SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Road Walker who wrote (309686)11/8/2006 9:37:01 AM
From: Taro  Respond to of 1574098
 
Start building a car running on FL wood pellets (don't export them to Europe, keep them for yourself!)

Taro



To: Road Walker who wrote (309686)11/8/2006 11:36:51 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574098
 
I'd like to see a 10% reduction, or a larger one, but it should be from eliminating specific programs and offices. If you just cut staff without cutting responsibilities it might not work out so well. In the best case scenario you cut an overstaffed officer, and cut the least productive people, so you increase productivity and maybe even provide better service, but in many cases staff cuts don't work out so well. The cuts are allocated either in a political matter, or as an equal across the board cut (cutting understaffed offices as well as overstaffed ones). The cuts are likely to come from voluntary reductions (giving incentives to leave that are most likely to be taken by those who do the best work and can get a good job elsewhere, well at least it allows the private sector to pick up some good employees), or if involuntary by seniority rather then merit. Also if you just cut staff without cutting responsibilities the staff levels are more likely to drift back up in the future, eliminating the gain.

OTOH I am encouraged to see support for cuts in governments from the liberal side. I hope such views are more common than I think they are.