Is it even worth it now? Forum

[aliarrow]

Lol public.

Ohh.. That explains a lot

[Stringer Bell]

Because serving your country, often by taking a much lower salary than you otherwise would receive in the private sector, is "stupid" and "arbitrary" in comparison to other forms of public service.

Different studies reach different conclusions about this. At the very least it's debatable.

[Bartlebee06]

Again, if you do not receive your rights from your creator, then you must have been granted those basic rights by man. The problem is that if man can grant you those rights, he can also take them away. No one is asking you to worship their god. Just beware of the elimination of god as it leaves only mankind as the end all and say all. I don't care if you are Atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or you worship the flying spaghetti monster. Personal beliefs are part of your rights.

Read about the first 3 pages. You should really change your avatar to something other than that dog. Whenever I read your posts, I picture the dog speaking them, making it almost impossible to take them seriously. But maybe its just finals week sleep deprivation getting to me.

C'mon, a talking dog is entertaining. You don't have to take me seriously either if you don't want. I wont be offended.

[aliarrow]

Fiscally Conservative Dogs piss me off

[ahduth]

Fiscally Conservative Dogs piss me off

Yeah screw the Blue Dogs. Is Ben Nelson a Blue Dog or are they only in the House? Whatever, screw Ben Nelson.

[Patriot1208]

Because serving your country, often by taking a much lower salary than you otherwise would receive in the private sector, is "stupid" and "arbitrary" in comparison to other forms of public service.

Different studies reach different conclusions about this. At the very least it's debatable.

On average government employees make more than their private sector counterparts. But for a lot of the more sought after jobs, like those in state department foreign service, generally have higher paying options in the private side. The government throws everyone into middle class, whether you would usually make more or less.

[Stringer Bell]

On average government employees make more than their private sector counterparts. But for a lot of the more sought after jobs, like those in state department foreign service, generally have higher paying options in the private side. The government throws everyone into middle class, whether you would usually make more or less.

Which is why I'm not a fan of "government employee" being the distinction that produces more favorable loan repayment terms. I understand the motivation to entice top talent to choose careers in the government vs. a private sector career. But if they really want to attract top talent to places like the DOJ to combat the high priced legal talent of the defendants they prosecute (which isn't going to be a problem anyways) I'd rather just see them raise the salaries for those jobs in particular. I don't get why someone that teaches Health or works at the DMV should be able to get better loan repayment terms than someone working doc review.

[Bartlebee06]

Fiscally Conservative Dogs piss me off

Yeah screw the Blue Dogs. Is Ben Nelson a Blue Dog or are they only in the House? Whatever, screw Ben Nelson.

I dislike the blue dogs as well and I most certainly am not one.

[Bartlebee06]

On average government employees make more than their private sector counterparts. But for a lot of the more sought after jobs, like those in state department foreign service, generally have higher paying options in the private side. The government throws everyone into middle class, whether you would usually make more or less.

Which is why I'm not a fan of "government employee" being the distinction that produces more favorable loan repayment terms. I understand the motivation to entice top talent to choose careers in the government vs. a private sector career. But if they really want to attract top talent to places like the DOJ to combat the high priced legal talent of the defendants they prosecute (which isn't going to be a problem anyways) I'd rather just see them raise the salaries for those jobs in particular. I don't get why someone that teaches Health or works at the DMV should be able to get better loan repayment terms than someone working doc review.

This!

[ahduth]

On average government employees make more than their private sector counterparts. But for a lot of the more sought after jobs, like those in state department foreign service, generally have higher paying options in the private side. The government throws everyone into middle class, whether you would usually make more or less.

Which is why I'm not a fan of "government employee" being the distinction that produces more favorable loan repayment terms. I understand the motivation to entice top talent to choose careers in the government vs. a private sector career. But if they really want to attract top talent to places like the DOJ to combat the high priced legal talent of the defendants they prosecute (which isn't going to be a problem anyways) I'd rather just see them raise the salaries for those jobs in particular. I don't get why someone that teaches Health or works at the DMV should be able to get better loan repayment terms than someone working doc review.

This!

I'd like to know how we're substantiating the bolded. Many jobs performed by the government will not be or cannot be performed by the private sector. The argument here seems to be that the government is starving private firms of talent via this loan forgiveness program? Lawyering is one of the few industries I can think of where you get a clean correspondence between the private and public skill sets. Looking at people who work at the DMV versus other clerking jobs... we're sure they're being better compensated?

And the (much more loaded) follow on question is, we view this as a problem?

[Patriot1208]

On average government employees make more than their private sector counterparts. But for a lot of the more sought after jobs, like those in state department foreign service, generally have higher paying options in the private side. The government throws everyone into middle class, whether you would usually make more or less.

Which is why I'm not a fan of "government employee" being the distinction that produces more favorable loan repayment terms. I understand the motivation to entice top talent to choose careers in the government vs. a private sector career. But if they really want to attract top talent to places like the DOJ to combat the high priced legal talent of the defendants they prosecute (which isn't going to be a problem anyways) I'd rather just see them raise the salaries for those jobs in particular. I don't get why someone that teaches Health or works at the DMV should be able to get better loan repayment terms than someone working doc review.

This!

I'd like to know how we're substantiating the bolded. Many jobs performed by the government will not be or cannot be performed by the private sector. The argument here seems to be that the government is starving private firms of talent via this loan forgiveness program? Lawyering is one of the few industries I can think of where you get a clean correspondence between the private and public skill sets. Looking at people who work at the DMV versus other clerking jobs... we're sure they're being better compensated?

And the (much more loaded) follow on question is, we view this as a problem?

I've seen a study on it. I'll look for it again. I work for the federal government and I see this everyday. The majority of jobs in the government could easily be correlated with private sector jobs and those that can't generally are jobs that are highly sought after which attract top talent who could do something like consulting instead.

[Patriot1208]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... -pay_N.htm

Found that right away but i've also seen something more comprehensive. I'll keep looking.

[Stringer Bell]

And the (much more loaded) follow on question is, we view this as a problem?

The main problem is that it adds an unnecessary level of options to weigh. If someone graduates with six figures of UG debt and they are weighing a $12/hour entry level job at a small company to get their foot in the door and learn an industry vs. a job teaching history, the fact that they can have their loans forgiven may steer them away from a direction where they could possibly end up creating wealth. I feel like whatever the terms are, they should be available for everyone or no one. Whether your check is signed by Uncle Sam shouldn't make a difference.

Regarding public vs. private sector pay, this is anecdotal and obviously statistically insignificant, but I have a couple of friends who got into teaching solely because they couldn't find jobs that paid what they could start out making as teachers.

[aliarrow]

I mean its just a trade off.
if x=0 is the start date and assume x = years working.
y = pay

Government would be something like
y=(x/4)+44,000

Whereas Private Sector would be like
y=(3x/2)+21,000

I'm completely making the slopes and numbers up, but you get the point. It is (nearly) impossible to find something in the private sector that starts off as well as the public sector, but you have a much higher earning potential in the private sector.
I guess that is part the problem with PSLF is that it takes away that risk that would drive someone to start off private (as Stringer was stating), and could even incentivize starting off in the public sector at a higher rate then lateraling into Private sector work once you have experience. This could then be used to take advantage of the higher growth potential without earlier risk.

Idk what the hell I'm saying, I just wanted to be a part of this.

[ahduth]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... -pay_N.htm

Found that right away but i've also seen something more comprehensive. I'll keep looking.

I'd love that it were all so simple as this:

Job Federal Private Difference
Budget analyst $73,140 $65,532 $7,608

Not being an expert in how BLS salary figures are collected, I can't say with any authority that this is an oversimplification. But my intuition is that you're comparing apples and oranges here. Budget analysts who work for a $100MM manufacturer have a very different job from people who work for the CBO, for example. Budget analysts working for General Electric have a very different job than analysts for the Pentagon. Pentagon budget analysts not only have to deal with at least equally complex scenarios and probably denser bureaucracy, but their work is more important, as it pertains to the national defense.

When we look at these mechanisms to forgive educational debt for government hires, I'm wary of saying this public sector job is equivalent to that private sector job.

[ahduth]

And the (much more loaded) follow on question is, we view this as a problem?

The main problem is that it adds an unnecessary level of options to weigh. If someone graduates with six figures of UG debt and they are weighing a $12/hour entry level job at a small company to get their foot in the door and learn an industry vs. a job teaching history, the fact that they can have their loans forgiven may steer them away from a direction where they could possibly end up creating wealth. I feel like whatever the terms are, they should be available for everyone or no one. Whether your check is signed by Uncle Sam shouldn't make a difference.

Regarding public vs. private sector pay, this is anecdotal and obviously statistically insignificant, but I have a couple of friends who got into teaching solely because they couldn't find jobs that paid what they could start out making as teachers.

But is that a bad outcome? US educational outcomes are pretty poor. I'm a fan (not sure if that's the right word lol) of this report:

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/S ... t_gap.aspx

There are other countries in which teaching is a privileged, competitive profession. If loan forgiveness motivates that behavior, are we getting a bad result?

[kwais]

And the (much more loaded) follow on question is, we view this as a problem?

The main problem is that it adds an unnecessary level of options to weigh. If someone graduates with six figures of UG debt and they are weighing a $12/hour entry level job at a small company to get their foot in the door and learn an industry vs. a job teaching history, the fact that they can have their loans forgiven may steer them away from a direction where they could possibly end up creating wealth. I feel like whatever the terms are, they should be available for everyone or no one. Whether your check is signed by Uncle Sam shouldn't make a difference.

Regarding public vs. private sector pay, this is anecdotal and obviously statistically insignificant, but I have a couple of friends who got into teaching solely because they couldn't find jobs that paid what they could start out making as teachers.

ITP: teachers (anecdotally) get paid well and teachers don't create wealth. Awesome

[firemed]

nevermind... I hadn't realized this had gone to 11 pages...


OP: seriously?

[Stringer Bell]

But is that a bad outcome? US educational outcomes are pretty poor. I'm a fan (not sure if that's the right word lol) of this report:

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/S ... t_gap.aspx

There are other countries in which teaching is a privileged, competitive profession. If loan forgiveness motivates that behavior, are we getting a bad result?

It depends. If you want to argue that teachers are more valuable than people in other industries since they can improve the countries economy exponentially and that we need to attract a higher level of talent to the profession, then that's a different argument. If I agreed with that then I would rather see teachers get paid a higher salary or have the opportunity to make more money.

I'm definitely in the camp that believes teachers who perform well should have the opportunity for more significant pay increases than they currently do and that teachers who don't should be laid off.

[Stringer Bell]

ITP: teachers (anecdotally) get paid well and teachers don't create wealth. Awesome

I can see the issue with the second part, but what's your beef with the bolded? Most people that currently teach aren't turning down investment banking jobs and going into teaching because they're motivated by an overwhelming desire to give back. I do know a couple of people like that, but they aren't the majority. Most people I know go into it because it's a decent pay check and the schedule is great. If you want to argue that teachers need better compensation so we can attract a higher caliber of talent to the profession, then that's a different story.

[ahduth]

But is that a bad outcome? US educational outcomes are pretty poor. I'm a fan (not sure if that's the right word lol) of this report:

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/S ... t_gap.aspx

There are other countries in which teaching is a privileged, competitive profession. If loan forgiveness motivates that behavior, are we getting a bad result?

It depends. If you want to argue that teachers are more valuable than people in other industries since they can improve the countries economy exponentially and that we need to attract a higher level of talent to the profession, then that's a different argument. If I agreed with that then I would rather see teachers get paid a higher salary or have the opportunity to make more money.

I'm definitely in the camp that believes teachers who perform well should have the opportunity for more significant pay increases than they currently do and that teachers who don't should be laid off.

Eh, okay, the whole teacher issue is kind of a red herring within this argument. Education has its own problems - I agree entirely that I'd rather see outright merit pay increases that would directly entice talented people into the profession, rather than back door loan forgiveness accounting tricks that simply make it a livable wage.

I'm arguing more generally that the government has reason to use its imprimatur to sign deals with employees on favorable terms. You can tell me that there's waste in the Pentagon, but you're not going to deny us their ability to hire competent people. They don't have the ability to offer stock options. Do you think these loan forgiveness programs are being abused?

[Patriot1208]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/201 ... -pay_N.htm

Found that right away but i've also seen something more comprehensive. I'll keep looking.

I'd love that it were all so simple as this:

Job Federal Private Difference
Budget analyst $73,140 $65,532 $7,608

Not being an expert in how BLS salary figures are collected, I can't say with any authority that this is an oversimplification. But my intuition is that you're comparing apples and oranges here. Budget analysts who work for a $100MM manufacturer have a very different job from people who work for the CBO, for example. Budget analysts working for General Electric have a very different job than analysts for the Pentagon. Pentagon budget analysts not only have to deal with at least equally complex scenarios and probably denser bureaucracy, but their work is more important, as it pertains to the national defense.

When we look at these mechanisms to forgive educational debt for government hires, I'm wary of saying this public sector job is equivalent to that private sector job.

It is a simplification but not necessarily overly so. The public labor market has enough variation to make it applicable. There are budget analysts with the CIA who will work a very different job than a budget analyst for GE. But the analyst who works for the FAA could have a very similar job. Likewise there are budget analysts for private sector companies who work for corporations that simply make weapons. The skillset is roughly similar to be able to compare them.

[Patriot1208]

I mean its just a trade off.
if x=0 is the start date and assume x = years working.
y = pay

Government would be something like
y=(x/4)+44,000

Whereas Private Sector would be like
y=(3x/2)+21,000

I'm completely making the slopes and numbers up, but you get the point. It is (nearly) impossible to find something in the private sector that starts off as well as the public sector, but you have a much higher earning potential in the private sector.
I guess that is part the problem with PSLF is that it takes away that risk that would drive someone to start off private (as Stringer was stating), and could even incentivize starting off in the public sector at a higher rate then lateraling into Private sector work once you have experience. This could then be used to take advantage of the higher growth potential without earlier risk.

Idk what the hell I'm saying, I just wanted to be a part of this.

This is certainly true for a subset of jobs but not for the majority. Most accountants will make middle class wagws there whole lives. Same with most other jobs like paralegals or secrataries. But of course for the economists who work for the ftc what you are saying stands.

[aliarrow]

This is certainly true for a subset of jobs but not for the majority. Most accountants will make middle class wagws there whole lives. Same with most other jobs like paralegals or secrataries. But of course for the economists who work for the ftc what you are saying stands.

But does it stand if you apply it to the same job types?
Ie Public Sector Secretaries vs. Private Sector Secretaries

[Patriot1208]

This is certainly true for a subset of jobs but not for the majority. Most accountants will make middle class wagws there whole lives. Same with most other jobs like paralegals or secrataries. But of course for the economists who work for the ftc what you are saying stands.

But does it stand if you apply it to the same job types?
Ie Public Sector Secretaries vs. Private Sector Secretaries

No, according to those labor statistics and in my anecdotal experience. For example, my fathers secretary makes 17 dollars an hour which is apparently competive for his mid sized town in ohio. It also includes health insurance and a matching retirement plan. He'll give her a few raises if she stays but nothing humongous. His last secretary was with him till she retired in 07 and she never made more than 23 an hour. The secretary in my office is mid career, been there about 15 years, and makes 54k plus health and dental and a matching retirement plan. She'll probably retire making around 62k.