4 ms·

Good. They seem to be the first defense contractor in a long time, maybe ever, with a specific eye on controlling costs. It may not be this way forever, but fo

Good. They seem to be the first defense contractor in a long time, maybe ever, with a specific eye on controlling costs. It may not be this way forever, but for now the taxpayers should get the savings where they can.

vsareto 6y ago
Maybe they can relax the work/life balance now
- tF73d78kq8t3R6n 6y ago
  That’d cause their costs to skyrocket.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Maybe they can relax the work/life balance now Nobody should feel forced to work more than they want to. (The abjectly lazy aside.) But we should also be free to work as hard as we want. And to freely associate with those with similar preferences. I used to love burning both ends of the candle. It was invigorating. I didn't ruin my health for it. And it gave me life lessons I could not have learned any other way. The fruits of those years, as well as finding other interests, nudged me to a different preference. Which involved new (or changed) colleagues. I don't see why, to be satisfied with one arrangement, we must denigrate the other--they're just different solutions. Work and life don't balance on a scale. The dynamic is more like homeostasis. One's stable ratio depends on a variety factors, extrinsic and from within, and what makes one person happy will be ruinous or lethargic for another.
- Strom 6y ago
  > Maybe they can relax the work/life balance now Surely SpaceX employees are there by choice. How many of their employees have no better work/life balance employment choices? I would guess a rare few.
serf 6y ago
1) Every defense contractor mentions interest in controlling costs; they bid against each other with these specific values in mind. The problem is over-run and underestimation, and the govts' lack of flexibility with regards to contract termination in most instances. 2) Defense spending has been historically hovering between 15-25 percent in the United States. 'Taxpayer savings' does not, nor has it ever, indicated more money in the hands of the taxpayer -- it indicates how many new projects will be budgeted. In other words : The tax payer saves nothing, but the military is given extra toys within the same budget. Now, whether or not you are for or against the further arming of our troops and allied fighters -- that's a personal question.. but let's not pretend this equates to saved cash for the citizenry.
- bumby 6y ago
  >The problem is over-run and underestimation I would argue this is a bug for the taxpayers but a feature for the contractor. Much of their profit comes from change-orders after they win a poorly administered low-bid contract. It seems the M.O. often is "bid low to get the contract, and then argue/nickel-and-dime the taxpayer to pad the profit margin"

vsareto 6y ago

Maybe they can relax the work/life balance now

tF73d78kq8t3R6n 6y ago
That’d cause their costs to skyrocket.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> Maybe they can relax the work/life balance now Nobody should feel forced to work more than they want to. (The abjectly lazy aside.) But we should also be free to work as hard as we want. And to freely associate with those with similar preferences. I used to love burning both ends of the candle. It was invigorating. I didn't ruin my health for it. And it gave me life lessons I could not have learned any other way. The fruits of those years, as well as finding other interests, nudged me to a different preference. Which involved new (or changed) colleagues. I don't see why, to be satisfied with one arrangement, we must denigrate the other--they're just different solutions. Work and life don't balance on a scale. The dynamic is more like homeostasis. One's stable ratio depends on a variety factors, extrinsic and from within, and what makes one person happy will be ruinous or lethargic for another.
Strom 6y ago
> Maybe they can relax the work/life balance now Surely SpaceX employees are there by choice. How many of their employees have no better work/life balance employment choices? I would guess a rare few.

serf 6y ago

1) Every defense contractor mentions interest in controlling costs; they bid against each other with these specific values in mind. The problem is over-run and underestimation, and the govts' lack of flexibility with regards to contract termination in most instances. 2) Defense spending has been historically hovering between 15-25 percent in the United States. 'Taxpayer savings' does not, nor has it ever, indicated more money in the hands of the taxpayer -- it indicates how many new projects will be budgeted. In other words : The tax payer saves nothing, but the military is given extra toys within the same budget. Now, whether or not you are for or against the further arming of our troops and allied fighters -- that's a personal question.. but let's not pretend this equates to saved cash for the citizenry.

bumby 6y ago
>The problem is over-run and underestimation I would argue this is a bug for the taxpayers but a feature for the contractor. Much of their profit comes from change-orders after they win a poorly administered low-bid contract. It seems the M.O. often is "bid low to get the contract, and then argue/nickel-and-dime the taxpayer to pad the profit margin"