New study finds public workers earn less than private sector workers, even factoring in benefits

Sep 16, 2010

With unemployment in the region lingering at record levels, and job security a wistful memory for many, it’s easy to look for scapegoats. Thus a familiar refrain--government workers are overpaid, and our tax dollars are going towards outsized benefit and salary packages--has come back again. But as with most scapegoating, there’s not much truth to the accusation: the reality is just the opposite. Once age and education are factored in, state and local workers actually earn less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts. The wage penalty for state and local government workers in New England is close to 3 percent.

In their new study, The Wage Penalty for State and Local Government Employees in New England, Jeffrey Thompson of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic Policy Research demonstrate that the average state or local government worker does earn higher wages than the average worker--but this is because they are, on average, older and substantially better educated. The higher average wage in the public sector means that the teachers, engineers, accountants, and others who are running government offices, schools, and public services in New England are more experienced and highly trained, on average, than workers in the private sector. But despite these qualifications, their pay is on average lower than that of those counterparts. Another way to look at it is: given two workers of the same age and same level of experience, a public sector worker earns less than a private sector worker.

As the report’s co-author, Jeffrey Thompson, explains, "If you simply compare the wages in the public and private sector, you end up learning more about the skill levels of those workers than about the sector where they work. All that comparison tells you is that state and local government workers in New England are more highly educated and more experienced than their counterparts in the private sector. But once you properly control for education and experience, it becomes evident that public sector workers get lower wages."

More than half of state and local government employees in New England have a four-year college degree or more, and 30 percent have an advanced degree. By contrast, only 38 percent of private-sector workers have a four-year college degree or more; and only 13 percent have an advanced degree. In New England, the typical state and local worker is also about four years older than the typical private-sector worker.

The wage gap becomes more significant at higher-paid professional levels. The lowest paid government workers do earn slightly more than their private counterparts (in other words, the state tends to pay its lowest-wage workers better than, for example, Wal-Mart does), but for engineers, professors, and the like, the wage penalty for working for a New England state or local governments rises to almost 13 percent. These wage differences are also found across workers with different levels of education: high school graduates in the state and local sector in New England, for example, have a small wage premium (less than 2 percent) relative to the private sector, while those with bachelor’s degrees experience a wage penalty of 7 percent.

Critics of public workers sometimes claim that the real pot of gold is in the benefits packages--that public workers receive far more generous insurance, leave and retirement benefits than private workers. And while state and local workers on average do indeed receive more valuable benefits than private-sector , the difference only reduces the wage penalty for the average state and local government worker. The better benefits packages are not better enough to offset the lower base pay.

The situation in New England is echoed on a national scale, where, according to Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee: The Evidence by Jeffrey Keefe, released today by the Economic Policy Institute, the public employment penalty is slightly larger at 3.7 percent. That study places the issue squarely in the context of the crisis over state and local budgets: "Thousands of state and local public employees will lose their jobs, and their families will experience considerable pain and disruption. Others will have their wages frozen and benefits cuts. Not because they did not do their jobs, or their services are no longer needed, nor because they are overpaid. ... They do not deserve bullying or our ridicule and condemnation by elected officials and the media looking for scapegoats."

Explore further: Understanding the economics of human trafficking

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Can wage regulation be deadly?

May 12, 2010

A study forthcoming in the Journal of Political Economy suggests that government regulation of nurses' pay leads to higher death rates in U.K. hospitals.

Workers Get Paid More When They Work For Powerful CEOs

May 19, 2006

For workers at publicly held companies, it literally pays to have a very powerful boss. A new study found that entrenched CEOs – those who have more control rights in their company than all other shareholders combined -- ...

Recommended for you

Understanding the economics of human trafficking

18 hours ago

Although Europe is one of the strictest regions in the world when it comes to guaranteeing the respect of human rights, the number of people trafficked to or within the EU still amounts to several hundred ...

Affirmative action elicits bias in pro-equality Caucasians

Jul 25, 2014

New research from Simon Fraser University's Beedie School of Business indicates that bias towards the effects of affirmative action exists in not only people opposed to it, but also in those who strongly endorse equality.

Election surprises tend to erode trust in government

Jul 24, 2014

When asked who is going to win an election, people tend to predict their own candidate will come out on top. When that doesn't happen, according to a new study from the University of Georgia, these "surprised losers" often ...

User comments : 8

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

COCO
1 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2010
give me a break - most of these clowns in public service remain free of firing - free of doing any added value work. Sure we need food inspectors and other regulartory functions on health. In Kanada these jobs were rewards after the World Wars to men who for a variety of war wounds both mental and physical could not do much else. Today we use it to help hire the unemployable. As for rewards - here civil servants earn more than their private sector brothers - and w/o ever having to worry about a P/L statement or loosing their sinecure.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2010
Sure we need food inspectors and other regulartory functions on health. I

Why?
How many govt inspectors were fired when millions of eggs were found to be contaminated?
COCO
5 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2010
you tell me - it is your country - would you like them ALL to be sent home and you can all trust the food corportions take total command comrade neocon?
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2010
Ohhh, where's mongo? It's interesting how there's an article that directly addresses his concerns and refutes them and he only has one pathetic retort instead of his usual many.
bek
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2010
This article is correct. As a public employee, I have more experience and education that many of my peers who work in the private sector, yet their wages are significantly higher. This was the case when I came to public work a decade ago, but by a much smaller margin. The gap has since widened, and ignorance of the public sector, and misinformation, has made things even more difficult. "They" continually want to "take, take, take" more from public sector employees, who have already lost most of the reason we came to public sector employment in the first place.

It is disheartening to constantly lose wages and benefits on your job because it is advantageous for politicians to use you as a political talking point. It's even worse when people fall for it.

There are public employees who also qualify for welfare. In a government that takes so many billions of tax revenue in, and claims to value people and employees, that is a real shame.
COCO
not rated yet Oct 27, 2010
sounds like US civil servants remain abused - wonder how many of these jobs -if opened up to new employees - would get applicants. Sounds like it would be better to be unemployed that a silly servant. Not really like that in the ROW BTW.
bek
not rated yet Oct 28, 2010
Well, it depends... unemployment is not an option for many of us. I refuse to be a deadbeat. Not to mention, I do make enough to pay my mortgage, which would not be a possibility if I were unemployed. Don't let me make it sound too harsh--my employment puts the food on the table for my family, but I am underpaid for what I do here in Kentucky.

What is the ROW? I am embarrassed to say I don't know.
COCO
not rated yet Oct 29, 2010
Rest of World - was a civil servant in Canada for 20 years after loosing multiple careers with industry -like our former flagship NORTEL - Government allowed me the security I could find no where outside of jail. Good luck in Kentucky man.