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.
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...
Originally posted by darkbake
One of my relatives in town works as a doctor at the VA Medical center, and he actually makes a lot less than he would if he was in the private sector... but he does his job there because he feels like it is the best place he can be to help people.
It is true that government jobs provide stable income these days, but how is that bad? Instead of focusing on tearing down something that is providing living wages for people, wouldn't it be better to focus on creating more jobs like that in the private sector?
Also, check out this:
Are you more worried about this, or $100,000 paychecks for government workers?
edit on 22-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)edit on 22-8-2012 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
Federal employee groups on Monday questioned the accuracy of a recent news report that claimed from 2007 to 2009 the number of government workers earning more than $100,000 per year spiked.
Based on an analysis of federal data, a Dec. 10 USA Today story, said the number of federal workers earning more than $100,000 per year rose from 14 percent in December 2007 to 19 percent in June 2009. The article attributed several workforce trends, including the easing of federal pay caps, higher salaries at the Pentagon because of its pay-for-performance system and generous annual raises from Congress.
According to federal workforce advocates, the numbers are misleading. "The data presented by USA Today is incomplete in many ways," Jessica Klement, legislative director for the Federal Managers Association, wrote in an e-mail. She said the data did not indicate how or why federal employees earned those salaries, and taken in context, the figures aren't as alarming as they seem at first glance.
"Overall, according to the data, more than 75 percent of federal employees make less than $100,000," said Klement. "This is hardly cause for concern."
John Palguta, vice president of policy of the Partnership for Public Service, said the figures could be attributed to increased hires at the Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs departments. Because of the tasks some of those employees perform -- including medical and sophisticated technology work -- they earn higher salaries than the general population.
Originally posted by xuenchen
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
Originally posted by Xtrozero
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.....
Originally posted by FlyersFan
$100,000 in DC or NYC or Philly won't go far.
$100,000 in Alabama would have you doing really well.
Anyways .. Obamanomics = trickle up poverty for most people.
Originally posted by darkbake
One of my relatives in town works as a doctor at the VA Medical center, and he actually makes a lot less than he would if he was in the private sector... but he does his job there because he feels like it is the best place he can be to help people.
It is true that government jobs provide stable income these days, but how is that bad? Instead of focusing on tearing down something that is providing living wages for people, wouldn't it be better to focus on creating more jobs like that in the private sector?
Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
Job security. It's that simple. Why would I give up job security and a pension for another $15k a year? Money is just money, and I am neither driven by it or obsessed with getting more of it. Am I efficient? I damn sure am. Further, I save taxpayers money every day. I certainly don't need your approval to justify my employment.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
I love how people make this an Obama issue when these people have probably worked for the feds for 10 years or more.
Do you really think Obama sits there and calculates salaries for employees?
I think that the job of the HR department.
Originally posted by nixie_nox
I love how people make this an Obama issue when these people have probably worked for the feds for 10 years or more.
Do you really think Obama sits there and calculates salaries for employees?
I think that the job of the HR department.