Any other feds struggling to give a damn long enough to hang on until retirement?

[Anonymous]

I'm nowhere near retirement. My job has been spared due to a "national security" nexus. The orders coming from the administration are chaotic. Do X. No wait, do Y. On a daily basis. It's like whiplash. People running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Then there's the micromanaging other aspects of the job from direct chain of management. There seems to be an air of animosity and hostility towards us. No appreciation of the work we do. Morale in the office has basically dropped off a cliff. You'd think they'd want to at least retain the people they need to successfully carry out their agenda. We've lost a lot of people since January, and I only expect that to continue if no changes to the current atmosphere are made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

It is really that great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

I’m not so sure they do. So many federal workers only know the benefits of other federal workers. A lot of government workers have convinced themselves that they receive fantastic benefits.

I’m married to a private sector employee who has worked for 5-6 employers during my time as a government worker. Every employer has offered perfectly fine insurance. Sometimes it’s a little more than my insurance, but it’s hardly anything so significant that I’d stay a government worker for it.

Can your spouse take it into retirement for themselves and family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

I’m not so sure they do. So many federal workers only know the benefits of other federal workers. A lot of government workers have convinced themselves that they receive fantastic benefits.

I’m married to a private sector employee who has worked for 5-6 employers during my time as a government worker. Every employer has offered perfectly fine insurance. Sometimes it’s a little more than my insurance, but it’s hardly anything so significant that I’d stay a government worker for it.

Can your spouse take it into retirement for themselves and family?

No but they don’t need to. Whether they work for the government or not they will work until Medicare age. Plenty of Fed employees do this.

[Anonymous]

How sick are you? I'm going without health insurance next year as it's completely useless. Not having to work full time keeps me mentally and physically healthy. Free clinic is an option, paying cash somewhere, and I also go to doctor's abroad, but more simply because I happen to be there.
I'm paying $200 a month for a kid who is never sick.
I invested aggressively on my own some of my $40k a year income for decades. I had to as I never had a job that offered benefits. Now I have a small fortune and experience in getting above market returns.
I have money, work part time when I feel like it, and I'm healthy overall. No need for government job with benefits or even a high paying job if you prepare. Health is wealth and if you job is getting to you, you may pay for it later. Not sure how old you are, but my physical health needed attention right at 47. All good now that I have time for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

No, no matter how much you invest for the nest 3 years, it won't cover the lifetime subsidized healthcare. I assume OP is going to retire before 65.

Plus, you assume a life time government worker who is 50+ can find a job in the private sector.

-private sector employee who is only working for the healthcare because private care is very very very expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

Fed health insurance isn't that great unless by the rest of us you mean someone working at Walmart that doesn't get benefits. Its comparable/slightly worse than what my spouse at a large corporation gets.

But, a lot of feds can retire before 65 and get the subsidized healthcare. Most private sector employees don't get that. They have to wait till 65 to qualify for medicare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

I’m not so sure they do. So many federal workers only know the benefits of other federal workers. A lot of government workers have convinced themselves that they receive fantastic benefits.

I’m married to a private sector employee who has worked for 5-6 employers during my time as a government worker. Every employer has offered perfectly fine insurance. Sometimes it’s a little more than my insurance, but it’s hardly anything so significant that I’d stay a government worker for it.

Can your spouse take it into retirement for themselves and family?

No but they don’t need to. Whether they work for the government or not they will work until Medicare age. Plenty of Fed employees do this.

More feds can retire before 65 with healthcare than those in the private sector.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

I’m not so sure they do. So many federal workers only know the benefits of other federal workers. A lot of government workers have convinced themselves that they receive fantastic benefits.

I’m married to a private sector employee who has worked for 5-6 employers during my time as a government worker. Every employer has offered perfectly fine insurance. Sometimes it’s a little more than my insurance, but it’s hardly anything so significant that I’d stay a government worker for it.

Can your spouse take it into retirement for themselves and family?

No but they don’t need to. Whether they work for the government or not they will work until Medicare age. Plenty of Fed employees do this.

More feds can retire before 65 with healthcare than those in the private sector.

Lol, I'll be working until 67 or 72 or whenever it is SS kicks in without penalty.

[Anonymous]

NP. Fed here and this is such a personal decision. I have two years to go before hitting 20 years in and I’m also over the age of 50, and I am leaving. Found a job in the private sector that will pay me over 35% more than my fed salary. And it’s hybrid. Going to do this until there’s a change of admin and then will try to transfer back to the Fed and pick up where I left off to get to 20 years. Administrations come and go, but I have always liked my work, and that’s why I’ve stayed so long. But with this current administration, the work has also gone to sh!t, and has become something I’m not proud of, so that isn’t even keeping me there. I am embarrassed by what I am being required to work on, the ethics of it, the optics of it, and the poor quality and unsound decisions and policies I am being forced to contribute to. It’s public facing and high profile and I no longer want my name attached.

[Anonymous]

NP. I also left. Even with 17 years in at age 48. I will do something else for 5 years and jump back in when the government starts rehiring. That way I can hopefully get full pension and health benefits. For now, I needed to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

It’s not that it’s subsidized really - I pay a ton for it actually - but it exists as a bridge to Medicare if you retire before 65 and overlaps Medicare into retirement. I took the Vera offer because of it and to avoid being like OP counting the days, so I’m getting a private sector job but I kept the healthcare. I get that not everyone was offered VERA or eligible though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

Well, I'm not sure if it's better. It's just a benefit that comes with a full retirement - that you can keep your health insurance.

But, excellent question - why have most Americans settled for so little?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

Well, I'm not sure if it's better. It's just a benefit that comes with a full retirement - that you can keep your health insurance.

But, excellent question - why have most Americans settled for so little?

The premium for FEHB also is not pegged to your income the way Medicare Part B is. So even the highest plans can be cheaper than Medicare Part B if you are expecting a large income because of RMDs or other. Further, you can get FEHB plans with overseas coverage, which Part B doesn't offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

I’m not so sure they do. So many federal workers only know the benefits of other federal workers. A lot of government workers have convinced themselves that they receive fantastic benefits.

I’m married to a private sector employee who has worked for 5-6 employers during my time as a government worker. Every employer has offered perfectly fine insurance. Sometimes it’s a little more than my insurance, but it’s hardly anything so significant that I’d stay a government worker for it.

it’s the insurance available to retire is at age 55, so it covers the gap from 55 to 67 until you get Medicare. Buying that on the open market without having it supplied by a job is extremely expensive.

If you can swing a higher paying job, like a lot high paying at least $100,000 more, Then you’ll be able to self ensure essentially and buy on the ACA exchange, but who knows if you won’t be laid off by age him in this age range.

This is not about current employee health insurance. That’s a different thing.