Comparing Public and Private Sector Compensation

[MBiegs 0]

Found this study and thought it was interesting.

http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7bA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7d/uploads/%7b03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7d.PDF

Anyone know of any other facts or figures involving comparing public and private sector jobs... and not just averaging everyone public vs everyone private. I like how this study compares jobs with similar education, but haven't found much out there that is similar.

I'd like to compare other facts, but i'm having trouble finding any... and yes, i've searched google.

Does anyone else know of any studies that have been done? What are your thoughts on this study?

[kallend 1,651]

It would be interesting to compare the compensation of, say, the CEO of Goldman Sachs or AIG with that of the President of the USA..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The Executives of the banking sector tend to be outliers within the context of the private sector.
The CEO of Rio Tinto has delivered 500% share price growth over the last eight years while Goldman Sachs has been flat yet the CEO of GS makes more money.

[Kennedy 0]

How much value do you put on lifetime free protection from one of the best bodyguard services in the world, for the prinicpal and his family?

I didn't get into the meat of the paper, but it seemed like stating the obvious. As long as the military is excluded due to no private counterpart, I can't think of anion where government jobs pay more than private ones, all else being equal.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[MBiegs 0]

Quote

How much value do you put on lifetime 10 years free protection from one of the best bodyguard services in the world, for the prinicpal and his family?

fixed it

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It would be interesting to compare the compensation of, say, the CEO of Goldman Sachs or AIG with that of the President of the USA..

I think they'd measure quite similarly. Especially if you impute earnings on living in a similarly sized residence, the use of AF One and Marine One, the various personal staff and security, etc.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I didn't get into the meat of the paper, but it seemed like stating the obvious. As long as the military is excluded due to no private counterpart, I can't think of anion where government jobs pay more than private ones, all else being equal.

We're seeing more and more examples, actually. The average salary of a San Francisco city employee is well over the city average, and it still tends to come with health care paid for in retirement. On the lower side of the payscale, mandatory living wages pay much better than min wage, where the private sector jobs are likely to live.

As for the retired President, he enjoys considerably better income potential than the retired CEO. It dwarfs the value of the pension or other benefits.

[MBiegs 0]

Quote

The average salary of a San Francisco city employee is well over the city average.

That's like saying "the average job that requires a college degree and specialized training pays higher then the average job" ... it just seems pretty obvious to me.

Page 10 of the study in post 1 addresses california.

[billeisele 122]

compensation is only part of the equation, one must also look at skill set and competence

I have the extreme displeasure of working with federal employees, maybe 20-30% are competent, examples of the others:

- one thinks he is an electrical substation design expert, so far his idiocy has caused 11 months of delay and over $200,000 in excess cost, the crazy thing is this project is not even necessary, wasting over $5 million
- one was hired as an energy manager, her english is so bad that it is extremely difficult to communicate, she didn't know the difference between a kW and a kWh!, how am I supposed to communicate complex rate and contract issues? not happening, her screwups have cost them some big bucks and other problems
- one insisted on installing a subcycle transfer switch, it can ONLY work if there are 2 independent electric feeds, that requirement only exists some of the time, so after $1.1 million along with ongoing costs, they have a high tech toy that rarely works, the crazy part is he got a bonus for his "great" idea
- one customer was late paying their bill and didn't want to pay the late fee, her response was "you realize that this takes funds away from our ability to take care of our wounded soldiers", the scary part is she really thought that was a legitmate arguement
- one guy insisted on a certain design parameter that significantly reduces the reliability of critcal equipment and increases the cost, answer - to late to change it, BS - it would have caused a 1 month delay, the guys running this job don't have a clue

unfortunately there are many more examples, these are just some of the current ones

it is mind boggling, these idiots couldn't get or keep a job in the real world at anywhere near what they are being paid by the feds

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[funjumper101 15]

What is occurring in the area of compensation is a race to the bottom in the private sector.

It used to be that a private sector job paid much more than a public sector job. The benefits with a public sector job, including retirement and extreme job security, were attractive to some, but not all. Public sector employees have managed to keep their real wages current, with regard to inflation. The private sector employees have not. The money that used to pay good wages now goes to management, executives, and investors. The real wages, adjusted for inflation, have gone down considerably, when adjusted for inflation.

The end result is that public sector jobs now have what “appear” to be high wages and benefits, if you know SQUAT about what has happened in the economy since 1981. A lack of historical knowledge and extreme credulity means that the dumbasses get all pissed off about “overpaid government employees”, when they should be getting pissed off about underpaid private sector employees. Back when tax rates were EXTREMELY high on the high wage earners, (91%, in some cases) the economy was best for all of the citizens. Everyone made out well. As the tax rates have gone down for the high earners, they have increased their portion of the pie, at the expense of the rest of us. This has been successfully marketed as being a good thing. I expect a shitstorm of protest from the folks that buy into the marketing. The fact remains that the average person in the USA is much less better off than they were in 1981. We make less money in real terms, and have less health care coverage, and have less freedom.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How much value do you put on lifetime free protection from one of the best bodyguard services in the world, for the prinicpal and his family?

I didn't get into the meat of the paper, but it seemed like stating the obvious. As long as the military is excluded due to no private counterpart, I can't think of anion where government jobs pay more than private ones, all else being equal.

Oh REALLLLY... you can't think of any group like the military????
All those "private security" types that are VERY well paid and doing VERY militaristic jobs around the world???
Hell I know of a few of them that made BILLLIONS in the last 11 years.
Trying to pull a fast one??? These are NOT the private militaries you are looking for... please be on your way

Haven't YOU trained with some of them????

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The average salary of a San Francisco city employee is well over the city average.

That's like saying "the average job that requires a college degree and specialized training pays higher then the average job" ... it just seems pretty obvious to me.

Page 10 of the study in post 1 addresses california.

Not all city jobs require college degrees or (highly) specialized training. Through 2010, the bus drivers had a deal that guaranteed them the second highest salary in the country. This wasn't a contract subject to renegotiation - there was no negotiation, just a lookup of other cities to see what they're paying.

Quote

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average private sector employee working in San Francisco earns $73,133. The average city employee now draws $91,500 — with fringe benefits valued at $38,000.

and to be clear - SF is an expensive place to live, and the jobs skew towards those requiring degrees and specialized training. Downtown is financials, lawyers, and still a lot of IT and startups. With the cost of commercial real estate where it is, even given the past couple years, it's not sensible to employ workers here that aren't producing considerable value.

And yet, you still see this 18k divide, and the huge benefits delta that the city won't be able to pay for very soon.

[MBiegs 0]

Quote

Not all city jobs require college degrees or (highly) specialized training. Through 2010, the bus drivers had a deal that guaranteed them the second highest salary in the country. This wasn't a contract subject to renegotiation - there was no negotiation, just a lookup of other cities to see what they're paying.

2nd highest, as far as bus drivers get paid in the US? It doesn't really surprise me because, as you said, SF is an expensive place to live. It consistently ranks in the top 5 most expensive cites in the US to live in.

Were I live, bus drivers make around $50,000. Which, in comparison to what your average commercial truck driver gets paid, is similar. I think bus drivers have slightly more responsibility and do more work then your average truck driver, but that's just me.

Quote

Downtown is financials, lawyers, and still a lot of IT and startups.

It's also janitors, mcdonalds workers, star bucks workers, hotel staff, and all of the pee-ons that make the world go round.

Quote

the average private sector employee working in San Francisco earns $73,133. The average city employee now draws $91,500

Again, averages always skew the numbers. People don't get paid based on overall averages, they get paid based on what's average in their field. A better way to look at it would be to decided what the average person with a 4 year degree makes in SF, then look at what a person in SF govt with a 4 year degree makes. Then decided if it's similar. Do the same thing with a person with a 2 year degree, or no degree, or a commercial drivers license.

(please excuse the sloppy spelling and grammar, it's early)