I don't disagree. It's a vicious circle- like I said.

I think a flat-tax and lower Gov't spending can have the affect we wish for. But, that's not going to happen.

Aside from Food Stamp and Welfare (except for those who really need it- Disabled, Elderly)- which programs could the government cut, that would really make a difference?

 

The first thing that came to mind was the ethanol subsidy. There are hundreds of similar programs that could be eliminated. It would be interesting to pick a prior year, such as 1980 and lay out the list of government spending side by side with 2010 and see what has evolved. I bet there would be enough that I could eliminate or greatly reduce that there would be hoards of benefactors after my butt.

 

Right... It'd be great if we knew what we don't know about Gov't spending.

But, if the President would let me, I would personally cut welfare and food stamps to every illegal alien, and every able-bodied American that receives it. I might give up 90 days worth because none of us are immune to hard times, or bad luck. But, to those who have made a career out of doing nothing, their day would be over.

 

Agreed

 

I got a good place to start: Cut federal worker pay and benefits back to what the private sector gets.

According to the link, the average federal government salary + benefits = $123,049 (includes $41,791 in benefits), compared to $61,051 for the private sector (includes $10,589 in benefits).

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.


http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...pay10_ST_N.htm

 

Well, I don't agree in cutting any worker's pay- be they private or federal. I can understand no raises- until things are aligned, but not cuts.

I do agree with cutting executive compensation, and those big-fat bonuses, but that's a different subject... However, getting back on the subject, if we can't cut executive compensation to something more realistic- then we should tax the out of them! 60% on a million dollar bonus! LOL

 

The last 2 companies that I have worked with have had to take huge pay cuts in order to survive. They cut executive pay by 33% and I assure you, they were not excessive to start with. People making $75,000 went to $50,000. Have of the production workforce were laid off, the others had to take cuts in hourly wages. It was that or go out of business. This was brought on by the moritorium on Gulf drilling by the Obama boys even though the scientist did not recommend the moritorium. Even the scientist understood the trickle down economic effect that apparently Obama did not. Either he did not understand or did not care. This has happened in other industries as well, so I see no reason that the government employees should not be affected.

 

I can't say I agreed with the moratorium on drilling, but- being from Louisiana, I can see both sides of the equation. I can see why it would be personal for you, but because one industry suffers, doesn't mean everyone should have to take a pay cut. I have old colleagues who had their pay cut twice within 12 months, because the company that aquired their old company, felt their salaries were too high. Most of those people quit, and went on to higher paying jobs- good for them.

The reason compensation is higher in Government is because it offers something the private sector doesn't... Stability. Therefore, people are on federal jobs 10, 20, 30, 40 years... You'd be hard pressed to find many people in the private sector, especially a major corporation, with over 10 years of service. If you find them, they are some of the best workers at those jobs. With time in service, comes higher, and higher salaries.

Just think, if you started a Gov't job @ $30,000/year in 2000, today you're making $48,886, even if you never got a promotion. If you started that same job in 1990 at $30K, today that same person's salary would be $$79,598.00 (not including benefits). Government jobs offer stability, that stability brings upon long-term employees, and that's why there is such a difference in average salary. Longevity should be rewarded, private or government.

Ex. = 5% annual pay raises.

In the private sector, most people I know are happy to get 3%, for the last 10 years anyway. Prior to that, 5% was the norm.

 

Uh, that's why government salaries should be LOWER.

Stability = lower risk of getting laid off, having to take a pay cut, etc...

Bottom line is the private sector simply can't afford the public sector salaries and benefits we are paying now.

 

All I know is, based on what Obama provided about his legal residency, he would not qualify to play little league baseball in my hometown. But, I guess the Presidency has lower expectations than that...

 

And there's the rub. Public sector employees making more than their private sector counterparts is wasteful.

 

Not really. The real rub is the fact that private sector employees, doing the same job as their government counterparts, make much more money on day one, than their Gov't counterparts. Where the government worker "catches up" is, while Person A, jumps from Sprint, to Verizon, to US West, to AT&T, over the course of 20 years, starting over every time (especially if accompanied by a layoff), person B has worked for the NSA the entire time. With annual cost of living increases, and promotions- ends up with a more stable financial income than person A.

However, there is more risk in the private sector. If you're good, you can make a great living in the private sector- much higher than you will in Gov't.


In fact, only about 28% of the Federal workforce is at or above $60K a year. Depending on where you live, $60K/year is peanuts. For me to go into a Gov't job today, to get into my salary range, I'd have to hire in as a GS-13/GS-14. Not many people go into a federal career as a GS-13 right out the gate. I believe federal workers, outside of the elected officials, are capped at $155K for 2010- of which only 3% of Gov't workers earn such a salary, and we're talking what- a couple hundred of thousands workers. These are people who are in charge of their branches. Their private sector counterparts with similar titles, are likely making many times that salary.

Not to downplay the job, but- the Dallas ISD Superintendent of schools makes more than $300,000/year. Double what the highest paid Gov't worker-bee earns. College Deans make more than that, and lets not even talk about corporate Execs with the rank of VP on up...

 

On that $60K a year for the government employee are you including the benefits in that? I think not.

When you add in the incredibly generous government benefits, I HIGHLY doubt government employees are getting paid less than private sector employees doing the same job, on Day 1 or any other day.

Oh, and your premise that private sector employees start at square 1 each time they change companies is not accurate, IMO. People leave a company when they get a better offer that their existing employer can't match, so it is very often a step up, not a reset.

IMO, there is a HUGE gap between government benefits and private benefits, for virtually every job. The only jobs that come even close to federal government benefits are mid level and up jobs with big, profitible corporations. Lower pay and mid level government employees should make less salary than their private sector counterparts, because the public servant gets better benefits and lower risk of being fired. Pretty obvious to me. Giving the government employee higher pay, too, is just plain BS and equivalent to robbing from the private sector.

At the high income levels, the private sector employee SHOULD make much more than someone in government service. If the government servant does not like it, he can quit, put his money where his mouth is and reap his rewards in the private sector. Don't want to take the risk? He can keep his government job.

 

Economists would beg to differ with you Hersh. Your opinions are not based on economic fact. Pay has to go down in certain sectors in times of recession/depression to facilitate recovery.

 

Yep. Some people (OK, a lot of people) are having their income go down to "zero".

Dave- yes, what you said is true- for some- when they make the decision to move on their own. But, if it's due to a RIF, chances are it's at a lower level than they left their previous company at.

No, that $60K did not include Government benefits. But, it doesn't include private benefits either. I'm not sure about that sliding scale proposal either. My benefits cost the same as any other person at my company, and they got no better with position or time in service.