Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving a few agencies and their lobbyists out of the Beltway would lower real estate values. It's a little much when this is a million dollars:

+1 I love this, it is exactly what I was thinking of when they are saying how rich government workers are. Everyone I know that works for the government and international development lives in something like this or smaller - and are dying with the cost of the mortgage.

The big houses are contractors, lobbyists, and private sector. Many people in these tiny houses can move the private sector and earn a ton more but stay where they are because they love their work.

So why in the world wouldn't you want to move to a more reasonably priced area?!

Smart people live here, there is cool stuff to do, the work is interesting... we avoid the riff raff most commonly concentrated in the fly over areas that many of us grew up in and fled as soon as humanly possible. Need more reasons? I bet this persons neighbor is super interesting and has a PhD in physics and works a nasa or something, makes for better BBQ conversations than "how big is your truck" or "what gun do you have"...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With 7 of the 12 richest counties in the US surrounding DC, Trump should work on decentralizing this vulgar concentration of bureaucrat wealth by moving federal agencies to the middle of the country. Example: Dept. of Education to Betsy Devos's hometown of Grand Rapids, Mich. That alone would lock up Michigan as a red state in 2020.

The agencies can slash bloat and wages in the process (lower cost of living in flyover country), it would be a boom for non-coastal economies, and policies would likely better reflect real America versus insulated coastal elite outlook.

And what would this cost? I mean, the government already has buildings and infrastructure in place. What will it cost to replicate?

Sell or lease real estate, slash 25% of the workforce, 10% haircuts across the board...

And the talented feds will move to private-sector contracting for a nice pay raise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving a few agencies and their lobbyists out of the Beltway would lower real estate values. It's a little much when this is a million dollars:

+1 I love this, it is exactly what I was thinking of when they are saying how rich government workers are. Everyone I know that works for the government and international development lives in something like this or smaller - and are dying with the cost of the mortgage.

The big houses are contractors, lobbyists, and private sector. Many people in these tiny houses can move the private sector and earn a ton more but stay where they are because they love their work.

So why in the world wouldn't you want to move to a more reasonably priced area?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With 7 of the 12 richest counties in the US surrounding DC, Trump should work on decentralizing this vulgar concentration of bureaucrat wealth by moving federal agencies to the middle of the country. Example: Dept. of Education to Betsy Devos's hometown of Grand Rapids, Mich. That alone would lock up Michigan as a red state in 2020.

The agencies can slash bloat and wages in the process (lower cost of living in flyover country), it would be a boom for non-coastal economies, and policies would likely better reflect real America versus insulated coastal elite outlook.

And what would this cost? I mean, the government already has buildings and infrastructure in place. What will it cost to replicate?

Sell or lease real estate, slash 25% of the workforce, 10% haircuts across the board...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving a few agencies and their lobbyists out of the Beltway would lower real estate values. It's a little much when this is a million dollars:

+1 I love this, it is exactly what I was thinking of when they are saying how rich government workers are. Everyone I know that works for the government and international development lives in something like this or smaller - and are dying with the cost of the mortgage.

The big houses are contractors, lobbyists, and private sector. Many people in these tiny houses can move the private sector and earn a ton more but stay where they are because they love their work.

So why in the world wouldn't you want to move to a more reasonably priced area?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord. It's education that makes people wealthy, not federal jobs by definition. You need a masters' degree to get many, many federal jobs. You can't slot a miner into a program manager position, or even HR.

OK? Go do your job in Wisconsin.
Time to spread the wealth.
Too much concentrated in DC.

You sound like a simpleton. The wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few *people,* who are intent on making even more money on the backs of the poor. But if we talk about taxing them, you scream about "wealth redistribution" and socialism.

But sure, go after middle class taxpayers if you like. We're actually from Grand Rapids and have no desire to move back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving a few agencies and their lobbyists out of the Beltway would lower real estate values. It's a little much when this is a million dollars:

+1 I love this, it is exactly what I was thinking of when they are saying how rich government workers are. Everyone I know that works for the government and international development lives in something like this or smaller - and are dying with the cost of the mortgage.

The big houses are contractors, lobbyists, and private sector. Many people in these tiny houses can move the private sector and earn a ton more but stay where they are because they love their work.

So why in the world wouldn't you want to move to a more reasonably priced area?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moving a few agencies and their lobbyists out of the Beltway would lower real estate values. It's a little much when this is a million dollars:

+1 I love this, it is exactly what I was thinking of when they are saying how rich government workers are. Everyone I know that works for the government and international development lives in something like this or smaller - and are dying with the cost of the mortgage.

The big houses are contractors, lobbyists, and private sector. Many people in these tiny houses can move the private sector and earn a ton more but stay where they are because they love their work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know feds who own second homes (New Jersey, South Carolina), boats (not yachts, boats). To be fair, they're married, so there're two incomes. But they also have children, elderly parents, and all other typical MC expenses. They live on income, not investments.

The feds I know in DC don't suffer. Some live far out, but only if a huge house with a backyard is important. Plenty of younger (both single and married) people in the city who can afford condos and apartments. They generally don't complain about life at the GS-13 level and above.

So, to paint all feds as living hand-to-mouth is not entirely correct. I'm sure people's circumstances differ, but those who know how to handle money (even a little bit of it) do fairly well. Generally better than their counterparts in the private sector, IMO.

Depends who you think of as their counterparts. Federal employees are older and more highly educated than th general population, we have a much higher percentage of employees with graduate degrees than the rest of the labor force. So if you're comparing them with the average American with no college completion they do make more $ but same occupation comparisons with the private sector show federal employees making less than their similarly situated private sector peers. For example, the federal government is the largest single employer of doctors in the country, mostly due to the high VA and DOD healthcare systems plus the medical research community at NIH. Comparing the salaries of VA doctors and those with similar specialties in the private sector show that VA doctors make considerably less, but their low 6 figure salaries are certainly higher than the average American.

I am speaking from personal experience. I am fully aware that the federal government is bottom heavy. I do observe somewhat older workers, but most of them have 4 years of college at most. Many only have high-school diplomas. The hiring mechanisms changed in the recent years. We do have opportunities to hire college grads for entry-level positions. However, the majority of hires are veterans with very limited education, usually high school plus any occupational training they got in the military. I do not compare them to average Americans, whatever that may mean. I compare them to the people with similar educational background and experience, myself included. I have friends with the exact (advanced) degree I have. I'm blessed to be a fed, I kid you not. (Obviously, I am not an MD. I agree that highly specialized professionals make more money in the private sector.)

Not sure what agency you work for but that's not the case in mine. My group is mainly IT and project management - only a handful of people just have a high school diploma, and they are support staff. We have a huge number of people with Masters' and several with a PhD. Many people have certifications, like PMP, COR, et cetera. We have just shy of 15% that are vets, it's not the majority of hires but they do get preference. Most of the vets we have working for us have degrees. One guy I work closely with is a combat vet who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, he has his Masters and is getting ready to go for his PhD. Many of us came in from the private sector where we were making more (I myself was a fed contractor for many years, I was making more outside but got tired of the constant proposal-writing cycle and wanted to just focus on the mission), we've also had people poached away from us by the private sector where they ended up making more than they did as govies. I've had several tempting offers from outside, but I'm not in it for the money. But if the Trump administration makes my work untenable I will likely start taking a closer look at those outside offers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good lord. It's education that makes people wealthy, not federal jobs by definition. You need a masters' degree to get many, many federal jobs. You can't slot a miner into a program manager position, or even HR.

OK? Go do your job in Wisconsin.
Time to spread the wealth.
Too much concentrated in DC.

You sound like a simpleton. The wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few *people,* who are intent on making even more money on the backs of the poor. But if we talk about taxing them, you scream about "wealth redistribution" and socialism.

But sure, go after middle class taxpayers if you like. We're actually from Grand Rapids and have no desire to move back.

You won't need to -- you feds have skills that are REALLY in demand!
Private industry will be chomping at the bit to hire the folks who won't relocate.

Anonymous wrote:And, people outside DC don't understand that fed employees here are mostly considered "low" earners, unlike feds in most of the country. And, most of us would welcome the chance to move elsewhere and sell our falling down $500k houses, if we are lucky enough to afford them.

Anonymous wrote:Moving a few agencies and their lobbyists out of the Beltway would lower real estate values. It's a little much when this is a million dollars: