“Overpaying government employees means less economic growth and fewer jobs for everyone else,” as Sherk writes.
Shrek is one smart dude! 
Posted on 07/09/2010 1:25:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
Growing up in Chicago, it seemed everyone knew the route to a safe, secure future: Get a government job. Such jobs offered lower pay but greater security; once on the payroll it was virtually impossible to get fired from a government job.
Well, that last part remains true -- red tape still makes it extremely difficult to get rid of a federal “civil servant,” even if that employee is no longer serving the public well (or at all). But in recent decades, the other half of the equation has changed. Now, federal employees make more -- much more -- than their private sector counterparts.
A recent survey by economists at The Heritage Foundation found that “the average federal employee earns $28.64 an hour compared to $18.27 an hour in the private sector.” That’s more than half-again as much.
Of course, it’s not always easy to compare federal jobs with private sector jobs. There are many federal jobs that don’t exist in the “real world,” (and many that probably shouldn’t exist at all). Still, the Heritage analysis uses two different methods to control for the differences, and finds that federal employees are comparatively overpaid.
And it’s not simply better pay. Federal workers also enjoy better benefits.
These include excellent coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, which contributes 33 percent more toward health care costs than private-sector programs do. Federal workers also enjoy a defined-benefit pension program, something that’s almost unheard of these days in the private sector. Plus, federal employees can retire at age 56, take another job and still collect their full pension.
There’s one more benefit it’s impossible to put a price tag on: job security. “Civil service rules make it difficult to fire federal employees for bad performance once they pass their probationary period,” writes labor expert James Sherk. Probation usually lasts just a single year. Once hired, feds “keep their jobs unless their supervisor works through an arduous process of exhaustively documenting their performance and working through a complex appeal process,” Sherk notes.
And in these recessionary times, Uncle Sam’s about the only one doing much hiring. The federal government has added almost 200,000 jobs since the recession started, while private employers have pared some 8 million net jobs. Federal employees seem to have been protected from the recession.
Federal over-compensation is bad enough simply because we taxpayers are stuck with the bill. But our government is also sending the wrong message. Since it over-pays, it encourages people to work for it even though most federal jobs don’t contribute much to overall economic growth. “Overpaying government employees means less economic growth and fewer jobs for everyone else,” as Sherk writes.
None of this is to claim that all federal employees are overpaid. There are high-performing federal workers who earn less than they would in the private market. Still, lawmakers should begin to apply market principles to the federal payroll, a process that could save up to $47 billion each year -- enough to fund the Departments of Commerce, Interior or Energy.
First, Congress should get rid of the General Schedule, which rewards employees based on their length of service, and replace it with performance-based pay, which would encourage workers to excel.
The federal government should also hire private contractors. Rather than hire, for example, staff assistants who can advance through the ranks and eventually earn $80,000 per year, Washington should contract such jobs out. They’ll be done just as well, and at far less cost.
Congress should also pare back federal benefits to bring them in line with what private sector workers earn. This seems only fair, since it’s private workers who pay the taxes that fund government jobs.
Americans should expect our federal government to be efficient and effective. Reforming the way it pays civil servants would be a good first step.
Eliminate civil service protections for ALL unionized goobermint employees.
Give ‘em a choice - civil service or union - but not both.
Unionized federal employees are a protective layer for elected “representatives.” The classic example of one hand washing the other.
In 1782, Benjamin Franklin wrote, in order to dissuade Europeans from relocating to the United States to get civil service sinecures:
“. . . it is a rule in some of the states that no office should be so profitable as to make it desirable. The thirty-sixth article of the Constitution of Pennsylvania runs expressly in these words: ‘As every freeman, to preserve his independence (if he has not a sufficient estate), ought to have some profession, calling, trade, or farm, whereby he may honestly subsist there can be no necessity for, nor use in establishing offices of profit, the usual effects of which are dependence and servility unbecoming freemen, in the possessors and expectants; faction; contention, corruption, and disorder among the poeple. Wherefore, whenever an office, through increase of fees or otherwise, becomes so profitable as to occasion many to apply for it, the profits ought to be lessened by the legislature.’ These ideas prevailing more or less in all the United States, it cannot be worth any man’s while, who has a means of living at home [i.e., Europe] to expatriate himself in hopes of obtaining a profitable civil office in America; . . . “ (Padover, ed., The World of Our Founding Fathers, New Bicentennial Edition, p. 126-127)
How far we have fallen.
There are few federal employees as a percentage of the total US workforce. I really don’t think this is worth spending much time debating.
There is NO FULL PENSION ever in the federal system ~ not at 56, not at 80, not at any time.
The CSRS retirement system, which is not applicable to anyone hired after 1987, topped out at 80% of your high-three years average salary, and you needed 40 years work.
The federal government, on average, hires people who are 35 years of age. At 56 the employee would have only 21 years service, and his CSRS retirement would have been about 35% of his high three.
The implications of the term "full retirement" is that you retire on "full pay". With 5 years service you can qualify for a very limited retirement payment at 62 (if you come in and leave early ~ typical of so many appointees and Congresscritters). "Full" ain't happening.
I'm sorry, once you get to that BS claim regarding federal retirement that means you are dealing with nothing more than a piece of propaganda or just sheer ignorance, or maybe even stupidity.
“Overpaying government employees means less economic growth and fewer jobs for everyone else,” as Sherk writes.
Shrek is one smart dude!
“The federal government, on average, hires people who are 35 years of age.”
Yes, but you fail to acknowledge that a large percentage of those have other “government” experience by being military veterans and they are allowed to count those years towards their government tenure. So, again, there are MANY who can retire at 56 years of age.
I know of many military veterans who simply “quit” the Marine Corps (let their enlistment run out) and then came back to work doing the EXACT SAME JOB on the following Monday, and were entitled to higher pay and benefits and could fully retire with only five (5) more years of “government” service.
More importantly, the article reads, “...still collect full pension...” It never said that he would receive 100% of his pay. It says collect full pension, which means ALL which they are entitled to, without regards to any other income. Whereas, if you or I retire using SSA, we MUST limit our other income to ensure we do not LOOSE additional monies from SSA.
It is even WORSE for military retirees. They have to PAY for their own medical disabilities out of their retirement. If you are entitled to $80K a year in retirement money, and then you get a 10% disability as well, you don’t get $88K a year. You get $72K in retirement pay, and $8K in tax-free disability pay. You basically have to pay for your own disability! It is ridiculous!!!
My guess is Poundstone or some of these other people above are federal employees or have family members who are. Even Freepers turn into entitlement babies when its their own entitlement being discussed :(
The idea that federal employee retirement plans are no good is simply wrong. My father-in-law worked for the IRS for maybe 25 years, retired at a young age (mid-50s), and seems to be doing just fine. He admits to being “lucky”.
You only need 5 years service to retire at 56. That doesn’t give you an enormous “full pension”.
We know what the technical meaning is, but the writer is using it for propaganda purposes.
Check the posting history and I think you’ll understand why.
I take issue with these federal versus private pay comparisons, because I haven’t yet found one that didn’t have serious flaws. These studies typically have a political agenda and should be taken with a grain of salt unless the comparison involves specific jobs in a given job market. Average federal versus private hourly rate comparisons are very deceptive. Why? Here are a few reasons to consider:
Federal work doesn’t include millions of minimum or low wage, low skill jobs like fast food burger flipping. These jobs certainly distort average hourly wage comparisons.
Many federal workers work in high cost or high risk areas. An employee in Japan, for example, will have a considerably higher annual salary because of cost of living allowances. A worker in Iraq will receive higher pay due to hostile fire and/or extreme work conditions. Higher pay is typically justified in these situations, and these jobs would distort pay comparisons.
On the other hand, many federal jobs aren’t classified correctly for the skills required. For example, answering (non-technical) emails and shuffling paperwork from point A to B, essentially low skill clerk work, doesn’t really require a college degree. Reclassifying these workers into appropriate pay scales for ACTUAL work performed would save many $ billions.
Of course, many (unconstitutional) federal jobs should be completely eliminated and no public service employee should be unionized. There’s certainly a lot of room for improvement, but conservatives are NOT anarchists. Some federal jobs are necessary and even benefit the private sector. Conservatives should want the best people possible in those jobs, and that requires competitive rates of compensation.
Have you seen the hundreds and hundreds of new positions being added in Federal agencies to implement the new laws. Unreal. Many are in the highest brackets....above 100K and very often the 123-155k or up to 176K.
How is this sustainable? Especially when these folks retire and get a substantial portion of their salaries and cost of living increases.
Many of them are retiring right now at 55.
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.