Ok, but the point of the USDS is that these are federal employees, not contractors. In fact if you read that article I linked, contractors are concerned about the existence of the USDS.

Also, one of the big points about USDS is they are paying at or above market rate for developers which is something they have not done in the past. I think all the speculation in your comment is off the mark.

I talked to USDS before and after a couple interviews I got the impression that I'd be engaged in shorter engagements with customers primarily and that I would need to squeeze an engagement into a schedule that wouldn't work for anyone other than 1099 style contractors or those between jobs basically. That's a major part of where my speculation came from that many (or at least some) at USDS are being onboard as contractors because that's pretty much how consulting works classically. While that doesn't mean everyone works that way, it does seem contrary to the evidence that USDS is supposed to be exclusively (presumably, retained, FTE-ish, salaried) feds.

Regardless, I greatly welcome change to the federal service system in any way to promote better retention and progress for its tech workers. Federal service used to mean good and service a source of genuine pride. I went into federal service a long time ago with enthusiasm for change and left pretty damn disillusioned rather quickly.

We're pushing for short-term engagements for a variety of reasons, but the big one is that the people that we want to attract most are people that already have nice jobs at companies with great pay and perks. It's hard enticing them to leave all of that to come work for government, but it's easier to entice someone to take a leave of absence to do it for 3 or 6 months. Many of the people joining as engineers fall into this category.

The USDS is recruiting federal employees, not contractors. Base salaries can be competitive with typical engineering positions in Silicon Valley. The big difference is the inability of the government to pay anything equivalent to stock/options, bonuses, or perks like free food.

Historically the tradeoff between government jobs and private sector jobs is that the government jobs pay less, but have more security. Depends on what you want out of life.

But the Federal Pension is miles better than the equivalent and eventualy the IRS is going to wake up and start taxing perks like "free" food

Obviously you can't get stocks or options, but why wouldn't they be willing to pay bonuses for a job well done/performance or provide free food, if that gets the right kind of people into the door? I don't get it.

Congress decides how the executive branch is paid and how it should use that money. Free food and other "free" perks run afoul of that.