rushmc 18 #1 December 11, 2009 http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm?loc=interstitialskip QuoteThe number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data. And during a job loosing economy we should be proud that government sucks up even more of our money AND give raises The head line below says is all QuoteFor feds, more get 6-figure salaries Average pay $30,000 over private sector Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with high salaries. But the gov only eats money and creates nothing. At least salaries in the private sector for the most part add value."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,654 #2 December 11, 2009 Quote Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with high salaries. But the gov only eats money and creates nothing. At least salaries in the private sector for the most part add value. You must be thinking of the bonuses that AIG financial services execs "earn".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #3 December 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with high salaries. But the gov only eats money and creates nothing. At least salaries in the private sector for the most part add value. You must be thinking of the bonuses that AIG financial services execs "earn". They did But will not allow yourself to understand that structure of performance based pay. I bet you are glad you dont get paid that way"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #4 December 11, 2009 That's also the very top final standard deviation of private sector employees- CEOs. I'd be curious who is getting paid 100K+ in the government and for what. Also, what percentage of the govt employees get paid 100K+ vs people making less than say, 60K compared to the same ratio in the private sector.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #5 December 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with high salaries. But the gov only eats money and creates nothing. At least salaries in the private sector for the most part add value. You must be thinking of the bonuses that AIG financial services execs "earn". They advocate salary caps on private companies while bloating paychecks of their own employees. Define hypocricy. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 December 11, 2009 QuoteQuote Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with high salaries. But the gov only eats money and creates nothing. At least salaries in the private sector for the most part add value. You must be thinking of the bonuses that AIG financial services execs "earn". Aren't they effectively government employees now? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #7 December 11, 2009 Exactly .. well that's how it is with a number of the large bacnks over here. As for an earlier reply about Performance Related bonus .. well they would be all fine and good, if that's what they are... but it 'appears' that in the main that is not the case but the payouts are contractually negotiated and not related to imptoved performance (well how could thety be, the banks are performing badly ..... with OUR money). Some of the big bankers have said that if they don't get their bonuses.. they will leave - Well good ridence and don't let te door slam on your way out (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 December 11, 2009 Bear in mind that a given financial has many different divisions - many of which are quite profitable. Those ones expect to get their performance pay. The problem is if the losers are also getting that sort of bonus pay, or if they're paid for actions that later turn out to be big losers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 December 11, 2009 I agree, so I would think (sic) that if divisions are profitable, then maybe the company should exploit the PR benifits of bragging about the good works being done (if, indeed, there are any). (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #10 December 11, 2009 QuoteI agree, so I would think (sic) that if divisions are profitable, then maybe the company should exploit the PR benifits of bragging about the good works being done (if, indeed, there are any). I don't see much ROI in that. The people who oppose high pay oppose it regardless, it's just that they have good ammo when the company reports a loss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #11 December 11, 2009 Perhaps... but when they are being paid OUR money, maybe, at some level, we have a right to know the details. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #12 December 11, 2009 QuotePerhaps... but when thay are being paid OUR money, maybe, at some level, we have a write to know the details. Concur. That's why public sector salaries are public, whereas many private sector ones aren't. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,160 #13 December 11, 2009 Read the whole article. There actually are salary caps, and no one can make more than their boss. That's part of the reason for the jump -- the bosses of several agencies got raises too. There's some context in there. Not that I want the largest, highest-paid possible goverment, but dang. I don't want government employees who are so ill-qualified that they can't get a decent wage, either. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #14 December 11, 2009 Quote The head line below says is all Quote For feds, more get 6-figure salaries Average pay $30,000 over private sector The article notes some of the reasons. A major one that is not included in the article is that many low-paying positions, which are included in the overall calculation of private sector work, are now also in the private sector (i.e., contractors) for the federal government, e.g., cleaning crews, food service workers, & what used to be called "secretaries." So it's comparing apples and oranges. The article also notes that if one looks at the positions, "federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs." I was surprised, honestly, that it was not a much larger pay difference. By comparison, -- The CIA Inspector General found that a civilian employee costs the government an average of $126,500 annually including salary & benefits, while the average contract employee doing comparative work costs $250,000 annually. The IG’s findings were reported in the December 2007 House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill. A number of folks have been concerned less w/r/t pure monetary costs than the less tangible consequence of having a reported up to 70% of the National Clandestine Service filled by contractors. Average tenure of an intelligence analyst is less than 7 years – they take their TS/SCI’s and go make a lot more money. (NB: Average tenure of an Atlanta Police Officer is only 3 years. They get trained and experience here and then move on.) -- IRS collection by federal employees was found to be more cost effective than private sector. -- US Air Force Air Logistics Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) found privatization of repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees that WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and has been hiring since summer 2007. -- “Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year. That is less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.” Primary document Even Eric Prince, former CEO, of Xe (nee Blackwater) acknowledged in the Q&A period of his Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security. -- When the Army's Human Terrain System converted what were previously very high-paid contractor positions (some over $300K/year, most around $200K/year) to federal civilians (less than $100K/year) an estimated 1/3 quit. Quote Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with high salaries. A lot of the folks who take government positions, take a paycut. I met with the head of DARPA earlier today. She took an estimated 60% pay cut for a 3-star equivalent position. Might one part of the problem be that because salaries are so low in the federal government compared to the private sector that the incentives aren't there? Otoh, if the incentive to work for the federal government is only money, are those the kind of folks that one wants working there? Maybe in some cases, yes ... in other cases, like prioritization of national security over short-term personal gain, the answee might be no. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #15 December 11, 2009 QuoteThey advocate salary caps on private companies while bloating paychecks of their own employees. Who is "they"? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 177 #16 December 11, 2009 Federal firefighters make a paltry sum and work a 72 hour work week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 December 11, 2009 QuoteThere's some context in there. Not that I want the largest, highest-paid possible goverment, but dang. I don't want government employees who are so ill-qualified that they can't get a decent wage, either. It's a problem that's been recognized - the low pay of federal sector jobs & how that impacts recruiting. That's one of the challenges Dugan noted, specifically w/r/t getting program managers for DARPA for the applied side and to a lesser extent from the basic research side. (The latter traditionally leverages a lot of academics.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #18 December 11, 2009 QuoteFederal firefighters make a paltry sum and work a 72 hour work week. Other than in rare cases (e.g., the FDNY in 2001 with all the overtime, chiefs), are firefighters ever paid much more than a paltry sum? I'm currently dating a firefighter. He's hasn't told me exactly how much he makes. (Not my business/doesn't really matter to me.) But I know it's not what he's worth, imo. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 177 #19 December 11, 2009 Where does he work, what rank and how long has he been on the job? I'll let you know what he makes! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #20 December 11, 2009 Thanks (also, excuse the typos in m earlier post). IMHO, the current action of the banks is showing a very high level of disrespect to the Tax payers (certainly in our country, but also in yours, it would appear) and we should remind them of this with every opportunity. I am neither Jealous or Envious of their renumeration but I AM indignant. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #21 December 11, 2009 "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,654 #22 December 11, 2009 Thanks, Marg, for the FACTS.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #23 December 11, 2009 Quote Quote The head line below says is all Quote For feds, more get 6-figure salaries Average pay $30,000 over private sector The article notes some of the reasons. A major one that is not included in the article is that many low-paying positions, which are included in the overall calculation of private sector work, are now also in the private sector (i.e., contractors) for the federal government, e.g., cleaning crews, food service workers, & what used to be called "secretaries." So it's comparing apples and oranges. The article also notes that if one looks at the positions, "federal employees make 26% less than private workers for comparable jobs." I was surprised, honestly, that it was not a much larger pay difference. By comparison, -- The CIA Inspector General found that a civilian employee costs the government an average of $126,500 annually including salary & benefits, while the average contract employee doing comparative work costs $250,000 annually. The IG’s findings were reported in the December 2007 House-Senate conference report on the fiscal 2008 Intelligence Authorization Bill. A number of folks have been concerned less w/r/t pure monetary costs than the less tangible consequence of having a reported up to 70% of the National Clandestine Service filled by contractors. Average tenure of an intelligence analyst is less than 7 years – they take their TS/SCI’s and go make a lot more money. (NB: Average tenure of an Atlanta Police Officer is only 3 years. They get trained and experience here and then move on.) -- IRS collection by federal employees was found to be more cost effective than private sector. -- US Air Force Air Logistics Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) found privatization of repair activities on F-15, C-130, C-5 and C-17 aircraft was so inefficient and cost more than federal employees that WR-ALC 402d MXW reversed the decision and has been hiring since summer 2007. -- “Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year. That is less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.” Primary document Even Eric Prince, former CEO, of Xe (nee Blackwater) acknowledged in the Q&A period of his Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security. -- When the Army's Human Terrain System converted what were previously very high-paid contractor positions (some over $300K/year, most around $200K/year) to federal civilians (less than $100K/year) an estimated 1/3 quit. Quote Dont get me wrong, I have no problem with high salaries. A lot of the folks who take government positions, take a paycut. I met with the head of DARPA earlier today. She took an estimated 60% pay cut for a 3-star equivalent position. Might one part of the problem be that because salaries are so low in the federal government compared to the private sector that the incentives aren't there? Otoh, if the incentive to work for the federal government is only money, are those the kind of folks that one wants working there? Maybe in some cases, yes ... in other cases, like prioritization of national security over short-term personal gain, the answee might be no. /Marg Marg, I dont doubt any of this however, would I be safe in assuming that this is salary without benefits? I know many here in Iowa who are now scared to death of the reductions that may be be coming in their heath care plans (they pay $0 today and have GREAT coverage) or reductions in their IPERS retirement. Anyway, my point was more to how can a government or anybody justify increases of these levels today? Fed and state goves are running in the red. What does the Fed do? Print more money. In the end, if kept up, it will cost all of us dearly"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #24 December 11, 2009 Quote would I be safe in assuming that this is salary without benefits? Her post indicated that salary and benefits were both included in the comparison.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #25 December 11, 2009 QuoteQuote would I be safe in assuming that this is salary without benefits? Her post indicated that salary and benefits were both included in the comparison. Well that would be a stretch based on my re-read of her post. There are conflicting statements to your comment"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
