Related Posts
Hi guys :) Glad to join fishbowl and this community. Guys I have an offer of 14.41 ctc from a big 4 (11 is fixed).
Technology-Microsoft Dynamics 365(I am a functional consultant in SCM and HR; Relevant exp: 3 yrs & Total exp: 4 yrs).
My interviews in IBM are done and I am waiting for the salary discussion with HR.
What is the likely offer that I am going to get? Any idea? (My expectation is 16.5 lpa ctc). I will adjust my expectations as per replies here.
Any response is highly appreciated :)
Additional Posts in Federal, Government, and Public Sector
MITREs Glassdoor rating is like a ski slope.
Anyone here who left fed job and regretted it?
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Subject Expert
Yes.
HUD, Education, and DoD would be at the top of my list to downsize, with the remainder at a minimum having their budgets rolled back to FY19 levels.
Now, what specifically entails downsizing is a much more complicated and complex question and would vary from one agency to another.
There are a lot more things than just "downsizing" that I'd do if I could wave a magic wand.
Removing CICA and all of the setasides would bring a huge boost in efficiency for the acquisition system and government, and simultaneously tank the political careers of everyone who touched that decision by being anti-small business and enabling graft and corruption as soon as a bad conflict of interest story implicates a political appointee
Not downsized, just reorganized. We could be spending our money in a lot more beneficial ways. There is too much waste in the current system.
Every civilian agency I have ever worked with has a workforce issue: they cannot hire good young talent and 50% or more of the workforce is retirement eligible. My answer would be to force all Fed employees who are retirement eligible to retire and put in place a hiring freeze. I would exempt a few programs or carve them out and set them up as independent agencies. Pretty easy fix.
Wait - there’s a hiring problem but you’re saying put in a hiring freeze?
Before anyone starts debating, it's always useful to look at accurate charts on federal spending.
Most people look at just "discretionary" as that gets a lot of oversight and conveniently exaggerated defense spending. Total spending includes both discretionary and mandatory, and the former is a very small fraction of the total.
Also, accounting for local/state governments since they spend a lot on healthcare and law enforcement on top of federal spending (this is not true for defense, which is strictly federal)
1. Probably, but not how you think.
2. It’s not going to be uniform across government. Social Security is literally cheaper than anything we could do in the private sector when it comes to distribution. If we need to reduce spending it’s on war, but our Ukraine support is literally rebuilding towns across the USA.
There are way too many personnel redundancies across the government. It shouldn’t take 3 or 4 levels of approval to spend $50k, or a “committee” of 5-10 people to make a decision about a software package that’s super-useful for automating specific tasks but won’t be used agency-wide. I get that it’s important to have some checks & balances, but too many people involved in everyday decisions just kills efficiency.
Who, in their right mind, would think the federal government is NOT too big? It’s not a coincidence that agencies added in 1979 are the most wasteful and ineffective.
Homeland Security was created in 2002, a direct result of the intelligence failures that led to 9/11.
Obviously social security and Medicare / Medicaid need to be overhauled. Perhaps penalize the folks who didn't raise a replacement worker. The demographics do not look good.
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse as they all do.