7 ms·

One question I have - were the high-tech wizards paid standard gsa rates? https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS35F5457H/0LUS2P.2NVKCH_GS-35F-5457H_GS35F5457

One question I have - were the high-tech wizards paid standard gsa rates? https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS35F5457H/0LUS2P.2NVKCH_GS-35F-5457H_GS35F5457HGPLOY.PDF https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS35F5457H/0LUS2P.2NVK... Page 25. Top developer rate for 2014 is $99/hr which requires 10 years of experience.

mikeash 13y ago
Would explain a lot if so. Any developer you can get for that rate who has been working for 10 years likely does not have 10 years of experience, but 1 year of experience repeated 10 times.
- qdog 13y ago
  40x99x50=~$200k/year. That doesn't seem unreasonable compensation, what am I missing?
  - diminoten 13y ago
    That $99 goes to the contractor, not the employee. There's a ton of overhead and profiting that comes out of that $99. I won't even hazard a guess at how much of that $99 actually makes it to the guy or gal's pocket. That said, it's not a bad living wage. I suspect below industry standard though, is what these folks are saying.
    - qdog 13y ago
      Ah, I thought it was a direct contract with the government, not a contracted person from an agency, my mistake. Of course, I guess I should have assumed that, there aren't many direct government jobs for this type of thing anymore, it seems.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Yep, the government contracts out to a gigantic company who then "hires" you and has you work on the thing, and takes half the money in exchange for doing not a whole lot. It's a sad system.
  - ConceptJunkie 13y ago
    From my experience as a contractor, I'm betting the actual employee sees less than half of that. Perhaps a lot less.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    You can't compare contracting rates with regular salaries. There are a lot of costs involved for equipment, facilities, taxes, and just plain uncertainty (a contractor is often not working 50 weeks per year, not even close, because they have to find a new project frequently). Rule of thumb is to consider a contracting rate as equivalent to a regular job that pays half as much.
  - taybin 13y ago
    That doesn't include benefits. Any benefits (such as health insurance) would come out of that. I believe the rule of thumb is to add on 20% of a salary for cost of benefits. So this would be closer to a salary of $165k, plus benefits.
  - spoiledtechie 13y ago
    $99 an hour turns into about 50$ after it goes through companies pockets. Speaking from experience as capture manager.
laz 13y ago
No.
laz 13y ago
That was not the hourly rate

mikeash 13y ago

Would explain a lot if so. Any developer you can get for that rate who has been working for 10 years likely does not have 10 years of experience, but 1 year of experience repeated 10 times.

qdog 13y ago
40x99x50=~$200k/year. That doesn't seem unreasonable compensation, what am I missing?
- diminoten 13y ago
  That $99 goes to the contractor, not the employee. There's a ton of overhead and profiting that comes out of that $99. I won't even hazard a guess at how much of that $99 actually makes it to the guy or gal's pocket. That said, it's not a bad living wage. I suspect below industry standard though, is what these folks are saying.
  - qdog 13y ago
    Ah, I thought it was a direct contract with the government, not a contracted person from an agency, my mistake. Of course, I guess I should have assumed that, there aren't many direct government jobs for this type of thing anymore, it seems.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Yep, the government contracts out to a gigantic company who then "hires" you and has you work on the thing, and takes half the money in exchange for doing not a whole lot. It's a sad system.
- ConceptJunkie 13y ago
  From my experience as a contractor, I'm betting the actual employee sees less than half of that. Perhaps a lot less.
- mikeash 13y ago
  You can't compare contracting rates with regular salaries. There are a lot of costs involved for equipment, facilities, taxes, and just plain uncertainty (a contractor is often not working 50 weeks per year, not even close, because they have to find a new project frequently). Rule of thumb is to consider a contracting rate as equivalent to a regular job that pays half as much.
- taybin 13y ago
  That doesn't include benefits. Any benefits (such as health insurance) would come out of that. I believe the rule of thumb is to add on 20% of a salary for cost of benefits. So this would be closer to a salary of $165k, plus benefits.
- spoiledtechie 13y ago
  $99 an hour turns into about 50$ after it goes through companies pockets. Speaking from experience as capture manager.

laz 13y ago

No.

laz 13y ago

That was not the hourly rate