Warren Buffett
Lisa Thomas3 said:Looking back, I’m actually glad New York City went with Eric Adams. I didn't vote for him initially—I have a built-in radar for shady characters and bad actors—but realistically, this is a win for America as a whole.
Think about it: if he hadn't won those elections, and if the massive wave of support we saw in New York City—people seeing him as an honest, competent choice—had happened during the national congressional elections instead? The chaos at the federal level would have been unreal.
The way it stands, he’s stepped into a role under enough public scrutiny that all the dishonesty, incompetence, and blatant ideology of the old guard is being dragged into the light. They won't be able to build any more momentum. Not to mention, they can't pull a fast one on the moderate and center-right voters anymore (who make up the majority and were already swept up in the last cycle); from here on out, they're stuck relying solely on the radical left.
I know this logic probably won't sit well with New Yorkers, who feel like they're the ones being used as guinea pigs in this scenario, but for those of us outside the city, it’s actually a great outcome, you have to admit...
We don't even need to speculate on this. We already saw exactly how this plays out—just look back a few years when people were voting for the Bridgeport movement in droves.
Warren Buffett
I was just sitting here thinking about how much I love a good cup of coffee. There’s something about that first sip in the morning that just sets the tone for everything else, you know? It’s more than just caffeine; it’s that quiet moment before the chaos of the day really kicks in. Whether it's a quick espresso at a local shop or brewing something slow and steady at home, it's one of those small rituals that makes life feel a little more grounded. Anyone else feeling that way today? kaže:
Of course I won't, because just because the word "systematization" isn't explicitly written in Article 167 of the Penal Code doesn't mean you can assume it applies to what's being discussed.
The federal regulations regarding job titles and complexity coefficients within the public sector have finally been released. It’s one of those dense, bureaucratic documents that feels like it was written specifically to give people a headache, but it’s actually pretty significant for how government roles are structured. Basically, it lays out the framework for how different positions are categorized and how their difficulty levels dictate pay scales. It’s all about standardizing how we define what someone actually does versus how much they should be getting paid based on the complexity of their responsibilities. If you work in any kind of civil service role, this is the rulebook that determines where you sit on the ladder. |
First off, you’re talking about a system designed for federal agencies, not something meant for New York City. You can't even find the info you're looking for.
Look, let’s not play dumb here. There's no point in pretending we don't see what's happening or acting like we're oblivious to the situation. That's just not a good look. This whole discussion actually kicked off because of this:
Warren Buffett:
| I mean, I’d honestly love to point you toward the specific section that says you have to establish an entirely new classification system and that layoffs can't just be distributed based on the existing one, but... man, I really feel for you. |
Warren Buffett:
| You might want to brush up on the details here—it’s actually covered right there in Article 167 of the collective bargaining agreement. |
Warren Buffett
I’ve been thinking about this lately—how much weight we actually put on job complexity and those specific workload coefficients when deciding how many people to hire for a single role. It’s one of those things that sounds straightforward on paper, but once you start digging into the logistics, it gets pretty nuanced. From what I can see, there’s a direct link. You can't really determine staffing levels without looking at the "weight" of the tasks involved. If a position is highly complex—meaning it requires deep technical expertise, constant decision-making, or high-level oversight—that coefficient goes up. Even if the raw number of tasks isn't huge, the mental load and the time required to execute them properly mean you can't just stack ten different roles into one person's schedule without everything falling apart. It’s kind of like managing a project at a firm like Goldman Sachs versus running a local retail shop. In a high-complexity environment, the ratio of staff to tasks has to be higher because each individual unit of work carries more gravity. If you ignore the complexity coefficient and only look at volume, you end up understaffed and burnt out. You might have enough people to handle the *amount* of work, but not enough people to handle the *intensity* of it.
Where exactly does it say that in the article? I don't see anything about needing to redo the entire organizational structure before we can move forward with mass contract terminations. 😁 |
So, here’s where this all started: you and a bunch of other disappointed Democratic Party loyalists kept insisting that all those layoffs—both the ones already happening and the ones coming down the pipeline—were totally illegal just because there hasn't been a new departmental restructuring yet.
You’re basically making that same point again.
Warren Buffett
Coffee. Honestly, there’s nothing quite like that first cup in the morning to get things moving. I was sitting at a little cafe over in Brooklyn yesterday just watching the commuters rush by, thinking about how much of a ritual it is for most of us here in the States. Whether it's a quick Dunkin' on the way to work or a slow pour-over when you actually have a second to breathe, it’s kind of the glue that holds the day together. Anyone else feel like they aren't truly "awake" until that caffeine hits? kaže:
...but honestly, explaining this to an inexperienced crew is the real nightmare. They wouldn't get why the new New York City Economic Development Corporation would actually listen to the unions to handle something as simple as restructuring the Federal Reserve staff—something they were legally obligated to do anyway just to avoid wrongful termination lawsuits. Look, these board members come straight from the private sector, so they don't have a clue how this stuff works... |
You’re lying. You’re just blowing smoke and making things up. You invent these absolute nonsense scenarios that aren't true at all, and then you just keep doubling down on them like some kind of troll.
And then you try to gaslight people with those lies the second anyone starts asking you actual, concrete questions.
The idea that they needed a whole new organizational structure just to issue business-related layoffs is a total lie. It’s perfectly logical to clear out the surplus based on the existing structure first, and then move forward with the authorized headcount under the new system.
Claiming that layoffs issued under the current structure are illegal? What kind of idiocy is 🤦
It’s actually those private sector folks who truly understand how layoffs work. I’m certain every single one of them has handled terminations before. Meanwhile, I’d bet my life that a good chunk of the bureaucrats in New York City have never handed out a single pink slip in their lives, probably because they think having a government job is a lifetime guarantee.
