6 ms·
> Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 mon
by neilv 11mo ago
> Before this administration recruiting was extremely difficult and candidate quality was low. I've heard that it's nearly impossible now and in the last 18 months they've only been able to hire a single person. Federal jobs used to be considered stable, with good benefits, but low pay. Now they're unstable, the current administration is actively working to make benefits worse, and the pay is still really low.
Also, many people took pride in the service they provided to their country (or to the people, or as part of a team that did good, however they thought of it).
I don't have high hopes for this new thing.
After recent treatment of federal employees, and other things going on in the US this year, including how USDS as DOGE was weaponized against the US... I'd expect this new thing to only be able to recruit from these categories:
1. Outright bad people, with anti-US, looter/saboteur intent, as we've seen from other facets recently. They will focus on their own bad-person individual interests.
2. People who aren't bad, but who are so cognitively impaired, that they still don't realize that they're probably going to get screwed personally and/or directed to be the baddies. They will be bad at everything they do.
3. People who are intelligent and pro-US, and have no illusions about what they're signing up for, but who desperately need the income, after being screwed earlier this year. They won't be inspired to execute well on whatever anti-US directives they're given.
- guru4consulting 10mo agowhen I saw 18F, CISA, USDS were targeted by DOGE, everything was clear. They were just cutting all the good muscle and leaving the bad fat :(
- dabockster 11mo ago[flagged]
- selectodude 11mo agoThose people were covered in 1. Outright bad people.
- SunshineTheCat 11mo ago[flagged]
- SpicyLemonZest 11mo agoI've had two such chats with Trump supporters, and one said in great detail that this statement is true. He acknowledged that Trump has done a number of ethically and legally problematic things, and that supporting Trump means enabling this, but feels that he has to accept that necessary evil in order to achieve his policy goals on various issues. (The other flatly denied that Trump has ever done anything wrong and refused to keep talking when I produced examples of the most pointlessly cruel stuff.) Have you heard differently in your own casual chats on the topic?
- PacificSpecific 11mo agoWhat were the policy goals?
- SpicyLemonZest 11mo agoReducing illegal immigration seemed to be the primary one. Some stuff on civil rights too, but I'm not sure if that was a big concern for the guy I was talking to or an attempt to find common ground where he knew I'd be more sympathetic.
- ceejayoz 11mo ago> It's always easy to spot a person who has enclosed themselves in a political or ideological bubble. They're typically first to apply a label to a large group of people and then assume all the people with that label are the exact same. Your recent posting history here includes calling the entire European Union a "non-contributing toddler" to the world. Hmm.
- SunshineTheCat 11mo agoDigging through my chat history to misrepresent something I've said only underscores my original point.
- ethbr1 11mo agoThis feels like it needs a MAGA vs Republican distinction. There are plenty of Republicans who (privately) have issues with some things Trump is doing.
- usefulcat 11mo agoTalk is cheap; actions are what matters. Based on their actions (or lack thereof), the group you're describing must be a very small minority indeed.
- amanaplanacanal 11mo agoThey aren't in Congress, they are working in the states, I would guess. The Republicans in Congress mostly volunteered for a spinectomy when Trump was elected again.
- platevoltage 11mo agoCan you name any currently serving?
- ethbr1 11mo agoThat's part of it: many felt the winds and simultaneously made the choice to "focus on family" and step back from politics during the 2nd Trump administration. But the wheel turns, and there's going to be a lot of folks in the party with very sharp axes to grind during the lame duck period.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- platevoltage 10mo agoYeah, and I'm sure the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party will be first in line to help rehabilitate their image.
- deleted 11mo ago
- jotux 11mo agoBefore all of this happened the hiring I had to deal with when I was federal fell into similar buckets: 1. Completely inept or lazy people that couldn't get a job anywhere else (~50%) 2. Smart people that took the job because it was close to their family (~30%) 3. Smart people that took the job because they liked the the specific mission and felt like it was really important (~10%) 4. Smart people that took the job after retiring from a private industry job as a sort of laid-back post-retirement hobby (we called them re-treads, ~10%) From what I've heard, a lot of federal employers can only hire from the #1 category now, and the applicants in that category have gotten worse.
- mgrat 11mo agoThere's just no path to home ownership in the DC area for the fed career path after the ZIRP era. A capable person would have to be insane or desperate given the economics alone.
- mothballed 11mo agoDC has the highest per capita income of anywhere in the US (vs other states/territories), so when you realize federal workers are producing the most value for America the economics are at least a little better. If you look at relative economic slackers like workers of NYC and the private industry where less value is per capita created, it's a bit rougher.
- ethbr1 11mo agoWhat does this have to do with the price of DC housing and federal employee salaries' ability to purchase it?
- mothballed 11mo agoLower salaries at the same home prices would make it even more difficult. This is what we see in NYC, for instance. DC has some of the highest home prices but also the highest incomes.