Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Financial Discussion

It is always wise to have a secure financial foundation. Here is a place to ask questions, exchange ideas and share information on how to make the most of your money.


To read today's top news stories on federal employee related news visit FederalDaily.com.
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
MaineFed720  
#1 Posted : Thursday, May 6, 2021 6:23:10 AM(UTC)
MaineFed720

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/6/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
United States
Location: ME

Thanks: 4 times
Greetings,

Wondering if anyone has encountered this, and if my agency is correctly applying the two-step rule. I am currently a GS-12/5 remote worker living in southern Maine (BOS locality). I am taking a promotion to GS-13, with the same division office, which is located in Augusta, Maine (RUS). I will be commuting half-time outside of the locality I am leaving (and still currently living in) 60 miles to the division office.

I was told by HR that with the two-step rule I will be coming in as a 13/2 (RUS), which means I will be shorted a little over $2k annually on this "promotion." Is this right? And, if it is let me just say that it exposes a wholly broken system. Any system that allows for someone to take on an increased cost of living (which I assuredly will with commutation expenses), yet lose money on a promotion... Well, I think it's pretty obvious what my feelings are.

Hopefully the future will bring remote work to more positions or a fairer reassessment of localities. It took them years to drag BOS locality to Portland, ME, maybe they will do the right thing and drag it northward another 50 miles in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks for any advice, and for letting me vent.
FS0201  
#2 Posted : Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:30:11 AM(UTC)
FS0201

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,341

Thanks: 114 times
Was thanked: 312 time(s) in 273 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Wondering if anyone has encountered this, and if my agency is correctly applying the two-step rule. I am currently a GS-12/5 remote worker living in southern Maine (BOS locality). I am taking a promotion to GS-13, with the same division office, which is located in Augusta, Maine (RUS). I will be commuting half-time outside of the locality I am leaving (and still currently living in) 60 miles to the division office.

I was told by HR that with the two-step rule I will be coming in as a 13/2 (RUS), which means I will be shorted a little over $2k annually on this "promotion." Is this right? And, if it is let me just say that it exposes a wholly broken system. Any system that allows for someone to take on an increased cost of living (which I assuredly will with commutation expenses), yet lose money on a promotion... Well, I think it's pretty obvious what my feelings are.

Hopefully the future will bring remote work to more positions or a fairer reassessment of localities. It took them years to drag BOS locality to Portland, ME, maybe they will do the right thing and drag it northward another 50 miles in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks for any advice, and for letting me vent.


I am not a staffer, but it looks like they set your pay correctly. When there is a promotion to another locality, the employee is converted to the new locality and then the two-step rule is applied. So, your current pay ($97,789) becomes $87,822 for RUS and then two steps higher than that would be $92,988; setting you at 13-2 ($95,215) would be appropriate. Yes, it is a decrease on annual pay in immediate circumstance, but you will be able to get additional steps in the future and you become eligible for higher grades. If your duty station was changed to a higher locality in the future, you pay would increase accordingly.

Edited by user Thursday, May 6, 2021 2:32:59 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

The excuse of, "I read it on FederalSoup..." won't work. Please do your due diligence.
thanks 1 user thanked FS0201 for this useful post.
MaineFed720 on 5/7/2021(UTC)
Navy Bubblehead  
#3 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 3:41:34 AM(UTC)
Navy Bubblehead

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/19/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,327

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 120 time(s) in 98 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Greetings,

Wondering if anyone has encountered this, and if my agency is correctly applying the two-step rule. I am currently a GS-12/5 remote worker living in southern Maine (BOS locality). I am taking a promotion to GS-13, with the same division office, which is located in Augusta, Maine (RUS). I will be commuting half-time outside of the locality I am leaving (and still currently living in) 60 miles to the division office.

I was told by HR that with the two-step rule I will be coming in as a 13/2 (RUS), which means I will be shorted a little over $2k annually on this "promotion." Is this right? And, if it is let me just say that it exposes a wholly broken system. Any system that allows for someone to take on an increased cost of living (which I assuredly will with commutation expenses), yet lose money on a promotion... Well, I think it's pretty obvious what my feelings are.

Hopefully the future will bring remote work to more positions or a fairer reassessment of localities. It took them years to drag BOS locality to Portland, ME, maybe they will do the right thing and drag it northward another 50 miles in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks for any advice, and for letting me vent.


I have never been able to make sense of the "geographic conversion" rule when it comes to promotions across localities, but I take issue with your indignation about your increased "commutation expenses". Normally, when people change localities, they have to move their residence to be closer to their duty station. That you just happen to be close enough to your new station to make a commute viable without moving is irrelevant to the pay-setting process. A position is paid based on Grade/Step and any locality. It is NOT based on the employees' commute. Your commute is 100% on you and you are owed nothing in relation to it.
thanks 1 user thanked Navy Bubblehead for this useful post.
MaineFed720 on 5/7/2021(UTC)
MaineFed720  
#4 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 4:52:04 AM(UTC)
MaineFed720

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/6/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
United States
Location: ME

Thanks: 4 times
Originally Posted by: ex-military Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Greetings,

Wondering if anyone has encountered this, and if my agency is correctly applying the two-step rule. I am currently a GS-12/5 remote worker living in southern Maine (BOS locality). I am taking a promotion to GS-13, with the same division office, which is located in Augusta, Maine (RUS). I will be commuting half-time outside of the locality I am leaving (and still currently living in) 60 miles to the division office.

I was told by HR that with the two-step rule I will be coming in as a 13/2 (RUS), which means I will be shorted a little over $2k annually on this "promotion." Is this right? And, if it is let me just say that it exposes a wholly broken system. Any system that allows for someone to take on an increased cost of living (which I assuredly will with commutation expenses), yet lose money on a promotion... Well, I think it's pretty obvious what my feelings are.

Hopefully the future will bring remote work to more positions or a fairer reassessment of localities. It took them years to drag BOS locality to Portland, ME, maybe they will do the right thing and drag it northward another 50 miles in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks for any advice, and for letting me vent.


I have never been able to make sense of the "geographic conversion" rule when it comes to promotions across localities, but I take issue with your indignation about your increased "commutation expenses". Normally, when people change localities, they have to move their residence to be closer to their duty station. That you just happen to be close enough to your new station to make a commute viable without moving is irrelevant to the pay-setting process. A position is paid based on Grade/Step and any locality. It is NOT based on the employees' commute. Your commute is 100% on you and you are owed nothing in relation to it.


Thanks for the reply. I get the sentiment, but it still doesn't change the fact that commutation is a part of cost of living - no matter how you slice it this is an inarguable fact. Everything is a choice, and that includes just about every other aspect of cost of living as well. My point here being that there is a pretty obvious disparity in how locality is determined, and the end result is inequity. Even if commutation was completely taken out of the picture, this is still a promotion on paper alone. The end result is my living situation remains the same across the board, yet I lose $2k annually.

The locality calculation is completely screwy, which I don't think anyone disputes. I know people who live on the other side of the BOS locality line that have higher costs of living (sans commutation), than people living inside it. Throw remote work into the mix, and where the paper designations for duty stations are in many cases, and you have a completely backwards system that hasn't kept up with the times and isn't reflective of true costs of living.

People go entire careers in localities that aren't fairly adjusted, largely for political reasons (we can't have much of Maine roped into BOS locality due to how many DOD and VA employees are stationed up this way). At the end of the day, just because a locality is what it is currently, doesn't mean it's fair and it certainly shouldn't preclude anyone's indignation. Heck, if there wasn't any indignation to begin with, the entire country would be RUS.
TheRealOrange  
#5 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 5:48:14 AM(UTC)
TheRealOrange

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 957

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 185 time(s) in 163 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Thanks for the reply. I get the sentiment, but it still doesn't change the fact that commutation is a part of cost of living - no matter how you slice it this is an inarguable fact. Everything is a choice, and that includes just about every other aspect of cost of living as well. My point here being that there is a pretty obvious disparity in how locality is determined, and the end result is inequity. Even if commutation was completely taken out of the picture, this is still a promotion on paper alone. The end result is my living situation remains the same across the board, yet I lose $2k annually.

The locality calculation is completely screwy, which I don't think anyone disputes. I know people who live on the other side of the BOS locality line that have higher costs of living (sans commutation), than people living inside it. Throw remote work into the mix, and where the paper designations for duty stations are in many cases, and you have a completely backwards system that hasn't kept up with the times and isn't reflective of true costs of living.

People go entire careers in localities that aren't fairly adjusted, largely for political reasons (we can't have much of Maine roped into BOS locality due to how many DOD and VA employees are stationed up this way). At the end of the day, just because a locality is what it is currently, doesn't mean it's fair and it certainly shouldn't preclude anyone's indignation. Heck, if there wasn't any indignation to begin with, the entire country would be RUS.

Locality pay is not based on the cost of living; it is based on the cost of labor. Under the governing statute, the rates of pay under the General Schedule are compared with rates of pay for non-Federal workers for the same levels of work within each locality pay area. This is done based on surveys conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For each locality in which a pay disparity is exists, the size of the disparity is specified. It's the pay disparities, not the cost of living, on which the recommended comparability payments (locality pay) are based. That's why the locality pay rates don't seem to make much sense at all when trying to compare local costs rather than local pay rates. Unless the private sector job market has increased pay in those areas to keep pace with the local costs of living, it won't show up in the comparison and won't affect the locality pay. I've been down that road a couple times in my career, i.e., getting a lower locality pay in an area with a higher cost of living.
thanks 1 user thanked TheRealOrange for this useful post.
MaineFed720 on 5/7/2021(UTC)
smithandjones  
#6 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 5:50:31 AM(UTC)

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/1/2011(UTC)
Posts: 166

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 23 time(s) in 21 post(s)
Everything is a choice. And life in the government is full of hard choices. Tell them to go ***** themselves and see if they care. You're the one that has to live with your choices. If you're not happy at the start it will likely get worse.

Of course, your choices depend on your options - is this a good option that will lead to more pay later and promotions etc...sometimes it is 2 steps forward and one step back. Yes, the government is twisted.

thanks 1 user thanked for this useful post.
MaineFed720 on 5/7/2021(UTC)
MaineFed720  
#7 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 5:54:01 AM(UTC)
MaineFed720

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/6/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
United States
Location: ME

Thanks: 4 times
Originally Posted by: TheRealOrange Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Thanks for the reply. I get the sentiment, but it still doesn't change the fact that commutation is a part of cost of living - no matter how you slice it this is an inarguable fact. Everything is a choice, and that includes just about every other aspect of cost of living as well. My point here being that there is a pretty obvious disparity in how locality is determined, and the end result is inequity. Even if commutation was completely taken out of the picture, this is still a promotion on paper alone. The end result is my living situation remains the same across the board, yet I lose $2k annually.

The locality calculation is completely screwy, which I don't think anyone disputes. I know people who live on the other side of the BOS locality line that have higher costs of living (sans commutation), than people living inside it. Throw remote work into the mix, and where the paper designations for duty stations are in many cases, and you have a completely backwards system that hasn't kept up with the times and isn't reflective of true costs of living.

People go entire careers in localities that aren't fairly adjusted, largely for political reasons (we can't have much of Maine roped into BOS locality due to how many DOD and VA employees are stationed up this way). At the end of the day, just because a locality is what it is currently, doesn't mean it's fair and it certainly shouldn't preclude anyone's indignation. Heck, if there wasn't any indignation to begin with, the entire country would be RUS.

Locality pay is not based on the cost of living; it is based on the cost of labor. Under the governing statute, the rates of pay under the General Schedule are compared with rates of pay for non-Federal workers for the same levels of work within each locality pay area. This is done based on surveys conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. For each locality in which a pay disparity is exists, the size of the disparity is specified. It's the pay disparities, not the cost of living, on which the recommended comparability payments (locality pay) are based. That's why the locality pay rates don't seem to make much sense at all when trying to compare local costs rather than local pay rates. Unless the private sector job market has increased pay in those areas to keep pace with the local costs of living, it won't show up in the comparison and won't affect the locality pay. I've been down that road a couple times in my career, i.e., getting a lower locality pay in an area with a higher cost of living.


Oh, I get it, and I think it's how they can justify piss poor locality in many areas like northern Maine where a comparable private sector simply doesn't exist.
MaineFed720  
#8 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 6:00:29 AM(UTC)
MaineFed720

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/6/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
United States
Location: ME

Thanks: 4 times
Originally Posted by: smithandjones Go to Quoted Post
Everything is a choice. And life in the government is full of hard choices. Tell them to go ***** themselves and see if they care. You're the one that has to live with your choices. If you're not happy at the start it will likely get worse.

Of course, your choices depend on your options - is this a good option that will lead to more pay later and promotions etc...sometimes it is 2 steps forward and one step back. Yes, the government is twisted.



Yup, pretty much sums it up. I would argue that choices are illusory in many cases. I'm over a barrel. Sure I can decline, but to do so would be committing career suicide in a small agency where upward mobility is severely restricted as is. Unfortunately it's a game that has to be played. I'm taking the job and making the short-term sacrifice. An unfortunate and unintended consequence I fear, is that by forcing people into these situations the government is restricting its flow of human capital and therefore missing out on the contributions from qualified people that may not be in positions to make that sacrifice.
tic32003  
#9 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 6:10:34 AM(UTC)
tic32003

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/10/2019(UTC)
Posts: 77
United States

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 22 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
by forcing people into these situations


Nobody is forcing you do to anything.

As already explained, it's your choice.

MaineFed720  
#10 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 6:20:43 AM(UTC)
MaineFed720

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/6/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
United States
Location: ME

Thanks: 4 times
Originally Posted by: tic32003 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
by forcing people into these situations


Nobody is forcing you do to anything.

As already explained, it's your choice.



Sorry you missed the point. Maybe re-read what I wrote...
Navy Bubblehead  
#11 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 7:14:25 AM(UTC)
Navy Bubblehead

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/19/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,327

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 120 time(s) in 98 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: smithandjones Go to Quoted Post
Everything is a choice. And life in the government is full of hard choices. Tell them to go ***** themselves and see if they care. You're the one that has to live with your choices. If you're not happy at the start it will likely get worse.

Of course, your choices depend on your options - is this a good option that will lead to more pay later and promotions etc...sometimes it is 2 steps forward and one step back. Yes, the government is twisted.



Yup, pretty much sums it up. I would argue that choices are illusory in many cases. I'm over a barrel. Sure I can decline, but to do so would be committing career suicide in a small agency where upward mobility is severely restricted as is. Unfortunately it's a game that has to be played. I'm taking the job and making the short-term sacrifice. An unfortunate and unintended consequence I fear, is that by forcing people into these situations the government is restricting its flow of human capital and therefore missing out on the contributions from qualified people that may not be in positions to make that sacrifice.


What "short-term sacrifice" are you making? You're taking a new job. It's a location that pays "X" dollars. You can take it, or not. The govt isn't forcing anybody into anything. The pay system is what it is, and folks know this going in. IF they don't know going in, they figure it out pretty early on in their careers, and can then decide whether to stay or move on to something else.

As for missing out on "contributions from qualified people that may not be in positions to make that sacrifice", again, not sure what "sacrifice" your talking about. The "sacrifice" as I see it is forgoing private sector employment (and the ups/downs, risks) for the relative stability of federal employment. The pay isnt the best, but at least when the economy cycles down, I am not too concerned. Its the tradeoff of stability.
Navy Bubblehead  
#12 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 7:25:21 AM(UTC)
Navy Bubblehead

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/19/2012(UTC)
Posts: 1,327

Thanks: 25 times
Was thanked: 120 time(s) in 98 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: ex-military Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Greetings,

Wondering if anyone has encountered this, and if my agency is correctly applying the two-step rule. I am currently a GS-12/5 remote worker living in southern Maine (BOS locality). I am taking a promotion to GS-13, with the same division office, which is located in Augusta, Maine (RUS). I will be commuting half-time outside of the locality I am leaving (and still currently living in) 60 miles to the division office.

I was told by HR that with the two-step rule I will be coming in as a 13/2 (RUS), which means I will be shorted a little over $2k annually on this "promotion." Is this right? And, if it is let me just say that it exposes a wholly broken system. Any system that allows for someone to take on an increased cost of living (which I assuredly will with commutation expenses), yet lose money on a promotion... Well, I think it's pretty obvious what my feelings are.

Hopefully the future will bring remote work to more positions or a fairer reassessment of localities. It took them years to drag BOS locality to Portland, ME, maybe they will do the right thing and drag it northward another 50 miles in the not-too-distant future.

Thanks for any advice, and for letting me vent.


I have never been able to make sense of the "geographic conversion" rule when it comes to promotions across localities, but I take issue with your indignation about your increased "commutation expenses". Normally, when people change localities, they have to move their residence to be closer to their duty station. That you just happen to be close enough to your new station to make a commute viable without moving is irrelevant to the pay-setting process. A position is paid based on Grade/Step and any locality. It is NOT based on the employees' commute. Your commute is 100% on you and you are owed nothing in relation to it.


Thanks for the reply. I get the sentiment, but it still doesn't change the fact that commutation is a part of cost of living - no matter how you slice it this is an inarguable fact. Everything is a choice, and that includes just about every other aspect of cost of living as well. My point here being that there is a pretty obvious disparity in how locality is determined, and the end result is inequity. Even if commutation was completely taken out of the picture, this is still a promotion on paper alone. The end result is my living situation remains the same across the board, yet I lose $2k annually.

The locality calculation is completely screwy, which I don't think anyone disputes. I know people who live on the other side of the BOS locality line that have higher costs of living (sans commutation), than people living inside it. Throw remote work into the mix, and where the paper designations for duty stations are in many cases, and you have a completely backwards system that hasn't kept up with the times and isn't reflective of true costs of living.

People go entire careers in localities that aren't fairly adjusted, largely for political reasons (we can't have much of Maine roped into BOS locality due to how many DOD and VA employees are stationed up this way). At the end of the day, just because a locality is what it is currently, doesn't mean it's fair and it certainly shouldn't preclude anyone's indignation. Heck, if there wasn't any indignation to begin with, the entire country would be RUS.


The lines have to be drawn somewhere. Commuting costs are a fact of life anywhere you live or work. Cost of living is a fact of life. Those costs can vary widely even within a given locality. The majority of it is dependent on personal choices. I could force my cost of living to double, it doesn't mean I should get a raise from my employer.
MaineFed720  
#13 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 7:29:28 AM(UTC)
MaineFed720

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/6/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
United States
Location: ME

Thanks: 4 times
Originally Posted by: ex-military Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: smithandjones Go to Quoted Post
Everything is a choice. And life in the government is full of hard choices. Tell them to go ***** themselves and see if they care. You're the one that has to live with your choices. If you're not happy at the start it will likely get worse.

Of course, your choices depend on your options - is this a good option that will lead to more pay later and promotions etc...sometimes it is 2 steps forward and one step back. Yes, the government is twisted.



Yup, pretty much sums it up. I would argue that choices are illusory in many cases. I'm over a barrel. Sure I can decline, but to do so would be committing career suicide in a small agency where upward mobility is severely restricted as is. Unfortunately it's a game that has to be played. I'm taking the job and making the short-term sacrifice. An unfortunate and unintended consequence I fear, is that by forcing people into these situations the government is restricting its flow of human capital and therefore missing out on the contributions from qualified people that may not be in positions to make that sacrifice.


What "short-term sacrifice" are you making? You're taking a new job. It's a location that pays "X" dollars. You can take it, or not. The govt isn't forcing anybody into anything. The pay system is what it is, and folks know this going in. IF they don't know going in, they figure it out pretty early on in their careers, and can then decide whether to stay or move on to something else.

As for missing out on "contributions from qualified people that may not be in positions to make that sacrifice", again, not sure what "sacrifice" your talking about. The "sacrifice" as I see it is forgoing private sector employment (and the ups/downs, risks) for the relative stability of federal employment. The pay isnt the best, but at least when the economy cycles down, I am not too concerned. Its the tradeoff of stability.


Short-term sacrifice is taking a pay cut when I have a mortgage and children... I get where those of you from the "take it or leave it" crowd are coming from. And I personally think that's a view that doesn't take into account the nuanced dynamics of a choice. Sure, the choice is yours-plenty of you have said that, and I have yet to disagree; however, that view fails to take into account the influence that ramifications of that choice have. For example, I could have chosen not to take a 13 "promotion" and with it a loss of pay. One ramification of that would likely be that I would die a GS-12.

As for the private sector argument, it's a tad disingenuous not taking the sum of all parts into consideration. Also, it presupposes that everyone's situation is the same. I graduated from my post-graduate during the great recession. Yes, I did have choices. Those choices were severely limited and not that same as let's say someone who graduated last year when the economy was doing well.

This isn't a black and white conversation. There are far more variables than the people who are willing to dismiss it as a mere "choice" are giving it credit for (e.g., PSLF). Choices weigh on a decision, and can in cases make those choices much narrower and alternative paths/options therefore illusory.

Edited by user Friday, May 7, 2021 7:30:32 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

frankgonzalez  
#14 Posted : Friday, May 7, 2021 11:58:41 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,945

Thanks: 107 times
Was thanked: 1165 time(s) in 932 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: ex-military Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: smithandjones Go to Quoted Post
Everything is a choice. And life in the government is full of hard choices. Tell them to go ***** themselves and see if they care. You're the one that has to live with your choices. If you're not happy at the start it will likely get worse.

Of course, your choices depend on your options - is this a good option that will lead to more pay later and promotions etc...sometimes it is 2 steps forward and one step back. Yes, the government is twisted.



Yup, pretty much sums it up. I would argue that choices are illusory in many cases. I'm over a barrel. Sure I can decline, but to do so would be committing career suicide in a small agency where upward mobility is severely restricted as is. Unfortunately it's a game that has to be played. I'm taking the job and making the short-term sacrifice. An unfortunate and unintended consequence I fear, is that by forcing people into these situations the government is restricting its flow of human capital and therefore missing out on the contributions from qualified people that may not be in positions to make that sacrifice.


What "short-term sacrifice" are you making? You're taking a new job. It's a location that pays "X" dollars. You can take it, or not. The govt isn't forcing anybody into anything. The pay system is what it is, and folks know this going in. IF they don't know going in, they figure it out pretty early on in their careers, and can then decide whether to stay or move on to something else.

As for missing out on "contributions from qualified people that may not be in positions to make that sacrifice", again, not sure what "sacrifice" your talking about. The "sacrifice" as I see it is forgoing private sector employment (and the ups/downs, risks) for the relative stability of federal employment. The pay isnt the best, but at least when the economy cycles down, I am not too concerned. Its the tradeoff of stability.


Short-term sacrifice is taking a pay cut when I have a mortgage and children... I get where those of you from the "take it or leave it" crowd are coming from. And I personally think that's a view that doesn't take into account the nuanced dynamics of a choice. Sure, the choice is yours-plenty of you have said that, and I have yet to disagree; however, that view fails to take into account the influence that ramifications of that choice have. For example, I could have chosen not to take a 13 "promotion" and with it a loss of pay. One ramification of that would likely be that I would die a GS-12.

As for the private sector argument, it's a tad disingenuous not taking the sum of all parts into consideration. Also, it presupposes that everyone's situation is the same. I graduated from my post-graduate during the great recession. Yes, I did have choices. Those choices were severely limited and not that same as let's say someone who graduated last year when the economy was doing well.

This isn't a black and white conversation. There are far more variables than the people who are willing to dismiss it as a mere "choice" are giving it credit for (e.g., PSLF). Choices weigh on a decision, and can in cases make those choices much narrower and alternative paths/options therefore illusory.
you are leaving out the other aspects of choice:

You can change agencies. You speak of career suicide at a small agency. Why worry about what one agency considers "career suicide" when there are quite a few others out there.

You can change locations: People move from one geographic location to another frequently. I moved from Los Angeles to DC for a promotion. If a position that looks interesting to me opens in a location I'm willing to live at, I'll apply. The locality may be higher or lower than I am currently in. I'll know that when I apply. It is not like the GS pay tables are a deeply held secret. Anyone can look them up and figure out the new step for the new grade (if a promotion), and see what the pay will be in the new location.

If you insist on remaining in one location or one agency (or both!), then you have effectively limited your choices. If that is your choice, then understand you made it, and no-one forced you. You claim those who graduated last year have more options than you do. Why? They may have graduated recently, but you have the same level of degree AND years of experience...so you have a few more options than they do. Of course, you need to be willing to move and/or change agencies.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
tic32003  
#15 Posted : Monday, May 10, 2021 5:57:20 AM(UTC)
tic32003

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/10/2019(UTC)
Posts: 77
United States

Thanks: 7 times
Was thanked: 22 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: tic32003 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: MaineFed720 Go to Quoted Post
by forcing people into these situations


Nobody is forcing you do to anything.

As already explained, it's your choice.



Sorry you missed the point. Maybe re-read what I wrote...


You're apparently just trolling, looking for an argument, or looking for someone to sympathize with you. Good luck with your career. Sounds like you're going to need it.
thanks 1 user thanked tic32003 for this useful post.
Navy Bubblehead on 5/11/2021(UTC)
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.966 seconds.