According to figures recently released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, federal workers receive on average about double what private sector workers make: $106,579 vs. $53,289. These numbers are based on pensation.

A study done by the Cato Institute (PDF here of 2004 figures), under the direction of Chris Edwards, shows that for 2005, “If you consider wages without benefits, the average federal civilian worker earned $71,114, 62 percent more than the average private-sector worker, who made $43,917.”

In his WaPo op-ed, Christ Edwards points to a number of reasons for this disparity. He says that there are a number of contributing factors. “Federal pay schedules increase every year regardless of how well the economy is doing. Thus in recession years, private pay stagnates while government pay continues to rise. Another factor is the steadily increasing ‘locality’ payments given to federal workers in higher-cost cities,” he says.

Edwards continues, “Rapid growth in federal pay also results from regular promotions that move workers into higher salary brackets regardless of performance and from redefining jobs upward into higher pay ranges. The federal workforce has e increasingly top-heavy.” In addition, “The structure of that workforce has also changed over time. There are fewer low-pay typists and more puter experts in the government today than there were a generation ago.”

A WSJ op-ed also notes that “many federal employees are in white collar occupations that mand high pay,” so that may account for a small part of the disparity.

The WSJ states that “one market test is the voluntary quit rate of these workers, and data for recent years show that rate for federal employees is only one-fourth that in private sector occupations. High-paying federal jobs are so coveted that they are now like rent-controlled apartments in Manhattan: Once you’ve got one, you hold on to it for life.”

It seems to me that there is something deeper behind a number of these phenomena. Edwards hints at this element when he notes, “Federal workers’ unions try to convince Congress that their members suffer from a ‘pay gap’ with the private sector.”

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 pensation between the public and private sectors.

As Dr. Charles Baird notes in a radio interview (mp3), “In the government sector there is no declining unionism, none at all.” And given how good pensation and security of the jobs in the government sector are, why should there be?

More at Chris Edwards’ related post on Cato@Liberty.