[ecshafer]

Per a friend, they are told to use more contractors in the government. Its also not clear if the contractor is actually making more money. Government benefits are significantly better than most contractors will give (I will be all of them).

[vintermann]

The contractor has better take home pay. For them, it's maybe a wash whether they get the extra pay or the better benefits, but what they are paid is only a fraction of what the government pays to the contractor's company. For the government, giving those benefits is definitively a much better deal than using a contractor.

[thaumasiotes]

> For the government, giving those benefits is definitively a much better deal than using a contractor.

This is not necessarily the case. The large part of the benefits are to be paid in the future, and this makes it possible for the government to spend much more than makes sense on whatever the project is that the employee is assigned to. You can get into situations where the employee doesn't pass a cost-benefit test.

The contractor is less cost-effective; you get less work per dollar spent. But because you have to pay for the contractor at the same time they do the work, you aren't subject to this effect of being trapped by an illusion of cheapness.

[zzrrt]

Are the future benefits locked in by law or bureaucracy? Or some other reason the agency don't just decrease them?

[thaumasiotes]

In the United States they tend to be locked in by law. I believe in California lowering them requires a (state) constitutional amendment.