6 ms·

>What is the expected compensation for participants? Compensation varies based on experience level and agency placement. Annual salaries are expected to be in t

by jotux 10mo ago

>What is the expected compensation for participants? Compensation varies based on experience level and agency placement. Annual salaries are expected to be in the approximate range of $150,000 to $200,000. Benefits include health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and eligibility for performance-based awards. >Tech Force will primarily recruit early-career technologists So "early-career" but they're going to get paid GS-14/15 pay[1] in DC? New grad engineers in DC are going to be GS-7/9 at best. This is either a blatant lie, or created by someone who has no idea of how federal pay works (or both). As an aside, I was a fed for >10 years and left last year for industry but stay in touch with friends still working federal jobs. Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low. [1] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/25Tables/html/DCB.aspx https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries...

pavel_lishin 10mo ago
I'd wager that the "approximate" in that sentence is going to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.
neilv 10mo ago
> Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low. Also, many people took pride in the service they provided to their country (or to the people, or as part of a team that did good, however they thought of it). I don't have high hopes for this new thing. After recent treatment of federal employees, and other things going on in the US this year, including how USDS as DOGE was weaponized against the US... I'd expect this new thing to only be able to recruit from these categories: 1. Outright bad people, with anti-US, looter/saboteur intent, as we've seen from other facets recently. They will focus on their own bad-person individual interests. 2. People who aren't bad, but who are so cognitively impaired, that they still don't realize that they're probably going to get screwed personally and/or directed to be the baddies. They will be bad at everything they do. 3. People who are intelligent and pro-US, and have no illusions about what they're signing up for, but who desperately need the income, after being screwed earlier this year. They won't be inspired to execute well on whatever anti-US directives they're given.
- guru4consulting 10mo ago
  when I saw 18F, CISA, USDS were targeted by DOGE, everything was clear. They were just cutting all the good muscle and leaving the bad fat :(
- dabockster 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - selectodude 10mo ago
    Those people were covered in 1. Outright bad people.
  - SunshineTheCat 10mo ago
    [flagged]
    - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
      I've had two such chats with Trump supporters, and one said in great detail that this statement is true. He acknowledged that Trump has done a number of ethically and legally problematic things, and that supporting Trump means enabling this, but feels that he has to accept that necessary evil in order to achieve his policy goals on various issues. (The other flatly denied that Trump has ever done anything wrong and refused to keep talking when I produced examples of the most pointlessly cruel stuff.) Have you heard differently in your own casual chats on the topic?
      - PacificSpecific 10mo ago
        What were the policy goals?
        SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
        Reducing illegal immigration seemed to be the primary one. Some stuff on civil rights too, but I'm not sure if that was a big concern for the guy I was talking to or an attempt to find common ground where he knew I'd be more sympathetic.
lumost 10mo ago
At least in 2010, it was common for new grads to get GS-14/GS-15 pay for in-demand tech skills. It's a bit odd that early career folks would start out at the max of the pay band, but it is what it is. These were for roles which required a clearance.
- Jtsummers 10mo ago
  Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity). GS-12 was a more typical "target" position (with GS-13 on occasion, like at some of the labs) back in 2010. A masters or a PhD could have bumped you up to GS-13/14/15 though. Target: People typically enter, when coming out of college, at a lower grade in the GS-5/7/9 area with a target position of one of GS-11/12/13. IT (not CS) folks were often in GS-11 targeted positions, computer scientists and engineers often in GS-12 positions. They'd get promoted in two grade increases (5 to 7, 7 to 9, 9 to 11) or one grade increases (11 to 12, 12 to 13) until they hit their target grade. At a rate of either one increase per year or per 6 months depending on when they got hired, by what agency, and in what role. An IT person, usually one increase per year; engineer, typically two increases per year. Computer scientists usually got screwed and got one increase per year which meant you had fewer of them wanting to work for the government (they also, at that time, rarely got signing bonuses). This leaves a lot of the software shops in DOD (where I had experience) mostly filled with aerospace and electrical engineers. "Cyber" roles (security; which could be a couple different job series) in some agencies jumped up faster or had a higher target grade due to the need (or perceived need) for more people.
  - alephnerd 10mo ago
    > Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity) Based on the FAQ, US Tech Force roles are located in DC (so they'll get the DC adjustment) and from the sounds of it, this proposal is the AI Washing the "Cyber Service" or "Cyber Exempted Service". Also, based on Scott Kupor's (former Managing Parter at A16Z turned head of OPM) memo [0] it appears they seem to be using the same approach used to start the USDS back in the Obama admin. And based on their mention of "fellows", I think they'll merging parts of what used to be the Presidential Management Fellows program. If AI-washing and Trump-washing helps maintain the core of these programs, there's nothing wrong with that. Edit: Dug deeper thru the FAQ - it's basically an AI washed version of the PMF and PIF. [0] - https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/building-the-ai-workforce-of-the-future.pdf https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/building-the-ai-workf...
testing22321 10mo ago
> Benefits include health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and eligibility for performance-based awards Paid time off??? Health insurance??? Retirement plans???? OMG this is incredible! What an offer! /s
- alephnerd 10mo ago
  No 401k can ever match the beauty that is the TSP.
  - raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
    I can guarantee you I can save/invest more in the private sector with the gap between public sector pay and make up for the TSP.
  - jotux 10mo ago
    Left federal and my private 401k is 150% match up to 6%. Better than TSP in everything except fees, which are slightly higher. But that mattered a lot less than my pay, I was a GS-15 in a leadership role and took a role in the private sector for a 30% pay increase back into an individual contributor role. So much less work and a huge pay increase.
    - alephnerd 10mo ago
      > my private 401k is 150% match up to 6% Oh that's actually really good. Beats a TSP for sure even with the fees. But from what I remember you're at a defense contractor - they probably have the best benefits plans overall in the US.
    - phantasmish 10mo ago
      3 dollars for every 2 up to 6% of pay? So you could get up to 15% of pay into the 401k (or the annual limit, whichever comes first)? That’s by far the best I’ve ever heard of. Usually employers screw us by keeping the majority of the max annual contribution, which only they can make, out of our reach with crappy “50% match up to 3%” policies or whatever (even a 100% match means you can’t hit the actual annual max, it has to be higher than that).
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
voidfunc 10mo ago
If I was late-career with a good solid financial foundation im place and just looking to work to cover living expenses the Federal Gov as fucked as it may be doesn't seem like a bad gig. Since the bar is so incredibly fucking low you just mail it in and collect the money and when youre furloughed you play golf or do extra hobbies. The ball just needs to keep moving, it doesn't actually need to move quickly. Heck it doesn't even need to necessarily move forward.
- raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
  I am 51 “late career” and there is no way in hell I would work for the federal government now. Even if I didn’t care about the politics, I have made more than the posted salaries working full time for outside consulting companies contracting with the federal government over the last five years and I wasn’t working at the whims of the government
- ipython 10mo ago
  There are way more people calling it in at large orgs or FAANGs. Clearly you've never worked in a civil service position given your foolish caricature of one.
  - nextworddev 10mo ago
    Can confirm that 70% of faang are slackers
ivanech 10mo ago
I believe the new grad DOGE employees were GS-15s. So yes, it seems likely that they plan to hire at GS-14 or GS-15.
- ethbr1 10mo ago
  Nothing like putting in a multi decade civil service career and coming in one day to find a 20-something installed over you whose primary qualification was being hired at a "friendly" tech company and making the right kind of joke around the CEO. ... although that seems depressingly like it would also be the experience with new administrators being installed in executive agencies every 4 years, except they're slightly older. Man, if only there were some way to retain talent in the face of political leadership transitions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform...
  - sheepscreek 10mo ago
    Not being dismissive of your experience (or that of a civil servant with 10s of years of experience). I have a deep respect for that kind of work and folks who give up more lucrative opportunities in order to serve their country and fellow citizens. > whose primary qualification was being hired at a "friendly" tech company and making the right kind of joke around the CEO That’s being awfully dismissive of the individuals skill set. Nobody gets the job by making the right kind of jokes around the CEO. Nobody. Getting in the door takes hard work, talent and some amount of luck.
    - ipython 10mo ago
      For DOGE specifically? Would be interested to hear of those DOGE employees who truly deserved to be GS-15s due to their extensive experience in both tech and government.
      - zbentley 10mo ago
        > extensive experience in both tech and government. The USDS (group that was renamed to a part of DOGE) has previously hired with an emphasis on non government experience: http://govciomedia.com/usds-developing-innovative-approach-to-private-sector-hiring/ http://govciomedia.com/usds-developing-innovative-approach-t...
lowkey_ 10mo ago
(1) Are you saying it's bad if they're upping engineer pay to be more competitive, or you're just skeptical that they will? (2) I'd actually like the American government to pay better wages for its engineers, and optimize for hiring the best, rather than those desiring a stable, low-paying bureaucracy — I don't think that attracts the best people. (3) On talent and recruiting: This is being done by the National Design Studio, it says at the bottom. That's led by a cofounder of Airbnb - I know one person who works at the National Design Studio and he's a phenomenal engineer. The administration also has the involvement of David Sacks, who founded Craft Ventures and is pretty well-known in SV. I think this is probably the most tech-competent the government will have been in a long time. I'm not crediting Trump at all for that, to be clear - just pointing out that tech talent in government seems to be getting better, not worse.
- jotux 10mo ago
  #1: I am extremely skeptical they are paying that. I suspect this was put together by someone who has no understanding of federal pay systems. "$150,000 to $200,000" is already an erroneous number, federal salary is limited by federal law and cannot exceed $195200. #2: Overwhelmingly I agree. Federal pay is very, very broken. They should reform it to align more with the private sector, and there are laws in place that do that, and every year the sitting president literally writes a letter stating it would be an economic emergency to pay federal employees equivalent wages and instead sets them low. You are still limited by federal law to that current $195k, so it means it's impossible for the federal government to hire technical experts and pay them a fair wage. #3: I'm sure the federal government is paying those people some ridiculous amount of money to put this together, and they'll probably do a decent job because of it. It still doesn't change the fact that federal hiring is really broken, and has become significantly worse in this admin.
- zbentley 10mo ago
  > I'd actually like the American government to pay better wages for its engineers, and optimize for hiring the best Yes, and a big part of this involves changing the way agencies rely on contractors for specialty work (including tech work).
hopelite 10mo ago
Not to mention “…recruiting an elite corps of engineers to build…” while also “…participants will receive technical training…” So “elite” engineers need technical training? What am I missing here. I have extensive experience with this kind of government nonsense, but usually it is kind of in the background, blather no one really takes serious because it’s just blowing smoke. But this seems so credibility destroying through its ridiculous contradictions and bombast.
gcanyon 10mo ago
Serious question: what makes you think team “hold my beer” won’t find a way around past norms, or just ignore them? Not that they actually care enough to do it, but I don’t think they wouldn’t/couldn’t if they did care.

by jotux 10mo ago

pavel_lishin 10mo ago

I'd wager that the "approximate" in that sentence is going to be doing a lot of heavy lifting.

neilv 10mo ago

> Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low. Also, many people took pride in the service they provided to their country (or to the people, or as part of a team that did good, however they thought of it). I don't have high hopes for this new thing. After recent treatment of federal employees, and other things going on in the US this year, including how USDS as DOGE was weaponized against the US... I'd expect this new thing to only be able to recruit from these categories: 1. Outright bad people, with anti-US, looter/saboteur intent, as we've seen from other facets recently. They will focus on their own bad-person individual interests. 2. People who aren't bad, but who are so cognitively impaired, that they still don't realize that they're probably going to get screwed personally and/or directed to be the baddies. They will be bad at everything they do. 3. People who are intelligent and pro-US, and have no illusions about what they're signing up for, but who desperately need the income, after being screwed earlier this year. They won't be inspired to execute well on whatever anti-US directives they're given.

guru4consulting 10mo ago
when I saw 18F, CISA, USDS were targeted by DOGE, everything was clear. They were just cutting all the good muscle and leaving the bad fat :(
dabockster 10mo ago
[flagged]
- selectodude 10mo ago
  Those people were covered in 1. Outright bad people.
- SunshineTheCat 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
    I've had two such chats with Trump supporters, and one said in great detail that this statement is true. He acknowledged that Trump has done a number of ethically and legally problematic things, and that supporting Trump means enabling this, but feels that he has to accept that necessary evil in order to achieve his policy goals on various issues. (The other flatly denied that Trump has ever done anything wrong and refused to keep talking when I produced examples of the most pointlessly cruel stuff.) Have you heard differently in your own casual chats on the topic?
    - PacificSpecific 10mo ago
      What were the policy goals?
      - SpicyLemonZest 10mo ago
        Reducing illegal immigration seemed to be the primary one. Some stuff on civil rights too, but I'm not sure if that was a big concern for the guy I was talking to or an attempt to find common ground where he knew I'd be more sympathetic.

lumost 10mo ago

At least in 2010, it was common for new grads to get GS-14/GS-15 pay for in-demand tech skills. It's a bit odd that early career folks would start out at the max of the pay band, but it is what it is. These were for roles which required a clearance.

Jtsummers 10mo ago
Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity). GS-12 was a more typical "target" position (with GS-13 on occasion, like at some of the labs) back in 2010. A masters or a PhD could have bumped you up to GS-13/14/15 though. Target: People typically enter, when coming out of college, at a lower grade in the GS-5/7/9 area with a target position of one of GS-11/12/13. IT (not CS) folks were often in GS-11 targeted positions, computer scientists and engineers often in GS-12 positions. They'd get promoted in two grade increases (5 to 7, 7 to 9, 9 to 11) or one grade increases (11 to 12, 12 to 13) until they hit their target grade. At a rate of either one increase per year or per 6 months depending on when they got hired, by what agency, and in what role. An IT person, usually one increase per year; engineer, typically two increases per year. Computer scientists usually got screwed and got one increase per year which meant you had fewer of them wanting to work for the government (they also, at that time, rarely got signing bonuses). This leaves a lot of the software shops in DOD (where I had experience) mostly filled with aerospace and electrical engineers. "Cyber" roles (security; which could be a couple different job series) in some agencies jumped up faster or had a higher target grade due to the need (or perceived need) for more people.
- alephnerd 10mo ago
  > Not for people with just a BS, at least outside certain areas (DC) and roles (cybersecurity) Based on the FAQ, US Tech Force roles are located in DC (so they'll get the DC adjustment) and from the sounds of it, this proposal is the AI Washing the "Cyber Service" or "Cyber Exempted Service". Also, based on Scott Kupor's (former Managing Parter at A16Z turned head of OPM) memo [0] it appears they seem to be using the same approach used to start the USDS back in the Obama admin. And based on their mention of "fellows", I think they'll merging parts of what used to be the Presidential Management Fellows program. If AI-washing and Trump-washing helps maintain the core of these programs, there's nothing wrong with that. Edit: Dug deeper thru the FAQ - it's basically an AI washed version of the PMF and PIF. [0] - https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/building-the-ai-workforce-of-the-future.pdf https://www.opm.gov/chcoc/latest-memos/building-the-ai-workf...

testing22321 10mo ago

> Benefits include health insurance, retirement plans, paid time off, and eligibility for performance-based awards Paid time off??? Health insurance??? Retirement plans???? OMG this is incredible! What an offer! /s

alephnerd 10mo ago
No 401k can ever match the beauty that is the TSP.
- raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
  I can guarantee you I can save/invest more in the private sector with the gap between public sector pay and make up for the TSP.
- jotux 10mo ago
  Left federal and my private 401k is 150% match up to 6%. Better than TSP in everything except fees, which are slightly higher. But that mattered a lot less than my pay, I was a GS-15 in a leadership role and took a role in the private sector for a 30% pay increase back into an individual contributor role. So much less work and a huge pay increase.
  - alephnerd 10mo ago
    > my private 401k is 150% match up to 6% Oh that's actually really good. Beats a TSP for sure even with the fees. But from what I remember you're at a defense contractor - they probably have the best benefits plans overall in the US.
  - phantasmish 10mo ago
    3 dollars for every 2 up to 6% of pay? So you could get up to 15% of pay into the 401k (or the annual limit, whichever comes first)? That’s by far the best I’ve ever heard of. Usually employers screw us by keeping the majority of the max annual contribution, which only they can make, out of our reach with crappy “50% match up to 3%” policies or whatever (even a 100% match means you can’t hit the actual annual max, it has to be higher than that).

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

voidfunc 10mo ago

If I was late-career with a good solid financial foundation im place and just looking to work to cover living expenses the Federal Gov as fucked as it may be doesn't seem like a bad gig. Since the bar is so incredibly fucking low you just mail it in and collect the money and when youre furloughed you play golf or do extra hobbies. The ball just needs to keep moving, it doesn't actually need to move quickly. Heck it doesn't even need to necessarily move forward.

raw_anon_1111 10mo ago
I am 51 “late career” and there is no way in hell I would work for the federal government now. Even if I didn’t care about the politics, I have made more than the posted salaries working full time for outside consulting companies contracting with the federal government over the last five years and I wasn’t working at the whims of the government
ipython 10mo ago
There are way more people calling it in at large orgs or FAANGs. Clearly you've never worked in a civil service position given your foolish caricature of one.
- nextworddev 10mo ago
  Can confirm that 70% of faang are slackers

ivanech 10mo ago

I believe the new grad DOGE employees were GS-15s. So yes, it seems likely that they plan to hire at GS-14 or GS-15.

ethbr1 10mo ago
Nothing like putting in a multi decade civil service career and coming in one day to find a 20-something installed over you whose primary qualification was being hired at a "friendly" tech company and making the right kind of joke around the CEO. ... although that seems depressingly like it would also be the experience with new administrators being installed in executive agencies every 4 years, except they're slightly older. Man, if only there were some way to retain talent in the face of political leadership transitions... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Reform...
- sheepscreek 10mo ago
  Not being dismissive of your experience (or that of a civil servant with 10s of years of experience). I have a deep respect for that kind of work and folks who give up more lucrative opportunities in order to serve their country and fellow citizens. > whose primary qualification was being hired at a "friendly" tech company and making the right kind of joke around the CEO That’s being awfully dismissive of the individuals skill set. Nobody gets the job by making the right kind of jokes around the CEO. Nobody. Getting in the door takes hard work, talent and some amount of luck.
  - ipython 10mo ago
    For DOGE specifically? Would be interested to hear of those DOGE employees who truly deserved to be GS-15s due to their extensive experience in both tech and government.
    - zbentley 10mo ago
      > extensive experience in both tech and government. The USDS (group that was renamed to a part of DOGE) has previously hired with an emphasis on non government experience: http://govciomedia.com/usds-developing-innovative-approach-to-private-sector-hiring/ http://govciomedia.com/usds-developing-innovative-approach-t...

lowkey_ 10mo ago

(1) Are you saying it's bad if they're upping engineer pay to be more competitive, or you're just skeptical that they will? (2) I'd actually like the American government to pay better wages for its engineers, and optimize for hiring the best, rather than those desiring a stable, low-paying bureaucracy — I don't think that attracts the best people. (3) On talent and recruiting: This is being done by the National Design Studio, it says at the bottom. That's led by a cofounder of Airbnb - I know one person who works at the National Design Studio and he's a phenomenal engineer. The administration also has the involvement of David Sacks, who founded Craft Ventures and is pretty well-known in SV. I think this is probably the most tech-competent the government will have been in a long time. I'm not crediting Trump at all for that, to be clear - just pointing out that tech talent in government seems to be getting better, not worse.

jotux 10mo ago
#1: I am extremely skeptical they are paying that. I suspect this was put together by someone who has no understanding of federal pay systems. "$150,000 to $200,000" is already an erroneous number, federal salary is limited by federal law and cannot exceed $195200. #2: Overwhelmingly I agree. Federal pay is very, very broken. They should reform it to align more with the private sector, and there are laws in place that do that, and every year the sitting president literally writes a letter stating it would be an economic emergency to pay federal employees equivalent wages and instead sets them low. You are still limited by federal law to that current $195k, so it means it's impossible for the federal government to hire technical experts and pay them a fair wage. #3: I'm sure the federal government is paying those people some ridiculous amount of money to put this together, and they'll probably do a decent job because of it. It still doesn't change the fact that federal hiring is really broken, and has become significantly worse in this admin.
zbentley 10mo ago
> I'd actually like the American government to pay better wages for its engineers, and optimize for hiring the best Yes, and a big part of this involves changing the way agencies rely on contractors for specialty work (including tech work).

hopelite 10mo ago

Not to mention “…recruiting an elite corps of engineers to build…” while also “…participants will receive technical training…” So “elite” engineers need technical training? What am I missing here. I have extensive experience with this kind of government nonsense, but usually it is kind of in the background, blather no one really takes serious because it’s just blowing smoke. But this seems so credibility destroying through its ridiculous contradictions and bombast.

gcanyon 10mo ago

Serious question: what makes you think team “hold my beer” won’t find a way around past norms, or just ignore them? Not that they actually care enough to do it, but I don’t think they wouldn’t/couldn’t if they did care.