[Jtsummers]

The hiring freeze for federal employees is concerning as well.

One of the major issues is that we've had several hiring freezes in the US civil service in recent decades. It causes a bathtub effect. You do reduce the workforce through attrition, but eventually you have to hire again and hire almost exclusively junior people (< 25 or 30). So you end up with a massive gap spanning around 15-20 years of age and experience.

You lose a great deal of institutional knowledge (particularly critical for civil service which has many long running programs (for various reasons both good and bad)). Contractors don't really suffice in this regard because they (the employees, not necessarily the companies) tend to move much more frequently. It's going to be a problem.

[bsilvereagle]

> You lose a great deal of institutional knowledge (particularly critical for civil service which has many long running programs (for various reasons both good and bad)).

NASA and DoD research labs are still dealing with the experience and cultural gaps from the hiring freezes of the 90s. I think for a lot of Americans it's easy to think of the "lazy bureaucrats" of the federal government (which definitely exist) and see a freeze or Reduction in Force as an overall good thing. However, every freeze and RIF has long lasting damage in the federal scientific community.

[pmorici]

I think streamlining the process to fire under-performing federal employees is much needed. More so than a hiring freeze or reduction.

[Jtsummers]

Yep. I've worked on projects that were clearly impeded by a lack of understanding of how things were done (by the new people, myself included at times), and how things needed to be updated (primarily by the older people, strong resistance to changing processes (sometimes a good thing, often bad when done as a blanket policy)).

[dragonwriter]

> You do reduce the workforce through attrition, but eventually you have to hire again and hire almost exclusively junior people (< 25 or 30).

This wouldn't be true if government pay was competitive (low pay partially offset by, particularly, pension benefits means entering government mid-career except as a box-checking thing to move to a private position leveraging the knowledge of government is discouraged, but entering at a junior level for a full career is less discouraged.)

Of course, the kind of people embracing starve the beast aren't going to mitigate the skill impact by improving pay.

[mywittyname]

Low pay and hiring freezes are two sides of the same coin though -- these processes both transfer employees into contractor roles where private companies can charge double for the same worker and pocket the difference.

[gozur88]

Contract workers are actually much cheaper. When I worked on a government contract we were loaded at 1.85 and the civil servants (who made more money to start with) were loaded at 2.25.

Total compensation for civil servants is quite a bit higher.

[Jtsummers]

Not necessarily. And even if just in raw pay/year, the institutional effect of outsourcing is still incredibly costly in the end. And this neglects the bonus payouts negotiated into most contracts that don't occur in organic projects.

[gozur88]

There isn't much institutional effect of outsourcing if you keep outsourcing. Where I worked there were people who'd been in the same job for decades, even though they'd technically worked for a half dozen different employers during that time. And all the contract payouts were built into the load - if I made $10/hr the government paid $18.50 for each hour.

Working as a civil servant is much nicer, but it's not cheaper for the government.

[pmorici]

Not a chance in hell this is true for engineering / computer science / tech type positions. If you are talking about janitorial staff or something that doesn't require an advanced degree like basic clerical work then you maybe correct but it isn't a private sector vs. government efficiency issue it is a matter of the government overpaying employees in low skill jobs.

[gozur88]

Everybody I worked with was an engineer or a scientist. All GS 12+

[pmorici]

I'm not sure where you worked or what gave you the impression that contractors are "cheaper" but among the EE/CS people I know that work in that industry it is common knowledge that government contractors make about double what a government civilian employee makes for the same work role even if you include the value of benefits. In other words they are making more than even the highest paid civil servant is allowed to by law.

[Jtsummers]

That's one of the things that would help. Particularly for scientists and engineers. The salaries are way below what they could achieve in the private sector (often doing the same or similar work with contractors, in the defense industry).

[TheBeardKing]

Depends on your area of the country. In tech-dense areas with high costs of livings, the adjusted cost of living to federal civilian salary doesn't nearly catch up. However, there are many, many bases in suburban and rural areas where an early career income is over twice the median income and you get a lot for the money.

[ep103]

Are you telling me starve the beast doesn't actually work?

Color me shocked. : )