Well, I'm just gobsmacked. Who knew?

[OldWiseGuy]

Stumbled onto this while researching "overworked, underpaid, government employees."

Government employees -- the true 1 percent

 

[Humble me Lord]

And that article was from 2012. The figures are probably really eye popping now.

 

[Maren]

I'm impressed by the huge amount of cherry picking in the article -- particularly how he conflates state and local government employees with federal employees.

For example, that New York City toll taker who is not a federal employee and works in what is the most expensive city in the US. You can argue about whether he deserved that large of a pension, but unless you live in New York that shouldn't be an issue for you. The same with the firefighters in Las Vegas, unless you live in Las Vegas or Nevada (where most of that fund is likely paid by taxes from gambling/tourism).

Additionally, it doesn't matter what a union leader makes unless you are a member of that union -- those leaders are paid out of the union dues paid by teachers and not directly by the government. I can see where the union members might care but it doesn't change a thing for taxpayers.

Further, the whole bit about how 77,000 federal employees make more than the governor of their state -- which in some cases is as little as $70,000; that takes some of the "luster" off that stat and shows how the statistic is manipulated (instead of saying federal employees making more than $100,000 or $200,000) to make the number larger. It also quits looking so impressive when you read the largest percentage of those employees are doctors (likely many in/caring for the military), the next highest percentage is air traffic controllers -- these are people who, with experience, should be making that type of money -- and still would be if they had the same job in the private sector (and in the case of doctors, possibly far more).

That isn't to say there isn't an issue but, because of his cherry picking facts, particularly intentionally mixing state/local and federal employees, this editorial isn't worth the paper (even the digital type) that it is printed on.

 

[AMOG]

I agree with Maren. The writing is slanted to say the least. Another important difference between federal employees and those working for state and local governments is how their pensions are paid. Once a federal employee retires, their pensions do NOT come out of the federal tax payer coffers. often times when city employees retire the city is still on the hook for paying their pensions. For federal employees, the pension is purchased by the government every year the employee works (I believe it is through AIG). Thus, when the employee retires, the pension is paid out by AIG, not by the fed. Yes, the tax payers still pay for it, but at least it is accounted in the year the benefit is accrued, not kicked down the road to be someone else's problem in another tax year when the employee retires.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"How did America become broke and insolvent? How did we build up an unimaginable $115 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities? How did we allow the American Dream to become a nightmare?"

The American dream <=> $ $ $ ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm impressed by the huge amount of cherry picking in the article -- particularly how he conflates state and local government employees with federal employees.

For example, that New York City toll taker who is not a federal employee and works in what is the most expensive city in the US. You can argue about whether he deserved that large of a pension, but unless you live in New York that shouldn't be an issue for you. The same with the firefighters in Las Vegas, unless you live in Las Vegas or Nevada (where most of that fund is likely paid by taxes from gambling/tourism).

Additionally, it doesn't matter what a union leader makes unless you are a member of that union -- those leaders are paid out of the union dues paid by teachers and not directly by the government. I can see where the union members might care but it doesn't change a thing for taxpayers.

Further, the whole bit about how 77,000 federal employees make more than the governor of their state -- which in some cases is as little as $70,000; that takes some of the "luster" off that stat and shows how the statistic is manipulated (instead of saying federal employees making more than $100,000 or $200,000) to make the number larger. It also quits looking so impressive when you read the largest percentage of those employees are doctors (likely many in/caring for the military), the next highest percentage is air traffic controllers -- these are people who, with experience, should be making that type of money -- and still would be if they had the same job in the private sector (and in the case of doctors, possibly far more).

That isn't to say there isn't an issue but, because of his cherry picking facts, particularly intentionally mixing state/local and federal employees, this editorial isn't worth the paper (even the digital type) that it is printed on.

Well said.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Link (New Scientist):
End of days: Is Western civilisation on the brink of collapse?