Biden to propose 5.2% federal pay increase, largest in pay raise in 43 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Because SEC is the only part of government that actually does any meaningful work.

Yes, all those agents, prosecutors, intelligence and cybersecurity professionals, meatpacking inspectors, etc. don't do anything meaningful.

You have to keep in mind that even though the SEC pays much better than other government agencies, it is still much lower than what people who work at the SEC will make in the private sector or even some non-profits.  I work at the nonprofit and we work very closely with the SEC and we get paid higher there than folks at the SEC.  I make 300K at the nonprofit; however, my salary would be 220K at the SEC. I also get a pension, 7% 401K matching and better health/dental benefits at the non-profit than I would have at the SEC.  You can't compare Finregs with other government agencies because they are not the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

I work in an agency that manages land and buildings and salaries are still a massive part of our budget. It's bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

I work in an agency that manages land and buildings and salaries are still a massive part of our budget. It's bad.

What agency is this?

Total federal pay is $136 billion out of $6.5 trillion in annual federal spending so salaries are 2% of all federal spending. You’re talking about a 5.2% increase to 2% of the budget, it makes no difference to any agency that isn’t all people, which is most agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because SEC is the only part of government that actually does any meaningful work.

Yes, all those agents, prosecutors, intelligence and cybersecurity professionals, meatpacking inspectors, etc. don't do anything meaningful.

You have to keep in mind that even though the SEC pays much better than other government agencies, it is still much lower than what people who work at the SEC will make in the private sector or even some non-profits.  I work at the nonprofit and we work very closely with the SEC and we get paid higher there than folks at the SEC.  I make 300K at the nonprofit; however, my salary would be 220K at the SEC. I also get a pension, 7% 401K matching and better health/dental benefits at the non-profit than I would have at the SEC.  You can't compare Finregs with other government agencies because they are not the same.

Wow. I didn't know finra paid that well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

Salaries are the first or second expense in the biggest gov agencies. Programs always get cut to make sure people get paid and there are no furloughs.

The agencies are big because they employ many people so naturally a 5% increase on billions will have a big impact.

You must work at a tiny agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

I work in an agency that manages land and buildings and salaries are still a massive part of our budget. It's bad.

What agency is this?

Total federal pay is $136 billion out of $6.5 trillion in annual federal spending so salaries are 2% of all federal spending. You’re talking about a 5.2% increase to 2% of the budget, it makes no difference to any agency that isn’t all people, which is most agencies.

That’s not the right way of looking at things. Over two-thirds of federal spending is non-discretionary, such as social security and Medicare. Those can’t be touched. Of the $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending, nearly half is military/defense, which also isn’t getting touched. So you have $919 billion in non-military discretionary spending, which is the only pot of money Congress will mess with. Federal civilian salaries are a much higher share of that amount. A five percent pay increase will have a significant impact on agency spending, and may cause tensions with Congress’s desire to hold spending flat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

I work in an agency that manages land and buildings and salaries are still a massive part of our budget. It's bad.

What agency is this?

Total federal pay is $136 billion out of $6.5 trillion in annual federal spending so salaries are 2% of all federal spending. You’re talking about a 5.2% increase to 2% of the budget, it makes no difference to any agency that isn’t all people, which is most agencies.

That’s not the right way of looking at things. Over two-thirds of federal spending is non-discretionary, such as social security and Medicare. Those can’t be touched. Of the $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending, nearly half is military/defense, which also isn’t getting touched. So you have $919 billion in non-military discretionary spending, which is the only pot of money Congress will mess with. Federal civilian salaries are a much higher share of that amount. A five percent pay increase will have a significant impact on agency spending, and may cause tensions with Congress’s desire to hold spending flat.

Civilian salaries are not a much larger share of domestic discretionary, this is only true for small and independent agencies whose only expense is people. The vast majority of federal employees work for cabinet agencies with over 90% of their funding going to programs. I work in the budget office for a cabinet agency and have friends in others and no one I know is worried about affording the pay raise

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because SEC is the only part of government that actually does any meaningful work.

Yes, all those agents, prosecutors, intelligence and cybersecurity professionals, meatpacking inspectors, etc. don't do anything meaningful.

You have to keep in mind that even though the SEC pays much better than other government agencies, it is still much lower than what people who work at the SEC will make in the private sector or even some non-profits.  I work at the nonprofit and we work very closely with the SEC and we get paid higher there than folks at the SEC.  I make 300K at the nonprofit; however, my salary would be 220K at the SEC. I also get a pension, 7% 401K matching and better health/dental benefits at the non-profit than I would have at the SEC.  You can't compare Finregs with other government agencies because they are not the same.

The fact that the DoJ attorneys trying cases make less than the SEC attorneys passing them off if all you need to know. Finregs employers are overpaid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

I work in an agency that manages land and buildings and salaries are still a massive part of our budget. It's bad.

What agency is this?

Total federal pay is $136 billion out of $6.5 trillion in annual federal spending so salaries are 2% of all federal spending. You’re talking about a 5.2% increase to 2% of the budget, it makes no difference to any agency that isn’t all people, which is most agencies.

That’s not the right way of looking at things. Over two-thirds of federal spending is non-discretionary, such as social security and Medicare. Those can’t be touched. Of the $1.7 trillion in discretionary spending, nearly half is military/defense, which also isn’t getting touched. So you have $919 billion in non-military discretionary spending, which is the only pot of money Congress will mess with. Federal civilian salaries are a much higher share of that amount. A five percent pay increase will have a significant impact on agency spending, and may cause tensions with Congress’s desire to hold spending flat.

Civilian salaries are not a much larger share of domestic discretionary, this is only true for small and independent agencies whose only expense is people. The vast majority of federal employees work for cabinet agencies with over 90% of their funding going to programs. I work in the budget office for a cabinet agency and have friends in others and no one I know is worried about affording the pay raise

If you work for SSA the fact that most of your budget is program funding is irrelevant because most of the budget that is discretionary is salary. The same is true at HHS and VA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because SEC is the only part of government that actually does any meaningful work.

Yes, all those agents, prosecutors, intelligence and cybersecurity professionals, meatpacking inspectors, etc. don't do anything meaningful.

You have to keep in mind that even though the SEC pays much better than other government agencies, it is still much lower than what people who work at the SEC will make in the private sector or even some non-profits.  I work at the nonprofit and we work very closely with the SEC and we get paid higher there than folks at the SEC.  I make 300K at the nonprofit; however, my salary would be 220K at the SEC. I also get a pension, 7% 401K matching and better health/dental benefits at the non-profit than I would have at the SEC.  You can't compare Finregs with other government agencies because they are not the same.

The fact that the DoJ attorneys trying cases make less than the SEC attorneys passing them off if all you need to know. Finregs employers are overpaid

Being underpaid at one place doesn’t mean people at another place are overpaid because they make more than you make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s at 5.2% in NDAA and silent everywhere else, which usually means it will end up at 5.2% if it tracks most other years.

No way this happens for civilians. The administration will settle for around 3 to get nutty GOP stuff out.

I work in the budget and this is not what I’m hearing from OMB and OPM, the Republican House is fine with 5.2% and that was administration’s proposal so everyone is expecting that to be the number.

The house being fin with 5.2 shows they are getting smarter about cutting federal government. A 5.2% increase in the most expensive line item in most agency budgets coupled with flat or cut appropriations means program cuts and hiring freezes

Unless you’re an agency that is all people and don’t run any programs salaries and expenses are a very small percentage of total budgets, at our agency it’s less than 3%. The pay raise is a rounding error in our total budget.

I work in an agency that manages land and buildings and salaries are still a massive part of our budget. It's bad.

What agency is this?

Total federal pay is $136 billion out of $6.5 trillion in annual federal spending so salaries are 2% of all federal spending. You’re talking about a 5.2% increase to 2% of the budget, it makes no difference to any agency that isn’t all people, which is most agencies.

NP. I'm at a regulatory agency. We are mostly salaries because we fund things like inspectors, policy, people writing new regulations, approving permits, etc.

I know that in my particular office, I have 6 employees. I couldn't cut 5.2% out of my budget, instead my budget would have to be raised by 5.2% That money would have to come from someone else's budget. I just finalized my internal budget request for FY24 for my entire office and it was only 10k for travel, supplies, training, subscriptions, cell phones. I'm sure I'm on the extreme end, but there's lots of offices like mine.