[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?