1) Yes, especially if you've worked for some big name, non-government tech companies.
2) Absolutely not. The salary is MISERABLE compared to what you could get in the private sector. That's the real problem.
The government desperately needs world class software engineers, but the private sector can effectively buy them all away. Who would try and fix the busted old immigration system when Facebook or Google will pay you literally four times more money to write way more fun stuff with modern technology, world class perks, and job security that doesn't depend on the next election cycle.
Joining these guys is a sacrifice. It's a service to the country. It's work that literally changes and even saves lives, but it's miserable, boring work, with little or no personal reward.
> 18F is working with a number of different federal departments. One of the biggest projects it has taken on is designing the website for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. That's the agency that processes applications from people hoping to become citizens and those covered under the president's executive actions who hope to obtain work permits. Godbout says the concept for the USCIS website is to make a virtual welcoming statement.
> He thinks of it as an "online Statue of Liberty. This idea of how do we present ourselves to people coming to America. Our digital process should be that beautiful, too."
source: http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2015/01/28/382178...
That all depends. Many comp sci students are brainwashed to think that if a salary isn't at least 100k then it's not worth their time.
The fact is that it depends on location and cost of living.
For example - if you get hired to work for Google in their HQ in CA then you are guaranteed to get at least 100k salary. However, 90% of that will go towards food/rent (you will most likely rent as houses cost up in the millions...) - which making $60k in a smaller suburb area (where housing is in the affordable $50-$200k range) would arguably be the same net income as if you were working at Google.
I will say that you will earn more in the private sector - but I wouldn't use miserable to describe government salaries (more like underpaid). When I worked for the man it was defiantly an interesting experience but it was a very relaxed environment/startupy feeling.
In my suburban area - I could get a mortgage for a $100k house with at least 2br for about $500/month.
Of course people at Google probably don't get paid exactly $100k but keeping in mind a good sized chunk of that is just going toward living there.
[1] - http://www.calculator.net/take-home-pay-calculator.html?cann...
[2] - http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/Redwood-City-CA/house,c...
To re-emphasize, 1k/month in lower rent is worth 15-18k of salary.
I have friends paying more than $2k/month more than me, which is around a negative 40k raise (I live in San Francisco, but share).
It's very easy for humans to misinterpret recurring costs.
Assuming $2k/month is $40k - that is almost half of $100k. So almost half your salary is going towards just rent.
Let's say you made $50k in a suburb area - using your numbers you would only pay $10k/year for a mortgage ($500/month) - with only $20k difference in salary.
$100k in CA ~ $60k $50k in suburbs ~ $40k
Realistically you would probably make $60-$70k in suburb areas which, according to your numbers, would make the same if not more AND own a house.
Of course this is ignoring other factors like food, utilities, bills and taxes.
Miserable, boring work is all in the eye of the beholder - there is a lot of work that many here on HN do that some others would consider boring, even in the startup world. Even companies such as Facebook or Google also have boring work.
Re #2: Unless you are a contractor. I was shocked to learn how much the about-to-retire ~20-30 year guys were making compared to my mid/senior level long-term contractor position was paying.
I'm all for cutting out the middleman in that case, but I think the government needs to determine the price point at which they actually get the talent they need.
That seems to rule out the major reason to work for the government...
Most engineering types I've met in the gov't have been in the 10-14 range, depending on seniority. 15's are usually dept heads or the like.
2) The max was 155k, but I couldn't make the finances work to relocate from SF with my family... and 155k wasn't enough to support our family comfortably in DC (even living in northern VA).
Anyone seriously considering this should also look at living in Baltimore and taking the commuter train into DC cost of living is much lower.
While the ATF didn't like my company, they liked a few of the people, and tried to get us on a government employees, either because we were good, or because they thought it would ease the transition.
Some of the higher-ups approached me, asked for my resume, and then tailored a job posting from my resume so that they could hire me to keep doing the job I'd been doing for years.
After applying though, I was unable to make it past the first level of H.R., who decided that I was unqualified for the job... possibly due to lack of a degree, though no degree was required by the posting, again, as it had been created from my resume.
The higher-up attempted to work it through, but I gave up before they did and took another position. I told them that if they got it through, to call me, and I'd be happy to consider it, and received a call a full 18 months later, at which point I'd moved on in both body and spirit.
To your point 2, again, I'd be shocked if they were comparable. Private contracting pays generously, but government employees are pay-banded in a rather rigid system. One can eventually make established-startup wages, but rarely without direct reports, as the pay bands demand it.
As well, with sequestration and a less and less elastic federal budget, the government benefits are rapidly dwindling. I live and work in the DC area, and job-hopping is still the preferred way to get a raise, though of course government jobs have the strong benefit of being nearly impossible to be fired from.
Pay freezes, cut conference budgets and crappy equipment have been the norm for the past decade or so, and with continuing resolution, even unpaid furloughs have become more and more common.
Again, I don't have any particular insight to the US Digital Service, but a LOT of experience with government work and contracting, and it's definitely not the panacea it once was, for better or worse.
1) Is an outfit like the U.S. Digital Service considering people who don't have undergraduate degrees, but have a consistent track record or are a part of established teams?
2) Is the salary roughly comparable with what's available in the private sector? I understand that the government might pay less in return for some of the perks of government work, but how close are they coming these days?