4 ms·

[flagged]

_yb2s 2y ago
I’m an academic scientist part of a really large government funded research grant that employs hundreds of people. Last time, we had to fire half our staff immediately right up front because they said they were cutting our funding. They ended up not cutting our funding at all, but we had already fired everyone so it was lose lose- the Government spent the money but the research couldn’t be done. Just plain bad leadership.
- aikinai 2y ago
  Where did the money go then?
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    At the very least, some went to unemployment benefits, I’d expect.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    We hired new people with less experience and restarted the projects, but in a lot of cases the projects were set back years with no reduction in the cost.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Sounds like bad leadership on the part of your project. To outsiders that don’t understand the details why fire people before the actual budget cuts?
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    It was the policy of the granting federal agency- it was not our choice, we had to immediately start operating on the president's proposed low budget in case it were to pass, rather than spend money that might never exist. This happened because Trump's administration essentially copy and pasted Heritage Foundation materials rather than carefully think through a realistic budget.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    Here’s another example: would you start building a house today knowing the price of every input material might jump 20% to 200%?
    - _yb2s 2y ago
      It's even worse than that: it's more like buying unrefundable materials to build a house today on an account/invoice, knowing you will likely be unemployed before the bill comes due, but after the materials are delivered. You're spending money up front that you don't have, and may never have. If you spend full budget for the first half of the fiscal year, but a final budget gets passed later that cuts your budget in half- you get no remaining money for the year, and then end up firing everyone, instead of half. This is why the federal agencies have the policy of immediately acting on the lowest proposed budget, instead of waiting to see what happens.
- Fomite 2y ago
  I've had two grants in a row get killed for political reasons, and a third is on the chopping block. What really kills me is that we get through the unpleasant, unproductive scaling up part, are about to hit our stride, and then...gone.
gosub100 2y ago
[flagged]
- epistasis 2y ago
  If the president isn't responsible for the out of the ordinary executive orders he imposes, who is responsible for them?
  - gosub100 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - epistasis 2y ago
      Here's the comment that got downvoted: > For anyone unaware of us government agency structure. CDC is part of the department of health and human services ( HHS ) which has also frozen everything (see the NIH news as well). > Employees have been instructed to pull publications from review, not communicate with state health departments, and cancel long planned trainings. > These decisions will well and truly kill real people. These are the executive orders we are talking about. Are you strong enough of a person to address this? Or must you insult people's intelligence by dishonest accusations? Also, what does ABC have to do with anything?
- avs733 2y ago
  Basically what you are saying is that me robbing you, and me making economic policy that might lead to increased unemployment which might lead to greater housing or food insecurity which might lead to increases in crime which might lead to you getting robber are indistinguishable. Adults can differentiate between direct and indirect causal relationships…it is basically the cognitive development definition of adulthood (c.f. Work by Piaget)

[flagged]

I’m an academic scientist part of a really large government funded research grant that employs hundreds of people. Last time, we had to fire half our staff immediately right up front because they said they were cutting our funding. They ended up not cutting our funding at all, but we had already fired everyone so it was lose lose- the Government spent the money but the research couldn’t be done. Just plain bad leadership.

aikinai 2y ago
Where did the money go then?
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  At the very least, some went to unemployment benefits, I’d expect.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  We hired new people with less experience and restarted the projects, but in a lot of cases the projects were set back years with no reduction in the cost.
mulmen 2y ago
Sounds like bad leadership on the part of your project. To outsiders that don’t understand the details why fire people before the actual budget cuts?
- _yb2s 2y ago
  It was the policy of the granting federal agency- it was not our choice, we had to immediately start operating on the president's proposed low budget in case it were to pass, rather than spend money that might never exist. This happened because Trump's administration essentially copy and pasted Heritage Foundation materials rather than carefully think through a realistic budget.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  Here’s another example: would you start building a house today knowing the price of every input material might jump 20% to 200%?
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    It's even worse than that: it's more like buying unrefundable materials to build a house today on an account/invoice, knowing you will likely be unemployed before the bill comes due, but after the materials are delivered. You're spending money up front that you don't have, and may never have. If you spend full budget for the first half of the fiscal year, but a final budget gets passed later that cuts your budget in half- you get no remaining money for the year, and then end up firing everyone, instead of half. This is why the federal agencies have the policy of immediately acting on the lowest proposed budget, instead of waiting to see what happens.
Fomite 2y ago
I've had two grants in a row get killed for political reasons, and a third is on the chopping block. What really kills me is that we get through the unpleasant, unproductive scaling up part, are about to hit our stride, and then...gone.

gosub100 2y ago

[flagged]

epistasis 2y ago
If the president isn't responsible for the out of the ordinary executive orders he imposes, who is responsible for them?
- gosub100 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - epistasis 2y ago
    Here's the comment that got downvoted: > For anyone unaware of us government agency structure. CDC is part of the department of health and human services ( HHS ) which has also frozen everything (see the NIH news as well). > Employees have been instructed to pull publications from review, not communicate with state health departments, and cancel long planned trainings. > These decisions will well and truly kill real people. These are the executive orders we are talking about. Are you strong enough of a person to address this? Or must you insult people's intelligence by dishonest accusations? Also, what does ABC have to do with anything?
avs733 2y ago
Basically what you are saying is that me robbing you, and me making economic policy that might lead to increased unemployment which might lead to greater housing or food insecurity which might lead to increases in crime which might lead to you getting robber are indistinguishable. Adults can differentiate between direct and indirect causal relationships…it is basically the cognitive development definition of adulthood (c.f. Work by Piaget)