Forum Thread

Boone Lake Topics

(Boone Lake Specific)

1 messages

Updated 7/13/2004 8:40:00 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,642 messages

Updated 5/27/2024 7:42:36 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Boone Lake Fishing

(Boone Lake Specific)

1 messages

Updated 10/23/2010 4:25:39 PM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Service?
Date:	3/11/2010 10:58:40 AM

This kinda blows Hound's claim that having a government job is equivalent to 'serving ones nation'. Seems it more self serving than service.

URL: Washington Times

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 12:27:30 PM

Making us more like Europe, working for the government now pays better and is less uncertain than the private sector. And that doesn't even include the benefits. What is of course missing from the calculation is the money paid to government workers comes from the productive and takes real cash out of the private sector so they can't hire more people.

Of course liberals can take comfort in the fact that pay for our military has not gone up commensurate with the rest of government workers.

I would say wake up America but based on recent polling the majority of Americans now realize their mistake.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 2:04:06 PM

This is an old argument, and it seems to me that it depends on how it is calculated. Keep in mind that government employees (at least not federal employees) do not get some of the perks that some private offer their employees - no profit sharing, no "business" trips in lush locations, no "business" class travel and the bonuses are nothing compared to what some private companies give. the "new" retirement system is not nearly as generous as the one I retired under.
It is true that the whole salary structure has got much better in the last 20 years -- not the pay per grade, but at least in DoD there were far more higher grades, many of them out in the "field".
Since the government has outsourced most of the administrative and clerical positions, as well as some of the analytic positions, it's entirely likely that the average of government salaries are now higher. I think where the government falls down is in the salary of it's highest level executives. I don't think it is competitive with private industry either in terms of salary or benefits. But, that's just my observation.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 2:33:21 PM

Hound, its actually no longer an argument about the number of hours plus benefits and all that stuff. The average wage of a government worker has now exceeded the average wage of a private sector worker for the first time.

It may be that some private companies offer plush trips but I can tell you the vast majority of people working in the private sector have never and will never be given a plush trip. And as for profit sharing that too is a dwindling event as profits dwindle. I think the broader point here is that government employees are not only not sharing the pain of the private sector but are actually advancing during a recession while private sector employees are laid off by the tens of thousands every month. And the money used to pay government workers more comes right out of our pocket.

As for the pay for senior executives there is no doubt there is a disparity at the highest levels. But you also know full well what a lucrative position you can find after a stint in government service if you are so inclined. Like any entry job you may pay your dues but if you are smart, work hard and cultivate relationships you can parlay those into a very highly compensated position if you desire that kind of wealth.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 3:27:48 PM

I wish I could remember the exact number but I recently saw an article that was all about how many MILLIONS the taxpayers spent last year because government employees refused to fly coach. Just the accusation that everybody in the private sector is living life large at plush resorts shows how far out of touch with reality that you are. I would bet there are more 'junkets' out of DC in any year than all these companies you refer to combined.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 8:05:33 PM

This was reported in USA Today about a week ago and on Fox News over the weekend. Total compensation - average private sector job $69,000 vs. average federal job $108,000. The federal base salary exceeded the private sector base salary in 80% of comparable job classifications, that's not including benefits. Throw in benefits and it is about 100%. Also consider most in the private sector are not compensated for overtime. Private sector = 3% retirement benefit per year...try retiring at 55 or even 65 on that savings rate. And job security is non-existent in the private sector.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 9:01:05 PM

Regarding overtime: I did not get paid for overtime once I left the journeyman grades, but I sure worked plenty of it. I think you would be surprised the number of "uncompensated" hours that government employees work. My average workday for the last 10 years of my career was about 12 hours -- the last 2 years, I routinely worked 14 hour days.

Regarding business class travel: At least in DoD, any business class travel had to be personally approved by the Secretary of Defense. IT was not delegated to one of his staff. The only times that I traveled business class was when either the airlines voluntarily upgraded me or when a foreign government insisted that we travel on their airlines and provided the ticket. Now others may be doing it all the time, but how they did it is beyond me.

I don't know about plush trips by industry -- all I know is what people tell me. One friend's husband routinely got a paid vacation to a lux location for "winning" on production. Another friend's husband routinely travels to business conferences in nice places all expenses paid -- things like the Daytona 500, Las Vegas and Palm Springs.
The deputy Director of our organization before me, came to us from private defense industy. He was in their executive pool and got a car allowance; paid membership at two different clubs (the Army/Navy Country Club and the Army/Navy Club in downtown DC); he took a pay cut to come govt (he faced mandatory retirement at his company), but the year before he left, he got a $60K bonus on top of his $200K salary.

I don't claim to be an expert. I don't think I'm out of touch. I know a lot of people in government and out of government.

Name:	Barneget -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 9:13:16 PM

This entire post would be moot IF taxpayers were receiving the services they were paying for, like a solvent Social Security program, an efficient Medicare program, border security that secures borders, protection from foreign threats, immediately come to mind. We are not, in those examples, or in monies advanced to the the DoD, the DOE, DHS, SSA, VA, Treasury, or any other alpha combination. If anyone wants to see a support system work, look at WAL-MART. My thinking is we should turn over EVERY central government civilian support job to WMT, put WMT on a gain share, let them lean it out, and in the process, in sharp contrast to the current situation, get a responsive, ethical, economical, policy neutral, corps of public servants. At that point, we can again begin to call our government our own.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 9:30:40 PM

OK, so what percentage of the 120 million plus private sector workers get those kind of benefits? Maybe one half of one percent? Considering anyone that makes more than $200K per year puts you in the top 2% of wage earners that puts this individual in the very top bracket and very much the exception rather than the rule. It is just that class envy crap to justify the unjustifiable that is so disingenuous. So you know one person that makes $200K per year and gets nice trips and you project that on the rest of the private sector. Just plain nonsensical.

The numbers in USA Today speak for themselves or is the comic book of papers also part of the vast right wing media conspiracy with FoxNews?!?!? Honestly Hound, can't you at least admit something that is so objectively true without having to stretch all credibility? I just don't think you have it in you to admit one thing that might make you a little uncomfortable.....hence your continued defense of the Messiah while most of America wakes up to the reality.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 10:19:43 PM

-Interesting thread.
-Maybe too much to really talk about here: wages, benefits, efficiency, effectiveness, etc.
-But my wages have been good enough over the years so that I can add another two cents here.
-I worked 28 years in the Army; two years as a government civilian; 10 years as a civilan in a large firm, and four years as head of my own small firm. ..so I have had a little flavor of both government and non-government jobs, workers, wages, and benefits..
-On wages, my sense is that at teh lower end of teh scale, civilian and government are close, but government benefits are better. In mid-level, government pay is generally higher, and benefits are better. At the higher levels, government pay is way lower and benefits are also way lower.
-Example, a two-star general makes about $150,000 a year. As a division commander he is in charge of approximately 20,000-25,000 soldiers. In the Iraq invasion, he had to move those 25,000 soldiers 8,000 miles in such a manner that when they arrived they could move in sequence across hundreds of miles while under attack. How many people in civilian life who make $150,000 year have that kind of responsibility.
-Another example: The Chief Justice of teh Supreme Court makes about $180,000 a year . Judge judy makes more than $10 million.
-Of course I could also give examples of high-level government officials who wouldn't be trusted running the copier in civilian companies, and vice-versa.
-The government is never going to be efficient, ...the best we can ask for is that it be effective. However, sometimes we don't even get that. I can't speak for all government agencies, but I know that in Defense there are a lot of people working hard for long hours, that translates to low hourly wage, to give us effective results.
-

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/11/2010 10:30:16 PM

I am not a Government worker, but work with Govvies. The rank and file Govvies must deal with the Defense Travel System (DTS), and all I can say is I am glad I don't have to.

Govvies (as are we as Defense contractors working on a cost reimbursable basis) are limited by the Joint Travel Regulations, and while there are exceptions in rare cases for overseas travel, they must buy tickets in the back of the bus. The Government has NEVER paid for my customer to travel Business Class on our several overseas trips or first class in the States, and as far as that goes my company has never paid for me to sit up front either. Maybe some of the fat cats at upper levels figure out a way to game the system, but as far as "comfortable" travel I'd venture to say that there is not a whit's difference between the distribution between the haves and have nots in the Government and the private sector.

Now do Government workers enjoy exceptional job security and at least above average pay, absolutely. Will they get as rich as a successful lawyer, doctor, or entrepreneur, probably not. Theirs is a low risk existence with low to moderate rewards.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/12/2010 8:50:16 AM

I think you partially make my point about the difference. Tell someone they can make $150K per year with great benefits and job security and they will take it all day long. Having spent my career there I know the stress, the long hours of work, the job security risk for those making $150K per year in the private sector that simply doesn't exist in government jobs.

Yes at the higher ends there is a difference but I really wonder how many people at the higher ends of the government pay scale actually spend their entire career there versus using it as a springboard to more lucrative positions. I know a good many of the big-firm lawyers making those big bucks came from government. And I know a goodly number of executives in my industry making big bucks came from government. And I would bet the same is true in your business.

But the fact remains that when you compare government apples to private sector apples, other than the top 2%-3% from both it is currently not only much more secure to work for the government but it now actually pays more. And that money comes from the the private sector or they just print it. To me that is wrong. A secure government job with excellent benefits should not pay more than a comparable private sector job, period.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Truly a sad development
Date:	3/12/2010 8:53:08 AM

Okay, I'll concede that my one example of someone earing $200K may be more than the usual. But, I know lots of other people whom I'm pretty sure don't earn $200K a year and still get benefits. I suspect MM that you don't know a lot of corporate people, so you probably don't know what they get. Or maybe in your particular industry, stock options are not the norm.

I always felt that I was paid a fair wage. Otherwise I would have gone elsewhere. For a lot of government people, the money is not the thing. I realize you can't accept this, but the idea of service to one's country counts for a lot, at least in DoD.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	MM, you are wrong
Date:	3/12/2010 9:27:20 AM

I don't know why you can't accept what you are being told by people who know, but you are just wrong. At the $150K level in the government, you can be let go - so that you do not have that job security that you seem to think they do. People get relieved from their positions. Did you not hear Gates say the other day that he would fire the General in charge of the Joint Strike Fighter Program? I don't know anyone at a senior level who is not working at least 12-14 hour days.
A lot of your perceptions about working for the government are just not true. They may have been truer at one time, but not anymore. Things have changed signficantly.

And yes, some people do parlay their government experience into industry jobs, particularly after they retire from the government. And some do leave mid career. But, again, I think you would be surprised at the number of people who have worked for the government for a long time -- not due to laziness, but because they feel what they do is important.
But, some of us don't go to work for industry. I could have, but I didn't choose to.

I wish I could introduce you to a lot of the people I know. You'd come away with a much different perception than the one you have. I know your current perception serves your political purpose, but it's not necessarily the truth.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	MM, you are wrong
Date:	3/12/2010 5:17:15 PM

Hound, I will grant you that there may be less job security today than in the past but do you really think it is true that there is less security in the higher ranges than in the private sector? The majority of my experience is with USEPA and state agencies and with the exception of political appointees (admittedly a different animal vis-a-vis job security) I don't ever recall someone who is a civil servant being fired except in cases of fraud, illegal activities, harassment, etc. They just don't seem to go away except to resign or retire and take a high paying private sector job. And I haven't even taken into account the retirement benefits of government workers, especially state workers.

I recognize that some government workers do put in the hours. I am reading Too Big to Fail right now and there is no doubt the people at Treasury put in a lot of hours during the economic crisis. But I still maintain based on the nine years that my wife worked for USEPA and the fact that if you want to talk to a regulator don't bother calling before 8am or after 5pm because they won't be there that overall they don't work the hours my comparably paid technical personnel work. Its not even close.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	MM, you are wrong
Date:	3/12/2010 8:29:04 PM

Some agencies have specific time periods that they deal with the public, since obviously when they are taking calls, they aren't doing their other work. So having said that, just because the phone isn't answered doesn't mean that they aren't there working.
I know contractors used to call me and complain all the time that the State Department Licensing Officers would not answer their phones. Not that I could do anything except sympathize since they didn't answer our calls either.

I personally don't believe in not answering the phone. When one works for the government, particularly as a regulator, one owes it to the public to be available to answer questions and provide information. In my particular case, sometimes a lot of money was riding on our decisions in terms of the export business, and people needed to know at least which way the wind was blowing.
I also was a big believer in meeting with people too. So many issues were resolved while a matter was under consideration just by an hour of discussion. I guess I believe in an interactive government. I've had meetings at 6 am, if that's the only thing that could work. I've also been in meetings until well after 7. And no, I didn't get overtime.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Things must be different in DoD
Date:	3/13/2010 10:36:44 AM

I told you my wife worked for USEPA for 9 years. My experience with them isn't not getting through the switchboard. It is eyewitness experience from someone that I trust and who does not lie. I frankly think you are equally prone to project you finite experience on every other government employee. There is probably truth to what you say but I wouldn't know for certain because I wasn't there. But I know for 100% certainty there is truth to what I say about USEPA and it is at odds with what you saw at DoD. It is also at odds with conventional wisdom about government.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Things must be different in DoD
Date:	3/13/2010 10:45:39 AM

I think in a lot of ways DoD probably is different. I know it sounds corny, but the "can do" spirit exists in DoD. Sure, there are exceptions, but "can't do" is really not acceptable.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	this is about comparing the average worker
Date:	3/13/2010 9:33:13 PM

The point of this thread was kind of lost in discussing the exceptions or the top percentage. The fact is that now the AVERAGE federal job has a higher salary than the AVERAGE comparable private sector job and that does not even include the value of the far superior federal benefits package. I disagree with MrHodja statement that federal workers have only a low to moderate reward. When comparing average federal worker to average private sector worker in a comparable job, the average federal worker has little to no risk (very high job security) and well above average reward (high combined salary and benefits package) whereas the average private sector worker has very high risk (low job security) and below average reward (declining salary and benefits). The trend of real wage and benefits decline has continued for some time now and it is not likely to ever return to past levels at least as far as benefits. It is not a good indicator of an economy or a country when the best jobs are government.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Things must be different in DoD
Date:	3/14/2010 10:03:27 AM

I have to admit that's good to hear. As a fiscal conservative that believes in a strong national defense that is one area of government I believe to be essential and should never be underfunded. That is what taxpayer dollars are for, not entitlements and earmarks.....not trying to start another debate here. :-)

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Understand your point
Date:	3/14/2010 7:37:41 PM

but what is actually an "average" worker? Is it a factory worker, someone slinging burgers at McD, the Walmart cashier, or someone in a white collar middle management job?
Problem is that the government have very, very few blue collar workers and the clerical positions have all been contracted out -- so now those jobs fall on the "private" side. Since Gore decided to "reinvent" government, all jobs that weren't inherently policy making, and most support positions were subject to be contracted out.

And doesn't average generally include the highest and the lowest? I seem to recall that is why hardly anyone pays any attention to "averages".

Quick Links
Boone Lake News
Boone Lake Photos
Boone Lake Videos