Finreg or best paying federal agencies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain the bolded? Specifically why you chose to include the descriptor "minority"?

Because they are all or nearly all minority women. It’s not an exaggeration; it’s a fact. It’s how the agencies meet their DEI quotas. Everyone knows that, but doesn’t say the obvious aloud.

The fact that they may happen to be minority is relevant you your point why though? You had a lot of derogatory things to say about these admins, so I'm wondering how their race plays into that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

You would think someone who claims to have worked at a finreg would know better, right?

Too busy being mad that a secretary rebuffed his advances in 1983 to know the source of the FRBs funding, or notice that secretarial pools ("I never used them") haven't existed in decades.

Typical deflection post. Why don’t you address the issue? No one except you said anything about a secretarial pool.

What exactly is the issue you want people to engage on? You gave examples of people working in admin that you worked with and said they "yelp" and "get the agency to pay" for more education" and that "most of the admins hardly do anything."

Not all people in the administrative field "yelp" for more money.
Not all people in the administrative field take advantage of programs that finance degrees.
Many people in the administrative field do a lot of important and impactful work to enable the mission.
Not all people in the administrative field have an "attitude" and are "lazy".

Do you agree? If so, maybe "engage" on the issue of the salary structures for the positions overall and don't stereotype (in part based on race) a whole field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain the bolded? Specifically why you chose to include the descriptor "minority"?

Because they are all or nearly all minority women. It’s not an exaggeration; it’s a fact. It’s how the agencies meet their DEI quotas. Everyone knows that, but doesn’t say the obvious aloud.

The fact that they may happen to be minority is relevant you your point why though? You had a lot of derogatory things to say about these admins, so I'm wondering how their race plays into that.

PP's referencing of race was incredibly problematic and inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

ahahahaaaa. no. "goes to Treasury" is like me saying money I don't use "goes to JP Morgan" just because I deposit my paycheck there. It doesn't vanish into a giant pool of money. Treasury can only use appropriated funds. The only way Treasury can get its paws on those unappropriated funds is if they sell services to a finreg. (which they do, all the time, and was how the Trump admin was so confused that the Treasury budget got more negative when they tried to set a non-appropriated agency's budget to 0.)

I can't "address the issue" when you can't do anything but incoherently babble about how you think some "minority women" "hardly do anything" and are therefor overpaid. No concrete discussion of the specific administrative roles you think are generic and don't deserve to be paid at a finreg payscale. and of course there are vast amounts of such work that is actually done by contractors— but then you need a contracting officer to manage those resources and budgets. Suddenly "just a useless admin manager" is in charge of a multimillion dollar budget-- but you'd rather that person be fuming about how her agency has decided that she's a second class citizen that doesn't contribute to the mission and doesn't deserve to be compensated accordingly.

Whats the saying? Penny wise and pound foolish.

I promise you that if you approach your colleagues, all of them, as if they are valued peers with their own competencies and perspectives that you can learn from, you will experience a much better working environment and will accomplish a lot more for your agency mission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

You do not understand how it works, at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

The only part of this sentence that is true is the first clause. The rest is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"sought after field" who thinks they can work at any agency

DEI officer?

I laughed out loud, thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

You do not understand how it works, at all.

Apparently you've never read the Fed's annual report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

You do not understand how it works, at all.

Apparently you've never read the Fed's annual report.

I really really wish I could explain to you how laughable that is. Show me where in the report there is anything that indicates that a taxpayer pays for Fed salaries. Here, I'll link it for you: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2022-annual-report.pdf

Maybe this will help: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-if-the-federal-reserve-books-losses-because-of-its-quantitative-easing/

"Are Fed losses a problem for the Treasury and the taxpayer?
Although unexpected increases in interest rates can lead to Fed losses and lower-than-expected remittances to the Treasury, there are a number of reasons why losses for the Fed are not equivalent to losses for the taxpayer or for the country as a whole....."

[Anonymous]

Whoever disputes that admins at finregs are grossly overpaid is crazy. At my finreg, there are secretaries and paralegals who literally do 15 minute of work per week and yet make $120k. So they basically make more per hour than Cravath and Wachtell partners.

Not complaining — “hate the game, not the player.” But don’t pretend it’s not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

You do not understand how it works, at all.

Apparently you've never read the Fed's annual report.

I really really wish I could explain to you how laughable that is. Show me where in the report there is anything that indicates that a taxpayer pays for Fed salaries. Here, I'll link it for you: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2022-annual-report.pdf

Maybe this will help: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-if-the-federal-reserve-books-losses-because-of-its-quantitative-easing/

"Are Fed losses a problem for the Treasury and the taxpayer?
Although unexpected increases in interest rates can lead to Fed losses and lower-than-expected remittances to the Treasury, there are a number of reasons why losses for the Fed are not equivalent to losses for the taxpayer or for the country as a whole....."

I'm guessing either you don't work for the Fed or you're an arrogant economist. Most at the Fed are well aware that they're public servants and ultimately it is the taxpayer who's responsible for their salary, although indirectly. Anytime Congress wants, it can place the Fed on appropriations or Fed employees on the GS scale. Don't forget that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

You do not understand how it works, at all.

Apparently you've never read the Fed's annual report.

I really really wish I could explain to you how laughable that is. Show me where in the report there is anything that indicates that a taxpayer pays for Fed salaries. Here, I'll link it for you: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2022-annual-report.pdf

Maybe this will help: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-if-the-federal-reserve-books-losses-because-of-its-quantitative-easing/

"Are Fed losses a problem for the Treasury and the taxpayer?
Although unexpected increases in interest rates can lead to Fed losses and lower-than-expected remittances to the Treasury, there are a number of reasons why losses for the Fed are not equivalent to losses for the taxpayer or for the country as a whole....."

I'm guessing either you don't work for the Fed or you're an arrogant economist. Most at the Fed are well aware that they're public servants and ultimately it is the taxpayer who's responsible for their salary, although indirectly. Anytime Congress wants, it can place the Fed on appropriations or Fed employees on the GS scale. Don't forget that.

You are wrong in both your guesses. And you haven’t actually disputed any of what I said, or sources I cited.

There is a difference between being committed to the important public service mission and incorrectly making a connection between salary of certain categories of FED staff and taxpayer impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Another DP here. I think that PP was pretty clear. Excess Fed funds go to Treasury, and decreasing the funds paid to Treasury is a cost to taxpayers. Yes, everyone at the Fed's salary is paid by the taxpayer.

You do not understand how it works, at all.

Apparently you've never read the Fed's annual report.

I really really wish I could explain to you how laughable that is. Show me where in the report there is anything that indicates that a taxpayer pays for Fed salaries. Here, I'll link it for you: https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2022-annual-report.pdf

Maybe this will help: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-if-the-federal-reserve-books-losses-because-of-its-quantitative-easing/

"Are Fed losses a problem for the Treasury and the taxpayer?
Although unexpected increases in interest rates can lead to Fed losses and lower-than-expected remittances to the Treasury, there are a number of reasons why losses for the Fed are not equivalent to losses for the taxpayer or for the country as a whole....."

I'm guessing either you don't work for the Fed or you're an arrogant economist. Most at the Fed are well aware that they're public servants and ultimately it is the taxpayer who's responsible for their salary, although indirectly. Anytime Congress wants, it can place the Fed on appropriations or Fed employees on the GS scale. Don't forget that.

The whole funding structure (interest income on us securities) was set up to keep the Fed independent. Obviously, that can change down the road, but the pp was talking about how it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whoever disputes that admins at finregs are grossly overpaid is crazy. At my finreg, there are secretaries and paralegals who literally do 15 minute of work per week and yet make $120k. So they basically make more per hour than Cravath and Wachtell partners.

Not complaining — “hate the game, not the player.” But don’t pretend it’s not happening.

+1000. I work at a FinReg. Admins were grossly overpaid for the amount of work they did even before Covid. With new telework postures in place, many of these positions should go away entirely. But there is no way this administration is going to reduce headcount that leans heavily toward black women. Fiscal responsibility be damned.