Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 96
Page 2 of 8
Page 2 of 8
Understanding the 2008 Federal Pay Raise (Maybe)
Total Comments: 96
Page 2 of 8
Page 2 of 8
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.0760 | +0.0011 | +2.63% |
| F | $13.4554 | -0.0007 | +6.95% |
| C | $12.9082 | -0.0394 | +23.71% |
| S | $15.5321 | -0.0625 | +27.24% |
| I | $18.2310 | -0.1403 | +27.89% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.2768 | -0.0566 | +22.32% |
| L 2030 | $15.1461 | -0.0487 | +19.99% |
| L 2020 | $15.0617 | -0.0401 | +17.13% |
| L 2010 | $15.0897 | -0.0155 | +9.09% |
| L Income | $13.7765 | -0.0111 | +7.76% |
November 21, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Please provide the fornula instead of the table...
DoD
Thu Dec 6, 2007 1:29 PM
Post Reply
I appreciate your diligence to this issue of pay. You are a reliable source of information every year as the President and Congress wrangle over what they want to do to / for / against us, especially regarding remuneration for our services.
However, with the big hoopla over pay banding, the pay tables don't really do some of us much good. For those of us that have base salaries that do not line up with a specific grade-step value, we need to use the formula to estimate what we "might" get in the coming year. To date, I'm guessing that is a formula like the following:
Estimated 2008 Pay =
(Current Base Pay)*(1+0.025)*(Proposed Locality %)
If this is correct, please work it into your next article on 2008 Pay Estimates
Average Pay Raise and Making statistics lie.
US Forest Service
Thu Dec 6, 2007 1:57 PM
Post Reply
We all know that if you live in an area that does not give locality pay you normally get a raise of approximately 1% lower than the average pay raise. Over time this causes wide variations, just as living in an area that pays locality pay. For example lets assume that the Average Pay Raise is 3% for 5 years for a total of 15% increase. If you live in an area that does not pay locality pay and you get only a 2% for the 5 years, over this 5 year period you would only get a 10% increase. Conversely if you live in an area that has a locality pay of 3.5% over the 5 years, you would get a raise of 17.5% over the same time period.
Put bluntly if you live in an area that doesn't pay locality pay statistics given on the "Average Pay Raise" for government employees overestimate the pay raise over time.
Instead of arguing over the "Average Pay Raise" they should argue over the "Pay raise for Non Locality adjustments" and then just adjust the rest based upon the Locality adjustments.
Re: Average Pay Raise and Making statistics lie.
DOC
Thu Dec 6, 2007 2:54 PM
By the way, a 2% raise every year for 5 years does not equal a 10% raise -- it is a 10.4% raise. 15.9% and 18.8% percent for the other raises, respectively. 1.02*1.02*1.02*1.02*1.02=10.4
Re: Average Pay Raise and Making statistics lie.
DOD
Thu Dec 6, 2007 5:10 PM
I don't see how the poster linked "average pay raise" and a raise over time. SHe simply expanded the "lower than average pay raise" out a few years and was right. It makes a huge difference over the long run. It's the same logic for why 3% versus 3.5% is a huge issue.
Re: Average Pay Raise and Making statistics lie.
DOD
Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:59 AM
overseas employees pay table not listed
Naval HOspital-Okinawa
Thu Dec 6, 2007 6:21 PM
Post Reply
I do not see any information about civilian employees working overseas who do not fall into the locality pay tables listed???
Average Increase - All Americans
USDA Rural Development
Fri Dec 7, 2007 9:46 AM
Post Reply
Just an observation, but a Washington Post article on job and wage growth for November stated that wages grew by 3.8% over the past 12 months. So, either Federal wage increase will be below the National wage increase.
Cost-of-Living
NIH
Fri Dec 7, 2007 10:32 AM
Post Reply
I am grateful for any raise and I am very content in my job, but a raise is needed in order to deal with the cost-of-living in Maryland. The fact is we are being hit with higher taxes, higher gas bills and higher costs on food, electric, etc., the raise is needed in order for us middle class to survive! A 3.5% would be better than 3% because of these reasons, especially if you are a single parent raising children. It's a tough world out there and I don't think I am a whiner - but a person telling the facts.
I remember when...
DOD
Fri Dec 7, 2007 3:38 PM
Post Reply
I worked in a regional payroll office, (back when they had such things,) when our divisor was changed from 2080 hrs to 2087. (annual pay rate/2080) 2080 is the number of paid hours in most years. However, the couple of days left over, if averaged over 12 years, makes the divisor 2087. That was also the year that a fairly respectable, and the highest in (then) recent memory, percentage pay increase was given. Since every GS went home with a little more money in their pocket they didn't complain too hard.
NSPS should definitely sweeten the pot when converting. It would help. Instead, they seem to be cheap, cheaper, and cheapest...wringing out every penny to the disadvantage of the employee.
At the risk of being in the minority
DOD
Sat Dec 8, 2007 9:59 PM
Post Reply
I agree with Fed DoD email of Thu Dec 6, 2007 1:20 PM
"Any fed w/length of service realizes the dangers NSPS augurs. It's not about "pay for performance," but robbing the federal workplace and getting away w/it. It's also putting far too much power into first-level supvrs who may not have the skills to wield it fairly or properly. " I worked for an agency where the Supervisor seen NSPS as a way to get rid of people that he didn't want around anymore. His belief was that if you were over 55 yrs old with x number of yrs you should be retired; therefore he could write a person performance to make sure one left the govt.