Anonymous wrote:Seems like things are heading in the direction of 5.2 percent.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/06/odds-52-pay-raise-feds-2024-improve-release-senate-defense-policy-bill-ndaa/387928/

https://stwserve.com/2024-federal-pay-raise-update-4/

Fine with me if the GOP wants to waste its efforts on coverage of abortion and transgender care, which the Dems will never agree to anyway.

Check your reading comprehension.

This is for military and DOD civilians and completely separate from that of the proposed average 5.2% GS pay increase.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should make it new employees only. Dead wood needs to go

People can already be hired above Step-1 if there’s a desire to incentivize new hires with above-minimum pay for their level. But freezing the GS pay scale during a year of significant inflation is a real pay cut for everyone else. That isn’t what you want. The people who do well in their jobs would leave preferentially over the “dead wood”. And then the new people get the higher pay without the benefit of experience. Have you thought about this at all yet?

Who cares. How can someone be better at doing noting?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems like things are heading in the direction of 5.2 percent.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/06/odds-52-pay-raise-feds-2024-improve-release-senate-defense-policy-bill-ndaa/387928/

https://stwserve.com/2024-federal-pay-raise-update-4/

Fine with me if the GOP wants to waste its efforts on coverage of abortion and transgender care, which the Dems will never agree to anyway.

Pretty sure the proposed raise was based upon the CPI-L so it's a sound data-driven approach to giving raises.

The debt ceiling deal came after Biden’s proposed pay increase and includes essentially no increase to federal discretionary spending, so people were concerned that the deal would preclude the pay increase from moving forward. But that seems not to be the case for reasons I don’t understand. My guess is the overall impact on federal spending isn’t that high assuming salaries are maybe 15-20% of discretionary spending.

Anonymous wrote:Seems like things are heading in the direction of 5.2 percent.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/06/odds-52-pay-raise-feds-2024-improve-release-senate-defense-policy-bill-ndaa/387928/

https://stwserve.com/2024-federal-pay-raise-update-4/

Fine with me if the GOP wants to waste its efforts on coverage of abortion and transgender care, which the Dems will never agree to anyway.

Pretty sure the proposed raise was based upon the CPI-L so it's a sound data-driven approach to giving raises.

Anonymous wrote:They should make it new employees only. Dead wood needs to go

People can already be hired above Step-1 if there’s a desire to incentivize new hires with above-minimum pay for their level. But freezing the GS pay scale during a year of significant inflation is a real pay cut for everyone else. That isn’t what you want. The people who do well in their jobs would leave preferentially over the “dead wood”. And then the new people get the higher pay without the benefit of experience. Have you thought about this at all yet?

They should make it new employees only. Dead wood needs to go

Anonymous wrote:Seems like things are heading in the direction of 5.2 percent.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/06/odds-52-pay-raise-feds-2024-improve-release-senate-defense-policy-bill-ndaa/387928/

https://stwserve.com/2024-federal-pay-raise-update-4/

Fine with me if the GOP wants to waste its efforts on coverage of abortion and transgender care, which the Dems will never agree to anyway.

Let the MAGA heads explode! 🤯

Seems like things are heading in the direction of 5.2 percent.

https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/06/odds-52-pay-raise-feds-2024-improve-release-senate-defense-policy-bill-ndaa/387928/

https://stwserve.com/2024-federal-pay-raise-update-4/

Fine with me if the GOP wants to waste its efforts on coverage of abortion and transgender care, which the Dems will never agree to anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone in hiring, trust me you should want fed pay raised. Right now the people running your government can’t afford to live anywhere near their offices, and new hires don’t put up with low pay just for the honor of serving their nation. They google cost of housing and childcare in dmv and nope right on out of the process. Starting pay grade at my org is the same it was when I started 23 years ago. Usg is in for a rough few decades in hiring given inflation coupled with low pay

Agree. I barely make enough for Fed work to be worth it, but I really enjoy my job and the telework flexibility. Truthfully I could only take this job because I’m married to someone that makes more money.
I’m so glad rich people got their tax cuts under Trump so now we all have to have a pay freeze.

Please realize how entitled you send as you jab at rich people who have taken tax cuts. Yes, you can only do this fully remote job that you love because your hubs makes big bucks and you're getting paid so little because all these rich people (which it sounds like from what you wrote about may be you) are getting tax cuts. Leave your kiddos at preschool all day and stick them in after care, gas up your car and drive two hours, and go to a soul sucking job that you hate for 20% more and then tell me that you think federal gov. employees should get more money. Oh, and say goodbye to your pension and other perks! NBD right?

I think you mean benefits. “Perks” are things people in the private sector get, like travel expense accounts, memberships, or just coffee at the office. The government is devoid of perks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will we know re raises? It wouldn't be in this bill, correct?

So August-Sept? Or Dec?

I think it we’ll have more clarity somewhat soon once people figure out what’s in the debt ceiling legislation and the practical effects. It purports to cut IRS funding, unused Covid relief funding, etc., and it’s possible those cuts will be enough to offset a pay raise on top of step increases and promotions.

Do you think the GOP pushed to cut IRS funding by $10B and to move student loan payments for millions of Americans up a month just to offset your pay raise?

They don’t care where the money goes, they just want to boast that they held spending flat and claim victories on things the base hates like the IRS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet we get at least 3.25%

My agency receives one salaries and expenses appropriation. If Congress holds it constant, I don’t see how we can absorb a COLA and automatic step increases, not to mention promotions.

My agency had step increases on hold for years and there are people who were hired after a hiring freeze who were brought in earning more than their supervisors (I am one of them and my TL deserves a raise). I really really hope they can reward people who have been patient while also bringing pay closer to industry norms. Right now we earn less than counterparts in academia, thought still more than average feds.

You really need to be brilliant to be in academia in DC or another big city at a well regarded institution. Likely you can't cut it in academia, so why would you expect to make what your friend who is a prof at Georgetown is making? If you wanted to go into the office 5 days a week, be "on" all the time, and have no job security than you would try to make the jump to the private sector and get the 20% pay increase. But somewhere you either don't want that or you've been shut out. The private sector is shedding jobs right now in and not hiring as robustly (and hiring will continue to slow and shedding will continue with higher interest rates). The private sector is not looking for a bunch of new gov. employees to hire.

You are certainly full of assumptions! I had multiple offers in academia at the time I took my government job; I took it for the flexibility and security. Would still consider leaving for a better offer.

The flexibility and job security make the federal gov more attractive and you have to price that in. Not to mention when you work for the federal government you don’t need to move your family to Gambier or Williamstown for five years only to learn that you’ve been denied tenure.

People in the private sector price in flexibility, pension, and job security. Why shouldn’t feds? I make $315K and work remotely. I wouldn’t consider a hybrid or on site job for less than $400K, because it would add a lot of stress, we would need to pay for extra childcare, dog walking, commuting, drycleaning, etc. I also get paid more in my current industry is much more volatile than other industries I’ve worked in (tech company, revenue is generated by ad sales). If I wanted to be in a more secure industry, such as insurance, I would need to take a pay cut.

I think it would make sense for the federal government to pay workers who are in office or on site more before paying everyone more. This is becoming the norm in the private sector. If I lived in SF I would need to go into the office 3x week but I would be paid more.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet we get at least 3.25%

My agency receives one salaries and expenses appropriation. If Congress holds it constant, I don’t see how we can absorb a COLA and automatic step increases, not to mention promotions.

My agency had step increases on hold for years and there are people who were hired after a hiring freeze who were brought in earning more than their supervisors (I am one of them and my TL deserves a raise). I really really hope they can reward people who have been patient while also bringing pay closer to industry norms. Right now we earn less than counterparts in academia, thought still more than average feds.

You really need to be brilliant to be in academia in DC or another big city at a well regarded institution. Likely you can't cut it in academia, so why would you expect to make what your friend who is a prof at Georgetown is making? If you wanted to go into the office 5 days a week, be "on" all the time, and have no job security than you would try to make the jump to the private sector and get the 20% pay increase. But somewhere you either don't want that or you've been shut out. The private sector is shedding jobs right now in and not hiring as robustly (and hiring will continue to slow and shedding will continue with higher interest rates). The private sector is not looking for a bunch of new gov. employees to hire.

You are certainly full of assumptions! I had multiple offers in academia at the time I took my government job; I took it for the flexibility and security. Would still consider leaving for a better offer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone in hiring, trust me you should want fed pay raised. Right now the people running your government can’t afford to live anywhere near their offices, and new hires don’t put up with low pay just for the honor of serving their nation. They google cost of housing and childcare in dmv and nope right on out of the process. Starting pay grade at my org is the same it was when I started 23 years ago. Usg is in for a rough few decades in hiring given inflation coupled with low pay

Agree. I barely make enough for Fed work to be worth it, but I really enjoy my job and the telework flexibility. Truthfully I could only take this job because I’m married to someone that makes more money.
I’m so glad rich people got their tax cuts under Trump so now we all have to have a pay freeze.

Please realize how entitled you send as you jab at rich people who have taken tax cuts. Yes, you can only do this fully remote job that you love because your hubs makes big bucks and you're getting paid so little because all these rich people (which it sounds like from what you wrote about may be you) are getting tax cuts. Leave your kiddos at preschool all day and stick them in after care, gas up your car and drive two hours, and go to a soul sucking job that you hate for 20% more and then tell me that you think federal gov. employees should get more money. Oh, and say goodbye to your pension and other perks! NBD right?

I meant that a single person probably wouldn't take the job, so they are relying on people who are married or have other sources of inome to stay in this area and do the work. My DH is also a Fed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone in hiring, trust me you should want fed pay raised. Right now the people running your government can’t afford to live anywhere near their offices, and new hires don’t put up with low pay just for the honor of serving their nation. They google cost of housing and childcare in dmv and nope right on out of the process. Starting pay grade at my org is the same it was when I started 23 years ago. Usg is in for a rough few decades in hiring given inflation coupled with low pay

Agree. I barely make enough for Fed work to be worth it, but I really enjoy my job and the telework flexibility. Truthfully I could only take this job because I’m married to someone that makes more money.
I’m so glad rich people got their tax cuts under Trump so now we all have to have a pay freeze.

Please realize how entitled you send as you jab at rich people who have taken tax cuts. Yes, you can only do this fully remote job that you love because your hubs makes big bucks and you're getting paid so little because all these rich people (which it sounds like from what you wrote about may be you) are getting tax cuts. Leave your kiddos at preschool all day and stick them in after care, gas up your car and drive two hours, and go to a soul sucking job that you hate for 20% more and then tell me that you think federal gov. employees should get more money. Oh, and say goodbye to your pension and other perks! NBD right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will we know re raises? It wouldn't be in this bill, correct?

So August-Sept? Or Dec?

I think it we’ll have more clarity somewhat soon once people figure out what’s in the debt ceiling legislation and the practical effects. It purports to cut IRS funding, unused Covid relief funding, etc., and it’s possible those cuts will be enough to offset a pay raise on top of step increases and promotions.

Do you think the GOP pushed to cut IRS funding by $10B and to move student loan payments for millions of Americans up a month just to offset your pay raise?