This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Sunday, October 25, 2009

State Thugs Are Well Paid

I've seen this article frequently cited. The "25% discrepancy" study made recently was for Ireland and not the USA. The USA Today article showed a greater discrepancy.

Here's a blog post with more statistics. I'm surprised that such an anti-State ad was published in the Wall Street Journal (owned by News Corp.). Is Fox News now the most freedom-oriented mainstream media channel? The other news networks are busy ****sucking Obama, and Fox News is the only one publishing negative coverage?

Looking at averages is misleading. If you looked at median, 25th percentile, and 75th percentile, you'd probably find an even greater difference between State employees and private sector workers.

That study also doesn't consider indirect State employees, such as employees of a corporation with a State contract. People who work for the State phone/electricity/media monopoly are indirect State employees, but they count as the private sector in the above study.

By definition, a State employee is paid equal/more than the fair free market wage for his labor. Otherwise, he would quit and take a job in the private sector. Due to the nature of the State, most State employees earn more than they would in the private sector. Many State jobs are an opportunity for politicians to give pork to supporters, rather than genuinely doing something useful.

Private sector employees don't normally get pensions anymore. Private sector employees have to finance their own retirement via 401(k) plans and IRAs.

Public sector employees get pensions. The formula is "% based on years of service" times "salary in last year". This is an exploitable loophole. In the last year before retirement, State employees rack up as much overtime as possible. This dramatically increases the value of the pension.

Retired private sector employees usually rely on medicare for health insurance. Public sector employees usually get health insurance after retirement.

Very often, my parents tell me "FSK, you should work for the government. It's a guaranteed high-paying stable job." Unfortunately, those jobs are hard to get. For State jobs, political connections are more valuable than ability. It'd be very frustrating to have a job where my personal productivity is irrelevant.

If you're a productive worker in an on-the-books job, you're probably supporting one or more parasites with your labor. A productive worker struggles to pay his bills. Parasites earn a paycheck without doing any useful work.

That is the problem with the failing US economy. Most people work as parasites, or aspire to be parasites. It's more profitable to loot and pillage, rather than doing something useful. That is the virtuous positive feedback cycle of complete economic collapse.


Anonymous said...

"This is an exploitable loophole. In the last year before retirement, State employees rack up as much overtime as possible. This dramatically increases the value of the pension."

Government employees are generally salaried and do not get overtime, sorry.

Anonymous said...

The fact that this loophole may not be exploitable in practice, does not detract from the main message that state employees get a far better deal than private sector employees.

In the UK newspapers mention the divide now between public sector workers and private sector workers. Previously there was a north-south divide in the UK as far as wealth went, now it is public-private.

I always laugh when I hear about public sector workers actually getting redundancy pay when their jobs end. In the private sector, employers will do everything possible to cheat employees out of their statutory redundancy payments.

Central Government workers and local council workers get generous pensions when they retire. In fact a certain proportion of local council tax goes towards paying public sector pensions. However nobody pays for private sector pensions anymore.

There is a real divide.

Anonymous said...

In the UK, everyone that owns a television has to pay the BBC license fee regardless of whether you watch the BBC channels or not.

Effectively BBC employees are paid via a tax. Other television channels get none of this money.

In the newspapers recently it was revealed that BBC management get the BBC to pay private companies that they themselves own for services. Effectively they are getting paid salaries by the BBC and are getting the BBC to funnel money into their own private companies as well. Quite why the BBC can't provide these services themselves I don't know.

At first sight you calling government employees thugs seems pejorative.

For the past decade we have purchased a television license in the UK. However for an unknown reason after 10 years, the BBC printed our address with a spelling mistake. We had to phone the BBC on a premium rate line to tell them to correct our address. They did not. So we got a threatening letter through the post shaking us down for money despite the fact we possessed a tv license. The only way stated to communicate with the BBC was via a premium rate telephone number. So all in all we phoned them many times and had to pay for it. We also had their inspectors turn up at our house to shake us down for money despite possessing a license. We obviously did not answer the door but just spoke to them over the intercom.

But here from this example we can see the Government employees only get their money for thugs coming to your door shaking you down and sending you threatening letters.

This was despite the fact we actually possessed a tv license.

So THUG is really an appropriate term.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at