Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

bits.enigma.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 132 posts

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#111

Post by RougeFemme »

jlgreco wrote: post #95
MaysonL wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the government already knows, and either your employer or your accountant knows, and your bank has a pretty good idea, why do you think your income is to any meaningful extent still private?

You ever listen to a friend, who has recently hit a rough patch, talking about their difficulty paying their bills and think "gee, this would be a rather inappropriate time to mention how much money I make." ? That is where the desire for wage privacy comes from for me. Talking about how much you make, outside the workplace , has no benefits. It is just going to make the conversation awkward, or somebody is going to…

I think public employees to the public knowing how much a particular job/role at a particular location on the salary ladder at a particular agency. But unless they share their particular role/ladder location with friends, I don't think they are opting into sharing their exact salary; only their salary range.

The people that I know who work for the federal government simply say "I'm a mathematician at NASA", not "I'm a GS-13, Step 4 mathematician and BTW, I got a bonus of X last year."

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#112

Post by RougeFemme »

jonnathanson wrote: post #80
fpp wrote: post #34

Similar data, but still mostly limited to higher pay levels and by government department is available for the UK ( see for example: http://data.gov.uk/dataset/staff-organograms-and-pay-departm... ) a side note: It is generally accepted that the US government pays the highest salaries compared to other government agencies worldwide. This is the reason why the U.N. uses the US government scales and pays as their base (…

My understanding is that US government salaries are high because the US private sector pays so well for comparable positions. The US is in the peculiar business of competing with itself, in a sense, or at least with its own economic model. Private vs. public isn't such a teeth-gnashing, nail-biting dilemma for many other countries, who generally seem to do a better job of mentally separating the two sectors. The gene…

I think the same public/private comparisons for salary, stability, etc. apply in the U.S., at least for some job categories. It's just that, as you said, the private sector pays so well for comparable positions. Salary-wise, I think less skilled position do better with government, but the higher-skilled positions do better in the private sector. If you see a government engineer/scientist/mathematician working alongside a contractor in the same role, the government employee almost always makes less.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#113

Post by Jtsummers »

mpyne wrote: post #92
Jtsummers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, and the comparisons get kind of hairy sometimes. GS-12+ aren't all supervisory, it's possible to have GS-14 and 15s that are mostly specialists with few or no individuals in their direct charge. For those curious, the general mapping of GS grades to officer ranks: GS-15 = O-6 (Colonel/Navy Captain) GS-14 = O-5 (Lt Colonel/Commander) GS-13 = O-4 (Major) GS-12 = O-3 (Captain, this is the journeyman level fo…

> They don't really have a clean comparison to military ranks, that I know of. They do, but you have to start going into the enlisted ranks for best comparisons. GS-7 might be E-6/E-7, GS-5 would be E-4/E-5, etc.

It gets fuzzy. Enlisted responsibility is not strictly below officer responsibility, it's just different and somewhat overlapping once you get to higher NCO ranks. A high ranked NCO could be on par with a GS-12 in terms of responsibility scope, though perhaps not in pay. I'd agree that low GS grades (say 5-9) are probably akin to E1-E4, but starting at E5 or so (AF) you start gaining responsibilities (either personnel or materiel) that are more akin, not in kind but in scope, to lower ranked officers.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#114

Post by RougeFemme »

mikegreen wrote: post #60
phaus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I was a rank off. That being said, a Colonel is often still in charge of a couple thousand people.

I disagree. I worked with plenty of AF Col's in the 5-sided-puzzle-palace that managed offices with 15-30 folks. They worked alongside a GS-13 to GS-15 types.

Colonels at the Pentagon are a dime a dozen. But a Colonel in the field - away from DC - might be a base commander. When I was a civilian working for the military and participating in/attending meetings, briefings, etc., we didn't even stand for Generals entering the room (which is protocol) unless the General had at least 2 stars. . .and not always then, depending on the level of the brass in the room.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#115

Post by RougeFemme »

adestefan wrote: post #100
stonemetal wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do those salary numbers include the benefits like retirement? Public jobs are one of the few pension gigs left. Also their health insurance is pretty good.

The health insurance is actually pretty bad and really expensive. The pension isn't that cushy either. They changed the pension system in the mid-80s, but people still spout off the false notion that you're somehow set on a government pension.

My understanding is that the health insurance is still better than what is typically available for private sector employees. The pension system is not nearly as good as it used to be, true, but it does exist, which is not true for most private sector employees.

I've worked both sides of the fence, so I'm not flinging arrows.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#116

Post by RougeFemme »

stonemetal wrote: post #91
chernevik wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has significantly _lower_ turnover than the private sector, which isn't what microeconomics says we would see if the workers could make that much more by leaving. It's more consistent with the suggestion that the workers would make considerably less if they left. So: 1. Microeconomics is seriously, perhaps completely, wrong; or, 2. Federal employees are much more motivated by non-financial rewards, suc…

Do those salary numbers include the benefits like retirement? Public jobs are one of the few pension gigs left. Also their health insurance is pretty good.

Nope, just salary.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#117

Post by Amadou »

turgidElderly wrote: post #104
Amadou wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That looks like Brookhaven National Lab.

Nope. BNL is a ~30 minute drive from Islip. BNL is sandwiched between Ridge/Middle Island, Yaphank, and Shorham Wading River (10 minutes from where the aborted SWR nuclear power plant rests). BNL belongs to the township of Brookhaven. Meanwhile, Islip is the home of McCarthur Airport, a medium sized airport that serves the east end of Long Island.

You are completely correct. I got Upton confused with Islip.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#118

Post by [deleted] »

RougeFemme wrote: post #112
jonnathanson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that US government salaries are high because the US private sector pays so well for comparable positions. The US is in the peculiar business of competing with itself, in a sense, or at least with its own economic model. Private vs. public isn't such a teeth-gnashing, nail-biting dilemma for many other countries, who generally seem to do a better job of mentally separating the two sectors. The gene…

I think the same public/private comparisons for salary, stability, etc. apply in the U.S., at least for some job categories. It's just that, as you said, the private sector pays so well for comparable positions. Salary-wise, I think less skilled position do better with government, but the higher-skilled positions do better in the private sector. If you see a government engineer/scientist/mathematician working alongsi…

[deleted]

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#119

Post by judk »

kalleboo wrote: post #59
csmatt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not judging one way or another, but is privacy not something the Swedish people are interested in?

On the whole, I'd say privacy is valued similar. It's just a small quirk. Same how Americans tolerate banks having a secret-sauce shared credit validation system with god knows what information they sell back and forth.

You can get a copy of your credit report. It isn't secret.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#120

Post by judk »

walshemj wrote: post #81
cmarschner wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a privacy concern in the US if you find the salaries of over a million people on a government website? I find that a bit disturbing.

It's certainly personal data within the meaning of the law in all the EU states. Everyone on here has a blue fit over the NSA but is fine with this!

Government is the public sector.
Post reply on HN