200k independent contractor or 110k fed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200k independent contractor position or 110 comfy fed position? The math seems to suggest I make out with 50k more after benefits are included.

Contractor, no doubt.

More net money, more flexibility, more learning and staying productive.

Now, it's not for everyone. If you prefer the bureaucrat life, the Fed job will make more sense.

I don't know why people keep saying being a fed contractor offers more "flexibility". You typically work alongside feds with a different badge. You can quit either a Fed or a contractor position just as easily. Only difference is that it's easier to get fired as a contractor. Doesn't seem like desirable flexibility to me.

[Anonymous]

As an independent contractor, I enjoy being paid hourly. In my field (accounting/finance), it's quite common to work longer hours during compliance season. As an employee, I worked 50-60 hours a week and didn't get any overtime pay. As a contractor, if I work 50 hours, I'm paid for 50 hours, and my total net compensation is significantly higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200k independent contractor position or 110 comfy fed position? The math seems to suggest I make out with 50k more after benefits are included.

Contractor, no doubt.

More net money, more flexibility, more learning and staying productive.

Now, it's not for everyone. If you prefer the bureaucrat life, the Fed job will make more sense.

I don't know why people keep saying being a fed contractor offers more "flexibility". You typically work alongside feds with a different badge. You can quit either a Fed or a contractor position just as easily. Only difference is that it's easier to get fired as a contractor. Doesn't seem like desirable flexibility to me.

My husband is a contractor. The pay is better, benefits are better and much more flexibility. He can take a day off/no issue, leave if one of us gets sick, etc. and everyone is great about it. The funding is always a concern and stability. However, we know it could happen so we make sure we have enough savings to get us through and live much more under our means than we should. For the significant salary difference, its worth it. The negative is you can only go so far as a contractor and the fed's make the decisions. Most of the feds have no clue about what is really going on or any idea what the contractors do and they just manage the money and overall scope.

You are better off with a smaller company as large contractors take a huge cut as they have tons of overhead. Pay is much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:200k independent contractor position or 110 comfy fed position? The math seems to suggest I make out with 50k more after benefits are included.

Contractor, no doubt.

More net money, more flexibility, more learning and staying productive.

Now, it's not for everyone. If you prefer the bureaucrat life, the Fed job will make more sense.

I don't know why people keep saying being a fed contractor offers more "flexibility". You typically work alongside feds with a different badge. You can quit either a Fed or a contractor position just as easily. Only difference is that it's easier to get fired as a contractor. Doesn't seem like desirable flexibility to me.

My husband is a contractor. The pay is better, benefits are better and much more flexibility. He can take a day off/no issue, leave if one of us gets sick, etc. and everyone is great about it. The funding is always a concern and stability. However, we know it could happen so we make sure we have enough savings to get us through and live much more under our means than we should. For the significant salary difference, its worth it. The negative is you can only go so far as a contractor and the fed's make the decisions. Most of the feds have no clue about what is really going on or any idea what the contractors do and they just manage the money and overall scope.

You are better off with a smaller company as large contractors take a huge cut as they have tons of overhead. Pay is much better.

Contractor or employee of a contracting company? There is a difference. If he has benefits, he is an employee. If he is independent (gets paid with a 1099), he is an independent contractor.

I have done both.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My husband is a contractor. The pay is better, benefits are better and much more flexibility. He can take a day off/no issue, leave if one of us gets sick, etc. and everyone is great about it. The funding is always a concern and stability. However, we know it could happen so we make sure we have enough savings to get us through and live much more under our means than we should. For the significant salary difference, its worth it. The negative is you can only go so far as a contractor and the fed's make the decisions. Most of the feds have no clue about what is really going on or any idea what the contractors do and they just manage the money and overall scope.

You are better off with a smaller company as large contractors take a huge cut as they have tons of overhead. Pay is much better.

This is very agency-dependent. I haven't worked at NASA, but I know a lot of folks who have. I don't think it's intellectually rewarding to be a contractor at NASA.

[Anonymous]

I ris PRO

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Well this is quite a fantastic discussion.

1203, I agree with all your points, but I'm not as optimistic about these space initiatives becoming incredibly successful. You hit the nail on the head about a lot of the engineering side of mission planning becoming automated. The Silicon Valley folks honestly don't care about the spacecraft, they see it as a cell tower, and are demanding solutions for mission planning that an IT guy could manage.

I love where I'm at now, but looking for more of a challenge. Maybe the answer is a gov to gov switch to something a bit more operational.

As for a mid career fed, I've seen perspective employees not really value my government experience. The last job offer I had they wanted to start me off working their help line desk rather than sit with their clients I would be perfect for. Seems to be that private industry sees federal engineers as needing a bit of retooling to get back up to speed. I actually can't argue with that, but the amount seems excessive. There may have been some worry about a conflict of interest too that led into into keeping me back from clients for awhile. It is a suprising given how easy I can land interviews and job offers, but without much of a pay increase. I've applied to three places in the last 18 months.

As for my fall back net, there isn't any family to go to with money issues. However, if I'm going to take risk I thought now would be time before I have more kids or upcoming college payments to worry about. It is amazing to not have to worry about my next paycheck.

Do you mean Prospective? Watch your grammar especially when it comes to jobs and first impressions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here, agree with 615 and thanks all for the discussion points! I really don't think I need to market myself much, I'm an 29 year old aerospace engineer focused on orbital mechanics. Not many of us and space is a growing field, think SpaceX. Have a wife and young child dependant on me so risk is a big deal, although I could survive 6 months with no pay and not dip into retirement savings. I've been a huge saver.

I'm probably going to stay fed for now and see what else comes up. Maybe a mid-size contracting firm would be great to get the feel for a smaller place. Wish I knew how to get ahead, but i know staying fed wont do it since years of service seem to matter more than productivity.

You are young, no need to give up on like and be a fed, do that when you are over 60

[Anonymous]

Haven't read the whole thread, but want to comment on the flexibility as a fed. I am a fed and in research, and my office is incredibly flexible when it comes to adjusting time and leave. That's something that I think is just very dependent on exactly where you work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the whole thread, but want to comment on the flexibility as a fed. I am a fed and in research, and my office is incredibly flexible when it comes to adjusting time and leave. That's something that I think is just very dependent on exactly where you work.

Definitely, very office and manager dependent. Even if you are your 'own' boss, you really have more bosses in the form of clients and it's hard to predict how demanding they will be.

I do worry OP that independent contracting is not for you because you 'don't think [you] need to market [yourself] much'. I think a key part of any sole proprietorship is business development. You have to build contacts and maneuver of the marketplace changes. Assume your current job offers an oppportunity for a contract role, but then some bigger company comes in and provides same service at half your costs. You have to market your self to demonstrate why you are worth it and then to find new business if you are rolled off the contract.

It sounds like you are a bit of a space geek who sees the bigger money by going independent, but aren't really thrilled about the business part of being your own business? I would look at private industry with a major tech company, more innovation than your Fed position it sounds like and definitely greater salary growth, since it sounds like that is your priority

[Anonymous]

Lots of good responses here about the specific question posed in the title.

But since we seem to have a quorum of technical space folks, this seems like a good place to plug FFRDCs -- Aerospace and JPL are the two that come to mind for your field. [I don't know how big JPLs presence is in this area, other than knowing that it's non-zero. I have two team members now that are JPL employees.] In particular, I'd be surprised if you encountered the same attitude towards 'retooling gov't engineers' that you've experienced so far. The work at this companies is exclusively (or darn close to it) government focused, with a high concentration of technical work and a low amount of biz dev work. I've found it's the sweet spot for my interests and technical field (not space) and it's definitely different from other options discussed upthread. It's not without its downsides (still somewhat at the whims of sponsors, definitely some of the stodginess of gov't and none of the thrill of startups, etc) but worth taking a look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good responses here about the specific question posed in the title.

But since we seem to have a quorum of technical space folks, this seems like a good place to plug FFRDCs -- Aerospace and JPL are the two that come to mind for your field. [I don't know how big JPLs presence is in this area, other than knowing that it's non-zero. I have two team members now that are JPL employees.] In particular, I'd be surprised if you encountered the same attitude towards 'retooling gov't engineers' that you've experienced so far. The work at this companies is exclusively (or darn close to it) government focused, with a high concentration of technical work and a low amount of biz dev work. I've found it's the sweet spot for my interests and technical field (not space) and it's definitely different from other options discussed upthread. It's not without its downsides (still somewhat at the whims of sponsors, definitely some of the stodginess of gov't and none of the thrill of startups, etc) but worth taking a look.

Went through this whole discussion planning to add this. You could also consider the studies and analysis FFRDCs if you want to stay in the DC area. CNA, IDA, and RAND. APL is nearby in Maryland. MITRE might be a possibility as well. Interesting work even if you won't be plotting Rich Purnell maneuvers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good responses here about the specific question posed in the title.

But since we seem to have a quorum of technical space folks, this seems like a good place to plug FFRDCs -- Aerospace and JPL are the two that come to mind for your field. [I don't know how big JPLs presence is in this area, other than knowing that it's non-zero. I have two team members now that are JPL employees.] In particular, I'd be surprised if you encountered the same attitude towards 'retooling gov't engineers' that you've experienced so far. The work at this companies is exclusively (or darn close to it) government focused, with a high concentration of technical work and a low amount of biz dev work. I've found it's the sweet spot for my interests and technical field (not space) and it's definitely different from other options discussed upthread. It's not without its downsides (still somewhat at the whims of sponsors, definitely some of the stodginess of gov't and none of the thrill of startups, etc) but worth taking a look.

Went through this whole discussion planning to add this. You could also consider the studies and analysis FFRDCs if you want to stay in the DC area. CNA, IDA, and RAND. APL is nearby in Maryland. MITRE might be a possibility as well. Interesting work even if you won't be plotting Rich Purnell maneuvers.

Agreed, FFRDCs do offer a chance to do interesting work and a chance to do real innovation in a more nimble organization

But going to focus of original OP, I don't think they pay appreciably better. I think a senior manager type would top out at $180k? That is what my colleagues report at least! A nice bump from $115, but probably have to put time in to make it that high and never get a real bump as might see in private?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of good responses here about the specific question posed in the title.

But since we seem to have a quorum of technical space folks, this seems like a good place to plug FFRDCs -- Aerospace and JPL are the two that come to mind for your field. [I don't know how big JPLs presence is in this area, other than knowing that it's non-zero. I have two team members now that are JPL employees.] In particular, I'd be surprised if you encountered the same attitude towards 'retooling gov't engineers' that you've experienced so far. The work at this companies is exclusively (or darn close to it) government focused, with a high concentration of technical work and a low amount of biz dev work. I've found it's the sweet spot for my interests and technical field (not space) and it's definitely different from other options discussed upthread. It's not without its downsides (still somewhat at the whims of sponsors, definitely some of the stodginess of gov't and none of the thrill of startups, etc) but worth taking a look.

Went through this whole discussion planning to add this. You could also consider the studies and analysis FFRDCs if you want to stay in the DC area. CNA, IDA, and RAND. APL is nearby in Maryland. MITRE might be a possibility as well. Interesting work even if you won't be plotting Rich Purnell maneuvers.

Agreed, FFRDCs do offer a chance to do interesting work and a chance to do real innovation in a more nimble organization

But going to focus of original OP, I don't think they pay appreciably better. I think a senior manager type would top out at $180k? That is what my colleagues report at least! A nice bump from $115, but probably have to put time in to make it that high and never get a real bump as might see in private?

Re: pay & FFRDCs. I think you'd really have to dig into details (much like the ind contractor vs fed analysis) to conclude much of anything. If salary is truly the most important criteria, then no, FFRDCs probably aren't the right place. But then again, neither are the big private/commercial companies, at least not at this stage in a persons career. An advantage of FFRDCs is that the work can stay technical (maybe more technical management) through an entire career with salaries pushing $200k, without ever having much of any business development demands or up-or-out pressures. I weighed options about two years ago when I made a similar change, and the benefits at my FFRDC (particularly monetary ones -- health costs and retirement contributions) more than made up the salary difference. You'd really need to look at specifics, and then try to decide how much you value stability. It's true that probability of high salary - at least temporarily (several years) - is probably higher in the private/commercial sector.

[Anonymous]

Does the contacting job provide a pension and health benefits after retirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the whole thread, but want to comment on the flexibility as a fed. I am a fed and in research, and my office is incredibly flexible when it comes to adjusting time and leave. That's something that I think is just very dependent on exactly where you work.

Definitely, very office and manager dependent. Even if you are your 'own' boss, you really have more bosses in the form of clients and it's hard to predict how demanding they will be.

I do worry OP that independent contracting is not for you because you 'don't think [you] need to market [yourself] much'. I think a key part of any sole proprietorship is business development. You have to build contacts and maneuver of the marketplace changes. Assume your current job offers an oppportunity for a contract role, but then some bigger company comes in and provides same service at half your costs. You have to market your self to demonstrate why you are worth it and then to find new business if you are rolled off the contract.

It sounds like you are a bit of a space geek who sees the bigger money by going independent, but aren't really thrilled about the business part of being your own business? I would look at private industry with a major tech company, more innovation than your Fed position it sounds like and definitely greater salary growth, since it sounds like that is your priority

I'm a PP, and this is a good point. I was an independent contractor for a while with a lot more experience than OP. I definitely had to do business development, even though my skills were very in demand. I also had to learn a lot about taxes, corporate structure, and contracts. All very doable, but it's stuff I had to do. Ultimately, I took a well-paid job with a small consulting firm, because I was pregnant and wanted stable income for a little while.