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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Firstly shut up troll. Your "relative" is absolutely made up. Secondly, you realize MANY, MANY of us worked in the private sector and then many many of us return to the private sector, right???? I just cannot with you alls high school level understanding of the way the world works. Or even just america because you certainly have zero understanding of the way the world functions.

Let's keep our discussion respectful and avoid personal attacks. I assure you, my relative is real. They were planning to retire this year but are now considering the deferred resignation program, which offers full pay without work obligations until September 30. Their main concern is whether to respond with "Resign" or "Resign and Retire." According to the Office of Personnel Management's guidance, the choice doesn't affect the outcome, but it might be used for internal metrics.

High school level understanding? Is that some type of boomer Gen X elderly person insult to make it seem that things should be more complicated than they are? Why does everything need to be complicated? I am the generation of TLDR or "this could've been an email." I am all for simplicity, and if it's too complicated, then it needs to be redone. This could've been an email or a Slack message, and don't message me saying "call me" or just "hi."

Oh pp...you really got us all there with that line. 🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

I think the bigger issue is the scale. Any individual fed has the skills to land a job outside of government. The problem is by destroying the government at this scale, wrecking the local economy and causing massive unemployment, there won’t be any jobs to rebound to and there will be a ton of competition for what few jobs there are. People will need to leave the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Umm this happens all the time I'm the private sector often less than every 4 years

You’re telling me there are companies where “all the time” there is predictably a complete change over in management every 4 years? Please cite the businesses where this happens. I don’t mean companies where there have been multiple changeovers by happenstance, I mean where people go in knowing there will be a purge every 4 years.

Also I’d love to know how these jobs pay compared to the public sector

High turnover in leadership is common in many private-sector industries, especially in tech, consulting, finance, and entertainment, where people expect frequent executive shakeups, restructures, and performance-driven exits.

In big tech, leadership churn is constant. Meta has restructured multiple times—pivoting to the metaverse, then back to AI, leading to major exec departures. Google’s leadership changes frequently, from Sundar Pichai taking over Alphabet to continuous VP and director-level turnover. At Amazon, leadership shifts regularly across AWS and retail divisions. Despite the instability, engineers and senior staff earn $200K–$500K+, far outpacing most industries.

Consulting firms like McKinsey and Bain run on an "up or out" model—employees expect to leave or get promoted within 3-4 years, creating predictable churn. Salaries start at $175K–$250K, with partners earning $500K+. The same pattern exists in investment banking—Goldman Sachs analysts usually last 2-3 years before moving up or out, and hedge funds like Citadel pay $500K–$1M+ but have brutal turnover.

Entertainment is another prime example. Disney has gone through multiple CEO changes, with Bob Iger returning after Bob Chapek's ousting. Their acquisitions and strategy shifts—like the Disney-Hulu merger and ESPN streaming push—cause leadership shakeups across divisions. Netflix has also seen key execs leave as streaming competition heats up.

The same thing happens in government every 4 years too, but it’s normally isolated to appointee positions. The rest of the federal workforce is intended to be the apolitical institutional backbone of our government that stays and dutifully carries out their responsibilities regardless of who is in power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's civil service. Some people are actually into being party of the government and doing a mission and supporting the point of government.

My spouse took a 40 pct pay cut from what he was making to join the civil service because he believed in the mission of the work he was hired to do. We don’t have expensive tastes and life is short.

[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.

You are the biggest idiot on the planet. Private companies lack the incentive structure to fund longterm research in many cases, which is why the govt steps in. You can thank the govt for gps, the internet, the flu shot and many other vaccines, Doppler radar, smart phones the list goes on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Firstly shut up troll. Your "relative" is absolutely made up. Secondly, you realize MANY, MANY of us worked in the private sector and then many many of us return to the private sector, right???? I just cannot with you alls high school level understanding of the way the world works. Or even just america because you certainly have zero understanding of the way the world functions.

Let's keep our discussion respectful and avoid personal attacks. I assure you, my relative is real. They were planning to retire this year but are now considering the deferred resignation program, which offers full pay without work obligations until September 30. Their main concern is whether to respond with "Resign" or "Resign and Retire." According to the Office of Personnel Management's guidance, the choice doesn't affect the outcome, but it might be used for internal metrics.

High school level understanding? Is that some type of boomer Gen X elderly person insult to make it seem that things should be more complicated than they are? Why does everything need to be complicated? I am the generation of TLDR or "this could've been an email." I am all for simplicity, and if it's too complicated, then it needs to be redone. This could've been an email or a Slack message, and don't message me saying "call me" or just "hi."

Because laws are complicated and the executive branch agencies are tasked with administrating programs to promulgate regulations and enact what has been set forth in the laws

It is not fed workers making the process complicated - it is the process itself. See e.g. Congress

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Firstly shut up troll. Your "relative" is absolutely made up. Secondly, you realize MANY, MANY of us worked in the private sector and then many many of us return to the private sector, right???? I just cannot with you alls high school level understanding of the way the world works. Or even just america because you certainly have zero understanding of the way the world functions.

Let's keep our discussion respectful and avoid personal attacks. I assure you, my relative is real. They were planning to retire this year but are now considering the deferred resignation program, which offers full pay without work obligations until September 30. Their main concern is whether to respond with "Resign" or "Resign and Retire." According to the Office of Personnel Management's guidance, the choice doesn't affect the outcome, but it might be used for internal metrics.

High school level understanding? Is that some type of boomer Gen X elderly person insult to make it seem that things should be more complicated than they are? Why does everything need to be complicated? I am the generation of TLDR or "this could've been an email." I am all for simplicity, and if it's too complicated, then it needs to be redone. This could've been an email or a Slack message, and don't message me saying "call me" or just "hi."

Because laws are complicated and the executive branch agencies are tasked with administrating programs to promulgate regulations and enact what has been set forth in the laws

It is not fed workers making the process complicated - it is the process itself. See e.g. Congress

If the point was to make the government more efficient - I am all for it; but that requires understanding the system, reviewing it, and taking a thoughtful approach to cuts and consolidation. NOT sending an email to all federal employees offering them a fork.

Some feds (many/most) would LOVE to see processes become quicker and more efficient; we believe in the work we do to support and deliver services to the American Taxpayer; we are not appeasing shareholders or a board of directors with increased profits; we serve. That is why you do not understand us.

And yes, some people are greedy and lazy - no matter where they work. And fork was designed to appeal to greed and fear and then they will turn around and call those who took it greedy.

Those rooting for Musk’s antics are rooting for a bully - there is a way to accomplish the goals of a stream-lined government; this is not it and Musk only wants to tout number of jobs cut, not any actual efficiencies created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Firstly shut up troll. Your "relative" is absolutely made up. Secondly, you realize MANY, MANY of us worked in the private sector and then many many of us return to the private sector, right???? I just cannot with you alls high school level understanding of the way the world works. Or even just america because you certainly have zero understanding of the way the world functions.

Let's keep our discussion respectful and avoid personal attacks. I assure you, my relative is real. They were planning to retire this year but are now considering the deferred resignation program, which offers full pay without work obligations until September 30. Their main concern is whether to respond with "Resign" or "Resign and Retire." According to the Office of Personnel Management's guidance, the choice doesn't affect the outcome, but it might be used for internal metrics.

High school level understanding? Is that some type of boomer Gen X elderly person insult to make it seem that things should be more complicated than they are? Why does everything need to be complicated? I am the generation of TLDR or "this could've been an email." I am all for simplicity, and if it's too complicated, then it needs to be redone. This could've been an email or a Slack message, and don't message me saying "call me" or just "hi."

Because laws are complicated and the executive branch agencies are tasked with administrating programs to promulgate regulations and enact what has been set forth in the laws

It is not fed workers making the process complicated - it is the process itself. See e.g. Congress

You're correct, but beyond that -- to look at the mechanisms of an enormous country, one of the world's superpowers, a major importer and exporter, home of some of the biggest markets, and ask "why is it so complicated?" The hubris is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anyone paid attention to the IT lay offs last year? You would think soft devs have portble, in demand skills, and would bounce jobs quickly. Well, it was harder and harder in the job market. One reason was smart private companies grew too much on cheap capital and as rates went up they cut fast and loose. I believe we are seeing structural changes that will be here for a while as we move to the AI ether. Many think gov jobs can be automated or eliminated without long term consequence. Time will tell.