Federal Govt an Artificial Job Market? Admin Changes, Private Sector Adjusts—Why Not Train for Portable Skills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The private sector cannot govern itself. Come on people. Reading is fundamental.

I think feds know this more than anyone. Depending on what sector you regulate, we often see private companies behaving badly. "Bad" meaning they dump chemicals in our oceans, hide major issues, fake bankruptcies to get out of liabilities, don't inform consumers about chemicals that can hurt them. Basically gross negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The private sector cannot govern itself. Come on people. Reading is fundamental.

I think feds know this more than anyone. Depending on what sector you regulate, we often see private companies behaving badly. "Bad" meaning they dump chemicals in our oceans, hide major issues, fake bankruptcies to get out of liabilities, don't inform consumers about chemicals that can hurt them. Basically gross negligence.

It is sad that feds are being left to fend for themselves here when the people that are responsible for creating those federal jobs are sitting idly by watching the carnage. Congress you’ve really let us, and the American people down, for far too long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur. You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.

No need for name-calling, let’s keep it respectful. I get that fundamental research is important, but the real question is who should be paying for it. If a study has real value, private industry, philanthropy, or universities will fund it, like we see with AI, biotech, and space exploration. If no one outside the government wants to invest in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think. Good debate is how ideas get better, so let’s focus on that instead of throwing insults.

There are plenty of examples of wasteful government-funded research, which is why people question if taxpayer money is always well spent. They’ve funded things like a robotic squirrel to study rattlesnake reactions, shrimp running on a treadmill, and even an $80,000 study on why certain teams dominate March Madness. Maybe some of these had merit, but if research is actually valuable, private funding will step in. If no one wants to pay for it outside of government, that’s a sign it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

Ozempic is based on a study of gila monster venom. Just because the application of a research paper isn't obvious to non scientists or isn't monetized immediately, doesn't mean it isn't valuable and important. As already stated, government exists to solve problems that private action can't or won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

what is your field and salary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

High turnover in leadership is common in many private-sector industries, especially in tech, consulting, finance, and entertainment, where people expect frequent executive shakeups, restructures, and performance-driven exits.

In big tech, leadership churn is constant. Meta has restructured multiple times—pivoting to the metaverse, then back to AI, leading to major exec departures. Google’s leadership changes frequently, from Sundar Pichai taking over Alphabet to continuous VP and director-level turnover. At Amazon, leadership shifts regularly across AWS and retail divisions. Despite the instability, engineers and senior staff earn $200K–$500K+, far outpacing most industries.

Consulting firms like McKinsey and Bain run on an "up or out" model—employees expect to leave or get promoted within 3-4 years, creating predictable churn. Salaries start at $175K–$250K, with partners earning $500K+. The same pattern exists in investment banking—Goldman Sachs analysts usually last 2-3 years before moving up or out, and hedge funds like Citadel pay $500K–$1M+ but have brutal turnover.

Entertainment is another prime example. Disney has gone through multiple CEO changes, with Bob Iger returning after Bob Chapek's ousting. Their acquisitions and strategy shifts—like the Disney-Hulu merger and ESPN streaming push—cause leadership shakeups across divisions. Netflix has also seen key execs leave as streaming competition heats up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

High turnover in leadership is common in many private-sector industries, especially in tech, consulting, finance, and entertainment, where people expect frequent executive shakeups, restructures, and performance-driven exits.

In big tech, leadership churn is constant. Meta has restructured multiple times—pivoting to the metaverse, then back to AI, leading to major exec departures. Google’s leadership changes frequently, from Sundar Pichai taking over Alphabet to continuous VP and director-level turnover. At Amazon, leadership shifts regularly across AWS and retail divisions. Despite the instability, engineers and senior staff earn $200K–$500K+, far outpacing most industries.

Consulting firms like McKinsey and Bain run on an "up or out" model—employees expect to leave or get promoted within 3-4 years, creating predictable churn. Salaries start at $175K–$250K, with partners earning $500K+. The same pattern exists in investment banking—Goldman Sachs analysts usually last 2-3 years before moving up or out, and hedge funds like Citadel pay $500K–$1M+ but have brutal turnover.

Entertainment is another prime example. Disney has gone through multiple CEO changes, with Bob Iger returning after Bob Chapek's ousting. Their acquisitions and strategy shifts—like the Disney-Hulu merger and ESPN streaming push—cause leadership shakeups across divisions. Netflix has also seen key execs leave as streaming competition heats up.

Got em

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

High turnover in leadership is common in many private-sector industries, especially in tech, consulting, finance, and entertainment, where people expect frequent executive shakeups, restructures, and performance-driven exits.

In big tech, leadership churn is constant. Meta has restructured multiple times—pivoting to the metaverse, then back to AI, leading to major exec departures. Google’s leadership changes frequently, from Sundar Pichai taking over Alphabet to continuous VP and director-level turnover. At Amazon, leadership shifts regularly across AWS and retail divisions. Despite the instability, engineers and senior staff earn $200K–$500K+, far outpacing most industries.

Consulting firms like McKinsey and Bain run on an "up or out" model—employees expect to leave or get promoted within 3-4 years, creating predictable churn. Salaries start at $175K–$250K, with partners earning $500K+. The same pattern exists in investment banking—Goldman Sachs analysts usually last 2-3 years before moving up or out, and hedge funds like Citadel pay $500K–$1M+ but have brutal turnover.

Entertainment is another prime example. Disney has gone through multiple CEO changes, with Bob Iger returning after Bob Chapek's ousting. Their acquisitions and strategy shifts—like the Disney-Hulu merger and ESPN streaming push—cause leadership shakeups across divisions. Netflix has also seen key execs leave as streaming competition heats up.

I’m in the private sector and have not seen such churn myself but obviously it exists.

What I really appreciate from feds are the “old hands.” No, they don’t have to be actually old but experienced. People who truly know their stuff and are calm and competent. Some of our laws and regulations take significant time to understand and administer. These are the people I hope we can retain. Yes, everyone is ultimately replaceable but as a USG “customer,” this talent and knowledge is I want in my public servants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

High turnover in leadership is common in many private-sector industries, especially in tech, consulting, finance, and entertainment, where people expect frequent executive shakeups, restructures, and performance-driven exits.

In big tech, leadership churn is constant. Meta has restructured multiple times—pivoting to the metaverse, then back to AI, leading to major exec departures. Google’s leadership changes frequently, from Sundar Pichai taking over Alphabet to continuous VP and director-level turnover. At Amazon, leadership shifts regularly across AWS and retail divisions. Despite the instability, engineers and senior staff earn $200K–$500K+, far outpacing most industries.

Consulting firms like McKinsey and Bain run on an "up or out" model—employees expect to leave or get promoted within 3-4 years, creating predictable churn. Salaries start at $175K–$250K, with partners earning $500K+. The same pattern exists in investment banking—Goldman Sachs analysts usually last 2-3 years before moving up or out, and hedge funds like Citadel pay $500K–$1M+ but have brutal turnover.

Entertainment is another prime example. Disney has gone through multiple CEO changes, with Bob Iger returning after Bob Chapek's ousting. Their acquisitions and strategy shifts—like the Disney-Hulu merger and ESPN streaming push—cause leadership shakeups across divisions. Netflix has also seen key execs leave as streaming competition heats up.

Got em

Really? Didn’t they lead with Meta? Formerly Facebook? Still headed by the same freaking guy?

No wonder you guys couldn’t get hired by the government. You’re completely incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Yes. Agree.

[Anonymous]

Op clearly knows nothing about the government. 1000 page CR's do not interpret and administer themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

High turnover in leadership is common in many private-sector industries, especially in tech, consulting, finance, and entertainment, where people expect frequent executive shakeups, restructures, and performance-driven exits.

In big tech, leadership churn is constant. Meta has restructured multiple times—pivoting to the metaverse, then back to AI, leading to major exec departures. Google’s leadership changes frequently, from Sundar Pichai taking over Alphabet to continuous VP and director-level turnover. At Amazon, leadership shifts regularly across AWS and retail divisions. Despite the instability, engineers and senior staff earn $200K–$500K+, far outpacing most industries.

Consulting firms like McKinsey and Bain run on an "up or out" model—employees expect to leave or get promoted within 3-4 years, creating predictable churn. Salaries start at $175K–$250K, with partners earning $500K+. The same pattern exists in investment banking—Goldman Sachs analysts usually last 2-3 years before moving up or out, and hedge funds like Citadel pay $500K–$1M+ but have brutal turnover.

Entertainment is another prime example. Disney has gone through multiple CEO changes, with Bob Iger returning after Bob Chapek's ousting. Their acquisitions and strategy shifts—like the Disney-Hulu merger and ESPN streaming push—cause leadership shakeups across divisions. Netflix has also seen key execs leave as streaming competition heats up.

I’m in the private sector and have not seen such churn myself but obviously it exists.

What I really appreciate from feds are the “old hands.” No, they don’t have to be actually old but experienced. People who truly know their stuff and are calm and competent. Some of our laws and regulations take significant time to understand and administer. These are the people I hope we can retain. Yes, everyone is ultimately replaceable but as a USG “customer,” this talent and knowledge is I want in my public servants.

Thank you. No one should want their government to run like McKinsey or Meta. That would be extremely damaging to long term investment, financial stability, etc.

Imagine any one sliver of government - let's say highways. Now imagine highways that get "reimagined" every few years, or knocked down and sold one year and reacquired the next.

Government is slow on purpose. It's supposed to be slow and deliberative and thoughtful. Everybody gets to have input, everybody knows what to expect long before it happens, every plans ahead. Because the point of government is to make things better for all its citizens, not to turn a profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

High turnover in leadership is common in many private-sector industries, especially in tech, consulting, finance, and entertainment, where people expect frequent executive shakeups, restructures, and performance-driven exits.

In big tech, leadership churn is constant. Meta has restructured multiple times—pivoting to the metaverse, then back to AI, leading to major exec departures. Google’s leadership changes frequently, from Sundar Pichai taking over Alphabet to continuous VP and director-level turnover. At Amazon, leadership shifts regularly across AWS and retail divisions. Despite the instability, engineers and senior staff earn $200K–$500K+, far outpacing most industries.

Consulting firms like McKinsey and Bain run on an "up or out" model—employees expect to leave or get promoted within 3-4 years, creating predictable churn. Salaries start at $175K–$250K, with partners earning $500K+. The same pattern exists in investment banking—Goldman Sachs analysts usually last 2-3 years before moving up or out, and hedge funds like Citadel pay $500K–$1M+ but have brutal turnover.

Entertainment is another prime example. Disney has gone through multiple CEO changes, with Bob Iger returning after Bob Chapek's ousting. Their acquisitions and strategy shifts—like the Disney-Hulu merger and ESPN streaming push—cause leadership shakeups across divisions. Netflix has also seen key execs leave as streaming competition heats up.

Got em

Pp. So dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the federal government seems upset about cutting staff and shifting directions, but is that just because they aren’t used to it?

Today I had to cut half of one manager’s team across multiple departments, letting go of 9 people because of budget and priority changes. They’re all technical staff, and their manager thinks they’re talented. While it’s tough, they’ll almost certainly land something soon since their skills are in demand. In the private sector, this kind of thing happens all the time, and while no one likes it, it’s just part of the reality. We’re giving them 30 days' notice, which is more than enough from a private sector viewpoint. Many companies give nothing, with employees discovering the same day they’re let go. So, it’s interesting to see how differently government workers react to job changes.

Thinking about the fork email, it seems like if I could give those employees 8 months of paid time to look for a job while doing nothing, they’d be thrilled. Is the outrage from the federal side just because government employees aren’t used to these kinds of shifts?

I also talked to a relative in their 70s who works for the government, and they’re actually excited about the deferred resignation deal. From their perspective, getting paid for 8 months without working before retiring is a dream scenario and a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of government jobs don’t have portable skills like IT or accounting that easily transfer to the private sector. I also see people who spend their entire careers managing government grants, foreign aid, and similar programs. It seems like these jobs exist mainly to process government functions that wouldn’t even need so much administration if the system were more efficient. If that’s the case, shouldn’t employees in these roles be training for portable skills instead of putting all their eggs in the federal government basket?

And if government priorities shift, isn’t it normal for those employees to look elsewhere? If we’re cutting foreign spending or shoring up the border, wouldn’t it make sense for them to move to agencies in demand instead of expecting a lifetime job in a field that changes with each administration?

Like, if a job was focused on managing the Pony Express mail system back in the day, and then new technology made it obsolete, shouldn’t people in those roles have expected that focus to stop instead of assuming they’d do it forever?

Firstly shut up troll. Your "relative" is absolutely made up. Secondly, you realize MANY, MANY of us worked in the private sector and then many many of us return to the private sector, right???? I just cannot with you alls high school level understanding of the way the world works. Or even just america because you certainly have zero understanding of the way the world functions.