Doug Miller wrote:
In article , krw wrote:

In article ,
says...

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 certainly have not taken into account their benefits. *I*
certainly don't get their health and retirement benefits, though
will be paying for them until I die, and after, if the Democrats
have their way.

Even taking the value of benefits into account, civil servants still don't
make anywhere near twice as much as their civilian counterparts (as you
claimed).

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/P...20/the_great_w
age_gap


The author of this article begins to display his massive ignorance as early as
about the fifth paragraph:

"Average compensation for federal civilian workers last year came to $106,579
— which Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute notes is "exactly twice the
average compensation paid in the U.S. private sector." Throw out the benefits
and the difference is less, but still a whopping 62 percent more for the
federal worker."

Even if the figures are correct, the comparison is at best meaningless,
because it's comparing the average of *all* government employment to the
average of *all* non-government employment. This is an apples-and-oranges
comparison, because it's not comparing similar jobs.

The lowest wages in the private sector are found in retail stores and
restaurants. Q: how many retail stores and restaurants does the Federal
government operate? A: zero.

The DoD operates an extensive network of retail stores and restaurants,
and even resorts.

The Federal workforce also contains disproportionate numbers of scientists,
engineers, and managers -- all of which pay more than average.

When you compare _similar_jobs_ between the Federal civil service and the
private sector, you find that wages are almost always higher -- and not by
just a little bit, either -- in the private sector. That's why the Federal
government has a hard time retaining its top people: business hires them away.
You just don't hear about businesses losing their top people to the Federal
government because the pay is better. It just doesn't happen.

You cannot really compare the job of a manager, for example, without
consideration of such intangibles as likelihood of job loss. A
government manager who fails to perform is in virtually no danger of
losing his job, and may even be promoted; a civilian manager who fails
to perform is very often let go.

The result is that untalented people are overpaid by the government
(which is why it attracts so many of that ilk), while talented people
are underpaid (and thus tend not to seek or retain government
positions). There are certainly exceptions, such as those who take a
government position out of idealism or a desire to serve their country,
but they are pretty rare. Most cabinet officers, for example, take a
severe pay cut during their government service; how much of that is
offset by the power and publicity of their position is a good question.
Federal attorneys and judges, for example, earn far less than they
could as private attorneys, and many of them leave when it is time to
put their kids through college.