Are Government Workers Underpaid?

$27,000 (benefits) is already the median income for all incomes in America -- which means, half the people make more, and half make less.

So for the government workers to make $100,000 on top of that, they all represent the top half of incomes -- and are the "greedy rich" they vilify. The AP ran a story not too long ago about a couple who were both employed as government workers, and reported that the man made $60,000 (I think as a teacher), while his wife worked as a nurse (for assuredly more but her income was not disclosed to better distort), and he was "outraged" that they were living a "lower middle class existence," to further give the impression that the "average" income was what the CEOs of the major corporations were making -- and the rank and file government workers should therefore be entitled to because they had "sacrificed" themselves to serve the people -- otherwise, they would assuredly be getting the top private sector compensations.

It all doesn't make sense in actuality, but that's what the union newsletters/newspapers would have us believe -- and no local reporter/editor would dare sign their name to it, but coming from the "Associated Press," it should be regarded as the vetted truth, that most government workers are highly skilled professionals with unique expertise that they created themselves -- rather than the rank and file that demands that level of compensation, even as rank and file bureaucrats.

That's the problem with unionizing the government workers: instead of working to provide that quality of life for everyone in America, they lobby and work solely to assure that life only for themselves -- at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers and citizenry -- even going so far as to claim that they are the " poor and underprivileged" (that they are selflessly and nobly serving).

And of course they can always find some starving/willing freelance writer to write that fiction as fact, under the imprimatur of the "Associated Press.