The problem is the private sector pays more. We need to pay members of the government better than the private sector to attract the best talent and also make them immune to corruption. There is no reason a congressman’s legislative assistant with a law degree should be making $50,000/year. Obviously, they’re going to cave in and join a lobbying firm paying four times that amount. Same goes for just about any other branch of government.
I’d take a pay cut to work for the government if I didn’t have to worry… what? Like every 3 months? I could get furloughed and have trouble making ends meet because some wealthy geriatrics in Congress felt like having a dick measuring contest.
It’s tough for that period, but you know you still have a job, and you know you’ll get that back pay. Assuming you can figure out the cash flow, you could enjoy the time off. Meanwhile in the private sector, you’d still be paycheck to paycheck, but under threat of surprise layoffs, no back pay for furloughs, no expectation of keeping a job. If for whatever reason you’re not working, not only do you have the same issues getting by, but the stress of not knowing if you’ll get a job or be paid
lol, what world are you living in? Yes, it’s better than retail, but for high skill jobs (which the government desperately needs) these things are not true.
Random layoffs—sure, as long as you’re the right kind of employee
Vacation is accumulated at an embarrassingly slow rate, especially for newer employees.
pension. Right, but there are similarly no stock options or significant performance bonuses you find in the private sector
you’d be surprised at the work schedules for government employees who aren’t admin assistants
Look at congressmen. They are paid a solid salary + allowed to insider trade all they want.
Yet you can still buy a vote with a ~5k campaign contribution.
Truly the height of intellectual discourse. If you want to be understood, why stop short of your full meaning? That said, I got the sarcasm and cynicism in your response and I’m guessing that was really the point
The problem is the private sector pays more. We need to pay members of the government better than the private sector to attract the best talent and also make them immune to corruption. There is no reason a congressman’s legislative assistant with a law degree should be making $50,000/year. Obviously, they’re going to cave in and join a lobbying firm paying four times that amount. Same goes for just about any other branch of government.
I’d take a pay cut to work for the government if I didn’t have to worry… what? Like every 3 months? I could get furloughed and have trouble making ends meet because some wealthy geriatrics in Congress felt like having a dick measuring contest.
It’s tough for that period, but you know you still have a job, and you know you’ll get that back pay. Assuming you can figure out the cash flow, you could enjoy the time off. Meanwhile in the private sector, you’d still be paycheck to paycheck, but under threat of surprise layoffs, no back pay for furloughs, no expectation of keeping a job. If for whatever reason you’re not working, not only do you have the same issues getting by, but the stress of not knowing if you’ll get a job or be paid
Federal government has mich better working conditions:
lol, what world are you living in? Yes, it’s better than retail, but for high skill jobs (which the government desperately needs) these things are not true.
Pay is so far behind still it isn’t funny.
Lol what? The best talent? Immune to corruption? Are you kidding me?
If you don’t care enough to elaborate then you’re just trolling -_-
Look at congressmen. They are paid a solid salary + allowed to insider trade all they want. Yet you can still buy a vote with a ~5k campaign contribution.
If you can’t infer what I’m saying from what I’ve said then that’s on you.
Or maybe you didn’t say anything at all .
I guess you’ll never know!
Truly the height of intellectual discourse. If you want to be understood, why stop short of your full meaning? That said, I got the sarcasm and cynicism in your response and I’m guessing that was really the point
We know exactly what you said, and it was fucking stupid.
You are not necessarily wrong.
But then, the parent poster’s comment could be interpreted in two ways: the way you interpreted, or also the way in which both sentences are separate.
As in, we need to increase their salaries to attract the best talent and [we need to] make them immune to corruption.