Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

King Trump rules against any 2019 raises for civilian employees.

edited August 2018 in Off-Topic
Tax cuts for the rich ,, nothing for civilian federal workers.Let them eat ,,, well let them eat whatever.

Comments

  • @Ted. Thank for the link. Gotta fight those pesky deficits.
  • msf
    edited August 2018
    I'm sure a lot of people here recognize that 2.1% across the board pay increase that was rejected was the inflation rate for 2017 (and 2016). In real terms this amounts to a 2.1% pay cut for all federal workers, instead of their treading water.

    Apparently, if Trump can't fire federal workers, he'll do the next "best" thing and starve them out, drip by drip. Real employers know this is the surest way to be left with the poorest workers, as the better ones leave.
  • In real terms this amounts to a 2.1% pay cut for all federal workers
    Agree.
  • @Sven. True that. And yet many of those workers will vote against their own econont interests. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE? The nerve of trump,,,after slashing revenue, he claims to be concerned about the deficit.
  • To complete @larryB’s thought: chocolate cake with ice cream is what they can eat. Perfect dessert after downing a dozen diet Cokes.
  • It is insane for those Federal workers who would vote for someone who totally lack a sense of decency, let alone honesty. It is a simple math pointed by msf that they are essentially taking a 2.1% pay cut.

    Another proposal is to reduce the Federal worker's retirement benefit. Of course, Paul Ryan, the outgoing speaker got his fingerprints all over it. The reason is that they are over-paid comparing to private sectors.
  • msf said:

    I'm sure a lot of people here recognize that 2.1% across the board pay increase that was rejected was the inflation rate for 2017 (and 2016). In real terms this amounts to a 2.1% pay cut for all federal workers, instead of their treading water.

    Apparently, if Trump can't fire federal workers, he'll do the next "best" thing and starve them out, drip by drip. Real employers know this is the surest way to be left with the poorest workers, as the better ones leave.

    All gov't workers are severely over-compensated already.
  • edited August 2018
    @JoJo26
    All gov't workers are severely over-compensated already.
    No, that's not true. It depends on the education level:
    https://cbo.gov/system/files?file=115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay.pdf
    Federal civilian workers whose highest level of education was a bachelor’s degree earned 5 percent more, on average, in the federal government than in the private sector. Federal civilian workers with no more than a high school education earned 34 percent more, on average, than similar workers in the private sector. By contrast, federal workers with a professional degree or doctorate earned 24 percent less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts. Overall, the federal government would have reduced its spending on wages by 3 percent if it had decreased the pay of its less educated employees and increased the pay of its more educated employees to match the wages of their private-sector counterparts.
  • >> All gov't workers are severely over-compensated already.

    omg, what a stupid thing to write. Do you know a lot of public sector employees? Seriously? How ignorant.
  • edited August 2018
    We got 2%raised last yr working for gov in Austin.... Thx pres trump... Now back to more work and paying more taxes lol
  • I am an ex federal employee (VA). The salaries for professionals ( who need to be recruited) are indeed low compared to civilians. The lower level staff people ( clerks etc) do better, along with a great health care plan extending into retirement if vested. Fortunately the US gov realized back in 1985 that defined benefit plans would bankrupt them so everyone since is in a 401k with some pensions.

    the big problem withe federal workforce is the rules and regs regrading employment and the difficulty in removing poorly preforming employees. It is almost impossible.

    So T***** ( can't bear to even type it) action will only work to chase out the high performers who can get a job elsewhere but leave people who can't leave as they know they would not last in civilian service
  • @sma3. I think the discussion is not so much about the federal work force but the unmitigated audacity to say he was doing this for fiscal reasons. In reality,, the is just another battle in the repuglicans war on poor people,,,like their war on women, people of color, and folks who don't follow the state religion. Who knows who will be next.?
  • "All gov't workers are severely over-compensated already. "

    Only an extremely ignorant person would state that any characteristic of "all" of a very large general class of people is absolutely true or untrue. How stupidly simplistic.

    That's like saying that all people who would make a statement like that are morons.

    On the other hand...
  • As I said earlier in another thread:

    As Ann Telnaes observes....

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/08/16/trump-distracts-whenever-he-feels-threatened/

    ... he'll probably start a war on Saturday to distract from McCain's televised funeral in DC....
Sign In or Register to comment.