Obama to freeze federal wages for 2 year

[Vette73]

Again it's you saying you should be getting paid $100k as a federal worker.

There are a TON of engineers working private for $40k today. Meanwhile their federal counterparts making much more.

Really show me where I said that?


And there are people with 4 year degrees making 30k for the fed gov. There are even some attorneys that make in the 30k for the Fed Gov.
Your ramble have a point?

 

[Triumph]

There are a TON of engineers working private for $40k today. Meanwhile their federal counterparts making much more.

MY private sector counterpart would be a 32 year old engineer at BAE or Lockheed, probably working on a $50 million military procurement, who lives in maybe Arlington, VA, San Diego, CA, or maybe Houston, TX. I know these people - they make more than me. Your comparison is no comparison at all.

http://www.doe.mtu.edu/news/degree_worth.html

Starting salaries average $59,000. If you're an experienced engineer making $40k, you are doing something wrong, economic recession or not.

 

[Triumph]

They (Federal Govt Workers) already make 2-2.5X the salaries of comparable private sector workers - and that's before we look at BENEFITS which are far beyond what any private sector worker in that class makes! It's not a matter of spend more and get better folks - they're already making WAY too damn much. The benefits are exasperating, it is unsustainable. And let's not forget that they owe something like 100 billion in back taxes too combined.

The great discrepancy is the benefits, far more so than the salaries themselves. The difference in base salaries is fairly low but when you add in pension contributions, for example, it gets out of whack very quickly.

So which is it, Jrod?

On the back taxes, it is indeed true. I can dig up supporting articles if you wish. Federal Workers owe a LOT of back taxes.

You do understand that federal workers get no income tax breaks, right? You know that we have to file the same 1040 as every other US citizen, right? You do understand that there's no special consideration for federal workers charged with tax evasion, right? If federal workers aren't paying their taxes, that's the IRS's problem.

 

[jrodson69]

So which is it, Jrod?



You do understand that federal workers get no income tax breaks, right? You know that we have to file the same 1040 as every other US citizen, right? You do understand that there's no special consideration for federal workers charged with tax evasion, right? If federal workers aren't paying their taxes, that's the IRS's problem.

What's the difference? If I make a base salary of 50,000 and my benefits equal 30,000, I'm making $80,000 a year. How about you comment and debate the merit instead of trying to pick apart words and throw the whole thing out on some technicality? Money is money. The benefits are taxpayer money just like the salary. (And we're not even factoring in the long-term REAL cost of those benefits, much higher than the current dollar figures.)

I never said federal workers got any breaks. I said they owed a boatload of back taxes, which they do. So what's your rebuttal? Of course it is the IRS' problem, but it sure makes you wonder what the hell they're doing.

 

[Vette73]

What's the difference? If I make a base salary of 50,000 and my benefits equal 30,000, I'm making $80,000 a year. How about you comment and debate the merit instead of trying to pick apart words and throw the whole thing out on some technicality? Money is money. The benefits are taxpayer money just like the salary. (And we're not even factoring in the long-term REAL cost of those benefits, much higher than the current dollar figures.)

I never said federal workers got any breaks. I said they owed a boatload of back taxes, which they do. So what's your rebuttal? Of course it is the IRS' problem, but it sure makes you wonder what the hell they're doing.

Still waiting for you to back up your first claim...

"They (Federal Govt Workers) already make 2-2.5X the salaries of comparable private sector workers - and that's before we look at BENEFITS"

So what job with the same duties are we Feds getting paid "2-2.5x".

 

[alkemyst]

MY private sector counterpart would be a 32 year old engineer at BAE or Lockheed, probably working on a $50 million military procurement, who lives in maybe Arlington, VA, San Diego, CA, or maybe Houston, TX. I know these people - they make more than me. Your comparison is no comparison at all.

http://www.doe.mtu.edu/news/degree_worth.html

Starting salaries average $59,000. If you're an experienced engineer making $40k, you are doing something wrong, economic recession or not.

defense CONTRACTORs are also separate from what most are considering private sector.

You should know that.

There are Ph.D's out there working at a Wal-Mart due to research budgets being put on hold.

 

[rudder]

State and local government numbers have increased substantially while the federal goverment numbers appear to be relatively steady.

However, this neglects the huge increases in federal government outsourcing of jobs during the last decade (see link to report in my previous post). So...to infer that Obama is doing a better job in this area than Reagan completely mischaracterizes reality and is intellectually dishonest....the very thing you accused me of being. Does that make your little pea-sized brain explode? You sir are a piece of work.

One of obama's first priorities as president was to begin to convert all of these outsourced jobs to federal jobs. Which turns out does not save taxpayers a dime and leaves the federal government with a lot of future pension liabilities.

 

[Triumph]

What's the difference? If I make a base salary of 50,000 and my benefits equal 30,000, I'm making $80,000 a year. How about you comment and debate the merit instead of trying to pick apart words and throw the whole thing out on some technicality? Money is money. The benefits are taxpayer money just like the salary. (And we're not even factoring in the long-term REAL cost of those benefits, much higher than the current dollar figures.)

You can't make a coherent point, first you say they make twice as much as the average joe before benefits, then you say they make the same before benefits. When you are capable of making a valid, supportable argument, then I'll address it.

I never said federal workers got any breaks. I said they owed a boatload of back taxes, which they do. So what's your rebuttal? Of course it is the IRS' problem, but it sure makes you wonder what the hell they're doing.

What's my rebuttal? I'm asking you what's your point? Because it really isn't relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about compensation. I'm trying to understand your connection, the nearest I can figure is that because some federal workers are delinquent on their taxes, then all federal workers are overpaid.

I did your work for you and found an article that said 3% of Federal workers are delinquent on taxes. What is the rate for the rest of the populace? This article from 2007 says that the rate is 16%. Hmmm, even if that number is way off by a generous magnitude, it seems to say to me that federal workers are pretty good at paying their taxes! 🙂

 

[Triumph]

defense CONTRACTORs are also separate from what most are considering private sector.

You should know that.

I do know that. So that means I should make $40k a year? If that happened I would simply go and work for that defense contractor. And so would every other engineer in this region. You can throw out all the examples of poor engineers that you want, but it's a simple fact that the cost of living around here is high, and the federal government cannot pay significantly lower salaries. They would be completely uncompetitive.

 

[NoCreativity]

What's the difference? If I make a base salary of 50,000 and my benefits equal 30,000, I'm making $80,000 a year. How about you comment and debate the merit instead of trying to pick apart words and throw the whole thing out on some technicality? Money is money. The benefits are taxpayer money just like the salary. (And we're not even factoring in the long-term REAL cost of those benefits, much higher than the current dollar figures.)

I never said federal workers got any breaks. I said they owed a boatload of back taxes, which they do. So what's your rebuttal? Of course it is the IRS' problem, but it sure makes you wonder what the hell they're doing.

From what I can tell, they are factoring the future cost of those benefits into that $40K number. The article does say that the $40K is mostly retirement contributions.

A FERS employees only pension contribution is a 5% match to their TSP (401k) assuming that person contributes enough to get that match. So using their average numbers, that's only about $4100. Okay, lets add in SS and Medicare (another 7.45%) and that's another $6100. So that's a total of $10,200 for retirement benefits. And let's add in the medical benefits. Most expensive plan I can get (I'm not sure what other locations/jobs can get), the government pays about $10,500 for a family plan (employee pays $5180). So that total is now about $21K.

I'm sure someone out there knows more about this than me but I just can't see where they are coming up with the $40K+ benefit number unless they are factoring in future costs. In which case, have they done the same for the private sector numbers? Did they factor in SS and Medicare for both?

Unless they give a breakdown of how the numbers are broken up, the numbers are meaningless. I tried looking for the source of the information on the Bureau of Economic Analysis website but couldn't find where they were pulling the numbers from.

 

[Vette73]

^



They are probable counting in all the CSRS people that still work for the Fed. Mind you that program was shut out to new people in the late 70's and completely done with in the early 80's.

So to us FERS people that number looks crazy but to people that like to twist numbers and come up with catchy headlines for other people that can’t handle math or reading comprehension it works for them.

 

[NoCreativity]

^



They are probable counting in all the CSRS people that still work for the Fed. Mind you that program was shut out to new people in the late 70's and completely done with in the early 80's.

So to us FERS people that number looks crazy but to people that like to twist numbers and come up with catchy headlines for other people that can’t handle math or reading comprehension it works for them.

I was thinking that was the case but I don't know enough about the govt contribution to CSRS to figure out what their benefits are worth at an $81k/year job.

 

[Mursilis]

From what I can tell, they are factoring the future cost of those benefits into that $40K number. The article does say that the $40K is mostly retirement contributions.

A FERS employees only pension contribution is a 5% match to their TSP (401k) assuming that person contributes enough to get that match. So using their average numbers, that's only about $4100. Okay, lets add in SS and Medicare (another 7.45%) and that's another $6100. So that's a total of $10,200 for retirement benefits. And let's add in the medical benefits. Most expensive plan I can get (I'm not sure what other locations/jobs can get), the government pays about $10,500 for a family plan (employee pays $5180). So that total is now about $21K.

I'm sure someone out there knows more about this than me but I just can't see where they are coming up with the $40K+ benefit number unless they are factoring in future costs. In which case, have they done the same for the private sector numbers? Did they factor in SS and Medicare for both?

Unless they give a breakdown of how the numbers are broken up, the numbers are meaningless. I tried looking for the source of the information on the Bureau of Economic Analysis website but couldn't find where they were pulling the numbers from.

FERS people also can get a pension, for which they do contribute a portion, but it's considerably less than that the CSRS people get.

 

[Vette73]

I was thinking that was the case but I don't know enough about the govt contribution to CSRS to figure out what their benefits are worth at an $81k/year job.

Thats the problem, unelss you know how long they have been working, highest 3 years, and if they have any unused sick leave you will not know 100%.

CSRS people asked me what they would get when they retire and I told them I can give them a idea but until the day you retire its just that, a range.

Mind you these "studies" take the best case or good average numbers and come up with all these "Fed employees make big bucks...". But they rarley tell how they got that.

Funny how when times are good us Feds are idiots for staying but when times get bad we are way over paid and lazy. 😀

 

[nobodyknows]

Well you're wrong about that. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you. It's the way it works in our court system as well. I do protest what some folks are saying here because it's complete and utter bullshit. Just because "most people's opinions" might be something, doesn't make it fact. I can give you a real world example right now.

A software engineer coming out of college earns about $50-60k on average (Yes I know these aren't exact numbers and if they're way off, please correct me). When I came out of college, I started out as a GS-7 in the Washington DC area (the average starting salary for software engineers out here) along with 3 other coworkers of mine. That comes out to about $33k per year. In the Washington DC area.

I guess what really bugs me are blanket statements. Everyone knows that blanket statements like "All federal employees this or all federal employees do that" are signs of an ignorant and uninformed person. I do know some upper management folks that don't deserve the pay they get but looking at the GS scale, the average grade level for management (not SES folks) is about GS 14/15. The average software engineer here maxes out at about GS12/13.

LOL, so let me get this straight. You are at work and have time to argue on the internet about politics, etc. amd especially about how you aren't overpaid?

Priceless!!

 

[dabuddha]

LOL, so let me get this straight. You are at work and have time to argue on the internet about politics, etc. amd especially about how you aren't overpaid?

Priceless!!

Nice try idiot 🙂 Sick at home with bronchitis. But keep ignoring the facts and keep your head buried in the sand 🙂

 

[nobodyknows]

Nice try idiot 🙂 Sick at home with bronchitis. But keep ignoring the facts and keep your head buried in the sand 🙂

So you expext us to believe you've been sick for16,000 + posts? And all the other govermnment emplyess posting in this thread as well??

LOL, you must think we're all idiots if you think anybody's buying your BS, but by all means keep digging that hole. I find it amusing as well as "priceless".

BTW, you never did bother to address my post about putting all the goverment employees on SS like the rest of us poor taxpaying smucks? No comment on that I assume?

 

[JSt0rm]

lololo tons of fools post 9 to 5 monday thru friday in P&N. Its pathetic.

 

[Triumph]

BTW, you never did bother to address my post about putting all the goverment employees on SS like the rest of us poor taxpaying smucks? No comment on that I assume?

I pay into Social Security. So does every other federal employee under the FERS system, which as was pointed out earlier, is pretty much everyone hired since the early 80's.

Or are you referring to the hair brained idea of eliminating our 401k plan (called TSP in the gov)? If the government did that, again, they would not be competitive in the job market. Why would I work for the government for less money than private industry, while also getting no pension and no retirement investment plan? I would go work for private industry.

You seem to miss the point that labor is a commodity that has value. The government can't just unilaterally decide to pay all federal workers squat, remove all their benefits, and cancel their retirement plans, just because you say they should. As long as private industry provides those things, the government HAS to as well.

 

[alkemyst]

So you expext us to believe you've been sick for16,000 + posts? And all the other govermnment emplyess posting in this thread as well??

LOL, you must think we're all idiots if you think anybody's buying your BS, but by all means keep digging that hole. I find it amusing as well as "priceless".

BTW, you never did bother to address my post about putting all the goverment employees on SS like the rest of us poor taxpaying smucks? No comment on that I assume?

well he's probably government definitely, always an excuse for why they are not working and never any results.

 

[dabuddha]

So you expext us to believe you've been sick for16,000 + posts? And all the other govermnment emplyess posting in this thread as well??

LOL, you must think we're all idiots if you think anybody's buying your BS, but by all means keep digging that hole. I find it amusing as well as "priceless".

BTW, you never did bother to address my post about putting all the goverment employees on SS like the rest of us poor taxpaying smucks? No comment on that I assume?

Sure I'll address your question as soon as you address mine. We're still waiting on your proof that government employees are "vastly overpaid."

Better yet, I'll try to address your question (which I wasn't too clear on what it was) You're saying government folks should only receive SS and not have any type of pension plan, right? We're already paid less than our private sector counterparts to begin with. It'd be a lot more difficult for the government to fill positions if they didn't offer any benefits and lower pay. Besides, most equivalent jobs in the private sector have some sort of pension/retirement plan with some sort of matching contributions.

 

[alkemyst]

The only time a federal employee is paid less than the private sector is when they are considering government contractors in the mix, who are majorly supplied and subsidized by their employers.

 

[dabuddha]

The only time a federal employee is paid less than the private sector is when they are considering government contractors in the mix, who are majorly supplied and subsidized by their employers.

Again, proof? I've provided a real world example. How about you actually provide some valid numbers. 🙂

 

[alkemyst]

Again, proof? I've provided a real world example. How about you actually provide some valid numbers. 🙂

I can look at your GS tables and see the MINIMUM you will make and after how much TIME you put in the MINIMUM RAISE.

There are Ph.D's and other engineers making only $30-40k per year all over. You can read about it EASILY.

Yes, there are Boeing engineers making $200k+, but also can be said in the totally private sector....it's not anywhere near the norm or average.

 

[dabuddha]

I can look at your GS tables and see the MINIMUM you will make and after how much TIME you put in the MINIMUM RAISE.

There are Ph.D's and other engineers making only $30-40k per year all over. You can read about it EASILY.

Yes, there are Boeing engineers making $200k+, but also can be said in the totally private sector....it's not anywhere near the norm or average.

If you were actually comparing apples to apples, then you'd see that engineers making only 30-40k per year are the exception and not the norm. And like it was stated previously, there are no guaranteed step/grade increases.