Quality Over Quantity: Why the Government Needs Fewer Employees Earning More

The federal bureaucracy has long been critiqued for its bloated size, inefficiency, and complacency, yet few have seriously considered a radical reshaping of its structure. A potent remedy exists, seemingly paradoxical but practically compelling: reducing the federal workforce by 80 percent while boosting salaries by a similar proportion for the remainder. Currently, the civilian federal workforce payroll is approximately $209 billion annually. Implementing this strategy would reduce the payroll to about $75 billion, yielding an impressive annual savings of approximately $134 billion. Far from a superficial austerity measure, this counterintuitive proposal aims at restructuring the government into a lean, expert-driven apparatus more effective at delivering on core missions. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under Elon Musk’s stewardship, exemplifies precisely this reform: fewer hands, higher pay, and dramatically better outcomes.

At present, the federal government operates under an antiquated General Schedule (GS) pay structure that often dissuades America's brightest from public service. Consider the DOGE team: highly specialized computer experts facing not only modest pay but genuine personal and professional peril. Engineers who accept government roles must navigate security threats and sacrifice future prospects in Silicon Valley, a place notoriously unforgiving of conservative affiliations. Indeed, Big Tech's progressive monoculture often blacklists those with politically inconvenient résumés. Thus, the cost to DOGE's technocrats isn't measured merely by their comparatively modest paychecks, but also by permanently constricted career opportunities and constant security risks.

To illustrate, Jeremy Lewin, responsible for dismantling bureaucratic relics like USAID and reforming agencies like NIH, earns slightly north of $167,000. Kyle Schutt, a cybersecurity expert, earns just over $195,000. Nate Cavanaugh, a young entrepreneur turned government reformer, receives a modest $120,500. Compared to entry-level engineers at Meta, whose compensation easily surpasses $250,000 annually with bonuses and equity, DOGE team members are hardly experiencing a "windfall." Instead, they're undergoing a profound personal and professional sacrifice, willingly accepting these burdens out of patriotic duty rather than material gain.

Yet, beneath their apparent financial austerity lies a hidden potential: the capacity to reshape government fundamentally through automation, artificial intelligence, and cutting-edge technological innovation. Herein lies the steelman argument for drastically reducing federal workforce numbers—perhaps by as much as 80 percent—while simultaneously boosting compensation by an equivalent percentage. By recruiting fewer but highly compensated experts, leveraging existing legal flexibilities provided under Title 5, Title 38, and various specialized hiring authorities, the government could attract the elite talent required to revolutionize federal operations.

Consider the expansive menu of hiring tools currently at the government’s disposal: critical position pay, direct hire authorities, special salary rates, and various excepted service systems. Agencies such as NASA, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense already utilize these to secure top talent in cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and other mission-critical technical domains. The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity Talent Management System (CTMS), for instance, circumvents standard GS limitations to compete for cybersecurity talent directly against lucrative private-sector offers. Similarly, DoD employs its Highly Qualified Experts (HQE) program, allowing the Pentagon to recruit extraordinary technical minds, often setting compensation at or near market levels to attract the best.

These methods provide an actionable blueprint for government-wide transformation. By hiring fewer individuals but at significantly elevated compensation—imagine cutting total headcount by as much as 80% while offering salaries that are 80% higher—the government could not only offset the increased payroll cost through efficiency gains but also achieve substantial direct payroll savings. Elite engineers, leveraging machine learning and advanced automation, could streamline or even eliminate cumbersome, repetitive bureaucratic functions. In short, a leaner workforce of top-tier talent, adequately incentivized, could do more with dramatically fewer resources, significantly enhancing both efficiency and fiscal responsibility.

Furthermore, these reforms wouldn't merely bolster operational efficiency—they'd also catalyze an overdue cultural shift within government. Currently, federal employment rewards tenure over talent, stability over innovation, and mediocrity over excellence. Employees joke bitterly about the absence of meaningful accountability, symbolized by bureaucratic absurdities like weekly status emails masquerading as burdens. By replacing vast numbers of disengaged employees with smaller teams of richly compensated specialists held to stringent performance standards, the government could emulate the productivity and dynamism of the private sector without succumbing to its vulnerabilities, such as relentless layoffs or ruthless internal competition.

Critics of this model may argue it introduces inequalities into public service, privileging a few at the expense of many. Yet, this critique fundamentally misunderstands the nature of excellence and the economics of talent. The current model disperses resources broadly, yielding uniformly mediocre outcomes. A more targeted approach would concentrate investments strategically, creating clusters of excellence whose productivity and innovation would justify their elevated remuneration many times over. History provides ample precedent: Alexander Hamilton, architect of America’s early financial stability, understood the importance of investing significantly in superior talent to manage the young republic's finances. Likewise, Ronald Reagan streamlined government, recognizing that bureaucratic inertia is best countered not by expansive hiring, but by selective empowerment.

Indeed, the DOGE model represents not extravagance but prudence. Paying fewer employees substantially more isn't a concession to luxury; it's an investment in effectiveness, security, and innovation. Our current federal employment model, shackled by outdated conventions and constrained by pay scales unreflective of market realities, produces predictable mediocrity. In contrast, a smaller cadre of highly incentivized, profoundly skilled individuals could transform government operations, reducing long-term costs and increasing accountability. Higher pay paired with fewer jobs creates inherent incentives for employees to deliver demonstrable value, fostering a culture of excellence and accountability rarely seen in federal service.

The path forward, then, is clear. DOGE's current personnel sacrifices are instructive, not scandalous; their compensation modest, not excessive. We must leverage existing federal pay authorities vigorously, recruit elite talent aggressively, and downsize strategically to unlock efficiencies at scale. In doing so, America might finally craft a government worthy of her exceptional promise—compact, competent, and committed solely to serving its citizens rather than perpetuating its own bloated existence. In reforming federal employment along these lines, we honor not only efficiency but liberty itself, ensuring that government remains, in Jefferson's immortal phrasing, "the servant, not the master of the people."

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.