Can They Make Government Jobs as Cool as Google and Goldman?(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Can They Make Government Jobs as Cool as Google and Goldman?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/can-they-make-government-jobs-as-cool-as-google-and-goldman/2018/07/20/da230dc4-8b83-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html
85 comments
You know what's a cool job? Working at a great job doing interesting work... and having a schedule where I leave at 2:30 PM and pick my kids up from school. Then I get to spend the evening with my kids, playing with them, going to the pool with them, doing homework with them, reading with them, etc.
That's a cool job!!!
That's a cool job!!!
And what is this cool job of which you speak? Is this your wish list or a description of your current job?
I have a standard 9-5. The trick to leaving at 230 is to start at 6.
That sounds horrible. Start work at 6? So you have to get up at 5? Which means either going to bed at 9 or you're one of those types who can survive on minimal sleep. Starting work at 6 sounds like the most uncool job I can think of.
It maximizes time spent with kids who also go to sleep by 9. What’s wrong with that?
That's fine and cool if you have/love kids. I'm the opposite. Getting up at 5am to start work at 6am and being in bed for 9pm is the antipathies of cool for me!
You may be looking for antithesis vs antipathies.
On the other hand, I don’t have children but like having the rest of the day available, and it’s great to not necessarily be working when most businesses are open. I’d call that freedom pretty cool, especially if you’re in an area where that saves you commute time in rush hour.
I respect individuals who value time with their kids in addition to having a serious career. My father was too busy chasing C-suite positions and running Iron Man races to spend time with his six kids.
On the other hand, I don’t have children but like having the rest of the day available, and it’s great to not necessarily be working when most businesses are open. I’d call that freedom pretty cool, especially if you’re in an area where that saves you commute time in rush hour.
I respect individuals who value time with their kids in addition to having a serious career. My father was too busy chasing C-suite positions and running Iron Man races to spend time with his six kids.
Antithesis. Of course. I'll edit my comment. I certainly respect those who choose to have kids but not something I ever planned or plan to do. Of course, now I'm in my mid 40s that ship, as far as I'm concerned, has sailed (not saying I couldn't father kids but no teenager wants a dad who is in the 50s/60s).
You have to work an extra half hour each day compared to those doing 9-5?
Do you eat lunch?
Usually that's between 12 and 2? Not sure what point you're making tbh... Especially if you're awake so early, you'll probably have lunch early.
Lunch is not working hours. Taking a half hour break is common practice.
Are you implying that those working 9 till 5 leave at 5:30?
Yes. 9-5 is really more of a saying than legal truth. People who have to clock their hours usually work 8-5 with a one hour lunch, with some opting to take a half hour lunch and leave early / arrive late with manager approval.
Of course someone who has only worked salary without concern for billable time may never have experienced this. But even for salaried employees if your employment agreement says 40 hours, that does not include lunch breaks. Few employers in tech care because bean counting hours doesn't increase performance for creative types or knowledge workers.
Of course someone who has only worked salary without concern for billable time may never have experienced this. But even for salaried employees if your employment agreement says 40 hours, that does not include lunch breaks. Few employers in tech care because bean counting hours doesn't increase performance for creative types or knowledge workers.
>Those aren't cool companies, those are just paid a lot.
I get your point about an article redefining "cool" in a way you don't like but if we entertain what the article is talking about, they mean jobs that have "prestige" and are "desirable" to graduates.
There's no denying that top-of-the-class college graduates dream more about landing an analyst job at Goldman or McKinsey rather than getting hired at a government job such as "parks & rec manager". (A job as a park ranger to track bears may be "cool" but a parks & rec manager to shuffle paperwork around is probably not. A job as a park manager may be respected but it's not prestigious.)
Some government jobs that would be considered "cool" would be NASA scientists working on Mars rovers or NSA code crackers. However, those are not the type of government jobs (because NASA/NSA can attract talent) the article is talking about.
I get your point about an article redefining "cool" in a way you don't like but if we entertain what the article is talking about, they mean jobs that have "prestige" and are "desirable" to graduates.
There's no denying that top-of-the-class college graduates dream more about landing an analyst job at Goldman or McKinsey rather than getting hired at a government job such as "parks & rec manager". (A job as a park ranger to track bears may be "cool" but a parks & rec manager to shuffle paperwork around is probably not. A job as a park manager may be respected but it's not prestigious.)
Some government jobs that would be considered "cool" would be NASA scientists working on Mars rovers or NSA code crackers. However, those are not the type of government jobs (because NASA/NSA can attract talent) the article is talking about.
> I get your point about an article redefining "cool" in a way you don't like but if we entertain what the article is talking about, they mean jobs that have "prestige" and are "desirable" to graduates.
Those jobs are desirable to graduates because they pay lots of money. End of story.
Those jobs are desirable to graduates because they pay lots of money. End of story.
>Those jobs are desirable to graduates because they pay lots of money. End of story.
There's more to it than that. I can't speak for the mindset of consulting jobs like McKinsey but for jobs like Goldman Sachs, there truly is a set of people that enjoy finance and therefore, working there or at one of the other prestigious bulge bracket firms (Citi, JP Morgan, etc) would be more interesting to them than working as an "Assistant to the Comptroller of the local city government".
Are there graduates that hate finance and only want a Goldman job only for the money? Yes. But those people are also not best suited for a low-paying job such as "Assistant to the Comptroller of the local city government".
There's more to it than that. I can't speak for the mindset of consulting jobs like McKinsey but for jobs like Goldman Sachs, there truly is a set of people that enjoy finance and therefore, working there or at one of the other prestigious bulge bracket firms (Citi, JP Morgan, etc) would be more interesting to them than working as an "Assistant to the Comptroller of the local city government".
Are there graduates that hate finance and only want a Goldman job only for the money? Yes. But those people are also not best suited for a low-paying job such as "Assistant to the Comptroller of the local city government".
This was my thought, as well. I've never in my life heard of this purported Goldman and cool association.
That was my thought. In college (albeit 20 years ago now), Goldman (and similar Wall St) jobs were only cool because of the money involved. The actual work, and lack of life balance, wasn't cool. It was just something to do for a few years while you saved a pile of cash, and before going back for an MBA or something else.
You dont work on Wall Street.
I have. Goldman didn’t have a reputation for cool. They had a reputation for being a good stepping stone to something else.
Ditto in tech. It’s been a long time since Google had a reputation for cool. They have a reputation for paying well & being good on the resume.
Ditto in tech. It’s been a long time since Google had a reputation for cool. They have a reputation for paying well & being good on the resume.
The NSA was at OSCon last week, gave a great talk about the legal challenges to contributing back to the open source community.
They're almost done with a guidance framework that will not only allow their department contribute with less friction, but also allow other departments to do the same. Take a look at how much they've done: https://code.nsa.gov/
Ethical and political views of an organization that spies on citizens aside, I think a government organization that open sources it's code is pretty darn cool.
Ethical and political views of an organization that spies on citizens aside, I think a government organization that open sources it's code is pretty darn cool.
> a government organization that open sources it's code is pretty darn cool
Seeing as how taxpayers paid for it in the first place, open-sourcing the code should be a requirement, not a cool extra.
Seeing as how taxpayers paid for it in the first place, open-sourcing the code should be a requirement, not a cool extra.
I think you mis-spelled:
https://code.nasa.gov
https://code.nasa.gov
ugh, hard to imagine. As a former motor pool mechanic for a small county in Ohio, the government has some serious work to do before it will ever compete with google, and its all in management. Ive endured some truly idiotic days at government...including
- Racking up 8 industry certifications, fully paid, only to have all my ideas shot down because they didnt come from a manager with a degree in philosophy.
- Buying an expensive flush computer system for a type of truck that we already outsourced transmission flushes for, and that was being phased out in favour of something cheaper from International Harvester.
- Refusing...and i mean absolutely refusing...to fix any salt spreader hardware because meyer (the manufacturer) insisted everything would last 40k miles. - trying to explain we dont measure in miles, we measure in engine hours. all reports still list miles.
- watching the city basically sell off 5 salt spreading trucks because a lawsuit after one failed made them all 'a liability'
- replacing a fleet of Kodiak 4x4 HD salt spreaders with used Ford F250's from a construction fleet. - watching these all fail miserably after the first major snow storm.
- Borrowing...then buying and poorly repainting...trucks for salt spreading from the National Guard.
- Getting dinged on my performance review EVERY YEAR because management wouldnt buy parts I needed to make the sheriffs new mine resistant armored vehicle work.
- Racking up 8 industry certifications, fully paid, only to have all my ideas shot down because they didnt come from a manager with a degree in philosophy.
- Buying an expensive flush computer system for a type of truck that we already outsourced transmission flushes for, and that was being phased out in favour of something cheaper from International Harvester.
- Refusing...and i mean absolutely refusing...to fix any salt spreader hardware because meyer (the manufacturer) insisted everything would last 40k miles. - trying to explain we dont measure in miles, we measure in engine hours. all reports still list miles.
- watching the city basically sell off 5 salt spreading trucks because a lawsuit after one failed made them all 'a liability'
- replacing a fleet of Kodiak 4x4 HD salt spreaders with used Ford F250's from a construction fleet. - watching these all fail miserably after the first major snow storm.
- Borrowing...then buying and poorly repainting...trucks for salt spreading from the National Guard.
- Getting dinged on my performance review EVERY YEAR because management wouldnt buy parts I needed to make the sheriffs new mine resistant armored vehicle work.
> - Getting dinged on my performance review EVERY YEAR because management wouldnt buy parts I needed to make the sheriffs new mine resistant armored vehicle work.
Well I kind of understand the management here: why do the sheriff needs a mine resistant armored vehicle in Ohio?
That said of course this should not have an impact on your performance review..
Well I kind of understand the management here: why do the sheriff needs a mine resistant armored vehicle in Ohio?
That said of course this should not have an impact on your performance review..
You're comparing apples and oranges. So is the original article.
The government equivalent of Google would be working for an interesting branch (CIA, NSA, NRL, etc) of the federal government. Not working on trucks for the town.
And, as a DC local, I can tell you that there are plenty of applicants for federal jobs. People want the jobs - they pay reasonably well (not Google level, but comfortably upper-middle-class, with stable benefits).
A huge number of my peers from high school and college work for Uncle Sam. Almost all of them have post-graduate degrees, love their jobs, and are definitely smart enough and ambitious enough to pick and choose their employer.
The government equivalent of Google would be working for an interesting branch (CIA, NSA, NRL, etc) of the federal government. Not working on trucks for the town.
And, as a DC local, I can tell you that there are plenty of applicants for federal jobs. People want the jobs - they pay reasonably well (not Google level, but comfortably upper-middle-class, with stable benefits).
A huge number of my peers from high school and college work for Uncle Sam. Almost all of them have post-graduate degrees, love their jobs, and are definitely smart enough and ambitious enough to pick and choose their employer.
I had a previous job in the trucking industry, and while I wasn't involved in maintenance, I swear we had scenarios occur that match your observations eerily well.
As an aside, this may be a dumb question, but why does a Sheriff in a "small county" need a mine resistant armoured vehicle?
They don't. But, there are a few things that make them want them. First, the US military sells them cheap as surplus (or, at least did, they might have dialed that back recently). Second, police in the US fetishize the "operator" culture [1]. They've been trained to think that a large hammer will fix all their policing problems.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_forces
The US government sells used military hardware to civilian police forces for dirt cheap as a way to keep up demand for the military industrial complex.
China builds apartments to prop up their GDP, the US builds mine-resistant armoured vehicles (among other military hardware). Nobody needs these vehicles except the people building them.
China builds apartments to prop up their GDP, the US builds mine-resistant armoured vehicles (among other military hardware). Nobody needs these vehicles except the people building them.
Gotcha. Thanks for the replies. Those are, sadly, about what I figured.
There is nothing cool about Goldman. That company have created more havoc in ordinary people economy than any other private company ever had. IMHO Goldman is the definition of scumbags. "cool" is defiantly not the word that comes to my mind when I hear that name
A worked with an ex-Goldman employee and she was the most backstabbing person I have ever met. The experience made me wonder if they select for that.
Goldman is a public company. Facebook, Apple and tons of other idolized companies have generated as much malfeasance around the world. And Goldman is cool in circles where people like to make lots and lots of money.
Readers will note the article is about state and local government jobs.
Everyone should try to work in government at some point to understand why things so relevant to your life happen the way they do, and to be better citizens.
State and local has huge challenges in terms of funding and potentially old infrastructure, but also incredible opportunities to change lives with simple improvements in processes that haven’t gotten the love they deserve.
Wage increases would help, but two year “tours” with other benefits might at least help folks understand why the mission is so important and maybe bust up some staid organization with some new energy.
Good luck to these folks - they’ll need it.
Everyone should try to work in government at some point to understand why things so relevant to your life happen the way they do, and to be better citizens.
State and local has huge challenges in terms of funding and potentially old infrastructure, but also incredible opportunities to change lives with simple improvements in processes that haven’t gotten the love they deserve.
Wage increases would help, but two year “tours” with other benefits might at least help folks understand why the mission is so important and maybe bust up some staid organization with some new energy.
Good luck to these folks - they’ll need it.
> Everyone should try to work in government at some point to understand why things so relevant to your life happen the way they do, and to be better citizens.
I disagree: Working in something government related makes you deeply hate the government.
To give some background: When I get involved into political discussions (which I rather avoid for good reasons), people very often tell me privately afterwards that I gave really good arguments for my points of discussion, but my arguments and political direction are so different from anything they have heard so far and could hardly be more different from any party program of any party they heard of (needless to say that I do not feel in any sense represented by any party in Germany). So they privately do agree with many points that I introduce, but openly state to me that they are not be able to defend these arguments in public because they are so different from the current political agenda.
To me this is deeply frustrating.
> State and local has huge challenges in terms of funding and potentially old infrastructure, but also incredible opportunities to change lives with simple improvements in processes that haven’t gotten the love they deserve.
This is exactly what government is not about. It is obeying some strange set of laws perfectly instead of doing what really makes sense.
I disagree: Working in something government related makes you deeply hate the government.
To give some background: When I get involved into political discussions (which I rather avoid for good reasons), people very often tell me privately afterwards that I gave really good arguments for my points of discussion, but my arguments and political direction are so different from anything they have heard so far and could hardly be more different from any party program of any party they heard of (needless to say that I do not feel in any sense represented by any party in Germany). So they privately do agree with many points that I introduce, but openly state to me that they are not be able to defend these arguments in public because they are so different from the current political agenda.
To me this is deeply frustrating.
> State and local has huge challenges in terms of funding and potentially old infrastructure, but also incredible opportunities to change lives with simple improvements in processes that haven’t gotten the love they deserve.
This is exactly what government is not about. It is obeying some strange set of laws perfectly instead of doing what really makes sense.
I’m thinking that the United States Federal and State system likely have significant differences here that at leading to misunderstanding. By “government job” I mean a bureaucrat charged with leading or implementing a project - say, your local DMV website (licensing, car registration, etc) or your state park website.
When these work well at the local level they are awesome. When they don’t I often hear people complain but they rarely understand why the site is subpar, challenges to make it better, or want to pay for improvements.
When these work well at the local level they are awesome. When they don’t I often hear people complain but they rarely understand why the site is subpar, challenges to make it better, or want to pay for improvements.
I don't disagree, but working as a bureaucrat is not the same as having a political debate. Most bureaucrats are doing work that needs done regardless of political alignment (of the employee, or of the current administration). Leading the police department, sanitation department, etc - none are strictly political positions.
I disagree, since making things more effective often makes things very political. I just want to mention that in many cases, the law requires time-intensive tendering procedures, which are clearly not very efficient or effective.
There do exist some exceptions, but then you need a decision by the respective political commitee to allow such an exception. Here things get very ... political.
This holds for many other points, too: The existing laws do not allow one to work efficiently and effectively. This is only possible if you are good at playing the political game.
There do exist some exceptions, but then you need a decision by the respective political commitee to allow such an exception. Here things get very ... political.
This holds for many other points, too: The existing laws do not allow one to work efficiently and effectively. This is only possible if you are good at playing the political game.
At a minimum working in government for a short while allows you to understand the challenges present in that political game if you must play it - this makes you a more astute user of services and a better citizen because you know where real root cause problems lie.
Sure. I don't disagree, but that exists, to some extent, in private sector offices as well.
To be more specific, "office politics" is not the same thing as "Politics" (as in GOP vs Democrat, liberal vs conservative, etc). Your initial post mentioned the decline of political discourse. In my view, that's a different thing than office politics.
To be more specific, "office politics" is not the same thing as "Politics" (as in GOP vs Democrat, liberal vs conservative, etc). Your initial post mentioned the decline of political discourse. In my view, that's a different thing than office politics.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone use Goldman as an example of a "cool" company.
When did that happen?
When did that happen?
Both Google and Goldman are “springboard” companies, 2-3 years at either and you are basically guaranteed an interview anywhere you want, possibly for the rest of your career. Cool might not be the right word, but there is a reason why people clamour to get in, not just the money
Goldman's springboard role is because of its assumed ability to be more selective about analytical talent than virtually anywhere else as a result of their ability to pay more though. It's a virtuous circle.
Government simply can't afford to pay or select that much, and those government roles which guarantee strong future employment prospects are often because those employed in it are perceived to have connections as much as skills (probably not something the civil service wants to emphasis whilst recruiting...)
Government simply can't afford to pay or select that much, and those government roles which guarantee strong future employment prospects are often because those employed in it are perceived to have connections as much as skills (probably not something the civil service wants to emphasis whilst recruiting...)
as a result of their ability to pay more though
Well, not really, not for maybe 10 years now. If you joined Goldman as a fresh graduate you would be an Analyst, which means 2-3 years of 80-100hr weeks for good but not amazing pay. At any big tech offering RSUs your overall compensation will be much, much better, as will your general quality of life. But Goldman still gets 4000 applicants for every opening because people figure it's worth it for the doors it opens down the line.
Government simply can't afford to pay or select that much
If the government could put together a programme that opened doors - not through corruption but by a reputation for producing capable, hard-working people - people would go there too. It's not dissimilar to why some (many?) people do a 4-year stint in the military - GI Bill and the prestige of being a veteran after.
Well, not really, not for maybe 10 years now. If you joined Goldman as a fresh graduate you would be an Analyst, which means 2-3 years of 80-100hr weeks for good but not amazing pay. At any big tech offering RSUs your overall compensation will be much, much better, as will your general quality of life. But Goldman still gets 4000 applicants for every opening because people figure it's worth it for the doors it opens down the line.
Government simply can't afford to pay or select that much
If the government could put together a programme that opened doors - not through corruption but by a reputation for producing capable, hard-working people - people would go there too. It's not dissimilar to why some (many?) people do a 4-year stint in the military - GI Bill and the prestige of being a veteran after.
> It's not dissimilar to why some (many?) people do a 4-year stint in the military - GI Bill and the prestige of being a veteran after.
I dunno about “prestige”, but the in-law hiring preferences for veterans don't hurt.
I dunno about “prestige”, but the in-law hiring preferences for veterans don't hurt.
To whom does a stint at Goldman hold cachet?
Much of the finance industry in the US. Do a few years at Goldman (or any other well-known employer on Wall St), get an MBA, and work wherever you want for the next 30 years. I know quite a few who have followed this plan.
Every industry has companies like this. Apple and Google in software, PWC in accounting, BoozAllen in consulting, etc.
Every industry has companies like this. Apple and Google in software, PWC in accounting, BoozAllen in consulting, etc.
Right. It may not be everyone’s cup of tea but a stint at Goldman would be looked on favourably by any of the Fortune 500.
All of finance in NYC at the very least.
Same here. I used to work with a guy who was employed at the London HQ.
He had some great stories to tell but his experience there was anything but "cool".
He had some great stories to tell but his experience there was anything but "cool".
Maybe it's PR: http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
> I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone use Goldman as an example of a "cool" company.
It's in comparison to the current perception of government employment.
Goldman and Google are phenomenally cool by that standard.
“Can X be made as cool as Y?” is a valid question when Y isn't very cool if X is even more uncool.
It's in comparison to the current perception of government employment.
Goldman and Google are phenomenally cool by that standard.
“Can X be made as cool as Y?” is a valid question when Y isn't very cool if X is even more uncool.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: no, with comments! This is because government is inherently risk-averse and attracts many working types who are more attracted by stability, consistency and a ‘safe’ job. Obviously governments are varied beasts and there are some ‘funky’, innovative, exciting departments, although in my experience they are very much exceptions.
Making and enforcing rules is safe territory - in terms of being somewhat of a known state, working at exciting companies can be very much the opposite. But as some commentators have stated, cool is very much an individual angle.
Long answer: no, with comments! This is because government is inherently risk-averse and attracts many working types who are more attracted by stability, consistency and a ‘safe’ job. Obviously governments are varied beasts and there are some ‘funky’, innovative, exciting departments, although in my experience they are very much exceptions.
Making and enforcing rules is safe territory - in terms of being somewhat of a known state, working at exciting companies can be very much the opposite. But as some commentators have stated, cool is very much an individual angle.
> This is because government is inherently risk-averse and attracts many working types who are more attracted by stability, consistency and a ‘safe’ job. Obviously governments are varied beasts and there are some ‘funky’, innovative, exciting departments, although in my experience they are very much exceptions.
It's funny how true this is while some government jobs immediately spit in the face of these practices. More specifically, a lot of O-1 and O-2 officers are so far up their own ass that they don't realize that the stability exists because the technical side of some jobs have such a well established routine.
Yes sir. We understand that you have a college degree in chemistry. We know that according to your analysis, we should do A, B, and C. But have you considered that the software we have for mapping out RF propagation has (quite literally) never failed us? Have you considered that the people who wrote this software both have a degree in the field and refined it based on real-world analysis? Also, have you considered that having us set up a re-transmission site in the middle of a firing range is bad for the equipment and bad for my chances of living to see 21?
You would think that last one would be common sense, but waking up to friendly fire (explosions) at 6AM is terrifying.
It's funny how true this is while some government jobs immediately spit in the face of these practices. More specifically, a lot of O-1 and O-2 officers are so far up their own ass that they don't realize that the stability exists because the technical side of some jobs have such a well established routine.
Yes sir. We understand that you have a college degree in chemistry. We know that according to your analysis, we should do A, B, and C. But have you considered that the software we have for mapping out RF propagation has (quite literally) never failed us? Have you considered that the people who wrote this software both have a degree in the field and refined it based on real-world analysis? Also, have you considered that having us set up a re-transmission site in the middle of a firing range is bad for the equipment and bad for my chances of living to see 21?
You would think that last one would be common sense, but waking up to friendly fire (explosions) at 6AM is terrifying.
[deleted]
The article doesn't mention "coolness" at all. All that's mentioned is on-campus recruiting of graduating seniors at selective schools, which Goldman/Google/McKinsey certainly work hard at. In terms of the universal measure of coolness known as "tastiness of food provided at on-campus info sessions", I recall those companies rating highly.
And Betteridge's Law of Headlines applies here.
And Betteridge's Law of Headlines applies here.
Yes. We did it in the UK. The Government Digital Service is essentially a startup within the government, providing services for other government departments. Since 2011, a relatively small team have completely transformed the government's online presence. Government services are now digital by default and open by default; GDS maintains over 1,100 repos on GitHub.
It helps that tech salaries are generally lower in the UK, but it's mainly about attitude. GDS enjoy a very high level of autonomy and are free to use modern tools and methodologies. Working at GDS is legitimately cool.
https://gds.blog.gov.uk/about/
https://github.com/alphagov
It helps that tech salaries are generally lower in the UK, but it's mainly about attitude. GDS enjoy a very high level of autonomy and are free to use modern tools and methodologies. Working at GDS is legitimately cool.
https://gds.blog.gov.uk/about/
https://github.com/alphagov
Government employs a massive number of people compared to Google. There simply aren't that many amazing people to fill a government, even if a specific job looked cool, the clever person would soon leave out of frustration that others don't know what they're doing. At Google, even if you don't like the management, they have (generally) proved their worth and ability.
If your cool jobs couldn't attract the clever people I assume the OP was alluding to, then it isn't worth the hassle?
Governments also have to work with many outside agencies, suppliers and consumers, I guess many more than people like Goldman do. Unless the whole network is run well, frustration is crouching at the door.
If your cool jobs couldn't attract the clever people I assume the OP was alluding to, then it isn't worth the hassle?
Governments also have to work with many outside agencies, suppliers and consumers, I guess many more than people like Goldman do. Unless the whole network is run well, frustration is crouching at the door.
Seems unlikely. There's no appetite to pay people as well as Google/Goldman. Even much of HN isn't willing to accept how much Engineers get paid there.
But it doesn't need to be as cool as Google/Goldman, it just needs to be well run.
But it doesn't need to be as cool as Google/Goldman, it just needs to be well run.
This sounds like one of those things that's impossible to replicate since it so heavily depends on existing culture, but it's interesting to note that in Japan government work is seen as quite cool and it's a top choice for many of the most successful job seekers.
A point that hasn't been made is that measuring success and value is generally easy in a simple commercial company like Google. If you are a part of something that makes $1B a year, you are probably worth your wages and all the cool tech and offices you need.
Clearing snow or getting rid of garbage has no obvious financial value even though it is necessary. So answering the question, should Sanitation be run by a clever person on $200K per year or a normal person on $40K is harder.
Clearing snow or getting rid of garbage has no obvious financial value even though it is necessary. So answering the question, should Sanitation be run by a clever person on $200K per year or a normal person on $40K is harder.
There's a reasonable middle ground, no?
Should the manager of a city's sanitation department draw a Goldman/Google-level salary? Perhaps not. But, the person is probably managing tens or hundreds of employees, a fleet of vehicles, and depending on how the city is organized, they're also managing some complex "industrial" facilities(water treatment, etc).
I don't think a six-figure salary is unreasonable for that. Heck, given the impact on my life if sanitation goes to shit, I'll happily pay my share of taxes to support a salary that draws somebody who will get the job done.
Ditto for the leaders of many of the other city/county services.
Should the manager of a city's sanitation department draw a Goldman/Google-level salary? Perhaps not. But, the person is probably managing tens or hundreds of employees, a fleet of vehicles, and depending on how the city is organized, they're also managing some complex "industrial" facilities(water treatment, etc).
I don't think a six-figure salary is unreasonable for that. Heck, given the impact on my life if sanitation goes to shit, I'll happily pay my share of taxes to support a salary that draws somebody who will get the job done.
Ditto for the leaders of many of the other city/county services.
Can they? Sure. Will they? Doubtful. The problem is slowness due to bureaucracy. When you can't even experiment on 'company' equipment without formulating a plan and having it approved by a few levels of management, it becomes a pain to advance not only your department/organization, but also to advance your own knowledge.
Those companies are so big that they are just like the government, except they have only one indicator of success which is financial.
When NYC gov upgrades from Windows 2008, and a way too cumbersome and outdated CMS for their sites, then we'll know they're taking the steps towards maybe not "cool", but towards bearable systems/workflows to deal with, and as a result making them more attractive as an employer
[deleted]
Can they pay as much as Google and Goldman? No? Then no.
Not working for this administration. I just quit a DHS contract a few months ago because I didn’t want to have anything to do with what they were doing.
I’m sorry your experience with the federal government was so bad. The article was more focused on government at the local and state level.
Thank you for having principles.
I think Goldman was seen as a “cool” place to work maybe like 12+ years ago before the crash. Now, not so much.
Probably, but they have to wait until Google and Goldman deteriorate to the Government jobs-level first.
What kind of a square thinks working at Goldman is cool?
It seems government has not issues attracting Goldman talent even most senior people :).
There absolutely are government jobs that are super-cool, Navy SEAL for example. It’s not the inherent government-ness that makes these other jobs un-cool, it’s something else
While being a Navy SEAL would be interesting or cool by any standard, its not exactly a position with low barriers to entry.
The point of the article is questioning if its possible to have government jobs that are attainable by the everyman.
The point of the article is questioning if its possible to have government jobs that are attainable by the everyman.
Google software engineer does not have low barriers either. You've to train pretty hard for either. And both jobs seem like magic for general population.
What makes being a Navy SEAL cool is:
1) that they endured the training, unimaginably impressive
2) special forces military, always cool
The only special thing about a Google engineer is that they get paid well and have a probably nice work environment. Which actually is nothing special.
Most people would admire a Navy SEAL, be glad that they do their job but never ever want to be one, except for 5 minutes in their imagination. Almost no-one admires a Google engineer but most people would probably want to be one or at least have their working compensation/environment.
1) that they endured the training, unimaginably impressive
2) special forces military, always cool
The only special thing about a Google engineer is that they get paid well and have a probably nice work environment. Which actually is nothing special.
Most people would admire a Navy SEAL, be glad that they do their job but never ever want to be one, except for 5 minutes in their imagination. Almost no-one admires a Google engineer but most people would probably want to be one or at least have their working compensation/environment.
Yet both jobs have rather high barriers of entry and are not really "attainable by the everyman".
Probably not. At best they might make them kind of 'MAGA' edgy.
Cool is working on something that you, personally, find important -- and making progress.
The biggest barrier to that in government is being allowed to make progress, partially because the existing processes have a large inertia, and partially because the cost of failure is so high.