4 ms·
You're right that it doesn't make sense to compare the groups at an aggregate level but look at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
by gwright 16y ago
You're right that it doesn't make sense to compare the groups at an aggregate level but look at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N... for an attempt to look at comparable job catagories.
For example, registered nurses working for the government received $74,460 per year while in the private sector, the number is $63,780.
The same study found some occupations where the private sector paid more (airline pilots, lawyers).
There is a nice table there with a breakdown by occupation.
So it seems like the issue is a bit more complicated than the headlines would suggest. Imagine that.
- gte910h 16y agoBreakdown by occupation even doesn't yield good numbers. You have to also breakdown experience, etc. People with the experience of many of those federal workers make significantly more in the private sector. This feels like an innumerate reporter making comparisons without a statistician telling them what they really mean.
- gwright 16y agoSeems like you would have to control for productivity in order incorporate experience into the comparison. Hiring a more educated or experienced person for a job in which their education or experience doesn't lead them to be more productive in that particular position is just inefficiency. On the other hand if their experience leads them to be more efficient in their job then it would make sense to pay them more. I can totally agree with you that you have to be pretty careful when drawing conclusions from these sorts of studies. Personally I would be pleasantly surprised to read an accurate study that showed that the government was more efficient with its payroll than the private sector. I'm not going to hold my breath though.