Hacker News Reader

Comment by lilsoso | Hacker News Reader

He may have been better off as a federal government worker, if you include pension and benefits into the equation, which I find discouraging.

View on HN

I don't think so. If he didn't go into management and the working level was a GS-13, he'd eventually max out at a GS-13, Step 10, which is $133,967 a year in San Francisco.

His pension, under the current system, would be his "high three" average times 1% times years of service ($133,967 * .01 * 21) = $28,133.

Also worth noting that retirement after 21 years in industry isn't a financially sensible consideration for most federal civilians: assuming 27 years old in 1997, minimum retirement age would be 57 (9 years shy after 21 years), and even 2 years short of satisfying early retirement age requirement of 50[1].

[1] https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/eli...

Why is this, if true, discouraging? Do you think government workers (a pretty broad term which can encompass a wide range of positions and levels of expertise) should not be well paid?

I don't know how true it is, but my understanding is that Federal workers often work fewer hours and enjoy better job security than their private counterparts. If so, wouldn't you expect these benefits to be offset by lower compensation? On an hourly basis it could net out to be similar and simply appeal to folks who want a different type of career or work life balance.

No, I would expect private sector workers to organize over receiving less compensation for more work. The problem isn’t government worker compensation.

And hours. But not inflation. According to the westegg inflation calculator,

"What cost $210000 in 2000 would cost $304266.30 in 2017."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com