5 ms·

It's interesting that annual attrition rate is 6% according to the article. I hadn't considered that before. The buyouts could end up costing more than they sav

It's interesting that annual attrition rate is 6% according to the article. I hadn't considered that before. The buyouts could end up costing more than they save if the only people who take it were the ones already planning on leaving. But maybe the argument is if enough people take it before the March budget deadline, then each departments budget can be proportionately reduced in the next cycle. Does anyone know the math and politics on this? Why didn't DOGE just put hiring freezes in place and wait for people to leave? Honest question. I'm not looking to bait anyone into mud slinging about Trump and Elon.

amazingamazing 2y ago
short answer - takes too long
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
biofox 2y ago
Without wanting to mud sling, this has not gone through the usual oversight and review committees that something like this usually would, so I suspect it hasn't been planned out and costed (much like other recent policy announcements). When "move fast and break things" meets public finance.
wbl 2y ago
I'm going to try not to mud sling but looking at the managerial history of the people involved does not make taking erratic pointless action a total surprise.
dboreham 2y ago
Not sure if this is mud but you're analyzing this as if it should make sense. It doesn't need to and doesn't because it's a performance art piece.
cyberlurker 2y ago
Move fast and break things mentality over the boring strategy of letting a hiring freeze slowly work. It’s also psychologically challenging the people that stay to “admit” they can’t get a job in the private sector, which helps the Elon narrative. They want to make government employees feel bad. Plus these people are unlikely to ever get paid. This is all operating outside of congress. If the institutions survive at all this could become a mess of expensive lawsuits and settlements. But I suppose their intention is to permanently cut Congress out of the picture.
- sitkack 2y ago
  The goal is burn down the federal government, it doesn't really matter to them what happens. Expensive lawsuits and settlements, sign me up! It isn't their money.
  - mcmcmc 2y ago
    Burn down and loot
    - alaxhn 2y ago
      Can you please be more clear on what is being looted in your view? I can see how a lot of money can be made from having the government fund a project that you benefit from. For example DOGE uncovered that Senator Lindsey Graham sits on the board of International Republican Institute which was funded by USAID. I don't see how someone benefits themselves financially by cutting government spending since the revenue stream that they could direct into their pocket has now dried up.
      - zerocrates 2y ago
        They "uncovered" something that's in financial statements, posted on the agency's website, on the org's website... way to go. You can go read 50 pages of audit that's been publicly available because they got government funding. You can also see the filings that show that Lindsey Graham doesn't get paid for being on their board, nor do any of their directors, and you can go see what they did spend money on. There's a more or less equivalent org that draws its directors from Democrats like this one does Republicans. Speaking of "uncovering" you can go read the press coverage from 2018 when the first Trump administration pushed to cut the funding of the National Endowment of Democracy (which sits above these two party-associated organizations). Of course this was in a time where the Trump administration actually behaved as if Congress controlled the funding. For an amusing detail you can read the letter sent by senators at the time defending the NED's funding, and observe the signature of Marco Rubio, who now purports to have taken over USAID in his capacity as Secretary of State. As far as I can tell there's not even any evidence that DOGE did anything specifically relating to this group beyond just that they killed USAID. DOGE fan Twitter accounts have posted about it, just linking to those same already-available filings. Fans just reading down the list of things USAID funded gets you this same result. It's definitely a good place to go if you want to see a bunch of incurious people posting "head exploding" emojis.
jhp123 2y ago
I think the messaging was intended to create a psychological effect rather than a budgetary one. By voluntarily giving up a benefit to stay with the federal government post-Musk takeover, employees may feel more committed to the new regime. IIRC Zappos used to offer people a payout to leave directly after hiring them, it was a similar signal of commitment.
- simple10 2y ago
  Makes sense. Similar to Wordpress buyout drama. Realign the staff under new marching orders.
- Jtsummers 2y ago
  I think it was both, but they didn't realize: 1. Under RIFs, close to half of the civil service will get a better severance than this offer. So any thinking person would wait for a RIF. 2. Under VERA, people will lose this "severance" but get access to their pensions years earlier. Since VERA only applies if you have 20+ years (25 if under 50) that's 20+% of their current high-3 for the rest of their lives, sets a nice baseline income. A WG employee who started at a depot at age 18 could collect their pension starting at age 43 and get $20-30k/year for the rest of their life and still be young enough to get another job and keep earning until 60 and retire a second time. 3. A substantial number of federal employees are already working on-site (not necessarily in offices) in areas where there are not a ton of other jobs. Ask a civil servant at China Lake to resign, they have to move too, there are few jobs in the area besides that base. 4. Many federal employees are federal employees because they care about the mission. They'd rather keep doing what's been asked of them to keep things like critical infrastructure operating than go home and let things fall apart because no one is doing the work.
- ahi 2y ago
  The problem is that the new regime appears to be more interested in amputation than footwear for most of these depts/agencies. Those less committed to their mission of walking and running will leave. Those left behind will be the more intransigent veteran operators, "somebody has to keep everyone's feet attached".
vaccineai 2y ago
there is a hiring freeze https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiring-freeze/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiri.... this buyout is meant to accelerate
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Because "shock and awe" is part of the plan (for whatever reasons).

amazingamazing 2y ago

short answer - takes too long

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

biofox 2y ago

Without wanting to mud sling, this has not gone through the usual oversight and review committees that something like this usually would, so I suspect it hasn't been planned out and costed (much like other recent policy announcements). When "move fast and break things" meets public finance.

wbl 2y ago

I'm going to try not to mud sling but looking at the managerial history of the people involved does not make taking erratic pointless action a total surprise.

dboreham 2y ago

Not sure if this is mud but you're analyzing this as if it should make sense. It doesn't need to and doesn't because it's a performance art piece.

cyberlurker 2y ago

Move fast and break things mentality over the boring strategy of letting a hiring freeze slowly work. It’s also psychologically challenging the people that stay to “admit” they can’t get a job in the private sector, which helps the Elon narrative. They want to make government employees feel bad. Plus these people are unlikely to ever get paid. This is all operating outside of congress. If the institutions survive at all this could become a mess of expensive lawsuits and settlements. But I suppose their intention is to permanently cut Congress out of the picture.

sitkack 2y ago
The goal is burn down the federal government, it doesn't really matter to them what happens. Expensive lawsuits and settlements, sign me up! It isn't their money.
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  Burn down and loot
  - alaxhn 2y ago
    Can you please be more clear on what is being looted in your view? I can see how a lot of money can be made from having the government fund a project that you benefit from. For example DOGE uncovered that Senator Lindsey Graham sits on the board of International Republican Institute which was funded by USAID. I don't see how someone benefits themselves financially by cutting government spending since the revenue stream that they could direct into their pocket has now dried up.
    - zerocrates 2y ago
      They "uncovered" something that's in financial statements, posted on the agency's website, on the org's website... way to go. You can go read 50 pages of audit that's been publicly available because they got government funding. You can also see the filings that show that Lindsey Graham doesn't get paid for being on their board, nor do any of their directors, and you can go see what they did spend money on. There's a more or less equivalent org that draws its directors from Democrats like this one does Republicans. Speaking of "uncovering" you can go read the press coverage from 2018 when the first Trump administration pushed to cut the funding of the National Endowment of Democracy (which sits above these two party-associated organizations). Of course this was in a time where the Trump administration actually behaved as if Congress controlled the funding. For an amusing detail you can read the letter sent by senators at the time defending the NED's funding, and observe the signature of Marco Rubio, who now purports to have taken over USAID in his capacity as Secretary of State. As far as I can tell there's not even any evidence that DOGE did anything specifically relating to this group beyond just that they killed USAID. DOGE fan Twitter accounts have posted about it, just linking to those same already-available filings. Fans just reading down the list of things USAID funded gets you this same result. It's definitely a good place to go if you want to see a bunch of incurious people posting "head exploding" emojis.

jhp123 2y ago

I think the messaging was intended to create a psychological effect rather than a budgetary one. By voluntarily giving up a benefit to stay with the federal government post-Musk takeover, employees may feel more committed to the new regime. IIRC Zappos used to offer people a payout to leave directly after hiring them, it was a similar signal of commitment.

simple10 2y ago
Makes sense. Similar to Wordpress buyout drama. Realign the staff under new marching orders.
Jtsummers 2y ago
I think it was both, but they didn't realize: 1. Under RIFs, close to half of the civil service will get a better severance than this offer. So any thinking person would wait for a RIF. 2. Under VERA, people will lose this "severance" but get access to their pensions years earlier. Since VERA only applies if you have 20+ years (25 if under 50) that's 20+% of their current high-3 for the rest of their lives, sets a nice baseline income. A WG employee who started at a depot at age 18 could collect their pension starting at age 43 and get $20-30k/year for the rest of their life and still be young enough to get another job and keep earning until 60 and retire a second time. 3. A substantial number of federal employees are already working on-site (not necessarily in offices) in areas where there are not a ton of other jobs. Ask a civil servant at China Lake to resign, they have to move too, there are few jobs in the area besides that base. 4. Many federal employees are federal employees because they care about the mission. They'd rather keep doing what's been asked of them to keep things like critical infrastructure operating than go home and let things fall apart because no one is doing the work.
ahi 2y ago
The problem is that the new regime appears to be more interested in amputation than footwear for most of these depts/agencies. Those less committed to their mission of walking and running will leave. Those left behind will be the more intransigent veteran operators, "somebody has to keep everyone's feet attached".

vaccineai 2y ago

there is a hiring freeze https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiring-freeze/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/hiri.... this buyout is meant to accelerate

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Because "shock and awe" is part of the plan (for whatever reasons).