Why U.S. Government Should Cut Federal Workers' Lavish Compensation 103 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Should the Government Cut Federal Workers’ Lavish Compensation?
The U.S. celebrates Labor Day on the first Monday of September while for the rest of the world Labor Day is on May 1st. Labor Day was declared to celebrate the economic and social achievements of workers.
In the U.S. job losses totaled 2.6 million in 2008. Most of the job losses were in the private sector as companies slashed payroll in large numbers to weather the downturn. Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost about 6.9 million jobs. In August the official unemployment rate stood at 9.7%. Millions of workers in the private sector have seen their jobs disappear and are now surviving with the help of unemployment benefits which has been extended many times. Some of the state and local government workers have also been laid off.
However their numbers are much lower than the total private sector job losses. One group of workers who have been shielded from the recession has been the Federal workers. Unlike the state and local governments which depend on taxes and other revenues to pay workers, the Federal government has the exclusive authority to print money. Hence despite the rising deficit that runs in the trillions, the Federal government has been able to keep their employees well paid. For Labor Day 2009 celebrations, the Department of Labor site tag line says “Good Jobs for Everyone”.
Today Federal workers enjoy much higher compensation packages relative to private sector workers. In an article titled ”Federal Pay Continues Rapid Ascent” Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute analyzed the compensation levels of Federal workers using data from the The Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The article mentioned:
The George W. Bush years were very lucrative for federal workers. In 2000, the average compensation (wages and benefits) of federal workers was 66 percent higher than the average compensation in the U.S. private sector. The new data show that average federal compensation is now more than double the average in the private sector.
In 2008, federal worker compensation averaged a remarkable $119,982, which was more than double the private sector average of $59,909.
Chart
Click to enlarge
Source: The Cato Institute
The above chart clearly shows that the federal wages are increasing year after year at an astonishing rate when compared to the stagnant to small rises in the private sector. As for the reason behind this great divergence, Chris added:
Members of Congress who have large numbers of federal workers in their districts relentlessly push for expanding federal worker compensation. Also, the Bush administration had little interest in fiscal restraint, and it usually got rolled by the federal unions. The result has been an increasingly overpaid elite of government workers, who are insulated from the economic reality of recessions and from the tough competitive climate of the private sector.
In addition to the prestige that goes with working for the Feds, Federal workers also enjoy very high security. In order to pay for such lavish pay and other benefits, the Feds adding more debt each year to the public debt which will be a burden on our future generations. In addition, anyone who has used the services of Federal government knows the excessive fees charged for any kind of services such as passport issuance, security charges when buying airline tickets, etc.
So how many people are employed by the Federal government?. According to the latest available data, there were 2,730,050 in 2007. These employees were paid $14,426,625,181 in December 2007 alone.
The Total Federal Government Civilian Employment 2007 by Function:
| Function | Total Employees in 2007 |
|---|---|
| Financial Administration | 109,298 |
| Other Government Administration | 24,487 |
| Judicial and Legal | 60,742 |
| Police | 166,444 |
| Correction | 36,654 |
| Highways | 2,824 |
| Air Transportation | 45,672 |
| Water Transport & Terminals | 4,486 |
| Public Welfare | 8,364 |
| Health | 140,703 |
| Hospitals | 172,604 |
| Social Insurance Administration | 63,690 |
| Parks and Recreation | 24,442 |
| Housing and Community Development | 15,352 |
| Natural Resources | 186,760 |
| Nat Defense-International Relations | 698,805 |
| Postal Service | 767,879 |
| Space Research & Technology | 18,517 |
| Other Education | 10,271 |
| Libraries | 3,883 |
| Other and Unallocable | 168,173 |
Department of Homeland Security Agencies Total:
| Agency | Total Employees in 2007 |
|---|---|
| U.S. Coast Guard | 7,652 |
| U.S. Secret Service | 6,592 |
| Bureau of Customs and Border Protection | 47,932 |
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | 16,693 |
| Transportation Security Agency | 58,199 |
| All Other | 30,114 |
Source: The Census Bureau
For the excellent pay and benefits, in the current economic environment, public sector jobs have become highly attractive to many people looking for work. With health care costs soaring every year and compensation for workers in the private sector not rising to keep up with rising costs, working for the government has become fashionable again.
The importance of the federal benefits was recently underscored by a U.S. Senator. During a townhall in Waukon, Iowa, a constituent asked Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) “Why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so [much] better than my insurance?” When Grassley struggled to explain the details of his own health care plan, the man followed up, “Okay, so how come I can’t have the same thing you have?” Grassley replied, “You can. Just go work for the federal government.”
In summary, my answer to the title of this article is Yes, the federal government must cut the lavish benefits and pay of its employees to match the current pay levels in the private sector. Though there may not be a political will to do this, a program to gradually reduce and eliminate some of the liberal benefits offered to federal workers has to be implemented.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 103 comments:
If we can't sell our goods or services, we lose our jobs; whilst for these people, they are kept on the payroll even when and if their raison d'etre is unprovable or even negative.
We could get a lot better economy that much sooner if we started laying off non-productive state and federal workers and made them look to do something worthwhile and productive.
But I won't hold my breath ...
When the Fed prints money and buys US government bonds from the US Treasury and lends the money to the US government this way. Then this is 'free money' as far as many voters are concerned. And they don't complain about it much because this money isn't coming directly out of their pockets.
The only people who can stop the US government from printing and spending so much money are the foreigners, especially the foreign central banks of China and other exporting countries. Because they can sell their US dollars and bonds and make them plunge in value relative to other currencies. Which would create inflation of import and commodity prices and bond interest rates in USA and make continued printing of US dollars counterproductive.
It's in the interest of every debtor nation to devalue the money it borrows and make this money worth less. Which is why the US government printing of money doesn't bother many US voters much. These voters are US taxpayers who indirectly owe the money to the foreigners. And many of these voters have big personal debts too, which they are happy to devalue.
Only foreigners can stop this and not Americans. Because too many Americans benefit from the printing and the spending of money by the US government.
Michigan has been run this way for decades. The state bases their own employees' pay and benes based on the UAW worker.
While the majority of us will never have it so good. We work longer, for less, with no or meager benefits.
We contribute billions to make sure this protected subset of the population lives the good life. Go to a summer resort area and you quickly find that the majority enjoying their (young/early) retirements in nice summer places. The majority of taxpayers will never have such luxury.
For some reason, even those that do not benefit directly from the government employment gravy train do not want to fight the unions.
I compare it to the agreement, by silence, of all the ways big government keeps growing. I call it the "lotto syndrome," Americans refuse to get behind things like stopping ridiculous lawsuits and overly-benefited government employees. We all think WE might get lucky enough to win the lotto, a multimillion dollar lawsuit or a cushy government job.
We stand back and watch the government, OUR government, fine and punish and regulate our lives and jobs. They crush and stifle innovation with law and regulatory fees. They steal personal property for offenses so benign as a little pot, too much cash or visiting a prostitute.
Then they go back and shower money on the government worker, corrupt corporate lobbyists and friends and family.
We, reelect them, or worse, don't vote.
This is why I have no faith that things will change, at least without great upheaval. The sheep are too stupid and too apathetic to do anything until it is their family living in a tent.
Thanks again for trying, this is a tale worth shouting from the rooftops.
Since we all know social security and medicare are heading for a cliff, I can't see the average, increasingly strapped and impoverished American paying king's ransoms to employ mostly nonproducers who are such a burden to the producers.
Articles like this make me sick for Americas future. Reagan said, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
IMO the only way we can stop this is to elect reps and senators who will support term limits. Party is irrelevant, just elect reps that will support a constitutional amendment to limit terms. If we had term limits the reps could cut government workers pay without worring about not getting re elected. There is no other way to stop this snowball.
People have argued consistently whether this is a re-run of the 1930s or the 1970s. The truth is it is more like like the US was in the 1930s but a better comparison would be Britain in the 1970s. Thatcher stopped the rot in Britain, and it was painful. I know because I was one that felt the pain very severely and she certainly didn't get everything right, but when you compare her with Obama, it is like comparing Churchill with Chamberlain. Obama is only going to make this mess much much worse. The question is whether reform will await his replacement with somebody with a mandage for Real Change or whether that is beyond the capabilities of American demoncracy. A right wing dictator in such a heavily armed country is very scary indeed, but at this stage of the game you have to conclude that if US democracy cannot mend itself then it is a very real threat.
Start by cutting the salaries of our elected officials to a reasonable amount-say no more than $75,000/year. Most places in the US has lots of folks that live on less than that and are happy!!!
To be fair and take it out of their control forever, set the annual salaries of our Senators and Congressmen to 1.5 times the US average family income. That way, the only way for them to get a raise is to increase the income of those that they serve!!
As to the Federal workers salaries, human envy & greed will take care of itself. That is, once your elected representatives see that all their underlings make more than they do, guess what they will do next-Cut their pay!!!
On Sep 08 09:19 AM Duude wrote:
> What a depressing and important article. Its going to take a tea
> party sort of revolution that directly attacks the skyrocketing costs
> of federal wages and benefits. Benefits can be cut, or out of pocket
> premiums increased as fast as politicians will act. However, wages
> can only be frozen for say, 5 years.
British car makers were "nationalized" under the British Leyland label not too unlike GM and for the same reasons. High osts, low quality and pernicious labour problems. It's deja vu on this side of the pond with public employees the modern equivalent of remittance men. However, these RM's don't move out of country, but merely to another state.
On Sep 08 08:52 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
>...but a better comparison would be Britain in the 1970s. Thatcher
> stopped the rot in Britain, and it was painful. I know because I
> was one that felt the pain very severely and she certainly didn't
> get everything right, but when you compare her with Obama, it is
> like comparing Churchill with Chamberlain. Obama is only going to
> make this mess much much worse.
After the health reform issue and the cap and trade boondoggle is out of the way, the issue of illegal immigrants will be headlines. If he can sway Congress to make them citizens, he will add millions more to help his party in the upcoming elections.
He has to keep these people happy.
Most of the compensation comparisons, which are required by law to be conducted on a job by job basis, show that the Feds lag behind the private sector. While it is admittedly an outlier example, look at the $175K income of a Cabinet Secretary (e.g., DOD) versus the tens of millions of dollars received by top executives in the private sector. Now I would call those megabuck compensation packages to the CEOs, many of failing companies, lavish.
It is true that Federal employment looks really enticing in times of economic instability. But most of the time over the last 40 years or so most people looked down with distain on Federal emplyoyment and would never consider working for the Feds.
On Sep 08 09:58 AM Vern Gilmore wrote:
> Not a snowballs chance in *ell that federal workers ripping off the
> system are going to take a pay cut.
P.S. I'm in the private sector and have never worked in federal sector.
I have a JD/MBA and I make $74k a year. I do it because I want to serve, but really, don’t you think valued employees should be paid more, not less?
Great job proving politicans of EVERY party need to be voted out and replaced by less govt oriented people
On Sep 08 08:50 AM long_on_oil wrote:
> With these numbers how can any politician campaign on the platform
> of cutting the pay of government workers. No matter the party they
> would not get a single government worker vote. The snow ball is
> rolling downhill and you better not get in its path.
> Articles like this make me sick for Americas future. Reagan said,
> government is not the solution, government is the problem.
> IMO the only way we can stop this is to elect reps and senators who
> will support term limits. Party is irrelevant, just elect reps that
> will support a constitutional amendment to limit terms. If we had
> term limits the reps could cut government workers pay without worring
> about not getting re elected. There is no other way to stop this
> snowball.
On Sep 08 11:29 AM baldskits wrote:
> How about removing "Personhood" from corporations so they can't contribute
> to politicians? We have a "corporatocracy" now.
We are quickly approaching government payroll being larger than private sector and guess what?
The private sector is continuing to be crushed.
Want to end the "recession"? Then SHRINK the government and leave the money in the hands of those that create real products and services. Not the money changers, paper pushers and regulators.
On Sep 08 10:17 AM biosis wrote:
> Non-essential govt. employees (most of the work force) are in fact
> a not well known permanent stimulus package. Most of the resources
> used (salaries)actually go back into the economy and drive the economy.
> This need is greatest when the economy is in recession (now), so
> of course govt. employment becomes more secure and benefits become
> better known and desirable. Keeping in mind that the profit incentive
> is basically absent, this explains the real situation; how to optimize
> it is another topic beyond this article.
> Counterpoint- I took a 45% pay cut to join the State Department and
> serve my country. I haven’t had a pay raise beyond inflation adjustments
> for 4 years. Be careful what you ask for. There are PLENTY of government
> employees who could be making far more in the private sector. If
> you squeeze folks like me, we’ll be forced to leave government, and
> our foreign affairs will be handled by people who couldn’t make more
> in the private sector. Is that what you want?
>
> I have a JD/MBA and I make $74k a year. I do it because I want to
> serve, but really, don’t you think valued employees should be paid
> more, not less?
I applaud your desire to serve and I suppose that’s the point of the article. There is an obvious frustration among the private sector that will continue to increase as our public servants display traits that our viewed as masters because the power / authority that’s been vested in their position is transferred to their person.
However, these positions of service should not be filled by persons that have no understanding / compassion / experience among the sovereigns of our nation, i.e. the free citizenry at large. This is especially true among our elected officials.
As a JD/MBA you no doubt have a unique view of this relationship between government and business, (with an added benefit of their global relationship - foreign affairs remark?) We obviously needed more guidance in this arena as those that have been assigned to protect the flock - the US citizenry have failed miserably in allowing foreign interests to attack and ravage our middleclass home owner / buyer’s equities markets.
Thanks for your service.
Meeting one of these officials, you realise that the only jobs being made here are interferring with people at work.
As for myself, I have never been an official, so I still know how to do things
While kicking this political football so often used to mislead the sheeples into voting for the Republicans, take a glance at the yachts in San Diego harbor and off Martha's Vineyard and tell us how many of those are owned by federal employees.
On Sep 08 08:52 AM Dave Wrixon wrote:
> Yep, bring the debt under control so the interest rates will actually
> be serviceable when interest rates soar following a dollar collapse
> means that not only must Government do less, but it must do what
> it does more cheapily. Cutting benefits and indeed salaries is almost
> certainly part of that, but the easy way to do that is to replace
> the highly paid with cheaper replacements. The total number of employees
> need to be cut drastically and so do average wages.
>
> People have argued consistently whether this is a re-run of the 1930s
> or the 1970s. The truth is it is more like like the US was in the
> 1930s but a better comparison would be Britain in the 1970s. Thatcher
> stopped the rot in Britain, and it was painful. I know because I
> was one that felt the pain very severely and she certainly didn't
> get everything right, but when you compare her with Obama, it is
> like comparing Churchill with Chamberlain. Obama is only going to
> make this mess much much worse. The question is whether reform will
> await his replacement with somebody with a mandage for Real Change
> or whether that is beyond the capabilities of American demoncracy.
> A right wing dictator in such a heavily armed country is very scary
> indeed, but at this stage of the game you have to conclude that if
> US democracy cannot mend itself then it is a very real threat.
On Sep 08 08:50 AM long_on_oil wrote:
> With these numbers how can any politician campaign on the platform
> of cutting the pay of government workers. No matter the party they
> would not get a single government worker vote. The snow ball is
> rolling downhill and you better not get in its path.
> Articles like this make me sick for Americas future. Reagan said,
> government is not the solution, government is the problem.
> IMO the only way we can stop this is to elect reps and senators who
> will support term limits. Party is irrelevant, just elect reps that
> will support a constitutional amendment to limit terms. If we had
> term limits the reps could cut government workers pay without worring
> about not getting re elected. There is no other way to stop this
> snowball.
On Sep 08 10:00 AM Miamah Boy wrote:
> Cut the Senators and Congressmen's pay and they will take care of
> the rest!!!
Incidently, that system might work better if concerned citizens could get Congress to require that all agencies suggestion systems be posted on the internet in a database for the public to review.
Thanks to our malignant system of so called regulated but in reality almost unlimited lobbying and lobbyists "educating" policy makers is very frequently the source of government waste. Often the trail of waste leads back to the corporate offices of government contractors and huge regulated industries. Rigged bidding, kickbacks, weak loose contracts, promises of jobs when leaving federal (as well as state and local) employment, money, sex, whatever it takes to get and keep fat wasteful government contracts.
Is it possible that many people in America wanting to cut all government employment could be stockholders in companies that have large government contracts?
On Sep 08 06:48 AM AndrewBaker wrote:
> This is one other reason why our economic futures are going to be
> far harder than in the past: our taxes are paying for and giving
> comfort to an ever growing band of federal workers who produce nothing,
> and at the same time make it much harder for us to make things and
> make things happen that do add to real production and a growing economy.
>
>
> If we can't sell our goods or services, we lose our jobs; whilst
> for these people, they are kept on the payroll even when and if their
> raison d'etre is unprovable or even negative.
>
> We could get a lot better economy that much sooner if we started
> laying off non-productive state and federal workers and made them
> look to do something worthwhile and productive.
>
> But I won't hold my breath ...
Think about it: what if the USPS started delivering only 3X / week, alternating neighborhoods with either M/W/F or Tu/Th/Sa delivery? Would you be okay? Then how about once a week?
If we started aggressively phasing out the USPS and having UPS and FedEx bid on the work on a state-by-state basis, there would have to be savings to be realized.
Don't read this as a criticism of Postal Service employees, who rank high on the list of public servants IMO. But require the successful bidder (by state) to hire these people and let the private sector start turning the thing around.
Except for the armed forces, there is very little worthy of commendation about the way Federal government is run. And the scary thing is, recently the idea of having the Federal Government run more things that would impact our lives (think "Health Care Reform") is being well-received by the Federal Government employees that represent us.
Except for mine (Eric Cantor), I'd vote for terminating all of them!
Dave
On Sep 08 03:25 PM ironist15 wrote:
> While I understand the passion of commenters, most of them are missing
> where the real problem lies. After 10 years of Federal employment,
> I will retire with the not-so-magnificent sum of 10% of my high-three
> salary; if I'd worked 30 years for the Feds, I'd have gotten 30%.
> This pales in comparison to state, county and city retirement packages,
> where emergency workers can retire with 90% of their salary after
> only 20 years of work, while non-emergency workers get out after
> 25 to 30 years of service with this level of benefit. There have
> been recent articles on California state employees retiring with
> pensions of $150,00 and more; nothing remotely this high is possible
> in Federal civil service jobs. Oh, BTW, for my over 25 years of private
> employment, I get no pension whatsoever.
On Sep 08 10:28 AM JOHNCHAP2 wrote:
> Your simplistic presentation substantially distorts the real truth.
> Comparing federal employment which is very heavily weighted in professional
> and white collar jobs to the working population as a whole where
> blue collar and non skilled labor make up a large percentage is simply
> either a dishonest or incompetent comparison. It appears to be the
> same type of distortions that have entered into the anti health reform
> debate that we are currently seeing.
>
> Most of the compensation comparisons, which are required by law to
> be conducted on a job by job basis, show that the Feds lag behind
> the private sector. While it is admittedly an outlier example, look
> at the $175K income of a Cabinet Secretary (e.g., DOD) versus the
> tens of millions of dollars received by top executives in the private
> sector. Now I would call those megabuck compensation packages to
> the CEOs, many of failing companies, lavish.
>
> It is true that Federal employment looks really enticing in times
> of economic instability. But most of the time over the last 40 years
> or so most people looked down with distain on Federal emplyoyment
> and would never consider working for the Feds.
1. World's third largest employer: UK Health Care Bureaucrats. www.timesonline.co.uk/...
I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples here. I would like to know how the numbers came about. Are they comparing the same job-types? The federal gov't would tend to have a lot more white collar types (i.e. lawyers, engineers, scientists, accountants).
Also, I would want to know what the breakouts are. What is salary, health, especially what is the OH or Overhead which would be illuminating. This reminds me about the gender pay gap myth. Once every other variable is controlled for, that gap disappears.
Also, what would happen if they also counted the Military personnel as part of this Federal workforce number? I'm sure the aggregate would go down as the officers/enlisted don't get paid that much.
On Sep 08 10:28 AM JOHNCHAP2 wrote:
> Your simplistic presentation substantially distorts the real truth.
> Comparing federal employment which is very heavily weighted in professional
> and white collar jobs to the working population as a whole where
> blue collar and non skilled labor make up a large percentage is simply
> either a dishonest or incompetent comparison. It appears to be the
> same type of distortions that have entered into the anti health reform
> debate that we are currently seeing.
>
> Most of the compensation comparisons, which are required by law to
> be conducted on a job by job basis, show that the Feds lag behind
> the private sector. While it is admittedly an outlier example, look
> at the $175K income of a Cabinet Secretary (e.g., DOD) versus the
> tens of millions of dollars received by top executives in the private
> sector. Now I would call those megabuck compensation packages to
> the CEOs, many of failing companies, lavish.
>
> It is true that Federal employment looks really enticing in times
> of economic instability. But most of the time over the last 40 years
> or so most people looked down with distain on Federal emplyoyment
> and would never consider working for the Feds.
On Sep 08 06:48 AM AndrewBaker wrote:
> This is one other reason why our economic futures are going to be
> far harder than in the past: our taxes are paying for and giving
> comfort to an ever growing band of federal workers who produce nothing,
> and at the same time make it much harder for us to make things and
> make things happen that do add to real production and a growing economy.
>
>
> If we can't sell our goods or services, we lose our jobs; whilst
> for these people, they are kept on the payroll even when and if their
> raison d'etre is unprovable or even negative.
>
> We could get a lot better economy that much sooner if we started
> laying off non-productive state and federal workers and made them
> look to do something worthwhile and productive.
>
> But I won't hold my breath ...
This system can not be sustained, those who have produced have been too busy producing to notice the supports these public systems employees have built for themselves. Same on them, shame on us.
"Often I sit around and wish that these "over paid and non-producing" government workers would get laid off, then maybe you finance savy kings of commerce would realize the benefit of those useless services."
Instead of getting yourself laid off, why not go on strike for 4-6 weeks?
Then we can all see how essential these jobs are so that:
"everything runs smooth enough that you ungrateful and undeserving civilians can moan all day as you see freely."
Yes, after 26 years I'm making pretty good money. I'm paying approx. 3,000 per annum in health plan premiums, my plan, as all FEHB plans pay almost nothing for dental or vision. My plan required that I go to PPO's in order to get 85% coverage of bills. I have family deductibles of $750 per annum in order to receive benefits and I have various copayments to meet for services rendered.
I cannot retire until age 55 with 30 years service, as I am grandfathered under the old plan (CSRS) which changed on or about 1Jan84.
Everyone hired since that time relies mostly on Social Security, plus a 401 K (TSP), matched dollar for dollar up to 4% and 50 cents on the dollar up to 6% total. The Federal portion of the retirement benefits is quite small now.
As for myself under the old plan, I can expect to retire at 55% of my base pay after averaging my last 3 years (high 3) pay.
Under the new plan, these folks will not get their retirement until they're approaching social security age, since to receive the fed. pension alone would not be enough to survive.
It is absolutely true that fed employees were given considerably higher cost of living adjustments with Pres. Bush than under Clinton. I do believe Obama should have opted to afford 0% cost of living adjustment rather than the 2.0% lowered from 2.4% based on the CPI. I do agree that when the country is in a downturn, especially as severe as this one, for symbolic value if nothing else, federal employees should bear some burden.
I certainly realize and appreciate the wealth producers of the country, because they do pay my salary. Citizens should rail against the bureaucracy, their pay and sense of entitlement. No doubt. Too many federal employees get that glazed look in their eyes when I say the TaxPayer is paying for this or that.
One more comment...while I do live reasonably well after all these years, I do pay substantial fed. income taxes. I do resent the multitudes of income earners that now pay no fed. income taxes. What nearly 50% no longer pay income taxes?
Every income earner needs to pay income taxes, otherwise they have no 'skin' in the game and could care less if the "rich" get their earned wealth confiscated, essentially to feed the TaxEaters and their ever growing demands for equal outcome, not equal opportunity.
On Sep 08 08:44 AM User 92501 wrote:
> US Postal Service 767,879 employees do not receive any money from
> the Federal Government. There pay comes from the stamps and other
> service to the American people. Also, the postal service pays for
> retirement from deductions from employees wages. The US Postal Service
> is currently restructing as it is several billions in debt due to
> low volumne of mail
On Sep 08 11:24 PM Falconflight wrote:
> I'm a Federal Employee with 26 years service. I have a Master Degree
> and started at 16,500 per annum.
>
> Yes, after 26 years I'm making pretty good money. I'm paying approx.
> 3,000 per annum in health plan premiums, my plan, as all FEHB plans
> pay almost nothing for dental or vision. My plan required that I
> go to PPO's in order to get 85% coverage of bills. I have family
> deductibles of $750 per annum in order to receive benefits and I
> have various copayments to meet for services rendered.
>
> I cannot retire until age 55 with 30 years service, as I am grandfathered
> under the old plan (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) which changed
> on or about 1Jan84.
>
> Everyone hired since that time relies mostly on Social Security,
> plus a 401 K (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), matched dollar
> for dollar up to 4% and 50 cents on the dollar up to 6% total. The
> Federal portion of the retirement benefits is quite small now. <br/>
>
> As for myself under the old plan, I can expect to retire at 55% of
> my base pay after averaging my last 3 years (high 3) pay.
>
> Under the new plan, these folks will not get their retirement until
> they're approaching social security age, since to receive the fed.
> pension alone would not be enough to survive.
>
> It is absolutely true that fed employees were given considerably
> higher cost of living adjustments with Pres. Bush than under Clinton.
> I do believe Obama should have opted to afford 0% cost of living
> adjustment rather than the 2.0% lowered from 2.4% based on the CPI.
> I do agree that when the country is in a downturn, especially as
> severe as this one, for symbolic value if nothing else, federal employees
> should bear some burden.
>
> I certainly realize and appreciate the wealth producers of the country,
> because they do pay my salary. Citizens should rail against the bureaucracy,
> their pay and sense of entitlement. No doubt. Too many federal employees
> get that glazed look in their eyes when I say the TaxPayer is paying
> for this or that.
>
> One more comment...while I do live reasonably well after all these
> years, I do pay substantial fed. income taxes. I do resent the multitudes
> of income earners that now pay no fed. income taxes. What nearly
> 50% no longer pay income taxes?
>
> Every income earner needs to pay income taxes, otherwise they have
> no 'skin' in the game and could care less if the "rich" get their
> earned wealth confiscated, essentially to feed the TaxEaters and
> their ever growing demands for equal outcome, not equal opportunity.
>
Before everyone flames me, I want to agree whole heartedly that there are too many feds, and the size of the "workforce" at 2.7 million should be much smaller. Cut the congressional staffs (hell cut the congress in half so we only have half as many crooks to watch) and eliminate the Dept of "education" and energy and others to be named later.
I think the best idea is to repeal the 16th amendment, the Income tax.
Hell, why we're at it we just arrest all able bodied workers between the ages of 16-76 and make them slaves! Who needs consumers when you can get them to work for free!
FU Capitalism, ain't it grand!
I watched National Geographic's "9/11" last night and I was left with the impression that we, as a Country, are a bunch of F-ups. We couldn't get the intelligence right, air traffic control was a mess, what about border control and INS? These are all federal functions. And then I thought, "you know, the housing mess is just another example of collective F-ups, only this time a different branch of government- regulators/congress."
Government cannot and will not ever do anything well. It can't. Anyone with any ambition or talent is going to demand that they get compensated fairly and that will not occur in government (though you can get close if you are a lobbyist!). Of course, corruption and pseudo corruption (post presidential speaking fees) seem to be very lucrative these days.
How will it end? Badly. Those sucking the blood out of the marrow (current recipients) are desperate reactionary survivalists and will negotiate in a word "no."
We are seeing tax receipts drop precipitously. How much of that is economic downturn and how much of it is John Galt effect? Why would John Galt risk time and capital when he is looking at the Obama future of punishment for success and its malaise environment? This also coupled with his minions wanting their lavish pensions - more, more, more. All paid for with your ever increasing taxes. Invent your dam wireless network or cure for cancer, federale. I quit and you can't tax that.
I know Calpers and Calstrs have a majority of their retirement contribution paid for by the taxpayer....employee puts in 8 cents, the taxpayer puts in 11 or 12 cents....so this notion that they are paying their way is nonsense. Simply not true. Pay us back our contribution, then, and we will call it even.
The post office is a joke. Someone in here commented that they pay their way. Right. Your half a dollar stamp on a feather light envelope consumes a smidgen of the postal traffic (by weight) and subsidizes the ridiculous mass mailers. Why should we have to pay for GAP catalogs postage? And the government does this at the same time that they are telling you that you need to be more green.
The post office needs to go the way of the pony express. Seriously. Imagine life without letters. It ain't real hard to do. What are we waiting for? Netflix to get everything streaming? Do it now while unemployment is already high....those 700,000 employees will hardly make a dent in the big fig!!
My Congressman travels from the west coast to the east coast over 30 times a year. They go international, what, 5 times a year?
My Sister, a prof, flies at least 3 times a year to far off spots around the globe for "research" or conferences.
Why did we invent the internet if we aren't going to fully embrace it? All government employee travel eliminated (most). It is saving Cisco half to 3/4ths of a Billion a year. Why must these people waste our money and kill our planet??????
On Sep 08 09:35 PM spanish moss wrote:
> This is a grave understatment of the problem, add to it the retirement
> benefits of this class... While private citizens strive to make it
> on savings and social security, the federal elite get colas and pensions
> which are tied to a percentage of their highest years of pay. Have
> you ever noticed how older government (yes, not just federal but
> state) employees get bumped up to higher paying jobs?
>
> This system can not be sustained, those who have produced have been
> too busy producing to notice the supports these public systems employees
> have built for themselves. Same on them, shame on us.
On Sep 09 09:21 AM realitybiter wrote:
> Cisco recently implemented a policy to force use of videoconferencing,
> replacing travel (no all, of course, but a lot). This makes sense.
>
>
> My Congressman travels from the west coast to the east coast over
> 30 times a year. They go international, what, 5 times a year? <br/>My
> Sister, a prof, flies at least 3 times a year to far off spots around
> the globe for "research" or conferences.
>
> Why did we invent the internet if we aren't going to fully embrace
> it? All government employee travel eliminated (most). It is saving
> Cisco half to 3/4ths of a Billion a year. Why must these people waste
> our money and kill our planet??????
On Sep 09 09:01 AM realitybiter wrote:
> Goin' Postal:
>
> The post office is a joke. Someone in here commented that they pay
> their way. Right. Your half a dollar stamp on a feather light envelope
> consumes a smidgen of the postal traffic (by weight) and subsidizes
> the ridiculous mass mailers. Why should we have to pay for GAP catalogs
> postage? And the government does this at the same time that they
> are telling you that you need to be more green.
>
> The post office needs to go the way of the pony express. Seriously.
> Imagine life without letters. It ain't real hard to do. What are
> we waiting for? Netflix to get everything streaming? Do it now while
> unemployment is already high....those 700,000 employees will hardly
> make a dent in the big fig!!
On Sep 09 03:35 AM Econ 101 wrote:
> It isnt that the feds are paid better than private workers who do
> the same jobs. It is that the feds have jobs that are classified
> as more "skilled" than the average private worker.
>
> Before everyone flames me, I want to agree whole heartedly that there
> are too many feds, and the size of the "workforce" at 2.7 million
> should be much smaller. Cut the congressional staffs (hell cut the
> congress in half so we only have half as many crooks to watch) and
> eliminate the Dept of "education" and energy and others to be named
> later.
>
> I think the best idea is to repeal the 16th amendment, the Income
> tax.
I have many extended family members that work for the federal government.. They all have careers (salary levels) that are very different than corporate America today.
One is two years from retirement and is not at his Federal job but is working at Georgetown as a professor but will be getting his retirement based on working his last two years at his Federal job.
Another is working in the Army in a civilian position but is constantly in one training position or another. He is currently in a second 11 month training (Master's Level) program.
That is just a few of my extended family that work in the Federal government with salaries significantly larger and benefits entirely different than those in corporate America today.
Finally someone gets it. Instead of asking what happened to all the good paying jobs in the private sector, the barbarians want to tear down one of the last refuges of decent employment with decent benefits. Expect lots of thumbs-down recs, this site there is little support or empathy for the common man.
Soon enough there will be no employment/retirement security for anybody, just what the mindless seem to want.
"I ain't got it so good -- I can't see why anyone else shouldn't have to live like a Chinese peasent. Kill the unions and federal employees, how dare anyone who is not a CEO make a decent living for their family". --- typical teabagger Republican
Bring back Ronnie Raygun "government is bad" Republicans -- who once in power prove yet again it can easily be made a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Let the tender mercies of 'the market' reduce us all to wage slaves. The rubes will cheer, not realizing there is virtually no job left that can't be outsourced or automated away, even their own.
Hooray for unbridled capitalism, death to the working American Joe.
On Sep 08 10:28 AM JOHNCHAP2 wrote:
> Your simplistic presentation substantially distorts the real truth.
> Comparing federal employment which is very heavily weighted in professional
> and white collar jobs to the working population as a whole where
> blue collar and non skilled labor make up a large percentage is simply
> either a dishonest or incompetent comparison. It appears to be the
> same type of distortions that have entered into the anti health reform
> debate that we are currently seeing.
>
> Most of the compensation comparisons, which are required by law to
> be conducted on a job by job basis, show that the Feds lag behind
> the private sector. While it is admittedly an outlier example, look
> at the $175K income of a Cabinet Secretary (e.g., DOD) versus the
> tens of millions of dollars received by top executives in the private
> sector. Now I would call those megabuck compensation packages to
> the CEOs, many of failing companies, lavish.
>
> It is true that Federal employment looks really enticing in times
> of economic instability. But most of the time over the last 40 years
> or so most people looked down with distain on Federal emplyoyment
> and would never consider working for the Feds.
As a retired federal employee who subsequently held positions in the private sector, I can personally tell you that the salaries and benefits of the private national defense sector are HUGELY superior to those offered federal employees--civilian and military.
More broadly, the issue of federal vs. private sector wages has been argued for decades and, with few exceptions (such as those from radically right-wing organizations), no matter how you cut it, federal employees receive much lower salaries and more-or-less comparable benefits than their private sector counterparts. The private sector offers huge advantages in salaries and bonuses especially (25-50%--higher on bonuses). The feds have some advantage in health care (continues after retirement), and pensions among the depleting ranks of Civil Service Retirement System "defined benefit" retirees (but not employees hired since 1986 under "defined contribution" Thrift Savings Plan program--a massive 401k program).
To lay our national budget deficit on the back of federal employees is inaccurate analytically and wrong morally.
This lower compensation is actually a real problem because federal administrators so often leave and go into the private sector, and then come back as contractors who earn more than the federal employees who administer the contracts.
This article is pretty much baloney - it does not compare equal positions. If you want to see the true picture you need to compare the job requirements vs. salary + benefits, not just do an average across the entire population.
On Sep 08 11:36 AM sbear wrote:
> Failure to account for high levels of managing contractors and specialized
> education among federal workers undermines the arguments made in the article
> this piece.
It is true that the raw numbers in the primary table in the article overstate the gap between federal worker pay and everybody else. Who cares? The salient points are:
1) the gap has growing dramatically -- up by one third in just eight short years, and does not even include the 2009 period when private wages are falling
2) the gap will continue to grow -- the 2000-08 period was one of tight private labor markets; the gap will grow even faster in a period of slack labor markets
3) federal workers should be paid less than private workers because of their vastly greater job security
On Sep 08 10:28 AM JOHNCHAP2 wrote:
> Your simplistic presentation substantially distorts the real truth.
> Comparing federal employment which is very heavily weighted in professional
> and white collar jobs to the working population as a whole where
> blue collar and non skilled labor make up a large percentage is simply
> either a dishonest or incompetent comparison. It appears to be the
> same type of distortions that have entered into the anti health reform
> debate that we are currently seeing.
>
> Most of the compensation comparisons, which are required by law to
> be conducted on a job by job basis, show that the Feds lag behind
> the private sector. While it is admittedly an outlier example, look
> at the $175K income of a Cabinet Secretary (e.g., DOD) versus the
> tens of millions of dollars received by top executives in the private
> sector. Now I would call those megabuck compensation packages to
> the CEOs, many of failing companies, lavish.
>
> It is true that Federal employment looks really enticing in times
> of economic instability. But most of the time over the last 40 years
> or so most people looked down with distain on Federal emplyoyment
> and would never consider working for the Feds.
The problem is, most of the private economy (the bloated private defense sector excluded of course) is eating left over hamburger.
On Sep 09 10:21 AM Lilguy wrote:
> Any analysis based on research from the Cato Institute--one of the
> most radically conservative "think tanks" in Washington--is doomed
> to failure at the outset.
>
> As a retired federal employee who subsequently held positions in
> the private sector, I can personally tell you that the salaries and
> benefits of the private national defense sector are HUGELY superior
> to those offered federal employees--civilian and military.
>
> More broadly, the issue of federal vs. private sector wages has been
> argued for decades and, with few exceptions (such as those from radically
> right-wing organizations), no matter how you cut it, federal employees
> receive much lower salaries and more-or-less comparable benefits
> than their private sector counterparts. The private sector offers
> huge advantages in salaries and bonuses especially (25-50%--higher
> on bonuses). The feds have some advantage in health care (continues
> after retirement), and pensions among the depleting ranks of Civil
> Service Retirement System "defined benefit" retirees (but not employees
> hired since 1986 under "defined contribution" Thrift Savings Plan
> program--a massive 401k program).
>
> To lay our national budget deficit on the back of federal employees
> is inaccurate analytically and wrong morally.
On Sep 09 10:44 AM Robin Heiderscheit wrote:
> Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> It is true that the raw numbers in the primary table in the article
> overstate the gap between federal worker pay and everybody else.
> Who cares? The salient points are:
>
> 1) the gap has growing dramatically -- up by one third in just eight
> short years, and does not even include the 2009 period when private
> wages are falling
>
> 2) the gap will continue to grow -- the 2000-08 period was one of
> tight private labor markets; the gap will grow even faster in a period
> of slack labor markets
>
> 3) federal workers should be paid less than private workers because
> of their vastly greater job security
On Sep 09 10:47 AM Robin Heiderscheit wrote:
> Your argument "my steak filet isn't that much better than his prime
> rib"!
>
> The problem is, most of the private economy (the bloated private
> defense sector excluded of course) is eating left over hamburger.
>
2.7 million workers have a strangle-hold on the electorate? Please...
Comparing the average government worker's salary to the overall average salary for the entire United States? Give me a break; that is like comparing apples to oranges.
Now if you were to compare the average government worker's salary to the average salary at Boeing, IBM, GE, or some other corporation with a large proportion of its workforce in business and professional roles, then at least we could have a discussion.
Our country is going through a tough time right now, and we all feel the pain. I feel for folks who are unemployed and I pray for a speedy recovery. But scape-goating everyone else (be it Wall Street Bankers, politicians, immigrant workers, government employees, etc. etc.) is not the solution to our economic problems. We need to all pull together here, not tear one another down.
When I took a job with the Department of Defense I accepted a lower salary than was available from several private employers. However, that was right after I had been laid off during the big recession in 1982 and I was willing to make the trade for a little less salary than I could have made in the private sector for a little more job security. That decision feels pretty good right now; back in 1984 when I was living on beans-and-rice as an entry level GS-7 engineer it didn't look too smart.
Now I hire engineers; government and private sector. It costs me at least 50% more to hire a contract engineer than it does to hire a government engineer. And if that contract engineer works for a major corporation (like Boeing, GE, Honeywell, etc.) then it costs me 100% more to hire a contractor vs. a government employee. Government employees are paid less than their private sector counterparts for similar work and responsibilities. I know. My friends and former classmates who are engineers working in chemical plants, refineries, and even think tanks all make more than I do.
The benefits for new government personnel are pretty similar to those available in the private sector; whether you're talking health insurance or 401K plans. The retirement benefits were "reformed" back in the 1980s and no new government employees will ever retire at 55. We all look forward to drawing Social Security someday, just like the rest of the workforce.
The job security with the federal government is better than in the private sector, and that is our only major drawing point. That doesn't carry a lot of weight with most folks except once every 10 - 20 years.
Four years ago I couldn't hire an entry level engineer right out of school for a government job, and I had a very hard time attracting any experienced talent either. Obviously, the pay wasn't excessive 4 years ago. I could not pay them what they were making in the private sector.
Now, if I have an opening I can hire some good people. The same can be said for anyone who is hiring today. The federal government is not laying off employees in the midst of a recession.
The federal government's employment decisions are pretty counter-cyclical (as it should be). During the boom years of the mid to late 1990s, the federal government had hiring freezes and downsizing. Now that we are in the midst of the worst recession of the past 80 years the government is not laying people off. If we were, this recession could be even worse. Is that what you're looking for? Misery loves company?
This too shall pass, and the economy will recover. When it does, and when corporations are hiring again and competing for talent, we FEDs will probably be in another budget-balancing hiring freeze. When that day comes, and I am sure that it will, I'll try to have the good manners not to complain too loudly then about my pay freeze.
This is not strictly true. They produce impediments to economic advance.
55% of Europeans are employed by their governments.
The leaders don't know from term limits.
Will the American voter ever figure out this may not be so good??
I don't think so.
Expect government to continue to grow..grow and grow some more.
America is headed to where the Communist country of China is right now, where a few powerful comrades control just about everything.
You jealous carpers are completely ignoring that over 70% of non-military government workers have a Bachelor's degree or higher. Since Reagan's day there has been an accelerating trend to outsource all of the positions that ordinary workers once held in the government: janitors, mail delivery staff, cafeteria workers and so on.
What is left has on average nearly three times the college attainment of the wider society. Further, anyone above a GS-10 nearly always has a graduate-level degree.
I'm not a Federal employee so don't accuse me of arguing my self-interest. However, I know several, all of whom are sharp and work hard. Most of you have just drunk Reagan's jealousy Kool-Aid.
Doesn't anyone do the data calcs anymore before publishing?
On Sep 09 12:12 PM winnersdon'tquit wrote:
> Welcome to the future "Euromerica."
> 55% of Europeans are employed by their governments.
> The leaders don't know from term limits.
> Will the American voter ever figure out this may not be so good??
>
> I don't think so.
> Expect government to continue to grow..grow and grow some more.<br/>America
> is headed to where the Communist country of China is right now, where
> a few powerful comrades control just about everything.
Shop for your own health care, and fund your own retirement.
Your time is coming!
On Sep 09 12:29 PM Anandakos wrote:
>
> You jealous carpers are completely ignoring that over 70% of non-military
> government workers have a Bachelor's degree or higher.
Your math is correct.
Assuming all the numbers in the article are correct, I think we can see maybe the major point of the article. The graph shows a total compensation of approx. 120,000/year, yet the actual money paid out in Dec. shows, assuming it is just salary, only a rate of 63,000/year.
I suppose the gap betweeen the 2 rates shows that the fed gov. employee, although the relative salary maybe less than the private sector, gets a lot more compensation in benefits.
On Sep 09 10:02 AM giyakker wrote:
> The numbers quoted above by David Hunkar, 2,730,050 federal workers
> receiving $14,426,625,181, amounts to $5284 per worker assuming my
> math is correct. This doesn't seem like much to me even if it doesn't
> include benefits.
On Sep 08 08:44 AM User 92501 wrote:
> US Postal Service 767,879 employees do not receive any money from
> the Federal Government. There pay comes from the stamps and other
> service to the American people. Also, the postal service pays for
> retirement from deductions from employees wages. The US Postal Service
> is currently restructing as it is several billions in debt due to
> low volumne of mail
I need only to look around in my own small home town to see a great example that can be used to illustrate what is going on. On a rare occasion, a municiple job opening gets posted. These positions usually entail the duties of trash pickup, water and sewer repair, road paving, and other types of low skill or semi-skilled labor. When I was growing up, these jobs were not highly sought after and were often filled with individuals who had little or no education. Now, there are several hundred applicants when one of these positions are offered. Many who now seek these positions have college degrees and were once high wages earners in the private sector. Federal, state, and municipal jobs have become the last bastion of a living wage and good benefits for the average worker in this country. One big problem: there are not enough of these jobs for everybody and tax revenue is the source of funding for many of these jobs at each level. People need to have jobs to pay taxes, and for most of us, we no longer earn enough to fund these now relatively lavish positions. It is certainly time to realign the compensation of these jobs to reflect what is going on in this country. Things have gotten a bit upside-down when the standard of living and compensation for a trash collector in the public sector is. or is fast becoming, the highest in the counrty for an average citizen.
If wages and benefits for all these jobs were brought into line to reflect the reality of this "new economy", sure, some might leave to pursue something better. However, I guarantee you that the vast majority would not. A pay and benefit reduction would still result in something better than what is out there.....which is.....NOTHING.
It's fun to bash the government. I get it. I work for the fed. gov. in DC and that chart he's got is ridiculous. Please remember how easy it is to manipulate data for impact. Most feds are in DC where the cost of living is extremely high so a comparable industry wage would be much higher. I make a nice salary, but not more than anyone I know working for a company. My wife and I both work with two kids and scrap by. We work our but off just like everyone else to make ends meet. I'm angry at the government for bailing out rich banker friends just like everyone else. Fed workers are your neighbors and relatives, not your rich enemy I assure you.
Stop picking on Federal workers and go find another scapegoat!
Oh, that's right, they have money and time to invest.
And in the comments lies the problem, those that have it think they are being screwed and those that pay for it, are being screwed.
I hear a lot of whining about "only" getting 30% of your three highest years salaries, well I have had 15.3 % of my wages stolen from me since 1990 and (if I remember correctly) 12% stolen before then. It is called Social Security and many Americans cannot afford to invest anything else after the government steals FIFTEEN percent from their pockets every week.
I have to work until I'm SEVENTY (which means I have contributed to my "pension" for over 55 YEARS and will only get back annually what I made as a teenager.
So, cry away government workers, you have NO IDEA what the real world is like and the sacrifices WE make to give you such a cushy retirement.
On Sep 10 12:40 PM mariakeller wrote:
> This article is nothing but a bunch of statistic and you know what
> they say about statistics. ("Lies, damn lies and statistics.") My
> ex is retired from the postal service and let me tell you that every
> dime he made was HARD earning, and it was Reagan who gutted their
> pension plan back in the early 1980s to shore up Social Security.
> The pension plan doesn't have nearly as many benefits as Social Security
> does. For example, if someone goes out on disability (which wouldn't
> be surprising given how difficult, stressful and physically painful
> working for the postal service is), they only get their stated disability
> benefit depending on years of service. They get NOTHING for dependents,
> as Social Security Disability (and retirement) would provide. <br/>
>
> Stop picking on Federal workers and go find another scapegoat!
On Sep 10 02:37 PM TeresaE wrote:
> Wow, who would've thought that so many federal workers are investors?
>
>
> Oh, that's right, they have money and time to invest.
>
> And in the comments lies the problem, those that have it think they
> are being screwed and those that pay for it, are being screwed.<br/>
>
> I hear a lot of whining about "only" getting 30% of your three highest
> years salaries, well I have had 15.3 % of my wages stolen from me
> since 1990 and (if I remember correctly) 12% stolen before then.
> It is called Social Security and many Americans cannot afford to
> invest anything else after the government steals FIFTEEN percent
> from their pockets every week.
>
> I have to work until I'm SEVENTY (which means I have contributed
> to my "pension" for over 55 YEARS and will only get back annually
> what I made as a teenager.
>
> So, cry away government workers, you have NO IDEA what the real world
> is like and the sacrifices WE make to give you such a cushy retirement.
I fully expect never to collect a dime from these programs (as I have probably 35 more years of work ahead of me), so I am planning accordingly. Many of my cohorts know this too. They wouldn't be too surprised to see these programs eliminated either. Of course to eliminate them, it should be phased out over 10 years or more.
cormackcapital.wordpre... and via InstaBlog