[dragonwriter]

> How are these "large-scale reductions in force" different from recent mass layoffs in big tech?

One is eliminating people in necessary to functions the executive branch is legally mandated to perform, the other is not.

> Are both equally bad?

Certainly not for the same reason; they are generally unrelated.

> I work at a startup - they can terminate my employment at any time, for any reason. Do you think it's unfair?

Whether private sector at-will employment is unfair is irrelevant here, so its just a distraction to even discuss it any significant way.

Executive branch officials are not the managers of a private sector firm, and the legal, ethical, and other constraints on their behavior are different. Aside from the fact that the government is limited in way private actors are not (public employees have a property interest in their employment and the government as an employer is still the government, and sondue process failures related to property interests of their employees, who are people and thus possess 5th Amendment rights, are a Constitutional violation), executive branch officials are generally given less leeway in law over employment (other than of narrow classes of mostly top executive officers) in executive branch departments (outside the Executive Office of the President) than is the case for private managers under the governing rules adopted in most private companies.

[kadushka]

You're talking about something else. This discussion started from the claim that private sector has to absorb the eliminated government workers.

If I understand you correctly, you claim that necessary government positions have been eliminated, and therefore, government is unable to perform some of its important functions. If this is true, sooner or later these positions will be reinstated and filled: if enough people are negatively affected, their voices will be heard by the next election.

On the other hand, Twitter laid off ~80% of its employees, including roles seen by some as important, and yet, it's running just fine today, so I guess we'll see about the government.

[ben_w]

> On the other hand, Twitter laid off ~80% of its employees, including roles seen by some as important, and yet, it's running just fine today, so I guess we'll see about the government.

Except for reportedly losing 84% of its revenue, and apart from getting into legal trouble by not having staff fulfilling legally required roles…

If the people of the USA went into this eyes wide open and actually want to strip the federal government down to the bone and turn it into something much more like the EU — where states are sovereign and the "federal" part that remains is the bare minimum for smoothing inter-state trade, freedom for states to leave the union when they feel like it, and only a very small fraction of each state's income is shared with other states — then I'm sure they'll be very happy with this outcome.

But… are you sure you meant to do that? 'cause one thing it ain't gonna do is make y'all "great again". EU doesn't even have a single unified military (that's a matter for member states); and despite the Euro existing, not all member states use it as their currency.

[kadushka]

There's a lot of room between a loose union of independent countries, like EU, and a federal system like in US. There's a huge difference between a state like California, and a state like Louisiana. Perhaps we should let them govern themselves more.

Re: Twitter - did it lose its revenue because of the layoffs, or because of some stupid things Elon said/did?

[ben_w]

> Re: Twitter - did it lose its revenue because of the layoffs, or because of some stupid things Elon said/did?

Both, in so far as one of the things he did was lay off content moderation and that this led to brands seeing their names and adverts associated with content that harmed those brands.

Compare Twitter to Tesla stock price to separate the effect of man himself from the layoffs: his personal gaffes have short-lived impacts on the price, but Tesla's stock price still went up.