How is a high-paying, protected federal job 'public service'?

I was startled three months ago when President Obama proposed that those college graduates who go into government jobs get a special break on paying off their college loans.

Government workers already are paid handsomely, and have generous benefits to boot. So why give them more?

Some people seem to argue on the premise that most people make a sacrifice by working for the government, when it's clear that, at least on the federal level, government workers are paid about twice the average private worker's income.

Pay gap. The Washington Examiner:

Data compiled by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis reveals the extent of the pay gap between federal and private workers. As of 2008, the average federal salary was $119,982, compared with $59,909 for the average private sector employee. In other words, the average federal bureaucrat makes twice as much as the average working taxpayer. Add the value of benefits like health care and pensions, and the gap grows even bigger. The average federal employee's benefits add $40,785 to his annual total compensation, whereas the average working taxpayer's benefits increase his total compensation by only $9,881. In other words, federal workers are paid on average salaries that are twice as generous as those in the private sector, and they receive benefits that are four times greater.

The situation is the same when state and local government compensation data is compared with that of the private sector. As the Cato Institute's Chris Edwards notes in the current issue of the Cato Journal, "The public sector pay advantage is most pronounced in benefits. Bureau of Economic Analysis data show that average compensation in the private sector was $59,909 in 2008, including $50,028 in wages and $9,881 in benefits. Average compensation in the public sector was $67,812, including $52,051 in wages and $15,761 in benefits." Those figures likely underestimate the true gap on the benefits side because the typical government employee gets a guaranteed defined benefit pension under very generous terms, while the private sector norm is a 401(K) defined contribution plan that is subject to the ups and downs of the economy.

Who serves whom? How would federal workers merit early college-loan forgiveness? I must be missing something, but it sure feels as if private-sector workers have become servants of the "public servants."

Frank Warner

Comments

[Lynne]

Well, since passage of the Health Care bill put control of most student loans in the hands of the Federal government, this only makes sense, in a corruptocrat kind of way.
My view is that there is that there is an over-reliance on college degrees in the hiring market. Sure, some professions require post-secondary training (doctors, engineers, etc.)but most entry-level positions just don't. Combine this over-reliance on college degrees with placing the administration of most college loans in the hands of a single government entity, and you've created a situation ripe for corruption. Federal officials can literally begin to decide who gets to be part of the middle/upper class and who doesn't.

[jj mollo]

Although this issue affects me personally, I have to say that the likely outcome of government subsidizing student loans would probably be counter-productive. It amounts to price support for the educational institutions, something they don't seem to need at the present time.

Funneling students from expensive colleges into the government might seem like a good idea, but I don't believe it would raise the performance level of government one iota. It would be like hiring a lawyer to mow your grass ... or maybe like hiring a lawyer to mow your grass and then paste it back together in order to look busy ... or maybe like hiring a lawyer to mow your astroturf. The average government employee is already way overqualified to do what is basically a job of writing bulletproof rule books so that people can spend all their time trying to make it look like they're following the rules. Why hire somebody who's been trained to develop a refined sense of good judgment if you won't let them exercise that judgment?

The problem for employers is that it's very hard to know who is qualified and appropriate for any given position. College graduates can screw up a job big time, and those who lack the credentials might be perfect, but if I hire the former, I can never get in trouble with my boss for that decision. If I hire a promising high school grad that screws up, however, the blame hammer will fall hard.