7 ms·

Have you ever worked on a federal contract? The compensation really is not poor, unless you’re comparing it to say FAANG compensation, which is not really norma

Have you ever worked on a federal contract? The compensation really is not poor, unless you’re comparing it to say FAANG compensation, which is not really normal. They make as much, if not more, than current market rates. There is significant job security (contract with three year period of performance is essentially guaranteed work for 3+ years), annual bonuses, etc. The idea propagated by many here that engineers who work as government contractors are somehow less than is nauseating and untrue. Believe it or not, a whole world of talented people exists outside of the bubble you live in. Yes, there are bad apples, as with every industry, and we are all just throwing out anecdotes, but the vast majority of people I worked with in government were A) hard workers, and B) overqualified for their positions, and C) highly educated/talented.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
I don't doubt they are hard workers and intelligent. But if OP is judging them by SV standards of talent then it's not exactly fair. Building a successful company requires a certain drive, risk appetite, and revolutionary zeal that are not easily found in government (and to a lesser extent, academia). There are smart people everywhere but most would never make a significant impact.
- bladegash 6y ago
  It requires a difference of priorities and ambitions. What draws people to the DC area is not the same as what draws them to SV. It’s not a disparity of capability. Aside from that, your point really is not accurate. There are plenty of companies and entrepreneurs users in the DC area that generate FAR more value and revenue than SV startups. Take a look at the wealthiest counties in the US. Loudoun County and Fairfax County have been the top of that list for a while. Or Montgomery County for that matter.
  - ampdepolymerase 6y ago
    Would you truly consider old money, government regulatory capture/lobbying and defence to be in the same category as startups? They are completely different types of innovation. There job is done once a specific policy is achieved. Overarching changes to the system is often not their priority.
- oivey 6y ago
  Most tech employees in even in the valley aren’t founders or early employees risking it all. There is probably some element of drive for commercial products or something but I think you’re vastly overestimating the degree to which that is a factor vs compensation.
oivey 6y ago
Government is competing with FAANG for employees. There isn’t a good reason to exclude them from comparison. Even so, working for a startup without equity is often more lucrative than working for the federal government. The situation is even worse at the state and local level where you also have to fear your pension being raided via government bankruptcy. I’m talking about actual government employees, not contractors. The actual government employees who manage those contracts are not paid well. You can see the results of this too in things like the F35 program where the government had no idea what it wanted and repeatedly redirected and added crazy requirements (to be fair, Lockheed is also incompetent). You’re right though, painting even a majority of public employees as incompetent isn’t fair.
- bladegash 6y ago
  Government employees who manage contracts can be paid very well, depending on their grade. A GS-14 makes over $120k base, with pension, significant healthcare contribution, etc. A GS-15 is $152k base. I get that that may not seem like much, but it is 2-2.5x the median household income in the US. Aside from that, a contract manager/Contract Officer is typically not an engineer and if you're lucky, may be someone that can fill more of a product owner role. It's not really comparable in those terms. F35 really isn't a great example of poor engineering talent, that is an example of a crap acquisition strategy in general and was pretty much destined to be problematic from the start due to politics, conflicting/competing requirements, etc. You could have hired the best engineers in the world and they would have likely ended with the same results, because the majority of the issues with the F35 had little to do with engineering.
sdenton4 6y ago
/[...]not really normal[...]/ Well, there's probably 100-200k engineers combined working at FAANG jobs, who have the option of the FAANG salary or the government salary. FAANG pays so /many/ paychecks that the expectation really is that high for people who can pass a FAANG interview. There are a lot of people who /can/ pass the interviews but choose not to, effectively taking a pay cut to go work on things they're passionate about; only a few of these end up working in 'boring' parts of government. The US Digital Service was meant to make it a broader/better path, though. Your people description (B) is worth considering, too: I (personally) am unlikely to take a job I think I'm 'overqualified' for unless it's in a specific problem area I really, really care about. And 'overqualified' sounds near synonymous with 'few growth prospects': if the opportunities are there, why haven't they been taken? And if they aren't, why should I take a pay cut to work in a space with fewer opportunities for growth?
- bladegash 6y ago
  The level of compensation is not normal for engineers, that was the point I was making. There are a lot of talented engineers out there who A) have zero interest in working for a FAANG, B) are perfectly talented, C) have jobs that pay just as well. Yes, that applies to those in government too. In terms of qualifications, people have different things that motivate them to work in certain fields/jobs. People value things other than money as well, such as power and influence, ability to impact change at scale few organizations can match, feelings they are contributing to a meaningful mission/cause, etc. It's not just about money and overqualification is many times because of the way career ladders work in government and the educational, training, internship opportunities the government pays/provides for that you are unlikely to experience in the private sector. Government will sponsor employees to work an internship in the U.S. Senate for 2+ years, or attend a postsecondary education at Georgetown/Harvard/GWU, etc. Not just for senior level employees, for mid-career ones.
jcranmer 6y ago
> Have you ever worked on a federal contract? The compensation really is not poor, unless you’re comparing it to say FAANG compensation, which is not really normal. They make as much, if not more, than current market rates. I think there is a disconnect here. Public employees--people who are actually employed by the government--have fixed, low salaries (relative to the tech sector). Contractors for the public sector--people employed by private companies--actually have pretty decent salaries. These two sets of people are different categories, but a lot of people hear "government" and may be failing to realize the distinction between actual government employees versus contract employees.
- bladegash 6y ago
  It is very rare that the government hires engineers outside of contractors. I would argue compensation really is not that bad even for public employees (I was a GS federal employee, work in private sector now). A couple of years in, you essentially have a job for life, more than fair compensation, pension, 401k matching, etc. BLS' estimate of average salary for a software engineer is 107k per year. It is not all that challenging to make that much as a government employee in the DC area (GS-13 step 2 is about what is comparable).
  - oivey 6y ago
    GS-13 is a significant amount of experience and 107k isn’t a competitive wage for an engineer of that experience level, especially in tech. How can the government provide adequate technical oversight of its contractors if it doesn’t hire engineers? Answer: it can’t, and you can routinely see the results.
    - bladegash 6y ago
      GS-13 is possible within two years of experience and depending on the agency, sometimes quicker. Yes, I can personally attest to this and it will depend on the agency. To reiterate though, outside of a few agencies, most engineers in government are contractors, not civilian employees. Their compensation is much higher.
Kalium 6y ago
> Have you ever worked on a federal contract? The compensation really is not poor, unless you’re comparing it to say FAANG compensation, which is not really normal. They make as much, if not more, than current market rates. Yes. It was OK pay, but not better than market. Annual bonuses weren't a thing. There was no path for career advancement beyond senior engineer. The supposed stability was not nearly as good as you describe. There's a bunch of reasons I stopped doing defense contracting.
jjeaff 6y ago
I had a friend that was a fracking engineer and made big bucks working on drilling sites. Constant travel, awful hours, "culture" of working all the time. He took a big paycut to start working for the state government but he has good benefits, good retirement, and normal hours that you can actually raise a family with. And while all of his peers have scattered the nation looking for jobs when natural gas prices crashed, he's still sitting pretty with his same steady job. So there is a lot more than just salary to working for the government.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago

I don't doubt they are hard workers and intelligent. But if OP is judging them by SV standards of talent then it's not exactly fair. Building a successful company requires a certain drive, risk appetite, and revolutionary zeal that are not easily found in government (and to a lesser extent, academia). There are smart people everywhere but most would never make a significant impact.

bladegash 6y ago
It requires a difference of priorities and ambitions. What draws people to the DC area is not the same as what draws them to SV. It’s not a disparity of capability. Aside from that, your point really is not accurate. There are plenty of companies and entrepreneurs users in the DC area that generate FAR more value and revenue than SV startups. Take a look at the wealthiest counties in the US. Loudoun County and Fairfax County have been the top of that list for a while. Or Montgomery County for that matter.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  Would you truly consider old money, government regulatory capture/lobbying and defence to be in the same category as startups? They are completely different types of innovation. There job is done once a specific policy is achieved. Overarching changes to the system is often not their priority.
oivey 6y ago
Most tech employees in even in the valley aren’t founders or early employees risking it all. There is probably some element of drive for commercial products or something but I think you’re vastly overestimating the degree to which that is a factor vs compensation.

oivey 6y ago

Government is competing with FAANG for employees. There isn’t a good reason to exclude them from comparison. Even so, working for a startup without equity is often more lucrative than working for the federal government. The situation is even worse at the state and local level where you also have to fear your pension being raided via government bankruptcy. I’m talking about actual government employees, not contractors. The actual government employees who manage those contracts are not paid well. You can see the results of this too in things like the F35 program where the government had no idea what it wanted and repeatedly redirected and added crazy requirements (to be fair, Lockheed is also incompetent). You’re right though, painting even a majority of public employees as incompetent isn’t fair.

bladegash 6y ago
Government employees who manage contracts can be paid very well, depending on their grade. A GS-14 makes over $120k base, with pension, significant healthcare contribution, etc. A GS-15 is $152k base. I get that that may not seem like much, but it is 2-2.5x the median household income in the US. Aside from that, a contract manager/Contract Officer is typically not an engineer and if you're lucky, may be someone that can fill more of a product owner role. It's not really comparable in those terms. F35 really isn't a great example of poor engineering talent, that is an example of a crap acquisition strategy in general and was pretty much destined to be problematic from the start due to politics, conflicting/competing requirements, etc. You could have hired the best engineers in the world and they would have likely ended with the same results, because the majority of the issues with the F35 had little to do with engineering.

sdenton4 6y ago

/[...]not really normal[...]/ Well, there's probably 100-200k engineers combined working at FAANG jobs, who have the option of the FAANG salary or the government salary. FAANG pays so /many/ paychecks that the expectation really is that high for people who can pass a FAANG interview. There are a lot of people who /can/ pass the interviews but choose not to, effectively taking a pay cut to go work on things they're passionate about; only a few of these end up working in 'boring' parts of government. The US Digital Service was meant to make it a broader/better path, though. Your people description (B) is worth considering, too: I (personally) am unlikely to take a job I think I'm 'overqualified' for unless it's in a specific problem area I really, really care about. And 'overqualified' sounds near synonymous with 'few growth prospects': if the opportunities are there, why haven't they been taken? And if they aren't, why should I take a pay cut to work in a space with fewer opportunities for growth?

bladegash 6y ago
The level of compensation is not normal for engineers, that was the point I was making. There are a lot of talented engineers out there who A) have zero interest in working for a FAANG, B) are perfectly talented, C) have jobs that pay just as well. Yes, that applies to those in government too. In terms of qualifications, people have different things that motivate them to work in certain fields/jobs. People value things other than money as well, such as power and influence, ability to impact change at scale few organizations can match, feelings they are contributing to a meaningful mission/cause, etc. It's not just about money and overqualification is many times because of the way career ladders work in government and the educational, training, internship opportunities the government pays/provides for that you are unlikely to experience in the private sector. Government will sponsor employees to work an internship in the U.S. Senate for 2+ years, or attend a postsecondary education at Georgetown/Harvard/GWU, etc. Not just for senior level employees, for mid-career ones.

jcranmer 6y ago

> Have you ever worked on a federal contract? The compensation really is not poor, unless you’re comparing it to say FAANG compensation, which is not really normal. They make as much, if not more, than current market rates. I think there is a disconnect here. Public employees--people who are actually employed by the government--have fixed, low salaries (relative to the tech sector). Contractors for the public sector--people employed by private companies--actually have pretty decent salaries. These two sets of people are different categories, but a lot of people hear "government" and may be failing to realize the distinction between actual government employees versus contract employees.

bladegash 6y ago
It is very rare that the government hires engineers outside of contractors. I would argue compensation really is not that bad even for public employees (I was a GS federal employee, work in private sector now). A couple of years in, you essentially have a job for life, more than fair compensation, pension, 401k matching, etc. BLS' estimate of average salary for a software engineer is 107k per year. It is not all that challenging to make that much as a government employee in the DC area (GS-13 step 2 is about what is comparable).
- oivey 6y ago
  GS-13 is a significant amount of experience and 107k isn’t a competitive wage for an engineer of that experience level, especially in tech. How can the government provide adequate technical oversight of its contractors if it doesn’t hire engineers? Answer: it can’t, and you can routinely see the results.
  - bladegash 6y ago
    GS-13 is possible within two years of experience and depending on the agency, sometimes quicker. Yes, I can personally attest to this and it will depend on the agency. To reiterate though, outside of a few agencies, most engineers in government are contractors, not civilian employees. Their compensation is much higher.

Kalium 6y ago

> Have you ever worked on a federal contract? The compensation really is not poor, unless you’re comparing it to say FAANG compensation, which is not really normal. They make as much, if not more, than current market rates. Yes. It was OK pay, but not better than market. Annual bonuses weren't a thing. There was no path for career advancement beyond senior engineer. The supposed stability was not nearly as good as you describe. There's a bunch of reasons I stopped doing defense contracting.

jjeaff 6y ago

I had a friend that was a fracking engineer and made big bucks working on drilling sites. Constant travel, awful hours, "culture" of working all the time. He took a big paycut to start working for the state government but he has good benefits, good retirement, and normal hours that you can actually raise a family with. And while all of his peers have scattered the nation looking for jobs when natural gas prices crashed, he's still sitting pretty with his same steady job. So there is a lot more than just salary to working for the government.