5 ms·

>> federal employees are much more likely to return Not necessarily. It's generally understood that federal employees accept a lower salary in exchange for car

>> federal employees are much more likely to return Not necessarily. It's generally understood that federal employees accept a lower salary in exchange for career stability. If a career as a federal employee now has higher risk then at least some people will be expecting a higher salary.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
glimshe 2y ago
The advocates of Musk's firings will say that if these people could command a higher salary, they should be in the private industry producing goods and services for the population rather than the inherently wasteful government positions.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > […] they should be in the private industry producing goods and services for the population rather than the inherently wasteful government positions. In this particular case, the government positions were maintaining the US's nuclear arsenal. Not sure how "wasteful" having a nuclear deterrent is.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Could we privatize the arsenal to increase efficiency?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      If you're not joking: what private entity would you trust to not start WW3?
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    The profit-making part is when we pull back from being world policeman and instead sell nuclear weapons and weapon systems. Sorry, we won't go to war for you, but how about some H-bombs, Taiwan?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      We're really going to pull a Cuban Missle Crisis again? but x10? I guess they'll be cheered on this time.
- drawkward 2y ago
  Government work is literally goods and services for the population. This is some serious 1984 war is peace shit.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Thankfully this isn't the case or you would get the least talented people in government, making it even more ineffective and wasteful.
derangedHorse 2y ago
I think that incentive is part of the problem. Federal employees should get paid more with a reasonable expectation of being fired. The amount of people I know in government positions who give 0 consideration to the quality of their work because they know they won’t be fired astounds me.
- someothherguyy 2y ago
  How is firing large amounts of people on a whim going to solve the problem of people not caring about their work? From what it sounds like (w.r.t. Agenda 47 / Project 2025) DOGE is fund seeking for massive planned programs, not returning money to the citizenry or restructuring for efficiency. It sounds like they are illegally looting agencies and programs that congress already funded, so they can fund the admin's proposed plans (virtual social cleansing, mass deportations, homeless relocation, freedom cities, etc).
  - roenxi 2y ago
    It doesn't look like DOGE is trying to fund anything; at this stage my guess is they're trying to hack off the propaganda arm of the CIA/NSA and the web of NGOs on the theory that it is funding anti-Trump messaging. Otherwise targeting USAID for savings early is a bit pointless; what is $50 billion a year to the US government? They're $36 trillion in debt with no plausible path out of the hole. Annual deficit is around $2 trillion. Or it might be a propaganda effort to make Team Trump look busy. Hard to say without more visibility into what they're doing.
    - someothherguyy 2y ago
      There are some hints toward this, like with recent reporting : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gop-panel-approves-budget-blueprint-steep-tax-spending-cuts-rcna192002 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gop-panel-ap... > Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said she has expressed “concerns” to leaders about the prospect of steep spending cuts and told reporters that, before she agrees to vote for the budget resolution, she wants “better clarity” about the next stage — especially when it comes to cuts. “$4.5 trillion doesn’t leave a lot of room for the president’s priorities,” Malliotakis said --- Also, why else would you directly reclaim funds as the executive? As a party, if you wanted to correct spending, you would do it in a budget. As the executive, if you wanted to get money without congressional approval, you would reclaim money that has already been appropriated. There are other ways (emergency orders), but they might not be popular with the party or a target voting base (in this case, more net spending).

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

glimshe 2y ago

The advocates of Musk's firings will say that if these people could command a higher salary, they should be in the private industry producing goods and services for the population rather than the inherently wasteful government positions.

throw0101d 2y ago
> […] they should be in the private industry producing goods and services for the population rather than the inherently wasteful government positions. In this particular case, the government positions were maintaining the US's nuclear arsenal. Not sure how "wasteful" having a nuclear deterrent is.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Could we privatize the arsenal to increase efficiency?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    If you're not joking: what private entity would you trust to not start WW3?
- pfdietz 2y ago
  The profit-making part is when we pull back from being world policeman and instead sell nuclear weapons and weapon systems. Sorry, we won't go to war for you, but how about some H-bombs, Taiwan?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    We're really going to pull a Cuban Missle Crisis again? but x10? I guess they'll be cheered on this time.
drawkward 2y ago
Government work is literally goods and services for the population. This is some serious 1984 war is peace shit.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Thankfully this isn't the case or you would get the least talented people in government, making it even more ineffective and wasteful.

derangedHorse 2y ago

I think that incentive is part of the problem. Federal employees should get paid more with a reasonable expectation of being fired. The amount of people I know in government positions who give 0 consideration to the quality of their work because they know they won’t be fired astounds me.

someothherguyy 2y ago
How is firing large amounts of people on a whim going to solve the problem of people not caring about their work? From what it sounds like (w.r.t. Agenda 47 / Project 2025) DOGE is fund seeking for massive planned programs, not returning money to the citizenry or restructuring for efficiency. It sounds like they are illegally looting agencies and programs that congress already funded, so they can fund the admin's proposed plans (virtual social cleansing, mass deportations, homeless relocation, freedom cities, etc).
- roenxi 2y ago
  It doesn't look like DOGE is trying to fund anything; at this stage my guess is they're trying to hack off the propaganda arm of the CIA/NSA and the web of NGOs on the theory that it is funding anti-Trump messaging. Otherwise targeting USAID for savings early is a bit pointless; what is $50 billion a year to the US government? They're $36 trillion in debt with no plausible path out of the hole. Annual deficit is around $2 trillion. Or it might be a propaganda effort to make Team Trump look busy. Hard to say without more visibility into what they're doing.
  - someothherguyy 2y ago
    There are some hints toward this, like with recent reporting : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gop-panel-approves-budget-blueprint-steep-tax-spending-cuts-rcna192002 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-gop-panel-ap... > Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said she has expressed “concerns” to leaders about the prospect of steep spending cuts and told reporters that, before she agrees to vote for the budget resolution, she wants “better clarity” about the next stage — especially when it comes to cuts. “$4.5 trillion doesn’t leave a lot of room for the president’s priorities,” Malliotakis said --- Also, why else would you directly reclaim funds as the executive? As a party, if you wanted to correct spending, you would do it in a budget. As the executive, if you wanted to get money without congressional approval, you would reclaim money that has already been appropriated. There are other ways (emergency orders), but they might not be popular with the party or a target voting base (in this case, more net spending).