3 ms·

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more has risen tenfold in past five years

5 points by chailatte 16y ago

kevinpet 16y ago
I think we need to chop government worker pay severely, but I don't like the misleading way this headline frames the problem. That is -- I think others may correctly point out that this is a very odd metric to quote, and hence people must need to fudge the numbers to argue the case. The more accurate is what Rand Paul just said -- federal total compensation averages $120k vs. $60k for private sector. The only subtlety there is total compensation including benefits vs. salary. The problem with those making more than X has increased by Y is that you can always generate extreme numbers by choosing X appropriately. Imagine there was a large subset of our all-knowing overlords making $145k five years ago. Maybe this was the cap for some particular level in the hierarchy. Now assume they got a 5% raise. Bam, huge increase in number of feds making over $150k. True, but misleading. If you want subtlety, there are studies out there comparing apples to apples (since federal employees are skewed towards professionals) and still finds massive pay differences.
ENOTTY 16y ago
They should really compare industry to industry to see if the pay with benefits are similar. For example, with all these new regulations on the financial industry, how are you going to attract financial professionals to government service to enforce these regulations. If they're making 5 figures in government while their classmates are making 6 or 7 figures in the private sector, would it be really surprising if we can't find enough smart and savvy financial cops?
makecheck 16y ago
It sounds ridiculous on the surface, but at least consider cost of living. You can't compare salaries without knowing where the people are. Assuming they are mostly in DC, how expensive is that compared to other parts of the country?
- percept 16y ago
  Ridiculously expensive.
percept 16y ago
Heavily slanted. Some points from the source article: "workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce" (the original headline was "More federal workers' pay" which paints a different mental picture). "The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years" "Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500" IT in particular is poorly compensated when compared to the private sector. In fact the government would be better off hiring large numbers at private sector-level salaries instead of outsourcing to private contractors at huge markups (Robert Gates made the same point with regard to defense contracting). But the forces aligned against "stunning" federal pay aren't likely to oppose continued outsourcing. They're also carefully carving the pie to exclude federal defense workers: "Freeze federal salaries for three years, with the exception of defense paychecks."

5 points by chailatte 16y ago

I think we need to chop government worker pay severely, but I don't like the misleading way this headline frames the problem. That is -- I think others may correctly point out that this is a very odd metric to quote, and hence people must need to fudge the numbers to argue the case. The more accurate is what Rand Paul just said -- federal total compensation averages $120k vs. $60k for private sector. The only subtlety there is total compensation including benefits vs. salary. The problem with those making more than X has increased by Y is that you can always generate extreme numbers by choosing X appropriately. Imagine there was a large subset of our all-knowing overlords making $145k five years ago. Maybe this was the cap for some particular level in the hierarchy. Now assume they got a 5% raise. Bam, huge increase in number of feds making over $150k. True, but misleading. If you want subtlety, there are studies out there comparing apples to apples (since federal employees are skewed towards professionals) and still finds massive pay differences.

ENOTTY 16y ago

They should really compare industry to industry to see if the pay with benefits are similar. For example, with all these new regulations on the financial industry, how are you going to attract financial professionals to government service to enforce these regulations. If they're making 5 figures in government while their classmates are making 6 or 7 figures in the private sector, would it be really surprising if we can't find enough smart and savvy financial cops?

makecheck 16y ago

It sounds ridiculous on the surface, but at least consider cost of living. You can't compare salaries without knowing where the people are. Assuming they are mostly in DC, how expensive is that compared to other parts of the country?

percept 16y ago
Ridiculously expensive.

percept 16y ago

Heavily slanted. Some points from the source article: "workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce" (the original headline was "More federal workers' pay" which paints a different mental picture). "The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years" "Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500" IT in particular is poorly compensated when compared to the private sector. In fact the government would be better off hiring large numbers at private sector-level salaries instead of outsourcing to private contractors at huge markups (Robert Gates made the same point with regard to defense contracting). But the forces aligned against "stunning" federal pay aren't likely to oppose continued outsourcing. They're also carefully carving the pie to exclude federal defense workers: "Freeze federal salaries for three years, with the exception of defense paychecks."