Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 547 posts

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#171

Post by patosai »

millstone wrote: post #134
dimva wrote: post #82

This is a problem across all of government. As a mediocre senior software engineer with no reports, I was paid more last year than the goddamn President of the United States (and no, it's not because I got lucky with stock). This is completely stupid and unacceptable. Of course our choices are going to be Hillary vs Trump if we pay the top leader in the country less than a mediocre software engineer. Of course Hillar…

Presidential pay is not outrageous because those seeking the Presidency should be motivated by public service, not remuneration. Of course, the President doesn't really have bills. He or she doesn't exactly pay to rent the White House.

It's true that public service is a major part, but another way of thinking about it is if government officials are highly paid, they are less likely to be bribed or act in their own financial self interest and more motivated by what is good for the country. Plus it attracts talent.

Singapore is an extreme example of this (perhaps too extreme) - the Prime Minister earns over $1.5M a year.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#172

Post by BinaryIdiot »

smallnamespace wrote: post #3

It seems like it's pretty hard for the government to compete with private industry in compensation. Federal pay grades are capped by Congress, and the top grade is around ~$150k a year [1]. And note that since it's the top of the scale, you have to start people off lower so that there is salary progression. Pretty sure a top cryptographer or security expert should be worth several times that, especially if they are a…

> It seems like it's pretty hard for the government to compete with private industry in compensation. Federal pay grades are capped by Congress, and the top grade is around ~$150k a year [1]. And note that since it's the top of the scale, you have to start people off lower so that there is salary progression.

I feel like this has to be the biggest issue. When I worked in the DoD space as a constractor the amount of clearance required to work in an NSA SCIF would net a contractor a base of $160k a year (with benefits as you'd be working for a contracting company). With government employees making less to manage or do the same job as contractors, why would you stay on as a government employee? Most of the government employees I knew ended up transitioning to private companies.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#173

Post by kodablah »

metaphor wrote: post #170
kodablah wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too agree with GGP's characterization of the majority of government employees and I too have no evidence beyond anecdotal experience. But I think a reasonable model for evidence would be accountability information. I'll settle for numbers on government employee termination for dissatisfactory work by department (I'm sure it's somewhere, link anyone?). If, as I suspect, termination rates are very minimal in areas re…

> ...I think we can either assume... If I may posit a third for consideration: for-cause termination is such an insurmountable bureaucratic hurdle that supervisors pragmatically opt to pursue inter/intradepartmental transfer, effectively making the employee "someone else's problem".

I'm including that in the lack of accountability. If termination is difficult, surely many inept remain. Accountability is lowered when unenforceable.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#174

Post by sillysaurus3 »

kodablah wrote: post #168
sillysaurus3 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you forgot one thing: * We need a powerful spy organization to compete on the world stage. This is an unpopular truth that people in our circles tend to forget. Rome was an influence solely due to the success of their military. What do you think will happen when ours becomes ineffective? And the NSA is a key part of our military. Intelligence is everything. I think it's good the overreach was exposed, but I was…

> We need a powerful spy organization to compete on the world stage I disagree or at least don't agree to the extent I might have in a more embattled time (i.e. any time in the past). I do agree intelligence serves the military well, I just don't agree with military intelligence scope growth at a time when military use is shrinking. I'm not sure history repeats itself here as much as perpetuates the justifications be…

If you're interested in the subject, https://www.amazon.com/100-Decisive-Battles-Ancient-Present/... is pretty fantastic.

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forgot this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms."

- Robert Heinlein

This quote has always stuck with me, and I posted it here a couple years ago. The reaction was almost universally negative. But after wising up a bit, I think offensive ideas need to be faced squarely if we're to evolve as a society.

I don't like it either. But I'd like it even less if it were a truth we conceal, rather than a falsehood we suppress.

It's hard to tell. But one thing is certain: If you read 100 Decisive Battles, you'll see the supremacy of intelligence in warfare. It matters more than any other factor. And the NSA would be our key way to get it.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#175

Post by SilasX »

smallnamespace wrote: post #3

It seems like it's pretty hard for the government to compete with private industry in compensation. Federal pay grades are capped by Congress, and the top grade is around ~$150k a year [1]. And note that since it's the top of the scale, you have to start people off lower so that there is salary progression. Pretty sure a top cryptographer or security expert should be worth several times that, especially if they are a…

For a fair comparison, you’d need to include federal pensions, which are very generous compare to what you’d have to earn to get that annuity with your own savings.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#176

Post by mozumder »

qmalzp wrote: post #7
smallnamespace wrote: post #3

It seems like it's pretty hard for the government to compete with private industry in compensation. Federal pay grades are capped by Congress, and the top grade is around ~$150k a year [1]. And note that since it's the top of the scale, you have to start people off lower so that there is salary progression. Pretty sure a top cryptographer or security expert should be worth several times that, especially if they are a…

That top pay grade is less than the starting compensation for PhD's at the big tech co's. Not to mention free food, potential for career growth, and an open non-militaristic culture where you can wear a hoodie instead of a tie. I honestly don't understand why someone would work for the NSA given the choice.

I designed & architected supercomputers at the NSA as a teenager, starting as a co-op, using manufacturing tech that still isn't public decades later.

LOL @ the idea of anyone in private industry giving me the opportunity to do that.

These are some of the smartest, yet most normal people in the world. They don't go apeshit about free food or Silicon Valley startups. You'll never get fired, and you can raise a family perfectly fine, especially with the great schools in the area. After about $70k in salary, people are generally happy anyways. They're perfectly happy with dealing with pure tech challenges, because it's interesting to them.

It should also be clear that the NSA does everything per law. The NSA doesn't spy on US citizens. Remember the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens communications. Why would a TOP SECRET program have filters to remove US citizens communications if they were trying to skirt the law?

I can't recommend the NSA enough. NSA caused me to understand that nothing is impossible and that everything in tech is small stuff and manageable. After the NSA, I rapidly did impossible things. (want me to list them?) I honestly don't understand why anyone would do obvious & routine things at Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc., when they could be doing more awesome & surprising things at the NSA. It's always fun to see Google come out with something the NSA did years earlier.

Finally, and it should be obvious, going to work in a tie is a lot cooler than going to any job where people wear hoodies... but the NSA doesn't make you do that.. I do hate badges though.

It's the opposite of Silicon Valley, and it's great.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#177

Post by olingern »

philipov wrote: post #128
olingern wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other side of this is the stability that a government job provides to low to middle income classes. The southern states where I grew up and went to college both lauded people who were able to secure government jobs. No matter how grueling or toxic a work environment becomes and no matter how inefficient workers become -- everyone stays in those jobs for the pension. In cities and areas where education in literacy…

As long as policy is driven by lobbyists for private corporate interests, that will never happen. Keeping government jobs weak serves to make the labor market easier for them by reducing competition.

Agreed on corporate interests, but I'm not sure about keeping government jobs weak.

With the government, your target market is every citizen (plus visitors, immigrants, etc.). The private sector has to create its market by providing a product or service, whereas the government is obligated to provide some products and services.

What incentive is there for government to squander talent and keep itself workforce weak?

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#178

Post by ewjordan »

willstrafach wrote: post #93
Semiapies wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another POV might break it down as: stopped helping spy on her fellow citizens and got an honest job.

Might be good to cite sources with direct evidence, if you’re claiming that somebody broke the law.

Snowden let that cat out of the bag years ago in voluminous detail. You absolutely do not need to cite sources re: illegal NSA surveillance anymore.

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#179

Post by snowwrestler »

smallnamespace wrote: post #137
snowwrestler wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's popular to say things like some government employees are "folks who can't hack it in civilian life," but there's basically no evidence this is true. First of all, let's make sure we look at the full scope of civilian life with a sober eye. Anyone working the counter at your local Post Office could easily work the register at any grocery store in your town. And any medium to large company has plenty of internal p…

I have no data to offer, but I do have a simple, heuristic model that might hint at GP's thinking process: 1. tolerance to short-term career uncertainty varies greatly between individuals (e.g. changing jobs, moving, having money in the bank to cushion the cashflow turbulence) 2. the gov't largely underpays in dollars in return for high career stability 3. if level of tolerance to short-term disruption is strongly po…

The movers and shakers of government in the U.S. are the elected officials and their political appointees. A lot of them actually do come from private industry or academia.

The staff of government have to work within whatever decisions get handed down to them from the political process. The political process does not always prioritize staff flexibility and initiative. To the contrary, it's a favorite pastime of politicians to play up public distrust of the government.

In terms of government staff, a lot of people go into the government not because it is generically stable, but because it's the only place you can do certain work. If you want to manage a public park, you have to work for a government. If you want to catch criminals (and your name is not Sherlock Holmes), you have to work for a government. If you want to fly fighter jets, you have to work for a government. If you want to create policy and regulations, you have to work for a government. Speaking of the NSA--if you want to legally hack into a bunch of stuff, you have to work for a government.

In competencies one can do anywhere, like deliveries or contract management, I think you're onto something with your idea of seeking stability.

But I think the attribution might be backward. It's not "the government is made inefficient and inflexible by the lower quality of people who work there." It's more like "the government is made inefficient and inflexible by political law making, which makes it hard to attract the most dynamic people."

Re: NSA’s top talent is leaving because of low pay, flagging morale, unpopular reorg

#180

Post by metaphor »

kodablah wrote: post #173
metaphor wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...I think we can either assume... If I may posit a third for consideration: for-cause termination is such an insurmountable bureaucratic hurdle that supervisors pragmatically opt to pursue inter/intradepartmental transfer, effectively making the employee "someone else's problem".

I'm including that in the lack of accountability. If termination is difficult, surely many inept remain. Accountability is lowered when unenforceable.

> I'm including that in the lack of accountability.

Fair enough and thanks for the clarification. In that case, I definitely agree with your perspective, both logically and anecdotally.

Post reply on HN