[SanderNL]

Charity? I sympathize somewhat, but I’m also disgusted by the utter lack of respect for government and societal service in general. That shit means something.

I wish to believe there are still people that don’t care about making Yet Another few hundred thousand and just want to actually contribute to society instead of working on ad tech or whatever bullshit.

[tossandthrow]

The issue is that the housing price is set by the people that do care about making Yet Another few hundred thousand.

Equality is good for equality sake. This is a lesson contemporary North Americans seem to have forgotten in record time.

[arcimpulse]

Regardless of whether or not one personally enjoys the work one is doing, if one really is contributing to society, one should get fairly compensated for it.

Additional requirements not common in the private sector, such as rigorous drug testing, ethics codes, requirements on gift reporting, increased surveillance, etc., should come with additional benefits to compensate. Instead, government workers submit to these requirements and a substantial pay cut.

That's mostly because conservatives 1) desire tax cuts at any cost and 2) want to demolish the entire administrative state. The stability and consistency that comes with a well-funded civil servant class are an obstruction to their stated goals.

[jholman]

I vouched your comment, because I think you're precisely making the relevant point in the first two paragraphs.

However, I think you're wrong, at least in part, in your third paragraph. I mean, I think the word "mostly" is wrong in that paragraph. Politicians from all political factions are (quite reasonably) under pressure to lower the cost of doing the work of government, and (quite reasonably) to raise the integrity of the process. Combined with some of the dysfunction inherent in agent-principal problems, I think that's more than enough to cause the problem you're talking about. I experience this firsthand in a jurisdiction that has much less of the "demolish the entire administrative state" that afflicts the American right wing (which I'm guessing is your point of reference).

Mind you, I am not claiming that the problem is not badly worsened by American right-wing politics. I wouldn't know. I'm just claiming that the problem is semi-intrinsic to the situation, and I strongly doubt that it's "mostly" caused by those particular political issues.

[jholman]

I'm confused. You're complaining about the use of the word "charity"?

Background: You make an argument that at least some people should consider putting contributions to society ahead of "making yet another few hundred thousand". I agree with you, at least broadly, and I think the up-thread poster is not disagreeing.

Summary: We're discussing the act of taking a personal financial hit, for the good of society.

The word for that is "charity". That's what that word means.

---------

I also am sympathetic to the GP's point, about which you are so "disgusted", but I think there's room to disagree there.

I am sympathetic because professionally I do work that many people think is "good for society", I currently earn approximately median income (below mean) for my age/gender/nationality, far far below software engineer pay, and I am treated with unbelievable disrespect by my employer, the government. If I was not trapped in this job by personal circumstance (for now), the disrespect part would definitely factor into my decision making about staying in this allegedly-virtuous job. If you're gonna pay people below market, and you treat them badly, that's not a combination that gets you quality employees. Even if there's some social purpose.

[coldtea]

>Summary: We're discussing the act of taking a personal financial hit, for the good of society.

The word for that is "charity". That's what that word means.

Calling it "charity" impies it's done out of pity/compassion.

The parent implies it should be seen as a duty / contribution to the country instead.

[evilduck]

Doing something out of a sense of duty should not require a vow of poverty along with it unless we plan on committing to lifetime benefits and support for the people who take that path (like providing food and housing, because the low end of the GS scales are literally below poverty rates as it is).

[coldtea]

>Doing something out of a sense of duty should not require a vow of poverty along with it

The wages offered are hardly poverty - just not competitive with the private sector.

Besides, "doing something out of a sense of duty", when duty meant something, has also often meant doing it for free, or even doing it on one's own dime, and it absolutely meant accepting a pay cut.

[evilduck]

If you are a GS-5 (typical entry level government roles, 5 rungs up from the actual bottom of the pay scale, since it's literally impossible to get applicants for a GS-1 role if you tried) and support a family of four you are currently at 2023 rates within 3 digits of income from the poverty line.

If we push it lower how are we not expecting that to require poverty? What legion of people in the US do you reckon even have "their own dimes" to spend on being full time volunteer public servants and can afford to serve from a sense of duty? Retirees?

[ndriscoll]

Giving up 50% or more of your income can be a completely different life. It's not "only" making 300k instead of 400k. Based on the other comment saying G13 or lower is more likely, it's making 115k or less and barely being able to afford a house near not great schools where your kids will probably get a worse education than you did (after all, you presumably have a CS degree since the government fixates on degrees and credentialism).

Not all tech jobs are ads. I work in networking equipment and it pays much, much better.

Anyway, my point was they don't even give respect to the people who do that, and still treat you like their property. Same with the vaccine mandates (especially for remote workers): whether you got it isn't the point. My employers have never asked because it was never any of their business.