Whaddya mean "isn't 100 percent accurate"? You ask for a miracle, Amy, I give you Veteran's Affairs.

A Department of Veterans Affairs employee in Puerto Rico was fired after being arrested for armed robbery, but her union quickly got her reinstated — despite a guilty plea — by pointing out that management’s labor relations negotiator is a registered sex offender, and the hospital’s director was once arrested and found with painkiller drugs.

The woman missed work while sitting in jail but was reinstated in March with back pay.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/22/va-worker-gets-job-back-despite-armed-robbery-charge/

Gangsta government.

Wow.

You know, I disagree with the notion that federal employees have "lavish" pay. I'm quite sure some do (Congress?), but many of the numbers thrown about are overly simplified.

For many of the top paying government jobs, you can make much more in the private sector. It might look lavish on paper, but it isn't always in reality.

For instance, in the DC metro area (where I live and where a LOT of the "higher up" government jobs are located), the top pay for a General Schedule Employee is about 160k. These are workers, probably managing a team of people, but not executives. They also will have to have been in that position for a long time to have that pay. I know folks who worked hard for over 30 years and never got to that level. So this is the tippity-top.

That sounds like a lot, and in much of the country it IS a lot, but most all of those positions require either a master's degree or a PhD. Private sector would hire quite a few of those people for 250k a year or more.

Moreover, DC is a very expensive place to live. According to bestplaces.net an equivalent salary a few hours away in Richmond, VA would be about 98k. In St. Louis, MO it would be about 86k. And of course, the government takes a lot less of your pay at 86k than at 160k. (Now, the same position in those places have lower salaries, but NOT that much lower! But there are also a lot fewer of those jobs).

Now, there is most certainly waste in the government. Absolutely. I saw some when I worked there. BUT, these "perks" are paid for out of department funds - usually for recruitment/retention purposes. The government has a hard time hiring people (the process is onerous and long. They loose lots of good candidates. Also, with background checks and such, turnover is expensive. So, sometimes departments take their own operating budgets and work in these sorts of things. Just like businesses do. It's not extra funds from Congress, but decisions made at the department level. "How do we best allocate our overhead budget?" Some years it's an extra class, some years it's new computer servers, some years its nothing. It depends on the priorities and budget.

That said, I have serious questions about offering fitness classes in the middle of the day. I know quite a few people who took more than their lunch to go to the DOE gym. Some actually stayed late and made up the hours though.

We'll have to cut the yoga classes out, 'cause we're gonna need the money to make more atom bombs.

Interesting times.

Shannon,

Stop looking at the $ pay for government employees and start looking at the $ cost. A lot of government employee pay is in benefits like pension and health care. And as a tax payer I don't really care how they get paid. Just what it costs. And yes, this applies to the private sector too. People complain that wages haven't risen for the middle class but they have risen for the top 10%. But if you look at cost instead of pay you find they've both risen in lockstep. The difference is middle class workers are getting more of their pay in benefits. Often benefits they don't really want.

...but most all of those positions require either a master's degree or a PhD. Private sector would hire quite a few of those people for 250k a year or more.

The government tends to require a graduate degree for positions for which the private sector would hire an experienced Bachelor's.

For example, try becoming a school principal without an EdD, a Master's, or a special license. "According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the majority of states require school principals to have a school administrator license. To be eligible for licensure, most states require applicants to hold graduate degrees along with sitting for a state licensing exam."

Comparing private sector jobs to government jobs can be tricky.

Last time an old friend was back home from his job in D.C. he was bitching about the low pay so we discussed it. His job is closest to a project manager. The big difference that I saw - and he agreed- was job security - by his assessment, he could not fired yet the similar positions I knew of in the private sector were all high risk - if the project didn't go well you were probably out the door. Then there was the benefits. Doing our best to try and figure out what would need to be done with a 401k to match his guarantee'ed retirement was difficult and by that it looks like he was getting compensated more.

The DC high cost of living is spiral problem...employees have additional funds leads them to being able to pay more which if there is enough tends to lead to stuff costing more so then the employee has to get more funds so then it starts repeating.

We are seeing that some where I live...more well employees are driving up costs....particularly housing.

We are seeing that some where I live...more well [off] employees are driving up costs....particularly housing. ~ The Former Banker at December 24, 2016 12:04 AM

I had a potential employer here on the East Coast tell me that she couldn't match my past salary (which is why I hate giving a salary history when applying for a job). I had to explain that there is a cost of living difference between here and San Francisco. I can live here in the same style of living with less money.

As more employers move here from higher cost areas, however, the cost of living will increase. People from high-cost areas will discover they can get more house and will bid up the price. The same thing happened in Denver when California escapees moved there and started offering more than the asking price for houses. They had lots of money from the sale of their California houses and no concept of what is reasonable in real estate prices. The asking price began increasing to meet the newcomers' ability to pay. Eventually, long-time residents of Denver needed more money just to get by.

Ben,

I was responding to a statement about pay, so yeah, I was talking about pay.

Sure, the health insurance was better and there is about 1% more matching to the 401k, but that does NOT make up the difference in pay for public/private sector for the "lavish pay" jobs.

Yes, I am referring to only the top jobs, because those are the ones that look lavish on paper. The entry-level jobs do not.

Sure, some idiots get those jobs out of sheer dumb luck and bad decisions by higher-ups, but by and large, what I saw were people who were hard workers in the higher up jobs.

I'm not saying government doesn't pay WELL - in overall benefits, it often does (not always), but that some people over simplify and do not realize that what looks like a huge salary is often, for all practical purposes, much less than the individual is worth. For older workers, this was at least partially covered by the pensions, but the pensions for younger workers (about 45 and younger) are MUCH MUCH less than for those who are retiring now and in the past. Also, since Congress has a hand there, you don't actually know what the pension rules will be when you retire, so there is a risk there. That's why I cashed out my pension contributions when I left.

Oh, and I was talking federal - as state/local will vary a lot :)