> American taxpayers are wasting billions to pay for owned and leased federal office space that remain largely vacant
Maybe this is an opportunity for savings instead of a forced RTO?
Then again, I doubt it's worthwhile to reason about this decision; we've seen more controversial ones already (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42785891 ) and I guess this is not the final one.
Even though Trump was there for the stargate announcement, there are no government funds involved.
But why is Stargate controversial? If private companies want to spend $500 billion, why should we care? Yes I know part of it is debt financing.
But back to your point, look at the all of the wasteful military bases in the US and weapons programs that the military brass keeps trying to get rid of but the civilian leadership keeps blocking because of civilian job loss in thier districts.
This will become a savings play in the long run. Forced RTO has generally been considered a headcount reduction approach, which checks out with new administrative direction. After RTO stabilizes, its likely the office assets will be optimized to minimize wasted office space.
As a headcount reduction measure it usually means that the people that stay are the ones that are not good at what they do, so they can't find another jobs.
The good ones have more opportunities, so they don't take the BS and leave for better working conditions.
Headcount reduction could increase the deficit, not reduce it. Wages are only 5% of the Federal budget; reducing headcount will likely increase waste and increase the spend on expensive contractors.
Especially since the administration is likely to target the IRS especially heavily for headcount reduction. That'll drastically impact revenue.
> Forced RTO has generally been considered a headcount reduction approach, which checks out with new administrative direction.
Reducing government workers may make things worse, as if you don't have enough internal man power and expertise you often have to rely on external consultants, which often cost much more and have things take longer:
if you think this will result in any significant head count reduction you are very mistaken… no one leaves government jobs once they get one and many people are there after taking a paycut coming from private sector. I work in federal government and have not heard a single person yet saying “well, shit, gotta get another job (in THIS market, emphasis mine).
Employers, government or not, still wield far too much power over the personal lives of employees. I think it is rather meaningless to try and understand why RTO is en vogue now.
Why is the discussion so rarely focused on the fact that your boss can demand that you uplift your life or else you're fired, immediately and with impunity, and what you have to say about it means absolutely nothing?
Maybe I am baffled by this because I live and work in Europe where the relationship is a bit better (though I am not sure for how much longer it will remain as such). Americans seem very content to allow this behavior as normal because, obviously, other employees (but not me, I am a great employee!) must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy.
> must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy.
The problem with this characterization is that Americans hold the same kind view for all relationships, not just work-related relationships. For example: Married someone who starts making your life miserable? Too bad. It is your fault for choosing to have a relationship with the wrong person, they will tell you. There is no will to extend special concessions to force the spouse to play nice there either. The public is content to let you grin and bear it or end the relationship.
Having just started working again after a long run out-of-a-job (and an even longer run outside of the office), I couldn't tell you, either. My job so far only requires a handful of tasks that can't be done remotely (and that, frankly, could be replaced with access to a print center and a courier). Still, I'm required to make a commute that's minimum one hour, and approaches two for the method I can afford. My bosses have also taken offense at my "lateness" (8-8:30 arrival time, instead of 8 on the dot or earlier; sorry, the 6:45 bus hits traffic). Lots of downtime. Few complaints about my actual performance.
This job could be fully remote. I'm actually trying not to puzzle over the reasons it's not, because that would just make me more frustrated. But, gun-to-my-head: it's inertia. People heavily invested - sometimes literally, often overleveraged - in the status quo, and not especially inclined to be open-minded or rational about changing it. You saw that it took a global crisis where employers were suddenly caught on their back foot in order for remote to gain any sort of real foothold (same for rethinking transit policy, etc.). And then they've spent the following years trying to claw everything back. Incumbency is a helluva drug (and the withdrawal is killer).
When you took the job, did you know it was in office work and how long the commute was going to be?
I mean I get frustration if “I was remote, but my company RTO’d”. Not so sure I understand “I intentionally took a job in the office a hour away but I am disappointed because I could do the job from home” mentality.
The election was still pretty close to 50/50. Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris at 48.3%. Better to say "Americans seem to marginally prefer to allow this behavior as normal..."
Even that would be a wrong conclusion. I'm not sure all people who voted for the current POTUS are happy with higher pricing of diabetes drugs, forced RTO and other nonsense. Maybe some do, but for sure not all.
I work closely with federal employees and I have not seen that. The benefits are some of the best in the world. With near-guaranteed pay raises, cost of living adjustments, discount public transit, and countless other pensions and perks, it's not easy to get a federal job. I have friends who have been trying for years to get hired but it has been very competitive for them.
Gov job in tech is like any other job, the best employees who can work together successfully to solve problems is best optimized over a wide area (spatially). There are other benefits of strong employee rights and stability in work, ability to transfer to other departments a pretty simple process (which opens the type of work you can do while still being employed so much easier), and good health/retirement packages. These are motivators for people to want to stay with the Gov when already hired in, but to new and existing talent that have more options, the lack of remote and/or telework can be make or break. If we actually want a Gov that can perform, because people do that work and thus would want good people, we should be not artificially constraining ourselves on how to achieve that goal.
> The benefits are some of the best in the world. With near-guaranteed pay raises, cost of living adjustments, discount public transit, and countless other pensions and perks,
This also describes working at Amazon, minus the pension. The real difference is really just the pension.
And sounds like intentional dismantling of government and government institutions. Also, cost of living for folks that stay will likely go up considerably with having to pay for commuting...
I predict getting a government job is going to become increasingly popular as the private sector will be much much faster in eliminating positions using AI.
Fully loaded, government wages aren't as bad as they seem on on paper. Price out an annuity from an insurance company with payouts equal to a government pension. The quote might be above $2M.
If you contribute the max to a 401k for 30 years you should have around 2 million (and don't put everything into stupid investments, which many 401ks make hard). But that is $20k/year that doesn't go into your wallet. Of course inflation needs to factor in - 30 years ago your max contribute was about half of today ($9,240.00 vs $23,500.00) and so your expected result would have been more like 1 million. But if you contributed the max for all those 30 years you are probably close to 2 million. If you start today for 30 years you should be quite a bit more than 2 million - but how much I cannot predict. I'm assuming above that you get an employer match which most do.
The above assumes you have a 401k. Those plans are more available than any previous retirement option (other than social security which nearly everyone has and is mandatory). However even though 401k is available to more people than previous workplace retirement plans, there are still large numbers who don't get a 401k (someone who can have one but chooses not to is also an issue).
The above is US centric. Many people reading this don't live in the US and so have completely different options that I have no idea about.
But wasn't DOGE created to eliminate some of those jobs? In which case, the question becomes: Will supply be willing to show up for the market price, which may soon become zero or even negative?
Gotta give it to DOGE, which already eliminated Co-founder/CO-CEO and its top lawyer. They seem to be walking the talk. But I'd consider it totally serious if Musk's position is eliminated in before his kids move to next grade mainly due to not meeting targets or missing 5 days a week at work mandate.
How long? That was happening from the beginning, they have to direct their hate to new terms to keep it fresh, but generally, anything different to how they did it in the 1950s must be eliminated
We're still waiting guidance as to whether this applies just to remote work or if it includes telework. (A few years ago, we were told that the difference was remote workers worked completely remote; but, teleworkers have a cubicle or office.) The Executive Order says "remote work arrangements"; but, it then says. "require employees to return to work in-person at their respective duty stations on a full-time basis" Most of our personnel telework one, sometimes two, days per week. We do have a couple of remote workers, who are military spouses and they're wondering if that falls under the possible exemptions.
We'll see. The Executive Order allows for exemptions, "provided that the department and agency heads shall make exemptions they deem necessary." The big question is what criteria shall be used for those exemptions.
Readit News
Maybe this is an opportunity for savings instead of a forced RTO?
Then again, I doubt it's worthwhile to reason about this decision; we've seen more controversial ones already (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42785891 ) and I guess this is not the final one.
But why is Stargate controversial? If private companies want to spend $500 billion, why should we care? Yes I know part of it is debt financing.
But back to your point, look at the all of the wasteful military bases in the US and weapons programs that the military brass keeps trying to get rid of but the civilian leadership keeps blocking because of civilian job loss in thier districts.
Follow the money.
The good ones have more opportunities, so they don't take the BS and leave for better working conditions.
Especially since the administration is likely to target the IRS especially heavily for headcount reduction. That'll drastically impact revenue.
Reducing government workers may make things worse, as if you don't have enough internal man power and expertise you often have to rely on external consultants, which often cost much more and have things take longer:
* https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-needs-a-bigger-better-...
Why is the discussion so rarely focused on the fact that your boss can demand that you uplift your life or else you're fired, immediately and with impunity, and what you have to say about it means absolutely nothing?
Maybe I am baffled by this because I live and work in Europe where the relationship is a bit better (though I am not sure for how much longer it will remain as such). Americans seem very content to allow this behavior as normal because, obviously, other employees (but not me, I am a great employee!) must serve their stakeholders better so we can gain every bit of efficiency and increase precious income in the economy.
The problem with this characterization is that Americans hold the same kind view for all relationships, not just work-related relationships. For example: Married someone who starts making your life miserable? Too bad. It is your fault for choosing to have a relationship with the wrong person, they will tell you. There is no will to extend special concessions to force the spouse to play nice there either. The public is content to let you grin and bear it or end the relationship.
Other than physical abuse, what entity do you think should be empowered to force a spouse to “play nice”?
Do other countries have government agencies that force wives to be nice to their husbands, or vice versa?
This job could be fully remote. I'm actually trying not to puzzle over the reasons it's not, because that would just make me more frustrated. But, gun-to-my-head: it's inertia. People heavily invested - sometimes literally, often overleveraged - in the status quo, and not especially inclined to be open-minded or rational about changing it. You saw that it took a global crisis where employers were suddenly caught on their back foot in order for remote to gain any sort of real foothold (same for rethinking transit policy, etc.). And then they've spent the following years trying to claw everything back. Incumbency is a helluva drug (and the withdrawal is killer).
I mean I get frustration if “I was remote, but my company RTO’d”. Not so sure I understand “I intentionally took a job in the office a hour away but I am disappointed because I could do the job from home” mentality.
The election was still pretty close to 50/50. Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. Harris at 48.3%. Better to say "Americans seem to marginally prefer to allow this behavior as normal..."
This is a huge step backwards for employees rights and I hope the next presidents reverts this incompetent decision.
Sounds inefficient.
This also describes working at Amazon, minus the pension. The real difference is really just the pension.
The above assumes you have a 401k. Those plans are more available than any previous retirement option (other than social security which nearly everyone has and is mandatory). However even though 401k is available to more people than previous workplace retirement plans, there are still large numbers who don't get a 401k (someone who can have one but chooses not to is also an issue).
The above is US centric. Many people reading this don't live in the US and so have completely different options that I have no idea about.
But wasn't DOGE created to eliminate some of those jobs? In which case, the question becomes: Will supply be willing to show up for the market price, which may soon become zero or even negative?
Deleted Comment
Yeah, I meant his Nazi salute.
Dead Comment