[sbov]

Even if I made more than that in the private sector, I would be willing to take a minor pay cut for this sort of position. If you think about it, you're helping put taxpayer dollars to more efficient use, which includes your own.

[macintux]

Not sure how many people are going to take a 10% pay cut in hopes that 5 years from now their taxes might be a few bucks cheaper (which of course they won't be because the money would just be spent elsewhere).

Admirable intent, I'm suspicious of its prevalence.

[ryanmarsh]

They call it a tour of duty for a reason. $163k would be a massive paycut for me but I'd do it and happily burn savings to make a difference for the lives of my fellow veterans.

[sailfast]

Love your second sentence, but really wish they would stop calling it a "tour of duty". It's still a pretty solid amount of money (nevermind Federal benefits) but to really transform we need people willing to work over the long haul not just parachute in for short terms.

Also (slightly biased of course) I bet you get a bit addicted to the mission and that provides a non-monetary incentive to stick around a bit longer :)

[zacharycohn]

[Disclaimer: I work at 18F.]

It's referred to as a tour of duty because most of us are on 2 year appointments. At the end of that 2 years, there's an optional 2 year extension. These orgs haven't been around long enough for anyone to run out their second two years yet.

Personally, I love this format. It never would have even dawned on me to consider applying for a career position in the federal government, but when the job is time-limited, there's some decision making bug in the brain (even though I could have applied for a normal career position and then just left after 4 years!).

It's a great way to entice people to apply who never would have before.

We also need people in for the long haul. But lets solve one problem at a time!

[sailfast]

I love the format as well, and think it's a great idea. I'm currently on a two year term right now at a different org. The two year thing solves a lot (though non-status positions make it hard to hire for the longer term). I'm not objecting to that and agree that we have to start somewhere.

The thing that bugs me is more pedantic. Calling it a "tour of duty" immediately draws a comparison to a military tour of duty undertaken by our military which implies hardship, sacrifice, etc. I get that some people might be taking pay cuts to join or that it might require leaving your comfort zone, but I'd prefer that some sort of sacrifice on the level of heading to Iraq for a year without your family is not implied in the naming.

[vonmoltke]

Honestly, that format is one of the things that attracts me to the USDS (yes, I applied earlier today). I'd like to help some of the obvious inefficiency in government, but I don't want to commit my career to it.