Fed Jobs - Pros and Cons?

[GoodSense]

Travel

Travel does not bother me at all. In fact I enjoy it. My father has traveled all over the world for work, including the Russia, Asia, Middle East and Africa, and I have always wished I had a job like that.

It may be different if we ever have kids, but for now, I don't mind traveling at all. I guess "Pros" and "Cons" are really in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[freebird5825]

I know what your wife means. My current work is like a dysfunctional family, with the two people leading the project disagreeing on everything. They are both in their 60s, a man and a woman. Staff meetings are spent with them arguing with each other. Unfortunately we have about 3 of these meetings a week, 1.5 to 2 hours each.

marathon meetings..oh how i miss those. the hours and hours of watching people enjoy the sound of their own voices. and not get a darn thing done. we had mixed govt and contractors, and all these contractors had deadlines to meet, often that day, and often due to me. so i adopted my own little plan that after the allotted 1 hour, i would stand up and announce to my fellow govt folks that i had another appt to make. i told the industry folks on the side that they were welcome to make their exit also on my "signal". it was like being a local hero. one particular blabbermouth never did get it.

 

[Enuff2Eat]

Pros: stability, nice home life (in general), times to get on this board
Cons: lower pay, politics, somewhat less fullfilling

Recommendation: if you have a lay back personality, want a real home life then feds are good for you. If you're ambition, gun-ho and crazy, understand finance you can shorten your working life from 30-40 years in the feds to 20-25 years in industry. That is how u can achieve Early Retirement. Personally I think working 30-35 years is too long, especially for the feds.

 

[ziggy29]

If you're ambition, gun-ho and crazy, understand finance you can shorten your working life from 30-40 years in the feds to 20-25 years in industry.

What are you saying here? That with seeking out higher pay in industry, you can save enough additional money to pay for FIRE health insurance out of pocket AND overcome the loss of a generous pension with your own savings to retire 10 years earlier?

I'm sure that math works for a few, but as time goes on, those benefits become more and more precious, and more and more valuable. And it only works for people who are motivated to FIRE from a rather early age, and who have the discipline to squirrel 20% of the paycheck away before they start spending it.

 

[Rustic23]

Goodsense,
Out of curiosity what language?

 

[Enuff2Eat]

"..What are you saying here? That with seeking out higher pay in industry, you can save enough additional money to pay for FIRE health insurance out of pocket AND overcome the loss of a generous pension with your own savings to retire 10 years earlier?..."


Please correct me if i am wrong.

Suppose i make $50k/year for 30 years in the feds (stability, lower stress) or make $75k/year for 25 years in industry (unstable, high stress) and if i "understand finance" and invest well on the "extra" 25k for 25 years. wouldn't i be better off?

assuming that i want 50% income on retirement and the return let;s say 13% for 25 years.

 

[ziggy29]

Please correct me if i am wrong.

Suppose i make $50k/year for 30 years in the feds (stability, lower stress) or make $75k/year for 25 years in industry (unstable, high stress) and if i "understand finance" and invest well on the "extra" 25k for 25 years. wouldn't i be better off?

assuming that i want 50% income on retirement and the return let;s say 13% for 25 years.

I'm not saying you're wrong -- I just wanted to make sure that these were the assumptions you were making, because that's what it takes to make it work. That's what it takes to overcome the loss of a pension AND the need to eat all health insurance costs until age 65.

Of course, there's also a quality of life issue for many as the private sector can mean working more hours and living with the stress of diminished job security and likely loss of pensions and retiree health care benefits. And, yes, the potential for higher incomes does offset that. Whether it offsets it partially, completely or more than completely depends on the individual, their ambitions and their ability to save and invest wisely.

The only point I'd quibble with is: 13% ROI for 25 years? And to think I thought Dave Ramsey was being overconfident when he keeps talking about expecting a 12% long-term return in stock funds. Sure, at 13% it's easy to make the math work.

 

[maddythebeagle]

I think we have had this discussion before about higher income in the private sector sometimes being a myth...There has also been some government employees post here that said that their job experience didnt translate into the private sector...

I think one thing that people forget to mention is civil service protection...yeah, it might be useful considering there is politics in every job...

 

[ziggy29]

I think we have had this discussion before about higher income in the private sector sometimes being a myth...There has also been some government employees post here that said that their job experience didnt translate into the private sector...

Well, I don't think it's purely a myth, but I also think some have the tendency to overstate the difference in overall compensation -- especially when you remember to count the value of benefits. Plus, as I implied earlier, there is a "value" to added job security and less uncertainty about your financial future that can't really be quantified (different people will value it differently).

As far as skills not translating to the private sector, in talking to many managers over the years I think it's less a matter of skill sets not being useful, and more due to concern that the private sector has about whether or not a public servant can adjust to the more cutthroat and mercenary mentality of the private sector. The "rules" of the game in private enterprise can be hard for some public sector employees to accept, much less embrace -- which can make it harder for them to excel and flourish in that arena, and thus make private sector employers apprehensive about hiring them.

 

[Enuff2Eat]

Myth or truth about Feds and Private Sector salaries is hard to prove. A government employee lawyer or doctor can make more or less in the private sector is totally up to him or her. I do know now MANY MANY new graduates that i know LOVE to get a job with the nonprofit and government run organization. like the feds, states, school, county jobs. it was not like that 15 or 20 years ago. at least not with the group that i graduated with.

 

[ziggy29]

I do know now MANY MANY new graduates that i know LOVE to get a job with the nonprofit and government run organization. like the feds, states, school, county jobs. it was not like that 15 or 20 years ago. at least not with the group that i graduated with.

Well, sure. As I mentioned earlier, I think people are valuing job security and benefits like health insurance and pensions more highly than ever because these are all eroding so rapidly in the private sector. And many people value stability and security more than maximizing income potential in a "scarier," less certain and less stable world or private enterprise.

The problem is that these benefits are starting to bankrupt the taxpayers -- indeed, these costs are starting to bankrupt some local governments -- and since the taxpayers are less and less likely to have these benefits for themselves, resentment toward paying for it may be on the rise.

 

[Enuff2Eat]

it's kind of scary to think almost everyone wants a government job where everything is NON-profit driven. i totally agree with you that eventually it will bankrupt the taxpayers. At the county level where i am at, once you got a job with the county the job is for life.


i wonder if other country like russian, japan, china, korea.... most young graduate like to get a government job?

 

[youbet]

It appears that tax payer efforts to thwart gov employee compensation increases, etc., are right on. At least based on the discussion here.

 

[ziggy29]

It appears that tax payer efforts to thwart gov employee compensation increases, etc., are right on. At least based on the discussion here.

I think part of it is that taxpayers were more willing to pay for raises and top-notch benefits for government employees when they were getting a similar deal in their private sector job.

But as pensions and retiree health insurance go the way of the dodo in the private sector, I think taxpayer willingness to pay escalating tax burdens in order to secure benefits for others which they don't get themselves starts turning into resentment.

 

[Brat]

I think that for a language teacher, or a translator, a FED position would probably pay better than other similar positions.

As other have said, workplace culture is always an issue but that is true everywhere.

 

[youbet]

I think part of it is that taxpayers were more willing to pay for raises and top-notch benefits for government employees when they were getting a similar deal in their private sector job.

But as pensions and retiree health insurance go the way of the dodo in the private sector, I think taxpayer willingness to pay escalating tax burdens in order to secure benefits for others which they don't get themselves starts turning into resentment.

I think it's going to be interesting if we get a Dem pres to go along with the Dem Congress. Normally, an all Dem fed gov would mean good times for fed gov employees. But with the outlook for hefty tax increases on the horizon, citizens may not tolerate widening the advantage fed jobs have over private sector at tax payer expense.

You call it resentment. Many would just label it indignation.

I also think that if a new Dem pres wants us to go to a single payer, same for eveyone health care system, it will be interesting to see if we'll all get the generous health plan fed workers get.......or will fed workers have to settle for a less generous plan provided for the plebian masses.....

I don't think the masses will tolerate being forced onto a universal health plan that fed workers are exempted from because their plan is better. But, as I said, it will be interesting to see.

 

[Gworker]

I don't think the masses will tolerate being forced onto a universal health plan that fed workers are exempted from because their plan is better. But, as I said, it will be interesting to see.

But remember, federal empoyees have the same health care plan that senators and members of congress have. So they won't mess with their own plan too much.

 

[youbet]

But remember, federal empoyees have the same health care plan that senators and members of congress have. So they won't mess with their own plan too much.

Are you saying that any universal plan that gets implemented will be at least equal to what fed workers and congress critters have now? We'll all be on the same plan?

 

[GoodSense]

I don't think the masses will tolerate being forced onto a universal health plan that fed workers are exempted from because their plan is better. But, as I said, it will be interesting to see.

However, isn't this exactly the situation with social security--it's for the masses only, not for federal workers or fed-level officials??

 

[youbet]

However, isn't this exactly the situation with social security--it's for the masses only, not for federal workers or fed-level officials??

It started out that way. But, as fed workers on this board have told me, it was changed. For some time now, fed workers belong to SS.

There are many state and local gov workers exempt from belonging to SS, however. Many public school teachers, for example.

 

[martyb]

Well....I've been a fed worker for almost 31 years now and will retire in 4 yrs, 10 months. First 4.5 yrs of that was active military, the rest civil service with DOD. Since I began my civilian service just prior to the "new" FERS program, I fall under the "old" Civil Service Retirement System, which is more generous than FERS as far as the defined benefit portion. However, even though I am fully qualified for Social Security based on my work record prior to and during my active duty years, PLUS the fact that I've been a member of the Air Force Reserves since 1981 and have paid into SS all that time and will continue to do so, I will barely collect any SS because of being a Fed under the "old" CSRS system. Under this system, I don't pay into SS, but like I said, I was previously qualified for SS by paying into it, and I still pay into it via my military pay. I earned around $15K last year in the reserves and paid SS on most of that pay. Still, I'll get boned for the SS I have earned. I (and a SS rep) calculate that I will collect around $250 per month SS when I reach age 62. Sour grapes, yeah, kinda I guess. But, I'm still looking forward to that glorious day, Jan 18, 2013 when I drive out the gate for the final time.

 

[TickTock]

I don't think the masses will tolerate being forced onto a universal health plan that fed workers are exempted from because their plan is better.

heh. If fed workers are exempted, it's not a universal plan, is it?

 

[BunsGettingFirm]

I was sent to Monterey for meetings last year. The aquarium brought tears to my eyes - - it was so beautiful. I was only able to get away from meetings and see it over the lunch hour, so I had to practically sprint through it, despite spending $23 for my ticket which seemed like a lot to me. Other than the aquarium trip, I wished I was back at home.

Ah, mention of the Monterey Aquarium brings tears to my eyes as well. During my West Coast techie days, we had a conference in Monterey, and we were invited to a "quick refresher" at the Aquarium at 6 PM. Since I had already visited the aquarium a couple of times, I didn't think much of the invitation. I had visions of a few cheese crackers and some bland wines. When I got there around 7 PM, they had closed the entire aquarium just for us. There were tables of steak, lobster, and sushi throughout the entire place. Waiters and waitresses were going around asking if I needed another beer or wine. Yes, please. The best part was sitting on the balcony looking over the Monterey Bay as the sun set. Those were some heady days.

 

[Texarkandy]

it will be interesting to see if we'll all get the generous health plan fed workers get.......

"generous" is a relative term. I would characterize it as a "good" or "decent" plan, but it's certainly not free & I've known folks with better and/or cheaper health insurance plans through their large company private sector employers.

I've put many dedicated career years in with a large organization (the fed govt) - one of the reasons I stuck with it was the health care plan.

It's quite important that we have a relatively stable & non-corrupt govt workforce. Reduce federal employee pay & benefits to the level of WalMart & you will soon have a govt workforce like they do in Mexico. You think you are unhappy with govt services now......

 

[youbet]

"generous" is a relative term. I would characterize it as a "good" or "decent" plan, but it's certainly not free & I've known folks with better and/or cheaper health insurance plans through their large company private sector employers.

I've put many dedicated career years in with a large organization (the fed govt) - one of the reasons I stuck with it was the health care plan.

It's quite important that we have a relatively stable & non-corrupt govt workforce. Reduce federal employee pay & benefits to the level of WalMart & you will soon have a govt workforce like they do in Mexico. You think you are unhappy with govt services now......

However you characterize the current med plan for fed employees, I'm still curious as to whether Barack or Hillary would attempt to offer a national universal plan to the general public that offers any less or costs any more to each individual than the current fed plan does to its members. I think the opponents of a universal health plan could raise quite a ruckus with the public if fed workers received something better than the rest of the population.

My guess is that the public won't tolerate a mandated universal plan that is perceived as inferior to what fed employees have. If we're talking a universal plan, we're probably talking about gov employees being covered as they are in Canada........in the same plan as everyone else.

I'm not trying to propagate the health care plan discussion to this thread beyond the extent that OP should consider that the advantage of having a better health care plan that fed employees enjoy today might not exist some years from now. We'll have to see who our next president is, what they try to implement and how successful they are at the implementation.