5 ms·

Are sweeping layoffs without any serious attempt to retain critical talent going to empower the remaining staff to do their best work? We've seen lots of exampl

Are sweeping layoffs without any serious attempt to retain critical talent going to empower the remaining staff to do their best work? We've seen lots of examples of DOGE cutting loose important people and then flailing to hire them back. What happens when that one person who makes the whole team able to do their jobs gets cut loose? Are you empowered and productive then suddenly? If DOGE were serious about increasing efficiency they'd be focused on process reforms. Instead they're randomly cancelling contracts, cancelling leases, and letting people go without doing the hard work of analyzing processes or analyzing organizations to figure out where the problems actually are. It's like their philosophy is "if we cut one of the dog's legs off it'll suddenly become a more efficient runner".

LoganDark 2y ago
> It's like their philosophy is "if we cut one of the dog's legs off it'll suddenly become a more efficient runner". I think their philosophy is to replace the dog's legs with ones that run (only) where they want it to run.
- kevingadd 2y ago
  No replacement has happened yet. No improvement has happened yet. They're just firing people, cancelling contracts, and cancelling leases.
  - morgante 2y ago
    That's not true. Look at USAID: they canceled everything, but there was a significant outcry about PEPFAR specifically. Now PEPFAR is back, and likely to stay.
    - kevingadd 2y ago
      I sincerely don't understand what this proves. You're citing an example of them making a bad cut and having to reverse it. What part of that is an improvement?
      - glitch003 2y ago
        we get the whole US AID budget back, aside from PEPFAR. it's a good example of a case where they cut too much and undid some cuts.
        whattheheckheck 2y ago
        Who is we? You're probably not part of the selectorate who is getting the spoils of this
    - incidentist 2y ago
      As far as I can tell, they made an exception for pepfar but its funds are still frozen, due either to malice or incompetence. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/health/trump-usaid-pepfar.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/health/trump-usaid-pepfar...
morgante 2y ago
I'm not here to defend DOGE, but you're making the same mistake as the article of assuming the DOGE approach has no merit. Deleting processes somewhat randomly, then listening for the pain, is a pretty well-known technique for understanding and cleaning up legacy systems. Of course, it should only be used on systems where (temporary) failures are tolerable. There are parts of the government where that is true, and parts where it is dangerous. The problem on both sides is assuming the same techniques should be applied across the entire government, when some services are indeed life-and-death and others absolutely should be deleted.
- kevingadd 2y ago
  The pain you're listening for here is dead veterans, dead trans kids, dead disabled people, starving seniors, people dying from preventable viruses because of vaccine program cuts. The pain you're listening for here is toxic water and food-borne illnesses. We know we need most of these programs and services! You can make them more efficient, you can identify and cut waste. You don't do that by just making blanket, massive cuts to staff and services and then trying to cobble the pieces back together over the next few years. It doesn't make sense. No sensible person would run a business that way.
  - sho_hn 2y ago
    These people genuinely believe that some amount of human death is acceptable collateral.
    - beej71 2y ago
      This is absolutely true, and I think something that a lot of bleeding heart liberals don't fully understand. You might be against the death penalty, for example, because you can't bear the thought that the government would put innocent people to death. But some people believe that these are acceptable losses for the gain. Likewise, you might think that a program that helps prevent violence against a certain minority group would be beneficial. But some people feel that this is a waste of money since it doesn't actually benefit the most people. If you spend money, after all, wouldn't you want to positively affect the most people you could? Everybody else--they are acceptable losses.

LoganDark 2y ago

> It's like their philosophy is "if we cut one of the dog's legs off it'll suddenly become a more efficient runner". I think their philosophy is to replace the dog's legs with ones that run (only) where they want it to run.

kevingadd 2y ago
No replacement has happened yet. No improvement has happened yet. They're just firing people, cancelling contracts, and cancelling leases.
- morgante 2y ago
  That's not true. Look at USAID: they canceled everything, but there was a significant outcry about PEPFAR specifically. Now PEPFAR is back, and likely to stay.
  - kevingadd 2y ago
    I sincerely don't understand what this proves. You're citing an example of them making a bad cut and having to reverse it. What part of that is an improvement?
    - glitch003 2y ago
      we get the whole US AID budget back, aside from PEPFAR. it's a good example of a case where they cut too much and undid some cuts.
      - whattheheckheck 2y ago
        Who is we? You're probably not part of the selectorate who is getting the spoils of this
  - incidentist 2y ago
    As far as I can tell, they made an exception for pepfar but its funds are still frozen, due either to malice or incompetence. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/health/trump-usaid-pepfar.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/health/trump-usaid-pepfar...

morgante 2y ago

I'm not here to defend DOGE, but you're making the same mistake as the article of assuming the DOGE approach has no merit. Deleting processes somewhat randomly, then listening for the pain, is a pretty well-known technique for understanding and cleaning up legacy systems. Of course, it should only be used on systems where (temporary) failures are tolerable. There are parts of the government where that is true, and parts where it is dangerous. The problem on both sides is assuming the same techniques should be applied across the entire government, when some services are indeed life-and-death and others absolutely should be deleted.

kevingadd 2y ago
The pain you're listening for here is dead veterans, dead trans kids, dead disabled people, starving seniors, people dying from preventable viruses because of vaccine program cuts. The pain you're listening for here is toxic water and food-borne illnesses. We know we need most of these programs and services! You can make them more efficient, you can identify and cut waste. You don't do that by just making blanket, massive cuts to staff and services and then trying to cobble the pieces back together over the next few years. It doesn't make sense. No sensible person would run a business that way.
- sho_hn 2y ago
  These people genuinely believe that some amount of human death is acceptable collateral.
  - beej71 2y ago
    This is absolutely true, and I think something that a lot of bleeding heart liberals don't fully understand. You might be against the death penalty, for example, because you can't bear the thought that the government would put innocent people to death. But some people believe that these are acceptable losses for the gain. Likewise, you might think that a program that helps prevent violence against a certain minority group would be beneficial. But some people feel that this is a waste of money since it doesn't actually benefit the most people. If you spend money, after all, wouldn't you want to positively affect the most people you could? Everybody else--they are acceptable losses.