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.
As best I know, what you claim certainly is not true for Federal employees.
"Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.
The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year."
Please compare jobs equally across the board. The private sector has massive amount of minimum/near minimum wage workers like retail and fast food, whereas the public sector does not, and what little they do, it is contracted out.
Control for that variable alone will show federal employees get less compensation than their private sector peers.
Also, you seem to forget it was on in the early 2000's when the federal government and the military could not find anyone who wanted to work for them. The economy (and wages unlike now) were booming and recruiting was very, very difficult (add the war for military recruitment). They raised the compensation so they could attract not only people, but well qualified people (do you really want the bottom of the barrel doing many gov functions?)
I have seriously considered it. If it were to fail the day I could receive it, I would throw a party and celebrate.
You know, I used to have a secretary who moaned and groaned constantly about the federal government building highways. And yet she used the Capital Beltway around D.C. everyday/
She moaned and groaned about virtually every federal program you could name.
But then she retired, and without exaggerating, I can honestly say that without Social Security and her husband's disability payments, they'd literally be in...well, let's see...do we have poor houses anymore. Let's put it this way...they'd be indigent.
Maybe after 83 years it's time to admit that Social Security has made life livable for most older Americans. Maybe that's why 81% of Americans agree that Social Security "provides security and stability to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and the children and widowed spouses of deceased workers".
The following book is excellent reading to understand how we got here together with the implication going forward for both public sector and private sector pensions. Note the book is 10 years old and was published just before the Great Recession. Much of the book is historical -- the nature of public sector pensions in the late 1800s for NYC subway workers going forward into bargains made by FDR with labor unions all the way to the present time (well, mid-2000s.)
Would you do this? Work for me now and I will pay you a below market salary but I'll make it up to you 25 years from now when you retire. It's called a pension and what they don't tell you is that when the bill comes due they will file bankruptcy and not pay. It's no coincidence that American industry hired lots of workers in the 50s and 60s then declared bankruptcy and laid off massive numbers of workers in the 70s and 80s. Pension plans should be illegal same as other forms of fraud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxus
Please compare jobs equally across the board. The private sector has massive amount of minimum/near minimum wage workers like retail and fast food, whereas the public sector does not, and what little they do, it is contracted out.
State and local governments have massive numbers of minimum/near minimum wage workers. Walk into any government office and you will find loads of clerks and secretaries, far out of proportion to what is found in the private sector. The private sector automated away those jobs but SALG still use them because they keep their budgets from being raided (by other agency departments) and to reward patronage.
You know, I used to have a secretary who moaned and groaned constantly about the federal government building highways. And yet she used the Capital Beltway around D.C. everyday/
She moaned and groaned about virtually every federal program you could name.
But then she retired, and without exaggerating, I can honestly say that without Social Security and her husband's disability payments, they'd literally be in...well, let's see...do we have poor houses anymore. Let's put it this way...they'd be indigent.
Maybe after 83 years it's time to admit that Social Security has made life livable for most older Americans. Maybe that's why 81% of Americans agree that Social Security "provides security and stability to millions of retired Americans, disabled individuals, and the children and widowed spouses of deceased workers".
You will never see me complain about proper government, which is roads, infrastructure, judicial, etc. my problem is with it playing god. While you believe SS has bettered society, I believe it have turned most Americans into dependent children and robbed them of true wealth building ability. A fair compromise today would be mandated private investments.
You will never see me complain about proper government, which is roads, infrastructure, judicial, etc. my problem is with it playing god. While you believe SS has bettered society, I believe it have turned most Americans into dependent children and robbed them of true wealth building ability. A fair compromise today would be mandated private investments.
It isn't just that I believe it, it's that the VAST majority of Americans believe it. Some people wonder how they will survive, while others are out golfing.
Should tax paying citizens who do not have a pension plan going for them be required to fund the pensions of others?
Few private sector employees have a pension plan in this day and age. However, most public sector employees (municipal, state and Federal) have pension plans that are funded in whole or in part from taxes imposed on all people in their respective tax base.
In my mind, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to require people who don't have a pension to fund the pensions of people in the public sector. If it were up to me, I would provide for a tax credit for people without a pension plan or, better yet, pass a law that required all public sector employees to fund their own pensions.
What makes sense to you?
SS is a universal pension funded by workers. There are those who think all income should be taxed for SS, not just wages.
It isn't just that I believe it, it's that the VAST majority of Americans believe it. Some people wonder how they will survive, while others are out golfing.
Exactly, they have been turned into dependent children. Who live on a paltry check that had it been invested in the economy, would have provided them a much better retirement.
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.
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.
