Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 579 posts

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#271

Post by reverendsteveii »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #121
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #92

[flagged]

> The government needs to be downsized by millions Curious about the reason for this. Is there math that shows the first- and second-order effects of specific roles being removed? I ask because I've seen so much talk about the need for this, seemingly without much being supplied in the way of reason.

this is what you might call a vibes-based analysis. proof that the government needs to be dramatically downsized is found in the way it feels good to say and jives with relevant preconceptions.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#272

Post by pessimizer »

desumeku wrote: post #68
manbart wrote: post #2

Doubt it... You'd be a fool to think you'd actually get the money

Is this where we're at now? Thinking that the new administration will just openly refuse to pay people's salaries as part of a formal deal?

[flagged]

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#273

Post by crooked-v »

tombert wrote: post #230
scarface_74 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re screwed. He’s already made thousands of Venezuelans illegal immigrants that were here legally under temporary protection status and threaten deportation and tried to revoke birthright citizenship. He’s definitely going to do his best to keep people out from “shit hole countries that only send rapists and murderers” (if it isn’t clear, I don’t hold that opinion)

Well, if any EU companies want to sponsor a work visa for me and my wife, I am certainly open to it. As it stands I don’t really know what I’m supposed to do other than that.

If worst comes to worst and your personal situations allow it, there's always places like Malta that welcome anyone in who has sufficient income.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#274

Post by singleshot_ »

danielheath wrote: post #210
ziddoap wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's only illegal if the law gets enforced. It is completely valid to say something is illegal and unenforced. Consider that non-enforcement doesn't suddenly make something legal. Enforcement can start at any time. (Will it? Who knows!)

> It is completely valid to say something is illegal and unenforced. It seems somewhat vacuous to say it when it applies to every second administrative act.

Enabling act? Executive order? Administrative regulation? The Administrative Procedure Act?

What is an administrative act in this context?

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#275

Post by mikeyouse »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #225
mikeyouse wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example of a binding contract isn’t a binding contract since there’s no consideration to the person who made the bet.

I think I agree, on reflection, that it is not a binding contract. But (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think it's a matter of consideration- in a wager, each party stands to gain the agreed upon amount depending on the outcome, which should qualify for that criteria AFAICT. I think the informality of a between-friends bet and gambling laws are what do the example in.

Yeah that clarification helps and I agree there - there's a bunch of exceptions of 'joking bets' etc. I first read the offer as "I'll give you $100 if you can run there and back in under a minute" rather than each party being able to win the $100 which would indeed satisfy the consideration requirement.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#276

Post by renewiltord »

djohnston wrote: post #239
scottyah wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They churn through employees fast and they usually exit through burnout (no offloading) and the people wanting to work there skew towards young people who don't know what they're doing. A lot of work gets delayed, dropped, etc and some bad suppliers even take advantage of that ("the last person said they'd do X"). I know it's en-vogue to hate on Elon companies, and a lot of people would love to hear that the World's…

It's remarkable that, for a bunch of young people who don't know what they're doing, they've completely decimated any competitors - both public and private.

These guys are idiots, fucking morons, and can’t get anything right. Somehow they’re also outcompeting us on everything. It isn’t clear why, but it must be because we are smarter.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#277

Post by scarface_74 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #226
scarface_74 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look how every dictatorship works, they always make sure that the military and police force do well. That and they look the other way when police steal from people.

Sure they do. And to do that, they need a functioning society, at least functioning well enough to produce the things that the military and the police need and want. (And that means that the police can't steal too much from people.) A dictatorship can't be just a thugocracy. It has to keep society running, perhaps not up to western capitalist standards, but at least above the point of collapse.

How do you explain North Korea?

And there is always prison labor that you can depend on. Especially with private prisons. Prison labor is already being used to fight wildfires in LA for instance and we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. That’s cheap labor and another benefit it’s all those “drug dealing thugs” anyway.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#278

Post by jotux »

robomartin wrote: post #91

The idea that government workers cannot be hired and fired at will is wrong. Government workers should have no more rights than the single mother working at a restaurant or business, or anyone working at any normal business in the US. I other words, they should not have more rights or protections than the people who pay the taxes that pay for their salaries and benefits. One of the most fundamental problems in variou…

You're confusing state and federal employees with your teacher example.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#279

Post by toast0 »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #118
scottLobster wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think that an offer accepted by sending an email with "Resign" in the subject line is subject to these protections? You think DOGE is even authorized to make said offers? Why, because Elon and Trump said so? Also your last line is just bizarre. The US government can very much selectively pay some parties but not others during a shutdown. That's kind of the definition of a shutdown.... Plus this administration…

The requirements for making a contract are minimal. If your friend says "I bet you a hundred dollars that you can't run over there and back in less than a minute" and you say nothing in response but start running, you've entered into a binding contract. Your other points still stand, but an email that makes an offer and makes it clear that you accept by responding "Resign" and a response to that email that says "Resi…

Binding on illegal contracts is tricky. If I offer X for murder, and you do the murder and I don't pay you; you can't seek recompense in the courts.

If the government's offer is illegal, those who accepted it and performed their part of the contract may not be able to force the government to perform its part.

Re: 20k federal workers take "buyout" so far, official says

#280

Post by zrail »

Shank wrote: post #15

I think the main issue for anyone wanting to take the offer is simply: this was never authorized by congress, so the money to pay people to September is questionable if it exists at best. Meanwhile, there's a government funding deadline on March 14, 2025. So there's a very real chance at this deal offering something closer to ~1 month of pay before it suddenly gets dropped due to budget negotiations. It would be an i…

It is incredibly foolish to entertain this offer. OPM v Richmond[1] held that the government has effectively zero liability for lying about financial benefits that haven't been specifically authorized by Congress.

[1]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/496/414/

Post reply on HN