President Trump has proposed a one-year pay freeze for federal bureaucrats, which has reinvigorated the debate over whether compensation levels for the civil service are too lavish.
The Washington Post opines this is nothing but “government bashing,” but this chart from my former colleague Chris Edwards should be more than enough evidence to show that federal bureaucrats have a big advantage over workers in the economy’s productive sector.
And there is plenty of additional evidence that federal employment is very attractive. For instance, it’s just about impossible to get fired from a bureaucracy.
Though defenders of the civil service sometimes make the preposterous claim that nobody gets fired because bureaucrats are such good employees.
The low rate at which federal employees are fired for poor performance doesn’t prove the government accepts it but instead “could actually be a positive sign,”… A report from the Merit Systems Protection Board in effect responds to members of Congress
and others who contend that federal managers don’t care, or don’t dare, to take disciplinary action because of civil service protections. “…If the agency is successful in preventing poor performance…, a small number of performance-based removals could actually be a positive sign,” MSPB said. …Of the 2.1 million federal employees in a government database…, about 10,000 are fired for either poor performance or misconduct each year. …That low rate of firing has been cited in proposals to force agencies to take action… Individual employees, too, commonly express dissatisfaction with how agencies handle poor performers among their co-workers.
I have to confess that my jaw dropped when I read this article. Maybe we should ask veterans whether they think all federal bureaucrats do a good job?
Or we can ask non-profit groups whether they think IRS bureaucrats are top-quality workers? Or ask anyone who has ever tried to navigate the federal government?
We also know that the counties where most federal bureaucrats reside are now the richest region of the entire nation.
The three richest counties in the United States with populations of 65,000 or more, when measured by their 2016 median household incomes,
were all suburbs of Washington, D.C., according to data released today by the Census Bureau. Eight of the 20 wealthiest counties with populations of 65,000 or more were also suburbs of Washington, D.C.–as were 10 of the top 25. …With Falls Church City included in the 2015 data, the nation’s four wealthiest counties were D.C. suburbs.
To be fair, this data is also driven by all the high-paid lobbyists. contracts, consultants, and others who have their snouts buried in the federal trough. So the incredible wealth of the DC region is really an argument for shrinking the size and scope of the federal government.
But the bureaucracy is part of the problem.
Interestingly, even the Congressional Budget Office concluded that bureaucrats are overpaid. And CBO almost certainly understated the gap, as noted in congressional testimony.
The CBO report’s headline figure is that, on average, federal salaries and benefits are 17 percent above private-sector levels. … I would consider the CBO’s reported federal compensation premium to be on the low end… when I analyze federal employee wages using the methodology
that the progressive-leaning Economic Policy Institute has used in numerous studies of state and local government salaries, I find an average federal salary premium of not 2 percent but of about 14 percent. … The CBO chose to value federal employees’ pension benefits using a 5 percent discount rate. Using that discount rate, the federal employee retirement package was found to be substantially more generous than is received by comparable private-sector employees. But…corporate pensions are not nearly as safe as federal pensions, as witnessed by pending benefit reductions for “multiemployer” defined benefit plans. Valuing federal pension benefits using a lower discount rate to better reflect their safety would find a higher overall federal compensation premium.
Notwithstanding all this evidence, the unions representing bureaucrats nonetheless try to crank out numbers showing federal employees are underpaid.
To be sure, overall compensation levels don’t tell us everything. It is important to adjust for education, skills, and other factors.
Which is why the most useful, powerful, and revealing data in this debate is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which measures voluntary quit rates by industry. If there is a lot of turnover in a sector of the economy, that suggests workers are underpaid. But if there are very few voluntary departures, that suggests workers in that part of the economy are overpaid.
And the numbers from BLS clearly show that federal bureaucrats are far less likely to leave their positions when compared to employees in the private sector.
This five-fold gap is staggering. I have lots of friends who work for the federal government. Most privately confess that they know that are making out like bandits. I think I’ll send this chart to the few holdouts.
By the way, I shared the numbers about quit rates for state and local bureaucrats back in 2011. Same story, though the compensation gap isn’t quite as large and may be driven mostly by unfunded fringe benefits.
P.S. I’m much more interested in shrinking government rather than shrinking pay levels. The correct pay for bureaucrats at the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Education, Energy, and Agriculture is zero. Why? Because they bureaucracies shouldn’t exist.
[…] secondary problem is that they generally get overcompensated compared to workers in the economy’s productive […]
[…] bureaucrats are overpaid compared to workers in the productive sector of the […]
[…] Department of Labor’s data on voluntary quit rates definitely suggests that bureaucrats (both federal and state/local) have a big compensation advantage over workers in the private […]
[…] mentioned the Labor Department’s JOLT data. Those numbers are also useful if you want proof that federal bureaucrats are overpaid, and you’ll also see that the same thing is true for state and local government […]
[…] mentioned the Labor Department’s JOLT data. Those numbers are also useful if you want proof that federal bureaucrats are overpaid, and you’ll also see that the same thing is true for state and local government […]
[…] mentioned the Labor Department’s JOLT data. Those numbers are also useful if you want proof that federal bureaucrats are overpaid, and you’ll also see that the same thing is true for state and local government […]
[…] mentioned the Labor Department’s JOLT data. Those numbers are also useful if you want proof that federal bureaucrats are overpaid, and you’ll also see that the same thing is true for state and local government […]
[…] the Labor Department’s JOLT data. Those numbers are also useful if you want proof that federal bureaucrats are overpaid, and you’ll also see that the same thing is true for state and local government […]
[…] some libertarian-minded friends in the bowels of various bureaucracies (and they all admit they are overpaid and most acknowledge their comfy jobs shouldn’t […]
[…] 10 years old, but more-recent data further confirms that bureaucrat compensation is […]
[…] all levels of bureaucracy should take a haircut. Bureaucrats already have a significant advantage in compensation compared to the private sector, and that gap surely will grow now that so many […]
[…] all levels of bureaucracy should take a haircut. Bureaucrats already have a significant advantage in compensation compared to the private sector, and that gap surely will grow now that so many […]
[…] public-sector compensation almost 10 years ago, I focused on why it is unfair that bureaucrats get much higher levels of compensation than people working the private […]
[…] the risk of understatement, that wealth is largely unearned. It’s mostly a reflection of overpaid bureaucrats, greedy politicians, fat-cat lobbyists, beltway-bandit contractors, and other insiders who have […]
[…] other words, the legislation is also a back-door vehicle to further enrich a portion of the already-overpaid federal […]
[…] genuine disruption for affected federal bureaucrats, even if they eventually will get full – and lavish – compensation for their involuntary vacations. And some federal contractors are being hit as […]
[…] genuine disruption for affected federal bureaucrats, even if they eventually will get full – and lavish – compensation for their involuntary vacations. And some federal contractors are being hit as […]
[…] disruption for affected federal bureaucrats, even if they eventually will get full – and lavish – compensation for their involuntary vacations. And some federal contractors are being hit as […]
[…] federal employees make much more than folks in the private sector, so I’m mystified why it’s necessary to spend any money to […]
[…] federal employees make much more than folks in the private sector, so I’m mystified why it’s necessary to spend any […]
[…] when I run into someone who denies that bureaucrats get above-market compensation, I simply share this data from the Labor Department. That usually shuts them […]
The problem with this study are all the “apples to oranges” comparisons since what should be compared are the same types of jobs in the private sector that are matched to those in the public sector – preferably in Washington DC. Otherwise, if you’re going to compare salaries in DC to salaries elsewhere, then you must adjust them for the differences in cost of living (which is much higher in DC than the national average).
Private sector unions negotiate for contracts. Public sector unions use their powers of political extortion to gain their virtually automatic periodic pay raises.
Ideally, the federal gov’t must be very small and very lean, and provide only a common defense, guidelines for intrastate infrastructure for transportation, water, energy, communications and commerce,
Taking defense out of the discussion, I pretty much agree, with the above caveat. Oh, there are a few other areas for the Fed’s, areas that are covered in the Constitution but not mentioned in your list. An example is the National Parks Service, BLM, Forest Service, as well as Fish & Wildlife. They are covered by the authority AND responsibility of the Feds to manage/care for Federal assets. Whether all the Federal lands out West SHOULD be in Federal hands is a policy argument, not a Constitutional one. Even the EPA has SOME constitutionally grounded authority. That authority though simply does not extend to being able to tell a homeowner in Hawaii what type of toilet he can purchase. There is ZERO interstate impact on the underlying Fed justification, whether it be commerce or environmental. Some Federal entities though? ZERO Constitutional basis. FEC, HUD, Education, Labor, HHS, SSA, SBA. Others have a nugget of basis, which if all of the nuggets were rolled together you might have a Cabinet Department sized entity. Agriculture, Commerce, Veteran’s Affairs, Energy, Transportation, EPA, FCC, FERC. Last, there’s a plethora of Federal entities that, while they may have solid or soft Constitutional grounding, are duplicating OTHER Federal entities. The clearest examples are the multitudinous Federal law enforcement entities. While whacking the baseless departments and agencies (along with their corresponding laws) will eliminate some LEOs, other redundancies can be eliminated by consolidation. I do NOT propose a single “superFed LEO agency”, just a big time “rationalization.” Note that a Federal gov’t along the lines of what I envision would likely have about 10%-15% the current number of LEOs.
You can either have high wages and benefits or a secure job. Meaning if only a few government workers actually get fired for low performance than their wages should reflect the high job security.
I live in Germany. For decades there was an unwritten law saying that government workers earn below average wages but will get high job security. And yes, that have been true for decades. The average German government worker did indeed earn lower than average wages but had tenure (real tenure or some equivalent).
But times have changed here as well. Today more and more government workers get higher and higher wages and benefits … and job security, too. Unions are to blame for that.
The saddest part is that it is almost impossible to fire low performing workers. They will occupy a place that could be held by somebody more productive what would tax payers save money.
Ideally, the federal gov’t must be very small and very lean, and provide only a common defense, intrastate infrastructure for transportation, water, energy, communications and commerce, and tax the states accordingly for the services it provides to the states. All federal services should be managed by a few bureaucrats and provided by US based contractors. The states should make all decisions according to local needs, including education, infrastructure and taxes. Let the states compete against one-another for industry, skilled labor, tourism, universities.
[…] Dan Mitchell: […]
You have to eliminate Washington DC and New York from the data. These two very expensive areas skew the data. I’m sure this is more misinformation from people with an ideology to grind.
Interesting…fed pay vs. private industry – a different take on it (quit rate)
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:18 AM International Liberty wrote:
> Dan Mitchell posted: “President Trump has proposed a one-year pay freeze > for federal bureaucrats, which has reinvigorated the debate over whether > compensation levels for the civil service are too lavish. The Washington > Post opines this is nothing but “government bashing,” b” >
Depends upon the division at IRS. For the customer service phones, quite a few quit voluntarily. Too many die due to ill health especially with less than 10 years on the job.