[neilv]

> Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low.

Also, many people took pride in the service they provided to their country (or to the people, or as part of a team that did good, however they thought of it).

I don't have high hopes for this new thing.

After recent treatment of federal employees, and other things going on in the US this year, including how USDS as DOGE was weaponized against the US... I'd expect this new thing to only be able to recruit from these categories:

1. Outright bad people, with anti-US, looter/saboteur intent, as we've seen from other facets recently. They will focus on their own bad-person individual interests.

2. People who aren't bad, but who are so cognitively impaired, that they still don't realize that they're probably going to get screwed personally and/or directed to be the baddies. They will be bad at everything they do.

3. People who are intelligent and pro-US, and have no illusions about what they're signing up for, but who desperately need the income, after being screwed earlier this year. They won't be inspired to execute well on whatever anti-US directives they're given.

[jotux]

Before all of this happened the hiring I had to deal with when I was federal fell into similar buckets:

1. Completely inept or lazy people that couldn't get a job anywhere else (~50%)

2. Smart people that took the job because it was close to their family (~30%)

3. Smart people that took the job because they liked the the specific mission and felt like it was really important (~10%)

4. Smart people that took the job after retiring from a private industry job as a sort of laid-back post-retirement hobby (we called them re-treads, ~10%)

From what I've heard, a lot of federal employers can only hire from the #1 category now, and the applicants in that category have gotten worse.

[mgrat]

There's just no path to home ownership in the DC area for the fed career path after the ZIRP era. A capable person would have to be insane or desperate given the economics alone.

[mothballed]

DC has the highest per capita income of anywhere in the US (vs other states/territories), so when you realize federal workers are producing the most value for America the economics are at least a little better. If you look at relative economic slackers like workers of NYC and the private industry where less value is per capita created, it's a bit rougher.

[square_usual]

> DC has the highest per capita income of anywhere in the US

This isn't from the Federal workers; it's from people working in contracting for the Feds or other similar roles.

[mothballed]

Googling average Federal worker income in DC, every number I came up with was the above the average for DC, and DC is higher than every other state/territory.

I find nothing supporting your assertion but plenty opposing it. Feds are not only pulling it up, but the biggest group of people doing so.

[Den_VR]

There are a lot of old feds that can afford the area because of how it was priced 25-40 years ago. That’s how stable some fed jobs and careers were.

Now, talking to a barista in DC and the solution is 4-5 roommates. Not unfamiliar to those in the bay area, but less upside.

[acdha]

One thing to remember is that federal workers tend to be older because most agencies have been encouraged to hire contractors for decades. That skews averages up towards the mid-career managers, which will seem high if you compare it to the entire job market but if you only compare them with similar private sector employees who have comparable experience and skills they’re underpaid.

[square_usual]

Yeah, it's marginally above average for DC, but that doesn't mean they're "raking it in". The average (which is a bad metric for income) is dragged up by the wealthy in DC balancing out the poor in DC, not hordes of Federal Workers (most of whom live outside DC in Maryland/Virginia, FWIW) making $120k.

[ethbr1]

What does this have to do with the price of DC housing and federal employee salaries' ability to purchase it?

[mothballed]

Lower salaries at the same home prices would make it even more difficult. This is what we see in NYC, for instance.

DC has some of the highest home prices but also the highest incomes.

[alistairSH]

But Feds aren’t the ones earning those big salaries. They make ok money, but an engineering manager in the DC suburbs earns more.

[Centigonal]

This is a distorted comparison and you know it. DC in unique among US states and territories in that it encompasses a major metropolitan area with no rural regions. In this comparison, DC also leads the country in population density, average building height, public transit usage, latte consumption, and any other correlate of living in a city.

If you compare DC against other major metropolitan statistical areas, the leadership disappears -- see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropol...

[mothballed]

>If you compare DC against other major metropolitan statistical areas, the leadership disappears -- see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropol...

No it doesn't, not according to the linked data you're proposing. I sorted by per-capita income of MSAs on the second table of that page, it shows DC MSA blowing the other metropolitan areas away. Might not still be accurate as that's a 2010 census, but you're the one insisting on it.

Looks like you're the one, distorting your own citations, mate and you "know it." Methinks this a case of psychological concept known as 'projection'.

[Centigonal]

I thought you had to realize that comparing DC to a state like California wasn't going to be an apples-to-apples comparison, which is why I wrote, "and you know it." I'm sorry for making assumptions.

You're also right, I was sloppy with my citation. I looked into the source data, and I believe Wikipedia's second table may be wrong here. Here is B19301 from the 2010 census. The Bridgeport MSA is first: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5YSPT2010.B19301?q=b19301...

Unfortunately, the table on Wikipedia is uncited (beyond the 2010 census) and was added by an anonymous IP address editor, so I don't know how they got their numbers. I'll double check my work and update the article if I don't find anything else.

Generally, though, my point is that if you compare the states and DC, you'll find that DC is an outlier on a lot of dimensions. If you compare the DC metro area with other MSAs, a lot of that exceptionalism goes away.

[guru4consulting]

when I saw 18F, CISA, USDS were targeted by DOGE, everything was clear. They were just cutting all the good muscle and leaving the bad fat :(