On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:07:44 -0800, Jack wrote:

On Dec 11, 8:40Â*pm, thunder wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:33:51 -0800, Jack wrote:
Seems that parity has been more than acheived, huh?

Uh, actually no, the Federal workforce still needs to catch up. Â*If you
want to check parity, you have to compare similar jobs, and
qualifications, not just average the whole workforce.

Uh. no.

www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0605-35.pdf

"Despite the escalation of federal compensation, some government studies
have found that federal workers are underpaid, and that they suffer from
a “pay gap� compared to private- sector workers.2 By contrast, some
academic studies have found that federal workers are overpaid.3
Comparison studies that find a pay gap sometimes compare federal workers
to those in large businesses. But many U.S. workers are employed by
small businesses, which tend to have lower compensation levels. More
important, comparison studies typically look just at wages and don’t
consider the superior benefits paid by the government. Federal workers
receive health benefits, retirement health benefits, a pension plan with
inflation protection, and a retirement savings plan with a very generous
match. (By contrast, 40 percent of private-sector workers do not have
access to an employer retirement plan at all.) Federal workers typically
have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible work hours,
training options, incentive awards, excessive disability benefits,
flexible spending accounts, union protections, and a usually more
relaxed pace of work than private worker. Perhaps the most important
benefit of federal work is the extreme job security. The rate of
“involuntary separations� (layoffs and firings) in the federal workforce
is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector.4 Just 1 in 5,000
federal nondefense workers is fired for poor performance each year.5 All
these federal advantages in benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs,
federal wages should be lower than private-sector wages."

"in comparable jobs, federal wages should be lower than private-sector
wages." So, the CATO institute decides what wages *should* be?

It's supply and demand. If you can not find, and keep, qualified
applicants, for whatever reason, you have to sweeten the deal. That was
the problem when the FEPCA was passed. If it's not the problem now, you
don't need to increase wages as much. Perhaps, that's the reason Obama
is only asking for a 2% increase.