Bad Business: Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Wasted on Hiring Contractors

It's got to be a lot cheaper to shrink government through attrition and NOT hire contractors to replace feds.

During the gogo 90's. I turned down 30K above salary to go private. Now that they are threatening my retirement, may have to leave. The going rate for a contractor to do what I do is 20k more than my salary. Maybe I should turn in my papers and take the contractor job that has been offered.

__________________
Happy Benzing
Darryl, Hill
2005 SL55 AMG Kleemanized
1984 500 SEC
1967 W113 California Coupe
[SIGPIC]
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/myphotos

Sounds like a good bet.

The trouble is that the project managers, chiefs, and upper management are still feds. Most of them have been retired-in-place for decades and don't want to change anything, nor do they know what competition is, even if it hits them over the head.

I've seen hundreds of thousands get wasted due to force fitting an ill conceived, unwanted plan across an agency, when by all measures it should have been abandoned. Nobody cared enough. That's the name of the game in government: Inertia. Then pay big bucks to keep it hobbling along.

__________________
1985 380SE Blue/Blue - 230,000 miles
2012 Subaru Forester 5-speed
2005 Toyota Sienna
2004 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1999 Toyota Tacoma

Leaving the federal government because you are worried about your retirement benefits seems like a very bad idea to me. I know several young (mid-50s) federal employees who either have or are about to retire on incredibly favorable terms. There has been mention recently of cutting retirement benefits for federal workers, but they would have to do a whole bunch of cutting before those benefits would fall down to level of benefits paid by the private sector, especially since the private sector generally doesn't pay any retirement benefits.

Now, if you have an opportunity for a high-paying, stable private sector job, maybe you can improve your retirement position, but I'll bet a bunch of your fellow federal workers are glad they stuck with an almost sure thing. There are not many sure things out here in the real world anymore.

The employes you know must be under CSRS, not FERS. FERS is where Social Security should go -- a hybrid system in which the employee builds wealth through a 401K and the gov sets aside a small ponzi scheme portion similar to Social Security. And feds not on CSRS also pay into social security.

Good point.

__________________
Happy Benzing
Darryl, Hill
2005 SL55 AMG Kleemanized
1984 500 SEC
1967 W113 California Coupe
[SIGPIC]
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/myphotos

It all depends on how much time in service you have and your age and your viability for employment in the private sector.

Let's say you have skills that make you employable in the private sector and you have 20 years under FERS and you're (what's the early retirement cut-off -- 58?) 58. Retire from FERS but don't take social security. You get about 20% of your current pay grade without drawing down TSP. You take a job at equivalent salary in the private secot plus you get the 20% from your retirement on top of your salary, from which you can continue to pay for the medical coverage and have a greater income than the equivalent salaried person in the private sector.

It looks like the gov is going to continue the freeze on COLA's and inhibition on advancement for the near future. Also, the gov is looking at adjusting the COLA computation and may reduce its 401K match. Finally, they appear to be going to a high 5 rather than high 3 annual income for retirement computation. Thus, remaining in the fed will not offer the same retirement possibilities as are currently available.

It may be to your long term advantage to retire under those circumstances. Work until you're 65 (or whatever your Social Security retirement age is), then retire again at full SS, FERS and begin drawing down your 401K.

Not that I've been thinking about it or anything.