Article on millennials leaving fed jobs (paycheck, health insurance, salary, interest)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give me a CSRS pension at the same rate the Boomers paid into the system - with the same 80% of high-3 salary payout upon retirement - and I'll gladly let you block Facebook.
Sounds like a fair trade to me.
were you not aware of the retirement plan when you accepted your position?
and it's 80% at 40 years, that's the max you can get. many go with less. i left with 55% so it's not 80% for everyone.
were you not aware of the retirement plan when you accepted your position?
and it's 80% at 40 years, that's the max you can get. many go with less. i left with 55% so it's not 80% for everyone.
Sure was, because FERS-FRAE is still far preferable to being subject to the vagaries of the private sector - the outsourcing, the downsizing, and the offshoring.
What drives me nuts is the insufferable attitudes of many "old feds" (pardon the pun) who, along with their private sector counterparts, adopted the F-You attitude and took what they could from the system while leaving scraps in their wake for the generation behind them.
Sure was, because FERS-FRAE is still far preferable to being subject to the vagaries of the private sector - the outsourcing, the downsizing, and the offshoring.
What drives me nuts is the insufferable attitudes of many "old feds" (pardon the pun) who, along with their private sector counterparts, adopted the F-You attitude and took what they could from the system while leaving scraps in their wake for the generation behind them.
don't know, from what I understood of the CSRS, the FERS system isn't really all that bad comparatively. Namely, for a while CSRS didn't pay into social security like some police/teacher union pensions. They also didn't have TSP for part of their careers (the older ones). Meaning what they got out of CSRS is about equal to what we get with FERS/TSP/SS. Yes, they might have some SS and TSP towards later years, but that didn't give it a lot of time to compound or have the full credits for SS payments.
with addition of the roth TSP about 10 years ago, we have slightly more control over taxes in retirement. You may not think the TSP is a "good" replacement because you don't trust on the returns from the stock market. That's a valid point I suppose for each individual, but for me, I'll probably get more out of the TSP than pension since I max out my TSP each year. And I feel like the returns would be in the 7-8% range regardless of the fear mongering over low rates here on CD.
yes, the CSRS was more of a "no cost"/contribution, but that's not the big difference. Contribution rates would have gone up had CSRS stuck around most likely. But there are a few city pensions where it is 2%/year which would be the same as CSRS. But I doubt we will see a large exodus to city jobs. Maybe towards the end of the career for a 2nd pension, like we see teachers doing by teaching across state lines.
don't know, from what I understood of the CSRS, the FERS system isn't really all that bad comparatively. .
In general CSRS was a much better system than FERS. True you didn't get SS or TSP, but you didn't need them. You got a much higher percentage of retirement income at far less risk. That's one reason so many employees didn't retire as expected when the market tanked a few years ago -- TSP lost so much value they had to keep working compared to CSRS. You also didn't pay into SS or TSP if you were in FERs so you had that income stream all along. Nothing to keep CSRS employees from investing the equivalent of SS and TSP percentage into their own investments along the way. So it's a double win for CSRS over FERS. I really feel sorry for FERS FRAE.
don't know, from what I understood of the CSRS, the FERS system isn't really all that bad comparatively. Namely, for a while CSRS didn't pay into social security like some police/teacher union pensions. They also didn't have TSP for part of their careers (the older ones). Meaning what they got out of CSRS is about equal to what we get with FERS/TSP/SS. Yes, they might have some SS and TSP towards later years, but that didn't give it a lot of time to compound or have the full credits for SS payments.
with addition of the roth TSP about 10 years ago, we have slightly more control over taxes in retirement. You may not think the TSP is a "good" replacement because you don't trust on the returns from the stock market. That's a valid point I suppose for each individual, but for me, I'll probably get more out of the TSP than pension since I max out my TSP each year. And I feel like the returns would be in the 7-8% range regardless of the fear mongering over low rates here on CD.
yes, the CSRS was more of a "no cost"/contribution, but that's not the big difference. Contribution rates would have gone up had CSRS stuck around most likely. But there are a few city pensions where it is 2%/year which would be the same as CSRS. But I doubt we will see a large exodus to city jobs. Maybe towards the end of the career for a 2nd pension, like we see teachers doing by teaching across state lines.
CSRS:
Pension: 7.0%
...and that's it. Work 41 years and 10(11?) months and get 80% of high-3 upon retirement. Add in that many Boomers started working for the federal government straight out of high school or after getting a liberal arts degree and many of them can retire in their early 60's.
FERS-FRAE:
Pension: 4.4%
Social Security: 6.2%
TSP: 5% (to get the full match)
Total: 15.6%. Work 41 years and get 44-45% of final salary, but you'll be somewhat older - mid to late 60s as most positions now prefer you to have a graduate degree before beginning Federal service. This also assumes that the TSP like any 401k doesn't tank right before retirement and also that Social Security benefits don't get cut via raising the retirement age to 70 or higher.
No, this barbecue doesn't taste nearly as good as it used to.
Shamrock847: It is great that we were eventually (three weeks post a two week furlough, if I recall correctly) paid while we were furloughed, but I'd rather be working and not having my work disrupted by political grandstanding in the first place and not feeling anxious about how long JP Morgan/Chase is going to wait for my delayed car payment, etc.: that is my point. (Side note: it was very real for the long term feds I worked with who were up until furlough morning talking about "Congress isn't going to shut us down", then having the manager walk around and have them sign their furlough paperwork before dismissing them...denial at it's best.)
I agree the whole furlough thing absolutely sucked for everyone impacted. And that it was absolutely unnecessary, counter-productive, and politically motivated. But since we are talking about the merits of federal vs. non-federal employment, getting paid three weeks late is a whole lot better than NOT GETTING PAID AT ALL, or taking a huge pay cut to keep your job, or getting laid off - all of which happened to people in the private sector as a result of the same shut down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd
Grade 12 is not a lot if you live in the DC metro area like I do. Same if you live in many of the other high COL metro areas in the US (San Francisco, Boston, New York, Seattle, etc.). However, grade 12 in non-locality pay areas is great. And if you have no student loan debt, I'm sure grade 12 is even better. You also said "good luck [looking for] loan forgiveness" LOL thank you so much for your sincerity.
Grade 12 in DC starts at $77k. Like I said before, that's a pretty good "entry level" salary, even in a high COL area. By comparison, it takes ~17 years to get to that level as a teacher with a Master's degree in the Fairfax County Public Schools (DC suburbs).
And if someone never advances beyond GS12 in DC, which is very unlikely, they still top out over $100K. While by no means wealthy for the DC area, it's not poverty. And a family with two earners in that range can live very comfortably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lanhvtnymd
And, please, tell me what you know of FERS-FRAE? Please research it before you make all of your dreams come true in your future federal job, because FERS no longer exists for folks coming on after I believe January 2014, FERS-FRAE was tacked onto the bill that allowed us to get paid post-furlough I believe. And know that FERS-FRAE is not the end...rest assured there will likely be little to no pension if things keep going the way they have. Best of luck to you.
Apparently I know more about it than you do. We all agree FERS-FRAE is not as good a deal as FERS or CSRS. But as I said before, any pension is still a whole lot better than no pension, which is what new workers in the private sector get.
With FERS-FRAE, employees pay 4.4% of salary (vs. 0.8% under FERS) towards their pension. The agency pays the rest. At retirement, the employee gets 1% or 1.1% (depending on age and years of service) x years of service x their highest 3 years of pay. So for example, someone retiring at age 65 with 40 years of service and a high 3 of $100K would get $44K/year = 1.1% * 40 * $100K. Plus annual cost of living increases. Plus medical (for a fee).
Does anyone know of anything like this in the private sector? Because I sure don't.
Again, if federal jobs were so terrible, they wouldn't have such low turnover or so many people trying to get them. Simple supply and demand.
The above is just the cost of living increases (or lack of). People still got raises for step increases (seniority) and raises for promotions.
Another bad misconception. They are not cost of living increases but cost of labor. Based on it's a subtle but significant distinction. There is a whole methodology for calculating the cost of labor based on private sector costs, which this then completely ignored by both the President and Congress to pick a number they like.
Step increases are not seniority; they are performance and can be withheld. Not everyone gets them because eligibility is based on service and then performance determines whether it is awarded or not. But regardless, including them is misleading. Yes, I know, a lot of people like to make apples to oranges comparisons to create a misleading impression of Federal pay. If you want to go down this path, then we need to include all the private sector pay items that usually aren't discussed as well.
Promotions are not raises, at least in the sense of more pay for the same work. Yes pay goes up, but it's due to different, higher level duties. So it's a huge misnomer to relate the two.
1. Job security
2. Great retiremrnt
3. 40 hour work week
4. Normal hour
5. Good pay
6. Limited management abuse
for
1. Long hours often upaid if salaried exempt
2. Constant fear of layoffs or job being cut to be "centralized" somewhere else
3. Politics nepotism cronyism
4. Abuse by upper managers who can get away with whatever they want
5. The responsibility of 3 people thrown on you because companies want to save a penny thus making the poor suckers at the bottom miserable and quit with constant pricy turnover rates as the poor mis management continues and nothing is done about it
Many People are truly stupid in this country. Just NO sense. Pick up a newspaper or scower the internet. You will see the private sector is NOT the place to be now. Dont be an idiot if you have a cushy public sector job dont give it up to go and work in private sector Abuse land
I think it really depends where you work in general weather its private sector or public sector
There are some private companies that will treat you really good if you are a decent worker
The problem is it seems these companies become fewer and far in between
This is mostly true thou.
I have always been told you could make more money in Private sector but as I mention most private sector jobs especially in IT make you really work your ass off I don't know how these guys deal with constant long hours and worrying of laid offs but that kind of lifestyle will rot me to the ground
Not to mention i don't like working wierd hours or dealing with after hours work.
Thats why I never leave the public sector and I think people who really dont realize the bs you will have to put up with a private company is dumb.
Public sector gives:
Stability
Normal 40 hours
Vacation time
Holidays off and paid
Super work life balance
Often times lots of people take it for granted.
I love the time off its really amazing
I will admit one thing thou
Its really easy to get stagnant in public sector
with all of this said
I don't judge no one for wanting to go from public to private
As long as they know the trade off its really their problem.
Some people often take things for granted
Last edited by CosmoStars; 07-04-2016 at 12:03 PM..
Am i the only person on the planet who prefer to stay at a stable public job making $55,000 instead of making $65,000 in a private job?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
