Obama to freeze federal wages for 2 year

[alkemyst]

OK clueless why not read the thread as all your BS has already been gone over.

The golden days of pension ended in the late 70's for new employees and was fully killed in the early 80's.

There are 2 retirement plans for the Fed, not including the Offset. 1 is CSRS, sweet pension, and FERS where we get 5% match on our TSP. CSRS is has been closed for around 30 years now and only FERS remains.

I am willing to bet whatever you contribute is a lot less than your take at retirement, probably pre-tax dollars and still better than what anyone else gets private sector.

 

[The-Noid]

No alkemyst the whole world is wrong and government employees are of course right. You can contribute .80% of your salary and be guaranteed a retirement annuity for life.

I have seen 1000's of funded plans in the private sector just like this, haven't you?

The good thing is they are going to Thrift plans for government jobs, but my hope is that government employees get to choose some of the options for investment and not have all their eggs in one failing basket.

 

[JD50]

I am willing to bet whatever you contribute is a lot less than your take at retirement, probably pre-tax dollars and still better than what anyone else gets private sector.

It's no different than a 401k in the private sector... which is pretty common.

 

[JD50]

No alkemyst the whole world is wrong and government employees are of course right. You can contribute .80% of your salary and be guaranteed a retirement annuity for life.

I have seen 1000's of funded plans in the private sector just like this, haven't you?

The good thing is they are going to Thrift plans for government jobs, but my hope is that government employees get to choose some of the options for investment and not have all their eggs in one failing basket.

What are you talking about?

 

[JD50]

Most have tried going for a government job though. They are few and far between and usually have unrealistic requirements (advanced degrees for basic mid tier positions).

It's like telling a guy that's just a clerk: "why don't you go down and become a postman?"

This doesn't exactly help your argument.

 

[The-Noid]

What are you talking about?

FERS contributions to the pension.

Your contribution to the Basic Benefit Plan is the difference between 7% of your basic pay and Social Security’s old age, survivor, and disability insurance tax rate, or 0.80%.

Social security is 6.2% on the first 106,800 for 2010 if memory serves me right.

 

[The-Noid]

Is there anyone who looks at this system whether it be federal, state or local (which we can't talk about because the high lord said not to) as a sustainable system?

Someone please make that argument to me. When CDS trades 100bps will that be a wake-up call for the Government? When CDS trades 200bps? (the number people started looking at the PIIGS) California trading 280bps and taking 7 days to sellout a RAN was not a wakeup call and they are still attempting to run a 25B deficit next year. What is going to make this country change its ways? Taxes up and spending down is the only solution, but it will be painful. I guess it is simply easier to put the blinders on and say everything is great.

Going from 2bps in 2006 to 45bps today has appeared to do nothing. France trades over many "developing nations" now.

 

[alkemyst]

It's no different than a 401k in the private sector... which is pretty common.

Actually they are VERY different. One is a guaranteed pay out, the other is not.

Also just being in one type of retirement package doesn't exclude one from investing in others.

Private sector however, cannot opt into a government pension package.

 

[alkemyst]

This doesn't exactly help your argument.

I wouldn't expect you to understand this any more than how you think a pension and a 401k are the same.

 

[Vette73]

Actually they are VERY different. One is a guaranteed pay out, the other is not.

Also just being in one type of retirement package doesn't exclude one from investing in others.

Private sector however, cannot opt into a government pension package.

The benifits of CSRS and FERS are not cross over. I can;t get the pension rate that a CSRS person can get and a CSRS does not get the up to 5% match on TSP.
Just as CSRS does not pay SS, while FERS does.

So not sure where you are at, again. Let me guess, drunk?

 

[alkemyst]

The benifits of CSRS and FERS are not cross over. I can;t get the pension rate that a CSRS person can get and a CSRS does not get the up to 5% match on TSP.
Just as CSRS does not pay SS, while FERS does.

So not sure where you are at, again. Let me guess, drunk?

Ahh nice name calling.

The government pension systems are not your exclusive retirement options.

Like I said though, a pension differs from a 401K in one is a DEFINED payout. The 401K may or may not be worth anything at time of payout.

 

[The-Noid]

Ahh nice name calling.

The government pension systems are not your exclusive retirement options.

Like I said though, a pension differs from a 401K in one is a DEFINED payout. The 401K may or may not be worth anything at time of payout.

Well the good thing is the government pension will be worth nothing as well, just give it a few more years. Government employees should be the biggest advocates of small government as long as they aren't the ones to get axed. Much better chance that their promised benefits will be paid to them.

 

[werepossum]

For those feeling sorry for federal employees (which group admittedly is probably exclusively composed of federal employees), don't feel too bad. They may not get one raise (COLA) for two years, but they will still get their other raise, the regular step raises which by law kick in every one, two or three years depending on the employee's time in grade. These raises, which are 2.6% to 3.3%, affect 1.4 million General Schedule employees, so an estimated 1.1 million federal employees will still receive $2.5 billion in raises over the next two years. Even when they aren't automatically getting raises, they automatically get raises. I'm sure most of us have seen the same in our private sector jobs, right? Anybody?
Source: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101206/BENEFITS01/12060301/1001

President Obama spoke of the need for sacrifice last week when he announced a two-year pay freeze for federal employees.

But feds won't be too terribly deprived in 2011 and 2012. Despite the freeze, some 1.1 million employees will receive more than $2.5 billion in raises during that period.

Congress is expected to approve Obama's proposal, which cancels only cost-of-living adjustments for two years. Regularly scheduled step increases for the 1.4 million General Schedule employees — who make up two-thirds of the civilian work force — will continue. The size of those increases ranges from 2.6 percent to 3.3 percent and by law kick in every one, two or three years, depending on an employee's time in grade.

But wait! There's more!

And many employees will receive promotions, which also come with salary increases, Jeffrey Zients, the Office of Management and Budget's deputy director for management, said last week.

Many senior employees won't get raises, but will receive bonuses for good performance, although OMB and the Office of Personnel Management are telling agencies to cap bonuses at 2010 levels. OPM said it does not yet have information on fiscal 2010 bonuses, but the Asbury Park Press of New Jersey reported in June that the government paid $408 million in bonuses to 359,400 people, an average $1,135 each, in fiscal 2009.

 

[dabuddha]

For those feeling sorry for federal employees (which group admittedly is probably exclusively composed of federal employees), don't feel too bad. They may not get one raise (COLA) for two years, but they will still get their other raise, the regular step raises which by law kick in every one, two or three years depending on the employee's time in grade. These raises, which are 2.6% to 3.3%, affect 1.4 million General Schedule employees, so an estimated 1.1 million federal employees will still receive $2.5 billion in raises over the next two years. Even when they aren't automatically getting raises, they automatically get raises. I'm sure most of us have seen the same in our private sector jobs, right? Anybody?
Source: http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20101206/BENEFITS01/12060301/1001


But wait! There's more!

Read the thread and educate yourself. Steps aren't guaranteed and can be denied. I know my supervisor has denied step increases for folks here before.

 

[Elfear]

Read at the McPaper story. Re-read the second line of my post. Maybe even read the whole thing. Try to comprehend. There is absolutely no doubt that federal workers earn more than do private sector workers of the same job description. The only question is your assertion, whether on average more stringent duties and more expensive cost of living areas justify this additional pay.

werepossum, I usually have a lot of respect for your posts because you seem like a pretty logical and eloquent guy, but you need to look at both sides of the coin regarding federal pay. Here is a recent article about the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306348.html

Highlights:

"Though some critics question their accuracy, government analyses show that federal employees make on average 24 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. The Congressional Research Service reported in 2009 that private industry pays higher salaries than the government for PhD-level employees in computer science, information science, mathematics, statistics, biological sciences, environmental life sciences, chemistry, economics, and civil, architectural, electrical and computer engineering. In addition, the average private-sector salary in 2010 for a recent college graduate was $48,661. Entry-level federal workers start at $34,075, or $42,209 for candidates with superior academic achievement."

(this reflects my experience coming out of college. My classmates were starting at ~$45k while I started at ~$36k with the govt.)

"The vast majority of federal workers hold white-collar professional, administrative and technical jobs, and aren't just college dropouts archiving triplicates of your tax return. Approximately 20 percent of federal workers have a master's degree, professional degree or doctorate, vs. 13 percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of federal employees have at least a college degree, compared with 35 percent in the private sector"

 

[werepossum]

werepossum, I usually have a lot of respect for your posts because you seem like a pretty logical and eloquent guy, but you need to look at both sides of the coin regarding federal pay. Here is a recent article about the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306348.html

Highlights:

"Though some critics question their accuracy, government analyses show that federal employees make on average 24 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. The Congressional Research Service reported in 2009 that private industry pays higher salaries than the government for PhD-level employees in computer science, information science, mathematics, statistics, biological sciences, environmental life sciences, chemistry, economics, and civil, architectural, electrical and computer engineering. In addition, the average private-sector salary in 2010 for a recent college graduate was $48,661. Entry-level federal workers start at $34,075, or $42,209 for candidates with superior academic achievement."

(this reflects my experience coming out of college. My classmates were starting at ~$45k while I started at ~$36k with the govt.)

"The vast majority of federal workers hold white-collar professional, administrative and technical jobs, and aren't just college dropouts archiving triplicates of your tax return. Approximately 20 percent of federal workers have a master's degree, professional degree or doctorate, vs. 13 percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of federal employees have at least a college degree, compared with 35 percent in the private sector"

This is the federal government study that purports to show that federal government employees are underpaid? Would that not be a step down in credibility even from the McPaper? I would agree that federal workers often start at lower wages, although the benefits are much better than average private sector jobs, but salary advancement is much better in the federal government than in the private workplace. That is analogous to teachers, who like to point out their low starting salaries without noting their rapid salary advancement. I'd also agree that federal government PhD positions tend to pay worse than private sector PhD positions - although note that many private sector PhDs are working in jobs that are not equivalent and do not get paid on the basis of their PhD, so a true comparison would have to include either all private sector workers with PhDs, or else only those government workers whose positions required PhDs. But with those two caveats, it's pretty clear that federal government workers on average make better money than their private sector counterparts, and certainly the benefits are not even comparable.

The last McPaper study specifically looked at job description and qualifications, attempting to match insofar as possible equivalent private sector jobs. So the number of PhDs and such isn't really relevant. The biggest caveat in my mind would be what Marlin et al brought up - if federal jobs tend to be in high cost-of-living areas, by how much does that skew a comparison? Taking as a given that non-governmental PhD-level employees in Camden or Minot almost certainly make far less on average than do non-governmental PhD-level employees in the D.C. area or NYC, would an analysis of federal and non-governmental PhD-level employees in only those high-cost areas bring the private sector workers to parity or even beyond? I remain skeptical, but it's certainly possible. I suspect it would be almost impossible to do an analysis to that degree, and even more so that such a study would be unacceptable to at least one side.

I think one thing that IS clear, though, is that higher level state and local government workers tend to be paid worse than either federal or private sector workers, with fewer benefits and less job security than the former if better than the latter.

 

[Elfear]

This is the federal government study that purports to show that federal government employees are underpaid? Would that not be a step down in credibility even from the McPaper? I would agree that federal workers often start at lower wages, although the benefits are much better than average private sector jobs, but salary advancement is much better in the federal government than in the private workplace. That is analogous to teachers, who like to point out their low starting salaries without noting their rapid salary advancement. I'd also agree that federal government PhD positions tend to pay worse than private sector PhD positions - although note that many private sector PhDs are working in jobs that are not equivalent and do not get paid on the basis of their PhD, so a true comparison would have to include either all private sector workers with PhDs, or else only those government workers whose positions required PhDs. But with those two caveats, it's pretty clear that federal government workers on average make better money than their private sector counterparts, and certainly the benefits are not even comparable.

The last McPaper study specifically looked at job description and qualifications, attempting to match insofar as possible equivalent private sector jobs. So the number of PhDs and such isn't really relevant. The biggest caveat in my mind would be what Marlin et al brought up - if federal jobs tend to be in high cost-of-living areas, by how much does that skew a comparison? Taking as a given that non-governmental PhD-level employees in Camden or Minot almost certainly make far less on average than do non-governmental PhD-level employees in the D.C. area or NYC, would an analysis of federal and non-governmental PhD-level employees in only those high-cost areas bring the private sector workers to parity or even beyond? I remain skeptical, but it's certainly possible. I suspect it would be almost impossible to do an analysis to that degree, and even more so that such a study would be unacceptable to at least one side.

I think one thing that IS clear, though, is that higher level state and local government workers tend to be paid worse than either federal or private sector workers, with fewer benefits and less job security than the former if better than the latter.

I agree, it's not the most unbiased source of data but then again, neither is the Cato Center or Heritage chaps. My point is that it's not so cut and dry as the media make it out to be. Federal employees have become the whipping boy for the Obama administration. Part of that may be deserved as I'm sure there are redundant federal positions out there, places where secretaries are paid disproportionately to their duties, and general fat that can be cut. But the over-the-top criticism and hatred displayed by some posters is rather disheartening as a federal employee and largely unmerited.

 

[JD50]

Actually they are VERY different. One is a guaranteed pay out, the other is not.

Also just being in one type of retirement package doesn't exclude one from investing in others.

Private sector however, cannot opt into a government pension package.

The TSP is not a pension...

 

[JD50]

I wouldn't expect you to understand this any more than how you think a pension and a 401k are the same.

Really? Don't you think that a job that has higher educational and experience requirements should have a higher salary than a job with less requirements?

 

[JD50]

Go into a region of the country that has a lot of Federal Government jobs and start comparing salaries and benefits to comparable private sector jobs in that same region. From my experience the salaries are higher in the private sector and the benefits are relatively equal. So far we have a bunch of people that have no first hand knowledge telling us how overpaid federal govt. employees are.

But please, keep bitching about the incompetence of govt. employees while also advocating pay cuts. That does wonders for keeping the good folks in the govt.

 

[SP33Demon]

werepossum, I usually have a lot of respect for your posts because you seem like a pretty logical and eloquent guy, but you need to look at both sides of the coin regarding federal pay. Here is a recent article about the subject:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120306348.html

Highlights:

"Though some critics question their accuracy, government analyses show that federal employees make on average 24 percent less than their private-sector counterparts. The Congressional Research Service reported in 2009 that private industry pays higher salaries than the government for PhD-level employees in computer science, information science, mathematics, statistics, biological sciences, environmental life sciences, chemistry, economics, and civil, architectural, electrical and computer engineering. In addition, the average private-sector salary in 2010 for a recent college graduate was $48,661. Entry-level federal workers start at $34,075, or $42,209 for candidates with superior academic achievement."

(this reflects my experience coming out of college. My classmates were starting at ~$45k while I started at ~$36k with the govt.)

"The vast majority of federal workers hold white-collar professional, administrative and technical jobs, and aren't just college dropouts archiving triplicates of your tax return. Approximately 20 percent of federal workers have a master's degree, professional degree or doctorate, vs. 13 percent in the private sector. Fifty-one percent of federal employees have at least a college degree, compared with 35 percent in the private sector"

Your link quotes a 2009 study which is outdated. Read this instead:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

It has the 2010 BLS data. Also, your link is bogus because it's comparing PhD and entry level salaries? So what? The BLS study takes the average among all the professions.

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.
Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

It's the same way at my job, federal employees earn way more than the contractors. And that's before the benefits.

 

[alkemyst]

The TSP is not a pension...

Did I say it was? That's only 1/3 of the the typical package.

Since I doubt many here know what abbreviations you are using:

If you are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), the TSP is one part of a three-part retirement package that also includes your FERS basic annuity and Social Security.

If you are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) or are a member of the uniformed services, the TSP is a supplement to your CSRS annuity or military retired pay.

 

[The-Noid]

1/2 you can't get FERS and CSRS combined, it is one of the other. If we are going to argue effectively (albeit arguing with the wind) we need to state correct facts.

Still no one can come up with an example, do any private companies have a pension plan that is completely unfunded and runs deficits year in and year out? I have yet to see one of those. If they did they would be bankrupt, similar to what FERS is.

All this talk about the Federal government is ridiculous anyway, Federal employees are a small part of the entitlement programs, let's look to state and local workers if you really have a pork employee problem.

 

[werepossum]

I agree, it's not the most unbiased source of data but then again, neither is the Cato Center or Heritage chaps. My point is that it's not so cut and dry as the media make it out to be. Federal employees have become the whipping boy for the Obama administration. Part of that may be deserved as I'm sure there are redundant federal positions out there, places where secretaries are paid disproportionately to their duties, and general fat that can be cut. But the over-the-top criticism and hatred displayed by some posters is rather disheartening as a federal employee and largely unmerited.

Fair points all.

Your link quotes a 2009 study which is outdated. Read this instead:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

It has the 2010 BLS data. Also, your link is bogus because it's comparing PhD and entry level salaries? So what? The BLS study takes the average among all the professions.

It's the same way at my job, federal employees earn way more than the contractors. And that's before the benefits.

Just goes to show that the issue is probably too close to accurately state across the board. Certainly federal employees earn more than equivalent private sector employees, at least in 8 of 10 categories studied. But the flip side - do federal employees earn more than equivalent private sector employees in a given area - is much more difficult to say with confidence. Since location is not necessarily fungible - you cannot for instance hire cooks in Minot to prepare lunch for Congress - and the federal government is probably more heavily concentrated in most jobs in relatively high cost areas, you'd have to account for it to know for certain which pays better, benefits not included.

Three things one can say with confidence. Federal employees enjoy benefits far better than average. Federal employees are generally paid somewhere above to possibly very slightly below private sector wages, in which case total compensation would still be better. And if you happen to be in one of the two categories and 36 jobs in which the federal government pays worse AND it's in a high cost of living area, you're probably feeling very, very screwed.

I do not agree that federal employees necessarily have more complex duties than do private sector equivalents. For instance, an auditor has a finite area of responsibility, thorough backup available, and little chance of being fired for missing something, whereas the accountant whose work she audits generally has little backup, is subject to firing if he misses something significant, and is responsible for the entire gamut of federal, state and local law, much of which is arcane and unclear if not inconsistent and contradictory, and any one part of which has the potential to severely damage his company if missed or honestly misinterpreted. The accountant must know the tax code and procedures at least as well as his auditor, not to mention many other things for which there are other, separate regulatory bodies/agents.