usatoday.com — Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months... 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.
Dec 11, 2009 View in Crawl 4
laborcszantoDec 12, 2009
About freaking time. How can you have a police state without paying the police well. It's just not going to work. C'mon -- let's get this stuff movin.
gonthimDec 12, 2009
There's no one working fast food or retail for the government. Those two private sectors alone probably employ more people than the government does.
edvilleDec 14, 2009
wehttamnenait -- that is a great attitude, a real inspiration. so you are saying the benefit of living in this great land is worth xx% of your income? can I just ask: what percent that is? I mean, you DO pay taxes yourself, right? You are not crudely admonishing someone to partake in an endeavor that you do not share, I trust? also, as a point of clarification -- I don't know many people opposed to PAYING taxes. I think most are opposed to paying too MUCH in taxes, especially for services that should not even be undertaken by the federal government.
hetmanDec 14, 2009
I work for the state. The only thing that it does is match my 401k. If I put in 4 percent of my check they will match that 4%. The catch is that if I do not wait 30 years to take money out of my 401k it gets taxed. They are taking back there 4% they have been matching me. The longer you wait the smaller this tax is. However if I was giong to get my money out right now I would be taxed upwards of 65% to have it. That is what blows.
sduncan000Nov 10, 2010
That is a standard rule on all 401k accounts. That is not specific to govt. positions.
artworkz918Dec 14, 2009
in your case it obviously does. go eat a brownie and leave the adults to talk stoner
andrewmoyerDec 14, 2009
John1066, I wasn't insinuating that the employees were being paid $250,000... I was just saying that $10M seemed like a pretty healthy budget for 40 people, including offices, supplies, travel, etc.Please don't put words in my mouth. And what exactly am I lying about? All I did was present facts... it's not my fault you misunderstood them.
john1066Dec 14, 2009
Andrew, The way you framed it up is very misleading. It could also have been framed up as 25k per employee assuming above average overheads.Without knowing the over heads part of the equation one can not make a good judgement as to their pay because it is unknown with just the information given.As to "putting word in you mouth" I did not. I pointed out that the statement was a lie...More specifically lying by omission. A "fact" was presented " That's a budget of $250,000 per person" and then the next line..."Sure that doesn't figure in expenses and whatnot" says the first line is not correct. The omission part is deliberately leaving another person with a misconception that is must be very near the "fact" figure even thought there is no supporting evidence and a large part of the equations to get the proper budge per person number is missing. Also missing is the information below...As to what they do...With the limited information that was included it looks like they investigate chemical spills / mishaps. Now the question...Do they employ outside companies to help? That may be a large cost. Also do they recreate the mishaps? Even on the small scale that could be very expensive. Do they need to react in a moments notice like the FAA before evidence is destroyed? That would add costs that would not reflect on the per employee number. Do they need hazmat suits that are one use? Most if not all are. That can get expensive. Those are the ones off the top of my head.Now to the other part, the worth of the people employed. Are they well trained scientists? Dr. types? I would hope there would be a few of them with what they do. Those type of people cost more then folks who can only flip burgers.This is why I called it what I think it is... a lie. I do not know if you meant it that way but that's the way it reads.
mykonos08Dec 15, 2009
you know what the Italians and Irish did when no one would hire them out of prejudice? They started their own business. They couldn't find their jobs so they made one. No government handouts to feed them either.