| For feds, more get 6-figure salaries Average pay $30,000 over private sector |
|
|
Friday, December 11, 2009
Ain't life grand
21 comments:
-
Anonymous said...
-
As someone who has a federal job that hasn't had even a true cost of living adjustment for over 6 years after working almost 30 years for the government, I find this story rather... suspect. I doubt the statistic is completely bogus, but I seriously doubt your average run-of-the-mill government worker is really benefitting all this much from these 'high salaries.'
-
12/11/09, 4:01 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
- and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
oy vey ole' -
12/11/09, 4:18 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Follow-up from my earlier (4:01) post:
By the way, I have been offered jobs in the private sector to do what I do in the federal sector that pay four or five times what I'm getting from the federal government.
Of course, I don't work in the IRS, State Department, Census Bureau, Department of the Interior, or Department of Energy; those are the most overpaid government agencies, IMO. (Well, outside of Congress, itself) I only work in National Defense, after all. -
12/11/09, 4:26 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I'll make less actual dollars in '10. That report may account for the big dogs, but the FG grunts are getting poorer.
Anon because I have to be. -
12/11/09, 5:25 PM
-
Alear said...
-
Fire the government, named and anonymous.
-
12/11/09, 6:54 PM
-
dr kill said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
-
12/11/09, 9:11 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
I work for the Marine Corps as a Department of the Navy civilian (I'm also a Marine Corps Reservist). I get paid decently, but not lavishly. I believe that the skew in the statistics presented are in the political and politically influenced hires, largely in Washington....patronage to the administration, pure and simple.
Fred Jameson -
12/11/09, 9:33 PM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
12/11/09, 9:39 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
For the 4:01 post:
Why would someone turn down a 300 % - 400 % raise to jump to the private sector, in order to keep a federal job?
You say that you are in defense, so maybe, but...
Does this sound unusual to anyone? -
12/11/09, 11:16 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
"
Why would someone turn down a 300 % - 400 % raise to jump to the private sector, in order to keep a federal job?"
1. Close to Retirement age.
2. Medical problems that mean you'd never get insured at a new job.
3. Need to relocate, when relocation is effectively impossible (family is the usual reason).
There are many similar reasons. Mostly, by the time you're good enough to be in demand, you have all sorts of constraints that simply getting a higher salary won't offset.
Some times, it's just because you don't want to let the guys you work with down. I know it's hard to believe, but there are some really good jobs in the Govt, usually specialist type ones that never, ever have contact with the public, where you really are doing good, meaningful work.
Steve -
12/12/09, 12:01 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Wow. These comments went off in a direction I wouldn't have expected. I was going to say something about how maybe we should have someone in the administration who could oversee pay raises, bonuses and such and make sure that they didn't get out of line.
GrinfilledCelt -
12/12/09, 3:22 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
adding to Steve's list of reasons to stay in a gov't job:
job security - almost impossible to get fired/laid off
lots less pressure to perform (see earlier note)
a defined benefit pension (in days when most people have no pension that's a biggie) and the fact that it's backed by the gov't means the employee doesn't have to worry about the solvency of his employer [still remember meeting with a groupd of gov't employees re a project we were bidding on and when one of my staff asked what had attracted the govt types to work here even relatively young people began talking about the generous pension benefits)
relatively easy work [after all, if the gov't pays you for 8 hours of work you have to put in at least 20 minutes doing your job]
and so forth
... -
12/12/09, 5:51 AM
-
Rodger the Real King of France said...
-
My dad, a brilliant man who studied at Cambridge University, after graduating De Paul Law School eschewed private practice in favor of a gummint job. Why? "Because during the depression they were the only people with job security." He spent his last 12 OTJ years topped out at GS-15, and without a (frozen) salary increase. When he died 20 years after retirement his gummint pension exceed by far that salary.
-
12/12/09, 6:49 AM
-
Anon because I have to be said...
-
Anonymous ~ once again I must stay Anon, but you're off base a little. There isn't necessarily job security when you have a prez who is cutting department (his "unimportant" ones) money. There ARE people being fired and offered early retirements in order to shrink personnel numbers. I work my azz off, as does everyone in my particular section, because we're at least one person short. And most days, I'm under quite a bit of pressure and end up leaving work on my desk for the next day. We have performance plans and twice yearly reviews, which carry a lot of weight. The notion of lazy gov't workers is antiquated. Just as in the private sector, those with vision are threatened by the prospect of being unemployed by an administration who wants as many people as possible to be destitute and dependent on Big Brother. I am grateful for my job and to the American people whose taxes pay my salary. In my department, your investment is well taken care of.
-
12/12/09, 8:39 AM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Gotta post it:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/
Sez fed pay has increased a lot since 2000. Better than private industry.
I bet Anon is turning down a Blackwater[don't remember new name] type or tech-rep job.
tomw -
12/12/09, 8:55 AM
-
ABIHTB said...
-
Post away, tomw, but as has been said, the hikes in pay have been from the pols rewarding themselves. I can get you a list of my annual cost of living raises, and it's nowhere near the private sector. I live it. Due to insurance increases and tax hikes, I will take home less money in 2010 with a 2% pay increase. Several years ago, when we were receiving a 3-4% raise, it was said that, to equal the private sector, our raise would have to be 12-15%. You want that. Mr. Taxpayer? Didn't think so. Yet you want your programs administered. hm.
-
12/12/09, 11:44 AM
-
Kristophr said...
-
"You want that. Mr. Taxpayer? Didn't think so. Yet you want your programs administered. hm."
Here's a message from Mr Taxpayer:
We want most of the programs to be taken out and fucking shot, and the folks administering them unemployed. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
Cutting government to early 1960 levels ( i.e., a 95% cut in entitlement programs and regulatory crap ) would be a good start.
More money would then be available for important stuff, like defense, police, and roads. -
12/12/09, 3:00 PM
-
ABIHTB said...
-
Wow, Kris (not Kringle, I presume) you're a big fan of unemployment and welfare rolls, I see. What if my job is one YOU deem necessary? Not all gubmit jobs can be "shot". In fact, I believe in my department, it's much the same size as it was in the 1960s. I'd think that, for your money, you'd like me to be doing something instead of taking a handout. Police are not paid with federal funds. Someone at the state level is mismanaging roads money, and I'm the biggest fan of big defense spending there is. I'm happy with my job and to be getting any kind of pay raise. Believe me, YOU wouldn't work for negative returns. Enjoy your private sector job and Merry CHRISTmas.
-
12/12/09, 3:26 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
This is the 4:01 Anon again:
For the record, while I did say 'defense,' I did not say 'military.' To explain it one way, at least one of the jobs I did not take (that turned out to be a VERY wise decision) was with ENRON (back when I was working as a liason to the Department of State, dealing extensively with Turkey). Never been contacted by Blackwater.
Also, a number of the jobs I get offered involve moving, sometimes even moving out of the country.
What happens in some parts of the government is the entry-level positions are slightly overpaid compared to private sector counterparts, the mid-level and lower-tier executive positions (i.e., the people who actually are supposed know what they're doing) are underpaid, often severely, compared to private sector counterparts, and senior-level executives are either severely overpaid or severely underpaid depending on where they are and what agencies they're a part of. -
12/12/09, 3:37 PM
-
Anonymous said...
-
Rodj, the old Federal system was indeed generous. FERS, the new system....not so much. 1% of averaged final 3 years base pay per year of service.
Why stay in Federal Service? For me, it's because it serves the needs of the Nation and the Marine Corps. I get to work with Marines, on Marine Corps policy and affairs, and I get to travel around the world.
In some areas, especially military, Bush-Clinton restricted and reduced military end-stengths while increasing commitments and operational tempo around the world. The Services reacted predictably, by hiring Officer-level expertise to replace the guys they didn't have any more. For me, that means 50+% travel away from home, 10-12 hour days, and all the rest. Not a plea for pity, I savor my job and it's direct impact on security of the Nation in the Pacific.
Fred Jameson -
12/12/09, 11:50 PM
-
Kristophr said...
-
Our goddamned money, dude. Not yours.
At least unemployment goes away in a year. As for welfare, fuck off and starve if you wont work. -
12/13/09, 2:16 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)