Obama to freeze federal wages for 2 year

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,750
2,335
126
no not that.

What was the question I didn't answer that was from days ago now?

It wasn't a question, it was a point I made. People complain about government workers being lazy and worthless yet they want to keep paying them less and less. Cut their pay, benefits, etc... and the good ones are going to leave and you'll be left with even more lazy and worthless government workers.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
It wasn't a question, it was a point I made. People complain about government workers being lazy and worthless yet they want to keep paying them less and less. Cut their pay, benefits, etc... and the good ones are going to leave and you'll be left with even more lazy and worthless government workers.

Since that's what's required of government work I don't see a problem with that.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I guess private sector employees are fine with their compensation or they would all quit their jobs and go work for the government and get the higher pay and great benefits that they claim they deserve.

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?"
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,474
0
0
I guess private sector employees are fine with their compensation or they would all quit their jobs and go work for the government and get the higher pay and great benefits that they claim they deserve.

Maybe you could work a trade with someone?? :p
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
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?"



and AGAIN spoken like someone that has no idea what he is speaking about.

ALL jobs, private and Fed, have job requirements. With the Fed you can have education, experience, or a combination of both.



Only jobs that you would need a Masters/PHD is if you have NO experience of any type in that field.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You can;t even meet the basic requirments for a Fed Job. How dumb, lazy, and over paid are you? :D
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
and AGAIN spoken like someone that has no idea what he is speaking about.

ALL jobs, private and Fed, have job requirements. With the Fed you can have education, experience, or a combination of both.



Only jobs that you would need a Masters/PHD is if you have NO experience of any type in that field.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You can;t even meet the basic requirments for a Fed Job. How dumb, lazy, and over paid are you? :D

No not at all. I have no desire to work for the government just like I didn't want to go to Pharmacy school after I was accepted.

I know quite a few people that want those cushy government jobs though, they are on waiting lists.

I know people on the blue collar (post office/meter maid/etc) and white collar (civil engineering mainly) sides.

Everyone wants to work for the government, if the shit was so bad the fed would have more attrition too.

Many government employees stay in that sector throughout their careers.
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
Everyone wants to work for the government, if the shit was so bad the fed would have more attrition too.

Many government employees stay in that sector throughout their careers.

In today's (still) uncertain economy stability is seen as a positive, and since (federal) govt. jobs are seen as relatively stable, ergo people want to work for the federal govt. and govt. employees prefer to stay in their jobs if they can.

As a general rule, govt. workers ARE underpaid, but have benefits + stability to balance out the equation, and they tend to be better educated than their private counterparts. even adjusting for cost of living, private businesses outpay govt. work.

2010 General Schedule (GS) pay bands Other federal agencies/branches may have their own pay bands (such as the military military).

Ask a govt. contractor how lucrative govt. work is without all the shenanigans involved (ie double-billing, lowballing, etc). Ask a govt. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) how rich he's getting when he has student loans and a family.....

Lastly, my understanding is that there's a fair amount of govt. attrition each year, not all of which gets replaced. And at the Social Security Administration at least, there's quite a number of people who've been with the agency since SSI began in the early 1970s. They're going to retire within the next few years....so there will in fact be more job openings now or in the near future, at least with SSA.

In short, govt. employment neither pays poorly nor does it make one "rich".
 
Last edited:

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
In today's (still) uncertain economy stability is seen as a positive, and since (federal) govt. jobs are seen as relatively stable, ergo people want to work for the federal govt. and govt. employees prefer to stay in their jobs if they can.

As a general rule, govt. workers ARE underpaid, but have benefits + stability to balance out the equation, and they tend to be better educated than their private counterparts. even adjusting for cost of living, private businesses outpay govt. work.

2010 General Schedule (GS) pay bands Other federal agencies/branches may have their own pay bands (such as the military military).

Ask a govt. contractor how lucrative govt. work is without all the shenanigans involved (ie double-billing, lowballing, etc). Ask a govt. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) how rich he's getting when he has student loans and a family.....

Lastly, my understanding is that there's a fair amount of govt. attrition each year, not all of which gets replaced. And at the Social Security Administration at least, there's quite a number of people who've been with the agency since SSI began in the early 1970s. They're going to retire within the next few years....so there will in fact be more job openings now or in the near future, at least with SSA.

In short, govt. employment neither pays poorly nor does it make one "rich".

payscale site is great and all, but most are going for fed jobs due to not much potential of being fired/lay offs and the benefits and potential for pensions.

If I could do it again, I'd go military or post office and then change after 20 years to another one. Do another 20 and be paid pretty much my full pay the rest of my life.

In the last decade, I'd have done what others did too...put in for retirement after 20 and then get rehired the next day. Make 200% of my salary pretty much and then do another short "20" and have that factored in.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
7,126
738
126
payscale site is great and all, but most are going for fed jobs due to not much potential of being fired/lay offs and the benefits and potential for pensions.

I think you're still confusing the old federal pension system with the current one. The pension offered in the current system is rather paltry. For example, if you retired as a GS-9 employee (~$46k per year) after 30yrs of service, you're pension would be ~$13,500 per year. If you retired as a GS-11 employee (~$54k) after 30yrs of service your pension would be ~$16,200 per year. Not really the fantastic pension you make it out to be.

I agree with the rest though. I big pull for federal jobs is the stability.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
I think you're still confusing the old federal pension system with the current one. The pension offered in the current system is rather paltry. For example, if you retired as a GS-9 employee (~$46k per year) after 30yrs of service, you're pension would be ~$13,500 per year. If you retired as a GS-11 employee (~$54k) after 30yrs of service your pension would be ~$16,200 per year. Not really the fantastic pension you make it out to be.

I agree with the rest though. I big pull for federal jobs is the stability.

two federal jobs though still offer a ton more than almost any private sector for retirement.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
two federal jobs though still offer a ton more than almost any private sector for retirement.

I guess you mean the post office and the military?

The post office's budget is completely self sufficient, including their pensions/retirement. All of their money comes from postage, so if they have the money to pay for a good retirement plan, good for them! Don't like it, don't use the post office.

The military retirement plan is totally different than the federal employee plans - as you mentioned you can retire after 20 years in the military but that is not the case for the rest of the civil servants.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
two federal jobs though still offer a ton more than almost any private sector for retirement.


and AGAIN you show you have no idea what you speak of.

As pointed out the pension is not enough to live off. That and we have to pay into it; Its not some free plus we get.

If you want you can put money to the side and call it a pension if you like. That way you get the same benifit.

I think mine takes out about $25 each pay check.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Oh really, where? over 10 pages in this thread and its still has not been "demonstrated".
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.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
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.

What McPaper story? I'm searching this thread for McPaper and only come up with your other post.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
17
81
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.

Sorry charlie, wrong again. Absolutely incorrect and I've even provided a real world example.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
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.


Maybe you should do that.
I like how you use weaseal words and outs to save yourself but you look like a fool.


So we earn more as long as you don;t compare job duties or cost of living. Got it. :D
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
Change headline to:

Obama to freeze federal wages for two years...at an all-time high.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
In all regards I hope they pay federal employees more now, it will bring the bankrupt pension issue to the forefront sooner.

Older Americans need to fear their children at this point, with the growing young population and immigrants that didn't sign on for this, people are simply going to say enough. In the same way that the Irish brought up the idea of default, young Americans will at some point as well.

Let's move the issue of technical insolvency of the government pension system to the forefront quicker by paying out more quicker. I love that idea, either way it is still bankrupt. I hope your high-five is a gallion dollars, then instead of getting a payout for life you will get a payout for one month before the plan finally needs to admit they made some actuarial errors in the past.
 
Last edited:

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
In all regards I hope they pay federal employees more now, it will bring the bankruptcy pension issue to a front sooner.

Older Americans need to fear their children at this point, with the growing young population and immigrants that didn't sign on for this, people are simply going to say enough. In the same way that the Irish brought up the idea of default, young Americans will at some point as well.

Let's move the issue of technical insolvency of the government pension system to the forefront quicker by paying out more quicker. I love that idea, either way it is still bankrupt.


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.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
Clueless, there will be no pension, look at the states that have self-funded pension plans and the shape they are in. Just because you put $15 a paycheck or whatever amount they came up with to payout $1500 a paycheck the maths don't work.

CALPERS is in default as of 2044 based on a 8.0% discount rate and SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER contribution rates, the Fed is in much worse shape than that for funding status. The only savior is that the Fed had a bigger balance sheet.

There is simply going to be no pension rather self-funded or money put aside in 20 years.
 
Last edited:

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Clueless, there will be no pension, look at the states that have self-funded pension plans and the shape they are in.

There is simply going to be no pension rather self-funded or money put aside in 20 years.



AGAIN this thread is about Fed Employees and the good pension plan closed for us about 30 years ago.

Anything else clueless?
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
Well you can believe what you will you are obviously the recipient of some form of government aid in the form of a pension.

Plausible deniability works the best with unbridled hope a close second.

The golden age is dead, but the silver age is dead as well.

FERS is still a DB plan that has actuarial assumptions that is a promise to pay, if you don't meet the actuarial assumptions you run out of money. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out.

FYI pension surplus of FERS is going to disappear quicker as the Post Office continues to "borrow" (is it borrowing when you never intend to pay it back?) from the plan to fund daily operations and payroll of a business that is not a going concern but doesn't have the ability to fire a huge amount of its workforce so in the end will default on these borrowings?
 
Last edited:

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Well you can believe what you will you are obviously the recipient of some form of government aid in the form of a pension.

Plausible deniability works the best with unbridled hope a close second.

The golden age is dead, but the silver age is dead as well.

FERS is still a DB plan that has actuarial assumptions that is a promise to pay, if you don't meet the actuarial assumptions you run out of money. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure this out.


No I do not have a pension, still working 40hrs a week.

But hey why let facts mess with a failed clueless rant.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
0
76
No I do not have a pension, still working 40hrs a week.

But hey why let facts mess with a failed clueless rant.

So you aren't going to be a pension recipient and have a beneficial interest in believing the plan is funded? If that is the case I apologize.

Either way the system dies, no questions.

Maybe the post office can borrow more money from the plan quicker or the government can raise the COLA to make the plan underfunded quicker. Critical mass given assumptions that are unattainable based on the current economic environment is 2039 via ALM matching (Payout of estimated 440B and pay-in of ~60B, which is still nothing compared to the estimated 1.2T that will be paid out in SS that year and another 1.4T in Medicare.). Let's make a guess at how correct the government is on yet another budget prediction though. Let's go with 20 years instead of 30 years. Either way, dead.

Since you are an HR employee Marlin explain what happens when the plan sponsor dissolves or goes bankrupt and there is a pension plan, I will help because generally government employees only understand government. There are assets in the plan that are separate from the company held in trust. The dissolution of the company generally caps the plan unless market gains push up the amount that is available to pay out to the last men standing and PBGC which the corp has paid into for years takes over the distribution and actuarial assumptions should the plan fall onto hard times, but there are assets there at least.

What happens when the government goes bankrupt as borrowing costs go up in the same way it has in Europe? There are no assets in this plan though it is simply a promise to pay...your guess is as good as mine, but I can make an argument for what doesn't happen, status quo.
 
Last edited: