Doge channels their inner Office Space and asks employees of the federal government to quantify their contributions over the last week.

[User]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

His employer deducts and remits it.

Not what I asked. Show me the numbers you are using to draw your conclusion. 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

That sounds like you've given up. Maybe ten years ago this would be very hard. With the tech they have now, there can be meaningful analysis that leads to targeted cuts.

 

LOL not from asking people what they did last week there couldn't be    AI  is a statistical entity, it just wouldn't be appropriate for that unless you had sufficient samples to give it.

Don't get me wrong, that isn't to say that there isn't some reason he's doing this which is beneficial, what I'm saying is he's not going to learn anything about whether or not a specific employee is doing their job well from the responses.

For example as I mentioned One might reach the conclusion that whatever anybody puts in their response discarding snotty remarks would presumably be the things that they did that they consider to be the most valuable. Obviously you're not going to put down something like change the coffee filter or something like that you're going to put down what you think you're best accomplishments were in your day to day life.

So maybe he uses AI to run An analysis and comes back and says based on what we've seen government employees and each of these fields believe that the most important tasks of their job is xxx. You could use that information to either eliminate those tasks freeing the employees up for something else through automation or other technology, or you could give them better direction to point them towards tasks you'd rather be doing, or you might even use it as a way to create benchmarks where you say okay we've done an analysis and on average an employee does that task five times a week, we want to see that as the base minimum and everybody has to do it five times or more to set performance goals.

And that would be one example of where you might be able to actually use the data coming back. 

But what it isn't is a good way to find out if somebody is doing the job right or not. It's a good way to make someone afraid, or it's a good way to collect data as I mentioned above for other purposes. 

There's no "Giving up", What I'm doing is pointing out that the motives here aren't clear and they're not what they initially appear to be which is an employee evaluation.

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Make no mistake, some of the cuts will go too far. But that is actually better than not going far enough. It is relatively easy to reinstate these people.

Well that's not accurate. Deep cuts can leave deep wounds that take a long time to heal and once somebody's been fired like that they're not probably going to be very interested to work for you again as we are seeing with governments who are now rushing back to try and bring back the medical staff that they fired during covid.

Cutting too deep creates as many problems as bloat, but of course in neither case are you going to get it perfect. In some areas some of the bloat may survive a little bit and in some areas you may cut a little deeper than you meant to and there will be some minor negative side effects, as long as overall you got it right for the most part you're fine.

If I was worried about anything I would be a lot more worried about the speed at which it's happening. The same cutting spread over 2 years could have little to no impact and yet be devastating if it's done within 6 months. Large-scale widespread sudden cuts tend to really screw with the organization and structure of agencies because they don't have time to adapt, tends to breed a lot of anger and resentment amongst the employees which is never good for productivity, you often see some of the best people leave even though they weren't fired because they find the environment too unstable and their skill set allows them to leave and be hired somewhere else, quality people will look for other jobs before accepting a government job in the future because they're worried about this kind of thing And unlike a private business what you see is people stop worrying about productivity and they start worrying about passing the buck and covering their ass.

It's not the cutting is a problem. The bloat is massive. It's not even a problem shaking these organizations up, all government agencies should occasionally be shaken to their very core and forced to reorganize. It's like kicking over an ant hill, the ants tend to build it back better.

It's more about the timeline and thinking about what comes next. Either musk nor trump have a lot of experience managing or dealing with government bureaucracies or the impact that sudden changes can make. And at the same time as all of this is going on trump is picking a number of trade wars and he's got some challenges dealing with some of the actual wars not to mention about a lawsuit a day starting up. Then he's got real issues which are going unaddressed like the avian flu which he hasn't barely commented on and yet is having a huge impact.

They're just going a little too far A little too fast and that tends to undermine the structure which tends to lead to economic slowdowns and recessions and or inflation or stagflation.

We will see. It's still early days obviously

Edited February 24 by CdnFox

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

Not what I asked. Show me the numbers you are using to draw your conclusion. 

From the article I posted...

Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent.

"I just feel like an average citizen. I represent the average citizen who needs a voice," said Bosanek. "Everybody in our office is paying a higher tax rate than Warren."

Everybody. I doubt there's much of a spread between what the kid at Wendy's and the kid who sweeps Bosanek and Buffet's floors make.

[User]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

From the article I posted...

This is not the dude working at Wendys. Stop being dishonest. 

 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Gee thanks for this.

Note how countrys' numbers jumps at the same time and basically follow the expected pattern since the USA has about 10 times the population?

Again...thanks for further proving my point.

It's because Canadians vaccinated. 💡

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

From the article I posted...

Bosanek pays a tax rate of 35.8 percent of income, while Buffett pays a rate at 17.4 percent.

"I just feel like an average citizen. I represent the average citizen who needs a voice," said Bosanek. "Everybody in our office is paying a higher tax rate than Warren."

Everybody. I doubt there's much of a spread between what the kid at Wendy's and the kid who sweeps Bosanek and Buffet's floors make.

They also pay a higher percent of their income if they buy an apple at the grocery. They'll pay more if they buy gas as a percent of their income. Etc etc.

Buffet pays a HUGE amount more of taxes. And he really doesn't get much more in return. 

So if he's already paying 10 times the money for the same benefits why on earth would they expect him to pay more? He has to pay a higher percent for his food too, is he suggesting that we should subsidize that because warren buffet?

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

This is not the dude working at Wendys. Stop being dishonest.

Whoever the lowest dude on the ladder in Buffet's office is and who's likely paying the same tax rate as his buddy at Wendy's. Which as Buffet points out and is corroborated by his secretary, less than everybody else in the office. I mean, you'd think she'd probably know what she's talking about.

You honestly don't get that?

I call bullshit, you're just playing games again.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Pretty much the same from about 150 miles north of the border on down.  Are you seriously going to try and argue that it was the vast empty spaces and distances further north of that narrow band that explains the staggering difference?  

You're talking bullshit again.

First of all, your 150 miles excludes Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and I think Regina as well. Canada happens to be more than the east side.

Secondly, the population density along the border is quite a bit higher on the US side.

You're simply talking out your a55 here.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

It's because Canadians vaccinated. 💡

It's because we have a much lower population density.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It's because we have a much lower population density.

And we're colder, the warmer the climate the worse it was generally speaking.   And we got it later, the us had it earlier than we did and racked up more deaths as a result. Bunch of other things. 

And the big spike in the us that put them over the top happened under biden. 

These people care nothing for the truth

[eyeball]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So if he's already paying 10 times the money for the same benefits why on earth would they expect him to pay more?

Like I said why even tax people? Just divide the federal budget by the number of people responsible for paying it and bill everyone the same amount.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

Like I said why even tax people? Just divide the federal budget by the number of people responsible for paying it and bill everyone the same amount.

That would certainly be a more fair way to do it. I absolutely guarantee we would hear a lot less whining about elon and his government spending cuts if everyone had to put their share of the bill    

As to why we don't the reason is simple. If we did then left leaning woke scumbags like yourself and those you support would no longer be able to effectively grift money out of the people or make them dependent.

I mean let's get real, fairness isn't even one of the criterias that you people pretend matters

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

You're talking bullshit again.

First of all, your 150 miles excludes Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg and I think Regina as well. Canada happens to be more than the east side.

Secondly, the population density along the border is quite a bit higher on the US side.

You're simply talking out your a55 here.

Well, the author's of the article I posted asked why there was such a difference. How come it doesn't say anything about density? You'd think they'd have come across your explanation along the way when doing their research for the story.

Don't you think?

Where did you come up with it?

Recall we started this off talking about transparency, accountability and the role their absence plays in fuelling the sort of misinformation and stupidity that kills people

So in a way I guess you're right, this is about density after all.

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Well, the author's of the article I posted asked why there was such a difference. How come it doesn't say anything about density? You'd think they'd have come across your explanation along the way when doing their research for the story.

Don't you think?

Where did you come up with it?

Recall we started this off talking about transparency, accountability and the role their absence plays in fuelling the sort of misinformation and stupidity that kills people

So in a way I guess you're right, this is about density after all.

 

I'd ask what was the goal of the writers? If I can figure out Canada has a much less dense population, why didn't they?

You've lost this one. Go pick your wounds and find a subject you can discuss rationally.

[User]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Whoever the lowest dude on the ladder in Buffet's office is and who's likely paying the same tax rate as his buddy at Wendy's. Which as Buffet points out and is corroborated by his secretary, less than everybody else in the office. I mean, you'd think she'd probably know what she's talking about.

You honestly don't get that?

I call bullshit, you're just playing games again.

Once again, you didn’t answer the question. 

[eyeball]

59 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I'd ask what was the goal of the writers?

Because you suspect they're wrong or lying, why?

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

If I can figure out Canada has a much less dense population, why didn't they?

I'm quite certain they could have if there was a reason too. The fact they didn't mention it suggests there wasn't.

Unless you're convinced they're lying or mistaken which you should be trying to corroborate with a convincing reason.

If it's something you figured out on your own you should submit a paper to the proper authorities don't you think? It would be awfully irresponsible of you to withhold information you thought could prevent unnecessary illness and death.

[Nationalist]

12 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Because you suspect they're wrong or lying, why?

I'm quite certain they could have if there was a reason too. The fact they didn't mention it suggests there wasn't.

Unless you're convinced they're lying or mistaken which you should be trying to corroborate with a convincing reason.

If it's something you figured out on your own you should submit a paper to the proper authorities don't you think? It would be awfully irresponsible of you to withhold information you thought could prevent unnecessary illness and death.

Lol...ya...right...

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, User said:

Once again, you didn’t answer the question. 

More of the Wendy kids income as a share of his total goes to taxes than Buffet's.

Understanding the Buffett Rule

 

The Buffett Rule contended that the tax system wasn't fair because it put a greater proportional tax burden on wages than it put on investment income.

Middle-class taxpayers shoulder this burden because their income primarily consists of wages that are subjected to income, payroll, and other federal taxes.

Upper-class income was felt to consist primarily of investment income taxed at preferential capital gains rates.

The Rule blamed tax code bias for an unfair tax system that forced many middle-class workers to pay a larger proportion of their income in taxes than the wealthy do.
 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/buffettrule.asp

[eyeball]

20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...ya...right...

That they're lying or that you're being irresponsible?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Well, the author's of the article I posted asked why there was such a difference. How come it doesn't say anything about density? You'd think they'd have come across your explanation along the way when doing their research for the story.

Don't you think?

Where did you come up with it?

Recall we started this off talking about transparency, accountability and the role their absence plays in fuelling the sort of misinformation and stupidity that kills people

So in a way I guess you're right, this is about density after all.

 

I've posted that very information for you before. You just ignore it and then continue to spout your Misinformation while claiming other people are spouting mis information.

Density played a huge role in covid deaths especially in specific circumstances such as New York early on in the pandemic. There is tons of research on it and I've posted it all before

[User]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

More of the Wendy kids income as a share of his total goes to taxes than Buffet's.

What do you base this on. Show me the numbers. 

 

[Nationalist]

52 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That they're lying or that you're being irresponsible?

They lie as a matter of course...you lap their trap up like some sort of self destructive zombie.

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, User said:

What do you base this on. Show me the numbers. 

 

Buffet and his secretary showed you. Twice now.

[User]

Just now, eyeball said:

Buffet and his secretary showed you. Twice now.

You said: "More of the Wendy kids income as a share of his total goes to taxes than Buffet's."

What do you base that on?

 

[eyeball]

12 hours ago, Nationalist said:

They lie as a matter of course...

It must be lonely indeed in your own little bubble of truth.