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

[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.

Actually, moron, your ignorant posts here demonstrate that you do not “get” it. But don’t worry, it’s not because of the anonymity of this board. If we were speaking in person I would call you a moron to your face. I do not respect you. You are unworthy of respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I get that layoffs, especially for folks over 45, can really mess up a career. But let's be real in the Us, our capitalist system means job security isn't a given. Companies often have to let people go to stay competitive. This is way different from socialist or communist setups, where keeping a job is almost guaranteed, even if it leads to things running less smoothly. In those places, firing someone is such a hassle that it's easier to just move them to a different spot, which doesn't really help anyone.

Sound familiar? In the federal government, it's super hard to fire someone it's often easier to keep them around. Since their paychecks come from taxpayers and not a company's budget, there's less push to get rid of folks who aren't pulling their weight. This lack of accountability can lead to inefficiencies and a culture where poor performance is tolerated.

[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.

The process should be the "blue screen of death" You get a 15 minute catch up zoom your boss, up pops someone from HR instead, the meeting lasts a few minutes tops and your work laptop access is cut off and screen goes blank. Or in person the "perp walk" Boss says hey want to catch up at end of day, you walk in guard is there and walks you out.

My friend in early 2009 got invited towards end of day to a breakfast meeting in cafeteria with that was labeled a townhall update meeting at 830 am. She walks in and they laid off 5 percent of company, they handed her a severance package, a tissue box if needed, told her she can have a few moments to use bathroom to freshen up, then she is welcome to grab a cup of college and a breakfast muffin on way out the door. She got to work at 825 am and out the door by 830am. She was told don't open severance package as she can read when home and contact info in there and anything on her desk that is personal will be Fed Ex back. And that was a kind gentile approach.

The process is basically get it over and make it quick in private sector. My CEO back in 2009 we fired 10 percent of company one day. He just had extra armed security on hand and we walked them out the door. He then had a townhall meeting at 1 pm same day and announced no more layoffs. So we were only scared 2-3 hours. Which was nice.

[Anonymous]

A little “inefficiency” is better than wholesale collapse PP. For the love of god, surround yourself with better people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But they symbolize the MAGA brigade waving pitchforks at scientific research.

[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.

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.

I never said that. I said that if government-funded research isn’t found useful to the private sector, something is wrong. If no one outside of government sees value in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think.

I don’t know where you got the idea that this is about law enforcement. This discussion is about research—specifically the claim that certain areas of research would never happen without government funding. If a field of study has real value, private industry, universities, or philanthropic organizations will support it. If the only reason a research job exists is because the government created it and no one else would fund it, then maybe that says more about the system than the necessity of the research itself.

[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.

Where do you think Universities get funds for research? NSF, DOD contracts etc. For profit companies care about profits now, maybe next two years. Not 10-20 in the future. We don't know what we don't know. All the things you mentioned were originally a govt funded idea. One of 100s of unsuccessful ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I never said that. I said that if government-funded research isn’t found useful to the private sector, something is wrong. If no one outside of government sees value in it, maybe it’s not as essential as some think.

I don’t know where you got the idea that this is about law enforcement. This discussion is about research—specifically the claim that certain areas of research would never happen without government funding. If a field of study has real value, private industry, universities, or philanthropic organizations will support it. If the only reason a research job exists is because the government created it and no one else would fund it, then maybe that says more about the system than the necessity of the research itself.

While I think this is a nice thought- that someone else will step in if there’s value- it’s a naive thought.

However, if it were to happen, innovations globally would slow down. Fundamental research is public. To be funded by the private sector would make it proprietary.

Universities receive government funding for fundamental research. This isn’t something they pay for all by themselves. Sometimes they’ll partner with the private sector but then it’s no longer fundamental and becomes proprietary.

[Anonymous]

The private sector cannot govern itself. Come on people. Reading is fundamental.

[Anonymous]

The shrimp on a treadmill bogeyman rises again. It was done for 50k to see if the shrimp were being infected by bacteria that affected their aerobic capacity and hence reproduction. No aquaculture company will do this since it is not good for their next quarter.

[Anonymous]

I've been laid off in industry before and my supervisor, who was a great guy, gave me a heads-up two or three weeks in advance that I should start looking. I'm in the government now and my supervisor has no idea what's going to come down from above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little “inefficiency” is better than wholesale collapse PP. For the love of god, surround yourself with better people.

I do wonder what these people think the ultimate goal of a society should be? Do they think the “point” is simply for each individual to acquire, consume, and/or hoard as many resources as possible?

[Anonymous]

There is a significant amount of fundamental research on cancer and different ideas on how to treat different cancers. It’s an international effort and fundamental research makes this possible. Without public domain information, this would not be possible. As much as we have our national champions, they are using all the resources available.

I think there is a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on how the scientific community operates.

[Anonymous]

Stop it- we still don't want your fork (that's really a spork)

[Anonymous]

Comparisons of fed work to the private sector are stupid. There are precautions that need to be put in place to ensure continuous public service.

No one competent would take a job at a private company knowing there will be a complete overhaul of management every 4 years and that they can be fired at the whim of the new CEO.