Reply With Quote
The private sector PAYS better, which is why pensions are better in the public sector. Good luck hiring any high end scientists or computer folks with the same pension and a fraction of the salary.
its texas. they want to cut science.
The private sector PAYS better, which is why pensions are better in the public sector. Good luck hiring any high end scientists or computer folks with the same pension and a fraction of the salary.
Really?
I can't speak for state government but Federal employees earn TWICE what their equivalent private sector employees make...
http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...pay10_ST_N.htm
You might want to read that article again.
Or once.
That article does not say what you think it does.
Someoby had misread the data, because that data has been misrepresented in a very deliberate (or ignorant) way in order to make a political point.
My apologies, but I think you have been rather cynically manipulated.
You are missing two key data points that would lead a rational person to form a conclusion opposite of the one you have made.
1. Federal workers make more than the AVERAGE private sector worker, not EQUIVALENT private sector worker.
2. Federal jobs, ON AVERAGE, require more education and experience than the AVERAGE private sector job.Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs.
Do a search in your area, as I did for San Antonio, and browse the results. When I tested this claim on the part of the Federal workers union, I did so for about 5 major metropolitan areas.
The results of my testing is that many jobs required masters or doctorates, and almost all required at least a bachelors.
If the pool of federal workers is skewed to require more education than a pool that is diluted with a lot of average fast-food/retail workers, the comparison is not really all that valid.
Have I proven my point sufficiently to change your mind about that statement, or do you require more data?
It looks pretty straight forward to me.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.
Given:1. Federal workers make more than the AVERAGE private sector worker, not EQUIVALENT private sector worker.
Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs.
1) Average pay rates for federal workers have wages higher than average US workers.
2) Pay rates currently for federal workers are lower than private sector equivalents.
3) Pay rates for average federal workers have increased faster than average US workers.
We can reasonably conclude one of two things.
Either the base pay for federal workers started that time period MUCH lower than an equivalant private sector worker by a margin at least as great as the difference between the average federal worker and the equivalent, if the equivalent private sector worker pay exhibited the similar growth to average private sector workers.
or
Equivalent private sector pay has gone up at roughly the same as average Federal workers' pay.
The relationships are, per the data:
Pay:
Average private US worker<Average Federal worker<Private sector equivalent to Average Federal worker
Skills:
Average Federal worker skills/education = Equivalant private sector worker
Equivalent private sector worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.
Average Federal worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.
You are attempting to compare different things. It is not as straightforward as you seem to think.
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.
Pay:
A>B>C
Skills:
B=C
C>A
B>A
If skills/experience should be rewarded with pay, then for pay,
B should equal C, not what is actually the case B<C.
Job=Job
More education is not necessarily = to more skill
More pay for more experience?
Pffffft
In a typical repe ive job it takes no more than a year to learn everything.
Doing that job for 20 years is not 20 years experience.
It's one year of experience repeated 20 times.
That makes absolutely no sense.
That makes absolutely no sense.Pay:
Average private US worker<Average Federal worker<Private sector equivalent to Average Federal worker
Skills:
Average Federal worker skills/education = Equivalant private sector worker
Equivalent private sector worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.
Average Federal worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.
Pay:
A>B>C
Skills:
B=C
C>A
B>A
If skills/experience should be rewarded with pay, then for pay,
B should equal C, not what is actually the case B<C.
I think what RG is trying to show is that from a logical standpoint your argument (or those who push this arguemnt) is flawed.
Your conclusion is based on the premise that Federal workers are more skilled than private sector workers.
I don't agree with this premise and you can't prove it is true.
You got that right - some of the dumbest people I've come across work in government agencies - not to mention some of our elected officials!
Well then I suppose comparing the pay scales/differentials/rates for 2 completely different sets of populations is flawed in itself.
Wouldn't you agree?
by the way is
Last edited by George Gervin's Afro; 11-12-2010 at 12:47 PM.
Not really. Most administrative jobs can be compared easily.
I agree. In fact, I would say that some equivalent jobs earn less. Does the FBI top management make as much as CEO's COO's etc? I think not. Does a federal prosecutor make as much as a trial lawyer? Fat chance.
No kidding. I don't see jobs like McDonald's on the federal list. For such a comparison to be true, you would have to exclude jobs like retail, service, etc. Focus on technical, law enforcement, legal etc.
How many federal jobs do not require higher education of some sort?
Typically, Assistant US Attorneys and US Attorneys take those jobs for the contacts/experience and BECOME high priced trial lawyers later in their careers.
Wouldn't a more apt comparison would be to comapre DA's with Federal Prosecutors?
Sorry I was trying to decrease the verbiage and break it down a bit more simply. I think it is a bit confusing myself.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Sorry I was trying a bit too hard.
I went back and found the March article that this statement is based on:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...eral-pay_N.htm
It includes a table that supports that statement, roughly.
What is missing though is something that has already been remarked on, and that is longitivity.
Federal workers tend to stay on the job for MUCH longer, and have ac ulated a good deal of experience.
While it is correct that for repe ive jobs, 1 year experience is about the same as 20. Not all jobs, especially ones that are far from repe ive, such as nursing, surgeons, or high level administrators are so.
The union, for its part points to objective analysis done by the OMB (or someething along those lines, dont' quite remember) that shows that it is hard to find exact matches in order to make really valid comparisons.
Certainly the "double" statement is simply too flawed to be workable.
The 20% one is much more closer to a decent comparison, but also misses mitigating factors such as longitivity and experience.
Given that, it is safe to conclude the actual %'s are a bit less than that, factoring in experience.
After the VRWC launched its latest attack to kill govt as employer of over-paid employees, lots of studies came out showing it was just another VRWC lie and hit job.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
