It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obamanomics? Almost 500,000 Federal Workers Make Over $100,000

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
This article cites the fact that many federal workers make more than private sector workers doing same and similar jobs.

The article says Unions play a major role.


According to a brand new book already striking fear in the hearts of public sector union bosses, America’s government workers may be the only men and women in the country still blessing their lucky stars for President Obama. Mallory Factor’s Shadowbosses: Government Unions Control America and Rob Taxpayers Blind claims that government employees make more money, work less, retire earlier, have greater job security, and have more retirement security than their private sector counterparts. No wonder Washington D.C. is getting rich while the rest of America suffers.

Here’s the bottom line, according to Shadowbosses: government service is now more lucrative than the private sector. Federal government workers reportedly averaged more than twice the salary and benefits of an average private sector worker. Even more unbelievably, there are fully 459,016 federal workers who make over $100,000 in salary – one in five federal workers.

Obamanomics: Almost 500,000 Federal Workers Make Over $100,000
 



The "Government" has often said they need to offer higher wages and better benefits in order to attract the "Best and Brightest".

Many people disagree and say the "Best and Brightest" would better serve the private sector, not the government.

Some even say that government workers should make substantially less so as to ensure private sector efficiency and keep the bureaucracies (and their boondoggles) to a minimum



Where Would the "Best and Brightest" better suit the Economy ...

in "Government" or in the "Private Sector" ?





posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Obamanomics? Or better Bushnomics?

Who GREW the government? Bush.

Who SHRANK the government? Obama.

Obama ordered a two-year pay freeze in 2010.




(the spike is the census count)


Playing the "let's blame it all on Obama" game ignores the fact the GOP contribution to this mess is much higher than their propaganda would have us believe.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   
$100,000 is not that big of a salary. It is well within the confines of fair. For example, what if these federal workers are doctors or engineers or physicists?

If I were to go after people making money while screwing over the populace, I would probably pick a better target, like the banking sector.
edit on 21-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



Obama ordered a two-year pay freeze in 2010.


I see your first graph is "Local Government".

Is that where the Union influence is greatest?

The 2nd graph must be "Local" also. The numbers are too high for Federal only.

Where did Bush or Obama have control over Local Government hiring?

Were the Obama pay freezes extended to "Local" governments?

I'm confused.

And your opinion would be welcome about the "Best and Brightest".



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Hmmmm.

It seems that good 'ol Obama has actually increased government workers under his control.


But looking only at the federal work force under Mr. Obama’s direct control, then government employment has actually gone up.

He inherited a federal work force of 2,061,700, and it rose slightly through June 2009 to 2,109,700; by May of this year, it had grown further to 2,204,100, a 7 percent increase.

Size of Government




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
It's easy to be misled by title like this, because the federal workforce has gone down but some pay has gone up (Congress sets the pay scale, not the President), it's a meaningless statement - without knowing the job titles in question. Are we talking about nothing more than bureaucrats? Or government scientists? SEC regulators come from the banking sector, where they could easily earn 10X their government salary working for a Goldman Sachs, yet we expect these guys to root out malfeasance by the bankers. I'm not saying it's right we have 500,000 workers making 100,000, but considering the size of the nation = 320,000,000, and the size of the federal workforce (about 2,000,000) having 21.5% of them making 100,000 may not be that big a deal. Congress itself makes over 175,000, and the party in the majority right now is the republicans, I don't see them asking themselves to cut their pay.

To sum up, it's a meaningless statement to say "500,000 workers make 100,000", without clarifying just who these workers are, what their jobs are. for many of them we might be glad they're willing to work for the government for that pay, when they could get more from the private sector. For others, it's a waste of tax dollars. I'd like to think that a top NASA scientist is willing to work for the good of the country for a respectable salary rather than going into the private sector to enrich some multinational corporation.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


That looks like some explosive growth all right - and most of it occurred in the Bush years. While it peaked after Obama came into office, you can see even from your own chart, it's begun to decline.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Obamanomics? Or better Bushnomics?

Who GREW the government? Bush.

Who SHRANK the government? Obama.

Obama ordered a two-year pay freeze in 2010.




(the spike is the census count)


Playing the "let's blame it all on Obama" game ignores the fact the GOP contribution to this mess is much higher than their propaganda would have us believe.


How many of these are teachers, cops, firemen etc....those are not good reductions... 23 million is scary number for the tax payer to pay on either way....



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


You need to understand the USA no longer taxes the best and brightest they tax the poor and middle class to pay for the decadent lifestyles of the rich and powerful. I pay $100 per pay check, go to college pay rent and am raising a baby. I'm barely getting by while large corporations are allowed to ship their taxes to off shore accounts and get tax right offs that put them in a tax bracket of -1 percent owed. They are actually owed money by us for what? the pleasure of having one office still in the USA. We need to tell the big corporations if they don't start paying us what they owe us we will just ban their products from our country and see how well they do because they will be taxed by china or India and a huge drop in consumers. Do they really think someone in china or India who makes their products for 50 cents an hour are going to save up and pay their hyper inflated prices lol.

Its so simple the profits they would lose in the first week would have them go bankrupt.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
$100,000 is not that big of a salary. It is well within the confines of fair. For example, what if these federal workers are doctors or engineers or physicists?


Government workers make more than their counter parts in the private sector in the vast majority of cases. Also Government workers have the BEST retirement systems going...all thanks to our tax dollars...



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
You need to understand the USA no longer taxes the best and brightest they tax the poor and middle class to pay for the decadent lifestyles of the rich and powerful. I pay $100 per pay check, go to college pay rent and am raising a baby. I'm barely getting by while large corporations are allowed to ship their taxes to off shore accounts and get tax right offs that put them in a tax bracket of -1 percent owed. They are actually owed money by us for what? the pleasure of having one office still in the USA. We need to tell the big corporations if they don't start paying us what they owe us we will just ban their products from our country and see how well they do because they will be taxed by china or India and a huge drop in consumers. Do they really think someone in china or India who makes their products for 50 cents an hour are going to save up and pay their hyper inflated prices lol.

Its so simple the profits they would lose in the first week would have them go bankrupt.


What tax would that be that you pay? It isn't fed income tax....



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Go back to the source article (at USAtoday.com) and read what they attribute the pay hikes to:


• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.


#1 - pay raises in 2008 (3%) and 2009 (3.9%) by Bush. A smaller 2% raise in 2010 by Obama (followed by a 2-yr pay freeze).

#2 - A new "pay system" in 2008 (that would be under Bush) that resulted in much higher than expected "merit raises" and pay hikes to the DOD. Will be phased out in 2012.

#3 Paycaps eased in December 2009 (one month before Obama entered office) that resulted in the biggest hikes in federal pay.

So who is to blame? All these factors that caused federal pay to spike occurred BEFORE Obama entered office. I don't see Brietbart blaming anyone in the GOP. Under Obama federal workers got a 2% pay raise in 2010, followed by a 2-yr pay freeze, and for 2013 he is proposing a 0.5% pay raise. The lowest EVER by any president. Compare THAT to any Republican president.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


So who is to blame? All these factors that caused federal pay to spike occurred BEFORE Obama entered office. I don't see Brietbart blaming anyone in the GOP. Under Obama federal workers got a 2% pay raise in 2010, followed by a 2-yr pay freeze, and for 2013 he is proposing a 0.5% pay raise. The lowest EVER by any president. Compare THAT to any Republican president.


Very good observation there !!

But I bet that Obama had that all planned and figured out so he could somehow "justify" that massive 7% hiring increase !!

(repeat quote)

But looking only at the federal work force under Mr. Obama’s direct control, then government employment has actually gone up.

He inherited a federal work force of 2,061,700, and it rose slightly through June 2009 to 2,109,700;

by May of this year, it had grown further to 2,204,100, a 7 percent increase.


He may have actually knew what he was doing (or simply doing what he was told).

Very clever indeed


I wonder if the 7% hiring increase was due primarily to increased assistance programs and possibly administrative hires for ObamaCare related things?



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.


couldn't get a link to 'usa today' to work, but found this one for a source for your quote
dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com...

The paycaps elimination is the one that really caused the big jump in federal worker salaries. FTR Obama proposed reinstating paycaps this year.

I find it silly that this is being blamed on Obama. All these pay rule changes were made in the last few months of 2009, before Obama was sworn into office. It was just another ticking bomb handed to him along with the recession and banking sector collapse. oh well, the breitbart site isn't known for being fair or unbaised.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by darkbake
$100,000 is not that big of a salary. It is well within the confines of fair. For example, what if these federal workers are doctors or engineers or physicists?


Government workers make more than their counter parts in the private sector in the vast majority of cases. Also Government workers have the BEST retirement systems going...all thanks to our tax dollars...


I could EASILY make $10-15k a year more in the private sector, as could most of my co-workers. I have a 401k type retirement plan and a pension. And, we pay taxes also, so spare me the rhetoric.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Obama is already cutting the salaries of government workers by half, under his defense budget initiative, so soon all those that make over 100 thousand will be lining up with the rest of the working class in the welfare state that he is creating.

So I wonder who will be paying the taxes to complement the benefits of the welfare state.




posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Historically, when there is a Democrat in the White House, the Federal workforce takes on more employees through hiring. When a Republican in the White House, they tend to use contractors more. I will stand behind the fact that 500,000 workers in a Federal workforce of 2.5 million is not a large number. Scientists make up a large number, as do high ranking military.

I make no secret of my Federal employment. I make $50k a year. I could make around $65-$75 a year in the private sector, but would not have the job security, so it a trade off. I've seen many people in the private sector look into Federal employment only to scoff at the pay cut they would have to take.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


Well said my friend my husband is in the other side of the line, he is a retired marine with pay, as a contractor he was in the category of great salary along with retirement put him over the mark, under the Obama new budget cuts he is now unemployed waiting for the new contract to clear the government lawyers and about to take a cut from the private sector for the same job. Still like you said if he takes a government job the cut will be worst.

But all those making that much money today are about to get cuts left and right, like another thread said about 1 million of private defense jobs are to be slashed or terminated.

welcome to the welfare state.



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
I could EASILY make $10-15k a year more in the private sector, as could most of my co-workers. I have a 401k type retirement plan and a pension. And, we pay taxes also, so spare me the rhetoric.


Why don't you then? Do you work because you feel you need to give back to your country.....? LOL

I'm retired military and I have 100s of friends in the GS system, so spare me the weak spin... There is no pension in the private sector.... Also your job is extremely secured and you don't need to show a profit or actually be efficient to show profits...you just need to maintain the status quo.....



posted on Aug, 21 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Democrats, Ask your President...WHERE ARE THE JOBS? Don't blame Republicans anymore, they DON'T HAVE TO OPEN NEW CORPORATIONS IN AMERICAN AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY THEIR PRODUCTS.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join