Republican plan to cut Federal Workers, Pay, Retirement

[Steel_Magnolia]

Maggie,

I would love to know what job pays 7 times more as a contractor than a govee, if you don't mind?

The long answer to your short question is that I retired as a GS-11 rather than a GS-14 because I traded some promotions for working from home for eight years. And I had a very specialized skill set, so when they hired me as a contractor they paid me a rate equal to the hourly rate of an associate at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

I actually had to talk them down to that rate. At first they said they should be paying me rate of the low-level supervisor at PwC.

 

[FUTURESTRADER]

It is the same money, but what the American public really can't wrap their heads around is the fact that it usually buys much less. Many of you know that I was a contractor for a year, and during that year the government paid me almost seven times (yes, you read that right) the hourly rate I made as a government employee. And that's not an isolated case. I saw versions of it all the time.

Maggie,

I would love to know what job pays 7 times more as a contractor than a govee, if you don't mind?

 

[alevin]

FWM there is something really deranged about those calculations, can't put my finger on it, but can guarantee you my TSP account will only hit $600K if I'm exceptionally good at managing my funds between now and when I retire somewhere after age 64. average? please.

my total income from the 3 legs will be nowhere close to 90K, more like 1/3 to 1/2 that and that's assuming I do really really really well with what I've got between now and then in tsp. I started in 89, never put in less than 5%, and currently 15% plus catchups. and I only hit 100K if you throw in benefits.

go back and check your estimates for annual TSP account growth-.gov assumes 7%. that is a way overestimate for the coming 10 years, more like 6% or less if you read Hussman-which I do faithfully. the man's a genius.

 

[Steel_Magnolia]

I agree with you on our retirement package. With the TSP and a bull market once and a while, and good trading we can out perform CSRS. WE just had to add a lot of our own money and take more risks to build our retirement to be a good one. One of our tiers is 1% per year in goverment (33% for me) which looks better than 80% to taxpayers. I was just mentioning the Social Security tier that the public don't consider as a direct goverment retirement benifit as proposed by FERS. It's just like hiring contractors for goverment work some times. They state how much they save with not having to pay benifits down the road but no mention of the hour cost payed to the contract for each employee even though the employee may be getting less than the gov't employee. The public sees less gov't employees and are happy that the goverment is hiring (civilians) outside of goverment. It's the same money but looks better publicly.

It is the same money, but what the American public really can't wrap their heads around is the fact that it usually buys much less. Many of you know that I was a contractor for a year, and during that year the government paid me almost seven times (yes, you read that right) the hourly rate I made as a government employee. And that's not an isolated case. I saw versions of it all the time.

 

[SkyPilot]

Ponzi

Just like Ponzi's plan, Social Security does not make any real investments -- it just takes money from later "investors," or taxpayers, to pay benefits to earlier, now retired, taxpayers. Like Ponzi, Social Security will not be able to recruit new "investors" fast enough to continue paying promised benefits to previous investors. Because each year there are fewer young workers relative to the number of retirees, Social Security will eventually collapse, just like Ponzi's scheme.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/05-11-99.html

 

[Bquat]

Bquat,

We have a decent retirement plan, not a great one. Many companies match their employee contributions to a higher percentage - but that is offset by not having any pension. Personally, I would dump the pension portion of my retirement if I could get a higher match.

Also, EVERYBODY with a decent work history has a Social Security tier toward their retirement. That is not something unique to Federal employment. The only exceptions are some state jobs where the state was able to opt out of Social Security (California state employees are an example).

And, Nnuut can tell you about medical benefits in retirement. You get to pay the full amount. However, because companies low ball to bid on the plans, the cost is a bit less than if you sought health insurance on your own at 70 years old. So, a pretty good benefit - I think.

Finally, the FERS pension portion of your retirement will be walking around cash if you invest in TSPs equity funds during much of your work history. For me, it will be about 20% of my monthly retirement income. A nice chunk, but I can live well purely on TSP.

So, our retirement package is good, but not completely out of line with industry. It's sad we can't seem to point that out. In Kalefornea, State and local employee retirement plans are much more pension oriented and have much better medical benefits.

To get this back to topic, we Feds have yet to see our hours and/or pay cut. We have yet to see our TSP match cut. We have yet to see our medical contribution increase. We have yet to see our workforce cut. And, we are three years into something that can only be compared to 'The Great Depression'. I guess our leadership thought we could ride this out with a credit card. Bad mistake. My best guess is that the private sector will come out of this thing better than the public sector. Why? The private sector is not in as much structural debt as the public sector. And, the private sector will NOT vote to bail out the public sector forever. Whole parts of the public sector will be cut or dismantled over the next ten years. Welcome to the second half of a Fourth Turning.

I agree with you on our retirement package. With the TSP and a bull market once and a while, and good trading we can out perform CSRS. WE just had to add a lot of our own money and take more risks to build our retirement to be a good one. One of our tiers is 1% per year in goverment (33% for me) which looks better than 80% to taxpayers. I was just mentioning the Social Security tier that the public don't consider as a direct goverment retirement benifit as proposed by FERS. It's just like hiring contractors for goverment work some times. They state how much they save with not having to pay benifits down the road but no mention of the hour cost payed to the contract for each employee even though the employee may be getting less than the gov't employee. The public sees less gov't employees and are happy that the goverment is hiring (civilians) outside of goverment. It's the same money but looks better publicly.

 

[Steel_Magnolia]

...And, we are three years into something that can only be compared to 'The Great Depression'. ...

Boghie, I do agree with most of your statement. You have a great way of expressing yourself too.

But I worked in an assisted living center in my teen years, only back then it was called a nursing home. The people living there enjoyed telling me their stories about growing up in the depression years. And we might have been headed there this time, but it was averted.

Counting my blessings. "Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without."

Maggie

 

[Boghie]

Bquat,

We have a decent retirement plan, not a great one. Many companies match their employee contributions to a higher percentage - but that is offset by not having any pension. Personally, I would dump the pension portion of my retirement if I could get a higher match.

Also, EVERYBODY with a decent work history has a Social Security tier toward their retirement. That is not something unique to Federal employment. The only exceptions are some state jobs where the state was able to opt out of Social Security (California state employees are an example).

And, Nnuut can tell you about medical benefits in retirement. You get to pay the full amount. However, because companies low ball to bid on the plans, the cost is a bit less than if you sought health insurance on your own at 70 years old. So, a pretty good benefit - I think.

Finally, the FERS pension portion of your retirement will be walking around cash if you invest in TSPs equity funds during much of your work history. For me, it will be about 20% of my monthly retirement income. A nice chunk, but I can live well purely on TSP.

So, our retirement package is good, but not completely out of line with industry. It's sad we can't seem to point that out. In Kalefornea, State and local employee retirement plans are much more pension oriented and have much better medical benefits.

To get this back to topic, we Feds have yet to see our hours and/or pay cut. We have yet to see our TSP match cut. We have yet to see our medical contribution increase. We have yet to see our workforce cut. And, we are three years into something that can only be compared to 'The Great Depression'. I guess our leadership thought we could ride this out with a credit card. Bad mistake. My best guess is that the private sector will come out of this thing better than the public sector. Why? The private sector is not in as much structural debt as the public sector. And, the private sector will NOT vote to bail out the public sector forever. Whole parts of the public sector will be cut or dismantled over the next ten years. Welcome to the second half of a Fourth Turning.

 

[JTH]

They already made automatic TSP deposits into the G fund to help all the new employees retirements. I think this is just to increase the cash availiblity to borrow against to kick the can down the road. Just my opinion.

You hit the hammer on the nail, they need more money so let's make TSP enrollment mandatory for our military victims, ah I mean participants...

 

[Bquat]

Our country used to have a saying:

"All For One and One for All"

No one stops anyone from contributing extra into the Market for their retirement. We have enough financial vehicles for that...
401K, 401b, IRA, Roth...side investments.

Social Security is meant as a "safety net". To make sure that those who were steadily employed as well as those who had "on and off" employment, all had enough for beans, bread, and clothes in their older years.

Its a "system" where we all pitch in to help ourselves and others. I know this is a foreign concept for some here...but its meant lend a fairly level hand for all (except CSRS fatcats:cheesy in old age for basic needs. Its not an "increase my wealth" tool.

We take care of ourselves....but we are also supposed to be our brothers keeper.

Social Security was a safty net. The goverment created FERS to help keep SS more solvent down the road and make it part of our retirement to show that they were paying less out on their buget when we retired as a savings to taxpayers. Now one tier of our retirement is comming out of SS and making it even worse but to the public doesn't see it. They just see saving Social Security is in their best interest and dont think about the FERS drain on it as more and more of us turn 62 when the SS suppliment runs out.
I agree that if we could have the option to put SS tax and the employee matching into TSP would be a great idea, but the goverment knows that the general public will be willing to bailout Social Security but not TSP. They even mention about making TSP more like SS to save us from making bad investment choices.:suspicious: They already made automatic TSP deposits into the G fund to help all the new employees retirements. I think this is just to increase the cash availiblity to borrow against to kick the can down the road. Just my opinion.

 

[burrocrat]

Hey I have an idea, how about we cut back on some defense spending. Pull out of the middle east, quit paying all those corporations who are milking the government titty.

yeah buddy.

View attachment 10496

 

[Lostdawg]

Our country used to have a saying:
"All For One and One for All"

That quote is attributed to Alexandre Dumas, the French Author who wrote Les Trois Mousquetaires (The Three Musketeers) in 1844. He also wrote Le Comte de Monte Cristo (The Count of Monte Cristo) among other things. Both of these were fiction. Also, apparently we would need to get in line behind Switzerland, for they seemed to have taken a fancy to that saying as well.
That being said, I think it is a great line myself. Which is why I looked into its origins.

Though straying off the topic of the original post, I would submit that in the past (to a certain extent) our elders were taken care of by the family or village. Since the industrial revolution led to a change in the family/village structure, a replacement was needed. Was/is Social Security the best answer? I don't know, but it is all we have in place at the moment. Granted, its foundation and walls are crumbling.

 

[david.alan.williams]

Our country used to have a saying:

"All For One and One for All"

No one stops anyone from contributing extra into the Market for their retirement. We have enough financial vehicles for that...
401K, 401b, IRA, Roth...side investments.

Social Security is meant as a "safety net". To make sure that those who were steadily employed as well as those who had "on and off" employment, all had enough for beans, bread, and clothes in their older years.

Its a "system" where we all pitch in to help ourselves and others. I know this is a foreign concept for some here...but its meant lend a fairly level hand for all (except CSRS fatcats:cheesy in old age for basic needs. Its not an "increase my wealth" tool.

We take care of ourselves....but we are also supposed to be our brothers keeper.

'Are there no prisons?' 'And the Union workhouses, are they still in operation?'

"I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support
the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost
enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'

If they would rather die,' 'they had
better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

I don't know why I though of this from your post, but I thought I'd pick on you a bit. BTW, I don't agree with Scrooge!

I would say that 95% of the people drawing SS are not drawing it to be their "safety net", they are drawing it as their retirement. This system shouldn't be a retirement system either. If we need a "safety net only" system, then we need to create one. Then for a retirement system, do a TSP type system.

D

 

[JTH]

Hey I have an idea, how about we cut back on some defense spending. Pull out of the middle east, quit paying all those corporations who are milking the government titty.

 

[Boghie]

Re(1): 'Orrin Hatch's Fuzzy Math on Federal Workers', FederalTimes, Steven Losey
Re(2): 'Historical Tables | The Whitehouse', OMB
Re(3): Table 17.1 —TOTAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH CIVILIAN FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) EMPLOYEES: 1981–2011, 'Historical Tables | The Whitehouse, OMB.

Kaufmanrider,

Everybody games statistics. Your source includes the quasi commercial entity known as the Post Office. They are supposed to pay for themselves. Including the Post Office is like including the employees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And including their income and expenses. Somehow - and for some mysterious reason - your source includes only the Post Office from a myriad of choices. Here is his source. Why and how did he pick only the Post Office from other like entities?

I very much like the gaming by a clueless lawyer politician on my side. I mean, to subtract DOD civilians pre-Obama just to add them in for Obama is a very special form of lying. And kinda stupid. I don't trust politicians and talking heads. Also, I like the slant of Steven Losey in FederalTimes article. He seems to think one should exclude DOD civilians. Eh...

Anyway, look at the raw numbers provided this year by the OMB.

In 2008 there were:

Total: 1,875,000
Total excluding DOD: 1,204,000​

In 2011 (to avoid census) there is a projected workforce of:

Total: 2,106,000
Total excluding DOD: 1,348,000​

I, however, challenge the removal of we DOD civilian slugs from the numbers. The DOD is bloated and has been on a hiring spree since 2008. And, I don't care where the bloat comes from - its gotta go!!!

So, in two years the gubmint has bloated by 231,000 personnel.

I contend, regrettably, that much of the voter population hasn't seen the benefit of hiring those 200,000 folks concurrant with blowing up the deficit (tripling it annually).

Actually, it is since 2002. We have added an entire new department, with vast resources and personnel. I am not saying it is not needed, but the majority of the increase in the number of federal employees is due to 9/11 and "Homeland Security."

The link below has a chart, with numbers from OMB. Per Capita we are at our lowest level. We have far less now than under Bush 1 and Clinton. Since 2002, the Feds have added 200,000. Not since 2009. That is a bloated statement from the far right. Yes Obama has hired a lot, but no where near the 200,000 that is claimed. He is replacing those that were not hired/replaced. How many were Border Patrol Agents? Homeland Security Positions? Etc. All called for not only by Dems, but by Republicans. Most of the oringinaladditional 200,000 came under Bush and the Republican controlled congress. I guess they forgot they originally bloated the federal payroll, and now want to make those same federal employees their scape goats for their lavish spending when they were in power?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

 

[Warrenlm]

... Start the trimming with Congress at a GS-5/9 paywage.

While not taking this literally, (two residences, travel costs, clothing, etc.) we've already made it almost impossible to have regular people represent us or lead us (especially since we are swayed by TV spots). The more we turn the governing over to wealthy people, the more we continue to get the government we deserve. New mantra is trickle down trickle down? Better: term limits, publicly funded only campaigning, erase K Street and major change in Congressional seniority rules. Ah, where's that dream catcher.

On the subject of hiring.....some must be related to the new realization that contractors cost more than career feds.

 

[Kaufmanrider]

Kaufmanrider,
that 200,000 person increase has occurred since January 20, 2009.
And, it was permanent salaried staff - not census workers. The Left believes in gubmint action - so they staff it. I haven't seen any benefit.

It is a boondoggle.

Actually, it is since 2002. We have added an entire new department, with vast resources and personnel. I am not saying it is not needed, but the majority of the increase in the number of federal employees is due to 9/11 and "Homeland Security."

The link below has a chart, with numbers from OMB. Per Capita we are at our lowest level. We have far less now than under Bush 1 and Clinton. Since 2002, the Feds have added 200,000. Not since 2009. That is a bloated statement from the far right. Yes Obama has hired a lot, but no where near the 200,000 that is claimed. He is replacing those that were not hired/replaced. How many were Border Patrol Agents? Homeland Security Positions? Etc. All called for not only by Dems, but by Republicans. Most of the oringinaladditional 200,000 came under Bush and the Republican controlled congress. I guess they forgot they originally bloated the federal payroll, and now want to make those same federal employees their scape goats for their lavish spending when they were in power?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

 

[Minnow]

Our country used to have a saying:

"All For One and One for All"

You from Switzerland... France maybe?

Sorry, I quit reading after that "gem."

 

[Nate]

I say....

Term Limits.

I agree with this one. I also think Military service should be a prerequisite. Political civil service should be more selfless service, and less of a "high earnings" career. Start the trimming with Congress at a GS-5/9 paywage.

On the side, I came across an interesting website a few years ago....Just searched for it again and found it.
http://membership.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2009

-And offtopic, if I hear the media use the words "rhetoric" or "shellacking" one more time, Im gonna drink bleach.

 

[alevin]

I'd even offer to leave all my existing contributions, all my employers existing contributions, and all my current earnings that have accrued in my Social Security 'Lockbox' and never receive any Social Security benefit - if they would just let me invest my future Social Security contributions in my own TSP account.

Boghie, SS went in the red last fall. More coming out than going in already. You do know there's no tooth fairy, right? no lockbox, neither. Congress helped themselves to the contents years ago and issued IOUs to you and me both. what's left will be gone before we know it.

Karl had an excellent most enlightening graph today-its in his morning editorial at the link-very very telling. derived from federal data sources publicly available. story is-the national GDP and declining purchasing power problems go back 60 years.

There has been NO actual positive GDP growth during the entire period from 1953 onward – until the 4th quarter of 2009, and since 1980 the true GDP numbers, when one looks at output (not what one “pulls forward” via debt) has been hideously bad. ...

This, incidentally, is why median incomes haven’t moved upward at all in the last decade and why it seems to be harder and harder every year to maintain a middle-class lifestyle - and has been since the 1950s. ....

regardless of appearances to the contrary.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=177912