Cato - Gov workers 85% higher pay and benefits vs private sector

Started by taxed, September 26, 2010, 06:57:48 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

taxed

They take and take what is not theirs, and lavish in it.  Nice.

---
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75647

(CNSNews.com) – Forget studies that say federal workers make twice what private sector employees make. Research compiled by analysts at conservative think tanks has found that the average federal employee receives 85 percent more in compensation, including wages and benefits, than private sector employees who perform the same jobs.

Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, has studied the discrepancies between federal compensation and that received by their private sector counterparts and concluded that federal government workers are vastly overpaid.

Edwards said his analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis data clearly shows that wage increases for government workers have far exceeded those of workers in the private sector.

"Overall trends are really dramatic," said Edwards. "Over the last 9 years, average private sector wages and compensation in the U.S. have risen about 30 percent, but average federal wages and compensation have risen about 60 percent."

The typical federal worker received a salary of more than $79,000 in 2008, with benefits raising total annual compensation to more than $119,000. The typical private sector worker received pay of about $50,000, with total compensation just under $60,000.

Edwards was one of three conservative experts who presented their data at a discussion panel held Tuesday at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

James Sherk, a senior policy analyst in labor economics at The Heritage Foundation pointed said that those employed by the federal government not only receive more in compensation they also get other benefits like increased vacation time.

"Let's say you've been in the government for three years," Sherk said. "In addition to sick leave and 10 federal holidays, you qualify for 20 days -- four weeks -- of paid vacation a year. There very few private sector workers with four years on the job getting four weeks of paid vacation a year."

Both Sherk and Edwards pointed out that federal government employees are also promoted much more quickly than employees in the private sector. These promotions make it even less likely that employees would leave their government job.

"There have been a number of academic studies and some work from the Congressional Budget Office that shows that the over-promotion of federal employees means that people would generally have to take a step down in position if they left the government and entered the private sector," Edwards said."

Sherk admits that in terms of government spending, cutting back on benefits like government pensions and laying off federal employees would only be a drop in the bucket when viewed as part of long-term deficit reduction.

However, Sherk said that it is possible to take some steps to make the system less costly. Giving jobs like landscaping and security to private firms, moving to a system where government workers are rewarded for merit rather than seniority and bringing federal pay down so that it is closer to what the market offers would all be effective ways to make the system less costly and that these steps would resonate with voters.

"Bring the federal pay in line with what's there in the market," said Sherk. "If they want to stay on that's fine, if they don't want to stay on that's also fine."

"We found that when governments attempt to make their long-term budget outlook more promising, one of the best predictors of them being able to do that is being able to reduce government pay and at least bring it down to market levels.  When they do that they establish legitimacy with the voters.  Voters understand that they are serious about these things."

Edwards said that the federal government should not hesitate to lay workers off during recessions as many private sector businesses are forced to do. He also recommended a temporary pay freeze for federal employees and said that Congress should hire a private firm like Price Waterhouse to conduct an audit of the federal government in order to determine where the government could make cuts.

Sherk was quick to point out that the recent recession has only increased the number of employees on the federal rolls and the job security that this provides during difficult economic times serves as a huge incentive for people to seek government employment.

"Federal employments are up 10 percent," he said. "If you're in the federal government you have not felt this recession. Federal employees don't want to go into the private sector where they might feel it. It goes to show that by their very own actions they're demonstrating that they think they're getting a better job in government."

"If you're in the public sector you've felt basically nothing of the recession," he added.
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solars Toy

I found this article interesting and informative.  I noted it was only Federal employees they tracked. 

As a government employee - not Federal - I can tell you that I have had no raises or even cost of living increases in 3 years.  Last year I had to also tack on 1 furlough day per month.  We are waiting to see if they will implement it mid year for us again. 

So obviously not all Government employees are getting this deal. :-\
I pray, not wish because I have a God not a Genie.

Dan

Maybe this is why I never seem to hear Democrats talk about shared sacrifice anymore.
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.

republicans2

I work for the federal government.  The numbers, based upon my salary, are a little off with the total benefits but not by that much.  For the first three years you accrue 4 hours annual leave per pay period (26 in all).  From years 3-15 you get 6 hours per pay period.  After that you get 8 hours per pay period.  For the GS pay scale you have 10 steps to get to the top of your pay scale.  Steps 1-3 you get an increase yearly with a satisfactory job rating.  Steps 3-7 you get an increase once every two years.  Steps 8-10 every three years.  There are pay awards you can receive that include what is called a Quality Step Increase that will increase your pay by one step if you get an outstanding evaluation AND, put in for the award AND accepted by whomever is in charge of the facility/agency (at least in my agency).  As a federal employee, I am treated very well as long as I do what is asked of me and follow the rules and laws.  Even with union participation, employees that don't follow some pretty simple rules are dealt with harshly.  I have had quite a few people that worked in my facility end up in prison for misconduct.  The most severe just got a sentence for over 10 years (but then offended once again while in prison for what amounts to a lifetime sentence).  Retirement is different for me than most.  I get 1.7% times 20 years then 1% for every year after 20.  Most employees get 1% for each year regardless.   

Dan

And that's where the disparity really comes into play. I doubt the gross pay is different by a level of 85%, but when you factor in sterling health plans and pension plans I could never dream to see in the private sector, then you can probably come to these costs fairly easily.

Also for those of you who work for state or municipal governments, think of the health and retirement packages you guys have too. For example, I have a sister and brother in law who work in a hospital owned by the state. They will each have their 30 years in by their early 50s and then most likely draw sweet pensions for another 25-35 years. That kind of payout has to be factored in any compensation package used in the comparison. And since no private plans offer anything comparable, I really believe this is where the disparity lies.

So the solution is easy. Public sector workers need to get health insurance and pensions that are more in line with what the private sector offers. That will probably clear up the majority of the difference all by itself.  ;)
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.

Solar

Quote from: Dan on September 27, 2010, 07:36:49 AM
And that's where the disparity really comes into play. I doubt the gross pay is different by a level of 85%, but when you factor in sterling health plans and pension plans I could never dream to see in the private sector, then you can probably come to these costs fairly easily.

Also for those of you who work for state or municipal governments, think of the health and retirement packages you guys have too. For example, I have a sister and brother in law who work in a hospital owned by the state. They will each have their 30 years in by their early 50s and then most likely draw sweet pensions for another 25-35 years. That kind of payout has to be factored in any compensation package used in the comparison. And since no private plans offer anything comparable, I really believe this is where the disparity lies.

So the solution is easy. Public sector workers need to get health insurance and pensions that are more in line with what the private sector offers. That will probably clear up the majority of the difference all by itself.  ;)
This is not meant to pick on Gov workers, but there needs to be some kind of scale.
I was installing a solar deep well pump for this very very wealthy retired guy.
I told him I could save him a grand, if he wanted to wire the solar panels and assemble the rack.
When I showed up ready to hook it all up, he had it all screwed up, I had to totally rewire the thing, not only wrong connections, but the wrong wire gauge and type.

When I asked what he did for a living that allowed him the ability to live on 100 acres of prime land with a lake, indoor pool and antique car collection, all housed in a 25000 sq' mansion, he said he retired as an electrician for the State of Ca.

Electrician? I said! he told me his primary job was to make sure all new jobs had the supplies before any new electrical wirin was to begin.
In other words, he was a freakin gopher.

That's just wrong!!!
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Dan

I agree. Pay scale is an issue. But I stand behind my earlier statement that the disparity between health and pension benefits is a huge part of the difference. And since the various levels of government are all going broke, maybe now is the time to scale back their lavish health and retirement benefits and give them things more in line with what is offered in the private sector.

I think that would do a huge amount towards closing the gap.
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.

Solar

Quote from: Dan on September 27, 2010, 08:11:55 AM
I agree. Pay scale is an issue. But I stand behind my earlier statement that the disparity between health and pension benefits is a huge part of the difference. And since the various levels of government are all going broke, maybe now is the time to scale back their lavish health and retirement benefits and give them things more in line with what is offered in the private sector.

I think that would do a huge amount towards closing the gap.
It would also lower the cost of health care across the board for all of us.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Dan

Perhaps. The most direct way to lower healthcare costs is to do away with state mandates on coverage and allow people to buy what they want and need.

In my state each woman I ensure costs an extra $125-175 per month because of state mandates of coverage for maternity insurance for all women under the age of 50. So a woman with no uterus who is also a 48 year old lesbian still has to have maternity insurance.

All these mandates do is subsidize the cost of one person by partially transferring the cost to someone else. And that's bullshit. If you want maternity insurance then you buy it. And if you don't then you don't buy it.

The mandates are the reason why it costs 3 times as much to insure someone in New Jersey as opposed to Pennsylvania. Get rid of this one little leftwing sop and it's amazing how many more people will suddenly find private health insurance to be affordable.
If you believe big government is the solution then you are a liberal. If you believe big government is the problem then you are a conservative.