• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Whitehouse salary increases

shelgarr

Registered Member
This came thought on the Drudge Report. http://gawker.com/5818310

I wonder why the percentages for the jobs were so high? Clearly they can't do that every year. Assuming I'm right, why this year?

 
Last edited:

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
This is really not cool; I'm one of the guys that isn't really anti-government, but it's things like this that do get me mad and do help me to understand when the public gets fed up with things...so I might agree with certain programs, but these raises are just frivolous.

If the raises were somewhat small all around - the article mentioned that the average raise was 8% for normal White House staffers - I'd be fine with it. But there are people both in the private and public sector that are facing freezes in hiring, pay, etc. and I think that as a sign of good faith the White House should probably do the same. The article says that they did with salaries of $100,000 or more, but it doesn't help their PR at any salary amount when the economy is still not looking great.

It's not all bad, as the article stated:

Overall, it should be noted, the White House's salary budget contracted slightly, from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, largely because the number of staffers fell. The average salary also dropped from $82,721, or 65% above the median household income, to $81,765—or 65% above the median household income.
Part of the White House's justification is that with less staff people are taking on more responsibilities. I can understand raises for that, but I don't understand why they had to be this large. It could easily have looked good on a political level if people were given small raises - or no raises at all - and the White House had said that it's tightening its belt for now.
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
It is maddening! Part of controlling redundancies in government will naturally cause a cut back in staffers. This is an area that needs to be overhauled at all levels of government. In the corporate world, positions are cut, remaining personnel absorb the extra work, and won't see increases for sometimes years. So to have government do the same seems right. Although if you were to ask, those workers would probably say they haven't seen an increase the last X years.
 

Dekzper

Registered Member
Wow! What amazing things did they do to earn those raises???? Cause I haven't noticed anything getting better, anywhere!
Do other workers at non-gov jobs get raises like that if they take on more work?
All I can say is
RAISES NOT DESERVED

Btw, thanks for finding and sharing that! :)
 
Last edited:

Wade8813

Registered Member
This is really not cool; I'm one of the guys that isn't really anti-government, but it's things like this that do get me mad and do help me to understand when the public gets fed up with things...so I might agree with certain programs, but these raises are just frivolous.

If the raises were somewhat small all around - the article mentioned that the average raise was 8% for normal White House staffers - I'd be fine with it. But there are people both in the private and public sector that are facing freezes in hiring, pay, etc. and I think that as a sign of good faith the White House should probably do the same. The article says that they did with salaries of $100,000 or more, but it doesn't help their PR at any salary amount when the economy is still not looking great.

It's not all bad, as the article stated:



Part of the White House's justification is that with less staff people are taking on more responsibilities. I can understand raises for that, but I don't understand why they had to be this large. It could easily have looked good on a political level if people were given small raises - or no raises at all - and the White House had said that it's tightening its belt for now.
I pretty much agree with what you said. Giving a handful of people a few thousand bucks doesn't really matter much financially to a government, but it sends the wrong message.

However, it seems to me that while letting people go and paying those left behind more might be cheaper overall, it kinda works against the whole argument of "some people make to much money, especially when so many are unemployed".
 
Top