Where There's Muck, There's Brass
More proof of a public sector on steroids. USA Today reports that federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn. Interestingly, this trend predates the hopey-changey revolution: for nine years in a row, federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees. For comic relief, we turn, as always, to organized labor:
Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years. (emphasis mine)
Well, if that's what the unions say, it must be true. But of course, "skill and education" are just two factors in determining compensation in the private sector. Far more important is "performance" -- the one word you don't hear from the unions.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
For most white-collar public-sector employees, their most-practiced skill is keeping constant weight on their office chair so that it doesn't float away. And if they have some paperwork to do, well, it passes the time.
May '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
If the government has been contracting out lower paid jobs as the unions claim, that is actually a legitimate reason the average compensation of the public sector would rise without any actual increases in the compensation of individual employees. What we really need is a comparison of specific public sector jobs to their private sector counterparts. An increase in the average is not the same thing as the average increase. It's not clear from the article which they are talking about.
This could be the same fallacy liberals engage in when they say compare the income of the bottom 20% of earners with the other quintiles in order to conclude that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer."
Jul '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
I'll say it again. This is a perfect issue for conservatives to run on. No one likes to think of some broad-bottomed bureaucrat who pushes paper around all day making more money. Where am I wrong?
May '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
I enjoy how critical folks are of gov't employees when I know many who bust their humps each day and haven't the opportunity or leisure to comment on a posting in the middle of the day. Public sector employees make less than their private sector counterparts. And many highly skilled public sector jobs are in some of the most expensive regions of the country. I know "over-paid public employees" is a popular topic here on Ricochet, but the stats often cited are misleading. Sec. Gates just announced the closure of Joint Forces Command. That's 5,000 jobs lost that will greatly impact the Hampton Roads region. Isn't that what you wanted? Why aren't you celebrating?! Also, the public sector employs a lot of veterans, which the private sector treats like lepers, because they think they all have PTSD and won't hire them. And if you want to go after someone, go after companies (Booz Allen, Lockheed Martin, Deloitte, et al) that contract with DoD. They pay defense contractors more, yes I said more, than their public sector counterparts. There's your fleecing of America.
May '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
But they pay us less than our private sector, non-DoD contractor counterparts.
May '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
Mark - that may very well be true. I think Sec. Gates realizes that defense contractor positions are redundant in many specialities, which is why he plans on reducing them. I've no doubt that many public sector positions could be eliminated as well - and will be. But I'm unwilling to agree with an oft stated view that public employees are lazy and over-paid. If defense contractors make more than their public sector counterparts, but less than their private sector, non-DoD contractor counterparts, than why is the "public employees make too much" argument so popular among conservatives? It's flat-out inaccurate.
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
I've seen a lot of public employees in action. I'm not referring to the 2% in civilian defense positions. Let's just say, the work ethic did not impress me. What makes public employees different is, the money that pays their salary is obtained by force from taxpayers (including their own tax bill.) It would be a lot easier to run a corner grocery store if you could just tax everyone in the neighborhood, and they could either come in or not, doesn't really matter. That any public employees are unionized is ridiculous. The people the union reps negotiate with are not digging into their own pockets, so what do they care? It's a license to steal.
May '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
etoiledunord - Actually, the two agencies that employ the most federal employees are the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I think national defense and caring for our Veterans are justifiable taxpayer expenditures. Freedom isn't free. And I don't think a poor work ethic is limited to the public sector. You raise a good point about unions and there definitely needs to be some reform, but stereotyping such a diverse group as those in the public sector is unhelpful.
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
Okay, I guessed, but it's still in the single digits, because all federal employees represent only about 20% of government employees. I'm talking about the norm--not the exception.
May '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
Karen, so your point is that DoD civilians make less than related technical professionals in the private sector. You may be right. But I think it may be a fair point that public sector employees overall make more than their private sector counterparts. However, as I pointed out in my post above, this particular study does not seem to have shown that.
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
The challenge is that there is no private sector counterpart for many of the jobs! I am only half tongue-in-cheek with this.
May '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
Mark Lewis
The challenge is that there is no private sector counterpart for many of the jobs! I am only half tongue-in-cheek with this. · Aug 16 at 12:58pm
You're right, which means this is a meaningless statistic. It only makes sense to complain if there is a discrepancy in similar employees doing similar jobs. The same applies to the supposed male-female "wage gap".
Jun '10
Re: Where There's Muck, There's Brass
Mark Wilson
You're right, which means this is a meaningless statistic. It only makes sense to complain if there is a discrepancy in similar employees doing similar jobs. The same applies to the supposed male-female "wage gap". · Aug 16 at 4:44pm
Reminds me of a Woody Allen style liberal slip of the tongue: "The statistics (sex) are meaningless. But as meaningless statistics (sex) goes, it wasn't bad."