And slowly but surely, the old adage of government workers trading "lower pay" for better benefits unravels...... How long before the younger generations start raising the pitchforks and torches?

I sat in beside two retired state government workers talking with a current city employee on what started as a business discussion regarding a bit of bureaucratic paperwork for a non-profit the retirees volunteered at. It became amazing how fast the casual conversation shifted not only to which offices they worked in, but what pay scales they were at and how much they were raking in on pensions. It almost descended to a "bragging" session as to how well they had gamed the system. To a young person straight out of college, it would have been enough to look for rope to lynch these folks.

Without looking at a profession by profession comparison of wages & benefits, this data is useless. Government employs a much larger percentage of professional workers than does private industry.

Jay,

Are these statistics comparing similarly skilled workers? I would guess that, as a class, government workers average a higher level of education, because a greater percentage of the total government workforce is probably professionals. If I am correct, then flat total compensation averages are not a good comparison. Certainly if you compare government employed computer network administrators, doctors or lawyers to their private sector counterparts, the private sector makes a lot more.

Second, are the value of bonuses included in the figures? Private sector employees may get these while government employees do not.

Interesting numbers; however, such a vague term,.....exactly what is a "worker?" Are these similar positions in both the private and public sectors with similar requirements? When does one stop being a "worker" and become management or administrative ( or, perhaps, a CEO)? Are these numbers also going to be released by the Labor Department (are the persons crunching these numbers public "workers"?).

Just askin',

Jay, you should know better than to make a comparison like this. You know full well that the average skill/training of government workers is not the same as the average skill/training of private sector workers. Why not compare wages within certain professional classes. The data are out there (in databases maintained by government workers, no less).

From the linked BLS press release:

"Compensation cost levels in State and local government should not be directly compared with levels in
private industry. Differences between these sectors stem from factors such as variation in work
activities and occupational structures. Manufacturing and sales, for example, make up a large part of
private industry work activities but are rare in State and local government. Professional and
administrative support occupations (including teachers) account for two-thirds of the State and local
government workforce, compared with one-half of private industry."

RE: the unequal job comparison argument

Federal gov workers make 54% more total compensation for a comparable basket of occupations to the private sector. Perhaps the easiest measure is the Fed gov's voluntary and involuntary termination rates both of which are 25% of the private sector's rate. The low involuntary quit rate illustrates the "impossible to get fired" stereotype. The low voluntary quit rate shows it's the best deal these people can get. Until there are swaths of vacant gov jobs that can't be filled, we are overpaying them. There should be a shortage of gov workers, not a waiting list such that the only way you're getting hired is to know someone on the inside. It's a textbook example of the price of labor being above equilibrium.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Let's see...a high percentage of Federal workers are in DC, which has a much higher cost of living than most of the rest of the country. Federal workers tend to be more educated, with a higher percentage of PhDs.

This is comparing apples and oranges. I make about US$30k less a year than someone with my job in the private sector. The benefits aren't *that* good, believe me.

When comparing apples to apples, public employees actually make about 11% LESS than their counterparts in the private sector. That's the finding of a recent study by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence (Center) and the National Institute on Retirement Security. Predictably, this didn't get much attention by the media: http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=395

Nobody cares about these stories when the economy is booming. Where I work, we still can't get contractors to "flip" because they won't take a cut in pay.

Mr. Hancock seems to think that the lower employees are compensated, the better. Sure, as manufacturing jobs (which were often union jobs), have left the country, the average wages and benefits of private sector workers have gone down. Now we see the predominance of low-paid, unorganized service jobs dominating the private sector. So should government workers who have increased their level of unionization in recent years be brought down to reflect depressed wages and benefits of the private sector?

Let’s examine the private sector employees’ situation. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement. To the extent that these saving are in defined contribution plans, many employees have to delay their retirement due to the stock market crash. Incidentally, those with really big salaries and pensions who have yet to pay a real price for their devastation caused this crash.

Then lets look government workers where things are not that rosy either. In 2009, the average monthly benefit for a participant with 20-25 years of service was $1,657. And this was after the employee had contributed 4-5% of their wages to the system in order to receive the benefit.

The truth is that instead of encouraging that all employees be brought down to the same low level, Mr. Hancock might do better to see what can be done to build the middle class and increase the pay and benefits for those who are currently destined to live in poverty in retirement.

The average of government sector salaries includes very few, if any, minimum wage workers. Therefore, the average of private sector salaries, which does include many minimum wage workers, is automatically going to come out lower. Also, federal government workers are on average older and better educated than the average private sector worker. Therefore, they make more money than the average worker at Walmart, which is the largest private employer in the U.S. These surveys need to compare apples with apples.

I have to agree with many of the other people who have commented here. I know for a fact as a recent college grad (well, just before the economy tanked anyway) that I would have been paid better working in the private sector, I chose local government for more job stability because I was able to see the looming recession somehow before others did.

Granted my benefits are better at the government level, but being young and healthy i'm not using them to their fullest, and honestly do not expect the current pension system to be anywhere near what it is now when I retire. Catch is my employer pays 'on my behalf' into the pension system, not into my 457b (401k for govt workers), so i'm not getting any sort of match or other incentive, i'm forced to pay into a crumbling pension.

Also, its sick how much federal government workers get paid, and how they still have gotten raises in the past 3 years when my salary has been flat (went down if you look at furlough days).

Would be interested in what happens when you pull out the pension benefits, which have virtually disappeared in the private sector.

Jay - sounds like you offended some of those that are feeding at the public trough. My response to them is that if things are so good in the private sector, come on out and join us (they won't, of course - they know they're on the gravy train). Eventually we'll have to face reality like out European brethren and then we'll get to see these parasites marching in the streets to protest any reduction of any type to their "hard-earned" benefits.

I think I made a similar comment about this on one of your blogs a long time ago and one response from these cretins called me the stupid one - saying I had the same choice when I was young and could have chosen the easy road of government work as he had so he was now going to sit back with his big-time pension (he was already retired despite being well under 60) and laugh at us suckers that had to pay for it.

And Gov't workers are in a low stress environment, have more flexibility with hours, greater benefits and a better daily work environment. Private industry are ball and chain workers. Account for every second of the day. I retired Gov't after 30 years. Wish I had never left.

Correct me if I am wrong - but aren't all government employees salaried? I know that in general salaried employees are compensated a bit more due to the fact that they cannot incur overtime. I agree wih several responses. It is not fair to compare holistically in this regard. Depending on the profession you can make way more in the private sector than in the government sector. It is often said that government contractors make more than Federal employees. But with the current state of the economy, who knows whats happening!

I wonder if Jay or the Sun can track IP addresses for comments? I wonder how many pro-government posts would show government addresses?

Jay,

For an explanation of differences in pay such as you mention, check out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020203722.html

--Steve

Jay,
Reading all the comments back and forth I can tell you this...when an employee considers working where I work and gets an offer of similar skilled position in Federal Government, they always go to Federal employment. So who is the biggest competitor for skilled employees in my eyes? The Federal Government.

Mr. Macdonald,

The Hancock article was about state and local gov't employees--state and local gov'ts also have a hard time competing with the federal gov't for workers, just as they do with the private sector. As to private sector and the feds, my anedoctal experience supports the conclusion that with highly educated employees, the private sector still beats out even the feds for workers. You go to work for the feds based on your educational qualifications until you gain the experience and connections, then you take that to the private sector for better pay.