federal hiring (average, millionaire, companies, health insurance)
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.
Hmm, I don't think I'd describe the current civilian USAJobs document as a resume...its not formatted that way. There are lots of repetitive (but searchable) data fields and format spacing that show up on every one of those 24 pages instead of once.
As I mentioned it is unlike any private sector resume but none the less it is still a resume.
There are two schools of thought on whether to use bullets or traditional paragraphs. The above mentioned 24 page resume was actually tied with a four page resume. The interview was the deciding factor, the one with the four page resume got the job.
If you are creative enough to get picked up by HR it then goes to the a higher level individual at the organization who creates a screen out element and grading criteria. The resumes will be rated against the grading criteria and rated. Your resume needs to have the information needed required in the grading criteria.
From there it depends on the level of position if the position is required to need an interview process.
What should be a simple system isn’t. The best advice I could give is to pay someone with USA jobs experience or if you have a friend in civil service who knows the ropes.
As far as the OP's green Subaru example - it's a great example HOWEVER imo you should rate yourself 5/expert.
I'm not exaggerating about my experience and they interviewed 30 before giving this current job to me (I was their first choice). What's even crazier, I'm female, 58yrs old in a male dominated field and moved from the opposite coast to work here.
I rarely put expert. Actually never unless I am qualified to train someone or if it's a task I've actually instructed. I've seen too many times "your resume has to back up your answer".
Otoh, my young supervisor says put expert on everything.
It's up to you.
If I have no experience in something I Google it, learn a little about it and answer that I've had training on it.
I'm always willing to help anyone. I can get on the phone with both of us looking at the announcement.
About key phrases and tailoring, all true, imo. If the job calls for fork lift experience and your resume says you can operate all warehouse machinery, you need to add the words "including forklift".
Yes to all the above
I think once you start looking at the USA Jobs application differently than you would a traditional private sector job you are on the road to success.
CSRS went away and up to 2010 I believe FERS only took 0.08%. It became a sliding scale afterwards with it going up to where it currently sits. As far as I know your TSP is matched to 5%.
I am not sure where you say I mentioned I have an unfair retirement.........to me the current FERS system is great retirement opportunity. FERS also allows you to retire in your fifties with time and age and you can collect a supplement equal to about 75% of what you would receive from SS at 62. The ability to carry your health benefits is a real good deal.
It has always been quoted that the private sector made way more money but there is a lot of happy federal workers that are perfectly happy with their salary’s which if in the GS pay scale in addition to your yearly COLA’s you have 10 steps so you are continuing to move up in salary at specific timed intervals.
The fact that FERS allows you to retire in your fifties doesn't mean you can actually do it. That's when you discover the tradeoff of lower pay while working for a retirement plan doesn't actually make up for the loss in pay over those years. They don't call them the "golden handcuffs" for nothing.
The fact that FERS allows you to retire in your fifties doesn't mean you can actually do it. That's when you discover the tradeoff of lower pay while working for a retirement plan doesn't actually make up for the loss in pay over those years. They don't call them the "golden handcuffs" for nothing.
This is a very good point about the pension systems. I do not work for the federal government but I have a 401(a) in my position in a local government. I can retire as early as 50. Assuming I never get a promotion or a raise over the next 26 years (I’d like to assume I’d get both of those things) I would get roughly $1000/month. For the rest of my life.
If I wait until 55 to retire, that would more than double to $2800/month. This is already more than my current take home pay.
If I wait until 65 to retire, I would get approximately $3700/month. Which is way over what I currently make. I got these estimates directly from my 401(a) website.
Then when you factor in the additional savings and things you can get from the extra 5 or more years of employment, then it would be silly to retire early at 50. I think the biggest reason to wait to would be Medicare, but I’m not sure. Granted, unless you have some extenuating circumstances, working five more years makes a lot more sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBtwinz
CSRS went away and up to 2010 I believe FERS only took 0.08%. It became a sliding scale afterwards with it going up to where it currently sits. As far as I know your TSP is matched to 5%.
I am not sure where you say I mentioned I have an unfair retirement.........to me the current FERS system is great retirement opportunity. FERS also allows you to retire in your fifties with time and age and you can collect a supplement equal to about 75% of what you would receive from SS at 62. The ability to carry your health benefits is a real good deal.
It has always been quoted that the private sector made way more money but there is a lot of happy federal workers that are perfectly happy with their salary’s which if in the GS pay scale in addition to your yearly COLA’s you have 10 steps so you are continuing to move up in salary at specific timed intervals.
The retirement system for the feds is a little bit confusing. Is it a 5% contribution rate? If so that is a really good deal. I pay double that in my local government.
Assuming I never get a promotion or a raise over the next 26 years (I’d like to assume I’d get both of those things) I would get roughly $1000/month. For the rest of my life.
If I wait until 55 to retire, that would more than double to $2800/month. This is already more than my current take home pay.
No it would be less assuming you get raises too. 26 years of inflation would cut it by nearly half. The pension estimate calculators don't tend include inflation adjustments even while they calculate the "growth" or it uses a flat inflation rate
Quote:
The retirement system for the feds is a little bit confusing. Is it a 5% contribution rate? If so that is a really good deal. I pay double that in my local government.
They put in 1% automatically but you need to put in your own money to get to the full 5%. So you put away 6% to get the 5% matching. This is on top of the current 4.4% for fers on new employees. Basically they are forced to put 10% into retirement to get full benefits.
In real terms, a $70k fed job would be a $100k private sector job depending on how you value the pension. But the federal work is living on $60k/year to get full benefits. This is what I meant before that in the early retirement people, if they saved $40k/year, they could retire a lot earlier than the comparable government worker for the same amount of retirement dollars. This isn't even counting if either workers are putting more towards retirement but only to meet the fers and 5% matching.
The golden handcuffs are only golden for people who can't do basic retirement planning and need someone else to do it for them
As with anything -- and don't jab me for stating the obvious -- some people feel there are trade off worth making others don't. And still others don't see the considerations as trade offs at all.
A person who's been laid off twice in the past 5 years, and been unemployed for 6 months each time before finding a new job (at whatever pay), sure as heck might be willing to take a pay cut for the "stability" of gov't work. And I think it is fair to say that the majority of people would say gov't work is seen as more stable than private sector jobs. In many places, especially if you aren't covered by a union, I'd say job security in the private sector is not as "secure" as any gov't job, from city, county, state on up.
No I get the trade offs, I'm saying that retirement benefits aren't better because of the pension, it is a result of a trade off of letting the government do the retirement planning. The private sector worker can have as nice a retirement too if they planned it out.
But to turn it sideways, more younger people seem to leave the fed jobs than stick around. They take the money in private sector and say they can put it to use better themselves. https://apolitical.co/solution_artic...s-getting-old/
Wonder how many people on CD that want the fed job would even stick around once they got it
No it would be less assuming you get raises too. 26 years of inflation would cut it by nearly half. The pension estimate calculators don't tend include inflation adjustments even while they calculate the "growth" or it uses a flat inflation rate
They put in 1% automatically but you need to put in your own money to get to the full 5%. So you put away 6% to get the 5% matching. This is on top of the current 4.4% for fers on new employees. Basically they are forced to put 10% into retirement to get full benefits.
In real terms, a $70k fed job would be a $100k private sector job depending on how you value the pension. But the federal work is living on $60k/year to get full benefits. This is what I meant before that in the early retirement people, if they saved $40k/year, they could retire a lot earlier than the comparable government worker for the same amount of retirement dollars. This isn't even counting if either workers are putting more towards retirement but only to meet the fers and 5% matching.
The golden handcuffs are only golden for people who can't do basic retirement planning and need someone else to do it for them
That seems like a better deal than my current 12% required contribution rate with the Arizona State Retirement System. It used to be 11% when I got hired. The employer matches at the same percentage, but if you ever leave an ASRS employer, you aren’t eligible to receive their portion regardless of how long you’ve worked there (for people hired after 2011). Which is why if I leave my job I will leave my money in ASRS even when I retire it’s a ridiculously low payment because that’s the only way I’ll get their portion. I’m also putting an additional 5% into a deferred compensation plan voluntarily. I only started the deferred compensation plan recently, like a few months ago, but it’s nice to have it.
I would be inclined to agree with you, I would say a 401(k) may be more volatile BUT I also learned that pension stability is also determined by the stock market since pensions will directly invest in stocks too. I guess that would come down to if you think you are better at stocks than your local pension.
Another question to ask is: does that job exist at 100k in the private sector? For example in my current field and the field I want to switch into, both heavily public sector based, the private sector positions do not pay that much more. For example my job pays almost 50k gross, and local private sector auditors are getting 55-65k. You can get more if you get hired in food safety in a big corporation (like say, McDonalds). The McDonalds job had a salary of 85k I think in Chicago, which factoring in a COL difference from Phoenix, isn’t that much more (I know Chicago isn’t California expensive but it’s still more expensive than here). That wasn’t entry-level or leading the division to be fair, and my job is technically entry-level. I know that question is definitely dependent on field and industry, but it’s a good one to ask.
That seems like a better deal than my current 12% required contribution rate with the Arizona State Retirement System.
You get more for it though, a 2.3% multiplier vs a 1.1% multiplier after 30 years
Quote:
Another question to ask is: does that job exist at 100k in the private sector?
What does it have to be the same job? If you were capable of getting the $70k public job at that pay rate, then you are capable of getting a $100k private...
You think people get jobs by being lucky and unskilled? Why couldn't they learn to do a different job if they had chosen to do a different career path and be successful at it or can people only be good at one thing?
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.
-- some people feel there are trade off worth making others don't. And still others don't see the considerations as trade offs at all.
