As a federal, we got a raise virtually every year. I've been retired eight years now, in fact it's almost eight years to the day, and I know times have seriously changed, but we got between two and four percent across the board almost every year. Not a lot, but we could count on it, and the benefits helped make it worthwhile. Both my retirement (CSRS) and especially health benefits (I had cancer a few years ago and BCBS paid almost every penny for surgery, meds and hospital) made it bearable.
I never had the need to go ask for a raise, although I would ask for cash awards, and not infrequently, got them.
Pardon me for going on and on but aforementioned meds have me feeling quite well today.
@mchurch841 - as a DoD employee I totally agree. First furlough day this Friday. The furloughs are complete BS. They are saving $2b in wages (while spending a ton in paperwork to do so) yet we can give $1.3b to Egypt?
Also gov't employeexs haven't gotten a cost of living adjustment for three years now because supposedly the cost of living hasn't gone up.
Makes me want to embrace my inner Wally and give in to the gov't worker stereotype.
NorthernHick, to be sure. The raises historically have generally been slightly over the rate of inflation and usually applied uniformly to the whole staff with no performance premium or review (although there is an occasional individual performance penalty). It's that slight differential over inflation that has compounded. I'm just trying to keep it simple and in the context of Dilbert's (and my, BTW) 2%.
Albert, 2% raises don't meaningfully compound, and certainly not over the course of the last 50 years. Inflation optimally holds in the 2% range, but has been significantly higher. If you were making an average salary in 1963, but got 2% raises per year every year since, today you'd be well under the minimum wage in most jurisdictions.