Slashing is not permanent. It is important to slash in order to determine a middle ground. If a company fires 100 employees and certain operations stop functioning, they may hire back 10 employees and reassess. If operations are still not functional enough, they will hire 10 more. This process continues until everything is operational again. The result is a company that functions just as effectively as before but with fewer employees. This is an optimization of resources and efficiency.
>It is important to slash in order to determine a middle ground
That's not true.
> If a company fires 100 employees and certain operations stop functioning, they may hire back 10 employees and reassess
How likely is it that 10 employees come back? How likely is it that critical institutional knowledge is lost forever?
> The result is a company that functions just as effectively as before but with fewer employees
Does it? Have you ever been through a reorg or restructuring at work? Do things ever get back to just as effective as before any time soon?
> This is an optimization of resources and efficiency
It's squandering human capitol, knowledge and reduced efficiency both in the short term and long term. It's the most expensive way to reduce your overhead. A far cry from optimization.
> How likely is it that critical institutional knowledge is lost forever?
In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk.
> Does it? Have you ever been through a reorg or restructuring at work? Do things ever get back to just as effective as before any time soon?
Yes, I've been through many re-orgs at AWS. If done right, things get better fairly quickly (3-6 months).
> It's squandering human capital, knowledge, and reduced efficiency both in the short term and long term. It's the most expensive way to reduce your overhead. A far cry from optimization.
Not necessarily. The short-term pain of restructuring can lead to long-term efficiency gains. Organizations that fail to optimize end up bloated and sluggish, which is far more costly in the long run. Smart cuts, when combined with proper reallocation of resources, create a more effective organization.
> In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk.
Nobody is so thorough at documenting that their job is 100% documented and the documentation is fully up to date.
You think Jim, who's been training the new hires on the factory floor for a decade, who knows all the tricks to making this fit together at wiget factory even when the process instructions are vague, has documented everything?
Could document everything?
Just be cause digital records are present doesn't mean they're complete, up to date or accurate.
Institutional knowledge is a thing, and it's very valuable. You can't wave it away and say we're in a digital age.
> You think Jim, who's been training the new hires on the factory floor for a decade, who knows all the tricks to making this fit together at wiget factory even when the process instructions are vague, has documented everything?
No, I don't think so. That's why the lay-offs predominantly target probationary employees.
Correct. The majority are not promoted. If they are in the first year of their current level/role and have previous experience, they still haven't accumulated much institutional knowledge to make them indispensable. While experience helps, their impact in a new role is still developing, and their departure is less likely to disrupt operations significantly.
Your last sentence undermines the point in this case. What Musk and Trump are doing are hardly "smart cuts". They couldn't possibly be, with how quickly executed. They are a sledgehammer.
It hasn't been limited to probationary employees. Here's one example: https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-ban-renewing-sen...
Agencies have also been directed to make plans for "significant reductions". For example, EPA plans to cut 65%. Fish and Wildlife and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are preparing for up to 40%. These latter cuts haven't happened yet, but they're very likely.
That's correct. It hasn't been limited to probationary employees only, but many are. Those who are not either aren't needed or will be rehired if operations cannot continue without them.
It's not just about the literal employee contracts. Telling all USAID workers to cease operations and come home within 30 days is still a "cut" even if they are still employed. Not hiring seasonal workers for national parks is a cut. Removing info from the CDC website is a cut. Cancelling the meeting on flu vaccines is a cut.
It's a very hamfisted deliberate disruption of all operations and services. Which, again, can hardly be called "targeted" by any metric.
> In the digital age, almost impossible. Documentation, process automation, and knowledge transfer mitigate this risk.
Are you sure you really work at AWS? Dude, how often do you realize the documentation is not sufficient and you have to dig through people's brain to actually get the nuances, that is, lucky enough they are still around? lolll
How the heck do you apply this process to fundamental research? It's pretty much always the case that with basic research you could have cut 95% of studies after the fact and it wouldn't have made much difference in the end.
The problem is you don't know which 95% of studies beforehand.
Neither companies nor governments fire 100% of their personnel unless a division is no longer needed. Governments, especially, have safeguards to ensure essential functions continue, so they don't simply stop functioning all of a sudden. From a bird's-eye view, a government is not much different from a company. They both allocate resources, manage personnel and strive for efficiency.
