Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

You agree that people's taxes are not used to pay these salaries, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain the bolded? Specifically why you chose to include the descriptor "minority"?

Because they are all or nearly all minority women. It’s not an exaggeration; it’s a fact. It’s how the agencies meet their DEI quotas. Everyone knows that, but doesn’t say the obvious aloud.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

You would think someone who claims to have worked at a finreg would know better, right?

Too busy being mad that a secretary rebuffed his advances in 1983 to know the source of the FRBs funding, or notice that secretarial pools ("I never used them") haven't existed in decades.

Typical deflection post. Why don’t you address the issue? No one except you said anything about a secretarial pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Money the FRB doesn’t use goes to Treasury. In the end, it’s all government money. Even if it wasn’t, the agencies should make better use of their assessments, which comes from banks who pass along their costs to consumers. You make it sound like there’s a free lunch here. There isn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

You would think someone who claims to have worked at a finreg would know better, right?

Too busy being mad that a secretary rebuffed his advances in 1983 to know the source of the FRBs funding, or notice that secretarial pools ("I never used them") haven't existed in decades.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

You would think someone who claims to have worked at a finreg would know better, right?

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain how taxpayers contribute to salaries at finregs, particularly at FRB?

Anonymous wrote:DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Can you explain the bolded? Specifically why you chose to include the descriptor "minority"?

DP. Yes, admins at FinRegs are massively overpaid. In fact, there are federal government compensation reports that broadly conclude that admins are overpaid across the system. Add the additional pay that such jobs receive at FinRegs and it’s criminal. For the poster(s) who think this is ok, it’s disgusting. It’s a waste of taxpayers money and it fails to differentiate between much-needed, agency specific skills and generic admin work. I used to work at the FRB and admin jobs were essentially welfare for minority women. You couldn’t get a admin job unless you were one. Once hired, they get the agency to pay for a worthless online degree (as noted by an earlier poster) and yelp for more money. Never, never, never could these people make in base pay, bonus, and benefits what they make at FinRegs for doing the same amount and level of work. In fact, most of the admins hardly do anything. I never used them because it was all attitude, stubbornness, and a waste of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- I was an administrative manager in a GS job that moved to the SEC. I took a grade cut but got a substantial raise. I now make $ 50K more than my spouse who is a GS15/step10. That is before the other SEC only benefits. 200 people applied for my position and they interviewed over 10 people. These are very desirable positions. I am very grateful

And this is the problem with most finregs. Finregs get outsize pay for the complexity of the work done by those on the line (ie attorneys, economists, etc). Yet everyone gets the outsize pay, including those that have completely fungible jobs across the government, like admins. They should be on a separate, lower pay scale. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it's the truth.

I recently moved from a GS position to a finreg, and I have noticed a jump in the capability of admin-type people (HR, IT, office managers). Paying more draws better candidates.

Doesn't change the fact that the function in and of itself is over compensated at the finregs.

Finregs pay more because the line staff must compete against the population they regulate. And frequently have job offers from the same. Those positions in private attract top talent, and pay multiples of what a finreg offers. Admin positions at finregs are overcompensated relative to their peers in private. Sorry, but that's incontrovertible.

You are wrong. Just one example:

HR lead at JPMC base pay up to 190,000: https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1001/job/210378588/?keyword=Digital

I'm very much correct. I won't post it here to preserve anonymity, but it's easy to search a public database and find, for example, SEC hr staff making in the 220s. And that's all base, not inclusive of benefits. That's preposterous.

the problem here is you. what's preposterous is that you work at a well-compensated agency, and you are spending your energy disrespecting and denigrating basically any work that is not yours. you are spending energy *resenting* what other employees make when what they make has no effect on your salary or taxes whatsoever.

please find a way to use your new $1000 health benefit to get outside and touch grass, and then maybe try some meditation to work on your anger issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- I was an administrative manager in a GS job that moved to the SEC. I took a grade cut but got a substantial raise. I now make $ 50K more than my spouse who is a GS15/step10. That is before the other SEC only benefits. 200 people applied for my position and they interviewed over 10 people. These are very desirable positions. I am very grateful

And this is the problem with most finregs. Finregs get outsize pay for the complexity of the work done by those on the line (ie attorneys, economists, etc). Yet everyone gets the outsize pay, including those that have completely fungible jobs across the government, like admins. They should be on a separate, lower pay scale. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it's the truth.

I recently moved from a GS position to a finreg, and I have noticed a jump in the capability of admin-type people (HR, IT, office managers). Paying more draws better candidates.

Doesn't change the fact that the function in and of itself is over compensated at the finregs.

Finregs pay more because the line staff must compete against the population they regulate. And frequently have job offers from the same. Those positions in private attract top talent, and pay multiples of what a finreg offers. Admin positions at finregs are overcompensated relative to their peers in private. Sorry, but that's incontrovertible.

You are wrong. Just one example:

HR lead at JPMC base pay up to 190,000: https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1001/job/210378588/?keyword=Digital

I'm very much correct. I won't post it here to preserve anonymity, but it's easy to search a public database and find, for example, SEC hr staff making in the 220s. And that's all base, not inclusive of benefits. That's preposterous.

OP here who hurt you? Haha

FYI if we were to remove the HR staff, you wouldn’t get those awesome attorneys and analysts that you think deserve the actual pay. They do a lot behind the scenes, I know because I just got their help with posting hiring and getting teammates transitioned, it’s things I didn’t have the time for or to research and they did it fantastically. And btw it sounds like they do get paid more than me by a lot, and I don’t have an issue with it, they worked hard and found a place at a finreg (smarter than me!).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- I was an administrative manager in a GS job that moved to the SEC. I took a grade cut but got a substantial raise. I now make $ 50K more than my spouse who is a GS15/step10. That is before the other SEC only benefits. 200 people applied for my position and they interviewed over 10 people. These are very desirable positions. I am very grateful

And this is the problem with most finregs. Finregs get outsize pay for the complexity of the work done by those on the line (ie attorneys, economists, etc). Yet everyone gets the outsize pay, including those that have completely fungible jobs across the government, like admins. They should be on a separate, lower pay scale. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it's the truth.

I recently moved from a GS position to a finreg, and I have noticed a jump in the capability of admin-type people (HR, IT, office managers). Paying more draws better candidates.

Doesn't change the fact that the function in and of itself is over compensated at the finregs.

Finregs pay more because the line staff must compete against the population they regulate. And frequently have job offers from the same. Those positions in private attract top talent, and pay multiples of what a finreg offers. Admin positions at finregs are overcompensated relative to their peers in private. Sorry, but that's incontrovertible.

You are wrong. Just one example:

HR lead at JPMC base pay up to 190,000: https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1001/job/210378588/?keyword=Digital

I'm very much correct. I won't post it here to preserve anonymity, but it's easy to search a public database and find, for example, SEC hr staff making in the 220s. And that's all base, not inclusive of benefits. That's preposterous.

You are not. I'm not disputing that finreg "admin" staff can make a lot of money. I am disputing that they in general "overcompensated relative to their peers in private."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- I was an administrative manager in a GS job that moved to the SEC. I took a grade cut but got a substantial raise. I now make $ 50K more than my spouse who is a GS15/step10. That is before the other SEC only benefits. 200 people applied for my position and they interviewed over 10 people. These are very desirable positions. I am very grateful

And this is the problem with most finregs. Finregs get outsize pay for the complexity of the work done by those on the line (ie attorneys, economists, etc). Yet everyone gets the outsize pay, including those that have completely fungible jobs across the government, like admins. They should be on a separate, lower pay scale. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it's the truth.

I recently moved from a GS position to a finreg, and I have noticed a jump in the capability of admin-type people (HR, IT, office managers). Paying more draws better candidates.

Doesn't change the fact that the function in and of itself is over compensated at the finregs.

Finregs pay more because the line staff must compete against the population they regulate. And frequently have job offers from the same. Those positions in private attract top talent, and pay multiples of what a finreg offers. Admin positions at finregs are overcompensated relative to their peers in private. Sorry, but that's incontrovertible.

You are wrong. Just one example:

HR lead at JPMC base pay up to 190,000: https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1001/job/210378588/?keyword=Digital

I'm very much correct. I won't post it here to preserve anonymity, but it's easy to search a public database and find, for example, SEC hr staff making in the 220s. And that's all base, not inclusive of benefits. That's preposterous.

DP - I don't agree it's preposterous, depending on the job duties (and that's more than I make). I do think it's gross that you are so focused on denigrating jobs you don't do or understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- I was an administrative manager in a GS job that moved to the SEC. I took a grade cut but got a substantial raise. I now make $ 50K more than my spouse who is a GS15/step10. That is before the other SEC only benefits. 200 people applied for my position and they interviewed over 10 people. These are very desirable positions. I am very grateful

And this is the problem with most finregs. Finregs get outsize pay for the complexity of the work done by those on the line (ie attorneys, economists, etc). Yet everyone gets the outsize pay, including those that have completely fungible jobs across the government, like admins. They should be on a separate, lower pay scale. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it's the truth.

I recently moved from a GS position to a finreg, and I have noticed a jump in the capability of admin-type people (HR, IT, office managers). Paying more draws better candidates.

Doesn't change the fact that the function in and of itself is over compensated at the finregs.

Finregs pay more because the line staff must compete against the population they regulate. And frequently have job offers from the same. Those positions in private attract top talent, and pay multiples of what a finreg offers. Admin positions at finregs are overcompensated relative to their peers in private. Sorry, but that's incontrovertible.

You are wrong. Just one example:

HR lead at JPMC base pay up to 190,000: https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1001/job/210378588/?keyword=Digital

I'm very much correct. I won't post it here to preserve anonymity, but it's easy to search a public database and find, for example, SEC hr staff making in the 220s. And that's all base, not inclusive of benefits. That's preposterous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP- I was an administrative manager in a GS job that moved to the SEC. I took a grade cut but got a substantial raise. I now make $ 50K more than my spouse who is a GS15/step10. That is before the other SEC only benefits. 200 people applied for my position and they interviewed over 10 people. These are very desirable positions. I am very grateful

And this is the problem with most finregs. Finregs get outsize pay for the complexity of the work done by those on the line (ie attorneys, economists, etc). Yet everyone gets the outsize pay, including those that have completely fungible jobs across the government, like admins. They should be on a separate, lower pay scale. It may be an unpopular opinion, but it's the truth.

I recently moved from a GS position to a finreg, and I have noticed a jump in the capability of admin-type people (HR, IT, office managers). Paying more draws better candidates.

Doesn't change the fact that the function in and of itself is over compensated at the finregs.

Finregs pay more because the line staff must compete against the population they regulate. And frequently have job offers from the same. Those positions in private attract top talent, and pay multiples of what a finreg offers. Admin positions at finregs are overcompensated relative to their peers in private. Sorry, but that's incontrovertible.

You are wrong. Just one example:

HR lead at JPMC base pay up to 190,000: https://jpmc.fa.oraclecloud.com/hcmUI/CandidateExperience/en/sites/CX_1001/job/210378588/?keyword=Digital