DIYbanter - View Single Post

Keith Williams

In article ,
says...
In article , krw wrote:
In article Iy8Gg.661554$Fs1.374052@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net, says...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , krw
wrote:

BTW, how do we continue to pay the government employee, making
*twice* what the civvies make?

Most scientists and engineers in government service are making
significantly
*less* than their counterparts in the private sector. The disparity is
even
greater for managers.

You are correct-

No, he is not.

not sure why previous poster misunderstood what I was
trying to say. We can't come close to matching what private-sector pays
qualified entry-level sysadmins and techies. One of many reasons Govt has
outsourced most of those jobs. Not cheaper for the taxpayers, but you can
get money for a service contract easier than you can get money for a warm
body.

Do the numbers. The private sector can't afford the medical nor
retirement benefits the public sector gets.

That simply isn't true.

It _IS_ true. I have a pretty good retirement package (and if I
started work 27 days later I wouldn't have half that), but nowhere
near what a government sector employee gets. My retirmeent is not
indexed to inflation. My medical benefits are fixed and not
indexed to any metric.

If a corporation ran
the same sort of books the government did, the CEO would be
sleeping in the same bunk as Ken Lay.

No argument there -- but that's a separate issue from salaries.

No it's not. Benefits are a big part of compensation.

BTW, did you read the article I linked?

See my response to your previous post -- the author of that article is
comparing apples and oranges.

Nope. Compensation is compensation. You can't just take one part
of the equation and ignore the rest.

--
Keith