The US really needs a special schedule for software developers if they want technical expertise in house (and they really should have technical expertise in house)
The solution she proposes effectively would be an expansion of the US Digital Service (which the author spearheaded) into something that approximates the British civil service, which is actually highly functional and effective.
If you actually care about this problem and have a spare Audible credit it's worth a listen.
[1] https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250266774/recodingamerica
Sincerely asking, does your question intend to pre-suppose that everyone must have and express a unique perspective and no one can independently have anything in common? Or some other faux pas such a comment would run a-foul of?
When I saw original post, I had this comment. There was kinship with the parent post. Sometimes echoing your support with another comment is a valid comment too.
If you may want more novelty and context and details:
My professional experience includes working across multiple industries of bureaucrats, and that was my visceral reaction to the piece. Change usually means studying change, analysis, design and ultimately decision fatigue by committee.
There's many hard working and great bureaucrats. My statement tends to apply to the leadership and management layers. In terms of keepign things the same or very slow and tiny changes incrementaly, there's a lot of neat reading around institutionalization as it relates to not only government but bureaucracy here.
An exciting part is how the pandemic challenged and made it OK for bureaucracies to try things and to roll out programs that weren't fully thought out or known and update them regularly. In environments many people could not handle navigating.
Most of all I'm flattered by the downvotes.. happy to take those for the parent too. Perhaps I phrased it in a way that might have triggered some bureaucrats since they exist in enterprise, government, education, healthcare and more.
Or maybe it bothered the dopamine seekers in only novel and unique comments have worth.
Comments here are supposed to be substantive and thoughtful, not knee-jerk and visceral.
Maybe we are just feeling the effects that the modern American "left" is basically just the American right of the 60s lol
We need some actual liberals who aren't just socially liberal but also willing to spend money on new ideas.
It's an uphill battle to get new funding, and talking points move faster than budget approvals and program results.
Echoing that Recoding America is a great book to read even if you have nothing to do with the federal government. You might see some similarities in how large companies operate.
The real problem here is one you see in many organizations: misaligned incentives. Government has some unique challenges but most of what you see are common in the private sector, too: some people talk like the public sector is consistently super high quality on lean budgets but for every Chrome there are a dozen terrible enterprise apps which also fully count as private sector products. The pathologies are mostly the same: internal politics, building things you won’t personally use, not wanting to revisit past decisions, or otherwise having your paycheck come from things other than what’s best for your users.
Startups aren’t magic pixie dust for avoiding those problems: most fail, and the winners often hit the same problems from a different direction - making users happy until Google buys them and cancels the good parts, having to start aggressively monetizing at the expense of the user experience, etc.
These exist; they are called "firm fixed price" contracts. You still have to write the contract correctly to be outcomes focused, and that can be hard when you don't know until building/testing if you are building the right thing.[1]
1: https://derisking-guide.18f.gov/federal-field-guide/deciding...
Bureaucracies who can't change when needed, fail if they are stuck on constantly "conserving" at all costs, or "changing" at all costs.
There is some neat research out there that I will try to dig up on how corporate organizations actually benefit from having a balance between the "go" and the "whoa" in an organization, whether it is conservative or progressive views on something. This is not to say that those primarily obsessed with converving (keeping the world how it is, for the benefit of who is already benefitting only) may not be progressive and expand, nor does it mean that progressives aren't capable of restraint.
Making it about sides, is really, really, oversimplifying it though. It's one of the thing I think that is really polarizing when people who focus on differences more find more of them, but if you ask them, they ultimately have a different way of having the same thing in common. Maybe this is unique to the US, but it has always struck with me how people align completely binary around right or left when so many folks if they took the time to learn where they stand would probably end up closer to the centre on one side.
Fanaticsm at the extremes of any interpreted ideology is a bigger issue. Those folks can neither change their mind, nor change the topic, nor openly entertain a viewpoint that isn't theirs, but try to be open minded. It's my hope that societal progress can make inroads here because poeple do have more in common than they think.
I guess the president felt bad about banning GPU sales to China so he decided to gimp America too.
This sounds like a very brave proposal.
Here’s essentially, what exists today. Pretty impressive people.
Not when it procuring large systems, IT or otherwise. As routinely discussed and complained about by the National Audit Office (NAO) [0]. The civil service relies massively on external consultants and contractors to achieve anything.
It runs on "values", plus a bit of spit and prayer. There's no money.
Running something equivalent to the International Atomic Energy Agency but for AI will need funds and support of the same order.
In Britain the cs are basically providing long-term continuity regardless of how chaotic and volatile party politics becomes. What we see is that most of the machinery of state keeps working, despite the circus in the Commons. Despite Covid. Despite Brexit. So, without subscribing to an anarchic take, we somehow concede that somebody, somewhere, must be doing some work :)
Most people's contact is through online, if you can fire up even the most basic browser almost every interaction is clear, fast and smooth.
When you start dealing at a higher level (business and contracting) then you see behind the Wizard of Oz's curtain a bit. Things go more smoothly if you have the right documents and history. Isn't that the same in every country though?
So, it serves regular citizens very well, but less considerately as your needs are more complex. Effective maybe, but I didn't say "fair" :) Certainly there must be many people find it harder, and I'm probably showing my privilege.
I ended up passing on it.
They wanted an "entrepreneur in residence" to help drive change, which sounded great to me.
Then they did the whole "we need you to keep in a cup" thing.
I wouldn't have had any problem passing the test, but I told the recruiter "this is where the change needs to start".
There's no way I can attract and retain good technical talent if we're still ruling out candidates because of smoking pot.
Plus, I find the whole "pee in a cup" thing demeaning, intrusive and offensive.
The recruiter and I were both very frustrated by the situation. I wasn't the first candidate they'd lost over the issue.
I don't know if it's still like that, but the feds seriously need to get their act together in hiring process before we can improve the quality of government systems.
Like, it's bullshit that they asked, it is an invasion of privacy, it shouldn't be a reason to forgo employment of a candidate they otherwise liked, but at the same time, it wasn't an issue of like, you wouldn't get hired because of your race or gender, it was an issue of like, you'd have to abstain drugs for a while. And then, once you're part of that organization, you can help push for the exact changes you want to see in it.
It's the same reason I get frustrated with my generation not wanting to run for office: we spend all our time complaining about how awful the government is, but precious few are putting themselves out there as the instruments of that change. I don't know if it'll work out or not but I know damn well it won't if we refuse to even try.
Understand that the position was mostly charity work - the pay was negligible for a six month contract. I was ok with that part - I was motivated to help, not by compensation.
The intrusive testing, coupled with bad compensation is a root cause of the problem IMHO.
I think organizations only really change when they feel pain. In this case, my hope is that the pain of repeatedly losing good candidates is enough to drive policy change (at the congressional or executive level).
I don't think it helps to try to "change from the inside" in this case. If I (and other candidates) just roll with it, there's no incentive for change.
The change will come when enough people say "we can't hire the best people!" Until then, the only argument is "it's an invasion of privacy and outdated" but if it's not broken (i.e. not causing any problems) they won't fix it. All the candidates power is at negotiation of the offer time. Once you accept, it's kind of over.
Marijuana is still US federally illegal.
Hiring policies and legality are different matters.
If there is a hiring policy against it, then that hiring policy is paternalistic and demeaning and shouldn't exist.
If it's illegal, that's not the responsibility of the people hiring you.
The people in charge of hiring should not be trying to enforce laws outside of the workplace.
> As of April 2023, we began formally hiring remote as well as DC (local) based employees who report in-person to our D.C. office or the agency they are partnering with.
I'm also fine with the salary decrease but at least with USDS they have you work a "tour" (like a tour of duty, I guess) which lasts between 3 months and 4 years. First, that's a little ambiguous; who decides the duration of the tour? It also feels like it would be off-putting to get to the end of your fourth year and it's your best-performing year so far, but you're just Logan's Run'ed out of there. Even more so because neither Congress nor the Supreme Court, nor the overwhelming majority of state Congresses, have term limits.
from https://www.usds.gov/how-we-work ,
> With tours of service lasting no more than four years, the U.S. Digital Service brings fresh perspectives on technology and delivery to the government.
Feels like " 'fresh perspectives' for thee but not for me".
USDS's willingness to use term hires makes hiring folks in easier, in addition to ensuring that the office doesn't become stagnant.
As a general rule, this is probably true. But there are certainly roles where people are encourage to innovate. Remember, the government is huuuge. If you get a job in a legitimate research lab, you are not only encouraged, but expected to innovate. I'd be careful we're not conflating something like an operations role with that of a research role. (Although, to your point, there is some value in ops people innovating, too).
We as a society have stopped making sure our folks have overall stability in their jobs and as such, maintaining stable income for most is a priority. We don't accept failure, we don't proportionately reward risk taking (and instead, promote risk passing/mitigating), and were increasingly forgetting that regular failure is part of life. As such, even "innovative" labs are increasingly becoming less innovative, IMHO.
Where you see innovation happening is where there's typically piles of capital that provide people the stability and environments to take risks and fail, combined of course with luck or foresight in choosing the correct paths forward. That or in places where people sacrifice aspects of their own life to move something forward through some passion, obsession, etc. which is not a market of people I want to compete with.
Still, I agree there's a problem with salaries not being competitive. I've interned at DOE labs before and lots of people don't stay for long.
But go up and those 180k jobs would be easily 300-400K in the industry. I doubt anyone who can do that work would be interested in a measly 180K. Unless it comes with a visa...
Most of these jobs on the other hand seem to be US citizens only. Some require a security clearance which a lot of AI experts would probably rather NOT have.
The govt has record vacancy at the local, state, and federal levels for jobs[0][1][2]
Even taking steps to lower barriers to entry, they can't fill them.
[0]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2023/02/09/amid...
[1]: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/11/government-jobs-pandemic-re...
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20231002185558/https://www.nytim...
The thing about FIRE is you actually need way more money than regular retirement, because you have to plan for a 40+year retirement instead of a 15-20 year one. On top of that you need a higher margin to account for uncertainty.
There's "barista FIRE" (save enough and then go work as a barista, typically at starbucks because they had unusually good benefits, but I don't know if all that has changed after the unionization), but honestly working for the government seems like it could be even lower-stress than being a barista.
Wage rates should be higher.
At a DOE lab in my second year of PhD I was getting ~$50/hr. When I've interned at other places I've gotten to about $60/hr. That's still below the typical rate of $80-$100/hr for a new grad (we're just talking base salary, no comp or bonuses). Definitely not market rate.
For the $180k, that's a bit tougher. Since this is all cash. I'm not aware of anyone who pays $300k all cash to newly minted PhDs except for Netflix. Otherwise that number is competitive with typical base salaries. But like you say, with equity that number doubles and so isn't competitive that way. There are benefits to a gov job (way more relaxed) but you're turning down a lot of money, that's for sure. And of course, the salaries are only competitive for newly minted PhDS, not for anyone that's been in the field post PhD for 5+ years.
You can expect to find some experts with a stronger sense of civic duty willing to take a pay cut to work for the government, but when you're talking about multiple multiples of your salary, you're going to be left with people who are not top talent or those who are already so wealthy from other jobs that they're willing to work for much less.
Usually too, the top end of the salary is never going to be offered for a govt job, because they need to be able to give you raises at your level before your next promotion. There's lots of hoops that you end up going through with gov jobs that don't exist in private industry, like pay band caps and promotion schedules that are most often seniority based rather than merit based.
It is stable, and the retirement benefits are really great. The healthcare used to be spectacular but for newer hires the healthcare benefits are more in line with what you get at a private company with good benefits that isn't a FAANG. IE, you'll still have to contribute, the government doesn't pay 100% cost of insurance anymore.
source: I used to work for the government, and know many government workers via my past work, friends, and family at the state and federal level
There's actually precedent for this - SEC lawyers are on the SK pay scale, not GS.
It's exactly the same problem: the alternatives in finance were too lucrative to retain competent enough attorneys to regulate wall street.
Congress should create a separate tech pay scale, given the alternatives are too lucrative to retain competent enough engineers.
There's an effort to train civilian acquisition professionals on how to buy and build better software, but they are pretty quickly hired by contractors or the commercial sector since their new skillset fetches a larger salary than what the government can pay (even with promotion).
I agree there needs to be a special schedule. I do think an overhaul of the civilian service is worth exploring.
A first-hand voice from California State software projects said - that the required prime contractor had 10+ person teams and $1m+ budget, and failed to build useful results. The final result from the project(s) more than once, was "oh oops, doesn't fit with -other framework- cannot be deployed". In other words, literally making things that are abandoned on Day 1 of deployment, for large money, with plenty of apparent pressure on "workers" to perform. etc..
There are decades of reports and proposals about this. Unfortunately, we keep learning the same lessons over and over.
I get that the pay scales don't hold a candle to private industry, but they aren't pauper wages either. They're in the top 10% of the US as a whole. I suspect if that isn't sufficient, it might indicate a difference in value systems.
If we adjust the incentives of life a bit so people aren't constantly looking for another buck to make sure they can actually retire or pay their mortgage off, assure they have access to healthcare when they inevitably get sick, and so on we might find a lot more people would invest their time towards other contributions in society rather than those that they find that compensate them the most.
The whole thing about contractors is so spot on. The only slight difference I would add is that the contractors will NOT hire the best talent, they will hire whoever they can to fill the position, for the cheapest price, so they can claim to have fulfilled their RFP.
It's a dead end.
These are also the same ones that are super eager to have AI replace their (unappreciated) employees. They don't care about quality at all and as long as they fulfill the contract with something barely working that's all that matters to them.
I predict things are going to worse and worse when systems don't work. Having failures in critical institutions that are life altering for the people that are unlucky enough to be the outliers is going to become the norm IMO.
Why? Moreover.. how would any of this expertise actually get applied top down in a federal system? How would any department making purchases or technology decisions actually benefit from such an apparatus? Wouldn't it be more sensible for them to manage those purchasing and operational decisions the way they typically do? Having the expertise being more local to the actual deployments?
There's this "federal czar" ideology that comes from the 1950s, but I think the spread of technology and social development has reached a peak where this centralized expertise model actually holds us back. If we are /actually/ at a point where something like "ai.gov" should credibly exist, then we're definitely at a point where centralized bureaucracy isn't an adequate approach to manage outcomes.
For example judges take on their roll even though they would be paid significantly more in the private sector as lawyers.
Related: Open jobs at the CIA with the title "analyst".
Beyond that, you get various efficiency issues: contractor turnover tends to be higher, which is terrible when institutional memory matters or when you’re relying on their best people to keep a larger group productive, and there are often various contractual or policy issues making work less efficient. One challenge is that managing contracts is a lot of work, so there’s a temptation to go with the big companies who offer many services but that often means that they’re only good at one area and you get mediocre results in the other ones which were lumped into the same contract - often banking on the difficulty of taking corrective action meaning that people will accept low performance in non-core areas to avoid jeopardizing a core project by the same company. None of that’s intractable but it adds up and fixing it is hard.
It's also very isolating to be the "one person" who knows the subject area. Having teams of folks is much more sustainable.