The maximum amount any federal employee can earn is $170k, with zero equity.
When I've been a contract developer, I've probably been making more than board members in some countries, but that seemed to be accepted over the short term. There's also an issue where enterprise companies wouldn't trust their IT departments, for historical reasons so the good people left or they got consulting businesses in and that made everything worse...
There is also the fact that they have more take home pay then you might expect, because government salaries are exempt from FICA taxes
https://www.federalpay.org/employees/top-100
Even ignoring those searching through different departments shows plenty earning over 174k -- Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (6), Immediate Office of the Secretary of Education (8), Maritime Administration (34), etc.
(Of course then there's state employees where PE Teachers get multi-million salaries)
What state PE teachers are making multi-million dollar salaries? I hope you're not conflating huge D1 coaching programs with "PE teacher."
[0] https://www.federalpay.org/employees/occupations/medical-off...
Using common logic we see in the field on why ic should be paid lower than team leaders.
Second, a good physician - even a run-of-the-mill family doctor - should be collaborating with their peers. They're keeping up to date on new practices and informing the next generation of those practices by reporting observations of the results of today's practices and any anomalies that arise.
I don't think it's unreasonable for some developers to make more than most physicians or for most physicians to make more than most developers. Neither field is narrowly defined.
The proof was a list of federal employees earning more than X
Administrators who are Senate approved can also get exemptions to the salary cap.
There are plenty of non-doctors earning over 174k too.
(Average doctor salary in Canada is USD140k btw)
I have no idea what you're talking about or thinking about. A percentage of tax receipts? Why on earth would that make more sense than just money up front?
I’ll grant you that dusty old war bonds are unlikely to get strapping young devs very excited, but I’m sure that they can come up with a higher risk, higher reward financial instrument with some imagination.
In a smaller company, the stock may appreciate due to your actions, but there's absolutely no reason to think most employees would do anything that moves Google's stock price. And even less to think anyone would do anything that would impact US government tax receipts.
Working for Google and getting RSUs isn't really higher-risk, higher reward compared to a salary.
That’s exactly what I said, that they need to come up with a higher-risk, higher-reward instrument because bonds aren’t high risk, high reward enough to act as an incentive. Your problem clearly isn’t that the subject matter calls for insulting or dismissing, it’s that you decided in advance to act insulting and dismissive regardless of what the response may be.
The government makes the rules in the first place, I’m sure they can figure something out. At least I object to the claim that it’s obvious that they can’t.
Why bother doing that when they can give you money and you can invest it in lottery tickets, beanie babies, bonds or Google yourself?
Except in the event of a startup, where you don't have the ability to buy in yourself to such a high-risk, high-reward outcome yourself.
But there isn't be much difference between Google offering you RSUs and just more salary (assuming the 'more salary' also vested)
They can recruit very good software engineers out of the Southeast & Midwest for under 170k just fine. It's still going to cost them 6 figures, but they are going to be able to hire good talent.
I will admit though, they're going to have trouble retaining the tippy top of the seniority ladder at 170k.