Hacker News Reader

Comment by withdavidli | Hacker News Reader

Never understood the underpaying of highly qualified people in the govt. Making a sacrifice for your country in a high powered / representative position is one thing, but the rank and file? Billions are spent on defense contracts and old software, but when bringing on teams of people to revamp the system, they want these people to take more than a 50% pay cut. D.C. is an expensive place to live as well. If you think something is crucial for the country to advance and survive, don't be cheap about it.

View on HN

I work for federal government. And the government subsidies my pay @ $4500 to live in DC. I’m humbled by my opportunity to be in the public service. I’ve turned down valley jobs. US gov is filled with highly qualified people. You just don’t know their twitter.

DC itself has a pretty bad government COL adjustment because it is the average of an area comprising some much lower COL areas in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. For example, a GS employee who works in Downtown DC where a 1 BR apartment will go for $2500 / month will get paid the exact same amount as his / her peer working in Hampshire, WV. The same apartment there is about $700.

* https://www.federalpay.org/gs/locality

There is local pay adjustment. For Federal Judges or political positions these are set by congress across the board so this is accurate.

They add $4500 per month to live in DC?

You ready to join the force?

Force as in military or combat jobs? Any list that provides jobs or departments that offer this type of subsidy?

Quick Google search brings deferred loan programs. I'm not aware of subsidized housing programs except for stationed military. If this is widely available, it would change the math for many people. 4,500/month stipend pays the mortgage. Friends in other govt departments never had that, is it DC specific?

This is D.C. specific. $4500 is for one year. It’s what I receive under my TDY. (Temp Duty Station Change).

Yearly makes much more sense. At the same time, nowhere near enough to make up for the pay cut. I’m non tech, and my peer who was being recruited for US Digital Service would had to take about a 50k pay cut to sub 100k level.

>Never understood the underpaying of highly qualified people in the govt.

because Americans have been trained get upset when they find how much government employees make and that's why their taxes are so "high".

is it related to the term "public servants"?

or stories about gov. employees doing nothing but getting paid?

Eh, look at it as a filter for true believers. Mercenaries are dangerous, because they have a price.

It could also create disgruntled employees. Finding people feeling underpaid and undervalued must be prime candidates for foreign agents. While definity not an expert in this, every time I've read about traitors it seems money, sex or ideology drive the betrayal. And the first seems the most common in modern times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames

> Ames later said that this financial pressure was what had first led him to consider spying for the Soviet Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen

> He never indicated any political or ideological motive for his actions, telling the FBI after he was caught that his only motivation was profit

> The FBI paid $7 million to a KGB agent to obtain a file on an anonymous mole, who the FBI later identified as Hanssen through fingerprint and voice analysis.

Sad they'd spend millions to catch moles but can't somehow afford to pay the crucial people the right sum. If you've got people who have access to valuable information consider their financial situation and adjust their compensation accordingly so they're never left wanting, your enemies will use the same damn information to make them turn on you... Why the hell not beat them to the punch? If they've got their expenses covered they've got no serious reason to commit treason one would think.

Just like Wayne Knight's character Nedry in Jurassic Park, where do you put a stop on what needs to be paid to keep things safe? It's a dangerous game to place a price on safety if the sole determinant is the loyalty of the individual.

I never got the 'spared no expense' line until today. Thank you for adding another layer to my favourite childhood movie.

The two biggest things one can do to lose or be denied access to a security clearance are 1) foreign contacts and travel and 2) financial issues.

Most of the security clearance denial appeals are published by the US government, and just from a cursory glance, you can see that mundane credit problems, foreclosures, etc. are the top reason given.

* http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/industrial/2017.html

I definitely wouldn't characterize the average government employee as a "true believer" at all. Given the pension-salary ratio, they are mostly selected for being risk adverse and unambitious.

Perhaps a better analogy: let's say you're hiring people with the offer that you'll pay them $2M the first year, then nothing for 20 years. The danger is that the person will quit. So it is more conservative to offer a deal where you pay them nothing for 20 years, then $2M. Then you're pretty sure they'll stay, especially if they're 15 years in.

I think that's probably the best way to understand the salary/pension trade-off. The public sector is geared to be quite risk averse in investments, so it offers back-weighted comp to try to be frugal on training and provide continuity.

There's also basically no other employer that can credibly offer this kind of comp, so the public sector, by offering it, can compete quite well for talent in the space of those interested in that configuration. It's not the only way to run things, but it makes some sense.

This system doesn’t work at all if people believe pensions are being cut.

Or that you can (apparently? I heard?) lose your pension entirely if you get fired before reaching retirement age.

(pension funds should be owned by the person using it, so that you will have access to it at retirement age even when you're fired. An employer should also not be able to take anything from it, and be held liable if they don't pay it.)

Do civilian government employees even get a pension plan anymore? I got an offer a few years back from a three letter agency in DC and I'm pretty sure they just had a 401k.

I believe so. Federal employees don’t pay social security so their only fixed income will come from their government pension.

Yes they do. In the old system they didn't, but everyone since ~1984 does (and most of the old-system folks are retired or near retirement now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/federa...

Right I was talking to a retired, lifelong federal employee who mentioned he didn’t pay SS. Since ‘84 was over 30 years ago I expect the number to flip for those on the new pension scheme, soon.

Yes, 1.1 percent of the average of the highest three years you were paid during your service for each year you worked. So if you did 30 years, you’d make 33 percent pension. That’s on top of the employer match that the government does if you contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan, an ultra low expenses IRA plan for military and federal civilians.

Or you get mercenaries anyway, that are looking to profit from something else than the salary (ie, corruption).

>>don't be cheap about it.

Throw in Pension, Health Benefits, Over time pay and other benefits and it won't be cheap any more.

Not all forms of pay come in a monthly pay check.

This is true. Though the perks and benefits that the govt provides for office workers are not going to be able to compete with top tech companies. Pension is delayed payment of decades while tenure at companies are dropping. I bet quantifying these forms of pay would make the comparison even worse.

There are a few things that I’m comparing it to that makes me say they are cheap (since it is a relative term).

1. How much money the govt has spent in other endeavors whether policy or contractors.

2. How much private sector (market) values top talent that the govt is trying to attract and retain. Value prop for private companies is high, but the impact these people can have on the US govt should be a lot larger.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com