Six Digit Social Workers

Discussion in 'Economics' started by retaildaytrader, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. While surfing the net, I saw this job listing for a social worker for the VA. It used to be such jobs like "Social Worker" paid just a little bit more then what unemployment would give you. Now doing these low level government jobs can yield you a six digit salary.

    Job Title: Social Worker
    Department: Department Of Veterans Affairs
    Agency: Veterans Health Administration
    Job Announcement Number: 10-207AE

    Salary Range: 81,460.00 - 105,897.00 USD /year
    Series & Grade: GS-0185-12
    Open Period: Friday, April 16, 2010 to Friday, April 15, 2011
    Position Information: Full-Time Permanent
    Duty Locations: 1 vacancy - Palo Alto, CA
    Who May Be Considered: Applications will be accepted from United States citizens and nationals.
    Job Summary:

    *This announcement is open until the position is filled. Candidates who wish to receive 1st consideration must submit a complete application package by 05/06/10. If no selection is made from 1st consideration candidates, applications will be reviewed every 2 weeks until the positions are filled.

    **The grade level and salary are dependent upon the recommendation of the Social Work Professional Standards Board (SWPSB).
  2. olias


    pretty high cost of living up there, right?
  3. In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with the US right now. Govt. workers should never make more than private industry, on avg.
  4. pspr


    Not to mention their overly generous pension and other benefits. I don't even see any requirements such as a degree in psychology.
  5. You may have to really "earn your money" if you have to deal with military veterans of all ages. :(
  6. The cost of living in Palo Alto is very high, as is all of the Bay area. The pay scale is the exception not the norm in social work. I did social work with a degree for a private group home in 96, very high stress, with juvenile offenders and received less than $7 hour with no benefits. That's the norm. If you work as a government employee you might get $15 an hour, and alot of these jobs require a Masters.
  7. Welcome to the USSA.

    Here is my story.

    Three years ago, I started a new job and the salary between my friend and I were about the same. Actually, my salary was a few % higher. Fast forward to present, my salary is rename flat, in the matter of fact, I actually get paid less than when I started 3 years ago due to company wide salary reduction. However, my friend now making 50% more than what I am making.

    Our positions were the same. So why is such a different? Well, I work for a private sector, as a IT analyst, while he works for the IRS.

    He started with the IRS after college, in less than 5 years, his salary double. He still in the same position.

    This is not an one off. I have another friend who accepted a job in DC 2 years ago, and is now making 50% more than what he started with in this job.
  8. jprad


    Hope your government worker friends are salting away their earnings because this is not going to end pretty for them and most of the other non-essential government workers.

    As was the case in the private sector when outsourcing became the rage to reduce the cost of running the operation by farming out the cost centers and keeping the profit centers, so will be the case in the public sector.

    Of course, outsourcing would not go well, so you'll start to see these folks privatized and then a year or so afterward, outsourced.

    It's the logical next step in kicking the deficit can down the road.
  9. Very possible that this is a very tough position to fill.
  10. ptrjon


    like investments, risky jobs generally have to pay more to attract employees. Secure jobs do not have to pay as much, since employees have the safety and the peace of mind that they'll have a job.

    So a responsible, competitive business, if it provided secure jobs, would pay less, because they can. After all, as a business, why would you want to pay more to employees and decrease earnings if you didn't have to?

    However, the government has no direct desire to stay competitive or efficient. They also have shown that they spend whatever they need,
    whatever they want,
    and whatever expenses arise that were poorly planned for. (Think Fannie Mae, Social Security, Medicare, Postal service, the list goes on...)

    Who are they accountable to? A body of shareholders that are apathetic and ignorant- the voting public.
    #10     Aug 6, 2010