3 ms·

I'd also point out that one of the big assets of the US government as an employer is an implicit promise of stability, which helps it compete for employees agai

by Terr_ 2y ago

I'd also point out that one of the big assets of the US government as an employer is an implicit promise of stability, which helps it compete for employees against the private sector despite offering lower wages. The recent half-random half-stupid-keyword firing spree is smashing that asset to pieces, which means the government will have to start offering more in wages to keep attracting competent candidates, which is likely to overwhelm any short-term "savings." Or at any rate, it will on a longer time-horizon, which might not matter to perpetrators who plan to make a giant mess and leave it behind for someone else to handle.

nine_zeros 2y ago
> I'd also point out that one of the big assets of the US government as an employer is an implicit promise of stability, which helps it compete for employees against the private sector despite offering lower wages. And billionaires hate that people have alternatives to slaving away for them.
babyshake 2y ago
This is absolutely true. I know people who have worked for the government for 10+ years, and they specifically highlight the stability as the one reason they haven't moved to the private sector where you may need to be looking for a new job every few years. Of course Musk etc. see this as a bug, not a feature, and think that every worker needs to constantly justify their employment.
- Henchman21 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - blooalien 2y ago
    Would be a total waste of time. Any answer they might give would just be the usual boat-load of blatant and obvious lies which would of course be instantly believed as "gospel truth" by their army of death-cult worshipers.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    Careful, don't make mistake of thinking that "they didn't get there by virtue" is the same as "they got there by evil." Simple economic models show that it's possible to end up with levels of inequality that match reality, even when all the players are equally lucky and have no difference in character. To twist the idiom: Hate some of the players if you want, but remember to mostly keep hating the game.
    - moshun 2y ago
      It’s fascinating to see arguments like this pop up from time to time when the wealthiest consistently move to consolidate power, control/manipulate information to enrich themselves, and now in the U.S., openly steer the government to feed bottomless greed. It’s simply not possible to reach anything close to a single billion without unbelievable exploitation of lower classes and it scales as you get richer. Saying “they got there by evil” seems completely reasonable by any moral standard not written by sociopaths.
      - ivewonyoung 2y ago
        > It’s simply not possible to reach anything close to a single billion without unbelievable exploitation of lower classes and it scales as you get richer. Whatsapp's founders made $6.8B each from the acquisition, Whatsapp only had 55 employees when acquired who all got a big payout afaik. What lower class 'got unbelievably exploited'?
missedthecue 2y ago
The average federal US employee earns $106k a year on top of quite a few generous benefits. I don't think, based on available data, that they are underpaid relative to the private sector, though I see it said so often online it appears to be "common knowledge". Maybe it was true 50 years ago? Maybe it's just the people repeating it... Are they paid less compared to high tech? Yes.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Looking for the $106k number, I find this [0], which: > [...] doesn’t include postal workers, congressional staffers, employees of the government’s various intelligence agencies or presidential appointees who require Senate confirmation. As for comparisons to the private-sector, there's a useful graph from 2022 [1] that compares wages+benefits broken down by employee education levels. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-... [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    Compared to the federal workforce, the number of congressional staffers is a rounding error. Those working at intelligence agencies and presidential appointees are all likely near or well above $106k. You're talking about secretaries and undersecretaries and directors of entire government departments. FYI, the survey also didn't include uniformed service personnel.
- dialup_sounds 2y ago
  Is there a source for that $106k? What I'm seeing puts the average fed at GS-10, which is less than that.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    OPM internal report last year. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-...
xnx 2y ago
To them this is an added benefit in the process of destroying the US government.

by Terr_ 2y ago

nine_zeros 2y ago

> I'd also point out that one of the big assets of the US government as an employer is an implicit promise of stability, which helps it compete for employees against the private sector despite offering lower wages. And billionaires hate that people have alternatives to slaving away for them.

babyshake 2y ago

This is absolutely true. I know people who have worked for the government for 10+ years, and they specifically highlight the stability as the one reason they haven't moved to the private sector where you may need to be looking for a new job every few years. Of course Musk etc. see this as a bug, not a feature, and think that every worker needs to constantly justify their employment.

Henchman21 2y ago
[flagged]
- blooalien 2y ago
  Would be a total waste of time. Any answer they might give would just be the usual boat-load of blatant and obvious lies which would of course be instantly believed as "gospel truth" by their army of death-cult worshipers.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Careful, don't make mistake of thinking that "they didn't get there by virtue" is the same as "they got there by evil." Simple economic models show that it's possible to end up with levels of inequality that match reality, even when all the players are equally lucky and have no difference in character. To twist the idiom: Hate some of the players if you want, but remember to mostly keep hating the game.
  - moshun 2y ago
    It’s fascinating to see arguments like this pop up from time to time when the wealthiest consistently move to consolidate power, control/manipulate information to enrich themselves, and now in the U.S., openly steer the government to feed bottomless greed. It’s simply not possible to reach anything close to a single billion without unbelievable exploitation of lower classes and it scales as you get richer. Saying “they got there by evil” seems completely reasonable by any moral standard not written by sociopaths.
    - ivewonyoung 2y ago
      > It’s simply not possible to reach anything close to a single billion without unbelievable exploitation of lower classes and it scales as you get richer. Whatsapp's founders made $6.8B each from the acquisition, Whatsapp only had 55 employees when acquired who all got a big payout afaik. What lower class 'got unbelievably exploited'?

missedthecue 2y ago

The average federal US employee earns $106k a year on top of quite a few generous benefits. I don't think, based on available data, that they are underpaid relative to the private sector, though I see it said so often online it appears to be "common knowledge". Maybe it was true 50 years ago? Maybe it's just the people repeating it... Are they paid less compared to high tech? Yes.

Terr_ 2y ago
Looking for the $106k number, I find this [0], which: > [...] doesn’t include postal workers, congressional staffers, employees of the government’s various intelligence agencies or presidential appointees who require Senate confirmation. As for comparisons to the private-sector, there's a useful graph from 2022 [1] that compares wages+benefits broken down by employee education levels. [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-... [1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235 https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235
- missedthecue 2y ago
  Compared to the federal workforce, the number of congressional staffers is a rounding error. Those working at intelligence agencies and presidential appointees are all likely near or well above $106k. You're talking about secretaries and undersecretaries and directors of entire government departments. FYI, the survey also didn't include uniformed service personnel.
dialup_sounds 2y ago
Is there a source for that $106k? What I'm seeing puts the average fed at GS-10, which is less than that.
- missedthecue 2y ago
  OPM internal report last year. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-data-says-about-federal-workers/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/01/07/what-the-...

xnx 2y ago

To them this is an added benefit in the process of destroying the US government.