I've taken an honest look at USDS, but I decided I couldn't afford to work for them, even though I would love to. I live in one of the most expensive cities in the US, and salaries + total comp form USDS are far lower than what I'm earning now, even at a (well-funded, non-ai) non-profit. I'd have to start at salary grade 15, the highest one, to even begin approaching what I earn now.
I'm not even living a life of tech-bro luxury. I've got a mortgage, bills to pay, retirement to save for, groceries, transportation, etc that take a significant plurality of my take-home pay. Sure, my standard of living is a bit higher than average (I have a penchant for expensive bicycles...), but that doesn't add up to the pay cut I'd have to take to work at any salary grade besides the literal highest one.
I would adore working for the government on technology. I work at a non-profit for its social impact, and I can't see myself working in ads, ai, finance, or other place that doesn't contribute to the social good. I wouldn't expect to be paid at FAANG/MAMAA/whatever levels, but something competitive with what I see private companies offering would get me to sign up in (almost) an instant.
Government jobs have a fixed pay grade that isn't changing. It doesn't afford an upper-middle-class life in an expensive city. You may find yourself wanting both, but you can't have them. If you already get that, you're not missing anything!
If you have a deeper question about why the US government chooses this outcome, here is the answer: It is ideologically closer to Mondrian than to other US corporations. This ideology makes it hard to hire for certain higher-wage skills; they have to find workers who will accept a pay cut. (Mondrian's maximum wage ratio -- the wage of the CEO divided by the lowest-paid worker -- is six. Private sector CEOs might get 10x more than Mondrian's CEO; Mondrian's CEO makes ideologically-motivated sacrifices. Something similar is happening for high-skill devs at Mondrian and the USG.) To some degree this ideology is thrust upon the largest entities whose workforces tend to unionize and lobby for similar outcomes; to some degree it is an emergent outcome of principled and political choices by legislators and executives.
Go USG! Such an inspiring organization. I can understand why people are cynical -- it's too much to understand; anything big has lots of ugliness; much of the Rep party has been ideologically opposed to Mondrian; etc -- but I just think it's so beautiful.
As someone not in the third trimodal tech pay-hump (I can’t possibly pass the interviews, I’m all used up for the day after 90-120 minutes of far-less-stressful ordinary interviewing) I’d considered it, because the pay cut would be fairly small, I find the mission appealing, and federal government benefits and retirement are really good…
Then I noticed the “term of service” stuff and nope’d out. Without the retirement, it’s a terrible deal even for me.
I'm not even living a life of tech-bro luxury. I've got a mortgage, bills to pay, retirement to save for, groceries, transportation, etc that take a significant plurality of my take-home pay. Sure, my standard of living is a bit higher than average (I have a penchant for expensive bicycles...), but that doesn't add up to the pay cut I'd have to take to work at any salary grade besides the literal highest one.
I would adore working for the government on technology. I work at a non-profit for its social impact, and I can't see myself working in ads, ai, finance, or other place that doesn't contribute to the social good. I wouldn't expect to be paid at FAANG/MAMAA/whatever levels, but something competitive with what I see private companies offering would get me to sign up in (almost) an instant.
Maybe I'm missing something?