2 Yr Salary Freeze for Fed Employees

[brewer12345]

Well, call me a quasi-public sector employee for whom the freeze will be a trickle down excuse to put a further squeeze on pay. I make maybe half (probably a lot less than half) of what I could bag in the private sector, and in the past couple of years my workload has steadily ratcheted higher. I stay where I am for the time being for a lot of reasons, but not least of which is a belief in the organization's mission and a real satisfaction in both public service and doing the right thing when (oh so many) other do not.

But I am a professional and I am good at what I do: do not insult me or push me too far.

[Westernskies]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 But I am a professional and I am good at what I do: do not insult me or push me too far.

Or what? You'll go back to the private sector for more money?

[GoodSense]

I am about to join the federal government as a civilian employee, and I have absolutely no objection to the wage freeze. Our nation is going through tough times. Many people are unemployed for long periods of time. Whatever people say about unemployment benefits, I think it is demoralizing and painful to be unemployed. Those who are working in the private sector have already shouldered more. The Federal budget is a mess, and there has been little to no inflation. There is a much stronger case to be made for the wage freeze than the "do nothing" option.

The savings from the wage freeze are not trivial. If it is indeed 60 billion over the next 10 years, it's almost 5% of the deficit. (Of course the math if flawed because we are comparing savings over time to a snapshot, but it is still significant.) Whether it was a political move or not -- which decision coming out of the White House is not political?? -- the proposal made sense to me.

[keegs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Just about everyone else in the workforce has endured the same 'unilateral' concessions like this, and most to a much larger degree than a two-year pay freeze (I'm on my third year of a pay freeze and I've had two raises for a total of 4% since 2004).

Ziggy...you may not have meant it in such broad terms but
executives in banking, insurance, telecom, pharmacueticals, wall street.... are included in "eveyone in the workforce" ...no ? My point being ...there are plenty of folks doing quite well right now.

And not to go off on a tangent but....my understanding is that the unemployment rate for those without a college degree is significantly higher than for those with one.

[ERD50]

So does anyone have some data? I had trouble finding it, maybe something like total # of fed employees over the past five years and total salary over that time, versus same for private sector? Maybe that's no good either because of consultants or outsourcing to a third party in the US? Is there a better measure?

-ERD50

[Khan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keegs Ziggy...you may not have meant it in such broad terms but executives in banking, insurance, telecom, pharmacueticals, wall street.... are included in "eveyone in the workforce" ...no ? My point being ...there are plenty of folks doing quite well right now. And not to go off on a tangent but....my understanding is that the unemployment rate for those without a college degree is significantly higher than for those with one.

That's OK, that will all "trickle down".

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keegs Ziggy...you may not have meant it in such broad terms but executives in banking, insurance, telecom, pharmacueticals, wall street.... are included in "eveyone in the workforce" ...no ? My point being ...there are plenty of folks doing quite well right now.

keegs, maybe you need to take another look at what ziggy wrote and not leave out the adjectives...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 Just about everyone else in the workforce...

Geez, keegs. So clearly, he did not mean it in such broad terms, or we would have simply said "everybody", as you implied he did. Why twist his words, it's kinda weird?

-ERD50

[keegs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 keegs, maybe you need to take another look at what ziggy wrote and not leave out the adjectives... Geez, keegs. So clearly, he did not mean it in such broad terms, or we would have simply said "everybody", as you implied he did. Why twist his words, it's kinda weird? -ERD50

Evenin ERD...seems to me you don't care much for what I have to say....but I somehow manage to keep your interest...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keegs Evenin ERD...seems like you don't care much for what I have to say....but I somehow manage to keep your interest...

I'm always interested in opposing viewpoints. But the way you stated that it sounds like the definition of a TROLL. I was getting that feeling, and was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I no longer will do that.

And yes, I like to try to challenge the riff-raff comments so people can engage in intelligent discussion.

-ERD50

[keegs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm always interested in opposing viewpoints. But the way you stated that it sounds like the definition of a TROLL. I was getting that feeling, and was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, I no longer will do that. And yes, I like to try to challenge the riff-raff comments so people can engage in intelligent discussion. -ERD50

You sound annoyed now ERD. Hope it wasn't something I wrote.

[Gumby]

Ahem . . . play nice now, you two.

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by keegs Ziggy...you may not have meant it in such broad terms but executives in banking, insurance, telecom, pharmacueticals, wall street.... are included in "eveyone in the workforce" ...no ? My point being ...there are plenty of folks doing quite well right now.

So, a couple hundred executives are now "plenty"??

I think there's around 15 million out of work, now THAT's PLENTY!!!