Federal Govt an Artificial Job Market? Admin Changes, Private Sector Adjusts—Why Not Train for Portable Skills?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Federal employees have extremely niche knowledge based on the congressionally mandated functions their offices must carry out. Many are simply irreplaceable. I’m sad for the American people right now.

Is that really true? Why is it that federal employees are supposedly irreplaceable? If their knowledge is so niche that no one outside of the government values it, doesn’t that just mean the government has created a circular system where jobs exist mainly to sustain themselves rather than serving a broader purpose? In the private sector, even the most specialized experts can be replaced or their knowledge can be transferred. Why should government jobs be any different?

If a role is truly valuable, wouldn’t you expect demand for those skills outside of government? In industries like healthcare, engineering, or IT, professionals move between public and private roles all the time because their expertise is needed in both. But if someone’s entire career revolves around understanding a bureaucratic process that only exists within the federal government, maybe that’s a sign the system is bloated rather than essential. If certain functions were really vital to the American people, private industry or state governments would step in to continue that work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal employees have extremely niche knowledge based on the congressionally mandated functions their offices must carry out. Many are simply irreplaceable. I’m sad for the American people right now.

Is that really true? Why is it that federal employees are supposedly irreplaceable? If their knowledge is so niche that no one outside of the government values it, doesn’t that just mean the government has created a circular system where jobs exist mainly to sustain themselves rather than serving a broader purpose? In the private sector, even the most specialized experts can be replaced or their knowledge can be transferred. Why should government jobs be any different?

If a role is truly valuable, wouldn’t you expect demand for those skills outside of government? In industries like healthcare, engineering, or IT, professionals move between public and private roles all the time because their expertise is needed in both. But if someone’s entire career revolves around understanding a bureaucratic process that only exists within the federal government, maybe that’s a sign the system is bloated rather than essential. If certain functions were really vital to the American people, private industry or state governments would step in to continue that work.

Nice strawman that you are knocking down.

There are some people whose careers revolve around understanding an area of law or statutorily required function. That's not a bureaucratic process. It's a function of government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get that the federal government seems upset about cutting staff and shifting directions, but is that just because they aren’t used to it?

Today I had to cut half of one manager’s team across multiple departments, letting go of 9 people because of budget and priority changes. They’re all technical staff, and their manager thinks they’re talented. While it’s tough, they’ll almost certainly land something soon since their skills are in demand. In the private sector, this kind of thing happens all the time, and while no one likes it, it’s just part of the reality. We’re giving them 30 days' notice, which is more than enough from a private sector viewpoint. Many companies give nothing, with employees discovering the same day they’re let go. So, it’s interesting to see how differently government workers react to job changes.

Thinking about the fork email, it seems like if I could give those employees 8 months of paid time to look for a job while doing nothing, they’d be thrilled. Is the outrage from the federal side just because government employees aren’t used to these kinds of shifts?

I also talked to a relative in their 70s who works for the government, and they’re actually excited about the deferred resignation deal. From their perspective, getting paid for 8 months without working before retiring is a dream scenario and a once-in-a-lifetime chance.

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of government jobs don’t have portable skills like IT or accounting that easily transfer to the private sector. I also see people who spend their entire careers managing government grants, foreign aid, and similar programs. It seems like these jobs exist mainly to process government functions that wouldn’t even need so much administration if the system were more efficient. If that’s the case, shouldn’t employees in these roles be training for portable skills instead of putting all their eggs in the federal government basket?

And if government priorities shift, isn’t it normal for those employees to look elsewhere? If we’re cutting foreign spending or shoring up the border, wouldn’t it make sense for them to move to agencies in demand instead of expecting a lifetime job in a field that changes with each administration?

Like, if a job was focused on managing the Pony Express mail system back in the day, and then new technology made it obsolete, shouldn’t people in those roles have expected that focus to stop instead of assuming they’d do it forever?

Have you ever been laid off? It’s usually quite crippling for a career. If you are over 45 it’s likely you will have severe downward spiral in employment and income which will truncate the trajectory of their livelihood.

But you assume they will land somewhere fine, so I’m sure you will hire them back if they don’t find it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur. You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.

No need for name-calling, let’s keep it respectful. I get that fundamental research is important, but the real question is who should be paying for it. If a study has real value, private industry, philanthropy, or universities will fund it, like we see with AI, biotech, and space exploration. If no one outside the government wants to invest in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think. Good debate is how ideas get better, so let’s focus on that instead of throwing insults.

There are plenty of examples of wasteful government-funded research, which is why people question if taxpayer money is always well spent. They’ve funded things like a robotic squirrel to study rattlesnake reactions, shrimp running on a treadmill, and even an $80,000 study on why certain teams dominate March Madness. Maybe some of these had merit, but if research is actually valuable, private funding will step in. If no one wants to pay for it outside of government, that’s a sign it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

lol know I know you’re a troll.

Try harder troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal employees have extremely niche knowledge based on the congressionally mandated functions their offices must carry out. Many are simply irreplaceable. I’m sad for the American people right now.

Is that really true? Why is it that federal employees are supposedly irreplaceable? If their knowledge is so niche that no one outside of the government values it, doesn’t that just mean the government has created a circular system where jobs exist mainly to sustain themselves rather than serving a broader purpose? In the private sector, even the most specialized experts can be replaced or their knowledge can be transferred. Why should government jobs be any different?

If a role is truly valuable, wouldn’t you expect demand for those skills outside of government? In industries like healthcare, engineering, or IT, professionals move between public and private roles all the time because their expertise is needed in both. But if someone’s entire career revolves around understanding a bureaucratic process that only exists within the federal government, maybe that’s a sign the system is bloated rather than essential. If certain functions were really vital to the American people, private industry or state governments would step in to continue that work.

They can't afford it, friend. State governments are getting smaller and smaller as states get larger and larger. Tax cuts and "starving the beast". No one wants to pay for anything. That's the reason that tuition at state schools keeps going up - less funding from the state so that more funding must come from students. Which leads to more student debt and less buying power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur. You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.

No need for name-calling, let’s keep it respectful. I get that fundamental research is important, but the real question is who should be paying for it. If a study has real value, private industry, philanthropy, or universities will fund it, like we see with AI, biotech, and space exploration. If no one outside the government wants to invest in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think. Good debate is how ideas get better, so let’s focus on that instead of throwing insults.

There are plenty of examples of wasteful government-funded research, which is why people question if taxpayer money is always well spent. They’ve funded things like a robotic squirrel to study rattlesnake reactions, shrimp running on a treadmill, and even an $80,000 study on why certain teams dominate March Madness. Maybe some of these had merit, but if research is actually valuable, private funding will step in. If no one wants to pay for it outside of government, that’s a sign it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

Private funding? Like Amazon and its innovative logistics software. Which is collectively amazing, by the way. A chunk of it was funded by NSF and other government programs.

Fundamental research in universities is largely funded by the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur. You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.

No need for name-calling, let’s keep it respectful. I get that fundamental research is important, but the real question is who should be paying for it. If a study has real value, private industry, philanthropy, or universities will fund it, like we see with AI, biotech, and space exploration. If no one outside the government wants to invest in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think. Good debate is how ideas get better, so let’s focus on that instead of throwing insults.

There are plenty of examples of wasteful government-funded research, which is why people question if taxpayer money is always well spent. They’ve funded things like a robotic squirrel to study rattlesnake reactions, shrimp running on a treadmill, and even an $80,000 study on why certain teams dominate March Madness. Maybe some of these had merit, but if research is actually valuable, private funding will step in. If no one wants to pay for it outside of government, that’s a sign it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

Why don’t you tell that to Elon? If Tesla and SpaceX are so valuable he should pay for it. yet they gets $$$$$ government funding.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/20/business/elon-musk-wealth-government-help

[Anonymous]

Yes, obvious troll is obvious. Credit to the handful of people who gave solid explanations but when someone keeps doubling down, they aren’t actually open to having an actual discussion and are just here for the troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal employees have extremely niche knowledge based on the congressionally mandated functions their offices must carry out. Many are simply irreplaceable. I’m sad for the American people right now.

Is that really true? Why is it that federal employees are supposedly irreplaceable? If their knowledge is so niche that no one outside of the government values it, doesn’t that just mean the government has created a circular system where jobs exist mainly to sustain themselves rather than serving a broader purpose? In the private sector, even the most specialized experts can be replaced or their knowledge can be transferred. Why should government jobs be any different?

If a role is truly valuable, wouldn’t you expect demand for those skills outside of government? In industries like healthcare, engineering, or IT, professionals move between public and private roles all the time because their expertise is needed in both. But if someone’s entire career revolves around understanding a bureaucratic process that only exists within the federal government, maybe that’s a sign the system is bloated rather than essential. If certain functions were really vital to the American people, private industry or state governments would step in to continue that work.

Nice strawman that you are knocking down.

There are some people whose careers revolve around understanding an area of law or statutorily required function. That's not a bureaucratic process. It's a function of government.

Things like foreign relations are also carefully built on relationships and cultural understanding. It's absolutely not easy to replicate.

As for "why do companies not do this", well, my spouse works for the military and no, aircraft carriers, submarines, and fighter jets and the relationships we develop with other countries regarding the use of such large equipment aren't replaceable by large companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal employees have extremely niche knowledge based on the congressionally mandated functions their offices must carry out. Many are simply irreplaceable. I’m sad for the American people right now.

Is that really true? Why is it that federal employees are supposedly irreplaceable? If their knowledge is so niche that no one outside of the government values it, doesn’t that just mean the government has created a circular system where jobs exist mainly to sustain themselves rather than serving a broader purpose? In the private sector, even the most specialized experts can be replaced or their knowledge can be transferred. Why should government jobs be any different?

If a role is truly valuable, wouldn’t you expect demand for those skills outside of government? In industries like healthcare, engineering, or IT, professionals move between public and private roles all the time because their expertise is needed in both. But if someone’s entire career revolves around understanding a bureaucratic process that only exists within the federal government, maybe that’s a sign the system is bloated rather than essential. If certain functions were really vital to the American people, private industry or state governments would step in to continue that work.

That “purpose” you seem to be struggling to understand, is called the public interest. Congress wills it, we make it happen. I’ve never really let the general public’s ignorance about how the sausage gets made get to me, because I trusted that we shared the same faith in our country and its system of governance. That’s been dismantled. What we are witnessing is a bloodless revolution, funded by tech billionaires who don’t care about any of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a process for laying off feds whose skills aren't needed. It has been used many times as the government has evolved. It is not being followed right now.

There are good reasons to believe OPM cannot actually deliver on the 8 months of admin leave. We'll see.

But most importantly, these are not obsolete functions. These are very needed, congressionally directed functions and people are sad and scared about what it means for our country if they are removed. The fact something has no equivalent in the private sector does not make it useless. The government does almost exclusively things the private sector can't or won't, and it does them according to a bunch of rules that guarantee fairness and accountability that the private sector doesn't have to, because we're dealing with tax dollars and prosecution and diplomacy and other things that don't exist in private sector. You are basically asking why doctors don't cross train as software engineers.

Totally agree with everything in bold. Well put, PP! Certain technical skills are very transferrable. Deep knowledge of specifics relating to topics is not very transferrable or monetizable. (Only maybe sometimes in law or lobbying.)

I worked as a fed at a regulatory agency for a good length of time, got an MBA, then went corporate. I have certain transferrable white collar professional skills. However, there's very little subject matter crossover between my government career and my current job.

A commonality between both is that my compensation reflected expertise that was specific to that job/employer/industry. That knowledge wouldn't have justified the same pay level at the other job.

Many employers are reluctant to offer equivalent or step-up pay to job seekers who lack specific knowledge of their industry. It is also difficult to get selected for an interview. Hiring managers and especially H.R. recruiters are very reluctant to get creative with candidates.

If you are lucky enough to be in a profession where your skills can be easily assessed, please remember that other people's professions can be different.

[Anonymous]

Why won’t poster knocking science funding explain why it’s okay for Muskrat to benefit from government-funded research but not any others?

[Anonymous]

Why don’t those Air Traffic Controllers, NTSB and Fire Fighters down at DCA have portable skills? They are so not fetch!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an example, I work for a science agency -- I work with my colleagues to understand what the science priorities are (as identified by the scientific community), evaluate proposals, oversee awards etc. I had a thriving lab but decided to make the jump for personal reasons and the fact that I believed in the mission. Sure, I could go back to academia but I gave up my tenured position years ago, have published to some extent but not enough to keep up with academia's requirement (and I'm a rare one that does). I could get into a staff scientist position somewhere (with a very steep paycut) but if the Fed Govt is no longer interested in supporting science, there won't be any such positions left. Philanthropy and the private sector can't support the breadth of research that the government supports.

These are niche positions but they exist because of the system we set up (government support of science goes back to the pre-war days -- Vannevar Bush, The Endless Frontier). Overturning it thoughtlessly just leads to unnecessary pain.

If research isn’t valuable enough for the private sector or philanthropy to fund, then why should the government? Private companies invest heavily in R&D where there’s clear value—pharma giants like Pfizer drive drug discovery, Google and OpenAI lead AI research, and Tesla funds battery advancements. SpaceX has even outpaced NASA in rocket development. The idea that only government can support broad scientific research ignores the fact that industry funds what truly matters.

If certain research fields exist only because of government funding, that raises a real question: is it actually worth researching? Science that provides real-world benefits attracts investment. If no private entity sees enough value to fund it, that’s a sign it might not be essential. Government research priorities shift with politics, and no one is entitled to a permanent job just because a system was built to sustain it decades ago. Scientists, like anyone else, should adapt to changing demand.

You don’t understand how scientific innovations occur. You don’t recognize the existence of “fundamentals” and the necessity of basic research.

You’re a GD moron.

No need for name-calling, let’s keep it respectful. I get that fundamental research is important, but the real question is who should be paying for it. If a study has real value, private industry, philanthropy, or universities will fund it, like we see with AI, biotech, and space exploration. If no one outside the government wants to invest in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think. Good debate is how ideas get better, so let’s focus on that instead of throwing insults.

There are plenty of examples of wasteful government-funded research, which is why people question if taxpayer money is always well spent. They’ve funded things like a robotic squirrel to study rattlesnake reactions, shrimp running on a treadmill, and even an $80,000 study on why certain teams dominate March Madness. Maybe some of these had merit, but if research is actually valuable, private funding will step in. If no one wants to pay for it outside of government, that’s a sign it probably wasn’t that important to begin with.

It's a sign that government and publicly-funded research is necessary and should not be underestimated or shut down.

NP- I wouldn't bother responding to this person. I'm cringing at every response showing their ignorance as they dig themselves deeper. You can't argue with someone at such an intellectual disadvantage. Why waste the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal employees have extremely niche knowledge based on the congressionally mandated functions their offices must carry out. Many are simply irreplaceable. I’m sad for the American people right now.

Is that really true? Why is it that federal employees are supposedly irreplaceable? If their knowledge is so niche that no one outside of the government values it, doesn’t that just mean the government has created a circular system where jobs exist mainly to sustain themselves rather than serving a broader purpose? In the private sector, even the most specialized experts can be replaced or their knowledge can be transferred. Why should government jobs be any different?

If a role is truly valuable, wouldn’t you expect demand for those skills outside of government? In industries like healthcare, engineering, or IT, professionals move between public and private roles all the time because their expertise is needed in both. But if someone’s entire career revolves around understanding a bureaucratic process that only exists within the federal government, maybe that’s a sign the system is bloated rather than essential. If certain functions were really vital to the American people, private industry or state governments would step in to continue that work.

So federal law has no function? Or do you think private industry will continue to follow federal law out of the goodness of their hearts— with no enforcement whatsoever?

Or I suppose you think federal law and regulation is useless. Why have it at all, then. Do you know what kind of country that is? Have you lived in a country like that? I have. I’ve lived in several that have weak or failing central governments. It made me grateful to be from here.