The Yard Vs. Harvard Yard
Allysia Finley writes in the WSJ that a job as a California prison guard beats the kind of job you can get with a Harvard degree:
The job might not sound glamorous, but a brochure from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations boasts that it "has been called 'the greatest entry-level job in California'--and for good reason. Our officers earn a great salary, and a retirement package you just can't find in private industry. We even pay you to attend our academy." That's right--instead of paying more than $200,000 to attend Harvard, you could earn $3,050 a month at cadet academy.It gets better.
Training only takes four months, and upon graduating you can look forward to a job with great health, dental and vision benefits and a starting base salary between $45,288 and $65,364. By comparison, Harvard grads can expect to earn $49,897 fresh out of college and $124,759 after 20 years.
As a California prison guard, you can make six figures in overtime and bonuses alone. While Harvard-educated lawyers and consultants often have to work long hours with little recompense besides Chinese take-out, prison guards receive time-and-a-half whenever they work more than 40 hours a week. One sergeant with a base salary of $81,683 collected $114,334 in overtime and $8,648 in bonuses last year, and he's not even the highest paid.
Sure, Harvard grads working in the private sector get bonuses, too, but only if they're good at what they do. Prison guards receive a $1,560 "fitness" bonus just for getting an annual check-up.
...The cherry on top is the defined-benefit pension. Unlike most Harvard grads working in the private sector, prison guards don't have to delay retirement if their 401(k)s take a hit. Prison guards can retire at the age of 55 and earn 85% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives. They also continue to receive medical benefits.
The big difference between Harvard and being a prison guard: Somebody's mommy and daddy are funding Harvard, and probably for only four or five years, depending on how many years their little golden child spends binge-drinking instead of studying. As far as the prison guards go, it looks like the rest of us in California will be paying those prison guard pensions until we die.
So why do you still reside in the land of the fruits and nuts, anyway? The only vote that counts in the People's Republic of Wackyfornia is the one you cast with your feet.
TX CHL Instructor at May 1, 2011 4:03 AM
Bleed those tax payers dry baby.
Lobster at May 1, 2011 5:49 AM
When you start comparing public sector jobs with the private sector -- and it comes even close -- you know the republic is lost. The operative term in being a GS Government Service is the word SERVICE
Jim P. at May 1, 2011 5:50 AM
There's a false flag here.
Harvard is selected for the idea that every graduate is an instant millionaire with a guaranteed supply of silver spoons for his offspring.
Harvard can charge that for its tuition - and actually reject, what, 5 of 6 applicants? - because of its brand value. So can Yale, Princeton, Cornell... shucks, look at the liberal-arts gems like Wofford. They'll qualify you for more training at Hamburger University, because a lot of college doesn't do anything for you.
Yes, there are failures with a degree from Harvard, etc.
Now that you know what a California prison guard makes, you can:
a) lobby for reductions in their pay. After all, that's a wonderful, stress-free, easy job there in the yard with the criminals;
b) get a job there. After all, that's a wonderful, stress-free, easy job there in the yard with the criminals.
Beyond making a simple observation that government jobs in general pay "too much" and "California can't afford to pay this much for {name job here}", that's about all you can do, right?
Now, what kind of employee do you get for less pay - say, at the TSA?
Think it through... Pay isn't the only problem. It's just a symptom.
Radwaste at May 1, 2011 6:06 AM
Merely doing a stressful job makes you entitled to take other peoples money in large amounts? Who knew. My job is damn stressful too, can also I get more benefits, more vacation and early retirement at taxpayers expense?
"Harvard is selected for the idea"
No, it isn't. It's selected because it's one of the top universities, so its graduates will earn more *relative* to *other* universities. I.e. if you earn less after graduating from 'one of the best universities' than some low-skilled menial job, something is wrong. Nowhere does anyone seem to be suggesting that Harvard graduates should be instant millionaires.
"Beyond making a simple observation that government jobs in general pay "too much" and "California can't afford to pay this much for {name job here}", that's about all you can do, right"
Uhrm .. those are facts, and they are VERY real problems. What more is Amy supposed to do? They are such real problems that the biggest economy in the world is facing a genuine plausible risk of a sovereign debt crisis within 20 years - the biggest sovereign debt crisis the world will ever see, and that will leave no other economy unscathed. If you really believe that we have no choice to pay these salaries simply because these are stressful jobs ... weeeell ... reality has a way of coming back to bite you in the ass when you choose to ignore it. "There is no money" means "there is no money", there are no ifs, ands or buts. Reality doesn't say "well you seem to have a good excuse, after all these are *high-stress* jobs we're talking about! - so we'll let you off the hook for this looming debt crisis!"
Lobster at May 1, 2011 6:19 AM
Harvard graduates do in fact have one of the highest mean earnings after graduation:
http://www.smartmoney.com/Personal-Finance/College-Planning/colleges-that-pay-off/?page=14
Seems to me Allysia Finley / Amy's point stands.
Lobster at May 1, 2011 6:24 AM
I've also learned in the last few weeks that new prison guards get 8 weeks of vacation a year, and they can roll it over indefinitely and cash it out when they retire. The state recently paid a retiree nearly $250k just in accrued vacation pay. They are also paid for their time walking from their car into the prison and back to their car at the end of their shift. I told my daughter to forget grad school and become a prison guard...hell I might go to the academy and get me a cushy job.
sara at May 1, 2011 6:36 AM
> that's about all you can do, right?
Another option is to privatize the prison guards.
Or, you could outsource running of the prison to lowest cost bidder.
You could also free all prisoners who are there for minor drug problems.
Lots of good options are available.
Snoopy at May 1, 2011 6:58 AM
I don't like people being paid for do nothing jobs that garner them a lifetime of benefits.
However, is there an overwhelming number of people who want to be prison guards?
It seems like a dangerous job to me, and you may need to pay more and offer better benefits to attract candidates.
JFP at May 1, 2011 8:14 AM
Well, when the US defaults on its debt, at least the Harvard grad and the prison guard will finally be equal. Equally boned, that is.
brian at May 1, 2011 9:06 AM
I contend that all public pensions need to be eliminated--local, state, federal, civilian and military.
Such pensions are time bombs for taxpayers.
Especially outrageous are pensions paid after just 20 years of service, such as those by the Department of Defense to uniformed employees.
I am beginning to think that we need to start thinking about government service as something someone does for 10 years max, before graduating to the private sector. The pay should be high enough to fill the positions, and then up and out in 10 years.
BOTU at May 1, 2011 9:18 AM
I agree brian. I wouldn't want to lay odds on a Californian state employee actually getting that generous pension in 20 years time. They're going to take a haircut, the only question is when and how much.
Ltw at May 1, 2011 9:34 AM
Interesting point BOTU, with echoes of Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
The 20 year rule for combat positions is probably fair. After that they're a bit old maybe for front-line service? And they were willing to go into combat, and made a lot of sacrifices along the way (go where you're told, etc). And correct me if I'm wrong but it's retirement on half-pay isn't it? Which isn't that much. It seems a pretty fair trade-off. And doesn't have the "last year's overtime" racket that jacks up police and firemen pensions.
Non-combat roles should be treated like anyone else moving from one job to another though.
Ltw at May 1, 2011 9:45 AM
So why do you still reside in the land of the fruits and nuts, anyway?
Can't speak for Amy, but even with the mess that is our state government, I'd still rather live in California than anywhere else in the U.S. It's hard to compete with the weather, food, cultural activities, outdoor activities, and – for my business (tech), there's no more important center of innovation in the world.
Think it through... Pay isn't the only problem. It's just a symptom.
Yes, I agree. That the pay got that way – through sweetheart deals between politicians (mostly Democratic ones) and the union – is the problem.
You could also free all prisoners who are there for minor drug problems.
This was contemplated here in CA a few years back. It was forcefully opposed by the corrections officer union. In the interest of public safety, natch.
Christopher at May 1, 2011 10:33 AM
"I am beginning to think that we need to start thinking about government service as something someone does for 10 years max, before graduating to the private sector."
Botu, Can we get Congress on this plan? Although we may need to reverse it so you have some private sector experience before going into government.
As far as the pensions why not just dump defined benefit plans for government employees in favor of defined contribution plans?
JFP at May 1, 2011 11:34 AM
To be fair, there aren't a lot of harvard grads risking their life every day they go to work. I"m not saying their pay and bennies are appropriate, but there does need to be SOME reason to take that risk.
Cops risk their lives daily, and get to retire decently after 20 years of it. It's a rather large reason most cops become cops. There is a similarity between cops and guards.
My hubby has a great technical job that supports the 6 of us in decent comfort if not luxury. He joined the USAF right out of high school, got paid to go to community college, and got paid to train for his feild. I, on the other hand, am still more than $20k in debt for a degree I now have no chance of getting a job in, much less a job that pays enough for daycare for 4 to be worth it. I plan to finish my RN degree the year #4 starts kinder. Degree #1 being totally useless.
Now, I am NOT lobbying for reducing the benefits and training given our armed forces. They make tradeoffs for that-one being they could end up getting shot at overseas, and that wasn't a real worry for me at UT.
But retiring at 85% pay? That's too much, for any job.
momof4 at May 1, 2011 1:54 PM
Wow.
The actual measure of whether your return on investment in any activity is appropriate is to measure the task, and see what the market will provide for you.
If you don't pay enough, either in wages, perks or pensions, you don't get applicants. Then, there's a whole scale of pay vs. qualifications to consider. Do you think your guards should be fit? Shooters? Qualified in hand/hand combat?
None of this applies, by comparison to college graduation. You could have picked any other college and failed just as hard. Brooke Shields is worth how many millions? Is she worth that? She never even had to register for the draft. We pay 75 times as much per year on tobacco products as we spend on NASA. Which one can save humanity?
See?
You not entitled to a job, and I never said that. Classic straw man, and that's not all, as I've just shown. It remains that if you think that's an easy job for which the pay is too high, bitching is not useful. Go take that job. Hey! Then give some of your wages back!
What?
-----
There is a continuing complaint by functionalists to "pay working people and not those who {pick other job here}". Heinlein even addressed it in The Roads Must Roll.
It's just wealth envy.
Just say what the job is, and do the ROI to see if those guys are really overpaid for what they do, not what other people do.
Radwaste at May 1, 2011 4:39 PM
One overlooked difference between Harvard lawyers and prison guards:
Nobody throws feces at Harvard lawyers.
And I ask myself, "Why not?".
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 1, 2011 4:42 PM
"Cops risk their lives daily, and get to retire decently after 20 years of it."
If Bureau of Labor Statistics are to be believed, police work is not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America. Among those jobs which are, try asking around and see if farmers, truck drivers and construction workers get to retire with the kinds of benefits cops do.
They don't, of course, but on the other hand, they do have the privilege of paying for the cops' benefits.
Not Sure at May 1, 2011 5:18 PM
Ltw,
"Non-combat roles should be treated like anyone else moving from one job to another though."
You don't know much about the military. People in "non-combat" roles, including women who are by definition in "non-combat" roles, wind up in combat all the time. I'm an IT guy and far from being a combat troop. However, I don't hear so well from my left ear from a mortar going off way too close. I also have spent way too much time away from my children.
The lines have become blurred a bit lately between combat troops and non-combat troops, though combat troops really, really, see a lot more shit than I do.
You're correct that it is a fifty percent retirement after twenty years. Although it's fifty percent of "base pay". We get paid a lot of tax free allowances and that makes up a lot of our payday. Those aren't figured into the retirement. So really, it's more like twenty-five percent of what we're accustomed to taking home. No enlisted guy is left in the position of just going fishing after retirement. It's time to get another job.
I'm not complaining one bit. It's a great deal. It's enough money each month to take care of a mortgage while you begin a second career. The health benefits are also a great thing to have in your back pocket.
I'm not really making any point about government pensions, etc. I just wanted to clarify what a military pension looks like.
whistleDick at May 2, 2011 6:22 AM
If Bureau of Labor Statistics are to be believed, police work is not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America.
If the Bureau of Labor Statistics are to be believed, "correctional officers have one of the highest rates of nonfatal on-the-job injuries." Since we're talking about prison guards.
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos156.htm
Industrial injury stats only tell part of the story on the relative dangerousness of jobs. Plus I'd argue that there's a qualitative difference between jobs whose danger comes from accidents, and those whose danger comes from accidents AND criminal assault.
Wylee Coyote at May 2, 2011 8:05 AM
The issue with defined benefit pensions (DBPs) is not whether corrections officers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, teachers, et al. "deserve" their pensions... most of us work hard at our chosen professions, whether we get a pension or not. Almost no one working a regular job is paid what they believe themselves to be worth. The issue is that DBPs are unsustainable; we don't have the money - and it isn't only because of the depression we're in. Politicians have made promises for years to government employees, promises that cannot be kept. It isn't simply future pension payouts that are the problem, it is the millions upon millions of people already drawing benefits that are breaking the bank.
No system can withstand huge numbers of employees that are permitted to "retire" at age 45 or 50, to draw a generous pension and full medical/dental for the next 30 or 40 years. The math isn't sustainable. Example: A retired army O-4 (major) who retires at age 45 and lives to be 8- years old, with an annual pension of $50,000 will end up costing the taxpayers $1.75 million dollars. That does not include medical benefits.
To add fuel to the fire, many retired military and other govt. employees take a second career in govt., make a salary and after enough years, draw pension benefits there also - a practice known as double-dipping.
The simple fact of the matter is that in return for longer lives, we will have to work longer to afford them. That's the trade-off, but spoiled govt. employees don't want to hear about it. Well, reality has a way of making itself known whether one likes it or not... one day in the not-so-distant future, the well is going to run dry. The money won't be there to pay for all of these goodies. Cry me a river. No able-bodied person - in govt. or out - should be permitted to retire on someone else's back. If you are independently wealthy, fine... but otherwise, get a job and wait for retirement until you are 65 or 70 years old like everyone else.
Exceptions should be made for those legitimately disabled in the line of duty, i.e. soldiers completely disabled in battle, cops and firefighters too debilitated to work, etc. Determinations of same should be made by an independent third-party medical authority. They deserve a pension. Not the rest of the clowns who believe that working in some cushy staff job entitles them to the same protections and benefits as a disabled combat soldier. And don't even get me started about govt. bureaucrats, teachers and assorted other paper-pushers who feel entitled to a govt. (taxpayer-funded) check each month. What a bunch of parasites....
Georgiaboy61 at May 2, 2011 2:50 PM
Hmm.
"Non-combat roles should be treated like anyone else moving from one job to another though."
Hmm. My Dad was an aviation machinist / mechanic in the Marine Corps.
Marine Air Group 23.
On Guadalcanal. At Henderson Field when it was christened.
The battleship shelling them? Just like the one at any other job...
Radwaste at May 2, 2011 5:14 PM
Deliver us from the proposal that gov't service jobs should re preformed by young collge grads for ten years and then terminated to be filled by new green kiddies. Using my experience in a vocational field that required a college degree such a prposal would be a complete disaster. i far to many cases from what I observed it took ten years out of college before most of the dolts developed even a modicum of reality, competence, and maturity to perform eff3ctively in the workplace.rityt O
Old One at May 2, 2011 5:21 PM
"Since we're talking about prison guards."
I wasn't. I was responding to a previous post and even c&p'd the part I was addressing.
Either way, police/correctional work is *not* any more "putting your life on the line everyday" dangerous than lots of jobs where people have to work into their 60s and 70s in order to support the cops/correctional officers who retire much earlier, and with better (for now, anyway) benefits.
Not Sure at May 2, 2011 7:15 PM
Leave a comment