Were lots of DC-area professionals overpaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Screw it, I’m just going to say it. Most of the USAID people who came over to State are useless. They have such a country club/relaxed sort of demeanor. Maybe they all quite quit on accoubt of what went down a year ago, I dont know. I do know that none of them are putting in a ton of effort.

What is the point of putting in effort in the State Department with the current administration? What does “effort” even look like in this environment?

Because you owe it to the American people who pay your salary regardless of the administration. If you don’t want to put in effort, resign. I hope you are not actually a fed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My husband has always contended that salaries never make any sense and increasingly I agree with him.

We have a friend who is a state-level administrator for bridges. So she oversees hundreds of employees and her division is responsible for the construction, maintenance, and replacement of every state-owned bridge. She makes 200k and is restricted by statute from making more.

We have another friend who trades utilities? Not totally clear on his exact job, but it's finance related to the trading of like power and utilities? He has a staff of 3-4 people and makes 7 figures.

Does this make sense? Not really. They work similar hours. The state administrator is actually more educated.

But salaries don't always make sense. They are usually dictated by how close you are to the levers of capitalism, and someone working in finance is right in the mix of those levers, and someone working in a government job overseeing infrastructure is viewed within our economy as just running a cost center.

It never makes sense.

You could make the argument that most Fortune 500 CEO's are overpaid, but by the logic of some in this thread if the company is willing to pay it, especially in an in-demand city, then they are, by definition, not overpaid. I'm sure that one will go over real well.

Well, yes. That is economically true.

You may think those jobs are overvalued. That's fine, values are subjective. But the people paying get to decide what they're willing to pay for.
And any individual being paid the typical rate for a person of similar education and experience is by definition not overpaid, even if you personally think the market rate is not a good value.

The issue here is that private market salaries are set in an environment where there are countless different employers offering salaries independently and in pursuit of their own self interest.

If a big chunk of the non-profit industry is all being funded by the US government, there isn’t actually a functioning free market.

It is also clear that USAID wasn’t doing proper due diligence if it was awarding grants to “non profits” that were making their leadership rich while supposedly administering charity.

How could anyone pay the salaries shown in the documents posted earlier while claiming they are doing some humanitarian mission?

There are only 100 people in the company… how can you need 7 people at an average annual compensation of over $400k/year to run a 100 person nonprofit with a small budget?

At a minimum there should be rules put in place that any nonprofit receiving a grant from the US government pay no more than is allowed by the government pay scale.

This nonprofit was paying its CEO two thirds of a million dollars a year to run a 100 person entity with a $70million budget… meanwhile actual USAID senior leadership weren’t making much more than a third of that to run vastly larger entities.

The government makes funds available, on a competitive basis, to companies doing work the government wants done. If the government is hiring directly that's a contract and otherwise it's a grant (loosely speaking). The government's focus should be, and is, on the work that is going to be done. How the company structures itself and how it pays its staff (including from other sources of income, which most nonprofits have) are not the government's business, outside of some ethical guards that benefit the government. If they tried what you're suggesting with defense contractors you'd scream.

The people who work at nonprofits don't take a vow of poverty and there's no reason they should.

lol at the idea that the government needs to pay a team of 7 executives nearly $3million a year to give away $70million.

Seriously, imagine how nuts that sounds to any normal person.

It is a symptom of just how broken the system is that you are making people rich while “alleviating poverty” in Africa or something… and then they run around telling people they run a “nonprofit” while paying themselves $650k/year.

It is insane…

Just throwing it out there…if you are getting rich off aid programs for Africa you might not be the hero of this story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

[Anonymous]

The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

How do you know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Screw it, I’m just going to say it. Most of the USAID people who came over to State are useless. They have such a country club/relaxed sort of demeanor. Maybe they all quite quit on accoubt of what went down a year ago, I dont know. I do know that none of them are putting in a ton of effort.

What is the point of putting in effort in the State Department with the current administration? What does “effort” even look like in this environment?

Because you owe it to the American people who pay your salary regardless of the administration. If you don’t want to put in effort, resign. I hope you are not actually a fed.

I ask again, what does “effort” look like in this environment? Deliberately provoking and pissing off our friends and allies? That’s not what your average career State Department employee signed up for.

The American people VOTED for this administration, which has made it abundantly clear that diplomacy is for losers. No adult professional with a functioning brain “owes” them the effort of doing what would basically be a deliberately $hitty job just to… own the libs? Make America Great Again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

Why? But an anonymous internet person says so? Try reading a newspaper or a scientific research journal.
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(25)01186-9/fulltext
An impact counter estimated that USAID funding discontinuation caused 62 557 adult deaths and 130 535 child deaths just until mid-April 2025.
https://ph.ucla.edu/news-events/news/research-finds-more-14-million-preventable-deaths-2030-if-usaid-defunding
Research finds more than 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 if USAID defunding continues, including more than 4 million children under five

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a story in the NY Times about the dramatic decline in fortunes of some workers following the collapse of USAID. This is not to be harsh, but if you were making $272,000 a year at a nonprofit, and now you're interviewing for $19-an-hour retail jobs, isn't that a clear indication from the broader job market that you were overpaid?

yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a story in the NY Times about the dramatic decline in fortunes of some workers following the collapse of USAID. This is not to be harsh, but if you were making $272,000 a year at a nonprofit, and now you're interviewing for $19-an-hour retail jobs, isn't that a clear indication from the broader job market that you were overpaid?

yes

No. It's an indication that when you get laid off when you're 57 years old and in a very senior position in your field, which has been disproportionately hit relative to the rest of the economy, you're unlikely to find a comparable position. One of my relatives lost his job in the private sector at that age and never got another one--executives let go at age 57 often don't bounce back--not in this economy anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a story in the NY Times about the dramatic decline in fortunes of some workers following the collapse of USAID. This is not to be harsh, but if you were making $272,000 a year at a nonprofit, and now you're interviewing for $19-an-hour retail jobs, isn't that a clear indication from the broader job market that you were overpaid?

yes

Article quoted her as interested in doing something while the field of development underwent a shift. She wants to keep busy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know some people aren't going to like hearing this but USAID wasn't just feeding poor kids in Africa. That was only a tiny percentage of USAID work and actually still goes on under State.

Most of USAID was pet projects and donor causes f9r liberals and an entire NGO industry grew up around it, often started by former USAIDers. And when something like that happens, you find a lot of cronyism. It's sort of comparable to big city government machines finding plum jobs and sinecures for their supporters. And it went unchecked and unregulated, so admin salaries at the NGOs exploded. Some founders became quite rich acting as contractors. And while some good projects happened, a lot of it was dubious and just another way to slosh billions around consultants and contractors with people feeding from the trough both in DC and on the ground overseas and the % that actually ended up being used for genuinely good outcomes is much smaller than most people realize. And USAID was definitely used to indirectly send money undercover to entities overseas.

USAID did become a liberal sinecure entity, using taxpayer dollars to effectively reward liberal supporters and connections. It's why the Trump administration moved so fast to shut it down. And it's also why no one is missing USAID. Only maybe 1% genuinely ended up helping villagers in developing countries.

I'm sorry for the people in the article but the whole industry was rampant with cronyism and out of touch.

100

The destruction of USAID was estimated to have caused 600,000 deaths as of last November. Probably at least 1 million by now

There is no way this is true.

There's a lot of data on this. The numbers are estimates, of course, but most of them agree we're looking at minimum 500,000 deaths per year, ongoing, that would not have occurred if USAID had continued. That's on top of a higher number of deaths in the first year due to the abrupt nature of the cuts.

Those "models" are all over the place and purely speculative propaganda. There's really no way of knowing, but there are a bunch of desperate people with motivated reasoning trying to keep a gravy train going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The most egregious is seeing US aid leaders go to NGO companies and make millions being a CEO, where they probably steered money to the company they planned to join!

You're going to have to back this up.

Sure. The cleaner claim is not that every case proves corruption, but that there is a clear revolving door where senior USAID officials later move into top paid leadership roles at organizations already operating in the same aid ecosystem.

Dennis Vega left senior USAID leadership in Aug 2024 as Acting Deputy Administrator for Management and Resources, then became President and CEO of Pact that same month. Pact was already a longtime USAID implementing partner before he arrived.
https://sid-us.org/dennis-vega
https://www.pactworld.org/leadership/dennis-vega

Gayle Smith left as USAID Administrator in Jan 2017 and by March 2017 became CEO of the ONE Campaign, a major foreign aid advocacy group that lobbies on development spending and global aid priorities.
https://www.devex.com/news/one-campaign-announces-gayle-smith-as-ceo-89643

Jeremy Konyndyk held senior USAID humanitarian roles, then became President of Refugees International, a major advocacy organization influencing refugee and humanitarian policy.
https://www.refugeesinternational.org/statements-and-news/refugees-international-welcomes-new-president-jeremy-konyndyk/

Rajiv Shah went from USAID Administrator to President of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the most powerful global development philanthropies.
https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/profiles/rajiv-shah/

So yes, this absolutely happens. Whether any specific person "steered money" would require evidence, but the revolving door itself is real: people move from controlling aid priorities and relationships inside USAID to prestigious, highly compensated leadership jobs in the same foreign aid network.

You get this kind of movement between senior government roles and related policy organizations and vendors in every government department. The skills and experiences complement each other, and also, what do you expect someone who was a senior political appointee to do after they're no longer holding that role? Those aren't lifetime jobs, and of course they're going to stay in that industry in leadership roles.

If you want to take some kind of overall position against this, whatever. But it had nothing to do with why USAID was ended, and if you have a problem with it here, you should really have a problem with DoD and with this administration specifically because of the way appointees are playing fast and loose with ethics. Emil Michael isn't even waiting until he leaves office in order to profit from the decisions he's making as part of his federal job.