USAT Report on Federal Employees Paid $150k+ Per Year Makes Key Points, Misses Several Others
Before critiquing, I should recognize that USA Today, while most of the establishment press has snoozed, has done a very creditable job of exposing the wide differential between federal employee and private-sector pay (Aug. 10, 2010; "Federal workers earning double their private counterparts"), and of identifying the outrageous degree by which salaries in the upper levels of Uncle Sam's empire are expanding (Dec. 11, 2009; "For feds, more get 6-figure salaries").
Yesterday, in a mostly well-done report, USAT's Dennis Cauchon, who also authored the two linked items in the previous paragraph, delved into many of the details concerning the growing number of federal employees who get paid $150,000 or more per year. Among his more important points is the fact that a great deal of the expansion into this high level of pay has occurred since President Obama took office, during a period when overall inflation has been very low:
More federal workers' pay tops $150,000
The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
... Federal salaries have grown robustly in recent years, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Office of Personnel Management data. Key findings:
• Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.
• Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.
• Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.
Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.
Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.
Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs. Still, she says, managers are willing to give up next year's (Obama-proposed 1.4%) raise: "If it will help the country bounce back, they're willing to make the sacrifice."
Well, that's mighty nice of Ms. Klement, but she, and Cauchon, overlooked a few key points:
- The first is that even if there is no officially declared pay raise this year, most federal employees will earn -- excuse me, "get paid" -- more next year. That's because federal employees also typically receive seniority-based pay hikes known as "step increases." These typically average about 1.5%. Cauchon made this point in his December 2009 report; he should also have done so in this one.
- I haven't seen the "official pay analysis" for "comparable jobs" to which Ms. Klement refers. But I'd like to see the study telling me that "comparable" doctors have seen their earnings climb by 62% ($179,500 divided by $111,000) in the past five years.
- Again regarding the "pay analysis," I'd like to see the reports documenting which "comparable jobs" in the private sector have 5-year track records of pay increases of triple the overall rate of inflation. I will suggest that this has occurred somewhere between rarely and never in "comparable" private-sector occupations.
- A comparison of salaries is fine, but a complete picture would have to consider the entire compensation and benefits package, which is far more generous in the government than what is found in the private sector. Cauchon did look at benefits in his August report on federal vs. private pay on the whole, and found that federal civilian benefits average $41,791, compared to $10,589 in the private sector.
There are several comparative points I'm leaving on the table, including but not limited to relative job-loss risk and number of hours worked.
Burgeoning federal pay is a key explanation as to why federal spending is out of control, and continues to be. USAT's Cauchon did a good job of documenting his basic findings, but needed to get to the items I noted to give his readers the necessary overall understanding of the just how outrageous and dangerous the situation really is.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
As always, Tom
Submitted by Gary Hall on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 2:52pm.
.. Great stuff - super analysis.. and saving it for the perfect moment.
.. and the effect of all of this will be compounded in their future pensions.
(;~> gary
..wanna talk about raising SS age? Fine - but on the table at the same time should be the requirement that all government (fed, state, local, teacher) pensions be raised to match where ever SS ends up...
The grievance in this story
Submitted by trak65 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 3:00pm.
The grievance in this story that annoys me is the pretty much meaningless factoid on the growth in feds paid over $150K. According to opm.gov, pay in the DC area for a GS-15 step 10 (top of the scale) was $135K in 2005 and $155K in 2010. Several Senior Executive Schedule grades also crossed $150K during the same period. There are probably a few thousand GS-15s and SESs, so this factoid only shows us that some feds crossed the $150K line through annual cost-of-living adjustments. For each 1000 of them, a $20K increase means $20 million extra in salary in 2010 vs. 2005. If we have a million feds at $100K each, that's only $100 billion total. All of this is NOT a big part of the $1.4 trillion deficit. Sure, lets freeze federal salaries in bad times, when there are often hundreds of applicants for each federal position. In good times, though, we might need to pay more -- do we want the lowest bidder to be the auditor for the SEC, treat our veterans or negotiate trade agreements? Far more important is the need to rein in the hundreds of billions annually for stimulus and unfunded liabilities for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
You still haven't explained away ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 7:00pm.
... why federal workers are pretty much across the board getting pay increases that are almost triple the amount of inflation.
They shouldn't get them, but
Submitted by trak65 on Fri, 11/12/2010 - 2:01am.
They shouldn't get them, but it's politics and it's small potatoes. There were also years when increases were less than inflation. In many localities the federal salaries are not big bucks. The better focus would be on easier firing (see comment below) and more merit pay.
Perfect Timing
Submitted by 76United on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 3:27pm.
My in-laws are all federal employees. I brought this up once and they just about ripped my head off. Now I have a study which supports my theory. Can't wait to hear the excuses now.
Long past time to apply the Anti-Trust act to the Gov.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 4:05pm.
Installing unions into gov is not helping. Glad handing each other and giving raises to screw the private citizens is not going to last forever. It's a monolopy!!
Hellery sends 150 million bucks to moslem killers....Who signed off on that one???
Spending other peoples money is a hard habit to break.
The days of, "but only the gov can do that", blah blah blah, are going away, to bad they will take all the colorful paper money with them.
Practice what you preach, you den ot thives...
United States Senator John Sherman, an Ohioan, attained the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890. This legislation authorized the federal government to break up any businesses that prohibited competition.
You Didn't Build That.
I will say that working for
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 8:35pm.
I will say that working for the government is a different animal. I can see where the government would want to promote loyalty and longevity in its employees. The government needs loyal and longevity compared to the private sector.
I worked in City planning for a long time and loyaty and longevity was required. Private enterprise could not do a good job because they were only interested in profit. Developers would constantly complain it was too much and could we hurry up. And the inspectors the develpors would hire were not doing a good job.
And I got paid much less than I would in the outside. The thing that did keep me going inside teh City and lotal were teh benifits and the pension plan. I paid about 9 percent of my salary into teh plan and now reap the beneifts.
The feds have a bit different system are are unlike the City union. Get rid of the union and make the employees own their pension system apart from teh federal government.
As a federal employee let me
Submitted by Ryan Mc. on Thu, 11/11/2010 - 10:54pm.
As a federal employee let me make a few points. Its not so much the amount of pay its the unions that force us managers to keep on a majority of workers who refuse to work. You pay three people to do a job it should take one person to do. In the private sector when you need to get something done people take work home or stay late in most professions. In the gov't you only work at half pace half the time. A 1 hr coffee break before they start working is common, long lunches, afternoon walks are all typical. Many gov't workers can work from home with little accountablility.
I'm an attorney who manages a group of 10. I make 100k on the nose and earn every penny of it. I work overtime without pay every week. Out of the 170 people in my division there are about 4 who work hard and 100 who don't work at all. If we had 50 good employees we could get more done than the 170 we have. Managers literally can't fire people unless they steal something big or threaten to hurt someone. As long as there are unions in gov't there will never be any level of efficiency.
In the gov't we contract out cleaning crews, food prep and other low skill jobs, so the comparison of federal pay to private is not apples to apples. Our senior managers make about 120-150k. That might be a little high but these are accountants and lawyers who would make more (and work more) in the private sector. My beef is really about the quality of work done by these folks not the level of pay. Federal pensions were cut in half during the Reagan admin as was appropriate.
Thanks ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 11/13/2010 - 10:30am.
... for your insights.