[HN Gopher] The United States Digital Corps ___________________________________________________________________ The United States Digital Corps Author : tomrod Score : 247 points Date : 2022-04-08 16:04 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (digitalcorps.gsa.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (digitalcorps.gsa.gov) | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | The GS rates for all federal services are so laughably bad its a | bit disgusting. | | Afaik, they're still expecting people with 4 year science degrees | (BS) to start at ~16$hr | Victerius wrote: | Good luck convincing 70 year old congressmen that 22 year old | software engineers working for the government should be paid as | much, if not more, than them. | | Government needs a pay raise across the board. The president | should earn $10 million per annum. Senators, $2,000,000.00. | Representatives, $1,200,000.00. Government employees, an | average of $175,000.00. And entry level software engineers for | the government, $200,000.00. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | I got a BS in botany thinking I wanted to work for the Park | Service, Forest Service, BLM, something like that. | | Not only was entry level a paupers wage, and strictly | seasonal, but there was no clear way to get into a career | tract position. I ended up going into industry and making 2x, | and within 3 years was making 3x. | | I would much rather be out in the world counting plants, but | I would have never been able to buy a home, or get ahead in | any reasonable fashion had I continued that path. | lastofthemojito wrote: | It's not necessarily bad everywhere and for everyone - I think | park rangers in East Nowheresville do ok. There's a base GS pay | scale and then locality adjustments for different metro areas, | and the big problem with the WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE-ARLINGTON, | DC-MD-VA-WV-PA locality is right there in the name: WV-PA. They | pretend that folks working in downtown DC ought to be paid the | same as folks at some remote site in WV. So yeah, I believe | that means a 31% adjustment compared to the base GS pay scale, | when to be competitive with other DC area salaries, the | adjustment probably needs to be more like 80%. | stonogo wrote: | I know many, many people who commute daily from Pennsylvania | and West Virginia to DC. York and Harper's Ferry are short | commutes. I know more than one Bucks County resident who make | the trip. | navbaker wrote: | There is no world where I would call York, PA to DC a | "short commute". | fullstop wrote: | If I remember correctly, they will greatly assist in student | loan repayment. | wmeredith wrote: | The PSLF program will forgive government-backed student loans | after 120 payments made while working for a government | entity. | | PSLF website: https://studentaid.gov/manage- | loans/forgiveness-cancellation... | emilfihlman wrote: | On top of the page there's a: "Official website of the USA, | here's how you know", and they list "it's on a .gov domain and | uses https. | | Well, is that really so? I doubt it. | supernova87a wrote: | I sincerely hope that this government office has an associated | division (or function) that is not just responsible for | developing/procuring/scoping the detailed technology solutions | but also responsible for: | | -- Removing the incentives / disincentives for agencies to stick | with old technology or processes (for legitimate, or even stupid | reasons) | | -- Coming up with ways to motivate/enable government workers and | leaders to want new technology tools and break out of resistance | based on existing methods | | -- Advocate for budgets to properly fund the development of such | tech initiatives rather than a) ignore the growing problem, or b) | prefer to fund the old outdated methods | | -- Inform the policymakers why all of the above are important, | and why (as appropriate) it is more cost-effective and real- | outcome-beneficial in the long run | | Because I think what you'll find is that it is rarely the tech | that is the bottleneck constraint. Put a good tool in front of | anyone as an individual and unless they're stupid, they'll | generally want to do it. Put it in front of them as a worker who | has other constraints and interests in the system created to | date, and they display many other behaviors. | | When you have a tool / method that is shown to be 10x greater in | benefit, of course governments will start to adopt it. It's | beyond objectionable when they see something that good. And | citizens will put up with some temporary inconvenience to switch | because it's nonsensical to stick to such blatantly inferior | methods. | | But when some new solution is only 1.5x better, then you get a | lot of resistance (sometimes legitimate) that people need to be | able to rely on their existing solutions or it costs too much to | change, etc, etc. And you start losing out on significant, but | insufficiently better, efficient solutions that are needed to | keep us out of lagging place in the world. | andreisbc wrote: | You're right but never forget how the world, systems and people | work. Even if you're an absolute rationalist, these ideas will | keep flying in the realm of abstract. In the real world, | idealists are starving. Cheers for your thought exercise, but | real life will prove you that you're wasting breath. Just enjoy | giaour wrote: | I think USDS had stickers with "it is rarely the tech that is | the bottleneck constraint" or something like that printed on | them. I still have one that echoes your fourth point on a | laptop. :) | | Those areas are honestly what USDS employees spend most of | their time and energy working on. | wslack wrote: | I work at a related office mentioned in this thread (but am | posting personally here): | | You're 100% right about all of these, and I would emphasize | that *the tech is not the hard part.* I would challenge you a | little bit about something 10x greater being "beyond | objectionable" - a benefit to users may not align with the | incentives you named. For example, there's public evidence that | some state governments deliberately made benefits harder to | access to help even their budgets. | IanDrake wrote: | lacoolj wrote: | anyone know specifics on what they do? the page isn't very clear | noasaservice wrote: | I've tried to apply to federal positions for years. I won't even | get so much as a "fuck off". | | However when I apply to commercial, I'm snapped up in weeks. The | most recent move was to a contractor. Again, 2 weeks to hire. 3 | interviews total 2h. I have no degree, but my work expertise | speaks for itself. Commercial sees that. The feds dont seem to | care. | | It is with a contractor for the federal govt. $150k/yr. Generous | benefits. But being a contractor, it is without federal | protections, without school debt forgiveness, and others. | | Whatever. I prefer to stay for the length of the project. In this | case, it's 2-3y. Would I work for the feds again? Absolutely. | Will I even get a response when applying? Hardly. | erdos4d wrote: | Every person I have ever met who worked for the feds has had an | attitude that govt. employees are THE BEST WHO EVER DID | IT!!!!!! Maybe you didn't give them the vibe that you would | play along with this farce? I have often asked such people how | this is true since they pay way less than private and recruit | from a smaller pool. This just gets you dirty looks and some | "I'm proud to serve" platitudes. | andreisbc wrote: | Why would you seek a job for a gov agency while working for a | contractor doing the same thing pays better ? Status ? Benefits | ? All day vacation ? | noasaservice wrote: | You only apply to 1 job at a time? | | I was applying to positions like 20-30 a day when I was | looking. And that _included_ fed jobs. | | I heard back from many companies. Only 1 total ever from | feds. | wslack wrote: | > I've tried to apply to federal positions for years. I won't | even get so much as a "fuck off". | | Am guessing that you get (eventually) a message that you were | "qualified but not referred?" | noasaservice wrote: | Unfortunately, not even that. | | There was 1 agency that did send back a "sorry not sorry" | over a job that was admittedly a stretch. | | But aside that singular, nope. They're worse than normal | companies in ghosting. | mistrial9 wrote: | gotta start somewhere.. empowering people is a big "yes" here.. | on the other hand, government in the USA is plauged by an | outsourcing addiction. Get the budget and signature authority, | say whatever you have to say in any number of meetings to get | that, and then it is off to margaritaville while pressured, less- | authority people are required to make things happen, and they in | turn hire outsourcing companies, who then in turn run modern-day | "IT shops" which vary wildly, lets say .. | | What effect does this good-looking GSA program have, over time, | on this addiction to outsourcing for USA government work ? on the | culture of bosses who run that, and on worst yet, companies that | thrive on failure in government contracting.. which apparently is | endemic. | | Sincere good wishes to the people who are in this for the right | reasons. I have to call the dark side though, since empowering | that dark side with lofty words and new budgets, is worse than | picking up litter in the park on volunteer day and going about | your own business. | the_only_law wrote: | > government in the USA is plauged by an outsourcing addiction. | | Favorite relevant story from recently: an old friend of mine | who enlisted in the army told me he is unable to do the job | they trained him to do rn, at least until the contractors doing | it at the moment have their contract run out. | temp8964 wrote: | Why do I feel a strong anti-Asian sentiment on their homepage? Is | it a shame to show Asian faces for them? Like they are shamed of | the fact there are "too many" Asian male programmers? | sumobob2112 wrote: | why not work with an innovative contractor supporting the | government instead? | andreisbc wrote: | Exactly. Seems like the US is pulling a PR stunt, most likely | being a contraption of a whatever-congressman-and-his-friends | with a plan to get richer, trapping nice kids into a yummy trap | [deleted] | lvl102 wrote: | A word of caution: these programs sound great until you realize | they're mainly there for big govt consulting firms to take tax | money. It's the sad truth about tech and US govts. They don't | actually want to change. They just want to appear that way. My | two cynical cents. | sophacles wrote: | I can't believe that you expect to be taken seriously while | pretending the millions of people encompassed by "tech and Us | Govt" are all a single hivemind with only the one motivation. | jessriedel wrote: | Aren't things the opposite of how you describe? My | understanding is that the big govt consulting firms exist to | allow the govt to access competent developers who are paid | market wages since the govt is constrained from paying govt | employees adequately. The US digital corp is an attempt to hire | good developers as govt employees who would _replace_ some of | the current developers working for the big consulting firms. | | Now, whether the strategy of providing a less terrible govt | work environment, and a more inspiring story, will actually be | successful in outweighing the still-extant salary limits is | very unclear. But this is at least an attempt to reduce the | reliance on consult developers and the corresponding middle-man | fees taken by the consultanting firms. | wslack wrote: | I understand this viewpoint but in this situation its not | accurate. There are huge communities of people working to | improve systems. 18F's github repos are public if you want to | see exactly what they are doing: https://github.com/18f | [deleted] | andreisbc wrote: | This is actually correct sir. We're not cynical, just | rationalists | kkfx wrote: | Sorry but... I'm from EU and in my view USA Digital Corps have | GAFAM as name, they are widespread in the world, the most | effective intelligence system under the Patriot Act. They have | many people coming from "official" USA intelligence... | | They even have uniforms, in the form of the casual suit and tie, | more apt for their executive battlefields. | | Having a formal corps with military uniforms is just a kind of | Barnum's Circle. | FinNerd wrote: | They need a sexy website. Feels like boomer org made worse by | being drowned in DEI woke language. No very high competency young | people would want to work for this IMO | iaabtpbtpnn wrote: | If I use cannabis, can I work for the United States Digital | Corps? | iaabtpbtpnn wrote: | I see from the replies that nothing has changed. Try again next | decade. | CobaltFire wrote: | Unlikely, as they require a background investigation and that's | not legal at the Federal Level. | rythmshifter03 wrote: | what? | apetresc wrote: | Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug at the Federal level. What | is your confusion? | noasaservice wrote: | Your question also needs to ask about the status of Delta 8 THC | as well. | | T*ump made that federally legal with the farm bill. Some states | have banned it. | ar_lan wrote: | I torrented something when I was 17... I think I'm out :) | | When both the FBI and NSA came to my college they basically | said that during a recruiting meeting and most of the students | just left | a9h74j wrote: | There is understandable reason for them to ask a lot more | about your past history of exilfrating infomation, than even | drug use. | faldore wrote: | Federal employees and contractors are subject to regular and | random urinalysis. Until marijuana is legalized at the federal | level (which has been passed by the house but is not yet law) | you could be terminated for marijuana. | gavinray wrote: | Why would anyone subject themselves to this willingly when | you can get better pay and probably less tech-debt elsewhere? | digisign wrote: | It's not true, at least with contractors for software | positions. | andreisbc wrote: | If the US representatives abuse alcohol and influence, can they | lead the US? | vkou wrote: | Yes, there are different rules for executives and proles. | Jtsummers wrote: | I think the current cutoff is something like 7 years. So if you | haven't used it within 7 years you are good (used to be 10, | IIRC, and before that lifetime but that's been 20 years or so | since that was true, I think). But this is for your background | check/security clearance paperwork, I think it's a checkbox | like "Have you used marijuana within the last X years? [check | yes or no]". If you aren't going for an actual secret (or | higher) clearance then the background check is very cursory | (check financial records and criminal records, verify education | and listed addresses for the reported period). | | EDIT: Also, in almost all clearance paperwork you only report | back to age 18. So if you're a recent graduate (what this seems | to be for) at around age 22-23, and you stopped after high | school you likely wouldn't have to report anything at all. | paulmd wrote: | > If you aren't going for an actual secret (or higher) | clearance | | Note that despite how important it sounds, "secret" is not a | very high clearance at all. It is the actual lowest | _classified_ status - there is "public trust" below that (eg | for cops/etc) but that's not an actual classified standard, | and FOUO/confidential/etc are not actual classification | levels either, just handling guidelines. | | Any time you are working on anything military-related you | will probably need secret clearance _at least_. Anyone | working with even a basic level of knowledge of military | technical or operational capability, or force strength | /moment/etc, will be at least Secret. | | Anything that you think of as actually being deserving of | "secret" most likely falls into the "top secret" category, | "secret" is just the completely banal stuff, and you don't | have to go far to bump into TS/SCI positions in STEM fields | doing military contracting. Any sort of advanced research or | development work is probably at least TS if not TS/SCI. | | Actual low-level enlisted don't need to be secret (notionally | you don't need to know that stuff to "go there and shoot | him") but all officers are cleared secret, for example, and I | would guess probably NCOs as well (so there's a cap on how | high you could be in the military without it). And basically | everyone in the civilian world who interacts with the | military will be secret. | alexjplant wrote: | You're confounding the investigation period for a clearance | with what they'll accept as far as drug use. Generally | speaking Secret clearances investigate back 7 years and Top | Secret clearances go back 10. There are, however, questions | on the SF-86 that are "ever" questions that ignore these | timeline. Regardless you can have used drugs during these | periods and tell them as such and there's a chance that | they'll grant you the clearance. It's ultimately up to the | people adjudicating the clearance and they use a reference | guide that's periodically updated to determine this. | | Years ago the rule of thumb was that they'd give you a | clearance if it'd been 1 year since you used marijuana and 3 | years since you used hallucinogens so long as you'd | demonstrated a commitment to a drug-free lifestyle since. | Anything serious like opioids or alcoholism would require you | to have gone to rehab and seriously reformed your life. | | In more recent times they seem to have gotten more lenient | regarding recent marijuana usage, but I've been out of the | industry for a minute so I can't say for sure. What I've | always told people is that if you want a cleared job and have | done drugs then 1) tell the truth, and if that would get your | clearance application denied then 2) wait until it's been | long enough so that it won't and clean your act up in the | meantime. | killjoywashere wrote: | There's tremendous opportunity to make connections early. I have | a colleague who is 23 years old and planning an urgent, high | 8-figure R&D effort. Like, that's the project for this week. Make | no mistake, there's a shocking amount of bureaucratic trench | warfare because everything is Balkanized, but the impact can | staggering if you can execute. | dimitrios1 wrote: | > Empower the next generation of technology leaders to launch | careers in public service and create a more effective, equitable | government. | | Can someone explain to me how this program will achieve this? The | problem of government inequity is unfair and unbalanced | representation as a result of valuing corporations and special | interests over the citizenry. | scotuswroteus wrote: | This shit entirely understates the political bullshit that any | truly innovative approach to service delivery would encounter. | Show us the Memoranda of Understanding with the unions running | the bureaucracy before you tell us we can make anything | resembling change. | badrabbit wrote: | You need degrees (college debt) and get paid crap. Why is this | popular? | andreisbc wrote: | Because it gives unexperienced and young people the status they | think they seek - also connections which are inevitable - while | they will be ultimately transformed into the people of the deep | state. And hey, that's fine - even the deep state needs new | people right ? | WestCoastJustin wrote: | Anyone know what the red-tape / pay is like there? It seems like | government organisations are just at such a disadvantage in terms | of red-tape and large pay gap between the private sector. I know | some have more discretion in their hiring ability, particularly | in the defence space, but does it come close to private sector? | You're probably better off working for a contractor working for | the US Digital Corps than for them directly. | | My experience is working with the Canadian Federal gov at a few | national research labs. It was amazing work but joining the | private sector is a major culture shock in that you can pretty | much do anything and get paid 4x. | | So, what's the incentive to work there? | bmelton wrote: | Red tape galore -- related: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30959520 | paulmd wrote: | Unless this side-steps the GS payscale then no, it won't be | remotely competitive with private-sector. GSA basically tops | out at the salary of the average senior developer and doesn't | even start at the payscale of entry-level FAANG. | | Plus you also will have to plan for the _reality_ of regular | shutdowns during republican congress /democratic presidency | situations - this occurs _frequently_ , the federal employees | always get paid (or at least have so far) but bridge loans from | credit unions (USAA, DFCU, etc) only go so far and you really | need some cash savings as a federal employee. | | Benefits aren't great anymore, and it's hard to see how | benefits won't be trimmed further in the future for younger | employees. It's just too tempting a pot of money for lawmakers. | | Plus yes, red tape. Digital Corps and 18f and so on are | attempts to remediate this, but it's just an uphill battle all | the way, it's not an environment where you're going to change | the world in a year, or even show meaningful progress in a | year. | | And all the other "culture fit" issues. Smoke pot? Thanks for | applying. Even if you don't, hope you like some dude staring at | your dick a couple times a year as you pee in a cup to keep | your job. | | Again, Digital Service, 18F, and Digital Corps are an attempt | to remediate all this, but there is still absolutely no reason | to work for the federal government outside patriotism. Like | game development, they know they are free to continue the | negative practices because there is an endless supply of | patriotic bodies waiting outside for the chance to serve. | | I worked for a company that subcontracted on a ton of federal | work and the federal-adjacent stuff (non-military) was the | biggest waste of time there. One project was software support | for addressing medicare requirements, that was shelved after it | was finished, and the other was remediating a failed project | from a big-name contractor that never worked properly due to | keycloak issues, that was also shelved after we were done (but | we did get it working). It took over a year of fighting to even | get the software we were supposed to be remediating. The | federal agency had no idea why we would want a copy of the | software "for ourselves" when we were supposed to be helping | states deploy it in their environment. What's a dev env | precious? That's the level of competence the feds generally | have. | | If you own the contracting entity (prime contractor is | particularly juicy) federal is profitable, because you're | drinking from the river as it flows by. Otherwise, as an | employee, you are far far better working for a contractor that | is federal-adjacent, to insulate you from "government work" | issues as much as possible. And obviously as you can see from | above - even that experience is not pleasant and you will have | to drag them every step of the way justifying why standard | engineering practices are standard. | Jtsummers wrote: | A few inaccuracies here, but one thing that's hilariously | wrong: | | > Even if you don't, hope you like some dude staring at your | dick a couple times a year as you pee in a cup to keep your | job. | | That's for the military. Civil service gets to go into a | stall and shut the door. Also, unless you've got a TS | clearance, you can go _years_ between drug tests. Even with a | TS, it 's very random, some people getting tested nearly | monthly, and others every 2-3 years. | wslack wrote: | Many civil service jobs don't require drug testing at all. | Jtsummers wrote: | True, it depends on what you're doing. If you have a | security clearance (which, importantly, is not true for | all federal employees) then you are in a drug testing | position. Otherwise, it depends on what you're working | on/with. Like many jobs involving heavy machinery, wage | grade employees without clearances are going to get drug | tested, while a clerk in an office probably won't be in a | drug testing position. Finance stuff? Probably a drug | testing position, whether with a clearance or not. | wslack wrote: | Here's a job on budgeting with a secret clearance and no | drug test requirement: | https://www.usajobs.gov/job/646472000 | Jtsummers wrote: | Then things have changed. Didn't know that, not that it | impacts me at all. | ch4s3 wrote: | I tried to apply about 5 years ago and the process looked like | it was going to take longer than a full set of Google | interviews and it was going to be a big pay cut so I dropped | out. | | EDIT* It seems I was thinking of the United States Digital | Service, which is a different thing. | CobaltFire wrote: | This program is new for this year; you didn't attempt to | apply for it five years ago. | ch4s3 wrote: | Ahh sorry, I was thinking of the United States Digital | Service. I assumed they were related or maybe the same | thing rebranded. | killjoywashere wrote: | Sleeping well at night when you're older knowing you helped | Grandma get her social security checks, your cousin in the | Marines got the surgery he needed, the Post Office trucks got | the maintenance they needed. A good career doesn't need any | public service, but most great careers probably do. | WestCoastJustin wrote: | Yeah, there is definitely something to be said for that. | There is also the feeling though of knowing you afford a | house, have a family with kids, and put them through college. | So, there is sort of a balance here. Realistically, I guess | you can have both, spend a few years there building your | career then jump over to the private sector. | [deleted] | lukemercado wrote: | This seems like an EXCELLENT way for junior engineers to finally | get out of the "no job can't get a job" box. Super curious to see | what comes of it, and to recruit those who complete the | fellowships. | cactus2093 wrote: | Is this a real problem? The hiring market for engineers is | really hot, and if anything tech really over-indexes on | technical/coding interview questions and under-indexes on past | experience and having a formal degree. If you can reliably | solve medium Leetcode problems you can easily get a junior | developer job at all sorts of companies (and hard Leetcode | problems will get you a job at FAANG) without any past | experience. | | I think the much more common problem for new folks trying to | break into software engineering is "not very good at coding | yet, can't get a job". Not sure if Digital Corps is optimizing | for these people but they really should be (given that they | can't compete with the private market on comp). | vmception wrote: | A lot of DC area people view federal public sector as the | "amazing [stable] opportunity" and dont think FAANG | opportunities as options, many dont know about them | | High five figure to low six figure salaries are the | aspiration | | Everything else is too absurd or too risky | | Very risk averse dynasties there that will drill this into | their neighbors and children their whole life | | Many contractors are also chasing a carrot on a stick hoping | to convert to a federal employee if "mastuh is pleased" | | There is a whole industry there catering to that | | There are also a lot of opportunities for actually ambitious | people such as making the contracting firm or selling | something stupid to an agency that your friend working there | signed off on | pgcj_poster wrote: | I applied, and was not accepted, to this program. I did a | 5th-year Master's program in CS, had a part-time dev job in | undergrad, developed a full-stack web app that has thousands | of free users, and have been applying to jobs, without | success, for the past 6 months. I can solve Leetcode | problems, but have only ever been given one algorithmic | problem in an interview. Perhaps I could get a job in FAANG, | but I don't want to: I want a job that will benefit society. | That market for junior engineers in government and non- | profits is not "hot" - it's close to non-existent. | R0b0t1 wrote: | If you're not in the right area yes it is a huge problem. | andreisbc wrote: | You are too romantic about it. Read the other comments. This is | such an excellent idea, but it's a closed sourced system | wrapped into sweet package. I don't doubt the output of it, but | c'man man, we know better right ? | hans1729 wrote: | Public sector IT was an extremely frustrating experience for me. | | - incompetent administration (org flow chart, constantly changing | paradigms, misnomers ("open source" == we tape together stuff | from public git-repositories, push nothing upstream, and | outsource lots of core development)) | | - administration's priorities change with every election (project | funding as a flag in the wind depending on current political | climate) | | - red tape everywhere | | - bureaucrats everywhere | | - the whole job-stack attracted incompetent people, the kind that | values stability over deep understanding and progress. the kind | where I thought "man, good that they are working here in | [$current_politically_opportune_project] so they can't do actual | damage somewhere else". this applied for the business | administrators, the project managers, the "developers", the | admins, _even a large part of the contractors_. | | - "you're working too fast! haven't been here for long, eh?" | | - compliance > security | | Never, ever ever ever again. Granted, this was in Europe, maybe | the US sucks less in the public sector. I would bet a good amount | of money that there is a large intersection of problem spaces | among the regions though. | behringer wrote: | This is true in all facets of government. | throwawaysleep wrote: | I have been a gov developer. I have never been held to a lower | standard, but a lot of that is not the developer's fault. It is | that leadership is not technical. This is in Canada. | | A colleague still there tells me that they purchased a software | library without consulting a single software developer. | hans1729 wrote: | Yes, I felt the same way, the fact that leadership was not | technical was huge. But it's also the inherent reward | incentives in a politically driven dynamic. The environment | just felt cursed | rhexs wrote: | Same thing here friend! The trick is realizing that the federal | salary and benefits package is absolutely astronomically | generous for the amount of work that the average fed puts in | per month. | | Then there's the standard 10% of them that struggle to carry | the load, burn themselves out, and leave to double their pay at | the same workload. Work hard, deliver more? At best you'll get | a 1000$ yearly bonus. | | Slack off, deliver nothing? Same thing, still get promoted. | throwawaysleep wrote: | A ridiculous thing from my time in government was that | promotions were interview driven only. If you aced the | interview, you got a promo. Didn't matter if you did shit | beforehand. | | A guy on my gov team got the promo over our by far most | experienced and skilled developer as he spent his time | practicing for the interview instead of working. | wnevets wrote: | Sounds like working for a large corporation | abvdasker wrote: | Yeah except you get paid half as much and have to wear a | button down to work. | gnulinux wrote: | Not to mention if you fuck up, you're creating permanent | record in your state's system. Whereas if something goes | bad with a private employer, (unless it's gross) just quit | and move on. | wnevets wrote: | >Yeah except you get paid half as much and have to wear a | button down to work. | | that sounds like working for a large corporation. | registeredcorn wrote: | >maybe the US sucks less in the public sector | | lol | CobaltFire wrote: | For those people thinking this is a huge opportunity: there are | 30 spots total for this year. This is a very small program, so | will be highly selective. | | Also, since it's Federal and requires a Background Investigation | drug use will be an issue. Surprisingly they allow fully remote | though, which is a huge plus. | andreisbc wrote: | Being so selective means that only those with the highest | credentials get approved - and we all know how these | credentials can be harvestered: 90% nepotism and elitism, while | only 10% skill. Those 10% will be the brains, while the 90% | will bring the network onto which these solutions will be | promoted | the_only_law wrote: | The clearance thing pisses me off. I saw a job listing, at | actually decent pay, with some niche technologies that some | people feel strongly towards (Haskell, etc.) albeit with a | contractor not a gov agency. | | Form the description, it sounded like they had a contract to | rip off QubesOS (or at least develop something which sounded | eerily similar), which apparently requires one of the highest | clearances possible. | meatsauce wrote: | "Equitable" means it will only be open to people with | connections in special interests. | sumitgt wrote: | Unfortunately both this and USDS require the applicant to be a US | Citizen. | | I wish there was a similar option for folks who are not yet | citizens but currently work in the US tech industry (maybe in | exchange for some sort of a streamlined path to citizenship). | | Similar to the (now paused) MAVNI program. | lvl102 wrote: | So now US citizens have to fight for US govt jobs too? | LadyCailin wrote: | Sure, and why not? I'd rather hire a competent foreigner over | a lousy citizen any day. More generally though, I would | support seriously beefing up the educational system, sparing | no expense to ensure it's the best in the world. | Unfortunately, the ones who tend to be against immigration | also tend to be against improving education, and you simply | must pick one or the other, or perhaps even both, if the US | wants to stay competitive in the world. | andreisbc wrote: | My only problem here is that some people seem happy about this - | and they have the best intentions. My opinion is that you | shouldn't forget about the people behind these kind of | operations. They clearly seem elitist, and tech&gov history | showed us that these initiatives are mainly rigged for purposes | unknown. "For the people", right ? | bayareabadboy wrote: | president wrote: | To attract youth to a lowly paying government job, they need to | appeal to emotion. Same way tech companies attracted college | kids by telling them they were helping to "save the world". | digisign wrote: | From experience with a school age kid, this kind of language is | being drummed into youth, aka brainwashing, at least in | "liberal" areas of the country. It's not the worst thing I've | seen so don't worry too much, but agree that it is mildly | annoying. | | Edit: censoring this perspective is counterproductive I think, | where even noticing the obsession with diversity framing will | get you blacklisted. From history we know that suppression of | ideas tends to end badly. | | It's the new "Red Scare" except the color meaning has been | flipped from Communist to Republican. | killerdhmo wrote: | do you have a lot of experience with sophomore gender studies | at "lower tier" ivies? Is there something specific you object | to? | ohCh6zos wrote: | It's a way to signal who they're looking for without stepping | into explicitly discriminatory language. | kbash9 wrote: | Mission: "...develop innovative solutions that make government | work better for the American people." | | Values: Integrity, Inclusion, Impact | | Wouldn't hurt to add "Innovation" as a value for a team of | technologists. | mym1990 wrote: | FWIW good things come in 3s and innovation could roll up under | Impact. | vogt wrote: | I like that the Digital Corps exists in theory. I applied many | moons ago, I believe during the Obama administration. Service to | our country is something I feel is important so I applied to at | least see if there was a fit. | | When I got to the phone screen, I made a point to ask if | recreational cannabis would disqualify you from joining and they | confirmed that yes, even if it was recreationally used, a | positive cannabis result on a drug test would disqualify you. | | Major bummer, but unsurprising. The entire reason I asked was due | to how many posts on HN I've seen about government agencies | having a hard time hiring tech folks for this reason. I have what | I believe to be a decently desirable skillset and a lot of | tangible experience working in startups AND enterprise companies, | and if I had to guess, would have brought some good value to the | team. | | I hope (but doubt) these policies have relaxed. | nbaugh1 wrote: | The U.S. Digital Corps was launched in August 2021 by the Biden | administration | vogt wrote: | Yeah, another poster pointed out that I meant the Digital | Service and this was correct. | rsstack wrote: | Maybe you mean United States Digital Service? | https://www.usds.gov/ | vogt wrote: | Yes, this is actually correct. My mistake. Their missions and | names appear to be similar enough that it tripped me up. | Thanks for the correction. | giaour wrote: | Really happy to see this on the front page! | | One thing to keep in mind if you're interested in joining: the | Digital Corps is for early career technologists, so if you have | much experience in tech, you might want to apply to USDS | (https://www.usds.gov) or 18F (https://18f.gsa.gov) instead. | xxpor wrote: | Until the GS salary cap is something that doesn't look like a | bad offer from a decade ago, it'll be extremely hard to swallow | the pay cut of working for the feds. | | I get the "public service" discount, but it'd have to be | something like 30%, not 70%. | aikiplayer wrote: | It's definitely steep and getting steeper by the month. The | other downside, that's actually more significant than the | base salary difference, is the lack of upside from stock, | etc. (which a sibling also commented on). | | However, there are a couple of significant things that are | often overlooked. There's a strong mission that really speaks | to some people. Additionally, there's a lot of structure | applied which helps to enforce a work/life balance. Some | people really want to dive in and work a lot of hours (which | is generally allowed) but others (like me) struggle to turn | work off w/o that structure. | kache_ wrote: | this a million times. I interviewed for the spooks, and the | money they were offering was an absolute pittance compared to | what I could be making | | just pay us, I'd be happy to come work. I know they have the | money too, I pay double their offering salary in the taxes I | paid in 2021 | jvanderbot wrote: | Have you seen NASA salaries? | | Gov spending on salary and perks is really hard for congress | to swallow (except for their own salaries). It just hits | wrong during election season. | dweekly wrote: | Congressional members (House and Senate) earn $174k/year, | which is rather less than leadership of comparable scope is | paid in private industry. | | Of course, having powerful people who control trillions of | spending be not be very well paid themselves above the | table has...myriad exciting ways to go wrong. | | As a taxpayer I'd rather government leadership paid | extremely well _and_ heavily fund GSA audits to ensure | strong oversight (and jail time) for those that abuse the | position. Fun fact: GSA saves taxpayers $10 for every $1 | spent. | omginternets wrote: | You forgot to factor in all the benefits and "perks", not | the least of which is insider trading. | ethbr0 wrote: | Insider trading _is_ probably the least perk, if one | wanted to abuse their government authority and access. | There are myriad ways to go much bigger with corruption. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Insider trading is a perfectly legal perk to them. | Corruption isn't. | wpasc wrote: | I'd bet the insider trading pales greatly in comparison | to hiring ex-congresspeople for their access and contact | sheet | HWR_14 wrote: | > Gov spending on salary and perks is really hard for | congress to swallow (except for their own salaries). | | It's just the opposite. With a few rare exceptions, a | federal employee cannot make more than a congressional | salary. And since they make just over 174k year, that's the | highest a GS-15 can make (after the mandated raises). | Hence, GS-15s start at 172.6k. | OrvalWintermute wrote: | NASA federal salaries are on the higher end of the GS scale | because we tend to recruit better talent, and some of our | key locations are in cost high areas, near Washington DC, | or Silicon Valley. Likewise with our contractors & | consultants. | | However, we've been losing lots of talent recently to | fortune 500 companies that poach our federal talent, and | our contractor talent. | | 200% increases in compensation are not unusual for those | leaving NASA federal, or contracting gigs. | jakeinspace wrote: | My project lead when I was a NASA contractor took a | remote offer somewhere in the ~$350k range, which I think | must've been at least a 200% raise, if not more. I don't | believe he would have left if the agency were able to at | least meet him halfway, but that's obviously not possible | right now. NASA would save money in the long run by | paying market rate imo, it's such a loss of talent and | experience when any random startup with a solid funding | round can poach the cream of the crop for a few hundred | grand. | the_only_law wrote: | Yeah federal pay is rough and probably the primary reason | I avoid government jobs, at least for the time being. | | I don't do anything remotely exciting, difficult or | demanding for a company you've never heard of, yet I make | as much as one of the higher paid NASA positions I've | seen requiring extremely niche experience you will only | get from and full of places. Probably more when you | consider CoL and such. | | Similarly, I saw a position with everyone's favorite | three letter agency. The job looked really cool, and | required some modestly niche skillsets and experience in | security, reverse engineering, exploit development. Only | issue: the starting salary was very rough, particularly | for the DC area. | | The other thing is just the bureaucratic nature of the | pay scales. I've seen jobs asking for a PhD or | significantly more in YoE that probably requires because | that's what the GS requirements were. I'm not even sure | if the usual "don't interpret job requirements literally" | is of any value. After all we're talking about government | agencies. I'd also hope agencies have become to relax | degree requirements on certain types of positions but I | doubt it. I was told for years, the federal government | probably wouldn't hire me without one. | | All that being said, I'd probably be willing to hop on | over if the work was really interesting and the pay | wasn't complete atrocious. | giantg2 wrote: | Your comment seems out of touch with reality for most people. | | The US median dev salary is $110k and it looks like you can | hit that as a GS-12 in most locations. | chrisseaton wrote: | > The US median dev salary is $110k | | I don't doubt you've looked that up and it's true if you | say it is, but that number completely baffles me. How are | so many devs so poorly paid? | tick_tock_tick wrote: | There is a lot of country between the two coasts. Hell | most of the southern coast is still quite cheap. | omginternets wrote: | I suspect it's because "dev" is a fairly broad category | that encompasses everything from "Wordpress CSS-twiddler" | to "Big Tech Hotshot". | mciancia wrote: | I wouldn't be surprised if those statistics are not | really worth anything. Like, it's possible they don't | take under account people who are contracting, | RSUs/options, yearly bonuses and whatever alse companies | are offering now. Median base salary at 110k might be | possible then ;) | Goronmon wrote: | _How are so many devs so poorly paid?_ | | Maybe you are just out of touch with what your average | software developer is paid? | verisimilidude wrote: | You may be living in a bubble. | | That's a normal (and still very good) salary for devs | working in quieter metro areas. | | I left the Bay Area five years ago. My salary is now | $100k, a substantial pay cut from my SF years. But | quality of life is soooooo much better here, in so many | ways. It's worth the drop in pay. | ryukafalz wrote: | Yeah, as someone whose salary has been around that amount | recently (though at the moment it's slightly higher) 110k | is not at all poorly paid. You can have a very high | standard of living for that much in a lot of places in | the US; I'm in Philadelphia and consider myself very well | off making that much. | giantg2 wrote: | As a single person or with a family? | | Philly suburbs are quite expensive for housing. It seems | about $100k to support a family is decent but not "very | well off". I image that extra $10k could make a big | difference. A single person making that (or a dual income | family around $200k) would certainly be well off. | ryukafalz wrote: | I was single at the point when I was making around that | much so that's probably the only fair comparison I can | make. You're right that a family on just that income | would be tighter. Between my girlfriend and I right now | we're definitely not making $200k though and I still feel | pretty comfortable. No kids yet though :) | | Philly suburbs can be expensive (although that's not | universally the case) but Philly proper is relatively | affordable. | giantg2 wrote: | I guess it depends on where in Philly and the suburbs you | want to live, and it's tough to go apples to apples given | that most of the suburbs are detached sfh with a yard and | most of the stuff in the city is attached and have little | to no yard. | | In either case, it's $300k+ to be in a decent | neighborhood for about a 1500sqft house. Cheaper than | many cities, but more than smaller cities or rural areas. | And anything with land is outrageous ($500k+). And | property taxes can be high. | | It really seems to be a tale of two cities. On one hand, | housing can be affordable for the people making six | figures, but on the other we have the highest extreme | poverty rate for any big US city (not sure if that's | still the case, but was a few years ago). | ryukafalz wrote: | Yes, that's true - it's not affordable for a lot of | people who live here, because a lot of people who live | here are very low-income. Seeing $100k described as | "poorly paid" felt weird for just that reason though. By | the standards of just about everyone I know outside of my | cushy tech job, $100k from a single job is extremely | privileged. | | Slight aside on yards, front yards are typically out of | course, but I was astonished when I visited one of my | coworkers in South Philly and he had a sizeable backyard | behind his rowhome. Don't know how common that is, | satellite imagery is too low-res to tell, but I see a | decent number that look like they're 1/3 of the lot! | | Also, perhaps my standards are skewed - walkability and | bikeability are pretty important to me, which means I'd | want smaller lot sizes anyway. Big SFHs on big expensive | lots aren't so appealing as a result :) | giantg2 wrote: | Yeah, I agree that $110k is decent and the median for | devs. | | Most of the yards are small - a couple hundred sqft. So | maybe we have different preferences for yards. I have | fruit trees, a garden, bees, playset, etc. That takes up | a lot of room. The garden alone is about the size of many | of the yards I've been to in Philly. | | Yeah, walkability isn't great here. I don't feel safe | biking on any road. There are quite a few cyclists around | though, so it can be done (bunch of stores within 2-4 | miles). | | I hate how expensive land is around here. I'd love 10+ | acres. Rural areas are much cheaper. | ryukafalz wrote: | That's the direct tradeoff you make though - if you want | to be near other people (which typically also means being | where the jobs + interesting things are), you get less | space. If you want more space, you can go live somewhere | rural, but everyone else around you also gets more space, | so there won't be much nearby. | | If you want a lot of space _and_ to be near a lot of | people, you'll have to pay more. You're basically paying | to have more than your neighbors at that point. | | (That aside, if you want that much land, why haven't you | moved to a more rural area then?) | giantg2 wrote: | I don't really care to be that close to thar many people. | But I do need a job, which is why I moved here. | | "That aside, if you want that much land, why haven't you | moved to a more rural area then?" | | My wife won't go for it. | R0b0t1 wrote: | You tell me. Every time we have a thread where people say | median compensation is $300k I seriously wonder where | those jobs are and how to get them. | krinchan wrote: | They're in California/NYC and by the time you finish | paying for housing and taxes you get <100k. | | Atlanta can get you to 200k with a (relatively) | reasonable CoL but the current housing situation there is | rapidly degrading, so get in fast if you're looking. | Traffic is miserable, which is true about anywhere. | | However, the public transit is hilariously bad with a | heavy reliance on buses running on hourly schedules and | sitting in said miserable traffic. I think there's one | very specific corridor that has the buses equipped to | override the traffic signals, but it really led to | absolutely nowhere useful to a tech worker and just | mostly ran Emory students between dorms and campuses. | They never expanded the idea any further. That said, if | you can land a job and an apartment within walking | distance of a MARTA rail station, you're living the | dream. (Good luck with rent! Anything within a half hour | walk of a rail station is 2x-3x the cost.) | | Any attempt to market Miami as "a tech hub" is a scam. | The pay offered is completely out of step with the CoL | _before_ COVID. You could swing a Miami senior level job | with either an hour commute on some of the most dangerous | Interstate in the USA (that 's using the toll lanes, too) | or a two hour-ish drive + train + bus commute (one-way | for both times) utilizing public transport. | | I can't speak much to Austin or Dallas, though I've heard | highly conflicting anecdotes about them. I doubt you're | finding $300k below a Senior Architect type title, | though. | pc86 wrote: | Nobody is doing 2-hour one-way commutes utilizing three | modes of transportation, especially now. | | Chicago has a great pay-CoL balance, especially if you | want to live downtown, walk or take the train, and not | have a car. But even commuting from the suburbs isn't | bad. I-90 into the city is always a parking lot though, | regardless of day of the week or time of day. | kache_ wrote: | yeah except I'm clearing 300 bones remotely :P | pwdisswordfish9 wrote: | Consider that your experience may not be representative | of all programmers' experiences (even if you exclude the | experiences of the ones that we could broadly agree are | not among the competent ones). Life involves green lights | and red lights. If you manage to hit a lot of green | lights, it can be hard to grasp what's going on with the | people who didn't. (This is true even if your number of | green lights is average.) | paulmd wrote: | Developer salaries are very bimodal (or even trimodal). | Working for a contractor pays like shit, and pre-COVID | many non-coastal locations were also significantly worse | than average. That group is just trying to churn out | contracts at minimum-cost and that means squeezing wages | too, generally they're not willing to go up, they'll take | what they can get at fixed costs and modulate the work | they take on to match staffing. It was usually $50-60k 10 | years ago and $75k ish territory nowadays I think. And | sure after 5-10 years you might be making closer to $80k | or $90k but that's still under-market for basically a | senior dev. | | Then you've got "market-competitive" wages that actually | needs to get stuff done on a fixed timeline and are | willing to pay to get the staffing to do it, | deliberately, rather than just letting people fall into | it. And finally the FAANG club and lead/architect tier | positions, paying the most for top talent, with the | latter two cohorts being smaller. | | Think about the stuff that everyone was trying to | offshore to india 10-20 years ago and that's the cheap | tier. And there's a lot of it. | | When I was poking around after my bachelor's, IBM Global | Services was hiring around $50-55k in my area for java | developers. | ethbr0 wrote: | One of the best decisions of my career was avoiding a | body shop like IBM consulting right out of college. | gnicholas wrote: | Two things to keep in mind: the federal government offers a | very good pension, which most private employers do not. Also, | if you have student loans and work for qualifying employers | (govt and/or nonprofit IIRC), you can have some of your loans | discharged after a period of time. But both of these perks | require you to work for 10 or 20 years, in one branch or | another. | NtGuy25 wrote: | Government pension is actually very bad. You pay 4 % of | your salary per year, and get 1 % * years worked * avg(3 | top highest salaries). | | You get far more money if you put that 4 % into a 401k or | other investment vehicle. | | Also, with loans being discharged, you have to have made a | ton of payments, to the point that most will pay off their | loans before they're eligible in a stem position. | prepend wrote: | The max GS15 salary is like $175k and there's lots of | government benefits. Max GS14 is $150. Max GS13 is $125. | | And there's lots of benefits (23 paid days off, 13 sick every | year), pension, etc etc. | | This won't compete with FAANG or with HCO, but in most areas | of the country (or full remote) this is fine for a | programmer's pay. | | I hear the complaint that fed doesn't pay for tech and I | think that's not true. | | The BLS has median programmer pay $90k in 2020 [0] so | government pay is certainly competitive. This is median too, | while the lowest possible GS13 pay is $100k. | | [0] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information- | technology/... | glowingly wrote: | From my experience, GS14 and above roles are allocated in | limited numbers to each program/branch/division. Of course, | many other companies do this to some degree, and one | obviously can rotate in the government. However, not every | program will have GS14, nevermind GS15 opportunities. | | GS is also (like all companies, etc, etc) adjusted per | locality, so not every GS13 step 4 will be the same. | prepend wrote: | From my experience, ICs in technical fields like | programming, data science, and cyber get hired in as | Gs13-15 in non-supervisory roles. | | Yes, GS is adjusted for locality and it's up and down. | But $100k is the minimum for GS-13, step 1 in most | localities and is higher in high cost of living areas | like DC, NY, etc. | | But if you want a programmer job in government it's not a | big pay cut unless you're a superstar working for Google | or something. If it's a decision of random Fortune 500 or | government, government will usually pay more, AND have | more benefits and stability. | glowingly wrote: | I am in a HCOL area on the locality chart :/ We get hired | in at $70k and this seems rather common among my peers + | contractors, so I don't exactly know how someone is | getting $100k at the door. People who have been here ~5+ | years _are_ GS13 or equivalent. However, most of us aren | 't and I don't see any upward trends, as our GS14/+ slots | are being slowly retired/transferred away. There seems to | be a large age gap between the newer engineers and the | older ones. Sounds silly, I know. I am wondering if most | of us are going to wander off then come back for | retirement? Or is the program doomed in the long run? | | Thanks. I think I just needed to see it from someone | outside of my program. | TheCoelacanth wrote: | "Computer Programmer" is basically an obsolete job | classification at this point. You want "Software | Developers, Quality Assurance Analysts, and Testers"[1], | which has 10 times as many people and a much higher average | salary. | | [1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information- | technology/... | 5555624 wrote: | Without locality pay, which varies by locality, a GS15 max | salary is $146,757. The max GS14 is $124,764 and the max | GS13 is $105,579. [0] | | The 23 paid days off per year is only after 15 years of | service. Someone new, without prior military service, would | start at 13 paid days off per year. | | The pension, for those hired after 1984 is roughly 1% x 3 | yr high salary x years worked. (If you your three year high | salary was $100,000 and you worked for 30 years, you get a | pension of $30,000 per year.) You would also collect Social | Security. (Feds hired prior to 1984 have a much higher | pension and don't get Social Security.) | | [0] https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay- | leave/salaries... | OrvalWintermute wrote: | > The max GS15 salary is like $175k and there's lots of | government benefits. Max GS14 is $150. Max GS13 is $125. | | They are actually higher than that based on locality pay, | here are FY22 numbers. | | DC for example: | | GS12 Max $116,788 | | GS13 Max $138,868 | | GS14 Max $164,102 | | GS15 Max $176,300* | | Silicon Valley by comparison: | | GS12 Max $126,742 | | GS13 Max $150,703 | | GS14 Max $176,300 | | GS15 Max $176,300* | | > I hear the complaint that fed doesn't pay for tech and I | think that's not true. | | While the federal govt does pay, in many cases the federal | pay is not as competitive as it needs to be for high demand | specialties that require a good amount of skills. | | Recently I was talking with an executive about building a | software security capability within our engineering | division for the space domain. | | Trying to hire great talent capping out @176k is simply not | competitive with all the local FAANGs and startups doing | specialized software security work in the | aerospace/aeronautics domain. | tristor wrote: | I didn't think it could be that bad, and then I went looking. | Apparently to get a pay level that aligns with typical base | salary in tech for senior level IC positions, you'd have to | be an agency director of a large agency or in the Cabinet. | And that doesn't even take into account losing RSUs and | smaller bonus payouts. | | This actually goes a long way in my mind of explaining why | the US government does so much contracting of people for work | as well. It's probably not possible in the current legal | framework to pay high quality tech workers a fair | compensation for the market, but they could hire a firm as | contractors for a project and that firm could pay fair | compensation. I just wish more firms were honest rather than | milking the government. | killjoywashere wrote: | This is one of the great accomplishments of the "small | government" efforts in politics: all the money leaves the | system. Imagine a business that losses all it's money, | every year, by design. | dylan604 wrote: | So, Uber? Or really any tech startup with aggressvie | growth only surviving because of VC investment. | teaearlgraycold wrote: | Not weighing in on small/big gov. But a government isn't | a business. | giaour wrote: | There are a few ways to get an IC role that pays more than | the GS salary cap, but they are fairly rare. Some jobs have | an "ST" level that is classified above GS for senior | individual contributors in scientific or technical roles, | and some agencies (like the CFPB) have their own pay scales | that go beyond what the GS schedule allows. | | I only worked with one computer scientist in an ST role | during my two years at USDS. He was an ACM Fellow and had a | PhD from MIT, so it's not something anyone should expect to | get just because they had "senior" in their title at a | FAANG. | | Contractors don't have the same statutory caps on how much | an individual role can pay, but salaries are part of | contract bids, and a bid can be rejected if an individual | salary is too high. | paulmd wrote: | Yup, to emphasize, this is "we want to hire linus | torvalds for a specific project" level exception, not | "we'll be handing these out to line programmers because | comp is higher in that sector" level exception. | | You won't be getting one of those unless you're | exceptionally well-known enough that an average | practitioner in your field would perk up their ears when | someone mentions your name as a potential hire. | | And really, for the tier of people that would be getting | those exceptions, _that 's still not a great rate of pay | and they'd still be taking huge paycuts to work for the | government_. Like ok, we can get $300k a year for Linus | but... he can walk into fifty companies and drop off a | resume, cold, asking for triple that and get offers | before he's back to his desk. | bmelton wrote: | > I just wish more firms were honest rather than milking | the government. | | Generally speaking, they aren't. | | I remember commenting (years ago) on here on an article | about the government paying a million dollars for what | amounted to basically a Wordpress installation that anyone | here could do in ~half an hour. | | Maybe a million dollars sounds like a lot, but to those | who've actually _worked_ as a government contractor, it | seems fairly reasonable. | | Consider: | | * You need to have past relevant qualifications for other | government agencies, so the only people who can install | blogs for the government are those who have installed blogs | for the government. If nobody has ever installed a blog for | the government, they'll leverage the closest relevant | experience they can. | | * You need to have a contracts attorney on staff for the | duration of the contract, and since you likely don't want | to fire them every few weeks, that's a year's commitment at | (conservatively) $200k | | * You need to have a physical address -- weirdly, the | government isn't keen on home addresses and/or 100% | distributed teams | | * You'll need to hire a software architect (maybe 2) to | justify the changes needed to __competitors who also likely | placed bids on your contract and didn't win but who also | have existing contracts managing the database, network, | etc__ | | * Those competitors want you to fail so that the contract | will get rebid so that they can try again, now armed with | the information you presented them | | * Nobody in the government wants your project to succeed, | and will actively try to get it to fail quietly | | * If it ever seems as though your project might achieve | success, every stakeholder will want to jump on board your | ship -- not in an effort to sink it, but so they can make | their mark on the project and have their names associated | with a potential success | | * It takes decision-by-committee to get even the smallest | thing done, and a Wordpress blog is comprised of mostly | small things. The smaller the thing, the bigger the | committee. (I once had to bill the government 24 man hours | at a median rate of $100 an hour because the CTO of the | agency pulled 4 of us in a meeting for 6 hours to "discuss" | which header background we preferred -- one was a winter | shot that allowed visibility of the building, the other was | a summer shot where trees obscured it... the winter shot | felt dead and colorless, but the summer shot obscured their | fancy new $130 million building) | godelski wrote: | I think you better gave examples of government being | inefficient. But also I was to add that there are places | that do milk the government. Both of these can be true. | It's not homogeneous. But you're right that we should be | more nuanced and it's good to have an insider | perspective. | | For a more funny example of your point, I like The | Pentagon Wars' Bradley tank evolution | | https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA | TYPE_FASTER wrote: | That was amazing | bmelton wrote: | The accurate familiarity of that is exactly why I ~no | longer~ work with the government | throwaway0a5e wrote: | It's amazing (in the most uncharitable sense of the word) | that a bunch of private sector office workers who joke | about how relatable The Office is don't realize that | stuff like Pentagon Wars (for feds) and Parks and Rec | (for state and local government) are also basically | documentaries for their respective industries. | | I could mortar the cognitive dissonance together and | build a wall. | samhw wrote: | This got me reading about the history of 'armored | fighting vehicles', and eventually this early model, | which I still can't stop laughing at: https://upload.wiki | media.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Simms_Mo... It, uh, | certainly can't be faulted for its complexity. | crooked-v wrote: | That's actually kind of a brilliant design given the time | period, once you look at other designs of the era that | either have no idea what they actually want to | accomplish, or try to do everything and so succeed at | nothing at all, or both. | samhw wrote: | Oh, tell me about it. I think that's the kind of | innovation that's happening now with the drone warfare | you see in Ukraine. People tell me that "Russia has 100k | tanks to Ukraine's 10k", and I think: those high-level | numbers do not matter; what matters is what happens when | the two meet on the battlefield. If one $50k drone can | consistently take out millions of dollars of equipment, | it doesn't matter how expensive or numerous that | equipment was, or how good it would be at fighting some | hypothesised similar adversary. | | The superpowers of the world have gone through several | successive 'generations' of military technology without | really having a war in which to use them. (Just | skirmishes with pre-industrial desert and jungle people, | and the occasional mismatched murky proxy war with | export-grade technology.) These mega-elaborate aircraft | carriers and fighter jets and tanks are like radar- | enabled cavalry, and will be taken out with drones and | handheld rockets, and whichever modern-day Kroll is | clever enough to strategise will make an absolute, uh, | killing. | godelski wrote: | As someone that works in ML, this is actually what is | concerning to me. Everyone is talking about AGI | (artificial general intelligence) but I don't think | that's something of huge concern yet. We have already | entered a world where you can create drone "mines". It is | cheap and easy to build a drone that can have an | explosive payload, hide, and automatically seek out enemy | combatants or vehicles. (Note that drones are pretty | difficult to detect) The tech is a little difficult now | and requires oversight if you don't want to violate | international war laws, but it is definitely possible | (and rapidly getting better). | | > If one $50k drone can consistently take out millions of | dollars of equipment, it doesn't matter how expensive or | numerous that equipment was, or how good it would be at | fighting some hypothesised similar adversary. | | Because this isn't true anymore. It is really a $1k drone | being able to take out millions of dollars of equipment | with a 70+% success rate. That's a real game changer. | | We don't need AGI to for ML to be dangerous. We just need | people to use existing algorithms dangerously and/or | recklessly. | paulmd wrote: | Ironically the amount of oversight and red-tape is so | intense that it becomes self-defeating. The only | companies who are capable of successfully bidding and | executing the contract are the exact sorts of companies | you don't want winning the contract. The small, agile | team full of domain experts isn't going to be able to | jump the hoops to win the bid - they don't even have a | contracting lawyer / combat-disabled veteran owner / etc. | | I don't like the idea of my tax money getting wasted by | Lockheed or Accenture on a failed project with no | recourse, any more than anyone else, but I'm not | convinced that micromanaging the bidding and execution | actually resolves that. At a certain point you're chasing | away the talent and selecting for the players that are | willing to play your games rather than the best ones to | do the job. | | The way I always viewed it was that the USG just was | willing to pay a large amount of money to sit in meetings | and talk to contract officers, and if that's what they | want to spend their money on, fine, we'll provide that | service. Which is exactly why everything is expensive and | nothing gets done. | | It's the contracting version of "nothing is getting done, | let's add a daily meeting to make sure that productivity | remains high". At a certain point you'll chase away the | 20% who are getting the work done, but you'll always have | the 1xers and 0.1xers who are content to sit in meetings | and take home a check every 2 weeks. If you keep doing it | - that's what you'll be selecting for, and you'll end up | with the Dead Sea effect but with contractors instead of | employees. Which is where we are today, it's a toxic | environment and the only thing that can survive are | organisms that are specially adapted for it. | bmelton wrote: | Agreed completely, and many times the contracting owner | is a figurehead with zero job responsibilities who just | takes down a grand salary so that the contractor | employing him is eligible for more contract | opportunities. | wslack wrote: | There are many situations where the government isn't | managing work well but because that fiscally helps the | contractor, the contractor works - hard - to keep the | status quo in place. That is to the detriment of all of | the other companies that could do it more efficiently. | | This is also why we need strong technologists in | government to ensure the contracts are written correctly | from the start. | jrib wrote: | So did you go with the summer shot or winter shot? | | I can understand having the sentiment: | | > Nobody in the government wants your project to succeed, | and will actively try to get it to fail quietly | | But I actually think Hanlon's razor applies. I think | individuals do want your project to succeed but there are | often systemic issues that make it seem otherwise. These | systemic issues are not easily affected by individuals. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Right. There's literally no-one paid by the Federal | government that makes the same as your average Google L6, | according to what I can see; and to get to that kind of a | level you need to be e.g. Joe Biden, Tony Fauci. | lotsofpulp wrote: | The current system also incentivize quid pro quo via | revolving door for high level government employees. You | accept under market pay with the government, but expect to | be repaid for favors to the governed entities by taking a | job with them afterwards. Or selling your services to them. | Or getting a niece or nephew hired. Etc. | brimble wrote: | As someone _not_ in FAANG, I was super-interested in their | remote option, since it 'd have been much more like that 30% | cut (for me) than a 70% cut--until I saw the weird "term of | service" limitation. Half the point of taking a government | job is the retirement, and stable health benefits et c. over | the long haul! Taking that out of the equation ruins the | value prop. | lastofthemojito wrote: | Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I'm seeing this as an | analog to the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps (maybe the name is | swaying me there?). Something specifically for people right | at the beginning of their career to have an opportunity to | perhaps do something meaningful. And once they have that | experience on their resume, it'll help them do the next | thing. | brimble wrote: | The program I looked at back then read like it was | targeting established professionals. | giaour wrote: | The US Digital Corps (a new program) is meant to be for | people at the beginning of their careers. | | GP was referring to the US Digital Service, which is for | mid- and senior-level tech folks. | brimble wrote: | Yes, absolutely correct and I should have been clearer | about this, this was the (at this point) long-running | USDS program, _not_ this new thing. | giaour wrote: | Plenty of people move from USDS to permanent civil service | roles, but they do need to plan for it and apply. Your time | in USDS counts towards government retirement benefits, but | you can't stay in that particular position for longer than | 4 years. | brimble wrote: | Ah, the language on the descriptions back when I was | looking at it made it seem like you _had_ to leave when | it was up, and didn 't make it look like transferring was | a possibility (wouldn't you take a big cut, moving | somewhere else, or do you keep your USDS GS rating?). | giaour wrote: | Everyone I saw moving to other government roles were | going to equivalent or higher ratings. I'm actually not | sure what the rules are if you were to go from a GS-15 | position to something lower. | jacobian wrote: | If you're a software developer, and your goal is to maximize | income, then yeah, don't work for the federal government. If | your goal is to do meaningful work that has a tangible | positive impact on average people's lives, while being paid a | fair living wage, then these jobs are unbeatable. | time_to_smile wrote: | I did a stint in the government working for a team that | eventually had a lot people go over to 18F. I joined on | hoping to see exactly what you describe, willing to take a | pay cut for meaningful work. | | My experience was very different than yours has been. My | impression was that it was largely bureaucrats looking to | further their own position in the massive bureaucracy. It | was virtually impossible to do any "meaningful work". The | handful of people passionate about doing good for the world | were constantly blocked by other bureaucrats who were only | interested in maintaining (or expanding) their tiny island | of power they had accrued. | | I vividly recall needing data from another agency to help | solve a problem we were working on and being told that it | would be virtually impossible to get any cooperation | because it would make them look bad if we succeeded using | their data. My entire time as a Federal employee was filled | with similar such moments. All of the work I did, which | ended up proving some seriously privacy vulnerabilities in | another project, was dismissed because people didn't want | to hear it. The experience forever changed my view on | government. | | The plus side is I did meet some fantastic, although | terminally frustrated, people while I was there. It is a | great place to meet people who have similar ambitions. | | For someone looking for meaningful work I would advise | staying far away from the federal government. | wslack wrote: | I'd be interested in hearing more about this if you are | willing to share (same username on twitter) | stirfish wrote: | What are some government software projects that have a | tangible positive impact on average people's lives? | xxpor wrote: | The SSA has to be able to get checks out to everyone | every month. | | The IRS has to process tax returns and get out refunds. | | The USGS has to be able to detect earthquakes. | | The NWS has to be able to deliver critical weather data. | | I could go on and on. | prepend wrote: | Healthcare.gov is the project that kicked off USDS | (because the site was so horrible and the contractors | charged billions). That site impacts millions of lives. | | There's lots of important government projects. I actually | think the rate of BS/meaningful may be higher in | government than private given the number of cow | clicker/BS-type projects. | omginternets wrote: | What's the salary cap? | giaour wrote: | $176,300 (per https://www.opm.gov/policy-data- | oversight/pay-leave/salaries...) | l33t2328 wrote: | And people consider that a bad offer a decade ago? I | consider that a dream offer today. | tdhz77 wrote: | Former Fed for 10 years. Loved working for the Federal | Government. I made 100k+ as a software engineer. | | I left Federal Service in February 22 because the private | sector doubled my salary. | | My work is much easier in the private sector and I work a lot | less. I'm getting paid double. I have a team now I can rely | on. I didn't have this in Gov. | | Many Gov IT positions will go unfilled for months. I had one | organization offer me 25k, fully remote to work there and I | declined. Why? The amount of work is insane for a individual | developer. | | This idea that we shouldn't pay people because they work in | Government is insane. Peoples mistrust of government, but | really it's misguided. | [deleted] | tehwebguy wrote: | > I had one organization offer me 25k, fully remote to work | there | | Per year? That is $12.50 / hr | the_only_law wrote: | I worked for state government, in a very red state (read, | does not like to spend on government) for my first "real" | job at around $37k, circa 5-6 years ago. | toomanyrichies wrote: | This gets to the heart of a contradiction in red state | philosophy which is actually quite hard to solve, at | least in my mind. On the one hand, it's understandable if | someone doesn't trust the government to spend their money | wisely, and if they use that as a justification for | voting for smaller government budgets. I get that part | completely. Governments have little if any internal | motivation to spend your money wisely. If anything, they | have a vested interest in spending 100% of their budgets, | _regardless of whether it 's spent wisely_, so that their | budgets don't decrease in the following fiscal year. | | At the same time, "if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys". | If red states don't pay competitive salaries in | competitive fields, their citizens shouldn't be surprised | if they end up scraping the bottom of the barrel to | source their public servants. The service they experience | while interfacing with this dreck then further reduces | their faith in government, and the whole thing becomes a | vicious circle. | | Again, this is a hard problem to solve. I don't know what | the answer is, but it seems to be rooted in a mis- | alignment of incentives in government spending. | asiachick wrote: | Yes, I don't know what would work. I often like to bring | up Japanese trains/subways which are privately owned and | AFAIK the reason it works is because the train companies | own buildings and land around their stations so they have | a positive feedback loop, the more people ride their | trains, the more their buildings get used, the more their | land is worth, and visa versa. ~10 or so of the famous | buildings in Shibuya are owned by the Tokyu Corp | including the famous one with the giant screen, the 109 | building (10 + To, 9 = Kyu), and the new 50+ story one | directly over the station. The also own the building | Google moved to. They own grocery stores at probably | around 50% of the stations on their lines. | | Other examples include any building you see named Atre | (https://www.atre.co.jp/) which are shopping centers | above JR train stations owned by JR. | | I have no idea what the equivalent would be for | government IT, nor am I saying all government services | should be privatized. I do agree though that it's about | incentives. | | Even in Japan people complain about government | construction projects where the incentive is always to | spend all the money so near the end of the fiscal period | a bunch of random unneeded projects start to make sure | all the money is spent for fear that budgets might be | lower the next year if they don't use all the money. | UweSchmidt wrote: | The actual "philosophy" is the privatization of | government functions. Concepts like "libertarianism" and | "government is inefficient" are constructed to push this | agenda. In the US this force can be so destructive that | it willingly starves the government to prove its | inefficiency and pushes services to the private sector, | which is oh-so-well-alligned with its incentives | (healthcare, owning infrastructure and other natural | monopolies). | | If the Digital Corps can't get it done with people who | can only make 25k a year, I guess we need some free | market consultants for 200$/hour! | pc86 wrote: | Why do you assume that these ideologies are "constructed" | in order to support a pre-existing agenda, rather than | the (imo) much more likely possibility that the ideology | is legitimately held and the "agenda" flows naturally | from that belief? | [deleted] | avgcorrection wrote: | I don't think it's a contradiction. It's a cogent and | coherent philosophy. | | Claim that government doesn't work - defund it in the | name of it being bad - government works even worse - | repeat. | zippergz wrote: | I agree that this is a problem, but I don't think it is | that simple in practice. My personal observation moving | from a blue state to a red state a few years ago is that | the quality of the service I get from the state and local | government is drastically better in the red state. I | don't think I can read very much into that, since it's a | minuscule sample size and every state and municipality is | different. But it's striking to me how much nicer the | employees are, how much better the services are, and how | much less apathetic everyone seems to be, despite what I | assume has to be lower pay. | | I don't agree with the policies of most of the local | elected officials where I live now, but that is more | about bigger picture items. As far as day-to-day | operation of the government, I can't say with a straight | face that my old, deep blue, west coast community did | things anywhere near as well as my new red home state. | tdfx wrote: | I think government work culture is handicapping the | salaries more than anything else. If a consultant comes in | for a year at $200/hour, the government ends their contract | when they're finished with them. When the government hires | someone at $50k/year, they are stuck with that person | pretty much as long as that person wants to continue | working there. There's a common joke with civilian defense | employees that you can't get fired without committing a | felony. Government work culture has this maternal mentality | where it feels the need to care for workers from cradle to | grave. You can never get rid of low performers, there's no | layoffs when priorities change, you just have the same | people that need to be shifted around to do a mediocre job | elsewhere. It's completely immune to outside market forces | and that makes it literally impossible to compete with | private sector salaries, who have no problem laying people | off if a project doesn't work out. | | Each person hired by the government is a massive, open- | ended liability that can most likely never be fired, never | be demoted or take a pay cut, regardless of changes in | circumstances for the employer. I think the USDS was a huge | step in the right direction by focusing on having "tours of | duty" where the term of employment is fixed. I think the | government should adopt that much more broadly if it wants | to be competitive with the private sector. | throw7 wrote: | NY State has non-unionized positions called MC | (Management/Confidential). My understanding is that it's | sorta like contract work... you are "appointed" on a | yearly or session basis. It's not a panacea though... if | you look up kaloyeros, you'll see the dark side. It's | disheartening how a single person in a particular | position can bog down and kill the organization. It's not | an easy problem to solve. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | USDS salaries are even more absurd relative to the | responsibility of the positions. Think 75%+ compensation | cut even at the top of the GS scale for the calibre of | people they are looking for; and the primary benefits of | a Federal job like a guaranteed pension and job security | don't apply in a meaningful way. | | You _really_ have to be in it for the service aspect. | t-3 wrote: | I think there's an argument to be made for the networking | benefits of government and military jobs. Having the | experience and connections they bring may open doors that | purely commercial employment does not. | dgfitz wrote: | A lot of people cut their teeth in government defense | jobs and jump to a contractor position doing basically | the same thing for double the salary. | bee_rider wrote: | I know there are non-corrupt cases of this, but it does | seem like a close neighbor to things like regulatory | capture, etc... | DiggyJohnson wrote: | I think it is a neighbor, as you said, and I'd go so far | as to say that this is transparently a goal of this | program. | [deleted] | dogman144 wrote: | Partnership for Public Service, a much heralded | public/private partnership between MasterCard, Workday | (sp?), MSFT that interviews and places cybersec grads into | GS roles for 2+ years and then preferred interviews into | private sector, were insisting: | | GS-7, and max, maybe, but would be hard, GS-11. Experiences | of selectees pushing back on that salary due to how low it | was vs. the market ($30-$50k) with requirements to live on | DC or similar were met with almost disbelief and offense | from that org when candidates pushed back, because the | program was for "new grads." | | Knew someone who turned it down and took a private sector | interview/offer going on concurrently for $145k remote, | despite providing offer/pay stubs to try at help the GS/PfP | teams meet the on-paper salary even remotely close. | csa wrote: | > GS-7, and max, maybe, but would be hard, GS-11. | | I'm guessing that this was actually a 7/9/11 position, | with automatic annual promotions (apprentice, journeyman, | master, iirc). | | Still... that's _really_ low for someone who can get a | decent tech job in the private sector. | | Note that an ambitious person with the right skill set | could probably be GS-15 in the DC area in their late 20s, | and they would hit the GS salary cap soon thereafter. I'm | not necessarily saying that's a good thing (total comp | still low), but I just wanted to throw that out there. | dgfitz wrote: | It's rather hard to get hired in a spot over GS 11/12. It | happens but it's not common. From 13 on I believe | promotions are in front of a panel. Getting hired as a 15 | would usually imply the hire-e was recruited. | CobaltFire wrote: | Unfortunately the GS salary bands are pretty below market for | everything and the quality of people that is resulting in | shows. | | I recently got offered a GS-11 (with promotion to GS-12 after | a year) position and it's just not worth it. This wasn't for | tech either; this was for a rather odd skill set. | giantg2 wrote: | "This wasn't for tech either; this was for a rather odd | skill set." | | Well this sounds like a story. | CobaltFire wrote: | Security Manager. I deal in Personal, Physical, | Communication, and IT Security as an Active Duty member, | and since I'm retiring they wanted me to shift to a | Personal/Physical SecMan that handles thousands of | clearances and multiple TS assets spread around a couple | sites. | | Odd, but not that exciting. :) | giantg2 wrote: | So what I'm hearing is that you're Sam Fisher and this is | your cover story. | pclmulqdq wrote: | I was offered a GS-15 a while ago and even that was a lot | lower than a starting FAANG salary for a new grad. I would | happily work for the USDS or a TLA for a 20% pay cut, but | the process of getting anywhere near that is a nightmare. | It seems like the path is generally to work your way to | GS-12 or higher, then quit and become a contractor for the | same group. | giaour wrote: | GS-15 salaries top out at $176,300 in the DC metro area. | (Most (all?) USDSers get exactly that salary.) That is | certainly more than I made as a new grad at a FAANG! | xxpor wrote: | It is for me too, but new grads at FAANGs today are | getting 200k+ TC offers. | paulmd wrote: | You wouldn't get hired at GS-15 as a new hire. You might | reach that after 20-30 years, and you'll need to get a | Ph.D. | | Also, DC Metro is an extremely high CoL area (not SF | levels but probably around Seattle levels). Normal GS-15 | pay is $112k-146k and you'd trend towards the bottom of | that in most areas. | | So, $112k average at the peak of your career, with a | required Ph.D. More realistically as a new hire you might | be GS-12 (which only takes a master's) which is $68k-89k, | so you make $68k in most areas. That's certainly not | great as far as competitiveness with tech salaries, | that's pretty close to the bottom of the market these | days for a _new hire working entirely remote_ , not even | highly-desirable talent. | [deleted] | pclmulqdq wrote: | I should have said starting TC, not salary. When I looked | at it years ago, GS-15 salaries capped out at the average | salary of a Google L3. | | It looks like it may be a little above L3 salary today | (moving in the right direction!), but still far below L3 | TC, and a Google L3 job is not even remotely comparable | to a GS-15 job. | | IMO if the government had a separate band of GS pay for | highly competitive job markets which paid 50-100k more, | they would be a lot more successful. | vkou wrote: | I was not a new grad, but I started as an L3 (which is | what new grads are hired at) at Google, ten years ago, in | WA. | | My take-home in the first full year at work was $147,500. | The second was $178,500. | | Feel free to adjust for inflation. | CobaltFire wrote: | Essentially yes. Lockheed already has jobs posted for | higher pay than was on offer for that skillset and has | asked me if I'd be interested in talking to them. | | Since that skill is odd but required by every single | contractor that does classified work there's a whole lot | of opportunity out there I wasn't aware of until | recently. The lack of quality people doing it in the GS | ranks now makes a whole lot more sense to me. Prior to me | understanding that it was just an annoyance. | tonymet wrote: | What does 18F mean? | | Our name is short for the address of the GSA building where | we're headquartered in Washington, DC: 1800 F Street. | | For those curious about the inappropriate-sounding name | ericmay wrote: | When I saw that, the first thing that came to mind was that | it's the military occupation specialty (MOS) for US Army | special forces (18x). | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_For. | .. | wmeredith wrote: | Am I naive? How is "18F" inappropriate? | z3c0 wrote: | Eighteen-year-old female | dmead wrote: | Sadly, I had to turn down an offer from usds a few years ago. | Seemed like really great people to work with :( | notreallyserio wrote: | Do you still have to be straight-edge to get hired by the feds? | uhtred wrote: | I've been thinking about tax payer funded public technology | infrastructure recently with all the posts about the next google | / improving web search. Why couldn't we have a tax payer funded | but fully independent office that creates essential online | services such as web search? | | I suppose the main argument against it might be privacy concerns | or censorship / propaganda. But with no commercial interests I | think privacy would be better protected. As for censorship / | propaganda - the BBC manages to stay pretty neutral in the UK. | fn-mote wrote: | Interested? Too bad. "Applications are currently closed." | | Huh? Maybe it's related to the FAQ: "Why is there a limit to the | number of applications in each track?" | | Ok... so presumably they were not closed two hours ago when this | hit HN? This isn't sending the message that the program is | serious, it's sending the message that they cannot handle even | the volume of applicants that they are getting right now - in | spite of the majority of the posts here dumping on government | jobs. | pgcj_poster wrote: | I applied when applications opened in November. They were | upfront about the fact that they would only look at the first | 300 applications -- which they received in the first week. They | had engineers review the resumes, which were allowed to be | 3-pages, which I imagine is responsible for the low volume. | tomrod wrote: | I submitted it because I find the effort interesting. I am not | involved with it nor did I realize it was closed. My apologies. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-08 23:00 UTC)