If Only It Were This Easy
Nate Silver, the very smart statistician who runs FiveThirtyEight, has a novel idea for how we should handle regulation of the financial industry. We should make government salaries higher, so the smartest people will have more incentives to move into regulation, rather than on to Wall Street! Nate writes:
This is a very real problem. Some of the work that I did in my first job after college at KPMG involved valuing intellectual property in conjunction with international tax disputes. We had our economists, and the IRS had theirs. The thing was, however, that our economists were better than the IRS's, because if someone at the IRS was any good, we'd hire them away and treble their salary. Part of a good regulatory reform plan, then, would be to increase the salaries paid to employees at institutions like the Fed, the Treasury, the IRS, and the FDIC.
I also happen to think that's an awesome idea, but, sadly, it is not remotely as easy as it sounds. To jack up salaries significantly in those agencies would require big adjustments to those budgets. And once it's done, it raises the question of why we aren't making National Institutes of Health salaries competitive with top hospitals? What about CIA agents and corporate espionage? I think it would be great if that Pandora's Box got opened, and we had a serious conversation about government compensation, the pay gap, and societal values. I would love it. But to say, let's raise salaries for some smart people who we need right now totally ignores the realities of federal pay, and how compensation is out of whack up and down the pay scale.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
The government will NEVER be able to compete with the private sector on salaries-- and although government wants good people who do a good job, it also needs people who care about more than money. What government really needs to do is pay enough so that a highly skilled person can afford to work in government without disappearing under a heap of debt. Yes, people want a salary that reflects their level of skill, and they should get it if possible. But people also want work/life balance, family friendly culture, flexible schedules, and (most importantly) meaningful work. If government can successfully provide these benefits (and in some cases, it does), it will get motivated and qualified people-- who care about more than making money.
Rae Posted Thursday, March 26, 2009 2:40 PMTo Rae: Ditto.
Their are people out there. Like me, who would love to work in Government.
But as has been noted in GE before the Government's hiring process for even an admin is long and seemingly pointless venture. Especially when the private sector can move fast if it really wants someone without having to meet "this point system or that quota".
As far as salaries are concerned public servants have a lot of things on the back end that the private sector employee does not necessarily have.
-Pension
-Yearly pay increases
-Insurance
-Very good job security (if not a political appointee)
-And a whole host of other government benefits like some of the best child care out there, and good vacation time.
Now I suppose if the government did not provide those benefits and had real hire and fire abilities I could see salary issues as valid.
Now of course if government employees could request more cash up front in return for elimination or a scale back in their non cash benefits and back end benefits. That would be something now would it.
Jeremy A. Posted Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:29 PMRE: "I also happen to think that's an awesome idea, but, sadly, it is not remotely as easy as it sounds” Hmmm, I fail to see the awesomeness of the idea –could it be its awesome impracticality, its charming remoteness from any appreciation of mere politics and the historical junk heap of past cool ideas? Whatever, its awesomeness does prompt two suggestions --
#1-Suggestion -- in the future-- any expert quoted or interviewed will be asked the following question -- Mr/Ms. Expert - regarding your proposal - what is your political plan - if any -- for assuring that that your proposal is first, adopted: and second, what is your plan-if any-to assure that once adopted your proposal is sustained whenever the – Republicans/Democrats—return to power and over the – Congress, White House, Supreme Court?
#2- Suggestion -- in the future - can we expand the stable of federal civil service experts usually quoted on new or goofy ideas -- to include some less often quoted --e.g. experts other than say Professor Paul Light, Brookings-NYU and his fellow Washington think tankers? In particular, experts with a reach and competence beyond applied social science, poll reading formulae, and appellate court decisions. For example, can we obtain an interview regarding ideas on determining fair and effective salaries from Garry Wills - author of many books, but, especially -- A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. If you're not otherwise familiar - he's center left - and yes, he LIKES government, but he has tart views on it just the same – i.e. unions are an interest group, not a band of angels. He’s an adjunct professor at Northwestern out of Johns Hopkins - one of the last of the public intellectuals -- a sometime panelist on CSPAN Book Notes, writer of challenging books for the general reader. Very witty, massively well read and depending on your bias - very wise. I look forward to such scintillation.
Concerned Retiree Posted Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:42 PMIf you believe to Dan Ketter, their is no pay gap.
WD Jackson Posted Friday, March 27, 2009 9:39 AM