• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Average Federal Employee Compensation tops $126,000

cpwill said:
:mad: your damn right this belongs in the scandal section.



meanwhile, Joe Schmoe on the street (assuming he has a job in this crappy economy) is making half as much... and yet these people are supported by him?

who is ruling who, here? at what point did "public service" become "served by the public"?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this has been brought up, but does that study differentiate elected officials from civil service agents?

Naturally, elected officials who administrate a civil service is going to make more money than the agents of that civil service. But what that also does is skews the average income.

After all, managers and corporate executives can still be considered private employees. If we included those salaries with that of the lower level employees, the data will be skewed as well.

I'm not saying this is the case - I'm asking if it is. After all, there's a reason why they say there's 3 kinds of lies:
1) Lies
2) Damn Lies
3) Statistics
 
Cpwill is absolutely correct about one thing...Joe dumbass Schmoe in the street is making less...has no benefits or security that has all BEEN STRIPPED from middle class private sector workers via the PIGS AT THE TROUGH who have gotten fabulously richer...
Cp you cannot defend against the truth...private sector pays are stagnant and going lower in some cases all their benefits and security has been stripped from them...WHY..and HOW ...why because they have no one to defend them...HOW ..the pigs just said F them and took it off them because THEY CAN.
Public sector workers are the only working class making a basic living and Joe dumbass Schmoe should be ASPIRING to do the same instead of trying to tear down public workers....if private sector workers want to keep just bending over like little weenies for the rich on command.....I dont feel sorry for them one bit...they deserve to work for **** and not be able to pay their bills
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Cpwill is absolutely correct about one thing...Joe dumbass Schmoe in the street is making less...has no benefits or security that has all BEEN STRIPPED from middle class private sector workers via the PIGS AT THE TROUGH who have gotten fabulously richer...
Cp you cannot defend against the truth...private sector pays are stagnant and going lower in some cases all their benefits and security has been stripped from them...WHY..and HOW ...why because they have no one to defend them...HOW ..the pigs just said F them and took it off them because THEY CAN.
Public sector workers are the only working class making a basic living and Joe dumbass Schmoe should be ASPIRING to do the same instead of trying to tear down public workers....if private sector workers want to keep just bending over like little weenies for the rich on command.....I dont feel sorry for them one bit...they deserve to work for **** and not be able to pay their bills
Click to expand...
I don't agree with all of this. What we need to guard against is making blanket statements about an entire workforce, that is diverse in its compensation, location and expertise. You can't lump all federal employees together, because they don't all fall under the same pay system. Some of them have unions and some don't. Broad brush comparisons between two high different workforces (public and private) give an inaccurate picture of what's going on. Are there overpaid people in both workforce, of course there are. The federal workforce is made up of only a subset of what's in the private sector. I'm not suggesting that there isn't any government waste, but to hang your hat on simplistic arguments about federal employee pay is erroneous.
 
lpast said:
Public sector workers are the only working class making a basic living and Joe dumbass Schmoe should be ASPIRING to do the same instead of trying to tear down public workers....if private sector workers want to keep just bending over like little weenies for the rich on command.....I dont feel sorry for them one bit...they deserve to work for **** and not be able to pay their bills
Click to expand...

So you really don't see an issue here.
Private sector is experiencing cut backs (according to you).
Public sector is not cutting back similarly.
Public sector gets its funding by forcing the private sector to pay them.

Pure genius right? Let's just plant a money tree while we're at it.
 
Public sector jobs are known for having great benefits but mediocre pay.
 
TurtleDude said:
your average secretary at say the DOE or the FBI etc is making in the 45K range at a GS 5,7,9 range
Click to expand...

Hey hey hey....

HEY

We prefer the term Executive Assistant now

;)

And you're spot on. You're admin types aren't making close to what's being reported. It was interesting living with my wife (gf at the time) while we were both basically working in very similar administrative positions...me for the government and her for a defense contractor. She had been employed for a year less than me but was making about $10,000 more. On the flip side I had more holidays and leave and a better retirement plan.
 
Last edited:
lpast said:
Cpwill is absolutely correct about one thing...Joe dumbass Schmoe in the street is making less...has no benefits or security that has all BEEN STRIPPED from middle class private sector workers via the PIGS AT THE TROUGH who have gotten fabulously richer...
Cp you cannot defend against the truth...private sector pays are stagnant and going lower in some cases all their benefits and security has been stripped from them...WHY..and HOW ...why because they have no one to defend them...HOW ..the pigs just said F them and took it off them because THEY CAN.
Public sector workers are the only working class making a basic living and Joe dumbass Schmoe should be ASPIRING to do the same instead of trying to tear down public workers....if private sector workers want to keep just bending over like little weenies for the rich on command.....I dont feel sorry for them one bit...they deserve to work for **** and not be able to pay their bills
Click to expand...

1. the public sector is fed by the private sector. you are basically cheering the fiscal death of both, as Joe Schmoe will have ever-more taken from him to feed Joe Bureaucrat. The endpoint of what you are discussing here is Greece: where a bloated public sector rides a private one to death.

2. pensions and lifetime employment with a single business are an industrial era model that simply don't fit for a post-industrial society, where people move from one job on to the next with regularity. the reason that we have moved away from a defined-benefit to a defined-contribution model in the private sector is because that is what the private sector can afford, and it's better for a mobile workplace to be able to take their retirement and benefits with them. we need to do the same with health insurance, so that those plans are mobile as well and no one need fear losing their insurance because they wanted to move jobs. these models are ALSO unsustainable in the PUBLIC sector; and we will see dramatic cut-backs on them in the next few years. if you want to take out your anger on someone over that, that's fine. take it out on the union bosses and politicians of 15-20 years ago who signed us up for an unsustainable model, fully aware that they would be long gone before the bill came due.

3. thank you, however, for demonstrating the general level of respect that our public servants have for us.
 
Phys251 said:
Public sector jobs are known for having great benefits but mediocre pay.
Click to expand...

but the benefits are generally same-ish up and down the chain; which is why the government sector overcompensates it's lower-end employees, and undercompensates its' higher-end employees.
 
Substandard results deserve substandard pay. If they were earning their salaries then this wouldn't even be an issue. It does seem, however, the more we pay them the worse results we get. I wonder if it would work the other way around. Or should we just keep paying them more, till they ruin us?
 
i think federal employees and contractors are rediculous.in afghanistan i made barely over 30k working 18-20 hours a day and getting mortared and shot at then picking up a newspaper saying enlisted army makes too much and cuts are needed,but a contractor is hired to do my job over there making 250k a year to work six hours a day get 3 months vacation wheres the justice when im told im sub human and military is paid too much but a congressianal secretary can make 4 times as much as me for doing nearly nothing.
 
Not sure what the point is. As a federal employee I can very honestly say I earn my paycheck. I have been filling 4 positions for the last 2 years due to hiring freezes. My staff of 4 fill 16 positions. With the latest cut initiatives some offices are going to be absolutely gutted and no one is really sure how it is going to work. The fed employees are needed, but there are certainly places for efficiency reviews. Some jobs should be cut. We have far too many administrators. Salaries and promotions are automatic and should in fact be merit based. Some should be contracted. Usually, contracted employee positions cost more and a good chunk of that goes to the contractor, but the savings comes with the benefits-the fed isnt on the hook for med insurance and doesnt have to absorb retirement costs.
 
VanceMack said:
Not sure what the point is. As a federal employee I can very honestly say I earn my paycheck. I have been filling 4 positions for the last 2 years due to hiring freezes. My staff of 4 fill 16 positions. With the latest cut initiatives some offices are going to be absolutely gutted and no one is really sure how it is going to work. The fed employees are needed, but there are certainly places for efficiency reviews. Some jobs should be cut. We have far too many administrators. Salaries and promotions are automatic and should in fact be merit based. Some should be contracted. Usually, contracted employee positions cost more and a good chunk of that goes to the contractor, but the savings comes with the benefits-the fed isnt on the hook for med insurance and doesnt have to absorb retirement costs.
Click to expand...

Only the government could have one person doing the job that four people used to...or have 4 people fill 16 positions. What a sad commentary.
 
beerftw said:
i think federal employees and contractors are rediculous.in afghanistan i made barely over 30k working 18-20 hours a day and getting mortared and shot at then picking up a newspaper saying enlisted army makes too much and cuts are needed,but a contractor is hired to do my job over there making 250k a year to work six hours a day get 3 months vacation wheres the justice when im told im sub human and military is paid too much but a congressianal secretary can make 4 times as much as me for doing nearly nothing.
Click to expand...
Been there...done that. I feel ya. The only justification for hiring contractors instead of Joes is the long term cost of retirement and health care. I dont know of anyone that knows anything about enlisted salaries that think they get paid too much. Cuts ARE needed...but where they are needed most are right where you mentioned...with the defense contractors. Top to bottom reviews are needed.
 
MaggieD said:
Only the government could have one person doing the job that four people used to...or have 4 people fill 16 positions. What a sad commentary.
Click to expand...
Same thing I tell my folks...theres an awful lot of folks out there that would kill to be in our place. Smile, salute smartly, and press on.
 
More shocking "stats" from conservatives and libertarians who fail to understand context. Go figure. I've seen high school papers do a better job of contextualizing data than this nonsense.

*Edit: Here, I'll add some context: this is coming from the same people who say that those who make over $250,000 a year aren't making much money and can't afford a marginal tax hike.

MaggieD said:
Only the government could have one person doing the job that four people used to...or have 4 people fill 16 positions. What a sad commentary.
Click to expand...

Didn't you just say two pages earlier that we should be protesting them earning so much, and now after one story you think it is sad that there aren't more people filling those positions?
 
Last edited:
I am really iffy on this movement to get pissed and attack people for making a good living while working for the government. I could understand if we were discussing our actual political leaders, because they are supposed to be held accountable to us. On the other hand, firefighters, police officers, service men and women, public defenders, etc. are needed... and if we keep attacking them eventually nobody will want a government job because they'll appear unstable and under appreciated by the general public.

Yeah, government employees get really good pensions. That used to be one of the attractions. You know who else gets really ****ing great pensions... presidents, congressmen, congresswomen, and senators. But NOBODY is ****ing attacking their pensions or wanting to cut Bush's, Cheney's, Rice's, Powell's, etc. retirement benefits.

It's really funny to me that all these politicians are leading so many of you to attack the pensions and benefits of your fellow peers, but they aren't putting theirs on the table... and you guys have all forgotten to demand they do so. I just really think you guys are being played hard by your political leaders, and since they are given their government jobs solely because of us and our votes and are held accountable to us, their ****ing pensions and benefits should be the first in line to be examined in such fashion.

And that goes without mentioning that their paychecks and their retirements and pensions, are a lot heftier than your average firefighter or Iraqi War Vet. Yeesh.
 
Last edited:
whysoserious said:
More shocking "stats" from conservatives and libertarians who fail to understand context. Go figure. I've seen high school papers do a better job of contextualizing data than this nonsense.

*Edit: Here, I'll add some context: this is coming from the same people who say that those who make over $250,000 a year aren't making much money and can't afford a marginal tax hike.



Didn't you just say two pages earlier that we should be protesting them earning so much, and now after one story you think it is sad that there aren't more people filling those positions?
Click to expand...
As a taxpayer, and Im sure you are one as well, it is certainly appropriate to ask the same questions of federal employee salaries as you would if you were in charge of any business. To not ask those questions is just plain foolish. Ive said it before...Ive been to fed employee cubicle farms wit over 300 employees and at any given time, you would be lucky to find 33% of the staff in their cubicle working. Those are people making good money...Im talking minimum GS11 pay. Someone has to pay those salaries. Where they are needed they should be paid...no question. Where they shouldnt...well...

And Shewolf...I think you would find most people that believe in expecting effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars with the fed employees would be the first ones to say GUT the fed retirement system for politicians...except, we wouldnt just single out one party.
 
MaggieD said:
Only the government could have one person doing the job that four people used to...or have 4 people fill 16 positions. What a sad commentary.
Click to expand...

No actually, I think your wrong. I worked on a huge audit project over the summer and your statement far from the truth. I am convinced that the larger a firm is, the more BS and inefficiency there is to wade through before getting things done. Smaller firms tend to be pretty tight on resources and all the workers are very knowledgeable about what is going on in their company. They work each employee to the maximum output. Smaller firms are efficiently staffed with little to no production time wasted, and hands on management that knows the on goings in the company. The downfall is they have a more difficult time handling sick days, vacations, etc. They'll usually go to a temp service or accrue overtime. Smaller firms and smaller staffs, work their asses off.

Big firms... my god.. it's just BS. There is so much waste and inefficiency, people wondering around with no tasks or duties, and there is a ton of middle management to cut through. The chain of command is just ridiculous and over complicates what should be a simple process. Some of these firms are really prestigious btw, and they'll have four or more people working a job one person could do. Their staff members don't know **** about the on goings in the company, communication between all staff levels is a joke, and their audits get more red flags.

Just because a company is global and has very highly valued stock, it honestly doesn't mean that the company is efficient and not wasteful. They tend to be more wasteful, poorly management in comparison to smaller firms, yet, they are some of the most powerful firms in the world. They are just too damn big to know everything that goes on.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
As a taxpayer, and Im sure you are one as well, it is certainly appropriate to ask the same questions of federal employee salaries as you would if you were in charge of any business. To not ask those questions is just plain foolish. Ive said it before...Ive been to fed employee cubicle farms wit over 300 employees and at any given time, you would be lucky to find 33% of the staff in their cubicle working. Those are people making good money...Im talking minimum GS11 pay. Someone has to pay those salaries. Where they are needed they should be paid...no question. Where they shouldnt...well...

And Shewolf...I think you would find most people that believe in expecting effective and efficient use of taxpayer dollars with the fed employees would be the first ones to say GUT the fed retirement system for politicians...except, we wouldnt just single out one party.
Click to expand...

Ask questions, that's fine. What I have a problem with is someone saying, "OMG the average compensation for [insert name here] is [insert random number here] meanwhile blah blah". For instance, I am pretty sure they just compared average salary in the nation with total compensation as well - so they are including all the benefits (vacation time, sick leave, bonuses, insurance, etc) for the government workers, but I am not sure that they are including those things for the "median" salary. Also, they never compare salaries at a job by job basis. Are government lawyers making more than private sector lawyers (doubt it)? Are government janitors making more than private sector janitors? Shock and awe statistics are for the birds, and you generally do not even have to examine them very closely to see right through them.

And no, currently I am not paying any taxes - however, with any luck I should graduate this December and next year Uncle Sam can take a hole mess of my paycheck if they need to. :)
 
whysoserious said:
Ask questions, that's fine. What I have a problem with is someone saying, "OMG the average compensation for [insert name here] is [insert random number here] meanwhile blah blah". For instance, I am pretty sure they just compared average salary in the nation with total compensation as well - so they are including all the benefits (vacation time, sick leave, bonuses, insurance, etc) for the government workers, but I am not sure that they are including those things for the "median" salary. Also, they never compare salaries at a job by job basis. Are government lawyers making more than private sector lawyers (doubt it)? Are government janitors making more than private sector janitors? Shock and awe statistics are for the birds, and you generally do not even have to examine them very closely to see right through them.

And no, currently I am not paying any taxes - however, with any luck I should graduate this December and next year Uncle Sam can take a hole mess of my paycheck if they need to. :)
Click to expand...
I cant speak for anyone but myself. I think the fed ought to be under as close scrutiny as any business. I think the fed ought to be as responsible if not more responsible than the private sector when it comes to spending money. In my private sector ventures, what I do affects me, my partner, and our family. In my fed work, If I am reckless or careless with the budget it affects your grandkids.
 
SheWolf said:
I am really iffy on this movement to get pissed and attack people for making a good living while working for the government. I could understand if we were discussing our actual political leaders, because they are supposed to be held accountable to us. On the other hand, firefighters, police officers, service men and women, public defenders, etc. are needed... and if we keep attacking them eventually nobody will want a government job because they'll appear unstable and under appreciated by the general public.

Yeah, government employees get really good pensions. That used to be one of the attractions. You know who else gets really ****ing great pensions... presidents, congressmen, congresswomen, and senators. But NOBODY is ****ing attacking their pensions or wanting to cut Bush's, Cheney's, Rice's, Powell's, etc. retirement benefits.

It's really funny to me that all these politicians are leading so many of you to attack the pensions and benefits of your fellow peers, but they aren't putting theirs on the table... and you guys have all forgotten to demand they do so. I just really think you guys are being played hard by your political leaders, and since they are given their government jobs solely because of us and our votes and are held accountable to us, their ****ing pensions and benefits should be the first in line to be examined in such fashion.

And that goes without mentioning that their paychecks and their retirements and pensions, are a lot heftier than your average firefighter or Iraqi War Vet. Yeesh.
Click to expand...

Budget ax may come down on Congress pensions, benefits

Today, any member of Congress who has served at least five years is vested and, after retirement, can receive a full pension benefit at age 62. In some cases, retired lawmakers can start getting all or part of their pensions at an earlier age. For example, those who enter Congress at a relatively young age and serve at least 20 years can start collecting their pensions as early as age 50.

Though federal pensions date to the Civil Service Retirement Act of 1920, enacted 15 years before Social Security was created, members of Congress weren't added to the pension system until 1942, the CRS report said. And, according to congressional researchers, public outrage was immediate and the outcry killed the program after only two months.

Lawmakers gave themselves pensions again in 1946, partly, in the law's words, as "an inducement for retirement for those of retiring age or with other infirmities" that would allow for an infusion of younger blood in Congress.

The congressional pension system has evolved through the decades and has faced public criticism on and off at least since the 1970s. Defensive lawmakers say misinformation about their pensions is rampant and they frequently must respond to angry constituents who are under the false impression that they don't have to pay for Social Security or that they continue to collect their full congressional salaries for life.

One national political expert said the amount of money is so relatively small that reining in congressional retirement benefits would do almost nothing to help the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, as the 12-member, bipartisan supercommittee is formally known, reach its goal of finding $1.5 trillion in savings over 10 years by Nov. 23.
Click to expand...
 
Why do people think that just because you work for the government you should have to work for substandard wages and benefits?

You complain about government services, but turn around and don't want to pay competitive wages.

good question man!!!!!!!! the same question araise in my mind too good job!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom