1 in 5 federal employees make 100K or more

#26
#26
lawgator1 said:
You can find individuals in any line of work, and in any capacity (private or public sector) that you think are overpaid or underpaid.

For whatever reason, people get all up in amrs if they think a public secotr employee makes too much, I suppose reasoning that since they are paid in tax dollars they have the moral authority to complain about it. In contrast, if a naker gets a $10 million bonus, despite the fact that the bonus is paid in part by the interest you pay on a mortgage or the $2 ATM fee, as soon as someone even tries to find out what the salary is you go ballistic and see it as a threat to your way of life.

Now, I fully realize the argument that you can always switch banks, but you can't switch the government. But that ignores that any bank you go to is going to charge you fairly the same (albeit in different ways). So my question is: if you have the right to complain about a government salary paid by tax dollars, why don't you have the right to complain about a bank salary if paid for by your monthly maintenance fees?
Click to expand...

while we're at it, let's complain about the ridiculous fees lawyers charge for less work per hour than the average union autoworker.
 
#27
#27
droski said:
state employees in california make 20% more than their private counterparts. and that doesn't take into account things like healthcare or their ridiculous pensions.
Click to expand...

Or the ridiculous amounts of vacation and sick leave they get.
 
#28
#28
What is wrong with vacation, sick and comp time?

I mean, I can go to work and take 4 hours of vacation work the rest of my shift on a special detail and get over time.
 
#29
#29
i recently saw a job at a public utility in LA where they had 5 paid days per year for things like doctors appointments. this not including 2 weeks of sick leave and minimum 2 weeks of vacation and 12 paid holidays with one floating holiday.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
You can find individuals in any line of work, and in any capacity (private or public sector) that you think are overpaid or underpaid.

For whatever reason, people get all up in arms if they think a public sector employee makes too much, I suppose reasoning that since they are paid in tax dollars they have the moral authority to complain about it. In contrast, if a banker gets a $10 million bonus, despite the fact that the bonus is paid in part by the interest you pay on a mortgage or the $2 ATM fee, as soon as someone even tries to find out what the salary is you go ballistic and see it as a threat to your way of life.

Now, I fully realize the argument that you can always switch banks, but you can't switch the government. But that ignores that any bank you go to is going to charge you fairly the same (albeit in different ways). So my question is: if you have the right to complain about a government salary paid by tax dollars, why don't you have the right to complain about a bank salary if paid for by your monthly maintenance fees?
Click to expand...

The difference is that you aren't compelled by force to support the salary of a bank CEO. If you don't support government employees by refusing to pay taxes, you can be jailed. Conversely, if you take your money out of a bank account, that is your prerogative - no one is going to jail you for that choice. Because of this compelled payment structure for government services, there is no cost-conscious consumer that exerts pressure to bring costs down. As a result, government expenditures are always going to be subject to more scrutiny than private sector counterparts.

Your assertion that consumers cannot collectively do anything about high salaries in the private banking sector because similar fees are charged across the board is misplaced. The fees charged by one bank has no bearing on a consumer's ability to take a stand to reduce CEO salaries. The two are completely unrelated. If a consumer doesn't want part of their interest payment to go to the CEO of a large bank, they can put their money in a regional or local bank where the CEO will make significantly less income. However, many consumers are generally willing to overlook the large salaries paid to the executives of large banks because they feel the services they receive are worth that cost. To other consumers, the extra benefits of large banks (more inclusive services, etc.) are not worth knowing the CEO of their bank is making millions. Those people weigh the costs/benefits and may end up at a smaller bank that offers less services. In sum, consumers can make a difference, but in reality they really don't care what a CEO makes as long as they are getting benefits that they believe exceeds their marginal cost.
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
You can find individuals in any line of work, and in any capacity (private or public sector) that you think are overpaid or underpaid.

For whatever reason, people get all up in arms if they think a public sector employee makes too much, I suppose reasoning that since they are paid in tax dollars they have the moral authority to complain about it. In contrast, if a banker gets a $10 million bonus, despite the fact that the bonus is paid in part by the interest you pay on a mortgage or the $2 ATM fee, as soon as someone even tries to find out what the salary is you go ballistic and see it as a threat to your way of life.

Now, I fully realize the argument that you can always switch banks, but you can't switch the government. But that ignores that any bank you go to is going to charge you fairly the same (albeit in different ways). So my question is: if you have the right to complain about a government salary paid by tax dollars, why don't you have the right to complain about a bank salary if paid for by your monthly maintenance fees?
Click to expand...

ONLY an attorney or politician could come up with this horse shat.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
You can find individuals in any line of work, and in any capacity (private or public sector) that you think are overpaid or underpaid.

For whatever reason, people get all up in arms if they think a public sector employee makes too much, I suppose reasoning that since they are paid in tax dollars they have the moral authority to complain about it. In contrast, if a banker gets a $10 million bonus, despite the fact that the bonus is paid in part by the interest you pay on a mortgage or the $2 ATM fee, as soon as someone even tries to find out what the salary is you go ballistic and see it as a threat to your way of life.

Now, I fully realize the argument that you can always switch banks, but you can't switch the government. But that ignores that any bank you go to is going to charge you fairly the same (albeit in different ways). So my question is: if you have the right to complain about a government salary paid by tax dollars, why don't you have the right to complain about a bank salary if paid for by your monthly maintenance fees?
Click to expand...

Another LG classic
 
#35
#35
T-TownVol said:
ONLY an attorney or politician could come up with this horse shat.
Click to expand...

volinbham said:
Another LG classic
Click to expand...


All I'm saying is that there is an inconsistency in how we view these things. Myself, I am much more critical of a seemingly unjustified high salary for a public official versus someone in private industry. My sense is that the salary of the private secotr employee is a matter of what the market will bear, so its really not an issue with which I should have any say.

But when I think about it, it does seem like the distinction between outrage over private and publc salaries is a false one. At least in some respects.
 
#36
#36
lawgator1 said:
All I'm saying is that there is an inconsistency in how we view these things. Myself, I am much more critical of a seemingly unjustified high salary for a public official versus someone in private industry. My sense is that the salary of the private secotr employee is a matter of what the market will bear, so its really not an issue with which I should have any say.

But when I think about it, it does seem like the distinction between outrage over private and publc salaries is a false one. At least in some respects.
Click to expand...

Private, meaning outsiders have no say in the matter. Public, meaning those paying in should have a say in the matter, but don't.

You should stop with the stupidity of worrying about market for a private company employee. Those overpaying will get their just reward. The government overpaying isn't about private risk capital and turning a profit. It's just a unionized disaster.
 
#37
#37
BigPapaVol said:
Private, meaning outsiders have no say in the matter. Public, meaning those paying in should have a say in the matter, but don't.

You should stop with the stupidity of worrying about market for a private company employee. Those overpaying will get their just reward. The government overpaying isn't about private risk capital and turning a profit. It's just a unionized disaster.
Click to expand...


I wish I could believe that. But I am aware of how these boards of directors work, how they reward each other, how closed that club is, and what little individual shareholders really can do about it.

I am also aware that a certain percentage of what we pay for goods and services ends up being divided up by those boards, amongst themsevles and their cronies, and how that all eends up being shifted back to consumers.

I think what aggravates us common folk so much is that we see banks proclaiming that they have to tighten their credit criteria (which puts the squeeze on the consumer and the smaller business environment), that they are experiencing losses and have to lay people off, close branches, etc., and that they want bailout funds to assist them through this rough patch. But then at the same time either they, or what is viewed as their proxies in big business, are continuing to reward themsevles heartily.

They don't make it easy to see the distinctions they claim exist. The high finance circles are seemingly intentionally always cloudy and difficult to comprehend. It is no wonder that folks outside of those circles feel that the game is rigged.
 
#38
#38
My wife has worked for different government agencies the past ten years. The irritation is not the wage but the wage plus the lack of accountability. Once someone lands a gov't job, their interest in working greatly decreases because they know the chances of being fired are slim to none.

Wife's secretary would routinely drop f-bombs in front of customers and passed out drunk at an event in a sexually compromising position. She had push to have the lady fired even though there was a record of inappropriate for over a year. In the private sector, if a bank teller or executive acted like that, they would've been given a pink slip very quickly. That's the frustration.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#39
#39
"But I am aware of how these boards of directors work, how they reward each other, how closed that club is, and what little individual shareholders really can do about it."

Every post of yours on this matter shows you have no idea whatsoever about how public companies work.
 
#40
#40
tri_vol said:
My wife has worked for different government agencies the past ten years. The irritation is not the wage but the wage plus the lack of accountability. Once someone lands a gov't job, their interest in working greatly decreases because they know the chances of being fired are slim to none.


Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Yep. Add to that the auto-lock raises, the continual expansion even when the private sector sheds jobs. It is a flawed employment market. Throw in a union element that actively works against any reduction in benefits and demands raises regardless of economic conditions and you have a real disaster.

My state pension (the good old defined benefit kind) routinely hits up the state tax payer to fund payments when the fund is under-funded. I have outrageously good benefits and the tax payer is on the hook.
 
#41
#41
droski said:
"But I am aware of how these boards of directors work, how they reward each other, how closed that club is, and what little individual shareholders really can do about it."

Every post of yours on this matter shows you have no idea whatsoever about how public companies work.
Click to expand...


Insulting me and being dismissive of my thoughts is not very productive.

What is incorrect about the perception that many of these institutions have boards of directors? That they vote themselves and their associates large bonuses? That the bonuses are on the expense side of the ledger for the company?
 
#43
#43
I worked for 2 companies that went public, everyone on the board, and the presidents and vice-presidents, all became multi-millionaire's overnight because of the stock options they were given. That isn't a common scenario, but it does happen.
 
#44
#44
that isn't what law is talking about though. he's talking about them giving themselves million bonuses that year. in your company there were probably secretaries who make 400-500K just because of the appreciation.
 
#45
#45
gsvol said:
OH NO, unbeknownst to me I've been conversing with a gummit man.

I've noticed several articles recently on this topic, one said the average annual salary in america is $40k, the average gummit salary is $70k.

Here is another; Dated today in USAToday.




What is really alarming is the amount of new federal employees Obama is hiring or proposing to hire.

Another thing, Obama said no raise for retired people drawing SS because there was no inflation (yeah right) but they would all get the $250 stimulus check which would cover that.

Guess what? The senate voted (50-47) to not give the $250 checks, even though they have $500b left unspent in the stimulus fund. I guess that is all going to the Wall St fat cats.
Click to expand...
So this is all of Obama's fault???? This is too good to read. BOTH parties need to take the blame for this
 
#46
#46
thekicker33 said:
So this is all of Obama's fault???? This is too good to read. BOTH parties need to take the blame for this
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the majority of politicians are the same - republican or democrat. Both parties seem to hurt just as much as they help, all are willing to point to the other party as the problem, and none are willing to take responsibility. Every gripe I have against democratic legislatures, I have against their republican counterpart.
 
#47
#47
droski said:
that isn't what law is talking about though. he's talking about them giving themselves million bonuses that year. in your company there were probably secretaries who make 400-500K just because of the appreciation.
Click to expand...

BOD folks are now way underpaid relative to their responsibilities to investors.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#48
#48
yup. particurally considering the posibility of being sued personally like they tried with the aig and lehman board. is that really work 50-70K a year for a guy who probably makes well over a mil at his regular job?
 
#49
#49
droski said:
yup. particurally considering the posibility of being sued personally like they tried with the aig and lehman board. is that really work 50-70K a year for a guy who probably makes well over a mil at his regular job?
Click to expand...

It's not any more. The compensation committee would be brutal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#50
#50
Thought I might toss a graph from the new BLS report "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation." The initial information I posted didn't take into account benefits. The BLS report does:

employercost.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top