Contact
Apples to Apples: Public workers make less
Carter Bundy
The Rio Grande Foundation, in its much-ballyhooed private vs. public compensation paper, notes that New Mexico public employees are paid, on average, 11.5 percent more than private sector counterparts — including all benefits. What they don’t mention is that there are very few part-time fry cooks in state government. There are very few minimum wage jobs in the public sector.
Public-sector workers tend to make a career out of their jobs, because unlike the very fluid private sector, things like providing clean water, being a firefighter, or being a probation and parole officer don’t change. The demand is always there, and these are things that the private sector has not been able to provide effectively — market forces and the nature of the work preclude private companies from being in these fields.
One debunking study
As a result, workers in the public sector are older. They have more education and experience. Using data from workers in New Mexico aged 18-64, from 2003-2009, only 24.1 percent of private-sector workers have a college degree or more. 46.5 percent of public sector workers do. The median age of that same set of workers was 40 years old in the private sector, 43 years old in the public sector.
When you compare apples to apples, public sector workers actually make 4 percent less than private sector workers.
Compare this highly detailed, statistically relevant, well-explained paper to the ideologically charged, conclusions-first approach of the RGF.
Further, even if you include benefits, which are indeed often better in the public sector, workers in the public and private sectors’ total compensation is almost identical. And that doesn’t include the fact that about 30 percent of all public-sector workers in America don’t get Social Security (in fairness, most in N.M. do, but since these are national studies, it’s worth mentioning).
Just read the two papers and it’s clear that one group has done their homework and explains how it compares apples to apples, while the other merely parrots ideological talking points.
OK, maybe that one study dismantling the RGF’s positions was a fluke. Maybe for all of its detailed statistical regression analyses, they missed a big point. I’d love it if some economists, particularly conservative economists, could point out where they’ve gone wrong specifically like I’ve done with RGF data. (I’m not a professional economist, but took a lot in college and law school and certainly have the basic math and common sense to take apart their flawed “conclusions.”)
Two might be a coincidence
Let’s bring in yet another study that bothers to compare apples to apples. This one, from the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, relying on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, concluded that state and local government employees make 11 percent less and 12 percent less, respectively, than their private sector equivalents in wages and salaries. Even including the generally-better benefits packages for public sector workers, state employees are still 6.8 percent behind private counterparts in total compensation, and local government employees lag 7.4 percent behind comparable private sector employees.
Three’s a pattern
The Economic Policy Institute recently published a third study, this one also including wages and all benefits, showing that the public sector lags behind the private sector when comparing apples to apples. The average compensation (including benefits) penalty in the public sector is 3.7 percent, averaging 1.8 percent for local government and 7.6 percent for state government.
Of course, there is much political demagoguery over the fact that public employees have health care and retirement. Here’s a great quote from Jon Cohn at the New Republic about what all the public employee benefit hand-wringing means:
“Also, as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research points out, many public employees don’t get Social Security. Overall, he says, “most public sector pensions do not provide retirees with an especially high standard of living.” Exceptions to this rule frequently include firefighters and police, particularly in New York. Then again, they risk their lives to protect the rest of us from lethal threats, which is more than you can say for CEOs like the former telecom executive who in 2007 retired with a $159 million benefit package.”
When you consider that apples-to-apples studies show that public employees earn less than their counterparts in the private sector, even including benefits, it’s clear that the current scapegoating is nothing more than that: trying to blame a minority group for a national downfall that, if anything, public employees worked to prevent and have helped to mitigate.
As the new administration and Legislature work to solve our budget crisis, hopefully they will take the words of the new governor seriously and apply concepts of “shared sacrifice” in closing budget gaps.
In other words, look to not only average working Joes, but also to the millionaires who continue to get a 42 percent tax break but who haven’t been asked to sacrifice in the slightest as politicians try to balance revenues and vital programs. Ask out-of-state and foreign companies to actually pay their real taxes, instead of allowing them to exploit loopholes to hide their New Mexico profits in Delaware and the Caymans. But don’t keep sticking the average working man and woman with the task of cleaning up a mess they had no part in making.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.
29 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks for the many substantive responses, and as for the personal ones, I’ll just say that as often as I disagree with Dr. J and some others on here, they often bring important ideas to the table.
There’s one point that’s worth clarifying, that Mr. Molitor brought up: yes, pensions and health benefits are generally good, but those are counted in the studies as part of compensation. Part of what is going on is that the relatively small investment in a good pension system tends to generate a really nice benefit. The private sector could–and often used to–do the same thing, but largely for reasons of mobility in the labor force and the very fluid nature of corporate/private sector economic life, it doesn’t make nearly as much sense.
Some enterprising financial services firm will figure out a way to make DB plans portable and get enough critical mass from employers to start reversing the trend away from DB plans. In the meantime, it’s double-counting to look at overall compensation (including benefits) and then to add “yeah, but look how good the benefit plans are”. The plans are good because they simply take relatively small investments and benefit from the general principle that diversified investing in a mix of equities and fixed-income assets over time generates good returns, not because public employers are spending exorbitant amounts on total compensation (including benefit contributions).
The plans make sense in the public sector because in industries like government where you have a consistent, stable, relatively unchanging need for things like clean water, safe waste water and solid waste disposal, education, police, fire, judicial, corrections, and basic regulatory functions, you want to recruit and retain people for a whole career.
In the private sector, not only do people move from employer to employer, but they move from industry to industry, and some industries are born and others die every year. Imagine being a typewriter repairman 35 years ago and watching your entire profession tank in a matter of 15 years. By contrast, the things we need as a community, like those described above, haven’t changed much in the last 50 years and won’t change much in the next 50, so defined benefit pension plans make much more sense in areas like government than in the private sector. But the private sector could easily afford and establish portable DB plans if someone were innovative enough to create and market the right financial vehicle.
Having said all that, it is vital that public sector DB plans not be abused. In NM, we’re don’t count overtime towards pension calculations, which is how many of the police and fire pensions in places like NY and CA have gotten out of control (as in six-figure pensions when the base salary is closer to 50k). In NM, some unions took the lead in ending double dipping. And this year, at least my union will be trying to end “spiking” and other rare but public-infuriating “loopholes” in our pension plans.
One of the posters here is right–there are critical public services that not only all citizens rely on, but which business couldn’t function without. In a previous life I was a commercial litigator. It’s not a coincidence that commerce flourishes in countries with strong rule of law, meaning both law enforcement and a strong, predictable judiciary. It’s not a coincidence that our interstate highway system, one of our biggest government/public works projects ever, has created the best internal commerce system in the world. And anyone in the public sector who isn’t rooting for a strong private sector simply doesn’t understand how public employees are paid. We both need each other to be strong; it isn’t a zero-sum game, and it’s certainly not a competition (or shouldn’t be) for who can be made most miserable. Thanks for all the discussion everyone!
Well, this discussion degraded quickly into very unproductive territory. It may have been inevitable because someone seems to believe that some people are better and more deserving than others. I was trying to stimulate some thought towards the idea that some people who work in the private sector do so for profit and self interest motivations. Some people who work as civil servants do so for more altruistic reasons of serving the greater good of society. Civil servants will always be locked into the ranks of the “middle class.” The highest paid civil servant in the Federal General Schedule pay system earns $155,500 annually. Some in the private sector actually do and definitely have the opportunity to earn well above that annual salary. It seems that President Obama considers people earning up to $250,000 annually as the middle class. A government employee will never reach that salary level. I think it worthy to recognize that we all try to earn what we believe a salary we are comfortable with and provides us a means to support our families. Some of us choose to work in the private sector, perhaps because we want the opportunity for greater monetary compensation. Some of us choose to work as civil servants because we want the opportunity to serve a greater purpose than personal gain. Whatever our purpose, wherever we work, we all deserve an equal compensation for equal work. To believe otherwise is unAmerican and in my view unpatriotic. So, that’s this pilgrims claim to the high ground on this issue. Thanks and very respectfully yours!
“Becoming”? It was you who tried to prove your point by linking to a story that actually proved you wrong. Quite frankly, what Thinker just wrote is something that I’ve privately been thinking about you for some time, with the additional point that you are entirely lacking in self-reflection – demonstrated by the fact that you see disagreement with you as personal attacks, and see personal attacks made by yourself as legitimate contributions to conversations about policy.
“Like when they attempt to masquerade feelings of impotence, psychological aggression and cynicism”. Oh my, I think we’re done here, it’s become totally irrational.
Like when they attempt to masquerade feelings of impotence, psychological aggression and cynicism as political discourse?
So then, making sweeping generalizations that insult others just a hobby with no real end in mind other than to irritate?
Actually, no, I’m not sure, but I started referring to you by that gender as a test some months ago, and you’ve not yet corrected me, so I’ve just stuck to it.
That being said, I do love all your attempts to ignore the fact that several of us have proven you to be completely incorrect in your beliefs regarding public/private pay disparities.
“This from a man ” Indeed? Sure?
This from a man who launches vitriolic personal attacks against almost every American to the left of the John Birch society…
I just love it when people get emotional about this stuff.
No, that is NOT what I am saying. You are simply refusing-as usual- to comprehend this topic from a reasoned point of view.
Of course we have a balance between public and private enterprise in this country–neither extreme would represent a place where you or I would choose to live. But to rail against ALL government employees as undeserving recipients of your “Welfare” is simply absurd libertarian hyperbole. It’s not based in reality, rationality or even practicality.
Do we really have to reiterate the whole concept that private citizens create government and task it to perform certain activities for the common good? Meaning, we don’t all have to hire private contractors to do the things we all believe need to be done in a free, modern society. Of course we can find ways to reduce government employment in non-essential or comparatively less expansive areas of our economy, no one is saying that. But really, I promise, you just can’t pay some “private” employer to do the majority of the jobs government employees perform.
There are a few areas of “government welfare” I know I don’t want to the free-market economy to take over. Like…the ENTIRE active duty military and it’s civilian support employees, the judiciary, police officers and fire fighters, teachers, public health physicians and nurses, the FBI, the CIA,…they–we– work for all of us, with no discrimination as to who pays their bill. And no, they are NOT paid as well as their private counterparts, if they even exist. The taxpayer gets a bargain in these high quality employees.
If I am to thank you for “paying” for my relatives to devote their lives to caring for the public good and defending your right to make stupid and ridiculous diatribes against them as part of your 1st Amendment rights, then so be it. Thank you, Dr. J. for allowing my family to take care of you.
The ridiculousness of this argument is that we, too pay taxes for YOUR public services that WE are paid less than private sector employees to perform, AND–here’s the fun part–we get to listen to schmucks like you accuse us of sucking on the public teat to do it!!! Whooo Hooo!
Thinker says: “..those of us who have dedicated, loyal and decently paid middle-class government professionals in our families have no problems paying the taxes and providing the economic stability the private sector can’t–and won’t–create for New Mexico. Enjoy the quality of life we help provide for you.” Are you joking? Who do you think is paying for your government relatives? Your other government relatives? You should be thanking me for paying for your relatives and providing the quality of life they enjoy. Without the private sector your relatives would be out of a job, or what you are really saying is that all would be grand if only the government employed people. That’s been tried and doesn’t work.
Again, if you have the ability to click on my link, you will see the source of this info, and it was cut and pasted in total. The source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government agency. whaussaman, this is a free country, and no one has any constitutional rights to higher pay than anyone else, also oaths are totally irrelevant. Where you and I differ is that I believe the free market should be setting the salaries, not some government bureaucrats and elected pols. The government is not part of the free market, as they have no competition nor do they manage anything based on competition, nor do they make salary and bennies decisions based on competition. The bureaucrats and elected pols make these compensation decisions unilaterally and in isolation without any market or management/ownership input and oversight (citizens in this case, as we are paying all the bills). I was just offering my opinion on the proper economic impact differential between government and truly economic value adding jobs in the private sector. As a government employee you would obviously disagree with me, that’s fine, I expect that. I had many employees who thought they should have been paid more than I would offer, but in a free country they were free not to accept and go elsewhere. I would just like to see more thought and input from the bosses of the bureaucrats and elected pols, we citizens, before they lavish high salaries and incredible bennies on people I pay for, that’s all.
Thinker:
Dr. J got that particular list out of a USA Today story that haphazardly cherry-picks various tiers of various jobs (not even always median tiers, mind you) from a Bureau of Labor Statistics report. However, if you read the actual story, Mr. Bundy’s premise is echoed multiple times by multiple sources (in contradiction to what the headline says), and if you read the actual report, the trend is far less cut-and-dry than Dr. J has (again) deluded himself into believing. However, since his research only ever extends as far as is necessary to reinforce whatever conclusion he has already made, let’s us just address some key points in the chart he provided – in keeping with the spirit of the “statistics” themselves, my choices will be (seemingly) random:
-Clergy: This is one of the easiest to address. The majority of clergy members in the majority of denominations take some form of poverty vow, as befits the tenants of their various religious traditions. However, government clergy are primarily officers in the armed forces, with the balance filling positions in a smattering of other in various (mostly law enforcement) agencies. The Table of Operations makes no allowance for a vow of poverty in the salary of an Army captain – or any other branch or rank, for that matter.
-Dental assistant/registered nurse: Firstly, that both of these positions are notoriously underpaid in the private sector is hardly a secret. The fact that a fair percentage of persons employed in these duties in the public sector are again personnel in the military (and, in the case of nurses, are commissioned officers) again means a certain pay grade regardless of duties, plus a possible additional pay because of those duties.
-Physicians assistant: If this chart is to be believed, this is an area where civil servants need a definite pay raise…
-Highway maintenance/cooks/laundry/dry-dry-cleaning/janitorial personnel: These are again areas of the private sector that are notoriously low paid, primarily because they are “non-college” jobs. That the private sector is getting bent out of shape over the people paying our employees in these areas a wage they can actually live on tells you something about the sad state of affairs in the private sector. Though on paper requiring more skill, the same is true of a locomotive engineer, machinist, paralegal, or secretary.
-Optometrist: Yeah, anyone doing this job in the public sector rather than the private is getting seriously hosed.
-Physician/lawyer: While I was unsurprised that these numbers showed that these people made less in the civil sector over the private, I was surprised that these numbers were so close… until I read the actual report, and discovered that in these two categories alone they had bizarrely decided to classify military personnel separately. Since the average army medical officer, even with “Health professional bonuses” is lucky to be making 70% of the stated total (and JAG lawyers don’t even make it that far), that would depress the numbers considerably.
It should also be noted that the same news report that Dr. J linked to (but apparently didn’t read) makes it very clear that under any measure, state employees make less on average than their private sector counter-parts, and that local employees make an amount more that any half-decent statistician could tell you is way inside the margin-of-error. It also makes it clear that the chart that our dear Doc so conveniently managed to cut-and-paste only applies to Federal employees. Since state and municipal employees make up some 64% of all civil servants, this really blows a planet-sized hole in the whole theory that government workers are “over-paid”.
I do love it when the opposition obligingly provides us with the proof that they’re factually incorrect.
Dr. J
That list of salaries is the most misleading, inaccurate “cut and paste” job I’ve seen in a long time. Plus, no source documentation–looks to me and anyone willing to follow up to be right wing propaganda.
If anything, you’re comparing salaries at the top of the compensation tiers,–plus benefits– vs. straight pay at the bottom of the pay ranges. I know this because I actually have government workers in my own family that fall into some of the categories you list, and I know how to access the information regarding their pay scales. “Close, but no cigar!” as they say.
But hey–I forgive your ignorance–those of us who have dedicated, loyal and decently paid middle-class government professionals in our families have no problems paying the taxes and providing the economic stability the private sector can’t–and won’t–create for New Mexico. Enjoy the quality of life we help provide for you.
The idea that government workers should be and are less capable than private sector workers is absolutely a foreign idea to me. Dr. J. says, “They are the servants and should be compensated and treated as such.”, is very disrespectful and demeaning of government employees. Federal employees are civil servants who asked to be civil servants and expect to serve the people of the United States of America. Federal employees take this oath of office, “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” 5 U.S.C. §3331.
This commitment to country, government, and job is unique to those who work for the Federal government, whether as a civil service employee, military, or elected official. The same is not required of private citizens as a condition of performing their job in the private sector. This commitment does not and should not grant or guarantee government employees greater or lesser compensation for work performed than any counterpart working in the private sector.
Dr. J., your premise that civil servants are worth less and should be compensated 15-20% less than private sector employees performing similar work is contrary to so many beliefs and truths held highly in this country beginning with the Declaration of Independence which recognizes all men as equal. Equality for civil servants is as fundamental as equality for all regardless of race, color, creed, sex, age. Compensation should be equal based on knowledge, skills, abilities, and performance of ones job and not whether one works for the government or a private employer.
I suggest that government employees and their compensation should not be the focus of a discussion about government spending. My grip lies with our elected officials and the priorities they promote and the decisions they make. I have a role to play in electing them and communicating with them about my priorities and how they act on the electorates behalf.
I think my biggest problem with this argument has always been this: even if the seemingly random and demonstrably cherry-picked numbers that anti-government anti-populists enjoy throwing around were an even remotely accurate reflection of public-vs.-private sector compensation, their solution always seems to involve destroying the benefits of the public sector rather than enhancing the benefits of the private sector. Essentially, they seem to be saying (and in the most demeaning terms to civil service employees) that the American people should be just as bad an employer to our public servants as the Walton family is to their private ones.
@ Dr. J: “Nobody seems capable of clicking on my links, so I guess I have to just post the entire data set that shows my point…”
I know I’m probably flogging a dead horse at this point, but let me continue. Dr. J, I just looked at your USA Today listing. We all see things from our own point of view. My point of view is as an electrical engineer with cutting edge experience in satellite communications and precision guided weapons. Therefore, my immediate peer group and related work areas would be, from your USA Today listing, such fields as:
Electrical Engineer (my degree) F/P = 1.02 (F/P = Federal/Private)
Computer Information System Manger F/P = 1.05
Computer Support Specialist (people I work with) F/P = 0.83
Aerospace Engineer (not on the USA Today List) Not Listed
Hard to score this one. So, it kind of comes down to what Carter said in the first place: Are we comparing Apples t o Apples? stever kind of has the same observation.
I’ll go back to my previous theme, which is leadership. There is no doubt (for me) that American workers, including civil servants, are among the most productive in the world. Can we say the same about our leadership? Are the people who actually produce goods and service (direct labor) getting as much as management (which is overhead)? Let’s not confuse management with ownership. People who have their own skin in the game (genuine capital at risk) are entitled to reap the rewards, or to suffer the losses, offered by the market place. How come so many financial managers were able to reap rewards from both failing markets and failing portfolios in recent economic debacle?
As ever, Michael J. Flynn
I think there are clear benefits in both private and public sector jobs but its not so simple as to claim it comes down to salaries of one job in one group or another.
That public employees are better educated but less well paid doesn’t take into account that getting in the door and advancing in a government job has much more to do with education vs experience, than it does in the private sector.
I’m all for paying a state worker the same as an equivalent worker in the private sector, just throw out being able to retire after 25 or 30 years, the job security, etc and we can call it “apples to apples” but in my 30 plus years working in both sectors and with many friends in both, there are distinct advantages to government jobs not related to salary and its well known. People choose freely.
*** CORRECTION FROM MICK ****
Oops. I incorrectly stated that the SEC Chairman likely makes more $$$ than the Secretary of the Treasury and that the SEC is not run by Federal Civil Servants. I was wrong (pesky facts!).
The SEC is actually run by civil servants and when the current chair was getting ready to leave her private sector job, here’s what the Rosie Lavan of Times had to say:
“She [Mary Schapiro] is in line for a drop in pay. In 2001 she took home $2.1 million from the NASD; at the SEC the annual salary for the chairman is $158,500.”
Source:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5364844.ece
So, Dr. J, maybe janitors and lower level federal civil servants are making out like banshees, but it’s not so pretty at the top. And, by the way, most janitorial jobs are out sourced from the civil service to the private sector, in which case a good chunck of the gravy then goes to the service contractor while the rest trickles down to the janitor.
I stand corrected, Michael J. Flynn
@ Dr J. to Mick…”Let’s here your plan.”
I agree with IcarusPhoenix. That is, I do not agree with your premise that federal workers are paid higher than their private sector counterparts.
Here are some observations:
1. The SEC is not run by the Federal Civil Service. I am just guessing, but I bet the head of the SEC makes more $$$ than the Secretary of the United States Treasury.
2. The Republican Party, led by that old Progressive, Teddy Roosevelt, tried with some success to gut the old spoils system by strengthening the Civil Service. Good Government, in my opinion.
3. A well led Civil Service ran the Apollo Program putting us on the Moon in less 10 years. A well led Civil Service created and manages the GPS Program. A poorly led Civil Service can’t seem to fight off agribusiness when it comes to implementing legislated country of origin labeling and science based food inspections. To expect the Civil Service to be better than their leadership is asking a lot, but usually they manage our two and four year regime changes just fine.
4. And finally, since Government is the People, the values and skills of the Civil Service are reflections of Society as a whole.
Your Great Society Democrat, Michael J. Flynn
Nobody seems capable of clicking on my links, so I guess I have to just post the entire data set that shows my point:
Job Federal Private Difference
Airline pilot, copilot, flight engineer $93,690 $120,012 -$26,322
Broadcast technician $90,310 $49,265 $41,045
Budget analyst $73,140 $65,532 $7,608
Chemist $98,060 $72,120 $25,940
Civil engineer $85,970 $76,184 $9,786
Clergy $70,460 $39,247 $31,213
Computer, information systems manager $122,020 $115,705 $6,315
Computer support specialist $45,830 $54,875 -$9,045
Cook $38,400 $23,279 $15,121
Crane, tower operator $54,900 $44,044 $10,856
Dental assistant $36,170 $32,069 $4,101
Economist $101,020 $91,065 $9,955
Editors $42,210 $54,803 -$12,593
Electrical engineer $86,400 $84,653 $1,747
Financial analysts $87,400 $81,232 $6,168
Graphic designer $70,820 $46,565 $24,255
Highway maintenance worker $42,720 $31,376 $11,344
Janitor $30,110 $24,188 $5,922
Landscape architects $80,830 $58,380 $22,450
Laundry, dry-cleaning worker $33,100 $19,945 $13,155
Lawyer $123,660 $126,763 -$3,103
Librarian $76,110 $63,284 $12,826
Locomotive engineer $48,440 $63,125 -$14,685
Machinist $51,530 $44,315 $7,215
Mechanical engineer $88,690 $77,554 $11,136
Office clerk $34,260 $29,863 $4,397
Optometrist $61,530 $106,665 -$45,135
Paralegals $60,340 $48,890 $11,450
Pest control worker $48,670 $33,675 $14,995
Physicians, surgeons $176,050 $177,102 -$1,052
Physician assistant $77,770 $87,783 -$10,013
Procurement clerk $40,640 $34,082 $6,558
Public relations manager $132,410 $88,241 $44,169
Recreation worker $43,630 $21,671 $21,959
Registered nurse $74,460 $63,780 $10,680
Respiratory therapist $46,740 $50,443 -$3,703
Secretary $44,500 $33,829 $10,671
Sheet metal worker $49,700 $43,725 $5,975
Statistician $88,520 $78,065 $10,455
Surveyor $78,710 $67,336 $11,374
Dr. J:
Since the premise (i.e. pay disparity in that direction) of this frankly asinine statement has been proven wrong time and time again, do you want to argue a different mythical slight?
Mick says: “@Dr J … “the federal government should not be the employer of choice for our best and brightest.” Dr. J, that just doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.”
OK, let’s hear your plan. Does it include continuing and even increasing the disparity between higher paid federal workers and the lower paid private sector in identical skill-set jobs?
@Dr J … “the federal government should not be the employer of choice for our best and brightest.” Dr. J, that just doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.
As to the casual bouncing around of statistics and studies by many of my fellow commenters; let me refer all to my favorite philosopher:
“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true! –Homer Simpson”
Carter, you’ve written a thoughtful piece here. Your links sent me to some thought provoking articles.
As a long time contractor I have avoided becoming a civil servant for the general reason that the salaries are, in fact, not as good as in the private sector. It has been my experience that most civil servants are, in fact, good public servants. As with most professionals, we are primarily driven by our interests and our passions in the things that we’ve spent our lives studying and working on. In my case, science and engineering.
If your only passion is money, I doubt you will be very good at anything other than clever financing. To throw in another quote; Dorothy Parker said, “If you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gives it to.”
As ever,
Michael J. Flynn
Yes and yes. “Adequately compensated” is a far cry from pulling down much more money in salary and benefits than private enterprise, as it is today. I would settle for “adequate”, not “well” compensated. I want adequate government fit for purpose and nothing more, not the best, as I don’t want to pay for that and see government become the employer of choice as we the people are the bosses, not government. They are the servants and should be compensated and treated as such. The end game of a system where government workers become the best paid for most any skill, is a government state without any private enterprise, who will you tax for all the money then? Government workers paying government workers, hummm.. seems like some countries have tried that before….
So Dr. J., you want the best and brightest to work for the private sector. Are you saying you want your government employees to be less than the best? Are you asking for your government to be mediocre and is that all you are willing to pay for? If this is the prevailing philosophy of the American people, is it any wonder that we get what many consider unacceptable results and poor performance from our government?
As a retired New Mexico State Government employee I worked 25 years knowing full well that I was being compensated with a salary far less (significantly more than 5%) than I could have made in the private sector or as a federal government employee. I elected to work for the State because I wanted to make a difference and make a contribution to my State. I started work in 1975 for a salary of $690 per month, plus benefits including health insurance and retirement. I retired in 1999 from a mid-managers level position earning a salary of about $3500 per month. I believed my compensation was fair, although not near what I could have made working in the private sector.
Government service is not about making a fortune; for many it is about service to the citizenry. Government must attract employees with altruistic motivations. People with such motivations tend to be highly qualified for the work they do. The compensation must be adequate to attract them. For many years New Mexico State government compensation has included a mediocre salary and an exceptional retirement benefit through PERA. It is that retirement benefit that helps attract the “best” to New Mexico State government. PERA pension benefits paid annually are about $114 million from State, County, and City agencies; the remainder is contributed by employees, and investments of PERA assets. I seriously doubt this amount of money will solve the budget woes of New Mexico government agencies.
I’m not saying that money is the solution. I’m saying the highly qualified people with altruistic motivations are the answer to making government effective, efficient, and productive. they should be compensated adequately to attract them.
The immediate battle will be over benefits, not pay. Too many state workers can retire in their mid-50s on close to full pay. America’s states have as much as $5 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities, according to this cover story a few weeks ago in The Economist magazine. The way our economy is shrinking and our debt is mounting and our population is aging, if I were a rank and file member of AFSCME, I might be squirming in my seat thinking about whether the money will be there for me when I retire.
Here we go again with dueling statistics driven by political agendas. This article really lays it out the best:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
You will note the “professions” where government far outstrips private in pay. Federal employees are paid far too well, the federal government should not be the employer of choice for our best and brightest. Unless you want government to run everything, I know some do.
Yes, state and local workers are typically paid about 5% less than private sector. But, that small gap is getting smaller, and has been for some time. As the benefits lavished on public sector employees has grown like topsy over the last few decades, and the state, county, and local payrolls have swelled, it has now become the factor that is bankrupting states due to their pension plans. These need to be restructured so states can survive and live within their means, thus cuts are on the way to bring that 5% gap back to where it should be, about 15-20% lower than private sector. Again, why would you want government jobs to be the employment of choice in a country that thrives and only grows when the private sector is where the best and brightest are attracted?
In 1987 Reagan challenged Gorbachev “tear down that wall” — the result was a parasitic public servant socialistic plague that quickly spread throughout the world devouring freedoms.
A public servant is one that serves the will of the master (the people) and therefore cannot be a leader nor earn more income than the master.
Who in their right mind would want to be led by a servant?