McJobs

[Lady.hawke]

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/12/are-federal-workers-overpaid/

[Azazello1313]

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.

[Lady.hawke]

Sorry,

Ditkaless Wonders

 

My response link above is for you. I am still learning how to post a message with a link.

[Lady.hawke]

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.

[Lady.hawke]

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 September 9, 2012 by Lady.hawke

[Ditkaless Wonders]

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.

[Azazello1313]

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 September 9, 2012 by Azazello1313

[SEC=UGA]

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.

[Big Country]

This thread makes me miss McNasty

[SEC=UGA]

This thread makes me miss McNasty

 

 

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

[Big John]

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

 

A nurse visit can cost more.

[SEC=UGA]

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?

[Chavez]

Who hijacked SEC's account?

[SEC=UGA]

Who hijacked SEC's account?

 

 

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

[SEC=UGA]

Who hijacked SEC's account?

 

 

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

[yo mama]

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.

[yo mama]

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 September 11, 2012 by yo mama

[Lady.hawke]

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.

[Lady.hawke]

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.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

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.

[bpwallace49]

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

[SEC=UGA]

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.

 

 

Whole thread about it here

 

No need to Hijack this one after your initial argument is resting on some very shaky ground.

[SEC=UGA]

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.

 

 

How do you know this? Seriously, do you have a break-out of their salaries? I've looked to try and verify the numbers, post 2011 they really don't exist and post 2010 the data is extremely bereft of details.

 

I would be more than happy to look at any data you have that supports your statements, but alas, I'm afraid that it is not readily available and what we have found does not support your theory.

 

On a side note, I would love to have substantial proof of what you claim, it would reinforce my bias against the current admin. But, I think yer chasing a red herring here.

 

Finally, you seem to not want to address the "fact" that most of these jobs were created in departments that the Republicans are fighting to keep fully funded at today's levels, therefore, the Republicans seemingly approve of these hirings... how do you square that with the rhetoric coming out of the right wing?

[Azazello1313]

But somehow its Obama's fault that both: (1) unemployment sucks; and (2) the federal government is simultaneously hiring *too* many people.

 

 

these two are not even remotely mutually exclusive.

[Azazello1313]

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?

 

 

well, a few things. one, I'm not seeing where all the new jobs are in the defense department. your link didn't seem to indicate that. but in any case, you're right, at this point the number of federal employees is not really a strong argument against the obama economy. it was a slightly stronger argument before there was a hiring freeze in 2010, when the federal government was indeed adding jobs while the rest of the economy was shedding them like crazy. but even then it missed the real point, which concerns not the number of federal versus private employees, but:

1) federal spending as a share of GDP

2) the amount of power being given to bureaucrats to direct the economy

3) dirigism and favortism as massive amounts of federal spending are directed to croneys and politically favored factions

4) all of which results in inefficient market distortions, and a chilling long-term fiscal outlook

 

look at the stimulus bill, for example. to the extent it created jobs, it created ones that were dependent on federal largesse, but very little of that $800 billion or whatever went to the direct hire of federal employees. of all the things to criticize about that fubared endeavor, the number of direct federal employees doesn't even register.