You asked me to check FedSmith. Here is what they said:
SEE HERE: https://www.fedsmith.com/2012/03/25/average-federal-salary-lowest-average-pay/
According to BEA data, the average federal employee salary in 2010 was $83,679 and $51,986 for the average private sector salary.
When benefits are added in, the average compensation for each federal employee comes to $126,141. For private sector workers, the average compensation package, including benefits, was $62,757 for the same year.
And then here:
“Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations….Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.”
I would assume that accountants, nurses, chemists and surveyors are bachelor degreed professions.
So, how does FedSmith contradict Heritage?
...many federal employees are now outside of the general schedule pay system and their agency budgets are often derived from fees they collect from regulated industries. Employees in these agencies often have higher salaries than employees in the same job classification for other agencies. That contributes to a higher overall salary level.
Many agencies have outsourced things such as admin staff, technicians, etc., and therefore the "average" remaining government employee pay is higher.
Further, the "on average" numbers that you have shown do not normalize for things such as job, length of service, etc.
Further, just because you show benefits as an income, those are promised benefits - in other words unfunded liabilities. There is NO guarantee that said employee will actually receive all the promised benefits.
To wrap up: the "on average" numbers you like to show are meaningless -- because the averaging is done too broadly without normalizing for things like the actual job, etc. as I have stated before.
Have a nice day.