Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

Yes!

While you were busy clubbing and then locking down a husband and keeping up with the Joneses, USAID types were living in third world and/or war torn countries trying to help the least fortunate people stay alive.

Bottom line: no time to have a baby and focus on which organic onesies or thousand dollar stroller to buy.

I hate DOGE like poison but your sanctimony really puts a silver lining on the whole “feeding USAID into the wood chipper” thing.

For many in this sector this sanctimony is a subtle, non-cash part of their remuneration package. They get to lord it over all of the soulless, bad people in the private sector and tell themselves they could "be making XYZ" in the private sector, but I chose to heal the world instead! They talk among themselves and console themselves with these thoughts. Because of this, they have to engage in a bit of magical thinking about how much value and substance is actually being delivered by another report, another highly-paid, out-of-country contractor, another "theory of change" session. Sure there were good things happening, but a lot was total hogwash. But being completely honest removes this portion of the remuneration package and they can't have that. Recent developments kind of undercut a lot of this logic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Her employer had every opportunity to hire cheaper labor if they thought they could. Nobody made them pay that much, and they have incentives to pay less if they can. If the employer is willing to pay that salary, especially in a big city where there is a deep job pool, then by definition the employee is not overpaid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

I haven’t talked about any of those things. You sound nuts.

I mentioned experience. It’s weird you think this isn’t relevant, because it is a factor in filling senior jobs not only in government or nonprofits but in the for-profit sector too.

Job market doesn’t need your quotations. It’s a real thing and people move between sectors here, and pay is high. It is relevant and you aren’t getting anyone that can do these senior roles competently for $100k. I get that you think they are useless but you’ve also proven you don’t have any experience here.

Frankly, based on your comments and ignorance I doubt you are in a professional services job at all.

Experience...DOING WHAT?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

Yes!

While you were busy clubbing and then locking down a husband and keeping up with the Joneses, USAID types were living in third world and/or war torn countries trying to help the least fortunate people stay alive.

Bottom line: no time to have a baby and focus on which organic onesies or thousand dollar stroller to buy.

I hate DOGE like poison but your sanctimony really puts a silver lining on the whole “feeding USAID into the wood chipper” thing.

+1 My cousin was in an emerging country with a sweet taxpayer subsidized apartment with a maid and a kitchen she never had to touch due to ordering out for every meal and the maid. She has never come close to living that way state side. They aren't Peace Corps or missionaries. They are paid in US dollars and many are living pretty darn well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

+1000. This is the problem.

Executives at this level are expected to manage resources effectively and excel at fundraising. In many ways, their performance generates returns that are multiples of their own salary. By offering lower pay, an organization risks attracting less capable candidates who might squander the resources of even a well-funded nonprofit.

This follows the same logic used in the private sector: high executive compensation is seen as an investment in growth rather than funds that could simply be distributed to shareholders.

These USAID-funded organizations lost one source of funding and immediately collapsed. Sounds like these executives were amazing fundraisers and great at marshaling and managing resources and institutional risk....

Private sector should definitely hire them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

+1000. This is the problem.

Executives at this level are expected to manage resources effectively and excel at fundraising. In many ways, their performance generates returns that are multiples of their own salary. By offering lower pay, an organization risks attracting less capable candidates who might squander the resources of even a well-funded nonprofit.

This follows the same logic used in the private sector: high executive compensation is seen as an investment in growth rather than funds that could simply be distributed to shareholders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a story in the NY Times about the dramatic decline in fortunes of some workers following the collapse of USAID. This is not to be harsh, but if you were making $272,000 a year at a nonprofit, and now you're interviewing for $19-an-hour retail jobs, isn't that a clear indication from the broader job market that you were overpaid?

People over here are drastically disillusioned by how tax receipts support their cushy lifestyles off the backs of hard working Americans. The rest of us make much less.

Some of the posts here are nauseating: “Omg we have to share an office.” “Omg we have to write an email.” “Omg we actually have to go to the office.” “Omg we should never be laid off as government employees that’s for civilian pions”

People "over here"? Where are you?

I'm convinced most of the posters on the jobs forum are not in the DC area and have no idea what a professional non-sales office is like.

If the word “here” confuses you on a website named after a city i cant help you. And certainly can’t help you find a private sector job who will pay for a lame brain.

Actually, saying “over here” usually implies you’re posting from somewhere else, so asking for clarification was valid.

Also, calling five bullet points "an email" is peak Musk fanboy behavior. The issue isn't the writing; it’s the threat of being summarily fired if they weren't done by the weekend. That’s abusive, period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

+1000. This is the problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a story in the NY Times about the dramatic decline in fortunes of some workers following the collapse of USAID. This is not to be harsh, but if you were making $272,000 a year at a nonprofit, and now you're interviewing for $19-an-hour retail jobs, isn't that a clear indication from the broader job market that you were overpaid?

People over here are drastically disillusioned by how tax receipts support their cushy lifestyles off the backs of hard working Americans. The rest of us make much less.

Some of the posts here are nauseating: “Omg we have to share an office.” “Omg we have to write an email.” “Omg we actually have to go to the office.” “Omg we should never be laid off as government employees that’s for civilian pions”

People "over here"? Where are you?

I'm convinced most of the posters on the jobs forum are not in the DC area and have no idea what a professional non-sales office is like.

If the word “here” confuses you on a website named after a city i cant help you. And certainly can’t help you find a private sector job who will pay for a lame brain.

I bet the lady considering the penzey's spice store job would happily take 100k.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

If you really believe this is criminal exploitation, check out the pay scales for the public school districts in this area. In most cases, it takes more than 15 years and a master's degree to reach 100k. There is a lot of privilege on this site.

Not just public schools. Look at local government employees. Many have graduate degrees and are making about $100K.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:49 with a 19 month old and they are both unemployed. Wow.

It really jumped out at me how late most of these people had kids! The 51 year old with a 4 year old? The 56 year old with 12 year old twins? 44 with an infant? Is there some correlation to ancient parenting and working at USAID?

Yes!

While you were busy clubbing and then locking down a husband and keeping up with the Joneses, USAID types were living in third world and/or war torn countries trying to help the least fortunate people stay alive.

Bottom line: no time to have a baby and focus on which organic onesies or thousand dollar stroller to buy.

I hate DOGE like poison but your sanctimony really puts a silver lining on the whole “feeding USAID into the wood chipper” thing.

Anonymous wrote:I actually do think this particular woman was overpaid. But I don't think everyone who lost their jobs when US AID was shut down was overpaid. There were plenty of people making 100-150k (or less) for full time jobs requiring masters degrees, language skills, and foreign experience, who lost their jobs and have really struggled to find work because it just doesn't exist anymore.

This woman is a terrible poster child for them, it sucks that she did this interview because she comes off poorly.

I agree. I have a college classmate who worked for a USAID non-profit, she was really impressive, master's from an ivy, foreign experience in a niche area. She still has not found anything.

So many Fox News kool-aid drinkers on this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A nonprofit? Wasn't USAID an agency? What am I missing?

OP are you ok? USAID isn't a nonprofit.

What was she doing for $272K a year that someone else couldn't do for say $120K or even $100K?

I do belive there are a ton of people being way overpaid in large cities like DC.

Do you live in DC? Do you have any idea the COL here? 100k would be criminal exploitation for an educated, experienced employee.

Based on what? Credentialism alone shouldn’t guarantee you a high paying job. What do you DO that commands a high salary? If you are fungible or easily replaceable for cheaper, tough luck.

$100k would get you someone with four years of experience here. You seem completely unaware of the job market here.

You are still focused on credentialism and rubrics rather than the value of what she actually DOES. You've been lost in the sauce for too long, you can't even see it. The whole premise of the thread is asking whether her skillset and was she DOES was actually worth it. Nobody is entitled to a high salary just because they went to some nice-sounding school and racked up years of service doing not much of anything.

No, I’m actually not “lost in the sauce,” I’m just aware that you can’t find someone to do senior-level nonprofit work in DC for $100k, which is laughable. Senior roles in nonprofits have significant responsibilities that take time and experience to be able to do. You can’t find someone that can do that for $100k. It’s not hypothetical. I know nonprofits here. No one is getting someone with the relevant skills and experience to manage large budgets and teams for $100k.

Again, you clearly don’t live here so not sure why you are commenting on what the job market is like.

You are lost in the sauce and still talking about an "job market" based on credentialism, cronyism and gatekeeping within a circumscribed, non-transferrable bubble. I know this world well and a lot of the senior people are absolutely useless, but they hid out in government, NGOs or contractors. It was turtles all the way down; the work isn't hard. The issue now is the rug has been pulled out from under that. What you are calling "skill" is really only germane to a niche that has been decimated and not really transferrable. It would appear that "program management" "strategic planning" and "budgeting" aren't as valuable as those of you lost in the sauce thought they were.

+1