NYT Gift Article: What Elon Musk Didn’t Count On: Firing Workers Costs Money, Too

[Anonymous]

Most of us recognized all of this as it was happening. Musk and Trump lied about their true goals as they always do. Everyone, including Feds, would have liked and still would like to see government become more efficient. Musk and Trump took this truth and twisted it and used it to get rid of anything they saw as a threat to them (regulators, people investigating Musk's businesses) and to so that Musk could get his hands on as much sensitive info as possible. The rest was just sadism.

Anyone out there who believes Musk or Trump did anything good for our country is complete moron. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that we are sending massive amounts of Feds to early retirement- there is a cost to this!!!! Wouldn’t you rather they work? Their working salary is only slightly more than their pension. When you retire feds and rehire contractors (who already cost more $$$), this will cost so much more money in the long run.

It’s false to say that their working salary is only slightly more than their pension, especially for people retiring early who by definition will have fewer years of service (and therefore a smaller pension) than they would have if they stayed longer.

I’ve been looking at the numbers with my close coworkers. It’s really not that much of a difference. Like 10-30k less. And then when the leave we have to hire someone for 75-100k at least. Or if you hire a contractor it’s double that.

Your numbers don’t make sense unless you are hiring a contractor for way more than the employee, and there is no reason to do that. You are also assuming these positions will be backfilled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven’t read the article but saving money was just a cover story for politically shaping the government, reducing regulation on his company, and slurping up data for corporate espionage and LLMs.

They knew not much money would be saved; long term many functions will be contracted out at higher cost but Elon and friends will be the companies taking a healthy cut.

+1 to every word in this post. They say never attribute to malice what could be due to stupidity, but in this case it’s the opposite. Shocked that intelligent people aren’t getting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious how people who are supposed to be geniuses didn’t understand how to analyze the cost of firing so many federal workers.

Many people who are very smart or very rich believe that they know everything about everything even though they really only know one tiny area of business or investing well.

I think there's a particular profile that tends to make the biggest mistakes and also have the biggest successes: high IQ, impulsive, low EQ.
That profile overlaps extensively with high-functioning autism, which Elon has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that we are sending massive amounts of Feds to early retirement- there is a cost to this!!!! Wouldn’t you rather they work? Their working salary is only slightly more than their pension. When you retire feds and rehire contractors (who already cost more $$$), this will cost so much more money in the long run.

It’s false to say that their working salary is only slightly more than their pension, especially for people retiring early who by definition will have fewer years of service (and therefore a smaller pension) than they would have if they stayed longer.

I’ve been looking at the numbers with my close coworkers. It’s really not that much of a difference. Like 10-30k less. And then when the leave we have to hire someone for 75-100k at least. Or if you hire a contractor it’s double that.

Your numbers don’t make sense unless you are hiring a contractor for way more than the employee, and there is no reason to do that. You are also assuming these positions will be backfilled.

What!? That's how the whole game is played. Contractors are ALWAYS hired for more than a full time employee, it's why some Feds make the switch, to make more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that we are sending massive amounts of Feds to early retirement- there is a cost to this!!!! Wouldn’t you rather they work? Their working salary is only slightly more than their pension. When you retire feds and rehire contractors (who already cost more $$$), this will cost so much more money in the long run.

It’s false to say that their working salary is only slightly more than their pension, especially for people retiring early who by definition will have fewer years of service (and therefore a smaller pension) than they would have if they stayed longer.

I’ve been looking at the numbers with my close coworkers. It’s really not that much of a difference. Like 10-30k less. And then when the leave we have to hire someone for 75-100k at least. Or if you hire a contractor it’s double that.

Your numbers don’t make sense unless you are hiring a contractor for way more than the employee, and there is no reason to do that. You are also assuming these positions will be backfilled.

What!? That's how the whole game is played. Contractors are ALWAYS hired for more than a full time employee, it's why some Feds make the switch, to make more money.

these jobs are going away, and they are never coming back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say that we are sending massive amounts of Feds to early retirement- there is a cost to this!!!! Wouldn’t you rather they work? Their working salary is only slightly more than their pension. When you retire feds and rehire contractors (who already cost more $$$), this will cost so much more money in the long run.

It’s false to say that their working salary is only slightly more than their pension, especially for people retiring early who by definition will have fewer years of service (and therefore a smaller pension) than they would have if they stayed longer.

I’ve been looking at the numbers with my close coworkers. It’s really not that much of a difference. Like 10-30k less. And then when the leave we have to hire someone for 75-100k at least. Or if you hire a contractor it’s double that.

Your numbers don’t make sense unless you are hiring a contractor for way more than the employee, and there is no reason to do that. You are also assuming these positions will be backfilled.

What!? That's how the whole game is played. Contractors are ALWAYS hired for more than a full time employee, it's why some Feds make the switch, to make more money.

these jobs are going away, and they are never coming back.

Without upkeep, on what roads will Elon’s car travel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the Real World firing Workers saves a ton of money.

My old firm we had 90 day probation and religiously let go anyone who was not a good performer. We literally have their screen go blank and get a email to return lap top you been offboarded for not clearing probation

Once Redit figures out how your company behaves no one who is smart and hard-working will even apply to work there.

Or put this another way--are you brave enough to tell us the name of your company? I doubt you are.

I say that job 50 percent of us had other jobs. It was allowed as long as hit KPIs. The dead weight could not keep up even with one job. I had no fear working multiple jobs as my main job allowed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious how people who are supposed to be geniuses didn’t understand how to analyze the cost of firing so many federal workers.

I know someone who worked with Elon in a pretty important role. He surrounds himself with yes men and screams at anyone who tells him things he doesn’t like. You can be the smartest person in the world (he’s not) but if you literally won’t accept facts you don’t like it doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m curious how people who are supposed to be geniuses didn’t understand how to analyze the cost of firing so many federal workers.

Many people who are very smart or very rich believe that they know everything about everything even though they really only know one tiny area of business or investing well.

I'm curious how people who are supposed to be geniuses didn't realize you don't fire HR before you've finished firing everyone else you plan to fire.

Maybe hiring 19 year old hackers wasn't the best idea.

I did a merger integration in the private sector once. The first thing the acquiring firm did was identify critical employees they wanted to retain from the target company to manage the transition - these were Sales, Finance, Legal, and HR. They offered these people retaining bonuses so they stayed while the redundant employees were let go. This is common sense.