What, that all you need is a flame-inducing headline that includes no information, actual data or analysis to drive page views, and no link to the actual article so that people can read it and come to their own conclusions?

grammar issue? i think "data" swings both ways, in common usage.

What's the issue, exactly? I hope you're not pointing out the headline's grammar, since it's completely correct. 'Data' is the plural of 'datum'.

Lots of people use 'data' as a singular, and that's fine, since it's easy to understand what they mean. But there's a difference between accepting something that isn't in the dictionary and criticizing something that is.

I love that Charles didn't actually buy the newspaper, but simply took a picture through the glass. Clearly not getting paid a Federal employee wage!

"Data show" is actually more correct than "data shows."

Also seen: "OMG some people make more money than other people! (data show)"

If they are going to twist thier statistics to stir up anti Federal Government hate they should at least keep the story straight. In paragragh 8 if you do the math average compensation for federal employees is 62 k including bennefits. Previously they say it is 67k plus bennefits. As someone who has looked into working in the public sector the stability is good but the pay sucks compared to good private jobs. They seem to be focusing on lower level jobs, like janitors, cooks and clerks that have horrible average pay in the private sector. They cleverly use the caveat "for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector" to pick and choose jobs to paint a picture.

Probably because the private sector is skewed with workers making minimum or sub-minimum wage (burger flippers, waitstaff, etc.... teenage afterschool jobs).

What [wl] said. I now work for the government, for the sake of stability in the current economic storm. My income dropped around a third. Benefits are nice though, and I get 40 hour work weeks.

Data is plural, jackass. Datum is singular. This headline is absolutely correct
EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT CHARLES MUDEDE.

The private sector is not what it used to be--that is my meaning.

So the fact that you're photographing a copy of USA Today and effectively talking smack about "the USA Today" is a coincidence? Way to think about what you're saying before you blog it.

Glad I'm not the only one who thought you were criticizing the newspaper itself. I was going to add to the comments that it is a grammatically correct headline.

You might want to give a bit more explanation of your post the next time you just post a picture of a newspaper headline, particularly if there's a double meaning in your own headline.

@11: What did it used to be? Where's the data showing that public sector employees ever made less than the private sector? Maybe it's exactly what it used to be, and someone just now noticed.

I can't fucking believe USAToday of all papers used "data show" correctly.

@13 "Where ARE the data"

Christ you people and your priorities.

Strictly speaking, data is the plural of datum, and should be used with a plural verb (like facts). However, there has been a growing tendency to use it as an equivalent to the uncountable noun information, followed by a singular verb. This is now regarded as generally acceptable in American use, and in the context of information technology. The traditional usage is still preferable, at least in Britain, but it may soon become a lost cause.

http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/f…

Man, that's a change! And it must have happened over the last ten to fifteen year (before the rest of us were working at our $9/hr., degree-requiring jobs in the private sector).

I remember even up until the 90s, the only advantage working for the federeal, state, or local government was the benefit package (good health care and retirement plan). The pay was crap and about (oh, I'd say) a good 20% less than what one might expect working outside of government doing the same job such as the jobs at a VA hospital compared to the same jobs at, say, Swedish or Virginia Mason.

I know people who still actively look for government work solely for the health care benefits, but a lot of governments are starting to pull the same crap that the private sector has been doing for some time - namely, hiring people for less than 32 hours per week in order to by-pass the need to offer benefits. They don't even get holiday pay (and you know how many holidays government employees get).

Any number of factors (aside from the insinuated profligacy) could be responsible for such an apparent discrepancy. The Federal government probably employs relatively more workers in large urban areas, where wages tend to be higher across the board, due to the higher cost of living. It's also possible that the government tends to demand more experience, so that the higher average pay is offset by higher average productivity.

I know a few professionals who recently switched from private sector jobs to equivalent jobs in government, and they all took substantial cuts in pay.

you commenters are a bunch of jackasses. I don't know how you put up with it, Charles.

In the post's title, "USA Today" actually means "America today". It's a joke. I didn't get it at first either.

Some of us don't hate you, Charles. Some of us don't hate you very much.

Gawd I hate that fucking straw-man arguement. The Fed doesnt hire burger flippers and grocery-baggers so yeah, the salaries are going to be, on average, higher. I'm a gov't worker and I'm hardly raking it in.