[tolmasky]

There's no excuse for not giving people what they're owed -- never trust anyone that wants to exploit your skills. Whether its by "changing the world" in a startup or being patriotic for the government.

> The fact that some of the best and brightest in our industry have decided to do this work because it's important rather than because it's the most financially rewarding option is encouraging.

There's actually really simple reasoning behind this: the flip side to your statement is "the fact that the government isn't willing to pay for work that is important is discouraging".

You hear about the tremendous amounts of waste in government projects (everything from military contractors to the bay bridge that got built by a FOREIGN company, went over budget, and now may not even be safe). Clearly some projects are deemed "important enough" to be paid for. If your project doesn't command market rate, then either it isn't as important as they're trying to tell you it is (since they've clearly demonstrated a willingness to pay in other areas), or, perhaps worse, it is but they just don't care about it enough.

Its so strange that the patriotism line only applies individuals who can't negotiate for themselves. When it comes to huge corporations, these arguments never seem to come up.

[ethanbond]

In what world are you owed a Silicon Valley salary? Only at a Silicon Valley company, and even then only if you signed the piece of paper that offered it.

It seems awfully cynical to think there's no tech work that you would take on to justify a little cut in pay. If it's not for you, it's not for you. But there are huge swaths of people who get real satisfaction from working on the problems that government work exposes them to.

It has little to do with patriotism nor the monetary value of your work. People do things for incentives – they can be monetary or otherwise. As someone else mentioned, federal employee benefits can be really, really fantastic for the way some people want to live their lives. Probably not for those wanting to own a Maserati by their 30th birthday, but for those who want a low-risk, comfortable retirement after a consistent (if lengthy) tenure it's not a bad option.

I can name at least one "huge corporation" (in Silicon Valley, no less) that very successfully offers lower salary compensation for a shot at similarly meaningful work. Maybe these arguments never hold up because it's hard to be "patriotic" about the 38th x for y startup to launch this week.

[tolmasky]

No one is "owed" anything, I'm simply pointing out two things:

1. Be skeptical of offerings that are below market rate in exchange for intangibles, like being "part of something". You often discover that there are certain people on the organization who get to both be a part of something and have good compensation. Now, if the argument is "the package has other benefits like retirement etc etc, then sure, that is orthogonal to my argument about "sacrifice". In fact, if you simply enjoy the work then I also think that's fine. I'm saying don't be convinced about something's importance. Notice in my comment I specifically called out startups and gov.

2. This entity seems to find seemingly limitless pockets for other things, making this sacrifice suspicious.

Fundamentally I believe in treating your employees well. Sometimes amazing tasks require arbitrary salary sacrifices, more often though someone's taking a big paycheck.

[bovermyer]

If I remember correctly, my benefits when I worked as a subcontractor for the federal government were fantastic. Definitely helped make up for the lower pay.

[camenk]

What kind of benefits are there compared to private sector? Care to elaborate more on this? Or it's too sensitive?

[azernik]

According to this [1]:

* Good health care

* Lots of time off

* A defined-benefit pension plan

* Good support for parents

[enraged_camel]

I have a hard time believing that all of these combined will make up for the difference in pay compared to an equivalent private sector job in New York, SV, Seattle or even Austin.

[abc_lisper]

> In what world are you owed a Silicon Valley salary? Only at a Silicon Valley company, and even then only if you signed the piece of paper that offered it.

In a world where you are highly sure of getting what you paid for. You don't seem to complain about Govt paying 800million for stuff that does not work, but about people getting paid what they would elsewhere.

[ethanbond]

Those are some logical long jumps. How do you know I don't complain about government waste? And how do you know that I do complain about people getting paid what they're worth?

There are a lot of intangibles in the world, and personal motivation systems are the battlegrounds for them.

Different people value different things. Trust me, that's okay.

[abc_lisper]

What I don't understand is this. The Govt. is rich, and I'm not. I have something they want. I live in a capitalist country. Why not charge them for what I'm worth. This makes no sense. I would agree to not charge money for some foundation that serves poor people, but the Govt? That's plain immature/stupid.

[ethanbond]

A few things. First, six figures is rich by almost any standard except Silicon Valley. Second, you don't live in an exclusively capitalist country, and even if you did, that doesn't mean you have to be entirely financially motivated by everything you ever do. Are you familiar with charity organizations? Volunteer services? I don't know, basic human decency which goes unrewarded each and every day? Third, these people are charging what they're worth: a moderate salary, good benefits, and problems they want to work on. Fourth, you really don't think a more efficient government benefits the poor?

A better healthcare infrastructure (I'm not saying healthcare.gov is "the answer," but it's the right direction) literally saves lives. What other definition of serving people can you possibly have?

[dnesting]

The simple answer here is that government agencies are funded by congressional appropriations and salaries are regulated. The "government" may be rich, but that doesn't imply that it's easy to pay people market rates, and even if it were, there's a finite budget out of which to pay them that could instead be used to hire more people.

In many ways I'm actually glad this situation exists: it has the effect of filtering out people that care more about their market worth than the mission.

[Squarel]

If people were concerned about the highest salary available to them, we would not have academics and NGOs.

People are motivated by different things. It is not better or worse to be primarily motivated by a salary that exists in one place, but, if you want a Silicon Valley salary, then perhaps Silicon Valley is the place that you should work.

[s73v3r]

>In what world are you owed a Silicon Valley salary?

On the flip side, in what world are employers owed cheap labor?

[ethanbond]

Nowhere. Is this little govt project run by captured slaves from the far off land of Siliconia Valley?

[abc_lisper]

Fallacy by appeal to the extreme.

[s73v3r]

>There's no excuse for not giving people what they're owed -- never trust anyone that wants to exploit your skills. Whether its by "changing the world" in a startup or being patriotic for the government.

Normally I'd agree with you. However, I would posit that Congress is a pretty good excuse.

>Its so strange that the patriotism line only applies individuals who can't negotiate for themselves. When it comes to huge corporations, these arguments never seem to come up.

Because huge corporations are not loyal to their workers, so fuck them. They have to pay up front.

[tolmasky]

> Because huge corporations are not loyal to their workers, so fuck them. They have to pay up front.

I think you mistook what I was saying. I meant, the calls to patriotism seem to disappear when the government deals with corporations instead of people. When the government makes a contract with a corporation, its a pretty sweet deal for the corporation, when they make it with an individual, it doesn't appear to be the case. Corporations seem to be able to drive up costs and sell things at ridiculous markups, not be held liable for their mistakes, but individuals are expected to "sacrifice for the greater good" when offering their services to government.

[crdb]

But you don't work for the government, you work for the public, which happens to be a government job. And this changes everything (go ask a Marine about it). "Being patriotic for the government" has no meaning in a free country with individual rights. And it is not because others are getting pork from taxpayer money that it is a good thing that should be praised and encouraged.

The government is composed of citizen who represent all other citizen's interests and have been hired to manage them. It is not a standalone entity and, at least in the United States, is (technically, if not in practice) subordinate to the people, not owning them like a feudal lord his serfs.

Government service is what allows Silicon Valley jobs paying fortunes to exist - both through the maintenance of individual rights (justice, police, defence) and through seeding it with vast amounts of defence research funding half a century ago. Going ostrich on that simple fact of life today in a first world country is a luxury afforded by those who do not and spend their own life dedicated to making yours possible. Regardless of Snowden's status as a traitor or hero, for example, it is pretty clear that he was not motivated by financial gain or the ideological concerns of the enemy (the traditional reasons for moving to Russia in the 20th century). He did it because he thought that risking his prosperity, quality of life and, well, actual life was worth it for the prospect of improving government and defending his fellow citizen's rights.

As a citizen, you have the power to change the way government operates through your representatives (without doing a Snowden); the question becomes, to those who complain of pork, how many of you did bring it up with your elected representatives? How many of you took some action instead of thinking "that slice looks tasty, maybe I should have some"?

This is a separate debate to the idea of civil servants being paid "market rate" salaries or simply enough to have a middle class life (i.e. sacrificing earning capability for the sake of public service). What I am particularly objecting to is your idea that because some people have managed to steal from the taxpayers, your fellow citizen and neighbours, that it is OK for you to do so as well. If I have misunderstood you I apologise.

[unclebucknasty]

>You hear about the tremendous amounts of waste in government projects...

>When it comes to huge corporations, these arguments never seem to come up.

>Clearly some projects are deemed "important enough" to be paid for.

What you're calling government waste is some corporation's profits. Nothing is ever wasted. It's simply redistributed. It's not so much a matter of whether it's important enough, but one of lobbying, campaign finance, and quid pro quo. Foot the bill and we'll "waste" some money your way.

Worker-bees don't have this leverage, so they get government rates.

[dylanjermiah]

>What you're calling government waste is some corporation's profits. Nothing is ever wasted. It's simply redistributed.

Taking other people's money and using it in an inefficient manner is wasting.

[unclebucknasty]

>using it in an inefficient manner

Inefficient for whom?

For the people who are getting something in return for "other people's money", it's investing.

I'm not saying that it's cool. But, it is what it is.

[phonon]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

[unclebucknasty]

Thanks for sharing. There seems to be confusion, however. I am not arguing that it's good for society or anyone other than the corporations that profit (i.e. the glaziers, if you will).

I am simply saying that there is a design to the way things currently work. It is not random, accidental, or born of some myopic undervaluing of human capital.

[dylanjermiah]

>Inefficient for whom?

For those whose income is being reduced.

[unclebucknasty]

Right. But, who benefits?

I'm not arguing that it's good for taxpayers or government employees. I think you're forgetting the context of my original comment. My point is simply that these choices--i.e. paying below market rates to employees, while spending exorbitantly on contracts with corporations--are not a matter of accidental waste or the relative importance of projects, as seemed to be implied by the comment to which I replied.

That "waste" is profitable. And it happens that those who profit also tend to have cozy relationships and armies of lobbyists.