.
.
.
.
Government Pay Not so Hot After All!
The Hate-Government Media and conservative or libertarian think tanks of a similar ilk, and various so-called “taxpayer associations” have produced numerous “studies” that compare the average government employee’s salary to the average private-sector wage and conclude that government employees are overpaid. Of course these “studies” are comparing apples to oranges and ignore that far more government jobs are white-collar than the average private-sector universe job, but they produce the results these organizations want in order to inflame public sentiment.
Obviously the agenda of these “studies” and reports is to carry out a campaign of criticizing government and those who work in government by whipping up public ire. These organizations need a bogeyman to campaign against in order to justify their perceived importance, and government and the government workforce is currently that bogeyman.
Given this bogeyman bias, a story published in the Orange County Register Business Section back on October 27 was most enlightening (“Local utility industry pay tops $ 90,000 a year”, written by reporter Mary Ann Milbourn.) While not the apparent intent of the article, it seems to me it provides a less biased wage comparison than we are accustomed to seeing in the media, and shows that the average government employee is not highly paid when compared to the average white collar employee in the so-called private sector.
It reports the following “selected average industry pay in O.C. in 2009” for the following sectors:
Utilities – $ 92,769
Company Managers – $ 84,453
Finance and Insurance – $ 84,293
Professional and Technical Services – $ 77,070
Information – $ 74,790
Federal Government – $ 64,702
Local (government, schools) – $ 56,269
Average non-farm industries – $ 51,512
This article provided a much more objective pay comparison snapshot than the customary average of apples compared to the average of oranges reporting we have come to expect. I have not seen any mention of this article in the press since it ran back in October – it amazes me that the government is the bogeyman industry has not attacked it. Even the hate government columnists and op-ed writers who regularly wail against everything government in the opinion pages of the Register have been silent about this article. Perhaps this post will stir them up a little.
Every government office I visit seems to be staffed by a minority or 1st generation immigrant as apparently none of those grumpy white guys that complain to the papers about the high government pay want to work there – so maybe its not true or they’re rich & retired.
And your point is what? That the nearly 3 million federal employees combined average about $65,000 in pay each year. Of course you conveniently forgot to mention the huge disparity in benefits between the public and private sector which, as USA Today reported, means that public workers on average make nearly $12.00 more per hour than private workers (and that was in 2008): http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-04-09-compensation_N.htm. So your argument fails on that alone.
Second, as USA Today reported earlier this year, specific occupations in the public sector make more money than a comparable occupation in the private sector (there’s the apples to apples you were looking for). For example, “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.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm. Oh, and that doesn’t even include the benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker (that’s from the Bureau of Economic Analysis in case you were wondering).
So, on average, TOTAL compensation, which includes benefits, significantly favors public employees over private employees. And specific occupations within the public sector (more than 8 out of 10 according to USA Today’s study) earn higher average salaries, not even including benefits which skew over 4 to 1 in favor of public employees.
Ms. Milbourn’s article does nothing to contradict this (as an aside, I don’t know where you got the local figure because it is not in the linked article) and neither does your attack on conservatives and libertarians who are concerned about the bloated size of our government on all levels.
OBNO – You are not making a fair comparison.
From the cited article concerning utility employees:
” Those obviously aren’t your average meter readers but include a lot of white-collar professionals.”
You are comparing skilled professionals to the aggregate base of government workers – including many lower skilled workers.
You conclusion that government workers are relatively low paid is false as it is based on a misrepresentation of the data.
For clarification, the story in the Register back in October did list the category of “Local” but with no explanation of what that meant. I contacted the reporter by e-mail and asked if that meant local government workers, and was told that is the case including public school employees, so I added that clarification in this post.
Not that anyone’s entrenched opinion is likely to change, but for every so called study saying government workers are overpaid, including reports in newspapers such as USA today and average of averages studies from such objective places as the Reason Foundation, John Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and opinion columnist Steven Greenhut, there seems to be another report saying it ain’t so. For the latest, try reading this one – I have to warn you it is pretty scientific, research oriented and thus may be a strain – go to this site: http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/cwed, then look for a heading that says “The Truth about Public Employees in California” and click on “Read Report”. You will see that it does include not only pay but also benefits in the analysis. I’m sure doubters will pick that report apart, but that is what makes this blog work so have at it!
Over,
I promise I will try to read the report. However, the fact that it’s from Berkeley already has me doubting (much like you will doubt anything that comes out of Howard Jarvis). Plus, I found this great nugget in the introduction – “While some benefits MAY be more generous in the public sector …” (my emphasis). Public sector benefits may be more generous? The fact that the authors won’t admit that public benefits overwhelmingly ARE more generous than private sector benefits is my second red flag.
Let the dissection begin …
Newbie.
Sometimes UC Berkeley does get it right. Check out the Nov 4th State Senate Testimony of HSR Ridership Forecasting Models that I will add as a comment to my post today containing the Americans for Prosperity video.
Newbie, I appreciate your candor in laying out your biases going in (anti most anything with the name Berkeley in it, etc.) Wish more people would do that. Keep reading, digest and then have at it.
Comparing California public employee’s against employees of public utilities (private) or big military contractors, is not apples to apples.
Try comparing California public employees against public employees of other states.
It is weird that here in California, were the weather is quite mild and food gowns easily right out of the ground almost for free, overall costs are so much more than states were they be snowed in 3 to 5 months and have short growing seasons.
Look at the cost of gas, always 20 percent higher than the rest of the country.
Cook, take a look at state gas taxes in the states you compare to – it just might be that taxation is a major reason for our gas being higher. I am not sure about that, but I am suspicious.
This story is just another example of the propaganda that comes out of the public union pr machines. In the private sector, employers provide an average of 5% of salary in benefits. In the public sector, it is virtually dollar for dollar. In other words, take over but not out’s salary numbers and double them to even come close to approximating the equivalent private sector salary.
Geoff, your skepticism is understandable, but I can’t follow your math. You throw out 5%, but it is my understanding that just the employer “contribution” for social security is 7%, and if there is any paid vacation, sick leave, personal time off, holidays, health insurance, workers’ comp, etc. it would be on top of that, would it not?