Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Lies About Federal Workers

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

A

certain Bacon’s Rebellion blogger whose initials are “JAB” has just written a book called “Boomergeddon” in which he takes a strong libertarian/conservative /Cato viewpoint to try and scare us into believing that the end is near because of government spending.

And while I dare not name this individual because it would deeply embarrass him, I feel it necessary to post this column (in part because he came after me on immigration) but I do it feel it necessary to bring to the attention of the BR reading public the obfuscations, if not down-right lies, with which we have been presented.

If you read this individual’s book “Boomergeddon” who will be treated to a total trash of the federal worker and Washington. The author says such things as “the Imperial City is well insulated from the travails of the general economy.” He claims that while private sector Americans suffered with layoffs and losses, the number of federal workers exploded. The average pay, the author claims, is about $71 K compared with $40K for the average schmo.

The author does note that federal workers do, on average make less than those in the private sectors. But if we believe his logic (and/or baloney) we are supposed to accept that the national policy of the U.S. is in hostage to a bunch of self-serving, over-paid zealots who all voted to Obama and want to bring us socialism that they control.

Which is why today’s Washington Post is so interesting. Max Stier, president and CEO of the non-profit Partnership for Public Service, writes about the “Five Myths about Federal Workers.” A few highlights:
  • Fed workers make at least 24 percent less than private sector ones.

  • “Conservative think tanks such as the Cato Institute” (from which much of “Boomergeddon’s” data is drawn) claim otherwise, but they comparing apples an oranges, i.e. the pay of a small practice doc in Iowa as compared to a federal cancer researcher leading 50 people at NIH.

  • The federal workforce is not bigger than ever. Less the postal service, it is about 2.1 million or slightly smaller than it was in 1967 even while the nation’s population has grown much more.

  • You can fire federal workers.

  • Not all feds are paper pushers who die to vote for Obama. Some do real work and have won Nobel Prizes.

  • Barack Obama’s unfortunate federal pay freeze won’t do much to cure budget ills. The savings just ain’t there. Just don’t believe the JABs.

My advice? Be careful of people who go over the top in using A-bomb bursts as book cover art to make their point. They are selling a tissue of lies.

Peter Galuszka

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

20 responses to “Lies About Federal Workers”

  1. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    A few times I considered taking a federal job, but the salary was always too low.

  2. RBV Avatar
    RBV

    One of the biggest reasons people, including myself, single out government workers isn't because govn't jobs are so great – It's because private sector jobs have become so bad compared to what you get as a govn't employee, particularly outside the beltway.

    For MOST private sector workers the benefits pale in comparison to what a Federal government worker gets….pensions, health insurance, sick-leave, vacation, pay increases (I don't get a cost of living increase, never have), personal leave, MANDATORY telecommuting, REIMBURSEMENT for commuting expenses, etc.

    I know somebody who got in with DHS about a year ago…no college degree, never worked in an office, no previous experience/background relevant to the job they were hired for, and I guarantee couldn't write three paragraphs describing what the purpose of their job is or why it's necessary.

    Starting salary – 65k

    Likely salary w/ 3-4 years service – 85k+

    Read it and weep;

    http://www.usa.gov/Federal_Employees/Benefits.shtml

  3. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Another day, another disinformation campaign to counter. Sigh.

    Here's what I wrote:

    "The Imperial City is well insulated from the travails of the general economy. The Washington area has received 10 times as much stimulus money per capita from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as the national average. Regional unemployment in January 2009 was far below the national norm …While Americans in the private sector coped with layoffs, reduced working hours and pay freezes during the recession, the number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries exploded. …"

    "The average pay of federal workers is $71,206 compared to $40,331 in the private sector. A spokesperson for the Federal Managers Association justified the discrepancy on the grounds that the federal government employs educated workers such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. Federal employees earn 26 percent less than private worker on comparable jobs. Of course, federal employees also enjoy job security and pension benefits that are far more lucractive than private-sector plans. Additionally, federal employees can count on consistent pay raises. Congress approved across-the-board pay hikes of 3 percent in 2008 and 3.9 percent in 2009."

    Is that trashing the federal worker? Or stating undisputed facts? Let the reader decide.

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I guess we could debate what constitutes "misinformation" but your narrative that starts off by saying "Imperial" leaves little doubt as to what narrative that follows is about.

    The context is a government where spending is out of control and out of proportion to the national economy.

    I just wanted to make sure that it was also appreciated that we're not talking about some huge influx of highly paid Federal Employees at the Department of Labor or Interior but in fact, the DOD and DHS.

    And also to point out that many of the Federal Agencies that are located in Washington and environs are, in fact, Headquarters – just as McDonnald Douglas, Lockheed, IBM, etc are.

    And that you are comparing Washington Area Federal workers – management types – with private sector non-management types.

    All of this to contribute to the perception that Washington is out of control and out of proportion to the rest of the economy – and all I am saying is to try to get the context straight.

    If you compared the private sector jobs in Washington with private sector jobs around the country – you'd find the same issue for the same reasons.

    Federal Workers, by the way, are paid wages keyed to the local region so that a GS-14 in podunk, Alabama will get a very different locality pay adjustment than one who works in Washington.

    A BETTER, MORE RELEVANT, MORE HONEST comparison would be to compare Fed workers salaries and benefits in a place like Cleveland or Dallas to private sector and I'm pretty sure you'll find that Federal workers in places like that are not living in the lap of luxury at all.

    At the end of the day – your article is just plain classic Fed employee bashing as part of a larger conservative narrative designed to promote the perception that Washington spending is "out of control" because it pays outrageous salaries and benefits to Federal employees – and that's simple not the "whole" truth but instead ..once again.. a look at it through the selective prism of Conservative politics.

    The one thing I will agree with is that ALL OCCUPATIONS in the Washington DC area – are far higher than other places.

    For instance, a teacher in Fairfax can earn close to 100K a year after working for a few years and holding a Master's Degree.

    Tell me how many teachers in other locations around the country can earn that kind of money…..

    The Washington DC Area is a high cost area like New York and all employers, including the Feds have to pay more to attract talent.

    It has nothing to do with politics.

  5. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry, let me repeat the first sentence of my last post: "The Imperial City is well insulated from the travails of the general economy."

    My point is not that federal employees are ripping off the American people with lavish pay and benefits, it's that they are *insulated* from the travails of the rest of America.

    As I elaborated in the Boomergeddon book, it's all part of a larger culture and mindset in the Washington metro area. My analysis takes in not just federal employees but lobbyists, lawyers, political apparatchiks, beltway bandits, and the rest of the political class. The bottom line: "Washingtonians are insulated from the consequences of the policies they inflict upon the nation."

    I wish that Peter would apply the same care he invests in his journalism to his diatribes against Boomergeddon. This post not only misrepresents the context of what I say but in at least one instance misquotes what I say.

    For instance, he asserts that I claim that the number of federal workers has exploded. I say no such thing. I say the number of federal workers *earning six-figure salaries* has exploded.

    Grrr.

  6. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    And why, please relate, is it so evil that some federal workers earn six-figure salaries when private sector workers with the same or less responbility earn far more?
    The problem is that you make these sweeping statements and then when you are challenged, you start parsing words and rolling things back. You have already loaded the dice (and your story).
    Another "Boomergeddon" misinterpretation is that you say that DC voted for Obama in 2008 as if this is some Fox News "Gotcha" revelation. First, DC is a major metro area and they tend to be diverse and Democratic. Plus, the District is predominately African-American and they tend NOT to vote Republican. Fact.

    Peter Galuszka

  7. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    ""The average pay of federal workers is $71,206 compared to $40,331 in the private sector. A spokesperson for the Federal Managers Association justified the discrepancy on the grounds that the federal government employs educated workers such as scientists, physicians and lawyers. "

    ==================================

    I believe that it probably correct. the business of government is management, the enterprise is huge, and the "clients" tobe managed are sophisticated.

    the private sector average above probably includes many maintenance and operations jobs the the government dowan't have or subs out to private eneterprise. every lower level job that the feds sub out skews that comparison by two obs: one the fed "doesn't have" and one that private enterprise "has, but isn;t theirs".

    As for pensions and health care, it is my unerstanding that new gov't employess don't get the same package as older ones. I have a vested pension that I earned working for one company, which I assume I will still get. But there is no such plan for new employees. Likewise new entries into social security won't get the same benefits as older persons (unless we use Grovetons formula).

    Therefore, it appears to me that some of the complaints we hear are actually historical in nature, although I make no claim as of understanding the ins and outs of government compensation.

    As for RBV's example, there are two ways to look at it. One is that the governmnet pays too much for the class of people they hire. The other is that they cannot get the class of people they want for what they are willing to pay. since a recent college grad generally starts around $45k, his example does seem excessive.

    I would argue that mandatory telecommuting and reimbursement for commuting expenses are social welfare programs that happen to translate into employee benefits. However both of those benefits are not uncommon in the private sector as well.

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I'll allow this. Govt workers in the Washington Area probably fare, much better than govt workers out in the hinterlands but the why is important especially if it is proffered as part of a generalized "govt is big, bad and inefficient" narrative.

    I've often tweaked Groveton whenever he puffs up about the economic powerhouse of NoVa – pointing out that it is the presence of the Feds – and Fed money that makes NoVa so economically sexy.

    But Washington and environs have been this way for a long time.

    this is not a new phenomena. It is not specific to this administration nor previous ones – Democratic or Republican.

    It is what it is.

    When you have dozens and dozens of headquarters operations of govt (and private) entities – you going to see higher salaries, better benefits and "insulation" from the wider economy though … a long, long way from bulletproof…

    ask the exurban counties about being "insulated". Two of them I'm familiar with have some of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation.

  9. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Current govt workers have a defined contribution pension plan that is based on employer and employee contribution plus Social Security plus employees can supplement.

    Health Care is about a dozen plans that range in cost and coverage from minimal to gold-plated.

    And Congress has the very SAME plans – no "special" pension or health care despite the right wing blather-butt blatherings.

  10. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    If an average govt pay raise is 3.2% (in line with bacons sugesstion and remembering all the years that fed raises have been "frozen") then RBV's example would be getting 71k three years from now, not 85k.

    3.2%, again, would be less than my experience averaged over the last 20 years, and that includes 3 years when I was "frozen" by being unable to work.

    Government jobs are strongly defined by policy and procedure, which translates to many people as mindless and dull, "sucky" to put it bluntly. Just as the offering salaries were not enough to attract me, neither would average raises of 3%.

    I agree with Larry that you weaken your argument by prefacing it with loaded words. If the number of government workers are the same as in 1967 we might still claim that government is bigger if the salaries have gotten much bigger, but again, so has the number of people and businesses to be governed.

    Before you start dropping explosive words, its nice to know where the land mines are buried.

  11. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    I think it is amusing that the same conservative Darwinian Free Market types who claim you get what you pay for and want better, more efficient government, think government employees are overpaid and free market CEOs are underpaid.

  12. RBV Avatar
    RBV

    "If an average govt pay raise is 3.2%…."

    True, if you stayed at the same job in the same agency, etc.

    If you get a promotion to a new position, or switch jobs/agencies because you have gained experience, then it's fairly easy (according to them) to hit my mark.

    Again, government workers are easy targets because private sector jobs and associated benefits have become so poor in comparison.

  13. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Ok, I'll go apply for some government jobs and see what I get offered.

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    I think these superficial analyses are very risky.

    The number of federal workers is irrelevant. A lot of companies have higher revenues than they had 10 years ago but still have fewer employees. They just contract out more of what they used to do internally.

    The average pay of federal workers compared to the US average is also irrelevant. I'm not sure that Nike actually makes any shoes. They design shoes, they market shoes, the have accountants who track the profits from their shoes but I don't think they manufacture any shoes. That's all done by sub-contract. They probably have a fairly high average employee cost compared to companies which own the plants and employ the people who make the shoes. Even two shoe companies may not be comparable on a "per employee" basis.

    My impression of federal salaries is that they start higher than the equivalent in private enterprise but top out lower.

    Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, makes $186,600 per year. The average annual bonus across all employees at Goldman Sachs this year will be something like $340,000.

    Will a receptionist at Golden Stacks make more in annual bonus than the Secretary of State makes in annual salary? I doubt it. Averages are deceiving. Is Hillary Clinton underpaid? I'd say so.

    My bet is that the only reason the federal employee count hasn't swelled is because the feds contract more work to private companies than they did in 1967.

    My bet is that lower level federal employees are relatively over-paid (vs the private sector average) while higher level federal employees are relatively under-paid (vs the private sector).

    I've always been told that the federal retirement benefits are pretty good. There's the usual social security and 401(k) benefits found in the private sector. But there's also an annuity called FERS. At least, I think that's true. For employees retiring at or after age 62 with at least 20 years of service, the annuity is 1.1 percent of the high-3 average times the number of years worked.

    So, join at age 22, work your way up the pyramid a bit and have a "high-3" average of $100,000 per year. Retire at age 62 with 40 years service and get a retirement annuity of $44,400 per year. I think that's how it works. Plus social security plus payouts from a 401(k).

    Not bad. Not Earth shattering (after 40 years service) but not bad.

    The federal pay scale seems pretty fair to me.

    Now, the percent of GDP consumed by the government … that's another matter altogether.

    As for the imperial city BS … here is the unemployment statistics for the city of Washington, DC over time:

    http://bit.ly/fSYz6k

    Here is the same graph for the city of Richmond…

    http://bit.ly/h9W46s

    Do I have to run a regression analysis to demonstrate the similarities?

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Groveton did a good job and I mostly agree with most of it..

    The current retirement systems is FERS – http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/index.asp

    It's the only retirement system except for a few people left under the old CSRS defined-benefit system.

    The Government allows employees to put more than the minimum into it and matches it dollar for dollar to a certain level.

    There is no question that Federal employment is one of the few "safe" jobs left and one that enables a life-long career whereas things in the private sector have deteriorated significantly in recent years.

    That's primarily because the "business" of govt does not depend on the "market" or "competition" to survive and prosper – especially in NoVa.

    But that's true NO MATTER who is President nor which political party holds the Presidency or Congress and the only real expansion of govt employees in the last decade has been with the military, homeland security and for some reason Justice Dept.

    And "freezes" on hiring does not phase the military – they just go right out and buy contractors – and the contractors work side-by-side with Federal Employees even with their own desks (which are not allowed in theory).

    When you look around NoVa – you basically have every single military service and program well represented along with the contractor companies that provide weapons and other military material necessary to support the far-flung worldwide deployments of our military.

    Here's the truth.

    We spend 1.4 trillion more than we take in – in income taxes – PRIMARILY on the military.

    When we signed up for two more wars and the 'war on terrorism" – instead of increasing taxes to pay for them – we CUT taxes and from that point on the increased spending started adding annual deficits.

    That's the govt spending that has "gotten out of control"

    not govt employees…

    I don't mind the policy debate but these days – many seem to be doing everything they can to ….

    mis-attribute

    the realities that we are dealing with.

    they want to blame entitlements or the Federal worker or even Bernanke rather than recognize the simply reality that we spend more than we take it and we got into this when we got into to wars and instead of increasing taxes to pay for them – did the opposite – cut taxes.

    that's the simple truth.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Truman Show

    Well, there is now a ‘compromise’ that will grow the deficit even faster.

    As intelligent as many of Dr. Bacon’s insights are, he may have the overall situation bass-ackwards:

    Bacon claims that ‘The Political Class’ in the National Capital SubRegion is ‘insulated’ from the issues facing citizens and Organizations in the rest of the nation-state.

    The fact is that “The Political Class” is really “The Business-As-Usual Class” that includes:

    1. Governance practitioners in the Agencies – aka, pandering politicians and those who work for them and know which side their bread is butter on

    2. ‘Entrepreneurs’ in Enterprises that depend on Mass OverConsumption to raise THEIR boats and McMansions and…

    3. ‘Leaders’ in Institutions that depend on the flow of money from Agencies, Enterprises and from those citizens and Households at the top of food chain who see no reason to derail the gravy train.

    The Business-As-Usual Class has INSULATED the citizens and Organizations across the nation and across the Planet from reality. Citizens have no idea how to address the goal they should be concerned with: Achieving an economic, social and physical trajectory that is sustainable.

    Instead we have The Anger of Ignorance, Whack a Mole and Tossing Rocks at Empty Pigeon Holes.

    The Business-As-Usual Class is standing in the way of the information that citizens need to make intelligent decisions in the voting booth and in the marketplace.

    What exists is a nation-state wide “The Truman Story.”

    Darrell from Chesapeake has it right.

    PROPERTY DYNAMICS is one path to follow but even information on this core interest of the vast majority of Households is being distorted and swept under the rug.

    Observer

  17. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "Citizens have no idea how to address the goal they should be concerned with: Achieving an economic, social and physical trajectory that is sustainable."

    ==================================fFirst, you presume to know what goal they should be conserned with. The one you suggest may be admirable, and yet unimportant compared with, say, obtaining the butter with which to butter their own bread.

    Go talk sustainability to someone who has been out of work for 14 months, and you will have a political sales call that is about as successful as Jimmy Carter. The only thing that guy is concerned about sustaining is himself and his family.

    Second, what youare suggesting is not only sustainability, but ultimately a steady state economy, which you and/or EMR have referred to before.

    No one has any idea how to do that, not just Citizens. You would think that in some place like Easter Island with definitely limited resources, that at least SOME society would figure out how to live within its means. Maybe there is an example, but I haven't seen it.

    And that is just the economic problem. Unless you solve that one, you can forget about the social and physical problems.

    I'm in favor of working towards a more sustainable (even an entirely sustainable) business model, but the path that EMR and Observor would have us take tells me they are as clueless as they would have us believe we (the Citizens) are.

    We are doomed, we are doomed. Darryl of Chesapeake is right, we are doomed.

    Sheeesh.

  18. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    Property Dynamics

    Translation: Dynamically take it from those that have it and give it for free to everyone for the greater good and better safekeeping, while telling them how much better off they are owning less and consuming less.

  19. Hydra Avatar
    Hydra

    "It's because private sector jobs have become so bad …."

    ================================

    You could have stopped there. The rest of the sentence is irrelevant, and unrelated.

    It may be true that government jobs are "better": more fair.

    The private sector has no incentive to be fair, other than government.

  20. rashid1891 Avatar
    rashid1891

    Which is why today's Washington Post is so interesting. Max Stier, president and CEO of the non-profit Partnership for Public Service, writes about the "Five Myths about Federal Workers." A few highlights:

Leave a Reply

Read More