4 ms·

How in the world is randomly firing people supposed to make anything more efficient? They literally don't even know what the people they're firing do, as seen w

How in the world is randomly firing people supposed to make anything more efficient? They literally don't even know what the people they're firing do, as seen with the latest mess with the Department of Energy.

givemeethekeys 2y ago
Maybe it forces the people who're left to prioritize which civil services to keep.
- aqueueaqueue 2y ago
  And forces states, especially poorer ones, to raise their taxes.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    Or lower their taxes, now they don't have to fund useless bs
    - bagels 2y ago
      You think the states will get more federal money now? The trend of stealing money from New York, shutting down the Department of Education, and FEMA would make me think otherwise.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      The explicit point of dismantling some agencies is to leave it to the states. Aka they want to reduce state funding. So the state choices are generate more income or let certain institutions rot.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
clarionbell 2y ago
It's probably not. At this point I would place my hope in second order effects. But I'm not the sort of person to do that.
Workaccount2 2y ago
Fiery take, but Elon eviscerated twitter and just kept kicking people out seemingly randomly. Anyone who didn't like it was encouraged walk out too on top of that. Twitter was doomed and the internet was rife with how it's collapse was immanent. But he we are three years later and twitter is still running and still top dog in the message-post space. I can't help but feel that in the presence of lots of money, organizations just bloat and bloat and bloat, and all that bloat will be sure to have a long winded explanation for why it is _critical_ to stay in existence.
- UltraSane 2y ago
  Twitter is barely breaking even because Musk's stupid policies have chased away a lot of advertisers.
- jonkoops 2y ago
  Twitter is losing more money than before Musk, so I personally don't see how this is working out except as a mechanism to extract power.
  - aketchum 2y ago
    twitter corporate bonds are trading at 97 cents on the dollar now, they were trading closer to 40 cents shortly after the acquisition. I would not assume they are still losing money
    - squigz 2y ago
      > shortly after the acquisition I would expect this to be a particularly low point. Can you link some data?
      - aketchum 2y ago
        "The banks marketed the deal last week with an intention to sell down the debt at 90-95 cents to the dollar but managed to price it at a higher price of 97 cents... In late 2022, an attempt to sell the unsecured loan attracted bids in the 60 cents to the dollar range which would have seen the banks take on a large loss on the face value of the debt." https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/banks-sell-down-55-bln-musks-x-debt-investors-source-2025-02-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/banks-sell-down-55-... so I was wrong to say they were as low as 40 cents, but the point stands that twitter's financials have improved a great deal
jccalhoun 2y ago
Agreed. Maybe the government is terribly inefficient. I don't know. However, this isn't the most efficient way to make it better. Moreover, efficiency is not just saving money which seems to be all that is going on.

givemeethekeys 2y ago

Maybe it forces the people who're left to prioritize which civil services to keep.

aqueueaqueue 2y ago
And forces states, especially poorer ones, to raise their taxes.
- gosub100 2y ago
  Or lower their taxes, now they don't have to fund useless bs
  - bagels 2y ago
    You think the states will get more federal money now? The trend of stealing money from New York, shutting down the Department of Education, and FEMA would make me think otherwise.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    The explicit point of dismantling some agencies is to leave it to the states. Aka they want to reduce state funding. So the state choices are generate more income or let certain institutions rot.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

clarionbell 2y ago

It's probably not. At this point I would place my hope in second order effects. But I'm not the sort of person to do that.

Workaccount2 2y ago

Fiery take, but Elon eviscerated twitter and just kept kicking people out seemingly randomly. Anyone who didn't like it was encouraged walk out too on top of that. Twitter was doomed and the internet was rife with how it's collapse was immanent. But he we are three years later and twitter is still running and still top dog in the message-post space. I can't help but feel that in the presence of lots of money, organizations just bloat and bloat and bloat, and all that bloat will be sure to have a long winded explanation for why it is _critical_ to stay in existence.

UltraSane 2y ago
Twitter is barely breaking even because Musk's stupid policies have chased away a lot of advertisers.
jonkoops 2y ago
Twitter is losing more money than before Musk, so I personally don't see how this is working out except as a mechanism to extract power.
- aketchum 2y ago
  twitter corporate bonds are trading at 97 cents on the dollar now, they were trading closer to 40 cents shortly after the acquisition. I would not assume they are still losing money
  - squigz 2y ago
    > shortly after the acquisition I would expect this to be a particularly low point. Can you link some data?
    - aketchum 2y ago
      "The banks marketed the deal last week with an intention to sell down the debt at 90-95 cents to the dollar but managed to price it at a higher price of 97 cents... In late 2022, an attempt to sell the unsecured loan attracted bids in the 60 cents to the dollar range which would have seen the banks take on a large loss on the face value of the debt." https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/banks-sell-down-55-bln-musks-x-debt-investors-source-2025-02-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/banks-sell-down-55-... so I was wrong to say they were as low as 40 cents, but the point stands that twitter's financials have improved a great deal

jccalhoun 2y ago

Agreed. Maybe the government is terribly inefficient. I don't know. However, this isn't the most efficient way to make it better. Moreover, efficiency is not just saving money which seems to be all that is going on.