The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (82 comments)

  1. Yes, the same statistics are flung around in my country by the media as well. What they usually forget is that the mass of low ranking federal workers (the vast majority) isn’t anywhere near that, while this spike is generated by a small minority of high level Feds who make a lot of money. This statistic is practically worthless.

    Nice try, but this form of “argument” has been debunked a bazillion times all across the globe. You Yanks really are slow.

    The next step by our media is then to flaunt statistics over how women still earn less than men. Of course there they too forget several highly important facts. So when are you going to bring something like that?

    Populism, nothing more, and a rather pitiful attempt at it.

    1. Andrew Biggs

      For what it’s worth, the median federal wage — that is, the pay for the typical worker — isn’t that much lower than the mean or average wage, because the federal pay distribution is a lot more compressed than in the private sector.

      1. Says who Andrew Biggs???? Where are “you” getting your info. I agree with AK47 he is so on the money. It all depends on how you firgure averages or how the averages are twisted. WG pay is very low and the majority of people that work for the goverment are WG not GS.

  2. “But do you think that the average federal employee is more productive than the average Microsoft employee?”

    Yes, considering there are hundreds of thousands of active military personnel that are federal employees.

    And you think Microsoft employees are more productive than our heros? How dare you.

    1. An interesting retort… yet I feel obliged to point out a couple of problems with it.

      A) Most statistical analyses (such as this) that I’ve seen tend to separate out Military Personnel (active duty, retired, etc.) from Civilian Federal Employees.

      B) Few would argue that younger active duty military personnel are over-paid, and nobody has ever argued that hazard pay (tax-free boost of income while in deployed in danger zones) is too generous.

      C) As effective and incredible as our military men and women are (heck, I couldn’t do what they do!), they are not ‘productive’ in the economic sense. Microsoft and the other private companies on the chart above produce and sell various goods and services, for which they are compensated in the market. Military personnel provide a valuable and important service, and are compensated, but that system is distinct from the economic markets being discussed.

      D) If we stipulate that the military is wonderful and awesome and worth more respect than I can adequately put into words, do you have any comment on the actual meat of Mr. Biggs’ post? (IE: non-military Federal employees are neither productive nor underpaid)

    2. Andrew Biggs

      JL: Members of the military aren’t included in the salary figures I cite, nor are they included in any of the work I’ve done on federal pay.

  3. Dave Moskos

    ‘Federal employees are more productive than the average private sector worker, due to their greater education and experience’. Ha!!!! That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. I worked for the Department of Labor for about 2.5 years out of college and I have seen more productive manniquens at the mall. Seriously, that is one of the reasons I left is because of feeling like I didn’t deserve such high pay and for other reasons of course. Working for the federal government use to be an honor but today I would say it is an embarassment.

  4. What a load of el-toro-poopoo! What they do not tell you is this average includes the government employee SES or Senior Executive Service salaries, state and local government salaries as well but doesn’t include private sector Executive Salaries. If you compare apples to apples, state and local government employees do average higher versus private sector when comparing like jobs because of Union influence at the state and local level. Now if you compare federal employees (Hourly and SES) against private sector employees (hourly and Executive) average salaries then federal workers are actually underpaid versus their private sector counterparts. I actually had to take a 35K per year pay cut when I decided I wanted to make a difference in Veteran’s lives and went to work for the Veterans Affairs Administration. Even with that 35k more job in the private sector my company was still underpaying me. So stop spewing the half truths and tell the whole story. Yes the Federal State and Local governments have become to large and intrusive in our everyday lives but federal employee salaries are a very small part of that overall monstrosity we call the federal budget.

    1. Andrew Biggs

      Dennis — Not to overstate the relevance of a single example, but wouldn’t omitting senior executives at Microsoft in the CNN average actually strengthen the point, since it shows that the comparison is more toward a typical Microsoft employee and not toward an average driven up by a small number of really highly paid executives?

      1. That is the point. Private sector executives pay is not included in the numbers of the private sector but their equivalent counterpart is included on the public sector side. This skews the average dramatically. if a comparison is being done it should actually be three types and then by job comparison. The two types should be Executive comparison pay, non executive pay and then a average of both on each side.

        1. It is also important to include stock options available in the private sector and not available in the public sector. Exercising stock options that are available to a private sector employee simply because he/she works for said company is income and that income is not not available to public sector.

          1. Andrew Biggs

            Very few private sector workers have access to stock options — around 8% overall ( and as BLS points out, “having access to stock options differs considerably from actually receiving them.” So we don’t have a great idea of how many people really have stock options and what they’re worth, but I really, really doubt it would affect the results very much. Federal employees, I’ve noticed, seem to think that every private sector worker gets stock options when actually it’s not that common.

      2. Dave Larochelle

        Mr Biggs, the fact that you left executive pay out of the comparison skews the private sector pay downward. The fact that you and others advocating lower federal pay compare “averages” also skews compensation. One CANNOT compare averages, the results are useless. You cannot compare a doctor at the the VA or Center for Disease with a worker at McDonalds. Job classification comparisons indicate many federal positions are underpaid. Sure some are overpaid, mostly in the lower clerical positions. Try telling the seven CIA operatives’ families that they are overpaid. Compare apples to apples please.

  5. Andrew – do the numbers you cite for federal employee pay averages vs private sector include all salaries and bonuses – Federal government SES and non SES vs. Private sector Executives and non executives?

    1. Andrew Biggs

      Dennis, I don’t believe they include bonuses on either side, but the private sector numbers don’t include senior executive pay at all. They’re more for the typical (as defined by CNN) employee at the company. If you did include private sector salaries/bonuses for senior executives then the Microsoft average would go up, presumably by a lot. But that’s the difference between the median and the mean. In other words, what these (admittedly non-scientific) numbers show is that a typical federal employee receives about the same pay as a typical Microsoft employee. Maybe they have the same skill levels as well, but overall I kind of doubt it.

      1. Then the whole mean and median is flawed because two dissimilar groups are being compared. That is the whole point of my comment. You cannot legitimately compare an average of all federal salaries against the average salaries of just part of the private sector, especially when you include the highest earners in the federal group but exclude them in the private group.

        1. There is also another flaw in the “non study” and that is entire compensation is taken into account on the public side but not on the private side. Again the whole comparison is designed to skew and favor one point of view and is not legitimate.

          1. Yes. Pay = salary compensation.

            According to Microsoft’s latest annual report, in 2011 they paid out $2.1 billion in ‘stock-based compensation’ to their employees (note that they’re not called “stock options” anymore by most companies). The company currently pays 100% of health care costs for its employees, which also has to be quite expensive – enough so that they are ending 100% coverage next year. It’s very much apples and oranges to compare pay+compensation for federal workers to only base pay for private industry workers.

          2. Sorry, should be a “not equals” sign between ‘salary’ and ‘compensation’ in the first line of my reply, appears the blogging software rendered it as an HTML tag.

          3. After looking at the CNN/Fortune survey methodology at their “pay” figures are for “Average annual pay: yearly pay rate plus additional cash compensation for the largest classification of full-time salaried and hourly employees.” It is unclear if “additional cash compensation” includes all benefits to employees, is just cash bonuses, or some mixture.

  6. james jones

    does this include USPS workers?

    “When high federal pay is pointed out, public employee unions counter that federal employees are more productive than the average private sector worker, due to their greater education and experience”

    ive yet to see more lazier workers than at my local USPS branch (mind you, the rockefeller center one in NYC, which is one of the major ones in the country)

  7. I submit that the wrong comparison is being made. I believe that if salaries of federal employees are to be compared to anything, they should be compared to those of similar size companies that do similar work and provide the temp employees that the federal govt uses. Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, L3, Booz Allen, Etc.

    To include all the SES employees into the federal sample (most of who make less then $175K annually) and not include the Senior Executives with similar responsibilities in the private sector severely skews the comparison of average to average.

    Another thing that I believe severely skews the total cost of ownership of the federal side of things is that I believe that the “fluff” built into costs on the federal side is due to lack of efficiencies. I worked in the private sector for seven years as an executive after I retired from the military and did a lot of hiring of personnel. I can say that the benefits and salaries we offered to our employees were actually better (other then the pension) than what the federal govt offers and our costs were RADICALLY lower. Far lower than the cost of the pension explains.

    As another anecdotal incident, I too took a $35K pay cut to work in the federal service a couple of years ago, and my benefits aren’t truly comparable. It may have something to do with me being in the IT field where I haven’t ever seen pay parity with the private sector for the equivalent position and skill.

  8. That Heritage foundation study said that almost 1/3 of the federal benefits premium was job security (i.e low risk of layoffs). That’s pretty problematic to begin with, and it makes it almost impossible to compare to a specific company. You either have to discount it completely, in which case average federal employee compensation is at least $20K less than Microsoft’s, or you have to figure out what the job security premium or discount is for the company–since companies that compensate their employees really highly have a lower risk of layoffs, they’ll all going to have a job security premium that’s pretty close to the federal government’s.

    1. Andrew Biggs

      The figures I cited here did not include the value of job security; they’re salary and benefits only.

  9. Tina McNeil

    I truly doubt that most federal employees are more educated and more experienced. They attend the same schools and make the same grades as the rest of the population. They just happened to apply for a federal government job and get hired. That statement was a stupid argument. You also have an added problem with a federal employee in that once they are hired, it’s next to impossible to get them fired, due to the fact that the union protects them, whereas in private business, if you don’t perform as expected, you’re fired. Another point needs to be made on the Federal payscale. I may be wrong here, but I believe that a federal employee of a , say Grade 13, is paid the same amount whether they live in Peoria, IL or Ville Platte, LA. The scale is therefor set so that a person can make a living wage no matter how high the cost of living is. Since many Federal employees reside in and around the DC area, that pay must be higher than average for them, so it’s higher than average everywhere.

    1. That CNN article talks about average salary, but you’re comparing it to total federal salary and benefits. Those aren’t the same things.

    2. pbcrabshaw

      No, fed salary is not the same everywhere in the U.S. It is much higher in DC then it is in the rest of the U.S. For instance a G.S 13 in DC makes about 8 grand a year more than some one in the RUS (Rest of United States) category.

    3. James70094

      You are wrong about a few things. First, Unions ensure employees get fair treatment. There is a protocol for firing people who do not perform. That person is first placed on a PIP (performance Improvement Plan) at the end of which, they have either inmproved and can continue employment or they have not and employment is terminated. I have seen dozens of people fired for poor performance in the past 3 years. Second, pay is adjusted for locality. Meaning if you live in a high cost area like Los Angeles or Washington DC, you get paid more than someone working in New Orleans or Baton Rouge even though you are the same pay grade. Third, there are unions in the private sector that protect employees much more than any government union. Autoworkers, plumbers and electricians are just a few who have unions that work to protect their employment.

    4. Tina you can’t really make a statement about the education and experience of federal employees if you really have no idea what you you are talking about. There are many different areas of government that people can work that are not just limited to administration, like for instance medical and engineering, and these people would have to go to medical school and probably have advanced degrees in engineering, so they wouldn’t go to the same schools and get the same grades as the rest of the population. As far as we just happened to apply for a federal job and get hired, we are hired to do a specific job because of our experience and education. You make it sound like luck, we just walk in file out a form and we get hired. Everyone is free to apply for a Federal job. I can’t understand why federal employees are being targeted. When the economy was good and everyone was thriving in their private sector job getting bonuses and huge raises no one was complaining, now everyone points a finger at federal employees, why? When all this was going on, we weren’t getting that. Federal employees don’t get raises and promotions and bonuses like in the private sector. If we complained about that we were told to if you want to make that kind of money then leave the government. They choose not to work for the government, why should we be demonized for it. And you are wrong about the pay-scale. If you are a GS-13 in AZ and in DC you are paid the same base salary, but you are paid locality pay and this is based on the cost of living in the area where you work and reside, so someone living in AZ is not going to make the same amount overall as a person living in DC.

  10. I started my federal employment in October 2009. My pay was actually lower than my private employment when the locality was considered. On top of that I lost the potential bonus of up to 20% of the salary.
    One benefit for federal employment is that I have better health insurance. My private employment also has pension plan which I did not have to contribute although it is less generous. The big advantage for federal employment is job security. This is all.

  11. By the way, I have a PH.D. degree as a federal employee. Most of my colleagues have at least undergraduate degrees. Quite of few of them have Ph.D. degrees. I have never had so many coworkers with Ph.D. degrees except in universities.

  12. This guy Biggs looks familiar. Did he not testify before Ross’s committee to reduce federal pensions last week? Check it out on YouTube. I apologize in advance if I’m mistaken.

  13. shumanthehuman

    I was a government employee early in my career. I think many bureaucrats develop a fear that they could not compete in the private sector, which may explain why they react so aggressively when their comfortable status quo is challenged.

    Perhaps that fear is justified after they have spent years adapting to the public sector bureaucracy that does not reward individual initiative, values inefficiency, and rewards the ability to consume one’s entire budget every year rather than finding ways to streamline and do more with less.

    I also remember a culture that had a distinct “us vs. them” attitude when it came to the public. The allegience of agency folk seemed to be more to themselves and whatever resource or sector they were charged with “owning” then to the public who supplied the revenues to support their activities.

    This is consistent with the attitude toward the taxpaying private sector we see exhibited by the ultimate Big Government promoter, Barack Obama. Taxpayers are just lambs to be fleeced. If government is spending too much for the available revenues, it’s because the lambs aren’t giving their “fair share”.

  14. pbcrabshaw

    Article claims that the average federal salary is around $75,000. I don’t know how it was calculated, but to make that salary a federal employee in most of the U.S. would need to be a GS 12 step 4. I guarantee that the average fed is no where near that grade/step. Let me see what the average grade of a federal employee is and I’ll decide if it seems they make too much money. I’m guessing that some kind of arithmetic mean, skewed by the high salaries of presidential appointees and congressional staffers, was used to arrive at the “average” salary. Most feds make no where near that kind of pay.

    1. Andrew Biggs

      High salaries for top executives obviously would push the average up, but a) there aren’t that many political appointees, SES, etc., and b) the mean federal wage isn’t that far above the median. So I take your point, but in practice it doesn’t generate a big difference.

      1. Did the study exclude the salaries of top executives for private companies and include the salaires of top federal executives?

  15. Mr. Biggs,

    There is something wrong with your analysis. On 18 January the Wall Street Journal reported that the average pay at Goldman Sachs was $367,057 in 2011, which they also reported was down from $430,700 the previous year. The chart above shows total compensation at Goldman Sachs at less than $150,000. Perhpas your figures don’t include bonuses, which are very small for Federal Employees. If you did not include bonuses, your analysis is worthless.

    1. Andrew Biggs

      I believe the CNN figures exclude top executives, who obviously would push the average higher. So the CNN figures are close to a median or typical employee at a given company, which (as I noted in a different response) may strengthen the point of the blog.

      1. Mr. Biggs, in your analysis of the average federal pay, does it also exclude “top excutives” in the federal work force? If so, wouldn’t that lower the federal average too?

        1. Does the study exclude the pay for top federal AND private executives? The average federal employee these days is well-educated and takes a federal position understanding they are making a choice between the possibility of very high total compensation in the private sector, or the stability of a federal position with much lower compensation potential. This is why I took a pay cut to become a federal employee and earn a fraction of the total compensation of my college classmates in the private sector.

  16. I think problem is not a governmaent job, problem is that privete sectors do not want pay good money to their employees. another thing is people should not blame gov workers, do not be jelous just apply for job. i dont think that avarage emps making 75k, not true, i would say 35-40k

  17. BigCheese

    What a pile of cr*p. You totally skewed, if not outright lied, statistics to come up with your worthless conclusion and whatever mission you’re on. I don’t even know why I bothered to read this junk.

  18. Using your mixed up logic, federal employees would still be overpaid if they were paid nothing, because of the value of all their “benefits.”

  19. Quite amusing that Mr Biggs questions if federal employees are more productive than Microsoft employees. Considering how Microsoft continues to lose market shares and is losing it’s grip on the computer OS market, I would have to say yes, federal employees are more productive.

  20. Mr Biggs also forgot to mention that over half of the employees in Microsoft work in foreign countries where pay and benefits are lower. He needs to compare apples to apples with regards to just American workers. He will find out that the total pay and benefits for Microsoft workers in the US is twice as high as federal employees. Hate when people massage the facts.

    1. Andrew Biggs

      I’m pretty confident the CNN figures are for US employees.

  21. The more I read this the more mad I get. I personally know and work with people in IT from Microsoft and the Federal Government, their pay and how efficient and knowledgeable they are. This article is rubbish.

  22. Mr. Biggs has it in for federal employees because it was evident that he was an absolute joke during his tenure at the Social Security Administration, where Bush appointed him on a recess appointment during his failed social security privatization scheme. Biggs was run out of the Social Security Administration in disgrace (ask anyone in “the know”). He appears to still remain bitter.

    What’s wrong, pray tell Mr. Biggs, with professional federal employees being paid on par with highly skilled workers in similar fields? Also, note the fact that he’s comparing average pay at Microsoft to average TOTAL COMPENSATION with the federal government. He also neglects to state that federal workers are mostly concentrated in and around high cost Washington D.C.

    As Mr. Biggs is undoubtedly aware from his own meager salary as DCOSS at SSA in comparison to the exorbitant salary he is certainly now making on the Koch Brothers payroll, federal employees are most certainly underpaid. The only reason this is even an issue right now is the right wingers want to distract the country from the fact that CEO pay is now at record highs despite the current crisis. Therefore, they invent fantasies where federal employees are living high on the hog on $75,000 in Washington D.C. (what a joke).

    1. Andrew Biggs

      Dear Mr. Mackay: The CNN Money figures are for total compensation, including benefits. As for my own salary, I took a very significant pay cut upon leaving the federal government.

      1. I took a pay cut going into Federal service. Don’t blame us Feds for your poor negotiating skills.

  23. Not sure if it has been done but….about about half of the civil service isn’t on the GS scale….how does that effect the calculation? Congress has given many agencies the authority to set pay themselves, which resulted in far higher pay for Federal employees. Even though DoD has returned to the “normal” pay schedule, there were many people who were over the normal pay for their grade.
    Also, the bump for job security is bogus.

  24. GovtAuditor

    Mr. Biggs is a flame baiter and inciter. His “facts” are incorrect and he only writes his drivel to instigate rebuttals and to be used as arguments by the people that watch Fox news all day. I just checked my earnings and leave slip and although I believe that my benefits are very high, they only come out to 34%, not 75% of my pay. He must be talking about the “derived benefit” I get for working in this 100 year old building with inadequate heating and cooling that the federal government cannot afford to bring up to 20th century standards. The only extra benefit I see is that I am working for the Army and doing my duty for my country to keep it safe for idiots like Mr. Biggs.

  25. Something that is also missing here is that federal employees are forbidden by law from going on strike. USPS may be the exception because of their “unique” characterization.

    Remember the air traffic controllers and what Pres Reagan had to do because both sides ended up backing themselves into a corner? Remember the consequences of that action. If we do not rmember our history we are doomed to repeat it.

  26. I sent this to Congressman Paul:

    Dear Representative Paul,

    Although I agree with a lot of your plan (I’ve only read synopses), it is with extreme dismay that I have heard of plans to freeze federal salaries for X# years and/or cut their pay. Yet federal contractors will get raises even though their pay already exceeds federal pay for equivalent jobs in the same area. Freezing pay for X# yrs even though property & state taxes, food, gas, and all other expenses are increasing at an ever faster rate is an abominable way to treat employees. Eliminate Departments and Agencies to save the money but then treat your remaining employees decently!!! Congress needs to do an “Undercover Boss” episode. I am a retired (conservative, Tea Party member) federal employee whose 42 yr career was in test and evaluation of Navy aircraft and weapons systems. Believe me, DoD Feds are NOT OVERPAID!!!!

    Comparing average federal salaries to the average US salary is comparing apples to oranges. The Navy organization I worked for has virtually no government public works personnel (gardeners, janitors, building maintenance, etc.) except for contract administrators. Most government technicians are gone. Government supply department personnel (warehouse workers, etc.) are mostly gone. There are no government fast food or cafeteria workers. They have eliminated virtually all government secretarial and administrative support positions – like the aforementioned jobs, almost all have been contracted out. I also believe that studies have proved contracting out to be a false savings as after the initial low-bid contact that beat out civil service costs the new contracts rise faster than civil service costs would have. We also have no salesmen or sales clerks like the rest of the US. We’ve necked down to almost all highly specialized, technically degreed personnel and a high percentage of those personnel have advanced degrees. This greatly exceeds the “average US” education, experience, and ease of replacement. I have a feeling those agencies whose salaries fall outside the “standard” civil service pay schedule (such as Fannie May, Freddy Mac, the SEC, and the Federal Reserve) are a major contributor to the perceived pay imbalance. Their similar jobs in the “average US” pay as much or more only as they’re a much smaller percentage of the “average US” they don’t impact the “average US” as much. Your Heritage numbers are extremely biased, they’re presenting the data so as to draw a false conclusion in a manner similar to the way Al Gore treats “global warming” data (and I have an email response from Heritage admitting such).

    Again, I am a retired federal employee whose career was in test and evaluation of Navy aircraft and weapons systems. A large number of my co-workers left over the years for industry at a 20-30% pay raise (for less responsibility) or more. One left for a 25% raise, I got his job (lead engineer for an aircraft T&E program), and he became a contractor on the program with a fraction of the responsibilities (data analyst). In 2009 I (as a program manager) had to pay $10,000/week/person (their approved rates which I couldn’t change) for support from a prime contractor to fix the mistakes they made in their product (which incensed me). The contract was written before I got the job (and their contracts people always seem to outsmart ours). How much is that per year (when our people developed as many fixes as they did)? The company got/gets paid that $520K per manyear fixing something that never should have been delivered in the first place! And by the way, we found (find) lots of major mistakes in the aircraft and weapons systems the contractors sell us which supposedly are ready for the fleet.

    Federal Civil Service employees and retirees pay 25% of their health insurance costs and most plans carry considerable copays for visits, hospital care, and medicine. Due to Obamacare, I’m paying 10% more per month for my HMO insurance and 20%+ for copays in 2011. I also paid 7% of my salary towards my pension (old plan). I am not eligible for Social Security (I only had 8 quarters) nor do I get spousal Social Security (which I could get had I not worked for the US but laid around the house). I paid for my life insurance (although it was a group policy which helped costs) while major companies gave it to their employees for free. I’m not complaining about Federal benefits (which I believe are reasonable for an employee of a major organization), but most non-federal union employees contribute much less for the same or better benefits – except for leave. And my retirement plan – CSRS – is in excellent fiscal shape as opposed to those other plans.

    I will admit some of the reasons I stayed included job security (which no longer exists), the pension (I worked till over age 63 with just short of 42 years in although I could have retired at 55) (and which has been changed for new employees), but most of all the job(s) that I had over the years (the test pilots and the future astronauts I worked with, the technology (unbelievable!), etc.). So I stayed and willingly and knowingly accepted LESS pay than the contractors got. I felt that what I was doing was vital to the security of the US, was constitutionally valid, and was personally rewarding on many levels (not including pay). There are many, many things wrong with federal service, but the pay for technically degreed DoD personnel is not one of them.

    So why do so many people want to cut or freeze DoD salaries (among others)? Conservatives that are fixated on federal salaries need to stop the class warfare and demagoguery – we complain when the Democrats do it. Please think – don’t just blindly accept numbers from people who know the results they want (on both sides) without researching the facts and methodology.

    You want to save federal costs? Eliminate the EPA and DoE (really the Department of Non-Energy). That’d give both a major savings in federal costs and a major boost to the economy. Eliminate the Education, Labor, and Housing and Urban Development Departments. Go to a flat tax or, preferably, the Fairtax and eliminate 90% of the IRS. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan has good ideas (although the FairTax is the best).

    Any proposed across the board federal pay cut or freeze is poorly conceived and wrong.

  27. As others have stated, you cannot simply compare averages. The Federal Government contracts almost all of its lower paid positions, including janitorial and data analyst employees. The pay for these employees is not included in government worker pay and would bring the “average” down significantly were it included in this number. I assume Microsoft outsources their janitorial staff, but I doubt they do the same for those doing the mass-number crunching at the lower end of their pay scale. These are not the only two positions contracted out by the government, and they account for an extremely large percentage of the government workplace. The ‘higher paid’ government jobs are all a B.A., Masters, or PhD in a pertinent field. As someone else stated, your comparison is useless until you are comparing apples to apples.

    This comparison is flawed on so many levels, but since others have mentioned most of them, I will stop now.

    This article would be more useful as an example of how not to let public perception shape the outcome of a ‘study’.

  28. As a federal employee in law enforcement, I’d say that compensation is in line with education and experience in my agency. There are feds who put their lives on the line everyday, and are proud to serve their country. This author, and others like him, like to use gross generalizations and flawed comparisons to serve a general narrative. That is, that Government is bloated and all Federal employees are overpaid and lazy. Rather than focus in on the specific inefficiencies of Government, and eliminate the unnecessarily or undesired programs to cut costs, the author chooses to throw out “red meat” to tea partiers and Fox News viewers. It serves as a tried and true sermon in the Church of the Permanent Rage.

    Federal employees are entering the second year of no pay raises, which is effectively a pay cut with inflation. With retirements and hiring freezes, we’ll see the average compensation drop over the next several years. For years becoming a Federal employee was undesirable because of lower pay in comparison to private sector jobs. Now that we have a permanent 25% underemployment in prolonged recessionary environment, it’s become popular to go after civil servants who gave up higher compensation for many years in exchange for perceived stability. Seems that some don’t really like the vagaries of the private enterprise after all.

    If you want to reduce the cost of bloated Government, do it by cutting programs, not by demonizing the people who happen to work (and pay taxes) in the service of their country. The entire discretionary budget for civilian federal programs represents only 12% of the overall budget for our Government. That means you could completely eliminate all non-defense and entitlement programs and we’d still be running huge deficits. If you want to stop bankrupting the Government you need to reduce defense and entitlements, not attempt to demonize civil servants. But, then that doesn’t serve the narrative, does it?

    1. Since 1992 a total of 2,956 federal workers have died in the line of duty, with the overwhelming majority of them being in iraq and afghanistan. This is an old number. It does not include the firefighters who died fighting fires since or the ranger who fell 1000 feet to his death while trying to rescue some stranded climbers in the Pacific Northwest.

  29. So in the end what is the point of this? Why is it wrong for government workers to be compared to Microsoft workers as far as pay? Why shouldn’t educated and experienced federal employees be paid a comparable salary? I would still like to know where they are getting these figures for the average federal salary. And where were our advocates when the private sector workers where making 5 times what we were and receiving bonuses, stock options, and quarterly raises? Is it because we are paid with tax payer money?

  30. As a federal employee at the GS 9 level my base annual pay is 45,718.00. GS pay scale is a matter of public record and can be found running a simple search. How that translates into 133,000 I have yet to see and I have been in government service for 30 years. Most government employess are not as high as GS 9. A large group are GS 5 or 6. even alot less. You should get your facts straight if you want to make this kind of comment….

  31. Did the author even read the white paper he is referencing? It states a 17% fringe benefit of “extra job security” on page 1. What kind of BS financial benefit is that?

    On page 2 of the white paper the author states the following:
    “Federal salaries are significantly higher on average than private sector salaries, but this comparison is simplistic and misleading. Since federal workers have more skills and experience on average than private workers, we would expect federal salaries to be higher. The relevant question is whether federal workers earn more than comparable private sector workers.”

    Yet the author of this blog post ignores this pertenant fact.

    The meat of the “complaint” against federal salaries is the statement on page 3 that federal workers earn 1.1 – 1.2 times what a comparable private employedd makes. This was cite #4 the Handbook of Labor Economics. I have no reason to believe this has bias behind it or not so I will agree with it for the sake of argument. Now factor in the cost of living in the areas where the majority of government workers are located is almost certainly GREATER than 1.1-1.2 times the national average and the entire point of this blog post is nullified.

    Other variables considered in the white paper that cause the statistics to be skewed further:
    “In addition to dummy variables for federal, state, and local government employment, we used the following controls: usual hours worked per week, experience,6 experience-squared to account for non-linear effects, years of education, firm size (6 categories), broad occupation (10 categories), immigration status, state of residence, race, gender, marital status, and year dummies to account for inflation. We also included interaction terms: experience x education, experience-squared x education, marital status x gender, and gender x race.”

    Basically they weighted all of these variables regardless of their quantitativeness. Sounds scientific to me.

    On page 6 of the white paper, there is a table identifying education and experience to compensation. A high school education gave a 22.3% increase according to the skewed data. Where a college/graduate degree earned only a 7.7-3.9% difference respectively. That is SIGNIFICANTLY lower. You want to take money away from the high school educated person earning probably around 30-40k a year?

    Finally, further down in the article, (page 9) it lists a “fringe benefit” particularly in DC of being promoted faster and to a higher level of responsibility in the federal work force than in the private work force. Maybe that is b/c they pay you next to nothing in skilled positions when you first start, so they have to promote you fast to get you to stay. The article also states that for the same type of responsibility the federal worker makes LESS than the private counterpart but is underqualified by comparison. So how is that a benefit to the federal worker? They have to do the same amount of work and struggle with the tasks and are paid less. Souds awesome to me…

    After that starts the “Benefits” part of the article and I couldn’t stand reading any more of it. These beneifts are almost entirely non-quantitative by nature and yet they are factored in to government compensation. In short, statistics are used to prove whatever point you set your mind to. Maybe we should focus on the other 98% of the federal budget b/c federal employee salaries and expenses account for roughly 2% of our budget.

    1. Oh and don’t miss the part of the article that tries to quantify the $$ amount you can associate with “Job Security”. What the heck is that? That isn’t worth money. Another perceived benefit: being able to contribute to a 401k (TSP in government) that is based on savings bond rates and security. Are you kidding me?? WOW it is really great I can invest my 401k in a 0.5% rate of return option. Every american can invest their money in different ways in preparation for retirement. On this same subject, this data includes $$ value of being in FERS (Pension for Civil Servants). Except this system is no longer available to employees, but is grandfathered in to those that entered into it over 15-20 years ago. Seeing as how almost all of these individuals are nearing retirement and not coincidentally earn a higher salary, it is a VERY poor predicator on the trend in salaries of the Government vs Private sector employees.

    2. Two recent government/private worker total compensation studies, one just released by the CBO (federal workers) and and earlier one by the Dept. of Labor (state workers) clearly show that the premium for government employees is independent of comparable job catgegories. That is, it does NOT go away when you control for job category. These studies compare total compensation (salaries and beiefits) and also compare its components. The evidence is clear that government workers are compensated at a level significantly higher than private sector workers, on average in the US. While there are undoubtably some local and state variations, the main finding stands.

      1. The AEI study (June 2011) of federal and private sector compensation is also very complete and very informative on this issue. To see it, click on “… about 76 percent of salaries” in red the first paragraph above.

      2. Are you talking federal pay and pensions? I made $7200 as a beginning graduate nuclear engineer while the average grad from my school was making “$12000 a year. I topped out at $60,927. My son also an engineer in the private sector started at $70K. Now if you are talking local pay and pension l- not federal you might have something. My takehome pension after taxes, health insurance and life insurance are taken out is $1756 a month. My shipyard got closed and I retired early. The local police chief’s pension in the 60,000 person town in which I live is $130K a year and 4 police sergeants in my town made more money than a federal employee, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet feds are overpaid? I don’t think so. I think the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court should make more money that 4 police sergeants in this town.

  32. As a followup, I feel obligated to say that I am an federal employee with a BS in Accounting and a BS in Information Technology and work in the DC metro area. I am also a conservative and believe in a limited government and reducing our federal spending. Federal employee salaries/expenses is NOT the problem. Why are we focusing on roughly 2% of the total spending of our government when we have 80% of the budget wrapped up in 4-5 programs. (SS, Medicare, Defense, and Interest on the Debt. I can’t remember the 5th one.) Why aren’t we complaining about the theft of the SS trust fund by it’s inclusion in the US General Fund? What benefits do people perceive governement workers receive? The only benefit I receive from my employment is my salary. It pays for every high cost commodity in DC including higher costs in housing, transportation, food, utilities, taxes (Montgomery Co, MD) and everything else. The starting salary today in the DC area with our cost of living for IT Professionals and Accountants is 42,209. That is a GS-07 with the DC locality rate. The average starting salary in the same fields in the DC Metro area are between 50 and 80k in the private sector. So I find “statistics” used by bloggers highly suspect and believe them to be a gross generalization of the facts used to ignore the real problem, to shift blame and to demonize a group of people trying to do the same as the rest of the working middle class…which is provide as best we can for our families. Lord knows it isn’t cheap to do that around here.

    1. Andrew Biggs


      You’re right that this stuff isn’t straightforward, and a comparison to Microsoft employees is really just an example that doesn’t prove anything. However, the CBO report that came out yesterday confirms a lot of what was in the AEI paper I did with Jason Richwine. It’s worth checking out.

  33. King Albert

    As has been mentioned before, the CBO & Labor Dept comparisons are based on actual job positions, not averages, and they still found a premium paid for govt jobs (although it’s not flat for all positions).

    With regards to microsoft/intel, they don’t have any (or hardly any) lowly positions, almost everyone at the company has a ba/ms/phd and they still get paid less. Why don’t those defending the pay scale try pointing to their studies so we can pick those apart.

    1. TheoRealist

      King Albert–not true. Microsoft has thousands of heads-down developers without college degrees.

      1. You claim thousands of heads-down developers without college degrees at Microsoft. This is the kind of comment that you can find everyone on the Internet. It is FALSE. Microsoft recruits heavily from Carnegie Mellon, MIT and Georgia Tech plus a few other top-tier technical universities. You might have been correct in the 1980s but I worked there in the 1990s and interviewed/recruited more than 150 people and only a couple of administrative assistants had less than a bachelors degree. If only there were a penalty for false information on the Internet…

  34. government workers are actually earning almost double in most cases when you count their paid holidays, overtime pay, family healthcare, defined benefit contribution plans, etc. etc.

    instant millionaire status upon retiring….

    sweet gig if you can get it while it lasts….

    1. instant millionaire….yeah right….paid holidays, overtime pay, healthcare….most companies pay this also….i will give you matching retirement pay up to 3%….but seriously, millionaire status….not even close….

      want to talk about government salaries….hmmm, lets talk about congress, are they included in this study? Lets look at their health benefits, i bet theirs is better than anyone in the country..retirement? lets look at what their retirement is…better than anyone in the country….vote to give themselves a pay raise….dont know any company in the world that does that….

      sure, millionaire status, maybe for congress, maybe upper management, and maybe air traffic controllers…..people want to keep bashing on the government employee…lets get specific….as far as statistics go….what do you want to prove….i can make a statistic say whatever i want to prove…

      Over the years most government employees have seen their benefits shrink, less choices for healthcare….so a sweet gig….maybe in the past or maybe for the upper management….not so much for lower tiered workers…which is a bigger portion than the latter…….want to hold someone accountable….lets start with congress….then work our way out….average salary for senator….150,000 plus, lets add the healthcare they get….might as well tack on another 80-100 thousand dollars… most senators salary and benefits is reaching the quarter million dollar status….now multiply that by 100 that is what the people are paying for just in senators a year…we havent looked at the representatives….and how much is cost the people to pay their salaries……

      want to get real…lets get real….

      1. Most Senators have advance degrees so even @ $250K/yr, they’re sacrificing to be in the public sector. It burns me that toll collectors can make over $100K + benefits
        ( )

    2. TheoRealist

      TommyJ, all of the things you mentioned are *ALREADY INCLUDED* in the supposed $133k figure. And there are so many problems with that it’s ridiculous. For example, it lumps in about $26 billion in payments to retirees as part of compensation for *CURRENT* employees. The real number is closer to $110k.

      Also, the figure for Microsoft doesn’t include *EXECUTIVE* pay, and the Federal compensation number *DOES*. For example–do you *really* think the $199k that a Cabinet member earns is similar to what the CFO or COO of Microsoft gets paid???

      Your attack on Federal compensation is a paper tiger.

    3. Overtime pay? 10 years in as an engineer in DC and I’ve never seen such a thing. I pay nearly $6K/year in insurance premiums to cover myself and my spouse, too. And I defy you to find me ten feds rendered millionaires upon retirement. I’ve not met them. Where exactly are YOU meeting them?

    4. I’m a retired federal nuclear engineer with a take home pension of $1756 a month for which I contributed 7+%. My brother-in-law grocer brings home $2150 a month from Social Security plus a union pension. I started working for the government in 1972 at $7200 a year as a GS-5. The average graduate from my school, the University of Missouri at Rolla, an engineering school was $12000 a year. I made $4800 a year less than that. I told my engineer son to not go to work for the federal government. So if it was such a sweet gig, why did I give him that advice. He started in the private sector whose contracts are 100% with the U.S. government at $70K. My top pay was $60,927 a year. On top of that you have all these idiots who constantly complain about federal employees. When was the last time you heard people griping about Boeing employees. For that alone, fed employees should be paid putting up with a hole pay.

  35. never heard so much horse puckey in my life as this cry me a river fed employee below…..

    Federal employees are entering the second year of no pay raises, which is effectively a pay cut with inflation. With retirements and hiring freezes, we’ll see the average compensation drop over the next several years. For years becoming a Federal employee was undesirable because of lower pay in comparison to private sector jobs. Now that we have a permanent 25% underemployment in prolonged recessionary environment, it’s become popular to go after civil servants who gave up higher compensation for many years in exchange for perceived stability. Seems that some don’t really like the vagaries of the private enterprise after all.

    1. This is class warfare started by Obama against 1%. Now that it has started look out because you worry that no raise is a cut. No, no job is a cut. Some employees in the private sector took a cut in pay to keep other employees employed. Capitalism works (not crony capitalism) everyone needs to relax and not let our country become divided. We are Americans. Remember when we judge other people’s success we know that other people somewhere are making less and judging anyone that makes more than them as the 1%. That is what is happening to our Fedral Workers. Past decisions have created have and have nots in comparing wages. We look at Greece and go who ever thought that would work. Well it is the same here. We need to create an atmosphere where we are the country with the cheapest energy, best conditions to start a business, and the path of least resistance to build. We can do this in a safe and fair way. We created more government since 1970’s and have cut so many deals that it ruined the middle class. The 1% and Unions cut the deals and government participated. Now with EPA, DOEnergy, DOEducation. Way to big and we need to start over. Just get it over with and give vouchers. ( look at New Orleans)

  36. Class warfare and envy, Andrew Biggs…shame on you!

  37. This is crazy. A lot of the people I work with in the DoD are retired military or prior service military veterans. This means that they bring the skill they acquired while being a war fighter to the position they have as a Civilian working for the Government. Most of us don’t do it for the money, we do it because we enjoy the feeling of serving our country still after serving in the Military. My position in the Bay Area of California paid me in the range of 70K annually, where my counterparts working as Government Contractors made easily twice as much. The civilian sector was much the same, my friends and family always would say I should go work outside, for Yahoo, Google, or any private company to make more money – But its about more than that.

    In the government we take hits all the time. We loose raises, increases everything else to save the tax payers dollar. When we deploy as Civilians into combat zones we still pay taxes where Contractor Employees that are paid in most cases twice as much as us and the soldiers are not. We work hard to be stewards of tax money and not be wasteful where Civilian companies don’t have that problem.

    Working for the Government I know I can never get a huge cash award, stock, anything else that would be a perk in any private company. I’m curious if the problem isn’t that the Government is over paying its people, but if maybe the private sector is underpaying now. Years ago this wasn’t even an issue as everyone was making money hand over fist and laughing at the low pay offered by the Government.

    And to add to this – My wife’s medical insurance from a private company cost less to cover our entire family then it does under my government benefits, so whenever I see posts like this it makes me crazy…

    1. Andrew Biggs

      I understand your points. But also consider that the CBO report found that federal employees retirement package is worth around 3.5 times more than what a similarly educated worker in a large private sector firm receives. And I think that figure probably understates the true federal advantage. That more than makes up for the fact that federal health insurance is less generous than many private sector firms, as well as the many other legitimate issues you raise.

    2. I know of what you speak. I’m a retired federal Nuclear Engineer GS-840-12 whose shipyard was closed. My take home pension is $1756 a month after taxes, health insurance, life insurance and a survivor benefit which will let my wife bring home about $1000 a month when I die. I pay about $400 a month for insurance. The most money I made working as an engineer was $60,927 a month. My son, also an engineer, started with a private sector contractor who gets 100% of its work from the federal government. He started at $70K and is now up to $80K. His pension plan sucks but as for as health insurance goes his plan tops mine. I pay about $400 a month. He pays about $12 a month he says. My plan does not include dental or eyeglasses. His plan includes dental and I’m not sure if it includes eyeglasses or not. The first private sector company he worked with had a 401K plan whose stock was doing very well and they pretty much said if you work for this company for life, you’ll end up a millionaire. Of course he didn’t stay with them as they wanted him to move constantly and he just bought a condo that’s under water.

  38. You guys realize that Microsoft (and other private employers) also give benefits to their employees, right?

    Maybe not as much, proportionally speaking, as public sector, but you can’t just take the public sector’s average wage, add in their average benefits, and then compare it to private companies’ average wages.

    Plus, income is one of those things that doesn’t do well with an average statistic, because it’s so variable. You should be comparing median incomes, not mean incomes.

    But you weren’t interested in a useful comparison, were you? Just rhetoric.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content