14 Sep '10 14:25>
Originally posted by whodeyA government worker is, on average, more likely to have a desk job than someone working in the private sector, and desk jobs tend to pay more. You'd have to correct for this for any meaningful comparison.
I say Christie could begin to run on this.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/
The article shows that in 2008, the average wage for 1.9 trillion federal civilian workers was $79,197, which is compared to an average of $50,028 for the nation's 108 million private sector workers. However, the federal advantage is even more ...[text shortened]... t it before the country goes belly up and then have it burst. Either way it is going to burst.
Originally posted by whodeyfor the sake of argument - if we assume that the average government worker's job requires has the same level of education, skills, and experience as the average private sector worker's job -- and we assume that we could make large reductions in worker pay without significantly reducing the level of worker quality and motivation.
I say Christie could begin to run on this.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/
The article shows that in 2008, the average wage for 1.9 trillion federal civilian workers was $79,197, which is compared to an average of $50,028 for the nation's 108 million private sector workers. However, the federal advantage is even more ...[text shortened]... t it before the country goes belly up and then have it burst. Either way it is going to burst.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNope. If you look the argument is not so much over salary as it is benefits. Even though the average government worker makes a little more on average, if you compare benefits those in government make twice as much as those in the private sector. To drive home the point, look at this article.
A government worker is, on average, more likely to have a desk job than someone working in the private sector, and desk jobs tend to pay more. You'd have to correct for this for any meaningful comparison.
Originally posted by whodeythe pension system is the way most businesses used to do things (when unions in the private sector had much more clout than they have now) - but the private sector has since mostly switched to 401(k)s -- and you could make a case that government workers should also be switched to 401(k)s as well. Perhaps it could be grandfathered in so that existing workers would keep their pensions, while putting all the newly hired workers onto a 401(k) system.
Nope. If you look the argument is not so much over salary as it is benefits. Even though the average government worker makes a little more on average, if you compare benefits those in government make twice as much as those in the private sector. To drive home the point, look at this article.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20100909-OPINION-909034 at least in New Jersey. Now we need a president to take a crow bar to the union bosses.
Originally posted by MacSwainwe've been discussing the federal budget and its deficit.
Is your 2 millions number for New Jersey only?
Just did a check and this graph shows 20 millions. http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=228
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhat I would love to see is someone discuss gutting bureaucracy, not just reducing salaries/pensions. Of course, this labels me as a radical right winger I suppose. :'(
the pension system is the way most businesses used to do things (when unions in the private sector had much more clout than they have now) - but the private sector has since mostly switched to 401(k)s -- and you could make a case that government workers should also be switched to 401(k)s as well. Perhaps it could be grandfathered in so that existing worke sation down to $90,000).
It might not be much, but at least it would be something specific.
Originally posted by whodeyMore evidence that you have a big man-crush on Clinton. Were you born in Arkansas?
What I would love to see is someone discuss gutting bureaucracy, not just reducing salaries/pensions. Of course, this labels me as a radical right winger I suppose. :'(
Having said that, there is no doubt that those in government need to share in the economic turmoil the rest of the country is feeling. It's time to feel a little pain fellas!!
Originally posted by whodeyCutting bureaucracy is always a worthwhile goal but not easy to accomplish. How would you go about cutting bureaucracy in the public and private sector?
What I would love to see is someone discuss gutting bureaucracy, not just reducing salaries/pensions. Of course, this labels me as a radical right winger I suppose. :'(
Having said that, there is no doubt that those in government need to share in the economic turmoil the rest of the country is feeling. It's time to feel a little pain fellas!!
Originally posted by whodeyThere probably should be a complete review of the bureacracy every few years or so to root out wasteful practices and find ways to increase efficiency.
What I would love to see is someone discuss gutting bureaucracy, not just reducing salaries/pensions. Of course, this labels me as a radical right winger I suppose. :'(
Having said that, there is no doubt that those in government need to share in the economic turmoil the rest of the country is feeling. It's time to feel a little pain fellas!!
Originally posted by Eladarmost of this seems to make sense -- not sure if you'll really save all that much, but it makes sense.
I think there is an easy way to save some money here:
Do away with all expense accounts. If government officials want to be compensated for expenses, then they can bring back receipts. In no way should officials be compensated for buying alcohol. No free meals on the tax payer. If a federal employee is on a job related trip and needs housing, then giv er.
You've got to get the Senator and Representative's attention before they will act.