Regarding pay, it's actually pretty bad. A typical IT worker will be a GS-11 to GS-13 depending on location and degree (possibly lower in some locations, maybe higher in some high COL areas). GS-13 in many places is restricted to management and SMEs, though they're bumping up a lot of the "working level" grades because they realize they can't compete in hiring.
To pick a high COL area where you might find GS-13 working level IT folks, San Diego GS-13's max out at $153k. If they're actually GS and not another pay system (has a different pay raise method but usually maps to some GS grades, like Acqdemo) then it takes 18 years to go from GS-13 Step 1 to GS-13 Step 10. Most likely they aren't starting at Step 1 in any grade, let's say they start at Step 4, then it's 12 years to max. Once maxed, they only get the general pay increase every year. There are few technical GS-14 positions (this is changing, but not rapidly) even in high COL areas so the only "promotion" option for many is to go from a GS-13 technical role to a GS-13 management role (same pay) and then leverage that into a GS-14 management or technical role, if someone dies and a position opens up. GS-15 technical roles are pretty rare.
Based on my experience, every federal organization requires at least a public trust clearance for every IT contractor.
I wish to believe there are still people that don’t care about making Yet Another few hundred thousand and just want to actually contribute to society instead of working on ad tech or whatever bullshit.
Equality is good for equality sake. This is a lesson contemporary North Americans seem to have forgotten in record time.
Additional requirements not common in the private sector, such as rigorous drug testing, ethics codes, requirements on gift reporting, increased surveillance, etc., should come with additional benefits to compensate. Instead, government workers submit to these requirements and a substantial pay cut.
That's mostly because conservatives 1) desire tax cuts at any cost and 2) want to demolish the entire administrative state. The stability and consistency that comes with a well-funded civil servant class are an obstruction to their stated goals.
However, I think you're wrong, at least in part, in your third paragraph. I mean, I think the word "mostly" is wrong in that paragraph. Politicians from all political factions are (quite reasonably) under pressure to lower the cost of doing the work of government, and (quite reasonably) to raise the integrity of the process. Combined with some of the dysfunction inherent in agent-principal problems, I think that's more than enough to cause the problem you're talking about. I experience this firsthand in a jurisdiction that has much less of the "demolish the entire administrative state" that afflicts the American right wing (which I'm guessing is your point of reference).
Mind you, I am not claiming that the problem is not badly worsened by American right-wing politics. I wouldn't know. I'm just claiming that the problem is semi-intrinsic to the situation, and I strongly doubt that it's "mostly" caused by those particular political issues.
Background: You make an argument that at least some people should consider putting contributions to society ahead of "making yet another few hundred thousand". I agree with you, at least broadly, and I think the up-thread poster is not disagreeing.
Summary: We're discussing the act of taking a personal financial hit, for the good of society.
The word for that is "charity". That's what that word means.
---------
I also am sympathetic to the GP's point, about which you are so "disgusted", but I think there's room to disagree there.
I am sympathetic because professionally I do work that many people think is "good for society", I currently earn approximately median income (below mean) for my age/gender/nationality, far far below software engineer pay, and I am treated with unbelievable disrespect by my employer, the government. If I was not trapped in this job by personal circumstance (for now), the disrespect part would definitely factor into my decision making about staying in this allegedly-virtuous job. If you're gonna pay people below market, and you treat them badly, that's not a combination that gets you quality employees. Even if there's some social purpose.
The word for that is "charity". That's what that word means.
Calling it "charity" impies it's done out of pity/compassion.
The parent implies it should be seen as a duty / contribution to the country instead.
The wages offered are hardly poverty - just not competitive with the private sector.
Besides, "doing something out of a sense of duty", when duty meant something, has also often meant doing it for free, or even doing it on one's own dime, and it absolutely meant accepting a pay cut.
If we push it lower how are we not expecting that to require poverty? What legion of people in the US do you reckon even have "their own dimes" to spend on being full time volunteer public servants and can afford to serve from a sense of duty? Retirees?
Not all tech jobs are ads. I work in networking equipment and it pays much, much better.
Anyway, my point was they don't even give respect to the people who do that, and still treat you like their property. Same with the vaccine mandates (especially for remote workers): whether you got it isn't the point. My employers have never asked because it was never any of their business.
They might also generally still drug test? I don't even do drugs, but I'm not going to pee in a cup for someone to effectively do charity lol. Good luck recruiting a professional with decades of engineering experience when you treat them like they're a 16 year old working at Taco Bell. Even someone with 0 years doesn't have to deal with that kind of treatment in industry.