Why do people think federal employees are overpaid?

[Chefguy]

@JoelUpchurch

I’m assuming that corn suitable for humans would be planted without the ethanol subsidy. I did some quick back of the spreadsheet calculations and came up with somewhere between 500 and 900 million people could be fed with the acreage used for ethanol. We are using over 5 billion bushels of corn for ethanol now and it actually exceeds all the corn being raised for livestock in the US.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/77dfcd98-ac9f-11e0-a2f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1SWOojeOw

Certainly. I wasn’t arguing in favor of ethanol or corn subsidies, just making a point about your comment on feeding a village.

[Bricker]

@Crafter_Man

I have a, um, friend who is a government contractor, and works side-by-side with government employees 40 hours a week.

According to (um) him, the problem is not pay. The problem is that many government workers are in cushy jobs that don’t require them to do much. There’s no competition, hence little incentive to be productive.

I agree with your friend.

In my experience, about three-fourths of the feds coast. There is no meaningful downside to doing only the minimum, and no real danger of loss of job or pay steps because of lackluster performance.

I don’t say that federal workers are overpaid, so much as they are, collectively, a mediocre set of job performers.

On the other hand, it might be argued that the 25% that are effective are so effective that they erase some or even most of their brethern’s languor. In my experience, when the government civilian sector (or specifically some office thereof) does something right, it’s because there are four people assigned to the task, and one of them does the job brilliantly.

I don’t think we need to cut government salaries across the board – that would penalize the worthy and unworthy alike. I don’t think we need to indiscriminately cut government programs – that’s a foolish platitude. I think there are many government programs that should be cut or eliminated, yes, but that’s a question that can only be answered by assessing each program on its merits, not by wielding an axe.

But I do think we need massive civil service reform, allowing merit-based selections and evaluations to work, instead of the current non-system.

[RaftPeople]

@Kolga

Nope. Nobody ever complains about shitty customer service in the private sector. Nobody ever posts rants here about their lazy, incompetent co-workers who should be fired but for some reason never are. Nobody ever encounters situations with private companies in which they are re-routed, over and over and over, to different departments and end up wasting hours trying to get a problem solved.

People who believe that private companies are the paragon of efficiency and public departments all suck Satan’s inflamed left buttock amuse me. Don’t we have regular mini-rants and regular rants by people pissed off at Comcast, Lowe’s, Home Depot, their local grocery store, etc.? Do people not pay attention to those?

But, due to the free market there are choices. When I want no service, low quality and low cost, I go to store X, when I want good service, high quality and high cost, I go to store Y.

The federal govt, due to not being in a free market with respect to delivering it’s services, does not produce the same options, nor does it have the same focus. In addition, the avenues of feedback and guidance regarding the service being provided are substantially different than in the free market and I would say this is a key part of the problem. When money is at stake if customers are complaining, people are motivated to change things, when little is at stake when customers are complaining, why would anything change?