Best Financial Regulators for Work Life Balance

[Anonymous]

Are GS-12 lawyers who graduated from DeVry Law school and went straight into Federal service thinking they deserve the same job and salary as a Harvard/Goldman Sachs attorney? The former may certainly be a better lawyer, but the CV doesn't signal as much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are GS-12 lawyers who graduated from DeVry Law school and went straight into Federal service thinking they deserve the same job and salary as a Harvard/Goldman Sachs attorney? The former may certainly be a better lawyer, but the CV doesn't signal as much.

Most attorneys at most federal agencies are well credentialed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

But you’ve missed the point of the previous post. It’s not that all government workers complain about pay, it’s that those who are paid the most want still more.

And, the pay differential between agencies is not about qualifications. An attorney at a typical agency makes half that of their counterpart at a FinReg agency.

At most agencies and certainly at main justice, an experience attorney will be making $150+, so financial regulators aren't making double. The financial regulators have more exit options than the average agency attorney, especially because there are so few of them.

Well, you’re wrong. An experienced Fed attorney is making $250k with a $50k bonus, or $300k - exactly double your example.

[Anonymous]

PP here. If you don’t believe my Fed salaries, checkout OpenPayrolls, then add 29% for a bonus.

[Anonymous]

20%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

But you’ve missed the point of the previous post. It’s not that all government workers complain about pay, it’s that those who are paid the most want still more.

And, the pay differential between agencies is not about qualifications. An attorney at a typical agency makes half that of their counterpart at a FinReg agency.

At most agencies and certainly at main justice, an experience attorney will be making $150+, so financial regulators aren't making double. The financial regulators have more exit options than the average agency attorney, especially because there are so few of them.

Well, you’re wrong. An experienced Fed attorney is making $250k with a $50k bonus, or $300k - exactly double your example.

I'd love a $50K bonus. Best I can hope for is 10 hours time off award at my agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:20%

Not really 20% unless you're a manager who gets the highest performance rating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

But you’ve missed the point of the previous post. It’s not that all government workers complain about pay, it’s that those who are paid the most want still more.

And, the pay differential between agencies is not about qualifications. An attorney at a typical agency makes half that of their counterpart at a FinReg agency.

At most agencies and certainly at main justice, an experience attorney will be making $150+, so financial regulators aren't making double. The financial regulators have more exit options than the average agency attorney, especially because there are so few of them.

Well, you’re wrong. An experienced Fed attorney is making $250k with a $50k bonus, or $300k - exactly double your example.

DOJ attorneys at that level of experience are now making $200K, not $150K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20%

Not really 20% unless you're a manager who gets the highest performance rating.

Regular line managers get 10%. Economists and lawyers get 20%. Directors get 15-20%+. Believe me, I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20%

Not really 20% unless you're a manager who gets the highest performance rating.

Regular line managers get 10%. Economists and lawyers get 20%. Directors get 15-20%+. Believe me, I know.

Your info is wrong.

Anyways, remember when this thread was about work-life balance and not someone's fantasies about Fed salaries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:20%

Not really 20% unless you're a manager who gets the highest performance rating.

Regular line managers get 10%. Economists and lawyers get 20%. Directors get 15-20%+. Believe me, I know.

Your info is wrong.

Anyways, remember when this thread was about work-life balance and not someone's fantasies about Fed salaries?

Remember, I was responding to another poster. Anyway, who made you thread monitor? Lots of threads move in adjacent, messy ways. Guess that FinReg attorney job isn’t keeping you sufficiently busy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You actually think this is a useful question? These agencies have thousands of employees performing tons of different functions. If an economist in a research division at FDIC says that work-life balance sucks, but then someone who responds to consumer complaints at CFPB tells you their work-life balance is awesome, and then someone else at FDIC who is an attorney in supervision says their work-life is also awesome, will that be useful to you?

Not OP, but I half agree with you, but also don't see why the snarky tone is necessary.

I agree that there are going to be big difference in units/sections within an agency, based on type of work and manager. BUT, there are ways to measure whether an entire agency is comparably better to another agency in terms of culture/morale/work-life balance. The Partnership for Public Service does it every year.

https://bestplacestowork.org/agencies-compare/?codes=TRAJ,FD00,SE00,FRFT,CU00,FY00

It’s ironic that one of the lowest scores for these agencies is PAY!!! Of course, everyone on this thread knows that FinReg agencies get a lot more pay than average government workers, and there are multiple DCUM threads of attorneys trying to find ways into these “poor paying” gigs.

Some employees of these agencies might respond that their pay has to be higher to match market alternatives. Yet, these same employees don’t want those alternatives! When one adds the pension, lifetime subsidized medical insurance, and work-life balance (hours actually worked), FinReg salaries look even better.

Basically, these employees are very entitled.

Two things:
1. Pay will be ranked lowest for every agency anywhere in the federal government (and likely private sector). The finreg scores are in line with every other federal agency. No difference.
2. Finregs talk more about their pay because it is negotiable. At other agencies, employees know that their management can't affect pay so they don't worry about it. At the finregs, there is a real possibility of an increase, so it is an area of contention.

Let's not make this a thread about the compensation at finregs. We have enough of those.

But you’ve missed the point of the previous post. It’s not that all government workers complain about pay, it’s that those who are paid the most want still more.

And, the pay differential between agencies is not about qualifications. An attorney at a typical agency makes half that of their counterpart at a FinReg agency.

At most agencies and certainly at main justice, an experience attorney will be making $150+, so financial regulators aren't making double. The financial regulators have more exit options than the average agency attorney, especially because there are so few of them.

Well, you’re wrong. An experienced Fed attorney is making $250k with a $50k bonus, or $300k - exactly double your example.

I love how you assume the PP knows less than you. There are maybe 50 lawyers at the Fed making that much. There are hundreds of lawyers in the FinReg legal world who are not Board Legal attorneys.

[Anonymous]

What would a similar in-house FinReg attorney make? Assume it's high 6/low 7 figures in a firm, but what's the haircut for in-house?