3 ms·

For sure this is just another form of laying off workers, but as bloated as the federal government is, I'm fine with it. You do realize that for at least the p

For sure this is just another form of laying off workers, but as bloated as the federal government is, I'm fine with it. You do realize that for at least the past year, the only reason the employment reports have had a positive figure is because the government is hiring more people than the private sector is laying off? That's unsustainable.

ChumpGPT 2y ago
I'm not sure it's that bloated. The US is doing much better than most countries regarding headcount at the federal level. The Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, USPS, make up about 2/3 of the total. I think it was just another campaign tactic, theater for the masses and the reality is very different. It's programs that cost the American people the most so if Elon and Vivek want to save money, they will need to look at programs like SS, Veterans benefits, Medicare, Education, etc.
- jfengel 2y ago
  The plan is to cut the entire Department of Education. That would cut 4,400 employees -- most of whom are tasked with administering funds like Pell Grants. Those funds are mostly matters of law, so I'm not sure if the goal is to just not actually follow that law, or what. If you did indeed stop following that law, you could save a goodly chunk of money -- over $200 billion. But the actual employees are only a tiny fraction of that cost, so firing the entire staff would save far, far less (perhaps half a billion.)
frumper 2y ago
The numbers don't appear to support that. Federal government employees haven't fluctuated very much over the past 40 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governmental-employees-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governm...
- coldtea 2y ago
  Given that productivity has risen 10x isn't having the same number of people as 1980 already a sign of big bloat (or increased busy-work)? Plus, how much of stuff it used to do internally 40 years ago are now done through subcontractors and delegated to private companies? Meaning even that number is now doing less than 1980?
  - fzeroracer 2y ago
    Have you considered that the US population has grown from 220m to 330m? Meaning proportionally, the government uses fewer resources to cover a larger amount of people?

ChumpGPT 2y ago

I'm not sure it's that bloated. The US is doing much better than most countries regarding headcount at the federal level. The Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Department of Homeland Security, USPS, make up about 2/3 of the total. I think it was just another campaign tactic, theater for the masses and the reality is very different. It's programs that cost the American people the most so if Elon and Vivek want to save money, they will need to look at programs like SS, Veterans benefits, Medicare, Education, etc.

jfengel 2y ago
The plan is to cut the entire Department of Education. That would cut 4,400 employees -- most of whom are tasked with administering funds like Pell Grants. Those funds are mostly matters of law, so I'm not sure if the goal is to just not actually follow that law, or what. If you did indeed stop following that law, you could save a goodly chunk of money -- over $200 billion. But the actual employees are only a tiny fraction of that cost, so firing the entire staff would save far, far less (perhaps half a billion.)

frumper 2y ago

The numbers don't appear to support that. Federal government employees haven't fluctuated very much over the past 40 years. https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governmental-employees-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governm...

coldtea 2y ago
Given that productivity has risen 10x isn't having the same number of people as 1980 already a sign of big bloat (or increased busy-work)? Plus, how much of stuff it used to do internally 40 years ago are now done through subcontractors and delegated to private companies? Meaning even that number is now doing less than 1980?
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  Have you considered that the US population has grown from 220m to 330m? Meaning proportionally, the government uses fewer resources to cover a larger amount of people?