The American Dream

[KD in CA]

Lower pay with the government? Really? Have you not been paying attention? When you include bennies, it's not even a fair race. Government pay crushes the private sector.

 

These days you don't even need to include the benies. And people keep wondering why our country is going bankrupt.

[Gary M]

These days you don't even need to include the benies. And people keep wondering why our country is going bankrupt.

 

Before any one asks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-0...deral-pay_N.htm

 

 

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

 

Right

[Chef Jim]

Before any one asks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-0...deral-pay_N.htm

 

 

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

 

Right

 

Right and the private sector has to put away 26% more of their income because they don't have a pension.

[....lybob]

Right and the private sector has to put away 26% more of their income because they don't have a pension.

 

As ExiledInIllinois said that's the trade off lower pay better benefits

[Rob's House]

Right and the private sector has to put away 26% more of their income because they don't have a pension.

 

And the private sector produces while the public sector consumes.

[....lybob]

And the private sector produces while the public sector consumes.

 

The public sector provides services- police, firemen, judges, teachers, librarians, park workers, sanitation workers, public health workers- you may think that they do not provide good value for the money spent- but your above statement is just not true.

[Magox]

As ExiledInIllinois said that's the trade off lower pay better benefits

Except one little thing, that's not true.

 

Salaries and benefits—for identical jobs—are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers’ high skills are unjustified, as this study shows. Equally unjustified is the fact that federal workers can rarely be fired, no matter how poor their job performance. Congress should align federal salaries and benefits with market rates—a simple, and fair, move that could save taxpayers nearly $47 billion in 2011. Heritage Foundation labor policy analyst James Sherk provides detailed data on why Congress should not overtax all Americans to overpay the privileged workers in the civil service.

 

I think we can all agree that they are overcompensated.

[Rob's House]

The public sector provides services- police, firemen, judges, teachers, librarians, park workers, sanitation workers, public health workers- you may think that they do not provide good value for the money spent- but your above statement is just not true.

 

Most of what you just listed are funded at the state and local level. Granted I didn't specify, so that's on me, but I was primarily referring to Federal government agencies whose primary function is to confiscate resources from the private sector to reallocate them to various entities and consume an obscene amount of that in administration costs.

[Dante]

The public sector provides services- police, firemen, judges, teachers, librarians, park workers, sanitation workers, public health workers- you may think that they do not provide good value for the money spent- but your above statement is just not true.

Yes it is true. All the positions that you listed are expenses. They are non productive because they don't bring money into the economy they consume it. Much like a business that employ's secretaries and other administrative people, they are a necessary evil. Just like a business this portion of a company should be as lean as possible. The less admin staff you have the greater the profit. Also, those resources can be put back into the production side of the company in the form of wages and capitol investment like equipment and so on. Better for the company all around. Country would(or should) work the same way

[DC Tom]

Before any one asks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-0...deral-pay_N.htm

 

 

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

 

Right

 

 

"Federal accountants, for example, perform work that has more complexity and requires more skill than accounting work in the private sector, she says."

 

 

[....lybob]

"Salaries and benefits—for identical jobs—are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers’ high skills are unjustified, as this study shows. Equally unjustified is the fact that federal workers can rarely be fired, no matter how poor their job performance. Congress should align federal salaries and benefits with market rates—a simple, and fair, move that could save taxpayers nearly $47 billion in 2011. Heritage Foundation labor policy analyst James Sherk provides detailed data on why Congress should not overtax all Americans to overpay the privileged workers in the civil service."

 

excuse me if I take anything from the Heritage Foundation with a grain of salt or maybe the shaker- I'm sure there are examples like Janitor, security guard, building maintenance where that's true (it's probably maddening to you that a janitor with a county, state, or federal job is making $12/hr instead of $8/hr) - usually for less highly skilled labor- as labor becomes more skilled that reverses - for example my brother was doing software development and debugging for air traffic control systems and quit because he could make 4x as much doing similar work in the private sector.

 

 

Most of what you just listed are funded at the state and local level. Granted I didn't specify, so that's on me, but I was primarily referring to Federal government agencies whose primary function is to confiscate resources from the private sector to reallocate them to various entities and consume an obscene amount of that in administration costs.

 

I sure that there are inefficiencies and corruption in various government agencies but I still want protections like the type OSAH, NHTSA, EPA and other agencies provide.

[....lybob]

Yes it is true. All the positions that you listed are expenses. They are non productive because they don't bring money into the economy they consume it. Much like a business that employ's secretaries and other administrative people, they are a necessary evil. Just like a business this portion of a company should be as lean as possible. The less admin staff you have the greater the profit. Also, those resources can be put back into the production side of the company in the form of wages and capitol investment like equipment and so on. Better for the company all around. Country would(or should) work the same way

 

you are ridiculous - those positions are part of the infrastructure that make business possible- I'd like to pluck you down in some 3rd world country where there is no rule of law, no regulations, just the law of the jungle and see how well you do.

[Rob's House]

"Salaries and benefits—for identical jobs—are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers’ high skills are unjustified, as this study shows. Equally unjustified is the fact that federal workers can rarely be fired, no matter how poor their job performance. Congress should align federal salaries and benefits with market rates—a simple, and fair, move that could save taxpayers nearly $47 billion in 2011. Heritage Foundation labor policy analyst James Sherk provides detailed data on why Congress should not overtax all Americans to overpay the privileged workers in the civil service."

 

excuse me if I take anything from the Heritage Foundation with a grain of salt or maybe the shaker- I'm sure there are examples like Janitor, security guard, building maintenance where that's true (it's probably maddening to you that a janitor with a county, state, or federal job is making $12/hr instead of $8/hr) - usually for less highly skilled labor- as labor becomes more skilled that reverses - for example my brother was doing software development and debugging for air traffic control systems and quit because he could make 4x as much doing similar work in the private sector.

 

I understand that you guys have a world view where this protective father figure known as federal government shepherds you, his sheep, and watches over you, and that's fine. But it's damned maddening the way you dismiss any source of info that isn't completely consistent with your predetermined mindset. That's why so many (not just libs) politically minded people find their heads stuck up their own rectums. They start with the conclusion and work backwards from there.

 

It's very easy to have absolute certaintly when you discount all contradictory info out of hand.

 

I sure that there are inefficiencies and corruption in various government agencies but I still want protections like the type OSAH, NHTSA, EPA and other agencies provide.

 

I hesitate to take these agencies at face value. Sure on the surface OSHA seems like a great thing, protecting workers, after all, who wants workers to get hurt. When you dig a little deeper half of what they do simply throws a wrench into the gears of business while doing extremely little to help anyone. Same with the EPA. Sure I don't want deadly poison dumped in the river, but the EPA goes well above and beyond that into the realm of the ridiculous and becomes a governmental arm of left-wing environmental activism.

 

Regardless of that, those agencies are a fart in a hurricane as a proportion of the federal government.

[Magox]

excuse me if I take anything from the Heritage Foundation with a grain of salt or maybe the shaker- I'm sure there are examples like Janitor, security guard, building maintenance where that's true (it's probably maddening to you that a janitor with a county, state, or federal job is making $12/hr instead of $8/hr) - usually for less highly skilled labor- as labor becomes more skilled that reverses - for example my brother was doing software development and debugging for air traffic control systems and quit because he could make 4x as much doing similar work in the private sector.

 

 

 

 

I sure that there are inefficiencies and corruption in various government agencies but I still want protections like the type OSAH, NHTSA, EPA and other agencies provide.

Must I always prove you wrong?

 

You know lybob, this now becoming to be a habit now.

 

or do you want to question USA today's source of information (you know that bastion of right wing news) which would be the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Funny how you would question The Heritage Foundation's numbers, considering that much of their analysis is based on facts.

 

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.

 

Let's see here.

 

Federal Employee: =$67,691 + $40,785 = $108,476

 

Private sector employee: $60,046 + $9,882 = $69,928

 

This was for 2008. Have private sector employee salaries gone up or down since 2008?

 

Have Government employee salaries gone up or down?

 

You should really learn to do some research before you offer your opinions, just sayin'.

[Dante]

you are ridiculous - those positions are part of the infrastructure that make business possible- I'd like to pluck you down in some 3rd world country where there is no rule of law, no regulations, just the law of the jungle and see how well you do.

You didn't read my post. I said they were a necessary evil. Just like our business here needs a front office to take care of administrative duties. But they are non productive. They are an expense and thus should be as cheap and lean as possible but I never said eliminated. Generally, they are relatively unskilled as our production people and are expendable and easier to replace. Market value kicking in, unskilled types should be paid lower than private, and public for that matter, tradesman and so on. I'm thinking like, bus drivers should not make that much more than minimum for example.

[stuckincincy]

As ExiledInIllinois said that's the trade off lower pay better benefits

 

You missed the scarasm. Out of the 38 or so occupations listed in that reference, federal pay lagged in only 5.

 

also,

 

"• Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector."

 

And look it up - there are no end of studies that show that government workers are far less likely to be fired, or leave their jobs to go into the private sector. Most feel (correctly so) that they are set for life.

 

I shake my head when pols (Obama for one) talk about jobs, the "plight of our teachers, our firemen, our police" and so on. Always the plight of the protected class. The store clerk? the factory worker? the oil change jockey? Naa...

 

And the unions - union labor for federal jobs. Union wages for OH jobs. Union wages for Cincinnati jobs. "Card Check." A Senator (Casey?) who introduces a bill to make you and I responsible for mis-managed union pension plans.

 

This is called building a Praetorian Guard, a Sturmabteilung. History repeats.

 

 

It's inexorable.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Before any one asks.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-0...deral-pay_N.htm

 

 

"When you look at the actual duties, you see that very few federal jobs align with those in the private sector," she says. She says federal employees are paid an average of 26% less than non-federal workers doing comparable work.

 

Right

 

My line of work must be one of those few. We actually do MORE than if my job was privatized... And get paid less. My job description ends with:

 

"All duties as assigned."

 

We do everything in-house. From the simplest tasks to the most complicated electrical and mechanical work.

 

Just around the bend in downtown Chicago at the lock there... They are privatized and under contract. They do nothing to take ownership of the place. Maybe it is the fault of the contract writers... All they do is lock the boats, something breaks... They don't fix it. Something needs maint. or repair, they don't fix it. "It isn't their job."

 

I am proud of our old-school work ethic. Our facility needs it done, WE do it.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Right and the private sector has to put away 26% more of their income because they don't have a pension.

 

I pay into my pension and fund it. Almost 2% of my pay goes for my pension. I have to pay SS. And if I want to have a better nest-egg, I need to kick more in than the automatic 1% the agency puts into my TSP.

 

3 parts of my retirement:

 

I do get a pension, I will admit I have to kick in almost 2%.

 

SS which I pay into being a FERS employee.

 

TSP... The first 1% is automatic by the agency... The the first 4% you put in is matched, the next 1% is matched 50%... Then nothing above 5%. It is not capped anymore and I put in around 20% of my pay.

 

So what the !@#$ you talking about?

 

Healthcare? The agency picks up around 65% of my premium, I pay the rest. That comes out to about 400 bucks a month I put in and the agency puts in around 600.

[ExiledInIllinois]

As ExiledInIllinois said that's the trade off lower pay better benefits

 

I also pay fed taxes which goes directly into the general fund. So in other words, my taxes are going to pay myself and other workers where I work... ie: subsidized

 

I go to Home Depot and pick a can a paint to paint our facility and I have a tax exempt form for that product. We buy the product, WE install it. No matter what it is.

 

Why no tax on the material, but tax on me actually doing the labor by painting the lock chamber, shop/office wall, or whatever.

 

Remember, don't equate what I do with what you may see other fed workers doing. Once again, our field site is 100% self sustainable... Everything can be done in-house without the need of a contractor.

 

I am not actually saying I should not be taxed. I don't mind in the least. I just wish people would shut the !@#$ up before shooting off at mouth like they know everything.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Except one little thing, that's not true.

 

 

 

I think we can all agree that they are overcompensated.

 

Yes. Case in point, my job. I do more than if the job was contracted out. And true, I would be paid less if I was privatized because I would be DOING LESS.