[quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor][quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=sdrealtor]But if you perform below average you should fall behind. Its the private sectors way of showing you where the door is without getting sued.[/quote]
ultimately that’s the downfall of the public sector. the pay increases are all set in stone, regardless of performance.[/quote]
I’m pretty familiar with a number of public employers and their compensation numbers. Of the ones I’m familiar with, almost all have had their compensation frozen or seen net decreases in total compensation since about 2008. No net raises in the vast majority of cases. Their compensation has gone down in real terms, and in many cases, in nominal terms.[/quote]
But that’s looking at a short term deviation from the norm secondary to budgetary crisis at all levels of government. Overall, the government employees are significantly overpaid.
“Comparing private and public sector data
Compensation cost levels in state and local government should not be directly compared with levels in
private industry. Differences between these sectors stem from factors such as variation in work
activities and occupational structures. Manufacturing and sales, for example, make up a large part of
private industry work activities but are rare in state and local government. Professional and
administrative support occupations (including teachers) account for two-thirds of the state and local
government workforce, compared with one-half of private industry.”
——————
Here are some articles and studies regarding compensation in the public vs. private sectors:
One comment I have to make about the higher pay for the jobs with fewer degree requirements — many of which are public safety jobs — there are no similar jobs in the private sector with which to compare them.
Not only that, but they mention the much lower turnover rate in many public sectors jobs; this is very important to public employers. The (necessarily) bureaucratic hiring process and extensive initial, and ongoing, training required for these employees is VERY expensive. They cannot afford to have high turnover rates. IMHO, even if they were to go to defined contribution plans (as many suggest), I don’t think they’d end up saving very much (anything?) in the long run. One of the main reasons people are attracted to these jobs is the benefits packages. Take that away, and the turnover rates — and related costs — would be much, much higher.[/quote]
If there are no comparable jobs in the private sector then why do we have to pay them so much? Why would they leave? Where would they go? There are no comparable jobs in the private sector. You just murdered your case. The defense rests.[/quote]
“No comparable jobs,” means no jobs that have the same skill requirements and responsibility/liability levels in the private sector. It doesn’t mean they can’t make more in the private sector (many have made more prior to working in the public sector), but most public employees choose public service because of the benefits/security, not because of the pay. They make less during the “good times” and more during the “bad times,” and this is a calculated decision on their part. It’s also why public sector employees are pissed about being scapegoated for Wall Street’s fVck-ups and having the major PR war being waged against them right when the sacrifices made during the good times are supposed to work in their favor.[/quote]
I call total BS on this. Name 5 jobs that someone without a college education can get that pays over $100K (not commission based) that provides full health benefits, liberal vacation, cost of living raises, full pension with early retirement, stable employment etc. Heck just name 5 that offer that much money and forget the rich benefit package.[/quote]
Perhaps there’s some miscommunication.
You asked for some examples of jobs that can pay $100K+ in the private sector, without requiring a college degree, and I named a few examples (very quickly and easily) off the top of my head. I can find more if you’d like.
You didn’t say that these jobs had to pay $100K+ on the first day (though some do). But public employees don’t make anywhere near $100K on the first day, either; especially not in positions that don’t require degrees.
One more thing…why are we not including commission-based jobs? Those can be some of the most lucrative jobs and often have the fewest requirements WRT education, skills, and experience.
I know a LOT of people who took pay cuts to move from the private sector to the public sector — some took very large cuts. I personally took a 35%+ cut when I went from private to public employment. My dad also took a large cut, and my husband took a (smaller) cut as well. I know many others who took similar pay cuts, too. All did it because of the benefits/security of public employment; they clearly didn’t do it for the pay.
Conversely, a lot of public employees leave public service because of better opportunities in the private sector. It was especially bad during the RE bubble when many people left to become RE agents, mortgage brokers, and house flippers (not kidding). In many departments, that’s why they had to pay so much overtime — there were a lot of vacant positions in the public sector during the bubble, and police and fire departments everywhere were having a difficult time trying to fill them.
BTW, you DO realize that public safety personnel also have to have years of training and experience (usually a couple of promotions, too) before they can make $100K, right? Even after many years of service, most don’t make anywhere near this unless they work a lot of overtime.
Let me turn your argument around on you now. How many people can leave their current jobs and go into a completely different field and make more on day one? If they can’t do this, does that mean they are overpaid?
