Federal workers earning double their private counterparts

Source: USA Today

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.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

---

The unions will argue education levels are a factor but make no mistake, in this environment, this data is not helpful for those advocating for taxes increases and against federal budget cutting.

In a time of economic distress and deficits, there should be sharing - especially those for whom that last decade has been a blessing.

I remember speaking to someone who worked at a Best Buy near a Ford plant. She hated unions. Why? There were people there, according to her, 'sweeping floors for twice what I make'. She's mad, at people doing labor, making more than her. The Royal Scam is complete when the victims support the cause. Not ONE iota of anger at the real culprits. Non-union Best Buy. Upper management and owners who don't think she deserves more than minimum wage (and would lower her pay if it was lower).

Ask how she feels about the VP's for that company getting over a million, and the CEO getting millions in pay yearly, I didn't, but if she was GOP, I'd bet she'd say: "What, you don't like capitalism". Amazing. We cannot solve the biggest single problem in America since Reagan got elected, the one trillion a year shifting from the bottom 99% to the top 1%, until we stop getting mad at each other (fellow victims of this) and unite to stand up to the elite, and their enablers.

.

AND federal pay is largely location-based, and DC area demands higher pay then most 'elsewheres.'

Also, part of these numbers are undoubtedly related to value of Federal Employees Health Benefits.

'average pay and benefits of $123,049'

I'm a retired fed, and my husb is a fed; he's at the upper end, so I know something about fed numbers.

AHA!

•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.

Feds changed pension scheme 20? years ago, so now feds MATCH 'ee contributions; that's prolly where the big # comes from.

I wish my average pay was HALF of what the liars at USA Today allege. I have 32 years in with Social Security and I come nowhere near half that!

And so on.

It called Bullshit, and the CATO Institute shovels it all day long...

and how much should we cut pay of doctors at the VA?

smart guy. :eyes:

nt

Air traffic controllers may not have a private counterpart, but doctors do. So do the many clerks and secretaries who work for the federal government.

I don't care if they even things out by raising the private sector or by lowering the public sector or by splitting the difference. I'm just saying you cannot justify asking taxpayers to foot double the bill profit making employers foot, especially when taxpayers have no say over who gets hired or fired, who works overtime, etc.

No earthly way that could be true, especially since mos doctors I know of (not a scientific study I know) have invested in all kinds of medical facilities so that they get a cut of every test they order.

And, you have to look at my post in the context of the post to which I was replying.

However, since you bring it up, remember, these are averages and bases on employee wages and fringe benefits, not clinics in which doctors have invested, which is a whole other issue from compensation. Federal employeess are free to make money from investments, too. If they do, it's not considered part of their compensation, either.

Back to averages: Some octors in some parts of the country make a pittance and some plastic surgeons in and around Hollywood rake it in. And not all doctors who work for the government are in V.A. hospitals, either.

The OP article does not give a lot of detail, but the Bureau seems to have compared one work force with the other, period, not profession by profession.

Let's have a race to the bottom!

:sarcasm:

And you want to cut government salaries so we can spread the love?

:eyes:

"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."

This is a bullshit job from Grover Norquist and his friends at the Cato institute. It's all apples to oranges and their is no balancing for skill level. It just lumps all federal employees like judges together with all private sector workers, including custodial. This I why my fathet used to tell me "figures don't lie but liars can figure" Actually having worked for both I can the federal government pays less, but offers more security and decent benefits. They don't provide any raw data but I suspect
they pulled a lot of this out of their ass. I know if you like at professions they government pay is below average for doctors, accountants, engineers and scientists.

You see, back when the United States clung to a sheen of honesty, federal employees were guaranteed a number automatic cost of living increases.

The reason for that, of course, is that any time someone publishes the salary of government employees, someone--including Members of Congress--gets the bright idea to take away that hard earned money from the employees who deserve it. That idea runs parallel with the concept that the government can help set the standard for wages by paying an honest salary to the employees the government hires. That way, the government either attracts the very best workers in the field, or corporations have to compete to get the very best by offering competitive wages themselves.

That's why a fucking evil moron like George W. Bush was all about denying wage increases to government employees: because it's a wise thing to do, and he and his people wouldn't know wise if it crapped in their laps. He tried to cut wage increases 2007 (at the same time he tried to deny a combat pay increase to soldiers in the field), and if I recall correctly, the cost-of-living increase was left out of every Bush budget projection for seven years running, so they could blame Congress for "pork barrel spending."

Oh, you deserve what those government employees are getting too, I'm sure. But you work for a sociopathic entity that pays its upper leadership in bonuses collected from the wages they can divert away from you. Or that sociopathic entity fired you. Or cut back your hours to part time. And stole your 401K.

Private workers' pay has dropped by half, whereas Fed workers pay has not.

Discrepancy is a sign of how private companies, unconstrained by unions, have lowered wages especially with respect to dramatic productivity gains.

(See also: undocumented workers tolerated/encouraged by business owners.)

top salaries are capped and kept low by public information. Private business execs can do whatever the heck they want with no scrutiny. So the income gap for the public sector is in line with what's fair. Dana ; )

in the figure for the public sector and in the figure for the private sector.

data was included. Did it include all salaries in the private sector to get the average. Did it include all compensation in the private sector to get the average. What were the highest and lowest salaries for each sector ... what does that gap show. I believe that the government compensation structure is more equitable against the labor performed than what we get in the private sector. Dana ; )

was that the Bureau of Economic analysis was comparing the entire federal work force (federal) (other than elected officials and independent contractors, from Blackwater to economic consultants) with all private sector employees.

"I believe that the government compensation structure is more equitable against the labor performed than what we get in the private sector."

I've been a public employee (not federal, though) and a private employee. As a workaholic in both sectors (then, not now), I don't think there was a perfect match between effort and compensation in either sector, but I do think coastiing can be easier in the public sector.

I'm talking about an executive of a private corporation making 300 times more than an average employee. Does the executive coast too? I'm unsure what you are implying about federal government employees. It would be nice to be able to coast occasionally. I'm not going to bash labor, whether it's public or private. Dana ; )

when I was self employed and managed me, myself and I. My parents were labor, too. All of us were union.

If saying what I observed is bashing labor in your eyes, that's on you.

I have no love for anyone who makes several hundred times what their average employee makes.

Fed workers get raises that are set on what was a "conservative" representation of what the prevailing trend was in private like industries. That the private sector decided to only reward those at the top and stomp on those in the middle and lower is unfortunate. It does not mean we need to scapegoat Fed workers.

the generous benefit packages of federal workers, can no longer afford to pay for federal workers.

approximately $5300 per year overall cost and the employee picks up 28% of that cost.

and nevermind that the lawyers who work for the gov't helping regulate industries are paid far less than if they joined industry and helped companies skirt those rules.

as for other benefits, what are they? i'd like a list.

is being compared with total compensation, including all fringe benefits, in the private sector. So, I'm not sure what a breakdown adds.

I don't get a stingy benefit package let alone a generous one! Luckily, my spouse and I have health insurance through his AT &T retirement package (although they've slashed that as well)otherwise, I'd be paying about $500 out of my not-so-generous salary monthly for us to have healthcare. Where in the heck did you get that "generous" idea from??????

before I get all excited.

I'm wary of anything that says that we all need to join the race to the bottom... the race to Bangladesh-style wages.

If I remember correctly, not many years ago, the roles were reversed... private sector wages were much higher. Now that the private sector has screwed the pooch, they want the public sector to suck hind tit along with them.

job security than public employees, and fewer fringe benefits. And the federal government has yet to screw employees out of their pensions, ala Enron.

It's a myth and they know it.

Race to the bottom would suit republicans just fine. Damn uppity workers.

Lawyers, engineers and scientists are almost always paid less than private counterparts. Many of these people use the Feds to gain marketable experience. This especially true in intelligence. Go to work for the government and get experience and a clearance then move to a lucrative contract job. In other occupations like historians and librarians, the government pays more than private sector. Location is a big factor also.

Too bad I'm totally unsuited for such a life....

then eventually the US will have exactly the same issues as Greece, France and the UK.

workers without the generous federal benefits packages we are responsible to pay for the federal workers...we are headed the way of Greece.

understates the real world (medical expenses, health insurance costs, local taxes)) so the real news this data depict is how much pay in the private sector has lagged increased productivity and profitability: pay increases have almost exclusively gone to those at the top. Moreover, a goodly portion of the federal work-force is comprised of professionals where pay has not lagged as much in the private sector.

And similar work was compared, too.


"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.

most of this period of time was during junior's reign. Finally, there are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics. PS, having retired from Federal service in '96, all I can say is what a damn fool I was not not stay on to get on the upcoming Bush gravy train. :P

I am not vouching for accuracy of the article. (Notice my post said the article "claims..."

I think, though, if we are going to discuss the article, we have to at least start from what it actually does say, then disprove it, if we can.

from the US unemployed rolls.

That average is just that. An average is based on federally employed Doctors, Lawyers, FBI agents, AT&F, Judges, etc..etc... Guaranteed the guy they want to go after is the mailroom clerk, janitors, etc..etc...

This is complete bullshit comparing apples to oranges.

An average is an average in both groups, from the mail room messenger or photocopy room staff to doctors, lawyers, research scientists, etc. to the AIG execs.

And total compensation in the private sector includes executive salaries, bonuses, stock options, etc.

I could find nothing in the article that showed the methodology. Thanks! Dana ; )

with average total compensation of private employees. Stands to reason neither average figure represents mail room salaries.

when everyone's poor it will all be fair!

:wtf:

compensation, either.

i base all my decisions on what's printed in USA Today. :eyes:

"the OP article claims..." or "According to the OP article..." Phrases like that show I am not assuming the OP article is correct. However, I can respond to a statement like this "that's the solution --make sure everybody makes less money!," regardless of whether the OP article is sound or not.

Meanwhile, you make up something like "you're sure the study is right" and then ridicule your own concoction. Building those straw men just so you can tear them down seems like a waste of energy, but, to each his or her own, I guess.

My salary is sig. lower than what Id make in the private sector.

The difference is I have a small pension (and I do mean small) on CSRS.

Part of CSRS depends on social security (added to your total pension) + TSP (= 401k)

My Benefits? I have good health insurance BC ... I pay through the nose for it.

And ITS MORE expensive than my wife's - works in industry.

As for DENTAL (doesn't exist in the government) neither does vision. There are no national agreements for it.

I'll say it again ... this article smells of hidden agenda.

Looks like a comparison of apples to oranges. Experience and education will get you a higher salary. How can you try to make this comparison without adjusting for experience and education? I went to the BEA website and was not able to find this survey. Something seems fishy here.

$30K (50%) of the difference is benefits. This would be health care benefits and retirement contributions.



The really good federal retirement is long gone (CSRS...50% of salary at 30 yr retirement). Now, there's a government match to contributions, plus SS.

My experience working in government is that most employees could make a lot more money in the private sector, but choose to work for the government for benefits, job security and working conditions. Everyone can make this choice, with the right experience and education for the available jobs. Isn't this the American dream?

"Looks like a comparison of apples to oranges"

Not necessarily. Not considering education and experience at all, one way or the other, does not automatically mean that everyone in the private sector is less educated and experienced than everyone in the public sector.

"$30K (50%) of the difference is benefits. This would be health care benefits and retirement contributions."

What's your point? total compensation is total compensation--and public sector wages alone are still higher than private sector wages alone, when the opposite should be the case, for some of the very reasons you cite--better working conditions, greater job security, security that the pension earned will actually be paid on retirement.

"Everyone can make this choice, with the right experience and education for the available jobs."

"the available jobs" being the key words. The federal government does not have enough jobs for everyone and certain people have an advantage. So, no, everyone isn't able to choose a government job. But that's beside the point anyway.

The point is, why the hell should government employees be making total compensation that is twice as great as the total compensation of taxpayers working in the private sector?

Read the other posts. There are no burger flippers in government, few minimum wage jobs. Averaging these in for comparison leads to the results seen in the article. Most federal workers can make more $$ in the private sector. They stay for working conditions, job security and good health benefits. Probably 75% of the government paid health premiums go directly to the insurance companies. Federal workers never see that money. Retirement is SS plus a savings plan matched by the government, hardly better than comparable private sector jobs, with stock options and bonuses. To repeat, isn't this the American Dream rather than something to be angry about?


You wrote...
"$30K (50%) of the difference is benefits. This would be health care benefits and retirement contributions."

What's your point? total compensation is total compensation--and public sector wages alone are still higher than private sector wages alone, when the opposite should be the case, for some of the very reasons you cite--better working conditions, greater job security, security that the pension earned will actually be paid on retirement.
-----------------------------------------------------------

My point is that half of the described perks are health care and retirement contributions. Would you like this to be worse? Are you really against good health care programs and good retirement programs? Federal retirement is SS plus an employer matched savings plan. Would you really like this to be less? Regarding wages, private sector wages (and benefits) are much higher, in my experience. The article is flawed.

"Read the other posts."

I have. Many unsupported statements. Posting something does not make it so.

"There are no burger flippers in government, few minimum wage jobs."

You've never eaten in a cafeteria in a federal building? Never seen anyone mopping the floors in a federal building? Never seen anyone whose job it was to make copies? Or to run errands, or serve as a messenger? Rest room attendant in a federal courthouse? If not, your experience of federal offices and buildings in D.C and the individual states is very different from mine.

"Probably 75% of the government paid health premiums go directly to the insurance companies. Federal workers never see that money. Retirement is SS plus a savings plan matched by the government, hardly better than comparable private sector jobs, with stock options and bonuses."

AGAIN, they supposedly compared total compensation of federal employees with total compensation of private sector employees total commpensation includes everything an employee gets, except reimbursement of actual out of pocket expenditures That means wages; health coverage, if any; pension, if any; and any other compensation, such as free meals or lodging. In the private sector, total compensation would also include stock options. It may or may not also include things like paid vacation days.

And, comparing total compensation of federal employees with total compensation of private sector employees, they found the b] total compensation of federal employees was double b] total compensation of private sector employees. Yu can argue that the Bureau is lying or mistaken, but just reciting the specifics of federal health insurance or pensions doesn't get us there.

"My point is that half of the described perks are health care and retirement contributions." No, that was what you said. I asked you what the purpose of saying that was. Simply repeating what you said doesn't explain your reason for saying it.

You now said the study is flawed, so I assume your point was, if the pension and health benefits are so meager, federal employees
can't possibly be making twice what private employees make. Well, maybe. But the article also says federal salaries alone are higher than private salaries alone.

I am not saying the article is right or wrong. I am just saying salaries in both sectors should be roughly equal for equal work. As a lesser point, I am also saying that the article doesn't give us nearly enough info to draw conclusions.

"Would you like this to be worse? Are you really against good health care programs and good retirement programs? Federal retirement is SS plus an employer matched savings plan. Would you really like this to be less?"

Ridiculous. My asking you to elaborate on one sentence in your post doesn't make me Simon Legree, ffs.

People do not leave those jobs (and they are not laid off as often). Private sector employees are subject to the whims of their employers. Because of outsourcing, layoffs, etc, I would bet that most people in the private sector move around from job to job a lot more often and get paid less as a result. You stay in a job for a while, eventually you will move to the top of the career ladder, with the higher pay.

that jobs in the public sector are so secure is a reason to pay less in the public sector, not more.

it is a two-bit union. The Federal workers have an even bigger of a two-bit union. They have no real rights so to speak of.

Too bad they aren't unionized. Maybe their jobs would be better and the workers won't have to put up with all of the crap I had to put up with for 10 long years of going nowhere. :puke:

Damn those unions eh? :mad:

Many states actually have laws AGAINST public workers unionizing.

state employees and their unionizing don't come into it--not for purposes of the OP article, anyway.

Can get their income level up to the Federal average.
How about this headline. Organized Federal workers manage to keep pace with inflation while disorganized private industry employees get the shit kicked out of them. I like that.

The government has lots and lots of jobs where you need a college degree. They are going to pay more. There are a lot of private sector jobs such as McDonalds, that don't even require a high school diploma, so they are obviously going to pay less.

How does pay compare among people with similar job titles. I would be much more interested in that statistic.

a private practice Lawyer? How about Doctors or a FBI special agent compared to a city detective, keep in mind a FBI agent is either a lawyer of an accountant before they can become a special agent.

But, you're right: we don't have enough info.

now if they kept it up, or even if the founders still own the company. Originally, no salary could be higher X times the salary of Ben and Jerry's lowest paid employee.

Of course, that is not as sweet as it sounds because some employees owned stock in addition to getting a salary; and the stock came to be worth a lot.

and no, I am not a federal employee. As a matter of fact I work for myself but I can see the difference between who's getting screwed and who is about to get screwed.

groups to continue doing whatever they please. I am sure it's no coincidence that we are hearing this now, when Obama {theoretically} wants an increase of only 1.4% and the Republicans want no increase at all.

•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.

Is that private employers can't print their own money. We have no mechanism that allows us to raise revenue by forcing people to pay us.

the printing press is only there to continue supplying dollars to the big banks to keep them capitalized so they can then borrow more money from the Fed at practically no interest and loan it out to businesses and people at much higher interest rates and pocket the profits at taxpayer expense.

has a mechanism for spending more money. Print more or raise taxes. Sure, I can raise prices in order to raise wages but I can't force someone to purchase my product (I don't have an insurance company) or pay higher prices.

Department heads don't pay rent, buy supplies, or meet payroll. The federal government does that for each and every department.

there's a thing called...budgets.

What's not to like??

than my govie boss, and both of us had experience and PhDs.

A statement of absolutism, thus denying the statement itself.

"Bulletproof jobs, cushy salaries and raises, guaranteed lifetime pensions and benefits"
Sounds exactly like what the free market sector promised everyone. I imagine many people have bought that bill of goods over years and called it The American dream.

"What's not to like??"
That the private sector can rescind their contractual obligations to employees while the government does not.

You sound like you'd fit right in over in Freeperville.

I smell something .... :nuke:

Let's be honest here about what actually happened.

Set the example Republicans.

You add the highest paid civil servant's salary to the lowest paid and divide by two--that's the average, but it doesn't tell you much about what most civil servants make. You'd need the median salary to do that--the point at which the greatest number of civil servants' salaries cluster. The study also doesn't tell us much about what kinds of private sector employees we're talking about--certainly if you add the salaries of CEOs to the equation, that would change things. Then you'd get an average private sector salary in the millions. The local paper did this at our university last year, and came up with an "average" salary+benefits package of $109,000 for tenured profs. Of course, the university Chancellor is a tenured professor in history; many of the other highly paid administrators are also given tenure when they're hired. The median salary is around $55k; which is actually kind of pathetic.

Just goes to show that one can cherry pick the data to say just about anything.

If we outsource all of the low cost Federal Employees. Then what is left is only the highly paid, highly skilled Federal Employees. For the same reasons a Medical Doctor would ask how their pay compares to the average. Don't expect to compare "Fed Employees" to "Private Employees". But compare Fed MD to Private MD. Fed Intelligence annalist to private, Fed Engineer to private, etc.

As an educated private-sector employee, from my experience at least, government salaries aren't even close to competitive for the same work. Government work is where people go for security when private sector work is scarce, but when private sector work picks up again, back into the real world they go. I'd bet that most of the discrepancy is exactly where the article says it is -- there are few government employees that do the low-paid "grunt work" that brings down the average for the private sector.

The only meaningful statistic is a direct comparison broken down by the type of work done. If the government pays a premium for their software developers over private sector software developers, that's something we can do something about. If they pay more for software developers than the private sector pays for waiters, that's not an issue.

They don't bother with the outrageous bonuses to CEOs and the ridiculous 300xs CEO to worker salary ratio and how that's had a long term adverse affect against the private sector work-force's pay and benefits.

USA Today would rather divert attention to government workers, because they believe this will be a Republican issue allowing Republicans back in to power to drag down federal workers as opposed to holding CEOs and the mega wealthy accountable while lifting up the private sector workers.

This is just a red flag being waved by USA Today to take attention away from the sword.

Thanks for the thread, TheWebHead.

You are very right!

I worked for the Feds for 10 long years. Starting salary was $2.88 an hr. Ending salary was about $9.00 an hr. if that.

The benefits were not that great - no dental insurance and if you wanted the good health coverage you had to pay a lot for it. Hence, I ended up with a cheap HMO.

My mother retired from the U.S. gov't as well. Her "hefty pension" was all of $750.00 a month. She got $160.00 from Social Security. She was a retired secretary that had been downgraded to a mail room clerk after she got too old to be pretty and useful.

When my mother got sick with cancer, the care she needed WAS NOT COVERED. I paid the bill for the last months of her life, not the U.S. government.

The average two-bit worker gets jack from them, I know this much.

:grr:

With a Masters Degree in MSW (Masters of Social Work) in Psychiatric VA hospitals put in 30 years. When he retired he figured he earned about 60% of what a similar trained civilian employee would have made. His benefits were somewhat higher but not nearly on par.

On a similar note, my mother had a double Masters, early childhood education and handicapped child education. When she retired after nearly 30 years of teaching she made just about what what a private sector employee made 5 years after graduation.

Is it time for the government to finally offer good wages and benefits to highly qualified employees? If wages and benefits are always lower then while some good workers will stay with government jobs. But more and more job applicants will have to take what's left, lower paying jobs offered by governments around the country.

I don't have any factual basis to dispute this study. I just find it difficult to believe that the average federal worker's wage is that high compared to the private sector. If anything, this may have been misreported and the median wage was supposed to have been cited. I can see that during the bush years those loyal to the cause had their wages raised. This would cause a trickle down effect, the bosses have their wages hiked and as rewards their sycophants of all levels got raises.

Just saying.

And why disregard the educational differences? Yesterday on MSNBC I saw that most of the difference can be explained by two factors: the federal workforce is both much older and much better educated. Apples and oranges.

Arguments comparing federal pay to CEO pay are bogus.

No way is that a true statistic. Everything I have ever read indicates that government employees make less not more.

Something is fucked up here.

That's a good thing, right? Everyone has the opportunity to get a government job. Some choose to work for the government and, good benefits, not high salary, is one of the reasons.

All current federal employess are under the regular SS system, plus a savings program where contributions are matched.

Salary: sufficient
Benefits: sufficient
Future expectations: limited

I switched to private industry.
Salary: the same
Benefits: better
Future expectations: unlimited

Then I learned about Chapters 9, 11, 13
Salary: none
Benefits: none
Future expectations: Unemployment, S.S.

I now know why CEO's negotiate their severance before they start.

level as well. And of course one reason why public sector workers make more is because of strong public employee's unions. If we can get better penetration of unions into the private sector, then wages there will increase.

that's what all this is about. they are REALLY pushing the meme that public sector workers are so highly paid, with their humungous pensions, "IT'S JUST NOT FAIR"!

The equivalent of comparing the salary of a 30-year civil servant to the starting salary of private industry.

The largest % of gov't workers are boomers, who have only recently started retiring in dribs and drabs AND with 30 - 40 years of service, so to use an "average" is ludicrous. They NEVER even fully implemented the Pay Comparability Act either.

Look up the starting salaries of gov't vs private for similar positions and see how much bull this is.

it doesn't account for a lot of variables that factor into fed salaries

like age, seniority and advanced training / education.

Why have real wages in this country grown zero since 1978 when adjusted for inflation? Why do both adults in a family HAVE to work to get what one wage earner got previously? Why are children 16 and up working in record numbers? Could it be because companies have been truly successful in pounding down workers by scaring them for three decades now about everything in their lives?

It's the Reds! It's the bomb! It's the Russians! It's the Cubans! It's missiles! It's Saddam! It's Osama! It's burkas! RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN, be SCARED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ignore the fact that CEOs used to earn 5 times employee wages and now earn 400 times - they deserve it!
Ignore your health benefits being canceled - the company needs the money worse than you need care! Plus, can't you just splint up little Johnny's collarbone yourself, you lazy fuck?

So we have a military that gets what all the other militaries in the world put together get; we have a debt machine that cranks out billions and billions each week to Treasury bond holders, including big banks ,etc; but when someone is doing okay, tear their ass up! The undeserving pricks! They're not CEOs or government contractors!

So happy that I quit banking in 1978 and simply don't need most of the large money-sucking structures in this country, like debt.

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

We have not been given information we can use. We've been given a red flag and a red herring.

Increases based on inflation have kept their salaries high --

How do they expect to get the best and brightest, when they can't match the government in the free market? Clearly this is why private business is so poorly run, and it needs to be reformed.

http://faq.bea.gov/cgi-bin/bea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=320&p_created=1156971364



IOW, apples and oranges.

The federal professionals I know make a lot less than they would in private employment.

The non professional ones make slightly more but not a lot but have better benefits.

One thing is tenure. For instance Social Security right now is making a big push to hire some new folks because a big % age of their workforce is going to retire soon.

It's comparing Government Engineers to Walmart workers. Hello!