Well you can't not outsource your security because gov payscale limits do not match market reality. You have to realise that a ton of people who should be directly employed by NSA etc. are actually working for their contracts for this reason.
They're not supposed to (according to for example the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978).
If a US citizen needs to be spied on by the US government, the FBI is supposed to do that.
Semi-autonomous collections systems generally aren't capable of determining citizenship.
Once the data is at rest, much of it is made available to a surprisingly large number of federal and state agencies - and even local agencies via fusion centers, etc.
The system is built for dissemination. Within that, some checks on citizenship could be possible for some data. But even then, once a foreign person is part of the data/comms transaction, all the related data is available - citizenship of the other participants is no barrier.
The government is able to employ tons of smart people that could be making way more money elsewhere.
They might not get the absolute best security people in the world, but they could get good enough - as good as they're getting from MS for a fraction of the price.
Additionally, government salaries aren't terrible when you factor in the pension. Most people want the money now. But if you want financial security in the future - that's a reason a lot of people chose to work for the Fed.
Referring here to contractors as the body of private sector contract organizations that had outsourcing contracts for various support roles, not the individual people. Speaking to working environment.
This varies by agency and field. The older pension system was replaced with a newer model a while back so a prospective federal employee is looking at the combination of effectively a 401k, a pension of 1% top salary per year of service, and social security. That’s not bad but your salary is capped at under $200k so you're not getting anyone with IT skills turning down FAANG positions unless it’s for a cause they support (NASA, the VA, etc. can do that a lot more effectively than Agriculture, etc.). In other professions, of course, that can be pretty different – if you’re an academic who isn’t able to/interested in switching careers to ad-tech, that might be a great job compared to getting in a cage fight for a handful of tenure-track positions.
This matters a lot for security because the defense needs to be everywhere. NASA will never run out of people who want to work on robots because rovers are cool; the IRS needs people who can modernize internal business systems and that’s not only not cool but will get mockery from the more clueless people they know.
Naturally government pay would lag behind even the more mediocre H1Bs.
This has nothing to do with it. Contractors cost notably more, so if the goal was economizing it’d be an obvious step to cut out the middlemen by hiring staff directly.
The problem is that there’s an entire political ideology holding that government is inherently wasteful and its adherents will oppose any attempt to track market salaries because that allows them both to say they’re saving money at the time and later to cite the struggling/failed project as proof that they were right.
Why is it a surprise that employees who are essentially unfirable don't perform well? Aside from a very small percentage where the hiring culture is exceptional, it's almost universal. This is a problem with governments across at all levels in almost all countries.
How many times do we have to match this movie before realizing that just increasing the salaries won't make a difference, and instead will be wasteful.
This is a great example of that political dogma: notice that you’ve accepted as an article of faith the trope that government employees can’t be fired or disciplined or that this is not true of contractors, despite neither of those being true?
If your goal is successful projects, what you’re looking for is accountability and managerial discretion. The managers you think can’t direct civil servants directly aren’t magically more capable of selecting and overseeing contracts, either, and without technical staff they won’t have someone they can turn to for advice who doesn’t have a financial conflict of interest.
Nice strawman. It is harder to fire govt employees than to fire private employees. Disagree?
Just look up at-will employment law that doesn't apply to government entities. Looks like you're the one following political dogma and accepting articles of faith and tropes.
Otherwise why would ignore that a very consequential law is different for private vs govt employees?
> The managers you think can’t direct civil servants directly aren’t magically more capable of selecting and overseeing contracts, either.
Where did I say they cannot? Please stop with the strawmen. They just don't have enough incentive because it's very hard to fire them, unlike managers in the private sector.
Let’s see, so it’s not a straw man when you say government employees are “essentially unfirable” but it is when someone corrects you?
It is harder to fire govt employees than to fire private employees. Disagree?
At-will employment law doesn't apply to government entities.
A very consequential law is different for private vs govt employees.
> The managers you think can’t direct civil servants directly aren’t magically more capable of selecting and overseeing contracts, either.
Never said in my comment they cannot direct civil servants. They just don't have enough incentive because it's very hard to fire them, unlike managers in the private sector.
I mean, were you not attempting to make an argument when you said that government employees were “essentially unfirable”? Your argument just sucked/was factually incorrect and you want to steer away from the “interpersonal” aspect of someone pointing that out.
It’s gauche to point this out on HN but you aren’t engaging in good faith here - wnd when someone else engages you in actual good-faith you fall back to juvenile debate-club attempts to frame them as the wrongdoer.
That’s highly rude and a bad attitude and approach to bring to this community. Act better and take some accountability for your own misbehavior.
Sad that both you and the other poster lost the argument so hard that you have to resort to ad hominems and make it about me instead of the topic. Thats very telling. And also look up the meaning of the word essentially.
A government needs employees right? One way to attract and retain employees is to offer competitive wages, another is to offer a relatively low workload and high job stability. Government worker salaries are easy targets and the people who set them are elected officials, so its not a surprise most governments today lean on job security over wages.
It certainly has something to do with it.
The market rates for engineers was distorted because FAANG had a lot of money to throw around, so therefore hiring staff at government pay rates is quite difficult and is subject to the General Schedule (https://federalnewsnetwork.com/pay-benefits/2023/12/biden-fi...).
Contractors work from bills and projects, where the money is carved out; I agree it’s terribly inefficient.
The other issue is how difficult it is to get into government vs getting in as a contractor.
I tried the former many times without success; the latter? Easier than FAANG or finance.
Politics enters the picture because the pay cap is derived from the salaries for politicians rather than what expertise is valued at on the open market:
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/pay-admi...
GS in general cannot grow when the market pay was distorted by both lack of tax funds; and when those driving market pay has a disproportionate amount of wealth to corner the labor market, in order to prevent the hiring of engineers by other industries.
The median population doesn’t have the money to spend.
Focusing on government spending is a distraction.
The ones that have been gaming the tax system for 3 decades?
Those "mediocre H1Bs" work their ass off compared to non-H1Bs because they get laid off/fired and deported on short notice with barely enough or sometimes no time to sell their belongings if they don't perform [1]. Meanwhile it's next to impossible to fire a govt employee for bad performance.
Maybe the solution is to fill the govt with mediocre H1B employees, not pay govt employees even more without accountability if they don't perform.
[1] https://www.timesnownews.com/technology-science/techie-on-h1...
H1Bs wouldn’t be so easy to fire if the skillset were rare or difficult to fill.
Instead, companies are gaming the H1B lottery to create much lower-paid indentured servants while a sliver of the business rakes in 40% to 60% of the spread.
And the Federal government employees are paid at the same level or less.
I don’t find the H1B abuse defensible, but certainly a useful discussion point on relative salaries.
By the same token a good chunk of government employees would be paid higher if their skillset were rare or difficult to fill, and they worked hard. The good ones that work hard switch to the private sector, even if the pay isn't much higher, so that they can get stuff done and not be surrounded by folks just existing while collecting a paycheck.
For software engineers--and the reason contracting is better--is that government schedule pay is far below market. But you see the same problem even in private industries like Lockheed Martin, where the brightest engineers (with security clearances) are really doubling/moonlighting with other jobs and the managers look the other way.
Also: The private sector is extremely inefficient, when it's handling areas of high upfront costs/high risk. Private military companies
If you want to defund government, start by tearing down the TSA which nobody in any party believes is anything but a job-creating sham. Of course, the loudest calls for defunding or non-growth are for deparatments that provide real value--like the FDA or the IRS.
So while you're happy the government is being defunded, most US citizens don't feel like promoting a national security problem for short-term gains.
>...The US government's Bureau of Economic Analysis as of Q3 2023 estimates $10,007.7 billion in annual total government expenditure and $27,610.1 billion annual total GDP which is 36.2%.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_Uni...
>For the size of the US economy, spending should be significantly higher.
The percentage shot up during the Covid spending and is still slightly above the historical average.
because gov payscale limits do not match market reality
State/federal govts receive 10-20% of every single citizens salary on top of being able to literally create money. They aren't hurting for money.
This is entirely caused by corruption and incompetence.