How does the above chart contradict Heritage? In fact, Heritage seems to be picking up those numbers and simply translating them in tabular form.
Posted on 01/21/2019 6:45:18 AM PST by SeekAndFind
RE: While it is true that lower paid employees make more than their private counterparts, it is *not* true that white collar professionals are paid more. In fact, they are paid significantly less.
So, you are disputing the table put out by the article ( not from what I wrote ). Can you tell us your sources and why they are more reliable?
This article sources their data from here:
Their data is taken from CBO figures. See here:
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf
This is what the Congressional Budget Office tells us (again, not my sources, I simply copy and paste):
A 2017 Congressional Budget Office study compared the compensation of full-time, year-round private sector workers to non-postal, civilian, federal workers in 2011 to 2015. It accounted for education, occupation, work experience, geographic location, employer size, and various demographic characteristics. The study found that:
Federal workers received an average of 17 percent more total compensation than comparable private sector workers.
Across various education levels, federal employee compensation premiums ranged from a low of –18 percent for workers with a professional degree or doctorate to a high of 53 percent for workers with a high school diploma or less:
Heritage has an account to grind. Always have when it comes to federal employment.
The Right’s version of CNN.
RE: Heritage has an account to grind. Always have when it comes to federal employment.
OK, tell us your more reliable source, since you believe Heritage is unreliable.
Your own post back to me proves my point.
Hint: that bit of -18 percent differential for ppl with professional degrees vice private sector employees that you quoted.
Anyone with a pulse for the past 20 years should be aware of this.
I’m not going to do your homework for you.
Between the sh*theads that work at the IRS and the EPA, I have ZERO sympathy for them.
RE: I’m not going to do your homework for you.
Nope, the onus is on you who say you doubt the data to show us why the data presented is not right. That is, if you want to convince the readers of this thread. If not, well, consider me unconvinced (yet).
As for the 18 point differential in the table, doesn’t that show that people with doctorates earn more in the private sector than Federal? Why is that not right?
I know a guy who is working without pay - good guy with a family. He has emergency funds to draw on for now. All the financial gurus say to make an emergency fund - wonder why so few actually do it...
Math isn’t your strong suit, is it son?
Your table shows that it pays off for ppl with bachelor’s degrees or less to be employed by the Government.
The negative sign in front of the 18 percent number means that ppl with Phds do much better in the private sector.
There are studies that show the opposite of what you are saying. Go to FedSmith or Fedweek for them.
You have to look at who did the study and who paid for it as well as the study performer’s history on the subject- do they have an agenda? Heritage does and has had one for at least 20 years- as I have already pointed out to you.
I’ve disproven your points twice now. Have fun Skippy.
RE: Math isn’t your strong suit, is it son?
Your table shows that it pays off for ppl with bachelor’s degrees or less to be employed by the Government.
The negative sign in front of the 18 percent number means that ppl with Phds do much better in the private sector.
_________________________
Reading Comprehension is not your strong suit huh? I just said the above in other words in post #87. We are not even disagreeing.
RE: There are studies that show the opposite of what you are saying. Go to FedSmith or Fedweek for them
Well, that’s what I want. I showed you the CBO numbers in the above links I provided. Show me the FedSmith numbers.
All you have done is make a statement telling me not be believe Heritage. Why? Your posts leave much to be desired.
You asked me to check FedSmith. Here is what they said:
SEE HERE: https://www.fedsmith.com/2012/03/25/average-federal-salary-lowest-average-pay/
According to BEA data, the average federal employee salary in 2010 was $83,679 and $51,986 for the average private sector salary.
When benefits are added in, the average compensation for each federal employee comes to $126,141. For private sector workers, the average compensation package, including benefits, was $62,757 for the same year.
And then here:
“Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations….Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.”
I would assume that accountants, nurses, chemists and surveyors are bachelor degreed professions.
So, how does FedSmith contradict Heritage?
...many federal employees are now outside of the general schedule pay system and their agency budgets are often derived from fees they collect from regulated industries. Employees in these agencies often have higher salaries than employees in the same job classification for other agencies. That contributes to a higher overall salary level.
Many agencies have outsourced things such as admin staff, technicians, etc., and therefore the "average" remaining government employee pay is higher.
Further, the "on average" numbers that you have shown do not normalize for things such as job, length of service, etc.
Further, just because you show benefits as an income, those are promised benefits - in other words unfunded liabilities. There is NO guarantee that said employee will actually receive all the promised benefits.
To wrap up: the "on average" numbers you like to show are meaningless -- because the averaging is done too broadly without normalizing for things like the actual job, etc. as I have stated before.
Have a nice day.
RE: Further, just because you show benefits as an income, those are promised benefits - in other words unfunded liabilities. There is NO guarantee that said employee will actually receive all the promised benefits.
Well, let’s compare the PROMISED (your words ) benefits of the Federal government vs. the PROMISED ( your words ) benefits of those working in the private sector.
There is similarly, NO GUARANTEE in the private sector that said employee will get those promised benefits.
At least the Federal government has TAXING POWER, it also has the power to get into almost unlimited debt. Those in the private sector go bankrupt or get laid off or get lower pay and benefits when things don’t go well.
In the end, I’d say that being in the Federal government STILL provides for more job security.
Have a nice day too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.