4 ms·

Slashing is not permanent. It is important to slash in order to determine a middle ground. If a company fires 100 employees and certain operations stop function

Slashing is not permanent. It is important to slash in order to determine a middle ground. If a company fires 100 employees and certain operations stop functioning, they may hire back 10 employees and reassess. If operations are still not functional enough, they will hire 10 more. This process continues until everything is operational again. The result is a company that functions just as effectively as before but with fewer employees. This is an optimization of resources and efficiency.

philipwhiuk 2y ago
If a government stops functioning, the result isn't the same as a company. The argument that 'slashing' is the only way to reduce headcount is also extremely dumb.
- andreygrehov 2y ago
  Neither companies nor governments fire 100% of their personnel unless a division is no longer needed. Governments, especially, have safeguards to ensure essential functions continue, so they don't simply stop functioning all of a sudden. From a bird's-eye view, a government is not much different from a company. They both allocate resources, manage personnel and strive for efficiency.
  - cma 2y ago
    Not many safeguards for that under unitary executive theory which is likely to become case law soon. Aside from impeachment.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    You realize the whole debate is about what different people consider "essential", right?
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
How the heck do you apply this process to fundamental research? It's pretty much always the case that with basic research you could have cut 95% of studies after the fact and it wouldn't have made much difference in the end. The problem is you don't know which 95% of studies beforehand.
turnsout 2y ago
It’s historically difficult to advocate for increased budgets & spending. Usually what is cut stays cut.
malfist 2y ago
>It is important to slash in order to determine a middle ground That's not true. > If a company fires 100 employees and certain operations stop functioning, they may hire back 10 employees and reassess How likely is it that 10 employees come back? How likely is it that critical institutional knowledge is lost forever? > The result is a company that functions just as effectively as before but with fewer employees Does it? Have you ever been through a reorg or restructuring at work? Do things ever get back to just as effective as before any time soon? > This is an optimization of resources and efficiency It's squandering human capitol, knowledge and reduced efficiency both in the short term and long term. It's the most expensive way to reduce your overhead. A far cry from optimization.
- andreygrehov 2y ago
  > That's not true. No, that's ^ not true ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > How likely is it that 10 employees come back? Pretty much nobody is irreplaceable. > How likely is it that critical institutional knowledge is lost forever? In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk. > Does it? Have you ever been through a reorg or restructuring at work? Do things ever get back to just as effective as before any time soon? Yes, I've been through many re-orgs at AWS. If done right, things get better fairly quickly (3-6 months). > It's squandering human capital, knowledge, and reduced efficiency both in the short term and long term. It's the most expensive way to reduce your overhead. A far cry from optimization. Not necessarily. The short-term pain of restructuring can lead to long-term efficiency gains. Organizations that fail to optimize end up bloated and sluggish, which is far more costly in the long run. Smart cuts, when combined with proper reallocation of resources, create a more effective organization.
  - malfist 2y ago
    > In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk. Nobody is so thorough at documenting that their job is 100% documented and the documentation is fully up to date. You think Jim, who's been training the new hires on the factory floor for a decade, who knows all the tricks to making this fit together at wiget factory even when the process instructions are vague, has documented everything? Could document everything? Just be cause digital records are present doesn't mean they're complete, up to date or accurate. Institutional knowledge is a thing, and it's very valuable. You can't wave it away and say we're in a digital age.

philipwhiuk 2y ago

If a government stops functioning, the result isn't the same as a company. The argument that 'slashing' is the only way to reduce headcount is also extremely dumb.

andreygrehov 2y ago
Neither companies nor governments fire 100% of their personnel unless a division is no longer needed. Governments, especially, have safeguards to ensure essential functions continue, so they don't simply stop functioning all of a sudden. From a bird's-eye view, a government is not much different from a company. They both allocate resources, manage personnel and strive for efficiency.
- cma 2y ago
  Not many safeguards for that under unitary executive theory which is likely to become case law soon. Aside from impeachment.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  You realize the whole debate is about what different people consider "essential", right?

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

How the heck do you apply this process to fundamental research? It's pretty much always the case that with basic research you could have cut 95% of studies after the fact and it wouldn't have made much difference in the end. The problem is you don't know which 95% of studies beforehand.

turnsout 2y ago

It’s historically difficult to advocate for increased budgets & spending. Usually what is cut stays cut.

malfist 2y ago

>It is important to slash in order to determine a middle ground That's not true. > If a company fires 100 employees and certain operations stop functioning, they may hire back 10 employees and reassess How likely is it that 10 employees come back? How likely is it that critical institutional knowledge is lost forever? > The result is a company that functions just as effectively as before but with fewer employees Does it? Have you ever been through a reorg or restructuring at work? Do things ever get back to just as effective as before any time soon? > This is an optimization of resources and efficiency It's squandering human capitol, knowledge and reduced efficiency both in the short term and long term. It's the most expensive way to reduce your overhead. A far cry from optimization.

andreygrehov 2y ago
> That's not true. No, that's ^ not true ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > How likely is it that 10 employees come back? Pretty much nobody is irreplaceable. > How likely is it that critical institutional knowledge is lost forever? In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk. > Does it? Have you ever been through a reorg or restructuring at work? Do things ever get back to just as effective as before any time soon? Yes, I've been through many re-orgs at AWS. If done right, things get better fairly quickly (3-6 months). > It's squandering human capital, knowledge, and reduced efficiency both in the short term and long term. It's the most expensive way to reduce your overhead. A far cry from optimization. Not necessarily. The short-term pain of restructuring can lead to long-term efficiency gains. Organizations that fail to optimize end up bloated and sluggish, which is far more costly in the long run. Smart cuts, when combined with proper reallocation of resources, create a more effective organization.
- malfist 2y ago
  > In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk. Nobody is so thorough at documenting that their job is 100% documented and the documentation is fully up to date. You think Jim, who's been training the new hires on the factory floor for a decade, who knows all the tricks to making this fit together at wiget factory even when the process instructions are vague, has documented everything? Could document everything? Just be cause digital records are present doesn't mean they're complete, up to date or accurate. Institutional knowledge is a thing, and it's very valuable. You can't wave it away and say we're in a digital age.