Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've gotten very off track here, but of course I care about the mission. And yes a fed salary is "perfectly adequate" but when you've outperformed 99.9% of your peers in your education/career some of us would like to not be stuck at perfectly adequate forever, even though we believe in the public service mission.

Give us all a break. You don't care about the mission. You care about money and prestige and being recognized for being above average.

Here's a little story: I've been working in public service making less than $50k my entire career because that is what my job pays and I can't imagine being anywhere else. My clients are all homeless, most deal with severe mental health and addiction issues. I am out there busting my ass and losing my mind with stress for THEM. I've been called to this work and I would feel like a fool if I ever had to tell my coworkers "I'm going corporate so I can make a bunch more money". I do what I do because society is not doing enough to protect and help my clients. As long as I make enough to live comfortably in my small apartment, I'm happy. My work is fulfilling and I'm thanked daily for what I contribute. That's enough.

Anonymous wrote:We've gotten very off track here, but of course I care about the mission. And yes a fed salary is "perfectly adequate" but when you've outperformed 99.9% of your peers in your education/career some of us would like to not be stuck at perfectly adequate forever, even though we believe in the public service mission.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeez settle down everyone. I never said that was my only or even my main intention. Like I said, my plan is to remain public side indefinitely. It just so happen that my area of specialty values government service if/when you decide to switch back to the private sector.

I also don't see this as a problem-- having the opportunity to do that if necessary means that the government gets people who are the best and brightest, when we might otherwise not be able to serve because of our families' needs.

Also to the people saying I'm out of touch-- I asked about our particular situation/those who made similar moves. Yeah, obviously I get that a ton of people make less money than us. Whatever- how is that relevant?

Clearly you don't care about the actual mission of what you propose to do. The revolving door is incredibly toxic to the missiom of most agencies. And fed salaries are perfectly adequate to take care of a family. You and your ilk just want to cash in.

Yep and what exactly is wrong with that. NP here and feel the same way as OP and I'm fairly sure it's not just us 2 who think this way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeez settle down everyone. I never said that was my only or even my main intention. Like I said, my plan is to remain public side indefinitely. It just so happen that my area of specialty values government service if/when you decide to switch back to the private sector.

I also don't see this as a problem-- having the opportunity to do that if necessary means that the government gets people who are the best and brightest, when we might otherwise not be able to serve because of our families' needs.

Also to the people saying I'm out of touch-- I asked about our particular situation/those who made similar moves. Yeah, obviously I get that a ton of people make less money than us. Whatever- how is that relevant?

Clearly you don't care about the actual mission of what you propose to do. The revolving door is incredibly toxic to the missiom of most agencies. And fed salaries are perfectly adequate to take care of a family. You and your ilk just want to cash in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Earning $350K year still puts you in the "plenty of money" category. Geez.

No it doesn't, please stop commenting cause your job is beginning replaced by McDonald's kiosk

PP was correct.

You're delusional if you don't see 7x median HHI as plenty of money.

Get help.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Earning $350K year still puts you in the "plenty of money" category. Geez.

No it doesn't, please stop commenting cause your job is beginning replaced by McDonald's kiosk

Anonymous wrote:Earning $350K year still puts you in the "plenty of money" category. Geez.

Anonymous wrote:We've gotten very off track here, but of course I care about the mission. And yes a fed salary is "perfectly adequate" but when you've outperformed 99.9% of your peers in your education/career some of us would like to not be stuck at perfectly adequate forever, even though we believe in the public service mission.

Anonymous wrote:We've gotten very off track here, but of course I care about the mission. And yes a fed salary is "perfectly adequate" but when you've outperformed 99.9% of your peers in your education/career some of us would like to not be stuck at perfectly adequate forever, even though we believe in the public service mission.

Anonymous wrote:We've gotten very off track here, but of course I care about the mission. And yes a fed salary is "perfectly adequate" but when you've outperformed 99.9% of your peers in your education/career some of us would like to not be stuck at perfectly adequate forever, even though we believe in the public service mission.