Do you find gov't employees complain about money A LOT??

[Anonymous]

Yes, it's non-stop among my government-employed friends. It's pretty ridiculous that they can't see how great they have it -- they barely go into the office with their flexible schedules, have pensions, have jobs that they virtually can't be fired from, etc. I just nod along while they're complaining and put in the occasional "oh, that sounds hard."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a fed and I don't complain.

But I have a lot of conservative family members who watch way too much Fox news. When we visit they often talk about my paid maternity leave, super high salaries and easy job. Their views are just so skewed. FWIW I actually took 6 weeks unpaid as part of my maternity leave and make 80k. My inlaws don't even think we should have access to things like the TSP/401k. So to counteract their viewpoint, I do emphasize the importance of my job, long hours and how we can't afford much. People like OP think all feds make 150k and that's very far from the truth.

This person actually makes 150-160k. Obviously it's different if you're making 80k supporting a family of 4 - rather than 150k supporting one.

Okay, but we don't pay people here based on what their family circumstance is. Pay is based on the position, and people can take it or find another job. Someone complaining about supporting a family of 4 on $80K should still take that energy spent complaining and look for a few job rather than bitching about a known/set payscale. People who are going to complain about having to support themselves on $150K are also going to complain about having to support themselves on $200K or $500K - they're complainers.

I'm married to a fed, and the pay for an IT person is not great compared to private sector. We do it for the flexibility, teleworking, and benefits, and I work in the private sector. My spouse complains more about the morons that don't do their jobs or try to dump them off on others (same as at my private organization) rather than pay. We know what the tradeoffs are.

[Anonymous]

Noticed she was in biglaw. Often biglaw people complain A LOT after going anywhere else - inhouse, gov't etc. - no matter how much they wanted to leave bc they constantly look back at the fact that they were making 200k+ as first yrs and now they aren't.

Other thing I noticed in biglaw - not everyone (most?) don't leave with huge nest eggs. Most use all of their bonuses and would-be savings to pay off loans, save for a down payment, take some lavish vacations, throw themselves a fancy wedding - or all of the above. So they don't go into a 150k job cruising and thinking - just have to max out the TSP and my other assets will continue to grow; rather they are then in savings mode - which is harder at 150k than it would have been at 250k. From what I could tell from friends, not that many associates were leaving with a few hundred thousand in invested assets.

[Anonymous]

I work in BigLaw and know so, so many people that only did it until they paid off their loans and then went to do something less soul-sucking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work in BigLaw and know so, so many people that only did it until they paid off their loans and then went to do something less soul-sucking.

Yep and they were putting every dollar they could into loans, so they could be done with it quicker; that means they aren't walking out of there with a few hundred thousand in bonuses saved and some don't even max out their 401ks to 18k. That means when they get to their "real" job (the one they intend to stay in), THEN they start saving for other things - liquid assets; down payments etc. and it IS harder on 150k than 250k.

[Anonymous]

Yes OP. Many of the folks couldn't make it in the private sector. They work 9-5 and no later and still complain all the way to the bank.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I complain about it.

https://federalnewsradio.com/pay/2017/01/feds-miss-pay-raise-salary-compression-worsens/

I work on a special pay table. That means we don't get locality pay raises (as in the average DC fed's pay went up around 3% last year while I got a 1% increase, this is by design for special pay). Since I am pay capped, I have only had a 4% pay increase since 2010. That means I don't get step increases (3% pay increase) every 1-3 years like others do depending on where they fall on steps 1-10 on their salary table. Likewise as the paycap is set by SES pay, which doesn't get locality pay raises, the pay for highly paid feds doesn't go up as much as uncapped feds.

My performance in no way effects my pay increase. Even when I wasn't pay capped, I got the same pay increase being rated outstanding, as someone who is rated fully successful. My position is somewhat unusual, as my work is quantified being that we are on a production quota.

There may be opportunities to get an WGI (step increase), if you aren't pay capped. If I were to go SES, they only make about 10k more than I do, due to lagging SES pay. Its a poorly designed system if you are a high performer to be pay capped because you don't get the full raise. In my salary table, the pay cap starts around a GS-15/5, about the same for San Jose feds with locality pay.

All I want is for my pay to meet inflation at this point, but the joke increases under Obama did not help. The official CPI calculation is that inflation has increased 13% since Jan 2010 (the reality is likely closer to 20%), so I'm effectively loosing ground each year. For example, my property tax increase each year on my townhouse alone eats about half my raise, and child care expense increases eat the entirety of it alone for 2 kids.

This is a serious problem, as long term if you don't keep federal pay to match inflation, you increase the risk of corruption. We're not there yet, but it could happen down the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. Many of the folks couldn't make it in the private sector. They work 9-5 and no later and still complain all the way to the bank.

What is that based on? Wanting to have quality of life is a sign that they won't make it in the private sector??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. Many of the folks couldn't make it in the private sector. They work 9-5 and no later and still complain all the way to the bank.

What is that based on? Wanting to have quality of life is a sign that they won't make it in the private sector??

Many of us have worked in both the private sector and government. We did fine in both and were able to move around. I love all the sweeping generalizations on this thread. Not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I complain about it.

https://federalnewsradio.com/pay/2017/01/feds-miss-pay-raise-salary-compression-worsens/

All I want is for my pay to meet inflation at this point, but the joke increases under Obama did not help. The official CPI calculation is that inflation has increased 13% since Jan 2010 (the reality is likely closer to 20%), so I'm effectively loosing ground each year. For example, my property tax increase each year on my townhouse alone eats about half my raise, and child care expense increases eat the entirety of it alone for 2 kids.

This is a serious problem, as long term if you don't keep federal pay to match inflation, you increase the risk of corruption. We're not there yet, but it could happen down the line.

I think that's an accurate justification for a 5-10% yearly increase though. What happens when 18 years from now and your house is paid off and your kids have left to start their own lives? Are you going to a decrease in pay because you don't have those expenses anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I complain about it.

https://federalnewsradio.com/pay/2017/01/feds-miss-pay-raise-salary-compression-worsens/

I work on a special pay table. That means we don't get locality pay raises (as in the average DC fed's pay went up around 3% last year while I got a 1% increase, this is by design for special pay). Since I am pay capped, I have only had a 4% pay increase since 2010. That means I don't get step increases (3% pay increase) every 1-3 years like others do depending on where they fall on steps 1-10 on their salary table. Likewise as the paycap is set by SES pay, which doesn't get locality pay raises, the pay for highly paid feds doesn't go up as much as uncapped feds.

My performance in no way effects my pay increase. Even when I wasn't pay capped, I got the same pay increase being rated outstanding, as someone who is rated fully successful. My position is somewhat unusual, as my work is quantified being that we are on a production quota.

There may be opportunities to get an WGI (step increase), if you aren't pay capped. If I were to go SES, they only make about 10k more than I do, due to lagging SES pay. Its a poorly designed system if you are a high performer to be pay capped because you don't get the full raise. In my salary table, the pay cap starts around a GS-15/5, about the same for San Jose feds with locality pay.

All I want is for my pay to meet inflation at this point, but the joke increases under Obama did not help. The official CPI calculation is that inflation has increased 13% since Jan 2010 (the reality is likely closer to 20%), so I'm effectively loosing ground each year. For example, my property tax increase each year on my townhouse alone eats about half my raise, and child care expense increases eat the entirety of it alone for 2 kids.

This is a serious problem, as long term if you don't keep federal pay to match inflation, you increase the risk of corruption. We're not there yet, but it could happen down the line.

So who is forcing you to stay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So who is forcing you to stay?

I think you're missing the point. If I leave, the feds will still have the same problem. My agency already has a hard time getting people through the door because, we're competing against STEM related companies paying much higher (look at GS-5/GS-7 pay for new graduates). We used to offer 4 year contractual 10k bonuses to entry level employees to make our pay more competitive. We're not really getting the best and brightest. We're getting those who can wait 6 months from a job application to when they're allowed to set foot on campus.

That means that the public is not served as well. You get public servants who are not the most motivated, not the brightest, and are more corruptible. That means you get decisions that can hurt people in real ways. Work is slower. Institutional knowledge is lost. This means that when citizens interact with the government for services, it costs them more and they may get less desirable results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP. Many of the folks couldn't make it in the private sector. They work 9-5 and no later and still complain all the way to the bank.

What is that based on? Wanting to have quality of life is a sign that they won't make it in the private sector??

NP. In a way, yes. If you want a quality of life, you are not going to make it long in Biglaw. And that's ok. You make a choice that you are trading time for money.

I made that same choice and am now a fed after ~7 years in Biglaw. But it is disingenuous for the vast majority of Feds (even those who did stints in Biglaw) to claim that they could walk out to the private sector and make a lot more $, even ignoring that that $ (even if they could get it) would come with substantial other work life balance sacrifices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in BigLaw and know so, so many people that only did it until they paid off their loans and then went to do something less soul-sucking.

Yep and they were putting every dollar they could into loans, so they could be done with it quicker; that means they aren't walking out of there with a few hundred thousand in bonuses saved and some don't even max out their 401ks to 18k. That means when they get to their "real" job (the one they intend to stay in), THEN they start saving for other things - liquid assets; down payments etc. and it IS harder on 150k than 250k.

And, unless they're being managed out, the decision to take the salary drop is voluntary. Sounds like a lifestyle choice to me. I bet it's easier to have a relationship with your family when you're not working 15-hour days 7 days a week and having to fly off to a podunk jurisdiction on a half-hour's notice. Not to be all Don Draper, but that's what the money is for. If a downpayment and liquid assets are a goal, suck it up and do another year or two or quit bitching that your mostly 9-5 job *only* pays $150K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So who is forcing you to stay?

I think you're missing the point. If I leave, the feds will still have the same problem. My agency already has a hard time getting people through the door because, we're competing against STEM related companies paying much higher (look at GS-5/GS-7 pay for new graduates). We used to offer 4 year contractual 10k bonuses to entry level employees to make our pay more competitive. We're not really getting the best and brightest. We're getting those who can wait 6 months from a job application to when they're allowed to set foot on campus.

That means that the public is not served as well. You get public servants who are not the most motivated, not the brightest, and are more corruptible. That means you get decisions that can hurt people in real ways. Work is slower. Institutional knowledge is lost. This means that when citizens interact with the government for services, it costs them more and they may get less desirable results.

Take it up with Congress -- the current one is not going to give two shits about federal employee pay and may be actively trying to get feds to leave and not be able to be replaced. They don't want the best and brightest, they want a bunch of lazy, bottom-of-the-barrels so that they can point out yet again how "lazy" federal workers are. You're a political hot potato, and the government does not pay to market scale. Instead, it provides better quality of life, more flexibility, cheaper benefits (holy shit, I have a good employer that provides good, subsidized healthcare, and a comparable plan through the fed is less than half the cost; dental and vision is more, but the health insurance is almost the entire reason one of us stays fed), and a damn good retirement plan.