Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.

Edwards also discussed the issue back on August 2 at Cato at Liberty, when he noted:

The data for 2005 shows that compensation for the average federal civilian worker ($106,579) is now exactly double the average compensation in the U.S. private sector ($53,289).

The federal pay advantage has been soaring in recent years. The ratio of average federal to average private compensation increased from 1.51 in 1990, to 1.68 in 2000, to 2.00 today.

Holy cripes that’s alarming. This nation needs a political party dedicated to smaller government. Don’t you dare say the Republicans, you fool.

The Cato at Liberty piece was linked by Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of… As Kip and I noted in the comments section, the numbers being presented by Cato at Liberty are only telling a very small part of the story. What exactly are these federal jobs? How do they compare with the compensation for state or local government jobs? I’m not playing Devil’s Advocate here; It’s just that I would really like to know. It might better paint the picture for me.

These are federal civilian positions. What low-paying federal civilian positions are there that might pull down the average? Could it be that the federal government contracts out all of the menial stuff, both raising its own average salary and lowering that of the private sector? Perhaps playing Devil’s Advocate isn’t such a bad idea…

Well, Edwards does address that:

The structure of that workforce has also changed over time. There are fewer low-pay typists and more high-pay computer experts in the government today than there were a generation ago. But that doesn't explain why, as the BEA data show, federal wages have risen 38 percent in just the past five years, compared with 14 percent in the private sector…

Federal workers receive generous health benefits during work and retirement, a pension plan with inflation protection, a retirement savings plan with generous matching contributions, large disability benefits, and union protections. They often have generous holiday and vacation schedules, flexible hours, training options, incentive awards, flexible spending accounts, and a more relaxed pace of work than private-sector workers.

Perhaps the most important benefit of federal employment is extreme job security. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the rate of layoffs and firings in the federal workforce is just one-quarter the rate in the private sector. All these advantages in worker benefits suggest that, in comparable jobs, federal wages ought to be lower than private-sector wages.

One sign that federal workers have a sweeter deal than they acknowledge is the rate of voluntary resignation from government positions: just one-quarter the rate in the private sector, the BLS data show. Long job tenure has its pros and cons, but the fact that many federal workers burrow in and never leave suggests that they are doing pretty well for themselves.

The numbers just don’t lie. Edwards also linked to the Bureau of Economic Analysis website for those who would like to parse the numbers.

Says Radley Balko at The Agitator:

I'm sure there'll be a flury of letters to the editor from federal bureaucrats defending their existence. But the vast majority of them are parasites. Not only do they add nothing to the economy, they actually slow it down, both by sapping tax dollars for their salaries, offices, and benefits, and by the very nature of their jobs, most of which raise the cost of doing business in America. Not to mention the amount of money American individuals spend on lawyers and tax accountants, either to lobby to make sure the sea of regulations are more to their liking, or merely to help them understand the law so that they can comply with it.

And that's not even touching the damage the ever-expanding army of federal law enforcement officials is doing.

Okay! I’ll quit the Devil’s Advocate thing. This is the antithesis of what America is supposed to be about. This isn’t how we think of ourselves, and I can’t imagine who would defend this, except for those sucking at the government teat. And I don’t foresee it being undone. Sharing the information far and wide would be a good start. Again, the numbers just don’t lie.

Edwards was further quoted by Cato’s own Greg Garner:

In the May 2006 edition of Cato's Tax & Budget Bulletin, Edwards urges Congress to "restrain federal compensation by freezing federal wages for a period of years and examining fringe benefit programs for possible savings." He writes, "In the longer term, the coming surge in federal worker retirement as baby boomers enter their sixties offers an opportunity to downsize federal agencies without problematic layoffs or buyouts. As government air traffic controllers, space scientists, and others retire in coming years, these activities should be handed over to the private sector so that they can be better managed and have more efficient compensation policies."

Hear, hear!

More on the subject of federal unions at PowerBlog:

Labor union membership in the private sector has declined steadily and stands at about 8%. By contrast, in the government sector labor union membership stands at around 37%.

This is itself a huge disparity, and one that I would think has large effects on issues of pay, benefits, and job security. Thus, I think there has to be a link between the rates of union membership and compensation between the public and private sectors.

As Dr. Charles Baird notes in a radio interview, “In the government sector there is no declining unionism, none at all.”

Bingo.