Sign in to follow this  
Azazello1313

McJobs

Recommended Posts

Runways are made of asphalt and with 2 Boeing fields and three Boeing plants to include the largest building in the world, dat be a lot of asphalt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Runways are made of asphalt and with 2 Boeing fields and three Boeing plants to include the largest building in the world, dat be a lot of asphalt

 

 

Bah, the asphalt plane is an idea whose time has come. I AM A VISIONARY, AND BIG JOHN SHALL BE MY HAND ON EARTH.

Edited by Chavez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's add federal workers to this discussion. Obama has added 225,000 more of them at an average salary of $120,000. That adds, per year, 27,000,000,000 - 27 Billion - to the cost of government.

 

Government workers are paid with private taxpayer dollars.

 

The median income in the US is currently $51,413, with an annual tax paid of about $4678. That means that it takes the taxes of 5,771,697 hard working citizens to pay the salaries of the new federal workers. Or about 25 private citizens for each federal employee.

 

And this does not account for their lifetime pensions and healthcare. How is this fair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Average salary of $120,000 shocks me. Is that correct?

 

can't be. that is basically the very top of the federal pay scale. maybe 10% of federal employees make that much, probably more like 5%. I could maybe see that being the average if 120K is the average total employee cost, including health care contributions, employee share of SS, 401k contributions, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that federal workers make a lot of money with lifetime pensions and healthcare. You can argue with the math, but you cannot argue that it is unfair to private sector taxpayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't be. that is basically the very top of the federal pay scale. maybe 10% of federal employees make that much, probably more like 5%. I could maybe see that being the average if 120K is the average total employee cost, including health care contributions, employee share of SS, 401k contributions, etc.

 

 

I am normally on your side, but perhaps you should do a little research before posting that I am wrong. I do not think I am. Read my link. Whatever, Federal Employees cost a lot to taxpayers - forever.

Edited by Lady.hawke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that federal workers make a lot of money with lifetime pensions and healthcare. You can argue with the math, but you cannot argue that it is unfair to private sector taxpayers.

 

 

To be clear I was not arguing with your assertion, just noting that I found the number shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am normally on your side, but perhaps you should do a little research before posting that I am wrong. I do not think I am.

 

 

I know the average federal salary is not 120K from my everyday experience, I don't need to "do research". it still seems a bit high, but I could think it is possible that the total cost per employee per year averages that (including benefits, employer share of SS, etc.), but that is clearly not what you said.

 

also, the federal pension for employees who started after the early 80s is really not that big at all. it's basically your final salary, multiplied by your years of service, divided by 100. so if you work 20 years and end with a salary of $100K, you get a $20K per year pension. it's a nice benefit, considering they also match up to 4% on 401k contributions, but it's hardly the same kind of pension scenario that's bankrupting so many states.

Edited by Azazello1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am normally on your side, but perhaps you should do a little research before posting that I am wrong. I do not think I am. Read my link. Whatever, Federal Employees cost a lot to taxpayers - forever.

 

 

Your link makes a few points:

 

1: The analysis is based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and crudely done by dividing total compensation (salary and benefits) by the number of current federal civilian employees. Comparing such averages is quite misleading, for two reasons:

  • First, BEA says the figure is inflated by including compensation that is actually paid to benefit retirees, not just for current workers. The figure is at least several thousand dollars too high, by our calculations.

  • Second, the average federal civilian worker is better educated, more experienced and more likely to have management or professional responsibilities than the average private worker.

 

2: Officially, the Office of Personnel Management says federal civilian workers on average are paid 24 percent less than private workers — a figure based on surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and often cited by unions and their Democratic allies. But this is misleading, too. The BLS surveys don’t include the cost of benefits — which both sides agree are more generous for federal workers. Experts also say there are other flaws in OPM’s methodology that prevent a true apples-to-apples comparison.

 

Also in your link is a little tid-bit that supports Az's conclusion, the numbers you are referencing include ALL costs per worker for the federal worker, not just salary.

 

Your link also gives a number of comparative analyses that refute your claims. Some saying:

 

In the 2009 report, OPM found that federal workers were paid on average 22.13 percent less (Table 4) than their private-sector counterparts. The gap increased to 24 percent this year, the Washington Post recently reported.

 

while others say:

 

These reports say the average salary for civilian federal employees was $81,258 in 2009 — about 61 percent higher than the $50,462 paid to the average private sector worker, but not double.

 

Now, with regard to Obama hiring 225,000 new workers...

 

From 2007 to today, roughly 267,000 workers have been added to the federal rolls. Of these, according to White House OMB reports, 123,000 have been added under the Obama admin (these would be only those in the executive branch.) The remainder of these "new" jobs have been added in the Homeland Security, Defense, Veterans Affairs and Justice Departments. Through 2010, here is a breakout of total federal employment. Here is another link that delves into the number of federal employees.

 

Now, we need to exclude the 2007/2008 additions to get at the "real" number and then look at the hiring from 2009 - today. Unfortunately, those are not readily available from the OMB or the BLS currently, so I do not have the raw numbers to absolutely confirm or refute the argument on how many employees Obama has added. But, I can pretty much assure you that Ryan and the Republicans are embellishing things a tad bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread makes me miss McNasty

 

 

I can put you in touch with a chick that does that for about $50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can put you in touch with a chick that does that for about $50.

 

A nurse visit can cost more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note with regard to the additional federal jobs under the Obama administration, it is quite interesting to note the idea that the Repubs are attacking him on the jobs added by this admin when seemingly a bulk of them are going to defense and national security. In most of the debate over spending has it not been the Republicans who are fighting to keep from having to cut these two budgets? If so, why would they complain about these jobs being created in departments that they feel need to continue to be funded to the extent that they are currently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who hijacked SEC's account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who hijacked SEC's account?

 

 

Yeah, like I'd know a chick who would do something called the 'McNasty" for $50...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who hijacked SEC's account?

 

 

But, seriously, I try to play it as honestly as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, seriously, I try to play it as honestly as possible.

 

It's the private sector that isn't hiring (thank you very much "job creators"). But somehow its Obama's fault that both: (1) unemployment sucks; and (2) the federal government is simultaneously hiring *too* many people.

 

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is that federal workers make a lot of money with lifetime pensions and healthcare. You can argue with the math, but you cannot argue that it is unfair to private sector taxpayers.

 

So you want communism, where everyone gets treated "fairly" whether they deserve or not? Pfft. If you think the grass is greener on the government side then go work for government. That's the beauty of free markets, comrade.

Edited by yo mama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone want to talk about the striking teachers in Chicago, who earn an average salary of $75,000, without lifetime pension and healthcare benefits included. They rejected a 16% pay raise. Yes, you read that right. Did you see their rally? They spoke without coherence and without correct sentences. Those people should be fired and not allowed to teach anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the average federal salary is not 120K from my everyday experience, I don't need to "do research". it still seems a bit high, but I could think it is possible that the total cost per employee per year averages that (including benefits, employer share of SS, etc.), but that is clearly not what you said.

 

also, the federal pension for employees who started after the early 80s is really not that big at all. it's basically your final salary, multiplied by your years of service, divided by 100. so if you work 20 years and end with a salary of $100K, you get a $20K per year pension. it's a nice benefit, considering they also match up to 4% on 401k contributions, but it's hardly the same kind of pension scenario that's bankrupting so many states.

 

 

My comment was not about a federal employee that has worked from the early 80's - and you know that. It was about the 200,000+ that Obama has added. They are mostly high salaried folk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thefactfile.com/2012/01/23/the-size-of-the-federal-workforce-rapid-growth-for-some-stagnation-for-others/

 

Viewed from this perspective, the federal workforce has remained remarkably stagnant over the past decade: both in September 2001 and in September 2011, federal workers represented 1.26% of the total civilian labor force.

In sum, the data on recent trends in federal employment show that while the size of the federal workforce is growing, its proportion of the total civilian labor force is not. Federal employees have remained at or around 1.2% of the total labor force for at least a decade and, given the hiring freeze that has been in place in many agencies, are unlikely to grow much higher. Furthermore, the increases in staffing that we have seen are largely concentrated in just a few agencies. At the very least, this suggests that a one-size-fits-all approach to reducing the federal workforce could have disproportionate effects on some agencies more so than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone want to talk about the striking teachers in Chicago, who earn an average salary of $75,000, without lifetime pension and healthcare benefits included. They rejected a 16% pay raise. Yes, you read that right. Did you see their rally? They spoke without coherence and without correct sentences. Those people should be fired and not allowed to teach anyone.

 

 

You really really need to check your facts. It was 4% per year over 4 years. They also did not get a previously agreed upon 4% increase this year, which led to this request. You are presenting it like it is a immediate one year request to make a Have to agree here moment

 

I am not endorsing their actions, just calling you out for being purposely or unwittingly misleading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.