Why government workers are fairly paid

[d-ray657]

How many times have you come across a situation in your workplace where it was made abundantly clear to you that the company you work for is not a democracy. Company management pretty much has autocratic rule.

In the public sector, however, the workers are employed by democratic institutions. Some of those on the right see that as a problem, but I see is as an example of how income can be allocated fairly. People like Walker were complaining that some workers were approaching $100k in compensation. They don't take into account, however, that people earning that much generally had multiple degrees. Overall, however, we see people earning a good living wage with a retirement that gives them security in their old age.

What we don't see is the kind of income stratification that exists in the private sector. The highest paid state executive makes a little over $200k. The salary for the POTUS is $400K, something a bank executive would scoff at. (Granted the prez's perks probably push the value of the package up considerably.) The income stratification in the private sector is incredibly higher. In 2004, the average CEO made 400 times what the average production worker made.

One would expect democratic institutions to have a more egalitarian pay structure, and the numbers sure bear it out. How much do you think the the taxpayers would like to pay $8million bonuses? We pay for them at the gas tank, in our credit card fees, with our cell phone, our health insurance, and on and on and on.

You can convince me the the American work force is underpaid, but not that the government workers are overpaid.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

excellent perspective, thanks

[finnbow]

I think the anecdotal stories of NYC (and other big city) cops, fireman, etc. retiring on 100% disability at age 45 and working another job. This certainly happens in Montgomery County, MD.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

How many times have you come across a situation in your workplace where it was made abundantly clear to you that the company you work for is not a democracy. Company management pretty much has autocratic rule.

In the public sector, however, the workers are employed by democratic institutions. Some of those on the right see that as a problem, but I see is as an example of how income can be allocated fairly. People like Walker were complaining that some workers were approaching $100k in compensation. They don't take into account, however, that people earning that much generally had multiple degrees. Overall, however, we see people earning a good living wage with a retirement that gives them security in their old age.

What we don't see is the kind of income stratification that exists in the private sector. The highest paid state executive makes a little over $200k. The salary for the POTUS is $400K, something a bank executive would scoff at. (Granted the prez's perks probably push the value of the package up considerably.) The income stratification in the private sector is incredibly higher. In 2004, the average CEO made 400 times what the average production worker made.

One would expect democratic institutions to have a more egalitarian pay structure, and the numbers sure bear it out. How much do you think the the taxpayers would like to pay $8million bonuses? We pay for them at the gas tank, in our credit card fees, with our cell phone, our health insurance, and on and on and on.

You can convince me the the American work force is underpaid, but not that the government workers are overpaid.

Regards,

D-Ray

Perhaps government workers ought mostly be part time or volunteers. I do not think the analogy is valid. I also question the notion that government bureaucracies are inherently more democratic. I tend to think of government as the employer of last resort—an employer that accepts those that can't be competitive in the private sector.

How much do government workers contribute to our GNP?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Perhaps government workers ought mostly be part time or volunteers. I do not think the analogy is valid. I also question the notion that government bureaucracies are inherently more democratic. I tend to think of government as the employer of last resort—an employer that accepts those that can't be competitive in the private sector.

Do you have data to back that up? I tend to doubt it. There are plenty of intelligent people with a strong sense of service. Think the service academies get the dregs. They produce government workers. Many schools of education are selective in their entrance requirements. There are plenty of wannabe cops working for private security companies, because the standards for getting into the academy are high.

If you want to believe that government services are superfluous, I can see why you would want part time or volunteer workers. I would rather have competent workers who bring credentials and develop experience and expertise in their jobs. Wouldn't you rather have an experienced food inspector, building inspector, fire marshall, law enforcement officer, air traffic controller, and yes, regulator?

BTW, it's not valid to compare people who for wages with people who work for wages? Or it's not valid to compare the salaries of people whose companies trade in paper with the salaries who run a state-wide or nation-wide (actually world-wide) operation? It's not valid to point out that the compensation in the private sector is extremely top-heavy, particularly compared with the compensation of people who work for us?

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Do you have data to back that up? I tend to doubt it. There are plenty of intelligent people with a strong sense of service. Think the service academies get the dregs. They produce government workers. Many schools of education are selective in their entrance requirements. There are plenty of wannabe cops working for private security companies, because the standards for getting into the academy are high.

I realize there are people that work just for a sense of service, but there are also many that just want the benefits of government employment. Given the monopoly that government has over their created functions, it is difficult to find comparisons with private enterprise. The Postal Service might be an apt comparison. Could the Postal Service exist without their mandated monopoly over mail?

If you want to believe that government services are superfluous, I can see why you would want part time or volunteer workers. I would rather have competent workers who bring credentials and develop experience and expertise in their jobs. Wouldn't you rather have an experienced food inspector, building inspector, fire marshall, law enforcement officer, air traffic controller, and yes, regulator?

"Experienced" also implies entrenched, complacent, and careerist inspired motivations. How does one eliminate a bureaucracy once it is created?

BTW, it's not valid to compare people who for wages with people who work for wages? Or it's not valid to compare the salaries of people whose companies trade in paper with the salaries who run a state-wide or nation-wide (actually world-wide) operation? It's not valid to point out that the compensation in the private sector is extremely top-heavy, particularly compared with the compensation of people who work for us?

Regards,

D-Ray

Unless one owns stock in a company why would one care what the CEO earns? The citizen has an interest in minimizing the cost of government because it has a direct monetary cost and it restricts liberty.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I realize there are people that work just for a sense of service, but there are also many that just want the benefits of government employment. Given the monopoly that government has over their created functions, it is difficult to find comparisons with private enterprise. The Postal Service might be an apt comparison. Could the Postal Service exist without their mandated monopoly over mail?

I'm not sure they have a "mandated monopoly over mail" (i.e., FedEx and UPS will take your $.44 letters for $10).

"Experienced" also implies entrenched, complacent, and careerist inspired motivations.

Experience to me implies capability. Is your own experience in your job a detriment to performance?

Unless one owns stock in a company why would one care what the CEO earns? The citizen has an interest in minimizing the cost of government because it has a direct monetary cost and it restricts liberty.

Keep in mind that most middle class (or higher) people are stockholders (often through mutual funds). In fact, over half of all American households own equities in some form. (http://www.ici.org/pdf/rpt_08_equity_owners.pdf )

If I were king, I would prefer that the CEO's of McDonalds, Walmart, etc. made less and their employees made more. This would lessen the need for public assistance for such people (a concern to everyone, including Republicans).

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I realize there are people that work just for a sense of service, but there are also many that just want the benefits of government employment. Given the monopoly that government has over their created functions, it is difficult to find comparisons with private enterprise. The Postal Service might be an apt comparison. Could the Postal Service exist without their mandated monopoly over mail?



"Experienced" also implies entrenched, complacent, and careerist inspired motivations. How does one eliminate a bureaucracy once it is created?



Unless one owns stock in a company why would one care what the CEO earns? The citizen has an interest in minimizing the cost of government because it has a direct monetary cost and it restricts liberty.

The postal service is also burdened with a hell of large payment it has to make to Washington. Priority Mail is as good as FedEx at less than half the price. Not only that with USPS I am notified when the mail is in, FedEx drops it on the front porch or by the garage door and runs.

And there are no entrenced people in private corporations, boy you must have worked at different companies than I have seen here.

No stock in the company but as my wife says (loudly) when she is picking up her prescriptions "Whose golden parachute am I paying for this time?"

Gotta run New Tricks is coming on.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by bhunter

Perhaps government workers ought mostly be part time or volunteers. I do not think the analogy is valid. I also question the notion that government bureaucracies are inherently more democratic. I tend to think of government as the employer of last resort—an employer that accepts those that can't be competitive in the private sector.

How much do government workers contribute to our GNP?

Perhaps you should volunteer your time? After all you are incompetent and grossly overcompensated, and I personally regard your occupation to be trivial and unnecessary, whatever it is. Am I correct in this assumption?


Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Perhaps you should volunteer your time? After all you are incompetent and grossly overcompensated, and I personally regard your occupation to be trivial and unnecessary, whatever it is. Am I correct in this assumption?


Dave

The difference is that if I'm incompetent and overcompensated, my clients would decline my services. Hence, I'd either need to lower my rates or increase my competence. In an entrenched government bureaucracy, there are no such limits. Mr. Bureaucrat gets his money regardless of his competence; moreover, since government holds a monopoly, there is no alternative for the service.