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

US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

bits.enigma.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#91

Post by stonemetal »

chernevik wrote: post #86
phaus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people who are making 100-200k would make at the very least double that if they were in the private sector. A GS-15 is equivalent to a Brigadier General(Who would be in charge of thousands of people). Now, keep in mind that some technology positions have inflated GS ranks because it was the only way they could get the salaries high enough to attract talent. Security analysts and programmers don't come che…

The government has significantly _lower_ turnover than the private sector, which isn't what microeconomics says we would see if the workers could make that much more by leaving. It's more consistent with the suggestion that the workers would make considerably less if they left. So: 1. Microeconomics is seriously, perhaps completely, wrong; or, 2. Federal employees are much more motivated by non-financial rewards, suc…

Do those salary numbers include the benefits like retirement? Public jobs are one of the few pension gigs left. Also their health insurance is pretty good.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#92

Post by mpyne »

Jtsummers wrote: post #52
phaus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I was a rank off. That being said, a Colonel is often still in charge of a couple thousand people.

Absolutely, and the comparisons get kind of hairy sometimes. GS-12+ aren't all supervisory, it's possible to have GS-14 and 15s that are mostly specialists with few or no individuals in their direct charge. For those curious, the general mapping of GS grades to officer ranks: GS-15 = O-6 (Colonel/Navy Captain) GS-14 = O-5 (Lt Colonel/Commander) GS-13 = O-4 (Major) GS-12 = O-3 (Captain, this is the journeyman level fo…

> They don't really have a clean comparison to military ranks, that I know of.

They do, but you have to start going into the enlisted ranks for best comparisons. GS-7 might be E-6/E-7, GS-5 would be E-4/E-5, etc.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#93

Post by mpyne »

phaus wrote: post #70
mikegreen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I worked with plenty of AF Col's in the 5-sided-puzzle-palace that managed offices with 15-30 folks. They worked alongside a GS-13 to GS-15 types.

What happens in D.C. isn't really representative of the rest of the military. A normal Colonel will be a Brigade Commander, in charge of at least 3 battalions, which each contain hundreds of people.

Well it simply depends on the scenario of the given agency/unit. In the Navy an O-6 may very well have a "Major" command that still doesn't involve more than 180 people and an individual ship.

Likewise just as D.C. has peculiar effects on the military rank of typical workers, so does it have peculiar effects on the civilian grade of workers, due to the position classification principle of "scope of effect".

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#94

Post by phaus »

chernevik wrote: post #86
phaus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the people who are making 100-200k would make at the very least double that if they were in the private sector. A GS-15 is equivalent to a Brigadier General(Who would be in charge of thousands of people). Now, keep in mind that some technology positions have inflated GS ranks because it was the only way they could get the salaries high enough to attract talent. Security analysts and programmers don't come che…

The government has significantly _lower_ turnover than the private sector, which isn't what microeconomics says we would see if the workers could make that much more by leaving. It's more consistent with the suggestion that the workers would make considerably less if they left. So: 1. Microeconomics is seriously, perhaps completely, wrong; or, 2. Federal employees are much more motivated by non-financial rewards, suc…

The three options you listed don't even begin to describe the multitude of reasons that a person might choose to work for the government.

There are people who enjoy public service, that doesn't make them better or worse than the rest of us. I served in the Army for almost a decade, it doesn't mean I'm better than anyone.

The "can't make it in the private sector" argument is ridiculous. Everyone who has ever worked at a sizable organization, both for the government and in the private sector, has known someone that was completely incompetent yet still remained employed. Sometimes people just slip through the cracks, it doesn't matter where you are. What's funny is that on one hand we have civilians saying that federal employees couldn't make it on the outside, and on the other side whenever someone gets out of the military, there will be those who say its because that person "couldn't cut it." It's childish and counterproductive nearly all of the time.

Two reasons that come to mind that you haven't mentioned are free travel and a stable employment situation. Right now things are kind of screwed up, but generally speaking, government jobs are stable. You might have to move, but at least you know that you'll have a job unless you give them a good reason to let you go.

One of the smartest people I know has been a software engineer for about 5-7 years, he gets treated like crap at his private sector company, and makes well below market value. I honestly have no idea why he stays at his company, but I do know enough to realize that I won't be able to explain it with a mathematical model.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#95

Post by jlgreco »

MaysonL wrote: post #84
csmatt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not judging one way or another, but is privacy not something the Swedish people are interested in?

Given that the government already knows, and either your employer or your accountant knows, and your bank has a pretty good idea, why do you think your income is to any meaningful extent still private?

You ever listen to a friend, who has recently hit a rough patch, talking about their difficulty paying their bills and think "gee, this would be a rather inappropriate time to mention how much money I make."?

That is where the desire for wage privacy comes from for me. Talking about how much you make, outside the workplace, has no benefits. It is just going to make the conversation awkward, or somebody is going to feel bad about themselves, or somebody is going to get an irritating spark of envy where none needed to exist. As far as I am concerned, you may as well publicize dick length.

(Public employees opt-in to the public knowing how much they make. The reason the public gets to know in that case is because the public is paying that salary. There is an employee/employer relationship there.)

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#96

Post by phaus »

mpyne wrote: post #93
phaus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens in D.C. isn't really representative of the rest of the military. A normal Colonel will be a Brigade Commander, in charge of at least 3 battalions, which each contain hundreds of people.

Well it simply depends on the scenario of the given agency/unit. In the Navy an O-6 may very well have a "Major" command that still doesn't involve more than 180 people and an individual ship. Likewise just as D.C. has peculiar effects on the military rank of typical workers, so does it have peculiar effects on the civilian grade of workers, due to the position classification principle of "scope of effect".

I'm less familiar with the Navy than I am with the Army and the Marines, but wouldn't the captain of a ship with a crew of 180 warrant a sizable paycheck in the private sector? I began by talking about the number of personnel they would be responsible for, but someone else described the situation a bit better than I. AS they said, it really comes down to the level of responsibility. The government probably determined that being the captain of a ship worth tens of millions of dollars is probably roughly equivalent to leading a brigade of infantrymen.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#97

Post by phaus »

mpyne wrote: post #92
Jtsummers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, and the comparisons get kind of hairy sometimes. GS-12+ aren't all supervisory, it's possible to have GS-14 and 15s that are mostly specialists with few or no individuals in their direct charge. For those curious, the general mapping of GS grades to officer ranks: GS-15 = O-6 (Colonel/Navy Captain) GS-14 = O-5 (Lt Colonel/Commander) GS-13 = O-4 (Major) GS-12 = O-3 (Captain, this is the journeyman level fo…

> They don't really have a clean comparison to military ranks, that I know of. They do, but you have to start going into the enlisted ranks for best comparisons. GS-7 might be E-6/E-7, GS-5 would be E-4/E-5, etc.

If you look at pay, a GS-7 makes less than I did as an E-4 in the DC/Baltimore area.

If you look at responsibility, it seems to fit.

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#98

Post by mcguire »

phaus wrote: post #20
genericresponse wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to remember that most actual employees are white-collar types. Almost anything commoditizable or blue-collar gets sent to contractors. Also, let's not forget the cost of living in DC.

The percentage of contractors might be somewhat higher, but there are tons of blue-collar federal positions.

Weirdly, not on this list. In the raw data[1], the top 4 plan/grades are GS 11-14, which account for 40% (~536,000 of 1.35M) of the entries.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6560459

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#99

Post by [deleted] »

MaysonL wrote: post #84
csmatt wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not judging one way or another, but is privacy not something the Swedish people are interested in?

Given that the government already knows, and either your employer or your accountant knows, and your bank has a pretty good idea, why do you think your income is to any meaningful extent still private?

[deleted]

Re: US Federal Employee Salaries (2012)

#100

Post by adestefan »

stonemetal wrote: post #91
chernevik wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government has significantly _lower_ turnover than the private sector, which isn't what microeconomics says we would see if the workers could make that much more by leaving. It's more consistent with the suggestion that the workers would make considerably less if they left. So: 1. Microeconomics is seriously, perhaps completely, wrong; or, 2. Federal employees are much more motivated by non-financial rewards, suc…

Do those salary numbers include the benefits like retirement? Public jobs are one of the few pension gigs left. Also their health insurance is pretty good.

The health insurance is actually pretty bad and really expensive. The pension isn't that cushy either. They changed the pension system in the mid-80s, but people still spout off the false notion that you're somehow set on a government pension.
Post reply on HN