jcd11235 0 #26 December 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote would I be safe in assuming that this is salary without benefits? Her post indicated that salary and benefits were both included in the comparison. Well that would be a stretch based on my re-read of her post. There are conflicting statements to your comment Really? She wrote: "By comparison, -- The CIA Inspector General found that a civilian employee costs the government an average of $126,500 annually including salary & benefits, while the average contract employee doing comparative work costs $250,000 annually. And "Even Eric Prince, former CEO, of Xe (nee Blackwater) acknowledged in … his Congressional testimony that there was no data supporting the perceived value to the taxpayer of contracting Blackwater versus employing federal workers in Iraq for private security. " My post did not conflict with those statements or others she made.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BDashe 0 #27 December 12, 2009 Blackwater is an exceptional example- not exactly your standard "civilian" line of work. Additionally their airlifts cost a fraction of what the military's do... when I get home I'll find the data. Further, they were contracted without standard benefits of military- cash only really. finally, one of the main reason they were hired is the reason they got strung up/thrown under the bus by our government- to do and go where our soldiers can not for political reasons. Look @ south vietnamese rangers in the first half of the vietnam war as an example- think they stopped from chasing VC into cambodia just cuz they were at a border? anyway, i think the point of the OP's article was comparable civilian jobs, not military.So there I was... Making friends and playing nice since 1983 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #28 December 12, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote would I be safe in assuming that this is salary without benefits? Her post indicated that salary and benefits were both included in the comparison. Well that would be a stretch based on my re-read of her post. There are conflicting statements to your comment Ha ha, very funny coming from the poster child for NOT reading posts you respond to, links you cite, and posts you make yourself.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 December 12, 2009 QuoteBlackwater is an exceptional example- not exactly your standard "civilian" line of work. Then I guess it's fortunate that Blackwater was only one of several examples offered in nerdgirl's post.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #30 December 12, 2009 QuoteBlackwater is an exceptional example- not exactly your standard "civilian" line of work. Additionally their airlifts cost a fraction of what the military's do... when I get home I'll find the data. Further, they were contracted without standard benefits of military- cash only really. finally, one of the main reason they were hired is the reason they got strung up/thrown under the bus by our government- to do and go where our soldiers can not for political reasons. Look @ south vietnamese rangers in the first half of the vietnam war as an example- think they stopped from chasing VC into cambodia just cuz they were at a border? anyway, i think the point of the OP's article was comparable civilian jobs, not military. Blackwater in the news again: www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/us/politics/11blackwater.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #31 December 12, 2009 Quote And during a job loosing economy we should be proud that government sucks up even more of our money AND give raises I wonder why are you angry. Wasn't that you who constantly complained how stupid and ineffective our government is? Then you should be happy they finally decided to hire really skilled and smart people. You know, some of them went through superior private schools and universities, and now got some nice loans to pay off, and therefore they tend to have higher salary expectations than Joe the Redneck with a high school diploma. Quote The head line below says is all But if you read below the head line, you'll see the following: • Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year. • New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Personnel System for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012. So if you still disapprove this raise, you should now know where to send your hate mail. Some ranch in Texas, which doesn't miss its ass anymore, would be just fine.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #32 December 12, 2009 Quoteanyway, i think the point of the OP's article was comparable civilian jobs, not military. Yes, it was. Federal civilians make a reported 26% less than their private sector counterparts. I suspect the figure comparing pay to Title 10 forces (active duty federal uniformed military) versus private sector counterparts would show an even larger disparity. One doesn't do either job for money in my experience. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #33 December 12, 2009 QuoteI know many here in Iowa who are now scared to death of the reductions that may be be coming in their heath care plans (they pay $0 today and have GREAT coverage) or reductions in their IPERS retirement. Those are valid concerns. I suspect there are a lot of people across the country very concerns about health care costs and retirement. I'm not sure how that correlates to federal civilian pay. The USG retirement system was changed in the 1980s. Federal civilians pay a portion of their healthcare costs; the lowest cost plans start at ~$100/month contribution for a single individual. QuoteAnyway, my point was more to how can a government or anybody justify increases of these levels today? I guess I'm not sure of "what level" you're talking about. They're so far behind that that they've got a lot of distance to make up before the salaries are on par with private sector. Should one be penalized -- how much? -- for working in the federal government rather than the private sector? At what point do the incentives of much higher compensation in the private sector drive the public sector pool of employees to point at which the only folks remaining are the ones who can't get a job elsewhere? Is that a situation that benefits anyone? There are a wide variety of reasons that folks chose to work for the federal government -- for some it's service, for some it's job security, for some it's a perception that they can make a differerence, for some it's a way to get experience or to get the USG to pay for a security clearance that is worth a lot in the private sector ... lots of reasons. I've never heard anyone offer "to get rich" as a reason to take a federal job. And that's not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. It's a balance and recognized need for some monetary compensation particularly if one values having good, competant people in certain positions. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #34 December 14, 2009 QuoteRead the whole article. There actually are salary caps, and no one can make more than their boss. That's part of the reason for the jump -- the bosses of several agencies got raises too. There's some context in there. Not that I want the largest, highest-paid possible goverment, but dang. I don't want government employees who are so ill-qualified that they can't get a decent wage, either. Wendy P. So instead you get ill-qualified, well paid employees. Perfect.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #35 December 14, 2009 Quote So instead you get ill-qualified, well paid employees. Perfect. Wall Street, the big banks, GM, Chrysler and AIG are clearly the superstars in that category.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
