Occup. nal Compensation

Scientists’
Earnings

BY JOHN K. STEINMEYER AND KENNETH J. HOFFMANN

Background

National career information on scientists in fields such
as agriculture, biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and
computer science is published in the Bureau’s Occupational
Outlook Handbook. Yet, until recently there has been little
statistical information published on the earnings of scien-
tists by localities.

The Bureau’s Occupational Compensation Survey (OCS)
program began publishing earnings information for pro-
fessional occupations by locality in 1991 to support the
implementation of the Federal Employees Pay Compara-
bility Act of 1990. At that time, the survey included chem-
ists and engineers, but not the overall occupation of scien-
tist. (See box.) The chemist job, which had been surveyed
on a national basis, was dropped almost immediately from
the OCS because there were not enough data to publish by
level of work and locality, as required by the President’s
Pay Agent! for setting Federal salaries.

The Bureau began exploring ways to survey additional
professional jobs. Although the survey included computer
programmers, analysts, supervisors, nurses, and engineers,
it did not survey many of the jobs for which Federal sala-
ries were being set.

Previously collected data showed that many employers
were classifying professional workers in broad generic jobs
rather than in specialties. For example, a company might
group physicists, chemists, and engineers under a broad
title such as scientist. In an effort to survey more profes-
sional jobs, BLS re-instituted research on scientists as a job
classification.

In 1994, new job descriptions for scientists were tested.
They were designed to:

* — Include jobs in specific scientific disciplines which

had been traditionally part of a more general occu-
pational classification by employers;

John K. Steinmeyer and Kenneth J. Hoffinann are economists in the Divi-
sion of Compensation Data Analysis and Planning, Bureau of Labor Statis-
tics. Telephone (202) 606-6201.

Chemists and Engineers: A Look at Past Data

The Bureau began surveying chemists and engineers
nationally in the first Professional, Administrative, and
Technical survey conducted in the winter of 1959-60. At
that time, the survey of all metropolitan areas combined
(excluding Alaska and Hawait) reported about 29,000 chem-
ists and more than 275,000 engineers. Six levels of chem-
ists and engineers were studied in the initial survey; among
theselevels chemists’ earnings ranged from 3 to 13 per-
cent less than engineers’.

When chemists were last surveyed in 1991, the number
of chemists had increased by about 50 percent while the
number of engineers had more than doubled. Chemists”
earnings however, were 5 percent higher than engineers in
the upper levels of responsibility. At the lower levels, they
remained 1 to 16 percent below the averages of engineers.

Occupational Compensation Surveys.

Reference Bulletin

Survey. area month number

Alaska July, 1996 3085-32

‘Anchorage, AK July, 1996 3085-30
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence,

MA-NH-ME-CT June, 1996 3086-29
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rook Hil

NC-sc October, 1995, 3080-47
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha,

ILAN-WI June, 1996 3085-33
‘Columbus, OH January, 1996 3085-2
Dakes-Fort Worth, TX. March, 1996 3085-9
Denver-Boulder-Greeley,CO | January, 1996 3085-1
Hartford, CT March, 1996 3085-5
Hawall August, 1996 3085-37
Honolulu, HI August, 1996 3085-34
Huntsvile, AL March, 1996 3085-6

_ Miam-Fort Lauderdale, FL November, 1996. | 3085-47
Nashvile, TN May, 1996 3085-15
Omaha, NE-tA March, 1996 3085-14
Orlando, FL April, 1996 * 3085-20
Portland-Saiem, OR-WA July, 1996 3085-28
‘Sacramento-Yolo, CA March, 1996 3085-17
‘San Francisco-Oakiand-

San Jose, CA March, 1996 3085-18
‘San Juan-Caguas-Arecibo, PR | October, 1996 3085-44
‘Scranton-Wikes-Barre-

Hazleton, PA March, 1996 3085-11
‘Seattle-Tecoma-Bremerton, WA. | November, 1996 | 3085-48
‘St.Louis, MO-iL March, 1996 3085-19

Compensation and Working Conditions Spring 1998 62



* Provide a sub-classification for workers in physical
and biological disciplines; and

* Provide a separate sub-classification for workers
specializing in the computer and engineering fields
while retaining separate job definitions for engineers,
who can be identified as such, computer program-
mers, computer systems analysts, and computer sys-
tems analyst supervisor/managers.

To meet the needs of the Pay Agent, the scientist job
description was divided into eight levels of difficulty, each
level corresponding to a pay grade in the Federal General
Schedule, the system used to classify Federal white-collar
workers. Like the engineer’s job, the scope and complexity
of the work distinguished the levels of difficulty. In gen-
eral, levels 1 and 2 represented the entry levels, levels 3
and 4 the journey levels, and levels 7-8 the authorities in
the field. (These generalizations do not apply in every type
of business.)

At the request of the Pay Agent, certain science-related
jobs were excluded. Among these were science technicians,
Physicians, university researchers and teaching staff, and
scientists primarily supervising operating or maintenance
functions.

This article briefly compares the OCS wage data that
were collected in 23 survey areas in 1995-96. The data
were weighted to represent over 103,000 scientists in es-
tablishments employing 50 workers or more in all indus-
tries excluding agriculture, the Federal Government, and
private households.’

Data overview

Overall average weekly pay for the scientist occupation
was available in 17 of the 23 areas surveyed. Pay rates
varied widely across areas. (See table 1.) Survey areas in

“ Table 1. Scientists’ average weekly pay and overall ranking,
selected areas, 1996

Average .
Area weekly pay | Ranking

$1,291 1
1,289 2
1,181 3
1,123 4
1,085 5
1,049 6
1,036 7
1008 8
1,002 9
980 10
915 nN
834 12
832 13
824 14
804 15
795 16
rca) 7

63 Compensation and Working Conditions Spring 1998

the western region of the United States generally ranked
relatively high in overall weekly pay, while areas in the
southern region generally ranked low. Survey areas out-
side the contiguous United States showed averages at the
extremes. In Anchorage and the State of Alaska, scien-
tists’ average weekly pay was higher than all other locali-
ties except the San Francisco area, while Hawaii and Ho-
nolulu ranked fourteenth and fifteenth out of the 17
localities.

In eight of the survey areas, private industry data and
State and local government data were available for direct
comparison. The private sector overall average was higher
than government in all areas, ranging from 11 percent in
Denver to 61 percent in Hawaii. However, in San Fran-
cisco, even though the overall average for scientists in the
private sector was. 18 percent greater than for scientists in
the government sector, the physical/biological scientists in
the public sector averaged 6 percent above their counter-
parts in the private sector.

Data by work level

Information by work level is often preferred to overall
averages because it specifies pay for differing complexities
of work. For example, the overall average for scientists in
the San Francisco area was about 28 percent higher than
the overall average in nearby Sacramento. Yet the differ-
ences between the published individual levels for the two
areas only ranged from 10 to 23 percent. The overall aver-
age was higher for San Francisco because, on average, work-
ers there performed work at higher levels of pay and com-
plexity.

In the 23 survey areas, data were collected for 8 levels of
scientists but were insufficient for publication at levels 6
and 7 in all except the large metropolitan areas of Boston,
Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, and St. Louis. Although
data were collected at level-8, they did not meet the Bureau’s
standards for publication in any area.

Average pay differed considerably by level, with work-
ers at the highest published levels typically earning aver-
age salaries that were double those of workers classified at
the entry levels. For example, level-7 scientists in San Fran-
cisco averaged $2,107 per week, compared to $831 for their
level-2 counterparts. Similarly, in Columbus, Ohio level-5
scientists averaged $1,264 per week, versus $661 for their
level-1 counterparts.

Data by occupation

Computerlengineering scientists. Among computer/engi-
neering scientists, western areas also showed relatively
higher wages. Eight areas had overall data published for
this sub-group. (See table 2.) San Francisco’s overall av-
erage weekly pay was not only 16 percent higher than the
second highest average, Denver, but it was 71 percent higher
than the lowest average, Nashville.

Physicalibiological scientists. There were 16 survey areas


overall ranking, selected areas, 1995-96

for which average overall pay data were published for physi-
caV/biological scientists. The four top paying areas were
the same as for scientists, but with the order changed. (See
table 3.) The average weekly pay for Anchorage physical/
biological scientists exceeded the average weekly pay for
the same group in Honolulu by 82 percent.

Computerlengineering and physicalibiological scientists.
There are four survey areas (all in the West) where overall
average pay was published for both scientist sub-groups.
Inall four areas, the computer/engineering scientists showed
higher average pay than did the physical/biological scien-
tists to this extent: Denver, 13 percent; Seattle, 20 percent;
San Francisco, 32 percent; and Portland, 42 percent.

Average pay comparison of scientists and engineers

The professional occupation in the Occupational Com-
pensation Survey most similar to the scientist occupation
was engineer. Both professions require similar backgrounds,
are recruited nationwide (as seen in advertisements in the
national media), and are studied with the same number of
levels distinguished in the same way.”

There are 16 survey areas where overall average wages
were available for both groups. In these areas, pay data
were collected and weighted to represent more than 182,000
engineers. Of the 16 areas, 15 (all but Scranton) had higher
average wages for engineers. The greatest disparity was in
Dallas, where the premium paid to engineers was 43 per-
cent, Dallas engineer’s average wage ranked fourth high-
est among engineers, although Dallas scientists ranked
twelfth among scientists. Two survey areas, Denver and
Scranton, showed little difference in average pay. Engi-
neers in Denver averaged $6 per week more than scientists,
while scientists in Scranton averaged $4 per week more
than engineers. In all remaining areas, the pay of engi-
neers was appreciably higher than that of scientists.

Comparing surveys

With the coming of the National Compensation Survey
(NCS), initiated by BLS in 1996, came major differences in
the way occupational wage data are collected. Under OCS,
the occupations surveyed were limited to a preselected list,
which represented a small subset of all occupations in the
economy. Under NCS, occupations are selected using prob-
ability techniques from a list of all occupations present in
each establishment. In the NCS surveys completed for the
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose and the Washington, DC-
Baltimore, MD CMSA’s, only mathematical and computer
scientists and natural scientists were surveyed.

There is also a different way of determining job levels.
Under OCS, job levels were based on narrowly defined de-
scriptions that were not comparable across occupations. In
NCS, job levels are based on generic standards that apply
to all occupational groups.

Average earnings were published for natural scientists
in 7 of the first 16 NCS publications. Hourly earnings
ranged from $18.36 in the Washington-Baltimore CMSA
to $29.76 in the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Is-
land CMSA.

—ENDNOTES—

' The Pay Agent is a group designated by the President to advise on local-
ity pay disparities and make recommendations for appropriate comparability
payments for Federal General Schedule (white-collar) workers.

2 One survey area, Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, was surveyed twice, both
in 1995 and 1996. Individual surveys had average payroll periods varying
from October 1995 to November 1996, Data were not adjusted for differ-
ences in timing of surveys. Some rankings of areas may have been different if
adjustments had been made. Pay comparisons may be affected by sample
error. In most cases where sample error was computed, standard errors for
survey jobs were between T and 3 percent of the published average salary, and

less than 5 percent in all cases. Thus, differences of a few percentage points
between average salaries are probably not statistically significant. The rankings
presented here are of the published data, without regard to sampling error.

> Pay tables showing average pay for scientists in the 1996 surveys (ex-
cept Anchorage and Honolulu) also appeared in the Fall, 1997 issue of Com-
pensation and Working Conditions, pp. 101-103. Complete survey results
for each of the areas along with job and level descriptions and survey method-
ology are available from BLS Publication Sales Center, PO Box 2145, Chi-
cago, IL 60690; telephone (312) 353-1880; or on the BLS Intemet site at:
http://www. bis. gov/ocshome-htm

Compensation and Working Conditions Spring 1998 64