The rich (bureaucrats) keep getting richer
posted at 9:30 am on December 11, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
When I worked in the security industry, we used to consider it one of the few recession-proof industries, assuming that when times got tough, people would be more inclined to add security. It didn’t work that way in practice, because there really aren’t any recession-proof industries, just recession-resistant industries … except one. USA Today reports that federal salaries have increased rapidly during the recession, leading to an explosion of six-figure salaries in the public sector:
The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.
Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession’s first 18 months — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.
Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.
Bureaucracy is the real recession-proof industry. The numbers are mind-boggling. In 18 months, the number of federal employees making over $100K have increased 46%. The number making over $150K has more than doubled.
It’s not as if they’ve been asked to do more with less, either. In the first six months of the year, the federal government was adding 10,000 jobs per month, and over the recession had grown the ranks of bureaucrats by 9.8%. The private sector, during that same period, shed 7.3 million jobs to contract 6.3%.
Here’s the fun fact of the day from USA Today:
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
Got that? Seventeen hundred employees at DoT make $170,000 per year. Eighteen months ago, there was one.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) says that “There’s no way to justify this to the American people. It’s ridiculous,” and he’s right. The pay raises are astronomical, averaging 6.6% during one of the worst recessions in decades, while at the same time hiring like crazy. Where are all these employees going, and what are they doing?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
i give up…
moonbatkiller on December 11, 2009 at 9:30 AM
As long as we’re getting our moneys worth.
Kissmygrits on December 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM
But they work soooo much harder than private company employees (gag).
GnuBreed on December 11, 2009 at 9:34 AM
Very amazing, and very depressing.
jwolf on December 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Well I ain’t making even 1/2 of that $100K.
Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM
If you’re not Government’s paying client, you go to jail. That’s the best “marketing” you can get.
RBMN on December 11, 2009 at 9:37 AM
TERM LIMITS!!
We, as an electorate, need to push that being a politician is “civil service” AKA “serving the people”. It should not be a career! Maybe then the corruption levels would decrease.
search4truth on December 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM
My question exactly. My guess would be that they are going someplace very nice and not doing very much (if anything at all).
TwinkietheKid on December 11, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Dear Liar will not rest until everyone is working for the government.
And “working for the government” means working on behalf of government, not working on behalf of the American citizen.
rbj on December 11, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Stimulus = richer bureaucrats
Oh, goody.
Count to 10 on December 11, 2009 at 9:39 AM
I take back what I said the other day. When the GOP retakes control, forget a federal hiring freeze. They need to go on a damn federal employee purge. Return that money to the private sector where it belongs.
Doughboy on December 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM
And don’t forget the pensions. That quote about Mao and the barrel of a gun…that’s sounding pretty good to me right now. Seriously, I’ve been screaming about this for two decades; the whole system has to destroyed. Washington D.C. needs to be dismantled. The career politicians from both parties and the career bureaucrats that serve them and move in and out of government are entwined. It’s a sick perversion of Madison’s ideals.
mr1216 on December 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Ed,
Can you possibly inform us on how many of these “federal employees” also belong to a union? (my guess is most of them)
Rovin on December 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
While this is alarming to be fair to Govt (I hate this) this is mostly about Wash DC. Living around DC is way expensive and 100K is that much vs cost of living. The country has about 25% with a 4 year degree, DC 50% and 12% with a Master’s.
Kinda apples and Oranges but it does look really bad on the surface.
LincolntheHun on December 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Welll, damn! Maybe I’m doing it wrong, trying to be all productive and entrepreneurial ‘n stuff…
ornery_independent on December 11, 2009 at 9:44 AM
I was going to send this link to Ed. As always, he is a step ahead on the economic news.
Also related to the Dems’ bill to increase the debt ceiling is this nuggest from Australia
james23 on December 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM
The pay sure is great. And the work is pretty easy, too. The only qualification is taht you have to be a really good liar.
UltimateBob on December 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM
And what are you going to do with all of those recent psychology graduates that have no work skills, no work ethic, and big student loans?
LincolntheHun on December 11, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Disgusting. And they wonder why we’re angry.
petefrt on December 11, 2009 at 9:47 AM
What a shocker!
Statism pays off handsomely to the Statists, who da thunk it?
And if they don’t have enough money to pay themselves, they simply take it at gun point from the achievers and producers.
Insert witty screen name here on December 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Awesome! The Liberals WetDream kill off capitalism and replace it with Government!
What could possibly go wrong?
Hang em high and let God sort em out. Boy this Revolution is gonna be fun. Off to buy a generator!
dhunter on December 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM
They are becoming a new wave of entrenched union, communist, never gonna be able to get rid of them, working from within subversives, bent on destroying the system from within.
I’m not being sarcastic, either…….
Jerome Horwitz on December 11, 2009 at 9:48 AM
About 25% by the last count.
Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Government employees: Pay for hardly any work.
Taxpayers: Work for hardly any pay
Insert witty screen name here on December 11, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Government by the government, for the government.
The peasants that pay for it all? Let them eat cake.
Good Lt on December 11, 2009 at 9:52 AM
I believe there is a law which prohibits federal employees from being laid off or fired. They can only be re-assigned or offered retirement.
Factoid: in 1940, half of the personnel employed by the federal government worked for the Department of the Post Office.
oldleprechaun on December 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM
In an earlier thread, s/o asked: who are the people giving Obama high marks for handling the massive federal debt? Here’s your answer: many are gov’t employees, and the rest are gov’t benefit consumers. The two groups combined have substantial #s.
This is a reflection on the national level of a phenomenon well known to folks who live in or near the coastal population centers.
james23 on December 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM
That’s not the fault of taxpayers. That’s the fault of the idiotic entrenched corruptocracy in Washington DC. I couldn’t give two flying sh*ts about whether it’s “expensive” to live in DC. It’s expensive to live in many other places, too.
DON’T LIVE THERE.
Good Lt on December 11, 2009 at 9:54 AM
That is wrong. Govt employees can in fact be fired exactly like anyone else. They also get laid off. Maybe you were thinking about the BRAC law? If a base closes then you have to give them another job someplace.
Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM
By the way, if you want to avoid being trampled, stay away from the employee exits of public buildings at quitting time.
chaswv on December 11, 2009 at 9:55 AM
Community Organizers need Porches too!!
BigWyo on December 11, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Rovin:
The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.8 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private industry workers (7.6 percent).
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
Track-A-'Crat on December 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM
If anyone out there is as old as I am they will remember in high school civics class that we were taught that federal employees made less money but had generally a slightly better retirement program. Because they have no regulators to control them and their actions now they have the best in both worlds. What a difference a day makes!!!
I will remind all of this, that we too can control salaries and send these bastards home. Because they no longer listen to the people its about time we govern by referendum in this computor age and clean this bullshit up.
We don’t need to continue to support the unions and the people dependent on government all the lives and when they get out of college hand them a silver plate. Obama is the example of the outcome, a complete educated idiot who wants something for nothing.
We’ve got to gain control of our government again and cut these damn federal salaries and absolutely stop the cost of living tradition at the expense of those whom they feed on.
bluegrass on December 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM
How wonderful. Plus, they’re exempt from the communist health care Obama wants to kill us off with.
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM
fire everyone not in uniform. FIRE.THEM.ALL
Immolate on December 11, 2009 at 9:57 AM
I have to stop reading Hot Air in the mornings. It’s not good for my blood pressure. Or my demeanor.
UltimateBob on December 11, 2009 at 9:58 AM
All I can say is this doesn’t seem to be happening in the Department of Defense. NSPS limited pay raises for promotions by calling them reassignments. I work in DC and make the least in my office because my move here was a reassignment. If I was in the GS system at the level this job used to be, I would be making 10K more a year than what I currently make. Of course, these limits created by NSPS to keep costs down upset the unions, etc, so now NSPS is going away and we are supposedly moving back into the GS system unless the government can come up with another system to put is in before the deadline. The biggest thing the fed govt needs to do is make it easier to fire people. We have several folks who don’t seem to do any work, or what they do produce is not good work but the bosses can’t seem to get rid of them. So they continue drawing a paycheck while other people who produce have to pick up the slack. I liked NSPS even if it limited promotion raises because it allowed people to get rewarded for their production rather than longevity. It also made it a little easier to fire people, although it could still take as much as three years to fire a non-preformer. Unfortunately, workers and managers didn’t want to play, so NSPS had no chance of actually working the way it was supposed to.
kemphd on December 11, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Says the Congresscritter making $174,900 plus platinum bennies…
Flyover Country on December 11, 2009 at 10:00 AM
It’s expensive because the government is growing so large that housing prices are going way up – it’s like a forest fire, it creates it own weather.
BTW, really liking that word “corruptocracy” .
Insert witty screen name here on December 11, 2009 at 10:01 AM
This is particularly disgusting when you’ve got a pay czar cutting salaries in private companies (receiving bailout funds)… and the Dems are attempting to expand his powers over ALL private sector companies.
TXUS on December 11, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Elections have consequences.
Evenespecially mid-terms. Let’s hope people remember that next year.These big-gov dems will do whatever it takes to hold on to the prize they won in 2006.
reaganaut on December 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM
I think, if there is going to be a revolution, these kinds of government employees will likely be the first targets. They serve largely to help keep the bigger dogs in power, and would not be as well-guarded as elected officials.
UltimateBob on December 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Wait till they pass Cap & Trade because the EPA made them :)
Mike Huckabee made a very good point when he was on Fox News last week. Voters need to Flush and Get Fresh Water in the Bowl in D.C. That’s the truth, the people in the leadership is expanding government bureaucracies, the way to make them stop is to vote them bureaucrat enablers out of office.
Dr Evil on December 11, 2009 at 10:05 AM
And the way they work there, with their lightning speed, you’d think that those current employees were actually hired in 1940.
No shit, true story….. A postal worker had a stack of letters she was working on. Pick up the scanner, scan the letter, put the scanner carefully back in the holder. Remove letter from stack and carefully place it in another stack…….SLOWLY, like molasses in winter. Supervisor walks in and says “How’s everything going”. “Great”, said the worker, and it’s back to business as usual. All the time there’s only one window open, and the other three had ‘window closed’ signs.
Who cares that the line was backing up, Union attitude is that “I gotta be here till quitin’ time anyway, and I ain’t getting fired for poor performance, what do I care”.
Jerome Horwitz on December 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM
I moved away from DC five years ago and I can’t believe it when I go back there now. There is no recession there. The restaurants and bars are packed, the stores are full, the houses are still selling at close to peak prices. I know many two-Fed households and they are doing extremely well while the rest of the country is in tatters. I know one family that just bought a million-dollar home and a BMW for their 16-year-old. And neither parent could tell you exactly what it is that they do all day in their cushy $180,000 federal job.
Everyone I know in DC who is not working for the government is trying to get in now. It’s the best gig in the world, you can screw off all day and never get fired, you have cheap health care and free parking or subsidized Metro passes, and the pensions are unreal.
It’s no wonder we are not getting any reasonable response to this near-depression from Washington. They won’t get it until they start losing their own jobs and getting the foreclosure notices.
rockmom on December 11, 2009 at 10:06 AM
That’s true. I am making a little over $45k here in St. Louis and I was solicited for a job in a DC suburb and the salary range was $70k to $90k for doing essentially the same thing I’m doing now. I went to a cost of living calculator and found out I would need to make the $90k just to equal making $45k here in St. Louis.
MobileVideoEngineer on December 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I would also add that some of us do work very hard. Unfortunately, we are in the minority.
kemphd on December 11, 2009 at 10:08 AM
And they produce so much more of a contribution to the economy.
Aviator on December 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Once you get a job, you have all the benefits as well, plus bonuses. My Dad was an HR man for several Federal Agencies. You almost have to kill someone to get fired. Plus, the diversity quotas are very well enforced. Basically, he said, there are just office buildings full of people pushing some paperwork and not doing jack and squat that adds anything to the economy. You would think with such a highly paid workforce the taxpayer would be treated much better when they are forced to interface with such entities, but instead you are treated like dog food and a lower citizen. I guess it’s true then, because they are paid so much more than us, they are better than us.
They are using our income and our wealth to fatten themselves.
James on December 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I work in the private sector. Our annual raises were canceled this year. Not looking too good for next year either!
Dandapani on December 11, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Is that right.
I’ve been applying for gov jobs every week for over a year and haven’t even gotten a single interview. A few other jobless people I know report the same thing. Who are they hiring?
RagTag on December 11, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I’m applying for guvmint job. At this rate, I’ll be making $250,000 by next year for doing nuthin’ !!!
Yay!!!
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Pssssst … ACORN folks.
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM
RagTag,
They hire the connected class. They hire other state employees. They hire diverse people. They hire pretty much anyone but the well qualified. If you have a decent education and have been reasonably productive, you probably won’t get hired.
James on December 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Depends on the job. My sister-in-law just became eligible for benefits after working for 18 months as some sort of admin in the DOL. My wife worked for the post office and was only eligible after 3 years of employment.
RagTag on December 11, 2009 at 10:12 AM
General reaction: W.T.F.
We really are toast at this point, aren’t we? Not just because of this, but daily we see things coming out of DC that are, I think, proof that this country is like a ‘dead man walking’. The last couple of elections were more like a suicide pact than anything else.
While the demographics in DC are different, we *are* talking apples to apples. *Within* that DC demographic these figures are changing with that rapidity. The amount of folks there with Master’s degrees didn’t change enough to explain the kind of increases being discussed here.
Midas on December 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM
If you post here you most likely have the wrong political views to get a government job.
Aviator on December 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM
That may be true “on paper,” but the reality is that if you are a manager and want to get rid of a bad employee you have to spend a year documenting their transgressions and send a bunch of paperwork through OPM to get them terminated. And there are all sorts of ways for the employee to fight it. Most managers don’t bother, they just put the person in a cube with nothing important to do, or they reassign the person to the field office in Anchorage or Guam and they quit.
rockmom on December 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM
“Don’t get saucy with me, Bernaise…”- Count De Money
Fletch54 on December 11, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Let’s see … what does this remind me of. Oh yeah! the Soviet Union!
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I’d like to make one comment.
The wife works for the department of defense and they’ve had a huge push in the last 18 months to bring in new, qualified people from the private sector (higher pay). She was part of the group and they’re making critical and rapid changes to their individual areas. Essentially, they’re increasing the quality of workers to replace the baby boomers who are retiring.
Now, of course I’m NOT saying it’s all warranted, just some of it.
joshlbetts on December 11, 2009 at 10:14 AM
I wouldn’t be surprised if they check to see if you’re registered politically and make a determination based on that alone.
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 10:15 AM
A firing for a Gov’t employee works like this. Paid time off, a benefits package, and oh this department is hiring come on over. No one is “fired” for any length of time if they have worked in Federal Gov’t for at least a few years. They just get moved around.
James on December 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
I worked in the federal government before there was the Internet. I can only imagine how much screwing off, poker playing, shopping, and porn surfing is going on that our money is paying for.
rockmom on December 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
not “to replace” but “who will replace”
joshlbetts on December 11, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Anyone feeling “stimuliated” now? I promise you, those people are. Millions of jobs saved or created at work in all its glory. This is sick. DOT, where leaning on a shovel pays big bucks.
milwife88 on December 11, 2009 at 10:17 AM
People will not like what I’m about to say.
About 6 months ago I talked to a state jobs adviser. I was told outright by him that I was to old, (53) and to white to get a state or federal job. He carried on that the reason they ask you to fill out the diversity data is because any application marked with race as white gets trashed.
I just don’t want that to be true but who really knows.
RagTag on December 11, 2009 at 10:17 AM
You are correct, most managers don’t even bother. It really is not that hard to get a Fed employee fired. Documentation and a decent supervisor/manager and poof they are gone. I have seen it done in less than a month more than a few times.
Johnnyreb on December 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
I’d like to know that as well. Maybe it’s just more number-fudging.
The situation is equally as bad in the ‘free market’ world. We are badly in need of an extension of truth-in-advertising laws to ‘now hiring’ signs.
Dark-Star on December 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Of course not all federal workers are fat, lazy and unproductive … and many enter the system with a good work ethic. Over time however, many simply become frustrated dealing with the infinite levels of bureaucracy and the pettiness federal supervisors and managers display protecting their territory. They simply learn to ride it out doing very little, and they become extremely protective of their handsome pay and benefits … which the democrats use to their advantage.
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 10:19 AM
I was told that 25 years ago when I tried to get a job on an Army installation. I wrote my Congressman who helped. Unfortunately after getting the job I found out it wasn’t all that and left.
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM
They do, and Administrations of both parties do it. The trick is always to get party loyalists into the civil-service jobs, or to have political appointees eventually “burrow in” by converting to civil service. I have known a few Republicans that have done this. Most incoming Administrations have someone in each agency assigned to figure out who was hired by the last Administration and move them out of the critical jobs. Then you have the Congressmen and Senators pushing to get their staff people hired for the bigger salaries they can get in the federal government.
Most states have laws against this sort of thing and local media who scrutinize hiring. But nobody is minding the store in Washington.
rockmom on December 11, 2009 at 10:21 AM
You have hit the nail right on the head. I have applied for many “govt” jobs from Administrative assistant to cashier at AAFES and everyone of them not only ask you your race but they also want to know if you have any kind of disability, (can you sit or stand for a prolonged period of time without assistance?). I have literally been passed over by a woman who cannot use her right arm (cashier) and a woman who is so fat she sits on a chair all day ringing people up. It is crazy. I am 39 and in good physical health and not a bit over weight therefore, I do not qualify. Oh, and I am white so…end of the line.
milwife88 on December 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM
This is the type of article and responses that make me realize that neither side really knows what they are talking about.
I work for the government and do not make that type of money. Not yet anyway. I hope to someday after about 20-25 years of service and a ton of formal and informal education later. The people at this salary range have probably been in the government for DECADES.
What you are seeing in this increase is a large generation, “Baby Boomers”, hitting the higher salary ranges after a lifetime of public service.
I doubt that any of the underinformed populists ranting about purges and the like would have any problem with somebody in the private sector within their own industry field making that type of money after 25 years in the field.
Inform yourselves before you make your side look just as bad as the left. It’s easy to see numbers and start to freak, but you should to do a minimal amount of research before you spout off in certainties.
dvldog1142 on December 11, 2009 at 10:22 AM
I agree, but from what I hear, there is definitely a “generational” difference in attitude between the old and new guard. All the newbies are fighting the system and can’t wait for the old to leave. In fact, they’re training the old guard in using this new fangled thing called “microsoft office”. Also, the newbies’ contracts seem to be more stringent, at least at the DOD.
joshlbetts on December 11, 2009 at 10:24 AM
At my last job I worked with a guy that had worked 25 years for the state of New Jersey as a business analyst. I asked what kind of projects he worked on and he said none. He said there were two goals working for the state. 1. Not to do anything you can be blamed for. 2. Make sure you point any blame at someone else. He said in the 25 years he never saw a project completed and that he spent 6 hours a day talking about them and trying to avoid being assigned anything.
RagTag on December 11, 2009 at 10:27 AM
There aren’t many burger-flippers in the fedgov; most (at least in the DC area) are professionals that make about as much (or slightly less) than they would in the private sector. And $100K number is like the “grim milestone” number (usually a multiple of 1000) that many decry when reporting war dead. It’s just a number.
RayinVA on December 11, 2009 at 10:33 AM
Horse pockey! I’m very close to one gubbmint employee who’s nowhere near baby boomer status, matter of fact she’s the youngest daughter of a baby boomer. She’s been working for the gov for about ONE decade and she’s making that kind of money. She is not the exception either, most of the people in her unit are younger than she is and they’re not very far behind her in salary. Contractors in her unit make even more but less the benefits.
Oldnuke on December 11, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Ed and AP, can you please disable the swear word filter for this thread?
WashJeff on December 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM
The ones making over $100,000 a year are generally “management” and not represented by a union.
Bleeds Blue on December 11, 2009 at 10:42 AM
The man promised us a civilian peace force thaat was as well funded as the Pentagon… it looks like he is going to deliver.
bitsy on December 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Do these federal employees get pensions. My current understanding is they do not participate in SocSec, oinly us hoi polloi do, so they probably have a defined benefits retirement plan.
BIG goverment Sucks!!
WashJeff on December 11, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Does not reading something like this just piss you off?
WashJeff on December 11, 2009 at 10:49 AM
re: Jerome Horwitz
B.S. story.
Window clerks do not sit and scan letters. Any scanning done on Express Mail or certified letters is done as they are received over the counter. That incident did not occur. Plain fact. No shit.
It should also be noted, that despite the general animosity towards the P.O. here, the post office is a self-funded organization relying on postage income for funding. Only with the recent borrowing has it received federal funds. The P.O. was in the black as recently as three years ago. The federal requirement that the P.O. pre-fund disability retirement to the tune of $5-6 billion per year pushed it into the red. The concurrent decrease in mailings and economic collapse have exacerbated the problem.
Postal employees are part of the FERS or federal employees retirement system that everyone from the military up is part of. It is a basic 401k type program. My retirement is currently earning about 4%, not exactly earth shattering. Also, the last three contracts via arbitration between the USPS and NALC have garnered only about a 5% raise over the life of the 5 year contract. Basically keeping up with inflation.
The NALC is not the “Jimmy Hoffa/SEIU” scary monster that most here think it is. The clerks union is even less formidable. Employees are fired, harrassed both sexually and not, on a regular basis. The job is not the lazy man’s utopia that posters here would have readers believe.
postaldog on December 11, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Probably not. I am guessing they handed out nice fat pay raises at the Ministry of Truth.
bitsy on December 11, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Probably a bunch of Level II SES’s whose pay jumped from $169,000 to $177,000. The top earner is probaly a Level I SES.
RayinVA on December 11, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I would have to look at this more closely. When I worked for the government I was certainly not overpaid — my move to the private sector was accompanied by a 20% pay raise and things like stock options and decent hotel rooms. And there are any number of talented and dedicated people in the federal government who could do better in the private sector or who are, at least, earning their pay with the work they do. I think part of the reason that bureaucrats have such bad reps is that the lower-level types, who don’t make $100K are the ones the public deals with and they do suck. The tales I could tell about the secretaries in my office (not The Secretary).
But yeah, there’s a outrage. Though I’m still a lot more outraged by the Wall Street bonuses and CEO salaries.
Bleeds Blue on December 11, 2009 at 11:01 AM
They pay into social security and they have a 401K plan. I don’t think they have a pension plan outside the 401K.
Oldnuke on December 11, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Amazing. I, and many of the people I know, were not even given raises (or any merit bonuses, cost of living, nothing) last year. And it’s not looking much better for the coming year. Everything has been cut to bare bones. Everyday my company is trying to find new ways to cut costs. I’m actually bringing home less this year than last year (and doing twice the work). This just makes me sick.
walnut on December 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM
We are truly becoming the Soviet Union! How did this happen?
petunia on December 11, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Listen here, postal monkey, I KNOW what I saw, I was standing in that exact line. This employee was scanning registered letters that were being dropped off by a customer…..and taking her sweet azz time about it, too.
DO NOT tell me what I did or did not see.
Jerome Horwitz on December 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
WTF? So the corruption behind Fannie Mae and the government regulation that precipitated the housing bubble don’t bother you huh?
Yeah, those Wall Street guys, man … if only the government could regulate them more. Things would just be perfect and rainbows would shoot out of our a$$es.
darwin on December 11, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I’m so blessed to be
ableforced to donate to my government. /sarc offNalea on December 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Wall Street does not get my money, though, unless I voluntarily give it them. I do not have the choice with the fedral government. Assumming you mention the bailouts, I was against that. The Wall Street people should have suffered for their decisions.
But, you know, maybe slashing Wall Street salaries would be good. Then New York City and State will have less tax revenue and those government will be forced to make drastic spending cuts or go bankrupt.
WashJeff on December 11, 2009 at 11:18 AM
We used to hire selected individuals away from the NRC for their insight into the bureaucratic mindset. We would give them a considerable pay hike, and much better benefits. Most had a very rude awakening when they realized that in order to keep their newly found largess that they actually had to perform and that they would be held accountable. That said most, not all, but most made the turnaround admirably and did a great job. The ones who had the hardest time adjusting were the people we hired from institutes of higher education. They suffered and had a high casualty rate.
Oldnuke on December 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM
I hope you are right. Defined benefit retirement plans bankrupt the entities that offer them.
WashJeff on December 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Have a look at the way the Americans’ “federal” government alters salaries by “locality.”
http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2008/2008-22-Attach2.pdf
Kralizec on December 11, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Just put African. We all started from that region so we’re all black. It’s in our DNA. Let them prove otherwise.
Nalea on December 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM
I personally believe that big Wall Street firms like the regulation. It provides cover and makes people more willing to invest due to the perception that the government is watching over these firms.
My understanding of the lead up to the 1929 crasah of the marketing is that the big Wall Street firms started to mass marketing investing in stocks. They would collude to keep stock prices rising, then get out after a sizable profit, and leave the masses holding the stock when it dropped back to a realistic value.
We know that the government took the stance of regulating these firms after 1929, but what if the government did nothing? What would society have learned about investing in stocks? Would consumers rush into the stock market again after learning they had been gamed?
I think NYSE would have had to self-regulate to insure its future survival.
WashJeff on December 11, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Hey! Barry just ‘wants to spread the wealth’.
GarandFan on December 11, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »