federal employees make more for the same job than private

[JSt0rm]

You are refusing to accept the reality of the situation that the middle-class has declined. You are saying that you're unwilling to fix one problem (federal-private discrepancy) simply because the other problem (middle class decline) still exists. That is not reasonable. I would like to take action to fix BOTH problems, but if we can't fix both I'm still happy to fix ONE. It's not that complicated.

But you do realize that there would be no discrepancy if the middle class grew at the projected rate instead of the ass fucking its taken?

 

[Infohawk]

But you do realize that there would be no discrepancy if the middle class grew at the projected rate instead of the ass fucking its taken?

Yes. And overall the middle-class decline issue is a bigger problem. Doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see the private-public discrepancy fixed now.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Yes. And overall the middle-class decline issue is a bigger problem. Doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see the private-public discrepancy fixed now.

So you'd just like to take the opportunity to fuck the government workers while you have an excuse?

 

[Infohawk]

So you'd just like to take the opportunity to fuck the government workers while you have an excuse?

How much of this thread did you read?

 

[CallMeJoe]

How much of this thread did you read?

All of it.

 

[JSt0rm]

Yes. And overall the middle-class decline issue is a bigger problem. Doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see the private-public discrepancy fixed now.

Ok we would both like to see it fixed. You propose cutting federal pay and I propose propping up the middle class.

Which one of those appeals to you more?

 

[Infohawk]

All of it.

Well I'm surprised but I'll take your word for it. I don't get the impression you want to have a serious discussion on this though. Feel free to rephrase your question if you do.

 

[Infohawk]

Ok we would both like to see it fixed. You propose cutting federal pay and I propose propping up the middle class.

Which one of those appeals to you more?

My first choice would be to prop up the middle class. But since that's not on the table right now (or in the kitchen) I'm going with modifying federal pay. And it doesn't necessarily have it be cut. I would fix it to the 50th percentile of equivalent private pay. It would theoretically go up in a better economy.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are refusing to accept the reality of the situation that the middle-class has declined. You are saying that you're unwilling to fix one problem (federal-private discrepancy) simply because the other problem (middle class decline) still exists. That is not reasonable. I would like to take action to fix BOTH problems, but if we can't fix both I'm still happy to fix ONE. It's not that complicated.

And what you're saying is that if private sector employees are getting screwed, then everybody should be getting screwed, apparently because you believe that the financial elite deserves to screw the American middle class, right?

 

[Infohawk]

And what you're saying is that if private sector employees are getting screwed, then everybody should be getting screwed, apparently because you believe that the financial elite deserves to screw the American middle class, right?

Wrong.

 

[CoachB]

Personally, I would love to see government salaries/benefits adjusted to match private industry. As a chemist responsible for water quality in a large city, my 60K is about half of comparable private workers with the same level of responsibility. The benefits help make up the difference.
I did a quick google search out of curiosity. The highest published government salary is President at $400,000. The highest published private salary is $500,000,000 plus. Someone is definitely getting shafted.

 

[JSt0rm]

ahh responsible for drinking water = 60k

Sounds like money well spent to me.

 

[Double Trouble]

I think there should be a LOT more merit based pay in government, in fact. The reason we don't have that sort of system is a strange combination of "union fairness" type limitations on one side and anti-government sentiment on the other.

I agree that we need more merit based pay in government, but I don't see how anti-government sentiment stops that from happening. Unions stop that from happening.

But I think my point still has merit when it comes to initial hiring. If government employees are so dramatically overcompensated, as you suggested, then there should be stiff competition to get those jobs in the first place. This, in theory, allows the government to be much more selective in who they hire. I imagine the supply of dolts will be limited by the fact that they have to compete with good employees who want the jobs.

You're making an assumption that you can separate good performers from bad ones before you hire them. While better screening and a higher caliber candidates is good, it doesn't give you a high performing workforce. The way workforces get optimized and made efficient over time is by rewarding those who perform and getting rid of those who do not. Neither one of those consistently happens in government positions. So the really good people go to the private sector because they'll get rewarded, while the mediocre ones stay in a protected environment of government work and get overpaid for what they do.

So now you have underpaid important level employees, and overpaid low level employees. Been to your local DMV lately? You'll see how well that works.

Since the higher skilled government employees aren't really overcompensated AND performance incentives are harder to come by, the government does have and will continue to have trouble attracting and keeping the best employees.

That's true, and the way to fix it is to make both lower and higher level positions in line with private sector compensation. That can't happen because the unions would have a cow, so we're stuck with this lousy system where taxpayers overpay for lousy work.

 

[Infohawk]

Personally, I would love to see government salaries/benefits adjusted to match private industry. As a chemist responsible for water quality in a large city, my 60K is about half of comparable private workers with the same level of responsibility. The benefits help make up the difference.

People have a habit of looking at the success stories in private business and just assume that's how they would have done.

Here is some data from a job search site:

http://www.indeed.com/salary/Chemist.html

Sounds like you're about average, and nobody in private industry is getting your benefits.

I did a quick google search out of curiosity. The highest published government salary is President at $400,000. The highest published private salary is $500,000,000 plus. Someone is definitely getting shafted.

You should know better than to look at the outliers. Why wouldn't you look at the average salary in your profession?

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong.

What you propose is lowering federal salaries to match private sector salaries, people you admit are getting screwed by their employers, right?

If the rest of the middle class weren't getting screwed, there wouldn't be any reason to cut federal workers' pay, would there?

 

[Infohawk]

What you propose is lowering federal salaries to match private sector salaries, people you admit are getting screwed by their employers, right?

My view of the world is not quite that simplistic. Most employers are businesses that are trying to make profit under the laws of the land. The current laws of the land have led to suppressed wages. It's not the businesses that decide the wages unilaterally. It's the market forces as constrained by the laws.

 

[Jhhnn]

My view of the world is not quite that simplistic. Most employers are businesses that are trying to make profit under the laws of the land. The current laws of the land have led to suppressed wages. It's not the businesses that decide the wages unilaterally. It's the market forces as constrained by the laws.

Yeh- that must be the reason that the top 1% share of income has doubled in the last 30 years, from ~8.5% to ~18%. If you're trying to say that suppression of Unions has taken a toll, I'll agree with you. If you're trying to say that minimum wage & top tier taxes need to be raised, trade barriers raised on currency manipulator nations, I'd agree with that, too.

But you're not- you're just expressing one variant of the Cut, cut, Cut! mantra of the Right, as if suppressing federal wages will serve any purpose other than further suppressing wages for everybody else.

When federal workers have less to spend, it turns out that everybody else has less to spend, too, other than the financial elite, who aren't spending but rather hoarding... Corporate profits & cash reserves are at near record highs, and you think the answer is to cut somebody else's wages... Really?

 

[Infohawk]

If you're trying to say ...

But you're not.

It seems like you're just putting words in my mouth. That or you really don't understand what my position is. In any case, I don't want to get in the way of you being angry. But please don't think we're having a discussion here.

 

[Jhhnn]

It seems like you're just putting words in my mouth. That or you really don't understand what my position is. In any case, I don't want to get in the way of you being angry. But please don't think we're having a discussion here.

Of course we're not having a discussion- you're just beating the drum, repeating the mantra, avoiding cognitive dissonance through denial.

Your answers aren't answers at all, just more of the same pablum that put us where we are today.

 

[Infohawk]

Of course we're not having a discussion- you're just beating the drum, repeating the mantra, avoiding cognitive dissonance through denial.

Your answers aren't answers at all, just more of the same pablum that put us where we are today.

Well I've had discussions with several other people in this thread so I'm not sure the problem is with me.

 

[marvdmartian]

You know, I'd bet that if they compared federal workers around D.C., then federal workers everywhere else, they'd find that the folks in the D.C. area earn a significantly higher average wage/benefit package (LOTS of executive level employees there, plus the generally higher cost of living that pushes everyone's wage higher in that area)......and they'd find that everywhere else, the federal workers were actually a bit lower.

I know in my area, the average federal worker probably earns $30K to $60K in wage/benefit package, which is about equivalent to their non-federal counterparts. Sure bet they'd love to make that D.C. wage, though!

 

[JSt0rm]

You know, I'd bet that if they compared federal workers around D.C., then federal workers everywhere else, they'd find that the folks in the D.C. area earn a significantly higher average wage/benefit package (LOTS of executive level employees there, plus the generally higher cost of living that pushes everyone's wage higher in that area)......and they'd find that everywhere else, the federal workers were actually a bit lower.

I know in my area, the average federal worker probably earns $30K to $60K in wage/benefit package, which is about equivalent to their non-federal counterparts. Sure bet they'd love to make that D.C. wage, though!

Those evil people with doctorates living in a big city. SHAME SHAME SHAME SHAME

 

[Throckmorton]

Wrong.

Wait, I don't understand why you want to make sure every single middle class worker gets screwed... How does that help anybody?

 

[Infohawk]

Wait, I don't understand why you want to make sure every single middle class worker gets screwed... How does that help anybody?

What are you talking about?

 

[CoachB]

Infohawk,
"Senior Environmental Chemist" best describes my current position so , according to your info, my average salary should be 96K. Add to that a customer base of 300,000 people and I'd say my position might be considered slightly above average.
Additionally, a merit based salary system would be marvelous. My good, capable employees get paid the same as the slackers. I am forced to manage around them. We've also had to absorb a 50% staff reduction. There are no bonuses, no special recognition, nothing....by law.

Actually, I think this whole discussion is a case of "the grass is greener"....with perhaps one major difference. Private industry has been gutted by a select few that are living exorbitantly on the backs of the working man. Outsourcing jobs, hiring illegals, opposing a living wage, reducing benefits, all to amass more wealth than anyone will ever need.