This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Some thoughts on the infamous OPM e-mail:
Whether the OPM e-mail asking federal employees to send a five bullet point list of what they achieved in the last week to a OPM e-mail address apparently controlled by Musk and/or @DOGE has turned into an even bigger scissor statement that is usual for US partisan politics. What is going on? (Well, it seems like it was an unconventional proof-of-liveness check on the federal employee base with no plan to read the responses, but I am more interested in the response)
First point - if this came from management, it would be a completely reasonable request. It would be odd if it came from senior management rather than your direct line manager (does a top executive have time to read all those replies?) but not necessarily irregular. It is the kind of thing I can absolutely imagine the CEO doing at a founder-mode startup with a few thousand employees. But it didn't come from management. It came from HR (literally, in the sense that the sender shows up as "HR" in Outlook, and in practice in that it came from OPM, which is effectively HR for the civilian federal government). Indeed, it came from an anonymous role account in HR. (Musk tweeted that the e-mails originated with him, but two courts have ruled, at Musk's request, that Musk is a notorious shitposter and it is legally unreasonable to take a Musk tweet seriously, so they are still legally anonymous)
If I received such an e-mail from HR in my day job at a bank (and I don't think any other large manager-mode organisation would be different), it would be unprofessional to do what the e-mail says and send a quick response cc my direct line manager. In a normal corporate (or, I assume, public sector) environment, you take at least some steps to make sure you don't accidentally become a patsy in someone else's political maneuver against your boss or department. So if I got such an e-mail, my immediate response would be to forward to my line manager* with a note saying something like "Not sure what is going on here - will hold off on replying until you are able to investigate" - and if I did eventually reply, I would agree the reponse with my manager. But the more likely outcome (unless senior management had been warned about the exercise beforehand) would be that the rapid large-scale escalation would lead to the head of the department sending an all-staff e-mail saying "Please don't respond until we have investigated what is going on here" and trying to get hold of someone in the CEO's office urgently. (And struggling to do so, because every senior manager in the organisation would be doing the same thing).
And this is just looking at the office politics perspective, From the infosec angle, this is worse. The e-mail said "don't send classified information", but if you work in a job where you are actually trying to keep secrets, there isn't a short, safe unclassified summary of what you did last week. I am not an expert on the US classification system, but I do know that producing an unclassified summary of classified information (including, for example, the classified information you worked on in the last week) is difficult work that only a few people in each department are qualified to do. The rule in corporate finance departments at banks (where almost all staff have access to market-moving non-public information such as upcoming mergers) and it is "Do not discuss live deals with anyone outside the department, even in general terms." For a corporate financier, sending a meaningful response to that e-mail would be a firing offence. The various department heads (including Trump's own political appointments like Kash Patel) in national security related departments who told their staff not to respond are doing the obviously correct thing.
tl;dr - the freakers-out are right - sending out an all-staff e-mail of this type from HR was irregular, and would have been massively disruptive to any large organisation other than a startup used to working around a hyperactive micromanaging founder-CEO.
* If the rumours are true that Musk is sending these e-mails from a jury-rigged server rather than an official secure US government system, then the e-mail would show up as external in Outlook, and my actual immediate response would be to report it to IT security as a possible phishing attack.
Public servants have the pleasure of serving outside of the strictures of capitalism. The park service guy whose job it is to tell tourists about the flowers every day has an absurd privilege that this is what his job gets to be.
The idea that these people are seething THIS much about simply being asked what they do is infuriating to me. The American taxpayers work as de facto indentured servants for almost a third of their working lives to pay the salaries of these people. The balls for them to freak out and do these petty protests (hang a flag from the top of El Capitan) is ridiculous and embarrassing.
You’re a public servant. If you don’t want to be accountable to the actual president of the United States, then go try your luck getting a job telling people about the flowers in the private sector. You might be surprised at how many jobs there are for that with a typical HR structure (my guess is: 0. The closest would be working as a grounds keeper for some oligarchs garden, maybe?)
You're welcome to apply if it's such a good deal. Well, you aren't, because land management is in a hiring freeze, but you would have been before Jan 20.
Securing federal employment is, in fact, incredibly competitive exactly because the job is such a good deal. For large swathes of educational backgrounds it is not just a competitive compensation package, but top 5% or so. What this means, in practice, is the federal workforce is highly credentialed. Lots of people with obscure masters and Ph.D degrees who some computer software and some generic HR person found to pattern match to a long winded job description.
Do you have a specific example in mind? Within land management, it's been my experience that if you know how to jump through the hoops on USAJobs (which takes a little Googling but is hardly a special qualification) and are willing to apply to multiple remote duty locations, entry-level jobs are pretty much there for the taking. There are some competitive positions (climbing rangers in Denali NP, hazard tree removal in Yosemite, smokejumpers and most hotshot crews) but they're competitive for a reason and nobody starts out there. There are a lot of remote duty locations that would like to hire more people than the number of minimally-qualified applicants they receive.
I'll also note that if there is, say, a GS-5/6/7 ladder biology tech position in a hypothetical DOI pipevine swallowtail conservation program for which a Ph.D. on the pipevine swallowtail is a de facto requirement (and I emphasize I don't know of such a thing), 1) that seems like a fairly reasonable meritoratic outcome and 2) it's not actually all that great of a deal, is it now.
My experience is with engineers and lawyers. Outside of the prestige positions like DOJ which are a revolving door between biglaw and the feds (and even then, the career prosecutors tend to be unimpressive compared to the shortlived people who leave), these agencies generally serve as landing spots for people who have washed out or are tired of actually working.
And even your hypothetical doesn't seem like a bad deal for this person. What good is a swallowtail Ph.D in the world? Its actually a great example of the problem with federal hiring. That person is unlikely to be qualified to do any real work at all. They have a silly degree indicating a silly personality.
And yet they're competitive for the top 5% compensation packages for their educational background? My guess is that it's probably a smaller paycheck but with shorter hours and better job stability, which isn't necessarily off the market average seller's indifference curve. In the other direction, it's worth noting that sometime in the last decade OPM spun up special non-GS pay scales for doctors and IT guys because even with benefits and job stability the GS compensation packages weren't attracting enough new hires.
That's market heterogeneity for you. Grinding billable hours at biglaw isn't a bad deal for the right kind of person, spending a month at a time at sea in the Alaskan fishing fleet isn't a bad deal for the right kind of person, cutting firewood for cash sale when you feel like it and living cheap isn't etc. But none of it, in expectation, is a free lunch. You could argue, of course, that the government shouldn't be in the pipevine swallowtail business at all, but that seems to me like an entirely separate matter.
It isn't though. That is a major issue with federal employment, that there is no similar market based job, because there is no market for the "skills" for huge swathes of the workforce. They'd have to take large pay decreases going into the private sector because they are, typically, extremely over-credentialed but also not very good at doing things that produce value. Much of the government is full of pipevine swallowtails. Large numbers of people who's job is to give out free money for various projects.
If your definition of "real value" implies a market outcome, sure, that follows. I still think this is separate from the question of whether Federal employment is a good deal for the employee, but at this point I'm content to let anyone still reading make up their own mind on a) the object-level goodness of the deal and b) whether these are, in fact, separate questions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link