Great news: Fed workers make twice their private counterparts

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...pay10_ST_N.htm

http://images.usatoday.com/news/grap...pay/fedpay.jpg

Quote:

---

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years.

"The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union.

Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.

Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.

Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.

"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House.

Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.

What the data show:

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

---

Are you going to post why the difference is so much? You do realize that benefits are included in these figures right? So they don't get paid twice more... why are you so dishonest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Are you going to post why the difference is so much? You do realize that benefits are included in these figures right? So they don't get paid twice more... why are you so dishonest?

---

Uh...the benefits are included in all the figures and 120k is 2x 60k.

Those bennies are pretty stinkin good too.

And the comparison is compensation, not pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Are you going to post why the difference is so much? You do realize that benefits are included in these figures right? So they don't get paid twice more... why are you so dishonest?

---

Are benefits taxable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Are benefits taxable?

---

/argument

They make more. A lot more.

But doesnt Obamacare make benefits taxable if you earn a certain amount?

Serious question.

Cutting benefits for federal employees is high on the list of things that need to happen to help bring the defecit under control.

What I get out of that article is that I need to get a Federal job ASAP...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What I get out of that article is that I need to get a Federal job ASAP...

---

Plz put in a good word for me. kthxbai.:king

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What I get out of that article is that I need to get a Federal job ASAP...

---

If I'd only had a Fed. job for the past 20 years. :bang

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Cutting benefits for federal employees is high on the list of things that need to happen to help bring the defecit under control.

---

The Federal pension stuff is ridiculous. I knew an older guy a few years ago that was triple dipping...he did the minimum in the military, minimum in the civil service, and then went to the post office till retirement. He had three pensions.

What's outrageous is that private sector jobs have failed to keep up with the pay and benefits of federal sector jobs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The Federal pension stuff is ridiculous. I knew an older guy a few years ago that was triple dipping...he did the minimum in the military, minimum in the civil service, and then went to the post office till retirement. He had three pensions.

---

I can't remember exactly where I read/heard this, but I somewhere I came across a statistic about the percentage of federal employees who end up making more in pensions than they did actually working. I want to say it was something close to half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

What's outrageous is that private sector jobs have failed to keep up with the pay and benefits of federal sector jobs...

---

The private sector probably could if it didn't have to pay so much for the public sector.

A lot of that stuff was negotiated when the economy was fine, and they just never cut back. Kinda what happened to Detroit in the private sector, until it exploded.

That's also why you see that kind of divergence. The private sector is much quicker to adjust to the economic realities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

What's outrageous is that private sector jobs have failed to keep up with the pay and benefits of federal sector jobs...

---

This may not be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this board, but it's up there.

Fed employees only adjust when you get a politician that comes in with a plan to freeze and cut spending. We just haven't had one of those from either party for a while now.

I wonder how many public sector jobs will be added because of Obamacare?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Fed employees only adjust when you get a politician that comes in with a plan to freeze and cut spending. We just haven't had one of those from either party for a while now.

---

Actually, there's a guy named Paul Ryan who wants to put a temporary freeze govt employee wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

A lot of that stuff was negotiated when the economy was fine, and they just never cut back. Kinda what happened to Detroit in the private sector, until it exploded.

That's also why you see that kind of divergence. The private sector is much quicker to adjust to the economic realities.

---

..then why have wages remained stagnant while productivity was increasing at a record pace just a couple months back? What you mean is that the private sector is quick to protect its bottom line by cutting pay and benefits for its employees but isn't so quick to raise pay or offer more benefits when times are good...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Actually, there's a guy named Paul Ryan who wants to put a temporary freeze govt employee wages.

---

He also wants to cut the top tax rates. More of the same shit that got us here to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Fed employees only adjust when you get a politician that comes in with a plan to freeze and cut spending. We just haven't had one of those from either party for a while now.

---

Who was the last President to leave office with not only a balanced budget, but a projected budget surplus on the books?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

..then why have wages remained stagnant while productivity was increasing at a record pace just a couple months back? What you mean is that the private sector is quick to protect its bottom line by cutting pay and benefits for its employees but isn't so quick to raise pay or offer more benefits when times are good...

---

The private sector run things much more optimal, because they don't have the taxpayer's credit card to fall back to when the bottom falls out (unless you're a Wall Street mega-bank).

And how much they pay is eventually driven by supply and demand. When the economy is good, you normally see the opposite of what the OP points out. When there's high demand, a lot of people leave government work and move to the private sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Who was the last President to leave office with not only a balanced budget, but a projected budget surplus on the books?

---

Clinton. And Bush Sr was a good president too. But that was 10 years ago, and we're way more than 10x worse than back then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

..then why have wages remained stagnant while productivity was increasing at a record pace just a couple months back? What you mean is that the private sector is quick to protect its bottom line by cutting pay and benefits for its employees but isn't so quick to raise pay or offer more benefits when times are good...

---

What he means is that the private sector has to deal in reality, a place where the concept of a "bottom line" actually exists. The federal government on the other hand exists in a fantasy world where there's no such thing as a bottom line. The federal government merely decides what they feel like paying themselves and if that means a bigger defecit, so what?

That's why your earlier point about private sector compensation "not keeping up" with government compensation is so incredibly stupid.

what's an example of a specific job where the federal worker makes twice his private counterpart?

Quote:

---

What he means is that the private sector has to deal in reality, a place where the concept of a "bottom line" actually exists. The federal government on the other hand exists in a fantasy world where there's no such thing as a bottom line. The federal government merely decides what they feel like paying themselves and if that means a bigger defecit, so what?

---

Answer me this: Why does the US still have the best military in the world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Answer me this: Why does the US still have the best military in the world?

---

Because We The People are okay borrowing a shitload of money to have a badass one.

Now you answer me this: What does this have to do with the topic considering the numbers in question are for federal civilian employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Because We The People are okay borrowing a shitload of money to have a badass one.

Now you answer me this: What does this have to do with the topic considering the numbers in question are for federal civilian employees.

---

We have the best military because we embargo our best technology.....we don't ship it off to china, Indonesia, or anywhere else like multinational corporations do...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Because We The People are okay borrowing a shitload of money to have a badass one.

Now you answer me this: What does this have to do with the topic considering the numbers in question are for federal civilian employees.

---

No shit. Plus the difference between the military pay and civilian feds is staggering. A perfect example is Del Rio. A young basic enlistee in the Air Force at Laughlin AFB is probably making $18,000 a year. Same town, Border Patrol agents with the same basic education/skills are starting at $45,000 and easily knocking down $60,000-$70,000 with overtime. That's just salary and doesn't include pension.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

We have the best military because we embargo our best technology.....we don't ship it off to china, Indonesia, or anywhere else like multinational corporations do...

---

Thank you for this completely irrelevant piece of information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

He also wants to cut the top tax rates. More of the same shit that got us here to begin with.

---

I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Thank you for this completely irrelevant piece of information.

---

....my point is that private business is short-sighted...it makes a decision to protect its bottom line by selling its trade secrets and then blames employees when other multinational corporations come out with products that are superior or less expensive...

....what if NASA or Homeland security took what the tech they have and sold it on the open market the way private businesses do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

....my point is that private business is short-sighted...it makes a decision to protect its bottom line by selling its trade secrets and then blames employees when other multinational corporations come out with products that are superior or less expensive...

....what if NASA or Homeland security took what the tech they have and sold it on the open market the way private businesses do?

---

Sometimes I just read your posts and go ????????? WTF is he rambling about?

What business are actively selling their state of the art trade secrets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

....my point is that private business is short-sighted...it makes a decision to protect its bottom line by selling its trade secrets and then blames employees when other multinational corporations come out with products that are superior or less expensive...

---

Your point means nothing because businesses have to worry about a bottom line and the federal government does not.

Quote:

---

....what if a tech employee for NASA or Homeland security took what they have learned and sold it on the open market the way private businesses do?

---

What if the federal government had to worry about going out of business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

What if the federal government had to worry about going out of business?

---

Or not being able to pay bills/meet payroll?

So, the government operates the way businesses should operate but can't because its lost its technological edge.....and getting back that edge would take a Manhattan project type investment in research and development...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Or not being able to pay bills/meet payroll?

---

Don't all federal offices operate on a yearly appropriated spending budget?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

what's an example of a specific job where the federal worker makes twice his private counterpart?

---

I can only speak to my specific field, but it my case it's not that the guy doing a similar job for the federal government is taking home twice what i am. It's that after 30 years he's still going to be getting a paycheck for life and I'm not. I'm not complaining, I chose to work where I am. I'm also not faulting him. It's a good deal for him. But as taxpayers we have to be concerned about what's a good deal for us and there's a limit to how much money we the taxpayers should be spending to pay former government employees to not work for us anymore.

...and doesn't my point have as much to do with how much federal employees make versus private sector counter-parts as your point about how federal employees can run their own deficits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Don't all federal offices operate on a yearly appropriated spending budget?

---

Apparently not. Ask Nancy Pelosi about that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

I can only speak to my specific field, but it my case it's not that the guy doing a similar job for the federal government is taking home twice what i am. It's that after 30 years he's still going to be getting a paycheck for life and I'm not. I'm not complaining, I chose to work where I am. I'm also not faulting him. It's a good deal for him. But as taxpayers we have to be concerned about what's a good deal for us and there's a limit to how much money we the taxpayers should be spending to pay former government employees to not work for us anymore.

---

You worked for 50 years and get no pension? Wow..

I am a fed worker and the reason there salaries are high is because when the economy was good they had to pay their workers to compete with the outside. as soon as the fed caught up the economy tanked and the salaries went down on the outside, but fed workers, by law, cannot take a pay cuts.

that is why I am a fed worker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

what's an example of a specific job where the federal worker makes twice his private counterpart?

---

You act like it's make believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

So, the government operates the way businesses should operate but can't because its lost its technological edge.....and getting back that edge would take a Manhattan project type investment in research and development...

---

probably because private co.'s have to make a profit. Govt. jobs do the complete opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

probably because private co.'s have to make a profit. Govt. jobs do the complete opposite.

---

..but federal employees don't write their own budgets...and pay can and often is reduced by outsourcing to the private sector or eliminating positions..

Quote:

---

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

---

The Government isn't contributing to pensions at 4x the rate private companies are, in some cases the money goes to bail out pension when pension funds run short on projected payment money, as happens during slow to no growth periods thanks to greedy private industry fund managers putting money in risk investments....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

..but federal employees don't write their own budgets...and pay can and often is reduced by outsourcing to the private sector or eliminating positions..

---

govt employees do not have to entice you to take your business to them. They don't have to treat you as a consumer or customer because their office's success is not dictated on how well they performed their job duties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

govt employees do not have to entice you to take your business to them. They don't have to treat you as a consumer or customer because their office's success is not dictated on how well they performed their job duties.

---

spursncowboys, I have a question: do we know where bin laden is at?

we as in you and me?

as in u.s. military

(wink twice if you cant talk)

Rather than bitching about Fed compensation being so much better than private, all y'all should see the stagnant/declining wealth of the lower 95% as the victory of the class war by private employers and shareholders over the private employees.

The real question is why can't private compensation and job security be reasonably closer to public employees?

Real wages have been minimal/flat for 30 years. Households hung on by both parents working, then by going into/lured into debt. Total household debt in the late 2000 was 113% of household income. Single males' real income is actually down from 1975.

St Ronnie got the capitalist/conservative war on employees rolling, set an example for private employers that employees were targets, by firing the air traffic controllers. And then he raised payroll taxes while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Fed employees, many of them unionized, are not aggressively screwed out of compensation the way private employees are. That's why private employers fire union organizers and bust/block unions, then pay their management 100s of $Ms, no matter what company's performance is (see Home Depot decline for 5 years then they CEO parachutes with $250M)

aka, "the hollowing out, the destruction of the middle class" by the hyper-compensated, wealthy corporate management and shareholders, esp wealthy shareholders, institutional investors.

Now the Banskters Great Depression puts the employers even more ruthlessly in control, a seller's market where the supply of jobs is far below the demand. Employees, job seekers are intimidated. So employers can drive salaries ever lower in this depression.

America is fucked, and unfuckable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

You act like it's make believe.

---

No I don't. Do you often play make-believe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Are you going to post why the difference is so much? You do realize that benefits are included in these figures right? So they don't get paid twice more... why are you so dishonest?

---

:lol The article is about compensation.

Silly lib.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

What's outrageous is that private sector jobs have failed to keep up with the pay and benefits of federal sector jobs...

---

Liberal economic logic fail, as usual.

Feds are overcompensated, but then again, that's what happens when you have union shops running things.

They all unionize, then vote as a block for Reps/Senators who give them more pay and benefits, then the union leadership donates their 'dues' to bribe Congress to give them another bump.

It's a perpetual cycle that is going to end in the bankruptcy of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

...and doesn't my point have as much to do with how much federal employees make versus private sector counter-parts as your point about how federal employees can run their own deficits?

---

You're an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I disagree.

---

But of course you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

You worked for 50 years and get no pension? Wow..

---

First, you suck at reading.

And no, I don't get a pension. I get a 401k. And I like the odds of my 401k being there for me when I retire far greater than some government pension program burdened with hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions of dollars worth of unfunded obligations.

If you set aside a few thousand a year from the beginning you will retire a multi-millionaire. People do it all the time without pensions. Half of old americants don't save shit, rely on social security, and eat dog food though.

But but but but the market is all rigged and all of your privatized money will disappear!! :lol

Everything worth anything has risks. Pension plans have been known before to bankrupt the entire system, be taken over by the government, and automatically cut 50% overnight no questions asked.

Didn't bother reading past the first couple posts.

The one thing missing is comparable jobs. When you take the average worker, you get a mix of blue collar, white collar, and burger flippers, etc.

I wonder how a non executive type federal employee with compares to the average GM employee for wages and benefits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

If you set aside a few thousand a year from the beginning you will retire a multi-millionaire. People do it all the time without pensions.

---

Citizens providing for themselves, without the government? OMG!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmptyMan

If you set aside a few thousand a year from the beginning you will retire a multi-millionaire.

---

What do you call 'a few'? Some quick math tells me at least 25k for 80 years to get to $2 million...

25K is a good chunk of change. Heck, a couple of years ago I wasn't making 25K for the entire year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What do you call 'a few'? Some quick math tells me at least 25k for 80 years to get to $2 million...

25K is a good chunk of change. Heck, a couple of years ago I wasn't making 25K for the entire year.

---

There's GOP logic, or lack thereof, at work....just save a couple of thousand a year and you'll retire a multimillionaire! guaranteed!

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

First, you suck at reading.

And no, I don't get a pension. I get a 401k. And I like the odds of my 401k being there for me when I retire far greater than some government pension program burdened with hundreds of billions, maybe even trillions of dollars worth of unfunded obligations.

---

...Guess what? If 'some government pension' is worthless then your 401k is worthless too because the government just defaulted on its obligations and all money is now worthless.....get a clue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

...Guess what? If 'some government pension' is worthless then your 401k is worthless too because the government just defaulted on its obligations and all money is now worthless.....get a clue...

---

That's exactly what I was thinking, lol. :lol

I like how he calls pensions 'unfunded obligations' :lol

Seriously, when the GOP regains power, they will go after Social Security and then it will be game over for the U.S. because that, for better or worse, is our credit reserve... not the Chinese...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

I like how he calls pensions 'unfunded obligations' :lol

Seriously, when the GOP regains power, they will go after Social Security and then it will be game over for the U.S. because that, for better or worse, is our credit reserve... not the Chinese...

---

Well... He's also probably one of those people who eats up the idea of privatizing social security, and then is shocked to learn his social security is destroyed when the market collapses again because of "over-regulation". :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMX7

Well... He's also probably one of those people who eats up the idea of privatizing social security, and then is shocked to learn his social security is destroyed when the market collapses again because of "over-regulation". :lol

---

Can you imagine if we had privatized even a part of Social Security under Bush41 or Dubya how fucked we would be right now? That idea has quickly been thrown under the bus by wing-nuts...

With Pete Peterson on it, the Deficit Commission is now the cut, privatize (aka, kill) Social Security Commission. Kill it by giving it to Wall St to plunder.

Let's get Fabulous Fabrice/Goldman to put together another Abacus product, and spend all the SocSec funds buying into it.

401K's are already a scam with the corps and fund managers mismanaging the funds, stealing unnannounced, hidden, unchallengeable fees.

The predatory wealthy screwed your salaries and removed any all power you might have an employee (you're a fucking wage slave, STFU and keeping putting in those unpaid hours), now they're (still) after your retirement savings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

...Guess what? If 'some government pension' is worthless then your 401k is worthless too because the government just defaulted on its obligations and all money is now worthless.....get a clue...

---

You really should stop. You're not very good at this. The government not having enough money to cover it's pension obligations is not the same thing as the government defaulting on it's treasury notes. Joe the retired bureaucrat not getting his pension check does not collapse the entire financial system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

I like how he calls pensions 'unfunded obligations' :lol

---

$3 trillion in unfunded pension obligations nationwide

That $3 trillion is only for state and local governments btw. Feds not included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Can you imagine if we had privatized even a part of Social Security under Bush41 or Dubya how fucked we would be right now? That idea has quickly been thrown under the bus by wing-nuts...

---

So you're admitting you're a wing nut?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

The Federal pension stuff is ridiculous. I knew an older guy a few years ago that was triple dipping...he did the minimum in the military, minimum in the civil service, and then went to the post office till retirement. He had three pensions.

---

I wouldn't be surprised to see the double pension go away. Still, I don't see how he got three pensions unless he retired at 77 or something.

Also, as someone pointed out, the military probably makes a fair amount, perhaps less depending on the job (comm guys, air traffic controllers and med types could probably make more on the outside).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I wouldn't be surprised to see the double pension go away. Still, I don't see how he got three pensions unless he retired at 77 or something.

---

Definitely agree that the double pension has got to go. Of course you'd still have a group of people who will work for the federal govt for a while then go work for a state or local gov and double dip that way. Still, you've got to start somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I wouldn't be surprised to see the double pension go away. Still, I don't see how he got three pensions unless he retired at 77 or something.

---

I don't remember the details but I think his timing was good and he got to take advantage of some downsizing "early out" options...I know civil service did it when they started privatizing some functions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

But doesnt Obamacare make benefits taxable if you earn a certain amount?

Serious question.

---

They make benefits taxable if they are too rich (unless you are a member of a union - which many federal employees are).

I wouldn't blame private business. I would blame the big corps in a race to the bottom, offshoring jobs and production with the profits going to their execs and shareholders, but certainly not going to US workers. Other businesses, especially small businesses, are caught up in a price squeeze. This does not seem like a good long-term strategy because poorer US workers do not buy so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

I don't remember the details but I think his timing was good and he got to take advantage of some downsizing "early out" options...I know civil service did it when they started privatizing some functions...

---

Ahh.. I gotcha. I'm pretty sure in the military that they don't give you pension if you opt out, but could be for civil service. Lucky guy.

I've heard rumors that there's talk of putting off active duty retirement pay until the age of 60... doubt that gets passed though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

What do you call 'a few'? Some quick math tells me at least 25k for 80 years to get to $2 million...

25K is a good chunk of change. Heck, a couple of years ago I wasn't making 25K for the entire year.

---

If you set aside $2,000 a year for 45 years in an IRA or 401k that returns 4% better interest than inflation, you have about $250k today's value. That would yield about $2,000 monthly for about another 10 to 15 years in safer investments. That supplements SS nicely.

The more you invest, the better.

Compound interest is your friend in savings, your enemy with credit cards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

...Guess what? If 'some government pension' is worthless then your 401k is worthless too because the government just defaulted on its obligations and all money is now worthless.....get a clue...

---

If you only have government securities in your 401k mix, you are a fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

I wouldn't be surprised to see the double pension go away. Still, I don't see how he got three pensions unless he retired at 77 or something.

---

Triple dipping includes the Social Security. 20 years military then = 50% base pay. Civil service, and the older postal retirement is the same pool of money. He would have received a pension based on his wages with time accredited for both combined. I think CRS pays 2.5% of your wages per year accrued, but I would have to ask a friend.

I may be slightly mistaken, just looked this up:

CSRS Retirement