12 ms·

Former Fed for 10 years. Loved working for the Federal Government. I made 100k+ as a software engineer. I left Federal Service in February 22 because the priva

by tdhz77 5y ago

Former Fed for 10 years. Loved working for the Federal Government. I made 100k+ as a software engineer. I left Federal Service in February 22 because the private sector doubled my salary. My work is much easier in the private sector and I work a lot less. I’m getting paid double. I have a team now I can rely on. I didn’t have this in Gov. Many Gov IT positions will go unfilled for months. I had one organization offer me 25k, fully remote to work there and I declined. Why? The amount of work is insane for a individual developer. This idea that we shouldn’t pay people because they work in Government is insane. Peoples mistrust of government, but really it’s misguided.

tehwebguy 5y ago
> I had one organization offer me 25k, fully remote to work there Per year? That is $12.50 / hr
- the_only_law 5y ago
  I worked for state government, in a very red state (read, does not like to spend on government) for my first “real” job at around $37k, circa 5-6 years ago.
  - toomanyrichies 5y ago
    This gets to the heart of a contradiction in red state philosophy which is actually quite hard to solve, at least in my mind. On the one hand, it's understandable if someone doesn't trust the government to spend their money wisely, and if they use that as a justification for voting for smaller government budgets. I get that part completely. Governments have little if any internal motivation to spend your money wisely. If anything, they have a vested interest in spending 100% of their budgets, regardless of whether it's spent wisely, so that their budgets don't decrease in the following fiscal year. At the same time, "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys". If red states don't pay competitive salaries in competitive fields, their citizens shouldn't be surprised if they end up scraping the bottom of the barrel to source their public servants. The service they experience while interfacing with this dreck then further reduces their faith in government, and the whole thing becomes a vicious circle. Again, this is a hard problem to solve. I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to be rooted in a mis-alignment of incentives in government spending.
    - UweSchmidt 5y ago
      The actual "philosophy" is the privatization of government functions. Concepts like "libertarianism" and "government is inefficient" are constructed to push this agenda. In the US this force can be so destructive that it willingly starves the government to prove its inefficiency and pushes services to the private sector, which is oh-so-well-alligned with its incentives (healthcare, owning infrastructure and other natural monopolies). If the Digital Corps can't get it done with people who can only make 25k a year, I guess we need some free market consultants for 200$/hour!
      - pc86 5y ago
        Why do you assume that these ideologies are "constructed" in order to support a pre-existing agenda, rather than the (imo) much more likely possibility that the ideology is legitimately held and the "agenda" flows naturally from that belief?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - asiachick 5y ago
      Yes, I don't know what would work. I often like to bring up Japanese trains/subways which are privately owned and AFAIK the reason it works is because the train companies own buildings and land around their stations so they have a positive feedback loop, the more people ride their trains, the more their buildings get used, the more their land is worth, and visa versa. ~10 or so of the famous buildings in Shibuya are owned by the Tokyu Corp including the famous one with the giant screen, the 109 building (10 + To, 9 = Kyu), and the new 50+ story one directly over the station. The also own the building Google moved to. They own grocery stores at probably around 50% of the stations on their lines. Other examples include any building you see named Atre (https://www.atre.co.jp/ https://www.atre.co.jp/) which are shopping centers above JR train stations owned by JR. I have no idea what the equivalent would be for government IT, nor am I saying all government services should be privatized. I do agree though that it's about incentives. Even in Japan people complain about government construction projects where the incentive is always to spend all the money so near the end of the fiscal period a bunch of random unneeded projects start to make sure all the money is spent for fear that budgets might be lower the next year if they don't use all the money.
- tempestn 5y ago
  Given the tone of the quoted comment, I expect that was a typo for 250k. IE. They offered me 250k fully remote, but I turned it down anyway because it would be so much work.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dogman144 5y ago
Partnership for Public Service, a much heralded public/private partnership between MasterCard, Workday (sp?), MSFT that interviews and places cybersec grads into GS roles for 2+ years and then preferred interviews into private sector, were insisting: GS-7, and max, maybe, but would be hard, GS-11. Experiences of selectees pushing back on that salary due to how low it was vs. the market ($30-$50k) with requirements to live on DC or similar were met with almost disbelief and offense from that org when candidates pushed back, because the program was for "new grads." Knew someone who turned it down and took a private sector interview/offer going on concurrently for $145k remote, despite providing offer/pay stubs to try at help the GS/PfP teams meet the on-paper salary even remotely close.
- csa 5y ago
  > GS-7, and max, maybe, but would be hard, GS-11. I’m guessing that this was actually a 7/9/11 position, with automatic annual promotions (apprentice, journeyman, master, iirc). Still… that’s really low for someone who can get a decent tech job in the private sector. Note that an ambitious person with the right skill set could probably be GS-15 in the DC area in their late 20s, and they would hit the GS salary cap soon thereafter. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a good thing (total comp still low), but I just wanted to throw that out there.
  - dgfitz 5y ago
    It’s rather hard to get hired in a spot over GS 11/12. It happens but it’s not common. From 13 on I believe promotions are in front of a panel. Getting hired as a 15 would usually imply the hire-e was recruited.
    - csa 5y ago
      Apologies if I wasn’t clear… I meant that a motivated and skilled person who enters federal service at the age of 22 in a 7/9/11 position could probably be GS 15 in their late 20s in tech in the DC area. You’re absolutely right that getting directly hired into a higher level is much tougher, although not impossible if you are connected.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tdfx 5y ago
I think government work culture is handicapping the salaries more than anything else. If a consultant comes in for a year at $200/hour, the government ends their contract when they're finished with them. When the government hires someone at $50k/year, they are stuck with that person pretty much as long as that person wants to continue working there. There's a common joke with civilian defense employees that you can't get fired without committing a felony. Government work culture has this maternal mentality where it feels the need to care for workers from cradle to grave. You can never get rid of low performers, there's no layoffs when priorities change, you just have the same people that need to be shifted around to do a mediocre job elsewhere. It's completely immune to outside market forces and that makes it literally impossible to compete with private sector salaries, who have no problem laying people off if a project doesn't work out. Each person hired by the government is a massive, open-ended liability that can most likely never be fired, never be demoted or take a pay cut, regardless of changes in circumstances for the employer. I think the USDS was a huge step in the right direction by focusing on having "tours of duty" where the term of employment is fixed. I think the government should adopt that much more broadly if it wants to be competitive with the private sector.
- throw7 5y ago
  NY State has non-unionized positions called MC (Management/Confidential). My understanding is that it's sorta like contract work... you are "appointed" on a yearly or session basis. It's not a panacea though... if you look up kaloyeros, you'll see the dark side. It's disheartening how a single person in a particular position can bog down and kill the organization. It's not an easy problem to solve.
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  USDS salaries are even more absurd relative to the responsibility of the positions. Think 75%+ compensation cut even at the top of the GS scale for the calibre of people they are looking for; and the primary benefits of a Federal job like a guaranteed pension and job security don't apply in a meaningful way. You really have to be in it for the service aspect.
  - 5y ago
watercarrier 5y ago
> This idea that we shouldn’t pay people because they work in Government is insane. Peoples mistrust of government, but really it’s misguided. Never worked in Federal (Federal Contracting... don't get me started) - but I did work for years in a regional water service. We had about a 50% haircut, probably worse and with worse work-life setup in any regard. Easily 1/3 of our department were do-nothing folks skating to retirement. I'm not opposed to paying well, but for any policy proposal to do so we'd really have to find a way of cleaning house, finding and retaining good talent, and working to rid the place of folks not only "phoning it in" but truly abusing their employer.

by tdhz77 5y ago

tehwebguy 5y ago

> I had one organization offer me 25k, fully remote to work there Per year? That is $12.50 / hr

the_only_law 5y ago
I worked for state government, in a very red state (read, does not like to spend on government) for my first “real” job at around $37k, circa 5-6 years ago.
- toomanyrichies 5y ago
  This gets to the heart of a contradiction in red state philosophy which is actually quite hard to solve, at least in my mind. On the one hand, it's understandable if someone doesn't trust the government to spend their money wisely, and if they use that as a justification for voting for smaller government budgets. I get that part completely. Governments have little if any internal motivation to spend your money wisely. If anything, they have a vested interest in spending 100% of their budgets, regardless of whether it's spent wisely, so that their budgets don't decrease in the following fiscal year. At the same time, "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys". If red states don't pay competitive salaries in competitive fields, their citizens shouldn't be surprised if they end up scraping the bottom of the barrel to source their public servants. The service they experience while interfacing with this dreck then further reduces their faith in government, and the whole thing becomes a vicious circle. Again, this is a hard problem to solve. I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to be rooted in a mis-alignment of incentives in government spending.
  - UweSchmidt 5y ago
    The actual "philosophy" is the privatization of government functions. Concepts like "libertarianism" and "government is inefficient" are constructed to push this agenda. In the US this force can be so destructive that it willingly starves the government to prove its inefficiency and pushes services to the private sector, which is oh-so-well-alligned with its incentives (healthcare, owning infrastructure and other natural monopolies). If the Digital Corps can't get it done with people who can only make 25k a year, I guess we need some free market consultants for 200$/hour!
    - pc86 5y ago
      Why do you assume that these ideologies are "constructed" in order to support a pre-existing agenda, rather than the (imo) much more likely possibility that the ideology is legitimately held and the "agenda" flows naturally from that belief?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - asiachick 5y ago
    Yes, I don't know what would work. I often like to bring up Japanese trains/subways which are privately owned and AFAIK the reason it works is because the train companies own buildings and land around their stations so they have a positive feedback loop, the more people ride their trains, the more their buildings get used, the more their land is worth, and visa versa. ~10 or so of the famous buildings in Shibuya are owned by the Tokyu Corp including the famous one with the giant screen, the 109 building (10 + To, 9 = Kyu), and the new 50+ story one directly over the station. The also own the building Google moved to. They own grocery stores at probably around 50% of the stations on their lines. Other examples include any building you see named Atre (https://www.atre.co.jp/ https://www.atre.co.jp/) which are shopping centers above JR train stations owned by JR. I have no idea what the equivalent would be for government IT, nor am I saying all government services should be privatized. I do agree though that it's about incentives. Even in Japan people complain about government construction projects where the incentive is always to spend all the money so near the end of the fiscal period a bunch of random unneeded projects start to make sure all the money is spent for fear that budgets might be lower the next year if they don't use all the money.
tempestn 5y ago
Given the tone of the quoted comment, I expect that was a typo for 250k. IE. They offered me 250k fully remote, but I turned it down anyway because it would be so much work.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dogman144 5y ago

Partnership for Public Service, a much heralded public/private partnership between MasterCard, Workday (sp?), MSFT that interviews and places cybersec grads into GS roles for 2+ years and then preferred interviews into private sector, were insisting: GS-7, and max, maybe, but would be hard, GS-11. Experiences of selectees pushing back on that salary due to how low it was vs. the market ($30-$50k) with requirements to live on DC or similar were met with almost disbelief and offense from that org when candidates pushed back, because the program was for "new grads." Knew someone who turned it down and took a private sector interview/offer going on concurrently for $145k remote, despite providing offer/pay stubs to try at help the GS/PfP teams meet the on-paper salary even remotely close.

csa 5y ago
> GS-7, and max, maybe, but would be hard, GS-11. I’m guessing that this was actually a 7/9/11 position, with automatic annual promotions (apprentice, journeyman, master, iirc). Still… that’s really low for someone who can get a decent tech job in the private sector. Note that an ambitious person with the right skill set could probably be GS-15 in the DC area in their late 20s, and they would hit the GS salary cap soon thereafter. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a good thing (total comp still low), but I just wanted to throw that out there.
- dgfitz 5y ago
  It’s rather hard to get hired in a spot over GS 11/12. It happens but it’s not common. From 13 on I believe promotions are in front of a panel. Getting hired as a 15 would usually imply the hire-e was recruited.
  - csa 5y ago
    Apologies if I wasn’t clear… I meant that a motivated and skilled person who enters federal service at the age of 22 in a 7/9/11 position could probably be GS 15 in their late 20s in tech in the DC area. You’re absolutely right that getting directly hired into a higher level is much tougher, although not impossible if you are connected.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tdfx 5y ago

I think government work culture is handicapping the salaries more than anything else. If a consultant comes in for a year at $200/hour, the government ends their contract when they're finished with them. When the government hires someone at $50k/year, they are stuck with that person pretty much as long as that person wants to continue working there. There's a common joke with civilian defense employees that you can't get fired without committing a felony. Government work culture has this maternal mentality where it feels the need to care for workers from cradle to grave. You can never get rid of low performers, there's no layoffs when priorities change, you just have the same people that need to be shifted around to do a mediocre job elsewhere. It's completely immune to outside market forces and that makes it literally impossible to compete with private sector salaries, who have no problem laying people off if a project doesn't work out. Each person hired by the government is a massive, open-ended liability that can most likely never be fired, never be demoted or take a pay cut, regardless of changes in circumstances for the employer. I think the USDS was a huge step in the right direction by focusing on having "tours of duty" where the term of employment is fixed. I think the government should adopt that much more broadly if it wants to be competitive with the private sector.

throw7 5y ago
NY State has non-unionized positions called MC (Management/Confidential). My understanding is that it's sorta like contract work... you are "appointed" on a yearly or session basis. It's not a panacea though... if you look up kaloyeros, you'll see the dark side. It's disheartening how a single person in a particular position can bog down and kill the organization. It's not an easy problem to solve.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
USDS salaries are even more absurd relative to the responsibility of the positions. Think 75%+ compensation cut even at the top of the GS scale for the calibre of people they are looking for; and the primary benefits of a Federal job like a guaranteed pension and job security don't apply in a meaningful way. You really have to be in it for the service aspect.
- 5y ago

watercarrier 5y ago

> This idea that we shouldn’t pay people because they work in Government is insane. Peoples mistrust of government, but really it’s misguided. Never worked in Federal (Federal Contracting... don't get me started) - but I did work for years in a regional water service. We had about a 50% haircut, probably worse and with worse work-life setup in any regard. Easily 1/3 of our department were do-nothing folks skating to retirement. I'm not opposed to paying well, but for any policy proposal to do so we'd really have to find a way of cleaning house, finding and retaining good talent, and working to rid the place of folks not only "phoning it in" but truly abusing their employer.