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

[merrylander]

We already have volunteer firemen. Hey maybe the CEO of Goldman Sachs will return his salary and volunteer his services.

Sorry chum, I know you will deny it until hell freezes over but most businesses here are just mean, cheap bastards. They demand 110% of employees but only want to pay 75%.

[whell]

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.

Public-sector pay is not set by competitive markets, and because many classes of public workers provide government-monopolized services, it's hard to know what the work of many government employee is really worth. Without benchmarking total compensation against the knowledge skills and abilities of like jobs in the public vs private sector, comparisons are not very meaningful. Also, the ability to trade current total compensation for relative job stability, generally richer benefits, and the ability to retire early with a comparatively generous compensation package creates additional disparity in a comparison of public vs private sector compensation.

Originally Posted by d-ray657

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

Ok, but how do you think a more egalitarian pay structure would fly at the average large or boutique law firm? Not terribly well, I suspect.

I think the topic of compensation is historically far more of a subject of irritation on the left than it is on the right. The left tends to be highly resentful of executive pay, and complain about how the average worker gets screwed. Yet, here's a thread that supports a more egalitarian comp structure, while suggesting that compensation in such programs is more on par with average private sector wages. It strikes me as a bit odd.

The public is focused on compensation of government workers because labor is the number one controllable cost for most organizations, and because state and federal institutions are in a budget crunch. They also question the relative value of the contributions of those gov't workers for the wage dollars spent when compared to their own job and compensation - just as some do as they look around their own workplace on occasion. Frankly, since tax dollars pay wages, don't folks have a logical basis to ask those questions and expect good answers?

Another area of disparity worth exploring is the wages that are spent supporting the inefficiencies in government that we all complain about. Do wage dollars spent in the public sector yield the same value for the dollar that they do in the private sector? I strongly suspect not, and I susect that that value is greater in the private sector, but I'm not aware of any objective data on the topic either.

[d-ray657]

I reject the proposition that market provides the only appropriate measure of value. I love music and I love sports, but I don't believe that rock stars or sports stars (or movie stars or bank presidents) provide the same intrinsic value to society as teachers, firefighters and cops. How much has Charlie Sheen contributed to our standard of living?

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Public-sector pay is not set by competitive markets, and because many classes of public workers provide government-monopolized services, it's hard to know what the work of many government employee is really worth. Without benchmarking total compensation against the knowledge skills and abilities of like jobs in the public vs private sector, comparisons are not very meaningful. Also, the ability to trade current total compensation for relative job stability, generally richer benefits, and the ability to retire early with a comparatively generous compensation package creates additional disparity in a comparison of public vs private sector compensation.

Are you serious? How does bookkeeping in the public sector differ from the private sector? A civil engineer working for the government is still a civil engineer. It is not like the public sector is some mysterious cabal.

If Saint Ronnie and the GOP had not set about destroying unions and the middle class benefits in the private sector would be better. If the votors would have not let all the right wing BS convince them the we have a great healthcare system some form of universal healthcare would have been in place years ago, saving companies money and making them more competitive. Why do you think GM builds the big Chev Impalas in Oshawa Ontario? It gives them a competitive advantage of about $1500 per car thanks to Single Payer.

Ah so you admit that their pensions and benefit packages did not come free - they gave way in wage rates, so they did not get summat for nowt.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I reject the proposition that market provides the only appropriate measure of value. I love music and I love sports, but I don't believe that rock stars or sports stars (or movie stars or bank presidents) provide the same intrinsic value to society as teachers, firefighters and cops. How much has Charlie Sheen contributed to our standard of living?

Regards,

D-Ray

The market is the most efficient method of determining value. I could hang a $10000 price tag on my 1998 Olds Bravada, but it's not likely that the market would support that price. I could also hold out for a $100000 per year job as a short order cook, but I think I'd be waiting a long time before anyone would hire me.

Now, I can got to work for the gov't and pull down $60000 as an Asst District Attorney. I may find that from time to time I'm opposed by counsel that earns twice or more than my annual wage. Does that make the gov't and their pay scale wrong, or is the free market wrong for allowing the other attorney to make more?