3 ms·

The limits on government salaries seems entirely counterproductive. I am all for evaluating things in an effort to establish more government efficiency. But t

• jedberg 2y ago
  The limits are there to limit corruption. If managers could set arbitrary salaries, the employees could just agree to cut their manager in on 10% of their raise. This probably happens outside of government, but it's just the private org who loses money, so it's up to them to stop it. But in the case of the government, it's the taxpayers who lose.
  • duxup 2y ago
    I don’t think managers (even without limits) could just set salaries… it’s not like they all just pay the max at manager discretion now.
    • jedberg 2y ago
      Government salaries are based on objective measures today -- years of service and job role. There is no "merit" part or anything subjective. To move to a system where "good people make more money", someone has to decide who the "good" people are. That person is susceptible to corruption. Moreso than in a private enterprise and with wider consequences, because government is not a business. So overpaying people doesn't have the same consequences as doing it privately.
      • Jtsummers 2y ago
        NSPS was an attempt to push towards something more merit based (still pay band structured, NSPS bands spanned 2-3 GS grades). NSPS was rolled back in 2010 or so because the requirement was that everyone had to be on it by 2009 (early 2010?) and that didn't happen. There are various *demo (lab, acq, I think some others) that are basically the same as NSPS (in principle) and ostensibly merit based. But they're also capped because of the correspondence to GS grades. Pay can increase much faster, in theory, than under GS but also you can be denied any raise except the general pay increase (below inflation, so a real pay cut even if a nominal pay raise) if your performance is poor.
      • ThunderSizzle 2y ago
        Years of service is a form of corruption, since years of service isn't a proxy for performance
        • Jtsummers 2y ago
          GS pay raises are only time-based in-grade, called steps. Each grade has 10 steps [0] and if you start at step 1 it can take up to 18 years to reach step 10 (less if you have good performance because then you can get a bonus step increase). Most people don't start at step 1, though, so maxing out typically takes less time. There are some jobs that will push you through grades on some regular cadence (usually 6-12 months in each grade), but those are usually "internships". New hires getting brought in at $50-60k/year GS-5 or GS-7 positions and moved up over 2-4 years into a GS-11 or GS-12 position. After that, they're back to competing for positions again for anything higher than GS-11/12 or whatever their target grade was. [0] Technically there's step X, which means you're paid above step 10 for that grade. This is relatively rare, but when it happens they only get half the general pay increase each year until step 10 catches up to them and then they are step 10.
        • QuadmasterXLII 2y ago
          corruption is a word with a meaning
  • spangry 2y ago
    I think that’s right - more discretion creates more room for corruption. Although there are other ways to limit corruption risk, namely process and transparency. In the Australian government you can pay someone higher than standard pay through an Individual Flexibility Agreement (IFA). But in order to do so there’s a whole process the manager has to go through where they have to justify the higher salary on a limited set of grounds (e.g. higher market value of role) and then get it all signed off by someone higher up the chain. That’s the process side. On the transparency side you could publish everyone’s salaries and then it becomes obvious when a manger is paying their second cousin way above normal for some strange reason.
  • philwelch 2y ago
    Most managers even in the private sector couldn’t really pull this off because they would need someone to approve the requested salary. You’d have to have a whole pyramid scheme of kickbacks going all the way up to the top executives, but the top executives have no incentive to cooperate because they’re already pulling a similar scheme against the shareholders for their salaries.
  • fallingknife 2y ago
    If the limits are to prevent corruption, why do they have to be so far below market rates? I don't think anyone is objecting to there being limits. Every company out there has level based limits. The issue is where those limits are set.
• monero-xmr 2y ago
  Then the question is, “how do we prevent politicians from hiring their family and friends on excessive salaries”? Then it’s, “how do we quantify success without the profit motive for something society needs, but doesn’t earn a profit”? Then I would conclude, the solution is a small government with a hyper-competitive process for providing public services, with actual democratic feedback on the success of such provided services with teeth to remove bad private sector contractors.
  • fn-mote 2y ago
    > with actual democratic feedback on the success of such provided services The Chicago political machine is calling. They want your jobs. All of your jobs. Wait until you’re doing a great job but have the wrong political take on a situation. Make sure you’re regularly doing favors for people and giving out what freebies you can so you stay in office during the next cycle. It sounded great in the post, but democracy is hard so don’t expect an easy answer.
  • duxup 2y ago
    Is that the concern? Hiring family? But they don’t because of the salary limit? I don’t think that’s the case.