This study focuses on salaries, not total compensation. It is not easy to make a reasonable comparison. Besides controlling for variables such as education and position, intangible benefits need to be controlled. Intangible variables include job security, vacation time, sick leave, and work environment.
All of these studies are seriously flawed in retirement compensation. Retirement compensation in most government jobs is much higher than in the private sector. Although a few private sector executives receive golden parachutes at retirement, most government workers receive golden parachutes in large amounts of deferred compensation that is carefully disguised as a pension. Many government agencies however, claim that retirement compensation is higher in the private sector than public sector.
For example, in Colorado, the Department of Human Resources conducts an annual compensation survey to ensure that compensation of public employees is comparable to private sector employees. Amazingly, the agency claims that retirement compensation in the private sector is higher than the public sector. If retirement compensation is higher (or at least comparable), why do public sector employees retire at much younger ages at higher levels of benefits?
Here is a summary of a recent study that analyzes retirement compensation of public employees in Colorado. The study indicates that career public employees receive large amounts of deferred compensation. This deferred compensation when allocated to a career employee’s salary can increase compensation 30% to 50%.
http://www.i2i.org/articles/IB-2007-D.pdf
Thanks for the link and info.
Adding insult to injury many state governments add annual fiscal surpluses to their employee pension funds and keep this fact hidden from taxpayers. This was discovered in Oregon two years ago.
When I was offered the GM-15 position back in the 1988 I was seriously considering taking it as the the GM-15 I was to replace was highly respected and I admired him. But he was from the old school when government unions did not exist and civil service consisted of people that were some of the finest the country could produce. But as I toured his offices and saw the unbelievable amount of non-productive government people, I asked him why he could not fire these sloths. His answer was simply that since the union had taken control of government, he had no more control over his ‘subordinates’. He said he had tried to fire certain individuals on numerous occasions but there was always a remedial phase that was decided by the union.
I think many of us know the government union situation is the reason for these excesses. They are a monopoly with legal protections that would require an intense campaign by Congressional, Administrative and Judicial leaders to reform. Because many of the reform leaders needed to conduct such a campaign are government supported, they would in effect be conducting intentional friendly fire.
But thankfully this impotent situation will come to a halt. The enormous taxes that are projected to be necessary to support entitlements are going to have Americans asking where can government be cut to relieve the burden that is coming. There will then be a weekly news headline about the excesses of government and government controlled services.
It’s already started. Here’s an example:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003704046_citylight12m.html
and it is known to be widespread:
http://thepapernoose.blogspot.com/2007/05/those-overpaid-lazy-union-workers.html
And the second link does make a valid point. Workers are finding it hard to buy a modest home. Blame the Federal Reserve’s actions earlier this decade for that one. They printed so much money that found its way to housing that the hyperinflation they caused has elicited the union response that $100,000 in pay for government workers is necessary to live on.
I am very aware of the variables that factor into a bleak outlook. Economists are hoping that the situation will find a stability, a durable equilibrium.
I think that because of what I call the demographic tsunami that is now visible on the horizon, we are going to be facing a historic challenge where stability will be nonexistent. I believe it will not be an economic depression but rather a fiscal crisis and tax revolt never seen before. It is going to be interesting to say the least.
BTW I am not preaching doom here as I see a positive development coming out of all this, the FairTax and the repeal of the 16th Amendment. This will solve the entrenched government union problem by forcing accountability. It will also force a reform of the Federal Reserve which is not federal at all but maybe should be. It is no more federal than Federal Express. There is no amendment that supports the Federal Reserve. It was an act passed in 1913 as a quid pro for passage of the 16th Amendment.
Your info is spot on.
Here's a question I often wondered about, and since you seem to know your Colorado sources, I'll take the liberty of asking.
I remember reading a few years back that there is a state law that prohibts a state or local government from engaging in any activity that could be done in the private sector.
I think it's an old law, or possibily in the state constitution.
I heard an older gentleman speak of it once at a city council meeting, and I wonder about it every time the governments around here take over another legitmate business facility.
Have you ever heard of it ?