- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Questions about federal government pay
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:15 am
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:15 am
This is a question for those familiar with federal government salaries and wages...
Are there federal government jobs that pay an hourly wage of less than $10.10 or pay an annual salary that would break down to less than $10.10/hour if divided by number of hours worked?
If so, is there a significant number of them?
and last question...if the answers to the above questions are "yes", then if minimum wage were increased, where would that money come from to pay those employees?
ETA: one more question - If the minimum wage were increased, but federal employee annual salaries that broke down to less than $10.10/hour were left the same, would that make this administration hypocritical or responsible stewards of money?
Are there federal government jobs that pay an hourly wage of less than $10.10 or pay an annual salary that would break down to less than $10.10/hour if divided by number of hours worked?
If so, is there a significant number of them?
and last question...if the answers to the above questions are "yes", then if minimum wage were increased, where would that money come from to pay those employees?
ETA: one more question - If the minimum wage were increased, but federal employee annual salaries that broke down to less than $10.10/hour were left the same, would that make this administration hypocritical or responsible stewards of money?
This post was edited on 4/4/14 at 7:20 am
3
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:19 am to UGATiger26
I can answer the last question easily. It's the same place all government money comes from; tax payers.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:53 am to UGATiger26
GS-1 and GS-2 have hourly rates below $10.10 - with GS-1 not exceeding that until Step 7.
However, the vast majority of entry level positions are GS-3 to GS-5.
LINK
In my opinion, increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would have a statistically insignificant effect on the federal payroll.
However, I oppose the increase on a number of grounds.
However, the vast majority of entry level positions are GS-3 to GS-5.
LINK
In my opinion, increasing the federal minimum wage to $10.10 would have a statistically insignificant effect on the federal payroll.
However, I oppose the increase on a number of grounds.
This post was edited on 4/4/14 at 7:54 am
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:54 am to UGATiger26
Almost no fedgov employees make less than the new proposed min. wage.
Lots of fedgov contractors however make less than $10.10/hr
Lots of fedgov contractors however make less than $10.10/hr
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:56 am to jamboybarry
quote:
Lots of fedgov contractors however make less than $10.10/hr
Well - not anymore - I think the executive order fixed that, didn't it?
LINK
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:57 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Well - not anymore - I think the executive order fixed that, didn't it?
Yeah I meant pre-EO
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:57 am to jamboybarry
quote:
Lots of fedgov contractors however make less than $10.10/hr
And this is one area where I thought Obama was trying to make executive order changes. Can't remember the details, but I think he was wanting any work that falls under davis bacon or the service wage act, to have to pay higher minimums.
I think all of that is stupid and having worked in the contracting world with this shite, it is a pain in the arse to handle from an administrative point of view.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 8:13 am to notiger1997
One has to wonder ... if Obama was made CEO of an actual thriving small business ... I wonder how long it would take before said business went belly up.
I bet it would not be long ... 3 years, tops.
I bet it would not be long ... 3 years, tops.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 8:38 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
GS-1 and GS-2 have hourly rates below $10.10 - with GS-1 not exceeding that until Step 7.
Who would get GS 1 jobs? Hell, even mail clerks have GS 3 or GS 5 jobs.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 8:45 am to DCRebel
quote:
It's the same place all government money comes from; tax payers.
Are you familiar with the term "Debt".
I WISH all gov't money came from just the Tax Payers.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:16 am to DCRebel
quote:
Who would get GS 1 jobs
I have never actually seen a GS-1 job posted or heard of anyone at that grade.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:17 am to BaylorTiger
quote:
Are you familiar with the term "Debt".
I WISH all gov't money came from just the Tax Payers
Sadly, all that money is coming from taxpayers who aren't even born yet. In some cases from taxpayers whose parents haven't even been born yet.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:24 am to The Cow Goes Moo Moo
quote:
I have never actually seen a GS-1 job posted or heard of anyone at that grade.
They exist - but are are rare. Student trainee, part-time work, etc., commonly fall into those grades. I thought I indicated the majority of even entry level federal jobs run from GS-3 to GS-5, to start. A number are even GS-5 to GS-7 slots, which gets you up to a GS-7 in just 2 years - but they normally require a little education or experience above high school graduate.
And government jobs are competitive up to about GS-11 and GS-12 - that's about the departure with what the civilian pay would be for commensurate responsibilities - for example - many, many federal attorneys are hired at GS-9, and "senior" attorneys are typically GS-13 - while at Step 10, that is ~$107k, that job is equivalent to a senior partner in a litigation firm - so, they're taking between 1/3 and 1/2 what their civilian counterparts are taking, on average.
Remains somewhat competitive in a small market, if you factor in the benefits package.
And that's the problem with comparing the federal workforce's average pay and the private sector's. The feds have contracted out much of the menial and entry level stuff to contractors - so there are far fewer janitors in the GS (most are contractors), and far more accountants, doctors, lawyers, MBAs, etc., in proportion to the overall population.
This post was edited on 4/4/14 at 9:35 am
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:30 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
And that's the problem with comparing the federal workforce's average pay and the private sector's. The feds have contracted out much of the menial and entry level stuff to contractors - so there are far fewer janitors in the GS (most are contractors), and far more accountants, doctors, lawyers, MBAs, etc., in proportion to the overall population.
That and entry-level pay for the government is pretty high compared to private sector.
But you're right, you'll make more money as the CEO of even a small company than you would as a cabinet secretary.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:36 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
so, they're taking between 1/3 and 1/2 what their civilian counterparts are taking, on average.
That's because the civilian counterparts have actual real jobs in which they can be fired relatively easily if they do not perform or produce good results.
These docs and lawyers ... if they think they can hack it in the private sector...and, as such, make much more money ... then why wouldn't they?
Either (a) they like a no stress, stable job ... or (b) perhaps they don't think they could hack it.
quote:
But you're right, you'll make more money as the CEO of even a small company than you would as a cabinet secretary.
As well, the person in the private sector should. He/she is the one managing an actual business, meeting payroll, living with risk, dealing with profit/loss, etc. Much more stress. Much more risk.
With higher risk ... should come higher reward.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:43 am to navy
quote:
Either (a) they like a no stress, stable job ... or (b) perhaps they don't think they could hack it.
I think that's a pretty ridiculous dichotomy.
What about federal benefits, which are particularly good (especially their retirement plans)? What about possible promotion potential? What about early retirement (which plenty of people do only to come out of retirement and work for the private sector). What if they just really like where they work - as in the location itself as well as their coworkers? What if some of them actually want to serve their government and find it personally fulfilling?
There are plenty of good reasons to keep a federal job. You can't just simply assume that that federal employees are either too weak or too incompetent to take a private sector job.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:47 am to navy
quote:
That's because the civilian counterparts have actual real jobs in which they can be fired relatively easily if they do not perform or produce good results.
Senior partners at law firms cannot be "fired" relatively easily - as that term is widely understood.
quote:
These docs and lawyers ... if they think they can hack it in the private sector...and, as such, make much more money ... then why wouldn't they?
Either (a) they like a no stress, stable job ... or (b) perhaps they don't think they could hack it.
Of course they must like the environment and/or be better suited for it.
My broader point was, "The average federal employee is making $X!" - usually followed by gasps of shock and disbelief - when you dig deeper and find out - "Oh. It's a bunch of lawyers and accountants who are doing well, but not really at 'market price', that is pulling up this average - so, it is really the government getting a good bit of that highly skilled labor at a discount, not a shocking overpayment of file clerks" - kind of moment.
That's all I'm saying.
quote:
With higher risk ... should come higher reward.
I don't disagree with that Navy, in theory. However, our men/women in uniform incur the highest levels of risk, and are some of the lowest paid people in federal service.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 9:56 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
I don't disagree with that Navy, in theory. However, our men/women in uniform incur the highest levels of risk, and are some of the lowest paid people in federal service.
Yeah, well you don't see jack shite on this board or anywhere about these people getting a raise. In fact, all you see is people wanting to cut the DoD.
If Federal Workers don't like the pay ... then don't fricking apply for the job. It's not like the pay isn't well known beforehand.
On the board right now ... threads about Congressmen whining about $175K per year. BOO frickING HOO.
And, evidently, we should shed tears for Federal Workers.
Look around people. Who do you think is fricking suffering right now all over this country?
I'll give you a hint: it ain't Congressmen and it ain't Federal Workers.
Go to D.C. ... I go at least twice a year ... look around ... most there are just fine ... and, I'll tell you ... I know PLENTY of people in the greater D.C. metro area that get by okay on WAY LESS than $175K per year.
Bottom Line: if you work for the Fed G and don't like the pay ... then quit and go get the job and the pay that you think you deserve. Just like every single person in the private sector does. Otherwise, STFU.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 10:20 am to navy
quote:
Yeah, well you don't see jack shite on this board or anywhere about these people getting a raise. In fact, all you see is people wanting to cut the DoD.
Nothing is beyond cutting. There is plenty of fraud, waste and abuse in DoD, particularly in the procurement system. However, I am all for keeping benefits as generous as possible for our men and women in uniform (full disclosure, I am one of those men and women).
quote:
If Federal Workers don't like the pay ... then don't fricking apply for the job. It's not like the pay isn't well known beforehand.
I don't disagree with this. However, with the pay freeze (3 years), furloughs (for which they were given back pay), it does take a certain amount of dedication to work for the federal government. (full disclosure, I work for the federal government).
quote:
On the board right now ... threads about Congressmen whining about $175K per year. BOO frickING HOO.
I'm torn on Congressional pay - on the one hand, I want to pay them $1,000,000 a year and make it the death penalty for corruption.
On the other hand, I don't care so much about their compensation (and they do get to set it) - but, I would like 2 changes:
1. They don't get the pay raise until they face the voters again - in other words, vote for your raise, but you have to be re-elected to get it, &
2. It will take a constitutional amendment, but Congress should be REQUIRED to be affected by their own legislation. They should be, at best, in an identical position as any other federal worker from a standpoint of compensation, healthcare, retirement, benefits, etc.
The argument is that - the less you pay them, the more corrupt they would be.
I can't see how that's even possible.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News