3 ms·

I agree. I don't know if this is a problem in the US, but something else worth mentioning is that for many jobs, public sectors pay much more (higher pay, bett

by latch 9y ago

I agree. I don't know if this is a problem in the US, but something else worth mentioning is that for many jobs, public sectors pay much more (higher pay, better pensions, more sick leave, better job security, ...). So it isn't just about firing people for incompetence. [1] If the govt should be increasing pay to match market rates, then it should also be decreasing pay to match market rates. [1] https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-government-and-private-sector-compensation-in-ontario-2017 https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-government...

metaphor 9y ago
> I don't know if this is a problem in the US... With respect to STEM career fields, that's a gratuitous no. For an idea of what a grunt GS-12/13 engineer's salary in Silicon Valley (highest locality adjustment in the country) looks like, see [1]; management is at GS-14/15 level. For the sake of completeness, other locality rates can be found here[2]. Keep in mind that it takes 18 years to progress from Step 1 to Step 10. Not all federal organizations apply the GS scale (the NSA may be one), but they don't deviate far from it either. [1] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/18Tables/html/SF.aspx https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries... [2] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2018/general-schedule/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...
- fern12 9y ago
  >Keep in mind that it takes 18 years to progress from Step 1 to Step 10. This is true in some cases, but not all. I was hired at the GS-11/2 level without any prior government/military experience. A coworker of mine worked as a contractor for a few years, and was hired as a GS-15 last year. This is all in Silicon Valley (although he has a tech background, while I do not).
  - metaphor 9y ago
    To be sure, the time it takes to progress from Step 1 to 10 has no bearing on the grade and step in which an employee is hired at. If your colleague was hired into GS-15 Step 1, then it would still take this person the same 18 years to progress up the ladder to Step 10, assuming no irregular increases in pay. If coming from private industry, entry step is often negotiable; prior industry salary serves as basis, so it wouldn't surprise me if this person started at Step 10 (not that it matters after Step 5 based on Bay Area locality). In any case, GS-15 is a management position.
    - hiram112 9y ago
      Not all GS-15 are management positions.
forapurpose 9y ago
> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-government.. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-government.... Who is the Fraser Institute? Looking at their website, they seem to turn out libertarian and conservative arguments. For example, playing down income inequality, complaining about difficult investing in oil and gas, "Top 20 per cent of families pay 56 per cent of all taxes in Canada", etc. Wanting to reduce public sector pay would fit with that.
- latch 9y ago
  It's definitely libertarian and conservative (by Canadian standards). But that doesn't mean it can't be right. FWIW, it's high on the list of known/established Canadian think tanks. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done its own reports on this [1]. This also seem to be true in the UK, but at least there they say the gap is closing [2]. The IFS report says what I've also observed and what this [3] economist article states: "Wage differentials are relatively small in the public sector. Lower-level workers, such as secretaries, are usually better paid than their private-sector equivalents, whereas higher-level workers are worse paid." [1] https://www.cfib-fcei.ca/en/advocacy/wage-watch-comparison-public-sector-and-private-sector-wages https://www.cfib-fcei.ca/en/advocacy/wage-watch-comparison-p... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40480766 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40480766 [3] http://www.economist.com/node/17849199 http://www.economist.com/node/17849199
- pc86 9y ago
  > they seem to turn out libertarian and conservative arguments Better ignore everything they say, then! > Top 20 per cent of families pay 56 per cent of all taxes in Canada If that's wrong, then why not cite why? If it's correct, I suspect there's a good reason for it (e.g. progressive tax structures work and are objectively a good thing for society).
  - wfo 9y ago
    It is not wrong, but it is irrelevant except as propaganda: it frames the cost of government services as being borne by the wealthy and suggests the wealthy are being charitable already or that they should have some extra say over where their money goes. In fact it is the labor of the poor, extracted by the wealthy, then partially recovered from them in taxes that funds society. The wealthy hold the wealth not because they deserve it, but because they have used their power to take it. Choosing to talk about what the rich pay, rather than how they have siphoned wealth from society (i.e. how much of their ill gotten gains should they be allowed to keep, rather than how much do they give) is not a "fact" even if it is a true statement, it is a political position, a rhetorical strategy, and a framing device -- it is an assault on your brain, an attempt to trick you into accepting a conservative frame covertly without being honest about it: "I'm just stating facts, what's wrong with that?" Well, everything is wrong with that. There are trillions of facts yet they state this one. For a reason, obviously. You can reconstruct perfectly an ideological argument (of any ideology) based only on the sequence of facts they choose to present.

by latch 9y ago

metaphor 9y ago

> I don't know if this is a problem in the US... With respect to STEM career fields, that's a gratuitous no. For an idea of what a grunt GS-12/13 engineer's salary in Silicon Valley (highest locality adjustment in the country) looks like, see [1]; management is at GS-14/15 level. For the sake of completeness, other locality rates can be found here[2]. Keep in mind that it takes 18 years to progress from Step 1 to Step 10. Not all federal organizations apply the GS scale (the NSA may be one), but they don't deviate far from it either. [1] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/18Tables/html/SF.aspx https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries... [2] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2018/general-schedule/ https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...

fern12 9y ago
>Keep in mind that it takes 18 years to progress from Step 1 to Step 10. This is true in some cases, but not all. I was hired at the GS-11/2 level without any prior government/military experience. A coworker of mine worked as a contractor for a few years, and was hired as a GS-15 last year. This is all in Silicon Valley (although he has a tech background, while I do not).
- metaphor 9y ago
  To be sure, the time it takes to progress from Step 1 to 10 has no bearing on the grade and step in which an employee is hired at. If your colleague was hired into GS-15 Step 1, then it would still take this person the same 18 years to progress up the ladder to Step 10, assuming no irregular increases in pay. If coming from private industry, entry step is often negotiable; prior industry salary serves as basis, so it wouldn't surprise me if this person started at Step 10 (not that it matters after Step 5 based on Bay Area locality). In any case, GS-15 is a management position.
  - hiram112 9y ago
    Not all GS-15 are management positions.

forapurpose 9y ago

> https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-government.. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/comparing-government.... Who is the Fraser Institute? Looking at their website, they seem to turn out libertarian and conservative arguments. For example, playing down income inequality, complaining about difficult investing in oil and gas, "Top 20 per cent of families pay 56 per cent of all taxes in Canada", etc. Wanting to reduce public sector pay would fit with that.

latch 9y ago
It's definitely libertarian and conservative (by Canadian standards). But that doesn't mean it can't be right. FWIW, it's high on the list of known/established Canadian think tanks. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done its own reports on this [1]. This also seem to be true in the UK, but at least there they say the gap is closing [2]. The IFS report says what I've also observed and what this [3] economist article states: "Wage differentials are relatively small in the public sector. Lower-level workers, such as secretaries, are usually better paid than their private-sector equivalents, whereas higher-level workers are worse paid." [1] https://www.cfib-fcei.ca/en/advocacy/wage-watch-comparison-public-sector-and-private-sector-wages https://www.cfib-fcei.ca/en/advocacy/wage-watch-comparison-p... [2] http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40480766 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-40480766 [3] http://www.economist.com/node/17849199 http://www.economist.com/node/17849199
pc86 9y ago
> they seem to turn out libertarian and conservative arguments Better ignore everything they say, then! > Top 20 per cent of families pay 56 per cent of all taxes in Canada If that's wrong, then why not cite why? If it's correct, I suspect there's a good reason for it (e.g. progressive tax structures work and are objectively a good thing for society).
- wfo 9y ago
  It is not wrong, but it is irrelevant except as propaganda: it frames the cost of government services as being borne by the wealthy and suggests the wealthy are being charitable already or that they should have some extra say over where their money goes. In fact it is the labor of the poor, extracted by the wealthy, then partially recovered from them in taxes that funds society. The wealthy hold the wealth not because they deserve it, but because they have used their power to take it. Choosing to talk about what the rich pay, rather than how they have siphoned wealth from society (i.e. how much of their ill gotten gains should they be allowed to keep, rather than how much do they give) is not a "fact" even if it is a true statement, it is a political position, a rhetorical strategy, and a framing device -- it is an assault on your brain, an attempt to trick you into accepting a conservative frame covertly without being honest about it: "I'm just stating facts, what's wrong with that?" Well, everything is wrong with that. There are trillions of facts yet they state this one. For a reason, obviously. You can reconstruct perfectly an ideological argument (of any ideology) based only on the sequence of facts they choose to present.