US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24 *AND* Beyond

[Topper]

When Vivek was on the Lex Fridman podcast he ran the scenario of;

Tell all the civil servants with a social security number ending in an odd number to pack up and go home, you are terminated. Day two, tell all those remaining with a social security number starting with an even number to pack up and go home, you are terminated.

Two days, 75% reduction. No lawsuits for race, sex, age discrimination. Would anyone notice a loss of service.

Yes it is just a scenario. He did elaborate that it is better to cut too much and rebuild efficiently than to not cut enough.

Elon, in his comments, has been pragmatic. These are people's lives and they need an offramp to transition. He said the same about Trump's tariffs, companies require timelines to adjust.

Elon has also predicted that going back to pre COVID five day a week in office work schedule could reduce staffing by 25%.

Both are advisors. It doesn't appear they will have powers to enact their findings and recommendations, but wait and see. Start with some of the silly research and social funding.

I can't see the EPA requiring Space X to capture seals, strap them down on a board, put headphones on them and play rocket launching sounds while measuring their stress levels.

Clearing overlapping levels of regulatory approvals will be a starting point.

[UWSaint]

It seems that nearly all large entities operate with a fair amount of inefficiency with individual workers. Maybe this is Price's law at work (The square root of a group with perform 50% of the work); maybe it is that when you achieve economies-of-scale there's a built in padding that means not maximizing output does not expose the firm to price-sensitive competitive pressures.

Government has both Price's Law at play and (almost always) monopoly status. Thus, there's no competitive pressure that requires efficiency; the only meaningful pressure comes from elected officials and their appointees. Even then, there usually aren't great external pressures on those officials -- voters have other issues at the top of mind and it is difficult to get meaningful efficiencies to manifest during a term to become something to run on. But some leaders and managers just want things to run better and will be internally motivated to look to be better stewards of tax money.

Point is, there's always efficiencies available because these systems will become more inefficient over time and it should be possible to identify them. I can see the wisdom of just cutting too much and rebuilding where needed, but I also this the most important question is to figure out how important it is for government to do the things government does or to prioritize those functions the way they are prioritized. Those are substance questions, not efficiency questions, though the two ought to be linked to get the best bang for the buck. Government functions tends be a one way ratchet -- there is often will (and incentive) to create programs or regulations to address a problem, far less will/incentive to get rid of those that are no longer serving a priority or that didn't work that well.

I think this talk of moving some federal government functions out of Washington DC is interesting. Now, most agencies have presence in field offices throughout the country, but there is a weight in HQ. I doubt there's much efficiency in the days of modern communication from having co-located HQ's, and there is something to the fact Washington creates a certain distortion about how the world works and who is being served. Maybe this distortion becomes less if outside the Beltway? Not sure, but either way, it is a tool to have a voluntary reduction in force if workers are unwilling to relocate.

[UWSaint]

“The Great Elon Musk”

Is this the bar for humanity, FFS?

What a model citizen.

Looking forward to seeing how this pans out for the “little guy” who voted for this greedy fucktard.

The Great and Powerful Oz!

Much of the populism in this country (on the left and right) stems from a distrust and disdain for those perceived to be elite. But that doesn't mean that the "little guy" has disdain for the rich and successful. Unless the rich and successful distrust, talk down to, or are paternalistic towards the the little guy. The little guy wants respect, and he wants to be heard, and he doesn't want to be dismissed. All of that is independent of and comes before policy.

This is why billionaires like Trump and Musk can appeal to populist sentiments and be viewed favorably by populist movements. Because they are targets of or dismissed by the "elite" populations that also dismiss the little guy. (I also think the little guy admires interesting people over the grey face of a bureaucrat or human resources director or whatever passes as "proper" by people who prefer white wine).

I think Musk is probably genuine in his support for a free speech culture -- though like everyone else, there will be tough cases and contradictions. The people can hear dangerous things, they can hear jokes, they can hear falsehoods, and they can figure it out as well as the elites. That's a belief in a certain kind of equality and dignity that "little people" desire (and deserve).

I also think there are elements to Musk that one ought to be very suspicious of. Data collection, businesses built on government contracting, the interest in the "one" app (American We Chat), businesses that core government functions (like military) rely on or will come to rely on (starlink) that allows for enormous private influence over great affairs of state. I am extremely skeptical of the increasing corporatism in American and other western governments -- and yet there's no one in a better position to play the "corporate" role in this unholy partnership than Musk. So there's that.

[Cornuck]

The Great and Powerful Oz!

A good analogy, but I don't think we 'ignore the man behind the curtain' and also, I don't think either of them have the heart that the Wizard/Professor showed at the end of the movie.

Much of the populism in this country (on the left and right) stems from a distrust and disdain for those perceived to be elite. But that doesn't mean that the "little guy" has disdain for the rich and successful. Unless the rich and successful distrust, talk down to, or are paternalistic towards the the little guy. The little guy wants respect, and he wants to be heard, and he doesn't want to be dismissed. All of that is independent of and comes before policy.

How much do think that these 2 billionaires* actually care about the little guy? How much is it just about telling the people what they want to hear? Union busting is popular with the little guy? (in some circles, yes). Musk's disdain for workers has been put out there before, threats like ""long hours at high intensity" or else leave the company" to twitter employees, or “Please prepare yourself for a level of intensity that is greater than anything most of you have ever experienced before,” to Tesla employees.

This is why billionaires like Trump and Musk can appeal to populist sentiments and be viewed favorably by populist movements. Because they are targets of or dismissed by the "elite" populations that also dismiss the little guy. (I also think the little guy admires interesting people over the grey face of a bureaucrat or human resources director or whatever passes as "proper" by people who prefer white wine).

I think Musk is probably genuine in his support for a free speech culture -- though like everyone else, there will be tough cases and contradictions. The people can hear dangerous things, they can hear jokes, they can hear falsehoods, and they can figure it out as well as the elites. That's a belief in a certain kind of equality and dignity that "little people" desire (and deserve).

Except that Musk isn't in favour of free speech that goes against his ideals. Here's a good summary.

I also think there are elements to Musk that one ought to be very suspicious of. Data collection, businesses built on government contracting, the interest in the "one" app (American We Chat), businesses that core government functions (like military) rely on or will come to rely on (starlink) that allows for enormous private influence over great affairs of state. I am extremely skeptical of the increasing corporatism in American and other western governments -- and yet there's no one in a better position to play the "corporate" role in this unholy partnership than Musk. So there's that.

I used to think Musk was a decent person, but I've made 'adjustments'. Putting Musk in charge of "DOGE", would be a good idea if he had ANY idea how his plans would affect millions of people. Seems like a large social experiment, and he has no horse in the race.

[Topper]

Musk is on the record as saying folks will need 1-2 year severance.

Vivek is the scary one

[donlever]

Lets not let quoted facts get in the way of a good right bashing

[Chef Boi RD]

Exxon Mobil is no friend of Trump The Orange

https://www.thecanary.co/global/world-a ... ald-trump/

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/1 ... y-00188927

[Topper]

If Hilary has anything solid on Tulsi and Russia, she best set it out now. Same with Biden/Harris and their not quite no fly list.

[Chef Boi RD]

If Hilary has anything solid on Tulsi and Russia, she best set it out now. Same with Biden/Harris and their not quite no fly list.

You tell ‘em, Tops!

[5thhorseman]

John Thune replaces Mitch McConnell as Senate leader in a blow to MAGA and Trump's aspirations to unfettered rule. Trump's favorite, Rick Scott, was tossed in the first round.
Thankfully Senate elections are anonymous; MAGA likes to cancel anyone not demonstrating complete fealty to Trump.

Presumably this means the Senate won't be rubber stamping Presidential appointments.

https://newrepublic.com/post/188373/sen ... eplacement

[UWSaint]

Corn—just want to respond to one part of your post.

(1) I absolutely believe they billionaires can care about the little guy. Respecting the dignity of another person isn’t a trait someone is more likely has if they are impoverished. And the very successful are often very good at getting the most out of others. Long hours? Maybe. Something to be proud of when your tireless labor led to chopsticking a rocket? Absolutely.

Those folks at the former Twitter whining about having to come back to the office and put in more than 40 hours for their salaries are *not* the little guy. They are entitled brats, who the working guy has as much disdain for as elites in power.

(2) I don’t think Trump is anti-Union; I suspect Musk is. The point about personality and belief in the dignity of every human and respect for work comes before policy explains why disaffected pro union little guys and disaffected anti union little guys can like them both. It isn’t about how one will tweak a system to split the spoils a little differently. “We will do this for you and we know what’s best for you” (the elitist says from their perch) are nails on chalkboards that people who have pride in themselves can’t stand.

[Cornuck]

Bezo's ex would be an example of a benevolent billionaire. Gates and Buffet might do some good.

As for trump and unions? This link has some guesses- https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record

As for Twitter employees going back to work in the office? Yes, fuck them, it's a job requirement. I don't recall bringing that up.

I've worked for demanding people before, and even in software. In the end, it always seems like "Thanks for your hard work, here's a pizza" (if you're lucky). #NotReallyBitter

[5thhorseman]

I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

Yes, voting figures the day after an election are accurate

Currently 148,000+ total votes in 2024.

[UWSaint]

Bezo's ex would be an example of a benevolent billionaire. Gates and Buffet might do some good.

As for trump and unions? This link has some guesses- https://cwa-union.org/trumps-anti-worker-record

As for Twitter employees going back to work in the office? Yes, fuck them, it's a job requirement. I don't recall bringing that up.

I've worked for demanding people before, and even in software. In the end, it always seems like "Thanks for your hard work, here's a pizza" (if you're lucky). #NotReallyBitter

My point about Twitter employees wasn’t a counter to what you said, it was because I am trying to illustrate why there is more support for Republicans (and only populist republicans) among the working class.

Your link as to why trump is “anti-worker” is largely a list of Democratic policy positions (some of which was “mind-reading” Trump). This illustrates our disagreement and my point—the assumption that democratic policy positions are both more important than disposition and are preferred by workers is just that, an assumption. The argument has a baked in premise that leads to an unfalsifiable conclusion: democrat policies are good for workers, therefore democrats are the workers party.

But what’s happening on the ground is workers are no longer supporting democrats in large numbers with their votes, and even the union leadership (which has control of Union resources for politics) is no longer all in across all sectors for democrats. So if the evidence doesn’t support the argument, the argument is probably wrong. I am trying to offer another explanation, not as a normative matter of what I think is “good”, but as a descriptive matter as to what “is”. If democrats ever try to figure out the “is,” they will have a chance to win back many of these voters. If they continue to think it is a truism that their current policy positions are both “best for workers” and all that matter to workers, they will continue to lose unless the zeitgeist of the working class radically changes into the mindset of the progressive elites (Workers need us, we know what’s best, we claim moral superiority, America is more bad than good) or their college educated beta mindset former Twitter worker types.

Oh, and there’s one policy issue and one policy orientation that I think is inherent in populism that is largely attractive to voters that are newer to the Republican Party (many of whom were democrats). That is immigration (policy issue) and America first (policy orientation). What policies put America first (are best for Americans) is certainly debatable, but the point is that you aren’t putting those debates into this framework, you are losing huge numbers of voters. I don’t think you can understate how resentful many voters are that huge amounts of tax money is spent (largely through ngos) providing immigrants (including illegal immigrants and so-called refugees and temporary status folks while things get sorted) resources and services down-on-their-luck Americans don’t get and also the massive amounts of money being spent on foreign wars. Protecting Ukrainian sovereignty might be a good in a world of unlimited resources, but when it is done while failing to protect US sovereignty (pourous border), the irony is too rich. And when it results the devastating loss of human lives (Ukrainian and Russian, but mostly Ukrainian) without a clear chance of success, and without a compelling justification of how America is made better by another endless foreign war, voters reject it.

The thing about Trump and the new Republican Party lots of people (especially pre Trump Republican establishment don’t get) is that republicans were really out of touch with these working man issues in the Bush era. The chamber of commerce republicans wanted open borders; the working class didn’t like this. The Bush neo conservatives wanted foreign wars without clearly articulating a need for these wars to protect American sovereignty; the working class largely didn’t like this (while remaining patriotic). The populist republicans reformed the party in ways that I am not fully on board with personally as a “best policy” matter, but in ways that unquestionably resonate with a larger part of the electorate.

[Cornuck]

Oh, and there’s one policy issue and one policy orientation that I think is inherent in populism that is largely attractive to voters that are newer to the Republican Party (many of whom were democrats). That is immigration (policy issue) and America first (policy orientation). What policies put America first (are best for Americans) is certainly debatable, but the point is that you aren’t putting those debates into this framework, you are losing huge numbers of voters. I don’t think you can understate how resentful many voters are that huge amounts of tax money is spent (largely through ngos) providing immigrants (including illegal immigrants and so-called refugees and temporary status folks while things get sorted) resources and services down-on-their-luck Americans don’t get and also the massive amounts of money being spent on foreign wars.

I agree that this is where the Dems fail - messaging on these topics from them is confusing at best. They want to appeal to their far left arm, as well as centrists and somehow appease everyone. Biden did too little, too late with his border plan, and it was shut down for political reasons, and of course, nothing was done.

But I'm not sure how demonizing immigrants gathers support. Yes, you can go after the costs associated with it, but I don't see the support for helping down-and-out Americans (unless it's for the vets). Even a majority of Republicans support a 'path to citizenship' for many immigrants. Having a policy of mass deportation might appeal to some, but it's going to be a humanitarian nightmare if they try to carry it out. This country is rich enough to support both groups.

As for foreign wars, I can see how your statements about the switching of values and interests in Republicans from the Bush era has soured on a topic like Ukraine. But rather than address the complex geopolitical consequences, the message from trump has been "I can end it on day 1". Do people really buy such simple solutions? Or do they not care that the 'solution' is likely Ukraine giving up land to its invader?

I guess at the end of the day, the messaging from the left was hazy, complex and either didn't make sense or didn't appeal to many voters. It likely seemed like more of the same, and the price of bread was still going to go up. The messaging from the right was "we'll fix it".

As I've had to say in a few posts this month "Time will tell". I'm not an expert in world economics and policy, but I don't see a lot of good things coming down the road. My main concern is that his planned tariffs will raise prices and retaliatory tariffs will crater the price of grains (which affects my area more than anything).

Oh - and one last thing about Musk... Imagine driving your working so hard for so long, and then getting a 55 billion dollar bonus (that you don't really need) - or you give a half million to every employee?