Wednesday's Most Active Threads

The top of yesterday's most active threads list was filled with threads that I've already discussed. That included the Oval Office press conference thread that I discussed yesterday, the Blake Lively thread that simply won't die, and the Fairfax County Public Schools boundary thread that similarly appears to be immortal. These were followed by a thread about a possible FCPS snow day today. As I did in my blog post yesterday, I am going to skip snow day threads for a while. Therefore, I will start with a thread titled, "Wake me up from this nightmare" and posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum. The original poster is a federal contractor whose spouse is a federal employee. The original poster's company has had many contracts terminated, and employees are being laid off. Due to upcoming reductions in force in the federal government and other efforts to trim staff, both the original poster and the original poster's spouse could potentially lose their jobs. They are financially conservative and could live on one salary, but not no salaries. The fear of them both losing their jobs is consuming the original poster and making it impossible to focus on anything else. Several posters respond to say that they are in similar situations. Others suggest that it is too early for the original poster to worry so much, and some provide advice concerning what to do in such a situation. While I'm sure these posters mean well, I think they are missing the big picture. By and large, federal employment does not attract entrepreneurial risk-takers. To the contrary, those who seek federal employment tend to value stability and security. Psychologically and by skillset, this may be the least prepared group of people to unexpectedly find themselves unemployed that could be imagined. Their entire lives have been predicated on this situation being impossible. Perhaps, as some posters say, things will not be so bad. Maybe those like the original poster can take steps now to reduce their risk. It's true, as some posters are eager to explain, that in other parts of the country and other lines of work, layoffs are common. None of this changes the reality that these folks are scared and panicking. Russell Vought, who was just confirmed as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, has said that he wants federal employees to be "traumatically affected". Well, he has succeeded. Attitudes like Vought's increase the pain for those potentially impacted. Not only are they facing difficult situations, but they believe that their lives are being intentionally made as miserable as possible. Regardless of one's position regarding the downsizing of government, we should all agree that this is no way to treat our fellow citizens.

Yesterday's next most active thread was also posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forum, which, by the way, has become extremely active since cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump and Shadow President Musk began their attacks on the federal workforce. Titled, "The Fork is back on?", the title refers to the deferred resignation program that Musk has used to encourage federal workers to resign from the government. A judge had temporarily paused the program while he decided upon its legality. Late yesterday, he ruled that the federal employee unions that had brought the lawsuit lacked standing and lifted the pause. It is important to understand that the judge offered no opinion regarding the legality of the Fork offer. He did, however, make legal recourse for employees more difficult. Almost immediately, however, the government announced that the program had been closed and no further resignations would be accepted. According to the government, roughly 75,000 employees had taken the offer. Many believe that the Fork agreement is unenforceable and the language of the offer does prohibit those who accept it from taking legal action if the terms are not met. There is no funding for the program after March 14, and those accepting the Fork offer must hope that Congress will appropriate funds. Many are doubtful that voters in other parts of the country will be particularly eager to fund federal employees to sit home doing nothing. So this may be a difficult vote for elected officials if they are forced to make it. The Fork offer was rushed and prepared by individuals who appear to be unfamiliar with the federal government and its regulations. Since it was first announced, it underwent several revisions. There are still a number of issues that remain unclear. Some federal employees seem to have taken the Fork offer because the alternatives seemed worse, but few appear to have much faith in the initiative. One poster reported that colleagues in her department who had accepted the Fork offer were still fired alongside employees who hadn't accepted it. As such, the Fork debate now moves to the stage of seeing whether its commitments will be fulfilled. That is an issue for those who accepted the agreement. For the rest, their attention is turning toward reductions in force that are expected to begin as early as today. It is likely that Musk and his crew will ignore federal requirements for RIFs, and these efforts will also end up in court. The biggest fear for many is so-called "Schedule F". This refers to reclassifying what have been career civil service positions as political appointments. This allows the job holders to be removed easier and replaced by Trump and Musk loyalists. Again, this will likely end up in court. In the end, Fork does not appear to have come close to meeting its goal. Moreover, anecdotally, many who accepted the offer were also either planning to retire or take early retirement. For them, Fork merely moved forward the date they can stop working.

Next was a thread titled, "Man working in daycare center" and posted in the "Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers" forum. An argument can be made that this thread is better suited for the "Preschool and Daycare Discussion" forum, but I'll leave it where it is for now. The original poster says that there are cameras in her daughter's daycare room, and she saw a strange man changing her daughter's diaper. When she called the daycare's director, she was told that too many staff members had not come in, and the man was the main teacher's husband who they were relying on to help out. The original poster is concerned that she doesn't know anything about this man or whether he has had a background check. Moreover, she is opposed to men in preschools and daycares in any case. Therefore, she and her husband are considering withdrawing their child from the daycare. It is disappointing that nobody seems to have identified this poster as the troll that she quite obviously is. One poster correctly described the post as "more fake rage bait", but otherwise, posters seem to have accepted it as true. I assumed the original poster was trolling as soon as I read the thread. What are the chances that she just happened to check the daycare camera at the moment that her daughter was being diapered by a strange man? I am also skeptical that daycares are really filming children being diapered and broadcasting it on the Internet, but things may have changed in the decades since I had kids that age. But, just to confirm my suspicions, I checked other threads that this poster has started. She has had an amazingly flexible number of children. Sometimes 3, sometimes 7, sometimes some other number. She has also undergone multiple gender transitions. The one consistency is that her threads generally involve a topic sure to generate controversy. As for this thread itself, the responders frequently disagreed with the original poster that men in daycares should automatically be considered potential abusers. Some posters even found this suggestion offensive. Others, however, agreed with the original poster and, offensive or not, don't want men in preschools or daycares. At some point, the discussion grew to include male gynecologists, which some posters also prefer to avoid. The thread was full of warnings about male predators and the prevalence of child porn, but still, nobody took issue with the idea of live Internet broadcasting of video of children being changed. There is a dilemma of sorts presented here. Men are much more likely than women to be child sexual abusers. Therefore, avoiding men in childcare situations does, statistically anyway, make sense. But excluding men from childcare roles reinforces the idea that childcare is purely a women's task. Is this really a message that posters want to send? At any rate, this was not too bad for a troll thread.

The final thread that I will discuss today was posted in the "Money and Finances" forum and titled, "How long till the economy collapses?". The original poster notes that egg prices are increasing, government workers are being fired, government programs are not being funded, and people are cutting back on spending. All of this will have a negative impact on the economy, and the original poster wants to know how long it will be until others see it. Several posters in this thread suggest that the original poster is being overly dramatic and simply fear-mongering. Some even mock him. Others agree with the original poster and also expect an economic downturn. The only question is by how much. Before I go further, I should provide the caveat that economics is not one of my strengths. It is not exactly a weakness, but a lot of people know a lot more than me. So, take my opinions with sufficient salt. But my thoughts are that during the administration of President Joe Biden, billions of dollars were injected into the economy to keep it afloat. Almost everyone accepts that this resulted in inflation. Over and over again, I heard apparently smart folks say something along the lines of "you can't inject 3 billion dollars into the economy and not expect inflation". Personally, I have my doubts about how much of that inflation was related to the stimulus and how much was related to other factors. I do, however, accept that putting money into the economy is going to result in some inflation. Now we are in the opposite situation. Cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump is removing billions of dollars from the economy. That comes, in some cases, in the form of stopped government funding of various programs. This has critically hit many universities. Trump, along with Shadow President Elon Musk, is trimming the federal workforce. Even the cut-off of foreign assistance has a domestic impact because a significant portion of foreign aid is used to purchase U.S. goods. Farmers are especially taking a hit. Government contractors are losing contracts and being forced to let some employees go. If adding money to the economy results in inflation, it seems self-evident that removing money from the economy is deflationary. DCUM is full of posts from people who are putting off major purchases. Some are even considering cheaper universities for their kids. Others are rethinking private schools. There will undoubtedly be downstream effects of the reduced government spending. On the other hand, Trump's tariffs will raise the prices of many goods. Even his anti-migrant positions will have an impact in increasing the cost of some items, especially food and probably housing and other construction. The result is that we may see inflationary prices while the economy not only doesn't grow, but possibly shrinks. We once worried about stagflation, but could we possibly be headed towards what might be called depflation, a combination of depression and inflation, in which Americans both have less money and higher prices? This is where I think things turn scary. We face potentially going from a couple of bad years to a period of major economic disruption, the "collapse" to which the original poster refers in the thread's title. Yes, I am sort of blurring the lines between inflation and economic growth, and there are other problems with this analysis. It's not a doctoral dissertation but the best that I could write in 15 minutes. But don't others see this coming?