Obama announces federal pay freeze

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    Or he will, at 11:35 am ET.

    I'll listen, but at first glance this looks silly. People will buy fewer things, which will further contract the economy, which is what we really need right now. :rolleyes:

    Edit: he's also foolish to make it without some concession...like eliminating tax cuts on those making over $250k.
     
  2. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #2
    I havent had a raise in 12 years. They will survive.
     
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    NYT

    I think one of the most difficult things the US has to deal with is unwarranted wage inflation. Whether in public or private jobs. With the Wall Street slobs earning more than some small countries and no checks at all applied to the money they could earn, middle management in private companies felt they deserved the same. That of course trickled down to government. Bell, California anyone?

    Part of the high government salaries of course is due to an aging government work force. I've seen figures that indicate many of them will be retiring over the next decade so the average wage will decrease.

    Fortunately, Obama had already put limits on his aides' salaries when he took office so it's not as though he's protecting his own at the expense of everyone else.

    My one concern is that he isn't using this as a bargaining chip. The tax cuts simply can't be extended to the wealthy now that the middle ranks are forced into losing pay.
     
  4. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #4
    Not a big deal, as far as I'm concerned. Plenty of other employers aren't raising salaries, either.
     
  5. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #5
    Forgive me if I don't get all worked up about this...
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm



    [​IMG]
    Link
     
  6. mcrain, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    The Cato graph is a perfect example of twisting the crap out of the meaning behind statistics.

    How many average federal employees do you know of that make minimum wage slinging hamburgers? Probably not very many. There are a lot more educated and specialized employees on average in government than there are in the public sector.

    Compare apples to apples. The average federal employee who happens to be a lawyer makes less than the average private sector employee who is a lawyer. Compare CPAs. Compare CEOs. The President makes a LOT less than the CEO of most large companies.

    (edit) I just found this article. What's funny is they use some of the same language I did... :)
    Link

    (edit2) I took a closer look at article I linked to. I'm surprised the salaries are what they are, although I'd like to look at the job descriptions to see if there is a reason for some of the higher salaries.

    (edit3) More info on this issue.
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    This. My sister is a lawyer and a federal employee. She says she makes a lot less than she would at a private firm, but has given up that increased salary for other perks, such as rarely having to work late or on weekends and the great benefits she gets.

    McDonalds and Wal-Mart employees bring down the private sector average. I don't know if any burger flippers or greeters on the federal payroll. It's a completely bogus comparison.
     
  8. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #8
    It would be interesting to see how many low wage jobs have been outsourced by the government in the same time period. Are there any janitors on the federal payroll, what about lawn care people?


    The Graph is pointless because it doesn't provide any breakdown and 5p's link leads to pages upon pages of graphs but not to the one he posted...
     
  9. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #9
    Although it appears to me that Obama is merely a meeter and greeter.(as was Bush and all the others)
     
  10. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #10
    could not of said it better my self. I know when I was graduating in 2007 with my first degree the pay for any government job (federal, state, city ect) was on average 10-15% BELOW the private sector. Now TXdot had to give a 50% pay raise just to get to semi competive since they were from the year before offering 30k per year when 45k for the degree was consider low ball.

    So do not tell me that they make more. Problem is when you compare private vs government you end up having a lot of low wage makers thrown in to the private sector that the government does not employ.
    Generally speaking the government does not hire labors or non college educated people in large numbers. When the low end of the pay scale for government work starts at 30-40k per year it really throws off the numbers when the private sector starts at 10-15k per year.
     
  11. fivepoint, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010

    fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #11
    You just found it? You realize it was the main article I linked to in the post of mine you quoted, right? It might use 'some of the same language' you did, but it came to very different conclusions.




    Perhaps you should have actually read the article Mcrain linked to...

    Or how about:

     
  12. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #12
    What about him?

    [​IMG]
     
  13. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #13
    I don't generally bother clicking on your links, considering the right-wing drivel you have a history of linking to. Instead, I look at what you say and if I don't agree, I independently look up the issue. Here, we both happened to link to the same article.

    By the way, has anyone considered that the people who are working in the government may have been working there longer than those in private sector, and thus paid more?
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    God knows most of the planners have been there since Reagan :mad:
     
  15. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    Sounds about right... probably why you have problems comprehending my arguments a lot of the time. You refuse to look at the data which accompany my posts so my comments seem out of place. Thanks for clearing that up, In the future I'll just assume you're making no effort to engage intelligently and consume content integral to the discussion.



    Yeah, as the Cato article I quoted earlier mentioned:

     
  16. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #16
    You beat me to it, but I also found even more.

    I'm sure, however, that the chestnut about federal worker pay being so exorbitant is going to be dragged out again and again and again. We've already seen it here several times. It hasn't taken long for it to become a regular part of the right wing reality distortion field.

    Like I said, I understand why Obama's doing this, but he's just making the federal work force part of the same downward spiral that non-federal workers are on. If anything, this could backfire on him big time as federal workers become part of that pissed-off sector of the public that is tired of watching their buying power go downward while companies lavish unheard of riches on their executives.

    And thank you, Ugg, for also noticing that he's doing this without getting anything in return from the Republicans. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
     
  17. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #17
    Still trying to fgure out what 5P's point is...
    Do you think they are paid too high, just right or too low?
    Or am I missing something else completely?
     
  18. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #18
    I believe federal employees are generally paid too much (relative to the private sector)

    I believe private sector wages are determined by supply/demand and other fair market forces, while the federal government (due to the fact that it has no 'competitor' and doesn't need 'to earn a profit') can afford to pay their employees whatever money they can squeeze from the legislature.

    I believe that federal employees are far more likely to get paid more for longevity - as opposed to how well they actually do the job.

    I believe that federal agencies try very hard to use up every single cent of their budgets to ensure that their budgets do not get reduced the subsequent year... screw frugality, screw common sense, screw honest business and doing the job right by the taxpayers - do whatever it takes to ensure we get more funding next year.

    I believe that every dollar paid to federal employees is one dollar taken away from the productive sectors of our economy.
     
  19. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    I have no problems comprehending your arguments at all. In fact, I not only understand your arguments, I could make them better than you do. I'm not here to argue with your sources (especially if they are the right wing nut bag web sites you tend to frequent). Rather, when you make an argument based on some freak-a-zoid source, I look up the information so that I can draw my own conclusions, and then if they are different than yours, I provide my argument and the basis for that argument.

    I don't refuse to look at the "data" you provide, and in fact, always look at the facts/data you cite. However, I avoid the opinion or analysis of your right-wing heros.

    My arguments here have shown whether I grasp the issues, whether I'm open to reasonable debate, and whether I'm intellectually honest enough to admit if I'm wrong. Your arguments on the other hand show you to be partisan to a fault. You have zero capability of understanding nuance or respecting others' arguments. Therefore, you can assume whatever you want about me. I care about your opinion about as much as you care about the the poor starving or dying for lack of healthcare.
     
  20. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #20
    The Cato Institute? Founded by the Tea Party founders. :rolleyes: Do you blame him for not clicking on your links.
     
  21. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #21
    Yes, you do... and this was a perfect example. You didn't look at the article I posted, and then in an attempt to find a counter argument you unknowingly linked to the same article I did... why? Because you didn't read the article before you posted it and had to subsequently edit your post three times to say that after you read a bit more it wasn't actually saying what you thought it said.

    Yes, that's right... you posted it blindly and then went back to read it only to discover it argued the exact opposite point you were trying to argue.



    Actually no, it was the USA Today article which he missed. Not the Cato one. However, which fact that Cato presented would you like to try and dispute? Go ahead, I'll wait... or is your mention of Cato and Kochs just a straight-up red herring and an attempt to avoid discussing the facts?
     
  22. mcrain, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010

    mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    I'm happy to look at the facts/data contained in a Cato (mental) institute link, but I'm not going to bother reading their warped, right-wing whacko analysis.

    (Hey FP, go back and look at your post. You posted the link to USA today followed by the right-wing analysis from Cato. I linked to the same USA today article with my analysis. Yes, I edited my post (in the course of about 5 minutes) as I read several other sources (trying to understand the USA article).

    (edit) Why would I click on the blind link FP? You didn't quote it nor did you provide any idea what the USA today article was about. Instead, you posted a blind link and then a CATO quote and link.
     
  23. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #23
    5P I looked at your data and it is complete statical Bull ****. In fails to take into account things like education and experience difference between the 2 sectors. it does not compared Apples to Apples.

    I sited an example from my own experience which showed a huge pay difference between the 2. My job would fallen in the group you called "higher paying" yet it was clearly lower paying. They were below what we consider a low ball number. I can go talk to my Civil Engineering buddies and get the same results as well. I heard those numbers. Got the same from other engineering fields as well. Government jobs (no matter the level) were always below what we consider low for private sector.

    As someone else pointed out Goverment work force generally has higher experience and higher degrees. That alone throws off the numbers. Your infomation fails to account for that and compare apple to apples.
     
  24. rdowns, Nov 29, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2010

    rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24
    I'm not sure but there are 5 of them, apparently. :D
     
  25. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    Actually, I didn't post it blindly, I was surprised by the salary levels and was trying to figure out how they were compiled so as to understand the "conclusions" (opinions in case you were confused) of the author.

    I went back and edited because the facts were in the USA today article, but required some additional explanation that was missing. For example, clergy in government work sometimes has to face enemy fire, and thus aren't just clergy, but also active military. Truck drivers in the government sometimes receive hazardous duty pay. Secretaries in government work may deal with sensitive material and have to have a security clearance.

    Oh, and when someone F's up in government work, bad things can happen. (For example, when regulatory oversight of a new oil rig fails and the gulf of Mexico is poisoned). Or prisoners escape and rape and pillage a village.
     

Share This Page