Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure it stinks if you're an affected employee, but very few of us have guarantees that our work won't relocate us.

What these USDA folks did/do deserve is more time to plan for the transition or look for a new job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh man. KC is a a great place to live.

+1. Just leaving after a week here. They are idiots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

This is disengenious. They're talking relocating the actual agency headquarters to the communities outside Kansas City in either Kansas or Missouri.

You know how much land per a square mile in those areas are? It's $600,000 per an ACRE right on top of the airport.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/8800-NW-112th-St-Kansas-City-MO/15777214/

Contrast that to near Dulles or Reagan - It's $1,000,000 per an acre all the way out in Manassas.

https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/9701-Hornbaker-Rd-Manassas-VA/13869341/

The USDA could build out an entire new headquarters facilities, including lower operational and building costs, for less than 1/2th the cost it'd take to do so in the DMV.

But they already have a functioning HQ here. There is no cost to “build out” that which exists. It’s both a waste of money and an attempt to dismantle this agency and the Federal workforce. All while increasing private contractors, lobbyists, and giving big jobs and appointments to undeserving/unqualified family, friends, and big donors that this administration favors.

Anonymous wrote:[

It looks like this was announced on June 13th. That said, you don't have to sell a house and move by September 30th (which would be ~3 1/2 months) you just need to show up for work.

Here is another interesting point from the press release announcing this: https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2019/06/13/secretary-perdue-announces-kansas-city-region-location-ers-and-nifa

It will save over $300 million over 15 years.

USDA conducted a Cost Benefit Analysis and conservative estimates show a savings of nearly $300 million nominally over a 15-year lease term on employment costs and rent or about $20 million per year, which will allow more funding for research of critical needs like rural prosperity and agricultural competitiveness, and for programs and employees to be retained in the long run, even in the face of tightening budgets. On top of that, state and local governments offered generous relocation incentives packages totaling more than $26 million. Finally, this relocation will give USDA the opportunity to attract a diverse staff with training and interest in agriculture. To learn more about USDA's Cost Benefit Analysis, you may view the USDA Cost Benefit Analysis document (PDF, 331 KB).

“We did not undertake these relocations lightly, and we are doing it to enhance long-term sustainability and success of these agencies. The considerable taxpayer savings will allow us to be more efficient and improve our ability to retain more employees in the long run.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd love to move to KC if I could keep my same salary. It is so much less expensive:

Well apparently 90% of scientists are disinclining to do so. What makes you so different from your neighbors?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

The cost of living in Kansas City vs. DC is 50-60% lower. It's a LOT lower.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Also, there's some chance it might not happen... So maybe you're in the 10% of people who does all of that and then the move gets cancelled and you're left with... what?

Anyone who legitimately thinks it's reasonable to ask federal employees to relocate themselves and their families to an entirely different area in ~3 months (w/ no relocation assistance!) is out of their f*ing minds.

Anonymous wrote:I have lots of thoughts about this (my agency is planning something similar- BLM)

-Currently there's a lot of job hopping by federal employees and this increases the talent. For instance scientists might hop between USDA divisions, or over to NIH. BLM often moves between USGS/BIA/BSEE/BOEM.

-I believe DC should be a government town and we can pool resources. A lot of feds have 100% fed jobs that aren't available outside of the federal workforce. If they move to Kansas City, their job prospects will be limited.

-The government is saving exactly ZERO dollars by doing this. If you think they are, I've got a bridge to sell you. COL isn't THAT much lower in other cities (Denver has the same cost of living as DC), but moving feds is $$$.

-Most feds are dual income households due to our middle class salaries. I would NOT move if my DH wasn't moving as well. I would just get another job in DC.

-"Get closer to stakeholders" is BS. We have plenty of data calls with stakeholders and that's no problem whatsoever. What you'd be missing out on is inter agency or inter Department knowledge that's currently gained by putting agencies together in DC.

-This is a purely political move. A congressman getting jobs for his district.

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Anonymous wrote:It's projected to be a fast move, the spouse has to find work, you have to find someplace to live and someone to buy your house in the DC area.

And you have to pay for it all yourself. On a federal salary, while still living in the DC area and replacing your spouses lost income.

Anonymous wrote:Oh man. KC is a a great place to live.