Were lots of DC-area professionals overpaid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She should have invested wisely and could be retired by now

I'm sure she did. She needs to adjust and will be fine working retail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

The nonprofit was funded by USAID. Without that funding, it collapsed.

That speaks to the corruption in contracting in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Short answer — yes

There is going to be a severe repricing of dc area non-blue collar “labor” over the next decade

There is going to be a severe repricing of blue collar labor over the next decade since all of these weirdos started pushing them as the greatest and most insulated career paths. Can’t wait to see the market get flooded.

[Anonymous]

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.

If you are going to talk smack. Bring receipts:

The above nonprofit she worked for was CNFA. She wasn’t anywhere near the highest paid.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521447902/202511399349301581/full

CNFA (Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture) demonstrates strong financial efficiency, directing approximately 82% of its $70M budget toward program services and direct aid. With an overhead ratio of roughly 18% (14.4% management and 3.2% fundraising), the organization maintains a healthy balance between mission delivery and administrative stability. CNFA holds a Gold or Platinum Seal of Transparency on Candid and a three-star rating from Charity Navigator, making it a highly transparent and efficient choice for donors focused on global food security.

The money is spent on boots-on-the-ground technical training, equipment grants for small businesses, and infrastructure (like warehouses and irrigation) across approximately 16 countries in Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe.

The USAID budget is public, please list how it was spent on “libs” pet projects.

[Anonymous]

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.

We are now witnessing what the historian Richard Rhodes termed “public man-made death,” which, he observed, has been perhaps the most overlooked cause of mortality in the last century. Brooke Nichols, the Boston University epidemiologist and mathematical modeller, has maintained a respected tracker of current impact. The model is conservative, assuming, for example, that the State Department will fully sustain the programs that remain. As of November 5th, it estimated that U.S.A.I.D.’s dismantling has already caused the deaths of six hundred thousand people, two-thirds of them children.

The toll is appalling and will continue to grow. But these losses will be harder to see than those of war. For one, they unfold slowly. When H.I.V. or tuberculosis goes untested, unprevented, or inadequately treated, months or years can pass before a person dies. The same is true for deaths from vaccine-preventable illnesses. Another difficulty is that the deaths are scattered. Suppose the sudden withdrawal of aid raises a country’s under-five death rate from three per cent to four per cent. That would be a one-third increase in deaths, but hard to appreciate simply by looking around.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-documentary/the-shutdown-of-usaid-has-already-killed-hundreds-of-thousands

[Anonymous]

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.

While most of this is obviously wrong, it’s interesting that you touched upon a true point with regard to government contracting. And yet you limited it to just USAID, which is small compared to DOD, the IC, DHS, etc.

[Anonymous]

Most professionals are overpaid

But

The US meaningfully subsidizes NOTHING

[Anonymous]

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.

While most of this is obviously wrong, it’s interesting that you touched upon a true point with regard to government contracting. And yet you limited it to just USAID, which is small compared to DOD, the IC, DHS, etc.

+100
Contracting oversight is the issue. Start with the highest numbers, scrutinize those and work your way down. DoD can't pass an audit FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's obscene that we are debating this while the US is burning a BILLION DOLLARS A DAY on a pointless war.

Don't forget all the money that the current admin is just helping themselves to- just the pure funneling-- not just the private jets and overseas family trips.

I would happily pay USAID nonprofits 5 times over if we could stop this other stuff.
It's just that people get jealous and they don't think straight. People start to get crazy competitive with the scraps they are leaving us when the problem is... the people who are taking it all and leaving scraps. They love this infighting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A 57 year old not finding a new equivalent job after a layoff is not a new thing.

+1. Haven't any of y'all known someone who lost their job at that age? It happened to both of my uncles, and they ended up delivering pizzas and working at a hardware store.

[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?

People over here are drastically disillusioned by how tax receipts support their cushy lifestyles off the backs of hard working Americans. The rest of us make much less.

Some of the posts here are nauseating: “Omg we have to share an office.” “Omg we have to write an email.” “Omg we actually have to go to the office.” “Omg we should never be laid off as government employees that’s for civilian pions”

Agree.

Sooooo much entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Short answer — yes

There is going to be a severe repricing of dc area non-blue collar “labor” over the next decade

There is going to be a severe repricing of blue collar labor over the next decade since all of these weirdos started pushing them as the greatest and most insulated career paths. Can’t wait to see the market get flooded.

Yep. The Mike Rowe agenda, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most professionals are overpaid

But

The US meaningfully subsidizes NOTHING

Oh, it does. They are called corporate tax credits. For example ... big pharma R&D.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. But also non profits have higher salaries at the top level specifically because they are non profits. Other businesses distribute profits as bonuses or are publically traded so those profits are dividends.

may be that's the problem if top guys get paid so much and for anything that has no real roles in other jobs or market.

[Anonymous]

Anyone want to share a gift link?