site banner
Advanced search parameters (with examples): "author:quadnarca", "domain:reddit.com", "over18:true"

Showing 25 of 250915 results for

domain:arjunpanickssery.substack.com

Great point, and one which I didn’t consider. The model I was going off of was Singapore, which famously compensates its bureaucrats quite well both in terms of money and prestige. The government even pays for top students to attend elite universities in the US/UK, but with the requirement that those students come back and work in the civil service for a period of time, or else be on the hook for the tuition bill.

The opportunity cost of such elite human capital going to work for the government is probably not that huge, as measured by the impact on Singaporean gross domestic product: the cream of the crop can certainly generate much more value in the private sector, but in almost all cases, making boatloads of cash requires employment abroad and hence not contributing to Singapore’s GDP. Indeed, it’s not unheard of for FAANG to buy top-notch Singaporean Stanford/Harvard/MIT CS grads out of their tuition bonds with the government, so that they can stay and work in the US (and while it’s true that some tech giants have a presence in Singapore, it’s almost invariably an Asia sales office without any serious product/engineering work going on).

By contrast, the US has a much deeper pool of high-paying, high-prestige jobs within the country that our hypothetical elite government employment scheme would compete with/crowd out.

That's because your parents haven't yet deposited their life savings into a "secure account" because a helpful "FBI agent" told them to.

Francis Fukuyama publishes a letter to Musk with regards to DOGE. He tells Musk that the number of Federal employees have remained about the same for 50 years. Young people don't go into the Federal government jobs, so they're filled with older people and about a bagillion contractors.

This is a very stupid take and anyone who has worked as, with, or around the federal government will tell you so. Maybe it is true of very low GS level positions who are essentially secretaries and janitors, but it isn't true of anyone writing and promulgating regulations or enforcing them. Those positions attract very qualified people. Unfortunately, those qualified people take the jobs because they exactly want POWER and the forces surrounding them prevent them from doing anything innovative or good with said power. But those positions are filled with people who have resumes that would make the average hiring manager go "oooo".

Thus the issue of the revolving door and capture of agencies by Goldman and other such firms. But the reason is that those people are Goldman level qualified. The problem isn't quality. It is agenda and structures.

Here

The total percent of government spending that's going to its employees has dropped precipitously, from about 35% in the 60s to ~18% today.

Desantis was the one who was quickest to see where the winds were blowing and endorse the guy without reservation.

By comparison, I still remember when Trump's nickname for Rubio was "Little Marco."

And it is also obvious that replacing a Senator is a much higher-leverage move than replacing a house member, in general.

Why not do this against Murkowski instead, a senator who voted to impeach Trump?

Would she accept?

Where is your evidence that the personnel budgets have been constrained, specifically, especially given that I mentioned a significant shift in the composition of the workforce by pay scale?

I didn’t bat an eye at the “bloody altar” or “evil [god]” comments, misunderstandings of my faith I expect from unbelievers, but it’s fascinating how much I bristled at the “gnostic” comment.

I’ll return to this thread later, just wanted to post first thoughts.

Uh, westerners trying to do the rough equivalent has mostly not worked very well, although the neuroses of fundamentalist Christianity may be a major explanatory factor there.

If you only take the raw number of employees across time then it's confounded by population growth and labor force participation. It's like not adjusting a monetary metric for inflation. So sure, the total headcount has only dropped slightly from the 90s, but if that's put into context then it's clear that the federal bureaucracy has been quite constrained as a percent of the overall labor force.

In terms of of whether using the term "budget" is correct here, you're slightly more correct but I'd say you're being pedantic. It should have been clear that I was talking about personnel budgets specifically, given the context of the sentence. Also, for the record "slashed" probably is less true than "constrained, especially in regards to inflation", but I digress.

Yes, Trump's grand move is to empower Desantis, the man who tried to kill the king less than a year ago

...Could you elaborate on your model here? Like, it seems you're positing that Trump and Desantis are enemies, and further that his supporters should consider them enemies and prefer conflict between them rather than cooperation. Would that be accurate?

Mass shootings that make the news are whiter than average but mass shootings in general are blacker. It’s possible that this points to red overrepresentation- like in the military- but my impression is that while one or two of the well-known mass shooters were meaningfully connected to gun culture but not staunchly political, most of them were just mentally ill people from broken homes who are hard to place.

And, uh, breadtube isn’t a reliable source.

Musk's been vocal about transparency and even mentioned having a public "leaderboard" for biggest wastes of government money they find; I think this is where the true potential lies. If all they do is maintain that leaderboard publicly, like a Most Wanted List for fiscal conservatives, I think it will help. Even if they have no legal power to cut funding, they can still act as a giant spotlight on some of the more egregious examples, and in turn get some organized public opinion churning on specific cases, which would be plenty useful IMO. Every little bit counts.

This has far more to do with Trump monday-morning quarterbacking than anything else.

I would think that applying the gender-transition model to cancer would be for cancer patients to identify as a Cancer-person and advocating for Cancer-person pride.

In my mind applying the cancer model to gender dysphoria would be targeted treatment to realign the misperception of their gender with their anatomy. Restoring their natural anatomy to health.

We’re not actually worried about being attacked. Not like Russia rolling over the border to Ukraine. It’s the rest of our interests that are at risk. Erosion of our hegemony over the ocean, space, finance, etc. A long series of bad trades just under the margin of what we’re willing to fight. Securing that is more complicated than just looking dangerous.

I think the whole idea, and I’m sort of on the fence about how true this is, was that you didn’t have to give Bagram back and we could just have kept it as essentially imperial property, like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Apparently it would have been extremely easy to defend basically indefinitely with minimal manpower. Bagram is (was) absolutely a huge airbase and was a massive strategic asset to the US & Allies in the region.

This isn’t as strange as it might first appear, this was a live issue in the whole “counterinsurgency vs counterterrorism” debate on the fate of Afghanistan. The counterterrorism camp basically said sod the afghans internal politics, they were unimportant and not worth any nation building effort, and that they should just use Bagram as an operational base to hunt Al Qaeda.

They do see kind of right in retrospect.

Oh goodness.

Yes, Trump's grand move is to empower Desantis, the man who tried to kill the king less than a year ago, with whom there's still bad blood privately, and who has only begrudgingly fallen into line. To replace Rubio... a senator who hasn't really made an anti-Trump stink since 2016.

Why not do this against Murkowski instead, a senator who voted to impeach Trump?

Alternatively, why not do this to a House seat, given that chamber is likely to be far closer.

And Rubio gets fired as SecState inside 2 years, probably.

Unironically plausible, given Trump is so utterly capricious with his nominees. Rubio could be setting himself up to get the same fate that befell Jeff Sessions.

That's not a problem of budgets, though. That's just a head count. Of course, it's also highly confounded by general employment in the denominator; surely, you wouldn't say that looking at the spike in that plot in 2008 is because they suddenly decided to hire a bunch more government workers. And oh wait. Ahem, I think they say.

I can't find it right away, but Tyler Cowen recently shared an image showing the extremely different composition of the federal workforce over the years when binned by location on the general schedule; far more folks on the higher end of the schedule. This is likely much more directly in the control of the bureaucracy. Additionally, if your complaint is that entitlements are getting in the way, I'm not sure who's to blame for that.

These are both complains about how the budget is spent, not that the budget has, itself, been slashed. The latter just simply isn't true.

My heart is bullish on DOGE but my mind is bearish. Much of government inefficiency is not that too many people have been hired, like at X, but that its own regulatory requirements are too dense and too strict. Time and effort is sucked up by compliance, procurement, and legal. Firing people might not help, it might simply lower the resources the government has to comply with its own regulations, slowing everything down. If DOGE isn't given the power to reform procurement and cut red tape, I'm afraid it will crash and burn.

It's not much different from before; I still am doing roughly the same amount of work but have had days off because of goofing around. I did start waking up early to workout so better on that front. I met a friend of mine who posts about medieval and sorta pre-modern times, and his point was that women are overrated in a way that

  1. They are hornier than you think and way hornier than you
  2. They can't have any grand sweeping plans or ideas about civilization

Now, I have never had a relationship since I am a broke founder living with my parents at 24, but more than that, I have met very few girls that I liked, and none live here. More than that, I know that right now, I need to be alone to fix my own issues. Not just productivity but also baseline discipline, better self-image, and some skills so that I can actually be employable and build upon that. Anyway, I don't get the skepticism my friend has.

I know Goethe had a fantasy about having a smart girl he would lie around with and the pillow talk would be about something intellectual. Anyway, most people I know have a different opinion but food for thought.

I have a deadline to finish my book and build parts of my first web app by this Saturday. See ya folks around, also don't text women in relationships or married, it is not wise.

Unions could be a source of savings, but only like 1/3rd of federal employees are in unions, and part of what makes federal employment bearable is the benefits and job security that such unions have been able provide. If Elon thinks he can get a workforce that has private sector benefits + job security, but with the paylevel of the federal government, I have a bridge to sell him. The notion that there exists huge swathes of the government where employees sit around doing nothing simply because "they can't be fired" is illusory.

Furthermore, one way to lower the temperature in politics is to reduce the size of government.

When the government controls everything, the question of who controls the government is paramount.

Fukuyama's work exists in the world of ideas, not of reality.

Fukuyama wins if his ideas sound convincing to other academics. But that doesn't mean his ideas work. Experience gained through trial and error will always trump academic theory in the real world. I don't think his voice adds much value here honestly.

I wouldn’t be quite so bold about it as @Ben___Garrison, but, uh, I don’t understand why people keep expecting coherent plans out of Trump. He was the vibes-based President.

If Rubio’s shown the right kind of enthusiasm, Trump isn’t going to have a problem folding him into the enterprise. When he inevitably butts heads, Trump will throw him out. Whether Rubio accomplishes anything in the meantime is more about his level of ass-kissing than his stated politics.

Personally, I give this dynamic a lot of credit for the legal hurdles faced by the Trump admin. But I doubt that’ll convince anyone who prefers the Deep State explanation.

Ahem

I'm talking about money to government employees, not all federal outlays (which are dominated by boomer entitlements like Medicare and Social Security).