Author Topic: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system  (Read 13433 times)

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #100 on: September 29, 2017, 08:41:51 PM »
I see this hype in journalism all the time.  Are you a scientist?  I just looked on the DOE's website and found project sponsorship for stuff we were promised in Scientific American about 30 years ago.  Where is it? 

I agree the government has done some amazing stuff in the past.  That isn't true today.  You asked what I'd cut: No Americans in Space Anymore would be the first to get the axe.  The rest should take about a 20% haircut or more until the public debt gets off the hockey stick.

Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it's not happening. The Navy, Health and Human Services, Army, and NASA are all on the top 300 list for US patents.

I work for the Navy and get briefings on things that I'm absolutely amazed are being developed.

The reason I was oblivious though? There's no reason for a normal civilian to either know about them, or to care enough about them. Does random MMM forum poster care about 100% biodiesel jet fuel? Probably not. But it was developed and has potential uses outside the military. If commercial airlines started using it, would you ever even know?

There's a list of military technologies that have been re-appropriated for civilian use.  Someone in tech, like me, is definitely aware of many of them.  The thing you'll notice about most of them is that they are all old technologies.  There is not much in the past several decades.  Whatever we were able to accomplish before, we are much less able to accomplish now.  Space travel is an example: we got to the moon in 1965; nowadays we need RUssian rockets to get us to the space station.  The shuttle was an expensive boondoggle that blew up with alarming frequency given the number of missions and the original design criteria.  The shuttle program has now been shut down.

WRT naval technology, I've worked in R&D, testing, and operation of naval weaponry and systems.  Here too, the picture was rosy in the past but far less so now.  Simple systems take decades to get out the door and then don't work or were an expensive solution to a problem that was solved better with old-fashioned means.  Even some of the old-fashioned tech was better for certain applications.  For obvious reasons, I cannot be specific.  I remember the Osprey fiasco.  The JSF is the latest.  We're now buying quite a few foreign systems for our ships now. The rolling airframe missile for antiship missile defense is German.  The Bofors gun on the LCS is Swedish.  Were I in charge of fast jet appropriation, I'd buy Gripens.  The railgun still isn't serviceable as a weapon despite decades of development.  On our ship, we mostly used a civilian radar for surface search.  The standard missile was removed because the last round we fired went over the mast of a nearby destroyer, under the water, back out and over our own masthead. 

I've seen marketing for systems that don't pass basic back-of-the-envelop system design assumptions and no one seems to ask any questions.  It's all about getting the money flowing now, not building stuff that is needed or works.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6244
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #101 on: September 29, 2017, 08:48:50 PM »

Middle class wages are up 5.2% this year, according to the federal employees at the census bureau.  The federal pay raise was 1%.  Inflation was 1.3%.


Sorry folks this is entirely unrelated:
Sol can you send me the link for this one? The latest releases I've seen show overall wages up ~2.5% and real wages up about ~0.9% for the last year (not YTD).  I can't find anything more specific than that.

It's household income that was up 5.2%, not wages.  Data are here, if you're interested.

Or you can read popular press articles about the data, like this one.  Or this one.

Some of those households contain federal employees who got a 1% raise those years, so presumably wage growth was higher among non-federal workers than it was among federal workers.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 08:55:26 PM by sol »

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #102 on: September 29, 2017, 08:58:48 PM »

Middle class wages are up 5.2% this year, according to the federal employees at the census bureau.  The federal pay raise was 1%.  Inflation was 1.3%.


Sorry folks this is entirely unrelated:
Sol can you send me the link for this one? The latest releases I've seen show overall wages up ~2.5% and real wages up about ~0.9% for the last year (not YTD).  I can't find anything more specific than that.

It's household income that was up 5.2%, not wages.  Data are here, if you're interested.

Or you can read popular press articles about the data, like this one.  Or this one.

Some of those households contain federal employees who got a 1% raise those years, so presumably wage growth was higher among non-federal workers than it was among federal workers.

Oh boy am I glad you gave me that link.  Did you notice the near decade of wage stagnation in the third fifth where the US median household wage sits? 


retired?

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 662
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #103 on: September 29, 2017, 09:14:09 PM »
A few non-nasty (I hope) comments:

 - I think any changes should be grandfathered.  People reasonably expect the benefits they were promised.  I do think they often seem overly generous, though.

 - My BIL was in the military for about 24 years.  He retired at 46/47.  I was surprised to learn that his pension, starting immediately, is $5k monthly.  For life.  Not sure about adjustments for inflation.  One valuation using 4% rule would value it at $1.5M.  I'd say more since he'll likely collect for more than 30 years.  Also, just learned that he and my sis get medical for life.....not sure what sort of premium they have to pay if any.  His total comp was probably around 130-140k including salary and allowances (housing alone was about 25k per year).  I don't complain since they dragged him all over the world for a quarter of century.  But, it taint bad dough.

 - A good friend and one of the smartest people I know started working for the Fed a couple years ago.  He could make more in industry, but, according to him, it's low stress and somewhat interesting.  It's not a bad gig for scientists and engineers.  I might encourage a young person to check out the fed for roles like that.

 - I do wonder about people expecting pensions as state employees in places like Illinois, etc. when IL cannot print money like the Fed to cover it's debts.  Some of those people are going to be screwed.

spartana

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 555
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #104 on: September 29, 2017, 09:30:26 PM »
A few non-nasty (I hope) comments:

 - I think any changes should be grandfathered.  People reasonably expect the benefits they were promised.  I do think they often seem overly generous, though.

 - My BIL was in the military for about 24 years.  He retired at 46/47.  I was surprised to learn that his pension, starting immediately, is $5k monthly.  For life.  Not sure about adjustments for inflation.  One valuation using 4% rule would value it at $1.5M.  I'd say more since he'll likely collect for more than 30 years.  Also, just learned that he and my sis get medical for life.....not sure what sort of premium they have to pay if any.  His total comp was probably around 130-140k including salary and allowances (housing alone was about 25k per year).  I don't complain since they dragged him all over the world for a quarter of century.  But, it taint bad dough.

 - A good friend and one of the smartest people I know started working for the Fed a couple years ago.  He could make more in industry, but, according to him, it's low stress and somewhat interesting.  It's not a bad gig for scientists and engineers.  I might encourage a young person to check out the fed for roles like that.

 - I do wonder about people expecting pensions as state employees in places like Illinois, etc. when IL cannot print money like the Fed to cover it's debts.  Some of those people are going to be screwed.
Sounds like your BIL was an officer. Enlisted get quite a bit less (an E6 with 20 years in get about $3800/month hase pay and an O6 with 20 gets over $10k/month). I believe retiree benefits are half of base pay. But in any case military pensions and medical benefits are awesome and you can get them young if you do your 20 years of service. However you do have to do 20 years or you get nothing unless you put in $$,into a TSP.

I'm on CalPERS and expect to get a cut to my pension - which isn't big since I quit work at 42 but, like the Fed LEO pension, my state LEO/Public Safety pension allows me to begin collecting at 50 unlike regular state pensions which start at 55 or older.

ETA Calif has since changed their pension for all new hires so older age to get pension and more contributions towards pension and retiree medical. Personally that's how changes should be made rather than takevaway or reduce already promised benefits to current employees and retirees.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2017, 09:54:07 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42

sparkytheop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #105 on: September 29, 2017, 09:47:37 PM »
Most Americans take for granted the services that their government provides, because they are provided seamlessly and invisibly.  Nobody notices when the lights and water just always seem to work.  They assume their food is safe to eat, that the courts will review cases and that prisoners are secure, their mail gets delivered, that the Russians will not invade Alaska.  We expect the internet to connect us, and our money supply be stable and respected, and our federal lands and wildlife to be there for us to visit, and our weather forecasts to be updated hourly, and our social security checks to always arrive on time.


I think you're engaging in a few distortions here.  PG&E provides my power, not the government.

This will depend on where you live.  If you live in the Northwest (not sure about other regions), there is a chance that a huge portion of your power is provided by the government.  Generated at a hydroelectric dam (most are ran by the DoD (Corps of Engineers), or the Bureau of Reclamation), then that power is sent to a grid ran by BPA (Bonneville Power Administration, also a federal agency), and then it finally reaches the utility company, which distributes it to households.  So, the government is providing the power, the utility just delivers it.

Since the government agencies can't make a profit, the "extra money" is put back into upgrades, maintenance, etc.  Still not a perfect system by any means, but many don't realize that the generation and grid really are federal government ran.

retired?

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 662
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #106 on: September 29, 2017, 11:00:48 PM »
A few non-nasty (I hope) comments:

 - I think any changes should be grandfathered.  People reasonably expect the benefits they were promised.  I do think they often seem overly generous, though.

 - My BIL was in the military for about 24 years.  He retired at 46/47.  I was surprised to learn that his pension, starting immediately, is $5k monthly.  For life.  Not sure about adjustments for inflation.  One valuation using 4% rule would value it at $1.5M.  I'd say more since he'll likely collect for more than 30 years.  Also, just learned that he and my sis get medical for life.....not sure what sort of premium they have to pay if any.  His total comp was probably around 130-140k including salary and allowances (housing alone was about 25k per year).  I don't complain since they dragged him all over the world for a quarter of century.  But, it taint bad dough.

 - A good friend and one of the smartest people I know started working for the Fed a couple years ago.  He could make more in industry, but, according to him, it's low stress and somewhat interesting.  It's not a bad gig for scientists and engineers.  I might encourage a young person to check out the fed for roles like that.

 - I do wonder about people expecting pensions as state employees in places like Illinois, etc. when IL cannot print money like the Fed to cover it's debts.  Some of those people are going to be screwed.
Sounds like your BIL was an officer. Enlisted get quite a bit less (an E6 with 20 years in get about $3800/month hase pay and an O6 with 20 gets over $10k/month). I believe retiree benefits are half of base pay. But in any case military pensions and medical benefits are awesome and you can get them young if you do your 20 years of service. However you do have to do 20 years or you get nothing unless you put in $$,into a TSP.

I'm on CalPERS and expect to get a cut to my pension - which isn't big since I quit work at 42 but, like the Fed LEO pension, my state LEO/Public Safety pension allows me to begin collecting at 50 unlike regular state pensions which start at 55 or older.

ETA Calif has since changed their pension for all new hires so older age to get pension and more contributions towards pension and retiree medical. Personally that's how changes should be made rather than takevaway or reduce already promised benefits to current employees and retirees.

Yes, O6...Colonel.  He studied mechanical engineering.  While his initial pay would have started higher in industry, I think the overall outcome is better for him than if he'd chosen industry......based on personality, financial awareness, etc.  It is very doubtful that he would have amassed a nest egg providing 60k/year.  Entrepreneurial guys, yep, but for him, this was the better deal.

Agree with last point.  And, I think that's how it will go for SS.....keep raising the income level for contributions (now, almost 130k) and raise the so-called full retirement age.


Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #107 on: September 30, 2017, 04:07:49 AM »
Most Americans take for granted the services that their government provides, because they are provided seamlessly and invisibly.  Nobody notices when the lights and water just always seem to work.  They assume their food is safe to eat, that the courts will review cases and that prisoners are secure, their mail gets delivered, that the Russians will not invade Alaska.  We expect the internet to connect us, and our money supply be stable and respected, and our federal lands and wildlife to be there for us to visit, and our weather forecasts to be updated hourly, and our social security checks to always arrive on time.


I think you're engaging in a few distortions here.  PG&E provides my power, not the government.  People want safe food, but a lot of it is safe because nobody stays in business poisoning their customers.  Nobody thinks the middle and lower classes get a fair deal from the courts when it costs $300-500/hr to hire a lawyer (an officer of the court) to litigate.  The courts benefit the rich.  No one from the middle and lower classes is ever happy about having to go to court.  The Russians aren't invading, but 30 million people have come up from the Southern border so the military isn't exactly securing it. How many people are in federal prison?  At a state level, prisoners are set free early all the time.  My friend keeps getting his mailbox robbed by some lady the judge keeps letting out of prison.  The last time I was on federal land, I found 2 abandoned pot-growing operations including large water storage tanks and abandoned deep-cell batteries within earshot of a road the federal rangers were supposed to be patrolling.  The Angeles National forest and many others have huge problems of illegal drug cartel operations, dumping, and other things.  The property was not large either. Sure, our social security checks should arrive early but we're taxed our entire working lives for it.  The local government delivers my water, the Feds controlling the spillways have let a ton of it run into the oceans exacerbating our water shortage.  The National Weather Service and NOAA are admittedly bright spots.  You might blame all the bad government services on the lack of money, but federal spending has increased enormously over the past 100 years.

No one objects to government in the first place.  We object to enormous, invasive, inefficient government - what we have today. But, hey, it pays your livelihood so I can see why you think it's a great thing.  It's funny because if you are a Mustachian, you relentlessly cut the fat from your own budget but think the federal budget should be spent differently.

I too am waiting for you to substantiate your claim that private sector wages are up 5%.

Do you not see the contradiction in what you've posted there?  The reason the Forest Service can't adequately patrol their land and root out the drug cartels is because they are being starved for funds and can't hire enough officers to patrol everything that needs to be patrolled.  Total budgets at most non-defense, non-homeland security agencies have been flat or down for years.  Compound that with the fact that an ever-increasing share of the Forest Service's budget goes toward fighting wildfires that get relentlessly worse year after year (thanks to climate change), and what you get is an agency that can no longer keep up with its core mission.  This is not "inefficiency," it's the simple fact that you can't adequately patrol millions of acres of land with a handful of guys (and gals).

It's been pointed out before in this thread, but it bears repeating.  You are ignoring the fact that the "big" part of government (entitlements and military) has nothing to do with the part of government that is being starved to death.  You're looking at the total size of government spending, and then berating the tiny slice of the pie that has gotten squeezed to the point that it can't do its job properly.  The bad outcomes you are bemoaning are the direct result of decades of efforts to make government "smaller" and "more efficient."
« Last Edit: September 30, 2017, 04:49:07 AM by Monkey Uncle »
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #108 on: September 30, 2017, 09:42:12 AM »
If someone came on here complaining about money and posted several years of their budget showing increasing revenues and increasing spending, it'd be facepunch worthy, especially if they owed as much as they take in wages and salaries.  Yet you Fed workers - there seem to be a ton on this board - can't imagine any cuts in public spending. 

Obviously entitlements will have to be cut.  They can't grow to infinity.  THe American people can't keep voting themselves Congressmen who reward them more entitlements for their votes.  The bread and circuses have to be curtailed.  History books have a lot to say about this. 

Here's a start for how to cut back the budget:
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/plan-to-cut-federal-spending

Personally, I'd make much larger cuts in DoD operations and maintenance spending.  This would involve bringing troops home, ending foreign misadventures, and closing many of our overseas installations.  To the extent that foreigners need protection from our military, they can buy guns and learn how to use them and defend themselves.  I'd end HUD completely.  And NASA.  That'd save close to another $100 billion.  The surveillance state - the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc, etc, etc - needs to be consolidated and much of it shut down.  The Air Force will have to be re-absorbed into the Army Air Corps like in WWII.  The army can be re-organized into some sort of regimental system like the Swiss have using the national guard.  Men will keep their weapons at home and know where to muster should the Russians invade Alaska as Sol fears. 

Going by the pie charts I saw on the CBO, federal employment is only a small slice of our spending.  The good news is that you can all keep your jobs but will have to do more with less just like the private sector.  Some of the contractors may have to go.  The Fed contractor down the street who works for USAID said they got a large budget increase over the past couple of years.  He said their annual party in DC (a very expensive place to have a party) was a "debauch."  That suggests another place fat can be trimmed. 

You all say it's hard, but it's not hard.  It's painful because there are a lot of pigs feeding at the trough.  It has to be done.  Again, the lessons from history are clear. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6244
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #109 on: September 30, 2017, 09:49:11 AM »
If someone came on here complaining about money and posted several years of their budget showing increasing revenues and increasing spending, it'd be facepunch worthy

Have you ever taken an econ course?  It might explain to you how governments are financed with low interest debt, in order to promote economic growth higher than the interest.  This is how America has succeeded in the world.

Quote
Obviously entitlements will have to be cut.  They can't grow to infinity.

They only grow to infinity as the economy and population grow to infinity.  As long the country is still growing, federal spending has to grow along with it.  You can argue that it should grow more slowly than the economy as a whole, which is a fine goal, but then you might want to read up Keynesian economics and the role of federal spending in stabilizing an inherently unstable business cycle.  Sometimes, debt has to grow in order to save all of those private businesses.  See TARP, for example.

Quote
You all say it's hard, but it's not hard.  It's painful because there are a lot of pigs feeding at the trough.

Would you PLEASE stop calling my wife a pig.  It's starting to upset me.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2017, 01:39:47 PM by sol »

sparkytheop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 485
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #110 on: September 30, 2017, 10:50:45 AM »
People signed on with certain benefits.  Many have contributed to that system for years.  I don't believe it's right, in the public *or* private sector for the employer to back out on agreements.  To change the rules for new-hires?  Sure.  They are signing on with their own agreement; don't change mine.

If someone said "you have to cut 20% of your positions, and I'm going to select which ones, having no clue what any of you really do", that would be asinine.  If I, knowing what we do, who is skilled, knowledgeable, and adds value, could get rid of the 20% that I know is a complete waste, I'd be fine with that.  But that's not how it works. 

I've never been a fan of punishing an entire group when actually removing the "bad people" would be a much better solution.  I'm also not a fan of going back on your word, or written agreement.

kimmarg

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
  • Location: Northern New England
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #111 on: September 30, 2017, 12:34:20 PM »
People signed on with certain benefits.  Many have contributed to that system for years.  I don't believe it's right, in the public *or* private sector for the employer to back out on agreements.  To change the rules for new-hires?  Sure.  They are signing on with their own agreement; don't change mine.

If someone said "you have to cut 20% of your positions, and I'm going to select which ones, having no clue what any of you really do", that would be asinine.  If I, knowing what we do, who is skilled, knowledgeable, and adds value, could get rid of the 20% that I know is a complete waste, I'd be fine with that.  But that's not how it works. 

I've never been a fan of punishing an entire group when actually removing the "bad people" would be a much better solution.  I'm also not a fan of going back on your word, or written agreement.

THIS.

I a am taxpayer. I'd be happy to see a cut in Federal spending. But rather than Congress in washington deciding how to make it more efficent have you tried actually asking the people who do the work??? We've got so much rules and red tape. You pay someone 30min pay to do the paperwork to buy some basic tools that cost less than the 30 min pay. Just trust the people on the bottom. If we say we need a new widget (low cost) let us buy it. Yes I'm sure someone will abuse the privledge - fire them! Dont' make the rest of us fill out extra paperwork and approvals just fire the bad egg and move on.

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #112 on: September 30, 2017, 03:19:34 PM »
If someone came on here complaining about money and posted several years of their budget showing increasing revenues and increasing spending, it'd be facepunch worthy, especially if they owed as much as they take in wages and salaries.  Yet you Fed workers - there seem to be a ton on this board - can't imagine any cuts in public spending. 

Obviously entitlements will have to be cut.  They can't grow to infinity.  THe American people can't keep voting themselves Congressmen who reward them more entitlements for their votes.  The bread and circuses have to be curtailed.  History books have a lot to say about this. 

Here's a start for how to cut back the budget:
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/plan-to-cut-federal-spending

Personally, I'd make much larger cuts in DoD operations and maintenance spending.  This would involve bringing troops home, ending foreign misadventures, and closing many of our overseas installations.  To the extent that foreigners need protection from our military, they can buy guns and learn how to use them and defend themselves.  I'd end HUD completely.  And NASA.  That'd save close to another $100 billion.  The surveillance state - the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc, etc, etc - needs to be consolidated and much of it shut down.  The Air Force will have to be re-absorbed into the Army Air Corps like in WWII.  The army can be re-organized into some sort of regimental system like the Swiss have using the national guard.  Men will keep their weapons at home and know where to muster should the Russians invade Alaska as Sol fears. 

Going by the pie charts I saw on the CBO, federal employment is only a small slice of our spending.  The good news is that you can all keep your jobs but will have to do more with less just like the private sector.  Some of the contractors may have to go.  The Fed contractor down the street who works for USAID said they got a large budget increase over the past couple of years.  He said their annual party in DC (a very expensive place to have a party) was a "debauch."  That suggests another place fat can be trimmed. 

You all say it's hard, but it's not hard.  It's painful because there are a lot of pigs feeding at the trough.  It has to be done.  Again, the lessons from history are clear.

Boy, you really have all the answers, don't you?  Just wave your hand, cut this, cut that, simple as can be.  Never mind the details or the consequences.  Reading a bunch of alt-right websites does not make you an expert on public policy.
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #113 on: October 03, 2017, 10:07:02 AM »
If someone came on here complaining about money and posted several years of their budget showing increasing revenues and increasing spending, it'd be facepunch worthy, especially if they owed as much as they take in wages and salaries.  Yet you Fed workers - there seem to be a ton on this board - can't imagine any cuts in public spending. 

Obviously entitlements will have to be cut.  They can't grow to infinity.  THe American people can't keep voting themselves Congressmen who reward them more entitlements for their votes.  The bread and circuses have to be curtailed.  History books have a lot to say about this. 

Here's a start for how to cut back the budget:
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/plan-to-cut-federal-spending

Personally, I'd make much larger cuts in DoD operations and maintenance spending.  This would involve bringing troops home, ending foreign misadventures, and closing many of our overseas installations.  To the extent that foreigners need protection from our military, they can buy guns and learn how to use them and defend themselves.  I'd end HUD completely.  And NASA.  That'd save close to another $100 billion.  The surveillance state - the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc, etc, etc - needs to be consolidated and much of it shut down.  The Air Force will have to be re-absorbed into the Army Air Corps like in WWII.  The army can be re-organized into some sort of regimental system like the Swiss have using the national guard.  Men will keep their weapons at home and know where to muster should the Russians invade Alaska as Sol fears. 

Going by the pie charts I saw on the CBO, federal employment is only a small slice of our spending.  The good news is that you can all keep your jobs but will have to do more with less just like the private sector.  Some of the contractors may have to go.  The Fed contractor down the street who works for USAID said they got a large budget increase over the past couple of years.  He said their annual party in DC (a very expensive place to have a party) was a "debauch."  That suggests another place fat can be trimmed. 

You all say it's hard, but it's not hard.  It's painful because there are a lot of pigs feeding at the trough.  It has to be done.  Again, the lessons from history are clear.

Boy, you really have all the answers, don't you?  Just wave your hand, cut this, cut that, simple as can be.  Never mind the details or the consequences.  Reading a bunch of alt-right websites does not make you an expert on public policy.

I gave up on this guy two pages ago. His repeated assertion that he could generalize all government workers as overpaid, lazy, do-nothing slobs did it for me.
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5000
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #114 on: October 03, 2017, 10:23:41 AM »
Quote
Anyone who believes federal employees are overpaid is welcome to seek federal employment.  DC is a cesspool because of all the private money seeking to corrupt our federal workforce, and honestly I'm surprised we don't routinely see examples of graft and corruption in DC given how underpaid those people are.  There is a reason we have (well, HAD before Trump) restrictions on the revolving door between federal and lobbyist jobs.

We are arguing over a subjective measure, but I'll maintain that the benefits package is pretty rich.  Like I said in my earlier post, a federal pension for GS15 or higher employees is worth *millions* of dollars, on top of the excellent TSP, excellent health care, excellent time off, excellent work life balance.  In 3 years time my wife will get a full day (in addition to sick time) off every two weeks.  That accrues without limit.  It's not unheard of for people to retire from the government and get 12-24 months of pay as a parting gift.

I would easily try to get a federal job if I could stand the shit-show that software development is at the federal level.  I'm not making it up; I've seen it first hand, it's just awful. 

Edit, I just read the federal employees are now capped on their annual leave accrual.  Never mind about that part.
Pretty much everyone at my former job retires at a GS-15 or above.  I mean, I suppose some don't make it past a 14?  But I doubt it.  I remember attending the retirement party 20 years ago of someone who was there 40 years.  He did, quite literally, get paid for 2 years after because of accrued vacation and sick time.

I am sometime jealous, but really don't want to deal with DC traffic anymore, one of the reasons I left 20 years ago.

GS-15 or above?  So you mean to tell me that everyone becomes a manager or is in the SES at your old workplace?  I would have never guessed that such was possible.

Our workforce of 9,000 Attorneys, Engineers, Scientists has very few that ever reach GS-15 and maybe 40 total SES???
Achieving GS-14 is reasonable in our agency, but not easy.  However, it isn't competitive either (everyone can get a GS-14 slot if they are willing to go through the 2 years of hell to get there).

This is a highly specialized area that requires specific education and training. 

Though I've been gone 20 years now (so things may have changed a bit), for decades the *only* way you could get a job there is to come in through the military.  High level interviews as a senior in college, get chosen, come in, do your training, spend your 5 years as an officer, transition to civilian as a GS-13.  I seem to remember it taking 8-10 years for the first people to make GS-14.  (That's total time, military + civilian, and those were the superstars).

Also, there's no guarantee that you can stay after your military time.  It depends on the budget, and the number of retirements.  Only about 5-10% would be chosen to stay each year.  So, some years, more people would want to stay than there was room for.  Around the time that I got out (mid to late 90s), the job market outside was pretty good, so most people opted to leave and go back to school or get a job.  There were several years around then where they lost most people.  Back then they would get 15-25 new officers each year, but at the end of the commitment, only 1-3 would stay.

There are a specific # of SES positions at the organization (don't remember how many), and same with GS-15.  I guess some people never make it past 14, but remember that every year you get an influx of new military officers, and every year the people at 4-6 years get out, so it's fairly bottom-heavy.

It's also the national HQ for the organization.


Like I said, things have changed.  I heard a rumor about 10 years ago that so many people retired in the early 2000's (we hired and kept a lot of people during the cold war maybe?) that they actually opened up positions to lateral transfers from other similar government organizations.  (Still, the preference was people who had at least worked there in the past.  I got a Christmas card one year, 10-12 years after getting out "want to come back?  We need people!"

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #115 on: October 03, 2017, 01:39:49 PM »
the OPM is not quite right. At least in my office, master level people are at 11 and 13 depending on job description, and PhD at 13, with some at 14 or 15 depending on whether they are the head of grants, and head of the department. What that means financially can be looked up on a government website re: salary.
You can go onto USA jobs and search by GS level to get an idea for the type of experience one has to have for each level.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 01:51:35 PM by partgypsy »

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #116 on: October 03, 2017, 07:12:57 PM »
They only grow to infinity as the economy and population grow to infinity.  As long the country is still growing, federal spending has to grow along with it.  You can argue that it should grow more slowly than the economy as a whole, which is a fine goal, but then you might want to read up Keynesian economics and the role of federal spending in stabilizing an inherently unstable business cycle.  Sometimes, debt has to grow in order to save all of those private businesses.  See TARP, for example.


As a percentage of GDP, federal spending has grown from 3% to 25% in 100 years.  Wages for the bottom 3/5ths of the earners have stagnated anywhere from 7-20 of the last 30 years or more based on the data you linked earlier.  How is government spending helping the bottom 3/5ths?  You might argue that they're getting more subsidies.  This may be true.  You haven't proven it.  The middle fifth doesn't qualify for much in the way of subsidies until just recently with the ACA.  As you'll note from the data, the upper 2/5ths of wage earners have been getting richer, especially billionaires.  One could argue that their growth in wealth is positively correlated with government spending.  Perhaps they're getting good at privatizing their profits and socializing their costs.   

In "THe Wealth of Nations," Adam Smith argued that the best economic policy for nations was good household economic policy scaled-up.  So, if saving money and reducing spending are good policies for the family - and this forum proves that they are - so are they for the nation. 

YOu mentioned Keynes.  Keynes made his money as an equities trader.  He was the guy who came up with "Castles in the Air" theory of equity valuation.  He was the first to write a modern macroeconomic synthesis which is probably why he's famous.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he say the government could deficit spend in bad times but then CUT BACK on spending during good times?  When do we ever cut back?  Were he alive today, I very much doubt he would say that it was good for any government to deficit spend year-in and year-out and rack-up as much debt as GDP.  The only reason we can do this is because of fiat currency. Keynes died in 1946 before fiat currency was a thing.  No one knows how it will end.  The growth of fiat currency was supposed to be tethered to the growth in productivity of an economy, not used to smooth out business cycles or to offset congressional deficit spending forever. 


Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #117 on: October 03, 2017, 07:15:22 PM »
If someone came on here complaining about money and posted several years of their budget showing increasing revenues and increasing spending, it'd be facepunch worthy, especially if they owed as much as they take in wages and salaries.  Yet you Fed workers - there seem to be a ton on this board - can't imagine any cuts in public spending. 

Obviously entitlements will have to be cut.  They can't grow to infinity.  THe American people can't keep voting themselves Congressmen who reward them more entitlements for their votes.  The bread and circuses have to be curtailed.  History books have a lot to say about this. 

Here's a start for how to cut back the budget:
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/plan-to-cut-federal-spending

Personally, I'd make much larger cuts in DoD operations and maintenance spending.  This would involve bringing troops home, ending foreign misadventures, and closing many of our overseas installations.  To the extent that foreigners need protection from our military, they can buy guns and learn how to use them and defend themselves.  I'd end HUD completely.  And NASA.  That'd save close to another $100 billion.  The surveillance state - the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc, etc, etc - needs to be consolidated and much of it shut down.  The Air Force will have to be re-absorbed into the Army Air Corps like in WWII.  The army can be re-organized into some sort of regimental system like the Swiss have using the national guard.  Men will keep their weapons at home and know where to muster should the Russians invade Alaska as Sol fears. 

Going by the pie charts I saw on the CBO, federal employment is only a small slice of our spending.  The good news is that you can all keep your jobs but will have to do more with less just like the private sector.  Some of the contractors may have to go.  The Fed contractor down the street who works for USAID said they got a large budget increase over the past couple of years.  He said their annual party in DC (a very expensive place to have a party) was a "debauch."  That suggests another place fat can be trimmed. 

You all say it's hard, but it's not hard.  It's painful because there are a lot of pigs feeding at the trough.  It has to be done.  Again, the lessons from history are clear.

Boy, you really have all the answers, don't you?  Just wave your hand, cut this, cut that, simple as can be.  Never mind the details or the consequences.  Reading a bunch of alt-right websites does not make you an expert on public policy.

What is an 'expert?'  Someone with credentials?  I'd argue it's someone good at getting results according to agreed-upon metrics.

What do you think should be done?   

Blonde Lawyer

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
    • My Student Loan Refi Story
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #118 on: October 04, 2017, 09:09:07 AM »
If someone came on here complaining about money and posted several years of their budget showing increasing revenues and increasing spending, it'd be facepunch worthy, especially if they owed as much as they take in wages and salaries.  Yet you Fed workers - there seem to be a ton on this board - can't imagine any cuts in public spending. 

Obviously entitlements will have to be cut.  They can't grow to infinity.  THe American people can't keep voting themselves Congressmen who reward them more entitlements for their votes.  The bread and circuses have to be curtailed.  History books have a lot to say about this. 

Here's a start for how to cut back the budget:
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/plan-to-cut-federal-spending

Personally, I'd make much larger cuts in DoD operations and maintenance spending.  This would involve bringing troops home, ending foreign misadventures, and closing many of our overseas installations.  To the extent that foreigners need protection from our military, they can buy guns and learn how to use them and defend themselves.  I'd end HUD completely.  And NASA.  That'd save close to another $100 billion.  The surveillance state - the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc, etc, etc - needs to be consolidated and much of it shut down.  The Air Force will have to be re-absorbed into the Army Air Corps like in WWII.  The army can be re-organized into some sort of regimental system like the Swiss have using the national guard.  Men will keep their weapons at home and know where to muster should the Russians invade Alaska as Sol fears. 

Going by the pie charts I saw on the CBO, federal employment is only a small slice of our spending.  The good news is that you can all keep your jobs but will have to do more with less just like the private sector.  Some of the contractors may have to go.  The Fed contractor down the street who works for USAID said they got a large budget increase over the past couple of years.  He said their annual party in DC (a very expensive place to have a party) was a "debauch."  That suggests another place fat can be trimmed. 

You all say it's hard, but it's not hard.  It's painful because there are a lot of pigs feeding at the trough.  It has to be done.  Again, the lessons from history are clear.

Boy, you really have all the answers, don't you?  Just wave your hand, cut this, cut that, simple as can be.  Never mind the details or the consequences.  Reading a bunch of alt-right websites does not make you an expert on public policy.

What is an 'expert?'  Someone with credentials?  I'd argue it's someone good at getting results according to agreed-upon metrics.

What do you think should be done?

Lance, I think you have already been asked this before and dodged the question.  Why did you choose not to work in government? I know you replied that the solution isn't everyone work in government.  We can't have have 100% public jobs and no private sector.  I agree with you on this.  But, at some point, you made a career decision to pursue the private sector instead of the public sector.  You seem to believe there are better salary and benefit options in government.  Why did you personally choose not to pursue those?

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #119 on: October 04, 2017, 06:44:40 PM »
If someone came on here complaining about money and posted several years of their budget showing increasing revenues and increasing spending, it'd be facepunch worthy, especially if they owed as much as they take in wages and salaries.  Yet you Fed workers - there seem to be a ton on this board - can't imagine any cuts in public spending. 

Obviously entitlements will have to be cut.  They can't grow to infinity.  THe American people can't keep voting themselves Congressmen who reward them more entitlements for their votes.  The bread and circuses have to be curtailed.  History books have a lot to say about this. 

Here's a start for how to cut back the budget:
https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/plan-to-cut-federal-spending

Personally, I'd make much larger cuts in DoD operations and maintenance spending.  This would involve bringing troops home, ending foreign misadventures, and closing many of our overseas installations.  To the extent that foreigners need protection from our military, they can buy guns and learn how to use them and defend themselves.  I'd end HUD completely.  And NASA.  That'd save close to another $100 billion.  The surveillance state - the CIA, NSA, NRO, etc, etc, etc - needs to be consolidated and much of it shut down.  The Air Force will have to be re-absorbed into the Army Air Corps like in WWII.  The army can be re-organized into some sort of regimental system like the Swiss have using the national guard.  Men will keep their weapons at home and know where to muster should the Russians invade Alaska as Sol fears. 

Going by the pie charts I saw on the CBO, federal employment is only a small slice of our spending.  The good news is that you can all keep your jobs but will have to do more with less just like the private sector.  Some of the contractors may have to go.  The Fed contractor down the street who works for USAID said they got a large budget increase over the past couple of years.  He said their annual party in DC (a very expensive place to have a party) was a "debauch."  That suggests another place fat can be trimmed. 

You all say it's hard, but it's not hard.  It's painful because there are a lot of pigs feeding at the trough.  It has to be done.  Again, the lessons from history are clear.

Boy, you really have all the answers, don't you?  Just wave your hand, cut this, cut that, simple as can be.  Never mind the details or the consequences.  Reading a bunch of alt-right websites does not make you an expert on public policy.

What is an 'expert?'  Someone with credentials?  I'd argue it's someone good at getting results according to agreed-upon metrics.

What do you think should be done?

I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6244
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #120 on: October 05, 2017, 12:25:48 AM »
The new house bill absolutely brutalizes federal retirees:  https://federalnewsradio.com/retirement/2017/10/house-set-to-advance-2018-budget-resolution-with-federal-retirement-cuts/

It ends federal pensions for new hires, switching them to TSP-only.  It raises contribution rates (again) for current employees.  It cuts retiree healthcare, even for people currently retired.  It cuts the G fund.  It ends the FERS supplement.

This has all been lumped in with the House's current budget reconciliation bill, which is expected to pass.  At that point only the (Republican controlled) Senate can stop any of this from becoming law.  Mostly I just can't believe they're actually going to vote for literally ending federal pensions, after 200+ years.

We live in exciting times.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 12:28:16 AM by sol »

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #121 on: October 05, 2017, 04:53:22 AM »
The new house bill absolutely brutalizes federal retirees:  https://federalnewsradio.com/retirement/2017/10/house-set-to-advance-2018-budget-resolution-with-federal-retirement-cuts/

It ends federal pensions for new hires, switching them to TSP-only.  It raises contribution rates (again) for current employees.  It cuts retiree healthcare, even for people currently retired.  It cuts the G fund.  It ends the FERS supplement.

This has all been lumped in with the House's current budget reconciliation bill, which is expected to pass.  At that point only the (Republican controlled) Senate can stop any of this from becoming law.  Mostly I just can't believe they're actually going to vote for literally ending federal pensions, after 200+ years.

We live in exciting times.

While this is indeed concerning, it's important to remember that it is a non-binding budget resolution.  It is not the actual spending bill(s) that will make the actual cuts.  And it is widely expected that the Senate's version of the budget resolution will be different.

Still, it pays to be vigilant.  The resolution is a clear indication of where the republican majority stands.  It is very easy to slip these cuts into the actual spending bills because the public tends not to care about federal pensions they way they care about, say, health care.  The last round of cuts to federal retirement happened under a Democratic president.  Such cuts become an easy compromise point for Democrats so that they can get some concessions on issues they really care about.  As long as all the D reps from Maryland and Northern Virginia vote against the cuts, the rest don't really face any blowback.

None of the changes mentioned would really affect you and me, since we are both planning to pull the rip cord next year anyway.  But they would seriously suck for people who were planning on making a full career out of government service.
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1722
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #122 on: October 05, 2017, 12:35:36 PM »
Well I need to work for another 10 years (yes I'm not a full mustachian) and I have 2 dependents. I work here not because the pay is the highest I can get with my experience and qualifications, but it allows me to be a working parent.
I'm pretty tired when federal employees are the traditional kicking boy for politicians. Out of one mouth they say they support veterans and want to make sure they have the best care. Out of the other side they are planning to cut compensation and actual jobs so there is a brain and experience drain out of Veterans affairs.

I don't think the Republican party will have a "come to Jesus" moment, until the point they realize they have by their policies, decimated the middle class (and the people actually buying things).

I believe this is done for the primary reason some politicians truly do not "believe" in government. Cutting wages and compensation not only allows them to cut the budget (so there is room for more tax cuts for the wealthy) but it allows them to say when natural consequences happen, that see, the federal government doesn't work, therefore we need to cut more and or privatize it. And I'm sure the politicians of course will have no influence or benefit from who receives the contracts (wink wink, nod, nod).

Here is your creepy quote for the day
"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.' Grover Norquist 

And to lighten the mood another quote from him
"An armed people are a free people. If our forefathers were not armed before the American Revolution we would all be speaking English today."
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 01:00:49 PM by partgypsy »

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #123 on: October 05, 2017, 01:16:05 PM »


Oh boy am I glad you gave me that link.  Did you notice the near decade of wage stagnation in the third fifth where the US median household wage sits? 



 I calulated the numbers for each Quintile for those 7 years.
 The average yearly increase for,
Lowest Fifth ---0.17%
Second Fifth ---0.4%
Third Fifth -----0.8%
Fourth Fifth ----0.7%
Highest Fifth ---1.1%
 The lower 4/5s all had a low growth of income for those 7 years.

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5000
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #124 on: October 05, 2017, 03:08:12 PM »
The new house bill absolutely brutalizes federal retirees:  https://federalnewsradio.com/retirement/2017/10/house-set-to-advance-2018-budget-resolution-with-federal-retirement-cuts/

It ends federal pensions for new hires, switching them to TSP-only.  It raises contribution rates (again) for current employees.  It cuts retiree healthcare, even for people currently retired.  It cuts the G fund.  It ends the FERS supplement.

This has all been lumped in with the House's current budget reconciliation bill, which is expected to pass.  At that point only the (Republican controlled) Senate can stop any of this from becoming law.  Mostly I just can't believe they're actually going to vote for literally ending federal pensions, after 200+ years.

We live in exciting times.
Does that include Congress themselves?  Wait, do Congressmen get any kind of pension?

doggyfizzle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #125 on: October 05, 2017, 03:36:23 PM »
The new house bill absolutely brutalizes federal retirees:  https://federalnewsradio.com/retirement/2017/10/house-set-to-advance-2018-budget-resolution-with-federal-retirement-cuts/

It ends federal pensions for new hires, switching them to TSP-only.  It raises contribution rates (again) for current employees.  It cuts retiree healthcare, even for people currently retired.  It cuts the G fund.  It ends the FERS supplement.

This has all been lumped in with the House's current budget reconciliation bill, which is expected to pass.  At that point only the (Republican controlled) Senate can stop any of this from becoming law.  Mostly I just can't believe they're actually going to vote for literally ending federal pensions, after 200+ years.

We live in exciting times.

I guess a positive spin on the proposed changes  is that it would likely spur me to FIRE, rather than simply work as an FI-Fed.  I like my job (partly for the benefits) and plan on working until 57 (with some healthy doses of 27 days of LWOP lumped in), but if there is a dramatic shift in quality of benefits I'll probably just work a couple more years and then bail.  The industry I work in (oil & gas) typically offers excellent benefits and much higher pay (roughly double what I make now), but is extremely cyclical and after dooddlebugging around for 6.5 years I'd made enough money to value the slower pace of government over the much higher salaries in the private sector.

bdylan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #126 on: October 06, 2017, 01:31:41 PM »
It's clear that the typical federal employee is overpaid significantly.  If you have a professional degree or a PhD (i.e., lawyers and scientists) then yes, you are likely paid less than you could get in the private sector.  However, that doesn't include the value of things like job security and worklife balance which are likely much better than in the private sector.

From the CBO:

Among workers whose education culminated in a bachelorís degree, the cost of total compensation averaged 21 percent more for federal workers than for similar workers in the private sector.
Among workers with a high school diploma or less education, total compensation costs averaged 53 percent more for federal employees than for their private-sector counterparts.
Total compensation costs among workers with a professional degree or doctorate, by contrast, were 18 percent lower for federal employees than for similar private-sector employees, on average.


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637



rockeTree

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 160
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #127 on: October 06, 2017, 01:44:48 PM »
The script the union handed out was just "I'm a federal worker in your district and I don't want any reductions to my pay, benefits or retirement."

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #128 on: October 07, 2017, 08:23:12 AM »


Lance, I think you have already been asked this before and dodged the question.  Why did you choose not to work in government? I know you replied that the solution isn't everyone work in government.  We can't have have 100% public jobs and no private sector.  I agree with you on this.  But, at some point, you made a career decision to pursue the private sector instead of the public sector.  You seem to believe there are better salary and benefit options in government.  Why did you personally choose not to pursue those?

Read my explanation on page one. 

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #129 on: October 07, 2017, 08:29:11 AM »
It's clear that the typical federal employee is overpaid significantly.  If you have a professional degree or a PhD (i.e., lawyers and scientists) then yes, you are likely paid less than you could get in the private sector.  However, that doesn't include the value of things like job security and worklife balance which are likely much better than in the private sector.

From the CBO:

Among workers whose education culminated in a bachelorís degree, the cost of total compensation averaged 21 percent more for federal workers than for similar workers in the private sector.
Among workers with a high school diploma or less education, total compensation costs averaged 53 percent more for federal employees than for their private-sector counterparts.
Total compensation costs among workers with a professional degree or doctorate, by contrast, were 18 percent lower for federal employees than for similar private-sector employees, on average.


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

Dig deeper to get a more nuanced picture of what you read.

1.  60% of all federal government employees have a Bachelor's degree or higher.  Therefore only 40% have less than a Bachelors (Associates, High School Diploma or less).
2.  Nearly 47% of all federal government employees are Military.  I suspect, the majority of those working for the govt who don't have at least a Bachelors will be found in the Armed Forces as 16.5% of the armed forces are officers and enlisted tend to lack college education in general yielding as much as 39.25% of the non-bachelor's degree holders in the federal govt.)
3.  16% of all federal government jobs are "government enterprise" and are self funded.

I conclude, that you are mainly speaking about the military enlisted members being overpaid and over compensated when you highlight those with only a High School education having much higher total compensation than the private work force.

It would be interesting to tease out the Bachelor's degree numbers without military officers and see if the total compensation is still as high.  Not too many officers stay a 2nd LT or 1st LT for long (O-1 and O-2 ranks that are the main low compensation ranks as a military officer).

I have an acquaintance who is an E-8 in the military with  19 years time in service, a high school education, and when BAH + BAS + Base Pay + tax savings on BAH&BAS is calculated together their compensation is equivalent to around $80,000/yr.

Dig still deeper and you'll find that the military employs a lot of people with only a high school education who have technical training (A-school rating, MOS training, etc).  These jobs tend to pay better than most college degrees.  Also, the government employs a lot of people with humanities degrees that pay very low in the private sector.  The stories of art majors working at Starbucks are of course legion. 

The self-funded government employees should have the highest upside for pay, IMO. 

The mindset of the Feds on here is completely the opposite of the private sector.  You guys base your advancement opportunities on educational credentials rather than skillsets or results.  Our CEO has a bachelor's degree.  I never asked the black-belt ME I worked with last week what letters were after his last name.  He could be a HS dropout for all I care, his results were amazing.  Steve Jobs dropped out of college. 

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #130 on: October 07, 2017, 08:32:37 AM »


Oh boy am I glad you gave me that link.  Did you notice the near decade of wage stagnation in the third fifth where the US median household wage sits? 



 I calulated the numbers for each Quintile for those 7 years.
 The average yearly increase for,
Lowest Fifth ---0.17%
Second Fifth ---0.4%
Third Fifth -----0.8%
Fourth Fifth ----0.7%
Highest Fifth ---1.1%
 The lower 4/5s all had a low growth of income for those 7 years.

Right, and you'll notice the bottom 2/5s have had stagnant wages for most of the past 20 years.  But the Feds on here are complaining about their gibsmedats.  "NEW HIRES WON'T EVEN GET A PENSION!" Pensions disappeared in the private sector 30 years ago or earlier. 

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #131 on: October 07, 2017, 08:37:19 AM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts. 

marion10

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 207
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #132 on: October 07, 2017, 10:13:16 AM »
i know we have moved on- but with the chart with the grade levels and education- that is education substitution for entering - so you have to have experience OR education to enter an occupation. So someone with a BA, can often start at the GS-5 (with no other work experience), there is a provision if you have superior academic achievement (which is basically a 3.0 GPA), you can start as a 7. Masters lets you start as a 9 (in a related field).

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #133 on: October 07, 2017, 12:02:09 PM »
Could anyone please write a good solid 30 second or less script for us to call our senators?

I'm thinking something along the lines of "please vote no on any budget which breaks the promises we made to our current Federal workforce and retirees".

The more people calling and leaving a message on their staff voicemail, the more likely we are to get enough "no" votes on the budget as it stands.

  After reading this thread, I get the idea the majority here would want our senators to vote yes. The hardworking taxpayers have had our promise of SS at 65 taken away, and the File and suspend is gone.
 I have had 12 increases in the FICA tax during my work career, with only an inflation adjustment, an not increase in the benefit.
 Maybe we need a poll!

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #134 on: October 07, 2017, 12:20:58 PM »
Could anyone please write a good solid 30 second or less script for us to call our senators?

I'm thinking something along the lines of "please vote no on any budget which breaks the promises we made to our current Federal workforce and retirees".

The more people calling and leaving a message on their staff voicemail, the more likely we are to get enough "no" votes on the budget as it stands.

  After reading this thread, I get the idea the majority here would want our senators to vote yes. The hardworking taxpayers have had our promise of SS at 65 taken away, and the File and suspend is gone.
 I have had 12 increases in the FICA tax during my work career, with only an inflation adjustment, an not increase in the benefit.
 Maybe we need a poll!

Not quite sure what you mean? Feds also pay taxes and also pay into SS and are subject to the same SS rules. 

ETA, I think to have accurate polling responses from the feds themselves, you would have to get extremely granular.  Some want no changes, some (like me) would be fine with high 5 versus high 3 pension calculations, or would be fine with paying more into the pension if it were stepped in gradually enough, but would lobby hard against e.g. chained CPI inflation adjustment, etc. Others would have differing opinions on what would be reasonable to change. It's not an all or nothing sort of question to most feds.

ETA again,  By "the majority here would vote yes", do you mean the majority of feds on this thread? That is, after all, who the OP asked to respond.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2017, 12:26:42 PM by wenchsenior »

Cork

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • Location: Golden, CO
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #135 on: October 07, 2017, 12:38:06 PM »
Are any Fed workers considering a change in employment if the increased contributions go thru?

As Sol has mentioned, required increased pension contributions is really painful for people working towards FIRE...
Prost!

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #136 on: October 07, 2017, 12:43:26 PM »
Are any Fed workers considering a change in employment if the increased contributions go thru?

As Sol has mentioned, required increased pension contributions is really painful for people working towards FIRE...

Yes, I'm planning to FIRE.  Of course, I'm planning to do that either way...
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #137 on: October 07, 2017, 12:53:57 PM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts.

Neither have you.  You've just waved your hand and said we'll end most of what the government does and not worry about the consequences.  And now you're drifting into racism.

Don't forget - you're the one who crashed the thread and started throwing around invective about how worthless the government and its employees are.  If you have a serious proposal to make, complete with an assessment of the consequences and a plan to deal with them, then please make it.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

bdylan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #138 on: October 07, 2017, 03:18:35 PM »
It's clear that the typical federal employee is overpaid significantly.  If you have a professional degree or a PhD (i.e., lawyers and scientists) then yes, you are likely paid less than you could get in the private sector.  However, that doesn't include the value of things like job security and worklife balance which are likely much better than in the private sector.

From the CBO:

Among workers whose education culminated in a bachelorís degree, the cost of total compensation averaged 21 percent more for federal workers than for similar workers in the private sector.
Among workers with a high school diploma or less education, total compensation costs averaged 53 percent more for federal employees than for their private-sector counterparts.
Total compensation costs among workers with a professional degree or doctorate, by contrast, were 18 percent lower for federal employees than for similar private-sector employees, on average.


https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

Dig deeper to get a more nuanced picture of what you read.

1.  60% of all federal government employees have a Bachelor's degree or higher.  Therefore only 40% have less than a Bachelors (Associates, High School Diploma or less).
2.  Nearly 47% of all federal government employees are Military.  I suspect, the majority of those working for the govt who don't have at least a Bachelors will be found in the Armed Forces as 16.5% of the armed forces are officers and enlisted tend to lack college education in general yielding as much as 39.25% of the non-bachelor's degree holders in the federal govt.)
3.  16% of all federal government jobs are "government enterprise" and are self funded.

I conclude, that you are mainly speaking about the military enlisted members being overpaid and over compensated when you highlight those with only a High School education having much higher total compensation than the private work force.

It would be interesting to tease out the Bachelor's degree numbers without military officers and see if the total compensation is still as high.  Not too many officers stay a 2nd LT or 1st LT for long (O-1 and O-2 ranks that are the main low compensation ranks as a military officer).

I have an acquaintance who is an E-8 in the military with  19 years time in service, a high school education, and when BAH + BAS + Base Pay + tax savings on BAH&BAS is calculated together their compensation is equivalent to around $80,000/yr.

CBO's report is Federal civilian employees. Would include DoD civilian but not enlisted personnel.

So, the point stands -- and again, BAs receive a 21% compensation premium compared to the typical BA in the private sector. 

I don't think there is actually much of an argument amongst anyone who looks at it that Feds are on average paid more than they could receive in the private sector.  That's why when you look at JOLTS data you'll see much lower quit rates for federal employees in than in the private sector. And again, none of these compensation comparisons control for job security, which is much, much higher in the federal sector.



 

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #139 on: October 07, 2017, 03:21:25 PM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts.

Neither have you.  You've just waved your hand and said we'll end most of what the government does and not worry about the consequences.  And now you're drifting into racism.

Don't forget - you're the one who crashed the thread and started throwing around invective about how worthless the government and its employees are.  If you have a serious proposal to make, complete with an assessment of the consequences and a plan to deal with them, then please make it.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

This thread has provided great optics for private sector employees into the minds of their Fed betters, complete with Godwinning for pointing out their failure to provide for an adequate border defense despite spending $4 trillion per year.  You've got "Take this job and shove it" on your signature line for crying out loud and expect us to believe that you're a tryhard civil servant worthy of all you get, which is more than us.     

I think I'll be calling my Senator as well. 

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #140 on: October 07, 2017, 03:30:26 PM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts.

Neither have you.  You've just waved your hand and said we'll end most of what the government does and not worry about the consequences.  And now you're drifting into racism.

Don't forget - you're the one who crashed the thread and started throwing around invective about how worthless the government and its employees are.  If you have a serious proposal to make, complete with an assessment of the consequences and a plan to deal with them, then please make it.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

This thread has provided great optics for private sector employees into the minds of their Fed betters, complete with Godwinning for pointing out their failure to provide for an adequate border defense despite spending $4 trillion per year.  You've got "Take this job and shove it" on your signature line for crying out loud and expect us to believe that you're a tryhard civil servant worthy of all you get, which is more than us.     

I think I'll be calling my Senator as well.

I'm certain your call will make all the difference.

BTDretire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1761
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #141 on: October 07, 2017, 04:26:00 PM »
Could anyone please write a good solid 30 second or less script for us to call our senators?

I'm thinking something along the lines of "please vote no on any budget which breaks the promises we made to our current Federal workforce and retirees".

The more people calling and leaving a message on their staff voicemail, the more likely we are to get enough "no" votes on the budget as it stands.
Quote
  After reading this thread, I get the idea the majority here would want our senators to vote yes. The hardworking taxpayers have had our promise of SS at 65 taken away, and the File and suspend is gone.
 I have had 12 increases in the FICA tax during my work career, with only an inflation adjustment, an not increase in the benefit.
 Maybe we need a poll!
Quote
Not quite sure what you mean? Feds also pay taxes and also pay into SS and are subject to the same SS rules. 

Just mean we all get changes from the government we don't want.

ETA, I think to have accurate polling responses from the feds themselves, you would have to get extremely granular.  Some want no changes, some (like me) would be fine with high 5 versus high 3 pension calculations, or would be fine with paying more into the pension if it were stepped in gradually enough, but would lobby hard against e.g. chained CPI inflation adjustment, etc. Others would have differing opinions on what would be reasonable to change. It's not an all or nothing sort of question to most feds.

ETA again,  By "the majority here would vote yes", do you mean the majority of feds on this thread? That is, after all, who the OP asked to respond.

 OK I missed the ONLY feds on this thread. As I think did, about 80% of the respondents.
 I think feds would definitely vote no, none of us want a cut in benefits.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2017, 11:50:43 AM by BTDretire »

neverrun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 442
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #142 on: October 07, 2017, 06:34:51 PM »
Personally I could care less about high 5 vs High 3.  I'm OK with a bit higher of a pension contribution.  I'm "moderately FI," (Above bare bones but below I don't have to think hard about spending), I'm truly sticking around for Health care for life and an early immediate pension.  (I'm a LEO so am currently under generous time rules).  If Health care disappearing/being more expensive + no cola + whatever else they cut happens I'm going to get my life guarding certificate and getting a job at the local gym (It was advertising the other day and I've been one before).  My incentive not to pull the Trigger and RE right now is because the retirement/health benefits make it worth while, if that changes I'm gone.

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #143 on: October 07, 2017, 07:24:13 PM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts.

Neither have you.  You've just waved your hand and said we'll end most of what the government does and not worry about the consequences.  And now you're drifting into racism.

Don't forget - you're the one who crashed the thread and started throwing around invective about how worthless the government and its employees are.  If you have a serious proposal to make, complete with an assessment of the consequences and a plan to deal with them, then please make it.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

This thread has provided great optics for private sector employees into the minds of their Fed betters, complete with Godwinning for pointing out their failure to provide for an adequate border defense despite spending $4 trillion per year.  You've got "Take this job and shove it" on your signature line for crying out loud and expect us to believe that you're a tryhard civil servant worthy of all you get, which is more than us.     

I think I'll be calling my Senator as well.

Do you have anything besides hot air and libertarian fantasies? 

Well, I guess you have personal attacks against people you know nothing about.  Let me fill you in.

While I can't speak for other feds, I can tell you that I took a substantial pay cut, as well as a reduction in health benefits, when I moved from a private sector consulting firm to a federal agency.  After nearly 15 years in, I am again making decent money, but not nearly as much as I would be making in a similar position in the private sector.  Why did I make the move to government?  So I could work for an agency that serves the public good instead of working for clients that were maximizing their profits by damaging public resources. 

Through the course of my government service, I've worked countless hours of unpaid overtime, donated or forfeited substantial amounts of my annual leave, and when I resign, I will leave $70,000 worth of sick leave on the table.  I've done this because I am dedicated to my agency's mission, despite my frequent frustration with political leadership that, like you, views my colleagues and me as lazy good-for-nothings.  The "do more with less" mentality has prevailed throughout my time in government.  The ever-increasing workload has everyone in my unit stressed to the breaking point.  We all made a bargain with Uncle - we'd accept lower pay than we could make in the private sector in exchange for meaningful work, work-life balance, and a bit more retirement security.  Well, the work-life balance is long gone, the Cheeto administration's bullshit politics have made the work a lot less meaningful, and now Congress wants to renege on the retirement security.  No wonder I'm ready to shove my "cushy government job."

"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1427
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #144 on: October 07, 2017, 07:53:03 PM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts.

Neither have you.  You've just waved your hand and said we'll end most of what the government does and not worry about the consequences.  And now you're drifting into racism.

Don't forget - you're the one who crashed the thread and started throwing around invective about how worthless the government and its employees are.  If you have a serious proposal to make, complete with an assessment of the consequences and a plan to deal with them, then please make it.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

This thread has provided great optics for private sector employees into the minds of their Fed betters, complete with Godwinning for pointing out their failure to provide for an adequate border defense despite spending $4 trillion per year.  You've got "Take this job and shove it" on your signature line for crying out loud and expect us to believe that you're a tryhard civil servant worthy of all you get, which is more than us.     

I think I'll be calling my Senator as well.

Do you have anything besides hot air and libertarian fantasies? 

Well, I guess you have personal attacks against people you know nothing about.  Let me fill you in.

While I can't speak for other feds, I can tell you that I took a substantial pay cut, as well as a reduction in health benefits, when I moved from a private sector consulting firm to a federal agency.  After nearly 15 years in, I am again making decent money, but not nearly as much as I would be making in a similar position in the private sector.  Why did I make the move to government?  So I could work for an agency that serves the public good instead of working for clients that were maximizing their profits by damaging public resources. 

Through the course of my government service, I've worked countless hours of unpaid overtime, donated or forfeited substantial amounts of my annual leave, and when I resign, I will leave $70,000 worth of sick leave on the table.  I've done this because I am dedicated to my agency's mission, despite my frequent frustration with political leadership that, like you, views my colleagues and me as lazy good-for-nothings.  The "do more with less" mentality has prevailed throughout my time in government.  The ever-increasing workload has everyone in my unit stressed to the breaking point.  We all made a bargain with Uncle - we'd accept lower pay than we could make in the private sector in exchange for meaningful work, work-life balance, and a bit more retirement security.  Well, the work-life balance is long gone, the Cheeto administration's bullshit politics have made the work a lot less meaningful, and now Congress wants to renege on the retirement security.  No wonder I'm ready to shove my "cushy government job."

I so appreciate that.  My husband dragged himself out of multigenerational poverty via the military, then worked in law enforcement, and finally became the first person in his family to GO to college, let alone get multiple advanced degrees.  He wanted to work for the feds for the exact same reason as you did, serving the public good, which he viewed as a much higher calling than pure buck-raking capitalism.  He loves being a scientist, and he busts his ass at it now mostly out of a labor of love.  He has zero complaints about his pay and benefits and would absorb some small cuts to his benefit package without complaint, just as he was fine with pay freezes the civilian feds endured many years since 2008.  But he sure is getting tired of a decade of being asked to "do more with less money" while simultaneously being scapegoated as the cause of all evil by by half the government (civilian fed + scientist = antichrist, apparently), not to mention the poorly informed, mouth-breathing segment of the population he originally signed up to serve.   


bdylan

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #145 on: October 07, 2017, 08:09:15 PM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts.

Neither have you.  You've just waved your hand and said we'll end most of what the government does and not worry about the consequences.  And now you're drifting into racism.

Don't forget - you're the one who crashed the thread and started throwing around invective about how worthless the government and its employees are.  If you have a serious proposal to make, complete with an assessment of the consequences and a plan to deal with them, then please make it.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

This thread has provided great optics for private sector employees into the minds of their Fed betters, complete with Godwinning for pointing out their failure to provide for an adequate border defense despite spending $4 trillion per year.  You've got "Take this job and shove it" on your signature line for crying out loud and expect us to believe that you're a tryhard civil servant worthy of all you get, which is more than us.     

I think I'll be calling my Senator as well.

Do you have anything besides hot air and libertarian fantasies? 

Well, I guess you have personal attacks against people you know nothing about.  Let me fill you in.

While I can't speak for other feds, I can tell you that I took a substantial pay cut, as well as a reduction in health benefits, when I moved from a private sector consulting firm to a federal agency.  After nearly 15 years in, I am again making decent money, but not nearly as much as I would be making in a similar position in the private sector.  Why did I make the move to government?  So I could work for an agency that serves the public good instead of working for clients that were maximizing their profits by damaging public resources. 

Through the course of my government service, I've worked countless hours of unpaid overtime, donated or forfeited substantial amounts of my annual leave, and when I resign, I will leave $70,000 worth of sick leave on the table.  I've done this because I am dedicated to my agency's mission, despite my frequent frustration with political leadership that, like you, views my colleagues and me as lazy good-for-nothings.  The "do more with less" mentality has prevailed throughout my time in government.  The ever-increasing workload has everyone in my unit stressed to the breaking point.  We all made a bargain with Uncle - we'd accept lower pay than we could make in the private sector in exchange for meaningful work, work-life balance, and a bit more retirement security.  Well, the work-life balance is long gone, the Cheeto administration's bullshit politics have made the work a lot less meaningful, and now Congress wants to renege on the retirement security.  No wonder I'm ready to shove my "cushy government job."

By libertarian fantasies I hope you mean hard evidence that the typical federal employee enjoys a large pay premium compared to his private sector peer.  Again, the CBO found that the average individual with a BA enjoyed a 21% compensation premium.

I thank you for the service -- but according to you you were happy to trade lower pay for better work/life balance and meaningful work.  Now that it appears you don't like it, I'm sure you can find better employment in the private sector.

Can't Wait

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #146 on: October 08, 2017, 04:41:00 AM »
I took a huge a pay cut to work for the Feds. I did it for the work/life balance and job stability. I make over 6 figures as a fed and never have to work over 80 hours in a 2 week period. I work from home 3 days a week and get a 3 day weekend every other weekend. My job is completely stress free and once I leave the office or log out, it never even enters my mind. All of this is well worth the pay cut I took to leave the private sector.

The pension and health benefits aren't anything all that special in my opinion. The FERS pension is kind of shitty and would net you something like $30k a year after a 30 year career and $120k final salary. The pension would be much less for people who RE. I have no complaints about my health plan, but I pay a lot for it. It's not like it's free like some people seem to think. Hell, I could probably buy a cheaper plan on my own.

Private sector employees and Govt contractors definitely earn WAY more than we do as Feds. However, most Govt contractors don't get the work/life balance. They can't work from home at my agency and they can be fired at the drop of a hat. I believe there are plenty of private sector employers that offer a great work/life balance, but you have to worry about being downsized, or a boss on a power trip, etc.

Most of the far right folks that I've come across that complain about us Feds are just butt-hurt that they can't get a Federal job. We literally have hundreds and even thousands of applicants per job opening and that allows us to be choosy. As a result, almost everybody has an advanced degree of some sort. I've never worked with more intelligent, talented individuals ever in my life. Federal employees are just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the Federal budget, so it's annoying to be constantly used as a political pawn. Like denying Federal employees a raise for 3 years saved truck loads of money or something? It's mostly to appease Republicans whose constituents are largely blue collar, white, and uneducated. It's like they are mad that they have to work 120 hours a week at the steel mill and then they see Johnny Fed next door only work 40 hours and then take 4 or 5 vacations a year.

Monkey Uncle

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1141
  • Location: West-by-god-Virginia
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #147 on: October 08, 2017, 05:17:42 AM »


I agree with the bolded statement.  Unfortunately, you and I are never going to agree on the metrics.  Your metric seems to be reducing government expenditures as much as possible, regardless of the consequences.  You advocate wholesale cutting of government functions without ever acknowledging what society would lose because of those cuts.  Just end entitlements, HUD, NASA, the intelligence agencies, and the military as we know it.  Seriously?  Forget about the Russians, the fuckin' Canadians would overrun us if we did all of that!

You haven't even tried to put forth a set of metrics.  You've only defended your pay.  We're being overrun by Latin Americans will all of these things in place.  People at the low end of the wage scale need higher pay facilitated by a better business environment, less competition from illegal labor, and government policies that favor stable families and productivity - not handouts.

Neither have you.  You've just waved your hand and said we'll end most of what the government does and not worry about the consequences.  And now you're drifting into racism.

Don't forget - you're the one who crashed the thread and started throwing around invective about how worthless the government and its employees are.  If you have a serious proposal to make, complete with an assessment of the consequences and a plan to deal with them, then please make it.  Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

This thread has provided great optics for private sector employees into the minds of their Fed betters, complete with Godwinning for pointing out their failure to provide for an adequate border defense despite spending $4 trillion per year.  You've got "Take this job and shove it" on your signature line for crying out loud and expect us to believe that you're a tryhard civil servant worthy of all you get, which is more than us.     

I think I'll be calling my Senator as well.

Do you have anything besides hot air and libertarian fantasies? 

Well, I guess you have personal attacks against people you know nothing about.  Let me fill you in.

While I can't speak for other feds, I can tell you that I took a substantial pay cut, as well as a reduction in health benefits, when I moved from a private sector consulting firm to a federal agency.  After nearly 15 years in, I am again making decent money, but not nearly as much as I would be making in a similar position in the private sector.  Why did I make the move to government?  So I could work for an agency that serves the public good instead of working for clients that were maximizing their profits by damaging public resources. 

Through the course of my government service, I've worked countless hours of unpaid overtime, donated or forfeited substantial amounts of my annual leave, and when I resign, I will leave $70,000 worth of sick leave on the table.  I've done this because I am dedicated to my agency's mission, despite my frequent frustration with political leadership that, like you, views my colleagues and me as lazy good-for-nothings.  The "do more with less" mentality has prevailed throughout my time in government.  The ever-increasing workload has everyone in my unit stressed to the breaking point.  We all made a bargain with Uncle - we'd accept lower pay than we could make in the private sector in exchange for meaningful work, work-life balance, and a bit more retirement security.  Well, the work-life balance is long gone, the Cheeto administration's bullshit politics have made the work a lot less meaningful, and now Congress wants to renege on the retirement security.  No wonder I'm ready to shove my "cushy government job."

By libertarian fantasies I hope you mean hard evidence that the typical federal employee enjoys a large pay premium compared to his private sector peer.  Again, the CBO found that the average individual with a BA enjoyed a 21% compensation premium.

I thank you for the service -- but according to you you were happy to trade lower pay for better work/life balance and meaningful work.  Now that it appears you don't like it, I'm sure you can find better employment in the private sector.

By libertarian fantasies, I meant Lance Burkhart's kooky idea to eliminate 2/3 of the government without so much as thinking about what that might mean for the American public.  I don't dispute the fact that Uncle pays more than the private sector for run-of-the-mill, low complexity work.  I myself am not in such a position and could easily make more if I went back to the consulting world.  I could actually support adjusting the GS pay schedule and/or reclassifying positions so that base pay better reflects the work that is being done.  But don't slash promised retirement benefits for people who've put in a full career and are counting on those benefits.

Apparently you missed the part of my post where I said the work/life balance doesn't exist any more due to the pervasive "do more with less" strategy that is being applied to many non-defense agencies (including mine).  But rather than go back to the higher paying but even more soul-sucking private sector, I'm just going to bail altogether.  Which, by the way, means that I will not be getting most of my "cushy" federal retirement benefits (no health insurance, no SS supplement, and my pension will be worth less than $7,000/yr in today's dollars once I finally get to take it).
"Take this job and shove it" - David Allan Coe

dude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1887
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #148 on: October 12, 2017, 09:14:24 AM »
Unsaid also is that a significant percentage of Fed employees are military veterans who received a veteran's preference boost in Fed hiring decisions. I am one of those. I served for 6 years on active duty, then went to college and law school and took a LEO job with the Feds. I make FAR less on an annual basis than my law school colleagues who went private.  On an hourly basis, the gap is not as wide, because I have reasonable work hours as compared to private sector lawyers, but they still make considerably more than I do. Hell, starting Big Firm law jobs make more than I do right out of law school than I'm making after 20 years of service, and I'm ok with that.  But what I'm not okay with is somebody who doesn't know shit about what I do telling me I'm lazy and overpaid. That is a bullshit stereotype. And this pitting of people against one another is just fucking horrible. You know why they don't put lids on crab buckets?  Because the crabs keep each other down.  That is exactly what's going on in this country right now. GOP politicians who are in the pockets of the wealthiest people in the world are pitting citizens against federal workers to divide us and make it easier to shit on everyone and for their billionaire benefactors to siphon more and more from of nation's wealth. It is truly sickening to me that people fall for this shit. Rather than seeking to lift others, they would pull everyone else down to their level. Jealous of federal pensions? Then for fuck's sake, start a movement to bring back pensions in the private sector and make them unassailable so companies can't renege. My federal pension, for which I've paid in for 26 years, is FULLY FUNDED for as far out as the actuarial tables can see (2090's). Federal pensions are not responsible for this country's debt woes. Stupid, pie-in-the-sky tax cuts for the wealthiest among us are the primary culprit.

mrigney

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 150
    • Running of the Fools
Re: Fellow Feds...proposed changes to our retirement system
« Reply #149 on: October 12, 2017, 12:29:42 PM »
I guess I'll throw in my two cents and stick up for the feds. I'm a civil servant w/the DoD. I'm in an R&D role and work a physicist. I work with contractors and civilians on a daily basis, mainly engineers and computer scientists and every once in a while another scientist like me. The group I'm in does physics based modeling of weapon systems.

First, I think there are a couple of misconceptions that need to be dispelled.

1) That civil servants are a dominating presence in my (DoD) industry driving up the federal budget. The reality is that in my branch, we have about 17 civil servants and 85 contractors who work with us. I'm the last permanent civil servant (e.g. government employee) hire in my branch. That was in 2011. We have hired a few people as government employees since then as "term" employees (e.g. a 3-year position after which the position is in essence terminated). My perception (as a generally libertarian/conservative politically leaning person) is that the war that Repubs have waged on "overpaid civil servants" is a smokescreen. We have not been allowed to make government hires for the past 6 years. But we have no problems having our support contractors bringing on new folks (who the government pays for). And bringing on additional contractors most definitely costs more to the government than hiring a new government employee. However, it is definitely easier to surge and reduce the contract workforce than the government workforce.

As an aside, in a lot of ways, this dependence on contractors to do a large portion of our technical work puts the government in a precarious position. If for example, we re-competed the current contract we have w/a the company who provides most of our technical support and they lost the contract to a new company, there is a real risk of losing significant institutional knowledge. In many ways, long-term costs to the government could be lowered by accumulating more institutional knowledge "in-house" with government employees.

2) Civil servants are "generally" or "all" (or pick your adjective) overpaid. I've worked for state agencies (a university as a researcher after grad school), for private companies, and now for the federal government. I also interface with contractors (e.g. private companies) on a daily basis. I can say that right now, the starting salaries for fresh grads is higher for the private company who supports us than it would be if a grad came and worked as a government employee. Two caveats to this, though. First, if you come in as a government employee, I do believe that initial advancement is faster than with a private company. Second, government employee pay scales are "squashed" on the top end. E.g. our contractor technical lead makes more than our government technical lead. Around here, this would be the evolution of salaries (assuming you're good at your job)....

         Fresh Grad------>5 years------>10 years------>15 years
Gov't      $55k                $75k               $90k            $100-110k
Private    $60-70k           $75-80k          $83-90k       $120-175k

The numbers for the private sector are based on a combo of my own experience in the private sector and conversations with private sector companies in our industry and what they're currently offering.

Look...the reality is that there are crappy employees in every organization, government and private. There are also stellar employees in every organization. Within the government there are stellar organizations and crappy ones. To try to stereotype "government workers" is trying to stereotype employees and people that cross so many different skill sets, career types, etc, that it's ludicrous. Are we (civil servants) overcompensated? I think that depends on what you value. I obviously left the private sector to become a civil servant. I valued the work that I'd be able to do and some of the benefits (work life balance, a generally stable retirement system, etc). But, I gave up benefits that the private sector would have provided (back end career earnings, partial ownership in a employee owned company that paid out ~10% of my annual salary in company stock every year). Could there be fields w/in federal civil service that are grossly overpaid relative to private sector counterparts? I'm sure there are. I suspect there are also segments that are underpaid. Are there government organizations that are bloated? Sure. Are the private organizations that are bloated? You bet.

Ultimately, I think many of the complaints against federal employees are rooted in a desire to blame politicians for the terrible positions they've put as in as a country financially. However, I don't think the answer to making things better is to reduce the attractiveness of federal employment. As someone who has recruited for the government at multiple career fairs, I can tell you that it is generally difficult for us to "win" the best candidates (for a multitude of reasons). Cutting benefits will make it more difficult to attract top talent...which will end up leading to more people complaining to about how lazy and spoiled we are:-)