State pension inflation protections start to get cut

[Emeritus]

If that is true, why does study after study show equal or better current pay, without regard to benefits, in the public sector?

More "protect me for I am special" pleadings.

How about posting those "studies"
To get you started

In 2008, local government
workers were paid closer to 12 percent less than
their private sector counterparts. Thus, despite average
wages that are some 12 or 13 percent higher, the
adjusted wage gap in 2008 is roughly the same size,
but negative (see Figure 1). The adjusted wage gap
provides an estimate of comparability, and the estimate
suggests state and local workers are, on average,
underpaid, controlling for other determinants of wages.
In other words, controlling for education and other
characteristics, the data show that local government
workers are paid substantially less than their private
sector counterparts.29 The major driver in this basic pattern
is the fact that government workers have jobs that
demand more education, which is not accounted for by
raw averages.30
http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/final_out_of_balance_report_april_2010.pdf

 

[haha]

How about posting those "studies"
To get you started

In 2008, local government
workers were paid closer to 12 percent less than
their private sector counterparts. Thus, despite average
wages that are some 12 or 13 percent higher, the
adjusted wage gap in 2008 is roughly the same size,
but negative (see Figure 1). The adjusted wage gap
provides an estimate of comparability, and the estimate
suggests state and local workers are, on average,
underpaid, controlling for other determinants of wages.
In other words, controlling for education and other
characteristics, the data show that local government
workers are paid substantially less than their private
sector counterparts.29 The major driver in this basic pattern
is the fact that government workers have jobs that
demand more education, which is not accounted for by
raw averages.30
http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/final_out_of_balance_report_april_2010.pdf

haha- yes, process is what counts, not product. Sorry, won't wash.

 

[clifp]

How about posting those "studies"
To get you started

In 2008, local government
workers were paid closer to 12 percent less than
their private sector counterparts. Thus, despite average
wages that are some 12 or 13 percent higher, the
adjusted wage gap in 2008 is roughly the same size,
but negative (see Figure 1). The adjusted wage gap
provides an estimate of comparability, and the estimate
suggests state and local workers are, on average,
underpaid, controlling for other determinants of wages.
In other words, controlling for education and other
characteristics, the data show that local government
workers are paid substantially less than their private
sector counterparts.29 The major driver in this basic pattern
is the fact that government workers have jobs that
demand more education, which is not accounted for by
raw averages.30
http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/final_out_of_balance_report_april_2010.pdf

You realize that posting a study from an organization which despite its misleading name is made up entirely of State employee retirement managers lacks credibility. It is pretty much on par with the Tobacco Institute study showing that cigarette smoker smoke because they enjoy it.

 

[Emeritus]

You realize that posting a study from an organization which despite its misleading name is made up entirely of State employee retirement managers lacks credibility. It is pretty much on par with the Tobacco Institute study showing that cigarette smoker smoke because they enjoy it.

The study is by two university professors using public data. I'm well aware of the technical limitations of any such study but feel free to post any

 

[ERD50]

Any study on this from any source is bound to be of questionable value. It is near impossible to adjust for differences across the work environment, job security, future advancement, etc, etc. No, it *is* impossible, as what is valued by one employee may be a negative to another. In cases like this, I like to do the equivalent of cutting the Gordian Knot:

The free market laws of supply and demand cuts through all that data and comparison, although they are complicated by union influence in some cases. So to me, the real question is - does the public sector have any trouble filling job openings with the current total compensation package? If they have qualified people generally lining up for most openings, then I say that public sector is not maintaining its fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. OTOH, if they can't fill the position, they may need to make a more compelling total package, so the needs of the community are served (assuming the job is actually serving us).

Most companies won't survive by offering more than they need to get qualified candidates. So, do we have any data on how quickly jobs are filled private versus public? I think that would tell us more w/o even needing to do much questionable adjustment for working conditions, etc. The market will tell us.

-ERD50

 

[Emeritus]

Any study on this from any source is bound to be of questionable value. It is near impossible to adjust for differences across the work environment, job security, future advancement, etc, etc. No, it *is* impossible, as what is valued by one employee may be a negative to another. In cases like this, I like to do the equivalent of cutting the Gordian Knot:

The free market laws of supply and demand cuts through all that data and comparison, although they are complicated by union influence in some cases. So to me, the real question is - does the public sector have any trouble filling job openings with the current total compensation package? If they have qualified people generally lining up for most openings, then I say that public sector is not maintaining its fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. OTOH, if they can't fill the position, they may need to make a more compelling total package, so the needs of the community are served (assuming the job is actually serving us).

Most companies won't survive by offering more than they need to get qualified candidates. So, do we have any data on how quickly jobs are filled private versus public? I think that would tell us more w/o even needing to do much questionable adjustment for working conditions, etc. The market will tell us.

-ERD50

The OPs assertion was that "If that is true, why does study after study show equal or better current pay, without regard to benefits, in the public sector?" I was responding to the assertion

IMHO union influences pale in megacorp compared to the cozy relationship between CEOS and "pay committees". the assertion that the free market determines salaries is testable but is not taken as a given. There is a great deal of "friction" aka market failure in the labor market for some jobs.

The other issue is the "quality" of worker you hire. (not merely "qualified" ) We needed to hire a dean of engineering with a salary package worth about 300K. We could not interest any of our top 6 choices at that pay level.




.

 

[ziggy29]

IMHO union influences pale in megacorp compared to the cozy relationship between CEOS and "pay committees". the assertion that the free market determines salaries is testable but is not taken as a given. There is a great deal of "friction" aka market failure in the labor market for some jobs.

It is true that there is an incestuous relationship in a lot of corporate boardrooms; many CEOs sit on each other's BODs and simply approve each other's ridiculous pay and bonuses. ("You vote for my $5 million bonus and I'll vote for yours.") That's a practice that needs to be called out.

Having said that, there's also the fact that there are very few executives relative to rank-and-file, and it takes a much smaller increase in rank-and-file compensation to "move the needle" in terms of total dollars. Plus, people have the choice to not use a particular company's products or services if they find their executive compensation policy excessive or if those compensation costs price their products out of a competitive position. We have no such choice in public employment compensation policies funded by taxes -- meaning the latter is more coercive since people can't "opt out" of what they consider offensive, unethical or too expensive.

The other issue is the "quality" of worker you hire. (not merely "qualified" )

It depends on the position. Sometimes you will hold out until you find that very best applicant, and you need to be willing to pay up for it. But sometimes "good enough" really is, and that's where it makes little sense to provide a compensation package that brings in 100 reasonably qualified applicants for one opening. When that happens in a situation where you don't need to pay top dollar for the very best, you are paying too much.

 

[Texas Proud]

How about posting those "studies"
To get you started

In 2008, local government
workers were paid closer to 12 percent less than
their private sector counterparts. Thus, despite average
wages that are some 12 or 13 percent higher, the
adjusted wage gap in 2008 is roughly the same size,
but negative (see Figure 1). The adjusted wage gap
provides an estimate of comparability, and the estimate
suggests state and local workers are, on average,
underpaid, controlling for other determinants of wages.
In other words, controlling for education and other
characteristics, the data show that local government
workers are paid substantially less than their private
sector counterparts.29 The major driver in this basic pattern
is the fact that government workers have jobs that
demand more education, which is not accounted for by
raw averages.30
http://www.nirsonline.org/storage/nirs/documents/final_out_of_balance_report_april_2010.pdf

The one thing I will say.... I was talking to my sister who is about to start her retirement pay... and got a quote online for what an annuity would cost today for what she is getting... just south of $700,000..

Now, she worked for about 22 years (bought 3 years)... so say a total of 25 years.. That is about $28,000 per year... now, I am not back dating the pay to figure the past value etc... someone else can do that... all I am saying is... that is a pretty good amount of money to make up for any 'lower pay'... BTW, her wage was NOT lower than the private sector... people came and went from where she worked with about the same wage... she did computer programming..

also, she worked part time for about 10 to 15 years of that time.. but the final pension counted all those years as 'full time'... so even better...

 

[ERD50]

The OPs assertion was that "If that is true, why does study after study show equal or better current pay, without regard to benefits, in the public sector?" I was responding to the assertion

And I think that that question is a dead-ender. There is just no value in attempting to answer it, as no two people would agree on what 'equivalent' jobs were. Without that first step, you can't take the second step.

IMHO union influences pale

ziggy covered that, thanks.

The other issue is the "quality" of worker you hire. (not merely "qualified" ) We needed to hire a dean of engineering with a salary package worth about 300K. We could not interest any of our top 6 choices at that pay level.

I don't see any conflict with what I posted. If your definition of 'qualified' is 'one of those top six people', and they won't take the job @ $300K, then you will need to do something to make the total package more attractive (not necessarily salary). It's that simple.

-ERD50

 

[GoRed]

The one thing I will say.... I was talking to my sister who is about to start her retirement pay... and got a quote online for what an annuity would cost today for what she is getting... just south of $700,000..

Now, she worked for about 22 years (bought 3 years)... so say a total of 25 years.. That is about $28,000 per year... now, I am not back dating the pay to figure the past value etc... someone else can do that... all I am saying is... that is a pretty good amount of money to make up for any 'lower pay'... BTW, her wage was NOT lower than the private sector... people came and went from where she worked with about the same wage... she did computer programming..

also, she worked part time for about 10 to 15 years of that time.. but the final pension counted all those years as 'full time'... so even better...

FWIW, each state is different. I am a state employee here in Texas. A software developer, and I am making much less then I did when I was in the private sector. The difference is so great that, despite the pension and job security, I am actually thinking about quitting and returning to the private sector once the economy is going strong again.

Personally, I would prefer if they nixed the pension plan and made our salaries more equitable with private industry (with salary incentives). Merit raises are almost nonexistent here without switching jobs, and we having had a COLA raise in 3 years.

You don't have to take my word for it. My salary and other Texas State employees are public domain.

Databases - State of Texas salaries | chron.com - Houston Chronicle

 

[ziggy29]

FWIW, each state is different. I am a state employee here in Texas. A software developer, and I am making much less then I did when I was in the private sector. The difference is so great that, despite the pension and job security, I am actually thinking about quitting and returning to the private sector once the economy is going strong again.

Personally, I would prefer if they nixed the pension plan and made our salaries more equitable with private industry (with salary incentives). Merit raises are almost nonexistent here without switching jobs, and we having had a COLA raise in 3 years.

You don't have to take my word for it. My salary and other Texas State employees are public domain.

To my knowledge, Texas doesn't have some of the extreme budgetary and pension woes that states like California and Illinois are facing. (Like all states it has a shortfall largely due to a bad economy and 10 years of terrible stock market returns.) When my wife was briefly in the Texas TRS, for example, the pension wasn't all that outrageous: had she stayed for 20 years and retired at age 60, her pension would have been 46% of the average salary over her final five years. (Having said that, there are municipal and county employment deals which are considerably more generous than at the state level.)

Most of the state and local governments with the worst pension problems are the ones which have the "3% at 50" type of plan (or close to it) where someone could hire in at 20, retire at 50, and receive 90% of their final pay as a pay with a COLA and health insurance for life. If they lived to be 80, they would have been paid 60 years for working 30.

Given that employee and retiree labor costs have been the fastest rising budget item over the last decade for many state and local governments, it's no surprise that the jurisdictions with the most generous total compensation packages are usually the ones in deep doo-doo.

 

[Emeritus]

I don't see any conflict with what I posted. If your definition of 'qualified' is 'one of those top six people', and they won't take the job @ $300K, then you will need to do something to make the total package more attractive (not necessarily salary). It's that simple.-ERD50

Fair enough.
I only note that many of the "studies" do not look at this "quality/qualified" issue.

 

[Emeritus]

Most of the state and local governments with the worst pension problems are the ones which have the "3% at 50" type of plan .

You are describing 3% multiplier
Other than police and fire fighters in a few places I know of no general state system with a 3 % multiplier

My multiplier was 1.82 percent
Pretty good table on police multiplier in
http://www.leoff.wa.gov/board/documents/AgendaItem5-2PercentMultiplier-InitialConsideration.pdf

 

[clifp]

You are describing 3% multiplier
Other than police and fire fighters in a few places I know of no general state system with a 3 % multiplier

My multiplier was 1.82 percent
Pretty good table on police multiplier in
http://www.leoff.wa.gov/board/documents/AgendaItem5-2PercentMultiplier-InitialConsideration.pdf

Gee you must not be looking very hard, first the document you link to includes a 3% plan. Within 5 minutes I went to the CalPERS website and found several 3@50 and 3@55 for public safety retirement plans. These often cover employees (say dispatchers, or Desk Sergeant) who's job is no more dangerous than any other white collar worker.

I also found a 3@60% plan for local non safety workers which was particular sweet allowing a 20 year old to work for 40 years and retire at age 60 with 120% of the final years pay, and probably with spiking also.

Now I am not sure what you mean by "General State Systems", since almost all state have separate plans for different unions.

I am curious how many years do you work for your pension and what percentage of your salary did you contribute how much did you employer contribute?

 

[Emeritus]

Gee you must not be looking very hard, first the document you link to includes a 3% plan. Within 5 minutes I went to the CalPERS website and found several 3@50 and 3@55 for public safety retirement plans. These often cover employees (say dispatchers, or Desk Sergeant) who's job is no more dangerous than any other white collar worker.

I also found a 3@60% plan for local non safety workers which was particular sweet allowing a 20 year old to work for 40 years and retire at age 60 with 120% of the final years pay, and probably with spiking also.

Now I am not sure what you mean by "General State Systems", since almost all state have separate plans for different unions.

I am curious how many years do you work for your pension and what percentage of your salary did you contribute how much did you employer contribute?

Where does it say they are "non safety workers" ?

I paid 7% of salary for a pension without a survivor benefit of 58 % of salary after 30 years. Very similar to the old federal CSRS. I also paid full social security

 

[Spanky]

You don't have to take my word for it. My salary and other Texas State employees are public domain.

Databases - State of Texas salaries | chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The compensation with the same title varies all over the map. Some psychiatrists make $150K+ and most make over $250K+. The same is true for titles "Programmer". A lots of them are making closed to $100K. BTW, the search fails to find "software engineer" or "Software Developer".

 

[clifp]

Where does it say they are "non safety workers" ?

I paid 7% of salary for a pension without a survivor benefit of 58 % of salary after 30 years. Very similar to the old federal CSRS. I also paid full social security

From the introduction
"This publication describes retirement benefits and formulas for Local
Miscellaneous Members. “Local Miscellaneous” members are those employed by a public agency or special district that has contracted with CalPERS who are not involved in law enforcement, fire suppression, the protection of public safety, or employed in a position designated by law as local safety."

By way of comparison lets imagine a guy goes to work for a large private employer. The offer a 4% match but he wants to retire early so he maxs out the 401K (typically 12.5%) of his salary. Over the last 30 years inflation has averaged 3.3%. So for simplicity sake I'll use real returns but you can add 3.3% on the numbers.

Assuming the guy got 2% merit raise every year. He'd have accumulated 8.0 times his final salary after 30 years if he earned 5% (8.3% actual return) or 12.7x if he got a 6% return. (The 5% real return is right in line with Public Employee Pension plan estimates). It looks like a 50/50 mix of S&P 500 and Vanguard 500 would have had real return of ~5.3%

Assuming a 5% return if he turned his saving into annuity at age 52 (he took the job right out of college) he receive an annuity of 29.3% or almost exactly half your pension. If he waited until 62 to take the pension cause some plans penalize you before then, his pension would be a whooping 39.6% of his salary.

So roughly speaking a private worker would have a pension 1/2 to 2/3 as generous your pension despite contributing almost twice (12.5% vs 7%) of his salary.

To put another way. Pensions that allow somebody to work 30 years and than retire at any age without huge penalties, require massive combined employee and employer contributions, in the neighborhood of 30-35%.

Since states don't ask government employees to make anywhere near this level of contribution. The shortfall should be treated as significant benefit to the employees. In fact, I think if you have a 2%@50 or 2%@55 or better pension it is roughly equivalent to a 20% raise, and if you have a 3%@55 that is a 30% raise. The study you cited glossed over this big time.

 

[haha]

This is like all the other threads on govt pensions and bennies. Those who get them think they are only what they are due; those who don't think that they are more than a tad rich and are making it hard to fund road repair, active duty police and firemen and other necessry services performed by people atively working.

This is not a matter for logic or reason. It is a matter for raw political power.

Ha

 

[Emeritus]

From the introduction
"This publication describes retirement benefits and formulas for Local
Miscellaneous Members. “Local Miscellaneous” members are those employed by a public agency or special district that has contracted with CalPERS who are not involved in law enforcement, fire suppression, the protection of public safety, or employed in a position designated by law as local safety."

By way of comparison lets imagine a guy goes to work for a large private employer. The offer a 4% match but he wants to retire early so he maxs out the 401K (typically 12.5%) of his salary. Over the last 30 years inflation has averaged 3.3%. So for simplicity sake I'll use real returns but you can add 3.3% on the numbers.

Assuming the guy got 2% merit raise every year. He'd have accumulated 8.0 times his final salary after 30 years if he earned 5% (8.3% actual return) or 12.7x if he got a 6% return. (The 5% real return is right in line with Public Employee Pension plan estimates). It looks like a 50/50 mix of S&P 500 and Vanguard 500 would have had real return of ~5.3%

Assuming a 5% return if he turned his saving into annuity at age 52 (he took the job right out of college) he receive an annuity of 29.3% or almost exactly half your pension. If he waited until 62 to take the pension cause some plans penalize you before then, his pension would be a whooping 39.6% of his salary.

So roughly speaking a private worker would have a pension 1/2 to 2/3 as generous your pension despite contributing almost twice (12.5% vs 7%) of his salary.

To put another way. Pensions that allow somebody to work 30 years and than retire at any age without huge penalties, require massive combined employee and employer contributions, in the neighborhood of 30-35%.

Since states don't ask government employees to make anywhere near this level of contribution. The shortfall should be treated as significant benefit to the employees. In fact, I think if you have a 2%@50 or 2%@55 or better pension it is roughly equivalent to a 20% raise, and if you have a 3%@55 that is a 30% raise. The study you cited glossed over this big time.

1) It gives formulas, nowhere does it say that there are specific workers covered by the formulas.

2) My law school classmates who went to work for megacorp averaged twice my government salary. I won't even talk about the ones in private practice.

 

[donheff]

This is like all the other threads on govt pensions and bennies. Those who get them think they are only what they are due; those who don't think that they are more than a tad rich and are making it hard to fund road repair, active duty police and firemen and other necessry services performed by people atively working.

This is not a matter for logic or reason. It is a matter for raw political power.

Ha

Sorta true. But I don't think most of us "haves" are arguing that the pension systems make sense in today's world it is more of a outraged reaction to to the anger others seem to have that our choices 30 years ago worked out. I did a fair amount of college recruiting for the Feds in the late 70s and 80s. There were always a handful of people attracted by the "Ask not..." aspects but most denigrated public service as a backwater - uninteresting work (they were wrong about that) and no chance to get rich like they would in the private sector (wrong about that too for the most part).. And they viewed the retirement system as a negative in many respects since it demanded a long term commitment to pay off. Now, decades later "they" denigrate us once again - but this time because our choices happened to pay off.

So change the darn system going forward. But keep your hands off my golden handcuffs - I got them the old fashioned way, I earned them.

 

[Spanky]

1)
2) My law school classmates who went to work for megacorp averaged twice my government salary. I won't even talk about the ones in private practice.

What's stopping you to work in the private sector if it's so lucrative?
My brother-in-law works for the District Attorney Office of the Alameda county. He cites that the two main reasons that the public lawyers are staying: significant less stress and generous pensions.

 

[Gumby]

What's stopping you to work in the private sector if it's so lucrative?
My brother-in-law works for the District Attorney Office of the Alameda county. He cites that the two main reasons that the public lawyers are staying: significant less stress and generous pensions.

And, using similar logic, what's stopping you from working in the public sector where the pensions are great and the livin' is easy (or so I hear)?

It is normal human nature for us to think others are getting a better deal than we are and to be envious of that. I suggest that we would all be happier if we concentrated on whether our own situation meets our needs and make changes as necessary.

 

[Texas Proud]

FWIW, each state is different. I am a state employee here in Texas. A software developer, and I am making much less then I did when I was in the private sector. The difference is so great that, despite the pension and job security, I am actually thinking about quitting and returning to the private sector once the economy is going strong again.

Personally, I would prefer if they nixed the pension plan and made our salaries more equitable with private industry (with salary incentives). Merit raises are almost nonexistent here without switching jobs, and we having had a COLA raise in 3 years.

You don't have to take my word for it. My salary and other Texas State employees are public domain.

Databases - State of Texas salaries | chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Wow.... I LIKE this link... It seems that the Retirement system pays their guys a lot

And the psychiatrists are up there also... this is the list of the highest paid people per the site...


NameTitleDepartmentOvertimeTotal

THOMAS HARRISCHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICERTEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM $434,680Details STEVEN CATHEYPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $325,470Details JACQUELINE JOHNSONDEP EXEC DIR OF INVESTMENTSEMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM $301,500Details GAIL JOHNSONPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $294,645Details THOMAS MARETHPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $291,032Details PAUL BALLARDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERTREASURY SAFEKEEPING TRUST COMPANY $276,004Details BABUBHAI PATELPHYSICIANDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $275,705Details GARY KULAPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $269,882Details LEE PARTRIDGEINVESTMENT FUND DIRECTORTEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM $269,213Details WILLIAM PHILLIPSPHYSICIANDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $268,011Details LAUREN PARSONSPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $267,914Details PATRICK CLAPPERPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $259,256Details ELLIS CIVELLOPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $257,955Details RONNIE JUNGEXECUTIVE DIRECTORTEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM $257,075Details JANA TOYPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $254,175Details TRINA CORMACKPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $250,808Details ANN FUELBERGEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR ERSEMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM $244,080Details MICHAEL SAMPLESCHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICERTREASURY SAFEKEEPING TRUST COMPANY $243,809Details CHI CHAIINVESTMENT FUND DIRECTORTEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM $242,927Details LARRY HAWKINSPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $241,791Details OLAYEMI FANIRANPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $240,995Details JOSEPH BLACKPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $240,285Details CATON CUELLARPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $235,146Details FRANK ZAHNCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERTREASURY SAFEKEEPING TRUST COMPANY $230,950Details GERALDINE FARIAS-DANIELSPSYCHIATRISTDEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES $229,806Details

 

[Spanky]

Ask not..." aspects but most denigrated public service as a backwater - uninteresting work (they were wrong about that) and no chance to get rich like they would in the private sector (wrong about that too for the most part)..

Example please ... I am not sure about other majors, but in electrical engineering or any physical science graduates there are NOT too many interesting jobs in the public sector (other than NASA). The opportunity to become an entrepreneur (in the high-tech industry) is also limited since you really do NOT develop any products in the public sector.

So change the darn system going forward. But keep your hands off my golden handcuffs

I probably take the position if I had a pension that pays almost the same amount as if I were still working. Who cares about the source of funding as long as I am getting paid? Right?

 

[Spanky]

And, using similar logic, what's stopping you from working in the public sector where the pensions are great and the livin' is easy (or so I hear)?

It is normal human nature for us to think others are getting a better deal than we are and to be envious of that. I suggest that we would all be happier if we concentrated on whether our own situation meets our needs and make changes as necessary.

I hear you. Unfortunately, there were'nt too many interesting positions in electrical engineering in the public sector back in 1978.