on average their salaries should go down, while maybe even raising them for the higher skilled folks, but that's not how I read it.

And our elected officials are ACTUALLY doing what I'm talking about. Across the board salary freezes, cost of living freezes, dramatically limiting money for performance based promotions...all of those apply to basically every single federal employee.

Anyway, a lot of people with higher degrees are probably happy to work for less pay in the federal government for quality of life reasons.

Sure, you have to look at the whole package when it comes to ANY job...salary, benefits, quality of life, etc. The problem is that the federal government can basically only offer one package in terms of the tradeoffs.

SOME people may be happy with the quality of life in exchange for a lower salary, but that might not work to attract the best people for all parts of the government and for all types of people. Do you want to pay a CIA officer more because he has a high stress job where people could die if they screw up (quality of life fail 😉)? Sorry, nope...he's lumped in with the mailroom guy at the IRS in the overcompensated government employee pile.

 

[Infohawk]

On another note, why all the hate for people in "no-skill" positions? Should people without specialized and/or technical skills not be entitled to make a decent living for themselves? Do we value hard work so little these days? All you should need to make it in this world is a good work ethic, but for too many people these days it simply doesn't cut it anymore.

The issue is not that people want workers to be poor, the issue is that you shouldn't be entitled to more money than your private-sector counterpart simply because you work for the government. Government salaries are paid by the taxpayer.

We need a system where total government compensation (including pensions, health, etc) is pegged to the 50th percentile of median salaries in their field.

 

[3chordcharlie]

On another note, why all the hate for people in "no-skill" positions? Should people without specialized and/or technical skills not be entitled to make a decent living for themselves? Do we value hard work so little these days? All you should need to make it in this world is a good work ethic, but for too many people these days it simply doesn't cut it anymore.

Not 'entitled' per se. But if the pay for a 'responsible full-time employed adult' falls below the cost of a reasonable living in the place they live and work, the situation is unsustainable.

This statement is intended as 'normative' only to the extent that unsustainable situations are unsustainable (duh) and will lead to additional collapse in the future.

One way or another, the situation will resolve itself. But unless there is an active solution, no one is going to like the outcome.

 

[Rainsford]

That argument doesn't really make any sense to me. We have a market economy. Private sector workers are being paid what the market dictates. Things we can do to improve the labor market as a whole are a totally different topic.

I'm not sure our economy perfectly aligns compensation with value. The invisible hand of the free market has a lot of perfectly visible hands in the private sector messing with it.

Just look at income distribution over the last several decades. Income has flatlined for the average employee (adjusted for inflation), yet gone up dramatically for those at the top. Are they ENTIRELY responsible for the growth of our economy, as the market economy argument would suggest? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

 

[3chordcharlie]

The issue is not that people want workers to be poor, the issue is that you shouldn't be entitled to more money than your private-sector counterpart simply because you work for the government. Government salaries are paid by the taxpayer.

We need a system where total government compensation (including pensions, health, etc) is pegged to 50% of median salaries in their field.

Only if you assume that mediocre employees are, and will continue to be ideal for government work.

One of the most intelligent things anyone has ever said to me was "We are all self-employed". When think about that, and what it means, you can figure out why pegging salaries to the median is no better than the system as it is now.

 

[Double Trouble]

Put this in the "duh" category along with "water is wet". The government has no incentive to be lean or efficient, they have an infinite amount of funding and have no competition.

It used to be that government jobs paid less in wages, but were safer (fewer layoffs etc) and had significantly better benefits (vacations, pensions, healthcare). That made it a trade-off, more wages or better benefits and job security. Now, there's no tradeoff: better wages, better benefits, better job security, all paid for by the taxpayer. What a terrible setup.

 

[Rainsford]

The issue is not that people want workers to be poor, the issue is that you shouldn't be entitled to more money than your private-sector counterpart simply because you work for the government. Government salaries are paid by the taxpayer.

We need a system where total government compensation (including pensions, health, etc) is pegged to 50% of median salaries in their field.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but you're saying government employees should be paid HALF what the average private sector employee in their field makes? That seems like a really good way to have absolutely nobody but the bottom of the barrel work for the government.

Pegging government salaries to the median salary in comparable fields (accounting for experience, etc) sounds reasonable to me, if that's what you meant to say. I think you might be surprised at the number of employees where their salary goes UP though.

 

[Rainsford]

Put this in the "duh" category along with "water is wet". The government has no incentive to me lean or efficient, they have an infinite amount of funding and have no competition.

It used to be that government jobs paid less in wages, but were safer (fewer layoffs etc) and had significantly better benefits (vacations, pensions, healthcare). That made it a trade-off, more wages or better benefits and job security. Now, there's no tradeoff: better wages, better benefits, better job security, all paid for by the taxpayer. What a terrible setup.

Even if what you're arguing was true, wouldn't that mean government is better able to attract the best folks in particular fields? If you want government to be more efficient and produce higher quality results, wouldn't enabling it to attract good employees be a solid starting point?

 

[3chordcharlie]

I'm not sure our economy perfectly aligns compensation with value. The invisible hand of the free market has a lot of perfectly visible hands in the private sector messing with it.

Just look at income distribution over the last several decades. Income has flatlined for the average employee (adjusted for inflation), yet gone up dramatically for those at the top. Are they ENTIRELY responsible for the growth of our economy, as the market economy argument would suggest? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

There has been a big shift from commodity-based products to IP-protected ones. This puts companies in a position to generate profits above expected levels (for a competitive marketplace). It also lets companies in some industries (which happen to be high-growth ones) manipulate production levels and pricing on a level not seen before.

Couple this with the escape of 'developed' capital to cheap-labour nations, and 'free' trade between developed and developing nations (most of which is international 'trade' internal to a given corporation), and it's not really surprising that income growth has stagnated for all but the most skilled individuals, and probably become noticeably negative for the working class.

 

[Infohawk]

Well, you were, for one...

Maybe you really meant on average their salaries should go down, while maybe even raising them for the higher skilled folks, but that's not how I read it.

You take it profession-by-profession. I don't think there's any profession right now that doesn't have people looking for jobs in large numbers. So no, I don't see why higher skilled salaries need to rise right now. Obviously, if there is a shortage of say government pharmacists, than you raise the salary of the government pharmacists to meet demand. But then when there is a glut that reduces pharmacists' salaries, you should lower it in the government too. But that doesn't happen in the government.

And our elected officials are ACTUALLY doing what I'm talking about. Across the board salary freezes, cost of living freezes, dramatically limiting money for performance based promotions...all of those apply to basically every single federal employee.

Oh no! Salary freezes! Meanwhile the private sector has been experiencing layoffs and declining wages. If we're all in this together, it should mean government workers have to make similar sacrifices on average. Simply having stagnant wages is not enough.

SOME people may be happy with the quality of life in exchange for a lower salary, but that might not work to attract the best people for all parts of the government and for all types of people. Do you want to pay a CIA officer more because he has a high stress job where people could die if they screw up (quality of life fail 😉)? Sorry, nope...he's lumped in with the mailroom guy at the IRS in the overcompensated government employee pile.

Personally, I don't think the capabilities of most people are that different from each other. So no, I don't think the government needs to insist on Harvard graduates in almost any area. Your CIA officer example is pretty unrepresentative. (And you should probably realize that many people would take a pay cut to have an "exciting" job like that.)

 

[Infohawk]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, but you're saying government employees should be paid HALF what the average private sector employee in their field makes? That seems like a really good way to have absolutely nobody but the bottom of the barrel work for the government.

Pegging government salaries to the median salary in comparable fields (accounting for experience, etc) sounds reasonable to me, if that's what you meant to say. I think you might be surprised at the number of employees where their salary goes UP though.

No, 50th percentile.

 

[JEDIYoda]

federal employees make more for the same job than private

Thats nothing new..it has always been that way...lol

 

[Double Trouble]

Even if what you're arguing was true, wouldn't that mean government is better able to attract the best folks in particular fields? If you want government to be more efficient and produce higher quality results, wouldn't enabling it to attract good employees be a solid starting point?

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 😉 )

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Perhaps it isn't that federal employees make too much but that private industry has taken to reductions their workers real income.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not sure our economy perfectly aligns compensation with value. The invisible hand of the free market has a lot of perfectly visible hands in the private sector messing with it.

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.

Just look at income distribution over the last several decades. Income has flatlined for the average employee (adjusted for inflation), yet gone up dramatically for those at the top. Are they ENTIRELY responsible for the growth of our economy, as the market economy argument would suggest? That doesn't seem too likely to me.

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.

 

[Kantastic]

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.

Anyone who has been through high school would know that "walking billboard" is a poor occupation to put on a resume. Now, company-patient liaison with exceptional demographically-orientated advertising experience is impressive. Same shitty occupation, but the one who works for the government makes more money.

 

[Balt]

We need a system where total government compensation (including pensions, health, etc) is pegged to 50% of median salaries in their field.

I assume you mean earn comparable salaries, not half salaries.

I'm not smart enough to run the math, but I don't know if that would actually decrease federal expenditures on wages very much. Yeah, the 'lowbies' in federal government are making signficantly more (percentage-wise after you include benefits) than the lowbies in the private sector, but overall they don't get paid very much at low GS pay grades. On the other hand, if you started paying the federal docs, engineers, and high-skilled workers comparable wages, their salaries might actually increase in some cases.

In any case, there's one thing I can agree with regarding federal workers: They need to be easier to dismiss if they can't (or won't) do their jobs. I've also seen too many hiring decisions based on "what won't get us sued?" or "what won't get a grievance filed against us?" kinds of questions.

 

[JSt0rm]

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.

 

[Infohawk]

On the other hand, if you started paying the federal docs, engineers, and high-skilled workers comparable wages, they might actually increase in some cases.

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).