I remember when I worked as a NASA-Clear Lake City (Houston) contractor years ago that some federal employees were phenomenal workers while others occasionally worked between times at the water cooler and trips to the gym. A common perception of federal wages was that they were lower than in the private sector, but the tradeoff was higher job security and very generous benefits. My goodness, times have changed... The security and generous benefits are still there, but have you read about federal worker wages lately? Especially those of us in the private sector? For example, compared to my salary range in 2000 (over multiple offers), I have not gotten a subsequent offer in the same range since then, despite 9 years more experience and outstanding technical performance.
Projected average pay at the federal level this year had been estimated as high as $75,419. But whichever figure is more accurate, a single line from a December 10 USA Today report says it all:
The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.Guess why I put that quote in red ink...
There are a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that many higher-level salaries are tied to the top. The following quote is telling:
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.Ask federal workers like Jessica Klement, and they'll insist that it's a reflection of their higher-skilled workforce and that they still make more than 25% less than comparable private-sector workers.
That's called a state of denial. Ask the Obama people and they'll insist they are only asking for a 2% increase, the lowest since 1975. This is misleading, given the fact that workers also have tenure-related step increases, a number of salaries are pegged to the top official's (cf. Transportation Department example), and there's a new federal pay system including "merit raises".
Obama is totally clueless. If he was a CEO raising salaries while federal revenues fell off a cliff like they have, the shareholders would have fired him. He would have to find his own federal bailout--but where he go when he IS the federal government? Oh, that's right: he got a shiny new toy when he took over the White House; it's called a Treasury printing press.
I wish I could tell you while I was working long hours as the National Archives subcontractor DBA managing the infrastructure behind the military records application, that the civil servants I met in 2004 were worth the extra money, but they were too busy watching and laughing at JibJab cartoons mocking George W. Bush on the Internet (on the taxpayers' nickel, of course) and shooting the breeze on how they would drag their feet on initiatives until President Kerry was elected.
Mandate for Obama?
I usually have a tolerance range for progressive nonsense, but when I hear progressives on the Sunday talk shows start arguing about Obama's mandate for wild-card health care "reform", they lose my diminishing respect.
Anyone saying the political grab bags of Pelosi-Reid legislation were what the American people voted for, when in fact the participants in the process can't tell you what the final bills will look like is out of touch.
Obama won 53% of the vote but not a landslide. There were a number of reasons for his election--principally, an economic crisis which normally favors the challenging party, a huge funding advantage and better get-out-the-vote organization, and critical mistakes by McCain in his handling of the TARP situation and his counterproductive selection of Sarah Palin, which undermined his experience argument over Barack Obama. Whatever the voters voted for was NOT ideological agreement with a
I do think a number of voters bought into Obama's post-partisan rhetoric and wanted to give the Democrats a fair chance to do what they could under the circumstances. They now realize that they made a big mistake, and I've seen one recent poll suggesting that Bush's popularity is on the rise relative to Obama.... (Of course, Obama's constant one-sided Bush-bashing may finally be having an effect, but not the one he intends. Some folks just don't like people attacking other people behind their backs.)
Political Cartoon
Scott Stantis points out something that all of us creative types already know: mediocre minds try to intimidate challenges to the status quo: they cite authority, they raise ad hominem attacks, they engage in various logical fallacies (e.g., of presumption), etc.
I gave an example in a prior post where I attempted to publish a critical note regarding a popular computer user satisfaction measure; I have no doubt, given the defensive, personal reactions in the reviews, that the assigned reviewers had a vested interest. My intent was not sabotage the measure or other people's research but I had done research in scale development and validation, and the literature had not published any criticisms of the widely-referenced measure. Real scientists know theories are subject to confirmatory tests, which are objective in nature; the criticisms I had to make were legitimate, and an arbitrary rejection is more an indictment of the process than my critique.
What's disconcerting is when disingenuous politicians like Al Gore or Barack Obama, who have not done any meaningful original research, treat scientific matters as if the truth is some sort of political issue to be decided by a scientific poll. One scientist armed with the truth defeats millions of scientists armed with political correctness. I remember when I decided to pursue an academic career, I had this notion that academics would decide disputes with a Leibnizian exhortation to "Come! Let us calculate!" My mentors chuckled at my naivete.
Christmas Musical Interlude: The Moody Blues' "What Child Is This?"
The Moody Blues are one of my favorite all-time groups, in my opinion the best of the "art rock" bands. They are perhaps best known for their classic hit, "Nights in White Satin" (I will list my own favorite of theirs in a post-Christmas interlude). Until recently, I never knew they did a version of one of my favorite traditional Christmas songs from childhood; this has already become my favorite performance of the song; the beautiful arrangement doesn't get in the way of Justin Hayward's tender, respectful vocals and flawless interpretation. I could listen to this version on auto-repeat and never tire of it.
