DOGE

[zbhargrove]

Couldn't the feds just pay the local weather businesses for their data to push alerts?

Many areas don’t have local weather businesses. I agree we could cut a lot of bloat in DC headquarters and even regional centers. Centers like the Storm Prediction Center and the Aviation Weather Center are essential… but there’s a lot of other nonsense out there. Most of that is upper management who’ve never worked in an operational office anyway whom we all detest in the first place out in the field. I won’t disagree that some kind of reorganization wouldn’t be a bad thing.

 

[zbhargrove]

The NWS is a drop in the bucket anyways… we always pretty much have the budget minimum. My main point was to say yes I get a lot of feds are lazy workers… but some of us are proud of where we work and our mission. Some departments (even if few) work our asses off.

 

[sturg33]

The NWS is a drop in the bucket anyways… we always pretty much have the budget minimum

I don't know enough about the topic to reasonably argue about it. I can say the national weather service is very very low on my list of things I want gone. To your point about federal employees, I could see what that specific services attracts top performers in the field.

It's things like USPS, FEMA, SS administration, IRS, etc that attack the worst of the worst people to staff

 

[zbhargrove]

I don't know enough about the topic to reasonably argue about it. I can say the national weather service is very very low on my list of things I want gone. To your point about federal employees, I could see what that specific services attracts top performers in the field.

It's things like USPS, FEMA, SS administration, IRS, etc that attack the worst of the worst people to staff

You won’t hear me arguing with you against many of those you mention. FEMA gets a bad rap because they’ve had a long history of corruption at the upper levels. But in the field they have some pretty good folks working. A lot of what they are supposed to do after disasters is misunderstood. But they have a crap ton of terrible people at the top.

 

[cajunrevenge]

[tw]1858914228624924963[/tw]

I will continue to maintain the position that after we identify all the waste/fraud that we can have a government that actually makes the lives of citizens better.

I have an idea to cut some waste. Ban the secret service from paying a business the President owns to guard him. I would think that would be supported by everyone.

 

[thethe]

I have an idea to cut some waste. Ban the secret service from paying a business the President owns to guard him. I would think that would be supported by everyone.

I think this is fair.

Haven’t bothered to look into this like the TDS crew has but in the surface it has merit.

 

[acesfull86]

[tw]1859816074801446982[/tw]

I …agree with AOC?!

 

[Carp]

[tw]1858987488884256859[/tw]

The ideas already coming out of the Trump admin are amazing. Complete rethink of the operating model of the world.

And people blackpilled.....

This is very similar to how we provide defense for the world and don't get paid for it. Has to stop.

This tweet (and your post) is pretty tone-deaf. The fact that we spend by far the most on healthcare per capita while lagging significantly behind in life expectancy is a testament to how broken our healthcare system actually is.

 

[thethe]

This tweet (and your post) is pretty tone-deaf. The fact that we spend by far the most on healthcare per capita while lagging significantly behind in life expectancy is a testament to how broken our healthcare system actually is.

It’s costly to pay for illegals to get free healthcare.

It’s costly because our food system is trash.

The current system is 100% broken. One thing that would help is that countries reimburse us for shouldering much of the R&D load.

 

[Carp]

If you are a self-motivated high performer, you don't work for the federal government

Sorry

Yeah that isn't true.

My wife works for the state of TN. They let her WFH a lot even before COVID. Since COVID, they eliminated her physical office ENTIRELY, because they found they could do the job better working from home and save money on rent and utilities.

Are there lazy employees who WFH? Sure there are. But they would equally be lazy in the office. It seems like you are more worried about "rewarding" lazy employees than anything else. But there are ways to track job performance without specifically needing to hover over them.

 

[Carp]

It’s costly to pay for illegals to get free healthcare.

It’s costly because our food system is trash.

The current system is 100% broken. One thing that would help is that countries reimburse us for shouldering much of the R&D load.

If you are looking at that graph and your concern is how costly it is, you are failing as person.

I don't realistically care how much more we are paying on healthcare per capita. The return on that investment is what is troublesome. We shouldn't be lagging this far behind in life expectancy.

 

[Carp]

Without blanket policies then its discrimintory. Thats why it has to be blanket so its 'fair'.

Again, these people will be fired and nobody will notice a thing.

Further, the 'good' ones will find private work quickly.

Isn't this opposite of what the DOGE is intended to do?

If someone can WFH effectively without constant supervision, how is firing that person, hiring a new employee you have to train, and provide office space for that employee to work, somehow more efficient of a plan?

Wouldn't firing the lazy employees and keeping your good employees happy not simply be a better solution?

 

[Carp]

Net/net it will be a massive win for removing waste and the potential remaining 'needs' (after full evaluation of actual needs) will be replaced by high quality people because you don't have dregs of society sucking out salary from the good people.

So these "lazy employees" were somehow not lazy when they had to be there in person? And somehow we're magically gonna backfill these roles with less experienced people and just pray that they aren't equally as lazy because.... reasons.

Super efficient.

 

[thethe]

Isn't this opposite of what the DOGE is intended to do?

If someone can WFH effectively without constant supervision, how is firing that person, hiring a new employee you have to train, and provide office space for that employee to work, somehow more efficient of a plan?

Wouldn't firing the lazy employees and keeping your good employees happy not simply be a better solution?

It would be more costly to discern which are th good ones (very few in relation to total) as opposed to just starting fresh. Plus there is unused office space that is dead weight right now.

 

[mqt]

It would be more costly to discern which are th good ones (very few in relation to total) as opposed to just starting fresh. Plus there is unused office space that is dead weight right now.

If you like this plan for that reason, I have one hell of a proposition for you to boost window sales.

 

[Carp]

It would be more costly to discern which are th good ones (very few in relation to total) as opposed to just starting fresh. Plus there is unused office space that is dead weight right now.

You have no idea how to run a company.

It's estimated to cost around 30-40% of an entry level employees annual salary just to fire them, hire someone new and then train the new employee (which you have to hope isn't equally as "lazy"). And that's for entry level roles. Experienced and highly skilled workers can cost up to 100% or more to fire the old employee and hire and train a new employee. How exactly would it be more costly to simply figure out who the lazy employees were poor and replace them?

If office space is unused it should be sold or rented out, assuming it is owned.

And by the way, I have no issue with reducing federal work force overall. There are a lot of useless positions and overall useless federal employees. But firing a ****load of people and blindly forcing everyone back into the office is exactly the opposite of what DOGE is intended to do.

 

[nsacpi]

If you are looking at that graph and your concern is how costly it is, you are failing as person.

I don't realistically care how much more we are paying on healthcare per capita. The return on that investment is what is troublesome. We shouldn't be lagging this far behind in life expectancy.

The divergence in life expectancy between blue and red states keeps getting larger and larger. Fifty years ago life expectancy in Oklahoma was slightly higher than in New York. Now it is more than five years less.

The increases (and level) of life expectancy in New York, California and other blue states look very similar to countries like Holland and Belgium. To the extent the U.S. looks different it is a phenomenon centered around red states.

 

[acesfull86]

You have no idea how to run a company.

It's estimated to cost around 30-40% of an entry level employees annual salary just to fire them, hire someone new and then train the new employee (which you have to hope isn't equally as "lazy"). And that's for entry level roles. Experienced and highly skilled workers can cost up to 100% or more to fire the old employee and hire and train a new employee. How exactly would it be more costly to simply figure out who the lazy employees were poor and replace them?

If office space is unused it should be sold or rented out, assuming it is owned.

And by the way, I have no issue with reducing federal work force overall. There are a lot of useless positions and overall useless federal employees. But firing a ****load of people and blindly forcing everyone back into the office is exactly the opposite of what DOGE is intended to do.

I think targeting WFH is an odd angle to attack this problem

 

[thethe]

You have no idea how to run a company.

It's estimated to cost around 30-40% of an entry level employees annual salary just to fire them, hire someone new and then train the new employee (which you have to hope isn't equally as "lazy"). And that's for entry level roles. Experienced and highly skilled workers can cost up to 100% or more to fire the old employee and hire and train a new employee. How exactly would it be more costly to simply figure out who the lazy employees were poor and replace them?

If office space is unused it should be sold or rented out, assuming it is owned.

And by the way, I have no issue with reducing federal work force overall. There are a lot of useless positions and overall useless federal employees. But firing a ****load of people and blindly forcing everyone back into the office is exactly the opposite of what DOGE is intended to do.

You can't do a RIF unless its completely arbitrary. Picking and choosing opens you up to a tremendous amount of lawsuits especially as I'm assuming there is no formal review/HR structure in these departments.

So I would pose to you that you don't have a clue on how companies are ran.

These are sunk costs that are typically considered EBITDA addbacks and aren't an evaluation on the efficiency and profitability of a business moving forward.

 

[thethe]

I think targeting WFH is an odd angle to attack this problem

Its a method to push through an indiscriminate RIF. Its very obvious to people that have ever been at an organization that has gone through a RIF and has sat in the strategy/finance side of it.