[cudgy]

Boeing and GE are inappropriate comparisons. Their cost-cutting maneuvers were primarily driven by moving existing, quality work to overseas contractors. It was simply about saving money without worrying about efficiency or long-term benefit. The overhead of managing contractors spread throughout the entire world is much more difficult than overseeing groups say within the Seattle Washington area. I really don’t see how this compares to reduction of work forces in government divisions. These government positions are not being moved overseas along with the complicated overhead of managing the groups all around the world.

[sudosysgen]

The functions will end up being outsourced to contractors and bureaucracy will have to deal with managing them and their failures. This is exactly what has already happened to many departments and direct cuts to workforce will only worsen it.

[cudgy]

Sorry, but I just don’t feel like you have the authority or knowledge to make that statement. How could you possibly know whether direct cuts will only worsen things? This is the type of issue that is argued between people inside of an organization that are fully aware of all of the factors at play.

[sudosysgen]

It's not really a prediction I'm making, this already happened in the 70s with Nixon, the 80s with Reagan and the late 90s with Clinton. Direct cuts to employment in valuable functions have historically always ended up with core employees being replaced by armies of contractors which then need armies of bureaucrats to manage instead of doing things in house. It's why the US Digital Service started, for example. The issue has been argued for about 50 years now and the outcome has been pretty clear. It's the inevitable conclusion of firing federal employees but still wanting the program function to live on, you will inevitably end up with contractors and that has meant armies of bureaucrats to manage them.