Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Heard about this on TV this morning:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... .htm#chart" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Long ago on a message board far away, it was argued that the difference in compensation between Federal and Private Sector jobs can be accounted for by the nature of Federal Jobs. The argument was that Federal jobs are proportionately more "white collar" and/or professional. The USA Today article at the link above suggests that is not true. For most occupations, the Feds pay more than the Private Sector does.

As I said I thought during that past discussion, there are certain professions such that working for the Federal Government is less lucrative. Doctors and Lawyers, for example. But I believed then and continue to believe now that the overwhelming majority of people who work for the Federal government are making more than they would have any prayer of making outside of the Federal government given their particular education and skill levels.

There is a job by job comparison chart at the bottom of the article. For example: The estimate is that the average "Secretary" working for the Federal government makes $44,500 per year while the average "Secretary" working in the Private Sector makes $33,829.

Doctors, lawyers, nurses and scientists who work for the federal government are significantly underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts...

Some other "professional" level employees are competitive with private sector...

But most if not all non-professional positions do pay better than the private sector...

just go look at the job offerings on http://www.USAjobs.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which include salary ranges for the area the job will be in...

Gov't lawyers are paid on average what the majority of private-sector lawyers make right out of law school if you take out the 5% that work in Big Corporate Law.

However, the upside to the private sector is 10-fold what the upside to the public sector is. Many government lawyers never make more than $100k. There are perks though, that isn't offered in the private sector - benefits, better hours, etc...

All a trade off.

I wonder how much of this has to do with unions. With less than 10% of the workforce unionized, federal employees are one of the last bastions of organized labor.

And productivity should also be considered. Private businesses learn to get by with less so a private sector employee might accomplish the same task with fewer resources and support.

That being said, I wonder what the difference in pay is for a Blackwater employee versus a marine. How about the pay difference for the head of the V.A. versus the CEO's of large insurance companies?

kalm wrote:I wonder how much of this has to do with unions. With less than 10% of the workforce unionized, federal employees are one of the last bastions of organized labor.

And productivity should also be considered. Private businesses learn to get by with less so a private sector employee might accomplish the same task with fewer resources and support.

That being said, I wonder what the difference in pay is for a Blackwater employee versus a marine. How about the pay difference for the head of the V.A. versus the CEO's of large insurance companies?

A blackwater employee does not have anywhere near the # of responsibilities a marine has...and the head of the VA has lots more than just insurance...a whole hospital system, in addition to the benefits systems...

Both the marine and VA chief make substantially less than a blackwater employee or a CEO of a large insurance company.....

I know that goes against the grain of the story in the lead post...

Col Hogan wrote:

kalm wrote:I wonder how much of this has to do with unions. With less than 10% of the workforce unionized, federal employees are one of the last bastions of organized labor.

And productivity should also be considered. Private businesses learn to get by with less so a private sector employee might accomplish the same task with fewer resources and support.

That being said, I wonder what the difference in pay is for a Blackwater employee versus a marine. How about the pay difference for the head of the V.A. versus the CEO's of large insurance companies?

A blackwater employee does not have anywhere near the # of responsibilities a marine has...and the head of the VA has lots more than just insurance...a whole hospital system, in addition to the benefits systems...

Both the marine and VA chief make substantially less than a blackwater employee or a CEO of a large insurance company.....

I know that goes against the grain of the story in the lead post...

But there have been a # of reports I've seen that claim last yr the cost of keeping a soldier in Afghanistan was now a million a yr. Do you think it costs XE Services (formerly Blackwater) a million a year for every operator they have in Afghanistan?

BDKJMU wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
A blackwater employee does not have anywhere near the # of responsibilities a marine has...and the head of the VA has lots more than just insurance...a whole hospital system, in addition to the benefits systems...

Both the marine and VA chief make substantially less than a blackwater employee or a CEO of a large insurance company.....

I know that goes against the grain of the story in the lead post...

But there have been a # of reports I've seen that claim last yr the cost of keeping a soldier in Afghanistan was now a million a yr. Do you think it costs XE Services (formerly Blackwater) a million a year for every operator they have in Afghanistan?

To answer that question accurately, you'd have to tell me what goes into that $1m per marine per year...and the same for a blackwater employee...

And since the blackwater employee is not = to a Marine in a number of ways, we'd have to figure out how to put a value on those differences...

Then we could answer the question you have posed...

The article conveniently glazes over the fact that so many federal jobs are concentrated in the DC area, which is one of the more expensive areas of the country to live in and receives a locality adjustment of 24.22%. That's obviously going to skew the numbers.

The article rightly mentions that several federal jobs are either far more complex than their civilian namesakes (accounting, for instance) or have no civilian equal. How could you even begin to make salary comparison statements there?

No worries though for those who think that feds make too much. Obama has already stated that he intends to follow up last year's paltry 2% raise with a 1.5% raise in 2011. That's not going to go very far in helping the thousands of junior enlisted military who live below the poverty line to ever get above it. Those are the valiant people out taking bullets so you can bitch about how much feds make.

93henfan wrote:The article conveniently glazes over the fact that so many federal jobs are concentrated in the DC area, which is one of the more expensive areas of the country to live in and receives a locality adjustment of 24.22%. That's obviously going to skew the numbers.

The article rightly mentions that several federal jobs are either far more complex than their civilian namesakes (accounting, for instance) or have no civilian equal. How could you even begin to make salary comparison statements there?

No worries though for those who think that feds make too much. Obama has already stated that he intends to follow up last year's paltry 2% raise with a 1.5% raise in 2011. That's not going to go very far in helping the thousands of junior enlisted military who live below the poverty line to ever get above it. Those are the valiant people out taking bullets so you can bitch about how much feds make.

Don't worry, I'm sure the banker fat cats who got tax payer-funded bonuses will be perfectly willing to help them out.

Few years ago I took part in a process called "Competitive Sourcing" a process by which USDA put jobs out for bids from the private sector. Most of our jobs are inter-disciplinary and fairly technical and complex. There were no private sector offers less than tripple the cost of the salary/benefit package of the federal employee in the position.

Grizalltheway wrote:

93henfan wrote:The article conveniently glazes over the fact that so many federal jobs are concentrated in the DC area, which is one of the more expensive areas of the country to live in and receives a locality adjustment of 24.22%. That's obviously going to skew the numbers.

The article rightly mentions that several federal jobs are either far more complex than their civilian namesakes (accounting, for instance) or have no civilian equal. How could you even begin to make salary comparison statements there?

No worries though for those who think that feds make too much. Obama has already stated that he intends to follow up last year's paltry 2% raise with a 1.5% raise in 2011. That's not going to go very far in helping the thousands of junior enlisted military who live below the poverty line to ever get above it. Those are the valiant people out taking bullets so you can bitch about how much feds make.

Don't worry, I'm sure the banker fat cats who got tax payer-funded bonuses will be perfectly willing to help them out.

You DO realize, of course, that many, many of those "fat cat bankers" didn't NEED nor did they WANT government help but it was FORCED upon them by the government so as not to give the public the "appearance" that some banks were healthier than others, NO?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Don't worry, I'm sure the banker fat cats who got tax payer-funded bonuses will be perfectly willing to help them out.

You DO realize, of course, that many, many of those "fat cat bankers" didn't NEED nor did they WANT government help but it was FORCED upon them by the government so as not to give the public the "appearance" that some banks were healthier than others, NO?

Some of them needed it, others didn't. I'm talking about the ones that DID need it because they were greedy, irresponsible assholes.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
You DO realize, of course, that many, many of those "fat cat bankers" didn't NEED nor did they WANT government help but it was FORCED upon them by the government so as not to give the public the "appearance" that some banks were healthier than others, NO?

Some of them needed it, others didn't. I'm talking about the ones that DID need it because they were greedy, irresponsible assholes.

Then quit lumping the ones that DIDN'T need it in with the "irresponsible assholes" who did.

Pretty please.

93henfan wrote:No worries though for those who think that feds make too much. Obama has already stated that he intends to follow up last year's paltry 2% raise with a 1.5% raise in 2011. That's not going to go very far in helping the thousands of junior enlisted military who live below the poverty line to ever get above it. Those are the valiant people out taking bullets so you can bitch about how much feds make.

You're right, and it's so unfair those valiant people got drafted into their poverty lifestyles.

Sorry if I don't feel sorry for the low raises the fed employees are getting as I fill out my wife's weekly unemployment benefit declaration. And she was a state employee who was consistently the highest rated performer in the western half of the state in her position (Dept of Labor - Apprenticship & Training Bureau...don't need Training nowadays I guess) but, since she came from the private sector, her three years were no match against the medicrity of the career state employees & she was laid off....enjoy the small raises...heck, enjoy being employed....

Col Hogan wrote:Doctors, lawyers, nurses and scientists who work for the federal government are significantly underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts...

Some other "professional" level employees are competitive with private sector...

But most if not all non-professional positions do pay better than the private sector...

just go look at the job offerings on http://www.USAjobs.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which include salary ranges for the area the job will be in...

Some of the professionals you cite are paid less than they might make in the private sector, but others are worthless unproductive dipshits who cannot perform in the private sector, my dear Colonel.

Appaholic wrote:

93henfan wrote:... but, since she came from the private sector, her three years were no match against the medicrity of the career state employees & she was laid off....enjoy the small raises...heck, enjoy being employed....

...which is the whole problem with unions and tenure.

native wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Doctors, lawyers, nurses and scientists who work for the federal government are significantly underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts...

Some other "professional" level employees are competitive with private sector...

But most if not all non-professional positions do pay better than the private sector...

just go look at the job offerings on http://www.USAjobs.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which include salary ranges for the area the job will be in...

Some of the professionals you cite are paid less than they might make in the private sector, but others are worthless unproductive dipshits who cannot perform in the private sector, my dear Colonel.

I'm thinking of those Blacwater guys who got hung from a bridge and set on fire........... ...should have stayed in the public sector, guys.....

native wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Doctors, lawyers, nurses and scientists who work for the federal government are significantly underpaid compared to their private sector counterparts...

Some other "professional" level employees are competitive with private sector...

But most if not all non-professional positions do pay better than the private sector...

just go look at the job offerings on http://www.USAjobs.gov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; which include salary ranges for the area the job will be in...

Some of the professionals you cite are paid less than they might make in the private sector, but others are worthless unproductive dipshits who cannot perform in the private sector, my dear Colonel.

And I did not make an assessment of the quality of people...just an observation on pay scales, public versus private...

houndawg wrote:

native wrote:
Some of the professionals you cite are paid less than they might make in the private sector, but others are worthless unproductive dipshits who cannot perform in the private sector, my dear Colonel.

I'm thinking of those Blacwater guys who got hung from a bridge and set on fire........... ...should have stayed in the public sector, guys.....

Yeah. That was hilarious.

Houndawg...are you blac?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Some of them needed it, others didn't. I'm talking about the ones that DID need it because they were greedy, irresponsible assholes.

Then quit lumping the ones that DIDN'T need it in with the "irresponsible assholes" who did.

Pretty please.

Sure thing, sweetheart.

houndawg wrote:

native wrote:
Some of the professionals you cite are paid less than they might make in the private sector, but others are worthless unproductive dipshits who cannot perform in the private sector, my dear Colonel.

I'm thinking of those Blacwater guys who got hung from a bridge and set on fire........... ...should have stayed in the public sector, guys.....

I have a hard time believing you said such a thing in jest, dawg. Maybe you were drunk or high. I thought you had some inner decency. Maybe you should apologize and retract your statement.

BDKJMU wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
A blackwater employee does not have anywhere near the # of responsibilities a marine has...and the head of the VA has lots more than just insurance...a whole hospital system, in addition to the benefits systems...

Both the marine and VA chief make substantially less than a blackwater employee or a CEO of a large insurance company.....

I know that goes against the grain of the story in the lead post...

But there have been a # of reports I've seen that claim last yr the cost of keeping a soldier in Afghanistan was now a million a yr. Do you think it costs XE Services (formerly Blackwater) a million a year for every operator they have in Afghanistan?

In this case, the contractors have a shorter logistics tail than the soldiers. This is not because the Blackwater employees are better or worse than the Marines. TAlmost all the Blackwater employees are ex-military who have already been through the very expen$ive military training pipeline. There is not much difference between an individual soldier and an individual Blackwater contractor with the same number of years of experience. Some key differences are how you can legally use the contractor and the fact that you can let a contractor go more easily.

native wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I'm thinking of those Blacwater guys who got hung from a bridge and set on fire........... ...should have stayed in the public sector, guys.....

I have a hard time believing you said such a thing in jest, dawg. Maybe you were drunk or high. I thought you had some inner decency. Maybe you should apologize and retract your statement.

Perhaps my humor is a little on the black side, Nathan, but apologize to who, exactly? No effing way, they were mercenaries, plain and simple, and they knew the rules and they were there only for the money and you know as well as I do that the grunts resent the fcvk out of their high salaries and lack of accountability. Don't even think about trying to put some patriotic spin on hired killers who mostly killed civilians and got paid $10,000 a month for it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
I'm thinking of those Blacwater guys who got hung from a bridge and set on fire........... ...should have stayed in the public sector, guys.....

Yeah. That was hilarious.

Houndawg...are you blac?

I'm pretty well hung, if that's what you're asking....

houndawg wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yeah. That was hilarious.

Houndawg...are you blac?

I'm pretty well hung, if that's what you're asking....

No, I'm wondering if you're blac or black.