4 ms·

I think there’s an aspect of your question that deserves sincere engagement, but I also think there is a very overblown idea of “the best in their field” and a

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

I think there’s an aspect of your question that deserves sincere engagement, but I also think there is a very overblown idea of “the best in their field” and a misconception that if you were “good enough” to get hired into top private sector jobs, it somehow means you are better than peers. For one thing, people grow & change. Out of some hypothetical cohort of peers in year X, some few may have been the “best” in science and engineering at the point of time when everyone was graduating college and getting jobs. Doesn’t mean they would still be the best 5 or 10 years later — in fact the best person from the cohort at that time may not even have ever studied computer science until later in life. Even more importantly, top private firms like Google et al hire in a specific way that emphasizes a combination of rote memorization of facts and youthful resistance to burnout. While this may correlate with high skill in some age groups, for some types of work, it’s a very poor substitute for experience-based judgment and creativity, especially the stuff that cannot be mapped easily to rote memorization of computer science facts. In this sense I’d guess the three letter agencies have employee skill about as good as most tech companies, with the exception that very junior employees are “better” on the rote memorization and burnout-avoidance predisposition at tech companies (and that agencies don’t care much about missing out on that overrated talent pool sector). Many agencies also have long-time partnerships with professors and academic institutions that give them a lot of consulting support, often from literally world experts in things. Combined with FFRDCs that also have this type of consulting relationship and can often pay a little better to attract better talent, the agencies probably have no shortage of good talent. The main question I have is why the agencies are able to pay such low salaries, sometimes even in urban areas, no bonuses, etc. I feel they have talented people who are massively underpaid.

ethbro 7y ago
> I feel they have talented people who are massively underpaid. They pay enough to get the talent they need * . Or in other words, if they're sufficiently staffed it's because people are willing to work there for less than market rate. Patriotism, a chance (in some roles) to work on cutting edge tech / scale, and making a difference in the world attract people. You can feel however you want about the agencies morally and ethically, but their work is unique. * Subject to Congressional cooperation and government pay scales
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > You can feel however you want about the agencies morally and ethically, but their work is unique. Working for the NSA doesn't necessarily entail working on mass civilian surveillance, which I think is where the moral and ethical concerns are concentrated. They still do military and diplomatic intelligence, and defensive security for US many government systems, which I think only the most pacifist would have a problem with.
JackFr 7y ago
My experience is that I’ve worked at a federal agency and at a national lab, but in the waning days of the Cold War, so things may be different now. For tippy-top talent, I imagine it’s kind of like the same way academia can compete with tech firms. You get freedom to work on interesting problems in a relatively low pressure environment. Additionally a lot of federal agencies (ironically it might seem) are no-bullshit places to work. There’s a published pay scale and promotion schedule. You show up do the work you move up. You never get laid off. One other thing is that certain national security important roles do get paid on a higher scale than the usual GS scale.
CPLX 7y ago
> The main question I have is why the agencies are able to pay such low salaries, sometimes even in urban areas, no bonuses, etc. I grew up in DC and have a bunch of friends that went to work for the Federal Government. Not in these types of agencies, but nonetheless instructive I think. The incentives at these places are completely different. Pay is somewhat low at start but it's rock solid stable and grows predictably and can get pretty respectable over time, the level of stress and unpredictability can be very low, the promotions are on a schedule, and vacation time and flex time can be pretty attractive. It's not for me, I would go crazy in that culture, but I have some friends that are really happy to have a job they can check into, do what they're told to do, and go home.
- Loughla 7y ago
  Having worked in a government job (not tech, but still government) this is it in a nutshell. It was nice having a job that I could go to, do my work, and go home without worrying about what might be happening at the office. It was the best position I've ever had for work/life balance. The time off was extraordinary, the health insurance was stupid good, it was super stable, but the pay was 1/2 to 2/3 what I could make in private industry. When I had small children, it was the perfect job, just due to the flexibility in time off and lack of real on-going stress.
- dlphn___xyz 7y ago
  government shutdown / furlough proves that that gov jobs arent stable.
  - 0xffff2 7y ago
    Government employees got back pay, so as long as they're financially stable to start with they experienced no lasting consequences as a result of the shutdown. (Unfortunately the same isn't true for government contractors who were unable to work due to the shutdown.) The last shutdown was also a historically unprecedented event. While shutdowns had occurred before, they were never on the scale of the latest one.
- astura 7y ago

ethbro 7y ago

> I feel they have talented people who are massively underpaid. They pay enough to get the talent they need * . Or in other words, if they're sufficiently staffed it's because people are willing to work there for less than market rate. Patriotism, a chance (in some roles) to work on cutting edge tech / scale, and making a difference in the world attract people. You can feel however you want about the agencies morally and ethically, but their work is unique. * Subject to Congressional cooperation and government pay scales

CharlesColeman 7y ago
> You can feel however you want about the agencies morally and ethically, but their work is unique. Working for the NSA doesn't necessarily entail working on mass civilian surveillance, which I think is where the moral and ethical concerns are concentrated. They still do military and diplomatic intelligence, and defensive security for US many government systems, which I think only the most pacifist would have a problem with.

JackFr 7y ago

My experience is that I’ve worked at a federal agency and at a national lab, but in the waning days of the Cold War, so things may be different now. For tippy-top talent, I imagine it’s kind of like the same way academia can compete with tech firms. You get freedom to work on interesting problems in a relatively low pressure environment. Additionally a lot of federal agencies (ironically it might seem) are no-bullshit places to work. There’s a published pay scale and promotion schedule. You show up do the work you move up. You never get laid off. One other thing is that certain national security important roles do get paid on a higher scale than the usual GS scale.

CPLX 7y ago

> The main question I have is why the agencies are able to pay such low salaries, sometimes even in urban areas, no bonuses, etc. I grew up in DC and have a bunch of friends that went to work for the Federal Government. Not in these types of agencies, but nonetheless instructive I think. The incentives at these places are completely different. Pay is somewhat low at start but it's rock solid stable and grows predictably and can get pretty respectable over time, the level of stress and unpredictability can be very low, the promotions are on a schedule, and vacation time and flex time can be pretty attractive. It's not for me, I would go crazy in that culture, but I have some friends that are really happy to have a job they can check into, do what they're told to do, and go home.

Loughla 7y ago
Having worked in a government job (not tech, but still government) this is it in a nutshell. It was nice having a job that I could go to, do my work, and go home without worrying about what might be happening at the office. It was the best position I've ever had for work/life balance. The time off was extraordinary, the health insurance was stupid good, it was super stable, but the pay was 1/2 to 2/3 what I could make in private industry. When I had small children, it was the perfect job, just due to the flexibility in time off and lack of real on-going stress.
dlphn___xyz 7y ago
government shutdown / furlough proves that that gov jobs arent stable.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  Government employees got back pay, so as long as they're financially stable to start with they experienced no lasting consequences as a result of the shutdown. (Unfortunately the same isn't true for government contractors who were unable to work due to the shutdown.) The last shutdown was also a historically unprecedented event. While shutdowns had occurred before, they were never on the scale of the latest one.
astura 7y ago