GeminiAtlas

Why U.S. Government Should Cut Federal Workers' Lavish Compensation

I agree,
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.