4 ms·

They missed a big one: > Salaries and benefits — for identical jobs — are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector.

They missed a big one: > Salaries and benefits — for identical jobs — are 30 percent to 40 percent higher in the federal government than in the private sector. Claims that this dramatic discrepancy in compensation is warranted because of government workers’ high skills are unjustified, as this study shows. Equally unjustified is the fact that federal workers can rarely be fired, no matter how poor their job performance. Congress should align federal salaries and benefits with market rates—a simple, and fair, move that could save taxpayers nearly $47 billion in 2011.

jleyank 16y ago
Things must have changed since the 80's and are probably based on particular market segments/disciplines. Back then, science/engineering pay grades were below private industry - the stability of govt. made up for it. I've got no clue now, but I can't see how, for example, govt. pays more than pharma.
whyenot 16y ago
That's obviously not from the article so who are you quoting?
- splat 16y ago
  It's an abstract from a Heritage Foundation report: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Inflated-Federal-Pay-How-Americans-Are-Overtaxed-to-Overpay-the-Civil-Service http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Inflated-Fe...
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    I'm not disputing the facts and don't really have the time to look it up right now, but the Heritage Foundation isn't really nonpartisan. Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
aamar 16y ago
The original article is about budget problems at state and local levels, so salaries of federal employees aren't really relevant. Aside: the Heritage study gives a premium of 22% when controlling for education level; the authors have not controlled for experience level and have no way of controlling for intangible skill differences which might legitimize the discrepancy. State and local employees make less then private sector employees (on average) when controlling for education, experience, and so on[1]. This is not to say that each and every municipality has been managing its budgets well; clearly many haven't, and outlying salaries seem to be part the problem[2] in specific situations. [1] http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7bA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7d/uploads/%7b03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7d.PDF http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7bA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C... [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/california-official-s-800-000-salary-in-city-of-38-000-triggers-protests.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/california-official...
- aswanson 16y ago
  Accidental downmod. Excellent comment.
- lionhearted 16y ago
  Good comment. I just did a quick google for the government employee premium - I was thinking specifically about California since that's the state economy I know most about. Their spending on salaries, benefits, and pensions was crazy. Lots of good analysis about California's problems - Heritage wasn't actually the link I was looking for, I saw a different specific analysis but that one came up in Google first and was close enough to give a general idea. Edit: Also, the article mixes federal and state spending. Their examples of high spending they think are wasteful are all federal - bank bailouts, assuming private debt like General Motors, and wars are all federal spending.
  - aamar 16y ago
    For some reason I don't see discussion of federal spending in the Salon article or the cited NYTimes article, except for a few offhand comments in the former which seem suggestive, not substantive (e.g. rumors about what the Deficit Commission may propose 4 months from now). Why am I missing them? I agree about California; there seems to be plenty of evidence of exceedingly high salaries and pensions. Administrators might reasonably claim that they raised comp in order to hire top talent (for example at the UCs) and that they were successful in doing so. But they ratcheted up way past levels that could be sustained in a downturn, and at this point it seems short-sighted to the point of crazy.
mturmon 16y ago
The real big one would be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the article does highlight. That's order of $1000B.
lutorm 16y ago
What's your source for that? It's obviously not from the posted article.
- cma 16y ago
  It is from the neutral Heritage Foundation (yeah, the one Rush Limbaugh gives donation information for nearly daily); their methodology in determining what public/private sector jobs were directly comparable was no doubt squeaky clean. Limbaugh has a piece praising the report, behind his paywall: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Inflated+Federal+Pay:+How+Americans+Are+Overtaxed+to+Overpay+the+Civil+Service+rush+limbaugh http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Inflated+Federal+Pa...

jleyank 16y ago

Things must have changed since the 80's and are probably based on particular market segments/disciplines. Back then, science/engineering pay grades were below private industry - the stability of govt. made up for it. I've got no clue now, but I can't see how, for example, govt. pays more than pharma.

whyenot 16y ago

That's obviously not from the article so who are you quoting?

splat 16y ago
It's an abstract from a Heritage Foundation report: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Inflated-Federal-Pay-How-Americans-Are-Overtaxed-to-Overpay-the-Civil-Service http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/07/Inflated-Fe...
- Locke1689 16y ago
  I'm not disputing the facts and don't really have the time to look it up right now, but the Heritage Foundation isn't really nonpartisan. Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

aamar 16y ago

The original article is about budget problems at state and local levels, so salaries of federal employees aren't really relevant. Aside: the Heritage study gives a premium of 22% when controlling for education level; the authors have not controlled for experience level and have no way of controlling for intangible skill differences which might legitimize the discrepancy. State and local employees make less then private sector employees (on average) when controlling for education, experience, and so on[1]. This is not to say that each and every municipality has been managing its budgets well; clearly many haven't, and outlying salaries seem to be part the problem[2] in specific situations. [1] http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7bA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C4-876EFE1E4032%7d/uploads/%7b03E820E8-F0F9-472F-98E2-F0AE1166D116%7d.PDF http://www.slge.org/vertical/Sites/%7bA260E1DF-5AEE-459D-84C... [2] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/california-official-s-800-000-salary-in-city-of-38-000-triggers-protests.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-20/california-official...

aswanson 16y ago
Accidental downmod. Excellent comment.
lionhearted 16y ago
Good comment. I just did a quick google for the government employee premium - I was thinking specifically about California since that's the state economy I know most about. Their spending on salaries, benefits, and pensions was crazy. Lots of good analysis about California's problems - Heritage wasn't actually the link I was looking for, I saw a different specific analysis but that one came up in Google first and was close enough to give a general idea. Edit: Also, the article mixes federal and state spending. Their examples of high spending they think are wasteful are all federal - bank bailouts, assuming private debt like General Motors, and wars are all federal spending.
- aamar 16y ago
  For some reason I don't see discussion of federal spending in the Salon article or the cited NYTimes article, except for a few offhand comments in the former which seem suggestive, not substantive (e.g. rumors about what the Deficit Commission may propose 4 months from now). Why am I missing them? I agree about California; there seems to be plenty of evidence of exceedingly high salaries and pensions. Administrators might reasonably claim that they raised comp in order to hire top talent (for example at the UCs) and that they were successful in doing so. But they ratcheted up way past levels that could be sustained in a downturn, and at this point it seems short-sighted to the point of crazy.

mturmon 16y ago

The real big one would be the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the article does highlight. That's order of $1000B.

lutorm 16y ago

What's your source for that? It's obviously not from the posted article.

cma 16y ago
It is from the neutral Heritage Foundation (yeah, the one Rush Limbaugh gives donation information for nearly daily); their methodology in determining what public/private sector jobs were directly comparable was no doubt squeaky clean. Limbaugh has a piece praising the report, behind his paywall: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Inflated+Federal+Pay:+How+Americans+Are+Overtaxed+to+Overpay+the+Civil+Service+rush+limbaugh http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Inflated+Federal+Pa...