Poll- Are You or Were You a Government Worker/Public Servant?

[brewer12345]

"Quasi-governmental." But this will likely be 20% or less of my total craeer, so I suppose I should vote no.

 

[FUEGO]

I just took a break from working on a job application for a nice cushy government job. Said job would come with a 33% pay raise, not to mention the extensive increase in benefits. And I've had a couple interviews for other government jobs lately, but I won't hear back from them for at least another month. Follow up interview for one is in 2 weeks (wheels turn slowly).

No plan on getting a pension out of any of these jobs since I won't be putting in the necessary # years service.

 

[stoutboy]

I don't want to get into an ideological debate here, but come on. Government can raise taxes more easily than the private sector can raise prices in a competitive environment if they have budget/income problems. This statement, if I may say so, is a non-starter.

I say this not to bash the public sector, but to point out the obvious reasons why government employment is of a different nature than private sector employment. Your statement, with all due respect, is silly.

Government has an unlimited power to tax. Businesses don't have an unlimited power to raise prices or slash wages (given the minimum wage).

Sure gov/private sector employment is of a different nature. That's the whole point. I made this comparison because people who complain about the government often point to the private sector as something the government should emulate. It's often their next statement in fact. But government has different concerns and priorities than the private sector.

And don't kid yourself--inefficient governments can and do fail. Look at the world. Our government, for all its supposed faults, is not inefficient.

 

[Spanky]

.. though I often become a tad whimsical when I consider I could've retired with full pension at 38 had I stayed in-

I hear you. I often pondering on this issue as well.

 

[NW-Bound]

I just took a break from working on a job application for a nice cushy government job. Said job would come with a 33% pay raise, not to mention the extensive increase in benefits.

Heh heh heh... If you can't beat them, why not join them...

Sorry if I offend any civil worker here. The reason I think most government agencies, not just here in the US but throughout the world, throughout history, tend to be less efficient than private corporations is simply due to the intrinsic difference between the entities. It's just human nature that when you feel you are secure, that you can slow down a bit, you will.

Similarly, big megacorp workers do not work nearly as hard as small startup company workers. I know plenty because I speak from experience. There is nothing like hunger that sharpens the mind and quickens the muscles, I tell you.

PS. I only talk in the general sense. There are plenty of hard workers in the public sector and go-getters at megacorps. So, sorry if I offend anyone. I only talk about the "average" worker.

 

[haha]

not quite sure what you're driving at with this poll, but I faithfully responded. Seems to me it would be more instructive had you differentiated b/w fed, state and municipal.

Thank you for your suggestion.

Especially when compared to the private sector--where over 90% of businesses fail, I think the 'government' comes out looking pretty good.

Yes, an insightful comparison.

 

[FUEGO]

Heh heh heh... If you can't beat them, why not join them...

I'm just following the money! The market keeps sending me price signals and I'm responding.

 

[ziggy29]

Sure gov/private sector employment is of a different nature. That's the whole point.

Is that always true? Sure, for cops, for firemen, for teachers, for the military, it's true. There ARE no realistic private sector equivalents. These are also (with the possible exception of teachers) things the private sector really can't practically do. And things that are, in the case of public safety officers, quite dangerous and lend themselves to burnout by (say) age 50-55.

But filing clerks? Clerical managers? Accountants? Medical assistants? Electricians, mechanics, janitors? These ALL have obvious and (usually) comparable private sector counterparts. I see no reason why these positions should have their comparable compensation NOT pegged to, and the same as, the private sector. But we're starting to digress here, so I'd prefer to leave it here and stick to the poll question.

 

[dex]

I saw this story today - it covers many of the recent comments is some threads recently
- Gov't pensions
- Size of gov't
- Over reliance on taxing the producers
- others

“The Battle for the Future” on FBN This Weekend « John Stossel
"The Battle for the Future" on FBN This Weekend

My latest one-hour special, "The Battle for the Future," will be airing on the Fox Business Network this weekend, starting tonight at 9pm ET. (Right before the rebroadcast of this week's "Stossel" on Election Myths at 10pm ET.)

 

[dex]

If someone wants to play with numbers; they can be found here.

ARCHIVED -- Government Employment & Payroll – Historical Data 2008

 

[Spanky]

^^ wouldn't want to miss the show.

 

[haha]

Is that always true? Sure, for cops, for firemen, for teachers, for the military, it's true. There ARE no realistic private sector equivalents. These are also (with the possible exception of teachers) things the private sector really can't practically do. And things that are, in the case of public safety officers, quite dangerous and lend themselves to burnout by (say) age 50-55.

But filing clerks? Clerical managers? Accountants? Medical assistants? Electricians, mechanics, janitors? These ALL have obvious and (usually) comparable private sector counterparts. I see no reason why these positions should have their comparable compensation NOT pegged to, and the same as, the private sector. But we're starting to digress here, so I'd prefer to leave it here and stick to the poll question.

US private prep schools are overall better than public schools, and cost less. The entire parochial school system operates much more cheaply than public schools, and they maintain order and teach their pupils something. And, the student body is now quite diverse- in many cities very poor people are attending parocial schools on vouchers. True that the public schools take on the struggle with their hands tied behind their backs. Mass schooling in todays' world is about as effective as the war on drugs, and a for similar reasons we should just call a truce and give up both of thiese expensive and futile efforts.

War fighting- not much airforce I agree, but ex spec ops guys are "consulting" all over the world, and overall with less political interference and enough effectiveness that their contracts get renewed regularly. Plus the guys are a cash and carry expense- no long tails of 50 years of expensive retirement and health care to fund.

Much of the government could not only be duplicated by private business, it could be completely or substantially replaced more efficiently and cheaply.

Ha

 

[stoutboy]

Much of the government could not only be duplicated by private business, it could be completely or substantially replaced more efficiently and cheaply.
Ha

This is simply a fallacy, which is why no modern, industrialized nation on earth operates this way (thankfully). And the biggest source of fraud and expense faced by the taxpayer are precisely these contractors to whom you would hand over so much. Corporations do not act in the public interest. The government and private sectors should remain separate and well-defined. Otherwise Wall Street will continue to run amok. (It's doing that already, but only because of the blurring of the lines which has occurred over much of the last 30 years).

 

[dex]

This is simply a fallacy, which is why no modern, industrialized nation on earth operates this way (thankfully). And the biggest source of fraud and expense faced by the taxpayer are precisely these contractors to whom you would hand over so much. Corporations do not act in the public interest. The government and private sectors should remain separate and well-defined. Otherwise Wall Street will continue to run amok.

Everything old is new again.

YouTube - Back in the USSR - Red Square


"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of "liberalism" they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, for many years U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate.

 

[haha]

This is simply a fallacy, which is why no modern, industrialized nation on earth operates this way (thankfully). And the biggest source of fraud and expense faced by the taxpayer are precisely these contractors to whom you would hand over so much. Corporations do not act in the public interest. The government and private sectors should remain separate and well-defined. Otherwise Wall Street will continue to run amok. (It's doing that already, but only because of the blurring of the lines which has occurred over much of the last 30 years).

Actually, it is not a fallacy, it is merely a political philosophy different from your political philosophy. You may even notice that mine is closer to the principles of minimal government upon which our country was founded.

I think that your separation idea, while excellent, is a horse that has already left the barn. Consider the revolving door. Government and Wall Street are co-dependents, with government as the great enabler. This is because there is no monolithic government, only a collection of individuals and groups with their own agendas and attitudes. Unfortunately for the public but not for the public servants, those agendas include cushy jobs after leaving government, campaign contributions, jobs for their girlfriends, sons and daughters and spouses, etc.

Check into campaign contributions from Wall Street. Do you suppose this is because they want better, more impartial government? Or let’s look at federal industrial policy. Prop up dying but heavily unionized industries and companies like GM, subsidize the same and also politically favored green industries, send federal taxpayer funds to hire heavily Democrat voting and heavily unionized teachers, pay off the insurance companies and drug companies with a ridiculous farce of health reform ( not that we don't need true health reform, this just doesn't happen to be it.) All the while government officials ignore glaring and potentially very powerful infrastructure investment opportunities.

And if you really think that the biggest source of expense faced by the taxpayer is contractors, you need a little more study. This information is publically available. If this is mere rhetoric, I understand.

Corporate fraud? Sure, but hard to match what the government itself has done and is doing. I doubt that many corporations can gerrymander so that their customers really have no choice. And, anytime the government wants to, it has the power to stop a great deal of this. They don't want to, because "the government" is made up of agents whose real motivations are complex, and only rarely coincide with those described in 8th grade civics books. All politicians, staffers, "public servants" etc. have their own fish to fry.

I completely agree that corporations do not act in the public interest, and I favor some regulation to keep this controlled. But the government? The only way that their actions are in the public interest is when all government actions are defined as "in the public interest".

Corporations lie, governments lie. Corporations do at least generate wealth. Governments at very best help maintain conditions for continued wealth generation, but more realistically and more often dissipate wealth.

Ha

 

[Spanky]

Corporations lie, governments lie. Corporations do at least generate wealth. Governments at very best help maintain conditions for continued wealth generation, but more realistically and more often dissipate wealth.

The government not only dissipates wealth but also re-distributes it.

 

[keegs]

55% "yes" right now. I'm pretty sure less than 55% of the general population could answer "yes" here.

Not surprising that an early retirement board is disproportionately comprised of people who have jobs that are more likely to enable it, is it?

Last I remember it was 20% with and 80% without a pension.

The number without a pension benefit has obviously grown significantly over the past few decades. But I'm not sure whether what I'm recalling represents exclusively current benefits or whether it includes any pension benefit received during one's working career.

 

[keegs]

I don't want to get into an ideological debate here, but come on. Government can raise taxes more easily than the private sector can raise prices in a competitive environment if they have budget/income problems, and the federal government can print money to meet obligations. This statement, if I may say so, is a non-starter.

I say this not to bash the public sector, but to point out the obvious reasons why government employment is of a different nature than private sector employment. Your statement, with all due respect, is silly.

Government has an unlimited power to tax (though it would be stupid to tax beyond the point the economy can grow). Businesses don't have an unlimited power to raise prices or slash wages (given the minimum wage and competition).

So all we do to keep SamClem away from my SS is to raise the income tax?

 

[stoutboy]

Yes, the upper one percent have become markedly poorer over the last 30 years due to the government 'redistributing' their wealth.

The government not only [/COLOR]dissipates wealth but also re-distributes it.

 

[keegs]

The government not only [/COLOR]dissipates wealth but also re-distributes it.

It's better to have a smaller piece of a growing pie than a larger piece of a shrinking pie.

 

[Nords]

Yeah, I'm a federal employee. I'm also retired from the USAF Reserves. I enlisted in the Air Force in 1977. Separated from the Air Force in 1981, and went to work for the Air Force as a civilian (fed) employee, and at the same time, joined the Air Force Reserves. I continued with the Air Force as a fed & reservist until 2008, when I took job with DoD, with an outfit called Defense Contract Management Agency. I still work for DCMA, and will retire in 2 yrs at 55. I'm stationed at a major defense contractor (Lockheed Martin) in east Texas, where I do Quality Assurance stuff. I retired from the USAF Reserves in April, 2010, after 33 years. Right now, I have a total of 33 yrs, 5 months federal civil service time. When I retire in January 2013, I'll have almost 36 yrs. I might work an extra 2 or 3 months to bump it up to a full 36....nahhhhh!

Some of my least-favorite acronyms... DCMA and QA.

Man-- what a glutton for punishment!

 

[CoopersBeach]

No for me and DW.

Just out of curiosity, for those who answer yes to the question, I wonder how many could afford to retire early without a government pension, and what is the percentage of retirement income they derive from the said pension.

 

[stoutboy]

That's an interesting question. I'm still working, but I hope to FIRE within 8-10 years. I'll have a FERS pension and it will likely comprise anywhere from about 30-45 percent of my retirement income, depending on how my other investments do. That's only me. If you factor in DW, a highly skilled professional, the pension share falls to about 15-20%. I think there is a better than average chance I could FIRE w/o it, but since it will be there, it pretty much clinches the deal. And the fact that health insurance carries over is just as important, if not more so.

No for me and DW.

Just out of curiosity, for those who answer yes to the question, I wonder how many could afford to retire early without a government pension, and what is the percentage of retirement income they derive from the said pension.

 

[martyb]

Some of my least-favorite acronyms... DCMA and QA.

Man-- what a glutton for punishment!

lol....yeah...me too!

 

[W2R]

Just out of curiosity, for those who answer yes to the question, I wonder how many could afford to retire early without a government pension, and what is the percentage of retirement income they derive from the said pension.

My monthly FERS payments represent 13% of my income in retirement, so obviously not pivotal to my decision to retire when I did.