Topic: Inflated Federal Pay
started by: Common Citizen
Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 12 2010,9:33 pm
< My Webpage >QUOTE
Abstract: 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.
Many news organizations have reported that the average federal employee earns more than the average private-sector worker.[1] Is higher federal pay justified given that the federal government employs a more skilled workforce than the private sector? Detailed analysis shows that the size of the wage discrepancies is not warranted:
The federal pay system gives the average federal employee hourly cash earnings 22 percent above the average private worker’s, controlling for observable skills and characteristics.
Including non-cash benefits adds to this disparity. The average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee.
Overall, controlling for other factors, federal employees earn approximately 30 percent to 40 percent more in total compensation (wages and benefits) than comparable private-sector workers.
Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy. Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000—12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.
Federal employees demonstrate with their actions that they receive better compensation in the public sector than in the private sector: They quit their jobs at one-third the rate of the private employees.
Bringing federal compensation in line with private-sector compensation would save taxpayers approximately $47 billion in 2011.
Of course, these averages mask large differences in pay across occupations and skill levels. Many federal employees in highly skilled occupations receive market wages. However, semi-skilled federal workers earn substantially more than they would in the private sector. Congress should not cut federal pay across the board—this would unfairly penalize the federal workers who earn market wages.
Instead, Congress should implement a pay-for-performance system with pay bands based on market signals of labor demand, expand the contracting of federal work to private companies, reduce the generosity of federal benefits, and end the near-absolute job security for underperforming federal workers. Doing so would not solve the country’s fiscal problems, but would be a solid—and fair—step toward a more responsible fiscal policy. The federal government should not overtax the general public to provide significantly above-average pay and benefits to those who work in the civil service.
Many news organizations have reported that the average federal employee earns more than the average private-sector worker.[1] Is higher federal pay justified given that the federal government employs a more skilled workforce than the private sector? Detailed analysis shows that the size of the wage discrepancies is not warranted:
The federal pay system gives the average federal employee hourly cash earnings 22 percent above the average private worker’s, controlling for observable skills and characteristics.
Including non-cash benefits adds to this disparity. The average private-sector employer pays $9,882 per employee in annual benefits, while the federal government pays an average of $32,115 per employee.
Overall, controlling for other factors, federal employees earn approximately 30 percent to 40 percent more in total compensation (wages and benefits) than comparable private-sector workers.
Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy. Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000—12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.
Federal employees demonstrate with their actions that they receive better compensation in the public sector than in the private sector: They quit their jobs at one-third the rate of the private employees.
Bringing federal compensation in line with private-sector compensation would save taxpayers approximately $47 billion in 2011.
Of course, these averages mask large differences in pay across occupations and skill levels. Many federal employees in highly skilled occupations receive market wages. However, semi-skilled federal workers earn substantially more than they would in the private sector. Congress should not cut federal pay across the board—this would unfairly penalize the federal workers who earn market wages.
Instead, Congress should implement a pay-for-performance system with pay bands based on market signals of labor demand, expand the contracting of federal work to private companies, reduce the generosity of federal benefits, and end the near-absolute job security for underperforming federal workers. Doing so would not solve the country’s fiscal problems, but would be a solid—and fair—step toward a more responsible fiscal policy. The federal government should not overtax the general public to provide significantly above-average pay and benefits to those who work in the civil service.
I don't think this is limited to the Federal Gov't either... The State, County, and City Governments are bloated as well. So with a four-pronged government (city, county, state, federal)approach vying for the same tax dollars...no wonder there is very little left over for the average American to use to become financially free on their own account.
nuff said...
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 13 2010,9:05 am
Your webpage the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing loony bin, their agenda is downward spiral of the American worker to place them permanently in a second-class citizen status, to abolish unions and return America to a feudal aristocracy...
Posted by OEF_Soldier on Jul. 13 2010,10:35 pm
(Expatriate @ Jul. 13 2010,9:05 am)
QUOTE
Your webpage the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing loony bin, their agenda is downward spiral of the American worker to place them permanently in a second-class citizen status, to abolish unions and return America to a feudal aristocracy...
But in this article they are not talking about the typical American worker. They are discussing how the average Government employee earns more in pay and benefits than a comparable civilian side worker doing the same/similar job.
I do agree with you about that Heritage Foundation however in that it is a right wing partisan organization.
Posted by Common Citizen on Jul. 15 2010,8:34 pm
(Expatriate @ Jul. 13 2010,9:05 am)
QUOTE
Your webpage the Heritage Foundation is a right-wing loony bin, their agenda is downward spiral of the American worker to place them permanently in a second-class citizen status, to abolish unions and return America to a feudal aristocracy...
Can't refute the story (nor debate the issue) so attack the source...that's rich...
What chapter is that in your "liberal" playbook? Did you get it autographed too?
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 16 2010,3:08 pm
^When your friends from the right-wing loony-bin have desiccated the wages of the working class there will no longer be money to purchase luxuries like insurance and you'll find your unskilled butt in the soup line...Of course you'll still be a true blue Republinut blaming your demise on the party that supported unions and workers wages over the plutocratic Republican Platform..
Posted by Santorini on Jul. 20 2010,11:01 pm
(Expatriate @ Jul. 16 2010,3:08 pm)
QUOTE
^When your friends from the right-wing loony-bin have desiccated the wages of the working class there will no longer be money to purchase luxuries like insurance and you'll find your unskilled butt in the soup line...
Of course you'll still be a true blue Republinut blaming your demise on the party that supported unions and workers wages over the plutocratic Republican Platform..
Of course you'll still be a true blue Republinut blaming your demise on the party that supported unions and workers wages over the plutocratic Republican Platform..
You must be on that "gravy-train" the article was talking about
Posted by Expatriate on Jul. 21 2010,10:51 am
(Santorini @ Jul. 20 2010,11:01 pm)
QUOTE
You must be on that "gravy-train" the article was talking about
Tesla discovered the principles of alternating current and created my employment, it pays well and you're hooked on my kilowatts like junkies..recession, depression makes little difference you're dangling from my wires and can't let go...Total economic collapse is another story and that's where these right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation will take you..
The Bureau of Economic Analysis salary figures for 2008 averaged $32,115 per federal employee vs. $9,882 per private sector worker..a fair comparison? No, Statistics can be deceiving of the overall picture and used to exploit ones position as the Heritage Foundation attempts in this situation...these folks are far right, anti-union, anti-worker rights, I'm sure they'd like nothing better than to abolish child labor laws to further deflate wages.
Capitalism doesn't work well on exploitation, although that's the system or version of Capitalism we're seeing today with the cheap imports from foreign countries with no labor laws or unions which makes the American worker obsolete and deflates wages..
Marx was correct about the collapse of Capitalism but in this country we don't have true Capitalism, we have labor laws, minimum wage, we allow unions, true Capitalism would allow none of that, it's workers are akin to slaves, true exploitation of the masses..
We practice Capitalist Consumerism, the more people can afford to buy the higher the standard of living throughout society.
Posted by alcitizens on Jul. 27 2010,1:55 am
(Expatriate @ Jul. 21 2010,10:51 am)
QUOTE
Capitalism doesn't work well on exploitation, although that's the system or version of Capitalism we're seeing today with the cheap imports from foreign countries with no labor laws or unions which makes the American worker obsolete and deflates wages..
Marx was correct about the collapse of Capitalism but in this country we don't have true Capitalism, we have labor laws, minimum wage, we allow unions, true Capitalism would allow none of that, it's workers are akin to slaves, true exploitation of the masses..
We practice Capitalist Consumerism, the more people can afford to buy the higher the standard of living throughout society.
Marx was correct about the collapse of Capitalism but in this country we don't have true Capitalism, we have labor laws, minimum wage, we allow unions, true Capitalism would allow none of that, it's workers are akin to slaves, true exploitation of the masses..
We practice Capitalist Consumerism, the more people can afford to buy the higher the standard of living throughout society.
Those that worked at Wilson's Meat Packing in Albert Lea in the early 1970's could make as much as $20 an hour in ham boning if they produced a certain quota. Almost 40 years later they start at about $10.50 an hour at Select Foods with no production bonus. 
Wealthy Republicans have gradually raped the American worker of a true chance at the American Dream. I know college graduates that can't find a job. If they're lucky they take on temporary laborer jobs so they can eat and have a roof over their head.
Republicans believe in survival of the fittest no matter if they have to lie, cheat or steal and even kill (War). They're known for saying "culling the heard", referring to people.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culling >
Posted by Glad I Left on Jul. 27 2010,7:25 am
And the democrats think everyone should be paid the same no matter how hard one works compared to the other. Both ways have flaws and both have advantages.In the end we are get hosed because we get focused on arguing about who sucks more instead of rectifying real problems.
Posted by hairhertz on Jul. 27 2010,8:56 am
I made more than $10 per hour working in a packing house 40+ years ago. I bought a new muscle car for $2995. How does that compare with today's wages and prices?
Posted by bianca on Jul. 27 2010,8:57 am
^ Good point GIL. 
Posted by grassman on Jul. 27 2010,12:31 pm
(hairhertz @ Jul. 27 2010,8:56 am)
QUOTE
I made more than $10 per hour working in a packing house 40+ years ago. I bought a new muscle car for $2995. How does that compare with today's wages and prices?
Well it must be that auto workers are now making $100.00 an hour now.
In 1977, I was offered a job at General Motors. I was currently working at Wilsons for $6.90 an hour base. I turned General Motors down because they paid $7.10 an hour base. I figured why move for .20 an hour. The fatcats run around with bags of money like the banker from Monopoly.
Posted by grassman on Jul. 27 2010,12:42 pm
Why is it always ok for the top of the crop to make huge amounts. I agree that govt. is out of control on privileges and compensation, however, why should the top be given a pass. Look at the perks and such. It adds up to one shiny quarter. Are they really worth it? I mean come on, look at mess we are in.
Posted by grassman on Jul. 27 2010,4:06 pm
Here is one example of how unleashed things have become.State attorney general is looking into the salaries
(CNN) -- City council members in the small California town of Bell -- where outrage over high salaries forced three officials to resign last week -- voted Monday night to slash their pay.
And the mayor, who last week defended the salaries, said he would forgo a salary altogether and would not seek reelection.
But the move was not enough to appease angry residents who demanded that the council members step down.
"You all need to go to jail," a self-described underpaid teacher said at a contentious meeting Monday night. "Shame on you. All of you."
When Councilwoman Teresa Jacobo said she will slash her salary but hold on to office, the crowd booed loudly and repeatedly.
"If you don't want to resign, we'll recall you," said one man.
The city council voted to reduce its pay to that of what one councilman, Lorenzo Veles, was being paid: $8,076 a year.
Most of the other council members made nearly 10 times as much.
The Bell salaries have provoked statewide anger at a time when California is grappling with a near $20 billion budget deficit.
The median annual income of Bell -- which counted about 36,000 residents in the 2000 census -- is less than $35,000.
Like Mayor Oscar Hernandez, another councilman George Mirabal said he will not seek reelection.
Said the mayor in a statement: "We must restore Bell's pride in our city and that requires a full, transparent, and deliberate review of the city's actions."
Last week, the city council accepted the resignations of City Manager Robert Rizzo, Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia, and Police Chief Randy Adams, who reportedly had a combined salary of more than $1.6 million.
Also on Monday, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is running for governor, said he subpoenaed hundreds of records from Bell as part of an investigation to determine whether civil or criminal action should be taken against any city leaders.
Brown said most city council members are paid some $100,000 for their part-time positions, citing the Los Angeles Times -- which initially reported on the salaries.
"These outrageous pay practices are an insult to the hard-working people of Bell and have provoked righteous indignation in California and even across the country," said Brown.
He added his office will review salaries in other jurisdictions around the state to see whether similar abuses might be happening elsewhere.
Is this the going rate for public officials?
