Return to Article: Pay Gap: A Different Take
-
18126
I have spent a far greater amount of my career in the private sector than the federal government. I am a professional with 16 years experience and a master's degree.
If you do a fair comparison between the skills and responsibilities associated with a high level federal position and a comparable private position, we in the federal government are grossly underpaid.
The only reason I stay with the federal government is because of a serious health issue and I need the "golden handcuffs" of "stable" health coverage.
-
17222
I graduated from college in 1973 with a BS in Chemical Engineering. After spending many years moving up from process engineer through management positions to plant manager in the chemical industry I found myself unemployed after a large cutback. I felt lucky to get a position doing NBC work with the Navy. I figured a few years of steady progress and I could again get a better job in private industry like I had always done. When I contacted the recruiters who used to call me regularly with job interview opportunities, I was finally told, "I am really sorry but we can't place you since you work for the government. Private industry perceives government employees as people who set around, read paperback novels and call in sick. The facts don't count."
I have been very successful in my career with the Navy and now the Marine Corps as a starter of new programs and the developer of a multitude of new technologies. I have worked in chemical warfare defense, directed energy, command and control systems, non-lethal weapons, sensor systems, as well as many others. I can certainly get a job with a support contractor, or a company doing business primarily with the government; however, I would not have the opportunity to start new technologies that I have with the Marine Corps. I would likely have one product in one technology area to work on instead of the 15 that I now have.
I am certain that had I held out a little longer rather than taking the job with the Navy when I did that I would likely be making significantly more money, but I am doubtful that my career would have been as enjoyable.
-
17137
Like so many others who read Edward's article, I was shocked to find out how high the pay disparity was between the private and public sector. The fact that many of the positions filled by government employees are professional positions requiring college degrees should not affect Mr. Edwards' statistical comparisons to the entire private sector in the least. I definitely think something needs to be done about the tremendous difference. I would strongly suggest that we all write our congressmen in protest. It's just outrageous!
I'm sure that Mr. Edwards' theory that privatizing government agencies would save money is absolutely correct. I think that privatizing my job with the IRS would be quite beneficial. Pay and advances for private sector CPA's is based largely on the amount of fees the CPA can generate. Can you imagine the amount of taxes we'd be able to collect if the pay and advances were based on the amount of taxes we generated? I would venture to say that, in a very short while, we would have no budget deficit. Some individuals might complain about the way the taxes were assessed or collected, but that would be a minor problem when we considered the benefit to the government.
I say, let's go with Mr. Edward's ideas. Let's switch all government programs to the private sector. Just think of the money we could save if managers of government agencies were paid the same way CEO's are paid in the private sector.
Of course, there might be a question of who is going to pay for the services provided by the newly privatized government agencies, but we all know it won't be us, right? After all, once we privatize all the government jobs, there won't be any more taxes. We'll all save tremendously. All services will be paid for through the market system of supply and demand. There might be a little problem with allocation of services such as education, transportation, health services, and a myriad of other programs, but the laws of supply and demand will eventually sort out any problems.
-
17122
Just read the comments from My Heart Bleeds in Connecticut. Wow, you stay working there even though you are not compensated for the overtime and free hours you are giving them. Your company is in violation of a ton of state and federal labor laws. Your renting circumstance also sounds like a dominant owner has you too scared to act. Spineless jellyfish love to float on the tide and send sting barbs at those who innocently pass by -- you say you are educated but like the fish, appear to only have been schooled.
In my position, I am responsible for a billion dollar account. When I took a journey into the private sector, there were no offers to hire because they did not have any positions that pay the comparatively low salary I receive and have the same level of responsibility my position carries. Several joked that I was truly a dedicated citizen to be doing so much for so little.
As my statistics professor used to say, "Figures lie and liars figure" or the classic on election day, "With 5 percent of the precincts reporting, we predict a landslide victory for the incumbent." It's easy to make all encompassing statements. To prove them takes the best and brightest.
-
17114
Again, I'm concerned that folks will look at "Contractor's" remarks and only see the part of the picture that's written on the page.
What a contractor gets versus what the government pays is a considerable difference. In most of the contracts I've been involved with, the contract monies distribution breaks down approximately 50 percent to company (for overhead?) and 50 percent to the worker.
In the automation field, the contractors normally make more than their civil servant counterparts. Still, let's compare a civil servant who receives $50,000 per annum while a contractor, doing the same job gets $40,000. Please rest assured that the government doesn't pay a 100 percent of each civil servant's pay above and beyond said salary for their benefits. So saying, please estimate the cost to the government for that civil servant to be approximately $70,000 per annum (40 percent overhead, a high end estimate) and the cost to the government for the contractor would be anywhere from $80,000 to $100,00 annually.
Many folks point to the training costs as a difference. Regardless of the contract specifications, all (statistically) contractors have to be trained to some degree. Both the civilians and the contractors have to be trained initially and continue with sustainment training.
I feel for those contractors but that is a bed they chose to lie in, and considering the specified time duration of contract work these jobs are transient by nature. Often these are not careerists but folks looking for footholds into another more permanent job.
Bottom line is any analysis in this discussion must start on the cost to the government for like services; and long time trained and, hopefully, contented workers are the most cost effective.
Tip off.
-
17082
Ok, I read all 41 of the previous letters and some folks are still missing the point (just like Mr. Edwards).
Twenty years ago, most of private industry paid for all of the health and life insurance premiums and all of the retirement contribution. Think back -- private industry's employees started losing those benefits about that time and there were huge union strikes to protect them while white collar jobs got shafted. Even today, a great many private industry jobs have at least some of their benefits paid for by the company.
So, if you count the benefits as part of "salary" for the feds, then you have to count all the benefits as part of "salary" for private industry. Twenty years ago they were tipped in favor of private industry, twenty years later, they still are.
-
17079
I started with the civil service in 1988 as a GS-4 Secretary, making about $12,000 per year. I had 10 years' experience in the private sector. Even in 1988 dollars, 12K wasn't much. I had to pay more for some of my benefits and had the added expense of a City wage tax (almost 5 percent). I drove 30 miles one way in an old clunker, of which I had no idea when I was going to get another one. Years later, I reflect on how lucky I was not to have stagnated at the GS-4 or 5 level, as many women who either don't go to school on their own time, don't know anybody influential that will promote them or don't get into a (coveted) upward mobility training program. Otherwise, the personnel department seemed determined enough to make everyone start as low on the food chain as possible. I reflect on how I made ends meet those first few years ... like occasionally swiping toilet paper from the stalls in the ladies' room and not buying health insurance. I was already working there as a contractor making 18K per year before I started. So why did I join the government? Someone told me it was a great career move. To get that wonderful job security that I didn't have working for the contractor -- what a joke. Because someone told me that I would eventually get ahead (read above -- that's a joke too). I did OK, but I'm gone from the civil service now.
Dis-gruntled
-
17057
I just could not read any more of this article. Unfortunately, until you have walked in my shoes then you can speak on the subject of pay. I can't speak for all IRS-Offices but I can speak to my job and position. I invite you or anyone come to the Detroit District office and see the number of people we help each day with the number of workers, and how much we are asked to remember with the inadequate machines, etc. If the message seems to be antagonizing, well it's just that I am little rattled. I am upset and confused. Where did you receive your conflicting information? Let my work speak for me.
-
17038
Unfortunately Edwards is right in my case: I made a lot less as a contract worker doing pretty much the same job as I am doing now. And the contract company I first worked for (in 2000) didn't pay for health insurance and I only got 24 hours sick leave (no vacation leave). These days contract companies are offering better benefits packages (at least those that have workers at my agency), but the hourly rate still lags behind what a comparable federal worker would receive under the GS system. So if you compare apples to apples -- the same job as a federal employee versus contract employee -- a lot of times the federal worker will come out on top, especially if you factor in the common benefit categories (sick leave, vacation leave, etc.), the not-so-common benefit categories (tuition reimbursement programs, leadership and career development programs, etc.), and any intangible benefits (for me these would be items such as: better job stability, better sense of working toward a collective goal, and an increased sense of patriotism and altruism).
Of course, the above statement also depends on the type of job and the level of experience. In the case of my own job for instance, I could be paid a lot more if I worked for the oil/gas industry or worked for a software development house. If I was a machinist, that might be another story altogether.
-
17030
Okay, then let's truly be fair ...
I'm concerned people may read responses such as "DHS" below and actually give credence to Edwards' argument. While I will not deny DHS' facts and statements, once more I reiterate that the personnel retirement system of which both were speaking (CSRS) has not been available for the past 23 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all (statistically) government personnel hired since 1983 have been hired under the significantly reduced benefits of FERS; and if the government gets its way, these will be further reduced under NSPS.
Edwards' case was for a bloated bureaucracy that no longer exists.
Tip off.
-
16983
I don't necessarily agree with everything Edwards says, but in the interest of fairness, when it comes to benefits, federal workers have it better than most private sector workers. For example, while we do pay premiums for our health coverage, the government pays the majority of the cost (i.e., for Blue Cross Blue Shield, I pay one quarter, while Uncle Sam pays three quarters of the premium cost). Likewise, for FEGLI, the rates we pay are subsidized by the government. Then there is annual and sick leave. Under CSRS, I have over a year of sick leave saved up, which I can turn in (if I remain healthy) when I retire for additional pension credit. I am not aware of this benefit being available in the private sector. Although our pay may be less for some occupations, the overall benefits are competitive if not better than many private sector jobs. Of course, what Edwards' article doesn't take into account are other problems associated with federal employment, such as changing priorities under different administrations, media bashing of government workers, low morale in certain agencies due to half-baked changes and reorganizations (see DHS and DoD, for example), etc. All in all, an interesting article, though somewhat slanted and far from comprehensive in scope.
-
16969
All this article proves is that there are idiots in every organization.
-
16962
I keep hearing on how the government is overpaid. Well, I disagree and really want to say the new bunch of guys and girls who have been hired to evaluate the pay and benefits of federal employees are overpaid. The work they do and the methods they use to prove the statistics placed forward rate an OPM GS-2 with a low rating. If they are being paid more than that, they need to look into the mirror to see a really overpaid government employee.
-
16960
That's why our country is where it is now. It's comments like this from a supposedly elite idiot who really did not do his homework and just spoke from the hip. People like him just make it scarier for the rest of United States.
-
16958
"Libertarian scholar" would appear to be an oxymoron.
-
16957
The easiest job in the world is to be a critic, and to be a critic without doing adequate homework on a subject is heresy; and this guy is a scholar?? The man has probably never had a real "job" in his life. Government oversight of tax dollar expenditures by the rank-and-file government employee is a blessing. We have no political motivation, we don't take sides, we just try to get the best projects done at the best cost. I guess Mr. Edwards just brushes off things like the Tyco and Enron scandals in the private sector.
-
16955
Mr. Edwards may be right on one count -- that the brighter minds are working for the federal government. Which may explain why Mr. Edwards works for the Cato Institute.
-
16954
It makes no difference how small the Cato minions want it to be, government is America's largest enterprise, and is therefore entitled to America's best and brightest. I have spent 27 of the last 48 years in government, with a 9-year stint in the non-profit sector and a 12-year stint in the private sector. I learned a good deal both times, which I have tried to bring to the public sector. We need more in-and-outers in all three sectors. The issue is not whether government should be big or small, or whether it should pay more or less. The issue is whether we want the quality of government to get better or worse -- and then pay accordingly. The private sector knows that. Why doesn't Cato?
-
16953
I don't know what they are looking at to come up with an average salary of more than $100,000. I believe that is what the cost to maintain an employee, including pay, medical, equipment, leave, etc. The average salary I have heard most recently is closer to $35,000. It might be good to get the facts straight before it's published. Thanks.
-
16952
Chris Edwards must have another agenda. He has no sound examples or data to back up his outrageous assertions. I am a career federal employee and have tremendous respect for all civil servants. Government needs people of high intelligence and character. If we followed his lead, our country would be at risk for invasion by foreign nations, our food supply would be in jeopardy and corruption in government would be rampant and unchecked, to name a few problems.
-
16951
One of Mr. Edwards' hypothesis is negated by Mr. Edwards himself. He is a poster boy for the proposition that not all the best minds are in government service.
-
16950
Sounds to me like just another talking head. I personally do not pay any attention to the noise coming out of liberal media. Sure, it might cause me to stop what I am doing and get a good laugh. This person does not know what they are talking about.
-
16948
You gotta admit that the guy was right in my case. As a federal contract worker in 1999 I was paid at least one GS level below what my officemates (who were federal employees) were paid. We performed almost identical tasks, using computers and software provided by the government, in the same federal building, printing reports using the same printers and printer paper. We had similar degrees (bachelor of science degree in the physical sciences) as well.
Yet, my benefits included 24 hours of paid leave -- and that was it. No employer sponsored health care, no retirement plan (not even a 401(k)-style plan).
So in my case, the guy was right. I had to quit my federal contract job to take a "real" federal job in order to get paid the "high" wages federal employees get paid.
The irony is, if I worked outside of the government or non-profit sector -- in my case this translates to the oil and gas industry -- I would be paid probably 30 percent-50 percent more. Go figure!
-
16946
I read the article and the responses. What does anyone expect from the folks who have told us that global warming is a fantasy? The Cato Institute is a right wing think tank, whose agenda is to promote whatever political agenda is current on that side of the aisle. We can safely assume that any of their studies of our benefits is biased in the direction of lower pay and a smaller federal workforce. After all, the group(s) paying for their opinions wants lower taxes, fewer federal workers, and a less powerful government. Selling the public on the concept of overpaid federal workers helps do that. So does reducing the overall skill level in the federal workforce.
-
16945
I read with this story with interest, in part, because it apparently took quite a search of the literature to come up with the rather out-dated research to support this contention, and in part, because of the veiled insinuation about our easy hours. Though I certainly see where some folks don't over-tax themselves, I myself have worked some pretty long days at the computer to get things done. I have training beyond the terminal degree and experience in a couple of fields and in fact need to use it most days for the type of work I do, which includes, sometimes, finding time to do over work done by our contractors, who though strong in some areas, are not in all; on the best days, we work together as a team, with our skills complementing one another's, and I am grateful for them given that in many agencies, we have absolutely no other support.
As far as leaving? Every day there are multiple reasons to do so. But given the rather specialized work for which I have been pegged by the government, I am now somewhat typecast. Also, in a recent discussion with a potential outside employer, he volunteered they would like to have me on board but in the current economy, are hiring cheaper, less experienced talent. I have heard the same from other folks hiring or trying to be hired. And perhaps that is another argument for government, in that it is able to retain (so far) some of the people that, at least in this economy, might have a harder time finding decent employment in part because they are well qualified -- even though one lives with the reality that, depending on the agency, the best and brightest are not always the ones who are advanced. For me, though, the work is (generally) interesting. And the final reason I stay? Because I do believe in public service. I came to government hoping I might have hopefully just a tiny and positive impact over time. I live for the days I get to help a real person through the maze. Many days, though, it's a matter of engaging in a constant tug of war to accomplish anything, and sometimes, just to keep things from being worse than they might have been.
-
16942
I wonder if Mr. Edwards took into account the fact that the civil service workforce is expected to stand up when the military are called away? Or, when tragedy happens, the fact that civilians readily stand along side their military comrades. You can't buy this kind of loyalty, but as Americans, we do it out of pride and commitment to our country. To say that we are overpaid for this kind of service is a farce.
-
16938
Much like the drought in the Southwest, I am certain the Cato "think tank" and the well that supports it, has gone bone dry. Come spend a day with me in my "cushy" federal job and I promise you your mind will be scorched by days end. Thinking will hurt! There are only about 135 of "us" in the country and we are paid satisfactorily -- about half what the aviation consultants we deal with are paid. And you want us to be real good at what we do because our failures result in messy hillsides, and cities with body parts all over the place. Do you really want "bottom of the barrel" folks doing what we do? Why do we stay -- dedication perhaps because there are no other "givens" in today's government workforce. By the way, what is Cato paying for "thinking" in case I get tired of doing real work!
-
16937
Wow! Where has Mr. Edwards been for the past 20 years? I've been a federal employee for 17 years and have yet to see the large salary he is talking about. Even with our benefits (which we help pay for) I don't believe the average federal employee makes more than $100,000 a year. I have a sister who lives in Denver and her base salary is $75,000. And, with all her perks she makes upwards of $200,000 a year. So, you tell me - even with my health insurance and all the other "benefits" Mr. Edwards alludes to - do I make more than $100,000 a year? I think not. Maybe he should find another line of business instead of reading and commenting on 20-year old studies. My comment to him: Get a life and a real job!
-
16935
What most statistics say is that this is what you have, but in reality the people who do most of these studies have no clue what really goes on in the work place of government workers. They come and do a survey by talking to a few people and crunch numbers and think they have all the answers. In order to get a true picture they need to work in that position of a government worker for six months before making their statements public. My family has always worked for civilian service and it was not for the benefits, or to have a laid back job. We have has always felt it our duty to give back to a nation that gives us so much. It is the hard government workers who get the job done regardless of personal sacrifices.
-
16933
Although I am a long time career federal employee (over 20 years) I must disagree with many of those who disagree with the author. I am convinced that he is, in broad general terms and on average at least, essentially correct in his assessment that when benefits are factored in that feds are better compensated than their private sector counterparts. It is certainly true that certain job categories (I would say in particular upper level management positions) are not as well compensated as the private sector (due to the multiple six figure salaries and "golden parachutes" that we read about for corporate execs. But, in my view, most other jobs are better compensated when you consider the entire lifetime package offered to feds. Take salary plus government share of health insurance premiums plus the 5 percent FERS TSP match plus disability and death benefits (just try and price premiums for equivalent private disability insurance if you are skeptical) plus ability to take life and health insurance with you in retirement plus a pension that is annually adjusted for inflation (pension inflation protection is essentially nonexistent in the private sector) and you have a total benefit package worth far more than any benefit package offered in the private sector to anyone other than a corporate exec. When I have occasionally considered private sector offers of employment for a considerable increase in gross pay (20 percent or more), in doing my homework I discovered I would have to be compensated well beyond the offered gross pay increase to be able to fund the additional level of savings I would need for an equivalently secure (inflation adjusted) retirement and to purchase the private disability insurance I would need to match what Uncle Sam provides in the event of disability. I would also have to give up a significant amount of annual vacation time and paid sick leave.
The commenter who stated the real reason for federal retention rates was job security, not pay, did get it half-right. The longer you are in federal service the more you have to lose in job and retirement security. However, when you also correctly assign a dollar value to what that job security represents in the form of fringe benefits and a secure retirement, federal compensation will almost always exceed anything in the private sector.
-
16930
Those who couldn't hack it in the public sector go to work at think tanks!
-
16928
If government servants are paid so well, why am I only 150 percent above poverty level? I need to check into this, maybe I'm not working for the same government. As far as benefits are concerned, last time I checked nothing was free!!
-
16927
The reason most federal employees stay is because of job security and a good solid pension that the private sector can't steal away like Enron, Sears, etc. Some as myself do enjoy working in public service. We do make sacrifices or give up opportunities offered in the private sector. We're still waiting for optical and dental. My home family was shocked to find out that I do not have dental after 30 years of service! Federal employees many times are the scapegoat for the politicians as well.
-
16924
I just have one question. If the government's pay and benefits are so much better than private sector why is Chris Edwards working for a private company?
Just Curious
-
16922
How about for civil servants to help protect and serve this country: It is also our responsibility to assist our soldiers to work on what I feel right now is the most important thing to this country and this is Global War on Terrorism. Keeping this country safe is very important. That is why we have so many freedoms. Most government workers do not have high paying positions. A lot of us have 20-plus years experience and started at the very bottom.
-
16921
I read this article but didn't bother to respond to it -- it was just plain too stupid to respond to. He's the director of tax policy for Cato and Cato is listened to by the White House. No wonder we are fiscally bankrupt. Of course they want to gut the federal government. It would cover their tracks for their equally stupid tax recommendations. Nobody in their right mind cuts taxes in the middle of a war and hurricane reconstruction.
HR Specialist
-
16920
It seems to me that Edwards doesn't stay very up-to-date on many details. Most of our politicians come from both very good schools and corporate America. Almost every top executive in all government agencies comes from corporate America. The most recent corruption scandals not to mention all of the corporate America scandals from the 1980s to present have not been at the dedicated federal working level. Furthermore, the constant change of leaders at the top levels says something about the so called "best and brightest." They are continuous failures. And finally, ask almost any corporations that have won contracts with the federal government "Where does your pool of employees come from?" The answer is "We hire retired government workers (because of their knowledge), retired military (who are government employees) because of their knowledge), and graduating government interns because of their training and knowledge.
Mr. Edwards needs to stop "thinking" within his think tank box and see what he can really create outside of it.
-
16902
Puh-leez!
Read between the lines: I am a 52-year-old educated, single, self-supporting female who has had to drop health-care insurance provided by the "private sector" because the cost was prohibitive as were the "discounted" prescription costs. I live in an attic apartment over a single-family home which I pay $600/month for, pay my own electric and phone (heat and hot water are included, but, as the land-owner and his family live downstairs, I am reminded to turn the heat down or off on occasion and the hot water in the shower is a hit-and-miss proposition at best), and have a 9-year-old used car that costs me over $180/month in payments. Although I own a washer and dryer, my apartment is not set up with hook-ups and I am forced to do my laundry elsewhere -- at a cost, in time, car usage and quarters! I have received "Employee of the Month," "Employee of the Quarter" and "Employee of the Year, 2005" awards, a promotion and several raises, which, I am told are "more often and more money" than any other employee, and I earn $11/hour. I come in early, work late, punch out on time to avoid the overtime which I could be scolded for, and am called in on my days off if no one else is available and work alone often (nearly one night per week) when no one else is available. I am in charge of interviewing, hiring, training and firing employees and am in charge of the work duties of five to seven other employees. My health insurance was costing me $69.69/week. Any of you "poor" government employees out there own a calculator? My situation is not a "worse-case scenario" -- I am just a Plain-Jane who is trying her hardest to make ends meet and getting nowhere fast!
-
16856
It is true that the cost of an employee -- government or private -- has to include all sources of income. This includes stock options, pensions, savings plan contributions, health insurance, etc. I think Congress should fund such a study using current data and then decide what options are best for government employees.
The fact that the programs require contributions is not a consideration as TIP points out because this is an investment decision by the worker. Obviously TIP thinks in terms of take home pay and ignores taxes, savings matching, health insurance benefits, etc.
Since I joined the government I have never heard anyone complain about their salary. The only complaint about the health insurance plan is that it does not cover dental and vision -- heaven forbid anyone should ever have to pay for health care of any type.
Most of the government employees I have heard discuss employee pay are looking forward to retirement. Many even have computer clocks counting down the days until retirement! The retirement benefits must be thought of as tremendous by the workers or they would not place such value on retirement, particularly the non-FERS people.
If such a study ever is done, they should include the military in the study because from were I sit I see gross overpayment of the military in many jobs. Housing allowances or base housing, recreational facilities, commissaries and exchanges, health benefits, retirement benefits, moving allowances, promotions on a seniority basis, job reviews that are meaningless, the good ole boy system of survival and promotion, salary, transport of family, auto shops, and many other benefits often ignored by the public. Also, there are far too many people in the services and the number of people should be reduced significantly. For example, why are we paying for band members and singers in the services at rates far in excess of the private sector? Why are we paying to sponsor NASCAR autos for millions of taxpayer dollars? Why are we sending so many of the service personnel to college and graduate school to get educations they use to cash out after retirement at outrageous payments while still in their forties and fifties?
The only real risk is that they may face a war, but that only impacts about 10 percent of the employees and then they call up the Guard and reserves to relieve the active duty personnel anyway.
-
16843
Libertarians view government as just annoying obstacle to their dream of a corporate utopia. They're against doing anything that might help attract and retain talented workers to government. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute claims that government workers are better compensated. In his short paper he also writes, "federal hiring of top caliber workers is a problem because it draws talent away from high-valued activities in the private sector."
Fortunately moderate Republicans and Democrats do understand the importance of closing the pay gap reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Like any organization, government is only as good as the people it attracts. In the past it was possible to attracted quality workers through job stability and a sense of duty to America. However, salary is the bottom line in this era of outsourcing and reorganization.
Libertarians want a small incompetent government whereas moderates want a small competent government. Take your pick, but the impending retirement wave makes this an important issue to solve now.
-
16807
This guy is a slug. Did anyone catch the dig concerning hours worked where he subtly indicated that somehow government workers work fewer hours then our private sector counterparts so we should get less pay? The article mixed apples and oranges in talking about our benefits, for instance, TSP is participatory and if you're under CSRS, you only get out of it what you put into it plus the earnings on the investment. Health benefits 25 years ago were pretty much at any large company, so let's not compare the government to small business, which may not offer those benefits. I suspect the real agenda was just to get government workers all excited. He must really not like us to present such an unbalanced picture!
-
16804
"Why did he pull from a 20-year-old study? Because, he said, there has been so much agreement in recent years on the pay gap that no one has bothered to complete an updated independent analysis. "
Not even the Cato Institute? If Edwards is their director of tax policy studies, why couldn't he arrange for the Institute to perform an independent analysis so he would have at least a speck of meaningful data? Too lazy? Or did he know that meaningful data wouldn't support his predetermined conclusion?
"By bundling federal benefits -- including defined pensions, the Thrift Savings Plan and health care subsidies -- together with wages, Edwards calculated that the average federal worker earned $100,178 in 2004, compared to $51,876 in salary and benefits for the average private-sector worker."
That's interesting. I started my federal job in 2005. There must have been some major changes in that year between the study and my hiring, because I've had to pay into my retirement and TSP, and pay for part of my health insurance, since I was hired. Apparently in 2004, federal employees got all that for free. Unless of course Edwards is deliberately misinterpreting the statistics and ignoring relevant facts to arrive at his predetermined conclusion.
Which seems more likely, the federal government dumping all those extra payments on employees in a year with no objections and no mention in the news, or a right-wing think tank lying to advance its agenda? That's a tough one, huh?
-
16796
If it comes out of a think tank, you have to wonder about it to begin with. Why don't these people contribute something besides hot air?
-
16785
That's just great. Another Washington think tank creating fiction to further the neocon agenda. That is not what America needs right now!
-
16782
Well, now I've heard everything. Does this guy honestly believe that health care and your TSP contributions that you pay for out of your wages are considered wages? How does that work? Can you pay your gas bill with your health care? Or pay the doctor with your TSP money before you retire?
Cold hard cash versus benefits doesn't count. Before all the private industry companies began cutting their benefits for their employees, they paid for most of them and the employee didn't. Federal employees got the shaft then, and they're still getting it today.
And as for "quit rates" -- just give the Boomers a couple more years.
-
16780
Unbelievable. To think that the Cato Institute has allowed this (probably very well paid) individual to use its valuable time and name to write an article like this.
The only reason that there is low turnover in federal service is the traditional belief that it is a secure job. As long as you do your job well, you should be able to stay employed for your whole career without the threat of sudden layoff. This is huge to many people. Now, even that is under attack by anti-government groups.
To argue this counter pay gap supposition is ridiculous. Cato, you may want to check the performance standards -- value added -- metrics for your staff. Somebody is wasting your time --- big time!
-
16779
$100,178 per employee? Okay, where's mine?
As the old saying goes "You can prove anything with statistics." The first rule for the scientific world is that in evaluating a statistical report, you must understand the perspective of the compiler. What the author believes often creates a self-fulfilling prophecy and this guy had a big agenda.
Let's check some facts. IAW "Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics The Fact Book 2004 Edition," consider an average civil servant, GS-9, age 46.7 years, making $57,704 (as of 2003) and compare that against the average pay in DC of $75,817, and a commensurate cost of living.
For your consideration:
1. The data used was antiquated, 20 years old. FERS was still in relative transition. Most of the data was from CSRS employees who, admittedly, had a generous retirement benefit. That's why the government changed it.
2. Most of the benefits used in the "plus-up" of the government's statistical estimate are participatory. That is, the employee must contribute to participate and benefit, reducing their take-home pay. The difficulty with such programs is that those who will be most in need of such support are also those least able to contribute.
3. The medical benefit used in the author's calculation was not only participatory but also solicited under a competitive commercial bid. That is, any savings realized by the benefiting population will be achieved on a per-unit-basis by a commercial entity. All intelligently run special interest groups, AARP for one example, negotiate such deals for their populations.
This author has released a document that has been overcome by events, merely to prove his point. The government employee of today no longer has the generous benefits, stable working environment, or lush benefits of the past; or of corporate America. And in all honesty, that working environment is becoming less so every day.
Tip off.
-
16777
I have seen some really stupid articles. This is the best so far!
-
16774
I notice that Mr. Edwards based this on a 1985 study. I wonder if he bothered to take into account that was in the early Reagan years. As I recall, there was a big push at that time for parity between federal and civilian sector employees, and parity had almost been achieved. Of course, it's been all downhill ever since with only lip service being paid to the parity issue. Apparently Mr. Edwards is one of those people whose main philosophy is -- I know what I know, and don't confuse me with facts that dispute what I know, because I can't be bothered to check up to date information.
PROMO RIGHT: EVENTS
UPCOMING WEBINARS
NOVEMBER 18
Speed bumps for Teleworking: What are they and how to avoid them?
DECEMBER 3
Achieve Program Success: Unlock the Management Information in Your Data
DECEMBER 10
Practical Transparency: Applying Exchange Networks for Mission Results
PROMO RIGHT: DIRECTORIES
Post a Comment
To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.