federal employees make more for the same job than private

[Throckmorton]

Infohawk do you honestly think federal wages should be adjusted every year to match private sector averages? Do you realize that will put some workers even further below private sector salaries than they already are? A lot of people would literally be out on the street. Look at the chart I posted of pay grades. A new college graduate in the federal gov starts at $27k and isn't getting step increases. So you adjust to make the averages match, and suddenly people at the low end are screwed. And do you realize in some cases matching will cause federal salaries to skyrocket? The president's salary will have to at least match that of a Fortune 500 CEO.

The idea that this is shifting wealth from some middle class people to other middle class people is absurd. According to this study the difference is 2%... And most of those tax dollars come from the upper middle class and the wealthy. If anything it's shifting wealth, a very very tiny amount, back to the middle class from the top.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk do you honestly think federal wages should be adjusted every year to match private sector averages?

I would want something along those lines. I don't think all the details of a specific policy could fit into a P&N post.

Do you realize that will put some workers even further below private sector salaries than they already are?

Yes.

A lot of people would literally be out on the street.

Why? Are you equally worried about their private counterparts? That's great if you want to help the working poor. Just help ALL of them not the federal employees only which is what you're suggesting.

And do you realize in some cases matching will cause federal salaries to skyrocket? The president's salary will have to at least match that of a Fortune 500 CEO.

Please don't rehash the same lame arguments that were made and rebutted earlier in this thread. The president is a very unique case that doesn't really have any impact on this topic. I don't see many cases in which wages would skyrocket. The government is non-profit, so there would be no CEO wages or executive wages. At most there would be non-profit salaries.

The idea that this is shifting wealth from some middle class people to other middle class people is absurd.

But that's what it is. Middle-class people pay tens of thousands of dollars a year. Even if it's $20 per middle-class taxpayer that's too much.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why? Are you equally worried about their private counterparts? That's great if you want to help the working poor. Just help ALL of them not the federal employees only which is what you're suggesting.

What are you talking about? Yes, the working poor should make a living wage. I've argued that in every related thread.

Please don't rehash the same lame arguments that were made and rebutted earlier in this thread. The president is a very unique case that doesn't really have any impact on this topic. I don't see many cases in which wages would skyrocket. The government is non-profit, so there would be no CEO wages or executive wages. At most there would be non-profit salaries.

The president has far far more responsibility than any CEO of a business. If anything he should be paid more than the highest paid CEO. I'm not sure how you could possibly argue that the president's importance warrants being paid much less.

But that's what it is. Middle-class people pay tens of thousands of dollars a year. Even if it's $20 per middle-class taxpayer that's too much.

Technically ANY taxation to pay another person is "redistribution". The difference between private and public sector salary is irrelevant. In this case it's especially bizarre that you would try to frame it that way because it's only a 2% difference.

Cut the pay of federal workers and return it as a tax break, and most of it will go to the upper classes. That's a redistribution of wealth out of the middle.

And then what's weirder is you want to give some federal workers a huge raise... In some cases a 100% raise. You want me to make $65k working for the federal gov like I would at an oil company? Instead of the $41k I'd qualify for now? OK, I'll take it.

BTW, you're still ignoring the fact that federal workers are more likely to be in high cost of living metro areas. DC being the main one, but typically federal buildings are located in big cities like Houston and Los Angeles not out in the country.

 

[Throckmorton]

All this faux meritocracy and rigid forced egalitarianism stuff is ridiculous to begin with. This isn't the USSR. The question to ask is whether taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, the working poor should make a living wage. I've argued that in every related thread.

Then enforce it across the board. Don't just hike government workers wages.

The president has far far more responsibility than any CEO of a business. If anything he should be paid more than the highest paid CEO. I'm not sure how you could possibly argue that the president's importance warrants being paid much less.

The point is the president is an extreme case that is completely unrepresentative of pretty much all other jobs in the federal government.

Technically ANY taxation to pay another person is "redistribution". The difference between private and public sector salary is irrelevant. In this case it's especially bizarre that you would try to frame it that way because it's only a 2% difference.

You have no evidence that it's only a 2% difference. I'm fine with some redistribution. But redistribution on the basis of working for the government is not okay.

Cut the pay of federal workers and return it as a tax break, and most of it will go to the upper classes. That's a redistribution of wealth out of the middle.

It doesn't have to be that way. You could reduce the wages and only pass on that savings to the middle-class. There's no reason you couldn't do this.

And then what's weirder is you want to give some federal workers a huge raise... In some cases a 100% raise. You want me to make $65k working for the federal gov like I would at an oil company? Instead of the $41k I'd qualify for now? OK, I'll take it.

I don't think that would happen in practice. Pretty much every time someone in this thread has said they would make more in the private sector I've found evidence they are overstating their case, especially when you consider other factors like hours worked and the government lifestyle. If it really was so bleak, people wouldn't be working for the federal government.

BTW, you're still ignoring the fact that federal workers are more likely to be in high cost of living metro areas. DC being the main one, but typically federal buildings
are located in big cities like Houston and Los Angeles not out in the country.

No I'm not. There's no reason this could be factored in. It's already factored in in fact.

All this faux meritocracy and rigid forced egalitarianism stuff is ridiculous to begin with. This isn't the USSR. The question to ask is whether taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

You want to play it that way? Then they're not. The federal government could get workers for cheaper if they factored in competition for jobs, which they don't. Every other business considers how many applicants they get.

 

[bfdd]

All this faux meritocracy and rigid forced egalitarianism stuff is ridiculous to begin with. This isn't the USSR. The question to ask is whether taxpayers are getting their money's worth.

Then the answer is obviously a big bolded fucking NO. Does that answer it for you? Do you think they're over paid yet? They have been fucking shitting things up for how long now? They're pulling on our future tax dollars that we haven't even earned yet? Please, they've already failed why do you continue to support?

 

[Balt]

Then the answer is obviously a big bolded fucking NO. Does that answer it for you? Do you think they're over paid yet? They have been fucking shitting things up for how long now? They're pulling on our future tax dollars that we haven't even earned yet? Please, they've already failed why do you continue to support?

And that has very little to do with federal wages/salaries. Look at where the money goes.

 

[Carmen813]

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.



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.



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.


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.

One of the ultimate follies of this argument is that people believe they pay for everything, or that everything they pay for should be something they agree with. I, for one, don't like paying taxes for a lot of things our government does. This argument also rings a bit hollow since Federal Employees pay taxes as well, they aren't exempt.

Making blanket statements such as "That doesn't change the fact that there is no good reason that public sector people should earn more than their private-sector counterparts" is rather rather ignorant and a poor debating tactic. For one, there is nothing factual about it, it's merely your opinion 🙂

I'll provide you with an example from mental health, which I mentioned is my field. Veterans represent a population that often has substantially more mental health challenges than the civilian population. Divorce, suicide, substance use disorders, trauma, severe mental illness, and traumatic brain injuries all occur in a significantly higher percentage among Veterans. Oftentimes, Veterans have much more complex needs. It's not uncommon for a Veteran to have a TBI and PTSD, along with other psychosocial factors. Given the higher complexity of their care, wouldn't that suggest that public sector mental health employees should be more highly compensated than a private sector working with a civilian?

Fairness has little to do with opportunity. You may hate the better people argument, but that is supposedly how the private sector works. The most productive and brightest are the ones that are ideally compensated the most. I see no reason that government should not be able recruit and compete for the most qualified individuals, since this ROUTINELY happens in the reverse...particularly in the Department of Defense. In fact the military loses a great deal of money because they provide knowledge/skills that is lost to the private sector.

In our current political environment it is very "hip" to attack anything and every related to government, and in this case federal employees make a juicy target. This is the political chicanery I was speaking of. Look at all the energy and emotion you've invested in arguing about this topic. It's not worth it, not in terms of our countries long term fiscal problems or in terms of fixing the private sector. Your emotions are being manipulated by people in power (in this case, politicians, I wasn't referring to "fat cats" which to me sounds like Wall Street) who are seeking to divert your energy away from the real issues facing our country. The longer they continue to do so, the longer our current woes will continue.

 

[Carmen813]

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.

Agreed, supervisor positions are usually GS-12 and involve a great deal more responsibility. The revolving door is a big problem.

I think part of the problem when people think "federal employee" that immediately associate them with the worst part of government. Government is a large system, and there are parts that don't work well. There are also parts that do work well, or are improving. It's too easy to make generalizations based on biased information.

 

[Infohawk]

One of the ultimate follies of your type of argument is that you believe you pay for everything,

Nope I don't think that.

I, for one, don't like paying taxes for a lot of things our government does.

Who cares? I'm not making the argument that people shouldn't pay for things they don't want to pay for. I'm saying our policy should not be to have taxes go to paying federal workers above-market wages.

Your argument also rings a bit hollow since Federal Employees pay taxes as well, they aren't exempt.

So what? Is all the taxes they pay in above-market income going right back to the middle-class people that pay that income? I doubt it.

Making blanket statements such as "That doesn't change the fact that there is no good reason that public sector people should earn more than their private-sector counterparts." is rather rather ignorant and a poor debating tactic. For one, there is nothing factual about it, it's merely your opinion 🙂

It's a position. I can't prove a negative. Do you have a reason why federal employees should make more than their private counterparts as a general matter?

Given the higher complexity of their care, wouldn't that suggest that public sector mental health employees should be more highly compensated than a private sector working with a civilian?

No. Can you show me that the American public doesn't require complex care? I'm not saying a public provider shouldn't get the equivalent of what a private provider gets

The most productive and brightest are the ones that are ideally compensated the most.

So why don't they start paying $500,000 so they can get all the Harvard Yale Stanford grads that are going into ibanking? Why stop until you get the very very best for veteran care? Oh right, because most jobs don't need to be done by the best of the best.

In our current political environment it is very "hip" to attack anything and every related to government, and in this case federal employees make a juicy target.

Oh stfu this is not my attitude at all. I voted for Obama. Not everyone that thinks high federal salaries are silly is a NASCAR dad. Heck, as I've said multiple times in this thread, I'm fine with helping middle-class and working class families out. But everyone should get the help, not just people who work for the federal government.

Your emotions are being manipulated by people in power (in this case, politicians, I wasn't referring to "fat cats" which to me sounds like Wall Street) who are seeking to divert your energy away from the real issues facing our country. The longer they continue to do so, the longer our current woes will continue.

Get off your high horse I don't need you to tell me who's manipulating my emotions. My position is based on the simple fact that there's no reason federal government workers need to earn more than the private counterparts who help pay for their salaries. You using red herrings of politicians is not going to distract me.

 

[soundforbjt]

I hope you guys realize that per 1000 people there is less employees now than in 1960.

 

[woolfe9999]

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.)

Yes, but the Wall Street lawyer works 80 hours/week so that he can make partner and make $400,000/yr. for 40-50 hrs./wk later on. A key point is that you can't get rich working for the government. You can in the private sector. Same thing goes for doctors. You can make north of $500K/year with a successful private practice. Working at a state hospital or VA, not so much.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The federal government could get workers for cheaper if they factored in competition for jobs, which they don't.

Interesting. Can you provide a source for this? Thanks.

 

[Infohawk]

I hope you guys realize that per 1000 people there is less employees now than in 1960.

So what? If there are less crimes per capita today does that mean we have to stop trying to decrease crime?

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, but the Wall Street lawyer works 80 hours/week so that he can make partner and make $400,000/yr. for 40-50 hrs./wk later on. A key point is that you can't get rich working for the government. You can in the private sector. Same thing goes for doctors. You can make north of $500K/year with a successful private practice. Working at a state hospital or VA, not so much.

My understanding is that it's becoming harder and harder to make partner these days. And anyway there's that word "can." It just seems like federal employees compare themselves to the best case scenarios in private industry. The reality is they could be unemployed or in a worse situation in private industry. As for the doctors, it depends on what kind you're talking about. I imagine the government should have to pay a pretty high salary for surgeons. If they didn't and it was so easy why would anyone work for the government as a surgeon?

At the end of the day the only way to prove what would happen would be to float the salaries in response to the labor market. I don't see any reason why the salaries would go up. The salaries would probably be slightly lower than private industry considering the legal protections / work environment that's bureaucratically imposed in a government environment.

If it really was so easy in private industry you'd see exodus from the government. But we don't. I haven't heard of the government having a hard time hiring anyone except professions that are in demand across the board.

 

[Carmen813]

Nope I don't think that.


Who cares? I'm not making the argument that people shouldn't pay for things they don't want to pay for. I'm saying our policy should not be to have taxes go to paying federal workers above-market wages.


So what? Is all the taxes they pay in above-market income going right back to the middle-class people that pay that income? I doubt it.


It's a position. I can't prove a negative. Do you have a reason why federal employees should make more than their private counterparts as a general matter?


No. Can you show me that the American public doesn't require complex care? I'm not saying a public provider shouldn't get the equivalent of what a private provider gets


So why don't they start paying $500,000 so they can get all the Harvard Yale Stanford grads that are going into ibanking? Why stop until you get the very very best for veteran care? Oh right, because most jobs don't need to be done by the best of the best.


Oh stfu this is not my attitude at all. I voted for Obama. Not everyone that thinks high federal salaries are silly is a NASCAR dad. Heck, as I've said multiple times in this thread, I'm fine with helping middle-class and working class families out. But everyone should get the help, not just people who work for the federal government.


Get off your high horse I don't need you to tell me who's manipulating my emotions. My position is based on the simple fact that there's no reason federal government workers need to earn more than the private counterparts who help pay for their salaries. You using red herrings of politicians is not going to distract me.

You can either do the research yourself or take my expertise at this issue when I say that Veterans have higher rates of mental health concerns than the general population. There is quite a wealth of information available regarding mental health concerns among Veterans, to the point where it's considered general knowledge. There are many reasons why there is a strong emphasis in both active duty and Veteran populations to have them seek help early.

It is very likely that a significant amount of the middle-class wages earned by Federal Employees does end back up the hands of private sector individuals. That is due to simple economics, federal employees do not live in some special separate economy. In fact one could make the argument that having a large population of middle class public sector employees actually helps to reduce the impact of a recession in the private sector. The money that goes towards federal employee salaries doesn't simply evaporate.

There is a cyclical nature to the way the private sector and public sector work forces have interacted over time. It all balances it out in the end, and implementing radical solutions such as the one you suggested are not necessary. As others have pointed out you would actually do substantial harm. In a few years the economy will be recovered and this issue will disappear. And that is why this entire "issue" is a red herring meant to distract from the real problems the U.S. faces.

On a side note, you appear quite intent on ignoring evidence that contradicts your opinion and attacking those who disagree with you. If you read what I said, it's that government workers should be able to make competitive wages and that government should be able to recruit highly qualified individuals. I did not at any point imply that government should spend ludicrous sums of money to get only the best. That is a straw man that you have built entirely on your own. Nor did I imply that people who take your position are "NASCAR dads" or any other such silliness. You won't change many minds by resorting to such childish antics.

 

[Infohawk]

You can either do the research yourself or take my expertise at this issue when I say that Veterans have higher rates of mental health concerns than the general population.

It doesn't matter. What you should be looking at is the pay of private practitioners who deal with the same level of mental health concerns. It's like saying that soldiers have a higher percentage of trauma wounds so all army docs should be paid more than their private counterparts. No the question is, how much do private trauma surgeons get.

It is very likely that a significant amount of the middle-class wages earned by Federal Employees does end back up the hands of private sector individuals.

Not as much of as was put into the federal employees pocket first.

The money that goes towards federal employee salaries doesn't simply evaporate.

Here's an idea. The federal employees can pay higher taxes and those tax proceeds can go to private middle-class families. Don't worry, that money won't just evaporate! It will be spent on other things! Does that help you realize how ridiculous your argument is?

It all balances it out in the end

OK let's pay the federal employees less and pay the savings as a cash rebate to middle and lower class privately employed Americans . It will balance out that way too.

In a few years the economy will be recovered and this issue will disappear.

Please. The federal government employees will receive raises then and they'll still be ahead of the curve.

On a side note, you appear quite intent on ignoring evidence that contradicts your opinion and attacking those who disagree with you.

What evidence did I ignore?

If you read what I said, it's that government workers should be able to make competitive wages and that government should be able to recruit highly qualified individuals. I did not at any point imply that government should spend ludicrous sums of money to get only the best. That is a straw man that you have built entirely on your own. You won't change many minds by resorting to such antics.

You missed my point. You say better quality is worth paying for. Why don't we pay for the best of the best students that go into ibanking? What, you say we don't have to spend extra to get good enough? That's how I feel about most federal jobs.

Feel free to stop dodging this question: what reason is there that federal employees should make more money than their private counterparts?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Please. The federal government employees will receive raises then and they'll still be ahead of the curve.]

I believe that is factually incorrect. Federal government employees will still remain behind private sector employees. Can you please provide evidence for your assertion? Do you have any statistics?

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Why shouldn't they? The government and the private sector are vastly different entities. Roughly equivalent jobs are going to be of more value to one then the other - see private sector CEO pay versus public sector CEO (ie, the president) pay.

The private sector has the option of going offshore (and boy, do they use that one). The public sector does not because it's accountable to the people it would be disenfranchising instead of stockholders. This, in and of itself, means the private sector will have a greater supply of labor available. Greater supply for similar demand means lower prices. Which means private sector employees should make less money.

 

[Infohawk]

Why shouldn't they? The government and the private sector are vastly different entities. Roughly equivalent jobs are going to be of more value to one then the other - see private sector CEO pay versus public sector CEO (ie, the president) pay.

The private sector has the option of going offshore (and boy, do they use that one). The public sector does not because it's accountable to the people it would be disenfranchising instead of stockholders. This, in and of itself, means the private sector will have a greater supply of labor available. Greater supply for similar demand means lower prices. Which means private sector employees should make less money.

That goes both ways. There is more offshoring so there are more unemployed and underemployed Americans meaning more labor supply for federal jobs. (Do you really think if they let the wages float and took into consideration the number of applicants the wages would fall?)

 

[Throckmorton]

Infohawk, how did you become obsessed with making federal workers as poor as possible? You're taking the attitude "I'm getting screwed so everybody should get screwed" even further than most of the brainwashed conservatives.

This is all ridiculous to begin with. Federal take home pay is much lower than private sector take home pay even if total compensation really is 2% higher. Pension doesn't pay the bills. If you're at the bottom of the pay scale you feel that the most. And you know not everybody will be around long enough to collect the pension right? That's the problem with calculations like this... I'm guessing they assume everybody retires in the federal gov. BTW did you know that if you cash out your pension, you pay an extra tax? It's your fucking money that you paid in with NO CHOICE, but you pay an EXTRA tax above the normal bracket. You are penalized for collecting your own money.

Working for government is for suckers. Not only do you get paid much less in reality, you have assholes like Infohawk who think you should be even worse off. You get the government you pay for. I for one can't wait to get back to the private sector and be able to afford things like... car maintenance, maybe a house, vacations.

 

[Infohawk]

Infohawk, how did you become obsessed with making federal workers as poor as possible?

I'm stopping there. I'm just responding to posts, the same as you are. Feel free to post something less dishonest and immature if you want a real response.

 

[Throckmorton]

I'm stopping there. I'm just responding to posts, the same as you are. Feel free to post something less dishonest and immature if you want a real response.

Your whole stance is a complete non sequitur. You actually believe federal workers get paid more, when in reality they get paid less and total compensation, according to this one study, is only 2% higher. And you seem to be jealous as hell about this 2% and lower take home pay. The bizarre thing is you've come up with this "redistribution" rationale, as if you actually believe that federal workers getting compensated slightly more means wealth is being redistributed from one sector of the population to the other. And your "solution" is to reduce federal wages, which will actually put downward pressure on private wages too.

 

[Infohawk]

You actually believe federal workers get paid more, when in reality they get paid less and total compensation, according to this one study, is only 2% higher.

I don't think you know what non sequitur means. You're not summarizing the article correctly at all. You're cherry-picking at best.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The bizarre thing is you've come up with this "redistribution" rationale, as if you actually believe that federal workers getting compensated slightly more means wealth is being redistributed from one sector of the population to the other.

LOL - I need to find this 'argument'