> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What number do you have for median federal worker income in DC then? The median representing the 'hordes' were making $120+k from what I saw, not just the average.
Okay, cite your source for that. ZipRecruiter says the median federal income is $125k, with other sources saying the average is $130k. I don't see any source saying they're making way more than that.
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.
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'.
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.
This feels like it needs a MAGA vs Republican distinction. There are plenty of Republicans who (privately) have issues with some things Trump is doing.
They aren't in Congress, they are working in the states, I would guess. The Republicans in Congress mostly volunteered for a spinectomy when Trump was elected again.
That's part of it: many felt the winds and simultaneously made the choice to "focus on family" and step back from politics during the 2nd Trump administration.
But the wheel turns, and there's going to be a lot of folks in the party with very sharp axes to grind during the lame duck period.
The meme is that Susan Collins is “always concerned”. But still votes along with the MAGAs. If they are silently going along, what difference does it make? They are still MAGA.
No one except the Freedom Caucus in the House are true MAGA to their core the rest are just opportunists. I’m not sure who are the true believers in the Senate.
Absolutely not. Almost every non-MAGA Republican voice that served in federal public office has been ousted, and it's not like they were good to begin with.
by and large the "anti-trump republican" has ceased to be a relevant political bloc. they have either vote for trump / pro trump candidates and are functionally indistinguishable from MAGA, vote for the most moderate democrat possible, or have given up politics entirely. I suspect you didn't mean this, but the largest group of self identified republicans who have an issue with trump are angry he isn't far right enough (ie groypers, klansmen, neonazis, and like).
You should try having a casual chat sometime with people who voted for and/or like Trump. You'll quickly discover how wrong this statement is.
It's always easy to spot a person who has enclosed themselves in a political or ideological bubble. They're typically first to apply a label to a large group of people and then assume all the people with that label are the exact same.
This has never been true for any group of people and as it turns out, it's the same for people you disagree with politically.
I've had two such chats with Trump supporters, and one said in great detail that this statement is true. He acknowledged that Trump has done a number of ethically and legally problematic things, and that supporting Trump means enabling this, but feels that he has to accept that necessary evil in order to achieve his policy goals on various issues. (The other flatly denied that Trump has ever done anything wrong and refused to keep talking when I produced examples of the most pointlessly cruel stuff.)
Have you heard differently in your own casual chats on the topic?
Reducing illegal immigration seemed to be the primary one. Some stuff on civil rights too, but I'm not sure if that was a big concern for the guy I was talking to or an attempt to find common ground where he knew I'd be more sympathetic.
> It's always easy to spot a person who has enclosed themselves in a political or ideological bubble. They're typically first to apply a label to a large group of people and then assume all the people with that label are the exact same.
Your recent posting history here includes calling the entire European Union a "non-contributing toddler" to the world. Hmm.
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.