Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

No I used to be a fed in another state down south and the cost of living difference was very small like $2 or 3k. I actually had one of the highest paid jobs of anyone I knew there and would love to return because we were really able to save a lot of money.

There is a pay difference.
A GS11 step 1 makes $50k in most of the US. In DC, it's $62k. In San Francisco, it's $67k.
A GS14 step 5 makes $96k in most of the US. In DC, it's $119k. In San Francisco, it's $129k.

Well I moved from a major city that has it's own pay table, so the pay difference was very little. A GS-12 in Atlanta makes $71k. A GS-12 in DC makes $74k. With how cheap it is to live in Atlanta, that $3k makes very, very little difference.

Not a good comparison. If you look at the cost of housing, DC and Atlanta were very similar in the late 1990s/ early 2000s. DC pulled way ahead starting in 2002. Atlanta's prices did rise, but not as much. Then Atlanta dropped significantly starting in 2008 and only stopped dropping in 2012. The OPM coat of living for areas does not react to market swings like this, otherwise it would act as a paycheck punishment for people that bought during the boom times.

Well how do you account for the fact that a GS-12 makes $71k in Cleveland, 74k in Detroit, 70k in Pittsburgh. None of these are expensive places to live. The fact is government salaries are relatively high in in MANY places. People who live in cheaper major cities are getting just as much money as folks who live in DC.


In most of the U.S. $50k is a great salary, do you know how many people across the U.S. want a government job. Even in Atlanta you can live pretty nice on a $50k salary. A $50k salary will qualify you for a $150k home of which there are plenty in the Atlanta area.

I'm surprised that Pittsburgh is so high!!! That is a super cheap city to live in , Detroit too.

I was just on the phone with a federal colleague in southern California, where they are apparently having an unusually warm and humid (for them) fall.

It is 84 degrees and 33% humidity there right now. I know soCal is expensive, but I would not mind taking my federal job to some nicer weather -- Florida maybe?

I think that based on the savings from reduced salaries alone, this is an initiative well worth considering. I would be one of many federal employees happy to take my federal job and family to a less-stressful city with a lower COL -- even for slightly less pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

No I used to be a fed in another state down south and the cost of living difference was very small like $2 or 3k. I actually had one of the highest paid jobs of anyone I knew there and would love to return because we were really able to save a lot of money.

There is a pay difference.
A GS11 step 1 makes $50k in most of the US. In DC, it's $62k. In San Francisco, it's $67k.
A GS14 step 5 makes $96k in most of the US. In DC, it's $119k. In San Francisco, it's $129k.

Well I moved from a major city that has it's own pay table, so the pay difference was very little. A GS-12 in Atlanta makes $71k. A GS-12 in DC makes $74k. With how cheap it is to live in Atlanta, that $3k makes very, very little difference.

Not a good comparison. If you look at the cost of housing, DC and Atlanta were very similar in the late 1990s/ early 2000s. DC pulled way ahead starting in 2002. Atlanta's prices did rise, but not as much. Then Atlanta dropped significantly starting in 2008 and only stopped dropping in 2012. The OPM coat of living for areas does not react to market swings like this, otherwise it would act as a paycheck punishment for people that bought during the boom times.

Well how do you account for the fact that a GS-12 makes $71k in Cleveland, 74k in Detroit, 70k in Pittsburgh. None of these are expensive places to live. The fact is government salaries are relatively high in in MANY places. People who live in cheaper major cities are getting just as much money as folks who live in DC.


In most of the U.S. $50k is a great salary, do you know how many people across the U.S. want a government job. Even in Atlanta you can live pretty nice on a $50k salary. A $50k salary will qualify you for a $150k home of which there are plenty in the Atlanta area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

No I used to be a fed in another state down south and the cost of living difference was very small like $2 or 3k. I actually had one of the highest paid jobs of anyone I knew there and would love to return because we were really able to save a lot of money.

There is a pay difference.
A GS11 step 1 makes $50k in most of the US. In DC, it's $62k. In San Francisco, it's $67k.
A GS14 step 5 makes $96k in most of the US. In DC, it's $119k. In San Francisco, it's $129k.

Well I moved from a major city that has it's own pay table, so the pay difference was very little. A GS-12 in Atlanta makes $71k. A GS-12 in DC makes $74k. With how cheap it is to live in Atlanta, that $3k makes very, very little difference.

Not a good comparison. If you look at the cost of housing, DC and Atlanta were very similar in the late 1990s/ early 2000s. DC pulled way ahead starting in 2002. Atlanta's prices did rise, but not as much. Then Atlanta dropped significantly starting in 2008 and only stopped dropping in 2012. The OPM coat of living for areas does not react to market swings like this, otherwise it would act as a paycheck punishment for people that bought during the boom times.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

No I used to be a fed in another state down south and the cost of living difference was very small like $2 or 3k. I actually had one of the highest paid jobs of anyone I knew there and would love to return because we were really able to save a lot of money.

There is a pay difference.
A GS11 step 1 makes $50k in most of the US. In DC, it's $62k. In San Francisco, it's $67k.
A GS14 step 5 makes $96k in most of the US. In DC, it's $119k. In San Francisco, it's $129k.

Well I moved from a major city that has it's own pay table, so the pay difference was very little. A GS-12 in Atlanta makes $71k. A GS-12 in DC makes $74k. With how cheap it is to live in Atlanta, that $3k makes very, very little difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

No I used to be a fed in another state down south and the cost of living difference was very small like $2 or 3k. I actually had one of the highest paid jobs of anyone I knew there and would love to return because we were really able to save a lot of money.

There is a pay difference.
A GS11 step 1 makes $50k in most of the US. In DC, it's $62k. In San Francisco, it's $67k.
A GS14 step 5 makes $96k in most of the US. In DC, it's $119k. In San Francisco, it's $129k.

So one way to attack the federal deficit would be to move some of these jobs to areas where they would cost the government less in salary, commercial leases, etc.

It depends... There's the upfront cost of moving, which could be made up in less than 5 years.
However, if the agency requires secure access, the cost for building new facilities and installing communication can be costly. Plus as soon as a town hears fed agency the real estate prices increase.

I love this idea, seems like a win/win for everyone over the long term. It would have to be done in a way that spread out the different agencies so you don't trade congestion/high COLA in one area for another though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

Yes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

No I used to be a fed in another state down south and the cost of living difference was very small like $2 or 3k. I actually had one of the highest paid jobs of anyone I knew there and would love to return because we were really able to save a lot of money.

There is a pay difference.
A GS11 step 1 makes $50k in most of the US. In DC, it's $62k. In San Francisco, it's $67k.
A GS14 step 5 makes $96k in most of the US. In DC, it's $119k. In San Francisco, it's $129k.

So one way to attack the federal deficit would be to move some of these jobs to areas where they would cost the government less in salary, commercial leases, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have friends who work in government policymaking, and have heard that there is increased discussion about the benefits of farming out some federal functions, agencies, workforce, and jobs outside of the DC area. The jobs would still be federal government jobs, but they would be relocated and distributed across the country -- to Kansas, Alabama, California, etc. How do federal workers here in the Washington metro area feel about this idea?

Would be terrible if to dumps like Kansas or Alabama, or to equally expensive places like CA; not bad if it were to places with good QOL and COL. But then again, the federal presence outside of DC (regional offices) seem to be second tier.

So in your opinion, federal workers located outside DC tend to be second-rate compared to their DC-based peers? Or do you mean that the type of federal jobs located outside of DC tend to be the second-rate, less-desirable ones? If the former, your attitude that those of us living, working, and located in DC are somehow superior to those people living, working, and located in other parts of the country -- might be the very reason to move some federal jobs back to other parts of the country.

Some of the very best federal offices and adept federal workers I ever had the pleasure to work with in my federal field was -- not my home base here in DC -- but the office located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, with a Kansas-based office a close second.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a great idea, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper.

But wouldn't your pay also reflect the lower cost of living there?

No I used to be a fed in another state down south and the cost of living difference was very small like $2 or 3k. I actually had one of the highest paid jobs of anyone I knew there and would love to return because we were really able to save a lot of money.

There is a pay difference.
A GS11 step 1 makes $50k in most of the US. In DC, it's $62k. In San Francisco, it's $67k.
A GS14 step 5 makes $96k in most of the US. In DC, it's $119k. In San Francisco, it's $129k.

Anonymous wrote:I have friends who work in government policymaking, and have heard that there is increased discussion about the benefits of farming out some federal functions, agencies, workforce, and jobs outside of the DC area. The jobs would still be federal government jobs, but they would be relocated and distributed across the country -- to Kansas, Alabama, California, etc. How do federal workers here in the Washington metro area feel about this idea?

Would be terrible if to dumps like Kansas or Alabama, or to equally expensive places like CA; not bad if it were to places with good QOL and COL. But then again, the federal presence outside of DC (regional offices) seem to be second tier.

Anonymous wrote:I think that this is a very good idea.

It will be good for the states that get these well-paid jobs, and an influx of educated applicants.

It will be good for the federal government not to concentrate all its resources in one region. The feds are currently too insolated and insulated from the rest of the country, and subject too-strongly subject to influence-makers. Geographic diversity would help with these latter issues.

It will be good for the federal employees who can now live in a more affordable area, or somewhere closer to family.

I meant isolated

I think that this is a very good idea.

It will be good for the states that get these well-paid jobs, and an influx of educated applicants.

It will be good for the federal government not to concentrate all its resources in one region. The feds are currently too insolated and insulated from the rest of the country, and subject too-strongly subject to influence-makers. Geographic diversity would help with these latter issues.

It will be good for the federal employees who can now live in a more affordable area, or somewhere closer to family.