One of this really interesting things I've discovered over the last year is that the government is really heterogeneous; extraordinary competence exists in many places. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. There are talented hackers working on the kernel instead of Wall Street for ideological reasons. It not that great of a leap to imagine that there are also talented hackers (and people who are talented at recruiting) who ideology causes them to work in government.
Or the government is just the last place left where you can count on a stable paycheck, and lots of engineers like to optimize for that instead of for the possibility of striking it rich.
It used to be, anyway.
What about Google, Microsoft, IBM, etc?
You mean the IBM that almost disintegrated in the 90s, and that now employs an entirely different workforce than it did then because their core business has completely changed? And IMO Microsoft is being driving into the ground, it certainly won't be known as a stable employer within 20 years. We'll see what happens with Google, I guess.
It's certainly a choice
Less variance or more variance. But I think it really doesn't pay off (unless it's for high level jobs, think NASA, DOE, etc)
That's actually why I do government consulting. I would make more money working for twitter, but IMO my skills are much better utilized working for the government.
I know at least one HN reader doing crypto work at the NSA. I'm sure there are others, and they know their audience.