U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-21-2010, 09:30 AM
 
8,266 posts, read 10,705,471 times
Reputation: 4769

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
Not quite ... and they wouldn't retire on a "full pension" right now.
Why not? It says 30 years service + minimum age 55,56,57.

Social security doesn't factor into this discussion since we are talking about the difference between what most private sector employees have versus govt, they (pretty much) all get social security so that cancels out, we are focusing on the pension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-21-2010, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,687 posts, read 5,534,464 times
Reputation: 4966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Thats incorrect, Federal Retirees did not receive a COLA for 2010 because of the CPI but Federal workers did receive a 2 % COLA for 2010.
No, that's incorrect. COLAs are for federal retirees; pay increases are for current federal employees.

For 2010, federal retirees received the same COLA as Social Security retirees - zero. For 2010, current federal employees received approximately a 2% pay increase. I say "approximately" because the actual pay increase for base pay was 1.5%, with 0.5% for "locality" increases ... and that's something that would take a LONG time to explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Why not? It says 30 years service + minimum age 55,56,57.

Social security doesn't factor into this discussion since we are talking about the difference between what most private sector employees have versus govt, they (pretty much) all get social security so that cancels out, we are focusing on the pension.
What I said was that they wouldn't retire on a "full pension" right now, and by "full" I mean a retirement that is not reduced by failure to meet ALL the minimum requirements. A FERS employee is eligible for retirement based on age and years of service, but if the age is less than 62, he doesn't get any Social Security. Additionally, if he retires prior to age 62, the small annuity he gets is based on 1% of a salary/years of service calculation; if he retires after age 62, the percentage is 1.1%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 12:00 PM
 
Location: EPWV
11,039 posts, read 6,194,296 times
Reputation: 12203
Quote:
Originally Posted by slackjaw View Post
Why not? It says 30 years service + minimum age 55,56,57.

Social security doesn't factor into this discussion since we are talking about the difference between what most private sector employees have versus govt, they (pretty much) all get social security so that cancels out, we are focusing on the pension.
I know people who have the years in but aren't the age and some who have the age but not quite the years, before they're eligible to retire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,961 posts, read 13,911,625 times
Reputation: 7008
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
No, that's incorrect. COLAs are for federal retirees; pay increases are for current federal employees.

For 2010, federal retirees received the same COLA as Social Security retirees - zero. For 2010, current federal employees received approximately a 2% pay increase. I say "approximately" because the actual pay increase for base pay was 1.5%, with 0.5% for "locality" increases ... and that's something that would take a LONG time to explain.


.
That is correct the pay increase was 1.5% coupled with a an approximate .5 % COLA, the average for the nation is around 2% total.
I don't quite understand why federal workers are getting any increase with the state of the economy and the CPI, especially while federal retirees incomes are frozen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,961 posts, read 13,911,625 times
Reputation: 7008
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
I hear you, and I agree with everything you've said above.

What you don't seem to get is that the main objection to federal salaries stems from the fact that the private sector is suffering right now. But rather than address the problems that workers in the private sector are facing - and they are real and significant problems - people are dumping on federal workers. And I get that - federal workers are seen as part of the big bad government, and it's extremely popular these days to be against the government.

But when the private sector was riding high, and workers would doing just fine, and federal salaries were lagging behind, where was the outcry from workers in federal sector about private sector pay? There was none.

Federal employees - at least in my experience - have always been willing to accept less in good times because they know that in bad times, they have a large measure of job security, and that their benefits - although susceptible to change over time - won't be yanked away.

Simply put, it is up to the individual to make the best decision they can about employment and career choices. Many have opted for the security of federal employment; far more have opted for less security but more lucrative employment in the private sector.

When times get tough, and those lucrative jobs in the private sector start to look not-so-good, complain about that, fix that, and don't go after the people who were smart enough or frankly lucky enough to have made a different choice.
This issue didn't just come up when "times are tough", federal salaries and benefits have been escalating for decades. There are engineers, scientists, accountants air traffic controllers making far more than their counterparts on the outside. It is no longer the low paying secure job with good benefits, now they can have their cake and eat it too. The facts on salaries posted previously don't lie.

Please try to explain to me why the federal workers got a pay raise last year and this year in the middle of our worst recession with people out of work and record federal deficits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,687 posts, read 5,534,464 times
Reputation: 4966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
This issue didn't just come up when "times are tough", federal salaries and benefits have been escalating for decades.
Yes, federal salaries have been escalating - see: Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990. Wikipedia describes this Act as "an attempt to address the need for pay reform in the executive branch of the United States Government that became apparent in the 1980s as Federal civil service salaries fell behind those in the private sector."

Federal benefits in general haven't been escalating. In fact, one could reasonably argue that federal retirement benefits have de-escalated with the implementation of the Federal Employees Retirement System for all federal employees hired after 1983.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
There are engineers, scientists, accountants air traffic controllers making far more than their counterparts on the outside.
Prove it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
It is no longer the low paying secure job with good benefits, now they can have their cake and eat it too. The facts on salaries posted previously don't lie.
What facts are those?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Please try to explain to me why the federal workers got a pay raise last year and this year in the middle of our worst recession with people out of work and record federal deficits.
Now that's a challenge - explaining why Congress did something!

But, are you saying that federal workers should not have received pay increases last year and this year? That the recession and unemployment and deficit should have required that such pay increases be skipped? And would you say that for all workers, and not just federal workers?

Of possible interest: More employers granting pay raises in 2010, Mercer survey shows
"Of those employers granting base pay increases, the average increase is expected to be 2.7 percent in 2010, down from an actual 3.2 percent in 2009, and slightly less optimistic than the increases planned earlier this year for 2010. Including salary freezes, average base pay increases for 2010 are projected to be 2.3 percent."
3.2% in 2009, and 2.7% in 2010 ... but that's ok, since they aren't federal workers, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,248 posts, read 21,313,041 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYBob View Post
I keep reading that no one has a plan to actually shrink the federal government. How's this for an idea.

With the exception of people in the armed forces below a yet to be specified rank, all federal workers should be forced to undergo a pay cut.

Those whos annual income is less than $150,000 - 10%
Those whos annual income is greater than $150,000 - 15%

There should be no annual increases or merrit increases for two years.

There should be a hiring freeze for all federal jobs. Make the government learn how to get things done with less people.

This isn't much more than what private industry has been forced to do over the last few years and studies have shown that federal government employees already make more and have better benefits than those in comperable positions in private industry.

I'll sit back and wait for the bombs in my mail box.
NO PAY CUTS for ANY workers!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2010, 08:43 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
13,978 posts, read 10,917,583 times
Reputation: 12741
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYBob View Post
I keep reading that no one has a plan to actually shrink the federal government. How's this for an idea.

With the exception of people in the armed forces below a yet to be specified rank, all federal workers should be forced to undergo a pay cut.

Those whos annual income is less than $150,000 - 10%
Those whos annual income is greater than $150,000 - 15%

There should be no annual increases or merrit increases for two years.

There should be a hiring freeze for all federal jobs. Make the government learn how to get things done with less people.

This isn't much more than what private industry has been forced to do over the last few years and studies have shown that federal government employees already make more and have better benefits than those in comperable positions in private industry.

I'll sit back and wait for the bombs in my mail box.
You're late to the party; they're basically already doing this. A ton of people are being fired from the public sector - firemen, policemen, teachers, administration folks, etc. - and it's going to continue for some time. All of those unemployed people will not help push up the unemployment rate and consume tax-sponsored unemployment benefits, because they will just add to the competition for the insufficient number of jobs out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 01:05 AM
 
Location: Portland, OR
9,608 posts, read 9,839,376 times
Reputation: 9238
So, a lot of you think Federal payrolls are overrun with six figure salaries. I worked in a quasi-federal govt. agency and only Asst. Commissioners and better got close to that. By far most were in the mid 20's and 30's. What percent of a large bureaucracy say, 7,000 head would be earning in the six figures? 1? 2? The savings to be realized by knocking down the several hundred thousand Federal six figure salaries countrywide by 10, 15 or even 50% would be in the low billions? Our country is on the hook for trillions and you have your knives sharpened to prick a few aspiring millionaires for their lunch money. Shame on you. We have billionaires that have the 2 or 3 billion that you would save be eliminating those positions outright as spare change, forget about lunch money. Am I missing something?

H
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-22-2010, 09:45 AM
 
10,963 posts, read 8,049,330 times
Reputation: 3119
Quote:
Originally Posted by KYBob View Post
What this whole topic really shows is how much corporations have been screwing American workers over the last 20 to 30 years. Back in the 1970's and 1980's federal jobs where NOT that desirable mainly due to lower pay. The biggest reason pay for federal workers in NOT that the federal government pays workers too much itís the private sector have been increasingly stingy with wage increases to non-executive employees especially in the ten to fifteen years. Keep in mind that corporate profits and executive pay have SKYROCKETED in the same period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top