Very interesting, but definitely not surprising.
Note: This is U.S. data. Sorry for not clarifying sooner!
“Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.”
And let’s just add insult to injury:
“These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs. $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.”
Via Big Government
It’s amazing how some roles have such a big difference in pay, such as Clergy at $70,000 in the government, versus around $40,000 in private sector.
Or Graphic designer at $70,000 versus $46,000 in the private sector.
But maybe the work is different?
I can see that for IT because to me, they’re sort of ambiguous.
IT in general is fairly new as an industry, and we don’t have exact definitions as to what each role does.
A computer systems analyst to someone might be a computer support specialist to another.
But to me, they are two completely different job roles and tasks, which can be subdivided even further depending on what applications we’re talking about.
Then you factor in the actual tasks involved, and setting up a computer for an employee is a different job from doing IT help desk support to troubleshoot a system or any kind of specialized software.
Just a girl trying to find a balance between being a Shopaholic and a Saver.
I cleared $60,000 in 18 months earning $65,000 gross/year.
Now I am self-employed, and you can read more about 
People, please educate yourselves. The primary reason federal workers make more on average for middle career positions than the private sector is because of the REQUIREMENT for specialization and having degrees for those particular areas.
Yep I believe it. I lived in a Gov town. More than 3/4 of the population worked for The Lab, and Forbes ranked it as the highest concentration of millionaires in the US last yr, 1 out of every 5 residents. Not Miami or New York or any place ritzy, a little remote town in the mountains where everyone works for the government heh.
One of the most common practices there was "double dipping". You put in your 20 years, then retire and start drawing a pension and get rehired as a consultant doing the same thing you were before. Dont even have to clean out your desk and overnight almost double salary.
I worked for a spinoff company from the Lab, but my counterparts doing the same thing I was with a gov Id badge were pulling in 3 times what I was and working less hours.
While everyone may be foaming at the mouth thinking feds have it easy I think it is important to be reminded that Feds salary is predetermined. There is no ability to exceed the limits of your job series. I work for the fed, and in my current position I know I will never be able to make more than $90k/yr. Sure that might seem great (cause it is), but it also means no matter how good of a worker I am I can never earn a six figure income. In the private sector you have the ability to be paid what you are worth.
I think you, FB, of all people should acknowledge this. You make a NICE income working for yourself and have the potential to charge whatever rates you think you're worth. With the government, you are told from day one what you will make, no matter how good you are. You would never make what you do working for Uncle Sam.
Like most things in life, working for the Fed has it's positives, but it definitely has some cons as well.
Umm are you attacking me?
“I think you, FB, of all people should acknowledge this.”
All I did was post the chart to generate a discussion. Please don’t tell me what I should and shouldn’t do. I am an employee of my own private corporation.
And in Canada, if you want to move up in your job, you just switch departments or jobs for the higher salary.
No definitely not intended to be an attack. Your article was pretty neutral so I'm sorry if it appeared as thought I was attacking you. When I said you should acknowledge this all I meant was that you are an example of why working for the Fed would be a bad thing. In your situation you would have to take a huge pay cut. I didn't mean to "tell you what to do", but more was suggesting that you look at things from a different perspective.
Also, it is not super easy to just "switch departments" as you mentioned for a higher salary. Government positions are very competitive, and even if you do make the switch that next position will have a salary cap. Again in the private sector, especially in your situation, you have the ability to make what you are worth. In the public sector, you make what the Govt tells you they will pay you.
My apologies if I offended.
Oh! 🙂 Glad you clarified
But you know what, I didn’t want to offend government workers. I don’t think working for the government is a bad thing. It all depends on what you are after in a job/career. Security, set salaries, set raises.
Perhaps the difference is U.S. versus Canada. I don’t know how the government runs here in Canada, but even if salaries are capped, I do know that if you switch departments, they cannot pay you less than what you earned before, EVEN THOUGH it is a different job, and maybe even entry level.
Or at least, that’s what I heard.
What they can do, is get rid of your category/job altogether and then you WILL start at the bottom of that category range, but unless they reshuffle the roles, they are guaranteed that salary + higher for life.
I should also mention that I don’t know how the government chooses/structures their salaries. It might be different in Canada or not. I have no clue, I just found the chart interesting.
As I mentioned on my blog a few days ago, this is the kind of news that is enraging a lot of people.
A quick commentary from me- it's possible that both the CFIB and Global Research are right about the size of the public service. The GR data is more recent (3 months ago, so during the recession) and would therefore take into account recent job losses in the PS, while CFIB's is older and takes into account the last 15 years (where there has been a huge increase in the size of the public sector)
The links are here, for the nerdily curious:
CFIB: http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/cfib-documents/WW_MB.pdf
TB: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/orp/2007/er-ed/vo…
GR: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va…
In short (since this already got eaten once by Explorer):
CFIB says public sector salaries have steadily outpaced private sector salaries, that the size of the public service has skyrocketed, and non-compensatory benefits mean the PS is way over compensated compared to the private sector.
The Treasury Board says that it depends on where you are in the pecking order. If you're lower down, you're better paid compared to the private sector, but as you get higher, the salries even out and then switch. They say it also depends on gender: the wage disparity between men and women is much smaller in the public sector than in the private sector.
Global Research says that the size of the public service has actually shrunk, and that the wage increases between the public sector and private sector are virtually equal when you consider the slow, steady increases of the PS versus the wild increases and then wild decreases of the private sector.
[FYI there are two separate Kates replying on this post!]
I tried to post a coherent reply but Internet Explorer ate it. ANYWAYS.
I did some digging for you on Canadian data.
I found three wildly different sources: the Canadian Federaiton of Indepndent Business (a pro-business lobby group), the Treasury Board (the federal government department that does all the HR planning, etc.) and the Global Research Group (a progressive think-tank, but note that the article was actually written by a guy from the Canadian Labour Congress).
You are so nice to go and dig up that data! 🙂
To me, I don’t really care what private versus federal makes. It’s different benefits for both, and there are chances for change in both.
You get what you put into a job, whether it be in private or federal, and quite frankly if someone hated their job ( in either case ) they’d leave… or at least that’s what I’d hope they do! 🙂
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/78xx/doc7874/03-15-Fed…
Page 16(24 in adobe) Figure 1.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html
First of all, the numbers in the table above are absolutely useless! The age distribution of Federally employed individuals is completely skewed. While 20-24 year-olds make up roughly the same percentage of the US population than 45-49 year-olds, the federal government employs 4 times as many 50-54 year-olds as it does 25-29 year-olds. (I adjusted the ages, because the graphs are 5 years apart) Now, my guess would be that the private sector would be more evenly distributed age-wise. Therefore, the private sector is paying disproportionately lower salaries on an average basis because they're employing more people who have *much* less experience.
Yeah, I'm in the marketing area, but more interactive based…but my guess is the pay would be similar to the Graphic Designer!
First . . . government clergy?!?!?!?!
Ok, now that I have that off my shoulders. It's very weird that public sector is actually higher paid. I had thought the opposite although my idea on that was formed back in the 90's and I never thought about it since. Do you think it's a recent change?
Part of it may be because the job market is so crappy these days. In some areas there is basically no private sector left . . .
It's the opposite way around in New Zealand – government workers get paid peanuts and have hardly any job perks, and private workers get much more money and perks. For example… I used to work in a collections department in government, and got NZ$32k a year (US$22k or so). Doing the same job in the private sector, I got NZ$44k (US$31k or so). And for the private sector job, I got benefits through the company, free shares, a good retirement plan, basic health insurance for free (though we have the free healthcare system here it does speed up things like essential surgeries). Government job perks… nil. Seriously.
It's interesting to see how different countries can be.
This really surprises me! I always though private tended to pay more – people went into govt. work for benefits and job stability. Guess not.
Oops, I think I commented in the wrong section before:
This issue annoys me very much. Not only do public employees get paid more, get better benefits, and pensions, many simply go to work and push paper around their desk. I’m sure the federal & state government can cut 1/2 of its workforce, nudge their employees to work a bit harder, and things will still run as is.
Here in Jersey our property tax is the highest in the country, mostly going to the schools (not just in our own towns but in towns that are categorized as poor). Many of these “poor” schools take the money and install flat screen TV’s in the hall way, build new football fields, etc. but not directly helping the kids… anyway, I’m just rambling now…
"I’m sure the federal & state government can cut 1/2 of its workforce, nudge their employees to work a bit harder, and things will still run as is."
See, the problem is, no matter what the reality, people always think this is the case. Not saying that that wasn't ever true, but there's been a lot of change in the last 15 years, and you can only cut so much before people just can't do it any more. There aren't enough hours in the full day, let alone the work day, to get everything you want done. Let alone done well.
It's a tough question, but one we seriously need to have as a country (either Canada or the US). What services do we want our government to provide? Out of those, which are the top priorities? What are we willing to pay to ensure we get those services?
You know these are American stats, right? The same is not necessarily true in Canada.
Yeah, I'm in the marketing area, but more interactive based…but my guess is the pay would be similar to the Graphic Designer!
My experience has been totally different — my father was a civil engineer working for the federal government for 36 years. After he retired, he went to work part time in the private sector. Working half as much, he is earning more than double his full time government salary. Amongst all my friends who work for the federal government (which is quite a lot, given that I went to school in DC), they all make far less than they would in private sector, but do get much better benefits and better retirement packages.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
I always just assumed that federal would have better salaries and benefits for professionals. I guess it might also depend on how high up you work your way to. If you make partner in a firm or if you are stuck in a lower position.
I can't speak for Feds but I work for a provincial gov't. I know that Feds pay EXTREMELY well though with amazing benefits though.
As for provincial, I can tell you right off the bat that lower/entry level jobs are paid extremely well. As you move up though, the pay does not get better by very much. So if you are entry level, gov't work is good. If you're going to be a manager or a director, stay private. You'll be awarded much better.
That's the case with the feds as well. Admins get paid really well compared to the private sector, but as you get higher, the salaries even out and then switch.
*Sigh* I don't know what's the proper reaction (even if it isn't surprising): angry that I don't get that kind of pay/benefits, or anger that my hard earned tax dollars goes to pay other people's generous salaries. And let's not even get to non-quantifiable aspects like workload and stress levels…
As a daughter of two clergy, I would imagine that part of the reason the one in the public service gets paid more is overtime! Other clergy are paid on salary, no matter how many hours they work. People don't tend to get sick or need help between 9 and 5! Also, they are often provided with housing by their congregation (or an allowance in lieu). I would guess that the government pays a generous allowance to compensate for having to find your own housing.
That's a really good point. It's not a 9-5 job.
Just wondering if this is Canadian or US data? Also I didn't know some of the jobs were available by the federal government ie: cook, dental assistant, landscape architects…
U.S. Data 🙂
I'm going to wager a bet on clergy… if you're a public service clergyman (or woman, I suppose), you're likely attached to the military, and risk being posted overseas.
Does the chart specify if those numbers are regular salary or include things like danger pay?
No, no specifics about danger pay versus regular pay.