Posted on 04/29/2010 5:38:30 PM PDT by NoLibZone
For decades, public sector unions have peddled the fantasy that government employees were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector. In fact, the pay disparity is the other way around. Government workers, especially at the federal level, make salaries that are scandalously higher than those paid to private sector workers. And let's not forget private sector workers not only have to be sufficiently productive to earn their paychecks, they also must pay the taxes that support the more generous jobs in the public sector.
Data compiled by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee's benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer's benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.
The situation is the same when state and local government compensation data is compared with that of the private sector. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards notes in the current issue of the Cato Journal, "The public sector pay advantage is most pronounced in benefits. Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that average compensation in the private sector was $59,909 in 2008, including $50,028 in wages and $9,881 in benefits. Average compensation in the public sector was $67,812, including $52,051 in wages and $15,761 in benefits." Those figures likely underestimate the true gap on the benefits side because the typical government employee gets a guaranteed defined benefit pension under very generous terms, while the private sector norm is a 401(K) defined contribution plan that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy.
With the federal deficit and national debt heading into the stratosphere, taxpayers can no longer afford to support such lucrative government compensation. Public sector pay and benefits at all levels should be reduced to make it comparable to the wages and benefits earned by the average working taxpayer. The first politician to propose a five-year plan for this purpose is likely to be cheered mightily by taxpayers.!
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Want-to-get-rich_-Work-for-feds-92316619.html#ixzz0mXVNpUiS
These numbers mean nothing. The Federal Government is top-heavy with jobs that require a college education or beyond. There are comparatively few jobs in the minimum wage area and only a few more in the ‘pink collar’ section.
But it makes for a good post, I’ll give you that
Rather stay poor than sell my soul to the commie rat bastards.
Some conservatives are foolishly attacking government employees. As you wrote, this “study” was done with a political agenda in mind. Of course government workers have a higher average salary than the private sector.
Government employees are not the enemy. Conservatives are NOT anarchists. Someone has to do government work. What do people expect? Should conservatives shun all government work and let the liberals run it all?
There’s no shame in trying to feed one’s family, and many federal jobs are fully constitutional!
Conservatives are NOT anti-government. Conservatives want small government, not no government. If anyone is to blame, it’s voters who elect leaders who create the jobs. If voters stop asking government to fix everything, maybe it won’t need so many employees.
An almost meaningless apples to oranges comparison.
This reminds me of the ridiculous male vs. female earnings comparisons that feminists used to trot out to "prove" discrimination.
Well not really. It appears top heavy because they inflate the positions to pay more.
And then there are the thousands of contractor positions which have been converted to federal employees over the last year.
Best way to make money is to head down to skid row and find the unheathiest drunkest crack and meth addicts you can find and pay them a few hundred bucks to allow you to sign them up for life insurance.
The gov’t is filled with computer programers, engineers, doctors and lawyers - all positions that require much more education than your local cashier at Subway or at the grocery store
And yes, this fact makes the salaries appear inflated
The govt is also full of admins, clerks, bus drivers, security guards, and so forth.
Point is there are FAR too many federal employees. The govt is FAR too big.
But the Federal Government, in 1983, eliminated the more lucrative Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) that provided 2% per year of average of the high-3 salary. (Actually - 1% per year for the first 5 years, then 2% thereafter, and minimum of 30 years, and minimum of age 55).
The new system - Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) gives only 1% per year ...minimum of 30 years, and minimum age that is 56 (and increasing). Again - average of high 3 years. And both FERS and CSRS don’t allow for including any overtime or other big increases to the salary.
Now - compare the Federal retirement system to those of many states or local governments, where the benefit might be as much as 3% per year, and based on the final year INCLUDING overtime snuck in the final year!
As noted elsewhere - many government employees require college degrees, etc. And rather than doing a sweeping generalization with a broad brush - it would be necessary to compare the salaries of engineers and computer scientists, etc. (which tend to be lower in the Federal Service ...but job stability is better) - or secretarial or other job classifications (which might have much better pay than in the private sector ...and also have better stability/benefits/retirement, etc.)
Military - a special type of Federal Service ....they deserve all the pay and benefits that they are currently getting!
There are not as many admins, clerks, bus drivers etc as there are in the private sector. Facts are stubborn things
The private sector makes a profit. The govt costs us money.
Facts are stubborn things.
Isn’t the post office the single largest employer?
Isn’t the post office a quasi-govt agency? or is it govt at all any more?
CSRS is still around. Congress is still under that plan as well as those employees that didn’t switch.
Interesting point. CSRS employees DO NOT pay into Social Security, they pay into CSRS
You are stealing from us while being part of our oppression, Mr. Federal Layabout. We are the free men and women who refuse what is a ‘sincure’ that takes away freedom from others to ‘enwealthen’ one’s selfish self.
First of all, I’m a she rather than a he
Secondly, I’m not a Federal Employee
Thirdly, Federal Employees are necessary for the running the infrastructure of our nation.
Fourthly, I agree there are too many Federal Employees, but that is because we, the citizens, have allowed it to grow rather than putting our collective feet down and demanding smaller government.
Fifthly, I’m not the enemy here.
To clarify my point ....no new employees could join the Federal Work force and get CSRS benefits after 1983.
So today, workers with less than 26 years of federal service (or those who might have military service - but joined civilian Federal service after 1983) will be on the less lucrative FERS retirement system.
Many states and local governments should do something similar - end the overly generous (and unaffordable) retirement benefits. Maybe they have to do a transition...but sooner rather than later. (And it might be necessary to declare bankruptcy and renegotiate the excessive benefits that are currently being paid out, or will continue to be awarded to many local/state workers.
Correct - CSRS employees don’t pay into Social Security (based on their federal job ...) - and if they do earn 40 quarters credit and get Social Security, there is a deduction/off-set/takeaway since they didn’t pay into Social Security for a major part of their working career.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.